Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Although the history of this ceremony is somewhat obscure, the place assigned to it in the Soma-ritual would lead one to suppose that its introduction must have taken place at a time when the main procedure of the Somasacrifice had already been definitely settled. This con- INTRODUCTION. xlvii clusion is also borne out by the position taken up towards this ceremony by the authorities of the Black Yagur-veda. For whilst the Maitrayaziya Samhita gives at least the formulas used for it, the Kaz/aka, on the other hand, takes no notice whatever of it, and the Taittiriya school only deals with it in its Arazyaka. Nevertheless, this ceremony can boast of a respectable antiquity, seeing that it is treated of at some length in the Brahmamas of the Rik—viz. Ait. Br. I, 18-22; Kaush. Br. VIII, 3-7; and this circumstance alone might almost seem to justify the inference that it was in that very school of ritualists that this item of the sacrificial ceremonial was first elaborated. It is very doubtful, however, whether such an inference would find any support in the dogmatic explanation of the ceremony offered by some of the theologians of the Rig-veda. At the end of the Pravargya section, in a passage which has a somewhat disconnected appearance, and seems hardly in consonance with previous dogmatic explanations, the. Aitareya- brahmaza makes the secret import of the ceremony to be that of a mystic union of the gods resulting in the generation of a new, divine body for the Sacrificer. This explanation, having been previously adopted by Haug and Garbe, was recorded without question in a note to part ii (p. 104) of this translation. Further consideration of this matter has, however, convinced me that the theory referred to fails altogether to account for the origin of the ceremony, as well as for important points in its performance which find a ready explanation in the theory applied to it by the present work, as well as by the Taittirtya~-Arazyaka and the Kaushitaki-brahmama. For seeing that the main object of sacrificial performances generally is the reconstruction of Pragdpati, the personified universe, and (the divine body of) the Sacrificer, it is difficult to see why, for this latter purpose, a new and special ceremony should have been thought necessary; and, besides, the rejected theory, if it is at all to account for the high honour rendered to the Mah4vira pot, would almost involve the recognition of a form of Linga-worship which surely would require very much stronger evidence than the isolated and xlviii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. (to my mind) somewhat suspicious passage on which this theory is based.
2(to my mind) somewhat suspicious passage on which this theory is based. Now, as regards the rival theory underlying the exposition of the Pravargya, as given in the Satapatha-brahmaaa, it makes the Mahavira pot a symbol of the sun, whilst the hot milk draught represents the divine flood of life and light with which the performer of the ceremony becomes imbued. These symbolic interpretations, whatever we may think of them othcrwise, certainly adapt themselves admirably to the general sacrificial imagery. As the sun is the head of the universe—or, in figurative language, the head of Pragapati, the world-man—so its earthly, and earthen, counterpart, the Mahavira. pot, is the head of Vishzu, the sacrificial man, and the Sacrificer; and this ceremony is thus performed in order to complete the universe and sacrifice, as well as the divine body of the Sacrificer, by supplying them with their head, their crowning-piece, so to speak ; and to imbue them with the divine essence of life and light. For this purpose the theory rather ingeniously avails itself of certain myths vaguely alluded to in the Rig-veda, according to which (X, 171, 2) Indra cut off the head of Makha (here identified with Vishzu, the sacrifice and the sun-god); and (I, 116, 12; 117, 223 119, 9) Dadhya#é&, the son of Atharvan, was fitted by the Asvins with a horse’s head, and this hippocephalous creature then communicated to them the Madhu, or sweet thing,—that is, as would appear, the sweet doctrine of the Soma, the drink of immortality. This symbolism readily explains some points connected with the Pravargya ceremony, for which no obvious reason seems otherwise to suggest itself. For one thing, it accounts for the deep reverence shown to the Gharma vessel, which, in fact, is no other than the giver of light and life himself; whilst the optional character . of the ceremony explains itself from the fact that the Soma-cup, of which the Sacrificer will subsequently partake, might of itself be expected to supply him with the blessings which he hopes to derive from the Pravargya. Aad, finally, it also becomes clear why the Pravargya must not form part of a man’s first performance of a Soma- INTRODUCTION. xlix
3Aad, finally, it also becomes clear why the Pravargya must not form part of a man’s first performance of a Soma- INTRODUCTION. xlix sacrifice. For the Pravargya,as we have seen, is performed on the preliminary days of the Soma-sacrifice, before the ' pressing of the Soma has taken place ; and it obviously is only after he has actually partaken of the Soma-drink, and has thereby potentially ‘put on immortality,’ that he can partake of the Gharma, and thus become imbued with the celestial light’. The dogmatical explanation of this ceremony thus puts, as it were, the finishing touch to that strange allegory by which the Indian theologians sought to make the sacrificial ceremonial a practical illustration of that unity of the All which speculation had been striving to compass since the days when the emptiness of the Vedic pantheon had dawned upon the thinking mind, and when critically inclined bards ventured to sing of the national god ?: ‘ Not fora single day hast thou fought, nor hast thou any .enemy, O Maghavan: illusion is what they say concerning thy battles; no foe hast thou fought either to-day ° or aforetime.’ As regards the optional and somewhat recondite character of the Pravargya ceremony, it is probably not without significance that the section dealing therewith is combined with the speculative Brihadarazyaka so as to make up with it the last book of the Brahmaza,—the Aranyaka-kanda, or forest section. Such, at least, is the case in the Madhyandina text, where the Pravargya section occupies the first three adhydyas of the last (fourteenth) book; whilst the K4zva text presents a slight difficulty in this respect. What passes generally as the seventeenth (and last) kamda of that version, consists of the Brihad4ranyaka; whilst the sixteenth kanda begins with the section on funeral rites, corresponding to the last ’ The Kaushitaki-brahmavza (VIII, 3), on the other hand, seems to justify the prohibition on the ground that, prior to the first complete Soma-sacrifice, the body of the Sacrifice (and Sacrificer) is incomplete, and therefore not ready to receive its head, in the shape of the Pravargya. Hence also the same work allows the Pravargya to be performed at the first Soma-sacrifice of one who is thoroughly versed in the scriptures, since such a one is himself the body, or self, of the sacrifice. 2 See XI, 1, 6, 10. [44] d . ] SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
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.
1Although the history of this ceremony is somewhat obscure, the place assigned to it in the Soma-ritual would lead one to suppose that its introduction must have taken place at a time when the main procedure of the Somasacrifice had already been definitely settled. This con- INTRODUCTION. xlvii clusion is also borne out by the position taken up towards this ceremony by the authorities of the Black Yagur-veda. For whilst the Maitrayaziya Samhita gives at least the formulas used for it, the Kaz/aka, on the other hand, takes no notice whatever of it, and the Taittiriya school only deals with it in its Arazyaka. Nevertheless, this ceremony can boast of a respectable antiquity, seeing that it is treated of at some length in the Brahmamas of the Rik—viz. Ait. Br. I, 18-22; Kaush. Br. VIII, 3-7; and this circumstance alone might almost seem to justify the inference that it was in that very school of ritualists that this item of the sacrificial ceremonial was first elaborated. It is very doubtful, however, whether such an inference would find any support in the dogmatic explanation of the ceremony offered by some of the theologians of the Rig-veda. At the end of the Pravargya section, in a passage which has a somewhat disconnected appearance, and seems hardly in consonance with previous dogmatic explanations, the. Aitareya- brahmaza makes the secret import of the ceremony to be that of a mystic union of the gods resulting in the generation of a new, divine body for the Sacrificer. This explanation, having been previously adopted by Haug and Garbe, was recorded without question in a note to part ii (p. 104) of this translation. Further consideration of this matter has, however, convinced me that the theory referred to fails altogether to account for the origin of the ceremony, as well as for important points in its performance which find a ready explanation in the theory applied to it by the present work, as well as by the Taittirtya~-Arazyaka and the Kaushitaki-brahmama. For seeing that the main object of sacrificial performances generally is the reconstruction of Pragdpati, the personified universe, and (the divine body of) the Sacrificer, it is difficult to see why, for this latter purpose, a new and special ceremony should have been thought necessary; and, besides, the rejected theory, if it is at all to account for the high honour rendered to the Mah4vira pot, would almost involve the recognition of a form of Linga-worship which surely would require very much stronger evidence than the isolated and xlviii SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. (to my mind) somewhat suspicious passage on which this theory is based.
2(to my mind) somewhat suspicious passage on which this theory is based. Now, as regards the rival theory underlying the exposition of the Pravargya, as given in the Satapatha-brahmaaa, it makes the Mahavira pot a symbol of the sun, whilst the hot milk draught represents the divine flood of life and light with which the performer of the ceremony becomes imbued. These symbolic interpretations, whatever we may think of them othcrwise, certainly adapt themselves admirably to the general sacrificial imagery. As the sun is the head of the universe—or, in figurative language, the head of Pragapati, the world-man—so its earthly, and earthen, counterpart, the Mahavira. pot, is the head of Vishzu, the sacrificial man, and the Sacrificer; and this ceremony is thus performed in order to complete the universe and sacrifice, as well as the divine body of the Sacrificer, by supplying them with their head, their crowning-piece, so to speak ; and to imbue them with the divine essence of life and light. For this purpose the theory rather ingeniously avails itself of certain myths vaguely alluded to in the Rig-veda, according to which (X, 171, 2) Indra cut off the head of Makha (here identified with Vishzu, the sacrifice and the sun-god); and (I, 116, 12; 117, 223 119, 9) Dadhya#é&, the son of Atharvan, was fitted by the Asvins with a horse’s head, and this hippocephalous creature then communicated to them the Madhu, or sweet thing,—that is, as would appear, the sweet doctrine of the Soma, the drink of immortality. This symbolism readily explains some points connected with the Pravargya ceremony, for which no obvious reason seems otherwise to suggest itself. For one thing, it accounts for the deep reverence shown to the Gharma vessel, which, in fact, is no other than the giver of light and life himself; whilst the optional character . of the ceremony explains itself from the fact that the Soma-cup, of which the Sacrificer will subsequently partake, might of itself be expected to supply him with the blessings which he hopes to derive from the Pravargya. Aad, finally, it also becomes clear why the Pravargya must not form part of a man’s first performance of a Soma- INTRODUCTION. xlix
3Aad, finally, it also becomes clear why the Pravargya must not form part of a man’s first performance of a Soma- INTRODUCTION. xlix sacrifice. For the Pravargya,as we have seen, is performed on the preliminary days of the Soma-sacrifice, before the ' pressing of the Soma has taken place ; and it obviously is only after he has actually partaken of the Soma-drink, and has thereby potentially ‘put on immortality,’ that he can partake of the Gharma, and thus become imbued with the celestial light’. The dogmatical explanation of this ceremony thus puts, as it were, the finishing touch to that strange allegory by which the Indian theologians sought to make the sacrificial ceremonial a practical illustration of that unity of the All which speculation had been striving to compass since the days when the emptiness of the Vedic pantheon had dawned upon the thinking mind, and when critically inclined bards ventured to sing of the national god ?: ‘ Not fora single day hast thou fought, nor hast thou any .enemy, O Maghavan: illusion is what they say concerning thy battles; no foe hast thou fought either to-day ° or aforetime.’ As regards the optional and somewhat recondite character of the Pravargya ceremony, it is probably not without significance that the section dealing therewith is combined with the speculative Brihadarazyaka so as to make up with it the last book of the Brahmaza,—the Aranyaka-kanda, or forest section. Such, at least, is the case in the Madhyandina text, where the Pravargya section occupies the first three adhydyas of the last (fourteenth) book; whilst the K4zva text presents a slight difficulty in this respect. What passes generally as the seventeenth (and last) kamda of that version, consists of the Brihad4ranyaka; whilst the sixteenth kanda begins with the section on funeral rites, corresponding to the last ’ The Kaushitaki-brahmavza (VIII, 3), on the other hand, seems to justify the prohibition on the ground that, prior to the first complete Soma-sacrifice, the body of the Sacrifice (and Sacrificer) is incomplete, and therefore not ready to receive its head, in the shape of the Pravargya. Hence also the same work allows the Pravargya to be performed at the first Soma-sacrifice of one who is thoroughly versed in the scriptures, since such a one is himself the body, or self, of the sacrifice. 2 See XI, 1, 6, 10. [44] d . ] SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
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.