________________
[CH.
34
The Earlier Upanişads self has produced. In the story of Bālāki Gārgya and Ajātaśatru (Brh. II. I) referred to by him, Bālāki Gārgya is a boastful man who wants to teach the Kşattriya Ajātaśatru the true Brahman, but fails and then wants it to be taught by him. To this Ajātasatru replies (following Garbe's own translation) "it is contrary to the natural order that a Brahman receive instructions from a warrior and expect the latter to declare the Brahman to him?" Does this not imply that in the natural order of things a Brahmin always taught the knowledge of Brahman to the Ksattriyas, and that it was unusual to find a Brahmin asking a Kşattriya about the true knowledge of Brahman? At the beginning of the conversation, Ajātaśatru had promised to pay Bālāki one thousand coins if he could tell him about Brahman, since all people used to run to Janaka to speak about Brahman? The second story of Svetaketu and Pravāhana Jaibali seems to be fairly conclusive with regard to the fact that the transmigration doctrines, the way of the gods (devayāna) and the way of the fathers (pitryāna) had originated among the Kşattriyas, 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 Āruņi and Aśvapati Kaikeya (Chā. V. 11) is hardly more convincing, for here five Brahmins wishing to know what the Brahman and the self were, went to Uddālaka Āruni; but as he did not know sufficiently about it he accompanied them to the Kşattriya king Aśvapati Kaikeya who was studying the subject. But Aśvapati ends the conversation by giving them certain instructions about the fire doctrine (vaišvānara 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 Kşattriya kings were instructing the Brahmins. But in all other cases the Brahmins were discussing and instructing the ātman 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 Upanisad passages are also the same as we
i Garbe's article, “Hindu Monism," p. 74.
2 Bph. II., compare also Bịh. IV. 3, how Yājñavalkya speaks to Janaka about the brahmavidya.
