This article argues that it is necessary to recognise Sections II.1 and II.3 of the Bṛhad Āraṇyaka Upaniṣad as one discourse. Since nobody among traditional or modern scholars has paid attention to this structure, many problems have been neither seen nor solved. This article does so, and further, exposes textual problems embedded there and analyses them. In this very discourse the expression néti néti is introduced as an ādeśa. Therefore, this article investigates the meaning and function of this expression there. This article also muses on possible implications of the entire discourse of Gārgya and Ajātaśatru.
This paper begins with the identification and analysis of some earliest textual references to Pāśupata ascetics, their tenets, and behaviours. Then it inquires into the genesis of Pāśupatism by analysing some critical passages of the Pāśupatasūtra, going beyond Kauṇḍinya’s Bhāṣya. It analyses relevant passages from the Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa, Mahābhārata, and Brahmāṇḍapurāṇa, and shows how the Vedic govrata or anaḍudvrata has been first adopted and then adapted in Pāśupata tradition, and how Indra, a deity associated with the original vow, comes to be depicted as the primaeval observer of the newly defined pāśupatavrata. It argues further that the conception of the celestial bull as a divinity and the idea of imitating the bull’s behaviour to please that divinity are at the heart of the Pāśupata praxis, in all stages of its development. This paper also argues in favour of recognising “Megasthenes’ Heracles” as Indra, and the Sibae people mentioned in his report as the Śibis.