The History of Indian Literature c8.358

c8.358

him here also. Indra, as here related, afterwards strikes off his head in jealousy.¹³⁹ The second part of this *káṇḍa*, the *Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka*, which consists of five *prapáṭhakas*, or six *adhyáyas*, is again divided into three *káṇḍas*, the *Madhukáṇḍa*, *adhy.* i. ii. (*prap.* i. 1–ii. 5); the *Yájnavalkíya-káṇḍa*, *adhy.* iii. iv. (*prap.* ii. 6–iv. 3); and the *Khilakáṇḍa*, *adhy.* v. vi. (*prap.* iv. 4–v. 5). Of these three divisions, each succeeding one appears to be later than that which precedes it, and each closes with a Vaṅśa or statement of the line of teachers, carried back to Brahman, the primeval source. The third *bráhmaṇa* of the Madhu-káṇḍa is an explanation of three *ślokas* prefixed to it, a form of which we have no previous example. The fifth (*adhy.* ii. 1) contains, as has already been stated (p. 51), another recension of the legend related in the fourth *adhyáya* of the Kaushítaky-Upanishad, of Ajátaśatru, the king of Káśi, who was jealous of Janaka’s fame as a patron of learning. The eighth (*adhy.* ii. 4) contains another recension of the closing legend in the Yájnavalkíya-káṇḍa, of Yájnavalkya’s two wives, Maitreyí and Kátyáyaní,—this being the first mention we have of these names. Here, as also in the eleventh *kaṇḍa*, we find an enumeration of the subjects of Vedic study, namely, *Ṛigveda*, *Yajurveda*, *Sámaveda*, the *Atharváṅgirasas*, *itihása*, *puráṇa*, *vidyás*, *upanishads*, *ślokas*, *sútras*, *anuvyákhyánas*, *vyákhyánas*.∗ The same enumeration recurs in the Yájnavalkíya-káṇḍa (*adhy.* vi. 10). Śaṃkara and Dvivedagaṅga, the commentators of the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka, both, like Sáyaṇa (on the eleventh *káṇḍa*), take the expressions *itihása*, &c., to mean sections in the Bráhmaṇas. They are, in fact, as I have already pointed out (p. 122), used in this sense in the Bráhmaṇas themselves. It is only in regard to *sútra*[^asterisk] that I am unable to prove a similar use (though Dvivedagaṅga pretty frequently calls certain sentences by the name of *sútra*, *e.g.*, i. 2. 18, 22, 3. 1, &c.); and this term raises a doubt whether the opinion of the commentators ought to hold good with reference to these passages also, and their time. The ninth (which is the last) *bráhmaṇa* is evidently the one from which the Madhu-káṇḍa received its name. It treats of the intimate relation existing between the four elements (earth, water, fire, air), the sun, the quarters of the heavens, the moon, lightning, thunder, *ákáśa* (ether), &c., on the one hand, and all beings on the other; this relation being set forth by representing the one as the *madhu* (honey) of the other. This doctrine is traced to Dadhyañch Átharvaṇa, as is also, in fact, done in the Ṛik-Saṁhitá (i. 116. 12, 117. 22). In the beginning of the fourth *káṇḍa* of the Śatap. Bráhmaṇa also (iv. 1. 5. 18) we find the *madhu náma bráhmaṇam* mentioned expressly in this connection; Sáyaṇa, too, quotes *Śátyáyana* (*-Vájasaneyau*) in support of it. A very early date is thus guaranteed for the name at least, and probably also for the contents of this chapter; though its form, of course, cannot make any pretension to high antiquity. The concluding Vaṅśa here, as elsewhere, varies very much in the two schools; that is, as regards the last twenty members or so back to Yáska and Ásuráyaṇa; but from these upwards to the mythical fountain-heads the two schools generally agree. Ásuráyaṇa himself (consequently, also Yáska, who is recorded as his contemporary) is here placed two stages after Ásuri; at the end of the Khila-káṇḍa he is even designated as his pupil; Ásuri, again, being set down as the pupil of Yájnavalkya. The list closes, therefore, with about the twenty-fifth member from the latter. It must consequently have been continued long after the Madhu-káṇḍa had been finally put into shape, since both the analogy of the Vaṅśa contained in the last *bráhmaṇa* but one of the Khila-káṇḍa and the very nature of the case forbid the