_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Muir’s Sanskrit Texts, vol. v. pp. 368, 371.]

[Footnote 2:  Garbe’s article, “Hindu Monism,” p. 68.]

[Footnote 3:  Ibid. p. 78.

34

self has produced.  In the story of Balaki Gargya and Ajatas’atru (B@rh.  II. 1) referred to by him, Balaki Gargya is a boastful man who wants to teach the K@sattriya Ajatas’atru the true Brahman, but fails and then wants it to be taught by him.  To this Ajatas’atru replies (following Garbe’s own translation) “it is contrary to the natural order that a Brahman receive instruction from a warrior and expect the latter to declare the Brahman to him [Footnote ref l].”  Does this not imply that in the natural order of things a Brahmin always taught the knowledge of Brahman to the K@sattriyas, and that it was unusual to find a Brahmin asking a K@sattriya about the true knowledge of Brahman?  At the beginning of the conversation, Ajatas’atru had promised to pay Balaki one thousand coins if he could tell him about Brahman, since all people used to run to Janaka to speak about Brahman [Footnote ref 2].  The second story of S’vetaketu and Pravaha@na Jaibali seems to be fairly conclusive with regard to the fact that the transmigration doctrines, the way of the gods (devayana) and the way of the fathers (pit@ryana) had originated among the K@sattriyas, but it is without any relevancy with regard to the origin of the superior knowledge of Brahman as the true self.

The third story of Aru@ni and As’vapati Kaikeya (Cha.  V. 11) is hardly more convincing, for here five Brahmins wishing to know what the Brahman and the self were, went to Uddalaka Aru@ni; but as he did not know sufficiently about it he accompanied them to the K@sattriya king As’vapati Kaikeya who was studying the subject.  But As’vapati ends the conversation by giving them certain instructions about the fire doctrine (vaisvanara agni) and the import of its sacrifices.  He does not say anything about the true self as Brahman.  We ought also to consider that there are only the few exceptional cases where K@sattriya kings were instructing the Brahmins.  But in all other cases the Brahmins were discussing and instructing the atman knowledge.  I am thus led to think that Garbe owing to his bitterness of feeling against the Brahmins as expressed in the earlier part of the essay had been too hasty in his judgment.  The opinion of Garbe seems to have been shared to some extent by Winternitz also, and the references given by him to the Upani@sad passages are also the same as we

_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Garbe’s article, “Hindu Monism,” p. 74.]

[Footnote 2:  B@rh.  II., compare also B@rh.  IV. 3, how Yajnavalkya speaks to Janaka about the brahmavidya.]

35