________________
SEPTEMBER, 1928
THE HOME OF THE UPANISADS
169
Aruni was no doubt a Kuru-Pañcâla ; but what does that prove? Does it prove that Kuru-Pañcâla was the original seat of Brahma-vidyâ ? After all, what did Åruņi really teach? The Katapatha gives an account of his discourses, and the Gopatha repeats it almost verbatim. But we do not find him lecturing on Brahma-vidyå. He rather gives us a half mystical interpretation of the various items in a Vedic ceremony and dilates on the mysterious virtues of the different sacrificial objects employed in such ceremonies. He does not even pose as a teacher of Brahma-vidya.
Then, again, wac he really Yajnavalkya's teacher of Brahma-vidyâ ? If he had really been so, could there be between him and his erstwhile disciple the sort of disputation that took place at the court of Janaka (Br. Up. iii. 7) ! Such a public disputation, with a stake, is extremely unusual between a teacher and his pupil. At the court of Janaka, Aruni does not use very affectionate language towards one who has been supposed to have been his pupil. “If," says he," without knowing the Antaryâmin, you are driving home these sacred cows, then your head will fall off.” (Br. ü. 7. 1). Yajñavalkya also addresses him by his Gotra name, viz., as Gotama--rather an unusual way for a pupil to address his teacher. Again, his answers to Aruni's questions ultimately silence the latter; not a very covetable situation for one who had been the teacher of the self-same subject. Was Yâjñavalkya then wally a pupil of Aruņi at all?
In the Brhadaranyaka, Aruni's questions to Yajñavalkya verge on Brahma-vidya. But in the Kausilaki Upanigud (i. 1), he is made to confess that he and his class only know how to recite the Vedas in assemblies and receive gifts offered to them in reward (sadasyeva varam svádhyayam adhitya harámahe yanno dadati).1 Philosophical questions are foreign to them. And so he and his son repair to a Kşatriya prince to receive instruction in Brahma. vidya.
And in Chandogya, v. 11, again, Uddâlaka Aruņi confesses to himself that he does not know all about Åtman or Brahma. Certain enquirers were coming to him for knowledge ; at the very sight of these men he exclaims : Prakøyanti mdm ime mahasala mahasrctriyah tebhyo na sarvam iva prati patsye hanta aham anyam abhyanusdedníti, i.e.," these rich learned Brahmins will ask me questions and I shall not be able to explain to them like (one who knows) all; well, I had better send them on to another." So thinking, he took them to Asvapati Kaikeya and received instruction from him along with the new-comers. This fifth chapter of the Chándogya seems to have been designed for the exposure of the utter hollowness of the Kuru-Pañcala Brahmans, of whom Aruni seems to have been the type.
In Chandogya, vi, Åruņi no doubt gives instruction to his son Svetaketu on Brahmavidyâ, but this was after he had himself received it from Praváhaņa Jaivali (Ch. v. 3).
The statement that Yabavalkya was Aruņi's pupil, therefore, is not free from doubt; and Yajñavalkya does not appear to have learned Brahma-vidya, if he learned anything at all, from Aruņi. If, relying on the Vamsa (Bt. vi. 5), we are inclined to think that Aruņi was his teacher, still the dispute at the court of Janaka and Aruņi's own confessions in the
This passage, however, has been differently interpreted by Sarkarånanda in his commentary. Says he:
sadasyeva Citrasya Garayaneh sabháydmeva, na tu anyalra, vayam Aruni-Sveta ketu-prabhrtayah, svadhyayam adhitya etadartha-pratipada kam vedabhagam adrtham adhigamya Citrdd Gargayanch hard. mahe adhigacchámah ; yad-yasmdt kdrandt no'smabhyam Gaulamádibhyah apariharyyebhyah-avyar. thopakramébhyah yácakebhyah, pare vidyadhanadátáro dadati prayacchanti, lat Citro na dásyatiti sanka na karanfya iti.
Max Möller's and Hume's translations of this passage are also based on this interpretation. But it is rather striking that the other interpretation also is possible, and one wonders if it is not the more correct one.
