Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c11: Chapter IV: Later Vedic Education

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IV: Later Vedic Education

c11.2

**Sources.** We shall now study Education in the light of the data furnished by the vast body of later Vedic literature, comprising what are called the *Brāhmaṇas*, *Āraṇyakas*, and *Upanishads*. In one sense, it may be stated that Indian Education reached its climax and achieved the highest degree of efficiency and success in this period when it could produce a literature like the Upanishads which are universally admitted to record the utmost possibilities of human speculation regarding some of the ultimate problems of life and metaphysical mysteries. Unfortunately, the evidence on the subject is comparatively meagre and not given in any one place in any of the numerous works to be studied for it. One can only find bits of evidence here and there and piece together the scattered bits for constructing a system that may be understood.

c11.3

An account of these source-books has first to be given in their possible educational bearings and cultural implications.

c11.4

We have already seen how the Rigveda Saṁhitā presents the two aspects of Religion, the aspect of Thought, Philosophy, Meditation, and Concentration (Tapas) and the practical aspect of Religion as exemplified in external worship of individual deities by means of *Yajñas* or sacrifices. The first aspect is distinguished as *Jñāna-kāṇḍa* and the second *Karma-kāṇḍa*. The *Karma-kāṇḍa*, the practical needs of worship, called for the growth of priesthood and its necessary texts, the two Vedic Saṁhitās of Sāma and Yajuḥ. Religion now began to centre more and more in ceremonial and sacrifice, the details of which were more and more elaborated and called for suitable texts by which they could be regulated, fixed, and conserved. This explains the emergence of a new type of literature, the *Brāhmaṇas*, which is unique in the annals of literature. It is the literature of priesthood and has a very narrow appeal. But like the Yajurveda it is important as a source of religious history, the history of sacrifice and priesthood. Ritualism runs riot in these Brāhmaṇa works. An age of creation is now succeeded by an age of conservation, compilation, and criticism. Poets and Seers are now replaced by Priests and Theologians. A reaction soon followed and expressed itself in the Upanishads which bring back into religion the atmosphere of abstraction and pure thought which the Rigveda breathes.

c11.5

As has been already explained, the *Brāhmaṇas* are works that deal with *brahma*, i.e. devotion and prayer, and are of the nature of textbooks for rituals or treatises on the "science of sacrifice". They are thus composed in prose. Their main purpose is to explain the relations between the Vedic texts and their corresponding ceremonial and also to explain their symbolical meaning with reference to each other. They are meant not for the lay-worshippers for whom they are too technical, but only for those who are already familiar with sacrificial performances so that the descriptions they give of such performances are not required to be exhaustive. Their subject-matter has been, as we have seen, analysed by Sāyaṇa into (1) *Vidhi* or practical directions for the performance of a *yajña* or sacrifice, and (2) *Arthavāda* or explanations, exegetical, mythological, or polemical, including theological or philosophical speculations on the nature of things (Upanishad). While its *Vidhi* portion thus makes of the *Brāhmaṇa* a liturgical work concerned with the cult and technique of sacrificial performances, its *Arthavāda* portion is free from the trammels of such technical practicalities of ritualism and freely introduces matters of general interest in the form of legends, ethical teachings, philosophical discussions, historical episodes, etymologies, myths, and the like, covering a wide range of intellectual activity that adds to the value, volume, and variety of this literature.

c11.6

To each of these *Brāhmaṇas* is also annexed an *Āraṇyaka* or "forest-portion", i.e. the portion to be studied in the forest by those sages who have become its denizens and do not need to perform sacrifices. The idea is that the *Āraṇyakas* are the vehicles of metaphysical and mystical truths which are best studied in the solitude of the forests and not in the distractions of cities. India has thought her highest in the forests, her civilization is sylvan and not urban, the product of out-of-the-way schools or hermitages.

c11.7

A yet further and more remarkable literary development is registered in what are called the *Upanishads* of which the very title, like that of the *Āraṇyakas*, points to the special educational methods of which they are the fruits. The expression *upa-ni-shad* literally means "sitting down near" and indicated "confidential session" at which the secret or esoteric doctrines of these works were taught to select pupils towards the end of their studentship in discourses from which wider circles were excluded.

c11.8

The extant *Brāhmaṇas* group themselves round the several Vedas which thus determine their subject-matter. Thus the *Brāhmaṇas* of the Rigveda contain only such explanations of the ritual as are needed by the *Hotṛi* priest in his task of collecting from the total body of the hymns the verses suited to each particular occasion as its *śastra* (canon). Being liturgical works, they follow the order of the sacrificial performance without reference to the sequence of the hymns in their *Veda*. The *Brāhmaṇas* of the Sāman and Yajus confine themselves to the duties of the Udgātṛi and Adhvaryu priests and follow the order of the ritual already established in their respective Vedas.

c11.9

The literature of the period in its threefold branches of Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas, and Upanishads may be indicated as follows :—

I. The Rigveda

c11.s1.1

A. **Brāhmaṇas** :

c11.s1.2

(1) **Aitareya** attributed by Sāyaṇa to Mahīdāsa Aitareya, son of Itarā, one of the many wives of a Ṛishi named Viśāla. This Aitareya was probably the founder of a Śākhā or school of Aitareyins whose doctrines, ceremonial, philological, and philosophical, are incorporated in the Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka, and Upanishad attached to his name. These works seem to have been afterwards adopted by the later Śākhās of the Rigveda, for we actually hear of an Āśvalāyana text of the Aitareyakam, Aśvalāyana being the pupil of Śaunaka.

c11.s1.3

(2) **Śāṅkhāyana**, which cites the views of the two previous authors, Paiṅgya (the sage mentioned in the *Brāhmaṇa* of the White Yajus from whom Yāska Paiṅgi was descended) and Kaushītaka whose views it regards as more authoritative and therefore this. *Brāhmaṇa* might be a remoulding of the stock of dogma derived from the Kaushītakins whence it is also known as *Kaushītaki Brāhmaṇa*.

c11.s1.4

It may be noted in this connection that, along with previous teachers, some previous forms of literary composition are also referred to by both these *Brāhmaṇas* in such terms as *ākhyāna* and *gāthā*, i.e. a kind of memorial verses.

c11.s1.5

B. **Āraṇyakas** :

c11.s1.6

(1) **Aitareya**, which lays great stress upon keeping its doctrines secret and the importance of those familiar with them. It gives the extant arrangement of the Ṛik-Saṁhitā with the names of its subdivisions; mentions the other Vedas; comments on some hymns on the Rigveda in the manner of a Nirukta; contains some grammatical matter; and names many individual teachers among whom are two Śākalyas, a Kṛishṇa Hārita, and a Pañchālachaṇḍa.

c11.s1.7

(2) **Kaushītaki**, parts of which correspond to the former Āraṇyaka.

c11.s1.8

C. **Upanishads** :

c11.s1.9

(1) **Aitareya**.

c11.s1.10

(2) **Kaushītaki** in which Ajātaśatru, King of Kāśī, is mentioned as teaching the proud Brāhmaṇa Bālāki; the wise king, Chitra Gāṅgyāyani, as instructing Āruṇi.

II. The Sāmaveda

c11.s2.1

A. **Brāhmaṇas** :

c11.s2.2

(1) **Tāṇḍya**, also called *Pañchaviṁśa*, concerned with the Soma sacrifices in general, ranging from minor offerings to those which lasted 100 days or even several years (called *sattras*, or sessions). It also contains minute descriptions of the sacrifices on the Sarasvatī and Dṛishadvatī and also of *Vrātya-stomas* by which non-Brahmanical Aryans were admitted into the Brahmanical order. It is also hostile towards the Kaushītakins whom it brands as *vrātyas* (apostates) and *yajñāvakīrṇa* (unfit to sacrifice). The name Tāṇḍya is mentioned as that of a teacher in the Brāhmaṇa of the White Yajus.

c11.s2.3

(2) **Shaḍviṁśa**, a supplement to the former.

c11.s2.4

(3) **Adbhūta**, a supplement to the former in which are mentioned Uddālaka Āruṇi and other teachers.

c11.s2.5

(4) **Chhāndogya**, of which the major part is its Upanishad.

c11.s2.6

(5) **Talavakāra** in five books, of which the first three are connected with sacrificial ceremonial, the fourth is called the *Upanishad Brāhmaṇa*, which contains the *Kenopanishad*, and the fifth is called *Ārsheya Brāhmaṇa* which enumerates the composers of the Sāmaveda.

c11.s2.7

There are three other short works which are mere *Brāhmaṇas* in name, viz. the *Sāmavidhāna*, showing the uses of chants for superstitious purposes, the *Devatādhyāya*, giving some particulars about the deities of the *sāmans*, and the *Vaṁśa* which gives a genealogy of the teachers of the *Sāmaveda*.

c11.s2.8

The *Sāmaveda* has no *Āraṇyakas*.

c11.s2.9

B. **Upanishads** :

c11.s2.10

(1) **Chhāndogya** known for its mention of the Naimishīya-Ṛishis, the Mahāvṛishas, and the Gāndhāras; of Kṛishṇa Devakīputra as a pupil of Ghora Āṅgirasa; of Pravāhaṇa Jaivali, a Kshatriya engaged in philosophical discussions; Ushasta Chākrāyaṇa, a teacher; Śāṇḍilya, a teacher; Satyakāma Jābāla, a teacher, the son of a slave girl by an unknown father who was initiated as a Brahmachārin by Gautama Hāridrumata and was also a pupil of Jānaki Āyasthūṇa; Uddālaka Āruṇi; Śvetaketu; and Aśvapati, a prince of the Kekayas who instructed Prāchīnaśāla and other Brāhmins. These names are also mentioned in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka*. The work also mentions Sanatkumāra, Skanda, Nārada, and subjects like Atharvāṅgirasaḥ, Itihāsa and Purāṇa which probably attained independent forms at the time of this reference. There is also some legal material, e.g. capital punishment for denied theft, trial by ordeal, which points to its comparatively late age. Philosophical doctrines are termed *Upanishad*, *ādeśa*, *guhya ādeśa* (the secrecy of which is repeatedly insisted upon).

c11.s2.11

(2) **Kena**, remnant of the Brāhmaṇa of the Talavakāras.

III. The Yajurveda

c11.s3.1

1. **Black** :

c11.s3.2

A. **Brāhmaṇa** : *Taittirīya*.

c11.s3.3

B. **Āraṇyaka** : *Taittirīya* in 10 books.

c11.s3.4

C. **Upanishad** :

c11.s3.5

(1) **Taittirīya**, books vii-ix of the *Āraṇyaka*,

c11.s3.6

(2) **Mahā-Nārāyaṇa** or *Yājñikī*, book x of the *Āraṇyaka*;

c11.s3.7

(3) **Maitrāyaṇa** taught to King Bṛihadratha, an Aikshvāku;

c11.s3.8

(4) **Kāṭhaka** (with the legend of Nachiketas);

c11.s3.9

(5) **Śvetāśvatara** named after its individual author.

c11.s3.10

2. **White** :

c11.s3.11

A. **Brāhmaṇa** : *Śatapatha*, the contents of which will be commented on later.

c11.s3.12

B. **Āraṇyaka** : the last book of the *Brāhmaṇa*.

c11.s3.13

C. **Upanishad** : (1) *Bṛihadāraṇyaka* formed by the concluding six chapters of the *Āraṇyaka*; it gives two lists of teachers which, compared with the list attached to Bk. x of the *Śatapatha*, would point to the conclusion that the leading teachers of the ritual tradition (*Brāhmaṇas*) were different from those of the philosophical tradition (*Upanishads*) ' [Macdonell, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 235]; it contains the famous dialogues between King Janaka and Yājñavalkya; between Yājñavalkya and his wife Maitreyī.

c11.s3.14

(2) *Īśa* of eighteen stanzas only.

IV. The Atharvaveda

c11.s4.1

A. **Brāhmaṇa** : *Gopatha*, the second book of which is based on the Vaitāna Śrauta Sūtra, thus showing a reversal of the usual historical relation between a *Brāhmaṇa* and a *Sūtra*, and other parts of which are derived from other Brāhmaṇas like Aitareya, Kaushītaki, Śatapatha, and Pañchaviṁśa as also the Maitrāyaṇī and Taittirīya Saṁhitās.

c11.s4.2

B. **Upanishads** :

c11.s4.3

(1) *Muṇḍaka*, the Upanishad of the *tonsured*, an association of ascetics who shaved their heads.

c11.s4.4

(2) *Praśna*, treating of questions addressed by six students to the sage Pippalāda.

c11.s4.5

(3) *Māṇḍūkya*, chiefly known as having given birth to the *Kārikā* of Gauḍapāda, probably the teacher of Govinda, whose pupil was Śaṅkara.

c11.s4.6

A large and indefinite number of Upanishads is attributed to the Atharvaveda, of which twenty-seven are recognized. Most of them are post-Vedic.

c11.s4.7

We shall base our study on the ten Upanishads recognized by Śaṅkara in his commentary on the Vedānta Sūtras.

c11.s4.8

We have now broadly considered the total quantity of literary output of the period, from which we have now to derive the data for the construction of its educational history.

c11.s4.9

**How these works were taught and transmitted.** At the outset of this inductive study we should, however, note that the available Brāhmaṇa literature indicated above does not represent the entire literary matter produced. This is clear not merely from the internal evidence of the extant works but also from a consideration of the methods by which the works have been handed down from age to age. From internal evidence we know that to the number of the *Brāhmaṇas*, or recensions of the Saṁhitās, which have been lost to us, belong those of the Vāshkalas, Paiṅgins, Bhāllavins, Śāṭyāyanins, Kālabavins, Lāmakāyanins, Śāmbuvis Khāḍāyanins, and Śālaṅkāyanins. As regards the circumstances of the origin of these *Brāhmaṇas* and the conditions and methods of their transmission, it may be safely stated that they originated from the opinions of individual sages, imparted by oral tradition, and preserved as well as supplemented in their families and also by their disciples. As these separate traditions grew in number, the necessity was more and more felt for bringing them into harmony with one another. For this purpose learned individuals in different parts who were specially qualified for the task undertook compilations embodying the various traditions and different opinions on each subject and trace them in each case as far as possible to their original exponents. These compilations or digests again in their turn were orally transmitted in accordance with the well-known orthodox predilections on the subject and were not written down. We thus find here and there that of the same work there are two texts entirely differing in their details. Thus would also be produced frequent differences and conflicts between these compilers, as a result of which we find expressions of strong animosity against those whom a particular compilation regards as heterodox. There was also going on among these rival and competing compilations a struggle for existence leading to the survival of the fittest, which became so either by virtue of their intrinsic value, or of the fact that their authors appealed more to the hieratic spirit, the prevailing religious tendencies of the times. Thus we encounter the rather lamentable fact that the works representative of the disputed opinions have for the most part disappeared (with the possibility of mere fragments thereof being recovered here and there) while those which in the end came off victorious have almost entirely supplanted and effaced their predecessors.

c11.s4.10

**Variety of Institutions for propagation of Learning.** The peculiar literary processes or movements noticed above bring us to a general consideration of the organization and methods which were evolved in ancient India for the conservation and transmission of her literature from age to age. For what has been described regarding the *Brāhmaṇas* applies also to the Vedic compilations as well as the *Sūtras*. The organization and machinery for the preservation and propagation of the entire Vedic literature which rested on the time-honoured system of oral tradition developed in course of time several types of institutions known as *Sākhās*, *Caraṇas*, *Parishads*, *Kulas*, *Gotras*, and the like, of which we shall now indicate some particulars. All of these were of the nature of assemblies, academies, literary or religious guilds, serving as Schools of Vedic learning in which that learning was conserved, commented upon, and communicated by successive generations of teachers and pupils gathering round a distinct tradition bequeathed to them by the particular founder of a School named after him.

c11.s4.11

**Śākhās and Charaṇas.** The term *Śākhā* was originally applied to the three original Saṁhitās of the *Ṛik*, *Sāma*, and *Yajus* regarded as the three branches or stems of the Veda-tree¹ having the same root, revelation (*Śruti*), and bearing the same fruit, the sacrifice (*karman*) [Kumārila and Āpastamba quoted by Max Müller, *Sans. Lit.*, p. 124]. More frequently, however, the term was used with reference to the different traditionary texts of each of the four Vedas. As Madhusūdana Sarasvatī puts it [ib. 122], "for each Veda there are several Śākhās, and their differences arise from various readings." The growth of a variety of readings in even the sacred texts of the Vedas is of course to be traced to the methods of teaching in vogue in those ancient times. Literary works did not then exist in writing and were devoid of any tangible, external form. The Vedic hymns had no outward existence except through those who heard and remembered them. Thus a book then existed merely as a body of thought handed down in schools or in families. A man who had mastered a book was himself the book. A work once composed might either wither for want of an audience, or grow, like a tree, of which every new listener who would learn it by heart would become a new branch (literally, *śākhā*). But we should not fail to distinguish between the branch, as the book, and the branch, as the reader; that is to say, between the trust and the trustee. The former is to be designated *Śākhā* and the latter as the reader of a *Śākhā*, while we should also note in this connection that the term *Charaṇa* is to be applied to those ideal successions or fellowships to which all those belonged who read the same *Śākhā*. Thus the analogy of a branch of a tree was employed to convey what we in modern times understand by an edition, say, of a hundred copies. Literary works were handed down by oral tradition in different communities which thus represented, so to say, different works, or even different recensions of one and the same work, like so many MSS. in later times.

c11.s4.12

¹ It is said of Sāyaṇa that he wrote commentaries on each of the *Śākhās* of the Veda.

c11.s4.13

The reality of the phenomenon we have been noticing will be more fully realized from the fact that it had led to the growth of the special class of literature called the *Prātiśākhyas* associated with what are known as the Vedic *Sākhās*. *Prātisākhya* does not mean a treatise on the phonetic peculiarities of each Veda but a collection of phonetic rules peculiar to one of the different *Sākhās* of the four Vedas, i.e. to one of those different texts in which each of the Vedas had been handed down for ages in different families and different parts of India. The *Sākhās*, as already explained, were not independent collections of the old hymns but different editions of one and the same original collection which in the course of a long continued oral tradition had become modified by slight degrees. The texts of the Veda as they existed and lived in the oral tradition of various sets of people became *Sākhās* differing from other *Sākhās* somewhat in the same way as the MSS. of the New Testament differ from one another. Indeed, most *Sākhas* differ merely in single words or verses, and not materially, in the arrangement of the hymns, and it is only in a few cases that we find one *Sākhā* containing some hymns more than another. Now along with this variety in the texts, there was also an inevitable variety in the methods of their pronunciation pursued by the different *Sākhās* or seats of Vedic learning. There thus grew up a certain number of local varieties in accent and pronunciation and in the recital of hymns, which were strictly and religiously adhered to out of the natural respect paid by each teacher, by each family, and by each Brahmanic community or guild to its own established oral tradition. Thus the *Prātisākhyas*, besides giving general rules for the proper pronunciation of the Vedic language as a safeguard against its further corruption—for already the idiom of the Veda was left far behind the spoken language of India as a kind of antique and sacred utterance so as to need for the preservation of its proper pronunciation a system of rules on metre, accent, and the like—were intended to record what was peculiar in the pronunciation of certain teachers and their schools in the absence of any criterion for determining what was the ancient and most correct way of reciting the sacred songs of the Veda. Even in cases where these Schools had become extinct, we find the names of their founders preserved as authorities on matters connected with the pronunciation of certain letters or words.

c11.s4.14

We have now considered the origin of the Vedic *Sākhās* which, as we have seen, rested on a variety of both readings and pronunciation. The original sense of the term *Sākhā* takes it to be a literary work, as in the expression *Sākhām adhīte*, "he reads a particular recension of the Veda." But from its original sense of various editions, it soon came to mean the various traditions that branched off from each of the three original branches of the Veda, and in this latter sense it became synonymous with the term *Charaṇa*. The reason of this change in the use of the word seems to be that the *Śākhā* existed in those times not as a written book but only in the traditions of the *Charaṇas*, each member of a *Charaṇa* representing what, in our modern times, we should call the copy of a book. Thus the two terms were used in the same way as we speak of the Jews when we mean the Old Testament or of the Koran when we mean the Moslems.

c11.s4.15

This was, however, a loose use of the term *Śākhā*, for the real difference between a *Śākhā* and a *Charaṇa* was fully recognized. In a *Vārttika* to Pāṇini [iv, 1, 63] the term *Charaṇa* is taken to mean "the readers of a *Śākhā*" (*Śākhādhyetṛi*). In another place, Pāṇini alludes to *Charaṇas* as consisting of a number of followers [iv, 2, 46]. He also mentions the Kāṭhaka, Kālāpaka and Paippalādaka as Vedic recensions belonging to the *Charaṇas* of the Kaṭhas, Kalāpas; and Pippalādas [iv, 3, 126]. Again, in a Vārttika to Pāṇini [iv, 1, 63], there is a reference to women as belonging to a *Charaṇa*, for a *Kaṭhī* points to a woman who belongs to the *Charaṇa*, or reads the *Śākhā*, of the Kaṭhas. The best definition of a *Charaṇa* occurs in a passage in Jagaddhara's commentary on the *Mālatīmādhava*, where the *Charaṇa* is defined as "a number of men who are pledged to the reading of a certain *Śākhā* of the Veda and who have in this manner become one body" (*Charaṇaśabdaḥ śākhāviśeshādhyayanāp-araikatāpanna-janasaṃghavāchī*). Thus, while the Śākhās denoted the texts, their propagators or *pravartakas* were the *Charaṇas*.

c11.s4.16

**Brāhmaṇa-Charaṇas.** Thus the *Charaṇas* were practically the Schools for the cultivation and propagation of particular texts of the Vedas. It should, however, be noted that just as the several Vedas under the system of oral tradition developed a variety of texts, so also did the *Brāhmaṇas* which, moreover, being not written in metre, like the Vedas, were more exposed to alteration in that process of propagation. This means that, besides the adoption of a particular text or recension of any of the Vedas, the second factor in the formation of a *Charaṇa* was the adoption of a *Brāhmaṇa* which, be it understood, was not usually or necessarily any independent work but merely one of the various recensions branching out of a common *Brāh-maṇa*. Originally, there was but one body of *Brāhmaṇas* for each of the three Vedas; for the Rigveda, the *Brāhmaṇas* of the Bahvṛichas, for the Sāmaveda, the *Brāhmaṇas* of the Chhandogas, and for the Yajurveda in its two forms, the *Brāhmaṇas* of the Taittirīyas and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. These original *Brāhmaṇas* were compiled out of a floating stock of sayings and discussions which necessarily grew up in connection with the work of the several classes of priests, each specializing in a particular department of the sacrifice. They were, however, from their very character liable to much greater alteration in the course of a long-continued oral tradition than the Saṁhitā texts and were not to be met with very soon in their original forms, but in various recensions creating, and also adopted by, different *Charaṇas* which may be distinguished as *Brāhmaṇa-Charaṇas* from the *Saṁhitā-Charaṇas*. Thus the original Bahvṛicha-*Brāhmaṇa* of the Rigveda appeared in two recensions belonging to the *Charaṇas* of the Aitareyins and the Kaushītakins or Śāṅkhāyanins; the original *Chhāndogyam* appeared as the *Brāhmaṇa* of the Tāṇḍins and as the now lost works belonging to the *Charaṇas* of the Śāṭyāyanins and the Kauthumas; instead of one Adhvaryu-*Brāhmaṇa*, we have the dark code of the old Charakas, or the Taittirīyas and the Kaṭhas, and the new *Brāhmaṇa* of the Vājasaneyins and their descendants, the Kāṇvas and the Mādhyandinas. But the very variations in these *Brāhmaṇa* texts preserved by their respective *Charaṇas* point clearly to one and the same original from which they descended. This is true even of the two *Brāhmaṇas* of the Aitareyins and the Kaushītakins, which exhibit apparently deep differences in respect of ceremonial rules, order in which the sacrifices are described, and even illustrations and legends, but nevertheless show a common origin in their literary coincidence of whole chapters, frequent occurrences of the same sentences, comparisons, and instances, and the like.

c11.s4.17

There was thus quite a multitude of these *Charaṇas* due to differences in the text of the Vedic hymns as well as to discrepancies in the connected *Brāhmaṇas*, to judge from the numerous and frequent references to them. We can easily recall to ourselves the circumstances under which they arose. A great teacher gathering round him a number of students introduces to his newly-founded colony some sacred text which differs but slightly from the traditional texts kept up in the community to which he originally belonged. But he himself adds some chapters of his own composition or makes other changes in the imported text which in the eyes of the disciples united under his teachings might be sufficient to constitute a new work that should no longer pass under its original title. Thus new *Charaṇas* would be founded and the institutions would multiply, aiding in the propagation of the sacred learning and the extension of the area of its influence. It is thus that Vedic culture radiated in all directions from a comparatively small number of original centres until it spread over the entire continent. It should be noted in this connection that most of these *Charaṇas* differed from one another more in respect of their *Brāhmaṇas* than their Saṁhitās. Students following different *Śākhās*, as far as their *Brāhmaṇa* was concerned, might very well follow one and the same *Śākhā* of the Saṁhitā, though they would no longer call it by its own original name. But in most cases, and particularly in the *Charaṇas* of the Yajurveda, it is seen that a difference in the *Brāhmaṇas* leads to corresponding differences in the Saṁhitā, such as we find, for instance, in the hymns of the Kāṇvas and Mādhyandinas.

c11.s4.18

**Parishads.** There was also a third type of institutions developed for the cultivation and propagation of learning. These are known as *Parishads* (lit. sitting round). The term, as used in the Upanishads, means an assemblage of advisers in questions of philosophy. It was a settlement of Brāhmaṇas, a community or college to which members of any *Charaṇa* might belong. It therefore rested on a broader basis than a *Charaṇa* which signified an ideal succession of teachers and pupils who learn and teach a certain branch of the Veda. Thus members of the same *Charaṇa* might be Fellows of different *Parishads* and Fellows of the same *Parishad* might be members of different *Charaṇas*. The Gobhila Gṛihya Sūtra refers to a teacher with his *Parishad* [iii, 2, 40: *Āchāryaṁ saparishatkaṁ* = *saha parishadā śishyagaṇena vartate iti saparishatkaḥ tam*]. The term *pārshada* is often applied to the Prātiśākhyas [*Nirukta*, i, 17] and is explained by the commentator Durgāchārya to mean "those *pārshada* books by which in a Parishad (parish or college) of one's own *Charaṇa* (sect) the peculiarities of accent, Saṁhitā and *krama*-reading, of Pragṛihya-vowels, and separation of words, are laid down as enjoined for and restricted to certain *Śākhās* (branches or recensions of the Veda)" Thus the term *pārshada* is a generic term applied to any work that belonged to a *Parishad*, or formed, so to say, part of the traditional library of the *pārishadyas*, so that the Prātiśākhyas would be a section in the library of the *pārshada* works. Thus, while every Prātiśākhya may be called a *pārshada*, not every *pārshada* can be called a Prātisakhya. If a follower of the Śākala-Charana was a Fellow of the Vatsa-Parishad, the Śākala-prātiśākhya would necessarily be one of the Pārshada works of the Vatsas, and the Parishad of the Vatsas would through this Fellow be connected with the Śākala-Charaṇa. It should be noted in this connection that in later literature¹ the term *Parishad* does not denote so much an academic institution as a body of advisers on religious topics, also the assessors of a judge, or the Council of ministers² of a prince.

c11.s4.19

¹ Cf. Manu and Yājñavalkya (1, 9), according to whom the *parishad* should consist of twenty-one Brāhmaṇas well versed in philosophy, theology, and law. Parāśara, however, lays down the following particulars regarding the constitution of *parishads* : "Four, even three able men from amongst the Brahmins in a village, who know the Veda, and keep the sacrificial fire, may well form the Parishad. "Or, if they do not keep the sacrificial fire, five or three who have studied the Vedas and Vedāṅgas and know the law. "Of old sages, who possess the highest knowledge of the Divine Self, who are twice-born, perform sacrifices, and have purified themselves in the duties of the Veda, one also may be considered as a Parishad. "Thus five kinds of Parishads have been described by me : but if they all fail, three independent men may form a Parishad." According to Bṛihaspati, "where seven, five, or three Brahmins who know the customs of the world, the Veda, and its Aṅgas, and the law have settled, that Assembly is like a *yajña* (*yajñasadṛiśī sabhā*).

c11.s4.20

² The *Kauṭilīya* uses the term in this sense and refers to the different numbers of members which, according to different political writers, can constitute that administrative council.

c11.s4.21

To sum up, we may say in modern phraseology that a *Parishat* corresponds to a University comprising students belonging to different colleges called *Charaṇas*.

c11.s4.22

Gotras. Somewhat akin to the institutions of *Śākhā*, *Charaṇa*, and *Parishad* is that of the *Gotra* or *Kula* which means a family depending on a real or imaginary community of blood and may exist among all the three castes. The *Charaṇas*, confined only to the Brāhmins, depend, as we have seen, not on the community of blood but on the community of sacred texts and were thus *ideal* fellowships held together by ties more sacred than the mere ties of blood. Hence members of different *Gotras* might belong to the same *Charaṇa*, the new *Charaṇa* might bear the name of its founder, and thus become synonymous, but not identical, with a *Gotra*. The names of the *Charaṇas* were naturally preserved as long as the texts which they embodied continued to be studied. The names of the *Gotras* were liable to confusion in later times when their number became too large, but the sacred works preserve the genealogical lists for Brahmins which, considering the respect they pay to their ancestors, may be taken to present a correct account of the priestly families of India. All Brahmin families are supposed to have descended from the seven Ṛishis, viz. Bhṛigu, Aṅgiras, Viśvāmitra, Vasishṭha, Kāśyapa, Atri, Agastya, but the real ancestors are the following eight, viz. Jamadagni, Gautama, Bharadvāja, Viśvāmitra, Vasishṭha, Kāśyapa, Atri, Agastya. The eight *Gotras* descending from these Ṛishis are again subdivided into forty-nine *Gotras* and these forty-nine branch off again into a still larger number of families. The names *Gotra*, *Vaṁśa*, *Varga*, *Paksha*, and *Gaṇa* are all used in the same sense to express the larger as well as the smaller families descended from the eight Ṛishis. A Brahmin, who keeps the sacrificial fire, is obliged by law to know to which of the forty-nine *Gotras* his own family belongs, and, in consecrating his own fire, he must invoke the ancestors who founded the *Gotra* to which he belongs. This invitation or invocation of the ancestors came to be called *Pravara*. Each of the forty-nine *Gotras* claims one or two or three or five ancestors, and the names of these ancestors constitute the distinctive character of each *Gotra*. Lists of these are to be found in the Kalpa-Sūtra works. Their reality is, to some extent, borne out by the fact that they have an important practical bearing upon the two essential ceremonies of Brahmanic society, viz. marriage and consecration of sacrificial fires.

c11.s4.23

**Vedic Schools as Schools of both Law and Learning.** We have now gained an insight into the system by which the *Saṁhitās* and *Brāhmaṇas* were handed down from generation to generation, the institutions by means of which Vedic literature was fostered and propagated until it extended to all parts of a vast country. Quite a network of Vedic schools was spread over the country, each of which specialized in particular texts of the Vedas and developed special commentaries of their own and later on even special codes of law so as to become a centre of both life and learning.¹ For in these ancient seats of learning there was no divorce between theory and practice, thought and life, speculation and action. Education, true to its literal sense, meant the development of all the faculties of man and included within its purview the totality of interests which make up life and not merely a section thereof, viz. the interests of intellectual life. It was education not merely in the contents of the sacred lore but also in the methods of living and self-culture according to the ideals embodied therein. Thus these seats of ancient learning were also the centres of life, of all that was best and highest in the community, centres of influence which vitalized the country. These ancient schools were not detached buildings of brick and mortar like modern schools, but were colonies in which were centred the talent, the piety, the culture of the community, from which they radiated in all directions. In them was represented the highest level of life marking the high water-mark of the nation’s progress, from which it gradually filtered down to the lower planes of society. The secret of the success of these schools in spreading the learning and culture entrusted to their custody lay in the principle of decentralization, the principle akin to that underlying the domestic system of industrial organization as distinguished from the factory system. In the colonization of a new country the methods of *extensive* cultivation are more appropriate than those of *intensive*. Similarly, in the spread of a new culture and civilization, what is most needed is a multiplicity of centres of the new life and learning, any number of foci from which the new light can shine. Similar indeed are the methods of both physical and spiritual settlement and reclamation, of colonization and civilization.

c11.s4.24

¹ In the commentary to Parāśara's *Gṛihya Sūtras* (quoted by Max Müller, *History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature*), it is thus stated: "*Vasishṭha declares that it is wrong to follow the rules of another Śākhā.* He says, 'A wise person will certainly not perform the duties prescribed by another *Śākhā*; he that does is called a traitor to his *Śākhā*. Whosoever leaves the law of his *Śākhā*, and adopts that of another, he sinks into blind darkness, having degraded a sacred Ṛishi.' And in another law book it is said: '*If a man gives up his own customs and performs others, whether out of ignorance or covetousness, he will fall and be destroyed.*' And again, in the Pariśishṭa of the Chhandogas: '*A fool who ceases to follow his own Śākhā, wishing to adopt another one, his work will be in vain.*'" Sometimes, different Brahmanical clans developed different physical marks distinguishing them. In a passage in the Gṛihya-saṁgraha-pariśishṭa (referred to by Max Müller, *ibid.*), it is mentioned how "the Vāsishṭhas wear a braid on the right side, the Ātreyas wear three braids, the Aṅgirasas wear five locks, the Bhṛigus have their heads quite shaved, others have a lock of hair on the top of the forehead"

c11.s4.25

Thus the numerous Vedic schools which sprang up in the different parts of the country were the chief agents in the Aryanization of the continent, in spreading through it the religion of the Vedas and the social system resulting from it. We shall now adduce some concrete particulars and facts regarding these schools of Vedic learning so as to appraise precisely the part they played in the propagation of the cause they were called upon to serve.

c11.s4.26

**Charaṇas of the Vedas.** Though the text of the *Rigveda* has come down to us in a single recension, there is no doubt that its propagation was accomplished in ancient times by the development of a number of *Charaṇas* based on a variety of its *Śākhās*. A comparatively late work belonging to the Sūtra period and known as the *Charaṇa-vyūha* or “Exposition of Schools” mentions as the five *Śākhās* or branches (more properly *Charaṇas*) of the Rigveda, the following, viz.:—

c11.s4.27

1. The Śākalas.
2. The Bāshkalas.
3. The Āśvalāyanas.
4. The Śāṅkhāyanas.
5. The Māṇḍukeyas.

c11.s4.28

This list leaves out the names of several old *Śākhās* such as the Aitareyins, Śaiśiras, Kaushītakins, Paiṅgins. The Śaiśira Śākhā may itself be a subdivision of the Śākala Śākhā, as the Purāṇas mention Śaiśira as one of the five pupils of Śākala like Mudgala, Gokula, Vātsya, Śālīya and Śiśira with the variants of the names in different Purāṇas, each of whom propagated different *Śākhās* of the Rigveda. The largest number of *Śākhās*, said to have been a thousand, is ascribed to the *Sāmaveda* of which the greater part is lost. The *Charaṇa-vyūha* mentions seven *Śākhās* of whom two are now known, viz. the *Kauthumas*, still existing in Gujarat, and the *Rāṇāyanīyas* at one time settled mainly in the Maratha country and now surviving in Eastern Hyderabad, while the Kauthumas themselves had five branches of which that called *Naigeya* is known. The number of *Śākhās* of the *Yajurveda* is stated at eighty six. There are twelve *Charaṇas* comprehended under the common name of *Charakas*. Of these, the *Kaṭhas* together with the *Kapisthala-Kaṭhas* were located in the time of the Greeks in the Pānjab, and later in Kashmir also, where the Kaṭhas are even now to be found, but the Kapisthalas have disappeared. Another branch called the *Maitrāyaṇīyas* is itself subdivided into seven *Charaṇas*. They were originally called *Kālāpas* and appear at one time to have occupied the region around the lower course of the Narmadā for a distance of some two hundred miles from the sea, extending to the south of its mouth more than a hundred miles, as far as Nāsik, and northwards beyond the modern city of Baroda. A few remnants of this School are still to be found in Gujarat, chiefly at Ahmedabad, and further west at Morvi. In the centuries before the Christian era, these two Schools seem to have been very widely diffused throughout India. Patañjali, the grammarian, for instance, refers to the Kaṭhas and Kālāpas as the universally known Schools of the *Yajurveda* whose doctrines were proclaimed in every village. The *Rāmāyaṇa* also tells us that these two schools were highly honoured in Ayodhyā (Oudh). Two new Schools afterwards rose to prominence and supplanted the old ones. These were the Schools of the *Taittirīyas* and the *Vājasaneyins*. The Taittirīyas had two branches, one of which, the *Khāṇḍikīya*, had itself five subdivisions, viz. the *Kāleyas*, the *Śāṭyāyanins*, *Hiraṇyakeśins*, *Bhāradvājins*, and *Āpastambins*. The *Taittirīyas* have been found only to the south of the Narmadā where they can be traced as far back as the fourth century A.D. The *Āpastambas* still survive in the region of the Godāvarī and the *Hiraṇyakeśins* still farther north. The *Vājasaneyins* comprising fifteen subordinate Śākhās spread themselves along the Ganges valley towards the south-east. At the present day they are to be found in North-East and Central India. The number of *Atharvaveda* Śākhās is given as nine including the Paippalādas, Śaunakas, and the like. [See Macdonell, *Sans. Lit.*, pp. 176–7.]

c11.s4.29

**Vedic Charaṇas known to Pāṇini.** It is interesting to note that the existence of the following Vedic Schools was known to Pāṇini and his commentators:—
1. Śākalas [iv, 3, 128; 2, 117].
2. Āśvalāyanas [iv, 1, 99].
3. Śāṅkhāyanas [iv, 1, 19; 1, 119].
4. Māṇḍukāyanas [ib.].
5. Charakas [iv, 3, 107; v, 1, 11].
6. Āhvarakas [ii, 4, 20; vi, 2, 124; iii, 2, 135].
7. Kaṭhas [iv, 3, 107; ii, 1, 65; vii, 4, 38; vi, 3, 42; ii, 4, 3; i, 3, 49; ii, 1, 163].
8. Prāchya-kaṭhas [vi, 2, 10].
9. Kapisthala-kaṭhas [viii, 3, 91].
10. Chārāyaṇīyas [iv, 1, 89; iv, 1, 63; i, 99; 3, 80].
11. Vāratantavīyas [iv, 3, 102].
12. Mānavas [iv, 1, 105].
13. Vārāhas [iv, 2, 80].
14. Haridrāvīyas [iv, 3, 104].
15. Śyāmāyanīyas [ib.].
16. Aukhīyas [iv, 3, 102].
17. Jābālas [vi, 2, 38; ii, 4, 58].
18. Baudheyas [ib.].
19. Kāṇvas [iv, 2, 111].
20. Pauṇḍravatsas [vii, 3, 24].
21. Avaṭikas [iv, 1, 17; iv, 1, 75].
22. Audheyas [ii, 4, 7].
23. Paippalādas [iv, 2, 66].
24. Śaunakas [iv, 3, 106].

c11.s4.30

**Succession Lists of Teachers.** Over and above the *Charaṇas* and other institutions, the *Brāhmaṇas* furnish us with lists of teachers through whom they were handed down. The Chhandogas, for instance, have assigned a separate *Brāhmaṇa* to the list of their teachers, viz. the *Vaṁśa-Brāhmaṇa*. In the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*, these lists are repeated at the end of various sections. The number of teachers in the *Vaṁśa-Brāhmaṇa* amounts to fifty-three. In the *Śatapatha*, there are four *Vaṁśas*, the most important of which stands at the end of the whole work and consists of fifty-five names.

c11.s4.31

From the methods of the propagation of Vedic literature we now proceed to consider the methods of training, the ideals, rules, and principles regulating the relations between the teacher and the taught.

c11.s4.32

**System of Education : ‘Svādhyāya.’** As has been already indicated, education was not yet regarded as an end in itself but only as a means to an end, viz. the attainment of *Brahmavarchasa*, i.e. sacred knowledge or knowledge of the Absolute. This is pointed out in numerous passages of Vedic literature.¹ The performance of sacrifice, of specific ritual acts² is also mentioned as means to this end of spiritual development but more stress is laid upon the study of the sacred texts. Indeed, the importance of such study is repeatedly insisted upon,³ for which the technical name *svādhyāya* is applied. The efficacy of *svādhyāya* is pointed out by the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* which regards it as a form of sacrifice to the Brahman by which an imperishable world is gained [xi, 5, 6, 3]. It is also pointed out that by the study and teaching of the Veda, one becomes calm in mind (*yuktamanāḥ*), independent of others, the best physician for himself, with his restraint of the senses, uniformity of mental attitude, growth of intelligence, fame, and the power of perfecting the people [ib., 7, 1]. The *Taittirīya Āraṇyaka* [ii, 9–15] also regards *svādhyāya* as *brahmayajña* or sacrifice of devotion and lays down certain directions as to the exact place and time of study. One should go outside the town or village, north or north-east, until the roofs cease to be seen and after sunrise and then repeat to himself the Vedas (as also other subjects connected therewith such as Brāhmaṇas, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, Kalpa, Gāthās and Nārāśaṁśīs). In times of difficulties the study may be carried on in the town or village during the day or night according to convenience. In that case there should be no loud repetition of the texts. In the afternoon one should recite more. When he returns home he is to make a gift. For this kind of study by one's own self without the aid of a teacher there is no *anadhyāya* or prohibition of study except when one is unclean in body or is in an unclean place. Another set of rules of Vedic study is given in the *Aitareya Āraṇyaka* [v, 3, 3] ; "When the old water about the roots of the trees has been dried up, he should not study (the time after the full moon of Pausha, i.e. January–February is meant), nor in the forenoon, when the shadows meet, nor in the afternoon, nor when a thick cloud has arisen; and when rain falls out of season he should stop his study of the Veda (but not the study of Vedāṅgas, like Vyākaraṇa, as Sāyaṇa points out) for three nights, nor in this time should he tell tales, nor even at night at this time be fain to set them forth" [Keith's translation]. We may recall in this connection the earlier prohibitions of Vedic study in some specified times, places, and conditions in the Atharvaveda [vii, 66, Harvard ed.], viz. in cloudy weather, in storms, under the shade of trees, in green fields and within hearing of cattle.

c11.s4.33

¹ *e.g.* *Taitt. Saṁ.*, iv, 1, 7, 1; vii, 5, 18, 1; *Kāth. Saṁ.*, Aśvamedha, v, 14; *Vāja. Saṁ.*, xxii, 22; xxvii, 2; *Taitt. Br.*, iii, 8, 13, 1; *Ait. Br.*, iv, 11, 6–9; *Śat. Br.*, xiii, 2, 6, 10; x, 3, 5, 16; xi, 4, 4, 1; *Pañchav. Br.*, vi, 3, 5.

c11.s4.34

² *Kāth. Saṁ.*, xxxvii, 7; *Taitt. Br.*, ii, 7, 1, 1; *Pañch. Br.*, xxiii, 7, 3, etc., *Śat. Br.*, ii, 3, 1, 31, etc.

c11.s4.35

³ *Śat. Br.*, i, 7, 2, 3; xi, 3, 3, 3–6; 5, 7, 10.

c11.s4.36

**Need of the Teacher.** The necessity of self-study did not preclude that of the student finding a teacher for himself. The futility of mere self-study is always recognized. The teacher is represented as indispensable to knowledge in *Kaṭha-Upanishad* [ii, 8] : "Apart from the teacher, there is no access here." Similarly, the *Muṇḍaka-Upanishad* [i, 2, 3] : "Let him, in order to understand this, take fuel in his hand and approach a Guru who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman." Again [iii, 2, 3] : "Not by self-study is the *ātman* realized, not by mental power ; nor by amassing much information." A teacher is regarded as necessary to disperse the mist of empirically acquired knowledge from our eyes, as explained so beautifully in the following passage from the Chhāndogya Upanishad [vi, 14, 1–2] : "Precisely my dear sir, as a man who has been brought blindfold from the country of Gandhāra and then set at liberty in the desert, goes astray to the east or north or south, because he has been brought thither blindfold and blindfold set at liberty ; but after that someone has taken off the bandage, and has told him, 'In this direction Gandhāra lies, go in this direction,' instructed and prudent, asking the road from village to village, he finds his way home to Gandhāra ; even so the man, who in this world has met with a teacher, becomes conscious, 'To this (transitory world) shall I belong only until the time of my release, thereupon shall I go home.'"

c11.s4.37

In the older Upanishads we repeatedly come across the prohibition to communicate a doctrine or ceremony to anyone except a son or a pupil adopted by the rite of *upanayanam* first mentioned in the Atharvaveda [xi, 5]. In *Aitareya Āraṇyaka* [iii, 2, 6, 9] the mystical meaning of the combinations of the letters must be "communicated to no one, who is not a pupil, who has not been a pupil for a whole year, who does not propose himself to be a teacher" [cf. also v, 3, 3, 4]. Again, the *Chhāndogya Upanishad* [iii, 11, 5] states: "A father may therefore tell that doctrine [i.e. the doctrine of Brahman as the sun of the universe] to his eldest son, or to a worthy pupil. But no one should tell it to anybody else, even if he gave him the whole sea-girt earth, full of treasure." In *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* [vi, 3, 12] the ceremony of the mixed drink must be communicated to none but a son or a pupil. Similarly, the *Śvetāśvatara Upanishad* [vi, 22]: "This highest mystery in the Vedānta delivered in a former age should not be given to one whose passions have not been subdued nor to one who is not a son, or who is not a pupil." And the *Maitrāyaṇa-Upanishad* [vi, 29]: "Let no man preach this most secret doctrine to any one who is not his son or his pupil. . . To him alone who is devoted to his teacher only, and endowed with all necessary qualities may he communicate it."

c11.s4.38

We also find in the Upanishads men and gods taking fuel in their hands and submitting to the conditions of pupilage. The *Chhāndogya Upanishad* [viii] relates how Indra himself was obliged to live with Prajāpati as a pupil for 101 years in order to obtain the perfect instruction. In the *Kaushītaki-Upanishad* [i, 1] Āruṇi takes fuel in his hand and becomes a pupil of Chitra Gāṅgyāyani. In the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka* [ii, 1, 14] Gārgya says to Ajātaśatru: "Then let me come to you as a pupil." In the *Praśna-Upanishad* [i, 1] Sukeśas, Satyakāma, Sauryāyaṇin, Kausalya, Vaidarbhi, and Kabandhin take fuel in their hands to become pupils of Pippalāda [cf. also *Muṇḍ. Up.*, i, 2, 12, cited above].

c11.s4.39

**Instruction without formal pupilage.** At the same time the evidence seems to indicate that a formal pupilage was not absolutely binding in the earlier period. The differentiation between the four compulsory *āśramas* or life-stages was a comparatively late growth. Thus in the *Chhāndogya* [iv, 9, 3] it is merely said that "the knowledge which is gained from a teacher (as opposed to supernatural instruction by beasts, fire, geese, or ducks) leads most certainly to the goal." In another passage [v, 11, 7] King Aśvapati instructs six Brāhmaṇas who approach him with the fuel in their hands *anupanīya*, "without first admitting them as his pupils," or "demanding any preparatory rites". In still another passage [vi, 1, 1] we read: "'There lived once Śvetaketu Āruṇeya. To him his father (Uddālaka, the son of Aruṇa) said: 'Śvetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our race, darling, who, not having studied (the Veda) is, as it were, a Brāhmaṇa by birth only.'" From this remark it may be reasonably inferred that at that time entrance upon the life of a Brahmin-student, while it was a commendable custom, was not yet universally enjoined upon Brahmins. Similarly, the entrance also of Satyakāma upon studentship appears to be his voluntary determination (ib., iv, 4, 1). Again, in the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka* [ii, 4] Yājñavalkya instructs his wife Maitreyī and King Janaka [iv, 1-2, 3-4] who yet were not strictly his pupils; he also imparts knowledge on the deepest problems [as, e.g. iii, 8, in the conversation with Gārgī] in the presence of a numerous circle of hearers, and only exceptionally, when he desires to explain to Ārtabhāga the mystery of the soul's transmigration, does he retire with him into privacy [iii, 2, 13].

First 82 of 406 passages. Read on

Linked texts (69)