Yajiiavalkya’s Riddle (BAU 3.9.28K)' Steven E. Lindquist Following Sakalya's rather graphic defeat at the conclusion of the brahmodya of Brhadaranyaka chapter 3, Yajfiavalkya challenges the assembled Brahmins with a riddle regarding the nature of birth and death (3.9.28). Preceding this riddle, Yajftavalkya not only dares any priest to challenge him, but also states that they can do s0 collectively if they so wish. Now Yajfiavalkya said, “Distinguished Brahmins, let whoever of you who desires question me or let all of you question me. Let whomever desires me to question him or let me question all of you."? The all-inclusiveness of this statement implies that not only has Yajfiavalkya’s superiority been established (both as the questioner and the questioned), but it is also a means by which the other priests are forced to accept his superiority over them, individually and collectively. Having seen Sakalya’s head shatter apart by challenging Yajfiavalkya’s knowledge ‘of the sacrifice, immortality, and the universe, the Brahmins do not rise to his challenge. Though none accept, YAjfiavalkya questions them with a riddle that stands at the conclusion of this chapter as something of an enigma, where the Brahmins stand mute. It is likely that this riddle was originally from a separate source as the immediately preceding te ha brahmand na dadkrsuk ("Those very Brahmins did not dare") is an exact verbal echo of the Brahmins’ response when the challenge was put forth by Janaka at the start of our text (3.1.2). This phrase may have, at.some historical point, served to close the narrative after the final and most graphic defeat of the most reputed Brahmin. Thus, the original literary ring may have been that the Brahmins did not dare rise to Janaka’s challenge at the beginning and lay claim to be the brahmis tha (“most learned in brahman") nor did they challenge Yajiiavalkya’s claim of the same at the end. At least according to the received texts, however, the debate is not quite over. YAjfiavalkya challenges the assembled Brahmins, though they had declined his offer, with a final riddle on the nature of death and rebirth. This riddle, in itself and in the context of the larger narrative, has been the subject of some debate both because the riddle does not appear to make sense in itself and if it does (such as in Horsch 1966) it does not make sense in the larger narrative (see Brereton 1997). Thus, this paper is concerned with not only understanding the riddle and-¢what I argue is) its possibleEES ‘Yajfiavalkya’s Riddle (BAU 3.9.28K) 193 answer, but also how this riddle fits into. the larger Yajiiavalkya narrative. I suggest that not only have modern scholars been confused about the meaning of this riddle, but that the early commentators equally had difficulty reconciling its meaning. This is, I argue, because the riddle itself became confused during the period of its composition and subsequent elaboration. In support of this, I posit what the original riddle was, how it was added to and manipulated, and where and how the original meaning of the riddle became obscured.* The riddle of BAU(K) 3.9.28 reads: So Yajiiavalkya questioned them with these verses. dn haitaih Slokaih papraccha | (1)® As is a mighty tree, yathd vrkso vanaspatis so truly is man. tathaiva puruso ‘mrsd | His body hairs are leaves, tasya lomani parnani his skin the outer bark, tvag asyotpatika bahih | | (2) Blood flowing from his skin, tvaca evasya rudhiram Sap flowing from [the tree’s] skin. prasyandi tvaca utpatah | From the pricked skin {blood} comes, tasmat tad dtrundt praiti as sap from a-cut tree. raso vrksad ivdhatat | | (3) His flesh is the sapwood, marisany asya Sakarani the tendons are the fibers ....that’s certain. kindtam snava tat sthiram || His bones are the heartwood, asthiny antarato darini his marrow made equal to [its) marrow majja majjopama krta || (ie., pith). (4a) A tree when cut down grows yad vrkso vrkno rohati (4b) again from the root in newer form. malan navatarah punah | (4c) A mortal man who is cut down by death, martyah svin mrtyuné yrknah (4d) from what root will he grow? kasman malat prarohati | | (Sa) Do not say “from semen,” retasa iti ma vocata (5b) that is produced from him while he is alive. _jvatas tat prajayate | (Sc) Just as a tree sprouts from a seed, dhanaruha iva vai vrkso (Sd) having died,” [a person?] is born immediately. ‘#jasd pretya sambhavah || (6a) When torn up with its root, yat samiilam dvrheyurProblems in Vedic and Sanskrit Literature (6b) a tree will not be born again. vrksam na punar dbhavet | (6c) A mortal man who is cut down by death, martyah svin mrtyund vrknah (6d) from what root will he grow? kasman millat prarohati || (Ja) He is born, [but] not born.* jata eva na jdyate (7>) Who would give birth to him again? ko nv enath janayet punah | (8a) Perception, bliss, brahman, vijfidnam dnanda, brahma (8b) That is the gift of the giver, the highest goal, ratir datuh pardyanam (8c) for the one who knows this stands firm.? tisthamanasya —_ tadvida \428\| The metaphor of a human being and a tree is quite straight-forward in the beginning. Verses 1-3 are particularly detailed in their comparison of a man to a tree in an attempt to show the physical similarities between the two.” In 4, though, an apparent contradiction in the metaphor is put forth as a question: a tree regrows from its root, but from what root (mila) does a man grow if he is cut down by death (mrtyund)? 4a parallels 4c and 4b parallels 4d. This can be simplified as: (4a) tree cut down (presumably by an axe) = (4c) man cut down by death (4b) grows again from the root = (4d) grows again from what root? ‘Thus, at this point, the riddle is asking whether there is a resolution to the possible contradiction: a tree has an obvious, tangible root that facilitates regrowth, but. what about a man cut down by death? itt Verse 5 qualifies the riddle, excluding the answer of "semen" (retas) as the "root" which facilitates rebirth, because the bearer of the semen produces it “while he is alive" (jivatah). Verse 5 is, in essence, arguing against another prevalent, older notion that a man is born again through his progeny and therefore attains immortality through procreation (as the children are supposed to carry out certain death-rites that will allow the father to pass through the heavenly worlds)." Further, the use of the word jivatah suggests an implicit argument against the idea that the dtman could somehow exist in ‘two places simultaneously — the man is "living" when the seed is produced, so his “self" could not also be the one being reborn. Sed, which has caused some confusion, is dealt with below. 6 is a rephrasing of 4, focusing not on the root (as 4b and the interrogative correlate 4d), but the lack thereof."? That 6 is intended as a rephrasing of 4 is clear not only from the structural parallel, but also from the exact phrase being repeated twice: martyah svin mrtyund vrknah kasmén millat prarohati (4cd and 6cd). 6a and 6b takes the comparison of the death of a man and that of a tree one-step further than 4: —4-——— YAjfiavalkya’s Riddle (BAU 3.9.28K) 195 a tree torn up with its root (samiilam dvrheyuh) is a death without an apparent basis to facilitate rebirth. Implicit-in the following question (6d: from what root will he grow?) is whether man’s fate is like that of “uprootedness” rather than just “being cut down.” Note that 6a/6c and 6b/6d are not exact correlates as are 4b and 4d ... man in 6c is still “cut down by death” (mytyund vrknah) and is not said to be “torn up with its root” (samilam dvrheyuh) as the tree in 6a. (6a) tree is torn up with its root ~ (6c) man cut down by death (6b) not born again ~ (6d) from what root will he grow? The metaphoric symmetry of 4 is ruptured in 6, as the exact parallel would have been the man being “uprooted” by death in 6c. Line 6d is also not a simple interrogative modification of 6b (as 4d is of 4b). Up until this point there is a progressive qualifying of the initial riddle: (1) 4d asks the question; (2) 5 qualifies the question; (3) 6ab again qualifies the question and (4) 6d repeats the question in the exact form. The riddle, so far, can be simplified as: Question, 4d: what is man’s root? Qualification, Sab: answer is not semen Sed: unclear, though I suggest a comparison of semen and seed, qualifying Sab (see below). Qualification, 6ab: A tree can be uprooted, Question repeated, 6d: but what is man’s root? Jjata eva na jayate Tab -has created the most interpretive difficulties, both among scholars and traditional commentators attempting to make sense of this riddle. The fundamental problem appears to be that 7a, on a surface reading, denies the premise of the riddle. Literally, jata eva na jdyate ko nv enarh janayet punah means: “He is born, [but] not born. Who would give birth to him again?” Most scholars have felt inclined to read punah into the first phrase and translate as: “Once he’s born, he can’t be born again” (Olivelle 1998: 103) or “Though born, he is not born again” (Roebuck 2000: 70). Translating in such a manner makes it appear more strongly that rebirth (the question from 4) has been denied outright within: the riddle itself. Horsch (1966: 159), perhaps the most ardent supporter of this reading, has argued that the text purports an Anihilationstheorie (ucchedavada) — that is, there is no “root” to facilitate man’s rebirth. The problem of interpreting 7a is also apparent within the tradition itself. How196 Problems in Vedic and Sanskrit Literature do believers of a karma/reincarnation theory, which was prevalent by the time of the earliest commentaries, reconcile the apparent denial of such a theory in an authoritative (Sruti) text? Safikara, for example, utilizes a creative, if obviously fallacious, interpre- tive strategy. He takes the initial jaa eva as an opponent's possible view and the remaining part of the phrase (na jayate) as a response. Madhavananda (1997: 393) translates this passage in light of the commentary as: “If you think he is ever born, I say, no, he is again born.” In this fashion, an apparently negative statement has been made to say exactly its opposite. ‘That this is a questionable historical (vs. theological) argument is quite clear. If the compilers expected the text to be read as Sankara intends, it certainly would have been composed differently to avoid such confusion. An interpretive move such as Sankara’s is a strained attempt to make a negative statement which seems contradictoty to later tradition into an orthodox one. Sankara is right, however, in noticing that there is a problem with this passage, but not only because it is against tradition as he understands it. This passage would also be counter to the rather obvious intent of the rest of the Yajfiavalkyakanda — whose stated purpose from the beginning is to discuss death, birth into other worlds, and immortality. Further, as 1 will argue, Safikara was correct in contending that this passage was not intended to deny rebirth — but for reasons different than he himself put forth. Hf one were to follow Horsch’s view (1966: 159), this whole poem represents an Anihilationstheorie — an annihilation of man at death, comparable to the uproot- edness of a tree. Horsch sees a direct parallel with 6a and 6c, while 6d is simply a rhetorical question: from what will a man grow again? The answer is apparently “from nothing,” because there exists no principle/root from which a man uprooted by death could be born again. The problems with this interpretation have been most recently pointed out by Brereton (1997: 14, n. 48) and an attempt to find a karma/reincarnation theory in this passage has been carried out by Hock (2002: 284ff). Most importantly, as Brereton succinctly pointed out, such an Anihilationstheorie would contradict much of what Yajfiavalkya has said, both in this section and throughout the text so far: 3.1.10 discusses worlds won by proper sacrifice; 3.2.13 discusses action and its correlate reward (“good by good action, bad by bad”);!? 3.3.2 states that a “knower” averts repeated death (punarmrtyu); and the discussion of 3.7 focusing on the immortal (amrtah).'* A further problem in Horsch’s interpretation also arises: why would an elaborate riddle, culminating a discussion principally concerned with other worlds and immortality, deny its own premise? The riddle, then, would not be much of a riddleYajfiavalkya’s Riddle (BAU 3.9.28K) 197 if the answer is explicitly stated within it.'' Adding more complication to Horsch’s theory is the fact that BAU(M) places this line much earlier: 7ab is in the position of Sed, and Scd becomes 6ab and the rest shifts forward accordingly. If this line really was meant to be the answer to the riddle (i.e., there is no root of any kind) then why would it appear so early in BAU(M), making the rest of the riddle unnecessary? It is in BAU(M), I contend, that what appears interpretively difficult in BAU(K) is not so difficult after all. If BAU(M) is read in itself (rather than just as a counter- point to BAU(K)), the apparent problems of K can be seen in a new light. Hock (2002) is the first scholar, as far as I am aware, to deal directly with this passage in the M recension. His attempt at reconciling the meaning of this passage with the rest of the text is based on Vasudeva’s commentary. Hock contrasts what he sees as two fundamentally different understandings of this passage. The first, the supposed. “Western (or western-influenced)” (2002: 284-285) interpretation, reads the passage similar to Horsch: “(But once) born is not born (again).”"? The second, indigenous interpretation (i.e., Vasudeva on BAU(M) 3.9.30-34 = BAU(K) 3.9.28 ) is: “He is (already) born; he is not being born (and in the present case we are asking how somebody dead may be born again).” Hock gives a grammatical rationale for the difference between the two interpretations. He states (285), “Although putting a sentence boundary into the middle of the first half-line may be less natural than the [Western] interpretation, this is not a strong enough argument for rejecting the Indian interpretation...” I would phrase this somewhat differently, not viewing the issue as a “sentence boundary,” but rather as a question of an implied conjunct and which clause is the subordinate clause (jdfa eva or na jdyate). For our purposes the translation difference, put literally, is between “(But) just born [sub. clause], he is not born/being born”'* or “He is just born, (but/and) not born/being born [sub. clause].” Of course, both translations require a conjunct term (“but,” “and,” etc.) and that implied conjunct is debatable. Viewed in this light, for our purposes if not for a larger grammatical argument, there is little difference between the two translations. But the question still remains: what does this phrase mean in the context of the riddle? As was stated earlier, BAU(M) positions 7ab much earlier in the riddle, making Horsch’s interpretation more difficult to reconcile with the rest of the text. In fact, on a close reading, the BAU(M) version allows for a different contextual reading of the_ e_O 198 Problems in Vedic and Sanskrit Literature poem, one that presents a more coherent picture of this passage. and its relation to the j rest of the riddle and BAU chapter 3 as a whole.” It is hete necessary to translate the relevant part of M’s version of the poem (verses 1-3 have been left out as they are irrelevant 10 this argument and the variants are minimal). ” (* marks a shift of line order in relation to K, while underlining marks significant vasiants) (4a) When the tree is cut down, (4b) it grows again from the root in newer form. : (4c) A mortal man who is cut down by death, 1 (4d) from what root will he grow? (Sa) Do not say “from senien,” | (Sb) that ig produced from him while he is alive. (Sc)* He is just born, [but/and] not born/being born. (5d) who would give birth to him again? (6a)* A” tree sprouts from a seed, (6b) Having died, [a person] is born from another. | (6c)* When a tree is torn up® with its root, 6d) it will not be born again. (7a)* A mortal man who is cut down by death, (7b) from what root will he grow? (Jc) Knowledge, bliss, brahman, (7d) That is the gift of the giver, the highest goal. (8) — for the one who knows this stands firm. 1 will first turn to jdta eva na jdyate from K and show how it is not so perplexing in M. In this version, as in 5(K), Sab qualifies the question by excluding one possible answer, semen: (retas), but 7ab(K) is now in position Sed, which allows us to read its intent quite differently. Rather than jata eva na jdyate denying the premise of the riddle (as Horsch argues), Sc here is a further qualification of the initial qualification (“Do not say ‘from semen’”), as is 6. The text is telling us that a person is not being born (presumably from his own semen), because he has already been born, i.e. he is alive, Sed then is,a further explanation of why the exclusion in 5a (semen) is correct.Yajfiavalkya’s Riddle (BAU 3.9.28K) 199 ‘The contrasting verbal forms in this part of the riddle support this interpretation: ‘Jdtah is a past passive participle indicating a completed action while jdyate is a present third person singular indicating an action happening or going to happen. Thus, the verb forms themselves indicate the exclusionary nature of the two clauses. The contrasting nature of these two verbs is further reinforced by the placement of eva. As eva’s primary function is to: emphasize the word that precedes it, here that emphasis is exclusionary -- it is on the completed nature of the past participle.* Viewed in this way, the most proper translation here should be: “he is already (eva) born, [and] not being born.” Supporting this interpretation is a word play in the M recension. As it cannot be reproduced well in English, I shall point it out in the Sanskrit. Sab retasa iti ma vocata jivatas tat prajdyate Sed jata eva na jayate ko nv enam janayet punah What we have here are multiple forms of the verb-root \jan (with one related root “jiv), used in a rather clever play on grammatical forms -- present participle, present indicative (with prefix), a past participle, another present indicative (without prefix), and an optative. In light of what has been argued about the meaning of the passage, these forms seem to support my interpretation: jfvatah indicates the person’s state of being (i.c., alive); prajayate indicates his producing of semen (pra perhaps emphasizing the origin of the semen); jatah as a past passive participle indicates that it is a completed action (he is already born — emphasized by eva) and apparently had little to nothing to do with bringing that event about;?” na jdyate indicates he is not being born (the lack of a prefix perhaps indicates his lack of direct connection with his own origin); janayet is the proper form fora question, perhaps expressing doubt. This. verbal play is lost in BAU(K), as the position of Sed is shifted to 7ab, where other forms of \jan or \jiv do not contextually surround it. Reinterpreting 5ed(K)=6ab(M) As I mentioned earlier, another part of this BAU riddle has caused some difficulty, This difficulty is based on the fact that K includes the particle iva, apparently indicating @ continuation of the tree/man metaphor. K reads: (Sc) Just as a tree sprouts from a seed, (5d) Having died, [a petson?] is born immediately That these two lines do not illicit an obvious comparison has caused interpretive difficulty: how are a matt and a tree being compared here? 5d does not appear to