Yajnavalkya | |
|---|---|
 Yajnavalkya teachesBrahma Vidya to KingJanaka | |
| Personal life | |
| Born | Fifth day during the waxing phase of moon in Phalgun Hindu month |
| Home town | Jagban,Madhubani district,Bihar |
| Spouse | Maitreyi, Katyayani |
| Region | Mithila region[1] |
| Notable idea(s) | Neti neti |
| Honors | Rishi |
| Religious life | |
| Religion | Hinduism |
| Religious career | |
Disciples | |
Influenced by | |
Yajnavalkya orYagyavalkya (Sanskrit:याज्ञवल्क्य,IAST:Yājñavalkya) is aHindu Vedic sage prominently mentioned in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad (c. 700 BCE) andTattiriya Upanishad.[2][3][4][5] Yajnavalkya proposes and debatesmetaphysical questions about the nature of existence, consciousness and impermanence, and expounds theepistemic doctrine ofneti neti ("not this, not this") to discover theuniversal Self andĀtman.[6] Texts attributed to him include theYajnavalkya Smriti,Yoga Yajnavalkya and some texts of theVedanta school.[7][8] He is also mentioned in theMahabharata as well as variousPuranas,Brahmanas andAranyakas.[7][9][10]
The name Yajnavalkya is derived fromyajna, which connotes ritual.[2]
Yajnavalkya was a pupil of Vaisampayana and the compiler of theShukla Yajurveda Samhita.[11] Yajnavalkya was the pupil ofUddālaka Āruṇi, whom he defeated in debate.[12]
Within both theSukla Yajur Veda and theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, he is depicted as being blunt, provocative and sarcastic.[13] In the first verse of theYajnavalkya Smriti, Yajnavalkya is described as the "yogesvara: meaning "the king of yogis."[14]
Yajnavalkya plays a central position in a debate known asBahudakshina Yajna hosted byKing Janaka inMithila, Videha, which is in the Southern Nepal near Janakpur, where Yajnavalkya defeats philosophers from all around the country.[15] The debate ended withGargi, a female scholar and one of the nine gems of King Janaka’s court, clearly asserting Yajnavalkya as the most superior brahmin of them all.[16][17]
In theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, a set of dialogues portrays Yajnavalkya as having two wives,Maitreyi and Katyayani.[18] Maitreyi, as opposed to Katyayani, was more intrigued to gain spiritual knowledge.[17] Maitreyi was known as a brahmavadini, a discusser of Brahman.[19] Katyayani is merely described as "striprajna," which translates to "woman-like knowledge;" this can be interpreted as one who is well-versed in traditionally females roles.[19] While Yajnavalkya and Katyayani lived in contented domesticity, Maitreyi studied metaphysics and engaged in theological dialogues with her husband in addition to "making self-inquiries of introspection."[18][20] In contrast to theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, the epicMahabharata states Maitreyi is a young beauty who is an Advaita scholar but never marries.[21]
Scharfstein considers Yajnavalkya to be one of theearliest philosophers inrecorded history.[4] Yajnavalkya is credited by Witzel for coining the termAdvaita (non-duality of Atman and Brahman).[22] The ideas attributed to him for renunciation of worldly attachments have been important to Hindusannyasa traditions.[10]
Yajnavalkya is associated with several major ancient texts in Sanskrit, namely theShukla Yajurveda, theShatapatha Brahmana, theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, theTaittiriya Upanishad, thedharma sastra namedYājñavalkya Smṛti,Vriddha Yajnavalkya, andBrihad Yajnavalkya.[7] He is also mentioned in theMahabharata, Puranas,[9][23] as well as in ancientJainism texts such as theIsibhasiyaim.[24] In the Jainism text Isibhasiyaim, the sage Yajnavalkya is also known asJannavakka.[25]
Yajnavalkya is referenced within theTaittiriya Upanishad.[26] Once, the guru Vaisampayana got angry with Yajnavalkya, who was one of his leading disciples.[26] He demanded that Yajnavalkya give back all of his knowledge he had learned from him. With such instructions, Yajnavalkya vomited all of the knowledge.[26] The guru then instructed his other disciples to take the form of partridges (i.e., taittiriya birds) and consume what was regurgitated.[26] This story is why the Upanishad was named the Taittiriya Upanishad.[26] The story is meant to show Yajnavalkya’s genius.[26] Yajnavalkya was also said to have taken the guru’s knowledge and to have added his own insight.[26] Seeing such knowledge, the guru was pleased and instructed his other disciples to learn from Yajnavalkya.[26] A student is encouraged to be active for a thirst of knowledge like Taittiriya birds through this metaphor.[26]
TheBrihadaranyaka Upanishad is dated at c. 700 BCE.[5][27] TheBrihadaranyaka Upanishad is known for highlighting Yajnavalkya’s magnetic personality, focusing on his self-confidence.[17]
Yajnavalkya plays a central position within theBrihadaranyaka Upanisad, which is a part of theSukla Yajur Veda.[15] The scripture details one of the most famous debates in Hindu texts in the presence of King Janaka in Mithila, Videha, which is in the east of India, where Yajnavalkya defeats philosophers from all around the country.[28][15]
In the first story of theBrihadaranyak Upanisad, King Janaka hosts a sacrifice known asBahudakshina Yajna, where he is willing to donate one thousand cows with gold horns to the best brahmin called asBrahmistha.[17] Yajnavalkya immediately orders his disciple Samasrava to take the cows to his home. This causes an uproar in the palace amongst the other sages, led byAsvala, who wondered why Yajnavalkya proclaimed himself as the greatest.[17] Yajnavalkya responds saying that he does not claim himself to be the greatestBrahmistha and whoever the greatest Brahmistha is should indeed be honoured. Yajnavalkya says he merely just wanted the cows.[17] This leads to a philosophical debate amongst the sages, in which Yajnavalkya defeats each opponent who faces him by rightly answering their questions.[17] Some of the key participants of the debate includeAsvala,Uddalaka Aruni,Bhujyu,Sakalya,Artabhaga,Ushasta,Kahola and others, many who are well known within other Hindu literature.[17]
Gargi later appears in two sections of the debate in sections 3.6 and 3.8 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanisad. Gargi was a female scholar and she was one of the nine gems of King Janaka’s court.[19] In 3.6, Gargi successively asks about what is the support or cause of different elements in the world, setting up a hierarchical ordering of the world.[19] Gargi finally asks about the support ofBrahman. Yajnavalkya responds, "Do not, O Gargi, question too much, lest your head should fall off. You are questioning too much about a deity whom we should not ask too much."[16]
Yajnavalkya threatens Gargi not to ask what is beyond Brahman.[19] Gargi becomes silent. Yajnavalkya intended to explain that one cannot question who is the support of that which is the support of everything.[19] Yajnavalkya’s threat is not produced out coercion to halt the asking of complex questions, but to end a discussion that had become finite, which Gargi had not realized yet.[19]
In 3.8, Gargi asks a final series of questions to Yajnavalkya proclaiming that if he can answer these questions, no other brahmin could beat him in this debate.[19] This time, it is seen that Gargi’s rhetoric has shifted; rather than asking questions impetuously or over-eagerly like that in 3.6, Gargi’s questioning becomes more pointed and focused at reaching the pinnacle of the debate through a final test.[19] She first asks, "That which is above the sky, that which is below earth, that which is between the sky and earth, and that which people call the past, present, and future – [what is the support of this all]?"[19] Yajnavalkya responds by saying that the support of this is space.[19] Gargi then asks what is the support of space. Yajnavalkya responds by discussing the metaphysical element known as Akshar (Brihadaryanka Upanishad 3.8.8-9), or that which is imperishable.[19][29] Yajnavalkya says, "This imperishable, Gargi, is the seer but isn’t seen; is the hearer, but isn’t heard; is the thinker, but isn’t thought of; is the perceiver, but isn’t perceived. Other than this, there is no seer. Other than this, there is no hearer. Other than this, there is no thinker. Other than this, there is no perceiver."[19]
Gargi’s scholarship is depicted through the fact that she is the first person in the entire debate to discuss the concept of Brahman.[19] The debate ends when Gargi, a female scholar, clearly asserts Yajnavalkya as the most superior of them all.[17]
In the fourth chapter of theBrihadaranyaka Upanisad, Yajnavalkya decides to renounce and leave his family.[19] At that time, Yajnavalkya’s wife, Maitreyi, inquires about the concept of the soul to Yajnavalkya.[19] Maitreiyi, was also very wise and scholarly.[30] She had once asked Yajnavalkya if she would become immortal with all the wealth in the world, in which Yajnavalkya responded with a denial. She then preaches, “"What should I do with that by which I do not become immortal?"[30]
TheBrihadaranyaka Upanisad is one of the first texts to depict women in religious debate.[19] Both Gargi and Maitreyi discuss the deepest spiritual topics of theBrihadaranyaka Upanisad, namely about Brahman and the atman, showing their knowledge and curiosity.[19]
Yajnavalkya was the seer of who received theShukla Yajurveda from the Divine.[15] Thus, he is known as the founder of the Sukla Yujurveda tradition.[15] Yajnavalkya himself mentions, “Anyone who desires to master yoga should know the Aranyaka that I received from the sun as well as the yoga treatise that I proclaimed.” (Yajnavalkya Smriti 3.110).[15]
TheYagnavalkya Smriti provides instructions to people of all walks of life, including brahmins.[31] It is written as a discourse from Yajnavalka to his sagely disciples about the laws or dharmas of society.[15] The scripture is broken into three sections discussing: (1) achara (i.e., behavior), (2) vyavahara (i.e., legal procedure), and (3) prayascita (i.e., atonement).[32] In the second section, Yagnavalkya breaks down the entire court process into four steps: plaint, plea, evidence and verdict.[15] In the third section, Yajnavalkya claims that through prayascita, the soul and the world are pleased. (Yajnavalkya Smriti 3.20).[26]
TheYajnavalkya Smriti is often comparable to a priorly written dharma sastra, theManu Smriti.[33] Both the Manu Smriti andYajnavalkya Smriti are considered the ultimate sources of Hindu Law, however, Yagnavalkya’s smriti was considered more authoritative than that of Manu’s.[31] Although both works are similar, Yajnavalkya places less emphasis on rigidity and more focus on practicality.[11] Yajnavalkya’s smriti is also more precise and organized than that of Manu’s. The British also considered theYajnavalkya Smriti the basis of what they called “the Hindu Law.”[15]
TheYajnavalkya Smriti became even more well-known through a commentary written on it by Vijnaneshvara called theMitakshara in the mid-twelfth century.[15]
TheYoga Yajnavalkya is a commentary by Yajnavalkya on the knowledge of Yoga.[11]
The actual author ofYoga Yajnavalkya text was probably someone who lived many centuries after the Vedic sage Yajnavalkya.[34] Ian Whicher, a professor of Religion at the University of Manitoba, states that the author ofYoga Yajnavalkya may be an ancient Yajnavalkya, but this Yajnavalkya is not to be confused with the Vedic-era Yajnavalkya "who is revered in Hinduism forBrihadaranyaka Upanishad".[35]
According toVishwanath Narayan Mandlik, these references to Yajnavalkya in other texts, in addition to the eponymousYoga Yajnavalkya, may be two different sages with the same name.[9]
One of the early expositions ofkarma and rebirth theories appears in the discussions of Yajnavalkya.[36]
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;
And here they say that a person consists of desires,
and as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6,[37]
Max Muller andPaul Deussen, in their respective translations, describe the Upanishad's view of "Soul, Self" and "free, liberated state of existence" as, "[Self] is imperishable, for he cannot perish; he is unattached, for he does not attach himself; unfettered, he does not suffer, he does not fail. He is beyond good and evil, and neither what he has done, nor what he has omitted to do, affects him. (...) He therefore who knows it [reached self-realization], becomes quiet, subdued, satisfied, patient, and collected. He sees self in Self, sees all as Self. Evil does not overcome him, he overcomes all evil. Evil does not burn him, he burns all evil. Free from evil, free from spots, free from doubt, he became Atman-Brâhmana; this is the Brahma-world, O King, thus spoke Yajnavalkya."[38][39]
The section 4.3 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad is attributed to Yajnavalkya. It has a dialogue betweenJanaka and Yajnavalkya exploring the nature of the Atman in different states of consciousness and existence, including wakefulness, dream, deep sleep, death, migration, and final liberation. It discusses the premises ofmoksha (liberation, freedom), and provides some of its most studied hymns. Paul Deussen calls it, "unique in its richness and warmth of presentation", with profoundness that retains its full worth in modern times.[40]
When asked byKing Janaka,"What is the light of man?" he replies, "The sun, O King; for, having the sun alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns." Then the king asks, "When the sun sets, what is the light of man?" He replies, "The moon indeed is his light; for, having the moon alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns." Then the king asks, "When the sun has set, O Yajnavalkya, and the moon has set, what is the light of man ?" He replies, "Fire indeed is his light; for, having fire alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns." Then the king asks, "When the sun has set, O Yajnavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, what is then the light of man?" He replies, "Sound indeed is his light; for, having sound alone for his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns. Therefore, O King, when one cannot see even one's own hand, yet when a sound is raised, one goes towards it." Then the king asks, "When the sun has set, O Yajnaavalkya, and the moon has set, and the fire is gone out, and the sound hushed, what is then the light of man?" He replies, "The Self indeed is his light; for, having the Self alone as his light, man sits, moves about, does his work, and returns."[41]
He describes the self by a series of negations and says it is not, not (neti, neti) - not graspable, not destructible, not attached, not disturbed by anything good or bad done by himself. He then says, he who knows this truth remains "controlled, at peace, patient and full of faith" and "everyone comes to be his self" and "he becomes the self of everyone"[42][43]
Yajnavlkya believed that dreams are active projections of the self. To him, this is evidence that dreaming shares the creative nature of Reality in itself.[44]
The Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue in theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad states that love is driven by "love for oneself (ātman),"[45] and discusses the nature of Atman and Brahman and theirunity,[46] which forms the core of laterAdvaita philosophy.[47] The dialogue has survived in two manuscriptrecensions from theMadhyamdina andKanvaVedic schools. Although they have significant literary differences, they share the same philosophical theme.[48]
This dialogue appears in several Hindu texts; the earliest is in chapter 2.4 – and modified in chapter 4.5 – of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad, one of the principal and oldestUpanishads.[49][50] Adi Shankara, a scholar of the influentialAdvaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy, wrote in hisBrihadaranyakopanishad bhashya that the purpose of the Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue in chapter 2.4 of theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad is to highlight the importance of the knowledge of Atman and Brahman, and to understand their oneness.[51][52] According to Shankara, the dialogue suggests renunciation is prescribed in theSruti (vedic texts of Hinduism), as a means to knowledge of the Brahman and Atman.[53] He adds, that the pursuit of self-knowledge is considered important in theSruti because the Maitreyi dialogue is repeated in chapter 4.5 as a "logical finale" to the discussion of Brahman in the Upanishad.[54]
Concluding his dialogue on the "inner self", or soul, Yajnavalkaya tells Maitreyi:[49]
One should indeed see, hear, understand and meditate over the Self, O Maitreyi;
indeed, he who has seen, heard, reflected and understood the Self – by him alone the whole world comes to be known.
— Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5b[55]
In Yajnavalkya Smriti, Yajnavalkya emphasizes the plurality of dharma, drawing from multiple sources including the Vedas, recollections, righteous conduct, self-satisfaction, and desire rooted in right intention. He introduces the idea that fulfilling desires with the right intention is part of dharma, a departure from previous texts. Yajnavalkya emphasizes the significance of gift-giving (dana) and yoga in dharma, considering them central practices. He suggests that those who understand the self hold superior knowledge of dharma. Yajnavalkya categorizes dharma into three divisions, covering everyday life, royal conduct, and extraordinary circumstances. He recognizes that not all dharma originates from Vedic sources; some are derived from worldly customs or enforced by rulers.[56]
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2025 (link)
| Philosophy |
|  | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texts |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Deities |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Practices |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Related | |||||||||||||||||||
