Home > Library > New > Julius Eggeling > Satapatha Brahmana Part 1 > Introduction

Introduction

*
"Satapatha Brahmana Part 1 (sbe12)\", Julius Eggeling tr. [1882],

p. ix

Introduction.

The
translator of the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a can be under no illusion as to the reception his production is likely to meet with at the hand of the general reader. In the whole range of literature few works are probably less calculated to excite the interest of any outside the very limited number of specialists, than the ancient theological writings of the Hindus, known by the name of Brhma"n"as. For wearisome prolixity of exposition, characterised by dogmatic assertion and a flimsy symbolism rather than by serious reasoning, these works are perhaps not equalled anywhere; unless, indeed, it be by the speculative vapourings of the Gnostics, than which, in the opinion of the learned translators of Irenus, 'nothing more absurd has probably ever been imagined by rational beings 1.' If I have, nevertheless, undertaken, at the request of the Editor of the present Series, what would seem to be a rather thankless task, the reason will be readily understood by those who have taken even the most cursory view of the history of the Hindu mind and institutions.

The Brhma"n"as, it is well known, form our chief, if not our only, source of information regarding one of the most important periods in the social and mental development of India. They represent the intellectual activity of a sacerdotal caste which, by turning to account the religious instincts of a gifted and naturally devout race, had succeeded in transforming a primitive worship of the powers of nature into a highly artificial system of sacrificial ceremonies, and was ever intent on deepening and extending its hold on the minds of the people, by surrounding its own vocation with the halo of sanctity and divine inspiration. A complicated ceremonial, requiring for its proper observance and

p. x

consequent efficacy the ministrations of a highly trained priestly class, has ever been one of the most effective means of promoting hierarchical aspirations. Even practical Rome did not entirely succeed in steering clear of the rock of priestly ascendancy attained by such-like means. There, as elsewhere, 'the neglect or faulty performance of the worship of each god revenged itself in the corresponding occurrence; and as it was a laborious and difficult task to gain even a knowledge of one's religious obligations, the priests who were skilled in the law of divine things and pointed out its requirements--the "pontifices"--could not fail to attain an extraordinary influence 1.' The catalogue of the duties and privileges of the priest of Jupiter might well find a place in the Talmud. 'The rule--that no religious service can be acceptable to the gods, unless it be performed without a flaw--was pushed to such an extent, that a single sacrifice had to be repeated thirty times in succession on account of mistakes again and again committed; and the games, which formed part of the divine service, were regarded as undone, if the presiding magistrate had committed any slip in word or deed, or if the music even had paused at a wrong time, and so had to be begun afresh, frequently for several, even as many as seven, times in succession 2.' Great, however, as was the influence acquired by the priestly colleges of Rome, 'it was never forgotten--least of all in the case of those who held the highest position--that their duty was not to command, but to tender skilled advice 3.' The Roman statesmen submitted to these transparent tricks rather from considerations of political expediency than from religious scruples; and the Greek Polybius might well say that the strange and ponderous ceremonial of Roman religion was invented solely on account of the multitude which, as reason had no power over it, required to be ruled by signs and wonders 4.'

The devout belief in the efficacy of invocation and sacrificial

p. xi

offering which pervades most of the hymns of the Rig-veda, and which may be assumed to reflect pretty faithfully the religious sentiments of those amongst whom they were composed, could not but ensure to the priest, endowed with the gift of sacred utterance, a considerable amount of respect and reverence on the part of the people. His superior culture and habitual communion with the divine rulers of the destinies of man would naturally entitle him to a place of honour by the side of the chiefs of clans, or the rulers of kingdoms, who would not fail to avail themselves of his spiritual services, in order to secure the favour of the gods for their warlike expeditions or political undertakings. Nor did the Vedic bard fail to urge his claims on the consideration and generosity of those in the enjoyment of power and wealth. He often dwells on the supernatural virtues of his compositions and their mysterious efficacy in drawing down divine blessings on the pious worshipper. In urging the necessity of frequent and liberal offerings to the gods, and invoking worldly blessings on the offerer, the priestly bard may often be detected pleading his own cause along with that of his employer, as Ka"n"va does when he sings (Rig-veda Viii, 2, 13), 'Let him be rich, let him be foremost, the bard of the rich, of so illustrious a Maghavan 1 as thou, O lord of the bay steeds!' Though the Dnastutis, or verses extolling, often in highly exaggerated terms, the munificence of princely patrons, and generally occurring at the end of hymns, are doubtless, as a rule, later additions, they at least show that the sacerdotal office must have been, or must gradually have become during this period, a very lucrative one.

Although there is no reason to suppose that the sacrificial ceremonial was in early times so fully developed as some scholars would have us believe, the religious service would seem to have been already of a sufficiently advanced nature to require some kind of training for the priestly office. In course of time, while the collection of hymns were faithfully

p. xii

handed down as precious heirlooms in the several families, and were gradually enriched by the poetical genius of succeeding generations, the ceremonial became more and more complicated, so as at last to necessitate the distribution of the sacerdotal functions among several distinct classes of priests. Such a distribution of sacrificial duties must have taken place before the close of the period of the hymns, and there can be little doubt that at that time the position of the priesthood in the community was that of a regular profession, and even, to some extent, a hereditary one 1. A post of peculiar importance, which seems to go back to a very early time, was that of the Purohita (literally 'praepositus'), or family priest to chiefs and kings. From the comparatively modest position of a private chaplain, who had to attend to the sacrificial obligations of his master, he appears to have gradually raised himself to the dignity of, so to say, a minister of public worship and confidential adviser of the king. It is obvious that such a post was singularly favourable to the designs of a crafty and ambitious priest, and must have offered him exceptional opportunities for promoting the hierarchical aspirations of the priesthood 2.

In the Rig-veda there is, with the single exception of the Purusha-skta, no clear indication of the existence of caste in the proper, Brhmanical sense of the word. That institution, we may assume, was only introduced after the Brahmans had finally established their claims to the highest

p. xiii

rank in the body politic; when they sought to perpetuate their social ascendancy by strictly defining the privileges and duties of the several classes, and assigning to them their respective places in the gradated scale of the Brhmanical community. The period during which the main body of the Vedic hymns was composed, in the land of the seven rivers, seems to have been followed by a time of wars and conquests. From the literary products of the succeeding period we can see that the centre of the ryan civilisation had in the meantime shifted from the region of the Sindhu (Indus) to that of the Yamun (Jumna) and Gag. As the conquered districts were no doubt mainly occupied by aboriginal tribes, which had either to retire before their ryan conquerors, or else to submit to them as "S"dras, or serfs, it seems not unnatural to suppose that it was from a sense of the danger with which the purity of the Brhmanical faith was threatened from the idolatrous practices of the aboriginal subjects, that the necessity of raising an insurmountable barrier between the ryan freeman and the man of the servile class first suggested itself to the Brahmans. As religious interests would be largely involved in this kind of class legislation, it would naturally call into play the ingenuity of the priestly order; and would create among them that tendency towards regulating the mutual relations of all classes of the community which ultimately found its legal expression, towards the close of this period, in the Dharma-stras, the prototypes of the Hindu codes of law.

The struggle for social ascendancy between the priesthood and the ruling military class must, in the nature of things, have been of long duration. In the chief literary documents of this period which have come down to us, viz. the Ya"g"ur-veda, the Brhma"n"as, and the hymns of the Atharva-veda some of which perhaps go back to the time of the later hymns of the "Ri"k, we meet with numerous passages in which the ambitious claims of the Brahmans are put forward with singular frankness. The powerful personal influence exercised by the Purohitas, as has already been indicated, seems to have largely contributed to the final success of the

p. xiv

sacerdotal order. Thus we read in the Aitareya-brhma"n"a Viii, 24-25, 'Verily, the gods do not eat the food offered by the king who is without a Purohita: wherefore let the king, who wishes to sacrifice, place a Brhman at the head (puro adhta).... Now Agni Vai"s"vnara, who is possessed of five destructive weapons, is the same as the Purohita. With them he constantly surrounds (protects) the king, even as the ocean surrounds the earth: the kingdom of such a ruler is undisturbed. His vital breath deserts him not before the (full term of) life, but he lives to old age, and attains to the full measure of life: he dies not (and is not born) again, whosoever possesses such a wise Brahman for his Purohita, for the guardian of his realm.' And again, in the Atharva-veda Iii, 19, 'May this prayer of mine be accomplished; may perfect vigour and strength, may perfect, unceasing, and victorious power accrue to those whose Purohita I am. I perfect their kingdom, their might, their vigour, their strength. With this oblation I cut off the arms of their enemies.... Go forth, ye men, and conquer; may your arms be terrible! ye sharp-shafted, smite the weak-bowed; ye of terrible weapons and terrible arms, (smite) the feeble! when discharged, fly forth, O arrow, sped by prayer; vanquish the enemies; rush forward and slay all the best of them; let not one of them escape 1.'

The question as to how the Brhmans ultimately succeeded in overcoming the resistance of the ruling class receives but little light from the contemporaneous records. Later legendary accounts of sanguinary struggles between the two classes, and the final overthrow, and even annihilation, of the Kshatriyas can hardly deserve much credence. At best they seem to contain some small kernel of historical fact. Perseverance and tenacity of purpose were probably the chief means by which the Brahmans gained their ends. Not unfrequently, too, kings may have lent their countenance to the aspirations of the priesthood, as calculated to counteract the unruly spirit and ambitious designs of the military order. We certainly meet with not a few instances of kings

p. xv

figuring as the patrons of learned Brhmans. As the old hymns were gradually assuming the character of divinely inspired utterances, additional matter might occasionally find its way into them, almost unconsciously, which more adequately expressed the actual scope of the aspirations of their priestly depositaries. That many such additions must have been made to the old hymns, prior to the age of diaskeuasts and exegetes, cannot be doubted.

Another, even more important, source of strength to the sacerdotal order was the sacrifice. The more complicated the ceremonial, the greater the dependence of the lay worshipper on the professional skill of the priests; and the greater the number of priests required for the proper performance of these ceremonies, the larger the gains derived by the priesthood generally from this kind of occupation. What more natural, therefore, than that the highest importance should have been ascribed to these performances, and an ever-increasing attention bestowed on the elaboration of the ceremonial. From clear indications in not a few hymns of the Rig-veda it appears, as has already been remarked, that a distribution of the sacrificial functions among different classes of priests had taken place before the final redaction of that collection. As to the time when such a step may have become necessary for the due performance of sacrifices, this is a question which will probably never be decided. The sacrifice is an old Indo-Iranian, if not Indo-Germanic, institution. Some of the chief Indian sacrifices undoubtedly go back, in some form or other, to the common Indo-Iranian period, notably the Soma-sacrifice, and, if we may judge from the coincidence of name between the pr-hymns 1 and the fr-gn of the Prs ritual, the animal sacrifice.

As regards the third great division of Indian sacrifices, the havirya"g"as (or offerings of milk, butter, grain-food, and similar materials), of which the present volume treats, we have hardly any evidence to fall back upon. It is,

p. xvi

however, highly probable that these sacrifices also reach at all events far back into the Vedic antiquity. Perhaps the careful preservation of the pravara-lists 1, or lists of ancestors required at the ish"t"i, the normal form of offering which underlies the havirya"g"as, might be adduced in favour of the antiquity of the latter. This, however, is a point which requires further investigation. Neither has the last word been spoken regarding the traditional arrangements of the hymns. It is well known that the majority of the single collections of which the first seven Ma"n"d"alas (and to some extent those of the tenth) are made up, begin with hymns addressed to Agni, which, as a rule, are followed by hymns addressed to Indra. These, again, are in many cases followed by hymns to the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" (and Maruts) 2. Now, in the later dogmatic literature we find the three ryan castes, the Brahman, the Kshatra, and the Vi"s", identified with Agni, Indra, and the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" (all the gods, or, as a special class, the All-Gods) 3 respectively. This identification is a very natural one. Agni, the sacrificial fire, the bearer of oblations and caller of the gods, is, like the priest, the legitimate mediator between God and man. Penetrating brilliance (te"g"as) and holy lustre (var"k"as) are the common attributes of the Brahman. Again, Indra, the valiant hero, for ever battling with the dark powers of the sky, is a not less appropriate representative of the knightly order. According to Professor Roth, this truly national deity of the Vedic ryans would seem to have superseded

p. xvii

the older Indo-Iranian god Trita 1, and to have gradually encroached on the province of Varu"n"a, who perhaps was originally one of the highest deities of the ryan (Indo-Germanic) pantheon. The warlike chiefs and clansmen evidently saw in Indra a more congenial object of their adoration. It can scarcely be without significance that of all the Vedic "Ri"shis, Vasish"th"a, the priest "par excellence", has ascribed to him by far the greatest number of hymns addressed to Varu"n"a (and Mitra-Varu"n"a), while there is not a single hymn to Varu"n"a in the family collection of the royal "Ri"shi Vi"s"vmitra, whose religious enthusiasm is divided almost exclusively between Agni, Indra, and the Vi"s"ve Dev"h". Lastly, the identification of the common people with a whole class of comparatively inferior deities would naturally suggest itself. Hence we also find the Maruts 2, the constant companions and helpmates of Indra, the divine ruler, employed in a similar

p. xviii

sense. The identification of the Vi"s" with the Vi"s"ve Dev"h", which ultimately obtained, was probably determined chiefly by etymological considerations.

The same triad of divinities, as representative of the mutual relations of the social grades of the ryan community, is repeatedly met with in the sacrificial ritual, and especially in its dogmatic exposition. This identification finds its most complete expression in the well-known passages of the Taittirya-sa"m"hit (vii, 1, 1, 4-5) and the T"n"d"ya-brhma"n"a (vi, 1, 6-11) 1. According to these authorities, Pra"g"pati, the lord of creatures, created from his mouth the Brhma"n"a, together with Agni, the triv"ri"t stoma, the gyatr metre (and the rathantara sman and he-goat, according to the first source; or the spring, according to the other). From his breast and arms he created the R"g"anya, together with Indra, the pa"k"ada"s"a stoma, the trish"t"ubh metre (and the b"ri"hat sman, and the ram; or the summer respectively). From the middle part of his body he created the Vai"s"ya, together with the Vi"s"ve Dev"h", the saptada"s"a stoma, the "g"agat metre (and the vairpa sman, and the kine; or the rainy season respectively). Finally, from his feet he created the Sdra, together with the ekavi"m"s"a stoma and the anush"t"ubh metre (and the vair"g"a sman and the horse, according to the Taitt. S.), but no deity, and no season. In accordance with these speculations, single objects of those here enumerated are frequently found elsewhere identified with their respective deities and castes. On the same principle, the three savanas, or morning, mid-day, and evening libations 2 at the Soma-sacrifice, as well as the first three days of the

p. xix

[paragraph continues] Dvda"s"ha 1, are generally assigned to Agni, Indra, and the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" respectively. If in the ekda"s"in, or traditional order of eleven victims that have to be immolated at the Soma-sacrifice, the victim sacred to Agni is placed first, while those to the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" and to Indra only come sixth and seventh respectively, we have probably to assume that this order was too firmly established (just as the so-called pr-hymns are) by long usage to have been easily altered; the more so as the privileged position of the sacerdotal class was not thereby affected.

At the havirya"g"as not less prominent a place is assigned to the divine representatives of the two leading classes. The first oblation at every ish"t"i belongs to Agni. The second oblation at the new-moon sacrifice is offered either to Indra, or to Indra 2 and Agni; at the full-moon sacrifice, to Agni and Soma, the latter of whom constitutes Indra's chief source of strength. Indra also plays an important part at the Seasonal offerings which indeed, according to the dogmatic, and by no means improbable, explanation of the Brhma"n"as, are performed with special reference to Indra's struggle with V"ri"tra, the demon of drought. At the Agny-upasthna, or worship of the fires, which succeeds the Agnihotra, the first prayer is addressed to Agni, the second to Indra and Agni 3. Indeed, while Agni appears everywhere as the Purohita, the 'ya"g"asya deva "ri"tvik,' or divine priest of the sacrifice, Indra is the god of sacrifice 4, the Maghavan, or munificent patron of the priest.

From these indications it would appear far from improbable that the arrangement of the hymns in which the collections of the Rig-veda were finally handed down, was intended, as far as the leading deities are concerned, to

p. xx

exhibit a social gradation of the Hindu community which was either already firmly established or was steadily kept in view by the sacerdotal class as 'a consummation devoutly to be wished.' In either case the claims of the priests could not fail to be materially strengthened by the pre-eminent position assigned to their divine prototype in the inspired utterances of the "Ri"shis. The question, whether the present arrangement is entirely the result of the final redaction, or whether it was already a feature of the earlier redactions, will perhaps never receive a quite satisfactory answer. It cannot, however, be denied that there is some force in Professor Ludwig's 1 argument,--that, if the arrangement of the several collections had lain with the authors of the final redaction, the result would probably have been a far greater uniformity than they now present.

The idea of bringing together the different family collections would seem first to have suggested itself to the priests at a time when the hitherto divided ryan tribes had moved from the Panjab to the eastern plains and became consolidated into larger communities, and the want of a more uniform system of worship would naturally make itself felt. To the same period, then, we may refer the first attempts at a systematic arrangement of the entire ceremonial of worship, and the definite distribution of the sacrificial duties among four classes of priests,--viz. the Adhvaryu, or performer of the material part of the sacrifice; the Udgt"ri", or chanter of hymns; the Hot"ri", or reciter of solemn sacrificial prayers; and the Brahman, or superintendent of the entire performance. Though some of these offices had no doubt existed for a long time, we possess no definite information as to the exact extent of the duties entrusted to them 2. The institution of the office

p. xxi

of Brahman, doubtless the latest of all, marks a new era in the development of the sacrificial system. While the other priests were only required to possess an accurate knowledge of their own special departments, the Brahman was to be the very embodiment of the sacrificial art and Vedic lore in general, so as to be able to advise the other priests on doubtful points and to rectify any mistakes that might be committed during the performance of sacrifices. Neither had the Hot"ri" priest any special manual of his formulas assigned to him. He was rather expected to have acquired a thorough knowledge of the whole of the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit, from which the sacrificial prayers recited by him were exclusively selected. It was probably out of this class--or the Bahv"ri"k"as, as the followers of the Rig-veda came to be called--more than from any other, that individual priests would fit themselves for the office of Brahman.

As regards the two remaining classes of priests--the Udgt"ri"s and Adhvaryus--we have no means of determining in what form and to what extent the stock of chants and sacrificial formulas used by them may have existed from the time of the institution of their offices down to the formation of the collections that have been handed down, viz. the Sma-veda-sa"m"hit and the Ya"g"ur-veda. From the close connection that exists between the Sman and the eighth and ninth ma"n"d"alas of the "Ri"k, as well as from the fact that most of the hymns of these two ma"n"d"alas are ascribed to authors whose family collections (including, in several instances, hymns of their own) are contained in earlier ma"n"d"alas,--we may perhaps assume that already at the time when the first nine ma"n"d"alas were collected the then existing hymns of the eighth and ninth ma"n"d"alas were set apart for the purpose of being chanted at the Soma-sacrifice. In course of time--hand in hand with the fuller development of the Soma ritual and the gradual influx of new hymn material which was either incorporated with the old collections or formed into a new ma"n"d"ala--additional chants (or more suitable ones in the place of those hitherto

p. xxii

used
) might be required and selected from the hymns of other ma"n"d"alas. In its original connected form, the material of these chants would naturally remain all along an essential part of the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit, for the use of the Hot"ri" and Brahman priests; and thus each of these two collections would henceforth have a history of its own, and discrepancies in the texts common to both would gradually become more and more numerous.

The sacrificial texts used by the Adhvaryu priest are contained in the Ya"g"ur-veda, of which several recensions have come down to us. These texts consist, in about equal parts, of verses ("ri"k") and prose formulas (ya"g"us). The majority of the former are likewise found in the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit, though not unfrequently with considerable variations, which may be explained partly from a difference of recension, and partly as the result of the adaptation of these verses to their special sacrificial purpose 1. With the prose formulas, on the other hand, save a few isolated sacrificial calls alluded to in the "Ri"k 2, we meet for the first time in this collection. In the older recensions of the Ya"g"ur-veda the texts are, as a rule, followed immediately by their dogmatic explanation. Now, these theological treatises, composed chiefly with the view of elucidating the sacrificial texts and explaining the origin and hidden meaning of the various rites, form one of the most important departments of the literature of the period which succeeded the systematic arrangement of the sacrificial ceremonial, and in which we must place the gradual consolidation of the Brhmanical hierarchy. Such as they lie before us, they contain the accumulated wisdom and speculations of generations of Indian divines. They are essentially digests of a floating mass of single discourses or "dicta" on various points of the ceremonial of worship, ascribed to individual teachers, and handed down orally in the theological schools. Single discourses of this kind were called brhma"n"a,--probably either because they were intended for the instruction and guidance of priests

p. xxiii

[paragraph continues] (brahman) generally; or because they were, for the most part, the authoritative utterances of such as were thoroughly versed in Vedic and sacrificial lore and competent to act as Brahmans or superintending priests 1. In later times a collection or digest of such detached pieces came to be likewise called a Brhma"n"a. Works of this kind have come down to us in connection with all the Vedic Sa"m"hits, generally in more than one version which, though on the whole betraying a common stock of material, often vary considerably, both in their arrangement and their treatment of these materials. Nay, owing as they do their origin to different schools of the same Veda, these recensions not unfrequently take the very opposite view of single points of ceremonial. Originally the number of such recensions, more or less differing from each other, must have been much larger; but the practical tendencies of a later age, which led to the production of concise manuals of ceremonial rules--the Kalpa-stras--adapted to the sacrificial practices of more than one school, were not favourable to the perpetuation of these bulky cyclopdias of theological school-wisdom: thus only the Brhma"n"as of the schools which had the greatest number of followers survived; while others were probably never committed to writing, or at best had a precarious existence down to more recent times.

While the Brhma"n"as are thus our oldest sources from which a comprehensive view of the sacrificial ceremonial can be obtained, they also throw a great deal of light on the earliest metaphysical and linguistic speculations of the Hindus. Another, even more interesting feature of these works, consists in the numerous legends scattered through them. From the archaic style in which these mythological tales are generally composed, as well as from the fact that not a few of them are found in Brhma"n"as of different schools and Vedas, though often with considerable variations,

p. xxiv

it is pretty evident that the ground-work of many of them goes back to times preceding the composition of the Brhma"n"as. From a mythological, and to some extent from a linguistic, point of view these legends thus form a connecting link between the latter and the Vedic hymns. In the case of some of these legends--as those of "S"una"h"s"epha 1 and the fetching of the Soma from heaven 2--we can even see how they have grown out of germs contained in the Vedic hymns; their relation to the latter being thus not unlike that of the Sagas of the younger Edda to the songs of the older Edda. The Kaushtaki Brhma"n"a 3, at the end of a story of this kind about Soma, remarks that it is thus told by those versed in legend (khynavida"h"). We may perhaps infer from this passage that there was a class of people who took a special interest in such legends, and made it their business to collect and repeat them. Indeed, many of the elaborate mythical stories with which we meet in the later epical and Pur"n"ic literature doubtless owe their origin to simple popular legends of this kind 4.

Besides the genuine myths which we find in the Brhma"n"as, there is also a large number of stories which were evidently invented by the authors of these treatises for the purpose of supplying some kind of traditional support for particular points of ceremonial 5. However small the intrinsic merit of such passages, they, too, are not entirely devoid of interest, especially from a linguistic point of view, since the style of narrative and the archaic mode of diction which they affect, readily lend themselves to syntactic turns of expression rarely indulged in by the authors in the purely explanatory and exegetic parts of their works. And, indeed, whatever opinion the general reader may form of the Brhma"n"as, as purely literary corn-

p. xxv

positions--and, assuredly, it cannot be a very high one--to the Sanskrit student these works (together with their supplements, the ra"n"yakas; and their metaphysical appendages, the Upanishads) are of the highest importance as the only genuine prose works which the Sanskrit, as a popular language, has produced. For the comparative study of syntax, which has been taken up with such signal success by Professor Delbrck and other scholars, the Brhma"n"as offer a rich field of enquiry. Nor is the style of these compositions--with its compact grammatical forms and expressive particles, and its habitual employment of the "oratio directa" instead of dependent clauses--without a certain rough beauty of its own, which, however, almost entirely evaporates in a rendering into modern analytical speech. And notwithstanding the general emptiness of the speculations of the Indian theologians, 'there are,' as Professor Max Mller observes 1, 'passages in the Brhma"n"as full of genuine thought and feeling, and most valuable as pictures of life, and as records of early struggles, which have left no trace in the literature of other nations.'

Although the Adhvaryus, who had to perform all the manual work connected with the sacrifice, were originally looked upon as a subordinate class of priests, their office seems to have risen in the general estimation with the increasing importance that was attributed to the endless details of the ceremonial. In a passage of the Taittirya Upanishad (2, 3). the Ya"g"us is said to be the head, the "Ri"k the right side, the Sman the left side, the de"s"a 2 the soul, and the Atharvgiras (Atharva-veda) the tail. With better reason the Ya"g"ur-veda might be called the body of the sacrifice, since it contains almost the entire apparatus of sacrificial formulas, while the other ritualistic works are concerned, either chiefly or entirely, with the Soma-sacrifice. As a matter of fact, no other Veda has given rise to so large a number of schools as the

p. xxvi

[paragraph continues] Ya"g"ur-veda 1. The numerous subdivisions of the Adhvaryus trace their origin to either of two principal schools, an older and a younger one, the latter of which is itself an offshoot of the former. The oral transmission of the large body of exegetic and legendary matter attached to the sacrificial formulas could hardly fail, in course of time, to produce considerable variations, in different localities, both as regards the wording and the arrangement of these works. Different schools would naturally arise,--each with its own approved recension of the traditional texts,--which in their turn would sooner or later become liable to the same process of disintegration. Such, indeed, has been the case, more or less, with all the Vedic texts, until mechanical means were devised to arrest this process of change. The names of many such subdivisions of the older Ya"g"ur-veda are recorded; but hitherto the recensions of only three of them have come to light,--viz. the K"th"aka, the Maitrya"n"-sa"m"hit, and the Taittirya-sa"m"hit. The two former texts belong to subdivisions of the Ka"th"as and Maitrya"n"yas, two branches of the old school of the "K"arakas or "K"arakdhvaryus. The Taittiryas, on the other hand, seem to have been an independent branch of the old Ya"g"us 2, the origin of which is ascribed to a teacher named Tittiri. Their text has come down to us in the recension of one of its subdivisions 3, the pastambins.

The chief characteristic of the old Ya"g"us texts consists, as has already been indicated, in the constant intermingling

p. xxvii

of the sacrificial formulas and the explanatory or Brhma"n"a portions. It was with the view of remedying this want of arrangement, by entirely separating the exegetic matter from the formulas, that the new school of Adhvaryus was founded. The name given to this school is V"g"asaneyins, its origin being ascribed to Y"g"avalkya V"g"asaneya. The result of this new redaction of the Ya"g"us texts was the formation of a Sa"m"hit, or collection of mantras, and a Brhma"n"a. This re-arrangement was doubtless undertaken in imitation of the texts of the Hot"ri" priests, who had a Brhma"n"a 1 of their own, while their sacrificial prayers formed part of the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit. Indeed, the Taittiryas themselves became impressed with the desirability of having a Brhma"n"a of their own,--and attained their object by the simple, if rather awkward, expedient of applying that designation to an appendage to their Sa"m"hit, which exhibits the same mixture of mantra and brhma"n"a as the older work. They also incorporated a portion of the K"th"aka text into their Brhma"n"a and its supplement, the Taittiryra"n"yaka. Of all the schools of the old Ya"g"us those of the Taittiryas seem to have attracted by far the greatest number of adherents; and in southern India their texts have continued pre-eminently the subject of study till the present day. In northern India, on the other hand, they have been largely superseded by their later rivals. On account of the lucid arrangement of their sacred texts, the V"g"asaneyins called them the White ("s"ukla) Ya"g"ur-veda; the term of Black or Dark (k"ri"sh"n"a) Ya"g"ur-veda being, for the opposite reason, applied to the texts of the older schools. In later times, an absurd story was invented (doubtless by followers of the White Ya"g"us), in which the origin of the name Taittirya is connected with the word tittiri 2, in the sense of 'partridge.'

p. xxviii

The Brhma"n"a of the V"g"asaneyins bears the name of "S"atapatha, that is, the Brhma"n"a 'of a hundred paths,' because it consists of a hundred lectures (adhyyas). Both the V"g"asaneyi-sa"m"hit and the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a have come down to us in two different recensions, those of the Mdhyandina and the K"n"va schools. Of the latter recension of the Brhma"n"a, however, three books out of seventeen are wanting in the European libraries and have, as far as I know, not yet been discovered in India. The Mdhyandina text both of the Sa"m"hit and the Brhma"n"a has been edited by Professor Weber; the former with the various readings of the K"n"va recension. To the same scholar we owe a German translation of the first adhyya of the first k"n"d"a 1; and he has, moreover, subjected the entire accessible literature of the White Ya"g"ur-veda--with the exception of the K"n"va text of the Brhma"n"a--to a careful examination, and has extracted from it all that seems calculated to throw light on its history, so that in this respect little remains to those who come after him but to state the results of his enquiries. Professor Max Mller, in his History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, has also fully discussed the questions regarding the date and authorship of these texts, and has done much to clear up what was obscure in their relations to the older Ya"g"us texts and to Vedic literature generally. Many points, however, still remain doubtful; and, above all, opinions are as divided as ever regarding the approximate date of the teacher with whose name tradition connects the origin of the modern school of the Adhvaryus.

The schools of the V"g"asaneyins are stated to have been either fifteen or seventeen; and their names are given, though with considerable variations, in different works. No distinct traces, however, have as yet been discovered of any recensions besides the two already referred to. As regards the names of these two,--the Mdhyandina and K"n"va,--the latter is the name of one of the chief families of "Ri"shis

p. xxix

of the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit; and certain orthoepic peculiarities of the Ya"g"us texts of the K"n"vas would seem to favour the assumption of a connection of this school with the redaction of the "Ri"k. The name of the Mdhyandinas, literally 'meridional,' on the other hand, does not occur in the older literature. Nor can we draw any definite conclusions, as to the probable date of their recension, from Lassen's identification of this name with the , mentioned by Megasthenes (as quoted by Arrian) as a people on the banks of a tributary of the Ganges; or from Professor Weber's conjecture that the Mdhyandina school may have taken its origin among that people.

The Mdhyandina text of the "S"atapatha is divided into fourteen books (k"n"d"a). For several reasons, however, some of these books have to be assigned to a later period than the others. In the first place, the twelfth k"n"d"a is called madhyama, 'the middle one;' a fact which in itself would suggest the idea that, at the time when this nomenclature was adopted, the last five books (or perhaps books 11-13) were regarded as a separate portion of the work 1. Besides, Pata"g"ali, in a krik or memorial couplet to P"n". Iv, 2, 60, mentions the words shash"t"ipatha ('consisting of sixty paths') and "s"atapatha, with the view of forming derivative nouns from them, in the sense of one who studies such works. Now, as the first nine books of the "S"atapatha, in the Mdhyandina text, consist of sixty adhyyas, it was suggested by Professor Weber that it was probably this very portion of the work to which Pata"g"ali applied the term 'shash"t"ipatha,' and that consequently the first nine books were at that time considered as, in some sense, a distinct work and were studied as such. This conjecture has been generally accepted. There is indeed a possibility that Pata"g"ali may have been acquainted with some other

p. xxx

recension of the Brhma"n"a of the V"g"asaneyins which consisted of only forty adhyyas; but even in that case the latter would in all probability correspond to the first nine books of the Mdhyandina text. As regards the K"n"va recension, we are unfortunately not yet able, owing to the want of some of its k"n"d"as, to determine its exact extent; and have to rely on a list added by a scribe on the front' page of one of the k"n"d"as in the Oxford MS. 1, according to which that text consists of 104 adhyyas. Still further evidence regarding the mutual relations of the several portions of our Brhma"n"a is contained in a passage of the Mahbhrata (xii, 11739), where Y"g"avalkya relates that, at the inspiration of the Sun, he composed ("k"akre) the "S"atapatha, including 2 the Rahasya (mystery), the Sa"m"graha (epitome), and the Pari"s"ish"t"a (supplement). Now the tenth book is really called Agni-rahasya; while the eleventh contains a kind of summary of the preceding ritual; and k"n"d"as 12-14 treat of various other subjects. This relation between the first nine and the remaining five books is also fully borne out by internal evidence, as well as by a comparison with the V"g"asaneyi-sa"m"hit. The latter consists of forty adhyyas, the first eighteen of which contain the formulas of the ordinary sacrifices--the Havirya"g"as and Soma-sacrifice--and correspond to the first nine books of the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a. The succeeding adhyyas have been clearly shown by Professor Weber 3 to be later additions. As a rule only those formulas which are contained in the first eighteen adhyyas are found in the Taittirya-sa"m"hit; while those of the later adhyyas are given in the Taittirya-brhma"n"a.

At the end of the "S"atapatha the White Ya"g"us is said to have been promulgated (-khy) by Y"g"avalkya V"g"asaneya. Now the name of this teacher is indeed more frequently met with in the Brhma"n"a than that of any other;

p. xxxi

especially in some of the later books where his professional connection with "G"anaka, king of Videha, and his skill in theological disputations are favourite topics. As regards the earlier portion of the work, however, it is a remarkable fact that, while in the first five books Y"g"avalkya's opinion is frequently recorded as authoritative 1, he is not once mentioned in the four succeeding k"n"d"as (6-9). The teacher whose opinion is most frequently referred to in these books, is "S"n"d"ilya. This disagreement in respect of doctrinal authorities, coupled with unmistakable differences 2, stylistic as well as geographical and mythological, can scarcely be accounted for otherwise than by the assumption of a difference of authorship or original redaction. Now the subject with which these four k"n"d"as are chiefly concerned, is the agni"k"ayana, or construction of the sacred fire-altar. For reasons urged by Professor Weber, it would appear not improbable that this part of the ceremonial was specially cultivated in the north-western districts; and since the geographical allusions in these four k"n"d"as chiefly point to that part of India, while those of the other books refer almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna, we may infer from this that the fire-ritual, adopted by the V"g"asaneyins at the time of the first redaction of their texts--that is, of the first nine k"n"d"as, as far as the Brhma"n"a is concerned--had been settled in the north-west of India.

Here, however, we meet with another difficulty. The tenth book, or Agnirahasya, deals with the same subject as the preceding four k"n"d"as; and here also "S"n"d"ilya figures as the chief authority, while no mention is made of Y"g"avalkya. Moreover, at the end of that k"n"d"a, a list of teachers is given in which the transmission of the sacrificial science (either in its entirety, or only as regards the fire-ritual) is traced from a teacher Tura Kvasheya--who is said to have received it from the god Pra"g"pati--downwards, through two intermediate teachers, to "S"n"d"ilya;

p. xxxii

and from thence, through six intermediate teachers, to "S"m"g"v-putra. Tura Kvasheya is referred to in another passage of the tenth k"n"d"a (x, 6, 5, 9) as having built a fire-altar 1 to the gods at Krot; and in the Aitareya-brhma"n"a he is mentioned as the high-priest who officiated at the inauguration-ceremony of king "G"aname"g"aya Prikshita, renowned in epic legend. From these indications we may, it seems to me, take it for certain that Tura Kvasheya and "S"n"d"ilya (the latter of whom is also held in high repute by the "Kh"andogas or Sman-priests) were regarded by the V"g"asaneyins as the chief arrangers, if not the originators, of the fire-ritual such as it was finally adopted by that school. On the other hand, we saw that the first nine books of the "S"atapatha, if their identification with Pata"g"ali's 'shash"t"ipatha.' be correct, must have been regarded as, in some particular sense, a complete work. Now this combination of the fire-ritual in k"n"d"as 6-9 with the complete exposition of the Havirya"g"a and Soma-sacrifice, contained in the first five books, would seem to presuppose some kind of compromise between the two schools recognising Y"g"avalkya and "S"n"d"ilya respectively as their chief authority. What, then, are we to understand to be the exact relations between the later k"n"d"as, especially the tenth, and the earlier portion of the work? We do not, and could not, meet with such a term as '"k"atvri"m"s"at-patha,' or work of forty paths, as applying to the last five k"n"d"as of the "S"atapatha; their nature was too well understood for that, as we see from the passage of the Mahbhrata, above referred to. The list of teachers at the end of the tenth k"n"d"a shows no sign of any amalgamation of the two schools up to the time of S"m"g"v-putra, the last teacher mentioned in it: with one exception, it belongs exclusively to the "S"n"d"ilya school. It contains, however, an additional remark to the effect that from S"m"g"v-putra downward the list is 'identical,'--viz. with some other list. Now this remark can only refer to the va"m"s"a given at the end of the last k"n"d"a. In this list the

p. xxxiii

transmission of the science of the Adhvaryus is traced--as far as human agency is concerned--from Ka"s"yapa Naidhruvi, through nine teachers, to Y"g"avalkya, and thence, through four other teachers, to S"m"g"v-putra 1. The only name which this list has in common with the former one, previous to S"m"g"v-putra, is that of Ku"s"ri. According to the former list, he was the teacher of "S"n"d"ilya, who, in his turn, taught Vtsya 2. But since in the same book (x, 5, 5, 1) he is referred to as V"g"a"s"ravasa, and in the list at the end of the "S"atapatha he is set down as the pupil of V"g"a"s"ravas, the same teacher is evidently referred to in both lists; and if we can at all rely on the authenticity of these va"m"s"as, we should have to infer from this coincidence, that there was already some connection between the two schools prior to both Y"g"avalkya and "S"n"d"ilya.

The two lines of teachers meet once more in the name of S"m"g"v-putra. In the later list the succession of teachers

p. xxxiv

is then continued by forty-nine more names--all of them formed by the addition of 'putra' (son) to the mother's name--which, it appears, we are to supply in the former list. According to Professor Max Mller 1, 'S"m"g"v-putra seems to have united two lines of teachers.' That this must have been the case, cannot be doubted, provided, of course, that the va"m"s"as are trustworthy 2. Nay, I should even be inclined to assign to the time of S"m"g"v-putra the final adjustment of the ritual and its dogmatic exposition such as we find them in the Shash"t"ipatha (and the first eighteen adhyyas of the V"g"asaneyi-sa"m"hit), and consequently the first redaction of that part of the "S"atapatha. Not that all the matter contained in the latter part of the work must necessarily be more modern. There can, on the contrary, be little doubt that much of it is quite as old as anything in the earlier books; and of the Madhuk"n"d"a, which forms part of the B"ri"had-ra"n"yaka in the last book, we know at any rate, from a reference to the Madhu-brhma"n"a in the fourth k"n"d"a, that some such tract existed at that time. But such matter as, for some reason or other, was not included in the systematic exposition of the ceremonial, would naturally be in a less settled condition and more liable to modifications and additions.

According to the two lists, S"m"g"v-putra is removed from "S"n"d"ilya by six intermediate teachers, the three older 3 of whom are referred to in k"n"d"as 6-9; and from Y"g"avalkya

p. xxxv

by four intermediate teachers, the first of whom (suri) 1 is repeatedly quoted in the second (and once each in the first, fourth, and fourteenth) k"n"d"as. Although these indications do not, of course, supply more than a "terminus a quo" for the final settlement of this part of the work, they would nevertheless seem to favour the supposition that the combination of the fire-ritual with the sacrificial system cannot have taken place at a time far removed from that of S"m"g"v-putra. The custom of forming metronymics by means of 'putra' is of some interest. It first shows itself in the predecessor of S"m"g"v-putra's teacher in the Y"g"avalkya line, and continues from thence down to the very end of the va"m"s"a. Unfortunately, however, we have no means of ascertaining whether this custom had already been commonly practised, in certain localities, before that time, or whether, as seems to me more probable, it was a fashion of recent date. If the latter alternative could be proved, it might help to settle the chronological relations between Y"g"avalkya and P"n"ini, since it would appear from P"n". Iv, 1, 159 2 (and Vi, 1, 13), that the great grammarian was well acquainted, not only with the practice of forming metronymics of this kind, but also with that of forming patronymics from such metronymics.

The relative date of P"n"ini and Y"g"avalkya has been discussed more than once by Sanskrit scholars 3; but no agreement has as yet been come to on what Goldstcker justly called 'one of the most important problems of Sanskrit literature.' The chief difficulty of this problem lies in the ambiguity of Ktyyana's well-known vrttika to P"n". Iv, 3, 105. According to P"n"ini's rule the names

p. xxxvi

of Brhma"n"as and Kalpas proclaimed by old (sages) are formed by the addition of the affix in (to the sages' names). As instances of Brhma"n"as, the names of which are formed in this way, the K"s"ik V"ri"tti gives Bhllavina"h" (proclaimed by Bhallu), "S"tyayanina"h", Aitareyi"n"a"h". In accordance with this rule the texts of the White Ya"g"us are called V"g"asaneyina"h". This name does not; however, occur in any of P"n"ini's rules, but follows only from the word 'v"g"asaneya' being included in the ga"n"a '"s"aunakdi' to P"n". Iv, 3, 106; and since we have no evidence as to whether any of the words in a ga"n"a except the first really belong to P"n"ini, it must remain doubtful whether or not he knew of the existence of the school known by that name. Ktyyana's vrttika runs thus: Among the Brhma"n"as and Kalpas proclaimed by the old, there is an exception in regard to Y"g"avalkya and others, on account of contemporaneousness: hence (Y"g"avalkya's Brhma"n"as are called, not Y"g"avalkina"h", but) Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni; Saulabhni B.' The question, then, is, Does Ktyyana mean to say that the Brhma"n"as proclaimed by Y"g"avalkya do not fall under this rule, because he was contemporary with P"n"ini,--and therefore not an old sage in the sense of the rule,--or, that those works should have been excepted by P"n"ini from his rule, because they are of the same age as those (old) Brhma"n"as to which the rule applies? The former alternative was the one generally accepted, until the late Professor Goldstcker made known the text of Pata"g"ali's and Kaiya"t"a's comments 1 on this vrttika. He showed that Kaiya"t"a, at least, clearly interprets it in the sense that P"n"ini should have excepted works like the Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni, since they, too (api), are of the same age as the "S"tyyanina"h" and others. The Mahbhshya, on the other hand, is not quite so explicit. It merely says that the Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni &c. ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstcker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiya"t"a. This view was, however, controverted by

p. xxxvii

[paragraph continues] Professor Weber in his review of Goldstcker's 'P"n"ini.' The interpretation of the vrttika adopted in the K"s"ik V"ri"tti--according to which P"n"ini's rule does not apply to those works, because Y"g"avalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of P"n"ini's rule--is likewise rejected by him, since in that case Ktyyana's exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiya"t"a's interpretation, Ktyyana's additional remark 'on account of contemporaneousness' would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, proposes, in the passage of the Mahbhshya, to take 'api' in the sense of 'even,' and to interpret the passage thus 1: 'Among the Brhma"n"as and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, P"n"ini ought to have made an exception in regard to Y"g"avalkya &c., because the Brhma"n"as and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with P"n"ini himself).' This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata"g"ali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni and similar works, though ascribed to old authorities, are in reality modern productions; or--if we may venture to express it in somewhat different words--P"n"ini ought to have made an exception in regard to works which, in point of fact, are no exception at all. Now, if this be the correct interpretation, I can only say this--that, had Pata"g"ali been anxious to conceal his real meaning, he could scarcely have done so more effectually than by choosing words which, at first sight, look as clear as day.

Professor Bhler 2, who has recently touched upon this controversy, sides with Kaiya"t"a and Goldstcker; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I see no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstcker has drawn from this vrttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between P"n"ini and Ktyyana, that authors, whom Ktyyana considered as far older than P"n"ini, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of

p. xxxviii

[paragraph continues] Ktyyana, regarding the age of P"n"ini, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstcker's argument lies in his identification of the Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni with the Brhma"n"a of the V"g"asaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that P"n"ini was perfectly well acquainted with the term 'V"g"asaneyina"h",' but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules. Surely, if his silence could possibly have been construed into an act of negligence, Ktyyana, who was so intimately connected with the White Ya"g"us that, on Goldstcker's own showing, he composed the V"g"asaneyi-prti"s"khya before he wrote his vrttikas, would have been the first to notice it. The Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the 'Tittiri"n" prokt"h s"lok"h" 1,' which, in Pata"g"ali's time, were excluded from the term 'Taittiry"h"' as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittiryra"n"yaka. Both kinds of tracts probably belong to the last floating materials of Adhvaryu tradition, which had not yet been incorporated with the canon. Whether or not the Y"g"avalkni Brhma"n"ni form part of the text of the "S"atapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain uncertain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Y"g"avalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the K"n"va recension, we might perhaps be in a better position for forming an opinion on this subject; for if that version should really turn out to consist of 104 adhyyas, four of these adhyyas may have to be considered as a later interpolation; and the fact might have become obscured in the Mdhyandina recension by a different division of the text 2. But, however this may

p. xxxix

be, it appears to me quite intelligible why such portions should have been considered as of equal age to the body of the work; in fact they would probably go back to about the same time as some of the earlier portions; only that, owing to a longer state of uncertain transmission, they may have been more liable to changes and additions. If these tracts are not mentioned by P"n"ini, it may be an accidental omission on his part, or he may not have been aware of their existence, for geographical or other reasons: we can hardly expect P"n"ini to have been so intimately acquainted with the Ya"g"us texts as Ktyyana. As regards the dates of Ktyyana and Pata"g"ali, I accept with Professor Bhler and others, as by far the most probable, the fourth and the middle of the second century B.C. respectively.

Under the title of V"g"asaneyaka, the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a is quoted once in L"t"yyana's "S"rauta-stra Iv, 12, 12; but I have not been able to find the passage either in the Mdhyandina text or in that part of the K"n"va text which I have hitherto had at my disposal, viz. k"n"d"as I, Ii, Iv-vii (k\"n"va). Far more frequently the work is quoted, either as V"g"asaneyaka or as V"g"asaneyi-brhma"n"a, by pastamba, both in his "S"rauta and his Dharma-stras. On comparing one of these quotations in the Dharma-stras (i, 4, 12, 3) with the corresponding passage in the Mdhyandina recension, Professor Bhler found that its wording possessed just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which pastamba meant, but differed from the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a in many details 1.' From this he naturally inferred that pastamba probably took his quotations from the K"n"va recension. Now, although I have not been able to compare this particular passage with the K"n"va text 2, I have done so regarding a number of other passages quoted from pastamba in Karka's commentary on the Ktya-"S"rauta-stra. The result was that in no single case did pastamba's quotations agree with the corresponding passages in the K"n"va,

p. xl

any more than they did with those of the Mdhyandina text 1. In some cases they came nearer to the one text, in others to the other. To several quotations, again, I could find nothing corresponding in either text. Now, supposing the quotations, as given by Karka, to be on the whole correct, there seem to be only two ways of accounting for these discrepancies, viz. either pastamba did not mean to quote the passages literally, but only to give the substance of there; or he had a third recension of the "S"atapatha before him. While some passages would seem to be in favour of the former alternative, others would scarcely admit of this explanation. This question, however, requires further investigation, before it can be definitely settled. In connection with this question the fact will also have to be taken into account, that Ktyyana, in composing his V"g"asaneyi-prti"s"khya, seems to have had before him a different recension of the Sa"m"hit, from those of the K"n"va and Mdhyandina schools 2.

Professor Bhler appears to be inclined to place pastamba somewhere about the fifth century B.C.; and though probably he himself does not consider the reasons he adduces as conclusive, they seem at any rate to show that that writer cannot have lived later than the third century B. C. From

p. xli

the fact that "S"vetaketu, the son of Uddlaka ru"n"i, the reputed teacher (and rival 1) of Y"g"avalkya, is counted by pastamba among the Avaras or moderns, Dr. Bhler infers that the promulgator of the White Ya"g"us cannot have preceded pastamba 'by a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years.' That the two authors may not have been separated from each other by a longer interval seems likely enough; hut, on the other hand, pastamba, by his remark, pays no very great compliment to the inspired texts of his own school, since Aru"n"a Aupave"s"i, the grandfather of "S"vetaketu ru"n"eya, is twice referred to in the Taittirya-sa"m"hit 2.

The geographical and ethnical allusions contained in the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a have been carefully collected by Professor Weber 3. With the exception of those in k"n"d"as 6-10, as I have already remarked, they point almost exclusively to the regions along the Ganges and Jumna. In the legend about Videgha Mthava 4, and his Purohita Gotama Rhga"n"a, tradition seems to have preserved a reminiscence of the eastward spread of Brhmanical civilisation. Among the peoples that occupied those regions, a prominent position is assigned in the "S"atapatha to the closely-allied Kuru-Pa"k"las. The Kurus occupied the districts between the Jumna and Ganges--the so-called Madhyade"s"a or middle country--and the Pa"k"las bordered on them towards the south-east. According to "S"at. Br. Xiii, 5, 4, 7, the Pa"k"las were in olden times called Krivi; and a tribe of this name is evidently referred to in Rig-veda Viii; 20, 24; (22, 12) 5, in connection with the rivers Sindhu and Asikn. The Kurus, on the other hand, are not directly referred to in the "Ri"k; but a king Kuru"s"rava"n"a, 'glory of the Kurus,' and a patron with the epithet Kauray"n"a are mentioned in the hymns. In Aitar. Br. Viii, 14, the Uttara (northern) Kurus, together with the Uttara-Madras, are said to dwell beyond the Himlaya.

p. xlii

[paragraph continues] From these indications Professor Zimmer infers that, in the times of the hymns, the Kurus and Krivis--whose names evidently are merely variations of the same word--may have lived together in the valleys of K"s"mr, on the upper Indus; and he also offers the ingenious conjecture, that we may have to look for the Kuru-Krivis in the twin-people of the Vaikar"n"au, mentioned in Rig-Veda Vii, 18, 11. The names of the principal teachers of the "S"atapatha mark them as belonging to the land of the Kuru-Pa"k"las; and as in I, 7, 2, 8, preference is given to a certain sacrificial practice on the ground that it is the one obtaining among these peoples, it seems highly probable that the redaction of the work, or at least of the older portion of it, took place among the Kuru-Pa"k"las 1. A prince 2 of Pa"k"la, Pravha"n"a "G"aivali, is mentioned Xiv, 9, 1, 1, in connection with Y"g"avalkya's teacher, Uddlaka ru"n"i.

East of the Madhyade"s"a, we meet with another confederacy of kindred peoples, of hardly less importance than the Kuru-Pa"k"las, at the time of the redaction of the Brhma"n"a, viz. the Kosala-Videhas. In the legend above referred to they are said to be the descendants of Videgha Mthava, and to be separated from each other by the river Sadnr (either the modern Ga"n"d"ak or Karatoy). The country of the Videhas, the eastern branch of this allied people, corresponding to the modern Tirhut or Puraniya, formed in those days the extreme east of the land of the ryas. In the later books of the "S"atapatha, king "G"anaka of Videha appears as one of the principal promoters of the Brhmanical religion, and especially as the patron of Y"g"avalkya. In Xi, 6, 2, 1, \"G"anaka is represented

p. xliii

as meeting, apparently for the first time, with "S"vetaketu ru"n"eya, Soma"s"ushma Styaya"g"i, and Y"g"avalkya, while they were travelling (dhvayadbhi"h"). Probably we are to understand by this that these divines had then come from the west to visit the Videha country. A considerable portion of the B"ri"hadra"n"yaka deals with learned disputations which Y"g"avalkya was supposed to have held at "G"anaka's court with divers sages and with the king himself. In B"ri"h. r. Ii, 1, 1 (and Kaush. Up. IV, 1) "G"anaka's fame as the patron of Brhmanical sages is said to have aroused the jealousy of his contemporary, A"g"ta"s"atru, king of the K"s"is 1. The name "G"anaka is also interesting on account of its being borne likewise by the father of St, the wife of Rma. Unfortunately, however, there is not sufficient evidence to show that the two kings are identical. With the legend of the other great epic, the "S"atapatha offers more points of contact; but on this subject also no definite results have as yet been obtained, it being still doubtful whether the internecine strife between the royal houses of the Kurus and Pa"k"las which, according to the late Professor Lassen, forms the central fact of the legend of the Mahbhrata, had not yet taken place at the time of the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a, or whether it was already a thing of the past 2. In the Mahbhrata, I, 4723, P\"n"d"u, in speaking to his wife Kunt, mentions "S"vetaketu, the son of the Maharshi Uddlaka, as having lived 'not long ago 3.'

As regards the two recensions of the "S"atapatha-brhma"n"a, this is hardly the place to enter into any detailed discussion of their mutual relations. Nor is my acquaintance with the K"n"va text as yet sufficiently extensive to do justice to this important question. I intend, however, to publish before long a number of extracts from several k"n"d"as of this recension,--including the text of all the

p. xliv

legends as well as other portions which seemed to me of special interest,--from which Sanskrit scholars will be able to form an opinion regarding the exact nature of the variations between the two versions. In my notes to the present translation of the first two k"n"d"as, I have considered it desirable occasionally to notice some of the variae lectiones of the K"n"va school; it should, however, be understood that these readings have been given solely on the authority of the Oxford MS., for the loan of which I am deeply indebted to the liberality of the Curators of the Bodleian Library. With the aid of the Paris MS., the use of which has also just been kindly granted to me, I hope soon to be able to verify these extracts. For most of the k"n"d"as, from the fourth 1 onwards, our materials have been lately enriched by a copy which Mr. Whitley Stokes has had made for Professor Weber from a Benares Ms.

The various readings of the K"n"va recension of the V"g"asaneyi-sa"m"hit have been given in Professor Weber's edition, at the end of each k"n"d"a. They may be said to consist either of mere verbal variations or of additional mantras. In regard to these readings the Brhma"n"a of the same school exhibits a feature which may have an important bearing on the textual criticism of the Sa"m"hit. While the Brhma"n"a generally shows the same verbal variations in the sacrificial texts as the Sa"m"hit, it, as a rule, takes no notice whatever of the additional mantras, but agrees in this respect pretty closely with the Mdhyandina text. Indeed, so far as I am able to judge, the two relations seem to coincide almost entirely, as far as the subject-matter is concerned; the differences, considerable as they sometimes are, being rather of a grammatical and stylistic nature. Occasional omissions, which I have hitherto noticed 2, may perhaps turn out to be due to the carelessness of scribes. As regards the additional mantras referred to, they may have found their way into the Sa"m"hit at the time when the Stras

p. xlv

were composed; though, it is true, they do not as a rule appear in the Ktya-stra, and no other stra of the White Ya"g"us, as far as I know, has hitherto come to light 1. On the other hand, as there are also not a few mantras in the Mdhyandina Sa"m"hit 2,which are not noticed in the Brhma"n"a of that school, this question must be left for future investigation.

I have already referred to the connection which seems to have existed between the K"n"va school of the White Ya"g"us and the redactors of the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit. One of the chief points of contact between our existing recension of the "Ri"k and the K"n"va, text of the Ya"g"ur-veda is the use of the letters "h" and "lh" instead of "d" and "dh" used by the Mdhyandinas. Besides, the "ri"k"s of the K"n"va text generally approach mare nearly to the readings of the Rig-veda than those of the other school. Another, even more interesting, feature which the K"n"va recension has in common with the "Ri"k, is the constant 3 employment of the ordinary genitive and ablative of feminine bases, where the other Sa"m"hits and Brhma"n"as generally use the dative; thus the K"n"vas read 'tasy"h"' instead of 'tasyai' (m. I, 1, 4, 16); 'gyatry"h"' instead of 'gyatryai' (i, 7, 1, 1); 'p"ri"thivy"h"' instead of 'p"ri"thivyai' (i, 2, 5, 18); 'kumbhy bhastry"h"' instead of 'kumbhyai bhastryai' (i, 1, 2, 7); 'str"n"y vede"h"' instead of 'str"n"yai vede"h"' (iv, 2, 5, 3); 'dheno"h"' instead of 'dhenvai' (iii, 1, 2, 21), &c. Thus the K"n"va text is in this respect more in accordance with the "Ri"k-sa"m"hit than even the Aitareya-Brhma"n"a 4. Again, the K"n"vas seem to form the dative of feminine i-bases in accordance with the usual and older practice of the "Ri"k; at least I find everywhere 'hutaye' and 'guptaye' (as also in the Atharvan) instead of 'hutyai' and 'guptyai' as the Mdhyandinas (and Taittiryas) read 5. Of minor points of grammatical

p. xlvi

differences may be mentioned the form 'nililye,' which occurs once in the Mdhyandina text (i, 2, 3, 1), and is otherwise only found in the Mahbhrata; while the K"n"va recension has the periphrastic form (nilay"m k"akre), which the Mdhyandina text also offers in the other two cases (i, 6, 4, 1; Iv, 1, 3, 1) in which the word occurs. On the other hand, the K"n"vas seem to read invariably 'tmani (dh or k"ri"),' where the Mdhyandinas have 'tman,' which is also (doubtless on metrical grounds) the more usual formation in the Rig-veda 1. Of cases of material differences I can only at present adduce the passage I, 1, 4, 12 (m.), where the Mdhyandina text is guilty of a transposition of the second and third castes, while that of the K"n"vas gives them in the proper order. Though most of these points of difference between the two schools would seem to tell in favour of the higher antiquity of the K"n"va text, there will always be great difficulty in deciding this question, as it is by no means impossible that these variations are entirely due to different local or family traditions. In favour of the latter alternative one or two other points may be mentioned. The Mdhyandina text, as has already been remarked, offers not a few grammatical and other differences between the first five and the succeeding four k"n"d"as, or, as we may say, between the Y"g"avalkya and the "S"n"d"ilya books of the Shash"t"ipatha. Though I cannot speak with confidence on this point, as I have not yet examined the K"n"va text of the "S"n"d"ilya k"n"d"as, I may refer here to at least two points, in which the K"n"vas, in the Y"g"avalkya portion, agree with the "S"n"d"ilya portion of the Mdhyandina text, viz. the use of the imperfect (aspardhanta) instead of the perfect (pasp"ri"dhire) in the opening clause of legends; and the frequent employment of the particle 'vva' in the place of 'vai.'

As regards the present translation of the first two k"n"d"as,

p. xlvii

[paragraph continues] I need hardly say that I am fully aware of its shortcomings. My chief endeavour has been to translate as literally as seemed at all compatible with the English idiom. If, in consequence of this, many passages should be found to read somewhat awkwardly, I hope at least that the wish to follow the original as closely as possible, has not rendered them unintelligible. Those who have given any attention to the Brhma"n"as and the sacrificial system of the Hindus, know how difficult the task is, and how easy it is to commit mistakes regarding the intricate minutiae of the ceremonial. The Brhma"n"as presuppose a full knowledge of the course of sacrificial performance, and notice only such points as afford an opportunity for dogmatic and symbolic explanations, or seem to call for some authoritative decision to guard them against what were considered as heretical practices. In order to enable the reader to follow the course of the performance with something like completeness, I have supplied in my notes the chief details from Ktyyana's Kalpa-stras. That not a few of these details did not belong to the sacrificial ceremonial of the "S"atapatha, but were the result of later development, or of an adaptation of sacrificial practices of other schools, can scarcely be doubted. Dr. Hillebrandt 1 is of opinion that sacrificial manuals, somewhat similar to the later Prayogas, must have existed as early as the time of the composition of the Brhma"n"as. In the absence of any direct evidence, speculation on this point can scarcely lead to any definite results. I may say, however, that it seems to me quite sufficient to assume that the performance of sacrifices was taught as a practical art, and that the theoretic instruction, supplied by the Brhma"n"as, was conveyed orally in connection with such practical performances. That the latter was the case, is sufficiently evident from the constant occurrence in the Brhma"n"as of demonstrative pronouns and particles of a 'deictic' force 2.

I
have occasionally referred to corresponding passages of the Taittiryas: an exhaustive comparison of the two branches of the Ya"g"ur-veda, however interesting this might be, lay outside the scope of my notes. A general view of

p. xlviii

the sacrificial system might be considered desirable in this place; but I have found it necessary to defer this part of my duty as translator to some future opportunity. Those who desire further information on this point, I may refer to Professor Weber's general survey of Hindu sacrifices, in vols. x and xiii of his Indische Studien. No other scholar has contributed so much to our knowledge of the sacrificial. ceremonial of the Hindus. I need hardly say that I have also obtained much useful information from the late Professor Haug's notes to his translation of the Aitareya-brhma"n"a, although on many points the practices of modern "S"rotriyas, on which he chiefly relied, are manifestly at variance with those enjoined by the old ritualistic authorities. For the first k"n"d"a, I have also been able to avail myself of Dr. Hillebrandt's careful exposition of the new and full-moon sacrifice; and though I had already worked myself through that part of the ritual before the appearance of his treatise, his constant references to the Stras of the Black Ya"g"ur-veda have been of great assistance to me.

The Brhma"n"as and Kalpa-stras treat of the so-called "S"rauta or Vaidik sacrifices, requiring for their performance three sacrificial fires; while the Pka-ya"g"as, or simple oblations of cooked food prepared on the domestic fire, are dealt with in the G"ri"hya-stras. The present volume contains that portion of the Brhma"n"a which deals with the Havirya"g"as--or offerings of milk, butter, rice, barley, and similar materials--as distinguished from the animal and Soma sacrifices. The new and full-moon offering being considered as the normal type of an ish"t"i, or simplest form of a complete sacrificial performance, the place of honour is assigned to it in most texts of the Ya"g"us; only points of difference being generally noted regarding the performance of ish"t"is, as parts of subsequent sacrifices. In point of time, the Dar"s"apr"n"amsau ought to be preceded--as indeed they are in the K"n"va text of the Brhma"n"a--by the Agnydhna, or establishment of a sacred fire on the part of a young householder; and by the Agnihotra, or morning and evening libations.

Footnotes

ix:1 A. Roberts and W. A. Rambaut, The Writings of Irenus, vol. i. p. xv.

x:1 Mommsen, History of Rome, translated by W. P. Dickson, vol. i. p. 181.

x:2 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 400.

x:3 Ibid. vol. i. p. 179.

x:4 Ibid. vol. iii. p. 455.

xi:1 Maghavan, the mighty or bountiful, is a designation both of Indra and the wealthy patron of priests. Here it is evidently intended to refer to both.

xii:1 See J. Muir, Original Texts, I, p. 239 seq.

xii:2 See Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 485 seq.; A. Weber, Indische Studien, X, 31 seq. In Rig-veda Iv, 50, 8, Vmadeva is made to say, 'That king alone, with whom the Brahman walks in front (prva eti), lives well-established in his house; for him there is. ever abundance of food; before him the people how of their own accord.' If Grassmann was right in excluding verses 7-11 as a later addition, as I have no doubt he was (at least with regard to verses 7-9), these verses would furnish a good illustration of the gradually increasing importance of the office of Purohita. Professor Ludwig seems to take the verses 7-11 as forming a separate hymn; but I doubt not that he, too, must consider them on linguistic grounds, if on no other, as considerably later than the first six verses. The fact that the last pda of the sixth verse occurs again as the closing formula of the hymns V, 55; Viii, 40; and X, 121 (though also in Viii, 48, 53, where it is followed by two more verses) seems to favour this view.

xiv:1 Cf. J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, I, p. 283.

xv:1 See Hang's Essays, p. 241; Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 463 seq.

xvi:1 See the present volume, p. 115 note.

xvi:2 See Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 461 seq.

xvi:3 See especially Taitt. S. Vii, 1, 1, 4. 5; Weber, Ind. Stud. X, pp. 8, 26. Iii \"S"at. Br. Ii, 4, 3, 6. 7, Indra and Agni are identified with the Kshatra (? power in general) and the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" with the Vi"s". Sometimes B"ri"haspati or Brahma"n"aspati, the lord of prayer or worship, takes the place of Agni, as the representative of the priestly dignity (especially Taitt. S. Iv, 3, 10, 1-3; V\"g". S. 14, 28-30); and in several passages of the "Ri"k this god appears to be identical with, or at least kindred to, Agni, the purohita and priest (see Max Mller, Translation of Rig-veda, I, 77; J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, p. 272 seq.) In Rig-veda X, 68, 9, where B"ri"haspati is said to have found (avindat) the dawn, the sky, and the fire (agni), and to have chased away darkness with his light (arka, sun), he seems rather to represent the element of light and fire generally (das Ur-licht, cf. V"g". S. Ix, 10-12). In the second p. xvii Ma"n"d"ala the hymns to B"ri"haspati are placed immediately after those to Agni and Indra. Though the abstract conception represented by this deity may seem a comparatively modern one, it will by no means be easy to prove from the text of the hymns addressed to him, that these are modern. It would almost seem as if two different tendencies of adoration had existed side by side from olden times; the one, a more popular and sensuous one, which, in Vedic times, found its chief expression in Indra and his circle of deities; and the other, a more spiritual one, represented originally by Varu"n"a (Mitra, cf., however, "S"at. Br. Iv, 1, 4, 1-4), and in Vedic times, when the sacerdotal element more and more asserted itself, by B"ri"haspati, and especially by Agni. The identification of this god with the priestly office was as happy as it was natural; for Agni, the genial inmate of every household, is indeed vai"s"vanara, the friend of all men. Shadowy conceptions, such as B"ri"haspati and Brahman, on the other hand, could evoke no feelings of sympathy in the hearts of the people generally. Of peculiar interest, in this respect, are the hymns in which Agni is associated with Indra (see Max Mller's Science of Language, Second Series, p. 495 J. Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, V, pp. 219, 220), and the passages in which Agni has ascribed to him functions which legitimately belong to Indra; viz. the slaying of V"ri"tra and destruction of the enemies' cities. The mutual relation of Indra and Varu"n"a has been well discussed in Dr. Hillebrandt's treatise 'Varu"n"a and Mitra,' p. 97 seq. It is most concisely expressed by Vasish"th"a, Rig-veda Vii, 83, 9, 'The one (Indra) slays the enemies in battles; the other (Varu"n"a) ever defends the ordinances.'

xvii:1 See the present volume, p. 48 note; R. Roth. Zeitsch. der D. M. G., Vi, p. 73 seq.

xvii:2 The Maruts are identified with the vi"s"a"h", or clans, in "S"at. Br. Ii, 5, 1, 12; 2, 24; 27; 35, etc. In "S"kh. 16, 17, 2-4 the heaven of the Maruts is assigned to the Vai"s"ya (Ind. Stud. X, p. 26).

xviii:1 See Weber, Ind. Stud. X, p. 8.

xviii:2 In Ath.-veda Ix, 1, 11, the three savanas are assigned to the A"s"vins, Indra-Agni, and the "Ri"bhus (cf. Ait. Br. VI, 12) respectively; and in another passage of the same collection, Vi, 47, 1, to a. Agni; b. the Vi"s"ve Dev"h", Maruts and Indra; and c. the Bards (kavi). In V"g". S. Xix, 26, also, the morning libation is assigned to the A"s"vins (? as the two Adhvaryus of the gods, cf. Sat. I, 1, 2, 17; Iv, 1, 5, 15; Ait. Br. I, 18); but in Taitt. S. Ii, 2, 3, 1; Ait. Br. Iii, 13; \"S"at. Br. Ii. 4, 4, 12; Iv, 2, 4, 4-5 they are referred to Agni, Indra, and the Vi"s"ve Dev"h" respectively. See, also, "S"at. Br. Iv, 3, 5, 1, where the Vasus (related to Agni Iii, 4, 2, 1; Vi, 1, 2, 10), Rudras, and dityas (cf. Vi, 1, 2, 10, and Ait. Br. Iii, 13) are connected with the three libations.

xix:1 See, for instance, Ait. Br. Iv, 29; 31; V, I.

xix:2 The special oblations of the offering of first-fruits consist of a rice-cake to Indra and Agni, and a pap of rice-grains to the Vi"s"ve Dev"h".

xix:3 See V"g". S. Iii, 12-13; \"S"at. Br. Ii, 3, 4, 11-i 2. 'Indra-Agni are everything,--Brahman, Kshatra, and Vi"s",' "S"at. Br. Iv, 2, 2, 14.

xix:4 See, for instance, "S"at. Br. I, 4, 5, 4; Ii, 3, 1, 38; 3, 4, 38; and especially Iv, 1, 2, 15, 'for Indra, indeed, is the Maghavan the ruler (net"ri") of the sacrifice.' He is, as it were, the divine representative of the human sacrificer or patron, who is the ya"g"apati or lord of sacrifice.

xx:1 Der Rig-veda, vol. iii. p. 45.

xx:2 Compare the following remarks of M. Haug, who believed in the identity of the Vedic Adhvaryu and the Zota and Rathwi of the Zend-Avesta:--'At the most ancient times it appears that all the sacrificial formulas were spoken by the Hotar alone; the Adhvaryu was only his assistant, who arranged the sacrificial compound, provided the implements, and performed all manual labour. It was only at the time when regular metrical verses and hymns were introduced into the ritual, that a part of the duties of the Hotar devolved on the Adhvaryu. p. xxi There are in the present ritual traces to be found, that the Hotar actually must have performed part of the duties of the Adhvaryu.' Ait. Br. I, p. 31.

xxii:1 See A. Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 9, 115.

xxii:2 See M. Haug, Ait. Br. I, p. 34.

xxiii:1 See Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 172; Rig-veda-sa"m"hit IV, p. vi. Professors Weber (History of Sanskrit Literature, p. II), Whitney, Westergaard, and other scholars derive brhma"n"a from brhman, 'prayer, worship.'

xxiv:1 See R. Roth in Weber's Ind. Stud. I, 475 seq.; Ii, 111 seq.; Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 408 seq.

xxiv:2 See the present volume, p. 183. Compare also Professor Aufrecht's remarks on the myth of Apl, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 8.

xxiv:3 K. B. Iii, 25; cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. Ii, 353.

xxiv:4 Cf. Max Mller, Upanishads, I, p. 39 note.

xxiv:5 See, for instance, "S"at. Br. Ii, 4, 3, 1, where a legend of this kind seems to be directly ascribed to Y"g"avalkya.

xxv:1 History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 408.

xxv:2 That is, the Brhma"n"a, according to "S"akara. In "S"at. Br. Iv, 6, 7, 6, the "Ri"k" and Sman are identified with Speech, and the Ya"g"us with the Mind.

xxvi:1 Except, perhaps, the Sma-veda, which, in the "K"ara"n"avyha, is said to have counted a thousand schools; though that work itself enumerates only seven schools, one of them with five subdivisions. The number of teachers mentioned in connection with this Veda is, however, very considerable.

xxvi:2 As such, at least, the Taittiryas are mentioned in the "K"ara"n"avyha. The term Karaka, however, is also (e"g". in the Prati"g"-stra) applied to the schools of the Black Ya"g"us generally. If the Berlin MS. of the K"th"aka professes, in the colophon, to contain the Karaka text of the work (which Professor Weber takes to refer to the "K"rya"n"iyh), the Karaka-"s"kh of the K"th"aka has perhaps to be understood in contradistinction to those portions of the K"th"aka which have been adopted by the Taittiryas and incorporated into their Brhma"n"a.

xxvi:3 The Taittiryas divide themselves into two schools, the Aukhyas and the Kh"n"d"ikyas; the pastambins are a subdivision of the latter branch. We have also the list of the contents (anakrama"n") of the treyas, a subdivision of the Aukhyas.

xxvii:1 It has come down to us in two different recensions, the Aitareya and the Kaushtaki (or "S"khyana) Brhma"n"a.

xxvii:2 Professor Weber, however, thinks there may be some reason for this derivation; the name of Taittirya having perhaps been applied to this school on account of the motley (partridge-like) character of its texts. According to the story alluded to, Y"g"avalkya, having been taught the old Ya"g"us texts by Vai"s"ampyana, incurred the displeasure of his teacher, and was forced by him to disgorge the sacred science which, on falling to the ground, became soiled p. xxviii (hence Black Ya"g"us), and was picked up by Y"g"avalkya's condisciples, who had assumed the form of partridges. This story seems first to occur in the Pur"n"as; see Wilson's translation of the Vish"n"u Pur"n"a (ed. Hall), III, p. 54. P"n"ini (iv, 3, 102) and Pata"g"ali only know of the Taittirya texts as 'promulgated by Tittiri.'

xxviii:1 Zeitsch. der D. M. G., Iv, p. 289 seq.; reprinted in Indische Streifen I, p. 31 seq.

xxix:1 The K"n"va text is divided into seventeen books. K"n"d"as 12-15 correspond to Mdhyandina 10-13; and k"n"d"a 16, which treats of the Pravargya ceremony, corresponds to the first three adhyyas of the last k"n"d"a of the Mdhyandinas. Thus, in the K"n"va recension the fourteenth k"n"d"a, called 'madhyama,' is the middle one of k"n"d"as 12-16; the seventeenth k"n"d"a, or B"ri"hadra"n"yaka, being apparently considered as a supplement. Perhaps this division is more original than that of the Mdhyandinas.

xxx:1 The accuracy of this list cannot he relied upon, as several mistakes occur in the number of ka"n"d"iks there given. It is, however, unlikely that the scribe should have committed any mistake regarding the number of adhyyas.

xxx:2 Literally 'together with the rahasya (sarahasyam),' &c.

xxx:3 History of Indian Literature, p. 507 seq.

xxxi:1 See, however, "S"at. Br. Ii, 5, 1, 2-3, where Y"g"avalkya's opinion is referred to as being contrary to the Rig-veda.

xxxi:2 See Weber, Ind. Stud. XIII, p. 266 seq.

xxxii:1 The author of this passage would seem to imply, though he does not exactly express it, that this was the first fire-altar built in the proper way.

xxxiii:1 I here give, side by side, the lists, in inverted order, from S"m"g"v-putra upwards. For the complete lists, see Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 438 seq.

End of Book Xiv.

End of Book X.

58.
ditya.

(52)
Brahman Svayambhu.

57.
Ambi"n".

56. V
\"k".

(51)
Pra"g"pati.

55.
Ka"s"yapa Naidhruvi.

54.
\"S"ilpa Ka"s"yapa.

53.
Harita Ka"s"yapa.

(50)
Tura Kvasheya.

52.
Asita Vrshaga"n"a.

51.
\"G"ihvvat Bdhyoga.

(49) V
\"g"ava"k"as R"g"astambyana.

50. V
\"g"a"s"ravas.

49.
Ku"s"ri.

(48)
Ku"s"ri.

48.
Upave"s"i.

(47)
\"S"n"d"ilya.

47.
Aru"n"a.

46.
Uddlaka (ru"n"eya).

(46)
Vtsya.

45. Y
\"g"avalkya (V"g"asaneya).

(45)
Vmakakshya"n"a.

44,
suri.

(44)
Mhitthi.

43.
Asurya"n"a.

(43)
Kautsa.

42.
Pr"s"n-putra (surivsin).

(42) M
\"n"d"avya.

41.
Kr"s"akey-putra.

(41) M
\"n"d"kyani.

40. S
\"m"g"v-putra.

(40) S
\"m"g"v-putra.

Follow 39 names formed by the addition of 'putra' to the mother's name.

(Same as elsewhere.)

xxxiii:2 In the B"ri"had-ra"n"yaka (K"n"va) VI, 5,4 the order is Ku"s"ri, Vtsya, "S"n"d"ilya.

xxxiv:1 History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 437.

xxxiv:2 Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. II, 201 note, expresses his conviction that 'the va"m"s"as are, on the whole, quite authentic; though they do not of course belong to the text, but are later additions; judging from the great number of names, some va"m"s"as must have been added at a very late time.' It seems to me, however, that if the va"m"s"as are at all authentic--and I see no reason for doubt as far as the two lists above referred to are concerned--we have rather to assume that the lists were kept from early times and gradually added to. On the other hand, little can be made of the two va"m"s"as at the end of the Madhu and Y"g"avalkya k"n"d"as. They look rather like attempts--and very unsuccessful ones--at throwing several independent lists into one.

xxxiv:3 Viz., Vtsya Ix, 5, 1, 62; Vmakakshya"n"a Vii, 1, 2, 11; Mhitthi Vi, 2, 2, 10; Viii, 6, 1, 16 seq.; Ix, 5, 1, 57. Not mentioned are Kautsa, M"n"d"avya, and M"n"d"kyani. A M"n"d"avya occurs in the twelfth book of the Mahbhrata, as a contemporary of Ganaka and Y"g"avalkya.

xxxv:1 He is also the "Ri"shi of V"g". S. Iii, 37.

xxxv:2 This rule, which applies to the people of the north, is not explained in the Mahbhshya. The K"s"ik V"ri"tti gives the patronymics of Grgputra and Vtsputra, both of whom occur in our va"m"s"a. It is worthy of remark that Kavasha Ailsha, who is mentioned in Ait. Br. II, 19, and to whom the hymns Rig-veda X, 30-34 are ascribed, is called Kavasha Ailshputra in the K"th"aka 25, 7. Cf. Weber, Ind. Stud. III, pp. 459, 157, 485.

xxxv:3 See especially Max Mller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 360 seq; Goldstcker, P"n"ini, p. 132 seq.; Weber, Ind. Stud. V, 65 seq.; Xiii, 443; Bhler, Sacred Laws of the ryas, I, p. xxxix note.

xxxvi:1 P"n"ini, p. 138.

xxxvii:1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 sec.; Xiii, 443.

xxxvii:2 Sacred Laws of the ryas, I, p. xxxix note.

xxxviii:1 Mahbhshya on P"n". Iv, 2, 66; 3, 104.

xxxviii:2 Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the third or uddhr-k"n"d"a, consisting of 124 ka"n"d"iks, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Mdhyandina text. We have no MS. of this particular k"n"d"a. I may also mention that, while in the first k"n"d"a (or second K"n"va), the Mdhyandinas count 9, and the K"n"vas 8 adhyyas,--in the fourth k"n"d"a (or p. xxxix fifth K"n"va), on the other hand, the K"n"vas have 8, instead of 6 adhyyas; and in the fifth k"n"d"a (or sixth and seventh K"n"vas) they have together 7, instead of 5 adhyyas.

xxxix:1 Bhler, loc. cit. p. xxv.

xxxix:2 The passage occurs in Mdhyandina Xi, 5, 6, 3.

xl:1 I select a few passages:--

1.

p. (Katy. Vii., I, 36). prgva"m"s"asya madhyama"m" sth"n"r"g"am labhya "g"apatti v"g"asaneyakam.

Mdhy. Iii, 1, 1, 11. sa prvrdhya"m" sth"n"r"g"am abhipadyaitad ya"g"ur ha.

K"n"va Iv, 1, 1, 7. sa ysau varshish"th" prvrdhe slsth"n" bhavati tam abhipadya "g"apati.

2.

p. (Katy. V, 3, 6). atrpi mesha"m k"a mesh"m k"a karotti v"g"asaneyakam.

Mdhy. Ii, 5, 2, 15. tatrpi mesha"m k"a mesh"m k"a kurvanti.

K"n"va I, 5, 1, 13. mesha"m k"a v api mesh"m k"a kurvanti.

3.

p. (Katy. Vii, 2)34). (v"ri"trasya kanniksti traikakuden"g"anenkte) yadi traikaduka"m" ndhiga"k"kh"ed yenaiva ken"g"anen"g"ti v"g"asaneyakam.

Mdhy. Iii, 1, 3, 12. (traikadukam bhavati; yatra v indro v"ri"tram aha"m"s tasya yad akshy st ta"m" giri"m" trikakudam akarot....) yadi traikakuda"m" na vinded apy atraikakudam eva syt samn hy ev"g"anasya bandhut.

K"n"va Iv, 1, 3, 10. (tat traikakuda"m" syt; yatra v indro v"ri"tram aha"m"s tasya ha y kannaksa ya"k k"akshus tam eta"m" giri"m k"akra trikakuda"m"; sa yat traikakudam bhavati "k"akshushy evaita"k k"akshur dadhti); yadi traikakuda"m" na vinded api yad eva ki"k"a syt.

4.

p. (Katy. Vii, 3, 28). sh"n"she"n"a pradakshi"n"a"m s"iro vesh"t"ayata iti v"g"asaneyakam.

Mdhy. Iii, 2, 1, 16-27. sa pror"n"ute.

K"n"va Iv, 2, 1, 11-12. athaina"m" pror"n"oti,--sa pror"n"oti.

xl:2 See Weber, Ind. Stud. IV, p. 69.

xli:1 See B"ri"h. r. 3, 5, where he is defeated by Y"g"avalkya in disputation.

xli:2 Taitt. S. Vi, 1, 9, 2; 4, 5, 1.

xli:3 Ind. Stud. I, 187 seq.

xli:4 See the present volume, p. 204, with note. It would have been safer to give the name as Videgha Mthava, instead of Mthava the Videgha.

xli:5 See Ludwig, Rig-veda III, p. 205; Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, p. 103.

xlii:1 The passage Iii, 2, 3, 15, where the Kuru-Pa"k"las are apparently placed in the north--in direct contradiction to Xi, 4, 1, 1, where they are placed in opposition to the Northerners (ud"k"ya"h")--seems to go against this supposition. Professor Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 191, tries to get over this difficulty by translating Kurupa"k"latr by 'as among the Kuru-Pa"k"las,' instead of among the Kuru-Pa"k"las;' so that the meaning of the passage would be that 'the same language is spoken in the northern region, as among the Kuru-Pa"k"las.' Unfortunately, however, the K"n"va text of the passage is not favourable to this interpretation. It runs as follows (K. IV. a, 3, 10):--ud"k"m pathyay svasty vg vai pathy svastis tasmd atrottarhai vg vadattyhu"h" kurupa"k"leshu kurumahvisheshv ity et"m" hi tay di"s"a"m" pr"g"nann esh hi tasy dik pra"g"t.

xlii:2 He is styled r"g"anyabandhu in "Kh"ndogyop. V, 3, 5.

xliii:1 They occupied the country about the modern Benares (K"s").

xliii:2 Dh"ri"tarsh"t"ra Vai"k"itravrya, whose sons and nephews form the chief parties of this great feud, is mentioned in the K"th"aka 10, 6. From this passage--which, unfortunately, is not in a very good condition in the Berlin MS.--it would appear that animosities had then existed between the Kurus and Pa"k"las. It is doubtful, however, whether this part of the K"th"aka is older than the bulk of the "S"atapatha. See Weber, Ind. Stud. Iii, 469 seq.

xliii:3 See Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 176.

xliv:1 Viz. k"n"d"as 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 14-17.

xliv:2 For instance, the brhma"n"as Mdhy. I, 4, 3; Ii, 3, 2 and 3; Iv, 5, 10; 6, 8 are wanting in the Oxford MS.; see p. 338, note 3.--In the fourth (fifth K"n"va) k"n"d"a, the K"n"vas, on the other hand, have two brhma"n"as (v, 7, 5; 8, 2, the latter of which treats of the adbhya graha, V"g". S. Viii, 99-50) which are not found in the Mdhyandina text.

xlv:1 Professor Weber thinks that the stra of Vai"g"avpa, of which mention is occasionally made in the commentaries on the Ktya-stra, may belong to the White Ya"g"us. See History of Indian Literature, p. 142. Professor Bhler, Sacred Laws, I, p. xxvi, remarks that 'K"n"va is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-stras of the K"n"va school;' but I have found no notice of these stras anywhere.

xlv:2 That is, in those adhyyas to which the Brhma"n"a forms a running commentary.

xlv:3 I have not met with any exception in the k"n"d"as hitherto examined.

xlv:4 See Aufrecht, Ait. Br. p. 418.

xlv:5 See also the form 'dheno"h"' mentioned above.

xlvi:1 Another curious feature of the K"n"va text is the frequent insertion of an 'ity uv"k"a' in the middle of speeches, much like the colloquial 'says he.' As an instance I may adduce K. Iv, 2, 3, 3 (m. Iii, 2, 3, 5):--s hov"k" 'ham eva vo ya"g"am ammuham iti hov"k"a yad eva mayi tanvn iti m"m" ya"g"d antaragta tenaiva vo ya"g"am ammuham iti to mahya"m" nu bhga"m" kalpayatety atha vo ya"g"a"h" praro"k"ishyata hi tatheti ho"k"us, &c. The K"n"vas also invert much more frequently an 'iti' in the middle of speeches.

xlvii:1 Das Altindische Neu- and Vollmondsopfer, p. xv.

xlvii:2 See, for instance, "S"at. Br. I, 3, 1, 7; 8, 1, 14.
boas tsimshian texts book sale| boas tsimshian texts book sale
Home > Library > New > Julius Eggeling > Satapatha Brahmana Part 1 > Introduction