Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book XIX/Hymn 42

42. Extolling the bráhman etc.

[Brahman.—catasras. mantroktabrahmadevatyam. 1. anuṣṭubh; 2. 3-av. kakummatī pathyāpan̄kti; 3. triṣṭubh; 4. jagatī.]

Only fragments of this hymn are found in Pāipp.; ⌊Roth's Collation says that the hymn probably stood somewhere near the beginning⌋. No viniyoga is given.

Translated: Griffith, ii. 298.

1. The bráhman is invoker (hótṛ) the bráhman is the sacrifice; by the bráhman the sacrificial posts are set up; the officiating priest (adhvaryú) is born from the bráhman; within the bráhman is put the oblation.

In a all the authorities ⌊and so SPP.⌋ read yajñā́s, which might better have been left unchanged. In b the authorities have mostly sváravāmitā́ (also svàravāmitā́, and sár- or sàravāmitā́), pada-text svàḥ: avāmitā́; the comm., svaragāmitā, for which he gives a labored and worthless explanation; sváravo mitā́ḥ was our emendation, which is made certain by its occurrence in TB. ii. 4. 7¹⁰ (in a verse otherwise corresponding with our vs. 2); and even SPP. follows it. In d the comm. has brahmaṇi, which suits better with antar; but the same sense is perhaps possible with -ṇas,* which is the universal reading. Then the mss. give antárhite (p. antáḥ॰hite); our edition emends to antár hitám; SPP. agrees so far as to give antárhitam; the comm. has either the one or the other (the absence of accent makes it impossible to say which); if bráhmaṇas is not altered to -ṇi, antárhitam is as good as necessary; otherwise, each is about equally acceptable. *⌊W. seems to have in mind such a construction as tád antár asya sárvasya, at Īçā Upanishad, vs. 5. If so, I do not see why he says that, if we read bráhmaṇas, we must also read antárhitam.⌋

2. The bráhman is the sacrificial spoons filled with ghee; by the bráhman is the sacrificial hearth set up (ud-dhā) and the bráhman is the essence (tattvá) of the sacrifice—the priests that are oblation-makers: ⌊to the slaughtered [victim] hail!⌋

To the verse corresponds one in TB. ii. 4. 7¹⁰, which, however, has for b our 1 b (as noted above), and in c yajñásya tántavaḥ, and lacks the addition after d. In our text is left in a inadvertently srucás, which most of the mss. give; SPP. has the correct srúcas (so TB.). In b, our pada-mss. have út॰hitā, ⌊a word-division⌋ which is contrary to Prāt. iv. 63 and to the usage of the AV. hitherto; SPP. reads in his pada-text úddhitā, and makes no note upon the matter; ⌊he had in fact a note stating that his P.P.²J. also read út॰hitā: but, as appears from his "Corrections" to vol. iv., p. 446, his note was disordered in printing;⌋ the comm. has instead uddhṛtā. In c all the authorities give yajñásya táttvaṁ ca ⌊but W's P. tánvaṁ⌋, and SPP. retains táttvaṁ, without even making the necessary emendation of accent to tattvám; the comm. also supports it, and it is implied in the translation given above; our alteration to yajñáç ca sattráṁ ca is probably more venturesome than is called for. ⌊The place of the accent in the ms.-reading táttvaṁ ca, the Paris reading tán-, the un-Vedic look of tattvam, the ṛ́caḥ prā́ñcas tántavas of AV. xv. 3. 6, and the TB. parallel, all join in suggesting that the true reading is yajñásya tántavas.⌋ In the appendix to the verse, the comm. reads sammitāya.

3. To him who frees from distress I bring forward my devotion (manīṣā́), unto him who rescues well, choosing to myself his favor; accept, O Indra, this oblation; let the desires of the sacrificer be realized.

Or (at the end) 'come true.' A corresponding verse is found in TS. (in i. 6. 12³) and in MS. (in iv. 12. 3). In a both read bharemā ⌊p. -ma⌋ manīṣā́m, thus rectifying the meter; and Ppp. does the same; for b, TS. gives oṣiṣṭhadā́vne sumatíṁ gṛṇānā́ḥ ⌊good grammar (plural -nā́s) and good meter⌋; MS. bhūyiṣṭhadā́vne sumatím āvṛṇānáḥ ⌊bad in both respects⌋. Very nearly all the AV. authorities give in b -tím mā vṛṇānáḥ; ⌊per contra, cf. note to xviii. 2. 3⌋. One would like to get rid of the superfluous ā́ at the beginning of b by emending to āçutrā́vṇe ⌊āçu- would accord closely in sense with the oṣiṣṭha- of TS.⌋. ⌊Our bhare is evidently a corruption due to haplography, which has brought in its train the further corruption of āvṛṇānā́ḥ to -náḥ. In c, d, TS.MS. agree throughout* with AV. ⌊save that MS. has juṣasva for gṛbhāya. In c, Ppp. has havyā; only parts of the verse are left in its text; ⌊Roth says the first word is lost⌋. The comm. reads sutrāmṇe in a, -tiṁ gṛṇānaḥ (like TS.) in b, and havyā (like Ppp.) in c. *⌊In c, the idám of the Berlin text is an emendation, since all the mss. collated by W. before publication have imám; and it is confirmed by TS.MS., which give idám, and by W's subsequently collated O., and apparently also by his L. But SPP. prints imám without note of variant; and the comm. has imam, which he makes = idam in the sense of idānīm!⌋

4. Him who frees from distress, the bull of the worshipful, him that shines forth (vi-rāj), the first of the sacrifices (adhvará), the child of the waters, O Açvins, I call with prayer (dhī́); do ye with Indra give me Indra-like force.

A corresponding verse in TS. (in i. 6. 12³) reads thus: prá samrā́jam prathamám adhvarā́ṇām aṅhomúcaṁ vṛṣabháṁ yajñíyānām: apā́ṁ nápātam açvinā háyantam asmín nara indriyáṁ dhattam ójaḥ. It helps us least in the critical part of our verse, where the mss. all read açvínā huvé ⌊huve, havé⌋ dhíya (p. dhíyaḥ) indriyéṇa ta (p. te) indr-. The translation follows our emendation (açvinā, with TS.; dhiyé ’ndreṇa ma indr-). SPP. follows the mss. Ppp. nearly agrees with them: açvināu huve dhiya indriyeṇa na indriyaṁ dhattam ojaḥ. The comm. has dhiyam and dhattām (but his text, according to SPP., reads dhattam).