Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ma- sacrifices, with their prevailing mythical colouring, darkened very often by priestly mysticism, offer but scant occasion for the mention of sorcery, or the plainer practices of every- day life. Yet sorcery and house-practices there were in India at all times 2. The failure of the Rig-veda to mention any systematic redaction of charms by a collective name like atharvangirasa^ must be gauged by the slenderness of its opportunities to mention the Veda as a generic name (cf. VIII, 19, 5), or Vedic collections or redactions in par- ticular (X, 90, 9) 3. There is no proof that even the oldest 1 For RV. X, 71, 11, which also hints at the three Vedic types, and the brahma that embraces them all, see the full discussion below, p. lxiv ff. 2 Cf. e. g., RV. I, 191 ; VII, 50, and especially VII, 104, 16. 3 The familiar mention of compositions called rik, saman, uktha, stotra, jastra, &c, does not, it is important to note, refer to collections at all, but to types of poetic productivity ; they are moreover all of them such as were dis- tinctly connected with the soma-sacrifice. Their presence simply accentuates the preoccupation of the body of the Rig-vedic collection with the great priestly sacrifices, and the consequent absence of the more general terms for Vedic classes of writings. The stem yaguh, in the sense of collection of formulas of the Ya^ur-veda, occurs only in the above-mentioned passage, X, 90, 9. INTRODUCTION. XXXI parts of the RV., or the most ancient Hindu tradition accessible historically, exclude the existence of the class of writings entitled to any of the names given to the Atharvan charms ; there is no evidence that these writings ever differed in form (metre) or style from those in the existing Atharvan redactions ; and, finally, there is no positive evidence — barring the argumentum ex silentio — that the names current in other texts as designations of Atharvan hymns (bhesha^ani, atharva^a^, angirasa^, &c.) were unknown at the earliest period of literary activity. On the other hand, the existing redactions of the AV. betray themselves as later than the RV. redaction by the character of the variants in those mantras which they share with the RV. As regards the AV., the stanza X, 7, 20 presents the four Vedic categories, rika.k, yaguk, samani, and atharvan- Positionof girasa>^> the last the traditional name of the the AV. in Saunakiya- version. The same tetrad is intended of the™5 at XI, 6, 14, where the narrower term bhesha- Saunakiya- ^a(ni) takes the place of atharvangirasa^.
2guk, samani, and atharvan- Positionof girasa>^> the last the traditional name of the the AV. in Saunakiya- version. The same tetrad is intended of the™5 at XI, 6, 14, where the narrower term bhesha- Saunakiya- ^a(ni) takes the place of atharvangirasa^. At XIX, 54, 5 the mention of atharvan and angiras, though not directly referable to the AV., certainly suggests it, because stanza 3 speaks in the same strain of the rikdih and yaguk ; and in XIX, 22, 1 ; 23, 1 (parLrish/a in character ; cf. above, p. xxii), the angirasani and athar- va/zani (sc. suktani) are mentioned separately. Otherwise this text also fails to present a fixed name for the type of literature known later as Atharvanic 1. The Atharvan is very much in the same position as we shall find the Ya^us- texts : the three Vedas are mentioned, often in connection with other more specific forms and designations of prayer and sacerdotal acts, but the Atharvan is omitted. The impression left in both cases is by no means that of con- scious neglect or contempt, but rather of esoteric restriction to the sphere of the great Vedic ritual (.srauta)2. Thus 1 The word brahma which is catalogued with the trayi at XI, 8, 23 ; XV. 6, 3 (cf. also XV, 3, 7) does not refer to the Atharvan, but is the broader and higher term for religious activity in general. Cf. RV. X, 71, 11, and see below, p. lxvi. 2 E. g. in the very same hymn (X, 7, 14) in which the AtharvangirasaA are XXXli HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. it augurs no contempt or neglect of the Atharvan, if in a charm constructed for the purpose of obtaining a know- ledge of the Vedas, AV. VII, 54 (Kaus\ 42, 9), only rzk, saman, ya^"u^, veda, and oblation (haviA) are mentioned : the person who here desires Vedic learning is not in training for Atharvan priesthood, and therefore does not take care to include this speeialistic learning l. And similarly a con- siderable number of additional Atharvan passages, IX, 6, 1. 2; XI, 7, 5. 24; 8, 23 ; XII, 1, 38 ; XV, 3, 6-8 ; 6, 3, in which the Atharvan is not mentioned with the other Vedic compositions, betray no sign of conscious exclusion or con- tempt of the Atharvan. On the other hand, this very omission ensures the interesting result that the Sawhita of the AV., unlike its ritualistic adjuncts (see p. lvii ff.), is in no wise engaged either in self-glorification, or in polemics against the other Vedas.
3empt of the Atharvan. On the other hand, this very omission ensures the interesting result that the Sawhita of the AV., unlike its ritualistic adjuncts (see p. lvii ff.), is in no wise engaged either in self-glorification, or in polemics against the other Vedas. It seems altogether evident that the Atharvan diaskeuasts were totally uncon- scious of any disadvantages inherent in their text, or any contemptuous treatment on the part of the adherents of the other Vedas. In addition to the explicit designation of the Atharvan compositions as atharvangirasa/^, bhesha^ani, atharva/zani, &c, there is to be noted in the 6aunakiya-text of the hymns a decided advance in the association of the names Atharvan, Ahgiras, and Bhrzgu with the practices and conditions which these hymns are aimed at. The older, broader, and vaguer mythic personality of all three which appears, e.g. in RV. VIII, 43, 13 ; X, 14, 6 ( = AV. XVIII, i, 58) ; X, 92, 10, is still continued in the Atharvan (VI, 1, 1 ; XI, 6, 13; XVI, 8. 11-14): Atharvan, Angiras, and Bhrzgu are at times simply semi-divine, or wholly divine mentioned as the fourth Veda the poet lapses into the more familiar traividya, in a stanza which, like st. 20, aims to state that the Vedas are derived from Skambha (Brahma), a monotheistic personification ; cf. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, 378. 1 A similar passage in a Sutra of the RV. (Asv Grih. Ill, 3, i-3\ on the same occasion, namely, the study of the Veda, does not hesitate to include the Atharvan along with many other Vedic texts. This does not argue conscious preference, any more than the Atharvan passage indicates conscious exclusion ; cf. below, p. xliv. INTRODUCTION. XXX1U beings, whose office is entirely non-Atharvanic. But on the other hand the Atharvans appear at IV, 37, 1 as slayers of the Rakshas (similarly IV, 3, 7) ; the Atharvans and Arigiras fasten amulets, and consequently slay the Dasyus, at X, 6, 20 ; and the name Bhrzgu appears at V, 19, 1 (cf. TS. I, 8, 18, 1 ; TB. I, 8, 2, 5) as the typical designation of a Brahma/^a, i.e. here, of an Atharvan priest. Such specialisations of these names are unknown in the RV. Especially noteworthy is the evident beginning of the asso- ciation of the name angirasa with aggressive witchcraft or spells, and the somewhat less clear corresponding correla- tion of the stem atharva/za with auspicious charms (see above, p. xviii ff.).
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.
1ma- sacrifices, with their prevailing mythical colouring, darkened very often by priestly mysticism, offer but scant occasion for the mention of sorcery, or the plainer practices of every- day life. Yet sorcery and house-practices there were in India at all times 2. The failure of the Rig-veda to mention any systematic redaction of charms by a collective name like atharvangirasa^ must be gauged by the slenderness of its opportunities to mention the Veda as a generic name (cf. VIII, 19, 5), or Vedic collections or redactions in par- ticular (X, 90, 9) 3. There is no proof that even the oldest 1 For RV. X, 71, 11, which also hints at the three Vedic types, and the brahma that embraces them all, see the full discussion below, p. lxiv ff. 2 Cf. e. g., RV. I, 191 ; VII, 50, and especially VII, 104, 16. 3 The familiar mention of compositions called rik, saman, uktha, stotra, jastra, &c, does not, it is important to note, refer to collections at all, but to types of poetic productivity ; they are moreover all of them such as were dis- tinctly connected with the soma-sacrifice. Their presence simply accentuates the preoccupation of the body of the Rig-vedic collection with the great priestly sacrifices, and the consequent absence of the more general terms for Vedic classes of writings. The stem yaguh, in the sense of collection of formulas of the Ya^ur-veda, occurs only in the above-mentioned passage, X, 90, 9. INTRODUCTION. XXXI parts of the RV., or the most ancient Hindu tradition accessible historically, exclude the existence of the class of writings entitled to any of the names given to the Atharvan charms ; there is no evidence that these writings ever differed in form (metre) or style from those in the existing Atharvan redactions ; and, finally, there is no positive evidence — barring the argumentum ex silentio — that the names current in other texts as designations of Atharvan hymns (bhesha^ani, atharva^a^, angirasa^, &c.) were unknown at the earliest period of literary activity. On the other hand, the existing redactions of the AV. betray themselves as later than the RV. redaction by the character of the variants in those mantras which they share with the RV. As regards the AV., the stanza X, 7, 20 presents the four Vedic categories, rika.k, yaguk, samani, and atharvan- Positionof girasa>^> the last the traditional name of the the AV. in Saunakiya- version. The same tetrad is intended of the™5 at XI, 6, 14, where the narrower term bhesha- Saunakiya- ^a(ni) takes the place of atharvangirasa^.
2guk, samani, and atharvan- Positionof girasa>^> the last the traditional name of the the AV. in Saunakiya- version. The same tetrad is intended of the™5 at XI, 6, 14, where the narrower term bhesha- Saunakiya- ^a(ni) takes the place of atharvangirasa^. At XIX, 54, 5 the mention of atharvan and angiras, though not directly referable to the AV., certainly suggests it, because stanza 3 speaks in the same strain of the rikdih and yaguk ; and in XIX, 22, 1 ; 23, 1 (parLrish/a in character ; cf. above, p. xxii), the angirasani and athar- va/zani (sc. suktani) are mentioned separately. Otherwise this text also fails to present a fixed name for the type of literature known later as Atharvanic 1. The Atharvan is very much in the same position as we shall find the Ya^us- texts : the three Vedas are mentioned, often in connection with other more specific forms and designations of prayer and sacerdotal acts, but the Atharvan is omitted. The impression left in both cases is by no means that of con- scious neglect or contempt, but rather of esoteric restriction to the sphere of the great Vedic ritual (.srauta)2. Thus 1 The word brahma which is catalogued with the trayi at XI, 8, 23 ; XV. 6, 3 (cf. also XV, 3, 7) does not refer to the Atharvan, but is the broader and higher term for religious activity in general. Cf. RV. X, 71, 11, and see below, p. lxvi. 2 E. g. in the very same hymn (X, 7, 14) in which the AtharvangirasaA are XXXli HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA. it augurs no contempt or neglect of the Atharvan, if in a charm constructed for the purpose of obtaining a know- ledge of the Vedas, AV. VII, 54 (Kaus\ 42, 9), only rzk, saman, ya^"u^, veda, and oblation (haviA) are mentioned : the person who here desires Vedic learning is not in training for Atharvan priesthood, and therefore does not take care to include this speeialistic learning l. And similarly a con- siderable number of additional Atharvan passages, IX, 6, 1. 2; XI, 7, 5. 24; 8, 23 ; XII, 1, 38 ; XV, 3, 6-8 ; 6, 3, in which the Atharvan is not mentioned with the other Vedic compositions, betray no sign of conscious exclusion or con- tempt of the Atharvan. On the other hand, this very omission ensures the interesting result that the Sawhita of the AV., unlike its ritualistic adjuncts (see p. lvii ff.), is in no wise engaged either in self-glorification, or in polemics against the other Vedas.
3empt of the Atharvan. On the other hand, this very omission ensures the interesting result that the Sawhita of the AV., unlike its ritualistic adjuncts (see p. lvii ff.), is in no wise engaged either in self-glorification, or in polemics against the other Vedas. It seems altogether evident that the Atharvan diaskeuasts were totally uncon- scious of any disadvantages inherent in their text, or any contemptuous treatment on the part of the adherents of the other Vedas. In addition to the explicit designation of the Atharvan compositions as atharvangirasa/^, bhesha^ani, atharva/zani, &c, there is to be noted in the 6aunakiya-text of the hymns a decided advance in the association of the names Atharvan, Ahgiras, and Bhrzgu with the practices and conditions which these hymns are aimed at. The older, broader, and vaguer mythic personality of all three which appears, e.g. in RV. VIII, 43, 13 ; X, 14, 6 ( = AV. XVIII, i, 58) ; X, 92, 10, is still continued in the Atharvan (VI, 1, 1 ; XI, 6, 13; XVI, 8. 11-14): Atharvan, Angiras, and Bhrzgu are at times simply semi-divine, or wholly divine mentioned as the fourth Veda the poet lapses into the more familiar traividya, in a stanza which, like st. 20, aims to state that the Vedas are derived from Skambha (Brahma), a monotheistic personification ; cf. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, 378. 1 A similar passage in a Sutra of the RV. (Asv Grih. Ill, 3, i-3\ on the same occasion, namely, the study of the Veda, does not hesitate to include the Atharvan along with many other Vedic texts. This does not argue conscious preference, any more than the Atharvan passage indicates conscious exclusion ; cf. below, p. xliv. INTRODUCTION. XXX1U beings, whose office is entirely non-Atharvanic. But on the other hand the Atharvans appear at IV, 37, 1 as slayers of the Rakshas (similarly IV, 3, 7) ; the Atharvans and Arigiras fasten amulets, and consequently slay the Dasyus, at X, 6, 20 ; and the name Bhrzgu appears at V, 19, 1 (cf. TS. I, 8, 18, 1 ; TB. I, 8, 2, 5) as the typical designation of a Brahma/^a, i.e. here, of an Atharvan priest. Such specialisations of these names are unknown in the RV. Especially noteworthy is the evident beginning of the asso- ciation of the name angirasa with aggressive witchcraft or spells, and the somewhat less clear corresponding correla- tion of the stem atharva/za with auspicious charms (see above, p. xviii ff.).
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.