Still more frequently, performances which imply the knowledge and use of the Atharvan are decried and punished, though the writings of the Atharvan are not expressly mentioned. [hus magic rites with intent to harm enemies, and sorceries and curses in general, cause impurity, and are visited with severe penances at Apast. I, 9, 26,7; 10, 29, 15; Baudh. II, 1, 2,16; Gaut. XXV, 7; Vishmau XXXVII, 26; LIV, 25; Manu IX, 290; XI, 198; Yagnav. III, 289. Yet the other side of the coin is turned
l HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
up at Manu XI, 33, where the Atharvan is recommended as the natural weapon of the Brahmaza against his enemies (see above). Narada, V, 108, also betrays his hostile attitude towards sorcery when he remarks that the sage Vasishtha took an oath, being accused of witchcraft’. With especial frequency and emphasis the impurity of physicians is insisted upon, Apast. I, 6, 18, 20; 19, 15; Vishzu LI, 10; LXXXII, 9; Gaut. XVII, 17; Vas. XIV, 2.19; Manu III, 152. 180; IV, 212. 220; Yagzav. I, 162; III, 240: we gathered above (p. xxxix) that the practice of medicine is regarded in the same light in the Brahmavas ; the charge, of course, reflects upon the Atharvan. Astro- logy also, and fortune-telling, are impure occupations, Baudh. IJ, 1, 2, 16; Manu IX, 258; the practice of astro- logy is forbidden to ascetics, Vas. X, 21; Manu VI, 50; and the astrologer is excluded from the sraddha, Vishzu LXXXII, 7; Manu III, 162. That these practices were Atharvanic in character we may gather from AV. VI, 128; Kaus. 50, 15%. An especially pointed reflection against the AV. is implied in the prohibition of the milakriya or mialakarma, ‘practices with roots*:’ at Vishwu XXV, 7 wives are especially forbidden to engage in such practice; at Manu IX, 290 magic rites with roots, practised by per- sons not related to him against whom they are directed; are regarded as sinful‘; at Manu XI, 64 practices with roots in general are forbidden. Such practices abound in the AV. and its ritual; see I, 34; III, 18 (=RV. X, 145); V, 31,12; VJ,138.139; VII, 38, &c., and the performances connected with them (cf. p. 99 ff. and the commentary on these hymns). Though they are not wanting elsewhere, especially in the Grzhya-sutras, the brunt of the charge is without doubt directed against the Atharvan. Finally, at Gaut. XV, 16; Vishvu LX XXII, 12; Manu III, 151; IV,
’ He has in mind the asseveration of the poet, RV. VII, 104, 15, ady@ mutiya yadi yatudhano asmi, &c., ‘may I die to-day if I am a sorcerer.’
* Cf. ‘Seven Hymns of the Atharva-veda,’ Amer. Journ. Phil. VII, 484 ff. (19 ff. of the reprint) ; the present volume, pp. 160, 532 ff.
* Cf. the same prohibition in the Mahabharata, below, p. liv.
* The commentator Narada states that they are permissible, if practised against a husband or relative.
INTRODUCTION, li
205, he who practises for a multitude (gramayagaka) is pronounced impure: we may presume that this kind of activity was largely, if not entirely in the hands of Athar- van-priests ; cf. the note on p. xl. The position of the Atharvan in the Mahabharata may be characterised in the single statement that its importance The AV.in 25 2 Veda, and its canonicity, are finally and theMaha- completely established ; that its practices are a a familiarly known and, in general, not sub- jected to any particular criticism. There is no especial affinity between the great Epic and the srauta-literature, barring the continuance of a considerable quantity of the legendary materials (4khyadna) which are woven into the descriptions of the Vedic sacrifices in the Brahmawas ; hence there is nothing in the Epic to induce preoccupa- tion with the trayi vidya. On the other hand, the great collection deals so largely with the interests of the Kshatriyas as to preclude any conscious discrimination against the fourth Veda, since this Veda also is to a very considerable extent engaged in the interest of the kings (ragakarmawi, Kausika, chapters 14 to 17), and the prac- tices of their chaplains (purohita) are also largely Athar- vanic in character. It is true that the Mahdbhdarata in common with all Hindu literature, the Atharvan literature not excluded, mentions frequently only the three Vedas by their distinctive names, or by the generic terms trayi vidya and trayo veda/. Thus in the passages assembled in A. Holtzmann’s sufficiently exhaustive collectanea on this question in his work on the Epic, Das Mahabharata und seine Theile, vol. iv, p. 5, the prevailing Vedic habit of referring to the Vedas is continued. But there can be little question that this mode of reference has at this time, as doubtless in a measure also in the period of Vedic produc- tivity, become a stereotyped mechanical habit, continued from the tradition of earlier times; cf. Biihler, Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. XL, 701, who compares the German expression ‘ die vier Erdtheile, and the like. There is no indication that the mention of the Atharvan is con- sciously avoided.
lit HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
INTRODUCTION. liit
By itself the Atharvan is mentioned numerous times: as atharvangiras (singular), atharvangirasaf# (plural), atharva- ngirasa, atharvan, atharvava, atharvavza, and atharva-veda. Invariably the statements presenting these names are either directly laudatory, or they exhibit the Atharvan in an in- disputable position of usefulness. At III, 305, 20=17066 Kunti knows mantras, atharvangirasi! srutam, for com- pelling the gods to appear; at II, 11, 19=437 the athar- vangirasa#, personified, are mentioned honorifically along with other Vedic Azshis; at V, 18, 5=548 ff. Anciras praises Indra with atharvavedamantraiA#, and Indra declares that this Veda shall henceforth have the name atharvangi- rasa, At XII, 342, 99=13258 ff. Pragadpati declares that the sages skilled in the Atharvan (vipra atharvazavidas) fashion him into an Atharvan priest, devoted to the practice of the five kalpas (pa#sakalpam atharvazam). At V, 37, 58=1391 Atharvan practitioners (atharvawah) are spoken of in a friendly way: ‘ For him that has been wounded with the arrow of wit there are no physicians and no herbs, no sacrificial formulas, no amulets, no Atharvavas (conjurers), and no skilful remedies.” See also I, 70, 40= 2883; III, 251, 24=15147; XIII, 14, 3cg=901; XIII, 94, 44=4590. In a number of places weapons are said to be as fierce and efficacious as the sorcery-practices of the Atharvan (kvztyam atharvangirasim iva), VIII, 40, 33=1848; VIII, 90, 4= 4625; VIII, 91, 48=4795; [X,17, 44=907; XIII, g8,13=4706: the passages imply neither praise nor biame, but represent Atharvan practices as familiarly established among the customs of the people.
It is scarcely to be expected that the Atharvan and its practices, notwithstanding their establishment in the good graces of the epic writers, shall come off entirely without criticism ; there must have been persons aching under its supposed inflictions, and moods awake to a full sens of its vulgarity. In such cases the Mahabharata reflects entirely the spirit of the dharma-texts. Thus at XII, 36-28=1322;
' In the Calcutta edition, atharvasirasi for atharvangirasi. * Cf. Bohtlingk, Indische Spriiche, 1497-8.
liv HYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
XIII, 90, 13=4282, physicians are declared to be impure (cf. above, p. 1). Practices undertaken by bad women with charms and roots (mantramdlapara stri ... miala- prakara) are inveighed against: the man that has a wife addicted to them would be afraid of her, as of a snake that had got into the house, III, 233, 13=14660 ff.; cf. the identical prohibition of the dharma-texts above, p. 1)?. Women are said at XIII, 39, 6=2237 ff. (cf. Bohtlingk’s Indische Spriiche ?, 6407) to be skilled in the sorceries of the evil demons Namufi, Sambara, and Kumbhinasi. Magic or sorcery is in general regarded as good. Thus kritya is regarded as the divinity of witchcraft (abhi#aradevata) by the commentator on VII, 92, 54=3314, and krztya, abhi- kara, and maya are in general allowable, but yet it is possible in the view of the Epic to bewitch right to make it wrong, to be a dharmabhifarin, XII, 140, 42=5288, or to use foul maya, VII, 39, 15=1316 ff. (see above, p. xxix, and cf. Hopkins, Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. XIII, 312 ff.).
In the Ramayaza the Vedas in general are mentioned
very frequently ; special Vedic names appear to be rare,
the Sama-veda (simagaz) being mentioned at IV, 27, 10,
the Taittiriya (a#aryas taittiriyavzam) at II, 32, 7 (cf. Ind.
Stud. I, 297). The Atharvan (mantras #4:tharvavah)
occurs at II, 26, 21.
In the proverb-literature the Atharvan is scarcely men- tioned (cf. Mahabh. V, 37, 58=1391 in Bohtlingk’s Indische
ae Spriiche’, 4216), but the mantras of the Athar-
the later Van are in the minds of the poets, though
ey they usually speak of mantras in general
without specification. Thus a comparison
of proverbs 1497-8 with 4216 seems to call up the atmo-
sphere of the Atharvan practices in their mention of ausha-
dhani and mantravi; still more clearly rogaviyogamantra-
mahima at 2538 refers to the bheshagani of the AV., and
sakyam varayitum ... vyddhir bheshagasamegrahais ha
vividhamantraprayogair visham, proverb 6348, both to the
Se ee
‘ The sentiment has become proverbial: see Samg. Paddh., niti 76 b (Bohtlingk’s Indische Spriiche’, 5260).
INTRODUCTION. lv
bheshagani and the charms against poison (see p. 25 ff.). The knowledge of sorcery, dreaded in women (see the prohibitions in the dharma, p. | above), is alluded to in proverbial form at 5260=Mahabh. III, 233, 13=14660; and 6407= Mahabh. XIII, 39, 6=2237.
In the Dasakumara-arita the Atharvan is employed twice, once in an obvious sorcery practice, 4tharvavzikena vidhina (chapter iii, p. 108, 13), where priests perform sacri- fices preliminary to transforming a person from one shape to another. Another time (chapter ii, p. 94) a marriage is celebrated with Atharvanic ceremonies (Atharvavena vidhina). Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 297; Ind. Streifen, F328.
In the Kiratarguniya X, 10 (cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 289 ; Muir, Orig. Sanskrit Texts I*, p. 395) there is a passage which shows that the potency of the Atharvan had not then waned: anupamasamadiptitagariyan krvztapadapanktir atharvazena vedak, ‘he (Arguna), being through unparal- leled composure and fervour exceedingly powerful, as the Veda arranged by Atharvan 1.’
The Puradzas always speak of the fourfold Veda”, and present the Atharvan in the advanced position of the ritual- istic literature of the AV. itself; cf. below, p. lvii ff. The Vishuu-puraza, p. 276, assigns the four Vedas to the four priests of the srauta-ritual, the AV. to the Brahman. Similarly at Prasthana-bheda, p. 16, |. 10, there is the statement, paurohityaz santipaushfikani rag#am_ atharva- vedena karayed brahmatvam ka; cf. Max Miiller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 476. The Bhagavata-purava I, 4, 19. 20 speaks of the fourfold Veda designed for the execu-
' Mallinatha comments upon the passage, and cites an agama, to wit: sama santir abhyudayakand- diptita ugrata abhi#arakamde atharvawa vasish¢hena krita rakita padanam panktir anuptirvo yasya sa vedas Aaturthaveda, atharvamas tu mantroddharo vasish¢Aena kriia ity agama. The passage has a twofold interest : it reflects the ancient Atharvanic (abhyudaya) and Ajngirasic (abhi- kasa) components of the Veda, and it ascribes its redaction to Vasish¢ha ; cf. above, p. xviii, and below, p. Ixv.
2 Cf. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, vol. i, p. 10. See, e.g. Vishvu- puraza 1, 5 (Wilson's translation, vol. i, p. 85), where the Atharvan is said to be the northern mouth of Brahman.
lvi IIYMNS OF THE ATHARVA-VEDA.
tion of the sacrifice (yag#asamtatyai vedam ekam fatur-
vidham), mentioning them by name in the sequel. At VI,
6,19 figures the atharvangirasa veda. Also, the Matsya-
puravza, as quoted by Sdyava in the introduction to the
AV., p. 6, orders that the purohita shall compass the
Mantras and the Brahmaza of the AV.; and the Mar-
kazdeya-puraza claims that the king consecrated with the
Mantras of the AV. enjoys the earth and the ocean ; see
Sayazea, ibid.
In the Gainist Siddhanta, fifth anga (bhagavati), I, 441; II, 246-7°; upanga, I, 76; X, 3 the scope of Vedic or
Brahmanical literature is stated as riuveda,
The AV. in ‘
the Gaina gaguveda, sdmaveda, ahavvavaveda (athav- auf Lae vana-), itihdsapamkamam ...; see Weber,
Verzeichniss der Sanskrit- und Prakrit-Hand-
schriften, II, 423-4; and Ind. Stud. XVI, pp. 238, 304,
379, 423, 4741. According to Weber, ibid., p. 237, the
Siddhanta is to be placed between the second and fifth
centuries of our era. This mode of describing the Vedic
literature we found above to prevail from the time of the
Sat. Br. to the Mahabharata. In the Sdatrakrztanga-sitra
II, 27 (see Jacobi translation, Sacred Books, vol. xlv,
p. 366) the incantations of the Atharvan (atharvavi) are
naturally spoken of in condemnatory language.
As specimens of the view of the Buddhist writings we may quote the A/thakavagga 14, 13 of the Sutta-nipata (Fausboll’s translation, Sacred Books, vol. x, part ii, p. 176), where the practice of the Athabbava-veda is forbidden. To the condemnation of practices essentially Atharvanic in character is devoted the Maha Sila, in the second chapter of the Tevigga-sutta; see Rhys Davids’ translation in the Sacred Books, vol. xi, pp. 196-200, similarly the Vinaya, Kullavagga V, 32, 2, ibid., vol. xx, p. 152.