A History of Indian Literature v1.c8.s3.15

v1.c8.s3.15

It is no sign of a later date that the sacredness of the Atharvaveda was not recognised by the Indians themselves for a long time, and even to-day is frequently disputed. The reason for this is to be found in the character of this Veda. The purpose of the Atharvaveda is, as the Indians say, "to appease, to bless and to curse."¹ Those numerous magic formulas, however, which contain curses and exorcisms, belong to the province of "unholy magic," which the priesthood and the priestly religion endeavoured more and more to renounce. On the whole there is no essential difference between cult and magic; by means of both man seeks to influence the transcendental world. Moreover, priests and magicians are originally one and the same. But in the history of all peoples there begins a time when the cult of the gods and witchcraft strive to separate (never quite succeeding), when the priest, who is friendly with the gods, renounces the magician, who is in league with the uncanny demon-world, and looks down on him. This contrast between magician and priest developed also in India. Not only the Buddhist and Jain monks are forbidden to devote themselves to the exorcisms of the Atharvaveda and to magic, but also the brahmanical law-books declare sorcery to be a sin, place the magician on a level with impostors and rogues, and invite the king to proceed against them with punishments.² Certainly in other places in the law-books of the Brahmans permission to make use of the exorcisms of the Atharvaveda against enemies is expressly given,³ and the ritual texts, which describe the great sacrifices, contain numerous exorcism-formulas and descriptions of magic rites by means of which the priest can annihilate—so runs the formula—“him who hates us, and him whom we hate.” Yet a certain aversion to the Veda of the magic formulas arose in priestly circles; it was not considered sufficiently orthodox and was frequently excluded from the canon of sacred texts. From the beginning it held a peculiar position in the sacred literature. Wherever, in old works, there is talk of sacred knowledge, there the *trayī vidyā*, “the three-fold knowledge,” that is, Ṛgveda, Yajurveda, and Sāmaveda, is always mentioned first; the Atharvaveda always follows *after* the trayī vidyā, and sometimes is even entirely passed over. It even happens that the Vedāṅgas and the epic narratives (itihāsapurāṇa) are represented as sacred texts, while the Atharvaveda remains unmentioned. Thus in a Gṛhyasūtra¹ a ceremony is described, by which the Vedas are to be “laid into” the new-born child. This takes place by means of a formula, which says: “I lay the Ṛgveda into thee, I lay the Yajurveda into thee, I lay the Sāmaveda into thee, I lay the discourses (vākovākya) into thee, the tales and legends (itihāsapurāṇa) I lay into thee, all the Vedas I lay into thee.” Here, then, the Atharvaveda is intentionally passed over. Even in old Buddhist texts it is said of learned Brahmans that they are versed in the *three Vedas*.² The fact however that already in one Saṁhitā of the Black Yajurveda³ and also occasionally in old Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads the Atharvaveda is mentioned by the side of the three other Vedas shows that this non-mention of the Atharvaveda is no proof of the late origin of the Saṃhitā.