________________
204
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ NOVEMBER, 1928
meaning long ago adopted by Max Müller, Deussen, etc.26 Amongst the innumerable problems presented by Indian sacred lore this one at least can be counted as solved.
As is well known, the different Upanişads are counted as belonging to different Vedas, the vast majority consisting, of course, of Atharvana Upanişads. But there seems to be some doubt about the position of the Kathaka within the sacred lore. No doubt Anquetil Duperron26 described it as ex Atharban Beid desumptum,' and Colebrooke enumerated it as the 35th and 36th upanişad of the Atharva-Veda. Still, he seems to have had some doubts about that, as he tried to agcribe it both to the Yajur Veda and to the PañcavimścsBrahmana of the Sama-Veda, 27 for which latter suggestion there is certainly not the slightest reason. According to Colebrooke, 'however, Samkara and Balakrsna should have commentated upon it as belonging to the Atharva-Veda, an assumption which has been eagerly en. dorsed by Weber28. The consensus of the older authorities seems to bo that the Kathaka is in reality an Upanişad of the Atharva Veda.
This opinion, however, seems not to be too well founded. I do not lay much stress upon the fact that the contents of our Upanişad is not much like that of the Atharvana Upani. şads in general. For, if the Kathaka did really belong to the Atharva-Veda it would undoubtedly be the oldest of its species, and we would thus have no precedents from which to judge the contents of the earliest Atharvaņa Upanişads. But the name, Katha or Kathaka, is certainly inexplicable as that of an Upanişad belonging to the fourth Veda.29 For, there cannot, of course, be the slightest doubt that this name Katha is identical with that of the old sage Katha, to whose school30 belonged that branch of the Yajur Veda happily preserved to us with the name of Kathaka-Samhita. Judging from the name our Upanişad ought undoubtedly to belong to that branch of the Black Yajur Veda.
In this connection we may perhaps draw attention to the fact that certain verses of our Upanişad are wholly or partly identical with verses from other Vedic texts. Of these the verne 4, 9 is nearly the same as AV. X, 8, 16 ; but at the same time its first line is identical with the first line of Brh. År. Up., i, 5, 23. Verse 2, 5 is—with the exception of one single word-identical with Mund. Up. 2, 8 31 ; but it is also identical with verse 7, 9 of the Maitr. Up., a text said to belong to the Black Yajus. Verse 2, 23 is entirely identical with Mund. Up. 2, 3, while 5, 15 tallies with Mund. Up. 2, 10, but also with verse 6, 14 of the Svet. Up., a Blac.. Yajur Veda text. Of other coincidences verse 2, 20 tallies with Taitt. Ár. X, 10, 1 and with Sret. Up. 3, 20; while 5, 12-13=Svet. Up. 6, 12-13, and 6,9=Svet. Up. 4, 20. Finally, parts of the verses 4, 10-11 make up the verse found in Byh. År. Up. iv, 4, 19, and Verse 6, 14=Brh. dr. Up. iv, 4, 7. In this enumeration I have not included the passages in our text borrowed from the Rig-veda nor the verses 6, 16-17, which are apparently a later addition
25 I have not takon into consideration here the suggestion of Mr. M. R. Bodas, JBBRAS. xxii, p. 69 sq., that upanigad should mean 'sitting down by the sacrificial fire,' as it is unnecessary and partly wrong.
26 Oupnek'hat, vol. ii, p. 299. 27 Cf. Poley, l.e. p. 70. 29 Tud. Stud, ii, p. 195 sq.
29 Is it possible that tho unexplained name Kiouni in Anquetil Duperron's text (cf. supra p. 201, n. 2) has any connection with the attribution of our Upanişad to tho Atharva-Voda ?
30 That School is called Kathah by Pån, iv, 3, 107, and is there mentioned together with the Carakah another school of the Black Yajus. There are the Prácya-Kathah and the Kapinthala-Kathdh, and they are also mentioned together with other schools which need not be named here.
31 Tho Mundaka, as is well known, is supposed to be the oldest existing Upanişad of the Atharva Veda;
