Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c10: Chapter III. Mantra Period

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c10

Language
English

Chapter III. Mantra Period

c10.2

HAVING ascribed to one period the first establishment of the three-fold ceremonial (trayî vidyâ), the composition, and collection of the Brâhmaṇas, and the ramification of the Brâhmaṇa-charaṇas, we have now to see whether we can extend our view beyond the limits of this period and trace the stream of Vedic literature still further back to its source and its earliest diffusion. According to its general character, the Brâhmaṇa period must be called a secondary period. It exhibits a stratum of thought, perfectly unintelligible without the admission of a preceding age, during which all that is misunderstood, perverted, and absurd in the Brâhmaṇas, had its natural growth, its meaning, and purpose. But can it be supposed that those who established the threefold ceremonial, and those who composed the threefold Brâhmaṇas, followed immediately upon an age which had known poets, but no priests, prayers, but no dogmas, worship, but no ceremonies? Or are there traces to show that, even previous to the composition of the Brâhmaṇas, a spirit was at work in the literature of India, no longer creative, free, and original, but living only on the heritage of a former age, collecting, classifying, and imitating? I believe we must decidedly adopt the latter view. The only document we have, in which we can study the character of the times, previous to the Brâhmaṇa period, is the Rig-veda-sanhitâ. The other two Sanhitâs were more likely the production of the Brâhmaṇa period. These two Vedas, the Yajur-veda and Sâma-veda, were, in truth, what they are called in the Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa, the attendants of the Rig-veda.¹ The Brâhmaṇas presuppose the Trayî vidyâ, the threefold knowledge, or the threefold Veda, but that Trayî vidyâ again presupposes one Veda, and that the Rig-veda. We cannot suppose that the hymns which are found in the Rig-veda, and in the Sanhitâs of the two supplementary Vedas, the Sâma and Yajur-veda, were collected three times by three independent collectors. If so, their differences would be much greater than they are. The differences which do exist between the same hymns and verses as given in the three Sanhitâs, are such as we should expect to find in different Śâkhâs, not such as would naturally arise in independent collections or Sanhitâs.

c10.3

¹ तत्परिचरणवितरौ वेदौ॥ vi. 11.

c10.4

The principle on which the Sanhitâ of the Rig-veda was made is different from that which guided the compilers of the Sanhitâs of the Adhvaryus and Udgâtṛis. These two Sanhitâs follow the order of an established ceremonial. They presuppose a fixed order of sacrifices. This is not the case in the Sanhitâ of the Bahvṛichas. There is, as we shall see, a system in that Sanhitâ also, but it has no reference to the ceremonial.

c10.5

The different character of the Rig-veda-sanhitâ, as compared with the Sanhitâs of the other two Vedas, has attracted the attention of the Brahmans, and we may quote on this subject the remarks of Sâyaṇa, in his Introduction to the Rig-veda.¹

c10.6

¹ P. 34.

c10.7

" Has Âśvalâyana," he says, " when composing his ceremonial Sûtras, followed the order of the Sanhitâ of the Rig-veda, or of the Brâhmaṇa? He could not have followed the order of the hymns, because he says at the beginning of his Sûtras, that first of all he is going to explain the new and full-moon sacrifices (Darśa pûrṇamâsa), while the first hymns of the Rig-veda are never used at that sacrifice. Nor does he seem to have followed the Brâhmaṇa. For the Brâhmaṇa begins with the Dîkshaṇîyâ ceremony. Here then it must be observed that the collection of hymns follows the order which is observed at the Brahmayajna and on other occasions where prayers are to be recited. It does not follow the order in which hymns are employed at the different sacrifices. Brahmayajna is the name given to the act of repeating by heart one's own sacred text or even a single verse of it, whether a Ṛich, Yajush or Sâman. This repeating of all the Ṛich, Yajush or Sâman verses is enjoined by many passages of the Brâhmaṇas, and whenever hymns are thus enjoined to be repeated, that order is to be observed in which they have been handed down by an uninterrupted tradition. But as Âśvalâyana teaches the particular employment of particular hymns, basing it upon the authority of what are termed indicative passages of the revelation, it is but natural that he can not follow the order of the hymns of the Rig-veda. The texts of the Yajur-veda, however, are given, from the first beginning, according to their order at the performance of sacrifices, and thus have Âpastamba and others proceeded in the same order in the composition of their Sûtras. As this order has once been received, it is likewise adopted in the Brahmayajna. That Âsvalâyana should explain in the first place the Darśapûrṇamâsa sacrifice, while the Brâhmaṇa begins with the Dîkshaṇîyâ sacrifice, is no objection, because the Dîkshaṇîyâ is only a modification of the Darśapûrṇamâsa, and many of its rules must be supplied from the typical sacrifice. Thus the Kalpa-sûtra of Âsvalâyana assists in teaching the performance of the sacrifice by showing the employment of the hymns. That Âsvalâyana should teach the employment of passages which do not occur in the Sanhitâ of the Rig-veda¹, is no fault, because these hymns occur in different Śâkhâs, and their employment is prescribed by a different Brâhmaṇa, so that their being mentioned can only increase the value of his Sûtras. Those who know the logic of this subject say, that there is but one sacrifice and that it is to be learnt from all the different Śâkhâs.”

c10.8

¹ Our MSS. represent, according to tradition, the text of the Śâkala-śâkhâ, and the same text is followed by Âsvalâyana in his Sûtras. Now, whenever Âsvalâyana quotes any verses which form part of the Śâkala-śâkhâ, he only quotes the first words. Every member of his Charaṇa was supposed to know the hymns of the Śâkala-śâkhâ by heart, and it was sufficient, therefore, to quote them in this manner. But when he has occasion to refer to the verses which are found in the Brâhmaṇa of the Aitareyins, without being part of the Śâkala-sanhitâ, Âsvalâyana quotes them in full. As these verses are not quoted in full in the text of the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa, we may fairly suppose that the text of the Rig-veda-sanhitâ, current among the Aitareyins, was different from that of the Śâkala-śâkhâ, and contained the full text of these hymns. Sâyaṇa, in his Commentary, does not state that these additional verses belonged to the Śâkhâ of the Aitareyins, but there can be little doubt that at his time the text of their Sanhitâ was lost and forgotten. He says, however, that these verses belonged to a different Śâkhâ, and that they must be supplied from Âsvalâyana’s Sûtras, where, for this very reason, they were given in full. At the time of Âsvalâyana, therefore, the text of the Sanhitâ of the Aitareyins was still in existence, and he likewise notices in his Sûtras peculiarities in the ceremonial of the

c10.9

Here then we see that even so late a writer as Sâyaṇa is fully aware of the peculiar character of the Rig-veda, as compared with the other Vedas. In his eyes the collection of hymns, preserved in the Rig-veda, has evidently something anomalous. He, brought up in the system of a stiff liturgical religion, looks upon the Sanhitâs simply as prayer-books to be used at the sacrifices. The sacrifices as taught in the Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras, are to him a subject of far greater importance than the religious poetry of the Rishis. It is but natural, therefore, that he should ask, what is the use of this collection of hymns, in which there is no order or system, as in the hymn-books of the Yajur-veda and Sâma-veda? His answer, however, is most unsatisfactory. For if the other two collections of hymns can be used for private devotion although they follow the order of the sacrifices, why should not the same apply to the hymns of the Rig-veda?

c10.10

Whenever we find in the ancient literature and Aitareyins. Dr. Roth has pointed out one of these verses (Nirukta, xlv.). The passage in the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa from which the verse is taken, is, i. 4. 2.; and Sâyaṇa says there: ता एतास्तस्र ऋचः शाखांतरगता आश्वलायनेन पठिता द्रष्टव्याः॥ In a similar manner the modern Sûtras of the Fratres Attidii (Tab. vi. vii.) contain the Mantras in full, which in the ancient statutes (Tab. i.) are only indicated as generally known. See Aufrecht und Kirchhoff, Die Umbrischen Sprachdenkmäler.

c10.11

theology of the Brahmans anything that is contrary to their general rules, anything that seems anomalous to them and is yet allowed to exist, we may be sure that it contains some really historical elements, and that it was of too solid a nature to receive the smooth polish of the Brahmanic system. It is so with the Rig-veda-saṃhitâ. It belongs to a period previous to the complete ascendancy of the Brahmans; it was finished before the threefold ceremonial had been worked out in all its details.

c10.12

And yet there is some system, there is some priestly influence, clearly distinguishable in that collection also. It is true that the ten books of the Rig-veda stand before us as separate collections, each belonging to one of the ancient families of India; but were these collections undertaken independently in each of these families, at different times, and with different objects? I believe not. There are traces, however faint, of one superintending spirit.

c10.13

Eight out of the ten Maṇḍalas begin with hymns addressed to Agni, and these hymns, with the exception of the tenth Maṇḍala, are invariably followed by hymns addressed to Indra.¹ After the hymns addressed to these two deities we generally meet with hymns addressed to the Viśve Devâḥ. This cannot be the result of mere accident, nor is there anything in the character of the two gods, Agni and Indra, which would necessitate such an arrangement. Agni is indeed called the lowest of the gods, but this neither implies his inferiority nor his superiority.¹ It simply means that Agni, as the god of fire on the hearth, is the nearest god, who descends from his high station to befriend men, and who, in the form of the sacrificial fire, becomes the messenger and mediator between god and men.² This would not be sufficient to account for the place assigned to him at the beginning of eight out of the ten Maṇḍalas of the Rig-veda. Indra, again, is certainly the most powerful of the Vedic gods³, but he never enjoys that supremacy which in Greece and Rome was allowed to Zeus and Jupiter. We can hardly doubt, therefore, that the place allowed to hymns addressed to Agni and Indra, at the beginning

c10.14

¹ First Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.=Agni. Anuvâka 2. 3.=Indra. Second Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.=Agni (-11). Anuvâka 2.=Indra. Third Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.=Agni. Anuvâka 3. 4.=Indra. Fourth Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.-2, 5.=Agni. Anuvâka 2. 3.=Indra. Fifth Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.-2, 14.=Agni. Anuvâka 2, 15.-3, 8.=Indra. Sixth Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.-2, 1.=Agni. Anuvâka 2, 1.-4, 4.=Indra.

c10.15

¹ Schol. ad Pind. Nem. x. 59. Καὶ γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ἔσχατον ποτὲ δύναται γενέσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον πρῶτον, κέχρηται καὶ Σοφοκλῆς τῷ ἐσχάτῳ ἀντὶ τοῦ πρώτου, Ἤδη γὰρ ἕδρα Ζεὺς ἐν ἐσχάτῳ θεῶν (ἔχει γὰρ ἕδραν. Brunck.)

c10.16

² Rv. iv. 1. 5. स त्वं नो अग्नेऽवमो भवोती नेदिष्ठो अस्या उषसो व्युष्टौ॥ “Come down to us, O Agni, with thy help, be thou most near to us to-day as the dawn flashes forth.”

c10.17

³ इन्द्रो वै देवानामोजिष्ठो बलिष्ठः। Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa, vi. 14.

c10.18

Seventh Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.=Agni. Anuvâka 2.=Indra. Eighth Maṇḍala, Pragâtha hymns. Ninth Maṇḍala, Soma hymns. Tenth Maṇḍala, Anuvâka 1.=Agni.

c10.19

of the Maṇḍalas, was the result of a previous agreement, and that the Maṇḍalas themselves do not represent collections made independently by different families, but collections carried out simultaneously in different localities under the supervision of one central authority.

c10.20

Another indication of the systematic arrangement of the Maṇḍalas, is contained in the Âprî hymns.

c10.21

There are ten Âprî-sûktas in the Rig-veda: —

c10.22

1. I. 13., by Medhâtithi, of the family of the Kânvas (ii. b.); 12 verses.

c10.23

2. I. 142, by Dîrghatamas, son of Uchathya, of the family of the Ângirasas (ii. a.); 13 verses. (Indra.)

c10.24

3. I. 188, by Agastya, of the family of the Agastis (vii.); 11 verses. (Tanûnapât.)

c10.25

4. II. 3, by Gṛitsamada, son of Śunahotra, (Ângirasa), adopted by Śunaka (Bhârgava) (i. 7.); 11 verses. (Narâśansa.)

c10.26

5. III. 4, by Viśvâmitra, son of Gâthin, of the family of the Viśvâmitras (iv.); 11 verses. (Tanûnapât.)

c10.27

6. V. 5, by Vasuśruta, son of Atri, of the family of the Âtreyas (iii.); 11 verses. (Narâśansa.)

c10.28

7. VII. 2, by Vasisṭhtha, son of Mitrâvaruṇau, of the family of the Vâsisṭhthas (vi.); 11 verses. (Narâśansa.)

c10.29

8. IX. 5, by Asita or Devala, of the family of the Kâśyapas (v.); 11 verses. (Tanûnapât.)

c10.30

9. X. 70, by Sumitra, of the family of the Bâdhryaśvas (i. 6.); 11 verses. (Narâśansa.)

c10.31

10. X. 110, by Râma, the son of Jamadagni, or by Jamadagni, of the family of the Jâmadagnyas (i. 2.); 11 verses. (Tanûnapât.)

c10.32

These hymns consist properly of 11 verses, each of which is addressed to a separate deity. Their order is as follows: —

c10.33

First verse, to Agni Idhma or Susamiddha, the lighted fire.

c10.34

Second verse, to Tanûnapât, the sun hidden in the waters or the clouds, or to Narâśansa, the rising sun, praised by men.

c10.35

Third verse, to Iḷas, the heavenly gifts, or Iḷita, Agni, implored to bring them.

c10.36

Fourth verse, to Barhish, the sacrificial pile of grass.

c10.37

Fifth verse, to Devîr dvâraḥ, the gates of heaven.

c10.38

Sixth verse, to Ushâsâ-naktau, dawn and night.

c10.39

Seventh verse, to Daivyau hotârau prachetasau (i. e. Agni and Âditya, or Agni and Varuṇa, or Varuṇa and Âditya; Shaḍguruśishya).

c10.40

Eighth verse, to the three goddesses Sarasvatî, Iḷâ, Bhâratî.

c10.41

Ninth verse, to Tvashtṛi, the creator.

c10.42

Tenth verse, to Vanaspati, the tree of the sacrifice.

c10.43

Eleventh verse, to Svâhâkritis. (Viśve Devâḥ, Shaḍguruśishya.)

c10.44

The only differences in the ten Âprî hymns of the Rig-veda arise from the name by which the second deity is invoked. It is Tanûnapât in hymns 3, 5, 8, 10; Narâśansa in hymns 4, 6, 7, 9; whereas in hymns 1 and 2 the second deity is invoked under either name in two separate verses. This raises the number in these two hymns to twelve, and this number is again raised to thirteen in hymn 2, by the addition at the end of a separate invocation of Indra.

c10.45

The whole construction of these hymns is clearly artificial. They share the character of the hymns which we find in the Sâma and Yajur-vedas, being evidently composed for sacrificial purposes. Nevertheless, we find these artificial hymns in seven out of the ten Maṇḍalas, in I., II., III., V., VII., IX., X. This proves a previous agreement among the collectors. For some reason or other, each family wished to have its own Âprî hymn, a hymn which had to be recited by the Hotṛ priest, previous to the immolation of certain victims¹, and such a hymn was inserted, not once for all in the Sanhitâ, but ten times over. Some of the verses in the Âprî hymns are mere repetitions, and even families so hostile to each other as the Vasisṭhas and Viśvâmitras have some verses in common in these Âprî hymns. But, if on one side the presence of the Âprî hymns in different Maṇḍalas proves a certain advance of the ceremonial system in the Mantra period, and the influence of a priestly society even in the first collection of the hymns; it proves likewise, that the traditional distribution of the Maṇḍalas among various Vedic families is not a merely arbitrary arrangement. These families insisted on having each their own Âprî hymn recorded, and whereas for the general ceremonial, as fixed in the Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras, the family of the poet of certain hymns employed at the sacrifices, is never taken into account, we find an exception made in favour of the Âprî hymns. If a verse of Viśvâmitra is once fixed by the Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras as part of any of the solemn sacrifices, no sacrificer, even if he were of the family of the Vasisṭhas, would have a right to replace that verse by another. But with regard to the Âprî hymns that liberty is conceded. The Aitareya-brâhmaṇa records this fact in the most general form.¹ “Let the priest use the Âprîs according to the Rishi. If he uses the Âprîs according to the Rishi, he does not allow the sacrificer to escape from the relationship of that Rishi.” Âśvalâyana enters more into details.² He says that those who belong to the Śunakas, should use the hymn of Gṛitsamada; those who belong to the Vasisṭhas, that of Vasisṭha. The Âprî hymn of Râma or Jamadgni he allows to be used by all families, (excepting the Śunakas and Vasisṭhas) but, he adds, that each family may choose the Âprî hymn of its own Rishi. How this is to be done is explained in a Śloka, ascribed to Śaunaka.³ He ascribes the first Âprî hymn to the Kaṇvas; the second to the Angiras’, with the exception of the Kaṇvas; the third to the Agastis; the fourth to the Śunakas; the fifth to the Viśvâmitras; the sixth to the Atris; the seventh to the Vasisṭhas; the eighth to the Kaśyapas; the ninth to the Badhryaśvas; the tenth to the Bhrigus, with the exception of the Śunakas and Badhryaśvas.⁴

c10.46

¹ Burnouf, Journal Asiatique, 1850, p. 249. Roth, Nirukta, p. xxxvi.

c10.47

¹ यथच्व्याप्रीणीयात् यद्यथच्व्याप्रीणाति यजमानमेव तद्धुताया नोत्सृजति। Ait.-br. ii. 4.

c10.48

² Âśv.-sûtra, iii. 2.

c10.49

³ तत्र भगवता शौनकेन यथर्षिपञ्च आप्रीविवेकार्थमेव श्लोक उक्तः। कण्वोऽगिरोऽगस्त्यः शुनको विश्वामित्रोऽत्रिरेव च। वसिष्ठः कश्यपो बध्यश्वो जमदग्निरथोत्तमः॥

c10.50

⁴ सगोत्राणामपि भिन्नार्षेयत्वसंभवात् Nârâyaṇa on Âśv. Śrauta-sû. iv. 1.

c10.51

The original purpose of the Âprî hymns, and the motive for allowing the priest to choose among them according to the family to which his client belonged, are difficult to discover. An ancient author of the name of Gâṇagari¹, endeavoured to prove from the fact that one and the same Âprî hymn *may* be used by all, that all people belong really and truly to one family. It is possible, indeed, that the Âprî hymns may have been songs of reconciliation, and that they were called *âprî*, i.e. appeasing hymns, not from their appeasing the anger of the gods, but the enmities of members of the same or different families. However that may be, they certainly do prove that there had been an active intercourse between the ancient families of India long before the final collection of the ten books, and that these ten books were collected and arranged by men who took more than a merely poetical interest in the ancient sacred poetry of their country.

c10.52

¹ सर्व समानगोत्राः स्युरिति गाणगरिः कथं ह्याप्रीसूक्तानि भवेयुः। Âśv.-sûtras, xii. 10. See also Anuvâkânukramaṇî-bhâṣya, śloka 7. हे शाकलाः। के ते। सर्वेषां शाकलत्वं आ-प्रीदारेण॥

c10.53

Although we see from these indications that the collection of the hymns which we possess in the Rig-veda took place during a period when the influence of the Brahmans, as a priestly caste, had made itself felt in India, we must claim, nevertheless, for this collection a character not yet exclusively ceremonial. Not only is the order of the hymns completely independent of the order of the sacrifices, but there are numerous hymns in our collection which could never have been used at any sacrifice. This is not the case with the other Vedas. Every hymn, every verse, every invocation in the Sanhitâs of the Sâma and Yajur-vedas are employed by the Udgâtris and Adhvaryus, whereas the hymns of the Rig-veda are by no means intended to be all employed by the Hotri priests. If we speak of the sacred poetry of the Brahmans, that of the Sâma and Yajur-vedas is sacred only because it is used for sacrificial purposes, that of the Rig-veda is sacred, because it had been handed down as a sacred heir-loom from the earliest times within the memory of man. The sacredness of the former is matter of system and design, that of the latter is a part of its origin.

c10.54

There is an objection that might be raised against this view, and which deserves to be considered. No one acquainted with the ceremonial of the Brahmans could well maintain that, after the final division of that ceremonial among the three classes of priests, a collection like that of the Rig-veda could have been conceived. The Rig-veda is not a Veda for the Hotri priest, in the same sense in which the Sâma and Yajur-vedas are for the Udgâtri and Adhvaryu priests. But it might be said that there is a fourth class of priests, the Brahman class, and that the Rig-veda might have been collected for their special benefit. In order to answer this objection, we shall have to examine more closely the real character of the four classes of priests.

c10.55

Âsvalâyana (iv. 1.), says that there are four priests, each having three men under him. These are:

c10.56

I. Hotri, with Maitrâvaruna, Achhâvâka, Grâ-vastut.¹

c10.57

¹ This is not the order as given in Âsvalâyana; he places the Brahman and his three men before the Udgâtri and his attendants.

c10.58

II. Adhvaryu, with Pratiprasthâtri, Neshtri, Unnetri. III. Udgâtri, with Prastotri, Agnîdhra or Agnîdh, Potri. IV. Brahman, with Brâhmanâchhansin, Pratihartri, Subrahmanya.

c10.59

These sixteen priests are commonly called by the name of Ritvij, and are chosen by the man in whose favour the sacrifice is offered, the Yajamâna or Svâmin. There are other priests, such as the Samitri, (the slayer,) the Vaikartas, (the butchers,) the Chamasâdhvaryus, (the assistants of the Adhvaryus,) but they do not rank as Ritvij. The Kaushîtakins admit a seventeenth Ritvij, the so-called Sadasya, who is to superintend the whole sacrifice.¹ This large array of

c10.60

¹ Âśv.-Grihya, i. 22. सदस्यं सप्तदशं कौषीतकिनः समामनंति स कर्मणामुपद्रष्टा भवतीति। सप्तदशग्रहणमृत्विग्धर्मो भवतीति ज्ञापनार्थम्॥ This is confirmed by the Kaushîtaki-brâhmana. Other authorities admit several Sadasyas. (शाखांतरेऽनेके दृष्टाः) For the Sattra sacrifices a seventeenth priest, called the Grihapati, lord of the house, is admitted. He is not considered as the Yajamâna, but seems to be the actual sacrificer. (गृहपतिसंज्ञकेन केवलयजमानपदार्थकारिणा सप्तदशेन पुरुषेण सहिताः Nârâyana on Âśv. Śrauta-sûtra, iv. 1.) In the Aitareya-brâhmana (vii. 1.), where the division of the animal among the various priests is described, we have the sixteen Ritvij, and besides one Sadasya, three Grihapatis (probably the sacri-

c10.61

Some would seem to place the Brahman first of all, but Âśvalâyana (Grihya, i. 22.) remarks that the Brahman is first chosen when there is an election of four priests only. If all the sixteen are chosen, then the Hotri comes first, afterwards the Brahman, thirdly the Adhvaryu, and lastly the Udgâtri.

c10.62

priests was only wanted for certain grand sacrifices. In the Gautama-sûtra-bhashya (p. 30.) we are told that for the Agnihotra and Aupâsana one priest, the Adhvaryu, was sufficient; for the Darśapûrṇamâsa, four; for the Châturmâsyas five; for the Paśubandha six; for the Jyotishṭoma sixteen. Âśvalâyana prescribes the sixteen priests for the sacrifices called Ahîna (sacrifices lasting from two to eleven days), and Ekâha (sacrifices of one day), and restricts the seventeen priests to the Sattras (sacrifices lasting from thirteen to one hundred days). Each of the four classes of these priests had peculiar duties to perform. These duties were prescribed in the Brâhmaṇas. The duties of the Hotṛi are laid down in the Brâhmaṇas of the Bahvṛichas, such as the Kaushîtaki and Aitareya-brâhmaṇas; those of the Adhvaryu in the Brâhmaṇas of the Charakas (the Taittirîyaka) and in the Brâhmaṇas of the Vâjasaneyins (the Śatapatha); those of the Udgâtṛi in the Brâhmaṇas of the Chhandogas (the Tâṇḍya.) Âpastamba, who describes the sacrifice in his Paribhâshâ-sûtras¹, says that it is prescribed by the three Vedas, the Rig-veda, Yajur-veda and Sâma-veda.² “The Hotṛi,” he says,

c10.63

¹ Translated by me in the ninth volume of the German Oriental Society.

c10.64

² स त्रिविधैर्विधीयते॥ ३॥ ऋग्वेदयजुर्वेदसामवेदैः॥४॥

c10.65

ficer himself, one who acts for him, and one who acts for his wife), one Śamitṛi (a slayer, who need not be a Brahman), two Vaikartas (butchers), several Upagâtṛis (choristers), and an Âtreya. Other wives (patnîs), besides the bhâryâ, are mentioned as present. In the Tâṇḍya-brâhmaṇa (25. 15.) the Pratiprasthâtṛi is left out, but two Adhvaryus, two Unnetṛis, and two Abhigarâpagarau are mentioned.

c10.66

“performs his duties with the Rig-veda, the Udgâtri with the Sâma-veda, the Adhvaryu with the Yajur-veda; the Brahman with all the three Vedas.”

c10.67

The Adhvaryus were the priests who were intrusted with the material performance of the sacrifice. They had to measure the ground, to build the altar (vedi), to prepare the sacrificial vessels, to fetch wood and water, to light the fire, to bring the animal and immolate it. They formed, as it would seem, the lowest class of priests, and their acquirements were more of a practical than an intellectual character. Some of the offices which would naturally fall to the lot of the Adhvaryus, were considered so degrading, that other persons besides the priests were frequently employed in them. The Śamitṛi, for instance, who had to slay the animal, was not a priest, he need not even be a Brahman¹, and the same applies to the Vaikartas, the butchers, and the so-called Chamasâdhvaryus. The number of hymns and invocations which they had to use at the sacrifices was smaller than that of the other priests. These, however, they had to learn by heart. But as the chief difficulty consisted in the exact recitation of hymns, and in the close observance of all the euphonic rules, as taught in the Prâtiśâkhyas, the Adhvaryus were allowed to mutter their hymns², so that no one at a distance could

c10.68

¹ Ait-brâhmaṇa, vii. 1.

c10.69

² उपांशु यजुर्वेदेन॥६॥ करणवदशब्दमनः प्रयोगमु-

c10.70

ऋग्वेदेन होता करोति॥१६॥
सामवेदेनोद्गाता॥१७॥
यजुर्वेदेनाध्वर्युः॥१८॥
सर्वैर्ब्रह्मा॥१९॥

c10.71

either hear or understand them. Only in cases where the Adhvaryu had to speak to other officiating priests, commanding them to perform certain duties¹, he was of course obliged to speak with a loud and distinct voice. All these verses and all the invocations which the Adhvaryus had to use, were collected in the ancient liturgy of the Adhvaryus together with the rules of the sacrifice. In this mixed form they exist in the Taittirîyaka. Afterwards the hymns were collected by themselves, separated from the ceremonial rules, and this collection is what we call the Yajur-veda-sanhitâ, or the prayer-book of the Adhvaryu priests.

c10.72

¹ An instance of this occurs in a passage of the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa, translated by Prof. Roth. The first words (ii. 2.) अंञ्मो यू पमनुब्रूहि are spoken by the Adhvaryu, and not, as Professor Roth supposes, by the Hotṛi. It is the Adhvaryu only who can say, “We anoint the sacrificial stake, do thou accompany us with the hymns.” A passage like this, as it is addressed to another priest, the Adhvaryu would have to pronounce with a loud voice. The Brâhmaṇa itself says, इत्याहाध्वर्युः: “so says the Adhvaryu.” The presha, or command, “anubrûhi,” can only be addressed to the Hotṛi, and there was no ground for placing the following verses in the mouth of the Adhvaryu. Roth, Nirukta, xxxiv.

c10.73

There were some parts of the sacrifice, which according to ancient custom, had to be accompanied by songs, and hence another class of priests arose whose particular office it was to act as the chorus. This naturally took place at the most solemn sacrifices only. Though as yet we have no key as to the character

c10.74

पांशु। अन्यत्राश्रुतप्रत्यश्रुतप्रवरसंवादसंप्रेष्य॥१०॥ एतेषामुच्चारणस्य परार्थत्वाच्चैद्धमेव॥ of the music which the Udgâtris performed, we can see from the numerous and elaborate rules, however unintelligible, that their music was more than mere chanting. The words of their songs were collected in the order of the sacrifice, and this libretto is what we possess under the name of Sâma-veda-sanhitâ, or the prayer-book of the Udgâtri priests.¹

c10.75

¹ The Sanhitâ consists of two parts; the Ârchika and Staubhika. The Ârchika, as adapted to the special use of the priests, exists in two forms, called Gânas, or Song-books, the Veyagâna and Âranyagâna. The Staubhika exists in the same manner as Ûhagâna and Uhyagâna. Cf. Benfey, Preface to his edition of the Sâma-veda-ârchika, Leipzig, 1848, and Weber, Ind. Studien, i. 30. The supposition that the modern origin of some of the hymns of the Rig-veda could be proved by their not occurring in the Sâma-veda, has been well refuted by Dr. Pertsch.

c10.76

Distinct from these two classes, we have a third class of priests, the Hotris, whose duty it was to recite certain hymns during the sacrifice in praise of the deities to whom any particular act of the sacrificer was addressed. Their recitation was loud and distinct, and required the most accurate knowledge of the rules of euphony or Śikshâ. The Hotris, as a class, were the most highly educated order of priests. They were supposed to know both the proper pronunciation and the meaning of their hymns, the order and employment of which was taught in the Brâhmanas of the Bahvrichas. But while both the Adhvaryus and Udgâtris were confessedly unable to perform their duties without the help of their prayer-books, the Hotris were supposed to be so well versed in the ancient sacred poetry, as contained in the ten Mandalas of the Rig-veda, that no separate prayer-book or Sanhitâ was ever arranged for their special benefit.

c10.77

There is no Sanhitâ for the Hotris corresponding to the Sanhitâs of the Adhvaryus and Udgâtris. The Hotri learnt from the Brâhmaṇa, or in later times, from the Sûtra, what special duties he had to perform. He knew from those sources the beginnings or the names of the hymns which he had to recite at every part of the service. But in order to be able to use these indications, he had previously to know the whole body of Vedic poetry, so as to be ready to produce from the vast store of his memory whatever hymn or verse was called for at the sacrifice. There exists among the MSS. of Walker’s Collection a work entitled, Âśvalâyana-śâkhoktamantra-sanhitâ, a collection of hymns of the Âśvalâyana-śâkhâ, which contains the hymns as required according to the Gṛihya-sûtras of Âśvalâyana. It would have been easy to construct a similar collection for the Śrauta-sûtras, but such a collection was never made, and it is never alluded to in the ancient literature of the Brahmans.¹

c10.78

¹ Sâyaṇa (Rv. Bh. i. p. 23.) remarks that some verses of the Yajur-veda are called Ṛich in the Brâhmaṇas of the Adhvaryus. Thus the verse देवः सवितोत्पुनातु is called a Ṛich addressed to Savitṛi. Sâmans also are mentioned, as when it is said, “Singing the Sâman he sits down.” In the Sâma-veda there are not only Ṛich verses, but also Yajush invocations, such as अचितमसि, अच्युतमसि, प्राणसंसितमसि। The Hotri priests have likewise to use invocations which would more properly be called Yajush, such as अवेरपोऽध्वर्या३उ “Adhvaryu, hast thou got the water?” to which the Adhvaryu replies: उतेमनंनमः “Yes, it has come.” Here the Commentator says, होतृयजुरात्मकं कंचिमंत्रं विधत्ते॥

c10.79

If then the Rig-veda-sanhitâ was not composed for the special benefit of the Hotṛis, much less of the other two classes of priests, it might be supposed that it had nevertheless a sacrificial character, and was intended to assist the fourth class of priests, or the Brahman, properly so called. The Brahman, as we saw, had to watch the three classes of priests and to correct any mistake they might commit. He was therefore, supposed to know the whole ceremonial and all the hymns employed by the Hotṛi, Adhvaryu, and Udgâtṛi. Now the Rig-veda does contain most of the hymns of the other two Vedas¹, and in several places it is maintained that the Brahman ought properly to be a Hotṛi. All this would render it not improbable that the Rig-veda-sanhitâ belonged to the same age as the other two Sanhitâs, that its collection was suggested by the same idea which led to the collection of the hymns of the other two classes of priests, and that, for the special benefit of the Brahman, it comprehended in one body all the hymns which the Hotṛi, the Adhvaryu, and Udgâtṛi were expected to know singly. In this case the Rig-veda-sanhitâ, instead of being more ancient, would in fact represent the latest collection of a sacred poetry.

c10.80

¹ The invocations, properly called Yajush, are of course not to be found in the Rig-veda. Some of the hymns of the Sâma and Yajur-vedas, which have a more modern appearance, are to be found in the tenth Maṇḍala of the Rig-veda, or among the latest additions, such as the Vâlakhilyas. There are, however, some, which, though they occur in the Sâma and Yajur-vedas, are not to be found in the Rig-veda. This may possibly be accounted for by the fact that we do not possess all the Sâkhâs of the Rig-veda. The differences also in the text of hymns, as read in the three Vedas, must be ascribed to the influence of early Sâkhâs, and cannot be used as an argument for determining the more or less ancient date of the three Vedas.

c10.81

It would be of no avail to appeal to the testimony of later authorities, such as the Purâṇas, in order to refute this theory. The Viṣṇu-purâṇa (p. 276), for instance, has the following remarks on this subject: "Vyâsa," it is said, "divided the one sacrificial Veda into four parts, and instituted the sacrificial rite administered by the four kinds of priests, in which it was the duty of the Adhvaryu to recite the Yajush verses or direct the ceremony; of the Hotṛi to repeat the Ṛich; of the Udgâtṛi to chaunt the Sâman; and of the Brahman, to pronounce the formula called Atharvan. Then the Muni, having collected together the hymns called Ṛich, composed the Rig-veda, &c., and, with the Atharvaṇs, he composed the rules of all the ceremonies suited to kings, and the function of the Brahman agreeably to practice." This passage only serves to show that the authors of the Purâṇas were entirely ignorant of the tone and character of the Vedic literature. For although the Brahman priest was the only Ṛitvij who had occasionally to use passages from the Atharva-veda, blessings, imprecations, etc.; yet the so-called Atharva-veda had nothing in common with the three ancient Vedas, and contained no information on the general features of the great sacrifices, such as would have been indispensable to the superintendent of the other priests.¹

c10.82

¹ Prasthâna-bheda, p. 16., l. 10. अथर्ववेदस्तु यज्ञानुपयुक्तः शान्तिपौष्टिकामिचारादिकर्मप्रतिपादकलेनात्यंतविलक्षण एव।

c10.83

Again this statement that of Kumârila should be taken into The real answer to a supposition which would assign the Rig-veda-sanhitâ to the Brahman is, that to him also that collection of hymns would have been of no practical utility. He would have learnt from it many a hymn never called for, never used at any sacrifice; and he would have had to unlearn the order both of hymns and verses whenever he wished to utilise his knowledge for the practical objects of his station.

c10.84

We may, therefore, safely ascribe the collection of the Rig-veda, or, as Professor Roth calls it, the historical Veda, to a less practical age than that of the Brâhmaṇa period; to an age, not entirely free from the trammels of a ceremonial, yet not completely enslaved by a system of mere formalities; to an age no longer creative and impulsive, yet not without some power of upholding the traditions of a past that spoke to a later generation of men through the very poems which they were collecting with so much zeal and accuracy.

c10.85

The work of the Mantra period is not entirely represented by the collection of the ancient hymns. Such a work would be sufficient in itself to give a character to an age, and we might appeal, in the history of ancient Greek literature, to the age of the Diaskeuasts. A generation which begins to collect has entered into a new phase of life. Nations, like individuals, become conservative when they cease to trust implicitly in themselves, and have learnt from experience that they are not better than their account : (i. 3.) शान्तिपुष्यभिचारार्था ह्येकब्रह्म्विंगाश्रिताः क्रियास्तत्र प्रमीयन्तेऽचाप्येवात्मीयगोचराः॥ fathers. But though the distinctive feature of the Mantra period consisted in gathering the fruits of a bye-gone spring, this was not the only work which occupied the Brahmans of that age. Where poems have to be collected from the mouth of the people, they have likewise to be arranged. Corrections are supposed to be necessary; whole verses may have to be supplied. After collecting and correcting a large number of poems, many a man would feel disposed to try his own poetical powers; and if new songs were wanted, it did not require great talent to imitate the simple strains of the ancient Rishis. Thus we find in the Rig-veda, that, after the collection of the ten Maṇḍalas was finished, some few hymns were added, generally at the end of a chapter, which are known by the name of Khilas. We can hardly call them successful imitations of the genuine songs; but in India they seem to have soon acquired a certain reputation. They found their way into the Sanhitâs of the other Vedas; they are referred to in the Brâhmaṇas; and though they are not counted in the Anukramaṇîs, together with the original hymns, they are there also mentioned as recognised additions.

c10.86

Besides these hymns, which were added after the collection of the ten books had been completed, there is another class of hymns, actually incorporated in the sacred Decads, but which nevertheless must be ascribed to poets who were imitators of earlier poets, and whose activity, whether somewhat anterior to, or contemporaneous with the final edition of the Rig-veda-sanhitâ, must be referred to the same Mantra period. We need not appeal to the tradition of the Brahmans, who, in matters of this kind, are extremely untrustworthy. They place a very small interval between the latest poets of the hymns and the final collection of the ten books. The latter they ascribe to Kṛiṣhṇa Dvaipâyana Vyâsa, the embodiment of the Indian διασκευή, whereas one of the poets whose hymns form part of the Sanhitâ, is Parâśara, the reputed father of Vyâsa.

c10.87

But we have better evidence in the hymns themselves, that some of their authors belonged to a later, generation than that of the most famous Rishis. The most celebrated poets of the Veda are those who are now called the Mâdhyamas¹, from the fact of their hymns standing between the first and the last books of our collection. They are Gṛitsamada, (2d Maṇḍala), Viśvâmitra (3d Maṇḍala), Vâmadeva (4th Maṇḍala), Atri (5th Maṇḍala), Bharadvâja (6th Maṇḍala), and Vasiṣhṭha (7th Maṇḍala). Added to these are, in the beginning, the hymns of various poets, collected in the first Maṇḍala, called the book of the Śatarchins, from the fact that each poet contributed about a hundred verses; and at the end, the book of the Pragâtha hymns (8th Maṇḍala), the book of the Soma hymns (9th Maṇḍala), and the book of long and short hymns, ascribed to the Kshudrasûkta and Mahâsûkta poets, which, in accordance with its very name, is a miscellaneous collection.

c10.88

¹ See page 42, note 2, and page 59.

c10.89

It by no means follows that all the hymns of the seven middle Rishis are more ancient than those of the first and the last books; or that these books contain nothing but modern hymns. But the very name of Mâdhyama, given to the poets of the books from the second to the seventh, shows that they were considered, even by the Brahmans, as distinct from the first and the three last books. They are not the middle books numerically, but they are called so because they stand by themselves, in the midst of other books of a more miscellaneous character.

c10.90

Traces, however, of earlier and later poems are to be found through the whole collection of the Rig-veda; and many hymns have been singled out by different scholars as betraying a later origin than the rest. All such hymns I refer to the Mantra period, to an age which, though chiefly occupied in collecting and arranging, possessed likewise the power of imitating, and carrying on the traditions of a former age.

c10.91

It is extremely difficult to prove the modern origin of certain hymns, and I feel by no means convinced by the arguments which have been used for this purpose. At present, however, I need not enter into the minutiæ of this critical separation of ancient and modern poetry. It is not my object to prove that this or that hymn is more modern than the rest; but I only wish to establish the general fact that, taken as a whole, the hymns do contain evidence of having been composed at various periods.

c10.92

In order to guard against misconceptions, it should be understood that, if we call a hymn modern, all that can be meant is that it was composed during the period which succeeded the first spring of Vedic poetry, i.e. during the Mantra period. There is not a single hymn in the Rig-veda that could be ascribed to the Brâhmaṇa period. Even a few of the Khilas, modern as they appear to us, are presupposed by the Brâhmaṇas and quoted, together with other more ancient hymns. The most modern hymns in the Rig-vedasanhitâ, if our calculations are right, must have been composed previous to 800 B.C., previous to the first introduction of prose composition.

c10.93

In order to prove that the hymns which are now thrown together into one body of sacred poetry, were not the harvest of one single generation of poets, we have only to appeal to the testimony of the poets themselves, who distinguish between ancient and modern hymns. Not only has the tradition of the Brahmans, which is embodied in the Anukramanîs, assigned certain hymns to Rishis, who stand to each other in the relation of father and son, and grandson, but the hymns themselves allude to earlier poets, and events which in some are represented as present, are mentioned in others as belonging to the past. The argument which Dr. Roth¹ has used in order to prove the comparatively modern date of the Atharvana, applies with equal force to some of the hymns of the Rig-veda. Here, also, the names of Purumîlha, Vasishtha, Jamadagni, and others, who are known as the authors of certain hymns, are mentioned in other hymns as sages, who in former times enjoyed the favour of the gods.

c10.94

¹ Abhandlungen, p. 43.

c10.95

“As our ancestors have praised thee, we will praise thee,” is a very frequent sentiment of the Vedic poets. A new song was considered a special honour to the gods. The first hymn of the Rig-veda gives utterance to this sentiment. “Agni,” says Madhuchhandas, “thou who art worthy of the praises of ancient, and also of living poets, bring hither thou the gods.”

c10.96

Viśvâmitra, the father of Madhuchhandas, and himself one of the ancient Rishis, concludes his first hymn¹ with the words, "I have proclaimed, O Agni, these thy ancient songs², and new songs for thee who art old. These great libations have been made to him who showers benefits upon us: the sacred fire has been kept from generation to generation."

c10.97

¹ Rv. iii. 1. 20.

c10.98

² Janimâ, originally creations, ποιήματα; it is likewise explained as works. Cf. iii. 39. 1.

c10.99

In another hymn³, Viśvâmitra distinguishes between three classes of hymns, and speaks of Indra as having been magnified by ancient, middle, and modern songs.

c10.100

³ Rv. iii. 32. 13.

c10.101

The sacrifice itself is sometimes represented as a thread which unites the living with the departed, and through them, with the first ancestors of man, the gods.⁴ The son carries on the weaving which was interrupted by the death of his father⁵, and the poet, at the beginning of a sacred rite⁶, exclaims, "I believe I see, with the eye of the mind, those who in byegone days performed this sacrifice." With a similar feeling, Viśvâmitra, in his morning prayer, looks back to his fathers, who have gazed on the rising sun before him, and have exalted the power of the gods:⁷

c10.102

⁴ See my Essay on the Funeral Ceremonies, p. xxii. note.

c10.103

⁵ Rv. x. 130. 1.

c10.104

⁶ Rv. x. 130. 7.

c10.105

⁷ Rv. iii. 39.

c10.106

"To Indra goes my thought, spoken out from the heart, to him, the Lord, it goes, fashioned by the bard. It awakes thee when it is recited at the sacrifice."

c10.107

crifice; Indra, take heed of that which is made for thee!

c10.108

“Rising even before the day, awakening thee when recited at the sacrifice, clothed in sacred white raiments¹, this is our prayer, the old, the prayer of our fathers.

c10.109

¹ The Viśvâmitras wore white raiments. Their colour, called arjuna, can hardly be distinguished, however, from the colour of the dress of the Vasisṭhas, which is called śveta.

c10.110

“The Dawn, the mother of the twins, has given birth to the twins (i. e. Day and Night)—the top of my tongue fell, for he (the Sun) came. The twins, who have come near the root of the Sun, assume their bodies as they are born together, the destroyers of darkness.

c10.111

“Amongst men there is no one to scoff at them who were our fathers, who fought among the cattle. Indra, the mighty and powerful, has stretched out their firm folds.”²

c10.112

² Gotra, originally a hurdle, then those who live within the same hurdles or walls; a family, a race.

c10.113

Vasisṭha, another of the ancient Rishis, speaks likewise of ancient and modern hymns by which others, besides his own family, secured the favour of the gods.³ “Whatever poets, ancient or modern, wise men, made prayers to thee, O Indra, ours may be thy propitious friendship: protect us, O gods, always with your blessings!”

c10.114

³ Rv. vi. 23. 9.

c10.115

One of the greatest events in the life of Vasisṭha was the victory which King Sudâs achieved under his guidance. But in the Maṇḍala of the Vasisṭhas, the same event is sometimes alluded to as belonging to the past, and in one of the hymns ascribed to the same Vasistha we read: “ Committing our sons and offspring to the same good protection which Aditi, Mitra, and Varuna, like guardians, give to Sudas, let us not make our gods angry.”

c10.116

These passages, which might be greatly increased, will be sufficient to show that there were various generations of Vedic poets. The traces of actual imitations are less considerable than we might expect under such circumstances; and where we do meet with stereotyped phrases, it is often difficult to say which poet used them for the first time. When we find Dirghatamas Auchathya, beginning a hymn to Vishnu with the words, “ Let me now proclaim the manly deeds of Vishnu;” and another hymn of Hiranyastupa Angirasa to Indra, beginning with, “ Let me now proclaim the manly deeds of Indra,” we may suppose that the one hymn was composed with a pointed reference to the other; but we cannot tell which of the two was the original, and which the copy.

c10.117

The fact, however, of ancient and modern hymns being once admitted, we may hope to arrive gradually at some criteria by which to fix the relative age of single hymns. Some of the hymns betray their comparatively modern origin by frequent allusion to ceremonial subjects. I do not mean to say that the sacrifice as such, was not as old and primitive an institution as sacred poetry itself. Most of the hymns owe their origin to sacrifices, to public or domestic holy-days. But those sacrifices were of a much more simple nature than the later Vedic ceremonial. When the father of a family was priest, poet, and king, in one person, there was no thought as yet of distributing the ceremonial duties among sixteen priests, each performing his own peculiar office, or of measuring the length of every log that should be put on the fire, and determining the shape of every vessel in which the libations should be offered. It was only after a long succession of sacrifices that the spontaneous acts and observances of former generations would be treasured up, and established as generally binding. It was only after the true meaning of the sacrifice was lost, that unmeaning ceremonies could gain that importance which they have in the eyes of priests. If a hymn addressed to the gods had been heard, if a famine had ceased after a prayer, an illness been cured with a charm, an enemy been vanquished with war songs; not only would these songs, however poor, be kept and handed down in a family as the most precious heirloom, but the position in which the poet recited them, the time of the day, the most minute circumstances of every act, would be superstitiously preserved, in order to insure the future efficiency of the prayer. This was the origin of a ceremonial so complicated as that of the Brahmans. Now, we find in some of the hymns allusions which refer, not to a naturally growing, but to an artificial and a decaying ceremonial.

c10.118

The most ancient name for a priest by profession was Purohita, which only means præpositus or præses. The Purohita, however, was more than a priest. He was the friend and counsellor of a chief, the minister of a king, and his companion in peace and war. Vasishtha and Viśvâmitra, who with their families have both been the Purohitas of King Sudâs, did more for the king than chaunting hymns to implore the aid of their gods. Vasishtha was with the army of Sudâs when that king conquered the ten kings who had crossed the Parushṇî (Hydraotis, Rawi); Viśvâmitra, when Sudâs himself crossed the Vipaś (Hyphasis, Beyah) and the Śatadru (Hesudrus, Sutlej).¹ The importance of their office is best shown by the violent contest which these two families of the Vasisṭhas and Viśvâmitras carried on, in order to secure for themselves the hereditary dignity of Purohita. There was a similar contest between the priests at the Court of Asamâti, a descendant of Ikshvâku. He, not satisfied with his four Purohitas, Bandhu, Subandhu, Śrutabandhu, and Viprabandhu, who were brothers and belonged to the family of the Gaupâyanas, dismissed them, and appointed two new priests (mâyâvinau). These new Purohitas, seeing that the Gaupâyanas used incantations against the life of King Asamâti, retaliated, and caused, by their charms, the death of one of them, Subandhu. Thereupon the other three brothers composed a song to appease the wrath of the two priests, and to save their own lives. This song and some others connected with the same contest, form part of the 8th Ashṭaka of the Rig-veda.

c10.119

¹ See Prof. Roth’s excellent essay on Vasisṭha and Viśvâmitra, in his work, “Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Veda,” published as early as 1846.

c10.120

The very fact of the office of Purohita being hereditary shows that it partook of a political character. It seems to have been so at an early time. In a hymn of the Rig-veda, i. 94. 6, where Agni is invoked under several priestly names, he is called, Janushâ Purohita or Purohita by birth. Cf. i. 102. 8. And we find several instances where priests, if once employed by a royal family, claim to be employed always. When Janamejaya Pârikshita ventured to perform a sacrifice without the Kaśyapas, he was forced by the Asita-mṛigas, a family of the Kaśyapas to employ them again. When Viśvântara Saushadmana drove away the Syâ-parṇas from his sacrifice, he was prevailed upon by Râma Mârgaveya to call them back.¹ All this shows that the priestly office was of great importance in the ancient times of India.

First 119 of 254 passages. Read on

Linked texts (50)