tioned without the customary adjuncts, and that too before the Sama-veda, to wit, rikkm pra^i mahati dig u^yate, dakshi;/am ahur ya^usham aparam, atharva^am angirasa;/z prati/£i, samnam \\<\\k\ mahati dig u^yate. But it is of interest to note that in the sequel, where sundry symbolic and mystic correlations of the Vedas with the sun, &c, are established, the Atharvan is wanting, and the operations take place with vedais tribhi^. Thus, rigbhih purvahne divi deva iyate, ya^urvede tish/^ati madhye ahna/^, samavedena*stamaye mahiyate, vedair a^unyas tribhir eti surya//. We shall not err in judging that the fourth Veda is mentioned in a purely formulaic manner, only because it is needed to fill out the scheme of the four principal directions of space; the real theme at the heart of the author is the traividya, as, e. g. in III, 10, 11, 5. 6. On the other hand, it would be altogether erro- neous to assume either hostility, or conscious discrimina- tion against the Atharvan. The Taittiriya-ara;zyaka again falls into line in two passages, II, 9 and 10, presenting the texts in their most expansive form, r/^a^, ya^u^shi,
1 Conversely the trayi is catalogued with other texts (vakovakyam itiha- sapura^am), but without the Atharvan, at XI, 5, 7, 6 ft*. ; cf. the same list .Sahkh. Grih. I, 24, 8.
XXXV111 HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
samani, atharvangirasa/z, brahma/zani, itihasan, pura/zani, kalpan, gatha>£, nara.ra;/zsi/£.
The only mention of the Atharvan as a literary type in
5ankhayana's 5rauta-sutra is at XVI, 2, 2 ff., again in the
series, riko veda^, ya^urveda^, atharvaveda^
the remain- (in connection with bhesha^am), angiraso veda^
mg ^rauta- ^m connection with ghoram), sarpavidya, ra- kshovidya, asuravidya, itihasaveda/J, pura/za- veda/£, samaveda^. Very similarly in A^valayana's .Srauta- sutra X, 7, i ff., riko veda/z ya^urveda^, aiharvana/t veda^ (with bhesha^-am), angiraso veda^ (with ghoram), vishavidya, pu&^avidya, asuravidyd, pura^avidya, itihaso veda//, samaveda^. These passages are essentially iden- tical with .Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3 ff., above ; their chief interest lies in the differentiation of atharvan and angiras, respectively as representatives of the auspicious (bhesha^-am) and terrible (ghoram = £ibhiMrikam) activities of this Veda ; cf. above, p. xviii fif. In the Tanka.vimsa.-brahma.na., XII, 9, 10 ; XVI, 10, 10, the Atharvan charms are mentioned favourably : bhesha^aw va atharva/zani, and bhesha^a/^ vai devanam atharva/zo bhesha^yayai*va*rish/yai. Cf. also XXIII, 16, 7; Katk. S. XI, 5 (cf. Ind. Stud. Ill, 463).
The Va^asaneyi-sawhita mentions the traividya (or rik and saman without yagxxh) frequently, IV, 1.9; VIII, 12 ; XVIII, 9. 29. 67; XX, 12 ; XXXIV, 5 ; XXXVI, 9 ; the Atharvan is nowhere mentioned in connection with the other three. Once at XXX, i5 = Tait. Br. 111,4, 1, 11, a woman that miscarries (avatoka) is devoted to the Atharvans ; the reference, in the light of AV. VI, 17 ; Kaus. 35, 12 (a charm to prevent miscarriage), seems to be to Atharvan hymns or Atharvanic practices. Otherwise the word athar- van occurs in connections that admit of no special, or at any rate obvious, reference to the fourth Veda, VIII, $6 ; XI, 32. Neither is there, as far as is known, any mention of the Atharvan in the Maitraya/zl-sawhita, the Aitareya and Kaushitaki-brahma^as, or Katyayana's and Lazya- yana's 5rauta-sutras.
The position of the Atharvan in the jrauta-literature according to this evidence is what might be naturally
Introduction. Xxxi X
expected : there is no evidence of repugnance or exclu-
siveness. .^wjfrhrr^ft is blended with every sphere of
religious thought and activity, and the only
the jrauta- sane attitude on the part ot these texts musr
texts estimate j^ ^e recognition of the literary products
of the AV. ° . i
which are by distinction the repositories of witchcraft. No one will expect rigid consistency : witchcraft blows hot and cold from the same mouth ; according as it is turned towards the inimical forces, human and demoniac, or is turned by others against one- self, it is regarded as useful, or noxious. The AV. itself takes the same view by implication: the hymn, II, 12, hurls the bitterest invective against enemies that endeavour to thwart one's holy work ; this does not prevent one's own endeavour to frustrate the sacrifice of an enemy (VII, 70); the hymn, II, 7, ensures protection against curses and hostile plots, but does not prevent the existence of fierce imprecations and curses issued forth subjectively for the ruin of another (VI, 13 and 37). It is a question throughout of my sorcery, or thy sorcery. The flavour of holiness and virginal innocency is necessarily absent, and this want crops out in connection with the performances of yatu even in the RV. (VII, 104, 15. 16), where the writer exclaims : ' may I die to-day if I am a sorcerer/ and com- plains against his enemy who calls him, though he is pure, a sorcerer, and against the real sorcerer who pretends that he is pure. Though yatu (sorcery) is regarded here as devilish (cf. e.g. AV. I, 7 and 8), the writer at Sat. Br. X, 5, 2, 20 is not prevented from placing the yatuvida^, ' those that are skilled in sorcery,' in solemn array with the repre- sentatives of the holiest forms of literature, immediately after the bahvr//£a/£, as the characteristic exponent of i Atharvanic activity. And on the other hand even bhe_r *4& Lsha^am, 'cure^. medicine/ the aIiniktic_-Drovinrp of the ^T ^Atharvan^though well regarded^Jn^ejiexaL does not come \^jjrfn^u>^ sneerT The TaJCiTvi, 4, 9, 3 (cf- Maitr. S. j^p IV, 6, 2; Aat. Jtir. IV, 1, 5, 14) says, brahma/zena bhesha- fl^ gam na karyam, ' a Brahman shall not practise medicine,'
the reason that is assigned being that the physician is
impure, that the practice entails promiscuous, unaristocratic mingling with men : 'men run to the physician' (MS. IV, 6, 3, p. 80, 1. 1) x. And we may trust that the canons of social standing and literary appreciation of a people that had produced the best that is to be found in Vedic litera- ture could not fail altogether, when in the proper mood, to estimate at its right value the wretched hocus-pocus of the bhesha^ani themselves, though these were the best that the Vedic period had produced for the relief of bodily ailment. Yet the Veda without witchcraft would not be the Veda, and the ^rauta-texts are not in the position to throw stones against the Atharvan. Moreover it must not be forgotten that the Atharvan contains in its cosmo- gonic and theosophic sections more material that undertakes to present the highest brahmavidya than any other Vedic Sa^hita (cf. below, p. lxvi) ; by whatever literary evo- lution this was associated with this sphere of literature and incorporated into the redaction, it doubtless contributed to the floating of the more compact body of sorcery-charms, and its higher valuation among the more enlightened of the people. At any rate, a sober survey of the position of the Atharvan in the traividya yields the result that this Veda, while not within the proper sphere of the greater concerns of Vedic religious life, is considered within its own sphere as a Veda in perfectly good standing ; the question of its relative importance, its authority, and its canonicity is not discussed, nor even suggested.
The position of the Atharvan in the Upanishads does not
appear to differ from that in the miti in general. Aside
The AV in ^rom t^ie Atharvan Upanishads, which are
the Upani- naturally somewhat freer in their reference
to the AV., and in the mention of more or
less apocryphal Atharvan teachers, it is introduced but
rarely, and usually in the manner prevalent elsewhere
in the ^rauta-literature, i. e. preceded by the trayi, and
1 Cf. the contempt for the pugaya^iyjU, ye pugan ya^ayanti, ' those who sacrifice for a crowd,' Manu III, 151 ; Mahabh. I, 2883, and the gramaya^in, Manu IV, 205, and gramaya^aka, Mahabh. Ill, 13355. See also Vishmi LXXXII, 12; Gaut. XV, 16.
INTRODUCTION. xli
Even in the Atharvan Upanishads there is sounded in
1 This Upanishad belongs to a Ya^us- school ; hence the pre-eminence of the ya^us. The Atharvan is here forced into a position of disadvantage, and it may be admitted that its mention after the ade^a (Upanishad) is intentional. But there is really no other course open to the writer. The tenor of the entire passage excludes the notion of disparagement of any of the texts mentioned.
xlil HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
general neither the polemic nor the apologetic note which
characterises the ritualistic writings of the Atharvan. We
_ k _ find, to be sure, in the late Pra^ava Up. a spo-
TheAV.in 1# ,r ,. . . .
the radic, it not solitary, assumption of superiority
Atharvan on the part of the AV<i and an interpolated
Upanishads. x m ? r
passage in the Pra^na Up. V, 5 betrays the distinct tendency to secure at any cost the correlation of the Atharvan with the highest brahma 2. The authority of Atharvanic teachers, Sanatkumara, Angiras, Paippalada, &c, is, of course, cited with especial frequency in the Atharvan Upanishads, helping to confer upon them an esoteric school character. But in general, all that may be said is, that the Atharvan Upanishads mention the fourth Veda along with the other three more frequently than the corresponding tracts of the other schools, that the Atharvan is quietly added to the trayi, whether other literary forms like the itihasapura^am, &c, appear in the sequel, or not. Even these Upanishads, however, occasionally lapse into the more frequent habit of the bulk of the Vedic literature, and fail to refer to the Atharvan, whether consciously or not,, it seems impossible to telL Thus the Mu^aka Up. I, i, 5 counts the four Vedas (Atharvan included) along with the Angas as the lesser science, above which towers the science of Brahma : rz'gvedo, ya^urveda/^, samavedo *tharvaveda// .riksha, &c. But in II, i, 6 the list is, rik&k sama ya^u^shi diksha ya^a^a. The Praiiia Up. II, 8 says of the Pra^a, c life's breath ' (personified), rishbiam karltam satyam atharvangirasam asi, which seemingly con- tains an allusion to the Atharvan writings, but in IT, 6 we have, pra//e sarva/^ pratish/Zntam riko ya^umshi samani ydLgnah kshatra;/z brahma £a 3. See also Mahanaraya^a Up. 22. This betrays the usual preoccupation with the traividya, which is not quite effaced by the possible allusion to the Atharvan in II, 8. The Nrzsi^hapurvatapani Up.
1 See Ind. Stud. I, 296; IX, 51.
2 See Ind. Stud. I, 453, note, and cf. Bohtlingk's critical edition of the Prajna in the Proceedings of the Royal Saxon Academy, November, 1890.
3 It would have been easy to substitute for the last four words, atharvan' girasaj ka. ye, or the like. Cf. also Prajna V, 5, alluded to above.
INTRODUCTION. xllii
I, 2 has, ngya^u/zsamatharvaTza.? £atvaro veda// ; I, 4, rig- ya^u^samatharvarupa^ surya/i ; II, 1 ( = Nrzsi//zhottarata- pant Up. 3 ; Atharva^ikha Up. 1), rigbhik rigvedak, ya^oir- bhir ya^urveda/z, samabhi^ samaveda/z, atharva/zair mantrair atharvaveda/^ ; in V, 9 it falls into the broader style of reference, rikah, ya^u^shi, samani, atharva^am, angirasam, sakhafc, pura//ani, kalpan, gatha^, narasamsik, leading up finally to pra;/avam, the Om which embraces all (sarvam). But in V, % we have rtgmayam ya^urmaya;^ samamayaw brahmamayam amr/tamayam, where brahmamayam ob- viously refers to the brahmavidya, the holy science, not to the fourth Veda, the Brahmaveda l. And thus the Brah- mavidya Up. 5 fif. recounts the merits of the traividya, culminating in the Om, without reference to the Atharvan. It seems clear that even the Atharvan Upanishads as a class are engaged neither in defending the Atharvan from attack, nor in securing for it any degree of prominence. Other references to the Atharvan occur in Atharvajiras 1, rig aham yagm aham sama*ham atharvangiraso*ham ; Mu- ktika Up. 12-14, rzgveda, yagv/i, saman, atharva;*a ; ibid. 1, atharvavedagatanam . . . upanishadam ; Maha. Up. 3, gaya- tram khaxida rzgveda//, traish/ubha^/ Mando ya^urveda^, g&gatam khaxidah samaveda/z, anushAibha^z £/zando*tharva- veda^. Cf. also /ifulika Up. 10, 13, 14.
On turning to the Grzhya-sutras it would be natural to
anticipate a closer degree of intimacy with the Atharvan,
and hence a more frequent and less formulaic
in the reference to its writings. For the subject-
Gr/hya- matter of these texts is itself, broadly speak-
ing, Atharvanic, besides being dashed strongly
with many elements of vidhana or sorcery-practice, i.e.
Atharvanic features in the narrower sense and by dis-
tinction2. Many verses quoted in the Grzhya-sutras are
1 The Upanishads do not designate the fourth Veda as Brahmaveda, unless we trust certain doubtful variants and addenda, reported by Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 301, note. The earliest occurrence of Brahmaveda is at .Sankh. Grih. I, 16, 13 (see above, p. xxvii).
2 Cf., e.g. the use of roots, Par. I, 13, 1 ; .Sankh. I, 19, 1 ; 23, 1 ; the battle- charm, Asv. Ill, 12 (cf. p. 117 ff. of this volume) ; the bhaisha^yani, ' remedial charms/ Asv. Ill, 6, 3 ff. ; Par. I, 16, 24 ff.; 111,6; Hir. II, 7;
xliv HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.