Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1He says that the Kena-upanishad begins the ninth adhydya, but that is not so in my MS. Neither the beginning nor the end of this Upanishad is noticed particularly. ‘The last book of this Brahmavza is the Arsheya-brahmaa, which I printed last February. ‘Among the teachers quoted in the Brahmaza I have noticed both Tazdya and Satyayani. I should not be surprised to find in it the difficult quotations which are incorrectly given in the MSS. of Sayaza’s commentary on the Rig-veda. The story of Apala, quoted by Sayama in his commentary on the Rig-veda, VIII, 80, as from the Satydyanaka, is found word for word, except some trivial var. lectiones, in sections 220-221 of the Agnishfoma book of the Talavakara-brahmaza. The SAtyAyanins seem to be closely connected with the Talavakdra-sakha.’ From a communication made by Dr. Burnell to the Academy (1 Feb. 79), I gather that this Talavak4ra-brahmama is called by those who study it ‘ Gaiminiya-brahmaaa,’ after the S4kha4 of the SAma-veda which they follow. The account given in the Academy differs on some particulars slightly from that given in Dr. Burnell’s letter to me. He writes: ‘The largest part of the Brahmama treats of the sacrifices and the Samans used at them. The first chapter is on the Agnihotra, and the Agnishéoma and other rites follow at great length, Then comes a book termed Upanishad-brahmama. This contains 145 sections in four chapters. It begins with speculations on the Gdayatra- INTRODUCTION. xci saman, followed by a Vamsa; next, some similar matter and another Vamsa. Then (§§ 135-138) comes the Kenaupanishad (Talavakara). The last book is the Arsheya. The Upanishad forms the tenth anuvaka of the fourth chapter, not the beginning of a ninth chapter, as Sankara remarks,’ The Kena-upanishad has been frequently published and translated. It forms part of Dara Shukoh’s Persian, and Anquetil Duperron’s Latin translations. It was several times published in English by Rammohun Roy (Translations of Several Principal Books, Passages, and Texts of the Veda, London, 1832, p. 41), in German by Windischmann, Poley, and others. It has been more or less fully discussed by Colebrooke, Windischmann, Poley, Weber, Réer, Gough, and Regnaud in the books mentioned before. Besides the text of this Upanishad contained in the Brahmana of the SAma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging to the Atharva-veda, and there are commentaries on both texts (Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, 1873, II, p. 80). III. THE AITAREYA-ARANYAKA.
2Besides the text of this Upanishad contained in the Brahmana of the SAma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging to the Atharva-veda, and there are commentaries on both texts (Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, 1873, II, p. 80). III. THE AITAREYA-ARANYAKA. IN giving a translation of the Aitareya-upanishad, I found it necessary to give at the same time a translation of that portion of the Aitareya-4razyaka which precedes the Upanishad. The Arazyakas seem to have been from the beginning the proper repositories of the ancient Upanishads, though it is difficult at first sight to find out in what relation the Upanishads stood to the Arazyakas. The Arazyakas are to be read and studied, not in the village (grame), but in the forest, and so are the Upanishads. But the subjects treated in the Upanishads belong to a very different order from those treated in the other portions of the Arayakas, the former being philosophical, the latter liturgical. The liturgical chapters of the Arazyakas might quite as well have formed part of the Brahmazas, and but for the restriction that they are to be read in the forest, it is difficult to distinguish between them and the Brahmamas. The XCii UPANISHADS. first chapter of the Aitareya-drazyaka is a mere continuation of the Aitareya-brahmama, and gives the description of the Mahavrata, the last day but one of the Gavamayana, a sattra or sacrifice which is supposed to last a whole year. The duties which are to be performed by the Hotzz priests are described in the Aitareya-arazyaka ; not all, however, but those only which are peculiar to the Mahavrata day. The general rules for the performance of the MahAvrata are to be taken over from other sacrifices, such as the Visvagit, Katurvimsa, &c., which form the type (prakriti) of the Mahavrata. Thus the two sastras or recitations, called 4gya-praiiga, are taken over from the Visvagit, the sastras of the Hotrakas from the Katurvimsa, The MahAvrata is treated here as belonging to the Gavamayana sattra, which is described in a different SAkha, see Taittirtya Samhita VII, 5, 8, and partly in other Vedas. It is the day preceding the udayaniya, the last day of the sattra. It can be celebrated, however, by itself also, as an ekAha or ahina sacrifice, and in the latter case it is the tenth day of the Ekadasaratra (eleven nights sacrifice) called Pusdarika. S4yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareyaaravyaka as a part of the Brahmaza'; and a still earlier authority, Sankara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrita-brahmava-upanishad ?, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the Arazyaka may be classed as Brahmama.
3S4yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareyaaravyaka as a part of the Brahmaza'; and a still earlier authority, Sankara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrita-brahmava-upanishad ?, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the Arazyaka may be classed as Brahmama. The Aitareya-4razyaka appears at first sight a miscellaneous work, consisting of liturgical treatises in the first, fourth, and fifth Arazyakas, and of three Upanishads, in the second and third Aranyakas. This, however, is not the case. The first Arazyaka is purely liturgical, giving a description of the Mah4vrata, so far as it concerns the - Hotz? priest. It is written in the ordinary Brahmaza style. Then follows the first Upanishad, Arazyaka II, 1-3, showing * Aitareyabrahmane ’sti kéndam franyakabhidham (introduction), a remark which he repeats in the fifth Aranyaka. He also speaks of the Arasyakavratariipam brahmanam ; see p. cxiv, 1]. 24. * In the same manner the Kaushitaki-upanishad is properly called Kaushitakibréhmaza-upanishad, though occurring in the Aranyaka ; see Kaushftaki-brahmana-upanishad, ed. Cowell, p. 30. INTRODUCTION. Xcill how certain portions of the Mahavrata, as described in the first Arazyaka, can be made to suggest a deeper meaning, and ought to lead the mind of the sacrificer away from the purely outward ceremonial to meditation on higher subjects. Without a knowledge of the first Arayaka therefore the first Upanishad would be almost unintelligible, and though its translation was extremely tedious, it could not well have been omitted. The second and third Upanishads are not connected with the ceremonial of the Mah4vrata, but in the fourth and fifth Arazyakas the Mahavrata forms again the principal subject, treated, however, not as before in the style of the Brahmazas, but in the style of Satras. The fourth Aranyaka contains nothing but a list of the Mah4ndmni hymns}, but the fifth describes the Mah4vrata again, so that if the first Arazyaka may be looked upon as a portion of the Aitareya-brahmamas, the fifth could best be classed with the Satras of Asvalayana. To a certain extent this fact, the composite character of the Aitareya-aramyaka, is recognised even by native scholars, who generally do not trouble themselves much on such questions. They look both on the Aitareya-brahmamza and on the greater portion of Aitareya-fraxyaka as the works of an inspired Rishi, Mahidasa Aitareya?, but they consider the fourth and fifth books of the Aranyaka as contributed by purely human authors, such as Asvalayana and Saunaka, who, like other Sdtrak4ras, took in verses belonging to other SAkh4s, and did not confine their rules to their own SAkh4 only, There are many legends about Mahid4sa, the reputed author of the Aitareya-brahmama and Arazyaka. He is
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1He says that the Kena-upanishad begins the ninth adhydya, but that is not so in my MS. Neither the beginning nor the end of this Upanishad is noticed particularly. ‘The last book of this Brahmavza is the Arsheya-brahmaa, which I printed last February. ‘Among the teachers quoted in the Brahmaza I have noticed both Tazdya and Satyayani. I should not be surprised to find in it the difficult quotations which are incorrectly given in the MSS. of Sayaza’s commentary on the Rig-veda. The story of Apala, quoted by Sayama in his commentary on the Rig-veda, VIII, 80, as from the Satydyanaka, is found word for word, except some trivial var. lectiones, in sections 220-221 of the Agnishfoma book of the Talavakara-brahmaza. The SAtyAyanins seem to be closely connected with the Talavakdra-sakha.’ From a communication made by Dr. Burnell to the Academy (1 Feb. 79), I gather that this Talavak4ra-brahmama is called by those who study it ‘ Gaiminiya-brahmaaa,’ after the S4kha4 of the SAma-veda which they follow. The account given in the Academy differs on some particulars slightly from that given in Dr. Burnell’s letter to me. He writes: ‘The largest part of the Brahmama treats of the sacrifices and the Samans used at them. The first chapter is on the Agnihotra, and the Agnishéoma and other rites follow at great length, Then comes a book termed Upanishad-brahmama. This contains 145 sections in four chapters. It begins with speculations on the Gdayatra- INTRODUCTION. xci saman, followed by a Vamsa; next, some similar matter and another Vamsa. Then (§§ 135-138) comes the Kenaupanishad (Talavakara). The last book is the Arsheya. The Upanishad forms the tenth anuvaka of the fourth chapter, not the beginning of a ninth chapter, as Sankara remarks,’ The Kena-upanishad has been frequently published and translated. It forms part of Dara Shukoh’s Persian, and Anquetil Duperron’s Latin translations. It was several times published in English by Rammohun Roy (Translations of Several Principal Books, Passages, and Texts of the Veda, London, 1832, p. 41), in German by Windischmann, Poley, and others. It has been more or less fully discussed by Colebrooke, Windischmann, Poley, Weber, Réer, Gough, and Regnaud in the books mentioned before. Besides the text of this Upanishad contained in the Brahmana of the SAma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging to the Atharva-veda, and there are commentaries on both texts (Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, 1873, II, p. 80). III. THE AITAREYA-ARANYAKA.
2Besides the text of this Upanishad contained in the Brahmana of the SAma-veda, there is another text, slightly differing, belonging to the Atharva-veda, and there are commentaries on both texts (Colebrooke, Misc. Essays, 1873, II, p. 80). III. THE AITAREYA-ARANYAKA. IN giving a translation of the Aitareya-upanishad, I found it necessary to give at the same time a translation of that portion of the Aitareya-4razyaka which precedes the Upanishad. The Arazyakas seem to have been from the beginning the proper repositories of the ancient Upanishads, though it is difficult at first sight to find out in what relation the Upanishads stood to the Arazyakas. The Arazyakas are to be read and studied, not in the village (grame), but in the forest, and so are the Upanishads. But the subjects treated in the Upanishads belong to a very different order from those treated in the other portions of the Arayakas, the former being philosophical, the latter liturgical. The liturgical chapters of the Arazyakas might quite as well have formed part of the Brahmazas, and but for the restriction that they are to be read in the forest, it is difficult to distinguish between them and the Brahmamas. The XCii UPANISHADS. first chapter of the Aitareya-drazyaka is a mere continuation of the Aitareya-brahmama, and gives the description of the Mahavrata, the last day but one of the Gavamayana, a sattra or sacrifice which is supposed to last a whole year. The duties which are to be performed by the Hotzz priests are described in the Aitareya-arazyaka ; not all, however, but those only which are peculiar to the Mahavrata day. The general rules for the performance of the MahAvrata are to be taken over from other sacrifices, such as the Visvagit, Katurvimsa, &c., which form the type (prakriti) of the Mahavrata. Thus the two sastras or recitations, called 4gya-praiiga, are taken over from the Visvagit, the sastras of the Hotrakas from the Katurvimsa, The MahAvrata is treated here as belonging to the Gavamayana sattra, which is described in a different SAkha, see Taittirtya Samhita VII, 5, 8, and partly in other Vedas. It is the day preceding the udayaniya, the last day of the sattra. It can be celebrated, however, by itself also, as an ekAha or ahina sacrifice, and in the latter case it is the tenth day of the Ekadasaratra (eleven nights sacrifice) called Pusdarika. S4yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareyaaravyaka as a part of the Brahmaza'; and a still earlier authority, Sankara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrita-brahmava-upanishad ?, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the Arazyaka may be classed as Brahmama.
3S4yana does not hesitate to speak of the Aitareyaaravyaka as a part of the Brahmaza'; and a still earlier authority, Sankara, by calling the Aitareya-upanishad by the name of Bahvrita-brahmava-upanishad ?, seems to imply that both the Upanishad and the Arazyaka may be classed as Brahmama. The Aitareya-4razyaka appears at first sight a miscellaneous work, consisting of liturgical treatises in the first, fourth, and fifth Arazyakas, and of three Upanishads, in the second and third Aranyakas. This, however, is not the case. The first Arazyaka is purely liturgical, giving a description of the Mah4vrata, so far as it concerns the - Hotz? priest. It is written in the ordinary Brahmaza style. Then follows the first Upanishad, Arazyaka II, 1-3, showing * Aitareyabrahmane ’sti kéndam franyakabhidham (introduction), a remark which he repeats in the fifth Aranyaka. He also speaks of the Arasyakavratariipam brahmanam ; see p. cxiv, 1]. 24. * In the same manner the Kaushitaki-upanishad is properly called Kaushitakibréhmaza-upanishad, though occurring in the Aranyaka ; see Kaushftaki-brahmana-upanishad, ed. Cowell, p. 30. INTRODUCTION. Xcill how certain portions of the Mahavrata, as described in the first Arazyaka, can be made to suggest a deeper meaning, and ought to lead the mind of the sacrificer away from the purely outward ceremonial to meditation on higher subjects. Without a knowledge of the first Arayaka therefore the first Upanishad would be almost unintelligible, and though its translation was extremely tedious, it could not well have been omitted. The second and third Upanishads are not connected with the ceremonial of the Mah4vrata, but in the fourth and fifth Arazyakas the Mahavrata forms again the principal subject, treated, however, not as before in the style of the Brahmazas, but in the style of Satras. The fourth Aranyaka contains nothing but a list of the Mah4ndmni hymns}, but the fifth describes the Mah4vrata again, so that if the first Arazyaka may be looked upon as a portion of the Aitareya-brahmamas, the fifth could best be classed with the Satras of Asvalayana. To a certain extent this fact, the composite character of the Aitareya-aramyaka, is recognised even by native scholars, who generally do not trouble themselves much on such questions. They look both on the Aitareya-brahmamza and on the greater portion of Aitareya-fraxyaka as the works of an inspired Rishi, Mahidasa Aitareya?, but they consider the fourth and fifth books of the Aranyaka as contributed by purely human authors, such as Asvalayana and Saunaka, who, like other Sdtrak4ras, took in verses belonging to other SAkh4s, and did not confine their rules to their own SAkh4 only, There are many legends about Mahid4sa, the reputed author of the Aitareya-brahmama and Arazyaka. He is
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.