Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1hymn, 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 flavour of holiness and virginal innocency is necessarily absent, and this want crops out in connection with the performances of yatu even in the RV. (VII, 104, 15. 16), where the writer exclaims : ' may I die to-day if I am a sorcerer/ and com- plains against his enemy who calls him, though he is pure, a sorcerer, and against the real sorcerer who pretends that he is pure. Though yatu (sorcery) is regarded here as devilish (cf. e.g. AV. I, 7 and 8), the writer at Sat. Br. X, 5, 2, 20 is not prevented from placing the yatuvida^, ' those that are skilled in sorcery,' in solemn array with the repre- sentatives of the holiest forms of literature, immediately after the bahvr//£a/£, as the characteristic exponent of i Atharvanic activity. And on the other hand even bhe_r *4& Lsha^am, 'cure^. medicine/ the aIiniktic_-Drovinrp of the ^T ^Atharvan^though well regarded^Jn^ejiexaL does not come \^jjrfn^u>^ sneerT The TaJCiTvi, 4, 9, 3 (cf- Maitr. S. j^p IV, 6, 2; Aat. Jtir. IV, 1, 5, 14) says, brahma/zena bhesha- fl^ gam na karyam, ' a Brahman shall not practise medicine,' the reason that is assigned being that the physician is HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. impure, that the practice entails promiscuous, unaristocratic mingling with men : 'men run to the physician' (MS. IV, 6, 3, p. 80, 1. 1) x. And we may trust that the canons of social standing and literary appreciation of a people that had produced the best that is to be found in Vedic litera- ture could not fail altogether, when in the proper mood, to estimate at its right value the wretched hocus-pocus of the bhesha^ani themselves, though these were the best that the Vedic period had produced for the relief of bodily ailment. Yet the Veda without witchcraft would not be the Veda, and the ^rauta-texts are not in the position to throw stones against the Atharvan. Moreover it must not be forgotten that the Atharvan contains in its cosmo- gonic and theosophic sections more material that undertakes to present the highest brahmavidya than any other Vedic Sa^hita (cf. below, p. lxvi) ; by whatever literary evo- lution this was associated with this sphere of literature and incorporated into the redaction, it doubtless contributed to the floating of the more compact body of sorcery-charms, and its higher valuation among the more enlightened of the people.
2tever literary evo- lution this was associated with this sphere of literature and incorporated into the redaction, it doubtless contributed to the floating of the more compact body of sorcery-charms, and its higher valuation among the more enlightened of the people. At any rate, a sober survey of the position of the Atharvan in the traividya yields the result that this Veda, while not within the proper sphere of the greater concerns of Vedic religious life, is considered within its own sphere as a Veda in perfectly good standing ; the question of its relative importance, its authority, and its canonicity is not discussed, nor even suggested. The position of the Atharvan in the Upanishads does not appear to differ from that in the miti in general. Aside The AV in ^rom t^ie Atharvan Upanishads, which are the Upani- naturally somewhat freer in their reference to the AV., and in the mention of more or less apocryphal Atharvan teachers, it is introduced but rarely, and usually in the manner prevalent elsewhere in the ^rauta-literature, i. e. preceded by the trayi, and 1 Cf. the contempt for the pugaya^iyjU, ye pugan ya^ayanti, ' those who sacrifice for a crowd,' Manu III, 151 ; Mahabh. I, 2883, and the gramaya^in, Manu IV, 205, and gramaya^aka, Mahabh. Ill, 13355. See also Vishmi LXXXII, 12; Gaut. XV, 16. INTRODUCTION. xli followed by a variable list of other literary types. Thus the passages quoted above from 5at. Br. XIV, 5, 4, 10 ; 6, i°, 6; 7> 3> IX = B/7I1. Ar. Up. 11,4, 10; IV, 1, 2 ; 5, 11, and the Tait. Ar. II, 9 and 10, are of Upanishad character, and the Maitr. Up. VI, 32 repeats the list of texts stated at 5at. Br. = Brzh. Ar. Up., just cited, in precisely the same order. The same text, Maitr. Up. VI, 3$ ( = Maha Up. 2 ; Atharva^iras 4), has the list rzgya^u//samatharvangirasa itihasa/z pura//am. The jOand. Up. Ill, 1-4 deals with rzk, yagu/i, saman, atharvangirasa//, and itihasapura^ani ; the same text at VII, 1, 2. 4 ; 2, 1 ; 7, 1, has the same list, . . . atharva;/aj ^aturtha^ itihasapura//a>& pa&ma^ to which are added a lengthy series of additional sciences (vidya). The Tait. Up. = Tait. Ar. VIII, 3, again, presents the Atharvan in a formulaic connection, tasya (sc. atmana/^) ya^-ur eva .rira//, rig dakshi//a/£ paksha^, samo*ttara^ pa- ksha/£, adej-a atma, atharvangirasa^ pukk/iam 1. There is, as far as is known, no additional mention of the Atharvan in the non-Atharvanic Upanishads, and it is evident that there is no marked change in the manner in which the fourth Veda is handled.
3ttara^ pa- ksha/£, adej-a atma, atharvangirasa^ pukk/iam 1. There is, as far as is known, no additional mention of the Atharvan in the non-Atharvanic Upanishads, and it is evident that there is no marked change in the manner in which the fourth Veda is handled. Very much more numerous are the instances in which the trayi alone appears ; see Jacob's Concordance to the principal Upanishads, under the words rzgveda, nnmaya, rik ; ya^urveda, ya^urmaya, ya^us ; samaveda, samamaya, saman. They show that the draughts upon the Atharvan and the subsequent literary forms are, in general, made under the excitement of formulaic solem- nity ; while on the other hand, needless to say, the Upani- shads with their eye aloft alike from hymn, sacrificial formula, and witchcraft charm, have no occasion to condemn the Atharvan, aside from that superior attitude of theirs which implies, and diplomatically expresses condemnation of the entire Veda that is not brahmavidya. Even in the Atharvan Upanishads there is sounded in 1 This Upanishad belongs to a Ya^us- school ; hence the pre-eminence of the ya^us. The Atharvan is here forced into a position of disadvantage, and it may be admitted that its mention after the ade^a (Upanishad) is intentional. But there is really no other course open to the writer. The tenor of the entire passage excludes the notion of disparagement of any of the texts mentioned. xlil HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. general neither the polemic nor the apologetic note which characterises the ritualistic writings of the Atharvan. We _ k _ find, to be sure, in the late Pra^ava Up. a spo- TheAV.in 1# ,r ,. . . . the radic, it not solitary, assumption of superiority Atharvan on the part of the AV<i and an interpolated Upanishads. x m ? r passage in the Pra^na Up. V, 5 betrays the distinct tendency to secure at any cost the correlation of the Atharvan with the highest brahma 2. The authority of Atharvanic teachers, Sanatkumara, Angiras, Paippalada, &c, is, of course, cited with especial frequency in the Atharvan Upanishads, helping to confer upon them an esoteric school character. But in general, all that may be said is, that the Atharvan Upanishads mention the fourth Veda along with the other three more frequently than the corresponding tracts of the other schools, that the Atharvan is quietly added to the trayi, whether other literary forms like the itihasapura^am, &c, appear in the sequel, or not.
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.
1hymn, 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 flavour of holiness and virginal innocency is necessarily absent, and this want crops out in connection with the performances of yatu even in the RV. (VII, 104, 15. 16), where the writer exclaims : ' may I die to-day if I am a sorcerer/ and com- plains against his enemy who calls him, though he is pure, a sorcerer, and against the real sorcerer who pretends that he is pure. Though yatu (sorcery) is regarded here as devilish (cf. e.g. AV. I, 7 and 8), the writer at Sat. Br. X, 5, 2, 20 is not prevented from placing the yatuvida^, ' those that are skilled in sorcery,' in solemn array with the repre- sentatives of the holiest forms of literature, immediately after the bahvr//£a/£, as the characteristic exponent of i Atharvanic activity. And on the other hand even bhe_r *4& Lsha^am, 'cure^. medicine/ the aIiniktic_-Drovinrp of the ^T ^Atharvan^though well regarded^Jn^ejiexaL does not come \^jjrfn^u>^ sneerT The TaJCiTvi, 4, 9, 3 (cf- Maitr. S. j^p IV, 6, 2; Aat. Jtir. IV, 1, 5, 14) says, brahma/zena bhesha- fl^ gam na karyam, ' a Brahman shall not practise medicine,' the reason that is assigned being that the physician is HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. impure, that the practice entails promiscuous, unaristocratic mingling with men : 'men run to the physician' (MS. IV, 6, 3, p. 80, 1. 1) x. And we may trust that the canons of social standing and literary appreciation of a people that had produced the best that is to be found in Vedic litera- ture could not fail altogether, when in the proper mood, to estimate at its right value the wretched hocus-pocus of the bhesha^ani themselves, though these were the best that the Vedic period had produced for the relief of bodily ailment. Yet the Veda without witchcraft would not be the Veda, and the ^rauta-texts are not in the position to throw stones against the Atharvan. Moreover it must not be forgotten that the Atharvan contains in its cosmo- gonic and theosophic sections more material that undertakes to present the highest brahmavidya than any other Vedic Sa^hita (cf. below, p. lxvi) ; by whatever literary evo- lution this was associated with this sphere of literature and incorporated into the redaction, it doubtless contributed to the floating of the more compact body of sorcery-charms, and its higher valuation among the more enlightened of the people.
2tever literary evo- lution this was associated with this sphere of literature and incorporated into the redaction, it doubtless contributed to the floating of the more compact body of sorcery-charms, and its higher valuation among the more enlightened of the people. At any rate, a sober survey of the position of the Atharvan in the traividya yields the result that this Veda, while not within the proper sphere of the greater concerns of Vedic religious life, is considered within its own sphere as a Veda in perfectly good standing ; the question of its relative importance, its authority, and its canonicity is not discussed, nor even suggested. The position of the Atharvan in the Upanishads does not appear to differ from that in the miti in general. Aside The AV in ^rom t^ie Atharvan Upanishads, which are the Upani- naturally somewhat freer in their reference to the AV., and in the mention of more or less apocryphal Atharvan teachers, it is introduced but rarely, and usually in the manner prevalent elsewhere in the ^rauta-literature, i. e. preceded by the trayi, and 1 Cf. the contempt for the pugaya^iyjU, ye pugan ya^ayanti, ' those who sacrifice for a crowd,' Manu III, 151 ; Mahabh. I, 2883, and the gramaya^in, Manu IV, 205, and gramaya^aka, Mahabh. Ill, 13355. See also Vishmi LXXXII, 12; Gaut. XV, 16. INTRODUCTION. xli followed by a variable list of other literary types. Thus the passages quoted above from 5at. Br. XIV, 5, 4, 10 ; 6, i°, 6; 7> 3> IX = B/7I1. Ar. Up. 11,4, 10; IV, 1, 2 ; 5, 11, and the Tait. Ar. II, 9 and 10, are of Upanishad character, and the Maitr. Up. VI, 32 repeats the list of texts stated at 5at. Br. = Brzh. Ar. Up., just cited, in precisely the same order. The same text, Maitr. Up. VI, 3$ ( = Maha Up. 2 ; Atharva^iras 4), has the list rzgya^u//samatharvangirasa itihasa/z pura//am. The jOand. Up. Ill, 1-4 deals with rzk, yagu/i, saman, atharvangirasa//, and itihasapura^ani ; the same text at VII, 1, 2. 4 ; 2, 1 ; 7, 1, has the same list, . . . atharva;/aj ^aturtha^ itihasapura//a>& pa&ma^ to which are added a lengthy series of additional sciences (vidya). The Tait. Up. = Tait. Ar. VIII, 3, again, presents the Atharvan in a formulaic connection, tasya (sc. atmana/^) ya^-ur eva .rira//, rig dakshi//a/£ paksha^, samo*ttara^ pa- ksha/£, adej-a atma, atharvangirasa^ pukk/iam 1. There is, as far as is known, no additional mention of the Atharvan in the non-Atharvanic Upanishads, and it is evident that there is no marked change in the manner in which the fourth Veda is handled.
3ttara^ pa- ksha/£, adej-a atma, atharvangirasa^ pukk/iam 1. There is, as far as is known, no additional mention of the Atharvan in the non-Atharvanic Upanishads, and it is evident that there is no marked change in the manner in which the fourth Veda is handled. Very much more numerous are the instances in which the trayi alone appears ; see Jacob's Concordance to the principal Upanishads, under the words rzgveda, nnmaya, rik ; ya^urveda, ya^urmaya, ya^us ; samaveda, samamaya, saman. They show that the draughts upon the Atharvan and the subsequent literary forms are, in general, made under the excitement of formulaic solem- nity ; while on the other hand, needless to say, the Upani- shads with their eye aloft alike from hymn, sacrificial formula, and witchcraft charm, have no occasion to condemn the Atharvan, aside from that superior attitude of theirs which implies, and diplomatically expresses condemnation of the entire Veda that is not brahmavidya. Even in the Atharvan Upanishads there is sounded in 1 This Upanishad belongs to a Ya^us- school ; hence the pre-eminence of the ya^us. The Atharvan is here forced into a position of disadvantage, and it may be admitted that its mention after the ade^a (Upanishad) is intentional. But there is really no other course open to the writer. The tenor of the entire passage excludes the notion of disparagement of any of the texts mentioned. xlil HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. general neither the polemic nor the apologetic note which characterises the ritualistic writings of the Atharvan. We _ k _ find, to be sure, in the late Pra^ava Up. a spo- TheAV.in 1# ,r ,. . . . the radic, it not solitary, assumption of superiority Atharvan on the part of the AV<i and an interpolated Upanishads. x m ? r passage in the Pra^na Up. V, 5 betrays the distinct tendency to secure at any cost the correlation of the Atharvan with the highest brahma 2. The authority of Atharvanic teachers, Sanatkumara, Angiras, Paippalada, &c, is, of course, cited with especial frequency in the Atharvan Upanishads, helping to confer upon them an esoteric school character. But in general, all that may be said is, that the Atharvan Upanishads mention the fourth Veda along with the other three more frequently than the corresponding tracts of the other schools, that the Atharvan is quietly added to the trayi, whether other literary forms like the itihasapura^am, &c, appear in the sequel, or not.
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.