Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The sacrificial texts used by the Adhvaryu priest are contained in the Yagur-veda, of which several recensions have come down to us. These texts consist, in about equal parts, of verses (rzk) and prose formulas (yagus). The majority of the former are likewise found in the Riksamhit4, though not unfrequently with considerable variations, which may be explained partly from a difference of recension, and partly as the result of the adaptation of these verses to their special sacrificial purpose’. With the prose formulas, on the other hand, save a few isolated sacrificial calls alluded to in the Rzk2, we meet for the first time in this collection. In the older recensions of the Yagur-veda the texts are, as a rule, followed immediately by their dogmatic explanation. Now, these theological treatises, composed chiefly with the view of elucidating the sacrificial texts and explaining the origin and hidden meaning of the various rites, form one of the most important departments of the literature of the period which succeeded the systematic arrangement of the sacrificial ceremonial, and in which we must place the gradual consolidation of the Brahmanical hierarchy. Such as they lie before us, they contain the accumulated wisdom and speculations of generations of Indian divines. They are essentially digests of a floating mass of single discourses or dicta on various points of the ceremonial of worship, ascribed to individual teachers, and handed down orally in the theological schools. Single discourses of this kind were called brahmaza,—probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests 1 See A. Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 9, 115. 2 See M. Haug, Ait. Br. I, p. 34. INTRODUCTION. Xxiil
2Single discourses of this kind were called brahmaza,—probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests 1 See A. Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 9, 115. 2 See M. Haug, Ait. Br. I, p. 34. INTRODUCTION. Xxiil (brahman) generally ; or because they were, for the most part, the authoritative utterances of such as were thoroughly versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent to act as Brahmans or superintending priests'. In later times a collection or digest of such detached pieces came to be likewise called a Brahmaza. Works of this kind have come down to us in connection with all the Vedic Samhitas, generally in more than one version which, though on the whole betraying a common stock of material, often vary considerably, both in their arrangement and their ‘treatment of these materials. Nay, owing as they do their origin to different schools of the same Veda, these recensions not unfrequently take the very opposite view of single points of ceremonial. Originally the number of such recensions, more or less differing from each other, must have been much larger; but the practical tendencies of a later age, which led to the production of concise manuals of ceremonial rules—the Kalpa-sitras—adapted to the sacrificial practices of more than one school, were not favourable to the perpetuation of these bulky ¢yclopedias of theological school-wisdom: thus only the Brahmazas of the schools which had the greatest number of followers survived; while others were probably never committed to writing, or at best had a precarious existence down to more recent times. While the Brahmavas are thus our oldest sources from which a comprehensive view of the sacrificial ceremonial can be obtained, they also throw a great deal of light on the earliest metaphysical and linguistic speculations of the Hindus. Another, even more interesting feature of these works, consists in the numerous legends scattered through them. From the archaic style in which these mythological tales are generally composed, as well as from the fact that not a few of them are found in Brahmawas of different schools and Vedas, though often with considerable varia- } See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 172; Rig-vedasamhita IV, p. vi. Professors Weber (History of Sanskrit Literature, p.11), Whitney, Westergaard, and other scholars derive brahmana from brahman, ‘ prayer, worship.’ XXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
3172; Rig-vedasamhita IV, p. vi. Professors Weber (History of Sanskrit Literature, p.11), Whitney, Westergaard, and other scholars derive brahmana from brahman, ‘ prayer, worship.’ XXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, tions, it is pretty evident that the ground-work of many of them goes back to times preceding the composition of the Brahmazas. From a mythological, and to some extent from a linguistic, point of view these legends thus form a connecting link between the latter and the Vedic hymns. In the case of some of these legends—as those of Sunahsepha! and the fetching of the Soma from heaven *—we can even see how they have grown out of germs contained in the Vedic hymns; their relation to the latter being thus not unlike that of the Sagas of the younger Edda to the songs of the older Edda. The Kaushitaki Brahmama %, at the end of a story of this kind about Soma, remarks that it is thus told by those versed in legend (4khydnavidaZ). We may perhaps infer from this passage that there was a class of people who took a special interest in such legends, and made it their business to collect and repeat them. Indeed, many of the elaborate mythical stories with which we meet in the later epical and Purdwic literature doubtless owe their origin to simple popular legends of this kind ¢. Besides the genuine myths which we find in the Brahmazas, there is also a large number of stories which were evidently invented by the authors of these treatises for the purpose of supplying some kind of traditional support for particular points of ceremonial®, However small the intrinsic merit of such passages, they, too, are not entirely devoid of interest, especially from a linguistic point of view, since the style of narrative and the archaic mode of diction which they affect, readily lend themselves to syntactic turns of expression rarely indulged in by the authors in the purely explanatory and exegetic parts of their works. And, indeed, whatever opinion the general reader may form of the Brahmamas, as purely literary com- 1 See R. Roth in Weber’s Ind. Stud. I, 475 seq.; II, 111 seq.; Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 408 seq. 2 See the present volume, p. 183. Compare also Professor Aufrecht’s remarks on the myth of Ap&la, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 8. 3K. B. III, 25; cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. II, 313. 4 Cf. Max Miiller, Upanishads, I, p. 39 note. 5 See, for instance, Sat. Br. II, 4, 3, 1, where a legend of this kind seems to be directly ascribed to Yagiavalkya. INTRODUCTION, XXV
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.
1The sacrificial texts used by the Adhvaryu priest are contained in the Yagur-veda, of which several recensions have come down to us. These texts consist, in about equal parts, of verses (rzk) and prose formulas (yagus). The majority of the former are likewise found in the Riksamhit4, though not unfrequently with considerable variations, which may be explained partly from a difference of recension, and partly as the result of the adaptation of these verses to their special sacrificial purpose’. With the prose formulas, on the other hand, save a few isolated sacrificial calls alluded to in the Rzk2, we meet for the first time in this collection. In the older recensions of the Yagur-veda the texts are, as a rule, followed immediately by their dogmatic explanation. Now, these theological treatises, composed chiefly with the view of elucidating the sacrificial texts and explaining the origin and hidden meaning of the various rites, form one of the most important departments of the literature of the period which succeeded the systematic arrangement of the sacrificial ceremonial, and in which we must place the gradual consolidation of the Brahmanical hierarchy. Such as they lie before us, they contain the accumulated wisdom and speculations of generations of Indian divines. They are essentially digests of a floating mass of single discourses or dicta on various points of the ceremonial of worship, ascribed to individual teachers, and handed down orally in the theological schools. Single discourses of this kind were called brahmaza,—probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests 1 See A. Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 9, 115. 2 See M. Haug, Ait. Br. I, p. 34. INTRODUCTION. Xxiil
2Single discourses of this kind were called brahmaza,—probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests 1 See A. Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 9, 115. 2 See M. Haug, Ait. Br. I, p. 34. INTRODUCTION. Xxiil (brahman) generally ; or because they were, for the most part, the authoritative utterances of such as were thoroughly versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent to act as Brahmans or superintending priests'. In later times a collection or digest of such detached pieces came to be likewise called a Brahmaza. Works of this kind have come down to us in connection with all the Vedic Samhitas, generally in more than one version which, though on the whole betraying a common stock of material, often vary considerably, both in their arrangement and their ‘treatment of these materials. Nay, owing as they do their origin to different schools of the same Veda, these recensions not unfrequently take the very opposite view of single points of ceremonial. Originally the number of such recensions, more or less differing from each other, must have been much larger; but the practical tendencies of a later age, which led to the production of concise manuals of ceremonial rules—the Kalpa-sitras—adapted to the sacrificial practices of more than one school, were not favourable to the perpetuation of these bulky ¢yclopedias of theological school-wisdom: thus only the Brahmazas of the schools which had the greatest number of followers survived; while others were probably never committed to writing, or at best had a precarious existence down to more recent times. While the Brahmavas are thus our oldest sources from which a comprehensive view of the sacrificial ceremonial can be obtained, they also throw a great deal of light on the earliest metaphysical and linguistic speculations of the Hindus. Another, even more interesting feature of these works, consists in the numerous legends scattered through them. From the archaic style in which these mythological tales are generally composed, as well as from the fact that not a few of them are found in Brahmawas of different schools and Vedas, though often with considerable varia- } See Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 172; Rig-vedasamhita IV, p. vi. Professors Weber (History of Sanskrit Literature, p.11), Whitney, Westergaard, and other scholars derive brahmana from brahman, ‘ prayer, worship.’ XXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
3172; Rig-vedasamhita IV, p. vi. Professors Weber (History of Sanskrit Literature, p.11), Whitney, Westergaard, and other scholars derive brahmana from brahman, ‘ prayer, worship.’ XXIV SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, tions, it is pretty evident that the ground-work of many of them goes back to times preceding the composition of the Brahmazas. From a mythological, and to some extent from a linguistic, point of view these legends thus form a connecting link between the latter and the Vedic hymns. In the case of some of these legends—as those of Sunahsepha! and the fetching of the Soma from heaven *—we can even see how they have grown out of germs contained in the Vedic hymns; their relation to the latter being thus not unlike that of the Sagas of the younger Edda to the songs of the older Edda. The Kaushitaki Brahmama %, at the end of a story of this kind about Soma, remarks that it is thus told by those versed in legend (4khydnavidaZ). We may perhaps infer from this passage that there was a class of people who took a special interest in such legends, and made it their business to collect and repeat them. Indeed, many of the elaborate mythical stories with which we meet in the later epical and Purdwic literature doubtless owe their origin to simple popular legends of this kind ¢. Besides the genuine myths which we find in the Brahmazas, there is also a large number of stories which were evidently invented by the authors of these treatises for the purpose of supplying some kind of traditional support for particular points of ceremonial®, However small the intrinsic merit of such passages, they, too, are not entirely devoid of interest, especially from a linguistic point of view, since the style of narrative and the archaic mode of diction which they affect, readily lend themselves to syntactic turns of expression rarely indulged in by the authors in the purely explanatory and exegetic parts of their works. And, indeed, whatever opinion the general reader may form of the Brahmamas, as purely literary com- 1 See R. Roth in Weber’s Ind. Stud. I, 475 seq.; II, 111 seq.; Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 408 seq. 2 See the present volume, p. 183. Compare also Professor Aufrecht’s remarks on the myth of Ap&la, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 8. 3K. B. III, 25; cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. II, 313. 4 Cf. Max Miiller, Upanishads, I, p. 39 note. 5 See, for instance, Sat. Br. II, 4, 3, 1, where a legend of this kind seems to be directly ascribed to Yagiavalkya. INTRODUCTION, XXV
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.