Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1It 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,
2It 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.
3On 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 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. xlvi SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
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 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,
2It 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.
3On 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 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. xlvi SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
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.