Abstract This article presents a new approach to defining the Āraṇyakas as a textual collection based on representations of textual engagement rather than through linguistic analysis. Noting that the Āraṇyakas’ diversity has diverted attention from the question of whether they can be regarded as a coherent collection, this essay firstly returns to fundamental questions of where and why challenges have arisen in the modern interpretation of the Āraṇyakas and of what can be retrieved of the Āraṇyakas’ self-representation. By comparing modern approaches to those taken by the Gr̥hyasūtras, secondly, it examines the way these representatives of another late-Vedic textual tradition negotiated the Āraṇyakas’ diversity through consistencies in practice, leading to a critical differentiation between typical Vedic study and the study of esoterica (rahasya). Thirdly, it turns to a close examination of the Āraṇyakas’ own representations of the restrictions placed on their recitation. This point to the intellectual coherence that textuality and the ritual construction of identity bring to the restrictions that most broadly define the Āraṇyakas as a collection, and indicates that the anticipation and handling of texts, as recognised in their self-representations and teachings, can contribute significantly to the Āraṇyakas’ scholarly interpretation.
Stephanie Majcher (Wed,) studied this question.