The History of Indian Literature c8.469

c8.469

The Atharvan-text of the Kenopanishad, in the first place, differs but very little from its Sáman-text. The reason why this Upanishad has been incorporated into the Atharvan collection seems to be the fact that Umá Haimavatí is here (and for the first time) mentioned, as she was probably understood in the sense of the Śiva sects. With the Atharvan-text both of the Ánandavallí and of the Bhṛiguvallí[^asterisk] I am unacquainted. Of the Bṛihannáráyaṇop.dagger also, which corresponds to the Náráyaṇíyop. of the Taitt. Áraṇyaka, only a few data are known to me; these, however, sufficiently show that the more ancient and obscure forms have here throughout been replaced by the corresponding later and regular ones.[^ddagger]—The two *Kaṭhavallís*, for the most part in metrical form, are extant in the Atharvan-text only.[^section] The second is nothing but a supplement to the first, consisting as it does almost exclusively of quotations from the Vedas, intended to substantiate more fully the doctrines there set forth. The first is based upon a legend (see pp. 92, 93) related in the Taitt. Bráhmaṇa [iii. 11. 8]. Nachiketas, the son of Áruṇi,[^parallel] asks Death for a solution of his doubt whether man exists after death or not. After much reluctance, and after holding out enticements of all kinds, which Nachiketas withstands, Death at length initiates him into the mystery of existence. Life and death, he says, are but two different phases of development; true wisdom consists in the perception of identity with the Supreme Spirit, whereby men are elevated above life and death. The exposition in this first part is really impressive: the diction, too, is for the most part antique. A few passages, which do not harmonise at all with the remainder, seem either to have been inserted at a later time, or else, on the contrary, to have been retained