Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Indian Literature v1.c8.s4: The Ancient Indian Sacrifice and the Vedic Saṃhitās

A History of Indian Literature v1.c8.s4

Language
English

The Ancient Indian Sacrifice and the Vedic Saṃhitās

v1.c8.s4.1

The two Saṁhitās which have so far been discussed have in common the fact that they were not compiled for special liturgical purposes. Although most of the hymns of the Ṛgveda could be, and actually were used for sacrificial purposes, and although the songs and spells of the Atharvaveda were almost throughout employed for ritualistic and magic purposes, yet the collection and arrangement of the hymns in these Saṁhitās have nothing to do with the various liturgical and ritualistic purposes. The hymns were collected for their own sake and arranged and placed, in both these collections, with regard to their supposed authors or the singer-schools to which they belonged, partly also according to their contents and still more their external form—number of verses and such like. They are as we may say, collections of songs which pursue a *literary* object.

v1.c8.s4.2

It is quite different with the Saṁhitās of the two other Vedas, the Sāmaveda and the Yajurveda. In these collections we find the songs, verses, and benedictions arranged according to their practical purposes, in exactly the order in which they were used at the sacrifice. These are, in fact, nothing more than prayer-books and song-books for the practical use of certain sacrificial priests—not indeed written books, but texts, which existed only in the heads of teachers and priests and were preserved by means of oral teaching and learning in the priests’ schools.¹ Now, in order to explain the origin of these Saṁhitās, it is necessary to insert here a few words about the cult of the Aryan Indians. This is the more advisable as a complete understanding of the Vedic literature in general is altogether impossible without a certain insight into the ancient Indian sacrificial cult.

v1.c8.s4.3

¹ Cf. above, p. 36.

v1.c8.s4.4

So far back as we can trace the Vedic-Brahmanic religion there have always been two varieties of the cult. We have seen² that certain hymns of the Ṛgveda and a large number of songs and charms of the Atharvaveda were used as benedictions and prayers at birth and marriage and other occasions of daily life, at funerals and ancestor-worship, as well as at the various ceremonies which had to be performed by the herdsman for the prosperity of the cattle and by the farmer for the growth of the fruits of the field. The Indians call these ceremonies, mostly also connected with sacrifices, "*gṛhyakarmāṇi*," *i.e.* "domestic ceremonies." Concerning these the Gṛhyasūtras, which will be mentioned later, give us detailed information. At the sacrifices which this domestic cult required, the householder himself, who was assisted at most by *one single priest*, the "Brahman," occupied the position of the sacrificial priest.¹ So far as these sacrifices were burnt offerings, the *one fire* of the domestic hearth served as the altar for their presentation. Beside these sacrifices, which every pious Aryan, whether poor or rich, whether aristocratic or humble, performed according to ancient usage, there were also great sacrificial feasts—especially in connection with the Soma-cult relating to Indra, the god of the warriors,—which could only be celebrated by the aristocratic and wealthy, more especially by the kings. On an extensive sacrificial place set up according to firmly established rules, altars were erected for the *three sacred fires*, which were necessary at every sacrifice of this kind, and a multitude of priests, headed by *four chief priests*, were occupied with the performance of the innumerable, extremely intricate rites and ceremonies required for such a sacrifice. The Yajamāna or "sacrificer," the prince or great man, who offered the sacrifice, had very little to do; his chief duty lay in giving the priests a liberal payment for the sacrifice (dakṣiṇā). No wonder that the Brahmans selected these sacrifice-ceremonies, by which they gained the most, as the subject of enthusiastic study, that they developed a regular science of sacrifice, which is set forth in those texts with which we shall become acquainted as Brāhmaṇas, and which form an essential part of the *Śruti*, the "Revelation," *i.e.* of that literature to which, in the course of time, divine origin has been ascribed. These sacrifices, therefore, were called *śrauta-karmāṇi*, "ceremonies based upon Śruti," in contrast to the domestic (gṛhya) ceremonies, which are based only upon *Smṛti*, "memory," *i.e.* tradition, and possess no divine authority.

v1.c8.s4.5

² Cf. above, pp. 95 ff., 107 ff., 135 f.

v1.c8.s4.6

¹ Āśvalāyana--Gṛhyasūtra I, 3, 6: The appointment of a Brahman is optional at domestic sacrifices. Gobhila-Gṛhyasūtra I, 9, 8 f.. The Brahman is the only priest at the Pākayajñas (*i.e.* the "simple sacrifices" of the domestic cult); the sacrificer himself is the Hotar (the priest who recites the verses).

v1.c8.s4.7

Now the four chief priests who were occupied with the Śrauta sacrifices are: (1) The *Hotar* or "caller," who recites the verses (ṛcaḥ) of the hymns in order to praise the gods and invite them to the sacrifice; (2) the *Udgātar* or "singer," who accompanies the preparation and presentation of the sacrifices, especially of the Soma libations, with chants (sāman); (3) the *Adhvaryu* or "executor of the sacrifice," who performs all the sacrificial acts, at the same time muttering the prose prayers and sacrifice formulae (yajus), and (4) the *Brahman* or high priest, whose office it is to protect the sacrifice from harm. For every sacred act, therefore, every sacrifice too is, according to the Indian view, exposed to a certain amount of danger; if an act is not performed exactly in accordance with the ritualistic prescription, if a spell or a prayer formula is not spoken correctly, or if a melody is sung incorrectly, then the sacred act may bring destruction upon the originator of the sacrifice. Therefore the Brahman sits in the south of the place of sacrifice, in order to protect the sacrifice: the south being the haunt of the god of death, and the haunt from which the demons hostile to the sacrifice, threaten the people. He follows the course of the whole sacrifice mentally, and as soon as he notices the least mistake in a sacrificial act, in a recitation or in a chant, he must, by pronouncing sacred words, make good the harm. Therefore the Brahman is called in an old text "the best physician among the sacrificial priests."¹ But in order to be able to fulfil this office the Brahman must be "full of the veda"; he fulfils his office as sacrificial priest "with the threefold knowledge," *i.e.* by means of his knowledge of the three Vedas, which puts him in the position of being able instantly to detect every error.²

v1.c8.s4.8

¹ Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa-XIV, 2, 2, 19. *Cf.* Chāndogya-Upaniṣad IV, 17, 8 f.

v1.c8.s4.9

² Aitareya-Āraṇyaka, III, 2, 3, 6. Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa XI, 5, 8, 7. Only at a later period was the Brahman brought into relationship with the *Atharvaveda*, so that the Atharvaveda was sometimes actually called "Brahmaveda" or "the Veda of the Brahman" and the adherents of the Atharvaveda declared that the Brahman must be a knower of the Atharvaveda-Saṃhitā. In reality the office of the Brahman at the Śrauta-sacrifice has nothing to do with the Atharvaveda. However, we can understand that the two were connected with each other. For, if the Brahman, as remarked above, officiated as the only priest at Gṛhya-sacrifices, he certainly had to be familiar with the benedictions which occur, for the most part, in the Atharvaveda.

v1.c8.s4.10

On the other hand, the three other priests need only know *one* Veda each. The verses with which the Hotar calls the gods to the sacrifice, the so-called "verses of invitation" (anuvākyās), and the verses with which he accompanies the gifts, the so-called "verses of sacrifice" (yājyās), the Hotar takes from the Ṛgveda. He must also know the Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā, *i.e.* he must have memorized it, in order to compile out of it the so-called Śastras or "songs of praise" which he had to recite at the Soma sacrifice. Thus the Ṛgveda Saṃhitā stands in a certain relationship to the hotar, although it is in no wise collected or arranged for the purposes of this priest.

v1.c8.s4.11

However, to the Soma-sacrifice belong not only the songs of praise *recited* by the hotar, but also so-called stotras or "songs of praise," which are *sung* by the udgātar and his assistants.³ Such stotras consist of song-stanzas, *i.e.* stanzas (ṛcaḥ) which had been made the bearers of certain melodies (sāman). These melodies, as well as the song-verses with which they were connected, were learnt by the udgātar-priests in the schools of the *Sāmaveda*, and the Sāmaveda-Saṃhitās are nothing but collections of texts which have been collected for the uses of the udgātars, not for their own sake, but because of the melodies the bearers of which they were.

v1.c8.s4.12

³ In fact the chants (stotras) come *first*, and then the recitations (Śastras).

v1.c8.s4.13

Finally, the Adhvaryu-priest, at his innumerable sacrificial rites, has to utter, in low voice, partly short prose formulae, partly longer prayers in prose and verse—the prose formulae and prayers are called *yajus* (plur. yajūṃsi), the verses *ṛc* (plur. ṛcaḥ).¹ In the Saṃhitās of the *Yajurveda* all these prose formulae and prayers, mostly accompanied by rules and discussions on the sacrificial acts at which they are to be uttered, are collected for the purposes of the Adhvaryu-priest, in the order in which they were used at the sacrifices.

v1.c8.s4.14

¹ The Hotar *recites* the hymns, *i.e.* he repeats them aloud in a kind of sing-song, the udgātar *sings* the songs of praise to certain melodies, the adhvaryu *mutters* the prayers. Only the “Nigadas,” a variation of the Yajus-formulae, which serve the purpose of summoning the other priests to their various occupations, naturally had to be uttered loudly by the adhvaryu.

v1.c8.s4.15

We now turn to the discussion of the liturgical Saṃhitās, as, according to what has just been stated, we may call the Saṃhitās of the Sāmaveda and the Yajurveda, in contrast to these of the Ṛgveda and the Atharvaveda.

Linked texts (5)