Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1I will add only a few words concerning a second Grihya ceremony, which calls for the same sort of comment as the rites which have just been discussed. For the offering on the day of the full moon, Gobhila prescribes (III, 8, 2) first the verse 4 no mitrAvaruzA, second the verse ma nastoke. The Mantra-Brahmama (II, 1, 8) has the second of these verses only, not the first: conversely, the first verse alone, and not the second, is to be found in the Samhita of the SAma-veda (I, 220). We could hardly assume, as I think, that the Mantra-Brahmaza presupposed another form of the rite differing from Gobhila’s; we should be much more inclined to consider the leaving out of that matter, which was contained in other texts of the Sama-veda, as a proof that the compiler of the Mantra-Brahmaza assumed that those texts were known}. And this brings me to one of Prof. Knauer’s conjectures concerning the Mantra-Brahmaza which I have not yet touched. According to tradition we consider the Mantra- Brahmaza as belonging to the SAma-veda ; in the Calcutta edition it is designated as the ‘SA4ma-vedasya Mantra- Brahmazam, Prof. Knauer thinks that it is doubtful whether the Mantra-Brahmaza belonged to the SAma-veda originally. He conjectures? ‘that it existed already in the 1 Any one who holds the view that the ritualistic formulas, which are not contained in the Mantra-Brahmasa, represent later extensions of the ceremonies in question, will do well to notice how in any one of the offerings of the Srauta ritual which we possess, both in the old description of the Samzhita and Brahmana texts, and in the more recent description of the Sfitra texts, Mantras have been added in more recent times to the former ones. I think that it would be difficult to draw from such observations any argument of analogy calculated to support Dr. Knauer's opinion as to the relation of the Mantras in Gobhila and in the Mantra-Brahmana, ? Introduction to his translation, p. 23. INTRODUCTION. 9
2I think that it would be difficult to draw from such observations any argument of analogy calculated to support Dr. Knauer's opinion as to the relation of the Mantras in Gobhila and in the Mantra-Brahmana, ? Introduction to his translation, p. 23. INTRODUCTION. 9 period during which the separate schools were as yet in the process of sifting, when there were as yet no SAma-vedists in the later and stricter sense of the term?.’ For out of 249 Mantras of the Mantra-Brahmava there are only four which are found in the SAma-veda?, as Prof. Knauer has shown, while a much greater number of these Mantras occur in the other Vedic Samhitas. I should be inclined to conclude the other way : just because the author of the Mantra-Brahmaza presupposed a knowledge of the Samhita of the SAma-veda, but not of the other Vedas—or in other words because he destined his work for SAma-vedins, he did not need to repeat what was in the SAma-veda, but was compelled to incorporate in his compilation the Mantras out of the Rig-veda or of the Yagur-veda*. Moreover, I would draw the same conclusions from the Mantras cited by Gobhila which are absent in the Mantra-Brahmaza, as I did from the Mantras which occur in the Mantra-Brahmaaa, but are not to be found in the Sama-veda. Those Mantras are all to be found in the Sama-veda with the exception of those which Gobhila has in extenso, and which therefore could be omitted in the Mantra-Brahmaza. If we examine the thirteen Mantras collected by Prof. Knauer (p. 29), we find that in the case of nine of them the passage of the Samaveda (always of the first Arkika of the Sama-veda) where they are to be found is quoted by Prof. Knauer. 1 Besides the reasons given below in opposition to this conjecture, I may be permitted to point out that this hypothesis is contrary to the whole chronology of the Grzhya literature which we endeavoured to arrive at in the general introduction. It is a priori extremely improbable that there was a Grihya Samhita at a time when there was as yet no Sima-veda. ® Viz. (according to Prof. Knauer's alphabetical list of the Mantras of the Mantra-Brahmama) imam stomam arhate, M.-B. II, 4, 2=Sv. I, 66; II, 414; tat savitur varezyam, M.-B. I, 6, 29 =Sv. II, 812; bharfmedhmam, M.-B, II, 4, 3=Sv. II, 415; sakema tv, M.-B. II, 4, 4=Sv. II, 416. * Notice that of the four exceptional cases which we put together in the previous note, three cases are Mantras which are found only in the second Arkika of the Sama-veda, not in the first (cf. above, p. 3, note 1). The fourth verse (M.-B. II, 4, 2) is to be found in the first Ardika, it is true, but it stands closely related to two verses which are not to be found in that Aréika (M.-B. II, 4, 3. 4). This explains why it was put into the Mantra-Brahmaaa, as well as those two verses. 10 GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. The four other cases are : rikam sama yagamahe, Gobh. III, 2, 48. tak kakshur devahitam, III, 8, 5. sam anya yanti, III, 9, 7.
3II, 4, 3. 4). This explains why it was put into the Mantra-Brahmaaa, as well as those two verses. 10 GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. The four other cases are : rikam sama yagamahe, Gobh. III, 2, 48. tak kakshur devahitam, III, 8, 5. sam anya yanti, III, 9, 7. pragapataye, IV, 7, 36. Of these Mantras the first is contained in the SAma-veda (1, 369) just as the nine first-mentioned ones; the second is quoted by Gobhila in extenso; the third is to be found in the Aranyaka division of the Sama-veda I (vol. ii, p. 292, ed. Bibl. Ind.) ; in the fourth finally the text is corrupt ; it is intended for the verse out of the Mantra-Brahmaza Pragapate na tvad etany anya&. Thus the four apparent exceptions all vanish, and we have in the Mantras which are absent in the Mantra-Bréhmaza a new proof that this text belongs to the literature of the SAma-veda!. Thus, according to my view, we may describe the origin of the Mantra-Brahmaaa as follows. The SAma-veda contained in its Samhitd a much smaller number of Mantras applicable to the Grzhya rites than either the Rig-veda or the Yagur-veda ; the peculiar character of the SAman texts, intended for musical recitations at the most important sacrificial offerings, was quite remote from the character of formulas suitable for the celebration of a wedding, for the birth of a child, for the consecration of fields and flocks. Hence it is that, to a much greater extent than Asvalayana or Paraskara, Gobhila mentions Mantras for which a reference to the SahitA was not sufficient ; and this led to the compiling of a separate Samhita of such Grzhya-mantras, which presupposes the Grzhya-sitra, just as the latter presupposes this Samhita. The almost perfect agreement of the Mantra-Brahmaza with Gobhila furnishes a valuable 1 One will not object that the Mantras in question which are absent in the Mantra-Brahmama are all to be found in the Rig-veda as well as in the Samaveda. Since almost all the verses of the Sdma-veda are taken from the Rig-veda there is nothing astonishing about this. Before one could conclude from this that the Mantra-Brahmana belongs to the Rig-veda he would have to answer the question, How is it that the verses in question are always verses of the Rig-veda which are repeated in the SAma-veda? Why are there not among them verses which are not to be found in the Sdma-veda ? INTRODUCTION, II warrant for the good preservation of the two texts; of small discrepancies I have noted only two: Mantra-Brahmaza I, 6, 15, the formula 4gantr4 samaganmahi is given for the ceremony of the Upanayana, while Gobhila does not prescribe this Mantra for this ceremony, although other Grthya texts do; and secondly, the Mantra-Brahmavza II, 5, 1-7 does not consist of six verses as Gobh. IV, 6, 5-6 allows us to assume, but of seven verses.
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.
1I will add only a few words concerning a second Grihya ceremony, which calls for the same sort of comment as the rites which have just been discussed. For the offering on the day of the full moon, Gobhila prescribes (III, 8, 2) first the verse 4 no mitrAvaruzA, second the verse ma nastoke. The Mantra-Brahmama (II, 1, 8) has the second of these verses only, not the first: conversely, the first verse alone, and not the second, is to be found in the Samhita of the SAma-veda (I, 220). We could hardly assume, as I think, that the Mantra-Brahmaza presupposed another form of the rite differing from Gobhila’s; we should be much more inclined to consider the leaving out of that matter, which was contained in other texts of the Sama-veda, as a proof that the compiler of the Mantra-Brahmaza assumed that those texts were known}. And this brings me to one of Prof. Knauer’s conjectures concerning the Mantra-Brahmaza which I have not yet touched. According to tradition we consider the Mantra- Brahmaza as belonging to the SAma-veda ; in the Calcutta edition it is designated as the ‘SA4ma-vedasya Mantra- Brahmazam, Prof. Knauer thinks that it is doubtful whether the Mantra-Brahmaza belonged to the SAma-veda originally. He conjectures? ‘that it existed already in the 1 Any one who holds the view that the ritualistic formulas, which are not contained in the Mantra-Brahmasa, represent later extensions of the ceremonies in question, will do well to notice how in any one of the offerings of the Srauta ritual which we possess, both in the old description of the Samzhita and Brahmana texts, and in the more recent description of the Sfitra texts, Mantras have been added in more recent times to the former ones. I think that it would be difficult to draw from such observations any argument of analogy calculated to support Dr. Knauer's opinion as to the relation of the Mantras in Gobhila and in the Mantra-Brahmana, ? Introduction to his translation, p. 23. INTRODUCTION. 9
2I think that it would be difficult to draw from such observations any argument of analogy calculated to support Dr. Knauer's opinion as to the relation of the Mantras in Gobhila and in the Mantra-Brahmana, ? Introduction to his translation, p. 23. INTRODUCTION. 9 period during which the separate schools were as yet in the process of sifting, when there were as yet no SAma-vedists in the later and stricter sense of the term?.’ For out of 249 Mantras of the Mantra-Brahmava there are only four which are found in the SAma-veda?, as Prof. Knauer has shown, while a much greater number of these Mantras occur in the other Vedic Samhitas. I should be inclined to conclude the other way : just because the author of the Mantra-Brahmaza presupposed a knowledge of the Samhita of the SAma-veda, but not of the other Vedas—or in other words because he destined his work for SAma-vedins, he did not need to repeat what was in the SAma-veda, but was compelled to incorporate in his compilation the Mantras out of the Rig-veda or of the Yagur-veda*. Moreover, I would draw the same conclusions from the Mantras cited by Gobhila which are absent in the Mantra-Brahmaza, as I did from the Mantras which occur in the Mantra-Brahmaaa, but are not to be found in the Sama-veda. Those Mantras are all to be found in the Sama-veda with the exception of those which Gobhila has in extenso, and which therefore could be omitted in the Mantra-Brahmaza. If we examine the thirteen Mantras collected by Prof. Knauer (p. 29), we find that in the case of nine of them the passage of the Samaveda (always of the first Arkika of the Sama-veda) where they are to be found is quoted by Prof. Knauer. 1 Besides the reasons given below in opposition to this conjecture, I may be permitted to point out that this hypothesis is contrary to the whole chronology of the Grzhya literature which we endeavoured to arrive at in the general introduction. It is a priori extremely improbable that there was a Grihya Samhita at a time when there was as yet no Sima-veda. ® Viz. (according to Prof. Knauer's alphabetical list of the Mantras of the Mantra-Brahmama) imam stomam arhate, M.-B. II, 4, 2=Sv. I, 66; II, 414; tat savitur varezyam, M.-B. I, 6, 29 =Sv. II, 812; bharfmedhmam, M.-B, II, 4, 3=Sv. II, 415; sakema tv, M.-B. II, 4, 4=Sv. II, 416. * Notice that of the four exceptional cases which we put together in the previous note, three cases are Mantras which are found only in the second Arkika of the Sama-veda, not in the first (cf. above, p. 3, note 1). The fourth verse (M.-B. II, 4, 2) is to be found in the first Ardika, it is true, but it stands closely related to two verses which are not to be found in that Aréika (M.-B. II, 4, 3. 4). This explains why it was put into the Mantra-Brahmaaa, as well as those two verses. 10 GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. The four other cases are : rikam sama yagamahe, Gobh. III, 2, 48. tak kakshur devahitam, III, 8, 5. sam anya yanti, III, 9, 7.
3II, 4, 3. 4). This explains why it was put into the Mantra-Brahmaaa, as well as those two verses. 10 GRIHYA-SOTRA OF GOBHILA. The four other cases are : rikam sama yagamahe, Gobh. III, 2, 48. tak kakshur devahitam, III, 8, 5. sam anya yanti, III, 9, 7. pragapataye, IV, 7, 36. Of these Mantras the first is contained in the SAma-veda (1, 369) just as the nine first-mentioned ones; the second is quoted by Gobhila in extenso; the third is to be found in the Aranyaka division of the Sama-veda I (vol. ii, p. 292, ed. Bibl. Ind.) ; in the fourth finally the text is corrupt ; it is intended for the verse out of the Mantra-Brahmaza Pragapate na tvad etany anya&. Thus the four apparent exceptions all vanish, and we have in the Mantras which are absent in the Mantra-Bréhmaza a new proof that this text belongs to the literature of the SAma-veda!. Thus, according to my view, we may describe the origin of the Mantra-Brahmaaa as follows. The SAma-veda contained in its Samhitd a much smaller number of Mantras applicable to the Grzhya rites than either the Rig-veda or the Yagur-veda ; the peculiar character of the SAman texts, intended for musical recitations at the most important sacrificial offerings, was quite remote from the character of formulas suitable for the celebration of a wedding, for the birth of a child, for the consecration of fields and flocks. Hence it is that, to a much greater extent than Asvalayana or Paraskara, Gobhila mentions Mantras for which a reference to the SahitA was not sufficient ; and this led to the compiling of a separate Samhita of such Grzhya-mantras, which presupposes the Grzhya-sitra, just as the latter presupposes this Samhita. The almost perfect agreement of the Mantra-Brahmaza with Gobhila furnishes a valuable 1 One will not object that the Mantras in question which are absent in the Mantra-Brahmama are all to be found in the Rig-veda as well as in the Samaveda. Since almost all the verses of the Sdma-veda are taken from the Rig-veda there is nothing astonishing about this. Before one could conclude from this that the Mantra-Brahmana belongs to the Rig-veda he would have to answer the question, How is it that the verses in question are always verses of the Rig-veda which are repeated in the SAma-veda? Why are there not among them verses which are not to be found in the Sdma-veda ? INTRODUCTION, II warrant for the good preservation of the two texts; of small discrepancies I have noted only two: Mantra-Brahmaza I, 6, 15, the formula 4gantr4 samaganmahi is given for the ceremony of the Upanayana, while Gobhila does not prescribe this Mantra for this ceremony, although other Grthya texts do; and secondly, the Mantra-Brahmavza II, 5, 1-7 does not consist of six verses as Gobh. IV, 6, 5-6 allows us to assume, but of seven verses.
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.