« PreviousContinue »
(vy. 36-40) verses he should bind on a splinterl of the Ficus infectoria which he has left to stand for three nights or one in a (mess of) beans and boiled rice. If possible he should first sacrifice in the shadow of an elephant or on a tiger's skin or 2 sitting. (8.)
Adhyāya XIII. Then 3 when his body has been made prepared for indifference to desire, he should be bent on the Brahman offering. So he drives repeated death away. "The self is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be meditated on,'4 'Him they seek to know by repeating the Vedas, by studentship, by asceticism, by faith, by sacrifice, by fasting,'5 says Māņdūkeya. “Therefore, he who knows this, calm, restrained, still, enduring, becoming full of faith, should see the self in the self,'6 says Māņdavya. ““The person among the breath composed of knowledge is incomprehensible, to be distinguished as 'No, no.'? This self is the warrior-class, this the priesthood, this the gods, this the Vedas, this the worlds, this all beings, this is all.8 This is “That art thou.' The self is to be recognised in 'I am Brahman.' This Brahman, without predecessor, without superior, without other, immediate, without an exterior, is this self, Brahman(n.), all-experiencing,” such is the teaching,' says Yājñavalkya. That one should not proclaim to one who is not a son or a pupil.' Were a man to offer this earth surrounded by water and filled with wealth, yet is this more than that, more than that,' is the teaching. This Upanisad he should declare to be the head of the Veda 2 in very truth. This is declared in a Rc:
i I read mahāvarohasya ("varāhasya MSS.), a word hitherto only known from lexica, and udoha I regard as a derivative of üh, cf. udūha in Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii, 8, 4, 3 (besom ?). Splinters are often used in such rites, Bloomfield, S.B.E., xlii, 291, etc.
2 The vāpi distinctly makes this a third alternative, perhaps wrongly.
* Cf. J.R.A.S., 1908, p. 382. For punarmztyu, see Lévi, La Doctrine du Sacrifice, pp. 93 seq.,
4 Cf. Brhadāraṇyaka Upanişad, iv, 5, 6 (=ii, 4, 5).
7 Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 4, 27 (with agrhyah); Deussen, Phil. of the Upanishads, p. 149, for Hillebrandt's theory of na as affirmative (cf. Vedische Mythologie, ii, 236, n. 2); na gļhyaḥ is possible here.
8 Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 5, 7.
Head of the Ķc verses, highest member of the Yajus verses, pinnacle of the Sāmans, the supreme tonsure of the Atharvans, he who studies not the Veda, him they call ignorant. Cleaving his head, he makes himself a corpse.3 (1.)
'He is but a pillar indeed who bears a burden, who repeats the Veda without knowing the meaning. Who knows the meaning alone wins prosperity. He goes to heaven, shaking off sin through knowledge.'4 (2.)
Adhyāya XV. Om. Then follows the line of teachers. Honour to Brahman, honour to the teachers !
We have learnt it from Guņākhya Sankhāyana, Guņākhya Śānkhāyana from Kahola Kauşītaki, Kahola Kausītaki from Uddālaka Aruņi, Uddālaka Āruņi from Priyavrata Saumāpi,
i Cf. Chāndogya Upanişad, vii, 11, 6. 2 Cf. the title, Atharvaširas, of an early Atharvan Upanişad, Bloomfield, S.B.E., xlii, p. xlvii.
3 Cf. J.R.A.S., 1908, pp. 383, 384. For mundamunda, apparently an intensive Āmredita, cf. Wackernagel, Altind. Gramm., ii, 1, 147, 148 ; Macdonell, Vedic Grammar, p. 155. Cf. the Mundaka Upanişad ; Deussen, Sechzig Upanishad's, pp. 544, 545, which may possibly have been known to the writer of this late verse just as the Atharvasiras may have been known.
4 Cf. Yāska, Nirukta, i, 18, and Roth, Erläuterungen, p. 19 ; Burnell, Samhitoparişad Brāhmana, p. 38; J.R.A.S., 1908, pp. 381, 382. As Colonel Jacob has reminded me, the second verse in Yáska occurs slightly altered in the introduction to the Mahābhāsya.
5 The shortness of the Vamsa is in striking contrast to the lists of the Bșhadāranyaka and Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa Upanişads, and shows the impossibility of using such lists for chronology. For Kahola, see Bșhadāranyaka Upanişad, iii, 5, 1 (Kahoda in Mādhyandina); for Uddālaka, Oldenberg, Buddha, E. T., p. 396; for Priyavrata Somāpi (or Saumāpi), Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii, 34; for Brhaddivá, Rși of RV., x, 120, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iv, 14; for Visvamanas and Vyaśva, Ludwig, Rgveda, iii, 106 ; Oldenberg, Z.D.M.G., xlii, 217; for Sākamaśva, Ārşeya Brāhmaṇa, i, 7; for Viśvāmitra, Ludwig, iii, 121.
Privarraa Saznapi · from Saada Siziga trom Sos Prataveya, Sma Prat Teáta tros Prattesta. Pratirests from Brandre, Bikandita trom Surat Surnar from Cadā laka, Civaka tron Tissamaa, Tiétabatas from Trasta, rasva train Sakamsára Derarāta, Devarata from Visvamitra, Vistamitra from Indra, Iudra fronn Prajavati, Prajapati from Brahman, Brahman'n., is self-esistent. Honour to Brahman, honour to Braian:
The Parin MS. resis Sca, as does a Benares MS. datei sarat 1993. Ve entre of which I tare just learned through tbe kindness of Dr. P. Cru Sobrevier. Diretor of the Adrar Library, Mairas, bo writes
Juny 24, 1914;: * Adoraras i-s are=Karsak tanisad the Nahávrata Wation being about, then fo.10*5 Samhitopanişad as Adträra viii, the simplified Chinoora as Adhrava ir, etc. Ai nii the counting of the Ain yayas Cases ... There seerns to be some connection with the Burlivan MS." Prom Somapa, Saunapi would be regular Whitney, Monskrit Grammar, D. 487.
2 The Berlin and Benares MSS. hare Soma, the Bodleian Sauma.
The Mahāvrata. In the accepted system of the Vedic sacrifices the Mahāvrata forms the second last day of the Gavāmayana Sattra, which lasts a year and is a symbol of the year. There can, however, be no doubt that this position of the day is rather artificial, and that the Mahāvrata marks the commencement of the year. The priestly ingenuity, which has transferred the Mahāvrata to the second last day of the year, has created a duplicate in the Caturviņśa, the second day of the Gavāmayana, but it is easy to see through so obvious a manipulation.
Much more obscure is the relation of the Mahāvrata and the Vişuvant day, which in the accepted system is reckoned as the middle of the Gavāmayana. Professor Hillebrandt 1 has expressed the view that the Vişuvant and the Mahāvrata have been changed in place by the priests, and that originally the Mahāvrata fell on the Summer solstice, and the Vișuvant began the year at the Winter solstice. The view is extremely plausible and supported by strong arguments, so that it deserves full and careful consideration.
Now it is quite certain that the accepted ritualistic view places the Mahāvrata at the Winter solstice. The Kausitaki Brāhmaṇa,” for example, explicitly says that it occurs at the moment when the sun, after going south for six months, stops, as it is about to turn for the north. It has, indeed, been suggested that the six monthly periods refer to the equinoxes, but I consider that Dr. Thibaut : has once and for all disposed of this argument, which in any case would not affect Professor Hillebrandt's position. It remains, therefore, to seek for
i See Hillebrandt, Rom. Forsch., V, 299 seq.; Vedische Opfer und Zauber, pp. 157, 158 ; Vedische Mythologie, iii, 216. Oldenberg, Religion des Veda, p. 444, rejects the theory of change of date, but gives no reasons. 2 xix, 3.
3 Ind. Ant., xxiv, 85 seq.
evidence showing that another dating of the Mahāvrata was possible.
A sign of this has been seen by Professor Hillebrandt in the statement in the Pancaviņóa Brāhmaṇal that the Mahāvrata should be placed in the middle of the year. But the statement is not accepted by the Brāhmaṇa as correct, and as it is characteristic of the Brāhmaṇa style to make every sort of vague suggestion before arriving at the facts, it is not even possible to say that any Brahminical school, much less the people, ever reckoned the Mahāvrata at the Summer solstice.
More important is a second argument derived from the assignment of Sāmans to the Mahāvrata in the Sānkhāyana Srauta Sūtra.? That Sūtra ascribes to that day the Bịhat, Mahādivākirtya, and Rathantara Sāmans, and Professor Hillebrandt shows that the Bịhat is made up of hymns and verses addressed for the most part, though not in all cases, to Indra, the Mahādivākirtya of hymns and verses addressed to Sūrya. Now both the Maitrāyaṇi Samhitās and the Taittiriya Brāhmaṇao connect the Vișuvant with the Divākīrtya or Mahādivākīrtya Sāman, and it is therefore suggested that the presence of this Sāman in the Mahāvrata is merely the result of contamination of the rites, and that originally to the Mahāvrata and the Vişuvant respectively belonged the Bșhat and the Mahādivākīrtya Sāmans, connected the one with Indra, the other with Sūrya. Now prayers to Sūrya are most naturally connected with the efforts required at the Winter solstice to rescue the sun from destruction and death, while Indra's season is the breaking of the monsoon about the Summer solstice, when he overcomes Vrtra, the demon of drought, and waxes great.5 A further support for this argument is derived from the third of the Sāmans assigned to the Mahāvrata by Sānkhāyana, the Rathantara. That Sāman was, it is held, originally, in place of the Mahādivākirtya, the Sāman of the Vișuvant, and as it is evidently connected with the sun—its very name 'wheelimpelling' reminding us of the wheels used in Schleswig at
i iv, 10, 3; cf. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i, 2, 6. 2 xi, 13, 21 seq.
siv, 8, 10. 5 Aitareya Aranyaka, i, 1, 1, with my note.
4 1, 2, 3, 1.