Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1When eating is actually taking place, ' from that,' i.e. with that material of food which first presents itself, the agnihotra offered to the pra;/as is to be effected. — On what ^ For one of the great sacrifices lasting a whole year — called the ayana of the Kuwa'apayins — the texts enjoin the offering of the 'agnihotra' during a full month (cp. e.g. Tindyz ]Mahabrahma;za XXV, 4). Now from the term 'agnihotra' we conclude that all the details of the ordinary agnihotra are valid for the agnihotra of the ayana also. ^ Whereby the materials offered in the ordinary agnihotra are superseded. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4I. 25 1
2ground ? — ' On the ground of the passage declaring this.' For the clause, ' The first food which a man may take is in the place of a homa,' enjoins the circumstance of the oblations to the pranas being effected by means of a material (primarily) subserving another purpose (viz. eating), as appears from its referring to the presentation of food as something accomplished (i. e. accomplished independently of the oblations ; not tending to accomplish the oblations). How then should these oblations — which are characterised as not having any motive power with regard to the employment of the food — be capable of causing us to substitute, in the absence of eating, some other material (than food) ? — Nor is it true that there are already established, for the pra;^agnihotra, all the details belonging to the fundamental agnihotra. In the case of the ayana of the Ku;?(7'apayins, the term 'agnihotra' forms part of the injunctive passage, ' They offer the agnihotra during a month,' and therefore may have the force of enjoining a general character of the sacrifice identical with that of the fundamental agnihotra ; and it is therefore appropriate to consider the details of the latter as valid for the agnihotra of the Ku;/<^apayins also. In the case of the so-called prawagnihotra, on the other hand, the term 'agnihotra' occurs in an arthavada-passage only, and does not therefore possess an analogous injunctive force. If, again, we admitted that the details of the fundamental agnihotra are valid for the pra//agnihotra also, such details as the transference of the fire (from the garhapatya fire to the two other fires) would be likewise valid. But this is impossible, as the transference of the fire is made for the purpose of establishing a fireplace in which the oblations are made ; in our case, on the other hand, the oblations are not made in the fire at all — because that would interfere with their being used as food, and because they are connected with a material procured for the purpose of eating, — but are made in the mouth (of the eater). Thus the text of the G^abalas also, ' He is to eat before the guests,' shows that the accomplishment of the oblation has the mouth for its abode. For the same reason (i. e. because the details of the fundamental agnihotra are
3not valid for the pra;/agnihotra) the text declares the subordinate members of the agnihotra to be present here (i.e. in the pra^zagnihotra) in the way of fanciful combination only, ' the chest is the vedi, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharyapa^ana fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire.' By the vedi mentioned in this passage we have to understand a levelled spot, as in the fundamental agnihotra there is no vedi, and as the intention of the passage is to effect a fanciful combination of the members of the fundamental agnihotra (with members of the pra/mgnihotra). — And as the prawagnihotra is connected with eating which has its definite times, it is also not possible that it should be restricted to the time enjoined for the fundamental agnihotra. In the same way other particulars also of the fundamental agnihotra, such as the so-called upasthana, cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the prcL;/agnihotra. From all this it follows that the five oblations, as connected with their respective mantras, materials, and divinities, have to be performed only in the case of food being eaten. — With reference to the passage showing ' respect,' we remark that it is meant to intimate priority (of the host), in the case of food being actually eaten. But the passage has no power to declare that the offering of the prawagnihotra is of permanent obligation. — It therefore is a settled conclusion that the pra;mgnihotra is omitted when the eating of food is omitted.
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.
1When eating is actually taking place, ' from that,' i.e. with that material of food which first presents itself, the agnihotra offered to the pra;/as is to be effected. — On what ^ For one of the great sacrifices lasting a whole year — called the ayana of the Kuwa'apayins — the texts enjoin the offering of the 'agnihotra' during a full month (cp. e.g. Tindyz ]Mahabrahma;za XXV, 4). Now from the term 'agnihotra' we conclude that all the details of the ordinary agnihotra are valid for the agnihotra of the ayana also. ^ Whereby the materials offered in the ordinary agnihotra are superseded. Ill ADHYAYA, 3 PADA, 4I. 25 1
2ground ? — ' On the ground of the passage declaring this.' For the clause, ' The first food which a man may take is in the place of a homa,' enjoins the circumstance of the oblations to the pranas being effected by means of a material (primarily) subserving another purpose (viz. eating), as appears from its referring to the presentation of food as something accomplished (i. e. accomplished independently of the oblations ; not tending to accomplish the oblations). How then should these oblations — which are characterised as not having any motive power with regard to the employment of the food — be capable of causing us to substitute, in the absence of eating, some other material (than food) ? — Nor is it true that there are already established, for the pra;^agnihotra, all the details belonging to the fundamental agnihotra. In the case of the ayana of the Ku;?(7'apayins, the term 'agnihotra' forms part of the injunctive passage, ' They offer the agnihotra during a month,' and therefore may have the force of enjoining a general character of the sacrifice identical with that of the fundamental agnihotra ; and it is therefore appropriate to consider the details of the latter as valid for the agnihotra of the Ku;/<^apayins also. In the case of the so-called prawagnihotra, on the other hand, the term 'agnihotra' occurs in an arthavada-passage only, and does not therefore possess an analogous injunctive force. If, again, we admitted that the details of the fundamental agnihotra are valid for the pra//agnihotra also, such details as the transference of the fire (from the garhapatya fire to the two other fires) would be likewise valid. But this is impossible, as the transference of the fire is made for the purpose of establishing a fireplace in which the oblations are made ; in our case, on the other hand, the oblations are not made in the fire at all — because that would interfere with their being used as food, and because they are connected with a material procured for the purpose of eating, — but are made in the mouth (of the eater). Thus the text of the G^abalas also, ' He is to eat before the guests,' shows that the accomplishment of the oblation has the mouth for its abode. For the same reason (i. e. because the details of the fundamental agnihotra are
3not valid for the pra;/agnihotra) the text declares the subordinate members of the agnihotra to be present here (i.e. in the pra^zagnihotra) in the way of fanciful combination only, ' the chest is the vedi, the hairs the sacrificial grass, the heart the Garhapatya fire, the mind the Anvaharyapa^ana fire, the mouth the Ahavaniya fire.' By the vedi mentioned in this passage we have to understand a levelled spot, as in the fundamental agnihotra there is no vedi, and as the intention of the passage is to effect a fanciful combination of the members of the fundamental agnihotra (with members of the pra/mgnihotra). — And as the prawagnihotra is connected with eating which has its definite times, it is also not possible that it should be restricted to the time enjoined for the fundamental agnihotra. In the same way other particulars also of the fundamental agnihotra, such as the so-called upasthana, cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the prcL;/agnihotra. From all this it follows that the five oblations, as connected with their respective mantras, materials, and divinities, have to be performed only in the case of food being eaten. — With reference to the passage showing ' respect,' we remark that it is meant to intimate priority (of the host), in the case of food being actually eaten. But the passage has no power to declare that the offering of the prawagnihotra is of permanent obligation. — It therefore is a settled conclusion that the pra;mgnihotra is omitted when the eating of food is omitted.
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.