Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c31: Chapter XXVI. The Ancient Brahmans and the Vedas

Ancient Indian Historical Tradition c31

Language
English

Chapter XXVI. The Ancient Brahmans and the Vedas

c31.2

Something may be discovered from historical tradition about the condition of the earliest brahmans and about the composition of the Rigveda and the other Vedas. Here we must premise that it is futile to expect to learn the truth about these matters from the priestly literature, because that was composed after the brahmans had put forward their pretensions about themselves and the Veda. Naturally they would set out therein their own version of what they then held (and what they wished others to believe) about these matters, and would say nothing that would stultify the same, as they actually did with regard to Viśvāmitra (pp. 60, 244). Facts or traditions that proved awkward for their developed pretensions would not be admitted, as has been pointed out with regard to Vyāsa (p. 10) and the kṣatriyan brahmans (p. 124). There was nothing strange in such conduct. It was simply what priesthood has not seldom done,¹ and the brahmans formed a priestly caste supreme in position and education, pride and influence. The views here put forward were not reached through any preconceived speculation, but evolved themselves gradually out of all the preceding investigation, and are all based on definite statements which are cited. They are all drawn from traditions, which could not have been fabricated in late times, as will appear, but are ancient, and of which the brahmans have been the custodians for more than two thousand years. They are a signal illustration of the fact, that the Puranic and Epic brahmans preserved ancient traditions, quite unconscious that those traditions often belied the brahmanic pretensions which were developed later (p. 61).

c31.3

¹ The present Bhaviṣya (p. 46) is a striking instance of what religious unscrupulousness is not ashamed to perpetrate.

c31.4

The accounts given in chapters XVII to XXII show what tradition discloses about ancient rishis and brahmans, with an attempt to fix their chronological position, the results of which are exhibited in pages 191-2. Those accounts bring out the following particulars touching the earliest positions of the great brahman families, and these particulars stand, even apart from that chronological scheme.

c31.5

The Vasiṣṭhas were connected originally and for long with Ayodhyā, and slightly with the junior kingdom of Videha. The Bhārgavas consisted of two branches, one derived from Cyavana and the other from Uśanas-Śukra. Cyavana was connected with Śaryāti and the country of Ānarta, and his descendants afterwards with the Haihayas who occupied the neighbouring region of the Narbada, when apparently the Śaryāta kingdom had fallen. Uśanas was the priest of the Daityas and Dānavas (or asuras) in mid North India, and his descendants disappeared. The earliest Āṅgirasas alleged (unless we reckon Bṛhaspati, the priest of the devas against Uśanas) were connected with Māndhātṛ king of Ayodhyā; the earliest Āṅgirasa rishi named was connected with Hariścandra king of Ayodhyā; and the earliest definite Āṅgiras was priest to the Vaiśālī dynasty, and so also were his near descendants. The earliest Ātreya, Prabhākara, was not connected as priest with any dynasty, though he married the daughters of the Paurava king Raudrāśva; and the first well-known Ātreya, Datta, became attached to the Haihaya king, after the Haihayas had broken with Cyavana’s descendants. The first mention of any Kāśyapa brahman occurs with Rāma Jāmadagnya the Bhārgava in Madhyadeśa. These were the five famous families that were brahmans from their beginning. The Agastyas arose later and their origin is uncertain, yet tradition connects them with the Dekhan. The other brahman families and gotras that sprang from kṣatriya stocks do not concern us here.

c31.6

It thus appears that of the true brahman families the earliest began with the Mānvas, as the Vasiṣṭhas at Ayodhyā and Cyavana’s branch of the Bhārgavas in Ānarta; or began with Daityas and Dānavas,¹ as Uśanas-Śukra’s branch of the Bhārgavas. Those that arose later began either with the Mānvas, as the Āṅgirasas in the Ayodhyā and Vaiśālī kingdoms; or with the outermost Aila race in the west, as the Ātreyas with the Haihayas; or later in Madhyadeśa, as the Kāśyapas with the Bhārgava Rāma Jāmadagnya; or in the Dekhan, as the Agastyas probably. Not a single brahman was connected as priest with any of the early Aila kings; merely three intermarriages are alleged, namely, Apnavāna’s with Nahuṣa’s daughter Ruci (p. 197), Yayāti’s with Uśanas’s daughter Devayānī (p. 86) and Prabhākara’s mentioned above. Thus the earliest brahmans were priests to the Mānvas or to the Daityas and Dānavas, but never to the early Ailas. Bṛhaspati, the so-called Āṅgirasa priest of the devas, makes no exception, for he is not connected as priest with any Aila. No brahman then was priest to an Aila, that is Aryan, king in the very earliest times (except in a few late brahmanical fables). ‘Mānava brahmans’¹ and ‘Mānava rishis’² are alluded to, but never I believe ‘Aila brahmans or rishis’.

c31.7

¹ Dānava rishis are mentioned, MBh iii, 169, 12101.

c31.8

¹ MBh i, 75, 3140.

c31.9

² Id. xiii, 150, 7107.

c31.10

This conclusion is not likely to have been the result of fabrication, and the negative argument is corroborated by the direct fact that tradition speaks of the earliest Aila kings actually opposing brahmans, but never says that any of the earliest Mānvas did so. Two occasions are alleged when early Mānva kings had disagreements with brahmans, namely, very early between Nimi and ‘Vasiṣṭha’ (p. 215), and much later between Marutta and Bṛhaspati (p. 157), and both arose, not through antagonism, but through injured friendship, because those brahmans failed to sacrifice as those kings desired. Quite different was the attitude of the earliest Aila kings. They are praised in general terms sometimes in fables; thus Purūravas is extolled,³ Nahuṣa and Yayāti made large gifts of cattle,⁴ and Yayāti helped the devas against the Daityas and Dānavas;⁵ but when spoken of in connexion with brahmans they are severely censured. So it is said that Purūravas made war on vipras and robbed them of their jewels, he was deaf to advice, and intoxicated with power perished through the curse of the maharṣis.⁶ Also he coveted the golden sacrificial floor of the rishis of Naimiṣa forest and was killed by them.⁷ His son Āyu was chosen by the rishis and behaved righteously;⁸ and it may be noted that he married the daughter of Svarbhānu, who was a Dānava and asura.¹ But his son Nahuṣa, who made no such alliance and married his own sister (p. 86), became intoxicated with pride,² made the rishis pay tribute and oppressed them grievously.³ Nothing of the kind is said about Yayāti, and he married Uśanas-Śukra’s daughter Devayānī and the Dānava king Vṛṣaparvan’s daughter,⁴ yet he was cursed by Uśanas on Devayānī’s complaint.⁵

c31.11

³ Vā 91, 1–4. Bḍ iii, 66, 1–4. Mat 24, 10–15, 20. Pad v, 12, 62–6, 71. Br 10, 1–4. Hv 26, 1363–6.

c31.12

⁴ MBh xiii, 81, 3806. Nahuṣa praised in a fable, id. 51.

c31.13

⁵ MBh vii, 63, 2295: xii, 29, 990: but it is not referred to in the account of the devāsura war that occurred early in his time before his marriage (Mat 25, 6 f; 27, 3 f: MBh i, 76, 3185 f; 78, 3281 f), and it is discredited in that he married the daughters of the Daitya priest Uśanas and the Dānava king Vṛṣaparvan (pp. 86–7).

c31.14

⁶ MBh i, 75, 3145–7. Cf. Mat 24, 18: Pad v, 12, 70.

c31.15

⁷ Vā 2, 14–23; confusedly 1, 188–92. Bḍ i, 2, 14–23; confusedly 1, 162–7. Śiv v, 2, 93–4.

c31.16

⁸ Vā 1, 191–2; 2, 23–4. Bḍ i, 1, 166–7 corrupt; 2, 23–4.

c31.17

¹ P. 85. Vā 1, 188; 68, 8, 22, 24. Bḍ iii, 6, 23–4.

c31.18

² MBh iii, 99. Rebuked by rishis, xii, 263, 9388–90.

c31.19

³ MBh i, 75, 3153. Cf. Pad v, 17, 179; 19, 141. Developed into a long brahmanical fable, MBh v, 10 to 17, which calls him abrahmanya (14, 469) and a hater of brahmans (17, 556), and glorifies Agastya (an anachronism) who turned him into a snake for his impiety. Told briefly, MBh xii, 344, 13214–6: xiii, 99, 4753 to 100, 4806. Alluded to, MBh iii, 103, 8777: Lg i, 29, 28. Freed therefrom by Yudhiṣṭhira, MBh iii, 178, 12386 to 181, 12533: xiii, 100, 4800–3—a necessary supplementary fable.

c31.20

⁴ Pp. 86–7. Also Vā 68, 23–4: Bḍ iii, 6, 23, 25.

c31.21

⁵ MBh i, 83, 3446 f. Mat 32, 23 f. Vā 93, 29. Viṣ iv, 10, 3–5.

c31.22

There can be no doubt that herein we have ancient tradition. The close connexion constantly asserted between Uśanas-Śukra and the Daityas and Dānavas ⁶ could not have been the product of later times, when the Bhārgavas were a renowned family and those people were regarded as demonic. So also as regards the early Ailas, because from them were descended the Yādavas and Pauravas, from the Yādavas sprang Kṛṣṇa, and from the Pauravas the famous Bhāratas. To praise Uśanas-Śukra ⁷ and these early Ailas ⁸ would be the natural inclination of after times; but to depict the latter as inimical to brahmans would be repugnant, hence the allusions that present them as such are specially noteworthy.

c31.23

⁶ Pp. 194–5. Accounts are given of the Daityas, Vā 67, 57 f; Bḍ iii, 5, 3 f; Mat 6, 7 f; Viṣ i, 21, 1–3, 13, 14; Pad v, 6, 40–8: and of the Dānavas, Vā 68, 1 f; Bḍ iii, 6, 1 f; Mat 6, 16 f; Viṣ i, 21, 4–13; Pad v, 6, 49–61.

c31.24

⁷ e.g. MBh xii, 281, 10025–9. Hv 20, 1159–78.

c31.25

⁸ e.g. Purūravas, Mat 13, 62: Br 101. Yayāti, Pad ii, 74; 75.

c31.26

Brahmanism then originally was not an Aila or Aryan institution. The earliest brahmans were connected with the non-Aryan peoples, and were established among them when the Ailas entered. This is corroborated by the close connexion that existed between them and the Daityas, Dānavas and asuras. It has just been pointed out as regards Uśanas-Śukra. The Dānava Śambara is represented as devoted to brahmans.¹ It is said that the Bhārgavas were purohitas to Hiraṇyakaśipu,² the original Daitya monarch,³ and that ‘Vasiṣṭha’ was his hotṛ.⁴ Further, it is often declared that Indra incurred the sin of brahmanicide by killing Vṛtra⁵ and Namuci,⁶ so that those two famous Dānavas were brahmans.⁷ The ideas, that brahmans were priests to demons, that demons themselves were brahmans, and that the chief of the gods incurred the most heinous sin by killing demons, were so grotesque, if not blasphemous, to orthodox brahmanism, that they could never have been imagined in later times, and are not, I believe, to be found in brahmanical literature. Indeed in the Rigveda Indra is often praised for slaying Vṛtra and other demons,⁸ so that these ideas must be more ancient still. In the Rigveda Uśanas (who is a figure of the distant past) was rehabilitated,⁹ and Indra’s sin of killing brahmans had become his great glory of destroying demons;¹⁰ so change had taken place before that, and tradition has preserved ideas more primitive than the hymns that speak of these matters.

c31.27

¹ MBh xiii, 36.

c31.28

² Viṣ i, 17, 48.

c31.29

³ MBh iii, 102, 8758; 271, 15834-5. Mat 161, 2. Pad v, 42, 2, 87. Hv 42, 2238-9; 231, 12610.

c31.30

⁴ MBh xii, 344, 13209-10 impliedly.

c31.31

⁵ MBh v, 12, 411-13: xii, 283, 10153-200. Rām vii, 85, 19; 86, 2. Cf. Br 122, 48-9. It is said, Vṛtra’s offspring were Rākṣasas and yet were brahmavid and dhārmika, Vā 68, 34-6: Bḍ iii, 6, 35-7.

c31.32

⁶ MBh ix, 44, 2430-44.

c31.33

⁷ Praised as righteous, Pad vi, 263, 19-21.

c31.34

⁸ Macdonell, Vedic Mythology, pp. 58 f.

c31.35

⁹ Id., p. 147.

c31.36

¹⁰ So also in fables of Indra’s killing Vṛtra, as Mat 172 to 178; Pad v, 37 and 38; Hv 43 to 49.

c31.37

There is nothing in the names of the great brahman families inconsistent with this conclusion. Kaśyapa may be non-Aryan, for it invites comparison with kaśipu in the name of the Daitya monarch Hiraṇyakaśipu. Aṅgiras and Atri might be non-Aryan quite as well as Aryan. The only names that ostensibly are Sanskrit are Bhṛgu and Vasiṣṭha, and yet strangely enough they are those that are most definitely connected with non-Aryans, for the Vasiṣṭhas were originally priests to the Mānavas of Ayodhyā, and the two earliest Bhṛgus were associated, Cyavana with the Mānavas of Ānarta, and Uśanas-Śukra with the Daityas and Dānavas. The Sanskritic look of their names then does not prove Aryan origin;

c31.38

and similarly many Daityas, Dānavas and Rākṣasas have names equally Sanskritic in appearance. Non-Aryan names appear to have been Sanskritized or translated into Sanskrit equivalents; indeed both processes prevailed.¹

c31.39

¹ e. g. see JRAS, 1913, pp. 396 f.

c31.40

What the very early brahmans were is evidenced by what is said about their doings. They are sometimes connected with sacrifices, especially in late tales and late versions of older stories,² but what is constantly associated with them is *tapas*, ‘austerities’. ³ That was their chief pursuit and main exercise, and its efficacy was in their belief to acquire superhuman powers which would enable them to dominate the natural and supernatural worlds: hence it is often alleged that by *tapas* they (and other men also⁴) gained from the gods the boons they wanted, or that the gods were terrified and endeavoured to break their *tapas*. It was in that age what sacrifice became afterwards.⁵ Their reputation rested on their claim to possess ‘occult’ faculties and powers and the popular belief that they possessed them. Thus it appears that the original brahmans were not so much priests as ‘adepts’ in matters supernatural, ‘masters’ of magico-religious force, wizards, medicine-men.⁶ Their reputation gave them very high rank, equal to that of their princes. They do not appear to have constituted a caste then. It is said brahmans were united (*saṅgata*) with kṣatriyas originally,⁷ and as shown (p. 244) there was no difficulty in early times in kṣatriyas’ becoming brahmans. Thus it is intelligible that intermarriages took place between the brahmans and the early Aila royal family.¹

c31.41

² Cf., for instance, in p. 254 the accounts of Manu’s sacrifice in Vā &c. (note ^1) with those in Viṣ &c. (note ^3) which introduce a priest.

c31.42

³ *Tapas* was first and *dharma* afterwards, MBh xiii, 98, 4692. Brahmans became perfect by *tapas*, id. 36, 2177: and so also kṣatriyas and others, Vā 91, 115–18; Bḍ iii, 66, 86–9. *Tapas* excelled sacrifice, Vā 57, 121–5; 91, 114: Bḍ ii, 30, 39–43: Mat 143, 37–41. *Tapas* modified through Buddhism (?), Vā 11, 9.

c31.43

⁴ The Dānavas were noted for *tapas*; see their character in Vā 68, 1–3 and Bḍ iii, 6, 1–3, where the Vā text appears preferable. The Daityas were drinkers of soma, but not the Dānavas, so Bḍ iii, 6, 14: differently in Vā 68, 14; but from the context Bḍ reading seems preferable and Vā corrupt.

c31.44

⁵ Macdonell, *Sansk. Lit.*, pp. 182–3.

c31.45

⁶ J. Kennedy expressed a somewhat similar view (JRAS, 1920, p. 40), after I reached this conclusion. Pad vi, 230, 20 says, ‘Of yore in the Kṛta age brahmans were *tapasvins*, a non-brahman was never a *tapasvin*’. Magical powers were ascribed to the earliest rishis and magical wiles to the Daityas and Dānavas. Cf. Hastings’ *Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics*, v, 1–2.

c31.46

⁷ MBh i, 75, 3139.

c31.47

¹ Bhāg ix, 18, 5 with the ideas of a late age wonders at Yayāti’s marriage with Śukra’s daughter (p. 86) as pratiloma.

c31.48

While tradition thus clearly indicates that brahmanism was alien to the earliest Ailas, it yet offers very little suggestion as to what their religious practices were. It is said that Purūravas obtained sacrificial fire from the Gandharvas, learnt the way of making fire from aśvattha firesticks and sacrificed therewith, and that out of that fire he himself constituted three separate fires.² He and his successors therefore performed sacrifices of some kind, and appear to have sacrificed for themselves, for nothing is said of any priests in connexion with them, except that in a few late brahmanical tales or additions brahmans are made their priests. Thus, the Ṣoḍaśa-rājika says³ that Yayāti offered multitudes of various sacrifices and lavished wealth on the brahmans, but its description shows by its sacrificial anachronisms that it has been elaborated by late brahmanic hands, and in fact it greatly overdoes its eulogy of the kings for brahmanism.

c31.49

² Vā 91, 40-8. Bd iii, 66, 19 (incomplete). Hv 26, 1402-10. A corresponding brahmanical fable, Hv 213, 11859-63. The three fires are not specified.

c31.50

³ P. 39. MBh vii, 63: xii, 29, 987-9.

c31.51

Marriage connexions tended to bring brahmans and the early Aila kings together and remove their antagonism, and Yayāti’s eldest brother Yati became a muni (p. 86). Further, the victorious expansion of the Ailas over the non-Aryans seriously affected the position and prestige of the brahmans and discredited their magical pretensions, so that those who adhered to the non-Aryans shared in their downfall and disappeared, as happened with Uśanas-Śukra’s descendants (p. 196). Hence regard for their own future would have inclined them towards the Ailas. That necessitated some assimilation of their religious beliefs and practices with those of the Ailas, and caused a gradual change from magic to religious worship, from medicine-man to priest proper.

c31.52

Approximation first appeared among the outermost Yādavas in the west, for Cyavana’s descendants (Bhārgavas) became priests to the Haihayas (pp. 197, 265), and, when they broke with the Haihayas, the Ātreyas succeeded to their position (pp. 198, 229).

c31.53

The Kāśyapas arose in Madhyadeśa after the Haihaya devastations (p. 232). During all that period the Paurava kingdom in Madhyadeśa was in abeyance, and there is no mention of any brahmans with the northern branch of the Yādavas (p. 261), or the Ānavas or the Druhyus. Later on, the Āṅgirasas, who appeared in the non-Aila kingdom of Vaiśālī, moved west to the Aila realm of Kāśi (p. 220) and then to the newly revived Paurava kingdom in the Ganges-Jumna doab in Bharata’s time, where they flourished greatly and admitted into their ranks the kṣatriyan brahmans who developed soon afterwards among his descendants (pp. 247 f). Kaṇva Kāśyapa was there in Duṣyanta’s time (p. 232). In fact, in the Ganges-Jumna doab, the region specially occupied by the Ailas, it was not until Duṣyanta’s and Bharata’s period that any brahman became connected with them as priest (p. 232).

c31.54

Those brahmans who associated with the Ailas thus became established and multiplied into the great brahman families, and the others disappeared or took lower rank,¹ except the Vasiṣṭhas who maintained their high position in the powerful Mānva kingdom of Ayodhyā. The Aila kings appear to have been their own sacrificers, and the brahmans on becoming established among them assimilated Aila religious ideas and rites and became priests, and Aila princes also became brahman-priests. Brahmanism thus gradually changed its character and became the well-known system, priestly and not magical,² which took its great development among the Bhāratas as displayed especially in the Rigvedic hymns of the times of Vadhryaśva, Divodāsa and their successors.³ It owed a great deal to Bharata and his descendants. He was a powerful and pious monarch, he adopted the brahman Bharadvāja as his son, and not only were his successors (p. 159) friendly to brahmans, but many of them also became brahmans (chapter XXIII). The infusion of royal scions into the ranks of the brahmans must have enhanced brahmanhood greatly and also no doubt modified it, and therefrom arose a fresh, vigorous and illustrious development of it with apparently a strong stimulus to sacrificial worship, as the statements infra about the Veda, sacrifice and dharma also indicate. The Ailas Aryanized the brahmans¹ as they did the other peoples, and then the new brahmanism became the stronghold of Aryanism.

c31.55

¹ As happened afterwards apparently with Vaiśvāmitras, pp. 235, note 8; 242, note 1. There is some substance in MBh xiii, 152, 7200-2. They no doubt degenerated into low-class priests, such as are found in S. India.

c31.56

² The magical character however never wholly left it, and gradually turned its new rites into the elaborate and practically magical sacrifices of the Brāhmaṇas.

c31.57

³ Pp. 120, 251. Cf. Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 65.

c31.58

¹ This may explain the fact that these princes became brahmans and kṣatriyan brahmans without difficulty (p. 245).

c31.59

Another conclusion follows from this exposition. Bhārgavas and Ātreyas became priests first to Aila kings in W. India, but, broadly speaking, brahmans did not become priests to Aila kings elsewhere until about the time of Duṣyanta and Bharata; and the table on pp. 144-7 shows that by that time the Ailas (Aryans) had dominated the whole of N. India (excluding the three Mānva kingdoms) and the NW. Dekhan, that is, they had reached their full expansion except in distant outlying regions. The brahmans thus had little to do with the Aryan conquest, and in fact it proceeded in great measure against them while they were associated with non-Aryans. It was the Aila kṣatriyas who achieved the whole, and the brahmans joined them when that was practically effected. Hence one reason is clear why, as noticed above (pp. 8, 9), it is kṣatriya genealogies, and they alone, which give an account how the Aryan domination took place, and why the brahmanic literature has really nothing to say about that great transformation. Where the brahmans did claim some credit, as in the story of Māthava, king of Videgha (Videha), and his priest Gotama Rāhūgaṇa,² it does not refer to the Ailas, for Videha was a Mānva kingdom.

c31.60

² Śatapatha Brāhm i, 4, 10-19. See p. 224, note ¹³. It is a fable, for it is discredited by tradition about Videha as narrated in chap. XXIV; and, if Agni Vaiśvānara went burning along the earth from the Sarasvatī to Videha, Agni burnt over the Paurava territory (including N. Pañcāla) and the Ayodhyā realm, two of the most famous and best cultivated regions even in early times—which is absurd. If it enshrines any historical truth, it might mean that the reformed brahmanism passed from the Bhārata kingdom to Ayodhyā and then to Videha.

c31.61

The foregoing sketch has explained the development of brahmanism in its general aspect, and we may now consider what an examination of the reputed authorship of the Rigvedic hymns discloses.³ A small number are attributed (putting aside seemingly mythological beings such as Triśiras Tvāṣṭra¹ and Ariṣṭanemi Tārkṣya) to very early kings such as Manu Vaivasvata,² Nābhānediṣṭha Mānava,³ Śāryāta Mānava,⁴ Vatsaprī Bhālandana⁵ and Mandhātṛ Yauvanāśva;⁶ or to very ancient rishis who are not free from myth such as Cyavana Bhārgava,⁷ Kavi Bhārgava⁸ and Uśanas Kāvya;⁹ but when hymns are ascribed to truly historical rishis, none are earlier than Viśvāmitra’s time. The chronological list (p. 191) shows that the earliest really historical rishi-authors were Viśvāmitra, his sons Madhucchandas, Śunaḥśepa-Devarāta, &c., and Jamadagni. With his time then we enter definitely upon the true Vedic age, and all the other reputed authors who were historical were later, as has been shown with regard to the prominent rishis in that list and the kings in the earlier list (pp. 144 f).

c31.62

³ The making of hymns was not confined to brahmans, for it is said that among kṣatriyas Manu and Purūravas Aila were mantra-vādins, and among vaiśyas Bhalandana, Vatsa or Vāsāśva (read Vatsaprī?) and Saṅkila were hymn-makers : Mat 145, 115-17: Bd ii, 32, 120-2. See p. 97.

c31.63

¹ Alleged son of Tvāṣṭṛ Bhārgava, p. 196 and MBh v, 8, 222. ² viii, 27 to 31. ³ x, 61, 62. ⁴ x, 92. ⁵ ix, 68: x, 45, 46? P. 97. ⁶ x, 134. ⁷ x, 19. ⁸ ix, 47 to 49; 75 to 79? ⁹ viii, 84; ix, 87 to 89? ¹⁰ MBh v, 107, 3770. Professor Hopkins says no tradition associates the ancient literature with the Panjab (JAOS, xix, 20); and his disillusioned remarks there about the Panjab point towards a more easterly region—as tradition declares.

c31.64

Further, the most ancient kings and rishis above-mentioned, to whom hymns are attributed, were not Ailas. The kings were all Mānvas, and the rishis were connected with the Mānvas or with Daityas and Dānavas. Only one hymn is ascribed to an early Aila, viz. x, 95 to Purūravas, yet it was obviously not composed by him but by some later author, just as were x, 10 and 86. Not a single other hymn is attributed to any early Aila king until Śivi Auśīnara (x, 179) and Gāthi or Gādhi (iii, 19 to 22). The hymns therefore that are said to be the most ancient are ascribed to Mānvas and their rishis, and not to Ailas. Those Mānva kings all reigned at Ayodhyā or in the Vaiśālī realm, that is, in the eastern region, except Śāryāta who was in the west. No hymns are assigned to any one who lived in the north-west until Śivi. These facts supply ground for the declaration that the Vedas were first chanted in the eastern region¹⁰—not in the north-west. They are significant facts which must be accounted for on the current view, that the Aryans entered India from the north-west and composed the Rigvedic hymns in the Panjab country. They rather suggest that the making of hymns passed with the above described approximation of the brahmans to the Ailas; and it is probable that the Aila Viśvāmitra on becoming a brahman modified the older and perhaps cruder brahmanic character and functions; and, if so, the difference would have accentuated the hostility that Vasiṣṭha (who was a Mānva brahman) showed to his brahmanhood (p. 244). The fact that those earliest Mānva hymns appear now in Sanskrit does not disprove their non-Aila origin, for they would naturally have been Sanskritized in the course of time, as has been noticed above with regard to non-Aryan names.

c31.65

The next great stage in the composition of the hymns began with the above-mentioned development of brahmanism in connexion with sacrifice after Bharata’s time, culminating with the rishis, Nos. 49 &c. in the chronological list (p. 191). The bulk of the Rigvedic hymns date from after that period. His territory included the tract between the rivers Dṛṣadvatī and Sarasvatī, and he sacrificed on the latter,¹ which was a large river then. That region probably had some sanctity before, for on the Sarasvatī was Uśanas-Śukra’s tīrtha Kapālamocana,² and the river constituted the boundary between the Panjab and the Ganges-Jumna basin,³ whether it flowed into the Rājputana desert, or especially if the sea extended northwards into that desert then (p. 299). That region was held by Bharata’s successors till long afterwards, and the connexion with them and their development of brahmanism apparently made it become specially sacred.⁴ This is supported by the general statement (ignoring special māhātmyas) that the most sacred region in the Kṛta age was Naimiṣa forest, in the Tretā Puṣkara, in the Dvāpara Kurukṣetra, and in the Kali age the Ganges.⁵ Naimiṣa was on the R. Gomatī⁶ in the Ayodhyā kingdom, thus the site of earliest sanctity in India is placed among the Mānvas in the eastern region. So the brahmans whom Purūravas came into special conflict with were the rishis of Naimiṣa as mentioned above. The Dvāpara age began between Divodāsa’s and Sudās’s times (p. 177), Kuru reigned early in it (p. 148), from him the region of the Sarasvatī obtained the name Kurukṣetra, and so both became specially sacred in that age.¹ The region was called Brahmāvarta also,² though from what time is not clear.

c31.66

¹ MBh vii, 68, 2384-5 : xii, 29, 939-40.

c31.67

² P. 197 and MBh iii, 83, 7005-7.

c31.68

³ See geographical remarks by J. Kennedy, JRAS, 1919, pp. 503-5.

c31.69

⁴ Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 174. Vedic Index i, 374.

c31.70

⁵ Mat 106, 57. Kūr i, 37, 37. &c.

c31.71

⁶ Vā 2, 8-9. Bḍ i, 2, 8-9. MBh iii, 87, 8301-3: xii, 357, 13801.

c31.72

¹ Later brahmanic tales of course ignored this, and carried the river’s special sanctity back to the earliest times, e. g. Br 101.

c31.73

² Manu ii, 17, 19. Other names, MBh iii, 83, 5074, 7073-8.

c31.74

Brahmanism thus appears to have developed in accordance with Aila ideas, and to have owed much of its advance to the influence of kṣatriyas,³ first, of Viśvāmitra and his sons, and afterwards mainly of the Bhārata princes and kṣatriyan brahmans. It continued to flourish in harmony with later kings of that family, and consolidated its position as a caste, especially in connexion with sacrifice. That such Aila influences did produce modifications is suggested by the remarkable statements made in the Rāmāyaṇa (which can hardly have been the outcome of later brahmanical views); first, that, while eastern and southern kings and kings of the distant Panjab were invited to Daśaratha’s sacrifice at Ayodhyā, none of the neighbouring Paurava (Bhārata) and Yādava kings, who flourished then in all the middle region of N. India (pp. 170-2, 276), were invited; and secondly, that Daśaratha called in the help, not of brahmans from Madhyadeśa, but of the rustic Ṛṣyaśṛṅga from Aṅga.⁴ It was at that time that the great development of brahmanism had taken place among the Bhāratas. Ayodhyā and the Vasiṣṭhas had no association then with that brahmanically élite region. Brahmanism as it took shape under the Bhāratas apparently differed from that at Ayodhyā. Moreover all those brahmans had little in common with the non-Aryan tribes of the Dekhan (though Dekhan kings were invited to the sacrifice), as is suggested by the maltreatment of munis by Rākṣasas in the story of Rāma, for estrangement grew into hostility, which when developed was portrayed in the frequent stories how rishis were afflicted by such folk stigmatized and mythologized as demonic—a view which was carried back into earlier times in later brahmanic stories. Ultimately brahmanism as developed among the Bhāratas became the dominant form.

c31.75

³ Vedic Index ii, 87. There is no good reason to doubt that brahmans learnt from princes; see ante, p. 96.

c31.76

⁴ For his alleged upbringing and qualifications, see MBh iii, 110, 9990 f; Rām i, 9 and 10. See p. 164.

c31.77

Tradition supplies some indications touching the compilation of the Veda. Although the later theory was that the Vedas issued from Brahmā's mouths at the beginning of creation (p. 30), yet other statements occur which betray some recollection of their real commencement. Thus it is said,¹ that the mantras were put together (samhita) in the Tretā age;² that the Vedas were put together at the beginning of the Tretā age and were arranged in the Dvāpara age;³ and that sacrifice (yajña) was instituted at the same time,⁴ and so dharma was constituted then.⁵ This taken literally is erroneous, because tradition suggests that the Tretā age began about Sagara's time, and most of the rishis who composed the great bulk of the hymns were much later.⁶ According to that reckoning Viśvāmitra and his sons (with whom began the real Vedic age, as mentioned above) lived towards the close of the Kṛta age, and so also Jamadagni; Ucathya, Bṛhaspati and Saṃvarta lived at its end; Dīrghatamas and the first Bharadvāja at the beginning of the Tretā, and the earliest Ātreya hymn-makers about the same time. The above statements however would be true to this extent, that the hymns composed by these rishis would have formed incipient collections (saṃhitās) among the Viśvāmitras, Bhārgavas, Āṅgirasas and Ātreyas about the commencement of the Tretā age. The alleged institution of sacrifice then agrees with the remarks above about its development soon after Bharata's time.

c31.78

¹ These statements are noteworthy, though they occur in a fanciful description of the Tretā age, Vā 57, 39 f; Bḍ ii, 29, 43 f; Mat 142, 40 f. It is relegated to the Svāyambhuva manvantara, but obviously belongs to historical time, as the introduction of king Vasu Caidya-uparicara shows, see eighth note infra.

c31.79

² Vā 57, 47, 60, 83. Mat 142, 48, 55, 56, 75. Bḍ ii, 29, 52, 65, 66, 90.

c31.80

³ Vā 57, 47. Bḍ ii, 29, 52. Mat 142, 48. Similarly, Vā 58, 10–11; Bḍ ii, 31, 11; (Mat 144, 10–11 varies). Cf. Lg i, 39, 56–7: Kūr i, 29, 43.

c31.81

⁴ Vā 57, 61, 86, 89. Bḍ ii, 29, 66; 30, 1, 5. Mat 142, 56; 143, 1, 5. Cf. Lg i, 39, 51: Gar i, 215, 8.

c31.82

⁵ Vā 57, 63, 81. Bḍ ii, 29, 68, 88–9. Mat 142, 58, 74. Cf. Vā 58, 5; Mat 144, 5: Bḍ ii, 31, 5 different.

c31.83

⁶ P. 177; and chronological lists, pp. 144–9 and 191–2.

c31.84

Those collections would have grown with the fresh hymns composed by later rishis⁷ and especially during the great advance of brahmanism under the various branches of the Bhāratas, when and by whom sacrificial rites appear to have been largely developed¹ as the hymns show. Tradition does not indicate any marked stage for a long time afterwards, except that it suggests,² that in the time of Vasu Caidya-uparicara (pp. 118, 149) the question became acute, whether animals should be offered in sacrifices or only inanimate things. He was the foremost monarch of his day. He was appealed to as an authority on dharma, and declared that the practice of sacrificing animals was quite permissible, and so incurred the anger of brahmans who asserted the doctrine of *ahiṃsā*;³ though it is said he made a great sacrifice in which nothing living was offered.⁴

c31.85

⁷ Definitions of ṛṣi, paramarṣi, maharṣi, ṛṣika or ṛṣiputraka, and śrutarṣi, Vā 59, 79 f; Bḍ ii, 32, 86 f; Mat 145, 81 f.

c31.86

¹ Cf. Vā 57, 125; Bḍ ii, 30, 48; Mat 143, 42; and fourth note above. Rigv iv, 43 and 44 are attributed to Purumīḷha and Ajamīḷha, Sauhotras, who were no doubt king Ajamīḍha and his brother Purumīḍha, p. 112.

c31.87

² Vā 57, 91–121. Bḍ ii, 30, 9–48. Mat 143, 5–37. MBh xiv, 91, 2828–35. All in fabulous form.

c31.88

³ Kūr i, 29, 41 makes the doctrine begin in the Tretā age.

c31.89

⁴ MBh xii, 338, 12754–63, in a fable, 337, 12712 to 339, 12859.

c31.90

The next stage to be noticed is that the division of *ṛc*, *yajus* and *sāman* had apparently come into existence before the time of Hiraṇyanābha, king of Kosala, because he and his disciple, king Kṛta, constructed *saṃhitās* of *sāmans*, which were called the ‘eastern *sāmans*’,⁵ and the chanters of them were called Kārtas (p. 173). Here also appears the influence of kṣatriyas. This and the following compilation were in the Dvāpara age, and the statement above that the Vedas were arranged in that age is true.

c31.91

⁵ Here would apply the statement that the Vedas were first chanted in the eastern region (p. 312), if the word ‘chanted’ be emphatic.

c31.92

By the time of king Brahmadatta of S. Pañcāla (pp. 148, 165) the collections of hymns appear to have been largely constituted, for they were definitely combined into a whole by his two ministers,⁶ Kaṇḍarīka (or Puṇḍarīka) and Subālaka (or Gālava) Bābhravya Pañcāla.⁷ Kaṇḍarīka is described as *dvi-veda*, *chandoga* and *adhvaryu*,⁸ and as the promulgator (*pravartaka*) of the Veda-śāstra.⁹ Bābhravya Pañcāla was *bahvṛca* and *ācārya*¹⁰ and knew all the śāstras;¹¹ he composed the Śikṣā¹ and instituted it;² he also devised the Krama, mastered it thoroughly and instituted it.³ This tradition is corroborated by the statement in Vedic literature that Bābhravya Pāñcāla was the author of the Kramapāṭha of the Ṛk-saṃhitā,⁴ though it gives no clue to his position or time.

c31.93

⁶ Hv 20, 1049–50; 23, 1256–7; 24, 1303–4. Mat 20, 24; 21, 30–1. Pad v, 10, 69, 116–17. MBh xii, 344, 13262–4. He, his mother, queen and ministers were all devotees of yoga. The folk-tale (p. 250, note ⁴) is told of him and the two ministers.

c31.94

⁷ Called Pāñcika, Hv 23, 1256.

c31.95

⁸ Hv 23, 1257. Śiv vii, 64, 10.

c31.96

⁹ Mat 21, 31. Pad v, 10, 117 misreading Vaidya°.

c31.97

¹⁰ Hv 23, 1257. Śiv vii, 64, 9.

c31.98

¹¹ Mat 21, 30. Pad v, 10, 116.

c31.99

¹ Hv 20, 1049; 24, 1304.

c31.100

² Praṇī, MBh xii, 344, 13263.

c31.101

³ Praṇī, ibid. 13262-3: Hv 20, 1049; 24, 1304: Mat 21, 30 and Pad v, 10, 116 (both which misread Kāmaśāstra for Kramapāṭha). The Padapāṭha would have been older, Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 50-1.

c31.102

⁴ Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., p. 34, showing the error of the above reading Kāmaśāstra, it being also inconsistent with the character of these persons as devotees of yoga (ninth note above). The error is explained by Vātsyāyana’s statement in his kāmasūtra i, that Śvetaketu composed a work on kāma, it was abridged by Bābhravya Pāñcāla, and he studied Bābhravya’s work. It is shown from many passages (pp. 164-6, and next chap.) that Brahmadatta (and therefore his minister Bābhravya) was long prior to Śvetaketu, and Vātsyāyana’s single statement making his Bābhravya posterior to Śvetaketu cannot, by identifying the two Bābhravyas, override that finding; for he wrote eight or nine centuries later than Śvetaketu (Vātsyāyana—the Author of the Kāmasūtra; by Haranchandra Chakladar: Journ. of Depart. of Letters, Calc. Univ., vol. IV). His Bābhravya was clearly another, later than Śvetaketu. There is nothing improbable in this, because Babhru was a very common name (see the Index, and also Vedic Index), and therefore Bābhravya also; and two Bābhravyas of Pañcāla some four or five centuries apart are nothing surprising after what has been pointed out in chap. XI. The Mat and Pad have confused the two, and altered the earlier Bābhravya’s work, the Kramapāṭha, to the latter’s, a Kāmaśāstra. This is only another instance of the confusion of persons of the same name, so often pointed out (pp. 130-4, 203-4, 213, 234, &c.).

c31.103

These statements say Rigvedic hymns had been made into a collection by Kaṇḍarīka. His epithets dvi-veda, chandoga and adhvaryu mean (I take it) that he was specially proficient in the sāman and yajus departments. Bābhravya, working apparently on that collection, applied himself specially to the Rigveda as his epithet bahvṛca suggests, and composed the Śikṣā and devised the Kramapāṭha. Tradition thus declares that the first substantial compilation and study of the hymns of the Veda in its triple departments of ṛc, yajus and sāman were made in S. Pañcāla by these two brahman ministers of Brahmadatta,⁵ whose position may be estimated as about a century and a half before the Bhārata battle (pp. 148, 164-5). But Kaṇḍarīka’s compilation was not the Veda as we have it now, first, because certain hymns, such as Devāpi’s for instance (x, 98: p. 165), could not have been included since they were later; and secondly, because tradition is unanimous that Vyāsa ‘arranged’ the Veda, which means a real arrangement of the Veda as it was finally settled.

c31.104

⁵ He and they are in the transmigrations, p. 250, note ⁴.

c31.105

The final compilation was made after Devāpi’s time and not until that of Vyāsa, who followed him by about half a century, because hymns are attributed to Asita or Devala, and Devala was a contemporary of the Pāṇḍavas (p. 233) and so of Vyāsa. Vyāsa¹ must have added all the hymns that were incorporated latest, and completed the canon. Tradition entirely supports this. It says generally that he arranged the Veda,² he divided the Veda into four,³ he divided the four-pāda Veda into four;⁴ and there are explicit statements that he compiled the Rigveda.⁵ Both tradition and the latest hymns in the Rigveda therefore show the time when the canon was established, and tradition proclaims the man by whom that was done. Only a rishi of commanding ability, knowledge and eminence could have made it a canon accepted unquestioningly thereafter, and that is exactly the character and position which tradition unanimously attributes to Vyāsa, a rishi pre-eminent above all others.⁶ He would probably have completed that work about a quarter of a century before the Bhārata battle, that is, about 980 B. C. (p. 182). The priestly literature has suppressed all these facts (p. 10).

c31.106

¹ Learning from Jātūkarṇya, p. 217.

c31.107

² Vā 60, 12; 61, 77. Bḍ ii, 34, 12; 35, 86. Kūr i, 52, 9-10. Śiv v, 1, 33. Cf. Bhāg xii, 6, 49-50: Br 158, 33-5.

c31.108

³ Vā 58, 11; 73, 17. Bḍ iii, 10, 69. Mat 144, 11. Ag 150, 23-4.

c31.109

⁴ Vā 1, 179; 77, 75. Bḍ iii, 13, 77. Hv 42, 2365. Kūr i, 29, 43. Lg i, 39, 56-7. Gar i, 215, 11. Viṣ iii, 4, 2, 6, 7, 14, 15.

c31.110

⁵ Vā 60, 19 and Bḍ ii, 34, 19 say:—

c31.111

⁶ He was venerated as an incarnation of Viṣṇu, Vā 1, 42-3; Kūr i, 30, 66; Gar i, 87, 59; &c.: also of Śiva, Kūr ii, 11, 136: and of Brahmā, Vā 77, 74-5; Bḍ iii, 13, 76: and as Brahmā’s son, Lg ii, 49, 17.

c31.112

There is no definite tradition about the Atharvaveda, but some statements throw light on it.

c31.113

First, as regards its names. The early mention of its songs occurs under the names Atharvāṇas and Aṅgirasas, and the oldest

c31.114

tataḥ sa ṛca uddhṛtya Ṛgvedaṃ samakalpayat.

c31.115

So also Viṣ iii, 4, 13, substituting kṛtavān muniḥ for samakalpayat. Similarly Kūr i, 52, 16, but corruptly.

c31.116

name is *Atharvāṅirasas*.¹ Now tradition calls the earliest certain Aṅgiras *Atharvan Aṅgiras* (p. 218), and these two names and the compound of both are virtually the same appellation. The *Atharvāṅirasa* rishis began in the kingdom of Vaiśālī (p. 219), that is, among the Mānvas and not the Ailas. The hymns are also specially connected with the Bhṛgus,² who were originally associated with the Mānvas, and so the ancient Bhārgava Uśanas, the teacher of the Daityas (that is, non-Ailas) is called *Atharvaṇāṁ nidhis*.³ It is said there was a Vasiṣṭha named Atharvan, and the appellation Atharvanidhi is given to two Vasiṣṭhas (p. 207); and the Vasiṣṭhas belonged to the Mānvas of Ayodhyā. All these names therefore connect these songs with the Mānvas and not the Ailas, and mainly with the eastern region (p. 312).

c31.117

¹ Weber, *Hist. of Ind. Lit.*, pp. 148–9. Macdonell, *Sansk. Lit.*, p. 189. *Vedic Index* i, 18. Vā 90, 12. Bḍ iii, 65, 12. Hv 25, 1323.

c31.118

² Weber, p. 148. Macdonell, p. 189. Cf. Vā 29, 9; Bḍ ii, 12, 10; Mat 51, 10, for a fancied connexion.

c31.119

³ Bḍ iii, 30, 51–4 with MBh i, 76, 3188–90 and Mat 25, 9–11.

c31.120

Next, as regards this Veda's character. It is a heterogeneous collection of the most popular spells current among the masses, and its most salient teaching is sorcery.⁴ Now the populace was non-Aila (p. 290), and magical power was the particular pursuit of the earliest brahmans, who belonged to the non-Ailas, as shown above. These features indicate that these songs began with and embody the ancient beliefs and practices of the peoples whom the Ailas subjugated, so that naturally the spirit which breathes therein is that of a prehistoric age,⁵ of the times prior to the higher development of brahmanism among the Ailas.

c31.121

⁴ Macdonell, p. 185.

c31.122

⁵ Id., p. 185.

c31.123

Thirdly, may be noticed the word *brahma*. The original thing denoted by it was, as I understand, the magical power, whether incantation, charm or what not,⁶ by which a man could exert influence over all natural and supernatural beings—what anthropologists now call *mana*.⁷ The Atharvan songs were *brahma*, and the man who employed that was *brahman*, the wizard or medicine-man.⁸

c31.124

⁶ MBh xiii, 4, 260. Weber, p. 149, note. Macdonell, pp. 189–90, 195. Deification of the Pitṛs was *Atharvaṇa vidhi*, Vā 76, 1–2; Bḍ iii, 12, 1–2.

c31.125

⁷ Even Rākṣasas knew *brahma*, Vā 68, 36; Bḍ iii, 6, 37.

c31.126

⁸ *Brahma-dhānas* are classed with *yātu-dhānas* and *brahma-rākṣasas*, Vā 69, 130–5; Bḍ iii, 7, 95–100.

c31.127

So the Atharvan books called this Veda the Brahmaveda,¹ and claimed that it was the Veda for the brahman.² They used the words in the earlier sense, and the other Vedic books regarding (I suggest) the words from the later point of view of reformed brahmanism disputed that claim. It is said that in former times only a Vasiṣṭha could act as brahman³—quite appropriately, since the songs were then Mānva.

c31.128

¹ Also Vā 65, 27; Bḍ iii, 1, 26.

c31.129

² Weber, pp. 123, 149–50. Macdonell, pp. 189, 194–5. So Vyāsa by this Veda constituted the status of the brahman, Vā 60, 18; Bḍ ii, 34, 18; Ag 150, 25.

c31.130

³ Weber, p. 123.

c31.131

Speaking generally therefore, the Atharvaveda was the accumulation of magical beliefs, observances and practices, starting from the non-Aila races and gaining accretions from the Ailas and the people at large; while the Rigveda with its ancillary Yajus and Sāman was the religious expression of mainly the Ailas or Aryans as developed through reformed brahmanism and exhibited in sacrifice.

c31.132

What Vyāsa did seems to have been this. The statement that he arranged and divided the four-pāda Veda into four suggests (1) that, though ṛc, sāman, and probably yajus and Atharvan⁴ were distinguished before, as shown above, yet they had not been treated distinctly, all co-existed as four pādas in one general Veda, and he definitely separated them and constituted them respectively as four distinct Vedas: or (2) that, at any rate, he expressly and formally fixed the fourfold division and completed the canon of each Veda in definite shape, which became final subject to small modifications afterwards.⁵ He had four disciples and entrusted to each of them one Veda, viz. the Rigveda to Paila, the Yajurveda to Vaiśampāyana, the Sāmaveda to Jaimini and the Atharvaveda to Sumantu.⁶ The priestly literature has suppressed all this just as it has ignored Vyāsa (p. 9), for something of this sort must have taken place on any theory of the compilation of the four Vedas.

c31.133

⁴ General remarks about these and mantras and their kinds, Bḍ ii, 33, 36–46; 35, 71–3: Vā 61, 63–4.

c31.134

⁵ Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 47–50.

c31.135

⁶ Vā 60, 12–15. Bḍ ii, 34, 12–15. Viṣ iii, 4, 7–9. Lg i, 39, 55–60. Kūr i, 52, 11–13. Gar i, 215, 12–13. MBh xii, 329, 12337–8; 342, 13025–7 (which substitutes Śuka for the sūta, see p. 21); 351, 13647–9 (similarly). Bhāg xii, 6, 51–3.

c31.136

The Vedic age thus closed roundly at about 1000 B. C.¹ Anteriorly it stretched back for centuries, as the chronological list on pages 191-2 read with pages 144-9 shows. There was a vast difference in time between the earliest hymns and the latest in the Rigveda. Hymns handed down orally during those centuries could hardly have escaped being gradually modified in their diction as the language gradually changed, and when they were at last collected into the canon, their diction would be rather that of the age when the collection was formed than that of the times when they were composed.² Hence it is not surprising, if the hymns betray no marked differences of language commensurate with the long Vedic period. They were sacred, but their text would not have attained to fixity and verbal veneration until the canon was completed and closed. Yet even then phonetic changes went on, and the saṃhitā text did not take its final shape till after the completion of the Brāhmaṇas, or about 600 B. C.³

c31.137

¹ So estimated also by Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., p. 47.

c31.138

² Id., pp. 47, 66. Weber, Hist. of Ind. Lit., p. 20.

c31.139

³ Macdonell, op. cit., pp. 48, 50.

Linked texts (18)