Śvetaketu and the upanayana (published in: Études Asiatiques / Asiatische Studien 50(3), 1996, pp )

Transcription

1 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 1 JOHANNESBRONKHORST Śvetaketuandtheupanayana (publishedin:études Asiatiques / Asiatische Studien50(3),1996,pp ) Inarecentpublication(Three Studies in Vedic and Indo-European Religion and Linguistics,p.1f.)BorisOguibéninemakesthefollowingobservations: TheUpanishadsmentionsomeundoubtedlyveryancientformsofthe upanayanawhicharemostbareastheyaredeprivedofanysolemnityandbear notracesofritualceremonies.theystrikinglyignoreanyinvolvementofthe godsduringtheyoungman'sinvestiture.ch.up.[=chāndogya Upaniṣad (ChU)]andBĀU.[=Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad(BAU)]whicharetheoldest sourcesavailableafterthesaṃhitāperiodhintattheupanayanabeinglimitedto theapproachingateacherbyafuturebrahmacārinonlywithwords:bāu. VI.2.7reportsthatGautama(aliasUddālakaĀruṇi,famousforhisphilosophical dialoguesinch.up.vi.2),althoughhavingasonśvetaketu,approaches PravāhaṇaJaivaliwithasimpleannouncement:"Iamcomingtoyou".This statementapparentlysufficedtoa[s]certainhisintentiontobecomethelatter's pupil.thecommentsincorporatedinthebāu.itselfaremosteloquent:we learnthatintheancienttimesthosewhoweretobecomebrahmacārinsusedto sayjustthesewords:vi.2.7sa hopāyanakīrtyovāsa"havingmentionedhis comingtohim(asapupil),he(gautama)stayed(withhim)". Onp.2ofthesamepublicationweread: Itiseasytoinferthusthat,attheearlystageatleast,thebrahmacārin's educationremainedamatteroflearneddiscussionsbetweenthefatherandthe sonorelse,ifevertheseweredeemedinsufficient,betweenateacheranda youngman. ThisinferenceisbasedonthreeUpaniṣadicpassageswhichwillbediscussed below. SimilarobservationsaremadebyP.V.Kane(History of Dharmaśāstra,vol. IIpartIp.273):...intheBṛ.Up.[=BAU]VI.2.7itissaidthatformerstudents(i.e.studentsin formerages)approachedtheteacher(forbrahmacarya)onlyinwords(i.e. withoutanyfurthersolemnriteorceremony).inthemostancienttimesitis probablethatthefatherhimselfalwaystaughthisson. [592] Threequestionshavetobeaskedhere:

2 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 2 1. DidtheauthororredactorofBAU6.2.7reallypossessknowledgeabout whatwasusualinancienttimes? 2. DothethreeUpaniṣadicpassagesreferredtobyOguibéninereallyjustify theinferencethatsonsweretaughtbytheirfathers? 1 3. AretheChUandtheBAUreallyasoldasOguibéninesuggests? 1. BAU6.2tellsthestoryoftheencounterbetweenŚvetaketuandkingJaivali PravāhaṇaofthePañcālas.ThekingasksŚvetaketuanumberofquestions,which thelatterisunabletoanswer.obviouslyembarrassed,śvetaketureturnstohis father,whohadalsobeenhisteacher,andreportswhathashappened.thefather, whotoomustadmithisinabilitytoanswerthesequestions,decidestobecome pupilofpravāhaṇajaivali;thetermusedforstudenthoodisbrahmacarya(bau 6.2.4).Thekingacceptsthefather,herecalledGautama,aspupilonconditionthat he"seekintheusualmanner". 2 ThentheUpaniṣadcontinues: 3 Icometoyou,sir,asapupil! onlybymeansofwords,verily, 4 menofyore cameaspupils. Sowiththeacknowledgmentofcomingasapupilhe remained. Thephrase"onlybymeansofwords,verily,menofyorecameaspupils"shows thatthiscustomdidnotexistanymoreatthetimeofredactionofthispassage. 5 Whywasitinserted?Diditsauthorreallyknowwhathadbeencustomaryinthe past?ordidheperhapshaveotherreasonsforbelievingthatmenofyorebecame pupilsbymeansofwordsonly? [593] 1 Kane(loc. cit.)refersonlytobau6.2.1inthisconnection. 2 BAU6.2.7:sa vai gautama tīrthenecchāsā iti;tr.hume. 3 BAU6.2.7:upaimy ahaṃ bhavantam iti/ vācā ha smaiva pūrva upayanti/ sa hopāyanakīrtyovāsa.tr.hume,modified. 4 Thistranslationforvācā ha smaivaisinagreementwiththeuseoftheseparticles;see Hartman,1966:82:"Thisposition[ofha]neartheopeningofanewpassageislikelyto drawattentiontothefirstwordofaparagraphorsentence".chu4.10.1taṃ ha smaiva na samāvartayatihasthesameparticlesinthesameorder,andmustbetranslated:"onlyhim, verily,hedidnotallowtoreturn". 5 Söhnen(1981:195)states,withregardtothisphrase:"vermutlichalsGlosseines späterenüberlieferersanzusehen".itseemssafertospeakhereratheroftheworkofthe/a redactor.

3 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 3 AcomparisonwiththeparallelpassageintheChāndogya Upaniṣad(ChU 5.3f.)showsthathemayverywellhavehadsuchotherreasons. 6 Thispassagetells essentiallythesamestoryasbau6.2,withthesamecharactersplayingthesame roles.buthere,unlikeinbau6.2,śvetaketu'sfatherdoesnotbecomeapupilof PravāhaṇaJaivaliinthetechnicalsensoftheterm.Hejustasksthekingtoexplain thequestionshehadposedtośvetaketu,andtheking,aftersomehesitation, complies. 7 Theinferenceabouttheearlyformofupanayanaisfurtherbeliedbyathird UpaniṣadicstoryaboutŚvetaketuandhisfather,thisoneoccurringinthe Kauṣītaki-(Brāhmaṇa-)Upaniṣad(KU1.1f.).Thisstoryhasanumberoffeatures incommonwiththestoryofbau6.2andchu5.3f.thistimeitiscitra Gārgyāyaṇi/GāṅgyāyaniwhoposesanembarrassingquestiontoŚvetaketu,with theultimateresultthatśvetaketu'sfatherentersuponacourseofstudy(svādhyāya) inthehouseofcitra.inthiscase,however,śvetaketu'sfatherapproacheshisfuture teacher withfuelinhishand (samitpāṇi).thisexpressioniscommoninthe BrāhmaṇasandUpaniṣadstodescribetheprocessbywhichsomeonebecomes someoneelse'spupil. 8 ThefactthatitoccursinconnectionwithŚvetaketu'sfather contradictstheideathatinhisdaysthiskindofapproachofateacherwasasyet unknown.(ishallarguebelowthatitisinanycasenotjustifiedtoreadthese storiesasaccountsofhistoricalevents.)ifr.söhnen(1981:199,212)isrightin believingthatthekuversionofthestory,atleastasfarastheintroductory narrativeisconcerned"musthavebeentheoldestoneandprobablythe[594] sourceofthetwootherversions", 9 obviouslyanyconclusionastoanearly upanayanabywordsaloneisdeprivedofitsbasis. 6 ThisisbynomeanstheonlyinstanceofaSanskrittextwronglyattributingsomecustom orpracticetothepast.foranotherinstanceseeschmidt,1987:25f.(upanayanaforgirls). Seealsothenextnote. 7 AsimilareditorialobservationaboutearliercustomsisfoundatŚB :"forinthe timeofourforefathersaprizeusedtobeofferedbychosenpriestswhendrivingabout,for thesakeofcallingoutthetimidtoadisputation"([e]tad dha sma vai tat pūrveṣāṃ vṛtānān dhāvayatām ekadhanam upāhitam bhavaty upavalhāya bibhyatā[m];tr.witzel,1987:371). NosuchremarkoccursintheparallelpassageGB1.3.6.Theeditorialremarkfindsits explanationinthefactthathereonegoldcoinplaystherolewhichelsewhereinvedic literatureisplayedbylargenumbersofcows,horses,etc.;seewitzel,1987:366n SeeKane,History of Dharmaśāstravol.IIpt.Ip.273.Examples:ŚB ; ; butgb1.3.14:[u]payāmi tv eva bhavantam(witzel,1987:368);bau notethat thekuversionallowsofaninterpretationinwhichcitradoesnotinsistthatśvetaketu's fatherbecomehispupil;seesöhnen,1981:183n.19,renou,1978:15n Seehoweverthenextnote.

4 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 4 Letuspaysomemoreattentiontothetwoversionsoftheabovestoryinthe ChUandBAU.Sincetheyaretwoversionsofoneandthesamestory,theremust havebeenanearlierversionfromwhichbothhavederived. 10 Thereisreasonto believethatthisearlierversionmadenoexplicitmentionofśvetaketu'sfather becomingpupilofjaivalipravāhaṇa intheusualmanner,justaswefinditinthe ChU.Haditbeendifferent,itwouldbehardtoexplainhowthisimportantfeature couldhavebeenlostinthechu.if,ontheotherhand,weassumethatintheearlier versionśvetaketu'sfatherdidnotbecomepupiloftheking,theremarkswefindin BAU6.2.7becomeunderstandable,too.Theredactorofthispassage,wearethen ledtobelieve,waspuzzledbythelackofappropriateritualceremoniesina situationwhichheinterpretedasaformofupanayana.he explained thispuzzling stateofaffairsbystatingthatin former timesnosuchceremonieswereperformed. Thereareotherreasons,too,forassumingthattheChUversionis,inatleast certainrespects,closertotheoriginal.bothsurvivingversionsbeginwitha numberofquestions,thequestionsnamelywhichśvetaketuisunabletoanswer. ButonlyintheChUtheinstructionbyPravāhaṇaJaivaliismoreorlessdirectly connectedwiththeseinitialquestions.inthebauthelinkisnotobviousanymore, sothatweareledtobelievethatthebauversionhaslostsomeoftheoriginal coherenceofthestory. AlsothementionofGautama'sstudentshipintheBAUversiondoesnotfit easily.forthekinghadofferedhimaboon.inthechuversionthe[595]situation isstraightforward:gautamaasksasboontohearthewordswhichpravāhaṇahad spokentohisson,andreceivesit,beitaftersomehesitationonthepartofthe king. 11 IntheBAU,however,theboonissubjectedtothesubsequentconditionthat Gautamaacceptthestatusofpupil.Butnormallynospecialboonisnecessaryfor 10 Inviewofthefactthatthestorywasmostprobablyhandeddownorallybefore(and perhapsafter)itbecameincorporatedinthetwoupaniṣads,iwillnotaddressthequestion whetherperhapseitherofthetwosurvivingversionsisthedirectsourceoftheotherone. AndevenifweacceptSöhnen'spositionthatthestoryintheKUmayhavebeenthesource ofthetwootherversions,themanyclosesimilaritiesbetweenbauandchushowthat theremusthavebeenacommonancestorofthebauandchuversionswhichwasalready quitedifferentfromthekuversion.söhnen(1981:200)isoftheopinionthat"[d]er VerfasserderBṛU-Fassung...offenbardieChU-FassungalsVorlagebenutzt...hat".Here, asinherviewastothepositionofthekuversion,shemaynotsufficientlytakeinto accountthatthesestoriesmayforalongtimehavebeenhandeddownorally,andthatthe composersofourtextsdidnotnecessarilybasethemselvesonwrittenorotherwisefixed texts. 11 Interestingly,bothpassagesconfuse,oridentify,thewordsspokentoŚvetaketu,i.e.,the questionsasked,andtheanswerstothosequestions.

5 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 5 becomingsomeone'spupil.ifweassumethattheoriginalstorymadeonlymention ofaboon,asindeedthechuversiondoes,thispeculiarityissolved,too. 12 If,then,weacceptthattheredactorofBAU6.2.7thoughtthatsomething wasmissinginthetexthereceived,whatexactlywasit?wehaveseenthatin parallelpassagesinthebrāhmaṇasandupaniṣadsaspiringstudentsarenormally depictedasbringingsamidh fuel forthesacredfire.butgautamaapproached kingpravāhaṇawithoutbringingfuel;herethetwoversionsofthestoryagree.for theredactorofbau6.2.7thiswas,asitappears,incongruous,sothatheaddedthe remarkthatinformertimesonecouldbecomestudentbymeansofwordsonly,i.e., withoutbringingfuelforthesacredfire. TheredactoroftheChUversion,ontheotherhand,doesnotappeartohave takenoffenceatthefactthatgautamainterrogatedthekingwithoutbecominghis student.thisfindsunexpectedconfirmationintheimmediatelyfollowingstoryin thechu(5.11ff.).therewereadhowsixbrahmins oneofthembeing UddālakaĀruṇi,presumablythesameasGautama,thefatherofŚvetaketu approachedkingaśvapatikaikeya"withfuelintheirhands"(samitpāṇi), apparentlywiththedesiretobecomehisstudents.theking,however,startshis teachingwithouthavingacceptedthemasstudents(anupanīya;chu5.11.7).one istemptedtobelievethat,intheopinionoftheredactorofchu5(supposingthere wasonlyoneforthesetwostories),therewasnoproblemconnectedwithan instructionbyakṣatriyaofbrahminsinwhichthelatterdonotbecomeformally pupilsoftheformer. Theexactsignificanceoftheexpressionanupanīya withouthaving acceptedthemasstudents becomesclearbycomparingchu5.11ff.withthe alternativeversionofthisstoryatśb thereaśvapatikaikeya[596]does acceptthebrahminsaspupils.thisisdescribedinthefollowingterms: 13...theycameagaintohim,withfuelintheirhands,saying:"Wewanttobecome thypupils."...hesaid:"...putyourfuelon[thefire],yearebecomemypupils." ThissimpleceremonywasapparentlydeniedtheBrahminsintheChUversionof thestory. 12 SeealsoSöhnen,1981: ŚB :... te ha... samitpāṇayaḥ praticakramira upa tvāyāmeti/... sa hovāca... [a]bhyādhatta samidha upetā stheti/.tr.eggeling.

6 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 6 2. BasinghimselfonthethreepassagesaboutŚvetaketuandhisfathersofar considered,oguibéninedrawstheconclusionthat"attheearlystageatleast,the brahmacārin'seducationremainedamatteroflearneddiscussionsbetweenthe fatherandtheson". Allthesethreepassagesadmittedlymentionapupilwhohasbeeninitially instructedbyhisfather.butinallthreecasesthepupilisthesameperson,viz., Śvetaketu,thesonofGautama.Togethertheyconstitute,atmost,onesinglecase. Andthevalueofthissinglecasedepends,again,ontheamountofinformationthe authorsofthesepassagescanbebelievedtohavepossessedof"theearlystage". AnotherpassageintheChUshowsthattheauthorsoftheearlyUpaniṣads werenotallthatwellinformedaboutthetimeofśvetaketu.orrather,itprovides completelydifferentinformationaboutthissameperson.ittellsusthatśvetaketu wasinitiallynoteducatedbyhisfather: 14 Now,therewasŚvetaketuĀruṇeya.Tohimhisfathersaid:"Śvetaketu,livethe lifeofastudentofsacredknowledge(brahmacarya).verily,mydear,fromour familythereisnooneunlearned[inthevedas],abrahminbyconnection,asit were."he,then,havingbecomeapupilattheageoftwelve,havingstudiedall thevedas,returnedattheageoftwenty-four,conceited,thinkinghimself learned,proud.thenhisfathersaidtohim:"śvetaketu,mydear,sincenowyou areconceited,thinkyourselflearned,[597]andareproud,didyoualsoaskfor thatteachingwherebywhathasnotbeenheardofbecomesheardof,whathas notbeenthoughtofbecomesthoughtof,whathasnotbeenunderstoodbecomes understood?""how,pray,sir,isthatteaching?" Accordingtothispassage,Śvetaketureceivedfirsttwelveyearsofeducationfrom someonedifferentfromhisfather.duringthesetwelveyearshestudied"allthe Vedas",whichiscertainlynotthesameasengaginginlearneddiscussions.His fatherdoesnotcomeintothepictureasateacheruntilafterthecompletionofthese twelveyears,andthatbecauseśvetaketuisstillnotabletoanswersomeimportant questions. ItwouldbeamistaketotrytoreadtheabovefourpassagesaboutŚvetaketu andhisfatherasdescriptionsofhistoricalevents. 15 Itismorepromisingtonotice 14 ChU :śvetaketur hā''ruṇeya āsa/ taṃ ha pitovāca: śvetaketo vasa brahmacaryam/ na vai somyāsmatkulīno 'nanūcya brahmabandhur iva bhavatīti// sa ha dvādaśavarṣa upetya caturviṃśativarṣaḥ sarvān vedān adhītya mahāmanā anūcānamānī stabdha eyāya/ taṃ ha pitovāca// śvetaketo yan nu somyedaṃ mahāmanā anūcānamānī stabdho 'si/ uta tam ādeśam aprākṣyaḥ, yenāśrutaṃ śrutaṃ bhavaty amataṃ matam avijñātaṃ vijñātam iti/ kathaṃ nu bhagavaḥ sa ādeśo bhavatīti//tr.hume,modified. 15 SoSöhnen,1981:179.Oguibénine(190:2)remarks:"Itisnoticeablethatafter Śvetaketu'stwelveyears'studyingwithPravāhaṇa,itisagainhisfatherwhohastoperfect

7 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 7 thattheyshareanimportantfeature.ineachofthemśvetaketuispresentedas someonewhohasreceivedanexcellenteducationbutis,inspiteofthis,notableto answersomeessentialquestions.thatistosay,allofthemridicule,inthefigureof Śvetaketu,theclaimsoftraditionallearning. ButwhyisŚvetaketu'sfather,inthreeofthefourpassagesconsidered, presentedashisson'sfirstteacher?hereitisfirsttobenotedthatinallthesethree passagesśvetaketu'sfather,too,ispresentedassomeoneincapableofanswering thequestionsthatpuzzlehisson.infact,itisthe[598]fatherwhoisgoingto receiveinstruction,twicefromjaivalipravāhaṇa,oncefromcitragārgyāyaṇi.if, therefore,thesepassagesridiculeśvetaketu,theydothesametohisfather. 16 Itseemsclear,then,thatŚvetaketuwasremembered,atthetimeof compositionofthesestories,asanexponentofvediclearning,andwasusedas targetbythosewhofeltcriticaltowardsthistypeoflearning.itseemsill-advisedto lookuponthesetendentiousstoriesastruedescriptionsofhistoricalevents. Śvetaketu'srenownasaVedascholarisconfirmedbyothertexts,which, unliketheaboveupaniṣadicpassages,donotridiculehimforthisreason.the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra(ĀpDhS)mentionshimtwice.Thefirstpassagereads: 17 Seers(ṛṣi)arenotbornamongthemodernpeople(avara),becausetherulesof restraintaretransgressed.some,however,becomeseersonaccountoftheir hisson'sscienceaboutthenatureoftheātman(ch.up.vi.1-16)."thisispurefantasy. NotonlydoesChU6.1-16notmentionthenameofPravāhaṇa,thereisnoindication anywhereinvedicliteraturethatśvetaketueverwaspravāhaṇa'spupil.inthepassages studiedaboveitwasśvetaketu'sfatherwhobecamepravāhaṇa'spupil.oguibénine(l.c.) states,withreferencetobau6.2:"...assoonasuddālakarealizesthatnooneofthefive questionsaskedbypravāhaṇahavebeenfitlyansweredbyśvetaketu,itisdecidedthat boththefatherandthesonwillstayasbrahmacārinswithpravāhaṇa."thisisincorrect. BAU6.2.4leavesnodoubtthatonlythefathertakesupstudentship:"[Gautama,i.e.,the father,]said:...butcome!letusgothereandtakestudentship. Goyourself,sir. So Gautamawentforthtowhere[theplace]ofPravāhaṇaJaivaliwas."(sa hovāca:... prehi tu tatra pratītya brahmacaryaṃ vatsyāva iti/ bhavān eva gacchatv iti/ sa ājagāma gautamo yatra pravāhaṇasya jaivaler āsa/;tr.hume.)alsothevedic Index of Names and Subjects containsthesamemistake,stating(macdonellandkeith1912:ii:409s.v.śvetaketu Āruṇeya):"He(i.e.Śvetaketu,JB)wasacontemporaryof,andwasinstructedbythe PañcālakingPravāhaṇaJaivala(sic)". 16 UddālakaappearstoberidiculedinhisownrightatChU5.11ff.;cp.alsoWitzel,1987: 368n.14.(NotintheparallelversionŚB10.6.1,whereUddālaka'sfather,Aruṇa Aupaveśi,figures,butisnotsingledoutforridicule.)Notethatthesamecharactersare madefunofoutsidebrahmanicalliterature,too.śvetaketu(pālisetaketu)isridiculedin thebuddhistsetaketujātaka(no.377),uddālakaintheuddālakajātaka(no.487),the gāthāsofwhichmaybenon-buddhistic(lüders,1914). 17 ĀpDhS :... ṛṣayo 'vareṣu na jāyante niyamātikramāt/ śrutarṣayas tu bhavanti kecit karmaphalaśeṣeṇa punaḥsaṃbhave; yathā śvetaketuḥ/

8 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 8 knowledgeofthescriptures(śrutarṣi)inanewbirth,duetoaresidueofthe fruitsoftheir[former]actions;anexampleisśvetaketu. Thesecondpassageisthefollowing: 18 Śvetaketusays:"onewhowishestostudymorescripturesafterhehasfoundeda householdshouldlivewithdevoted[mind]inthefamilyofateacherfortwo monthseveryyear;forinthiswayistudiedmoreofthescripturesthaninthe precedingtime". Śvetaketu'sopinions,mainlyondetailsofritualanditsinterpretation,arealso recordedinanumberofvedicpassages:kb26.4;śb ; ; ; ;ŚBK ; HeisheredescribedasthesonofUddālaka (auddālaki;śb ; ;śbk ; ),orasthegrandsonof Aruṇa(āruṇeya;ŚB ;5.4.18). [599] ItseemssafetoconcludethatŚvetaketuwasrememberedforhisVedic learning.whenlatertheneedwasfelt,withinthebrahmanicaltradition,tocriticize Vediclearning,ortopointtoitslimitations,thiswasdoneintheformofstoriesin whichśvetaketuwasunabletoanswersomeimportantquestions. 3. Thereis,ontheotherhand,noreasontodoubtthattheopinionsand quotationsdirectlyascribedtośvetaketudidindeed,inthisorsimilarform,belong tothehistoricalpersonofthatname.thisraisesthequestionwhetherthetextsthat mentiontheseopinionsorcontainsuchquotations,areforthatreasoncloserintime tośvetaketu,andthereforeolder,thanthetextswhichtellthestoriesinwhich Śvetaketuisembarrassed. Thisisnotnecessarilyalwaysthecase.Itisconceivablethatthewordsand opinionsofśvetaketuwerestillfaithfullypreservedbysomeatatimewhenhehad becomealegendaryfigureforothers.itisnone-the-lessnoteworthythatthe ĀpDhS,inthefirstpassagecitedabove,explicitlycallsŚvetaketuamodern (avara)seer.thisisallthemorenoteworthysincethebau,aswehaveseen, consideredhimoneofthepeopleofyore(pūrva). ThecharacterizationofŚvetaketuas modern intheāpdhshaspuzzled scholarsformorethanacentury.eggeling(1882:xli)commentedthat 18 ĀpDhS :niveśe vṛtte saṃvatsare saṃvatsare dvau dvau māsau samāhita ācāryakule vased bhūyaḥ śrutam icchan iti śvetaketuḥ/ etena hy ahaṃ yogena bhūyaḥ pūrvasmāt kālāc chrutam akurvīti/

9 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 9 "Āpastamba,bythisremark,paysnoverygreatcomplimenttotheinspiredtextsof hisownschool,sincearuṇaaupaveśi,thegrandfatherofśvetaketuāruṇeya,is twicereferredtointhetaittirīya-saṃhitā".whateggelingfailstosay,isthat AruṇaAupaveśiistwicereferredtoinabrāhmaṇaportionoftheTS( ; 4.5.1).Yetthesebrāhmaṇaportions,asIhavearguedelsewhere(1991:97),maybe considerablyyoungerthanthemantras,andmaynotyethavebeenknownto Pāṇini. Thisisnottheplacetoenterintoadetaileddiscussionofalltheindications inthebauandchuthatmighthaveabearingontheiragerelativetoothertexts. Mostoftheseindicationsallowinanycaseofvariousinterpretations;rarelydo theyconstituteincontrovertibleevidenceforonepositionorforanother.ityet seemsworththeefforttocallattentiontothesamefourfoldclassificationof virtuouswaysoflifefoundbothinthechu(2.23.1)andintheāpdhs,and nowhereelse.thisidenticalclassification whichisstudiedinanother publication 19 stronglysuggeststhatthesetwo[600]texts,orportionsoftexts, werenotfarremovedintimefromeachother.itseemswisetotreatthedates usuallyaccordedtovedicandrelatedliteraturewithmuchcaution. 20 Theconclusionstobedrawnfromtheaboveobservationsarethefollowing:The Upaniṣadpassagesconsideredconstitutenoevidencethattheupanayanawasever limitedtothemerepronouncementofsomewords.nordotheysupporttheview thatatanyperiodoftimethefatheralwaystaughttheson. References Bronkhorst;Johannes(1989):"L'indianismeetlespréjugésoccidentaux."Études de Lettres(RevuedelaFacultédeslettres,UniversitédeLausanne)(1989) pp Bronkhorst,Johannes(1991):"PāṇiniandtheVedareconsidered."Pāṇinian Studies.ProfessorS.D.JoshiFelicitationVolume.Ed.byMadhavM. DeshpandeandSarojaBhate.CenterforSouthandSoutheastAsianStudies, UniversityofMichigan.(MichiganPapersonSouthandSoutheastAsia,no. 37.)Pp Bronkhorst,Johannes(1993):The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism.Bern:Peter Lang.(SchweizerAsiatischeStudien/EtudesAsiatiquessuisses, Monographien/Monographies,13.) 19 Bronkhorst1993: SeeBronkhorst,1989.

10 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 10 Caland,W.(ed.)(1926):The Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa in the Kāṇvīya Recension.Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass Eggeling,Julius(tr.)( ):The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa, according to the Text of the Mādhyandina School.5vols.Reprint.Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass (SacredBooksoftheEast,vol.XII,XXVI,XLI,XLIII,XLIV.) Hartman,C.G.(1966):Emphasizing and Connecting Particles in the Thirteen Principal Upaniṣads.Helsinki:SuomalainenTiedeakatemia.(Annales AcademiaeScientiarumFennicae,Ser.B,Tom.143,2.) Hume,RobertErnest(tr.)(1931):The Thirteen Principal Upanishads.Second edition,revised.oxforduniversitypress Kane,PandurangVaman(1974):History of Dharmaśāstra.Vol.II,PartI.Second edition.poona:bhandarkarorientalresearchinstitute.(government OrientalSeriesClassB,No.6) [601] Limaye,V.P.,andVadekar,R.D.(ed.)(1958):Eighteen Principal Upaniṣads.Vol. I.(UpaniṣadictextwithparallelsfromextantVedicliterature,exegeticaland grammaticalnotes.)poona:vaidikasaṃśodhanamaṇala. Lüders,Heinrich(1914):"Setuketu."Philologica Indica(Ausgewähltekleine Schriften).Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.1940.Pp (= Festschrift Windisch,1914,pp ) Macdonell,ArthurAnthony,andKeith,ArthurBerriedale(1912):Vedic Index of Names and Subjects.2vols.Delhi:MotilalBanarsidass Mitra,RajendraLal(ed.)(1972):Gopath Brahmana (of Atharva-Veda).Delhi: IndologicalBookHouse. Oguibénine,Boris(1990):Three Studies in Vedic and Indo-European Religion and Linguistics.Poona:BhandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute.(Post-graduate andresearchdepartmentseriesno.33.professorp.d.gunememorial Lectures,FourthSeries.) Renou,L.(1978):Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad.Paris:Adrien-Maisonneuve. Ruben,Walter(1928):"ÜberdieDebattenindenaltenUpaniṣad's."Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 83, Schmidt,Hanns-Peter(1987):Some Women's Rites and Rights in the Veda.Poona: BhandarkarOrientalResearchInstitute.(Post-graduateandResearch DepartmentSeries,29;ProfessorP.D.GuneMemorialLectures,Second series.) Söhnen,Renate(1981):"DieEinleitungsgeschichtederBelehrungdesUddālaka Aruṇi.EinVergleichderdreiFassungenKauṣU1.1,ChU5.3undBĀU "Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik7, Witzel,Michael(1987):"Thecaseoftheshatteredhead."Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik13/14, Abbreviations ĀpDhS Āpastamba Dharmasūtra,ed.Bühler BAU Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad=LimayeandVadekar,1958: ChU Chāndogya Upaniṣad=LimayeandVadekar,1958: GB Gopatha Brāhmaṇa=Mitra,1972. KB Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa KU Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad=LimayeandVadekar,1958: ŚB Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa

11 Śvetaketu and the upanayana 11 ŚBK Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa(Kāṇvīyarecension)=Caland,1926.