Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1is at VII, 5, 11, 2, under the designation angirasa^ (without atharva/za/2 1), and here the text is as follows : rigbhya/i svaha, ya^*urbhya// svaha, samabhya/* svaha, angirobhya/^ svaha, vedebhya/^ svaha, gathabhya/2 svaha, nanUa/z/sibhya/z svaha, raibhi- bhya^ svaha. This also, in the main, is the nature of the references to the AV. in the Satapatha-brahma^a. Either the term tray! vidya is used, or rik, saman, and yagu/z The AV. in . -,. . 1 T tt the are mentioned explicitly: I, 1, 4, 2. 3; \\, StSSr 6' 4> 2~7 5 IV, 6, 7> 1. 2 ; V, 5, 5, 1. 9 ; VI, 1, r, 8 ; 3, i, 10. 11. 20 ; VII, 5, 2, 52 ; VIII, 5, 2, 4; IX, 5, 2, 12; X, 4, 2, 21. 22; 5, 2, i. 2; XI, 5, 4, 18; 8, 3-7; XII, 3, 3, 2 ; 4, 9 ; XIV, 4,3, 12 ; 83 15, 2. 9. In all these cases there is no mention of the Atharvan ; but neither is there any mention of any other literary type that has a distinctive standing outside of the trayi vidya. On the other hand, the Atharvan is mentioned in a number of cases, every one of which presents also a lengthy list of addi- tional literary forms. Thus XI, 5, 6, 4-8, rikzh, ya^u^shi, samani, atharvangirasa^, anu^asanani, vidya, vakovakyam, itihasapura^am, gatha nara^awsya^ ; XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., riko veda^, ya^u/^shi veda>&, atharva/zo veda^, ahgiraso veda^, sarpavidya veda/*, deva^anavidya veda^, maya veda//, itihaso veda/z, pumnam veda/z, samani veda^ ; XIV, 5, 4, 10; 6, 10, 6; 7, 3, 11 (—Brih. Ar. II, 4, 10; IV, 1, 2; 5, 11), rigvedo ya^nrveda^ samavedo^tharvangirasa iti- hasa^ pura/za^/z vidya upanishada/z slokak sutra/zy anuvya- khyanani vyakhyanani ; X, 5, 2, 20, adhvaryava/z (yagu/i), 1 Cf. above, p. xviii. INTRODUCTION. XXXV11 k/iandogak (saman), bahvrika/i (uktham), yatuvida^ (yatu), sarpavida// . . . deva^anavida^. Only a single Upanishad passage, XIV, 8, 14, 1-4 ( = Brzh. Ar. Up. V, 13, 1-4), seems to mention, or rather hint at, the Atharvan in con- nection with representatives of the trayi vidya, without mentioning other texts 1. The series is uktham, yaguk, sama, kshatram ; the passage possibly views the fourth Veda as the Veda of the Kshatriyas, or, more precisely, substitutes the act of kshatra, i. e. the performances of the kshatriya as Atharvanic by distinction. See, for this, p. xxv, above. The Taittiriya-brahmawa mentions the Atharvan twice, once in accordance with the method described above, at III, 12, 8, 2, riko yagumshi samani atharva- the hgirasa/z . . . itihasapura^am. In the other Taitthiya- passage, III, 12, o, I, the Atharvan is men- brahma;/a.
2awa mentions the Atharvan twice, once in accordance with the method described above, at III, 12, 8, 2, riko yagumshi samani atharva- the hgirasa/z . . . itihasapura^am. In the other Taitthiya- passage, III, 12, o, I, the Atharvan is men- brahma;/a. r & , tioned without the customary adjuncts, and that too before the Sama-veda, to wit, rikkm pra^i mahati dig u^yate, dakshi;/am ahur ya^usham aparam, atharva^am angirasa;/z prati/£i, samnam \\<\\k\ mahati dig u^yate. But it is of interest to note that in the sequel, where sundry symbolic and mystic correlations of the Vedas with the sun, &c, are established, the Atharvan is wanting, and the operations take place with vedais tribhi^. Thus, rigbhih purvahne divi deva iyate, ya^urvede tish/^ati madhye ahna/^, samavedena*stamaye mahiyate, vedair a^unyas tribhir eti surya//. We shall not err in judging that the fourth Veda is mentioned in a purely formulaic manner, only because it is needed to fill out the scheme of the four principal directions of space; the real theme at the heart of the author is the traividya, as, e. g. in III, 10, 11, 5. 6. On the other hand, it would be altogether erro- neous to assume either hostility, or conscious discrimina- tion against the Atharvan. The Taittiriya-ara;zyaka again falls into line in two passages, II, 9 and 10, presenting the texts in their most expansive form, r/^a^, ya^u^shi, 1 Conversely the trayi is catalogued with other texts (vakovakyam itiha- sapura^am), but without the Atharvan, at XI, 5, 7, 6 ft*. ; cf. the same list .Sahkh. Grih. I, 24, 8. XXXV111 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. samani, atharvangirasa/z, brahma/zani, itihasan, pura/zani, kalpan, gatha>£, nara.ra;/zsi/£. The only mention of the Atharvan as a literary type in 5ankhayana's 5rauta-sutra is at XVI, 2, 2 ff., again in the series, riko veda^, ya^urveda^, atharvaveda^ the remain- (in connection with bhesha^am), angiraso veda^ mg ^rauta- ^m connection with ghoram), sarpavidya, ra- kshovidya, asuravidya, itihasaveda/J, pura/za- veda/£, samaveda^. Very similarly in A^valayana's .Srauta- sutra X, 7, i ff., riko veda/z ya^urveda^, aiharvana/t veda^ (with bhesha^-am), angiraso veda^ (with ghoram), vishavidya, pu&^avidya, asuravidyd, pura^avidya, itihaso veda//, samaveda^. These passages are essentially iden- tical with .Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., above ; their chief interest lies in the differentiation of atharvan and angiras, respectively as representatives of the auspicious (bhesha^-am) and terrible (ghoram = £ibhiMrikam) activities of this Veda ; cf. above, p. xviii fif.
3th .Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., above ; their chief interest lies in the differentiation of atharvan and angiras, respectively as representatives of the auspicious (bhesha^-am) and terrible (ghoram = £ibhiMrikam) activities of this Veda ; cf. above, p. xviii fif. In the Tanka.vimsa.-brahma.na., XII, 9, 10 ; XVI, 10, 10, the Atharvan charms are mentioned favourably : bhesha^aw va atharva/zani, and bhesha^a/^ vai devanam atharva/zo bhesha^yayai*va*rish/yai. Cf. also XXIII, 16, 7; Katk. S. XI, 5 (cf. Ind. Stud. Ill, 463). The Va^asaneyi-sawhita mentions the traividya (or rik and saman without yagxxh) frequently, IV, 1.9; VIII, 12 ; XVIII, 9. 29. 67; XX, 12 ; XXXIV, 5 ; XXXVI, 9 ; the Atharvan is nowhere mentioned in connection with the other three. Once at XXX, i5 = Tait. Br. 111,4, 1, 11, a woman that miscarries (avatoka) is devoted to the Atharvans ; the reference, in the light of AV. VI, 17 ; Kaus. 35, 12 (a charm to prevent miscarriage), seems to be to Atharvan hymns or Atharvanic practices. Otherwise the word athar- van occurs in connections that admit of no special, or at any rate obvious, reference to the fourth Veda, VIII, $6 ; XI, 32. Neither is there, as far as is known, any mention of the Atharvan in the Maitraya/zl-sawhita, the Aitareya and Kaushitaki-brahma^as, or Katyayana's and Lazya- yana's 5rauta-sutras. The position of the Atharvan in the jrauta-literature according to this evidence is what might be naturally INTRODUCTION. XXXI X expected : there is no evidence of repugnance or exclu- siveness. .^wjfrhrr^ft is blended with every sphere of religious thought and activity, and the only the jrauta- sane attitude on the part ot these texts musr texts estimate j^ ^e recognition of the literary products of the AV. ° . i which are by distinction the repositories of witchcraft. No one will expect rigid consistency : witchcraft blows hot and cold from the same mouth ; according as it is turned towards the inimical forces, human and demoniac, or is turned by others against one- self, it is regarded as useful, or noxious. The AV. itself takes the same view by implication: the hymn, II, 12, hurls the bitterest invective against enemies that endeavour to thwart one's holy work ; this does not prevent one's own endeavour to frustrate the sacrifice of an enemy (VII, 70); the hymn, II, 7, ensures protection against curses and hostile plots, but does not prevent the existence of fierce imprecations and curses issued forth subjectively for the ruin of another (VI, 13 and 37). It is a question throughout of my sorcery, or thy sorcery.
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.
1is at VII, 5, 11, 2, under the designation angirasa^ (without atharva/za/2 1), and here the text is as follows : rigbhya/i svaha, ya^*urbhya// svaha, samabhya/* svaha, angirobhya/^ svaha, vedebhya/^ svaha, gathabhya/2 svaha, nanUa/z/sibhya/z svaha, raibhi- bhya^ svaha. This also, in the main, is the nature of the references to the AV. in the Satapatha-brahma^a. Either the term tray! vidya is used, or rik, saman, and yagu/z The AV. in . -,. . 1 T tt the are mentioned explicitly: I, 1, 4, 2. 3; \\, StSSr 6' 4> 2~7 5 IV, 6, 7> 1. 2 ; V, 5, 5, 1. 9 ; VI, 1, r, 8 ; 3, i, 10. 11. 20 ; VII, 5, 2, 52 ; VIII, 5, 2, 4; IX, 5, 2, 12; X, 4, 2, 21. 22; 5, 2, i. 2; XI, 5, 4, 18; 8, 3-7; XII, 3, 3, 2 ; 4, 9 ; XIV, 4,3, 12 ; 83 15, 2. 9. In all these cases there is no mention of the Atharvan ; but neither is there any mention of any other literary type that has a distinctive standing outside of the trayi vidya. On the other hand, the Atharvan is mentioned in a number of cases, every one of which presents also a lengthy list of addi- tional literary forms. Thus XI, 5, 6, 4-8, rikzh, ya^u^shi, samani, atharvangirasa^, anu^asanani, vidya, vakovakyam, itihasapura^am, gatha nara^awsya^ ; XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., riko veda^, ya^u/^shi veda>&, atharva/zo veda^, ahgiraso veda^, sarpavidya veda/*, deva^anavidya veda^, maya veda//, itihaso veda/z, pumnam veda/z, samani veda^ ; XIV, 5, 4, 10; 6, 10, 6; 7, 3, 11 (—Brih. Ar. II, 4, 10; IV, 1, 2; 5, 11), rigvedo ya^nrveda^ samavedo^tharvangirasa iti- hasa^ pura/za^/z vidya upanishada/z slokak sutra/zy anuvya- khyanani vyakhyanani ; X, 5, 2, 20, adhvaryava/z (yagu/i), 1 Cf. above, p. xviii. INTRODUCTION. XXXV11 k/iandogak (saman), bahvrika/i (uktham), yatuvida^ (yatu), sarpavida// . . . deva^anavida^. Only a single Upanishad passage, XIV, 8, 14, 1-4 ( = Brzh. Ar. Up. V, 13, 1-4), seems to mention, or rather hint at, the Atharvan in con- nection with representatives of the trayi vidya, without mentioning other texts 1. The series is uktham, yaguk, sama, kshatram ; the passage possibly views the fourth Veda as the Veda of the Kshatriyas, or, more precisely, substitutes the act of kshatra, i. e. the performances of the kshatriya as Atharvanic by distinction. See, for this, p. xxv, above. The Taittiriya-brahmawa mentions the Atharvan twice, once in accordance with the method described above, at III, 12, 8, 2, riko yagumshi samani atharva- the hgirasa/z . . . itihasapura^am. In the other Taitthiya- passage, III, 12, o, I, the Atharvan is men- brahma;/a.
2awa mentions the Atharvan twice, once in accordance with the method described above, at III, 12, 8, 2, riko yagumshi samani atharva- the hgirasa/z . . . itihasapura^am. In the other Taitthiya- passage, III, 12, o, I, the Atharvan is men- brahma;/a. r & , tioned without the customary adjuncts, and that too before the Sama-veda, to wit, rikkm pra^i mahati dig u^yate, dakshi;/am ahur ya^usham aparam, atharva^am angirasa;/z prati/£i, samnam \\<\\k\ mahati dig u^yate. But it is of interest to note that in the sequel, where sundry symbolic and mystic correlations of the Vedas with the sun, &c, are established, the Atharvan is wanting, and the operations take place with vedais tribhi^. Thus, rigbhih purvahne divi deva iyate, ya^urvede tish/^ati madhye ahna/^, samavedena*stamaye mahiyate, vedair a^unyas tribhir eti surya//. We shall not err in judging that the fourth Veda is mentioned in a purely formulaic manner, only because it is needed to fill out the scheme of the four principal directions of space; the real theme at the heart of the author is the traividya, as, e. g. in III, 10, 11, 5. 6. On the other hand, it would be altogether erro- neous to assume either hostility, or conscious discrimina- tion against the Atharvan. The Taittiriya-ara;zyaka again falls into line in two passages, II, 9 and 10, presenting the texts in their most expansive form, r/^a^, ya^u^shi, 1 Conversely the trayi is catalogued with other texts (vakovakyam itiha- sapura^am), but without the Atharvan, at XI, 5, 7, 6 ft*. ; cf. the same list .Sahkh. Grih. I, 24, 8. XXXV111 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. samani, atharvangirasa/z, brahma/zani, itihasan, pura/zani, kalpan, gatha>£, nara.ra;/zsi/£. The only mention of the Atharvan as a literary type in 5ankhayana's 5rauta-sutra is at XVI, 2, 2 ff., again in the series, riko veda^, ya^urveda^, atharvaveda^ the remain- (in connection with bhesha^am), angiraso veda^ mg ^rauta- ^m connection with ghoram), sarpavidya, ra- kshovidya, asuravidya, itihasaveda/J, pura/za- veda/£, samaveda^. Very similarly in A^valayana's .Srauta- sutra X, 7, i ff., riko veda/z ya^urveda^, aiharvana/t veda^ (with bhesha^-am), angiraso veda^ (with ghoram), vishavidya, pu&^avidya, asuravidyd, pura^avidya, itihaso veda//, samaveda^. These passages are essentially iden- tical with .Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., above ; their chief interest lies in the differentiation of atharvan and angiras, respectively as representatives of the auspicious (bhesha^-am) and terrible (ghoram = £ibhiMrikam) activities of this Veda ; cf. above, p. xviii fif.
3th .Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., above ; their chief interest lies in the differentiation of atharvan and angiras, respectively as representatives of the auspicious (bhesha^-am) and terrible (ghoram = £ibhiMrikam) activities of this Veda ; cf. above, p. xviii fif. In the Tanka.vimsa.-brahma.na., XII, 9, 10 ; XVI, 10, 10, the Atharvan charms are mentioned favourably : bhesha^aw va atharva/zani, and bhesha^a/^ vai devanam atharva/zo bhesha^yayai*va*rish/yai. Cf. also XXIII, 16, 7; Katk. S. XI, 5 (cf. Ind. Stud. Ill, 463). The Va^asaneyi-sawhita mentions the traividya (or rik and saman without yagxxh) frequently, IV, 1.9; VIII, 12 ; XVIII, 9. 29. 67; XX, 12 ; XXXIV, 5 ; XXXVI, 9 ; the Atharvan is nowhere mentioned in connection with the other three. Once at XXX, i5 = Tait. Br. 111,4, 1, 11, a woman that miscarries (avatoka) is devoted to the Atharvans ; the reference, in the light of AV. VI, 17 ; Kaus. 35, 12 (a charm to prevent miscarriage), seems to be to Atharvan hymns or Atharvanic practices. Otherwise the word athar- van occurs in connections that admit of no special, or at any rate obvious, reference to the fourth Veda, VIII, $6 ; XI, 32. Neither is there, as far as is known, any mention of the Atharvan in the Maitraya/zl-sawhita, the Aitareya and Kaushitaki-brahma^as, or Katyayana's and Lazya- yana's 5rauta-sutras. The position of the Atharvan in the jrauta-literature according to this evidence is what might be naturally INTRODUCTION. XXXI X expected : there is no evidence of repugnance or exclu- siveness. .^wjfrhrr^ft is blended with every sphere of religious thought and activity, and the only the jrauta- sane attitude on the part ot these texts musr texts estimate j^ ^e recognition of the literary products of the AV. ° . i which are by distinction the repositories of witchcraft. No one will expect rigid consistency : witchcraft blows hot and cold from the same mouth ; according as it is turned towards the inimical forces, human and demoniac, or is turned by others against one- self, it is regarded as useful, or noxious. The AV. itself takes the same view by implication: the hymn, II, 12, hurls the bitterest invective against enemies that endeavour to thwart one's holy work ; this does not prevent one's own endeavour to frustrate the sacrifice of an enemy (VII, 70); the hymn, II, 7, ensures protection against curses and hostile plots, but does not prevent the existence of fierce imprecations and curses issued forth subjectively for the ruin of another (VI, 13 and 37). It is a question throughout of my sorcery, or thy sorcery.
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.