History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c95.295

v7.c95.295

Deussen without giving any reason asserts 'the names allow of the conjecture that in this case also a brāhmaṇa received instruction from a kṣatriya' (p. 18). He probably connected the first name with 'dhanus' (bow) which was the *forte* of kṣatriyas. But he forgets that Śaunaka and Śāṇḍilya are both brāhmaṇa names. This will illustrate how even the most profound scholar goes astray when he becomes over-enthusiastic about a theory of his. In this story Pravāhaṇa does not claim that the Udgīthavidyā was unknown among brāhmaṇas On the contrary he himself states that Śaunaka, a brāhmaṇa (called Atidhanvan) expounded that Vidyā to Udaraśāṇḍilya, another brāhmaṇa. Besides, Udgīthavidyā is only one among numerous upāsanās and what Pravāhaṇa teaches is that all *bhūtas* spring from Ākāśa and are absorbed in Ākāśa, the purport being that Ākāśa here denotes *brahman* as the V. S. (I. 1. 22) establishes. This doctrine is the same as the one taught in Tai. Up. III. 6 (basis of V. S. I. 12) and other texts. Moreover, there is nothing about transmigration in this passage of Chān. Up.