Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The other passage which I wish to discuss here is Para- * In the Taittirfya Samhita (VII, 4, 17) mayobh@A is the beginning of an Anuvaka ; the expression anuvakaseshe#a would have no meaning if referred to this text. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX skaraI,4,1-5. PAraskara, being just on the point of describing the marriage ritual, prefixes a few sentences, the position of which here it is not very easy to understand. A general division of all Pakayag#ias—general remarks on the nature of the place for sacrificing : this looks very strange between a discussion of the Arghya and marriage ceremonies. Now these same sentences are found almost word for word and with the same passing on to the marriage ritual in SAnkhayana also (Grzhya I, 5,1-5). Here, as in other cases, we have the borrowing word for word of such portions of text from an older text, and, closely related to this phenomenon, the fact that the sentences in question are awkwardly woven into the context of the Grzhya where we read them, and are poorly connected with the surrounding parts. Unless we are much deceived, we have here a fragment from an older source inserted without connection and without change. It would seem that this fragment was the beginning of the original work ; for the style and contents of these SAtras are peculiarly appropriate for the beginning. Thus, if this conjecture is right, that old lost Gréhya began with the main division of all the Pakayag#as into four classes, and then proceeded at once to the marriage ritual. Later, when the texts which we have, came into existence, the feeling evidently arose, that in this way an important part of the matter had been overlooked. The supplementary matter was then inserted before the old beginning, which then naturally, as is to be seen in our texts, joins on rather strangely and abruptly to these newly-added portions, Digitized by Google GRIJHYA-SUOTRA OF GOBHILA. ty [30] : B INTRODUCTION TO THE GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. THE Grthya-sitra of Gobhila differs from those of Sankhayana, Asvalayana, Paraskara, Hirawyakesin in one essential point: while these texts presuppose only the same Vedic Samhit&s on which also the corresponding Srautasitras are based, viz. the Rig-veda-Samhitd, the Vagasaneyi- Samhita, and the Taittiriya-Samhita ; the Sdtra of Gobhila, on the other hand, presupposes, beside the Sammhit4 of the Sama-veda}, another collection of Mantras which evidently was composed expressly with the purpose of being used at Grihya ceremonies: this collection is preserved to us under the title of the Mantra-Brahmaza,and it has been edited at Calcutta (1873), with a commentary and Bengali translation by Satyavrata SAmasramin 2. Prof. Knauer of Kiew, to whom all students of the Grthya literature are highly indebted for his very accurate edition and translation of Gobhila, has been the first to
2Prof. Knauer of Kiew, to whom all students of the Grthya literature are highly indebted for his very accurate edition and translation of Gobhila, has been the first to ' The term ‘Samhita of the Sama-veda’ onght to be understood here in its narrower sense as denoting the so-called first book of the Samhita, the Xhanda-arkika or collection of Yoni verses (see on the relation between this collection and the second book my remarks in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vol. xxxviii, pp. 464 seq.). Prof. Knauer in his list of the verses quoted by Gobhila (p. 29 of his translation of the Gobhilfya- Grthya) states that Sama-veda II, 1138 (=I, 276) and 1139 is quoted in Gobhila TII, 9, 6, but an accurate analysis of the words of Gobhila shows that the verse II, 1139 is not referred to, so that only the verse II, 1138 remains, which occurs also in the first book of the Samhita. The ‘dvika’ of which Gobhila speaks in that Stra is not a dvrika, but, as the commentators rightly understand it (see Knauer's edition of the text, p. xii), it is a dyad of Sdmans or melodies, the two Kavasha Samans which are based on the text I, 276, and are given in the great S4ma-veda edition of Satyavrata SAmasramin, vol. i, pp. 566, 567. 2 In the same way the Grshya-siitra of Apastamba stands in connection with a similar collection of Grhya verses and formulas, the Apastambtya-Mantrapasha. B2 4 GRIHYA-SUTRA OF GOBHILA. examine into the relation in which the two texts, the Mantra-Brahmaza and the Gobhiliya-sdtra, stand to each other. He has very kindly enabled me to make use, before they were published, of the results of his investigations, which he has laid down in the introduction to his translation of Gobhila. While I wish, therefore, to acknowledge the obligation under which Prof. Knauer has thus laid me, I must try, on the other side, to state my own opinion as to the problem in question, which in some points differs from, or is even opposed to, the theory by which Prof. Knauer has tried to solve it.
3While I wish, therefore, to acknowledge the obligation under which Prof. Knauer has thus laid me, I must try, on the other side, to state my own opinion as to the problem in question, which in some points differs from, or is even opposed to, the theory by which Prof. Knauer has tried to solve it. To begin with that side of the question regarding which there can scarcely be any doubt: it is certain, I believe, that Gobhila supposes the Mantra-Brahmaza to be known to the students of his Sdtra. The reasons which show this are obvious enough. By far the greater part of the Mantras of which Gobhila quotes the first words, are not found in the Sama-veda nor, for the most part, in any other Vedic Samhité, except in the Mantra-Brahmaaza, in which they stand in exactly the same order in which they are referred to by Gobhila. The descriptions of the Grihya sacrifices by Gobhila would have been meaningless and useless, and the sacrificer who had to perform his domestic ceremonies according to the ritual of Gobhila, would have been unable to do so, unless he had known those Mantras as contained in the Mantra-Braéhmaza. And not only the Mantras, but also the order in which the Mantras stood, for Sftras such as, for instance, Gobh. II, 1, 10 (‘With the two following verses he should wash,’ &c.), would have no meaning except for one who had studied the Mantra-Brahmaza which alone could show which ‘the two following verses’ were. There are, consequently, two possibilities: either the Mantra-Brahmana existed before the Gobhiliya-sdtra, or the two works have been composed together and on one common plan. It is the first of these alternatives which Prof. Knauer maintains; I wish, on the other hand, to call 1 Cf, Knauer’s Introduction, pp. 24, 31 seq. INTRODUCTION. 5 the attention of Vedic scholars to some facts which seem to me to render the second more probable.
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 other passage which I wish to discuss here is Para- * In the Taittirfya Samhita (VII, 4, 17) mayobh@A is the beginning of an Anuvaka ; the expression anuvakaseshe#a would have no meaning if referred to this text. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX skaraI,4,1-5. PAraskara, being just on the point of describing the marriage ritual, prefixes a few sentences, the position of which here it is not very easy to understand. A general division of all Pakayag#ias—general remarks on the nature of the place for sacrificing : this looks very strange between a discussion of the Arghya and marriage ceremonies. Now these same sentences are found almost word for word and with the same passing on to the marriage ritual in SAnkhayana also (Grzhya I, 5,1-5). Here, as in other cases, we have the borrowing word for word of such portions of text from an older text, and, closely related to this phenomenon, the fact that the sentences in question are awkwardly woven into the context of the Grzhya where we read them, and are poorly connected with the surrounding parts. Unless we are much deceived, we have here a fragment from an older source inserted without connection and without change. It would seem that this fragment was the beginning of the original work ; for the style and contents of these SAtras are peculiarly appropriate for the beginning. Thus, if this conjecture is right, that old lost Gréhya began with the main division of all the Pakayag#as into four classes, and then proceeded at once to the marriage ritual. Later, when the texts which we have, came into existence, the feeling evidently arose, that in this way an important part of the matter had been overlooked. The supplementary matter was then inserted before the old beginning, which then naturally, as is to be seen in our texts, joins on rather strangely and abruptly to these newly-added portions, Digitized by Google GRIJHYA-SUOTRA OF GOBHILA. ty [30] : B INTRODUCTION TO THE GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. THE Grthya-sitra of Gobhila differs from those of Sankhayana, Asvalayana, Paraskara, Hirawyakesin in one essential point: while these texts presuppose only the same Vedic Samhit&s on which also the corresponding Srautasitras are based, viz. the Rig-veda-Samhitd, the Vagasaneyi- Samhita, and the Taittiriya-Samhita ; the Sdtra of Gobhila, on the other hand, presupposes, beside the Sammhit4 of the Sama-veda}, another collection of Mantras which evidently was composed expressly with the purpose of being used at Grihya ceremonies: this collection is preserved to us under the title of the Mantra-Brahmaza,and it has been edited at Calcutta (1873), with a commentary and Bengali translation by Satyavrata SAmasramin 2. Prof. Knauer of Kiew, to whom all students of the Grthya literature are highly indebted for his very accurate edition and translation of Gobhila, has been the first to
2Prof. Knauer of Kiew, to whom all students of the Grthya literature are highly indebted for his very accurate edition and translation of Gobhila, has been the first to ' The term ‘Samhita of the Sama-veda’ onght to be understood here in its narrower sense as denoting the so-called first book of the Samhita, the Xhanda-arkika or collection of Yoni verses (see on the relation between this collection and the second book my remarks in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vol. xxxviii, pp. 464 seq.). Prof. Knauer in his list of the verses quoted by Gobhila (p. 29 of his translation of the Gobhilfya- Grthya) states that Sama-veda II, 1138 (=I, 276) and 1139 is quoted in Gobhila TII, 9, 6, but an accurate analysis of the words of Gobhila shows that the verse II, 1139 is not referred to, so that only the verse II, 1138 remains, which occurs also in the first book of the Samhita. The ‘dvika’ of which Gobhila speaks in that Stra is not a dvrika, but, as the commentators rightly understand it (see Knauer's edition of the text, p. xii), it is a dyad of Sdmans or melodies, the two Kavasha Samans which are based on the text I, 276, and are given in the great S4ma-veda edition of Satyavrata SAmasramin, vol. i, pp. 566, 567. 2 In the same way the Grshya-siitra of Apastamba stands in connection with a similar collection of Grhya verses and formulas, the Apastambtya-Mantrapasha. B2 4 GRIHYA-SUTRA OF GOBHILA. examine into the relation in which the two texts, the Mantra-Brahmaza and the Gobhiliya-sdtra, stand to each other. He has very kindly enabled me to make use, before they were published, of the results of his investigations, which he has laid down in the introduction to his translation of Gobhila. While I wish, therefore, to acknowledge the obligation under which Prof. Knauer has thus laid me, I must try, on the other side, to state my own opinion as to the problem in question, which in some points differs from, or is even opposed to, the theory by which Prof. Knauer has tried to solve it.
3While I wish, therefore, to acknowledge the obligation under which Prof. Knauer has thus laid me, I must try, on the other side, to state my own opinion as to the problem in question, which in some points differs from, or is even opposed to, the theory by which Prof. Knauer has tried to solve it. To begin with that side of the question regarding which there can scarcely be any doubt: it is certain, I believe, that Gobhila supposes the Mantra-Brahmaza to be known to the students of his Sdtra. The reasons which show this are obvious enough. By far the greater part of the Mantras of which Gobhila quotes the first words, are not found in the Sama-veda nor, for the most part, in any other Vedic Samhité, except in the Mantra-Brahmaaza, in which they stand in exactly the same order in which they are referred to by Gobhila. The descriptions of the Grihya sacrifices by Gobhila would have been meaningless and useless, and the sacrificer who had to perform his domestic ceremonies according to the ritual of Gobhila, would have been unable to do so, unless he had known those Mantras as contained in the Mantra-Braéhmaza. And not only the Mantras, but also the order in which the Mantras stood, for Sftras such as, for instance, Gobh. II, 1, 10 (‘With the two following verses he should wash,’ &c.), would have no meaning except for one who had studied the Mantra-Brahmaza which alone could show which ‘the two following verses’ were. There are, consequently, two possibilities: either the Mantra-Brahmana existed before the Gobhiliya-sdtra, or the two works have been composed together and on one common plan. It is the first of these alternatives which Prof. Knauer maintains; I wish, on the other hand, to call 1 Cf, Knauer’s Introduction, pp. 24, 31 seq. INTRODUCTION. 5 the attention of Vedic scholars to some facts which seem to me to render the second more probable.
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.