Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1cluding ^ the Rahasya (mystery), the Sa;;zgraha (epitome), and the Parij-ish/a (supplement). Now the tenth book is really called Agni-rahasya ; while the eleventh contains a kind of summary of the preceding ritual; and ka«<^as 12-14 treat of various other subjects. This relation between the first nine and the remaining five books is also fully borne out by internal evidence, as well as by a comparison with the Va^asaneyi-sawhita. The latter consists of forty adhyayas, the first eighteen of which contain the formulas of the ordinary sacrifices — the Havir- ya^'-y7as and Soma-sacrifice— and correspond to the first nine books of the 5atapatha-brahma;/a. The succeeding adhya- yas have been clearly shown by Professor Weber ^ to be later additions. As a rule only those formulas which are contained in the first eighteen adhyayas are found in the Taittiriya-sa7;^hitd ; while those of the later adhyayas are given in the Taittiriya-brahma;/a. At the end of the ^atapatha the White Ya^us is said to have been promulgated (d-khya) by Ya^^7avalkya Va^asa- neya. Now the name of this teacher is indeed more fre- quently met with in the Brahmawa than that of any other ; > The accuracy of this list cannot be relied upon, as several mistakes occur in the number of ka«(/ikas there given. It is, however, unlikely that the scribe should have committed any mistake regarding the number of adhyayas. ' Literally 'together with the rahasya (saiahasyam),' &c. 8 Hiatory of Indian Literature, p. 107 seq. INTRODUCTION. XXXl especially in some of the later books where his professional connection with Canaka, king of Videha, and his skill in theological disputations are favourite topics. As regards the earlier portion of the work, however, it is a remarkable fact that, while in the first five books Ya^y7avalkya's opinion is frequently recorded as authoritative \ he is not once men- tioned in the four succeeding ksi?idas (6-9). The teacher whose opinion is most frequently referred to in these books, is vSaw(/ilya. This disagreement in respect of doc- trinal authorities, coupled with unmistakable differences'-^, stylistic as well as geographical and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four ka;/^as are chiefly con- cerned, is the agni/^ayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar.
2and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four ka;/^as are chiefly con- cerned, is the agni/^ayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar. For reasons urged by Professor Weber, it would appear not improbable that this part of the ceremonial was specially cultivated in the north-western districts ; and since the geographical allusions in these four ka/z^as chiefly point to that part of India, while those of the other books refer almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna, we may infer from this that the fire-ritual, adopted by the Va^asaneyins at the time of the first redac- tion of their texts — that is, of the first nine k^ndas, as far as the Brahmawa is concerned — had been settled in the north-west of India. Here, however, we meet with another difificulty. The tenth book, or Agnirahasya, deals with the same subject as the preceding four kawr/as ; and here also Sa/^dilya. figures as the chief authority, while no mention is made of Ya^yla- valkya. Moreover, at the end of that k§.ndsi, a list of teachers is given in which the transmission of the sacri- ficial science (either in its entirety, or only as regards the fire-ritual) is traced from a teacher Tura Kivasheya — who is said to have received it from the god Pra^apati — downwards, through two intermediate teachers, to SXndl- 1 See, however, ^-at. Br. II, 5, i, 2-3, where Ya^'/Tavalkya's opinion is referred to as being contrary to the Rig-veda. 2 See Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, p. 266 seq. XXxii JATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. lya; and from thence, through six intermediate teachers, to 5a w^ivi-putra. Tura Kavasheya is referred to in another passage of the tenth ka;/<^a (X, 6, 5, 9) as having built a fire-altar 1 to the gods at Karoti ; and in the Aitareya-brah- ma;/a he is mentioned as the high-priest who officiated at the inauguration- ceremony of king 6^aname^aya Pari- kshita, renowned in epic legend. From these indications we may, it seems to me, take it for certain that Tura Kavasheya and 5a;/^ilya (the latter of whom is also held in high repute by the K/ia.ndoga.s or Saman-priests) were regarded by the Vag'asaneyins as the chief arrangers, if not the originators, of the fire-ritual such as it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the vSatapatha, if their identification with Pata/7^ali's ' shash/ipatha ' be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work.
3s it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the vSatapatha, if their identification with Pata/7^ali's ' shash/ipatha ' be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work. Now this combination of the fire-ritual in kcLudaiS 6-9 with the complete exposition of the Havir- yagfia. and Soma-sacrifice, contained in the first five books, would seem to presuppose some kind of compromise be- tween the two schools recognising Ya^^7avalkya and Sau- rfilya respectively as their chief authority. What, then, are we to understand to be the exact relations between the later kaw^as, especially the tenth, and the earlier portion of the work ? We do not, and could not, meet with such a term as ' y^atvariwj'at-patha,' or work of forty paths, as applying to the last five kawf^as of the 5atapatha ; their nature was too well understood for that, as we see from the passage of the Mahabharata, above referred to. The list of teachers at the end of the tenth ka;/^a shows no sign of any amal- gamation of the two schools up to the time of Sa;;/^ivi- putra, the last teacher mentioned in it : with one exception, it belongs exclusively to the Sandilya. school. It contains, however, an additional remark to the effect that from Saw^ivi-putra downward the list is ' identical,' — viz. with some other list. Now this remark can only refer to the va;/«a given at the end of the last ka«^/a. In this list the * The author of this passage would seem to imply, though he does not exactly express it, that this was ihe first fire-altar built in the proper way. INTRODUCTION. XXXlll transmission of the science of the Adhvaryus is traced — as far as human agency is concerned — from Ka^yapa Naidhruvi, through nine teachers, to Ya^navalkya, and thence, through four other teachers, to Sa;//^ivi- put ra^. The only name which this Hst has in common with the former one, previous to Saw^ivi-putra, is that of Ku^ri. According to the former hst, he was the teacher of Sandilya., who, in his turn, taught Vatsya^. But since in the same book (X. 5, 5, i) he is referred to as Va^ajravasa, and in the hst at the end of the 6"atapatha he is set down as the pupil of Va^a- jravas, the same teacher is evidently referred to in both lists ; and if we can at all rely on the authenticity of these va;/was, we should have to infer from this coincidence, that there was already some connection between the two schools prior to both Ya^^7avalkya and wSa;;^ilya.
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.
1cluding ^ the Rahasya (mystery), the Sa;;zgraha (epitome), and the Parij-ish/a (supplement). Now the tenth book is really called Agni-rahasya ; while the eleventh contains a kind of summary of the preceding ritual; and ka«<^as 12-14 treat of various other subjects. This relation between the first nine and the remaining five books is also fully borne out by internal evidence, as well as by a comparison with the Va^asaneyi-sawhita. The latter consists of forty adhyayas, the first eighteen of which contain the formulas of the ordinary sacrifices — the Havir- ya^'-y7as and Soma-sacrifice— and correspond to the first nine books of the 5atapatha-brahma;/a. The succeeding adhya- yas have been clearly shown by Professor Weber ^ to be later additions. As a rule only those formulas which are contained in the first eighteen adhyayas are found in the Taittiriya-sa7;^hitd ; while those of the later adhyayas are given in the Taittiriya-brahma;/a. At the end of the ^atapatha the White Ya^us is said to have been promulgated (d-khya) by Ya^^7avalkya Va^asa- neya. Now the name of this teacher is indeed more fre- quently met with in the Brahmawa than that of any other ; > The accuracy of this list cannot be relied upon, as several mistakes occur in the number of ka«(/ikas there given. It is, however, unlikely that the scribe should have committed any mistake regarding the number of adhyayas. ' Literally 'together with the rahasya (saiahasyam),' &c. 8 Hiatory of Indian Literature, p. 107 seq. INTRODUCTION. XXXl especially in some of the later books where his professional connection with Canaka, king of Videha, and his skill in theological disputations are favourite topics. As regards the earlier portion of the work, however, it is a remarkable fact that, while in the first five books Ya^y7avalkya's opinion is frequently recorded as authoritative \ he is not once men- tioned in the four succeeding ksi?idas (6-9). The teacher whose opinion is most frequently referred to in these books, is vSaw(/ilya. This disagreement in respect of doc- trinal authorities, coupled with unmistakable differences'-^, stylistic as well as geographical and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four ka;/^as are chiefly con- cerned, is the agni/^ayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar.
2and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four ka;/^as are chiefly con- cerned, is the agni/^ayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar. For reasons urged by Professor Weber, it would appear not improbable that this part of the ceremonial was specially cultivated in the north-western districts ; and since the geographical allusions in these four ka/z^as chiefly point to that part of India, while those of the other books refer almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna, we may infer from this that the fire-ritual, adopted by the Va^asaneyins at the time of the first redac- tion of their texts — that is, of the first nine k^ndas, as far as the Brahmawa is concerned — had been settled in the north-west of India. Here, however, we meet with another difificulty. The tenth book, or Agnirahasya, deals with the same subject as the preceding four kawr/as ; and here also Sa/^dilya. figures as the chief authority, while no mention is made of Ya^yla- valkya. Moreover, at the end of that k§.ndsi, a list of teachers is given in which the transmission of the sacri- ficial science (either in its entirety, or only as regards the fire-ritual) is traced from a teacher Tura Kivasheya — who is said to have received it from the god Pra^apati — downwards, through two intermediate teachers, to SXndl- 1 See, however, ^-at. Br. II, 5, i, 2-3, where Ya^'/Tavalkya's opinion is referred to as being contrary to the Rig-veda. 2 See Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, p. 266 seq. XXxii JATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. lya; and from thence, through six intermediate teachers, to 5a w^ivi-putra. Tura Kavasheya is referred to in another passage of the tenth ka;/<^a (X, 6, 5, 9) as having built a fire-altar 1 to the gods at Karoti ; and in the Aitareya-brah- ma;/a he is mentioned as the high-priest who officiated at the inauguration- ceremony of king 6^aname^aya Pari- kshita, renowned in epic legend. From these indications we may, it seems to me, take it for certain that Tura Kavasheya and 5a;/^ilya (the latter of whom is also held in high repute by the K/ia.ndoga.s or Saman-priests) were regarded by the Vag'asaneyins as the chief arrangers, if not the originators, of the fire-ritual such as it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the vSatapatha, if their identification with Pata/7^ali's ' shash/ipatha ' be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work.
3s it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the vSatapatha, if their identification with Pata/7^ali's ' shash/ipatha ' be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work. Now this combination of the fire-ritual in kcLudaiS 6-9 with the complete exposition of the Havir- yagfia. and Soma-sacrifice, contained in the first five books, would seem to presuppose some kind of compromise be- tween the two schools recognising Ya^^7avalkya and Sau- rfilya respectively as their chief authority. What, then, are we to understand to be the exact relations between the later kaw^as, especially the tenth, and the earlier portion of the work ? We do not, and could not, meet with such a term as ' y^atvariwj'at-patha,' or work of forty paths, as applying to the last five kawf^as of the 5atapatha ; their nature was too well understood for that, as we see from the passage of the Mahabharata, above referred to. The list of teachers at the end of the tenth ka;/^a shows no sign of any amal- gamation of the two schools up to the time of Sa;;/^ivi- putra, the last teacher mentioned in it : with one exception, it belongs exclusively to the Sandilya. school. It contains, however, an additional remark to the effect that from Saw^ivi-putra downward the list is ' identical,' — viz. with some other list. Now this remark can only refer to the va;/«a given at the end of the last ka«^/a. In this list the * The author of this passage would seem to imply, though he does not exactly express it, that this was ihe first fire-altar built in the proper way. INTRODUCTION. XXXlll transmission of the science of the Adhvaryus is traced — as far as human agency is concerned — from Ka^yapa Naidhruvi, through nine teachers, to Ya^navalkya, and thence, through four other teachers, to Sa;//^ivi- put ra^. The only name which this Hst has in common with the former one, previous to Saw^ivi-putra, is that of Ku^ri. According to the former hst, he was the teacher of Sandilya., who, in his turn, taught Vatsya^. But since in the same book (X. 5, 5, i) he is referred to as Va^ajravasa, and in the hst at the end of the 6"atapatha he is set down as the pupil of Va^a- jravas, the same teacher is evidently referred to in both lists ; and if we can at all rely on the authenticity of these va;/was, we should have to infer from this coincidence, that there was already some connection between the two schools prior to both Ya^^7avalkya and wSa;;^ilya.
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.