जनकं ह वैदेहं याज्ञवल्क्यो जगाम । सम् एनेन वदिष्य इति । अथ ह यज् जनकश् च वैदेहो याज्ञवल्क्यश् चाग्निहोत्रे समूदाते । तस्मै ह याज्ञवल्क्यो वरं ददौ । स ह कामप्रश्नम् एव वव्रे । तं हास्मै ददौ । तं ह सम्राड् एव पूर्वः पप्रच्छ
janakaṃ ha vaidehaṃ yājñavalkyo jagāma | sam enena vadiṣya iti | atha ha yaj janakaś ca vaideho yājñavalkyaś cāgnihotre samūdāte | tasmai ha yājñavalkyo varaṃ dadau | sa ha kāmapraśnam eva vavre | taṃ hāsmai dadau | taṃ ha samrāḍ eva pūrvaḥ papraccha
Devanagari rendered by HREEM from the edition's roman (IAST) text; the IAST is the edition's own.
Ya^wavalkya came to Canaka Vaideha, and he did not mean to speak with him. But when formerly together form the historical groundwork of the Upanishads. Ganaka Vaideha and Yagffavalkya are leading characters in the Brfhada- rarayaka-upanishad, and whenever they meet they seem to converse quite freely, though each retains his own character, and Y &gna,- valkya honours Ganaka as king quite as much as Ganaka honours Yfig-ffavalkya as a Brahmaraa. Now in our chapter we read that Yagffavalkya did not wish to enter on a discussion, but that (kanaka was the first to address him (purvam papraM/^a). This was evidently considered not quite correct, and an explanation is given, that Ganaka took this liberty because on a former occasion Ya^ma- valkya 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, ‘ Ya^riavalky a 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.S'ahkara and Dvivedaganga, though the latter alludes to the other pada/ivMeda, 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 Gan aka and Ya^ffavalkya 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 Yag-fiavalkya is forced to enter on a discussion against his will, but actually occurs in a former chapter. In Gatap. Br. XI,,,10, we read: tasmai ha Yagffavalkyo varaw dadau; sa hova/£a, kama- [15] M l6 kanaka Vaideha and Yi^avalkya had a disputation on the Agnihotra, Y&j^avalkya had granted him a boon, and he chose (for a boon) that he might be free to ask him any question he liked. Y&.gna.~ valkya granted it, and thus the King was the first to ask him a question.
Translated by F. Max MüllerFrom an unproofread scan of the printed edition; spelling and line breaks may carry OCR errors.