History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.179
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.179
- Language
- English
v7.c94.179.1
There is another matter for consideration. In the Yājñavalkya-smṛti, Yājñavalkya is put forward as saying that the soul shining like a lamp in the heart should be realized, that on such realization the soul is not born again and as adding that for the purpose of attaining to Yoga one should understand the Āraṇyaka²³⁰⁵ which ‘I received from the Sun and also the Yogaśāstra propounded by me.' In the Kūrmapurāna it is said that Yājñavalkya composed Yogaśāstra at the order of Hara and the Visnupurāna (IV. 4. 107) states that Hiranyanābha attained the knowledge of Yoga from the great Yogīśvara Yājñavalkya who was a pupil of Jaimini. In the Brhadāranyaka Up. (II. 4) Yājñavalkya tells his wife Maitreyī (who hankered after immortality and cared naught for worldly goods) that he would expound to her the path to immortality and the very first sentence calls upon her to cultivate 'nididhyāsa' (i. e. dhyāna) and the first part of his discourse ends with the memorable words (ātmā vā are drastavyah śrotavyo mantavyo nididhyāsitavyah, Br. Up II. 4. 5). What work is meant by the Yogaśāstra composed by Yāj is a debatable point. There are three works (other than the Yāj. smrti) connected with the name of Yājñavalkya viz... Vrddha-Yājñavalkya, Yoga-Yājñavalkya and Brhad-yogī-yājñavalkya (vide H. of Dh. vol. I. p. 188-190). The last has been published by Kaivalyadhama, Lonavla (1951), the Yoga-Yāj. was published in T. S. S. (1938) based on a single ms., then in the JBBRAS (vol.
v7.c94.179.2
28 and 29) by Shri P. C. Diwanji and now available in book form (1954). This last is in the form of a dialogue between the great yogin Yājñavalkya and Gārgī (who is identified with Maitreyī by Shri Diwanji on pp. 27-28 of his ed. of 1954) and sages and learned brāhmanas Yājñavalkya narrates what he learnt from Brahmā. On Yāj. III. 110 the Dīpakalikā of Śūlapāni remarks that the Yogaśāstra referred to is called 'Yogiyājñavalkya'. But this again leads to uncertainty as both the works viz that published by Kaivalyadhama and the one by Mr. Diwanji are so referred to as Yogī (or Yoga) Yājñavalkya in several digests Mr Diwanji²³⁰⁶ tries hard to establish that the work published by him 'has a better claim to be adjudged the specific work on Yoga referred to in Yāj III. 113.' I think that the claim is not at all justified. The work edited by Mr Diwanji no doubt contains a good deal of Yoga knowledge; while the work published by Kaivalyadhama also contains a good deal of Yoga material, though not as much as the work edited by Mr. Diwanji contains. It would be irrelevant to discuss here all the points made by Mr. Diwanji. The present author is convinced that the work sponsored by Mr. Diwanji is not the work referred to by Yājnavalkya (in his smrti III. 110). It is a compilation of a later period. Some striking matters alone may be pointed out to show that the Yoga-Yājñavalkya could not have been the work of the author of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the Yogaśāstra (as stated in Yāj III.
v7.c94.179.3
110) and of Yāj. smṛti. In the Bṛ. Up. II. 4. 1 and IV 5. 1 (Yājñavalkyasya dve bhārye babhūvatur--Maitreyī ca Kātyāyanī ca) it is expressly stated that Yājñavalkya had two wives, (philosophy-minded) Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī (worldly-minded). Maitreyī desired such knowledge as would lead to immortality and she asks questions, in all of which she addresses Yājñavalkya as 'bhagavān' (in Bṛ. Up. II. 4. 3 and 13 and IV. 5 4, 14) and never as mere Yājñavalkya. On the other hand, Gārgī in the Bṛ. Up. is called Vācaknavī (in III. 6. 1, III 8 1 and 12), is not Yājñavalkya's wife but a pert and rationalistic woman inquirer like Aśvala, Ārtabhāga, Bhujyu Lāhyāyani, Uṣasta Cākrāyana, Kahola (all present in the court of Janaka), who including Gārgī questioned the claim of Yājñavalkya to be regarded as 'brahmiṣṭha'. In Bṛ. Up. III. 6. 1 when Gārgī pursues her ratiocination too far (in matters depending upon āgama and being beyond reasoning) Yājñavalkya reprimands her and says that she would die (lit. her head would fall away) if she pursued the subject in a pure logistic way. All those inquirers address Yājñavalkya as mere Yājñavalkya without any honorific epithet like 'bhagavān' and Gārgī does the same (in Bṛ Up. III. 6. 1, III. 8. 2-6). Acc. to Yāj Smṛti III. 110 the Bṛ. Up, a Yoga-śāstra and the smṛti are the works of one man (whose two wives were Maitreyī and Kātyāyanī) and who had a philosophical skirmish with Gārgī Vācaknavī (according to the Bṛ. Up.).
v7.c94.179.4
The present Yogayājñavalkya (ed by Mr. Diwanji) makes Gārgī wife of Yājñavalkya²³⁰⁷ (vadhūḥ). One would like to know whether Yāj. had three wives, as Bṛ. Up. says he had only two Mr. Diwanji (pp 27-28 of the ed. of 1954) tries to make light of this discrepancy and regards Maitreyī as another name of Gārgī. We are here concerned not with pure Yoga doctrines but with the question whether a work attributed to Yaj which makes Gārgī the wife of the ancient Yājñavalkya (when the Upaniṣad makes her only a more or less insolent woman) can be regarded as the work of the same Yāj. who propounded *brahmavidyā* in the Bṛ. Up. and is supposed to have composed the Yāj smṛti This one circumstance alone is enough to brand the Yoga-Yājñavalkya (of Mr. Diwanji) as a fabrication sought to be passed off as an ancient work. If identity was really meant the verse could easily have been read as ‘Maitreyyākhyā mahābhāgā’ without any metrical fault. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that Yogayājñavalkya is the Yogaśāstra composed by Yājñavalkya before the Smṛti going under his name was composed. A few other decisive grounds may also be urged. The work edited by Mr. Diwanji mentions Tantras (in V. 10) and Tāntrikas (in VIII. 4 and 25). The Yāj. smṛti nowhere mentions these two and is free from the peculiar Tāntrik words or technique. Therefore, the present Yogayājñavalkya edited by Mr. Diwanji was composed long after the Yāj.
v7.c94.179.5
smṛti and probably in the 8th century or after when Tāntrik rites and works had become common. One more important matter may be adverted to. The Yāj. smṛti and the Yoga-Yājñavalkya (ed. by Mr. Diwanji) both enumerate ten *yamas* and ten *niyamas*. But the two diverge materially in the ten names as the note below will show²³⁰⁸ The number of yamas and niyamas differs in different works, but if the Yāj. smṛti and Yoga-Yājñavalkya were the works of the same author, the differences in the ten names would not have occurred at all. Therefore, the author of the Yāj. smṛti is quite different from the author of the Y. Y. There is no evidence for holding that the latter flourished before the 8th or 9th century A. D.