The History of Indian Literature c8.252

Language: English

c8.252.1

When we look about us for the other Bráhmaṇas of the Black Yajus, we find, in the first place, among the schools cited in the Sáma-Sútras two which must probably be considered as belonging to the Black Yajus, viz., the *Bháilavins* and the *Sátyáyanins*. The Bráhmaṇa of the *Bhállavins* is quoted by the scholiast on Páṇini, probably following the Mahábháshya,⁹⁸ as one of the 'old' Bráhmaṇas: we find it mentioned in the Bṛihaddevatá; Sureśvaráchárya also, and even Sáyaṇa himself, quote passages from the Bhállaviśruti. A passage supposed to be borrowed from the Bhállavi-Upanishad is adduced by the sect of the Mádhavas in support of the correctness of their (Dvaita) belief (*As. Res.*, xvi. 104). That the Bhállavins belong to the Black Yajus is, however, still uncertain; I only conclude so at present from the fact that Bhállaveya is the name of a teacher specially attacked and censured in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus. As to the *Sátyáyanins*, whose Bráhmaṇa is also reckoned among the 'old' ones by the scholiast on Páṇini,⁹⁹ and is frequently quoted, especially by Sáyaṇa, it is pretty certain that they belong to the Black Yajus, as it is so stated in the Charaṇavyúha, a modern index of the different schools of the Vedas, and, moreover, a teacher named Sátyáyani is twice mentioned in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus.

c8.252.2

The special regard paid to them in the Sáma-Sútras, and which, to judge from the quotations, they themselves paid to the Sáman, is probably to be explained by the peculiar connection (itself still obscure) which we find elsewhere also between the schools of the Black Yajus and those of the Sáman.¹⁰⁰ Thus, the Kaṭhas are mentioned along with the Sáman schools of the Kálápas and Kauthumas; and along with the latter the Laukákshas also. As to the Śákáyanins,\* Sáyakáyanins, Kálabavins, and Śálaṅkáyanins,¹⁰¹ with whom, as with the Śátyáyanins, we are only acquainted through quotations, it is altogether uncertain whether they belong to the Black Yajus or not. The *Chhagalins*, whose name seems to be borne by a tolerably ancient Upanishad in Anquetil's *Oupnekhat*, are stated in the Charaṇavyúha ¹⁰² to form a school of the Black Yajus (according to Páṇini, iv. 3. 109, they are called Chhágaleyins): the same is there said of the *Śvetáśvataras*. The latter gave their name to an Upanishad composed in a metrical form, and called at its close the work of a Śvetáśvatara: in which the Sáṁkhya doctrine of the two primeval principles is mixed up with the Yoga doctrine of one Lord, a strange misuse being here made of wholly irrelevant passages of the Saṁhitá, &c., of the Yajus; and upon this rests its sole claim to be connected with the latter. Kapila, the originator of the Sáṁkhya system, appears in it raised to divine dignity itself, and it evidently belongs to a very late period;

c8.252.3

for though several passages from it are quoted in the Brahma-Sútra of Bádaráyaṇa (from which its priority to the latter at least would appear to follow), they may just as well have been borrowed from the common source, the Yajus. It is, at all events, a good deal older than Śaṁkara, since he regarded it as Śruti, and commented upon it. It has recently been published, together with this commentary,\* by Dr. Roer, in the *Bibliotheca Indica*, vol. vii.; see also *Ind. Stud.*, i. 420, ff.—The *Maitráyaṇa Upanishad* at least bears a more ancient name, and might perhaps be connected with the above-mentioned Maitra (Bráhmaṇa). Its text, however, both in language and contents, shows that, compared with the latter, it is of a very modern date. At present, unfortunately, I have at my command only the four first *prapáṭhakas*, and these in a very incorrect form,∗—whereas in Anquetil's translation, the Upanishad consists of twenty chapters,—yet even these are sufficient clearly to determine the character of the work. King Bṛihadratha, who, penetrated by the nothingness of earthly things, resigned the sovereignty into the hands of his son, and devoted himself to contemplation, is there instructed by Śákáyanya (see *gaṇa* ‘Kuñja’) upon the relation of the *átman* (soul) to the world; Śákáyanya communicates to him what Maitreya had said upon this subject, who in his turn had only repeated the instruction given to the Bálakhilyas by Prajápati himself.

c8.252.4

The doctrine in question is thus derived at third hand only, and we have to recognise in this tradition a consciousness of the late origin of this form of it. This late origin manifests itself externally also in the fact that corresponding passages from other sources are quoted with exceeding frequency in support of the doctrine, introduced by “*athá ’nyatrá ’py uktam*,” “*etad apy uktam*,” “*atre ’me śloká bhavanti*,” “*atha yathe ’yam Kautsáyanastutiḥ*.” The ideas themselves are quite upon a level with those of the fully developed Sáṃkhya doctrine,† and the language is completely marked off from the prose of the Bráhmaṇas, both by extremely long compounds, and by words entirely foreign to these, and only belonging to the epic period (such as *sura*, *yaksha*, *uraga*, *bhútagana*, &c.). The mention also of the *grahas*, planets, and of the motion of the polar star (*dhruvasya prachâlanam*), supposes a period considerably posterior to the Bráhmaṇa.¹⁰³ The zodiacal signs are even mentioned in Anquetil's translation; the text to which I have access does not unfortunately extend so far.¹⁰⁴ That among the princes enumerated in the introduction as having met their downfall, notwithstanding all their greatness, not one name occurs belonging to the narrower legend of the Mahá-Bhárata or Rámáyaṇa, is no doubt simply owing to the circumstance that Bṛihadratha is regarded as the predecessor of the Páṇḍus.

c8.252.5

For we have probably to identify him with the Bṛihadratha, king of Magadha, who according to the Mahá-Bhárata (ii. 756) gave up the sovereignty to his son Jarásaṃdha, afterwards slain by the Páṇḍus, and retired to the wood of penance. I cannot forbear connecting with the instruction here stated to have been given to a king of Magadha by a *Śákáyanya* the fact that it was precisely in Magadha that Buddhism, the doctrine of *Śákyamuni*, found a welcome. I would even go so far as directly to conjecture that we have here a Brahmanical legend about Śákyamuni; whereas otherwise legends of this kind reach us only through the adherents of the Buddhist doctrine. Maitreya, it is well known, is, with the Buddhists, the name of the future Buddha, yet in their legends the name is also often directly connected with their Śákyamuni; a Púrṇa Maitráyaṇíputra, too, is given to the latter as a pupil. Indeed, as far as we can judge at present, the doctrine of this Upanishad stands in close connection with the opinions of the Buddhists,¹⁰⁵ although from its Brahmanical origin it is naturally altogether free from the dogma and mythology peculiar to Buddhism. We may here also notice, especially, the contempt for writing (*grantha*) exhibited in one of the *ślokas*[^asterisk] quoted in corroboration.