The History of Indian Literature c8.245

Language: English

c8.245.1

Besides the Saṃhitá so called, there is a Bráhmaṇa recognised by the school of Ápastamba, and also by that of Átreya,∗ which, however, as I have already remarked, differs from the Saṃhitá, not as to the nature of its contents, but only in point of time; it is, in fact, to be regarded merely as a supplement to it. It either reproduces the formulas contained in the Saṃhitá, and connects them with their proper ritual, or it develops further the liturgical rules already given there; or again, it adds to these entirely new rules, as, for instance, those concerning the *purushamedha*, which is altogether wanting in the Saṃhitá, and those referring to the sacrifices to the lunar asterisms. Only the third and last book, in twelve *prapáṭhakas*, together with Sáyaṇa's commentary, is at present known.⁹⁵ The three last *prapáṭhakas*, which contain four different sections, relating to the manner of preparing certain peculiarly sacred sacrificial fires, are ascribed in the Anukramaṇí of the Átreya school (and this is also confirmed by Sáyaṇa in another place) to the sage Kaṭha. Two other sections also belong to it, which, it seems, are only found in the Átreya school, and not in that of Ápastamba; and also, lastly, the two first books of the Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka, to be mentioned presently. Together these eight sections evidently form a supplement to the Káṭhaka above discussed;

c8.245.2

they do not, however, appear to exist as an independent work, but only in connection with the Bráhmaṇa and Áraṇyaka of the Ápastamba- (and Átreya-) schools, from which, for the rest, they can be externally distinguished easily enough by the absence of the expansion of *v* and *y* into *uv* and *iy*. The legend quoted towards the end of the second of these sections (*prap*. xi. 8), as to the visit of Nachiketas, to the lower world, gave rise to an Upanishad of the Atharvan which bears the name of Káṭhakopanishad. Now, between this supplement to the Káṭhaka and the Káṭhaka itself a considerable space of time must have elapsed, as follows from the allusions made in the last sections to Mahá-Meru, Krauñcha, Mainága; to Vaisampáyana, Vyása Páráśarya, &c.; as well as from the literature therein presupposed as existing, the 'Atharváṅgirasas,' Bráhmaṇas, Itihásas, Puráṇas, Kalpas, Gáthás, and Náráśaṅsís being enumerated as subjects of study (*svádhyáya*). Further, the last but one of these sections is ascribed to another author, viz., to the Aruṇas, or to Áruṇa, whom the scholiast on Páṇini⁹⁶ speaks of as a pupil of Vaiśampáyana, a statement with which its mention of the latter as an authority tallies excellently;

c8.245.3

this section is perhaps therefore only erroneously assigned to the school of the Kaṭhas.—The *Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka*, at the head of which that section stands (as already remarked), and which belongs both to the Ápastamba and Átreya schools, must at all events be regarded as only a later supplement to their Bráhmaṇa, and belongs, like most of the Áraṇyakas, to the extreme end of the Vedic period. It consists of ten books, the first six of which are of a liturgical character: the first and third books relate to the manner of preparing certain sacred sacrificial fires; the second to preparatives to the study of Scripture; and the fourth, fifth, and sixth to purificatory sacrifices and those to the Manes, corresponding to the last books of the Saṃhitá of the White Yajus. The last four books of the Áraṇyaka, on the contrary, contain two Upanishads; viz., the seventh, eighth, and ninth books, the *Taittiríyopanishad*, *κατ' ἐξοχὴν* so called, and the tenth, the *Yájnikí-* or *Náráyaṇíyá-Upanishad*. The former, or Taittiríyopanishad, is in three parts. The first is the *Saṃhitopanishad*, or *Śikshávallí*,[^asterisk] which begins with a short grammatical disquisition,⁹⁷ and then turns to the question of the unity of the world-spirit.

c8.245.4

The second and third are the *Ánandavallí* and *Bhriguvallí*, which together also go by the name of *Váruṇí-Upanishad*, and treat of the bliss of entire absorption in meditation upon the Supreme Spirit, and its identity with the individual soul.∗ If in these we have already a thoroughly systematised form of speculation, we are carried even further in one portion of the Yájnikí-Upanishad, where we have to do with a kind of sectarian worship of Náráyaṇa: the remaining part contains ritual supplements. Now, interesting as this whole Áraṇyaka is from its motley contents and evident piecing together of collected fragments of all sorts, it is from another point of view also of special importance for us, from the fact that its tenth book is actually extant in a double recension, viz., in a text which, according to Sáyaṇa’s statements, belongs to the Dráviḍas, and in another, bearing the name of the Ándhras, both names of peoples in the south-west of India. Besides these two texts, Sáyaṇa also mentions a recension belonging to the Karṇátakas, and another whose name he does not give. Lastly, this tenth book† exists also as an Atharvopanishad, and here again with many variations; so that there is here opened up to criticism an ample field for researches and conjectures. Such, certainly, have not been wanting in Indian literary history;

c8.245.5

it is seldom, however, that the facts lie so ready to hand as we have them in this case, and this we owe to Sáyaṇa’s commentary, which is here really excellent.