English
Although the poetical editor of this code of laws speaks of the Aranyaka^ as his own work, nobody will be misled by an assertion of this kind.^ But ^ This can only mean the Brihadaranjaka, as the commentator also observes. Yajn. Dh. iii. 110. " He who wishes to attain Yoga (union with the Divine Spirit) must know the Aranyaka, which I have received from Aditja, and the Yoga4&stra, which I have taught.** I thought, at first, that there might have been old Dharma-s^tras of Y&jnavalkja, and that the versifier of these Siitras took this sentence simply yAjnavalkya. 331 even the age of the versifier of the Y&jnavalkiya code of laws is difficult to determine. Professor Wilson, in his ^^Ariana Antiqua" (page 364), ob- serves that the word N&naka, a gold or silver coin having upon it the figure of 6iva, may be derived from N&na, a term which occurs on the coins of Eanerki, and is supposed to be ^Hhe name of a goddess; probably the same as the Anaitis or Anahid of the Persians, or the tutelary goddess of Armenia, Anaia, or Nanaca." If so (and I think the explanation ex- tremely doubtful) the age of Y&jnavalkya's legal dicta in which the word N&naka occurs, would be subse- quent to the era of Eanerki, and, as Professor Stenz- ler remarks in his edition of Y&jnavalkya, the second century after Christ would be the earliest date that could be assigned to Yftjnavalkya. Now the identic fication of N&naka and N&na (Nanaia, Nana Rao,) is a very ingenious conjecture, but no more. Even if admitted to be true, we should still have to prove that the same goddess did not occur in the same way on more ancient oriental coins. As the Hindus derived from the SiitraB. I have not yet found, however, YsgnaTalkya* siitras on Ach&ra. The so-called Yaisbnaya-dharma-i^tra, or Srf- bhagayad-yish^u-8aDhit&, which has been printed at Calcutta, contains large portions of Sutras which have been worked up in a very crude manner into a law treatise. The whole chapter on the anatomy of the human body, which in the Y^navalkiya Code precedes the verse in question (iii. 110.), a chapter which does not stand in the Manava code, exists, still in prose, in theVishnu-sanhitS. (fol. 28. a. line IL)- The simile of the lamp, also, representing the mind in the middle of the body, is borrowed by the editor of the Yajnavalkiya Code from the Yi8hnu-sanhit& (fol. 29. a. line 1.). Yet, although the Vishnu-sanbita, like the Code of Yajnavalkya, goes on describing the Yoga, no mention is made here of the Aran- yaka, nor does the author speak of himself in the first person, as the author of the metrical Code does. 332 yAjnavalkya. their knowledge of coined money from foreign nations, N&nakas may have been current in India long before the time of Eanerki, though the N&nakas of Eanerki may be the first known to us as coined in India. The occurrence of a word like N&naka\ therefore, is not sufficient by itself to prove that the second cen- tury after Christ is the earliest date of the Y&jnaval- kiya Code, still less of Y&jnavalkya, as Professor Stenzler supposes. But whatever date may be as- signed to this 6loka work, the date of Y&jnavalkya, the author of the Aranyaka and the j^atapatha-brih- mana, would not be affected by it in any way, and * In the same way it might be said that the Rig-veda-sanhita could not have been collected before the second centniy after Christy because the word Nishka occurs in the hjmns* Nishka ia a weight of gold, or gold in general, and it certainly has no satis* factory etymology in Sanskrit Nothing seems to be more likely than that it should be derived from Kanishka^ the Sanskrit name of Kanerki, as we speak of a '' Sovereign,'* the French of a ^ Louis." The first syllable Ka may be taken as the usual royal prefix, particularly as Fabian calls the same king Kanika and Nika. (Cf. Beinaud, M^moire sur Tlnde, p. 76.) Yet nobody would draw from this the conclusion that the Yeda was written after the time of Eanishka. If Nishka be really derived from the name of Ka-Nishka, Eanishka must have been the name or title of more ancient kings, whose money became known in India. But Nishka may have a very different etymology, and at all events it does not furnish any solid basis for chronological conclu- sions. Nishka does once occur in Pdnini's S&tras, v. 2. 119.; and it is frequently quoted as an example. Piln. iv 3. 156. fi^pifc;i Pftn. i. 4. 87. ^q fi|^ ^T^TWI ▼• 2. 119. ^[v^:\ cf.v. 1.37. tAjnavalkta. 333 the l§atapatha-br&hmana is the only work from which we may expect information on this point. Another attempt has been made to fix the age of Y&jnav&lkya, or, at least, to assign certain chronolo- gical limits to the first origin of the 64kh& of the MlUihyandinas, a subdivision of the Yftjasaneyins. Arrian, when speaking of the course of the Ganges, mentions among the rivers falling into the Ganges, the ^^Andomatis, flowing from the country of the Mandiadini, an Indian people." ^ Lassen thought he discovered in this the Sanskrit word Mlidhyandina, meridional; and, as a mere conjecture, such a re- mark was valuable. Professor Weber, however, went beyond this, and, taking for granted the identity of Mandiadini and M&dhyandina, taking for granted ako the identity of this Indian people with the Mftdhyan- dina, a subdivision of the dftkh& of the Y&jasauejdns, he concluded that the text of this iS&kh^ i. e. the Sanhit&andBr&hmana of the White Yajur-veda, pub- lished by himself, must have existed in the third cen- tury B.C. Such rapid conclusions are rarely safe. There may have been such a people as the M&dhyan- dinas at any time before or after Christ, and there may have been such a i§&kh& as that of the Mddhyandinas at any time before or after Christ, but the people need not have had any connection with that S&khd^ as little as the Pr&chyas or Prasii had anything in com- mon with the j§dkh& of the Pr&chya-Kathas, or the KajLL^/o-floXoi, another Indian people, mentioned by Greek writers, with the 6&kh& of the Eapishthalas. Granted, however, that the l§&kh& was formed in the country of the Mftdhyandinas, and derived its name 1 Indische Alterthumskunde, i. 130.; Schwanbeck, Megasthenis Indica, p. 106. 334 TArmBtrA-lRANTAKA. from it, nothing whatever would follow from this as to the exact date when this was effected. A second Aranyaka is that of the Taittiiiyas. As the Taittiiiya-veda (or the Black Yajur-veda) is always represented as anterior to the White Yajur- veda, the Taittinya-^ranyaka also might be expected to be older than the Brihadftranyaka. It is more likely, however, that the Taittirtya-^ranyaka did not yet exist at the time when Yftjnavalkya, after seceding from his master, founded a new school, and endowed it with a new Sanhit& and Brfthmana* The Aranyaka of the Taittiiiyas may have been added to their Brdhmanas subsequently to this schism, in the same way as the Brihad&ranyaka is certainly later than many portions of the Satapatha-brdhmana. At all events the Taittrdya-ftranyaka represents the latest period in the development of the Yedic reli- gion, and shows a strong admixture of post-vedic ideas and names. The same applies also to several parts of the Taittirtya-brlLhmana, the last part of which does not belong to Tittiri, but is ascribed to Katha, the same Muni to whom the beginning of the Aranyaka is said to have been revealed.^ There are some traces which would lead to the supposition that the Taittiiiya-veda had been studied, particu- larly in the south of India, and even among people which are still considered as un-Aryan in the Br&hmana of the Rig-veda. In the Taittirlya-&ran- yaka 'different readings are mentioned, which are no longer ascribed to different I§&khli3 but to certain countries in the south of India, like those of the Dr&- vidas, Andhras, and Karn&takas. This fact by itself ^ See page 224. aitabeya-Ibanyaka. 335 would throw some doubt on the antiquity and gen uineness of this class of Yedic writings^, at least in that form in which we now possess them. The Taittiriya-ftranyaka consists of ten books, of which the four last are devoted to Upanisbad doctrines. No author is mentioned, and Tittiri, who might seem to hold the same position for the Taittiriy&ranyaka which Y&jnavalkya holds for the Brihad&ranyaka, is repre- sented by the Brahmans themselves neither as the author nor as the first teacher. He received the tra- dition from Y&ska Paingi, who received it from Vai- 6amp&yana. Tittiri himself handed it on to Ukha, and he to Atreya.