The Yajnavalkya cycle in the Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad.

• Author: Hock, Hans Henrich
• Position: Critical Essay

INTRODUCTION

ANY ATTEMPT TO TRACE the textual testimony regarding the doctrine of karman and reincarnation in the early Upanisads must sooner or later recognize that there are two, apparently contradictory, traditions. The one that has been discussed more widely is found in Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad (1) (BAU) 6.2, Chandogya Upanisad (ChU) 5.3-10, and Kausitaki (Brahmana) Upanisad (KU) 1. According to this tradition, the doctrine was first proclaimed by ksatriyas to brahmins. Whatever the correct interpretation of the "ksatriya attribution" of these texts, (2) it must be reconciled with the fact that there is another early Upanisadic passage on karman and reincarnation, BAU 4.3-4, which is associated with Yajnavalkya, the brahmistha of brahmins, and which makes no mention of a ksatriya origin of the doctrine.

In trying to evaluate the relative significance of the "ksatriya" and the "brahmin" versions, and the apparent conflict between them, it is important to keep in mind the very different nature of these versions qua texts.

All three of the ksatriya versions are fairly simple, presenting the doctrine as something novel and giving a rather rudimentary outline of the relationship between karman and reincarnation. Moreover, the explicit exposition of the doctrine is more or less tacked on to elements that are evidently derived from Jaiminiya Brahmana 1.45-46 and its continuation in 1.49-50. (3) The Yajnavalkya version, by contrast, presents a much more elaborate discussion that appears to be independent from any specific earlier texts. The fact that it cites a large number of earlier slokas that deal with the doctrine suggests that when this text was composed the doctrine of karman and reincarnation had been established for a considerable time. Moreover, the passage ends in an elaborate sastric argument which further establishes it as a mature text: two purvapaksin theories on karman and reincarnation are refuted by a final siddhantin argument to the effect that release from rebirth only comes through realizing the identity of the self with the ultimate principle.

To this it must be added that BAU 6.2 gives the clear impression of being a khila, an originally non-canonical text incorporated late in the tradition, in the final chapter of BAU which deals with a variety of disjunct topics. (4) Khila status is less certain for the other two ksatriya versions; but the fact that the KU version is found in the first chapter of its text is at least compatible with such a status, because of the well-known tendency to add later material either at the beginning or the end. As for the ChU version, it occurs in the large, later part of the text which, in contrast to the first four chapters, no longer focuses on Samavedic recitation, the sacrifice, or the ritual, but on general esoteric knowledge, and in that sense it can be considered to belong to a later layer of textual tradition. Moreover, in all three cases, the text stands on its own, without further thematic anchoring in the larger context. The Yajnavalkya version, by contrast, is firmly anchored in an extended and central part of the Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad ad that constitutes a deliberate--and elaborate--composition, the "Yajnavalkya Cycle."

It is this Yajnavalkya Cycle, its nature and the evidence for recognizing it as a composition within the Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad, that constitutes the focus of the present paper. A more detailed analysis of the ksatriya versions, while likewise interesting, is beyond the scope of this paper, (5) as is the chronological and "ideological" relationship between the Yajnavalkya and ksatriya versions. In future investigations of the latter relationship, however, I hope the arguments of this paper will prove useful and/or challenging.

THE YAJNAVALKYA CYCLE

The idea that passages of the Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad connected with the great usage Yajnavalkya may constitute a deliberate composition, rather than simply an episodic series of stories, is not entirely new. In a paper presented at the 1989 International Vedic Workshop at Harvard University and eventually published in 1997, Brereton has presented a detailed and persuasive analysis of BAU 3, Yajnavalkya's disputations at the court of King Janaka, as a ring composition, an extensive expansion on a simple story (Satapatha Brahmana 11.6.3) which serves as its frame. (0)6 Brereton's account of this passage as "framed" by the simpler story of Satapatha Brahmana 11.6.3 is based on robust evidence and, as he acknowledges, has been anticipated by other scholars. The evidence for ring composition is, as Brereton admits, rather more subtle. Brereton finds a "thematic ring" in the fact that the first questions posed to Yajnavalkya in the course of the disputations concern a person's fate after death and that, after a se ries of questions about the path to immortality and the ultimate principle, Yajnavalkya returns in the final passage to the theme of the fate after death. He finds a complementary, "more formal," ring in the fact that early in the cycle, Yajnavalkya expounds on eight grahas and eight antigrahas and then, in the final passage, returns to the number "eight" in reference to "foundations," "divinities," and "persons."

Applying similar criteria of analysis, it is possible to argue that the passage studied by Brereton, the "Court Cycle," constitutes part of a much larger text, which is even more clearly a ring composition in nature. At the same time, it is possible that this larger composition constitutes a later expansion of the Court Cycle. In fact, as we will see, recognizing this textual layering makes it possible to shed some light on a major difference in interpreting the concluding verses of the Court Cycle, with one tradition reading the passage as suggesting that Yajnavalkya does not accept the doctrine of karman and reincarnation, and the other tradition reading it as indicating exactly the opposite.

THE CORE OF THE CYCLE

Let us begin with the core of the Yajnavalkya Cycle: BAU 3--the Court Cycle--and BAU 4--the "Dialogue Cycle."

Since, as noted, Brereton has presented an excellent analysis and discussion of the Court Cycle, a detailed analysis will not be necessary. Suffice it to mention that the context for this cycle is a contest by King Janaka of Videha to determine who is the most learned among the brahmins assembled at his court, the prize being a thousand cows with a hundred gold pieces attached to the horns of each (BAU 3.1). Yajnavalkya asks his pupil to drive away the cows, but is prevented from doing so and has to defend his preeminence against other assembled brahmins by defeating them in disputations on the nature of brahman (BAU 3.1-9). The final episode (BAU 3.9) ends dramatically. After successfully answering all the questions of his challenger, Vidagdha Sakalya, Yajnavalkya in turn challenges Sakalya to answer his questions about the nature of the ultimate principle. When Sakalya cannot give a satisfactory answer, his head flies apart and his bones are taken away by robbers. (7) Yajnavalkya challenges the other brahmins to take him on again and when nobody dares to, he concludes with a series of slokas (see the epilogue below).

What is significant for the compositional structure of the entire Yajnavalkya Cycle, including the structure of its core, is the occurrence of the following passage in the concluding paragraph of the final disputation (BAU 3.9.28), with its highly advaita formula neti neti "(it is) not (this), not (this)" and its further negative definitions of the ultimate principle as, in effect, beyond human comprehension and cognition. As we will see, this theme--the "Advaita Refrain"--recurs as a kind of punctuation mark at or near the culmination of several later passages within the larger cycle. Moreover, it helps to affirm the overall advaita perspective of the entire Yajnavalkya Cycle.

sa esa neti nety atma / agrhyo na hi grhyate 'siryo na hi siryate 'sango 'sito na sajyate na vyathate (BAU 3.9.26)

This atman is "not (this), not (this)"; not comprehensible, for it is not comprehended; not destructible, for it is not destroyed; not attached, not fettered, (for) it is not (being) attached, it does not suffer.

The second part of the Yajnavalkya Core, the Dialogue Cycle (BAU 4.1-2), consists of discussions just between Yajnavalkya and King Janaka. Since these discussions are one-on-one, without the presence of other scholars, the ideas presented in this section can be considered to be more esoteric and also to reflect more accurately the ultimate views of Yajnavalkya (or perhaps rather of his school).

Compared to the dramatic ending of the...