The History of Indian Literature c8.300

Language: English

c8.300.1

In the first place, as regards the Saṃhitá of the White Yajus, the *Vájasaneyi-Saṃhitá*, it is extant in both recensions in 40 *adhyáyas*. In the Mádhyaṃdina recension these are divided into 303 *anuvákas* and 1975 *kaṇḍikás*. The first 25 *adhyáyas* contain the formulas for the general sacrificial ceremonial;¹²¹ first (i., ii.) for the new and fullmoon sacrifice; then (iii.) for the morning and evening fire sacrifice, as well as for the sacrifices to be offered every four months at the commencement of the three seasons; next (iv.–viii.) for the Soma sacrifice in general, and (ix., x.) for two modifications of it; next (xi.–xviii.) for the construction of altars for sacred fires; next (xix.–xxi.) for the *sautrámaṇí*, a ceremony originally appointed to expiate the evil effects of too free indulgence in the Soma drink; and lastly (xxii.–xxv.) for the horse sacrifice. The last seven of these *adhyáyas* may possibly be regarded as a later addition to the first eighteen. At any rate it is certain that the last fifteen *adhyáyas* which follow them are of later, and possibly of considerably later, origin. In the Anukramaṇí of the White Yajus, which bears the name of Kátyáyana, as well as in a Pariśishṭa¹²² to it, and subsequently also in Mahídhara’s commentary on the Saṃhitá, xxvi.–xxxv. are expressly called a *Khila*, or supplement, and xxxvi.–xl., *Śukriya*, a name above explained.

c8.300.2

This statement the commentary on the Code of Yájnavalkya (called Mitákshará) modifies to this effect, that the *Śukriya* begins at xxx. 3, and that xxxvi. 1 forms the beginning of an Áraṇyaka.∗ The first four of these later added *adhyáyas* (xxvi.–xxix.) contain sacrificial formulas which belong to the ceremonies treated of in the earlier *adhyáyas*, and must be supplied thereto in the proper place. The ten following *adhyáyas* (xxx.–xxxix.) contain the formulas for entirely new sacrificial ceremonies, viz., the *purusha-medha* (human sacrifice),¹²³ the *sarva-medha* (universal sacrifice), the *pitṛi-medha* (oblation to the Manes), and the *pravargya* (purificatory sacrifice).¹²⁴ The last *adhyáya*, finally, has no sort of direct reference to the sacrificial ceremonial. It is also regarded as an Upanishad,∗ and is professedly designed to fix the proper mean between those exclusively engaged in sacrificial acts and those entirely neglecting them. It belongs, at all events, to a very advanced stage of speculation, as it assumes a Lord (*íś*) of the universe.†—Independently of the above-mentioned external testimony to the later origin of these fifteen *adhyáyas*, their posteriority is sufficiently proved by the relation in which they stand both to the Black Yajus and to their own Bráhmaṇa, as well as by the data they themselves contain.

c8.300.3

In the Taittiríya-Saṃhitá only those formulas appear which are found in the first eighteen *adhyáyas*, together with a few of the *mantras* belonging to the horse sacrifice; the remainder of the latter, together with the *mantras* belonging to the *sautrámaṇí* and the human sacrifice, are only treated of in the Taittiríya-Bráhmaṇa; and those for the universal and the purificatory sacrifices, as well as those for oblations to the Manes, only in the Taittiríya-Áraṇyaka. In like manner, the first eighteen *adhyáyas* are cited in full, and explained word by word in the first nine books of the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus; but only a few of the formulas for the *sautrámaṇí*, the horse sacrifice, human sacrifice, universal sacrifice, and oblation to the Manes (xix.–xxxv.) are cited in the twelfth and thirteenth books, and that for the most part only by their initial words, or even merely by the initial words of the *anuvákas*, without any sort of explanation; and it is only the three last *adhyáyas* but one (xxxvii.–xxxix.) which are again explained word by word, in the beginning of the fourteenth book. In the case of the *mantras*, but slightly referred to by their initial words, explanation seems to have been considered unnecessary, probably because they were still generally understood; we have, therefore, of course, no guarantee that the writer of the Bráhmaṇa had them before him in the form which they bear at present.

c8.300.4

As to those *mantras*, on the contrary, which are not mentioned at all, the idea suggests itself that they may not yet have been incorporated into the Saṃhitá text extant when the Bráhmaṇa was composed. They are, roughly speaking, of two kinds. First, there are strophes borrowed from the Ṛik, and to be recited by the Hotar, which therefore, strictly speaking, ought not to be contained in the Yajus at all, and of which it is possible that the Bráhmaṇa may have taken no notice, for the reason that it has nothing to do with the special duties of the Hotar; *e.g.*, in the twentieth, thirty-third, and thirty-fourth *adhyáyas* especially. Secondly, there are passages of a Bráhmaṇa type, which are not, however, intended, as in the Black Yajus, to serve as an explanation of *mantras* preceding them, but stand independently by themselves; *e.g.*, in particular, several passages in the nineteenth *adhyáya*, and the enumeration, in the form of a list, of the animals to be dedicated at the horse sacrifice, in the twenty-fourth *adhyáya*. In the first eighteen *adhyáyas* also, there occur a few sacrificial formulas which the Bráhmaṇa either fails to mention (and which, therefore, at the time when it was composed, did not form part of the Saṃhitá), or else cites only by their initial words, or even merely by the initial words of the *anuvákas*.

c8.300.5

But this only happens in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth *adhyáyas*, though here with tolerable frequency, evidently because these *adhyáyas* themselves bear more or less the character of a Bráhmaṇa.—With regard, lastly, to the data contained in the last *adhyáyas*, and testifying to their posteriority, these are to be sought more especially in the thirtieth and thirty-ninth *adhyáyas*, as compared with the sixteenth. It is, of course, only the Yajus portions proper which can here be adduced, and not the verses borrowed from the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, which naturally prove nothing in this connection. At most they can only yield a sort of measure for the time of their incorporation into the Yajus, in so far as they may be taken from the latest portions of the Ṛik, in which case the existence of these at that period would necessarily be presupposed. The data referred to consist in two facts. First, whereas in the sixteenth book Rudra, as the god of the blazing fire, is endowed with a large number of the epithets subsequently applied to Śiva, two very significant epithets are here wanting which are applied to him in the thirty-ninth book, viz., *íśána* and *mahádeva*, names probably indicating some kind of sectarian worship (see above, p. 45). Secondly, the number of the mixed castes given in the thirtieth is much higher than that given in the sixteenth book.

c8.300.6

Those mentioned in the former can hardly all have been in existence at the time of the latter, or we should surely have found others specified besides those that are actually mentioned.