Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Prof. Max Miiller translates these words differently; according to him they mean that Asvalayana ‘made a Sitra and taught it.’ * Comp. Prof. Biihler’s article in the Journal As. Soc. of Bengal, 1866, Pp. 149 seqq. 2 Dvadasadhydyakam sitram datushkam grihyam eva a daturtharanyakam eti hy Asvalayanasitrakam, > See p. 448 of Dr. Ragendralala Mitra’s edition in the Bibliotheca Indica. INTRODUCTION. 155 which the fifth Arazyaka is assigned to Saunaka, are found in Sayava’s commentary on the Aranyaka itself; see, for instance, p. 97, line 19, p. 116, line 3. Thus it seems that the authorship of both the fourth and the fifth Arazyaka was ascribed to teachers belonging to the Satra period of Vedic literature, viz. to Saunaka and to Asvalayana respectively. And so we find the case stated by both Professor Weber, in his ‘ Vorlesungen iiber indische Literaturgeschichte!, and Dr. Ragendralala Mitra, in the Introduction to his edition of the Aitareya Aranyaka?. But we must ask ourselves: Are the two books of the Aranyaka collection, ascribed to those two authors, really two different books? It is a surprising fact that Shadgurusishya, while speaking of Asvalayana’s authorship of the fourth book, and while at the same time intending, as he evidently does, to give a complete list of Saunaka’s compositions, does not mention the fifth Aranyaka among the works of that author. In order to account for this omission the conjecture seems to suggest itself that Shadgurusishya, when speaking of the fourth Arazyaka as belonging to Asvalayana, means the same work which Sayana sets down as the fifth, and which he ascribes to Saunaka. At first sight this conjecture may seem perhaps rather hazardous or unnatural ; however I believe that, if we compare the two texts themselves which are concerned, we shall find it very probable and even evident. What do those two Aranyaka books contain? The fourth is very short: it does not fill more than one page in the printed edition. Its contents consist exclusively of the text of the Mah4n4mni or Sakvari verses, which seem to belong to a not less remote 1 and edition, p. 53: Obwohl wir fiir das vierte Buch des letztern (i.e. of the Aitareya Aranyaka) sogar die directe Nachricht haben, dass es dem Asvalayana, dem Schiiler eines Saunaka angehdrt, so wie auch ferner fiir das fiinfte Buch desselben dieser Saunaka selbst als Urheber gegolten zu haben scheint, nach dem was Colebrooke Misc. Ess. I, 47 n. dariiber berichtet. ? P. 11: If this assumption be admitted, the proper conclusion to be arrived at would also be that the whole of the fifth Book belongs to Saunaka, and the whole of the fourth Book to Asvalayana, P.12: The writings of both ayana and Saunaka which occur in the Aranyaka, etc. 156 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA.
2156 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. antiquity than the average of the Rig-veda hymns. They can indeed be considered as forming part of the Rig-veda Samhita, and it is only on account of the peculiar mystical holiness ascribed to these verses, that they were not studied in the village but in the forest!, and were consequently received not into the body of the Samhita itself, but into the Arazyaka. They are referred to in all Brahmawa texts, and perhaps we can even go so far as to pronounce our opinion that some passages of the Rig-veda hymns themselves allude to the Sakvari verses: yak khakvarishu brzhatAé ravevendre sushmam adadhata Vasish¢#ah (Rig-veda VII, 33, 4). rikim tvah posham Aste pupushvan gayatram tvo gayati sakvarishu (Rig-veda X, 71, 11). So much for the fourth Arazyaka. The fifth contains a description of the Mah4vrata ceremony. To the same subject also the first book is devoted, with the difference that the first book is composed in the Brahmaza style, the fifth in the Sdtra style *. Now which of these two books can it be that Shadgurusishya reckons as belonging to the ‘ Asvalayanas(traka?’ It is impossible that it should be the fourth, for the Mahanamni verses never were considered by Indian theologians as the work of a human author; they shared in the apaurusheyatva of the Veda, and to say that they have been composed by Asvalayana, would be inconsistent with the most firmly established principles of the literary history of the Veda both as conceived by the Indians and by ourselves. And even if we were to admit that the Mahanamni verses can have been assigned, by an author like Shadgurusishya, to Asvalayana,—and we cannot admit 4 See Sankhdyana-Grthya II, 12, 13. * Thus Sayama, in his note on V, 1, 1, says: Nanu prathamaranyakespi atha mahavratam Indro vai Vritram hatvetyddina mahavrataprayogo sbhihitah, paftkame spi tasyaivabhidhane punaruktié syat. nayam dosha, sitrabrahmasarfipevza tayor vibhedat. pavéamaranyakam rishiproktam siitram, prathamarazyakan tv apaurusheya# brihmarzam, ata eva tatrarthavadaprapaf#fena sahita vidhayad sriyante, pa#téame tu na ko py arthavddossti.... aranya cvaitad adhyeyam ity abhiprety4dhyetara 4ranyakande x ntarbhavyadhiyate. INTRODUCTION. 157
3pavéamaranyakam rishiproktam siitram, prathamarazyakan tv apaurusheya# brihmarzam, ata eva tatrarthavadaprapaf#fena sahita vidhayad sriyante, pa#téame tu na ko py arthavddossti.... aranya cvaitad adhyeyam ity abhiprety4dhyetara 4ranyakande x ntarbhavyadhiyate. INTRODUCTION. 157 this,—there is no possibility whatever that he can have used the expression ‘AsvalayanasQtrakam’ with regard to the Mahan4mnis; to apply the designation of a Satra to the Mahan4mnit hymn would be no less absurd than to apply it to any Sikta whatever of the Rzk-Samhita. On the other hand, the fifth book of the Arazyaka is a Sdtra ; it is the only part of the whole body of the Arazyaka collection which is composed in the Sftra style. And it treats of a special part of the Rig-veda ritual the rest of which is embodied in its entirety, with the omission only of that very part, in the two great Sdtras of Asvalayana. There seems to me, therefore, to be little doubt as to the fifth Arazyaka really being the text referred to by Shadgurusishya, though I do not know how to explain his setting down this book as the fourth, And I may add that there is a passage, hitherto, as far as I know, unnoticed, in SAyaza’s SAma-veda commentary, in which that author directly assigns the fifth Arazyaka not, as in the Rig-veda commentary, to Saunaka, but to Asvalayana. Sayama there says!: yath4 bahvrz#im adhydpaké mah4vrataprayogapratipadakam A svalayananirmitam kalpasitram aranye:dhiyamanak pawkamam drazyakam iti vedatvena vyavaharanti. Instead of asserting, therefore, that of the two last Aranyakas of the Aitareyinas the one is ascribed to Saunaka, the other to Asvalayana, we must state the case otherwise: not two Arazyakas were, according to Sdyana and Shadgurusishya, composed by those Sftrakaras, but one, viz. the fifth, which forms a sort of supplement to the great body of the Sdtras of that Karaza, and which is ascribed either to Saunaka or to Asvalayana. Perhaps further research will enable us to decide whether that Stra portion of the Arazyaka, or we may say quite as well, that Arazyaka portion of the Sftra, belongs to the author of the Srauta-sitra, or should be considered as a remnant of a more ancient composition, of which the portion studied in the forest has survived, while the portion 1 Sama-veda (Bibl. Indica), vol. i, p. 19. 158 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. which was taught in the village was superseded by the more recent Asvalayana-sitra. There would be still many questions with which an Introduction to Asvalayana would have to deal; thus the relation between Asvalayana and Saunaka, which we had intended to treat of here with reference to a special point, would have to be further discussed with regard to several other of its bearings, and the results which follow therefrom as to the position of Asvalayana in the history of Vedic literature would have to be stated. But we prefer to reserve the discussion of these questions for the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras.
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.
1Prof. Max Miiller translates these words differently; according to him they mean that Asvalayana ‘made a Sitra and taught it.’ * Comp. Prof. Biihler’s article in the Journal As. Soc. of Bengal, 1866, Pp. 149 seqq. 2 Dvadasadhydyakam sitram datushkam grihyam eva a daturtharanyakam eti hy Asvalayanasitrakam, > See p. 448 of Dr. Ragendralala Mitra’s edition in the Bibliotheca Indica. INTRODUCTION. 155 which the fifth Arazyaka is assigned to Saunaka, are found in Sayava’s commentary on the Aranyaka itself; see, for instance, p. 97, line 19, p. 116, line 3. Thus it seems that the authorship of both the fourth and the fifth Arazyaka was ascribed to teachers belonging to the Satra period of Vedic literature, viz. to Saunaka and to Asvalayana respectively. And so we find the case stated by both Professor Weber, in his ‘ Vorlesungen iiber indische Literaturgeschichte!, and Dr. Ragendralala Mitra, in the Introduction to his edition of the Aitareya Aranyaka?. But we must ask ourselves: Are the two books of the Aranyaka collection, ascribed to those two authors, really two different books? It is a surprising fact that Shadgurusishya, while speaking of Asvalayana’s authorship of the fourth book, and while at the same time intending, as he evidently does, to give a complete list of Saunaka’s compositions, does not mention the fifth Aranyaka among the works of that author. In order to account for this omission the conjecture seems to suggest itself that Shadgurusishya, when speaking of the fourth Arazyaka as belonging to Asvalayana, means the same work which Sayana sets down as the fifth, and which he ascribes to Saunaka. At first sight this conjecture may seem perhaps rather hazardous or unnatural ; however I believe that, if we compare the two texts themselves which are concerned, we shall find it very probable and even evident. What do those two Aranyaka books contain? The fourth is very short: it does not fill more than one page in the printed edition. Its contents consist exclusively of the text of the Mah4n4mni or Sakvari verses, which seem to belong to a not less remote 1 and edition, p. 53: Obwohl wir fiir das vierte Buch des letztern (i.e. of the Aitareya Aranyaka) sogar die directe Nachricht haben, dass es dem Asvalayana, dem Schiiler eines Saunaka angehdrt, so wie auch ferner fiir das fiinfte Buch desselben dieser Saunaka selbst als Urheber gegolten zu haben scheint, nach dem was Colebrooke Misc. Ess. I, 47 n. dariiber berichtet. ? P. 11: If this assumption be admitted, the proper conclusion to be arrived at would also be that the whole of the fifth Book belongs to Saunaka, and the whole of the fourth Book to Asvalayana, P.12: The writings of both ayana and Saunaka which occur in the Aranyaka, etc. 156 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA.
2156 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. antiquity than the average of the Rig-veda hymns. They can indeed be considered as forming part of the Rig-veda Samhita, and it is only on account of the peculiar mystical holiness ascribed to these verses, that they were not studied in the village but in the forest!, and were consequently received not into the body of the Samhita itself, but into the Arazyaka. They are referred to in all Brahmawa texts, and perhaps we can even go so far as to pronounce our opinion that some passages of the Rig-veda hymns themselves allude to the Sakvari verses: yak khakvarishu brzhatAé ravevendre sushmam adadhata Vasish¢#ah (Rig-veda VII, 33, 4). rikim tvah posham Aste pupushvan gayatram tvo gayati sakvarishu (Rig-veda X, 71, 11). So much for the fourth Arazyaka. The fifth contains a description of the Mah4vrata ceremony. To the same subject also the first book is devoted, with the difference that the first book is composed in the Brahmaza style, the fifth in the Sdtra style *. Now which of these two books can it be that Shadgurusishya reckons as belonging to the ‘ Asvalayanas(traka?’ It is impossible that it should be the fourth, for the Mahanamni verses never were considered by Indian theologians as the work of a human author; they shared in the apaurusheyatva of the Veda, and to say that they have been composed by Asvalayana, would be inconsistent with the most firmly established principles of the literary history of the Veda both as conceived by the Indians and by ourselves. And even if we were to admit that the Mahanamni verses can have been assigned, by an author like Shadgurusishya, to Asvalayana,—and we cannot admit 4 See Sankhdyana-Grthya II, 12, 13. * Thus Sayama, in his note on V, 1, 1, says: Nanu prathamaranyakespi atha mahavratam Indro vai Vritram hatvetyddina mahavrataprayogo sbhihitah, paftkame spi tasyaivabhidhane punaruktié syat. nayam dosha, sitrabrahmasarfipevza tayor vibhedat. pavéamaranyakam rishiproktam siitram, prathamarazyakan tv apaurusheya# brihmarzam, ata eva tatrarthavadaprapaf#fena sahita vidhayad sriyante, pa#téame tu na ko py arthavddossti.... aranya cvaitad adhyeyam ity abhiprety4dhyetara 4ranyakande x ntarbhavyadhiyate. INTRODUCTION. 157
3pavéamaranyakam rishiproktam siitram, prathamarazyakan tv apaurusheya# brihmarzam, ata eva tatrarthavadaprapaf#fena sahita vidhayad sriyante, pa#téame tu na ko py arthavddossti.... aranya cvaitad adhyeyam ity abhiprety4dhyetara 4ranyakande x ntarbhavyadhiyate. INTRODUCTION. 157 this,—there is no possibility whatever that he can have used the expression ‘AsvalayanasQtrakam’ with regard to the Mahan4mnis; to apply the designation of a Satra to the Mahan4mnit hymn would be no less absurd than to apply it to any Sikta whatever of the Rzk-Samhita. On the other hand, the fifth book of the Arazyaka is a Sdtra ; it is the only part of the whole body of the Arazyaka collection which is composed in the Sftra style. And it treats of a special part of the Rig-veda ritual the rest of which is embodied in its entirety, with the omission only of that very part, in the two great Sdtras of Asvalayana. There seems to me, therefore, to be little doubt as to the fifth Arazyaka really being the text referred to by Shadgurusishya, though I do not know how to explain his setting down this book as the fourth, And I may add that there is a passage, hitherto, as far as I know, unnoticed, in SAyaza’s SAma-veda commentary, in which that author directly assigns the fifth Arazyaka not, as in the Rig-veda commentary, to Saunaka, but to Asvalayana. Sayama there says!: yath4 bahvrz#im adhydpaké mah4vrataprayogapratipadakam A svalayananirmitam kalpasitram aranye:dhiyamanak pawkamam drazyakam iti vedatvena vyavaharanti. Instead of asserting, therefore, that of the two last Aranyakas of the Aitareyinas the one is ascribed to Saunaka, the other to Asvalayana, we must state the case otherwise: not two Arazyakas were, according to Sdyana and Shadgurusishya, composed by those Sftrakaras, but one, viz. the fifth, which forms a sort of supplement to the great body of the Sdtras of that Karaza, and which is ascribed either to Saunaka or to Asvalayana. Perhaps further research will enable us to decide whether that Stra portion of the Arazyaka, or we may say quite as well, that Arazyaka portion of the Sftra, belongs to the author of the Srauta-sitra, or should be considered as a remnant of a more ancient composition, of which the portion studied in the forest has survived, while the portion 1 Sama-veda (Bibl. Indica), vol. i, p. 19. 158 AsvALAYANA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. which was taught in the village was superseded by the more recent Asvalayana-sitra. There would be still many questions with which an Introduction to Asvalayana would have to deal; thus the relation between Asvalayana and Saunaka, which we had intended to treat of here with reference to a special point, would have to be further discussed with regard to several other of its bearings, and the results which follow therefrom as to the position of Asvalayana in the history of Vedic literature would have to be stated. But we prefer to reserve the discussion of these questions for the General Introduction to the Grihya-sitras.
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.