History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c53.4.3

v3.c53.4.3

XV. 10. 17). There was only one puronuvākyā, one praiṣa and one yājyā for all cups.²⁶⁶³ On the dakṣiṇa fire a vessel having a hundred holes covered with a hair strainer and gold and containing the remnants of the wine cups was hung by means of a *śikya* and the trickling drops of wine were offered to pitṛs called Somavat, Barhiṣad and Agniṣvātta with Vāj. S. XIX. 52-60. It is to be noted that the remnants of the wine were not drunk by the priests, but were either drunk by a brāhmaṇa hired for the purpose (Āp. XIX. 3. 3) or they were poured over an ant-hill. Āśv. (III. 9. 5-6) says that the priests muttered a verse (which is Vāj. S. XIX. 35) and only smelt the remnants of the wine offered (this is called prāṇabhakṣa). Śāṅ. notes that some teachers recited the puronuvākyā, yājyā and praiṣa in an entirely changed form (probably as directly mentioning only surā and not in the phraseology of soma) but it should not be so done, since that is a method fit only for asuras. From this one may plausibly argue that the Sautrāmaṇī was practised among Asuras (non-Aryan people or schismatics) and was adopted by the Vedic Aryans, with appropriate changes. But it is clear that the drinking of surā by priests was condemned even then.²⁶⁶⁴ Eggeling (in S. B. E. vol. 44 p. 246 n) does not appear to be right so far at least as the sūtra literature goes when he says that the priests drank the remnants of the wine cups (though the Śat. Br.