It is, however, unlikely that the scribe should have committed any mistake regarding the number of adhyayas.,
* Literally ‘ together with the rahasya (saiahasyam),’ &c.
> History of Indian Literature, p. 107 seq.
INTRODUCTION. Xxxi
especially in some of the later books where his professional connection with Ganaka, king of Videha, and his skill in theological disputations are favourite topics. As regards the earlier portion of the work, however, it is a remarkable fact that, while in the first five books YAagiiavalkya’s opinion is frequently recorded as authoritative !, he is not once mentioned in the four succeeding k4zdas (6-9). The teacher whose opinion is most frequently referred to in these books, is SAndilya. This disagreement in respect of doctrinal authorities, coupled with unmistakable differences?, stylistic as well as geographical and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four kavdas are chiefly concerned, is the agnizayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar. For reasons urged by Professor Weber, it would appear not improbable that this part of the ceremonial was specially cultivated in the north-western districts; and since the geographical allusions in these four ka#das chiefly point to that part of India, while those of the other books refer almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna, we may infer from this that the fire-ritual, adopted by the Vagasaneyins at the time of the first redaction of their texts—that is, of the first nine kAmdas, as far as the Brahmava is concerned—had been settled in the north-west of India.
Here, however, we meet with another difficulty. The tenth book, or Agnirahasya, deals with the same subject as the preceding four kazdas; and here also SAndilya figures as the chief authority, while no mention is made of YAgiiavalkya. Moreover, at the end of that k4sda, a list of teachers is given in which the transmission of the sacrificial science (either in its entirety, or only as regards the fire-ritual) is traced from a teacher Tura Kavasheya —who is said to have received it from the god Pragdpati— downwards, through two intermediate teachers, to Sandi-
1 See, however, Sat. Br. I], §, 1, 2-3, where Yagfavalkya’s opinion is referred to as being contrary to the Rig-veda. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, p. 266 seq,
XXXii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
Br. I], §, 1, 2-3, where Yagfavalkya’s opinion is referred to as being contrary to the Rig-veda. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, p. 266 seq,
XXXii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
lya; and from thence, through six intermediate teachers, to Samgivi-putra. Tura KAvasheya is referred to in another passage of the tenth kazda (X, 6, 5,9) as having built a fire-altar! to the gods at K4rott; and in the Aitareya-brahmaza he is mentioned as the high-priest who officiated at the inauguration-ceremony of king Ganamegaya Parikshita, renowned in epic legend. From these indications we may, it seems to me, take it for certain that Tura K4vasheya and Sandilya (the latter of whom is also held in high repute by the Kandogas or SAman-priests) were regarded by the Vagasaneyins as the chief arrangers, if not the originators, of the fire-ritual such as it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the Satapatha, if their identification with Patafgali’s ‘shash¢ipatha’ be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work. Now this combination of the fire-ritual in kazdas 6-9 with the complete exposition of the Haviryagiia and Soma-sacrifice, contained in the first five books, would seem to presuppose some kind of compromise between the two schools recognising Yagfavalkya and S4zdilya respectively as their chief authority. What, then, are we to understand to be the exact relations between the later kAndas, especially the tenth, and the earlier portion of the work? We do not, and could not, meet with such a term as ‘ katvarimsat-patha, or work of forty paths, as applying to the last five kazdas of the Satapatha; their nature was too well understood for that, as we see from the passage of the Mahabharata, above referred to. The list of teachers at the end of the tenth kaxda shows no sign of any amalgamation of the two schools up to the time of Samgiviputra, the last teacher mentioned in it: with one exception, it belongs exclusively to the Sazdilya school. It contains, however, an additional remark to the effect that from Samgivi-putra downward the list is ‘identical,’—viz. with some other list. Now this remark can only refer to the vamsa given at the end of the last kazda. In this list the
' The author of this passage would seem to imply, though he does not exactly express it, that this was the first fire-altar built in the proper way.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIli
with some other list. Now this remark can only refer to the vamsa given at the end of the last kazda. In this list the
' The author of this passage would seem to imply, though he does not exactly express it, that this was the first fire-altar built in the proper way.
INTRODUCTION. XXXIli
transmission of the science of the Adhvaryus is traced—as far as human agency is concerned—from Kasyapa Naidhruvi, through nine teachers, to Yagfavalkya, and thence, through four other teachers, to SAmgivi-putra!, The only name which this list has in common with the former one, previous to Samgivi-putra, is that of Kusri. According to the former list, he was the teacher of Sazdilya, who, in his turn, taught Vatsya?. But since in the same book (X, 5, 5, 1) he is referred to as Vagasravasa, and in the list at the end of the Satapatha he is set down as the pupil of Vaga- Sravas, the same teacher is evidently referred to in both lists; and if we can at all rely on the authenticity of these vamsas, we should have to infer from this coincidence, that there was already some connection between the two schools prior to both Yagfavalkya and SAndilya.
The two lines of teachers meet once more in the name of Samgivi-putra. In the later list the succession of teachers
1 I here give, side by side, the lists, in inverted order, from Samgtvi-putra upwards. For the complete lists, see Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 438 seq.
40. SAmgtvi-putra. (40) Samgtvi-putra. Follow 39 names formed by the addition (Same as elsewhere.)
of ‘putra’ to the mother’s name, 2 In the Brihad-franyaka (Kanva) VI, 5, 4 the order is Kusri, Vatsya, Sandilya. (13] c .
XXXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
41. Karsakeyt-putra. (41) Mandfkayani.
40. SAmgtvi-putra. (40) Samgtvi-putra. Follow 39 names formed by the addition (Same as elsewhere.)
of ‘putra’ to the mother’s name, 2 In the Brihad-franyaka (Kanva) VI, 5, 4 the order is Kusri, Vatsya, Sandilya. (13] c .
XXXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
is then continued by forty-nine more names—all of them formed by the addition of ‘putra’ (son) to the mother’s name—which, it appears, we are to supply in the former list. According to Professor Max Miiller?, ‘Samgivi-putra seems to have united two lines of teachers.’ That this must have been the case, cannot be doubted, provided, of course, that the vamsas are trustworthy”. Nay, I should even be inclined to assign to the time of SAmgivi-putra the final adjustment of the ritual and its dogmatic exposition such as we find them in the Shash¢ipatha (and the first eighteen adhyayas of the Vagasaneyi-samhita), and consequently the first redaction of that part of the Satapatha. Not that all the matter contained in the latter part of the work must necessarily be more modern. There can, on the contrary, be little doubt that much of it is quite as old as anything in the earlier books; and of the MadhukAzda, which forms part of the Brzhad-4razyaka in the last book, we know at any rate, from a reference to the Madhu-brahmaza in the fourth kAazda, that some such tract existed at that time. But such matter as, for some reason or other, was not included in the systematic exposition of the ceremonial, would naturally be in a less settled condition and more liable to modifications and additions.
According to the two lists, Samgivi-putra is removed from Sandilya by six intermediate teachers, the three older’ of whom are referred to in kandas 6-9; and from Yagiia-
1 History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 437.
3 Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. II, 201 note, expresses his conviction that ‘the vamsas are, on the whole, quite authentic; though they do not of course belong to the text, but are later additions ; judging from the great number of names, some vamsas must have been added at a very late time.’ It seems to me, however, that if the vamsas are at all authentic—and I see no reason for doubt as far as the two lists above referred to are concerned—we have rather to assume that the lists were kept from early times and gradually added to. On the other hand, little can be made of the two vamsas at the end of the Madhu and Yagiavalkiya kandas. They look rather like attempts—and very unsuccessful ones—at throwing several independent lists into one.
3 Viz., Vatsya IX, 5, 1, 62; Vamakaksha4yana VII, 1, 2,11; M4&hitthi VI, 2, 2,10; VIII, 6,1, 16 seq.; IX, 5,1,57. Not mentioned are Kautsa, Mandavya, and Mand(kfyani. A M&ndavya occurs in the twelfth book of the Mah4bharata, as a contemporary of Ganaka and Yagfiavalkya.
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
3 Viz., Vatsya IX, 5, 1, 62; Vamakaksha4yana VII, 1, 2,11; M4&hitthi VI, 2, 2,10; VIII, 6,1, 16 seq.; IX, 5,1,57. Not mentioned are Kautsa, Mandavya, and Mand(kfyani. A M&ndavya occurs in the twelfth book of the Mah4bharata, as a contemporary of Ganaka and Yagfiavalkya.
INTRODUCTION. XXXV
valkya by four intermediate teachers, the first of whom (Asuri)! is repeatedly quoted in the second (and once each in the first, fourth, and fourteenth) kazdas. Although these indications do not, of course, supply more than a Zerminus a quo for the final settlement of this part of the work, they would nevertheless seem to favour the supposition that the combination of the fire-ritual with the sacrificial system cannot have taken place at a time far removed from that of Samgivi-putra. The custom of forming metronymics by means of ‘putra’ is of some interest. It first shows itself in the predecessor of SAmgivi-putra’s teacher im the Yagitavalkya line, and continues from thence down to the very end of the vamsa. Unfortunately, however, we have no means of ascertaining whether this custom had already been commonly practised, in certain localities, before that time, or whether, as seems to me more probable, it was a fashion of recent date. If the latter alternative could be proved, it might help to settle the chronological relations between YAgfavalkya and PAzini, since it would appear from Pan. IV, 1, 159? (and VI, 1, 13), that the great grammarian was well acquainted, not only with the practice of forming metronymics of this kind, but also with that of forming patronymics from such metronymics.
The relative date of Pazini and Yagfavalkya has been discussed more than once by Sanskrit scholars®; but no agreement has as yet been come to on what Goldstiicker justly called ‘one of the most important problems of Sanskrit literature.’ The chief difficulty of this problem lies in the ambiguity of K4ty4yana’s well-known varttika to Paz. IV, 3,105. According to Pazini’s rule the names
1 He is also the Rishi of Vag. S. III, 37.
* This rule, which applies to the people of the north, is not explained in the Mahabhashya. The K4sika Vritti gives the patronymics of Gargtputra and Vatstputra, both of whom occur in our vamsa. It is worthy of remark that Kavasha Ailfsha, who is mentioned in Ait. Br. II, 19, and to whom the hymns Rig-veda X, 30-34 are ascribed, is called Kavasha Ailishiputra in the Kashaka 25,7. Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. III, pp. 459, 157, 485.
3 See especially Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 360 seq.; Goldstiicker, Panini, p. 132 seq. ; Weber, Ind. Stud. V, 65 seq. ; XIII, 443; Biihler, Sacred-Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note.
Cc 2
XXXVI SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. III, pp. 459, 157, 485.
3 See especially Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 360 seq.; Goldstiicker, Panini, p. 132 seq. ; Weber, Ind. Stud. V, 65 seq. ; XIII, 443; Biihler, Sacred-Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note.
Cc 2
XXXVI SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
of Brahmazas and Kalpas proclaimed by old (sages) are formed by the addition of the affix in (to the sages’ names). As instances of Brahmazas, the names of which are formed in this way, the K4sik4 Vritti gives Bhallavinad (proclaimed by Bhallu), SAtyayaninaz, Aitareyizak. In accordance with this rule the texts of the White Yagus are called Vagasaneyinak. This name does not, however, occur in any of P&zini’s rules, but follows only from the word ‘vagasaneya’ being included in the gaza ‘saunakadi’ to Paz. IV, 3, 106; and since we have no evidence as to whether any of the words in a gavza except the first really belong to PAwini, it must remain doubtful whether or not he knew of the existence of the school known by that name. KAaty4yana’s varttika runs thus: ‘Among the Brahmazas and Kalpas proclaimed by the old, there is an exception in regard to Yagfavalkya and others, on account of contemporaneousness: hence (Y4gviavalkya’s Brahmavas are called, not Y4gfavalkinaZ, but) Yagiavalkani Brahmavdni; Saulabhani B.’ The question, then, is, Does K4tyayana mean to say that the Brahmazas proclaimed by Y4giavalkya do not fall under this rule, because he was contemporary with Pazini,—and therefore not an old sage in the sense of the rule,—or, that those works should have been excepted by P4zini from his rule, because they are of the same age as those (old) Brahmazas to which the rule applies? The former alternative was the one generally accepted, until the late Professor Goldstiicker made known the text of Patajigali’s and Kaiyaéa’s comments! on this varttika. He showed that Kaiyada, at least, clearly interprets it in the sense that Pavini should have excepted works like the Y4gfiavalk4ni Brahmazani, since they, too (api), are of the same age as the Satyayanina# and others. The Mah4bh4shya, on the other hand, is not quite so explicit. It merely says that the Yagviavalk4ni Brahmazani &c. ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstiicker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiyata. This view was, however, controverted by
1 Panini, p. 138.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi
ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstiicker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiyata. This view was, however, controverted by
1 Panini, p. 138.
INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi
Professor Weber in his review of Goldstiicker’s ‘ PAmini.’ The interpretation of the varttika adopted in the K4sika Vritti—according to which Pazini’s rule does not apply to those works, because Yagfavalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of Pazini’s rule—is likewise rejected by him, since in that case K4ty4yana’s exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiyaéa’s interpretation, Katy4yana’s additional remark ‘on account of contemporaneousness’ would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, proposes, in the passage of the Mahabhashya, to take ‘api’ in the sense of ‘even,’ and to interpret the passage thus!: ‘Among the Brahmamwas and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to Yagfavalkya &c., because the Brahmazas and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with Pazini himself).’ This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata&gali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Yagfavalkani Brahmavz4ni and similar works, though ascribed to old authorities, are in reality modern productions; or—if we may venture to express it in somewhat different words—Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to works which, in point of fact, are no exception at all. Now, if this be the correct interpretation, I can only say this— that, had Patafigali been anxious to conceal his real meaning, he could scarcely have done so more effectually than by choosing words which, at first sight, look as clear as day. Professor Biihler*, who has recently touched upon this controversy, sides with Kaiyafa and Goldstiicker; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I see no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstiicker has drawn from this varttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between Pavini and K4tydyana, that authors, whom Katy4yana considered as far older than Paxini, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of
1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note.
XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of
1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note.
XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
Katy4yana, regarding the age of Pazini, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstiicker’s argument lies in his identification of the YAgfavalkani Brahmaz4ni with the Brahmama of the Vagasaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that P4zini was perfectly well acquainted with the term ‘V4gasaneyinas,’ but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules. Surely, if his silence could possibly have been construed into an act of negligence, Katy4yana, who was so intimately connected with the White Yagus that, on Goldstiicker’s own showing, he composed the Vagasaneyi-pratisakhya before he wrote his varttikas, would have been the ‘first to notice it. The Yagiiavalkani Brahmav4ni, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the‘ Tittiriza prokta/ slokaz!,’ which,in Patajigali’s time, were excluded from the term ‘ Taittiriy4Z’ as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittirily4razyaka. Both kinds of tracts probably belong to the last floating materials of Advaryu tradition, which had not yet been incorporated with the canon. Whether or not the Yagfiavalkani BrahmavAni form part of the text of the Satapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain uncertain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Yagavalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the Kazva recension, we might perhaps be in a better position for forming an opinion on this subject ; for if that version should really turn out to consist of 104 adhydyas, four of these adhydyas may have to be considered as a later interpolation; and the fact might have become obscured in the Madhyandina recension by a different division of the text?. But, however this may
1 Mahabhashya on Pan. IV, 2, 66; 3,104.
* Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the third or uddhari-kAnda, consisting of 124 kandikas, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Madhyandina text. We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or
INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
be, it appears to me quite intelligible why such portions should have been considered as of equal age to the body of the work; in fact they would probably go back to about the same time as some of the earlier portions ; only that, owing to a longer state of uncertain transmission, they may have been more liable to changes and additions. If these tracts are not mentioned by P4zini, it may be an accidental omission on his part, or he may not have been aware of their existence, for geographical or other reasons: we can hardly expect Pazini to have been so intimately acquainted with the Yagus texts as Ka&ty4yana. As regards the dates of Katyayana and Patafigali, accept with Professor Biihler and others, as by far the most probable, the fourth and the middle of the second century B.C. respectively.
Under the title of Vagasaneyaka, the Satapatha-brahmana is quoted once in Latyadyana’s Srauta-sitra IV, 12, 12; but I have not been able to find the passage either in the M&dhyandina text or in that part of the Kava text which I have hitherto had at my disposal, viz. kazdas I, II, IV-VII (Kaava). Far more frequently the work is quoted, either as Vagasaneyaka or as Vagasaneyi-brahmaza, by Apastamba, both in his Srauta and his Dharma-sttras. On comparing one of these quotations in the Dharmastras (I, 4,12, 3) with the corresponding passage in the Madhyandina recension, Professor Biithler found that ‘its wording possessed just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differed from the Satapatha-brahmamva in many details.’ From this he naturally inferred that Apastamba probably took his quotations from the Kava recension. Now, although I have not been able to compare this particular passage with the Kava text?, I have done so regarding a number of other passages quoted from Apastamba in Karka’s commentary on the KaAtiya-Srauta-sdtra. The result was that in no single case did Apastamba’s quotations agree with the corresponding passages in the Kazva, fifth Kava), on the other hand, the Kaavas have 8, instead of 6 adhydyas; and in the fifth kanda (or sixth and seventh Kanvas) they have together 7, instead of 5 adhyAyas.
1 Biihler, loc. cit. p.xxv. 2 The passage occurs in MAdhyandina XI, 5,6, 3.
xl SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
1 Biihler, loc. cit. p.xxv. 2 The passage occurs in MAdhyandina XI, 5,6, 3.
xl SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
any more than they did with those of the Madhyandina text!, In some cases they came nearer to the one text, in others to the other. To several quotations, again, I could find nothing corresponding in either text. Now, supposing the quotations, as given by Karka, to be on the whole correct, there seem to be only two ways of accounting for these discrepancies, viz. either Apastamba did not mean to quote the passages literally, but only to give the substance of them ; or he had a third recension of the Satapatha before him. While some passages would seem to be in favour of the former alternative, others would scarcely admit of this explanation. This question, however, requires further investigation, before it can be definitely settled. In connection with this question the fact will also have to be taken into account, that Katy4yana, in composing his Vagasaneyi-pratisakhya, seems to have had before him a different recension of the Samhita, from those of the Kazva and MAadhyandina schools?. Professor Biihler appears to be inclined to place Apastamba somewhere about the fifth century B.C.; and though probably he himself does not consider the reasons he adduces as conclusive, they seem at any rate to show that that writer cannot have lived later than the third century B.c. From
1 T select a few passages :—
1. Ap. (K&ty.VII, 1, 36). pragvamsasya madhyamam sthtinaragam 4labhya gapatiti vagasaneyakam. Madhy. III, 1, 1,11. sa pirvirdhyam sthindragam abhipadyaitad yagur Aha. Kanva IV,1,1,7. sa yasau varshishthd pirvardhe sdlasthn4 bhavati tim , abhipadya gapati. a. Ap. (Katy. V, 3, 6). atrapi mesham ta meshfm ha karotiti vagasaneyakam, Madbhy. II, 5, 2,15. tatrapi mesham ka meshtm ka kurvanti. Kanva I, 5,1,13. mesham ka va api meshtm da kurvanti.
3. Ap. (Katy. VIL, a, 34). (vritrasya kaninikastti traikakudenafiganendikte) yadi traikadukam nadhigakkhed yenaiva kenfaganendigiti vagasaneyakam. MAdby. III, 1, 3,12. (traikadukam bhavati; yatra vi indro vritram ahams tasya yad akshy Asft tam girim trikakudam akarot....) yadi traikakudam na vinded apy atraikakudam eva syt sam4nt hy evafganasya bandhuté. K4nva IV, 1, 3, 10. (tat traikakudam syat; yatra va indro vritram ahams tasya ha ya kaninakasa yak kakshus tam etam girim kakfra trikakudam; sa yat traikakudam bhavati Aakshushy evaitat kakshur dadhati); yadi traikakudam na vinded api yad eva kiftka syat.
4. Ap. (Katy. VI, 3, 28). dshnishesa pradakshinam siro veshfayata iti vagasaneyakam. Madby. III, 2, 1, 16-17. sa proraute. K4nva IV, 2,1, 11-12. athainam prornoti,—sa prornoti. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 69.
INTRODUCTION. xli
4. Ap. (Katy. VI, 3, 28). dshnishesa pradakshinam siro veshfayata iti vagasaneyakam. Madby. III, 2, 1, 16-17. sa proraute. K4nva IV, 2,1, 11-12. athainam prornoti,—sa prornoti. 3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 69.
INTRODUCTION. xli
the fact that Svetaketu, the son of Udd4laka Aruzi, the reputed teacher (and rival') of Yag#avalkya, is counted by Apastamba among the Avaras or moderns, Dr. Biihler infers that the promulgator of the White Yagus cannot have preceded Apastamba ‘by a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. That the two authors may not have been separated from each other by a longer interval seems likely enough; but, on the other hand, Apastamba, by his remark, pays no very great compliment to the inspired texts of his own school, since Aruza Aupavesi, the grandfather of Svetaketu Arumeya, is twice referred to in the Taittiriya-samhita?.
The geographical and ethnical allusions contained in the Satapatha-brahmamza have been carefully collected by Professor Weber *. With the exception of those in kandas 6-10, as I have already remarked, they point almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna. In the legend about Videgha MAthava‘, and his Purohita Gotama Rahdgaza, tradition seems to have preserved a reminiscence of the eastward spread of Brahmanical civilisation. Among the peoples that occupied those regions, a prominent position is assigned in the Satapatha to the closely-allied Kuru-Paf#alas. The Kurus occupied the districts between the Jumna and Ganges—the socalled Madhyadesa or middle country—and the Pafkalas bordered on them towards the south-east. According to Sat. Br. XIII, 5, 4, 7, the Pat#dlas were in olden times called Krivi; and a tribe of this name is evidently referred to in Rig-veda VIII, 20, 24 ; (22, 12)5,in connection with the rivers Sindhuand Asikni. The Kurus, on the other hand, are not directly referred to in the Rzk ; but a king Kurusravaza, ‘glory of the Kurus,’ and a patron with the epithet Kaurayama are mentioned in the hymns. In Aitar. Br. VIII, 14, the Uttara (northern) Kurus, together with the Uttara-Madras, are said to dwell beyond the Himalaya.
1 See Brih. Ar, 3, 5, where he is defeated by Yag#avalkya in disputation.
* See the present volume, p. 104, with note. It would have been safer to give the name as Videgha Mathava, instead of Mathava the Videgha.
5 See Ludwig, Rig-veda III, p, 205; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 103.
xlii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
From these indications Professor Zimmer infers that, in the times of the hymns, the Kurus and Krivis—whose names evidently are merely variations of the same word—may have lived together in the valleys of Kasmir, on the upper Indus; and he also offers the ingenious conjecture, that we may have to look for the Kuru-Krivis in the twinpeople of the Vaikarzau, mentioned in Rig-veda VII, 18, 11. The names of the principal teachers of the Satapatha mark them as belonging to the land of the Kuru-Pafalas; and as in I, 7, 2, 8, preference is given to a certain sacrificial practice on the ground that it is the one obtaining among these peoples, it seems highly probable that the redaction of the work, or at least of the older portion of it, took place among the Kuru-Pafédlas'. A prince? of Pafkala, Pravahava Gaivali, is mentioned XIV, 9, 1, 1, in connection with Yagfavalkya’s teacher, Uddalaka Aruzi. East of the Madhyadesa, we meet with another confederacy of kindred peoples, of hardly less importance than the Kuru-Pavikalas, at the time of the redaction of the Brahmaza, viz. the Kosala-Videhas. In the legend above referred to they are said to be the descendants of Videgha Mathava, and to be separated from each other by the river Sadanira (either the modern Gazdaki or Karatoy4). The country of the Videhas, the eastern branch of this allied people, corresponding to the modern Tirhut or Puraniya, formed in those days the extreme east of the land of the Aryas. In the later books of the Satapatha, king Ganaka of Videha appears as one of the principal promoters of the Brahmanical religion, and especially as the patron of Yagfavalkya. In XI, 6, 2, 1, Ganaka is repre-
' The passage III, a, 3,15, where the Kuru-Paikdlas are apparently placed in the north—in direct contradiction to XI, 4,1,1, where they are placed in opposition to the Northerners (udt#yas)—seems to go against this supposition. Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 191, tries to get over this difficulty by translating Kurupafsalatra by ‘as among the Kuru-Paikalas,’ instead of ‘among the Kuru- Pankalas;’ so that the meaning of the passage would be that ‘the same language is spoken in the northern region, as among the Kuru-Pafialas.’ Unfortunately, however, the Kanva text of the passage is not favourable to this interpretation. It runs as follows (K. IV, a, 2, 10) :—udtsim pathyay4 svastya vag vai pathya svastis tasmad atrottarahai vag vadatityAhus kurupaisdleshu kurumahivisheshv ity etam hi taya disam pragdnann esha hi tasya cik pragiata.
2 He is styled raganyabandhu in KAandogyop. V, 3, &.
INTRODUCTION. xliti
It runs as follows (K. IV, a, 2, 10) :—udtsim pathyay4 svastya vag vai pathya svastis tasmad atrottarahai vag vadatityAhus kurupaisdleshu kurumahivisheshv ity etam hi taya disam pragdnann esha hi tasya cik pragiata.
2 He is styled raganyabandhu in KAandogyop. V, 3, &.
INTRODUCTION. xliti
sented as meeting, apparently for the first time, with Svetaketu Aruzeya, Somasushma Satyayagii, and Yagiavalkya, while they were travelling (dhavayadbhiz). Probably we are to understand by this that these divines had then come from the west to visit the Videha country. A considerable portion of the Brzhadarazyaka deals with learned disputations which Yagiavalkya was supposed to have _ held at Ganaka’s court with divers sages and with the king himself. In Brih. Ar. II, 1, 1 (and Kaush. Up. IV, 1) Ganaka’s fame as the patron of Brahmanical sages is said to have aroused the jealousy of his contemporary, Agatasatru, king of the Kasis', The name Ganaka is also interesting on account of its being borne likewise by the father of Sita, the wife of Rama. Unfortunately, however, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the two kings are identical. With the legend of the other great epic, the Satapatha offers more points of contact; but on this subject also no definite results have as yet been obtained, it being still doubtful whether the internecine strife between the royal houses of the Kurus and Pa/i#alas which, according to the late Professor Lassen, forms the central fact of the legend of the Mahabhfrata, had not yet taken place at the time of the Satapatha-brahmama, or whether it was already a thing of the past. In the Mahabharata, I, 4723, Pandy, in speaking to his wife Kunti, mentions Svetaketu, the son of the Maharshi Uddalaka, as having lived ‘not long ago¥.’ As regards the two recensions of the Satapatha-brahmavza, this is hardly the place to enter into any detailed discussion of their mutual relations. Nor is my acquaintance with the K4zva text as yet sufficiently extensive to do justice to this important question. I intend, however, to publish before long a number of extracts from several kandas of this recension,—including the text of all the
1 They occupied the country about the modern Benares (KAs!).
3 Dhritarashtra Vaikitravirya, whose sons and nephews form the chief parties of this great feud, is mentioned in the Kashaka 10,6. From this passage—which, unfortunately, is not in a very good condition in the Berlin MS.—it would appear that animosities had then existed between the Kurus and Paikalas. It is doubtful, however, whether this part of the Kassaka is older than the bulk of the Satapatha. See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, 469 seq.
3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. "I, 176.
xliv SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
It is doubtful, however, whether this part of the Kassaka is older than the bulk of the Satapatha. See Weber, Ind. Stud. III, 469 seq.
3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. "I, 176.
xliv SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, legends as well as other portions which seemed to me of special interest—from which Sanskrit scholars will be able to form an opinion regarding the exact nature of the variations between the two versions. In my notes to the present translation of the first two kAsdas, I have considered it desirable occasionally to notice some of the variae lectiones of the Kanva school; it should, however, be understood that these readings have been given solely on the authority of the Oxford MS., for the loan of which I am deeply indebted to the liberality of the Curators of the Bodleian Library. With the aid of the Paris MS., the use of which has also just been kindly granted to me, I hope soon to be able to verify these extracts. For most of the k4zdas, from the fourth! onwards, our materials have been lately enriched by a copy which Mr. Whitley Stokes has had made for Professor Weber from a Benares MS.
The various readings of the K4zva recension of the Vagasaneyi-samhita have been given in Professor Weber’s edition, at the end of each kazda. They may be said to consist either of mere verbal variations or of additional mantras. In regard to these readings the Brahmaza of the same school exhibits a feature which may have an important bearing on the textual criticism of the Samhita. While the Brahmava generally shows the same verbal variations in the sacrificial texts as the Samhitd, it, as a rule, takes no notice whatever of the additional mantras, but agrees in this respect pretty closely with the M4dhyandina text. Indeed, so far as Iam able to judge, the two relations seem to coincide almost entirely, as far as the subject-matter is concerned ; the differences, considerable as they sometimes are, being rather of a grammatical and stylistic nature. Occasional omissions, which I have hitherto noticed 2, may perhaps turn out to be due to the carelessness of scribes. As regards the additional mantras referred to, they may have found their way into the Samhita at the time when the Satras
1 Viz, kandas 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17.
? For instance, the brahmanas MAdhy. I, 4, 3; II, 3,2 and 3; IV, 5,10; 6,8 are wanting in the Oxford MS.; see p. 338, note 3.—In the fourth (fifth Kava) kinda, the K4nvas, on the other hand, have two brahmanas (V, 7,5; 8, 2, the latter of which treats of the adabhya graha, Vag. S. VIII, 47-50) which are not found in the Madhyandina text.
INTRODUCTION. xlv
were composed ; though, it is true, they do not asa rule appear in the KAtiya-sitra, and no other stra of the White Yagus, as far as I know, has hitherto come to light!. On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Madhyandina Samhit42, which are not noticed in the Brahmaza of that school, this question must be left for future investigation.
On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Madhyandina Samhit42, which are not noticed in the Brahmaza of that school, this question must be left for future investigation.
I have already referred to the connection which seems to have existed between the K4zva school of the White Yagus and the redactors of the Rik-samhita. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the Rzk and the K4zva text of the Yagur-veda is the use of the letters 7 and /4 instead of @ and dh used by the MAdhyandinas. Besides, the vzks of the Kazva text generally approach more nearly to the readings of the Rig-veda than those of the other school. Another, even more interesting, feature which the K4azva recension has in common with the Azk, is the constant? employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Samhitaés and Brahmazas generally use the dative; thus the K4azvas read ‘tasy4%’ instead of ‘tasyai’ (M. I, 1, 4, 16); | ‘gayatry4z’ instead of ‘ gdyatryai’ (I, 7,1, 1); ‘pvtthivy4h’ instead of ‘przthivyai’ (I, 2, 5,18); ‘kumbhya bhastray4h’ instead of ‘kumbhyai bhastrayai’ (I, 1, 2, 7); ‘stirvaya vedeh’ instead of ‘stirndyai vedeh’ (IV, 2, 5, 3); ‘dhenohk’ instead of ‘dhenvai’ (III, 1, 2,21), &c. Thus the Kava text is in this respect more in accordance with the Azk-samhita than even the Aitareya-brahmama‘t. Again, the Kazvas seem to form the dative of feminine i-bases in accordance with the usual and older practice of the Xzk; at least I find everywhere ‘Ahutaye’ and ‘guptaye’ (as also in the Atharvan) instead of ‘ahutyai’ and ‘guptyai’ as the Madhyandinas (and Taittiriyas) read’. Of minor points of grammatical xlvi SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
1 Professor Weber thinks that the s(tra of Vaigavapa, of which mention is occasionally made in the commentaries on the Katfya-sitra, may belong to the White Yagus. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Biihler, Sacred Laws, I, p. xxvi, remarks that ‘Kanva is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sfitras of the Kaava school ;’ but I have found no notice of these sQtras anywhere,
* That is, in those adhyayas to which the Braéhmana forms a mnning commentary.
* I have not met with any exception in the kandas hitherto examined.
* See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 428, * See also the form ‘ dhenoh ’ mentioned above.
* I have not met with any exception in the kandas hitherto examined.
* See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 428, * See also the form ‘ dhenoh ’ mentioned above.
xlvi SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
differences may be mentioned the form ‘nililye,’ which | occurs once in the M4dhyandina text (I, 2, 3,1), and is otherwise only found in the Mahabharata ; while the Kanva recension has the periphrastic form (nilay4m #akre), which the MAdhyandina text also offers in the other two cases (I, 6, 4,1; IV,1, 3, 1)in which the word occurs, On the other hand, the Kazvas seem to read invariably ‘ atmani (dha or kri),’ where the MAdhyandinas have ‘4tman,’ which is also (doubtless on metrical grounds) the more usual formation in the Rig-veda4. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, 1, 4, 12 (M.), where the Madhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the KAzvas gives them in the proper order. Though most of these points of difference between the two schools would seem to tell in favour of the higher antiquity of the Kava text, there will always be great difficulty in deciding this question, as it is by no means impossible that these variations are entirely due to different local or family traditions. In favour of the latter alternative one or two other points may be mentioned. The Madhyandina text, as has already been remarked, offers not a few grammatical and other differences between the first five and the succeeding four k4ndas, or, as we may say, between the Yagfavalkya and the SAndilya books of the Shashdipatha. Though I cannot speak with confidence on this point, as I have not yet examined the K4zva text of the Sazdilya kandas, I may refer here to at least two points in which the K4zvas, in the Yag#avalkya portion, agree with the SAxdilya portion of the Madhyandina text, viz. the use of the imperfect (aspardhanta) instead of the perfect (pasprédhire) in the opening clause of legends; and the frequent employment of the particle ‘v4va’ in the place of ‘vai.’
As regards the present translation of the first two kaxdas,
1 Another curious feature of the Kazva text is the frequent insertion of an ‘ity uvika’ in the middle of speeches, much like the colloquial ‘says he.’ As an instance I may adduce K. IV, a, 3, 3 (M. III, a, 3, 5) :—Sa hova#a "ham eva vo yagiiam am(imuham iti hovaka yad eva mayi tanvand iti m4 yag#iad antaragata tenaiva vo yagtiam am(muham iti te mahyam nu bhagam kalpayatety atha vo yaghah prarohishyata iti tatheti hokus, &c. The Kanvas also insert much more frequently an ‘iti’ in the middle of speeches.
INTRODUCTION. xlvii
The Kanvas also insert much more frequently an ‘iti’ in the middle of speeches.
INTRODUCTION. xlvii
I need hardly say that I am fully aware of its shortcomings. My chief endeavour has been to translate as literally as seemed at all compatible with the English idiom. If, in consequence of this, many passages should be found to read somewhat awkwardly, I hope at least that the wish to follow the original as closely as possible, has not rendered them unintelligible. Those who have given any attention to the Brahmanas and the sacrificial system of the Hindus, know how difficult the task is, and how easy it is to commit mistakes regarding the intricate minutiae of the ceremonial. The Brahmamas presuppose a full knowledge of the course of sacrificial performance, and notice only such points as afford an opportunity for dogmatic and symbolic explanations, or seem to call for some authoritative decision to guard them against what were considered as heretical practices. In order to enable the reader to follow the course of the performance with something like completeness, I have supplied in my notes the chief details from KAtyA4yana’s Kalpa-sftras. That not a few of these details did not belong to the sacrificial ceremonial of the Satapatha, but were the result of later development, or of an adaptation of sacrificial practices of other schools, can scarcely be doubted. Dr. Hillebrandt? is of opinion that sacrificial manuals, somewhat similar to the later Prayogas, must have existed as early as the time of the composition of the Brahmamas. In the absence of any direct evidence, speculation on this point can scarcely lead to any definite results. I may say, however, that it seems to me quite sufficient to assume that the performance of sacrifices was taught as a practical art, and that the theoretic instruction, supplied by the Brahmazas, was conveyed orally in connection with such practical performances, That the latter was the case, is sufficiently evident from the constant occurrence in the Brahmavas of demonstrative pronouns and particles of a ‘deictic’ force?
I have occasionally referred to corresponding passages of the Taittiriyas: an exhaustive comparison of the two branches of the Yagur-veda, however interesting this might be, lay outside the scope of my notes. A general view of
1 Das Altindische Neu- und Vollmondsopfer. p. xv. 4 See, for instance, Sat. Br. I, 3, 1, 7; 8,1, 14.
xl viii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
A general view of
1 Das Altindische Neu- und Vollmondsopfer. p. xv. 4 See, for instance, Sat. Br. I, 3, 1, 7; 8,1, 14.
xl viii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
the sacrificial system might be considered desirable in this place; but I have found it necessary to defer this part of my duty as translator to some future opportunity. Those who desire further information on this point, I may refer to Professor Weber’s general survey of Hindu sacrifices, in vols. x and xiii of his Indische Studien. No other scholar has contributed so much to our knowledge of the sacrificial ceremonial of the Hindus. I need hardly say that I have also obtained much useful information from the late Professor Haug’s notes to his translation of the Aitareyabrahmaza, although on many points the practices of modern Srotriyas, on which he chiefly relied, are manifestly at variance with those enjoined by the old ritualistic authorities. For the first kazda, I have also been able to avail myself of Dr. Hillebrandt’s careful exposition of the new and fullmoon sacrifice; and though I had already worked myself through that part of the ritual before the appearance of his treatise, his constant references to the Sdtras of the Black Yagur-veda have been of great assistance to me.
The Brahmazas and Kalpa-satras treat of the so-called Srauta or Vaidik sacrifices, requiring for their performance three sacrificial fires; while the Paka-yagaas, or simple oblations of cooked food prepared on the domestic fire, are dealt with in the Gvthya-sitras. The present volume contains that portion of the Braéhmavza which deals with the Haviryagiias—or offerings of milk, butter, rice, barley, and similar materials—as distinguished from theanimal and Soma sacrifices. The new and full-moon offering being considered as the normal type of an ish/i, or simplest form of a complete sacrificial performance, the place of honour is assigned to it in most texts of the Yagus; only points of difference being generally noted regarding the performance of ish¢is, as parts of subsequent sacrifices. In point of time, the Darsapdrzamasau ought to be preceded—as indeed they are in the Kazva text of the Brahmaza—by the Agnyddhana, or establishment of a sacred fire on the part of a young householder ; and by the Agnihotra, or morning and evening libations.
ZOE LIBR ARS
Va aod
t N ‘JNIVERSITY,
SATAPAT FIRST KANDA.
THE DARSAPURNAMASA-ISH71 or NEW AND FULL-MOON SACRIFICES.
First ApuyAyaA. First BRAHMANA.
A. Tue Vow or ABSTINENCE.
ZOE LIBR ARS
Va aod
t N ‘JNIVERSITY,
SATAPAT FIRST KANDA.
THE DARSAPURNAMASA-ISH71 or NEW AND FULL-MOON SACRIFICES.
First ApuyAyaA. First BRAHMANA.
A. Tue Vow or ABSTINENCE.
Eacu of the two half-monthly sacrifices, the regular performance of which is enjoined on the Brahmazical householder for a period of thirty years from the time of his performance of the ceremony of agny-4dh4na, or setting up of a fire of his own,—according to some authorities even for the rest of his life—usually occupies the greater part of two consecutive days. Whilst the first day— the upavasatha or fast-day—is chiefly taken up with preparatory rites, such as the sweeping and trimming of the fire-places and lighting of the fires; and the formal taking of the vow of abstinence (vrata) by the sacrificer and his wife; the second day is reserved for the main performance of the sacrifice. As to the exact days of the month appointed for these ceremonies, there is some difference of opinion among native authorities, some of them deciding in favour of the last two days of each half of the lunar month, whilst the generality of ritualistic writers consider the first day of the half-month—or the first and sixteenth day of the month respectively—to be the proper time for the main performance. The personal restrictions involved in the householder’s entering on the vrata include chiefly the abstention from certain kinds of food, especially meat, and from other carnal pleasures ; the cutting (optional, according to some) of the beard and hair, except the crest-lock; the sleeping on the ground in one of the chief fire-houses ; and the observance of silence during the ceremonies. It was, however, permitted to compress the two-days’
a” [12] Bp. 2 rites of the Full-moon sacrifice into one single day, in which case some of these restrictions would of course not be applicable.
It was, however, permitted to compress the two-days’
a” [12] Bp. 2 rites of the Full-moon sacrifice into one single day, in which case some of these restrictions would of course not be applicable.
The ceremonies begin with the preparation of the sacrificial fires. [First, the fivefold lustration successively of the Ahavantya and Dakshinz4gni fire-places, to render them fit for receiving the fire from the Garhapatya or householder’s fire, viz. by thrice sweeping the hearths; thrice besmearing them with gomaya; drawing three lines across them from west to east, or south to north, with the wooden sword (sphya); removing the dust from the lines with the thumb and ring-finger; and thrice sprinkling the lines with water.) Then the Adhvaryu performs the agny-uddharama, or twice taking out of the fire from the Garhapatya, and putting it successively on the forepart of the Ahavantya and Dakshiz4gni hearths. After this takes place the agny-anv4dh4na, or putting (fuel) on the fires, by either the householder or the Adhvaryu; two logs being put on each of the three fires. This may be done in three different ways, viz. first on the Ahavantya, then on the G4rhapatya, and last on the Dakshindgni, in which case the first log is put on by him whilst muttering the verse Rig-veda X, 128, 1 (Taitt.S. IV, 7, 14, 1), ‘ Let there be lustre, O Agni, at my invocations!’ &c., the second log silently. Or the first logs are put on with one of the three mystical words ‘bhfr, bhuva4, svar’ on the G&rhapatya, Dakshinigni, and Ahavantya successively, and the second logs again silently. Or both logs may be put on silently, the order of fires being in that case the one in which they originate, viz. Garhapatya, Ahavantya, and Dakshindgni.
In the afternoon the householder and his wife partake of the vratopantya or fast-day food (prepared chiefly of rice, barley, or mudga beans) with clarified butter; whereupon they take the vow in the manner prescribed in the Brahmama. In the evening, immediately after sunset, and on the following morning just before sunrise, the householder has, as usual, to perform the Agnihotra, a burnt-offering of fresh milk, which has to be made by him twice daily, with certain exceptions, from the Agny4dh4na to the end of his life.
1. He who is about to enter on the vow, touches water *, whilst standing between the Ahavantya
1 The statements enclosed in brackets [ ] are drawn from the comments and Paddhati on K&ty4yana’s Srauta-sftra.
* Le. ‘he dips his hand into water contained in a vessel,’ Schol. Katy. Sr. S. 1, 10, 14. According to the general rule there given,
p. 3
* Le. ‘he dips his hand into water contained in a vessel,’ Schol. Katy. Sr. S. 1, 10, 14. According to the general rule there given,p. 3 and Garhapatya fires, with his face turned towards east. The reason why he touches water is, that man is (sacrificially) impure on account of his speaking untruth ; and because by that act an internal purification (is effected),—for water is indeed (sacrificially) pure. ‘After becoming sacrificially pure, I will enter on the vow,’ thus (he thinks); for water is indeed purifying. ‘Having become purified through the purifying one, I will enter on the vow,’ thus (he thinks, and) this is the reason why he touches water.
2. Looking towards the (Ahavantya) fire}, he enters on the vow, with the text (V4g. S. I, 5 a): ‘O Agni, Lord of Vows! I will keep the vow! may I be equal to it, may I succeed in it!’ For Agni is Lord of Vows to the gods, and it is to him therefore that he addresses these words. In the words, ‘I will observe the vow; may I be equal to it; may I succeed in it,’ there is nothing that requires explanation.
3. After the completion (of the sacrifice) he divests himself (of the vow), with the text (Vag. S. II, 28 a), ‘O Agni, Lord of Vows! I have kept the vow; I have been equal to it; I have succeeded in the same purificatory act has to be repeated whenever, in the course of ceremonial performances, a sacrificial formula or prayer has been used, which is addressed to, or directed against, Rudra, the Rakshas and Asuras, and the Manes; or one directed against some specified enemy of the sacrificer with the view of exorcising or averting the evil influences with which the latter is supposed to be threatened from that quarter; or lastly, when a touching of one’s self has taken place, either accidentally or as part of the ceremonial.
1 «Stepping between the G&rhapatya and Dakshiza fires (apar4gnf), and standing west of the Ahavantya, with his face turned eastward and looking at the fire.’ K&ty. Sr. S. II, 1, 11.
B 2
4 SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
it;’ for he who has attained the completion of the sacrifice, has indeed been equal to it; and he who has attained the completion of the sacrifice, has succeeded in it. It is in this way that most (sacrificers) will probably enter on the vow; but one may also enter on it in the following way.
4. Twofold, verily, is this, there is no third, viz. truth and untruth. And verily the gods are the truth, and man is the untruth. Therefore in saying (Vag. S. 1,5 b), ‘I now enter from untruth into truth,’ he passes from the men to the gods}.
5. Let him then only speak what is true; for this vow indeed the gods do keep, that they speak the truth ; and for this reason they are glorious : glorious therefore is he who, knowing this, speaks the truth.
S. 1,5 b), ‘I now enter from untruth into truth,’ he passes from the men to the gods}.
5. Let him then only speak what is true; for this vow indeed the gods do keep, that they speak the truth ; and for this reason they are glorious : glorious therefore is he who, knowing this, speaks the truth.
6. After the completion (of the sacrifice) he divests himself (of the vow), with the text (Vag. S. II, 28 b): ‘Now I am he who I really am.’ For, in entering upon the vow, he becomes, as it were, nonhuman; and as it would not be becoming for him to say, ‘I enter from truth into untruth ;’ and as, in fact, he now again becomes man, let him therefore divest himself (of the vow), with the text: ‘Now I am he who I really am.’
7. Now then of the eating (or) fasting. And on this point Ash&adha SAvayasa, on the one hand, was of opinion that the vow consisted in fasting. For assuredly, (he argued,) the gods see through the mind of man; they know that, when he enters on this
' T.e. ‘he obtains a divine body (devat&sarfram),’ Mahtdh. ; ‘man’s existence is untruth on account of its perishableness,’ id.
® The discussion which here follows refers to the evening meal which the sacrificer is allowed to take after he has performed the Agnihotra. Cf. Katy. Sr. S. II, 1, 13.
p. 5
vow, he means to sacrifice to them the next morning. Therefore all the gods betake themselves to his house, and abide by (him or the fires, upa-vas) in his house; whence this (day) is called upa-vasatha}?.
8. Now, as it would even be unbecoming for him to take food, before men (who are staying with him as his guests) have eaten; how much more would it be so, if he were to take food before the gods (who are staying with him) have eaten: let him therefore take no food at all.
9. Yag#avalkya, on the other hand, said: ‘If he does not eat, he thereby becomes a sacrificer to the Manes; and if he does eat, he eats before the gods have eaten: let him therefore eat what, when eaten, counts as not eaten.’ For that of which no offering is made, even though it is eaten, is considered as not eaten. When he therefore eats, he does not become a sacrificer to the Manes; and by eating of that of which no offering is made, he does not eat before the gods have eaten.
10. Let him therefore eat only what grows in the forest, be it forest plants or the fruit of trees. And in regard to this point Barku Varsha said: ‘Cook ye beans for me, for no offering is made of them!’ This, however, he should not do; for pulse
10. Let him therefore eat only what grows in the forest, be it forest plants or the fruit of trees. And in regard to this point Barku Varsha said: ‘Cook ye beans for me, for no offering is made of them!’ This, however, he should not do; for pulse
1 The primary meaning of upa-vas probably is ‘to dwell or abide near (?the gods or fires);’ its secondary and technical meaning being ‘to fast,’ whence upavasatha, ‘a fasting or fastday,’ literally ‘the abiding near (? or honouring, the gods or fires).’ Cf. III, 9, 2, 7. The term is more usually applied to the preliminary fast-day of the Soma-sacrifice; but the latter being considered the most solemn and efficacious of sacrificial rites, a strong tendency prevails to establish some kind of connection between it and the other ceremonies. Cf. K4ty. Sr. S. IV, 15, 36.
p. 6
serves as an addition to rice and barley; and hence he increases the rice and barley by means of it: let him therefore eat only what grows in the forest.
11. Let him sleep that night in the house of the Ahavantya fire or in the house of the GArhapatya fire. For he who enters on the vow approaches the gods; and he sleeps in the midst of those very gods whom he approaches. Let him sleep on the ground!; for from below, as it were, one serves one’s superior.
B. Tue PREPARATION OF THE OFFERINGS.
For he who enters on the vow approaches the gods; and he sleeps in the midst of those very gods whom he approaches. Let him sleep on the ground!; for from below, as it were, one serves one’s superior.
B. Tue PREPARATION OF THE OFFERINGS.
After the morning’s performance of the Agnihotra and the subsequent rising of the sun, the sacrificer chooses his Brahman, or superintending priest. [In the first place he gets six seats ready, covered with sacrificial grass: two of these, to be used by the Brahman and sacrificer during the ceremony of election, are placed somewhere on the north side of the sacrificial ground; another south of the Ahavantya fire, to serve for the Brahman’s permanent seat (brahmas4danam), and west of the latter (placed so as to be quite close to the altar to be constructed hereafter, cf. Katy. Sr. I, 8,28), the sacrificer’s permanent seat ; finally a seat north of each of the two fires, the G&arhapatya and the Ahavantya, to be used by the Adhvaryu on certain occasions. The sacrificer and future Brahman then having seated themselves on the two first-mentioned seats on the north side, the former with his face turned northward, and the latter looking toward east; the sacrificer, holding the wooden sword (sphya) in his left hand, touches the right knee of the Brahman with his right hand, in which he holds barley-corns and] chooses him for his Brahman with the formula: [‘ Thou, of such and such a family, N. N. Sarman! we are about to perform the Full-moon sacrifice,’] ‘O Lord of the earth! Lord of the world! Lord of the great universe! we choose thee for our Brahman!’ The chosen one then mutters (cf. Vag. S. p. 57): ‘I am the lord of the earth, I lord of the world, I lord of the great universe (mah4bhfita)! earth! ether! heaven! O God Savitr?, thee they choose for their Brahman, their lord of prayer (Brzhaspati) |’ &c., ‘ Bréhaspati is Brahman to the gods, Ito the men!’ He (or, according
1 A shake-down of grass (astarazam, ?a blanket) is not forbidden. Paddh. on Katy. Sr. II, 1.