nies put on by others who know their secret meanings. There are kings who
can pose questions that the Brahmans cannot answer, and kings who are
teachers. None of this is surprising in view of the political realities of the
expanding states. Many Upanishads have the theme that Brahmans should not
be too proud to learn new doctrines, even in their old age, or from outsiders.
Many sages are named in the Upanishads, but none who is uniformly depicted
as dominant. Uddalaka Aruni is described several times, sometimes as ignorant,
sometimes as wise.^13 Yajñavalkya wins debates in the Brihadaranyaka Upani-
shad, but so does the king of Banaras. No one founds a notable intergenera-
tional school of followers.
The main questions discussed within Brahmanical circles are to explain the
meaning of ceremonies and to name the gods who are behind them. This
continues the main theme of the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, the explication
of liturgies. But in the Upanishadic circles and among the shramanas, the gods
begin to be downgraded or interpreted in an etymological sense, and the
favorite question now shifts to a more abstract level: to list the elements out
of which the world is composed or created. There are many different lists. In
the Upanishads, the elements include sun or fire; the person in the right or the
left eye; sight, smell, and other senses; earth; water; air/breath (treated either
as one element or as two); ether/space; food; power; force; name or form; and
so on. Such lists typically mix physical and psychological categories. Often,
long lists of elements are all accepted; in other accounts there are creation
stories which begin with one of these elements, or sometimes with “nothing”
taken as an element, then going on to generate the rest of the list. Sometimes
the cosmology is dualistic, sometimes extremely pluralistic.
Many Upanishadic texts compile contradictory positions. When specific
debates are described, argument does not usually involve finding logical con-
tradictions in opposing doctrines. The favorite style of debate is to pose a series
of questions until the other cannot answer. “What is the origin of that?” “X.”
“What is the origin of X?” “Y.” And so on. No one in the Upanishads sees
this as an infinite regress. Generally the account ends with the interlocutor
ceasing to question. Sometimes the questioner is told to stop “lest your head
should fall off.”^14 The argument that the ultimate is inexpressible is made only
occasionally (primarily in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, e.g., 4.2.4; 6.1); the
Advaita-style distinction-transcending mysticism later attributed to the Upan-
ishads is far from dominant. Instead what we find are contests of rhetorical
impressiveness, in which a debate is won by asserting one’s primal element
with the highest degree of confidence. Given the extreme variety of elements
mentioned, it is apparent that the rhetoric triumphant on one occasion does
not deter rivals elsewhere.
Some elements are named repeatedly. One complex is fire, sun, or light. A
External and Internal Politics: India • 197