« PreviousContinue »
(vv. 36-40) verses he should bind on a splinter 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.)
Adhyaya 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,' 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. 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
' I read mahāvarohasya (°varāhasya MSS.), a word hitherto only known from lexica, and udoha I regard as a derivative of ūh, cf. udūha in Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii, 8, 4, 3 (besom ?). Splinters are often used in such rites, Bloomfield, S.B.E., xlii, 291, etc.
The vāpi distinctly makes this a third alternative, perhaps wrongly. 3 Cf. J.R.A.S., 1908, p. 382. For punarmộtyu, see Lévi, La Doctrine du Sacrifice, pp. 93 seq.
* Cf. Brhadāranyaka Upanişad, iv, 5, 6 (= ii, 4, 5). 5 Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 4, 25. 6 Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 4, 28. ? Cf. Bịhadāranyaka, iv, 4, 27 (with agrhyaḥ); Deussen, Phil. of the Upanishads, p. 149, for Hillebrandt's theory of na as affirmative (cf. Vedische Mythologie, ii
, 236, n. 2); na grhyaḥ is possible here. * Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 5, 7. • Cf. Brhadāranyaka, iv, 5, 19.
than that, more than that,' is the teaching. This Upanişad he should declare to be the head of the Veda in very truth. This is declared in a Ro:
* 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.' (2.)
Om. Then follows the line of teachers. Honour to Brahman, honour to the teachers !
We have learnt it from Gunākhya Śänkhāyana, Guņākhya Śānkhāyana from Kahola Kauşītaki, Kahola Kauşītaki from Uddālaka Āruņi, Uddālaka Āruņi from Priyavrata Saumāpi, Priyavrata Saumāpi' from Somapa, Somapa from Soma ? Prātiveśya, Soma Prātiveśya from Prativeśya, Prativesya from Bịhaddiva, Bșhaddiva from Sumnayu, Sumnayu from Uddālaka, Uddālaka from Visvamanas, Viśvamanas from Vyasva, Vyasva from Sākamasva Devarāta, Devarāta from Viśvāmitra, Viśvāmitra from Indra, Indra from Prajāpati, Prajāpati from Brahman, Brahman(n.) is self-existent. Honour to Brahman, honour to Brahman !
1 Cf. Chāndogya Upanişad, vii, 11, 6.
2 Cf. the title, Atharvasiras, 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 Atharvaširas may have been known.
4 Cf. Yāska, Nirukta, i, 18, and Roth, Erläuterungen, p. 19; Burnell, Samhitopanişad Brāhmaṇa, 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 Mahābhāșya.
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 Brhadāranyaka 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 Bșhaddiva, Rși of RV., x, 120, Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iv, 14; for Visvamanas and Vyaśya, Ludwig, ægveda, iii, 106; Oldenberg, Z.D.M.G., xlii, 217; for Sākamaśva, Ārşeya Brāhmaṇa, i, 7; for Viśvāmitra, Ludwig, iii, 121.
1 The Berlin MS. reads Somāpi, as does a Benares MS. dated samvat 1663, of the existence of which I have just learned through the kindness of Dr. F. Otto Schrader, Director of the Adyar Library, Madras, who writes (July 24, 1908): “Adhyāyas i-v are=Kauşītaki Upanişad (the Mahāvrata section being absent), then follows Samhitopanişad as Adhyāya viii, the simplified Chāndogya as Adhyāya ix, etc. At xii the counting of the Adhyāyas ceases There seems to be some connection with the Bodleian MS." From Somapa, Saumapi would be regular (Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar, p. 466).
2 The Berlin and Benares MSS. have 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 Vișuvant 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 Kauşītaki 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 evidence showing that another dating of the Mahāvrata was possible.
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.
A sign of this has been seen by Professor Hillebrandt in the statement in the Pañcavimóa 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 Śrauta Sūtra.? That Sūtra ascribes to that day the Bșhat, Mahādivākirtya, and Rathantara Sāmans, and Professor Hillebrandt shows that the Bșhat 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 Brāhmaṇa+ connect the Vișuvant with the Divākīrtya or Mahādivākirtya 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 Vișuvant respectively belonged the Bịhat and the Mahādivākīrtya Sāmans, connected the one with Indra, the other with Sürya. 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 Vịtra, the demon of drought, and waxes great. 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
1 iv, 10, 3 ; cf. Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i, 2, 6. xi, 13, 21 seq.
3 iv, 8, 10. Aitareya Aranyaka, i, 1, 1, with my note.
+ 1, 2, 3, 1.