^161:1 The introduction to this Brahmana has a very peculiar interest, as showing the close coherence of the different portions which together form the historical groundwork of the Upanishads. Ganaka Vaideha and Yagnavalkya are leading characters in the Brihadaranyaka-upanishad, and whenever they meet they seem to converse quite freely, though each retains his own character, and Yagnavalkya honours Ganaka as king quite as much as Ganaka honours Yagnavalkya as a Brahmana. Now in our chapter we read that Yagnavalkya did not wish to enter on a discussion, but that Ganaka was the first to address him (purvam paprakkha). This was evidently considered not quite correct, and an explanation is given, that Ganaka took this liberty because on a former occasion Yagnavalkya had granted him permission to address questions to him, whenever he liked. It might be objected that such an explanation looks very much like an after-thought, and we find indeed that in India itself some of the later commentators tried to avoid the difficulty by dividing the words sa mene na vadishya iti, into sam enena vadishya iti, so that we should have to translate, 'Yagnavalkya came to Ganaka intending to speak with him.' (See Dvivedaganga's Comm. p. 1141.) This is, no doubt, a very ingenious conjecture, which might well rouse the envy of European scholars. But it is no more. The accents decide nothing, because they are changed by different writers, according to their different views of what the Pada text ought to be. What made me prefer the reading which is supported by Sankara and Dvivedaganga, though the latter alludes to the other padakkheda, is that the tmesis, sam enena vadishye, does not occur again, while sa mene is a common phrase. But the most interesting point, as I remarked before, is that this former disputation between Ganaka and Yagnavalkya and the permission granted to the King to ask any question he liked, is not a mere invention to account for the apparent rudeness by which Yagnavalkya is forced to enter on a discussion against his will, but actually occurs in a former chapter. In Satap. Br. XI, 6, 2, 10, we read: tasmai ha Yagnavalkyo varam dadau; sa hovaka, kamaprasna eva me tvayi Yagnavalkyasad iti, tato brahma Ganaka asa. This would show that Ganaka was considered almost like a Brahmana, or at all events enjoyed certain privileges which were supposed to belong to the first caste only. See, for a different view, Deussen, Vedanta, p. 203; Regnaud (Materiaux pour servir a l'histoire de la philosophie de l'Inde), Errata; and Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. lxxiii.

^162:1 Read kimgyotir as a Bahuvrihi. Purusha is difficult to translate. It means man, but also the true essence of man, the soul, as we should say, or something more abstract still, the person, as I generally translate it, though a person beyond the Ego.

^163:1 Samipyalakshana saptami, Dvivedaganga. See Brih. Up. IV, 4, 22.