Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of each kanda.. They may be said to consist either of mere verbal variations or of additional mantras. In regard to these readings the Brahma;/a of the same school exhibits a feature which may have an important bearing on the textual criticism of the Sawhita. While the Brahmawa generally shows the same verbal variations in the sacrificial texts as the Sawhita, it, as a rule, takes no notice whatever of the additional mantras, but agrees in this respect pretty closely with the Madh)'andina text. Indeed, so far as I am able to judge, the two relations seem to coincide almost entirely, as far as the subject-matter is concerned ; the differences, considerable as they sometimes are, being rather of a grammatical and stylistic nature. Occasional omissions, which I have hitherto noticed^, may perhaps turn out to be due to the carelessness of scribes. As regards the additional mantras referred to, they may have found their way into the Sa;«hita at the time when the Sutras ^ Viz. kawrfas 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17. * J'or instance, the brahma//as Madhy. I, 4, 3 ; II, 3, 2 and 3 ; IV, 5, 10 ; 6, 8 are wanting in the Oxford M.S. ; see p. 338, note 3. — In the fourth (fifth Ka/jva) ka'/rfa, the Kd'/vas, on the otlier h.and, have two brahma«as (V, 7, 5 ; 8, 2, the latter of which treats of the adabhya graha, Va^. S. VIII, 47-50) which are not found in the Madhyandina text. INTRODUCTION. xlv were composed ; though, it is true, they do not as a rule appear in the Katiya-sutra, and no other sutra of the White Ya^s, as far as I know, has hitherto come to hght\ On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Madhyan- dina Sawhita^, which are not noticed in the Brahma;/a of that school, this question must be left for future investigation. 1 have already referred to the connection which seems to have existed between the Ka«va school of the White Ya^us and the redactors of the Rik-samhita. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the Rik and the Kawva text of the Ya^ur-veda is the use of the letters / and //i instead of d and d/i used by the Madhyandinas. Besides, the riks of the Ka//va text gene- rally approach more nearly to the readings of the Rig-vcda than those of the other school. Another, even more inter- esting, feature which the Kawva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constant^ employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Sawhitas and Brahmawas generally use the dative ; thus the Ka?/vas read ' tasya/^' instead of ' tasyai' (M.
2ich the Kawva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constant^ employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Sawhitas and Brahmawas generally use the dative ; thus the Ka?/vas read ' tasya/^' instead of ' tasyai' (M. I, i, 4, 16) ; 'gayatrya/^' instead of ' gayatryai ' (I, 7, i, 1); ' pr/thivya/^ ' instead of 'pr/thivyai' (I, 2, 5, 18) ; ' kumbhya bhastraya//' instead of 'kumbhyai bhastrayai' (I, r, 3, 7); 'stir;/aya vede/^' instead of 'stin/ayai vede//' (IV, 2, 5, 3); 'dheno/^' instead of ' dhenvai ' (III, i, 2, 2 1 ), &c. Thus the Ka//va text is in this respect more in accordance with the Rik-sa^uhita. than even the Aitareya-brahma//a^. Again, the Ka;/vas seem to form the dative of feminine i-bases in accordance with the usual and older practice of the Rzk ; at least I find everywhere 'ahutaye' and 'guptaye'(asalso in the Atharvan) instead of 'ahutyai' and 'guptyai' as the Madhyandinas (and Taittiriyas) read^. Of minor points of grammatical * Professor Weber thinks that the sutra of Vai^avapa, of which mention is occasionally made in the commentaries on the Kaliya-sutra, may belong to the White Ya^us. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Biihler, Sacred Laws, I, p. xxvi, remarks that ' Ka«va is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sutras of the Kawva school ;' but I have found no notice of these sutras anywhere. " That is, in those adhyayas to which the Brahmawa forms a running commentary. 2 I have not met with any exception in the kawrfas hitherto examined. * See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 428. ^ See also the form ' dhcuo/j ' mentioned above. xlvi 5ATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. differences may be mentioned the form ' nililye,' which occurs once in the Madhyandina text (I, 2, 3, i), and is otherwise only found in the Mahabharata ; while the Ka;/va recension has the periphrastic form (nilaya;;/ kakre), which the Madhyandina text also offers in the other two cases (I, 6, 4, 1 ; IV, I, 3, i) in which the word occurs. On the other hand, the Ka;/vas seem to read invariably ' atmani (dha or h/'i),' where the Madhyandinas have ' atman,' which is also (doubtless on metrical grounds) the more usual formation in the Rig-veda^. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, i. 4, 12 (^I.), where the Madhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the Ka;/vas gives them in the proper order.
3n in the Rig-veda^. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, i. 4, 12 (^I.), where the Madhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the Ka;/vas gives them in the proper order. Though most of these points of differ- ence between the two schools would seem to tell in favour of the higher antiquity of the Ka;/va text, there will always be great difficulty in deciding this question, as it is by no means impossible that these variations are entirely due to different local or family traditions. In favour of the latter alternative one or two other points may be mentioned. The Madhyandina text, as has already been remarked, offers not a few grammatical and other differences between the first five and the succeeding four ka//das, or, as we may say, between the Ya^//avalkya and the 5a«^ilya books of the Shash/ipatha. Though I cannot speak with confidence on this point, as I have not yet examined the Ka«va text of the 5a;/^ilya ka;/^as, I may refer here to at least two points in which the Ka;/vas, in the Ya^;7avalkya portion, agree with the 6'a;/^ilya portion of the Madhyandina text, viz. the use of the imperfect (aspardhanta) instead of the perfect (paspr/dhire) in the opening clause of legends ; and the frequent employment of the particle 'vava' in the place of ' vai.' As regards the present translation of the first two ka//^/as, ' Another curious feature of the Kajiva. text is the frequent insertion of an •ity uvaia'in the middle of speeches, much like the colloquial 'says he.' As an instance I may adduce K. IV, 2, 3. 3 (M. Ill, 2, 3, 5) : — Sa hovaWham cva vo ya^/Jam amumuham iti hova^-a yad eva mayi tanvana iti mam ya^^/lad aiitara- gata tenaiva vo yao^/lam amumuham iti te mahyan; nu bhagam kalpayatety atha vo yagnoA praroiishyata iti tatheti hoius, &c. The Ka«vas also insert much more frequently an 'iti' in the middle of speeches. INTRODUCTION. xl VI 1 I need hardly say that I am fully aware of its shortcomings. My chief endeavour has been to translate as literally as seemed at all compatible with the English idiom. If, in consequence of this, many passages should be found to read somewhat awkwardly, I hope at least that the wish to follow the original as closely as possible, has not rendered them unintelligible. Those who have given any attention to the Brahma;/as and the sacrificial system of the Hindus, know- how difficult the task is, and how easy it is to commit mis- takes regarding the intricate minutiae of the ceremonial.
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.
1of each kanda.. They may be said to consist either of mere verbal variations or of additional mantras. In regard to these readings the Brahma;/a of the same school exhibits a feature which may have an important bearing on the textual criticism of the Sawhita. While the Brahmawa generally shows the same verbal variations in the sacrificial texts as the Sawhita, it, as a rule, takes no notice whatever of the additional mantras, but agrees in this respect pretty closely with the Madh)'andina text. Indeed, so far as I am able to judge, the two relations seem to coincide almost entirely, as far as the subject-matter is concerned ; the differences, considerable as they sometimes are, being rather of a grammatical and stylistic nature. Occasional omissions, which I have hitherto noticed^, may perhaps turn out to be due to the carelessness of scribes. As regards the additional mantras referred to, they may have found their way into the Sa;«hita at the time when the Sutras ^ Viz. kawrfas 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17. * J'or instance, the brahma//as Madhy. I, 4, 3 ; II, 3, 2 and 3 ; IV, 5, 10 ; 6, 8 are wanting in the Oxford M.S. ; see p. 338, note 3. — In the fourth (fifth Ka/jva) ka'/rfa, the Kd'/vas, on the otlier h.and, have two brahma«as (V, 7, 5 ; 8, 2, the latter of which treats of the adabhya graha, Va^. S. VIII, 47-50) which are not found in the Madhyandina text. INTRODUCTION. xlv were composed ; though, it is true, they do not as a rule appear in the Katiya-sutra, and no other sutra of the White Ya^s, as far as I know, has hitherto come to hght\ On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Madhyan- dina Sawhita^, which are not noticed in the Brahma;/a of that school, this question must be left for future investigation. 1 have already referred to the connection which seems to have existed between the Ka«va school of the White Ya^us and the redactors of the Rik-samhita. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the Rik and the Kawva text of the Ya^ur-veda is the use of the letters / and //i instead of d and d/i used by the Madhyandinas. Besides, the riks of the Ka//va text gene- rally approach more nearly to the readings of the Rig-vcda than those of the other school. Another, even more inter- esting, feature which the Kawva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constant^ employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Sawhitas and Brahmawas generally use the dative ; thus the Ka?/vas read ' tasya/^' instead of ' tasyai' (M.
2ich the Kawva recension has in common with the Rik, is the constant^ employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Sawhitas and Brahmawas generally use the dative ; thus the Ka?/vas read ' tasya/^' instead of ' tasyai' (M. I, i, 4, 16) ; 'gayatrya/^' instead of ' gayatryai ' (I, 7, i, 1); ' pr/thivya/^ ' instead of 'pr/thivyai' (I, 2, 5, 18) ; ' kumbhya bhastraya//' instead of 'kumbhyai bhastrayai' (I, r, 3, 7); 'stir;/aya vede/^' instead of 'stin/ayai vede//' (IV, 2, 5, 3); 'dheno/^' instead of ' dhenvai ' (III, i, 2, 2 1 ), &c. Thus the Ka//va text is in this respect more in accordance with the Rik-sa^uhita. than even the Aitareya-brahma//a^. Again, the Ka;/vas seem to form the dative of feminine i-bases in accordance with the usual and older practice of the Rzk ; at least I find everywhere 'ahutaye' and 'guptaye'(asalso in the Atharvan) instead of 'ahutyai' and 'guptyai' as the Madhyandinas (and Taittiriyas) read^. Of minor points of grammatical * Professor Weber thinks that the sutra of Vai^avapa, of which mention is occasionally made in the commentaries on the Kaliya-sutra, may belong to the White Ya^us. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Biihler, Sacred Laws, I, p. xxvi, remarks that ' Ka«va is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-sutras of the Kawva school ;' but I have found no notice of these sutras anywhere. " That is, in those adhyayas to which the Brahmawa forms a running commentary. 2 I have not met with any exception in the kawrfas hitherto examined. * See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 428. ^ See also the form ' dhcuo/j ' mentioned above. xlvi 5ATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. differences may be mentioned the form ' nililye,' which occurs once in the Madhyandina text (I, 2, 3, i), and is otherwise only found in the Mahabharata ; while the Ka;/va recension has the periphrastic form (nilaya;;/ kakre), which the Madhyandina text also offers in the other two cases (I, 6, 4, 1 ; IV, I, 3, i) in which the word occurs. On the other hand, the Ka;/vas seem to read invariably ' atmani (dha or h/'i),' where the Madhyandinas have ' atman,' which is also (doubtless on metrical grounds) the more usual formation in the Rig-veda^. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, i. 4, 12 (^I.), where the Madhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the Ka;/vas gives them in the proper order.
3n in the Rig-veda^. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, i. 4, 12 (^I.), where the Madhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the Ka;/vas gives them in the proper order. Though most of these points of differ- ence between the two schools would seem to tell in favour of the higher antiquity of the Ka;/va text, there will always be great difficulty in deciding this question, as it is by no means impossible that these variations are entirely due to different local or family traditions. In favour of the latter alternative one or two other points may be mentioned. The Madhyandina text, as has already been remarked, offers not a few grammatical and other differences between the first five and the succeeding four ka//das, or, as we may say, between the Ya^//avalkya and the 5a«^ilya books of the Shash/ipatha. Though I cannot speak with confidence on this point, as I have not yet examined the Ka«va text of the 5a;/^ilya ka;/^as, I may refer here to at least two points in which the Ka;/vas, in the Ya^;7avalkya portion, agree with the 6'a;/^ilya portion of the Madhyandina text, viz. the use of the imperfect (aspardhanta) instead of the perfect (paspr/dhire) in the opening clause of legends ; and the frequent employment of the particle 'vava' in the place of ' vai.' As regards the present translation of the first two ka//^/as, ' Another curious feature of the Kajiva. text is the frequent insertion of an •ity uvaia'in the middle of speeches, much like the colloquial 'says he.' As an instance I may adduce K. IV, 2, 3. 3 (M. Ill, 2, 3, 5) : — Sa hovaWham cva vo ya^/Jam amumuham iti hova^-a yad eva mayi tanvana iti mam ya^^/lad aiitara- gata tenaiva vo yao^/lam amumuham iti te mahyan; nu bhagam kalpayatety atha vo yagnoA praroiishyata iti tatheti hoius, &c. The Ka«vas also insert much more frequently an 'iti' in the middle of speeches. INTRODUCTION. xl VI 1 I need hardly say that I am fully aware of its shortcomings. My chief endeavour has been to translate as literally as seemed at all compatible with the English idiom. If, in consequence of this, many passages should be found to read somewhat awkwardly, I hope at least that the wish to follow the original as closely as possible, has not rendered them unintelligible. Those who have given any attention to the Brahma;/as and the sacrificial system of the Hindus, know- how difficult the task is, and how easy it is to commit mis- takes regarding the intricate minutiae of the ceremonial.
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.