________________
168
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
another indication of their missionary activity." (Ibid. i. 168). According to Macdonell, therefore, Brahma-vidyê was brought into existence in the land of Kuru-Pañcâla, by the Brahmans of that country (ibid. under Varna); and it was spread also far and wide by the same people. "There seems little doubt," says he, "that the Brahmanical culture was developed in the country of the Kuru-Pañcâlas, and that it spread thence east, south and west."
[ SEPTEMBER, 1928
Oldenberg holds the same view. "We found," says he, "that the literature of the Brahmanas points to a certain definitely circumscribed circle of peoples as its home, as the home of genuine Brahmanism. We found that this circle of peoples corresponds with those whom Manu celebrates as upright in life." (Buddha, p. 410.) Oldenberg is here thinking of the valley of the Sarasvati, the land of the Kuru-Pañcâlas.
The view has thus been clearly held that the home of the Upanisads was the land of the Kuru-Pañcâlas; and that it was from there that it spread east and west and south. And this view is held in spite of the prominence given in the Satapatha Brahmana to Videha and its King Janaka. (Oldenberg, op. cit., p. 398). Also, in enunciating this view, no difference of time, place and origin, seems to have been recognised between the Brahmanas and the Upanisads proper.
It is undeniable that Videha was well-known even at the time of the Brahmanical literature; and it is equally undeniable that the court of its king was an important seat of dissertations on Brahma-vidya. The arguments of Macdonell and Oldenberg are, however, drawn from other facts. These may be broadly divided into two classes:
(a) Certain passages in Śruti, mentioning the Kuru-Pañcâlas with praise and appreciation and assigning a prominence to teachers belonging to that land; and
(b) certain other passages in the same literature making a contemptuous reference to Videha-Magadha.
(a) Now, with regard to this first kind of evidence, there is one important teacher about whom Macdonell and Oldenberg are at variance. Macdonell regards Yajnavalkya as a Kuru-Pañcâla Brahmana (V.I., i. 272). But Oldenberg considers it "highly probable that he belonged by descent, not to the Kuru-Pañcâlas, but we may venture to add conjecturally to the Videhas." (Buddha, p. 397-98).
Yajnavalkya is such an important teacher that his nationality is likely to be the nationality of at least a considerable portion of the Upanisadic literature. It is not, however, bound to be so; the home of the teacher is not necessarily the home of his intellectual activity, as we shall see later on. And in so far as Yajnavalkya's own nationality cannot be or, has not been-established beyond doubt and dispute, we had better draw no conclusion from it.
There is another Upanisadic teacher, however, as to whose nationality opinion is more or less unanimous; this is Aruni. Uddâlaka Aruni, as he is usually called, was a KuruPañcala according to Satapatha Brahmana xi. 4. 1. 2; and the Gopatha Brahmana (i. 3. 6) also calls him a Kauru-Pañcâla Brahmâ' i.e., 'a Brahman of the Kuru-Pañcâlas.' And he is given as the teacher of Yajnavalkya in Bṛhadaranyaka Upanisad vi. 3. 7; vi. 5. 3, etc. It is association with this Kuru-Pañcâla teacher that has led Macdonell to think, in spite of Oldenberg's opinion to the contrary, that Yâjñavalkya was a Kuru-Pañcâla himself. But obviously such a conclusion is based on insufficient data; for, there is nothing to prevent a Magadha or Videha Brahman from becoming a disciple of a Kuru-Pañcâla teacher; such things happened even in those ancient days. So, even if it be admitted that Yajnavalkya was Aruni's pupil,-though as we shall presently see, it is not free from doubt-yet that in itself does not prove that Yajnavalkya was himself a Kuru-Pañcala. The Smrti called after Yajnavalkya places him in Mithila (i. 2.). He is called Yogiévara' and the probability is that the same man as the Upanisadic teacher is meant.
