The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v2.c40.s2.3

v2.c40.s2.3

It is perfectly possible to arrive at a rough estimate of the relative periods of the Upaniṣads. The first place must probably be accorded to the Aitareya Āraṇyaka² in its philosophic portion, that is the first three sections of the second book, and probably the Aitareya Upaniṣad, which fills the remaining three sections of the second book, is not to be dated later than any of the other Upaniṣads: the only evidence of later date alleged by Deussen³ in the case of the Upaniṣad cannot be taken as sufficient to prove his view. After these works must certainly come the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad in its main portion, books i–iv, and the Chāndogya Upaniṣad. The Chāndogya is in almost every case, as far as one can judge, secondary in its versions of matter which it shares with the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. But at any rate it is certain that the Taittirīya Upaniṣad, which forms books vii–ix of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, is later than the two last-mentioned: it exhibits the doctrine of five⁴ as opposed to three elements,⁵ and that in a way which renders the simple view that the distinction is unimportant most improbable. This is a matter of real consequence in the progress of thought,⁶ and the argument is of quite different weight than that derived by Deussen from the fact that the Aitareya Upaniṣad⁷ knows of four classes of living beings to three of the Chāndogya:⁸ the classification is merely mentioned *en passant*, and is of no moment in other Upaniṣads. The Kauṣītaki is much later than the others, except the Taittirīya, but is probably earlier than it. Its version⁹ of transmigration is a new edition of that in the two great Upaniṣads, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka¹⁰ and the Chāndogya,¹¹ and its account¹² of Gārgya is a more developed one than that in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka,¹ while in another section² it is clearly later than the Aitareya.³ Finally the Kena, which is in part metrical and is in itself a part of much longer Upaniṣad, the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa, is no doubt to be ranked as the last of the older Upaniṣads. The Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa itself is of the nature of an Āraṇyaka rather than a mere Upaniṣad: that it does not bear the title Āraṇyaka is perhaps an idiosyncrasy of the Sāman schools, none of which actually call any text of theirs an Āraṇyaka. As an Āraṇyaka it has no claim to any very early date: it seems in fact to be certainly later than the Aitareya. The Taittirīya Āraṇyaka,⁴ on the other hand, apart from the Upaniṣad section (vii–ix and x), is of most miscellaneous content and various date. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad forms part of the last book of the Çatapatha Brāhmaṇa,⁵ and the title shows the close relation of Āraṇyaka and Upaniṣad. In the case of the Chāndogya, the first two sections of the work are of the Āraṇyaka type, but as with texts attached to the Sāmaveda generally do not bear that name. The Kauṣītaki, like the Aitareya, is part of a longer Āraṇyaka.⁶