Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
141. 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
23 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.
3Cf. 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
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.
141. 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
23 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.
3Cf. 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
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.