Indian Antiquary Vol 55

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 45

FEBRUARY, 1926]
EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TEACHERS OF THE UPANISADS.
Whatever the other implications of this story may be, it shows that, though the Kşatriya king took part in these discussions and put questions to the parties, still he was not a party himself in the strict sense of the term. The debates were really carried on by Brâhmans versed in the lore. The position of the king was half that of a patron and half that of a judge, who witnessed the wrangle and encouraged the parties by rewards and punishments. One may recall in this connection how in mediæval Europe, a Martin Luther would hold a public disputation in the court of a baron and would take the consequences. With some reservations, these debates might well be compared with the Diet at Worms or similar other Diets in the Middle Ages in Europe.
We are thus led to the conclusion that brahma-vidyd was not a Kşatriya or non-Brahmana vidyd. As the second highest caste among the twice-born, the Ksatriyas were entitled to read it and did read it. Not only so, but some of them, holding important positions in society, ga ve their powerful support to it. And in this and similar connections, some Ksatriya kings and chieftains, like Sri-Krişna, have been deified. But these were only exceptions which confirm the rule rather than disprove it. The original teachers of the vidya, just like the subsequent elaborators and commentators, were almost exclusively Brâhmans. It is a mistake to think, therefore, that brahma-vidyd was set up by certain Ksatriya chiefs and clans, 'as a sort of revolt against the Brahmans.
Our mistake in this connection is perhaps due to the fact that we are often inclined to regard the Brahmans as one homogeneous group, all of whom were devoted to the practice and cultivation of the Vedic liturgy. But neither the Ksatriyas nor the Brahmans were all of one and the same clan. And as in modern society we find the Brahman occupying different positions and following diverse callings in life, so, in ancient times also, the hereditary Brahman was not always and necessarily a Vedic priest. In post-Upanişadio times we find him as a king's minister, as a kañcuki in the royal household, as a viduraka or jester in the king's court, and even as a thief of the Sarvilaka type (see Mricchakatika); and besides, he was of course & priest and a teacher. In Upanişadic times also, we find among the Brâhmans those who knew only about the Vedic ceremonies and practices, like Svetaketu at the assembly of the Pancalas and Asvala at the court of Janaka; and also those who were experts in brahmavidya, like YAjfiavalkya. It was Brahmans of the type of YAjñavalkya who were the fathers of brahma-vidyd. And if there was any conflict between karma and jñana, it was not manifested in society in a struggle between the Brahman and the Ksatriya ; but it was rather a conflict between Brâhmans and Brahmans-between Brâhmans of the Yajña valkya type and Brâh. mans of the Asvala and Sakalya type. And so, like the Bråhmanical literature, the Upanişadic literature also was produced and developed by the Brahmans.