The Philosophy of the Upanishads c5.s1.1

Language: English

c5.s1.1.1

The link between the Upanishad and the Brâhmaṇa with its very different spirit is as a rule not direct, but established ordinarily by means of an *Âraṇyaka* or "forest-book," to the close of which the Upanishad is attached, or in which it is included. The name is given either because (as Oldenberg supposes, *Prol.*, p. 291), on account of its mysterious character it should be imparted to the student not in the village (*grâme*), but outside of it (*araṇye*, in the jungle) (cp. the narrative, Bṛih. 3. 2. 13, and the names *rahasyam*, *upanishad*), or because from the very beginning it was "a Brâhmaṇa appointed for the vow of the anchorite."¹ The contents of the *Âraṇyakas* perhaps favour rather the latter conception, so far as they consist mainly of all kinds of explanations of the ritual and allegorical speculations therein. This is only what might be expected in the life of the forest as a substitute for the actual sacrificial observances, which for the most part were no longer practicable; and they form a natural transition to the speculations of the Upanishads, altogether emancipated as these are from the limitations of a formal cult.

c5.s1.1.2

The connecting-link is never wanting where the written tradition of a S’âkhâ has been handed down unbroken (as is not the case with the Kâṭhaka, S’vetâs’vatara, Maitrâyaṇîya), for both the Aitareyins and Kaushîtakins of the Ṛigveda and the Taittirîyakas and Vâjasaneyins of the Yajurveda possess together with the Saṃhitâ their Brâhmaṇa with Âraṇyaka and Upanishad. Even then, if in the schools of the Sâmaveda the name Âraṇyaka is not employed, yet there also the introductions to the Upanishads¹ bear throughout the character of Âraṇyakas. This succession of ritual allegorical and philosophical texts, which is really the same in all the S’âkhâs, may be due partly to the order of thought adopted for the purposes of instruction, in which the Saṃhitâ would naturally be followed immediately by the Brâhmaṇa (so far as this was generally taught, cp. Oldenberg, Prol., p. 291); the deep mysterious meaning of the ceremonies would then be unfolded in the Âraṇyaka; and finally the exposition of the Upanishads would close the period of Vedic instruction. As early, therefore, as S’vet. 6. 22 and Muṇḍ. 3. 2. 6, and thenceforward, the Upanishads bore the name Vedânta (i.e. “end of the Veda”). On the other hand it is not to be denied that the order of the texts within the canon of each S’âkhâ corresponds generally to their historical development, and that the position of the several parts affords an indication of their earlier or later date.

c5.s1.1.3

If, however, these two factors that determined the arrangement, namely, the tendency to a systematic classification of the material for instruction and the preservation of the order of chronological development, do actually for the most part coincide in their result, this is very simply explained on the supposition that in the course of time the general interest was transferred from the ritualistic method of treatment to the allegorical, and from that again to the philosophical. Moreover, the separation of the material is by no means strictly carried out, but in all three classes, Brâhmaṇas, Âraṇyakas, and Upanishads, there are found occasionally digressions of a ritual as well as allegorical or philosophical nature. Especially noteworthy, however, and demanding explanation is the circumstance that, apart from this occasional overlapping of the subject-matter, the broad distinctions between Brâhmaṇa Âraṇyaka and Upanishad are by no means always correctly observed; e.g., among the Aitareyins the matter of the Brâhmaṇa extends into the Âraṇyaka, while with the Taittirîyakas the close of the Brâhmaṇa and the beginning of the Âraṇyaka agree throughout, and the dividing line is entirely arbitrary.

c5.s1.1.4

This state of things is to be explained probably only on the supposition that the entire teaching material of each S’âkhâ formed originally a consecutive whole, and that this whole was first in the later times distinguished into Brâhmaṇa Âraṇyaka and Upanishad, on a principle which did not depend upon the character of the subject-matter alone, but which, though in general correspondence with it, was in fact imposed from without. Such a principle we seem to be able to recognise in the later order of the four âsramas, by virtue of which it became the duty of every Indian Brâhman first as brahmacârin to spend a portion of his life with a Brâhman teacher, then as grihastha to rear a family and to carry out the obligatory sacrifices, in order thereafter as vânaprastha to withdraw into the solitude of the forest, and to devote himself to self-discipline and meditation, until finally in extreme old age, purified from all attachment to earth, homeless and without possessions, free from all obligations, he wandered about as *sannyâsin* (*bhikshu*, *parivrâjaka*), awaiting only his spirit's release into the supreme spirit. In the instruction communicated to him the *brahmacârin* was put in possession of a rule of conduct for his entire future life. From the Brâhmaṇa he learnt how, as *grihastha*, he would have to carry out the ritual of sacrifice with the aid of the officiating priests;

c5.s1.1.5

the Âraṇyaka, as indeed is implied in the name, belonged to the period of life as *vânaprastha*, during which for the most part meditation took the place of the sacrificial acts; and finally the Upanishad taught theoretically that aloofness from the world which the *sannyâsin* was bound to realise in practice. Therefore it is said of him, that he should “live without the (liturgical) precepts of the Veda,” but yet “recite the Âraṇyaka and the Upanishad of all the Vedas.”¹ And as ordinarily Âraṇyaka and Upanishad were blended together, so until quite late times, as we shall see, no strict line of demarcation was drawn in most instances between *vânaprastha* and *sannyâsin*.