Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1There exists a commentary on the Paraskara- Grihya which far surpasses in trustworthiness Gayarama’s Sagganavallabha and Ramakrishva’s Samskdraganapati, and which is not composed by an author who, as says Goethe, — im Auslegen ist munter ; Legt er nicht aus, so legt er unter. But the leaves of that commentary are scattered through a good many volumes. Here we find a few lines of it in the Satapatha Brahmava or in Katydyana’s Srauta-sitra; there Sankhdyana or Asvalayana has preserved a word or a sentence that belongs to it; or the law-books of Manu or YAgiiavalkya help us to understand a difficult or doubtful aphorism of our text. In one word: the only true commentary on a work like Paraskara’s Grzhya is that which the ancient literature itself furnishes. No one will say that in Prof. Stenzler’s translation and notes this commentary has not been consulted. But it has been consulted perhaps not quite as much as it ought to have been, and RAamakrishna and Gayardma have been consulted too much. | They have been consulted and followed in many instances, where a continued consideration of what can be the meaning of a word and what can not, and of what the parallel texts say with regard to the subject in question, would have shown that those commentators, instead of interpreting Pdraskara’s meaning, father on him vague opinions of their own. Perhaps it will not be out of place here to point our 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xv, p. 2, note 2. INTRODUCTION. 265 criticism, lest it should be deemed unjust, by a few remarks on a single passage of Paraskara in which the difference of Prof. Stenzler’s way of translating and of our own becomes manifest. Of the numerous passages which could be selected for this purpose, I choose Sitra I, 2, 5, belonging to the description of the setting up of the sacred domestic fire. The text of that Sdtra runs thus: 5. arazipradadnam eke. Prof. Stenzler translates as follows: ‘ Einige sagen, es miisse durch Reibhdlzer erzeugtes Feuer sein.’ The two Sitras which precede give a description of that ceremony from which evidently the opinion of the ‘eke’ mentioned in this Sftra differs, or to which they find it necessary to add something. Those Sftras run thus: 3. After he has fetched fire from the house of a Vaisya who is rich in cattle— 4. All ceremonies are performed as at the cooking of the Aatushprasya food’. It seems evident that the A#aryas to whom the opinion spoken of in Stra 5 belongs, add, or perhaps substitute, to the fetching of the fire which is to be worshipped as the sacrificer’s domestic fire, from a rich Vaisya’s house, another rite in which an arawi, i.e. a stick for kindling the fire by attrition, is made use of in some way or other. Now if this may be accepted as a vague expression of the general purport of the Sitra, what is the literal meaning of the words? ‘Some (teachers),’ it says, ‘ (prescribe) the pradana of the kindling stick (or, of the kindling sticks).’
2Now if this may be accepted as a vague expression of the general purport of the Sitra, what is the literal meaning of the words? ‘Some (teachers),’ it says, ‘ (prescribe) the pradana of the kindling stick (or, of the kindling sticks).’ What does pradina mean? Gayardma says, ‘prasabda upasabdarthe. arazyupddanakam eka 4#arya ikkhanti.’ ! The food which is eaten by the four chief officiating priests of the Srauta ritual, For these priests a mess of food is prepared at the ceremony of the adhfna of the Srauta fires. 266 PARASKARA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. That is: ‘The word pra stands in the sense of the word upa. Some teachers desire that it (i.e. the fire) should have the kindling sticks as its physical basis?.’ Thus, if Gayardfma is right, Prof. Stenzler’s translation would be justified. But can we acquiesce indeed in simply accepting the commentator’s opinion? Pradana is pradana and not up4d4na, as pradadAti is not upddatte. Pradadati means ‘he hands over,’ and praddna ‘the handing over.’ This is an established fact, and an interpreter of a Vedic text should not allow himself to be induced by a statement like that of Gayarama about the preposition pra standing in the sense of upa, to abate one iota of it. Thus we are obliged, until passages have been discovered which modify our knowledge of what pradana means—but such passages most certainly will never be discovered—to translate : 5. Some (teachers say that) the handing over of the kindling sticks (takes place). We should give that translation even if we were not able to find an explanation for it. It appears that Prof. Stenzler, as far as we can judge from his note, has not even thought of the possibility of disregarding the authority of Gayarama and Ramakrishaza, or of looking through the parallel texts to see whether they do not throw light on what that ‘handing over of the kindling sticks’ signifies. The text to be consulted first is of course Katy4yana’s Srauta-sitra. As the Srauta ritual contains a description of an adhana which is in some way the prototype of the corresponding Grthya ceremony, we may possibly expect to discover, in the course of that description, the statements regarding the arazi-pradana for which we are searching. Now Katyéyana’, having described the setting up of the fire in the garhapaty4gara, states that at sunset the sacrificer and his 1 Ramakrishva also, according to Prof. Stenzler’s note, explains pradéna by upadana, karaza, utpattisthana. * IV, 7,15 seqq. The corresponding passage of the Paddhati is found at p- 358 of Prof. Weber's edition. INTRODUCTION. 267
3Stenzler’s note, explains pradéna by upadana, karaza, utpattisthana. * IV, 7,15 seqq. The corresponding passage of the Paddhati is found at p- 358 of Prof. Weber's edition. INTRODUCTION. 267 wife sit down to the west of the fire which has just been established, and then the Adhvaryu hands over to them the two kindling sticks!. The Paddhati, in describing that act, goes into further details. The Adhvaryu hands over to the sacrificer the two Aramis, which, as required by custom, are wrapped up in new clothes. The wife takes the adhararawi from his hand and puts it on her lap; the sacrificer puts the uttararazi on his lap, and they do homage to them with flowers, saffron, sandal wood, &c.; then, after the performance of some other ceremonies, they put the two Aramis away on a chair or bench. The two Arazis have to be kept by the sacrificer ; if they are lost or burnt or destroyed in any other way, other Arazis must be procured, and by their attrition a new fire must be kindled *. Apastamba likewise mentions, in his description of the Agny4dh4na‘, the handing over of the two Aravis, and indicates a Mantra which the Adhvaryu recites in giving them to the sacrificer, and two other Mantras with the one of which the sacrificer receives them, while he recites the other over the Arazis, after having taken them into his hands. Finally we may quote here, as bearing witness to the custom of the Aravipradana, a passage taken from Narayaxa’s commentary on the Sankhdyana-Grzhya. Though the decisive words in that passage rest only on the authority of the commentator and not of the Sdtrak4ra himself, they deserve to be taken notice of, as they are not subject to the suspicion that they could be influenced by a misunderstanding of that very Sdtra of Paraskara of which we are treating. Ndrayava says, in his explanation of SAankhayana I, 1,104: ‘To the west of the fire the sacrificer, and southwards (of him) the wife sits down. The 1 IV, 7, 22: asvatthasamigarbharan! prayakshati. * See the commentary on IV, 7, 22, and the passages of the Karmapradipa quoted there. 5 Srauta-s(itra V, 8, 7; vol. i, p. 255, of Prof. Garbe’s edition. * Sayamahutisamsk4ro x dhvaryupratyaya ity aéaryah. 268 PARASKARA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. handing over of the kindling sticks does not take place. For it is a fire fetched (from a Vaisya’s house, &c.) which is inaugurated here’. Then the commentator goes on to quote a Sloka: ‘The handing over of the Arazis which the Adhvaryu sometimes performs, ‘Is not in accordance with the opinion of Suyagéia?; he does not approve of kindling the fire by attrition3.’ Thus, I think, no doubt can remain as to the real meaning of Paraskara’s Sitra: it means what its words signify and what is in accordance with Katyayana and Apastamba, and it does not mean what the commentators most gratuitously would make it mean.
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.
1There exists a commentary on the Paraskara- Grihya which far surpasses in trustworthiness Gayarama’s Sagganavallabha and Ramakrishva’s Samskdraganapati, and which is not composed by an author who, as says Goethe, — im Auslegen ist munter ; Legt er nicht aus, so legt er unter. But the leaves of that commentary are scattered through a good many volumes. Here we find a few lines of it in the Satapatha Brahmava or in Katydyana’s Srauta-sitra; there Sankhdyana or Asvalayana has preserved a word or a sentence that belongs to it; or the law-books of Manu or YAgiiavalkya help us to understand a difficult or doubtful aphorism of our text. In one word: the only true commentary on a work like Paraskara’s Grzhya is that which the ancient literature itself furnishes. No one will say that in Prof. Stenzler’s translation and notes this commentary has not been consulted. But it has been consulted perhaps not quite as much as it ought to have been, and RAamakrishna and Gayardma have been consulted too much. | They have been consulted and followed in many instances, where a continued consideration of what can be the meaning of a word and what can not, and of what the parallel texts say with regard to the subject in question, would have shown that those commentators, instead of interpreting Pdraskara’s meaning, father on him vague opinions of their own. Perhaps it will not be out of place here to point our 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xv, p. 2, note 2. INTRODUCTION. 265 criticism, lest it should be deemed unjust, by a few remarks on a single passage of Paraskara in which the difference of Prof. Stenzler’s way of translating and of our own becomes manifest. Of the numerous passages which could be selected for this purpose, I choose Sitra I, 2, 5, belonging to the description of the setting up of the sacred domestic fire. The text of that Sdtra runs thus: 5. arazipradadnam eke. Prof. Stenzler translates as follows: ‘ Einige sagen, es miisse durch Reibhdlzer erzeugtes Feuer sein.’ The two Sitras which precede give a description of that ceremony from which evidently the opinion of the ‘eke’ mentioned in this Sftra differs, or to which they find it necessary to add something. Those Sftras run thus: 3. After he has fetched fire from the house of a Vaisya who is rich in cattle— 4. All ceremonies are performed as at the cooking of the Aatushprasya food’. It seems evident that the A#aryas to whom the opinion spoken of in Stra 5 belongs, add, or perhaps substitute, to the fetching of the fire which is to be worshipped as the sacrificer’s domestic fire, from a rich Vaisya’s house, another rite in which an arawi, i.e. a stick for kindling the fire by attrition, is made use of in some way or other. Now if this may be accepted as a vague expression of the general purport of the Sitra, what is the literal meaning of the words? ‘Some (teachers),’ it says, ‘ (prescribe) the pradana of the kindling stick (or, of the kindling sticks).’
2Now if this may be accepted as a vague expression of the general purport of the Sitra, what is the literal meaning of the words? ‘Some (teachers),’ it says, ‘ (prescribe) the pradana of the kindling stick (or, of the kindling sticks).’ What does pradina mean? Gayardma says, ‘prasabda upasabdarthe. arazyupddanakam eka 4#arya ikkhanti.’ ! The food which is eaten by the four chief officiating priests of the Srauta ritual, For these priests a mess of food is prepared at the ceremony of the adhfna of the Srauta fires. 266 PARASKARA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. That is: ‘The word pra stands in the sense of the word upa. Some teachers desire that it (i.e. the fire) should have the kindling sticks as its physical basis?.’ Thus, if Gayardfma is right, Prof. Stenzler’s translation would be justified. But can we acquiesce indeed in simply accepting the commentator’s opinion? Pradana is pradana and not up4d4na, as pradadAti is not upddatte. Pradadati means ‘he hands over,’ and praddna ‘the handing over.’ This is an established fact, and an interpreter of a Vedic text should not allow himself to be induced by a statement like that of Gayarama about the preposition pra standing in the sense of upa, to abate one iota of it. Thus we are obliged, until passages have been discovered which modify our knowledge of what pradana means—but such passages most certainly will never be discovered—to translate : 5. Some (teachers say that) the handing over of the kindling sticks (takes place). We should give that translation even if we were not able to find an explanation for it. It appears that Prof. Stenzler, as far as we can judge from his note, has not even thought of the possibility of disregarding the authority of Gayarama and Ramakrishaza, or of looking through the parallel texts to see whether they do not throw light on what that ‘handing over of the kindling sticks’ signifies. The text to be consulted first is of course Katy4yana’s Srauta-sitra. As the Srauta ritual contains a description of an adhana which is in some way the prototype of the corresponding Grthya ceremony, we may possibly expect to discover, in the course of that description, the statements regarding the arazi-pradana for which we are searching. Now Katyéyana’, having described the setting up of the fire in the garhapaty4gara, states that at sunset the sacrificer and his 1 Ramakrishva also, according to Prof. Stenzler’s note, explains pradéna by upadana, karaza, utpattisthana. * IV, 7,15 seqq. The corresponding passage of the Paddhati is found at p- 358 of Prof. Weber's edition. INTRODUCTION. 267
3Stenzler’s note, explains pradéna by upadana, karaza, utpattisthana. * IV, 7,15 seqq. The corresponding passage of the Paddhati is found at p- 358 of Prof. Weber's edition. INTRODUCTION. 267 wife sit down to the west of the fire which has just been established, and then the Adhvaryu hands over to them the two kindling sticks!. The Paddhati, in describing that act, goes into further details. The Adhvaryu hands over to the sacrificer the two Aramis, which, as required by custom, are wrapped up in new clothes. The wife takes the adhararawi from his hand and puts it on her lap; the sacrificer puts the uttararazi on his lap, and they do homage to them with flowers, saffron, sandal wood, &c.; then, after the performance of some other ceremonies, they put the two Aramis away on a chair or bench. The two Arazis have to be kept by the sacrificer ; if they are lost or burnt or destroyed in any other way, other Arazis must be procured, and by their attrition a new fire must be kindled *. Apastamba likewise mentions, in his description of the Agny4dh4na‘, the handing over of the two Aravis, and indicates a Mantra which the Adhvaryu recites in giving them to the sacrificer, and two other Mantras with the one of which the sacrificer receives them, while he recites the other over the Arazis, after having taken them into his hands. Finally we may quote here, as bearing witness to the custom of the Aravipradana, a passage taken from Narayaxa’s commentary on the Sankhdyana-Grzhya. Though the decisive words in that passage rest only on the authority of the commentator and not of the Sdtrak4ra himself, they deserve to be taken notice of, as they are not subject to the suspicion that they could be influenced by a misunderstanding of that very Sdtra of Paraskara of which we are treating. Ndrayava says, in his explanation of SAankhayana I, 1,104: ‘To the west of the fire the sacrificer, and southwards (of him) the wife sits down. The 1 IV, 7, 22: asvatthasamigarbharan! prayakshati. * See the commentary on IV, 7, 22, and the passages of the Karmapradipa quoted there. 5 Srauta-s(itra V, 8, 7; vol. i, p. 255, of Prof. Garbe’s edition. * Sayamahutisamsk4ro x dhvaryupratyaya ity aéaryah. 268 PARASKARA-GRIHYA-SOTRA. handing over of the kindling sticks does not take place. For it is a fire fetched (from a Vaisya’s house, &c.) which is inaugurated here’. Then the commentator goes on to quote a Sloka: ‘The handing over of the Arazis which the Adhvaryu sometimes performs, ‘Is not in accordance with the opinion of Suyagéia?; he does not approve of kindling the fire by attrition3.’ Thus, I think, no doubt can remain as to the real meaning of Paraskara’s Sitra: it means what its words signify and what is in accordance with Katyayana and Apastamba, and it does not mean what the commentators most gratuitously would make it mean.
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.