Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools. These remarks will suffice to show that a Vedic Karana which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because the name of Apastamba and of the Apastambiyas is not mentioned in any Vedic work, not even in a Kalpa-sfitra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful }, it might be thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the Apastambiya-s(itras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the Brahmanist Andhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-s(tra contains a remarkable passage in which its author states that Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama and in the K“&dndogya Upanishad, belongs to the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that Apastamba laid no claim to the title Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated that according to Sftra 4, ‘No Rzshis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules of studentship ;’ and that according to Satra 5, 1 The name Apastamba occurs only in the gaza vidadi, which belongs to Pazini 1V, 1, 104, and the text of this gaza is certain only for the times of the K4sika, about 630 A.D. The Srauta-sitra of Apastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Bhartrzhari on the MahabhAshya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xxxvi, p. 654. INTRODUCTION. xli ‘Some in their new birth become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) through a residue of merit acquired in former existences.’ In order to give an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in Sdtra 6, ‘Like Svetaketu.’ The natural, and in my opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is, that Apastamba considers Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):
2This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2): ‘1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a descendant of Aruma. His father spake unto him, “O Svetaketu, dwell as a student (with a teacher); for, verily, dear child, no one in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and become, as it were, a Brahmaza in name only.” ‘Verily, he (Svetaketu) was initiated at the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old he had learned all the Vedas; he thought highly of himself and was vain of his learning and arrogant.’ There can be no doubt that this is the person and the story referred to in the Dharma-sftra. For the fact which the Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while the Smritis declare fortyeight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of that task, makes Apastamba’s illustration intelligible and appropriate. A good deal more is told in the K/andogya Upanishad about this Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Udd4laka and the grandson of Aruma (4rumeya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama. In one passage of the latter work, which has been translated by Professor Max Miller}, it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Yag#avalkya, the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda, and of the learned king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice. Now, as has been shown above, Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and 1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq. xlii APASTAMBA,
3Now, as has been shown above, Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and 1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq. xlii APASTAMBA, the Satapatha-brahmamza. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that Apastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda among the Avaras, is highly interesting and of some importance for the history of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that Apastamba cannot have considered the White Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the Kanvas and Madhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity. On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise might be drawn from the southern origin of the Apastambiya school and from the non-occurrence of its name in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Svetaketu and Apastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Svetaketu and YA4gé#avalkya would accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Satapatha-brahmama as well as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from their lives, must have been composed or at least edited still later. Though little is known régarding the history of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some information regarding the texts in question. For we know from a statement made by KAatydyana in a V4rttika on Pazini IV, 3, 105, and from Pata#gali’s commentary on his words that the Brahmawa proclaimed by Yag#avalkya, i.e. the Satapatha-brahmaza of the White Yagur-veda, was considered to have been promulgated by one of the Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably in the fourth and second centuries B.C.? 1 This famous Varttika has been interpreted in various ways; see Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber, INTRODUCTION. xlili These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.
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.
1It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools. These remarks will suffice to show that a Vedic Karana which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because the name of Apastamba and of the Apastambiyas is not mentioned in any Vedic work, not even in a Kalpa-sfitra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful }, it might be thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the Apastambiya-s(itras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the Brahmanist Andhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-s(tra contains a remarkable passage in which its author states that Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama and in the K“&dndogya Upanishad, belongs to the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that Apastamba laid no claim to the title Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated that according to Sftra 4, ‘No Rzshis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules of studentship ;’ and that according to Satra 5, 1 The name Apastamba occurs only in the gaza vidadi, which belongs to Pazini 1V, 1, 104, and the text of this gaza is certain only for the times of the K4sika, about 630 A.D. The Srauta-sitra of Apastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Bhartrzhari on the MahabhAshya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xxxvi, p. 654. INTRODUCTION. xli ‘Some in their new birth become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) through a residue of merit acquired in former existences.’ In order to give an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in Sdtra 6, ‘Like Svetaketu.’ The natural, and in my opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is, that Apastamba considers Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):
2This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of SQtra 6, quotes the following passage from the K#andogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2): ‘1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a descendant of Aruma. His father spake unto him, “O Svetaketu, dwell as a student (with a teacher); for, verily, dear child, no one in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and become, as it were, a Brahmaza in name only.” ‘Verily, he (Svetaketu) was initiated at the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old he had learned all the Vedas; he thought highly of himself and was vain of his learning and arrogant.’ There can be no doubt that this is the person and the story referred to in the Dharma-sftra. For the fact which the Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while the Smritis declare fortyeight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of that task, makes Apastamba’s illustration intelligible and appropriate. A good deal more is told in the K/andogya Upanishad about this Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Udd4laka and the grandson of Aruma (4rumeya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the Satapatha-brahmama. In one passage of the latter work, which has been translated by Professor Max Miller}, it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Yag#avalkya, the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda, and of the learned king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice. Now, as has been shown above, Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and 1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq. xlii APASTAMBA,
3Now, as has been shown above, Apastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and 1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq. xlii APASTAMBA, the Satapatha-brahmamza. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that Apastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda among the Avaras, is highly interesting and of some importance for the history of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that Apastamba cannot have considered the White Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the Kanvas and Madhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity. On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise might be drawn from the southern origin of the Apastambiya school and from the non-occurrence of its name in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Svetaketu and Apastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Svetaketu and YA4gé#avalkya would accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Satapatha-brahmama as well as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from their lives, must have been composed or at least edited still later. Though little is known régarding the history of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some information regarding the texts in question. For we know from a statement made by KAatydyana in a V4rttika on Pazini IV, 3, 105, and from Pata#gali’s commentary on his words that the Brahmawa proclaimed by Yag#avalkya, i.e. the Satapatha-brahmaza of the White Yagur-veda, was considered to have been promulgated by one of the Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably in the fourth and second centuries B.C.? 1 This famous Varttika has been interpreted in various ways; see Max Miiller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldstiicker, Pazini, pp. 132-140; Weber, INTRODUCTION. xlili These considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for Apastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.
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.