Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1we judge the matter aright, a counter-sense, and unheard of anywhere in Hindu literature. 3 So also 6anti, as the wife of Atharvan ; see Wilson's translation of the Vishwu-purawa, I, 110, 200; Bhagavata-pura^a III, 24, 24. XXU HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. cious side of the holy texts, and naturally chooses the auspicious aspect of the Atharvan also. Its precise com- plement is 5at. Br. X, 5, 2, 20. Here, after correlating the adhvaryu-priests with the ya^n/z, the ^andoga-priests with the saman, the bahvr^as with the uktha (rik), the author presents yatu, ' sorcery/ and the yatuvida^, ' those skilled in sorcery/ as representatives of the fourth Veda. The bhesha^a of the Atharvan passage, and the yatu of the present passage, make up together what is embraced in the name atharvangirasa^ (AV. X, 7, 20). Moreover, the Sam- hita exhibits a decided predilection, bordering on rigorous distinction, for associating the term dngirasa with aggressive witchcraft, or the practice of spells (krz'tya). Thus VIII, 5, 9, krztya angirastt ; X, 1, 6, pratiKna angirasa^ . . . pra- Xlklh krz'tya akr/tya*mun krityakrito gahi ; XII, 5, 52, adadanam dngirasi brahma^yam upa d&saya ; cf. also VI, 45, 3 = RV. X, 164, 4. In XI, 4, 16 (cf. also VIII, 7, 17) the distinction between Atharvanic and Ahgirasic plants appears again, not, however, in any connection which con- veys of necessity the contrast between 'holy' and 'witch- craft ' plants. But it may do so. This, it will be remem- bered, is made in Vait. Su. 5, 10 ; it formed the starting point for the present enquiry, and the chain of evidence extending through the Atharvanic and Brahmanical litera- ture seems thus to be linked. We may add finally that the late Pamish/a hymns, AV. XIX, 22 and 23, which are repeated in the tract entitled Vedavratasya^de^anavidhi, Ath. Paris1. 46, 9 and io, deal with and state subdivisions of angirasa and atharva^a-texts_, each separately1. The statements are but faintly applicable to the existing redac- tions of the Atharvan, the Saunakiya, and Paippalada- sakhas 2, but we should be slow to condemn them as wholly apocryphal. The Gop. Br. I, 1, 5 and 8 also narrates in its own style of unbridled Brahmanical fancy the separate creation by Brahman of the Rtshls Atharvan and Angiras, 1 angirasa'nam adyaiA pa^Hnuvakai/j svaha (XIX, 22, 1); sarvebhyo sngirobhyo vidaga/zebhya/fc sv£ha (XIX, 22, 18); atharvaraanaw/katurr^ebhyo/fc sva'ha (XIX, 23, 1). 2 Cf. Weber, lad. Stud. IV, 433 ff. INTRODUCTION.
2n by Brahman of the Rtshls Atharvan and Angiras, 1 angirasa'nam adyaiA pa^Hnuvakai/j svaha (XIX, 22, 1); sarvebhyo sngirobhyo vidaga/zebhya/fc sv£ha (XIX, 22, 18); atharvaraanaw/katurr^ebhyo/fc sva'ha (XIX, 23, 1). 2 Cf. Weber, lad. Stud. IV, 433 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXlll the subsequent emanation from these two of twenty Athar- vanic and Angirasic descendant sages x, and finally, the pro- duction by the Atharvans of the atharva;za veda, by the Angiras of angirasa veda. In another passage, I, 3, 4, the Gop. Br. also asserts the separate character of the Angiras and Atharvans ; the latter are again associated with bhesha^am, the former is made the base of a foolish etymology, to wit : bhuyisht/iam brahma yad bhrzgvangirasa/z, ye*ngiraso ye*ngiraso sa rasa^, ye*tharva/*o ye*tharva//as tad bhesha^-am. As regards the chronology and cause of this differentia- tion of atharvan and angiras the texts are differentiation apparently wholly silent. The association of of atharvan fo^k names (and later of the name bhrzgu and angiras. v . r i also) with the texts and practices of the fourth Veda may be sought in the character of these mythic beings. They are fire-priests, fire-churners 2, and the Atharvanic rites, as well as the house-ceremonies in general, centre about the fire, the oblations are into the fire. Fire-priests, in distinction from soma-priesfs, may have had in their keeping these homelier practices of common life. But whence the terrible aspect of the An- giras in contrast to the auspicious Atharvans ? In the hymn about Sarama and the Pa/zis, RV. X, 108, 10, Sarama threatens the Pa/zis with the terrible Angiras, angirasa.? fca. ghora^. This statement, wholly incidental as it seems to be, is, of course, not to be entirely discarded. More im- portant is the fact that Brzhaspati, the divine purodha (purohita), is distinctly angirasa. In Kaor. 135, 9, Brz'has- pati Angirasa appears distinctly as the representative, or the divinity of witchcraft performances. In the Mahabha- rata he is frequently called angirasa^ sreshtkak. In his function of body-priest of the gods it behoves him to 1 Doubtless by way of allusion to the twenty books in the existing redaction of the 6aunakiya-.yakha. The expression vims'mo * ngirasa^ is repeated Paw. V, 2, 37, as a designation of the twenty books of the ^aunakiya-^akha in its present redaction. 2 Avestan atar-, athra-van and Vedic athar-van may be derivatives from the root manth, math (mth) ' churn/ But the absence of the aspiration in atar- makes the doubtful derivation still more doubtful. XXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
3its present redaction. 2 Avestan atar-, athra-van and Vedic athar-van may be derivatives from the root manth, math (mth) ' churn/ But the absence of the aspiration in atar- makes the doubtful derivation still more doubtful. XXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. exercise against hostile powers those fierce qualities which are later in a broader sense regarded as Angirasic. Thus RV. X, 164, 4 = AV. VI, 45, 3\ certainly exhibits this function of the divine purohita, and the composer of AV. X, i5 6, when he exclaims, ' Prati^ina (;c Back-hurler") the descendant of Ahgiras, is our overseer and officiator (puro- hita) : do thou drive back again (prati'^i^) the spells, and slay yonder fashioners of the spells/ has also in mind the divine purohita 2. The stanza foreshadows the later forma- tion pratyangiras, discussed above. We look in vain, how- ever, for statements of the reason why the word atharvan should be especially associated with janta and bhesha^a, and must assume that this was accomplished by secondarily contrasting it with ahgiras after the sense of ghora, abhi^ara had incrustated itself over it 3. The uncertainty of all this does not endanger the result that at a comparatively early time the terms atharva^a^, in. the sense of * holy charms/ and angirasa^, in the sense of ' witchcraft charms/ joined the more distinctively hieratic terms rik&h, yag-uz/zshi, and samani, as characteristic types of Brahmanical literary performances. But this distinction was at a later period again abandoned ; in the end the name atharvan and its derivatives prevail as designations of the practices and charms of the fourth Veda without reference to their strongly diversified character. The stem atharvan is modulated in a considerable variety of ways by derivative processes, the simple stem itself, or forms in the singular from it, being decidedly rare, and not at all early. I have noted Nr/si^hapurvatapani Up. I, 4, ngya^u^samatharvarupa^ surya/fc. Plural forms are less rare : atharva/zo veda^, 5at. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 7 ; atharvawam, 1 yad indra brahma;zas pate-bhidrohaw £aramasi, pra£eta na angiraso dvishata'ra patv awhasa^. 2 RV. IV, 50, 7-9 prescribes that kings shall keep in honour (subhrztam) a br/haspati, i. e. a Brahman purohita, in archaic language whose sense coincides completely with the later Atharvan ic notions. Barring the diction the passage might stand in any Atharva-ParLrish/a ; cf. below, p. lxviii, note. 3 A dash of popular etymology may have helped the process : a-tharvan, •not injuring;' cf. thurv in the sense of ' injure,' Dhatupa/^a XV, 62, and perhaps Maitr. S.
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.
1we judge the matter aright, a counter-sense, and unheard of anywhere in Hindu literature. 3 So also 6anti, as the wife of Atharvan ; see Wilson's translation of the Vishwu-purawa, I, 110, 200; Bhagavata-pura^a III, 24, 24. XXU HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. cious side of the holy texts, and naturally chooses the auspicious aspect of the Atharvan also. Its precise com- plement is 5at. Br. X, 5, 2, 20. Here, after correlating the adhvaryu-priests with the ya^n/z, the ^andoga-priests with the saman, the bahvr^as with the uktha (rik), the author presents yatu, ' sorcery/ and the yatuvida^, ' those skilled in sorcery/ as representatives of the fourth Veda. The bhesha^a of the Atharvan passage, and the yatu of the present passage, make up together what is embraced in the name atharvangirasa^ (AV. X, 7, 20). Moreover, the Sam- hita exhibits a decided predilection, bordering on rigorous distinction, for associating the term dngirasa with aggressive witchcraft, or the practice of spells (krz'tya). Thus VIII, 5, 9, krztya angirastt ; X, 1, 6, pratiKna angirasa^ . . . pra- Xlklh krz'tya akr/tya*mun krityakrito gahi ; XII, 5, 52, adadanam dngirasi brahma^yam upa d&saya ; cf. also VI, 45, 3 = RV. X, 164, 4. In XI, 4, 16 (cf. also VIII, 7, 17) the distinction between Atharvanic and Ahgirasic plants appears again, not, however, in any connection which con- veys of necessity the contrast between 'holy' and 'witch- craft ' plants. But it may do so. This, it will be remem- bered, is made in Vait. Su. 5, 10 ; it formed the starting point for the present enquiry, and the chain of evidence extending through the Atharvanic and Brahmanical litera- ture seems thus to be linked. We may add finally that the late Pamish/a hymns, AV. XIX, 22 and 23, which are repeated in the tract entitled Vedavratasya^de^anavidhi, Ath. Paris1. 46, 9 and io, deal with and state subdivisions of angirasa and atharva^a-texts_, each separately1. The statements are but faintly applicable to the existing redac- tions of the Atharvan, the Saunakiya, and Paippalada- sakhas 2, but we should be slow to condemn them as wholly apocryphal. The Gop. Br. I, 1, 5 and 8 also narrates in its own style of unbridled Brahmanical fancy the separate creation by Brahman of the Rtshls Atharvan and Angiras, 1 angirasa'nam adyaiA pa^Hnuvakai/j svaha (XIX, 22, 1); sarvebhyo sngirobhyo vidaga/zebhya/fc sv£ha (XIX, 22, 18); atharvaraanaw/katurr^ebhyo/fc sva'ha (XIX, 23, 1). 2 Cf. Weber, lad. Stud. IV, 433 ff. INTRODUCTION.
2n by Brahman of the Rtshls Atharvan and Angiras, 1 angirasa'nam adyaiA pa^Hnuvakai/j svaha (XIX, 22, 1); sarvebhyo sngirobhyo vidaga/zebhya/fc sv£ha (XIX, 22, 18); atharvaraanaw/katurr^ebhyo/fc sva'ha (XIX, 23, 1). 2 Cf. Weber, lad. Stud. IV, 433 ff. INTRODUCTION. XXlll the subsequent emanation from these two of twenty Athar- vanic and Angirasic descendant sages x, and finally, the pro- duction by the Atharvans of the atharva;za veda, by the Angiras of angirasa veda. In another passage, I, 3, 4, the Gop. Br. also asserts the separate character of the Angiras and Atharvans ; the latter are again associated with bhesha^am, the former is made the base of a foolish etymology, to wit : bhuyisht/iam brahma yad bhrzgvangirasa/z, ye*ngiraso ye*ngiraso sa rasa^, ye*tharva/*o ye*tharva//as tad bhesha^-am. As regards the chronology and cause of this differentia- tion of atharvan and angiras the texts are differentiation apparently wholly silent. The association of of atharvan fo^k names (and later of the name bhrzgu and angiras. v . r i also) with the texts and practices of the fourth Veda may be sought in the character of these mythic beings. They are fire-priests, fire-churners 2, and the Atharvanic rites, as well as the house-ceremonies in general, centre about the fire, the oblations are into the fire. Fire-priests, in distinction from soma-priesfs, may have had in their keeping these homelier practices of common life. But whence the terrible aspect of the An- giras in contrast to the auspicious Atharvans ? In the hymn about Sarama and the Pa/zis, RV. X, 108, 10, Sarama threatens the Pa/zis with the terrible Angiras, angirasa.? fca. ghora^. This statement, wholly incidental as it seems to be, is, of course, not to be entirely discarded. More im- portant is the fact that Brzhaspati, the divine purodha (purohita), is distinctly angirasa. In Kaor. 135, 9, Brz'has- pati Angirasa appears distinctly as the representative, or the divinity of witchcraft performances. In the Mahabha- rata he is frequently called angirasa^ sreshtkak. In his function of body-priest of the gods it behoves him to 1 Doubtless by way of allusion to the twenty books in the existing redaction of the 6aunakiya-.yakha. The expression vims'mo * ngirasa^ is repeated Paw. V, 2, 37, as a designation of the twenty books of the ^aunakiya-^akha in its present redaction. 2 Avestan atar-, athra-van and Vedic athar-van may be derivatives from the root manth, math (mth) ' churn/ But the absence of the aspiration in atar- makes the doubtful derivation still more doubtful. XXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
3its present redaction. 2 Avestan atar-, athra-van and Vedic athar-van may be derivatives from the root manth, math (mth) ' churn/ But the absence of the aspiration in atar- makes the doubtful derivation still more doubtful. XXIV HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. exercise against hostile powers those fierce qualities which are later in a broader sense regarded as Angirasic. Thus RV. X, 164, 4 = AV. VI, 45, 3\ certainly exhibits this function of the divine purohita, and the composer of AV. X, i5 6, when he exclaims, ' Prati^ina (;c Back-hurler") the descendant of Ahgiras, is our overseer and officiator (puro- hita) : do thou drive back again (prati'^i^) the spells, and slay yonder fashioners of the spells/ has also in mind the divine purohita 2. The stanza foreshadows the later forma- tion pratyangiras, discussed above. We look in vain, how- ever, for statements of the reason why the word atharvan should be especially associated with janta and bhesha^a, and must assume that this was accomplished by secondarily contrasting it with ahgiras after the sense of ghora, abhi^ara had incrustated itself over it 3. The uncertainty of all this does not endanger the result that at a comparatively early time the terms atharva^a^, in. the sense of * holy charms/ and angirasa^, in the sense of ' witchcraft charms/ joined the more distinctively hieratic terms rik&h, yag-uz/zshi, and samani, as characteristic types of Brahmanical literary performances. But this distinction was at a later period again abandoned ; in the end the name atharvan and its derivatives prevail as designations of the practices and charms of the fourth Veda without reference to their strongly diversified character. The stem atharvan is modulated in a considerable variety of ways by derivative processes, the simple stem itself, or forms in the singular from it, being decidedly rare, and not at all early. I have noted Nr/si^hapurvatapani Up. I, 4, ngya^u^samatharvarupa^ surya/fc. Plural forms are less rare : atharva/zo veda^, 5at. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 7 ; atharvawam, 1 yad indra brahma;zas pate-bhidrohaw £aramasi, pra£eta na angiraso dvishata'ra patv awhasa^. 2 RV. IV, 50, 7-9 prescribes that kings shall keep in honour (subhrztam) a br/haspati, i. e. a Brahman purohita, in archaic language whose sense coincides completely with the later Atharvan ic notions. Barring the diction the passage might stand in any Atharva-ParLrish/a ; cf. below, p. lxviii, note. 3 A dash of popular etymology may have helped the process : a-tharvan, •not injuring;' cf. thurv in the sense of ' injure,' Dhatupa/^a XV, 62, and perhaps Maitr. S.
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.