Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1See also I, 7, 2, ro. * The mortar (ulfkhala) and pestle (musala) are to be made of very hard wood, viz. both of varaza wood (Cratega Roxburghii), or the mortar of palasa wood (Butea Frondoga), and the pestle of I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMAMA, II. 27 9. Should he, however (by some accident), utter any human sound before this time, let him in that case mutter some Az& or Yagus-text addressed to Vishnu'!; for Vishzu is the sacrifice, so that he thereby again obtains a hold on the sacrifice, and penance is thereby done by him (for not keeping silent), He adds: ‘For the pleasure of the gods I seize thee!’ for the oblation is taken with the intention ‘that it shall gladden the gods.’ 10. He now takes the pestle, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14 b), ‘A large, wooden stone art thou!’ for it is a large stone, and made of wood, too. He thrusts it down, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14.c), ‘Do thou prepare this oblation for the gods?! do thou prepare it thoroughly!’ thereby saying, ‘Get this oblation ready for the gods! get it quite ready!’ 11. He then calls the Havishkvzt® (preparer of the sacrificial food), ‘ Havishkvt, come hither ! Havishkvzt, come hither!’ The Havishkv7t* no doubt is speech, so that he thereby frees speech from khadira wood (Acacia Catechu). The former is to be of the height of the knee, and the latter three aratnis (cubits) long. Schol. on Katy. I, 3, 36; M. Muller, Die Todtenbestattung bei den Brahmanen, Zeitsch. der D. Morg. Ges. IX, p. xl. ’ Katy. Sr. II, 2, 6-7 lays down the general rule, that if the Brahman or Adhvaryu (and according to some, the sacrificer also) by some slip were to utter any sound during the time for which restraint of speech (vag-yama) is enjoined, they must atone for the transgression by muttering some mantra addressed to Vishau, such as the couplet (Vag. S. V, 38, 41), ‘ Widely, O Vishau, stride |’ &c., or the formula (ib. I, 4), ‘O Vishnu, preserve the sacrifice |’ * Or ‘for the god,’ ‘for the goddess,’ as the case may be. ’ Or, he pronounces the havishkrzt formula, see next note. According to Katy. Sr. II, 4, 13 he calls out three separate times. * Havishkrzt denotes not only the person that prepares the oblation, but also this formula by which that person is called. 28 SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. restraint. And speech, moreover, represents sacrifice}, so that he thereby again calls the sacrifice to him. 12. Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ‘come hither (ehi)!’ in the case of a Braéhman ; ‘approach (4gahi)!’ and ‘hasten hither (Adrava)!’ in the case of a Vaisya and a member of the military caste (raganyabandhu’); and ‘run hither (Adh4va)!’ in that of a Sfdra. On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahman, because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and is besides the most gentle: let him therefore say, ‘come hither (ehi) !’
2On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahman, because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and is besides the most gentle: let him therefore say, ‘come hither (ehi) !’ 13. Now in former times it was no other than the wife (of the sacrificer) who rose at this (call, to act) as Havishkrzt; therefore now also (she or) some one (priest)® rises in answer to this call. And at the time when he (the Adhvaryu) calls the Havishkvit, one of the priests‘ beats the two mill-stones. 1 Viz. in the shape of the sacrificial formulas. * This inversion of the order of the second (or Kshatriya) and third (or Vaisya) castes is rather strange. The Satras of Bharadv., Apast., and Hirany. assign the same formulas to the several castes as here. Cf. Hillebrandt, Neu- und Vollmondsopfer, p. 29. ® According to the Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 13, either the wife of the patron or the Agnfdhra (the priest who kindles the fire) acts as Havishkrit. Mahidh. on Vag. S. I, 15 includes the patron (sacrificer) himself, unless yagam4naf patnf is a misprint for yagamanapatni. According to Apastamba, ‘ either a maidservant or the wife grinds; or the wife threshes and the Sfidra woman grinds’ (cf. Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 5, 7). Similarly Bharadv. and Hirany.; cf. Hillebrandt, p. 38, n.2. Similar cases of differences between the ritualistic practices of the present time and those of former times are very frequently alluded to in the ritualistic books; and are of especial interest, as they afford some insight into the gradual development of the sacrificial ceremonial. Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. X, 156 seq. * Viz. the Agntdhra, whilst seated north of the expansion I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMANA, 16. 29 The reason why they produce this discordant noise, is this: 14. Manu was in possession of a bull. Into him had entered an Asura-killing, foe-killing voice; and by his snorting and roaring the Asuras and Rakshas were continually being crushed. Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Evil, alas! this bull inflicts upon us! how can we possibly destroy him ?’ Now Kilata and Akuli were the two priests (brahman) of the Asuras. 15. These two said, ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us two then ascertain!’ They then went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith?’ They said: ‘With this bull!’ He said: ‘So be it!’ On his (the bull's) being killed the voice went from him. 16. It entered into Man4vt, the wife of Manu; and when they heard her speak, the Asuras and Rakshas were continually being crushed. Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Hereby even greater evil is inflicted on us, for the human voice speaks more!’ Kiléta and Akuli then said: ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us then ascertain!’ They went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith ?’
3Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Hereby even greater evil is inflicted on us, for the human voice speaks more!’ Kiléta and Akuli then said: ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us then ascertain!’ They went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith ?’ (vih4ra) of the fires ; he strikes with the wedge (samy4, a stick of khadira wood, usually some six or eight inches long, used for placing under the lower grindstone on the north side, so as to make it incline towards east) twice the lower and once the upper grindstone. Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 15. 1 This bull of Manu has been compared by Dr. Kuhn (Zeitschrift fiir Vergl. Sprachf. IV, 91 seq.) with the Minotaur of the Greeks. Cf. also J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. i. p. 188 seq.; and Professor Weber's Translation of the first Adhy4ya, Ind. Streifen, I, p. 50. 30 SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. They said: ‘With this thy wife!’ He said: ‘So be it!’ And on her being killed that voice went from her. 17. It entered into the sacrifice itself, into the sacrificial vessels; and thence those two (Asura priests) were unable to expel it. This same Asurakilling, foe-killing voice sounds forth (from the millstones when they are beaten with the wedge). And for whomsoever that knows this, they produce this discordant noise on the present occasion, his enemies are rendered very miserable. 18. He beats the mill-stones with the wedge, with the text (V4g. S. I, 16 a): ‘A honey-tongued cock (kukku/¢a ') art thou (O wedge)!’ For honeytongued indeed was he (the bull) for the gods, and poison-tongued for the Asuras: hence he thereby says: ‘What thou wert for the gods, that be thou for us!’ He adds: ‘Sap and strength do thou call hither! with thy help may we conquer in every battle!’ In these words there is nothing that is obscure. 19. Thereupon? he (the Adhvaryu) takes the winnowing basket, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14b): ‘ Rain-grown art thou!’ For rain-grown it is indeed, whether it be made of reeds or of cane or of rushes, since it is the rain that makes these grow. 1 Mahfdhara offers the following etymological derivation of this word: 1. from kva kva, ‘ where? where?’ [‘ He who, wishing to kill the Asuras, roams about everywhere, crying ‘where, where are the Asuras?’]; 2. from kuk, ‘a hideous noise,’ and ku/, ‘to spread;’ or 3. one who, in order to frighten the Asuras, utters a sound resembling that of the bird called kukku/a (cock). Professor Weber translates it by ‘ Brtiller’ (roarer, crier). * Viz. when the rice has been husked (by the Havishkr#t in the mortar). Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 16. r I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMANA, 22. 31
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.
1See also I, 7, 2, ro. * The mortar (ulfkhala) and pestle (musala) are to be made of very hard wood, viz. both of varaza wood (Cratega Roxburghii), or the mortar of palasa wood (Butea Frondoga), and the pestle of I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMAMA, II. 27 9. Should he, however (by some accident), utter any human sound before this time, let him in that case mutter some Az& or Yagus-text addressed to Vishnu'!; for Vishzu is the sacrifice, so that he thereby again obtains a hold on the sacrifice, and penance is thereby done by him (for not keeping silent), He adds: ‘For the pleasure of the gods I seize thee!’ for the oblation is taken with the intention ‘that it shall gladden the gods.’ 10. He now takes the pestle, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14 b), ‘A large, wooden stone art thou!’ for it is a large stone, and made of wood, too. He thrusts it down, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14.c), ‘Do thou prepare this oblation for the gods?! do thou prepare it thoroughly!’ thereby saying, ‘Get this oblation ready for the gods! get it quite ready!’ 11. He then calls the Havishkvzt® (preparer of the sacrificial food), ‘ Havishkvt, come hither ! Havishkvzt, come hither!’ The Havishkv7t* no doubt is speech, so that he thereby frees speech from khadira wood (Acacia Catechu). The former is to be of the height of the knee, and the latter three aratnis (cubits) long. Schol. on Katy. I, 3, 36; M. Muller, Die Todtenbestattung bei den Brahmanen, Zeitsch. der D. Morg. Ges. IX, p. xl. ’ Katy. Sr. II, 2, 6-7 lays down the general rule, that if the Brahman or Adhvaryu (and according to some, the sacrificer also) by some slip were to utter any sound during the time for which restraint of speech (vag-yama) is enjoined, they must atone for the transgression by muttering some mantra addressed to Vishau, such as the couplet (Vag. S. V, 38, 41), ‘ Widely, O Vishau, stride |’ &c., or the formula (ib. I, 4), ‘O Vishnu, preserve the sacrifice |’ * Or ‘for the god,’ ‘for the goddess,’ as the case may be. ’ Or, he pronounces the havishkrzt formula, see next note. According to Katy. Sr. II, 4, 13 he calls out three separate times. * Havishkrzt denotes not only the person that prepares the oblation, but also this formula by which that person is called. 28 SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. restraint. And speech, moreover, represents sacrifice}, so that he thereby again calls the sacrifice to him. 12. Now there are four different forms of this call, viz. ‘come hither (ehi)!’ in the case of a Braéhman ; ‘approach (4gahi)!’ and ‘hasten hither (Adrava)!’ in the case of a Vaisya and a member of the military caste (raganyabandhu’); and ‘run hither (Adh4va)!’ in that of a Sfdra. On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahman, because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and is besides the most gentle: let him therefore say, ‘come hither (ehi) !’
2On this occasion he uses the call that belongs to a Brahman, because that one is best adapted for a sacrifice, and is besides the most gentle: let him therefore say, ‘come hither (ehi) !’ 13. Now in former times it was no other than the wife (of the sacrificer) who rose at this (call, to act) as Havishkrzt; therefore now also (she or) some one (priest)® rises in answer to this call. And at the time when he (the Adhvaryu) calls the Havishkvit, one of the priests‘ beats the two mill-stones. 1 Viz. in the shape of the sacrificial formulas. * This inversion of the order of the second (or Kshatriya) and third (or Vaisya) castes is rather strange. The Satras of Bharadv., Apast., and Hirany. assign the same formulas to the several castes as here. Cf. Hillebrandt, Neu- und Vollmondsopfer, p. 29. ® According to the Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 13, either the wife of the patron or the Agnfdhra (the priest who kindles the fire) acts as Havishkrit. Mahidh. on Vag. S. I, 15 includes the patron (sacrificer) himself, unless yagam4naf patnf is a misprint for yagamanapatni. According to Apastamba, ‘ either a maidservant or the wife grinds; or the wife threshes and the Sfidra woman grinds’ (cf. Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 5, 7). Similarly Bharadv. and Hirany.; cf. Hillebrandt, p. 38, n.2. Similar cases of differences between the ritualistic practices of the present time and those of former times are very frequently alluded to in the ritualistic books; and are of especial interest, as they afford some insight into the gradual development of the sacrificial ceremonial. Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. X, 156 seq. * Viz. the Agntdhra, whilst seated north of the expansion I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMANA, 16. 29 The reason why they produce this discordant noise, is this: 14. Manu was in possession of a bull. Into him had entered an Asura-killing, foe-killing voice; and by his snorting and roaring the Asuras and Rakshas were continually being crushed. Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Evil, alas! this bull inflicts upon us! how can we possibly destroy him ?’ Now Kilata and Akuli were the two priests (brahman) of the Asuras. 15. These two said, ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us two then ascertain!’ They then went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith?’ They said: ‘With this bull!’ He said: ‘So be it!’ On his (the bull's) being killed the voice went from him. 16. It entered into Man4vt, the wife of Manu; and when they heard her speak, the Asuras and Rakshas were continually being crushed. Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Hereby even greater evil is inflicted on us, for the human voice speaks more!’ Kiléta and Akuli then said: ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us then ascertain!’ They went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith ?’
3Thereupon the Asuras said to one another: ‘ Hereby even greater evil is inflicted on us, for the human voice speaks more!’ Kiléta and Akuli then said: ‘God-fearing, they say, is Manu: let us then ascertain!’ They went to him and said: ‘Manu! we will sacrifice for thee!’ He said: ‘Wherewith ?’ (vih4ra) of the fires ; he strikes with the wedge (samy4, a stick of khadira wood, usually some six or eight inches long, used for placing under the lower grindstone on the north side, so as to make it incline towards east) twice the lower and once the upper grindstone. Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 15. 1 This bull of Manu has been compared by Dr. Kuhn (Zeitschrift fiir Vergl. Sprachf. IV, 91 seq.) with the Minotaur of the Greeks. Cf. also J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. i. p. 188 seq.; and Professor Weber's Translation of the first Adhy4ya, Ind. Streifen, I, p. 50. 30 SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. They said: ‘With this thy wife!’ He said: ‘So be it!’ And on her being killed that voice went from her. 17. It entered into the sacrifice itself, into the sacrificial vessels; and thence those two (Asura priests) were unable to expel it. This same Asurakilling, foe-killing voice sounds forth (from the millstones when they are beaten with the wedge). And for whomsoever that knows this, they produce this discordant noise on the present occasion, his enemies are rendered very miserable. 18. He beats the mill-stones with the wedge, with the text (V4g. S. I, 16 a): ‘A honey-tongued cock (kukku/¢a ') art thou (O wedge)!’ For honeytongued indeed was he (the bull) for the gods, and poison-tongued for the Asuras: hence he thereby says: ‘What thou wert for the gods, that be thou for us!’ He adds: ‘Sap and strength do thou call hither! with thy help may we conquer in every battle!’ In these words there is nothing that is obscure. 19. Thereupon? he (the Adhvaryu) takes the winnowing basket, with the text (Vag. S. I, 14b): ‘ Rain-grown art thou!’ For rain-grown it is indeed, whether it be made of reeds or of cane or of rushes, since it is the rain that makes these grow. 1 Mahfdhara offers the following etymological derivation of this word: 1. from kva kva, ‘ where? where?’ [‘ He who, wishing to kill the Asuras, roams about everywhere, crying ‘where, where are the Asuras?’]; 2. from kuk, ‘a hideous noise,’ and ku/, ‘to spread;’ or 3. one who, in order to frighten the Asuras, utters a sound resembling that of the bird called kukku/a (cock). Professor Weber translates it by ‘ Brtiller’ (roarer, crier). * Viz. when the rice has been husked (by the Havishkr#t in the mortar). Schol. on Katy. Sr. II, 4, 16. r I KANDA, I ADHYAYA, 4 BRAHMANA, 22. 31
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.