History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v2.c20.8

v2.c20.8

²²² Vide Deussen's ‘Das System des Vedānta’, 1883, (pp. 18-19) ‘the real cherisher of those thoughts was originally the caste of the kṣatriyas, rather than the caste of the priests. Over and over again we come across the situation that the brāhmaṇa asks the kṣatriya for information’ and Deussen refers only to six passages (Bṛ. Up. II. 1, VI. 2, Ch. Up. V. 3 and V. 11 and Kauṣītaki Up. I. 1 and IV. 1). Vide also ‘Philosophy of the Upanishads’ (translated by Geden, 1905, pp. 17-19). In the first place these are too few passages out of the vast Upaniṣad literature to found the sweeping generalisation in which the German savant indulges. In the second place in Bṛ. Up. II. 1 and Kauṣītaki Up. IV. there is no statement that brahmavidyā was known only to kṣatriyas; on the contrary Ajātaśatru expresses surprise that a brāhmaṇa should approach a kṣatriya for the expounding of brahmavidyā and says that this is opposed to the natural (or usual) order of affairs. This shows that Ajātaśatru was an exception and that brāhmaṇas usually taught brahmavidyā. In Kauṣītaki I. 1. and Ch. Up. V. 11 all that is narrated is that Gautama Śvetaketu learnt from Citra Gārgyāyaṇi and certain śrotriyas like Aupamanyava learnt Vaiśvānaravidyā from Aśvapati Kaikeya. But nothing is said here about brahmavidyā being first known to kṣatriyas only. In Bṛ. Up. VI. 2 and Ch. Up. V. 11 it is no doubt stated that ‘*this Vidyā*’ was not known to any brāhmaṇa till then; but ‘this vidyā’ does not mean the whole of the philosophy of brahma, but only that particular doctrine which bears the name of pañcāgnividyā. This vidyā no doubt propounds the doctrine of transmigration in a figurative and somewhat picturesque way. But that doctrine is elsewhere elaborated by brāhmaṇas like Yājñavalkya to the brāhmaṇas in king Janaka's court and to Janaka himself (vide Bṛ. Up. III. 2. 13 and IV. 4. 3-4). Nor can it be said that the doctrine of transmigration was not at all known before the Upaniṣads. The same views are echoed by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar in ‘Verhand-lungen des VII *(Continued from last page)* Internationalen Orientalisten Congresses zu Wien (Arische Sec. pp. 108–109) and in 'Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism' p. 9 'Kṣatriyas engaged themselves in active speculation on religious matters about the time of the Upaniṣads and are mentioned as the original possessors of the new knowledge,' and the learned Doctor refers only to Ch. Up. V. 3 and V. 11. It may be stated that Hopkins (in 'Ethics of India' 1924 p. 63), Barth (Religions of India p. 65) and Vedic Index (vol. II p. 206) do not subscribe to these views of Deussen and Bhandarkar.