Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Instead of speaking of a sacrificial cake on eleven or twelve potsherds, we are to call it a cake on so many cups or dishes. The term * American Journal of Philology, vol. iii, pp. 391-410; Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October 1882, p. xiv seq. XXVIil SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, ‘potsherd’ no doubt is somewhat awkward, and, had it been possible, I should have preferred to use the simple obsolete word ‘shard’ or ‘sherd’ for it; but I decidedly object to either ‘cup’ or ‘dish.’ I gather from his suggestion, that we take entirely different views of the purpose and nature of the kapala. I have to reject the proposed renderings for the very reason for which they commend themselves to Prof. Whitney, namely, because they imply so many vessels complete in themselves. He asks, whether I suppose ‘that the Brahmans made their offerings on fragments of broken pottery?’ Well, I certainly believe that the kapalas are meant to represent the fragments of a broken dish. The sacrificial cake is to be baked on a dish, but for symbolic reasons this dish is supposed to be broken up intoa number of pieces or kapalas. The symbolic significance of this seems to be a twofold one. On the one hand, the dish is to resemble the human skull. Hence we read Sat. Br. I, 2, 1,2, ‘The cake is the head of Yagfa (the sacrifice, and symbolically the sacrificer himself); for those potsherds (kap4lani) are what the skull-bones (sirshva# kap4lani) are, and the ground rice is nothing else than the brain.’ On the other hand, the kap4las are usually arranged (see Part I, P- 34, note) in such a manner as to producea fancied resemblance to the (upper!) shell of the tortoise, which is a symbol of the sky, as the tortoise itself represents the universe. Thus with cakes on a single kapdla, the latter is indeed a complete dish. In the same way the term kapala, in the singular, is occasionally applied to the skull, as well as to the upper and the lower case of the tortoise, e.g. Sat. Br. VII, 5, 1, 2: ‘That lower kap4la of it (the tortoise) is this world, for that (kap4la) is firmly established, and firmly established is this world ; and that upper (kap4la) is yonder sky, for it has its ends turned down, and so has that sky its ends turned down; and that which is between is that atmosphere : verily that same (tortoise) represents these worlds.’ More usually, however, the term is applied to the single 1 Or perhaps the lower shell which represents the earth, being as it were a sym bol of firmness and safety. INTRODUCTION. Xxix bones of the skull (and the plates of the tortoise-case). Hence the Medini says (lanta 71), kapalo ’stri siro-’sthni syAd, ghatade’ sakale, vrage,—kap4la may be used in the sense of ‘head-bone,’ in that of ‘fragment of a pot,’ &c., and in the sense of ‘collection.’
2INTRODUCTION. Xxix bones of the skull (and the plates of the tortoise-case). Hence the Medini says (lanta 71), kapalo ’stri siro-’sthni syAd, ghatade’ sakale, vrage,—kap4la may be used in the sense of ‘head-bone,’ in that of ‘fragment of a pot,’ &c., and in the sense of ‘collection.’ Professor Whitney takes exception to my occasionally translating 4tman by ‘ body,’—an inaccuracy, he remarks, that might easily be avoided. I do not quite understand on what grounds he objects to this rendering. The original meaning of 4tman doubtless is (breath) ‘self, soul ;’ but surely there can be no question that it also commonly means ‘body, trunk,’ in contradistinction to the limbs, wings, &c. Thus we read Sat. Br. IV, 1, 2, 25, ‘The sacrifice is fashioned like a bird: the Upamsu and Antarydma are its wings, and the Up4msusavana is its body?.’ My rendering of ‘videgho ha mathavah’ (I, 4, 1,10) by ‘ Mathava the (king of) Videgha,’ instead of ‘ Videgha (the) Mathava,’ is rightly objected to. Indeed, I had already taken occasion, in the introduction to the same volume (I, p- xli, note 4), to make that correction. Prof. Whitney’s remarks on ‘ydpena yopayitva4’ are adverted to at p. 36, note 1 of the present volume; as are also those on ‘ed’ at p. 265,note 2. In regard to the latter point he rather does me wrong by supposing that I apparently regarded the particle (or particles) ‘ed’ (for which the Ka4zva text seems to read ‘4 hi’) as a verb-form from the root ‘i, to go. The fact is that I followed Prof. Weber (Ind. Stud. IX, p. 249) in taking it to be a popular expression, with a verb of motion understood, somewhat in the sense of the German ‘hin;’ e.g. ‘Shall we go there?’— ‘Hin denn!’ i.e. ‘ Let us go then.’ My translation of II, 4, 2, 19 is not quite approved of by * Professor Max Miiller has been kind enough to send me a number of passages from Upanishads and Aravyakas, in which 4tman has the sense of ‘body, trunk,’ and is usually explained in the commentaries by sarfra (Atm4nah = sariravayavah, Brihadar. Up. I, 1, 2,7). The adverb adhya4tmam, he remarks, always means ‘with reference to the body ;’ cf. Taitt. Up. I, 7; Sat. Br. IV, 1, 3, 1, the present volume, p. 265, note 1. XXX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
3Up. I, 1, 2,7). The adverb adhya4tmam, he remarks, always means ‘with reference to the body ;’ cf. Taitt. Up. I, 7; Sat. Br. IV, 1, 3, 1, the present volume, p. 265, note 1. XXX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, Prof. Whitney. There offering is made severally to the sacrificer’s grandfather and great-grandfather with the formula ‘N.N., this for thee!’ to which some authorities add ‘and for those who come after thee.’ This addition is rejected by the author on the ground that ‘svayam vai tesh4m saha yesh4m saha,’ which I translated by ‘since he himself is one of those to whom [it would be offered] in common.’ Prof. Whitney takes exception to this, remarking that in that case, the phrase ‘and those who (come) after thee’ might be added, without any reason to the contrary. But he forgets one important point, namely, that it would be a fatal thing for the sacrificer in this way to associate himself with the departed ancestors, and even make offering to himself along with them: it would simply mean that ‘he would straightway go to yonder world,’ that he would not live his fulness of days. The clause under discussion is elliptic, its literal translation being ‘Himself surely (is) of those withal of whom (he is) withal.’ This may either be taken in the sense in which I took it (see also St. Petersb. Dict. s.v. saha); or in a general way, ‘He surely is one of those with whom he associates himself;’ i.e. he would himself be a dead man. In the legend of Manu and the Flood (I, 8, 1, 1 seq.) I find it impossible to accept Prof. Delbriick’s conjecture, which Prof. Whitney thinks the best and only acceptable one, viz. that (in par. 4) the sentence ‘ sasvad ha ghasha Asa, sa hi gyeshtham vardhate’ is an interpolated gloss. My reason for not accepting it is the fact that the passage occurs likewise in the K4zva recension, and is thus authenticated for so comparatively early a period that the difficulty of accounting for the interpolation might be even greater than that of the interpretation of the passage itself. Professor Ludwig, in his kindly notice in ‘Géttinger Gel. Anz.’ 1883, proposes to take sasvat in the sense of mdvros : ‘It quite so (i.e. in accordance with the prediction) became a large fish. Prof. Max Miiller has again translated this legend in his ‘ India, what can it teach us?’ p. 134 seq., where he renders this passage by ‘He became soon a large fish INTRODUCTION. XXXi (ghasha), for such a fish grows largest.’ I am still inclined to take ghasha as the name of some kind of fish, real or mythic.
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.
1Instead of speaking of a sacrificial cake on eleven or twelve potsherds, we are to call it a cake on so many cups or dishes. The term * American Journal of Philology, vol. iii, pp. 391-410; Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October 1882, p. xiv seq. XXVIil SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, ‘potsherd’ no doubt is somewhat awkward, and, had it been possible, I should have preferred to use the simple obsolete word ‘shard’ or ‘sherd’ for it; but I decidedly object to either ‘cup’ or ‘dish.’ I gather from his suggestion, that we take entirely different views of the purpose and nature of the kapala. I have to reject the proposed renderings for the very reason for which they commend themselves to Prof. Whitney, namely, because they imply so many vessels complete in themselves. He asks, whether I suppose ‘that the Brahmans made their offerings on fragments of broken pottery?’ Well, I certainly believe that the kapalas are meant to represent the fragments of a broken dish. The sacrificial cake is to be baked on a dish, but for symbolic reasons this dish is supposed to be broken up intoa number of pieces or kapalas. The symbolic significance of this seems to be a twofold one. On the one hand, the dish is to resemble the human skull. Hence we read Sat. Br. I, 2, 1,2, ‘The cake is the head of Yagfa (the sacrifice, and symbolically the sacrificer himself); for those potsherds (kap4lani) are what the skull-bones (sirshva# kap4lani) are, and the ground rice is nothing else than the brain.’ On the other hand, the kap4las are usually arranged (see Part I, P- 34, note) in such a manner as to producea fancied resemblance to the (upper!) shell of the tortoise, which is a symbol of the sky, as the tortoise itself represents the universe. Thus with cakes on a single kapdla, the latter is indeed a complete dish. In the same way the term kapala, in the singular, is occasionally applied to the skull, as well as to the upper and the lower case of the tortoise, e.g. Sat. Br. VII, 5, 1, 2: ‘That lower kap4la of it (the tortoise) is this world, for that (kap4la) is firmly established, and firmly established is this world ; and that upper (kap4la) is yonder sky, for it has its ends turned down, and so has that sky its ends turned down; and that which is between is that atmosphere : verily that same (tortoise) represents these worlds.’ More usually, however, the term is applied to the single 1 Or perhaps the lower shell which represents the earth, being as it were a sym bol of firmness and safety. INTRODUCTION. Xxix bones of the skull (and the plates of the tortoise-case). Hence the Medini says (lanta 71), kapalo ’stri siro-’sthni syAd, ghatade’ sakale, vrage,—kap4la may be used in the sense of ‘head-bone,’ in that of ‘fragment of a pot,’ &c., and in the sense of ‘collection.’
2INTRODUCTION. Xxix bones of the skull (and the plates of the tortoise-case). Hence the Medini says (lanta 71), kapalo ’stri siro-’sthni syAd, ghatade’ sakale, vrage,—kap4la may be used in the sense of ‘head-bone,’ in that of ‘fragment of a pot,’ &c., and in the sense of ‘collection.’ Professor Whitney takes exception to my occasionally translating 4tman by ‘ body,’—an inaccuracy, he remarks, that might easily be avoided. I do not quite understand on what grounds he objects to this rendering. The original meaning of 4tman doubtless is (breath) ‘self, soul ;’ but surely there can be no question that it also commonly means ‘body, trunk,’ in contradistinction to the limbs, wings, &c. Thus we read Sat. Br. IV, 1, 2, 25, ‘The sacrifice is fashioned like a bird: the Upamsu and Antarydma are its wings, and the Up4msusavana is its body?.’ My rendering of ‘videgho ha mathavah’ (I, 4, 1,10) by ‘ Mathava the (king of) Videgha,’ instead of ‘ Videgha (the) Mathava,’ is rightly objected to. Indeed, I had already taken occasion, in the introduction to the same volume (I, p- xli, note 4), to make that correction. Prof. Whitney’s remarks on ‘ydpena yopayitva4’ are adverted to at p. 36, note 1 of the present volume; as are also those on ‘ed’ at p. 265,note 2. In regard to the latter point he rather does me wrong by supposing that I apparently regarded the particle (or particles) ‘ed’ (for which the Ka4zva text seems to read ‘4 hi’) as a verb-form from the root ‘i, to go. The fact is that I followed Prof. Weber (Ind. Stud. IX, p. 249) in taking it to be a popular expression, with a verb of motion understood, somewhat in the sense of the German ‘hin;’ e.g. ‘Shall we go there?’— ‘Hin denn!’ i.e. ‘ Let us go then.’ My translation of II, 4, 2, 19 is not quite approved of by * Professor Max Miiller has been kind enough to send me a number of passages from Upanishads and Aravyakas, in which 4tman has the sense of ‘body, trunk,’ and is usually explained in the commentaries by sarfra (Atm4nah = sariravayavah, Brihadar. Up. I, 1, 2,7). The adverb adhya4tmam, he remarks, always means ‘with reference to the body ;’ cf. Taitt. Up. I, 7; Sat. Br. IV, 1, 3, 1, the present volume, p. 265, note 1. XXX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA,
3Up. I, 1, 2,7). The adverb adhya4tmam, he remarks, always means ‘with reference to the body ;’ cf. Taitt. Up. I, 7; Sat. Br. IV, 1, 3, 1, the present volume, p. 265, note 1. XXX SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA, Prof. Whitney. There offering is made severally to the sacrificer’s grandfather and great-grandfather with the formula ‘N.N., this for thee!’ to which some authorities add ‘and for those who come after thee.’ This addition is rejected by the author on the ground that ‘svayam vai tesh4m saha yesh4m saha,’ which I translated by ‘since he himself is one of those to whom [it would be offered] in common.’ Prof. Whitney takes exception to this, remarking that in that case, the phrase ‘and those who (come) after thee’ might be added, without any reason to the contrary. But he forgets one important point, namely, that it would be a fatal thing for the sacrificer in this way to associate himself with the departed ancestors, and even make offering to himself along with them: it would simply mean that ‘he would straightway go to yonder world,’ that he would not live his fulness of days. The clause under discussion is elliptic, its literal translation being ‘Himself surely (is) of those withal of whom (he is) withal.’ This may either be taken in the sense in which I took it (see also St. Petersb. Dict. s.v. saha); or in a general way, ‘He surely is one of those with whom he associates himself;’ i.e. he would himself be a dead man. In the legend of Manu and the Flood (I, 8, 1, 1 seq.) I find it impossible to accept Prof. Delbriick’s conjecture, which Prof. Whitney thinks the best and only acceptable one, viz. that (in par. 4) the sentence ‘ sasvad ha ghasha Asa, sa hi gyeshtham vardhate’ is an interpolated gloss. My reason for not accepting it is the fact that the passage occurs likewise in the K4zva recension, and is thus authenticated for so comparatively early a period that the difficulty of accounting for the interpolation might be even greater than that of the interpretation of the passage itself. Professor Ludwig, in his kindly notice in ‘Géttinger Gel. Anz.’ 1883, proposes to take sasvat in the sense of mdvros : ‘It quite so (i.e. in accordance with the prediction) became a large fish. Prof. Max Miiller has again translated this legend in his ‘ India, what can it teach us?’ p. 134 seq., where he renders this passage by ‘He became soon a large fish INTRODUCTION. XXXi (ghasha), for such a fish grows largest.’ I am still inclined to take ghasha as the name of some kind of fish, real or mythic.
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.