Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Br. VI, 8, on which cp. Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 420. XXXVili SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. course to be commonly sacrificed in later times. Now as regards the heads of the five victims, the author subsequently (VI, 2, 1, 37 seqq.) makes some further remarks which go far to show that his previous statements referred only to the traditional practice which, however, was no longer in use in his own day, and had probably not been so for generations past. He mentions various expedients adopted by some priests with a view to keeping up at least some semblance of the old custom,—viz. either by procuring real heads from some source or other, or by using heads made of gold or clay ; but they are summarily dismissed as profane and fraudulent counterfeits ; and the author then remarks somewhat vaguely and diplomatically that ‘one may slay those five victims as far as one may be able (or inclined) to do so, for PragApati was the first to slaughter them, and Sy4parza Sayakdyana the last, and in the interval also people used to slaughter them; but at the present day people slaughter only (one of?) those two, the (he-goat) for Pragdpati, and tke one for Vayu;’ after which he proceeds to explain in detail the practice then in ordinary use. Later on (VII, 5, 2, 1 seqq.), the Brahmana expounds in the usual way the formulas used in the traditional, and theoretically still available procedure, though in the actual performance perhaps only the formulas relating to the particular heads? used would be muttered. While Y4g#avalkya thus, at least in theory, deals rather cautiously with this feature of the traditional custom, the theologians of the Black Yagus* take up a somewhat bolder position. Indeed it is evidently against this older school of ritualists that some of the censure of our Brahmava is directed. For though they too allow, as an alternative practice, the use of a complete set of five heads, they make 1 This doubtless is what is meant (cf. Katy. XVI, 1, 38); and ‘atha’ at the beginning of VI, 2, 2, 6 ought accordingly to have been taken in the rather unusual sense of ‘ or’ (?‘ or rather’), instead of ‘then.’ Cf. VI, a, 2, 15. 2 According to Ap. Sr. XVI, 17, 19-20, however, even if there is only one head (that of Vayu’s he-goat) all the formulas are to be pronounced over it. * The Maitr. Samhita, however, does not scem to refer to this particular point in its Brahmasa sections. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
2VI, a, 2, 15. 2 According to Ap. Sr. XVI, 17, 19-20, however, even if there is only one head (that of Vayu’s he-goat) all the formulas are to be pronounced over it. * The Maitr. Samhita, however, does not scem to refer to this particular point in its Brahmasa sections. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX no mention of a man being killed for this purpose, but enjoin that a dead man’s head is to be bought for twenty-one beans}, which is then to be laid against an ant-hill with seven holes in order to again supply it with the seven ‘ vital airs of the head’; whereupon three stanzas relating to Yama are to be sung round about it to redeem it from the god of death. Besides the four animals, there is also to be a he-goat sacred to Pragapati, the offering of which is to complete the animal sacrifice2 In this school also’, the ordinary practice, however, is to kill only a he-goat for Vayu Niyutvat, and to use its head for putting it in the pan placed in the bottom layer of the altar. As regards the Rig-veda ritual, the Kaushitaki-brahmaza, as Prof. Weber ‘has pointed out, leaves a choice between a he-goat for Prag4pati and one for Vayu; whilst the S4akh4yana-sitra, curiously enough, again adds the alternative course of using the set of five heads. The same scholar has drawn attention to another rite in the sacrificial ceremonial which seems to him to show clear traces of human sacrifice. At the purificatory bath at the end of the Asvamedha, the Sacrificer is to be purged of any guilt he may have committed against Varuza by an oblation made to Gumbaka (Varuma) on the bald head of aman possessed of certain repulsive features, whilst standing inthe water. To these particulars,—as given in the present work (XIII, 3, 6, 5), the Taitt. Brahmawa (III, 9, 15), and Katyayana’s Stra (XX, 8, 16),—Sankhayana (XVI, 18) 1 Or, according to Apastamba, for seven beans; the head to be that of a Kshatriya or a Vaisya killed either by an arrow-shot or by lightning, and apparently to be severed from the body at the time of purchase (which, as Professor Weber rightly remarks, is a merely symbolic one). As, however, the particulars given by Apastamba are not mentioned in the older works, they may not unlikely have been introduced by him to meet some of the objections raised by the Vagasaneyins to whose views he generally pays some attention. Otherwise the transaction might seem rather suspicious, 2 Taitt. S. V, 1, 83, indeed, seems to speak of the other four animals being set free after fire has been carried round, so that their sacrificial use would be merely symbolical. Whether in that case only the head of the one animal would be used, or the man’s head along with it, seems doubtful. > Cf. Taitt. S. V, 5. xl SATAPATIIA-BRAHMANA,
3Whether in that case only the head of the one animal would be used, or the man’s head along with it, seems doubtful. > Cf. Taitt. S. V, 5. xl SATAPATIIA-BRAHMANA, again adds further particulars, viz. that the man is to be a Brahmama of the Atreya family, bought (or hired) for a thousand cows, and that he is to enter the river till the water flows into his mouth. Now Prof.Weber is of opinion that this ceremony would be meaningless if the man were not actually drowned. I fail, however, to see the necessity of this assumption, seeing that even a purely symbolical interpretation of the ceremony will give it all the significance of the real act. That the Yagus texts contain nothing that could make one suspect that the man was actually drowned is beyond doubt ; but even Sankh4yana’s statement that the water is to flow into his mouth is probably only meant to suggest the nearness and semblance of death by drowning. Otherwise the oblation could hardly have been performed in anything like a decent form. Besides, Sankhayana further states that, after the completion of the oblation, ‘they drive him (the man) out, thinking that the guilt of the village-outcasts is (thereby) driven out!’ Here the verb ‘ni/#-sidh’ could hardly have been used if the man was to be driven farther into the water. What is meant is probably that the man was to be driven out from the water, and possibly also from the village, to live an anchorite’s life in the forest. If now we turn our attention to the Purushamedha, or ‘human sacrifice’ proper, we find that the Yagus texts, as far as they deal with this ceremony at all?, treat it as 1 The compound ‘ nifshiddhapapmana’ (apagramah) ’ may possibly be meant in the sense that the evil deeds of the outcasts are driven out (prevented from troubling the peace of the village) ; Katy. XX, 8, 17-18, however, states that when the Sacrificer has stepped out (of the water), evil-doers enter (to bathe in the water) without having performed any (other) rites, and that they are then said to be ‘ purified by the Asvamedha.’ 2 Besides the description of the ceremony in the present work (XIII, 6, 1-2, 20), only the Taittiriya-brabmavea (I1I, 4) seems to refer to it, enumerating merely the would-be victims who, according to Apastamba, as quoted by Sdyava, are eventually set free. Professor Weber’s suggestion that they may possibly at one time have been intended to be all of them slaughtered can hardly have been meant seriously. One might as well suppose that, at the Asvamedha, all the ‘evil-doers’ who, according to Katyayana, are to bathe in the river, were meant to be drowned. INTRODUCTION. xli
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.
1Br. VI, 8, on which cp. Max Miiller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 420. XXXVili SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. course to be commonly sacrificed in later times. Now as regards the heads of the five victims, the author subsequently (VI, 2, 1, 37 seqq.) makes some further remarks which go far to show that his previous statements referred only to the traditional practice which, however, was no longer in use in his own day, and had probably not been so for generations past. He mentions various expedients adopted by some priests with a view to keeping up at least some semblance of the old custom,—viz. either by procuring real heads from some source or other, or by using heads made of gold or clay ; but they are summarily dismissed as profane and fraudulent counterfeits ; and the author then remarks somewhat vaguely and diplomatically that ‘one may slay those five victims as far as one may be able (or inclined) to do so, for PragApati was the first to slaughter them, and Sy4parza Sayakdyana the last, and in the interval also people used to slaughter them; but at the present day people slaughter only (one of?) those two, the (he-goat) for Pragdpati, and tke one for Vayu;’ after which he proceeds to explain in detail the practice then in ordinary use. Later on (VII, 5, 2, 1 seqq.), the Brahmana expounds in the usual way the formulas used in the traditional, and theoretically still available procedure, though in the actual performance perhaps only the formulas relating to the particular heads? used would be muttered. While Y4g#avalkya thus, at least in theory, deals rather cautiously with this feature of the traditional custom, the theologians of the Black Yagus* take up a somewhat bolder position. Indeed it is evidently against this older school of ritualists that some of the censure of our Brahmava is directed. For though they too allow, as an alternative practice, the use of a complete set of five heads, they make 1 This doubtless is what is meant (cf. Katy. XVI, 1, 38); and ‘atha’ at the beginning of VI, 2, 2, 6 ought accordingly to have been taken in the rather unusual sense of ‘ or’ (?‘ or rather’), instead of ‘then.’ Cf. VI, a, 2, 15. 2 According to Ap. Sr. XVI, 17, 19-20, however, even if there is only one head (that of Vayu’s he-goat) all the formulas are to be pronounced over it. * The Maitr. Samhita, however, does not scem to refer to this particular point in its Brahmasa sections. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
2VI, a, 2, 15. 2 According to Ap. Sr. XVI, 17, 19-20, however, even if there is only one head (that of Vayu’s he-goat) all the formulas are to be pronounced over it. * The Maitr. Samhita, however, does not scem to refer to this particular point in its Brahmasa sections. INTRODUCTION. XXXIX no mention of a man being killed for this purpose, but enjoin that a dead man’s head is to be bought for twenty-one beans}, which is then to be laid against an ant-hill with seven holes in order to again supply it with the seven ‘ vital airs of the head’; whereupon three stanzas relating to Yama are to be sung round about it to redeem it from the god of death. Besides the four animals, there is also to be a he-goat sacred to Pragapati, the offering of which is to complete the animal sacrifice2 In this school also’, the ordinary practice, however, is to kill only a he-goat for Vayu Niyutvat, and to use its head for putting it in the pan placed in the bottom layer of the altar. As regards the Rig-veda ritual, the Kaushitaki-brahmaza, as Prof. Weber ‘has pointed out, leaves a choice between a he-goat for Prag4pati and one for Vayu; whilst the S4akh4yana-sitra, curiously enough, again adds the alternative course of using the set of five heads. The same scholar has drawn attention to another rite in the sacrificial ceremonial which seems to him to show clear traces of human sacrifice. At the purificatory bath at the end of the Asvamedha, the Sacrificer is to be purged of any guilt he may have committed against Varuza by an oblation made to Gumbaka (Varuma) on the bald head of aman possessed of certain repulsive features, whilst standing inthe water. To these particulars,—as given in the present work (XIII, 3, 6, 5), the Taitt. Brahmawa (III, 9, 15), and Katyayana’s Stra (XX, 8, 16),—Sankhayana (XVI, 18) 1 Or, according to Apastamba, for seven beans; the head to be that of a Kshatriya or a Vaisya killed either by an arrow-shot or by lightning, and apparently to be severed from the body at the time of purchase (which, as Professor Weber rightly remarks, is a merely symbolic one). As, however, the particulars given by Apastamba are not mentioned in the older works, they may not unlikely have been introduced by him to meet some of the objections raised by the Vagasaneyins to whose views he generally pays some attention. Otherwise the transaction might seem rather suspicious, 2 Taitt. S. V, 1, 83, indeed, seems to speak of the other four animals being set free after fire has been carried round, so that their sacrificial use would be merely symbolical. Whether in that case only the head of the one animal would be used, or the man’s head along with it, seems doubtful. > Cf. Taitt. S. V, 5. xl SATAPATIIA-BRAHMANA,
3Whether in that case only the head of the one animal would be used, or the man’s head along with it, seems doubtful. > Cf. Taitt. S. V, 5. xl SATAPATIIA-BRAHMANA, again adds further particulars, viz. that the man is to be a Brahmama of the Atreya family, bought (or hired) for a thousand cows, and that he is to enter the river till the water flows into his mouth. Now Prof.Weber is of opinion that this ceremony would be meaningless if the man were not actually drowned. I fail, however, to see the necessity of this assumption, seeing that even a purely symbolical interpretation of the ceremony will give it all the significance of the real act. That the Yagus texts contain nothing that could make one suspect that the man was actually drowned is beyond doubt ; but even Sankh4yana’s statement that the water is to flow into his mouth is probably only meant to suggest the nearness and semblance of death by drowning. Otherwise the oblation could hardly have been performed in anything like a decent form. Besides, Sankhayana further states that, after the completion of the oblation, ‘they drive him (the man) out, thinking that the guilt of the village-outcasts is (thereby) driven out!’ Here the verb ‘ni/#-sidh’ could hardly have been used if the man was to be driven farther into the water. What is meant is probably that the man was to be driven out from the water, and possibly also from the village, to live an anchorite’s life in the forest. If now we turn our attention to the Purushamedha, or ‘human sacrifice’ proper, we find that the Yagus texts, as far as they deal with this ceremony at all?, treat it as 1 The compound ‘ nifshiddhapapmana’ (apagramah) ’ may possibly be meant in the sense that the evil deeds of the outcasts are driven out (prevented from troubling the peace of the village) ; Katy. XX, 8, 17-18, however, states that when the Sacrificer has stepped out (of the water), evil-doers enter (to bathe in the water) without having performed any (other) rites, and that they are then said to be ‘ purified by the Asvamedha.’ 2 Besides the description of the ceremony in the present work (XIII, 6, 1-2, 20), only the Taittiriya-brabmavea (I1I, 4) seems to refer to it, enumerating merely the would-be victims who, according to Apastamba, as quoted by Sdyava, are eventually set free. Professor Weber’s suggestion that they may possibly at one time have been intended to be all of them slaughtered can hardly have been meant seriously. One might as well suppose that, at the Asvamedha, all the ‘evil-doers’ who, according to Katyayana, are to bathe in the river, were meant to be drowned. INTRODUCTION. xli
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.