Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book XV

Book XV.

⌊The Vrātya.⌋

⌊This fifteenth book is the third book of the third grand division (books xiii.-xviii.) of the Atharvan collection; and (like books xiii. and xiv.) it clearly shows that unity of subject which is the distinguishing characteristic of the books of the division. Books xv. and xvi. are unlike all the others in that they consist exclusively of paryāya-sūktas, the former of 18, and the latter of 9. The book has, I believe, the distinction of being the first book of the Atharva-veda ever translated into an Occidental language: not only a translation of it, but also the original text, was published by Theodor Aufrecht, in the very first part of the first volume of the Indische Studien, pages 121-140, in August, 1849 (title-page, 1850: but see ZDMG. iii., pages 484, 482), some five or six years before the first part of the Berlin edition, the provisional preface of which is dated February, 1855. The bhāṣya is again lacking.⌋

⌊The word vrā́tya is defined by BR. as 'belonging to a roving band (vrā́ta), vagrant; member of a fellowship that stood without the Brahmanical pale.' It is further applied to the son of an uninitiated man (Bāudhāyana, i. [8.] 16¹⁶: cf. Manu, x. 20), or also to one who has let the proper time for the sacrament of initiation slip by (Manu, ii. 39). And the MBh., at v. 35. 46 = 1227, classes the vrātya with the offscourings of society, such as incendiaries, poisoners, pimps, adulterers, abortionists, drunkards, and so on.—In the St. Petersburg Lexicon, vi. 1503, BR. express the opinion that the praise of the vrātya in this book is an idealization of the pious vagrant or wandering religious mendicant. In this connection, Weber's History of Indian Lit., p. 112, may be consulted; also Bloomfield's more recent paragraph in his contribution to Bühler-Kielhorn's Grundriss, entitled The Atharvaveda, p. 94.⌋

⌊The Anukr., in its statements as to the "deity" of the book, says adhyātmakam (see p. 773); and the Cūlikā Upanishad (see Deussen's Upanishads, pages 637, 640) reckons the vrātya as one among the many forms in which Brahman is celebrated in the AV., mentioning in the same verse with vrātya (celebrated in AV. xv.) also the brahmacārin and the skambha and the palita (celebrated respectively at AV. xi. 5 and x. 7, 8 and ix. 9), etc.—And this view accords well with the penultimate verse of the fifth prapāṭhaka of the Chāndogya Upanishad (v. 24. 4), where it is said of the sacrificial remnant that, if it be offered even to an outcaste, it is as good as if offered to the omnipresent All-soul, provided only it be done with the right knowledge. And a similar idea is perhaps meant to be expressed by our text here, AV. xv. 13. 8, 9.⌋

⌊In spite of its puerility and surface-obscurity, the book is not unworthy of a searching investigation. That investigation should be one of much wider scope than I can now make; but I presume that the principal passages of the literature which would here come into consideration are those that treat of the vrātya-stomas (ceremonies by which vrātyas gain admission to the Brahmanical order), namely the seventeenth adhyāya of the PB. (parts 1-4) and the eighth prapāṭhaka of LÇS. (part 6).—Excerpts from these passages were given by Weber (1849), Ind. Stud. i. 33, 52; and, more recently, the main points were reported by Hillebrandt, Ritual-litteratur, p. 139. And the whole matter has been made the subject of an article by Rājārām Rāmkrishṇa Bhāgavat, in the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the RAS., vol. xix., pages 357-364. He regards the vrātyas as non-Aryans. It is noteworthy that a number of the articles of the outfit of a vrātya as rehearsed by these two texts are found also in our AV. text: so, for example, the turban, the goad, the vipatha.

⌊The divisions of the book.—To begin with, the division into two anuvākas or 'lessons,' the first of 7 and the second of 11 paryāyas, is clearly avouched by the Old Anukr. (see next ¶ but one); and it is also proved by AV. xix. 23. 25, where the vrā́tya-book is mentioned as a dual, the text reading vrātyā́bhyāṁ [accent!: sc. anuvākā́bhyām?] svā́hā, 'to the anuvakas about the vrā́tya hail!'—The decad-division is wanting.⌋

⌊In the foregoing books, the Berlin edition has grouped together for the purposes of numeration the combinable paryāyas (see pages 471-2) so as to form the groups which it numbers as viii. 10 (with 6 paryāyas); ix. 6 (with 6); [ix. 7 has but 1;] xi. 3 (with 3); xii. 5 (with 7); and xiii. 4 (with 6). For theoretical consistency, the same procedure should have been followed in this book and the next: but the practical difference would have amounted to little (we should have had to cite, for example, xv. 1. 18¹ instead of xv. 18. 1, or xvi. 1. 9¹ instead of xvi. 9. 1); moreover, the procedure of the Berlin edition is questionable and has not been followed by the Bombay edition. For an account of the discrepancies thus arising, see pages 610-611; and for SPP's detailed defense of his procedure, see the Critical Notice in his first volume, pages 21-22, where he prints the pertinent text of the Old Anukr. in full and that of the Major Anukr. in large part.—A comparison of the two texts shows that the later work has quoted the precise words of its predecessor throughout.⌋

⌊The quotations from the Old Anukr. are given piecemeal at the end of the anuvāka or paryāya or group of paryāyas to which they severally refer. They may here be given in metrical form. Of the first line, the prior half refers to the first anuvāka as a whole, and the latter half to the second. Lines 2-4 refer to the paryāyas of the first anuvāka; and lines 5-10 refer to those of the second. The numbers in parentheses refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the anuvāka; and those in brackets refer to the paryāyas as counted from the beginning of the book.

vrātyādyāḥ sapta paryāyā ekādaça paro bhavet:
astāu (i. 1) dvyūnā tatas triṅçad (i. 2) ekādaça paro bhavet (i. 3).
dvyūnā tu viṅçatis turyaḥ (i. 4) pañcamaḥ ṣoḍaça smṛtaḥ (i. 5):
viṅçatiḥ ṣaṭ ca ṣaṣṭhaç ca (i. 6) saptamaḥ pañcaka ucyate (i. 7).

ekādaçakās trayo ‘tra bodhyā (ii. 3, 4, 5) [10, 11, 12]
dvāv ādyāv atha niçcitāu trikāu tāu (ii. 1, 2): [8, 9]
ṣaṣṭhaṁ [tu] caturdaçā ’tra vidyād (ii. 6) [13]
daça daçamaṁ (ii. 10) navamas tu saptakaḥ syāt (ii. 9) [17, 16]
catvāri viṅçatiç cāi ’va saptamo vacanāni tu (ii. 7) [14]
aṣṭamaṁ navakaṁ vidyāt (ii. 8) pañcako daçamāt paraḥ (ii. 11) [15, 18]⌋

⌊A conspectus of the divisions in tabular form follows. In each of the two tables, the first line gives the number of the anuvāka, and that of the paryāya as counted from the beginning of the anuvāka; the second line gives the number of the paryāya as counted from the beginning of the book; the third gives the number of such divisions (gaṇas: p. 472) of a paryāya as show minor subdivisions; and these subdivisions are shown in the fourth line of the first table and in the fourth and fifth lines of the second table (the subdivisions of the fourteenth paryāya being called vacanāni: p. 472). In each table, the last line gives the number of divisions of 71. paryāya which are not further subdivided.—Observe that the statements of the two tables are all contained in the text of the Old Anukr., excepting those concerning the number of gaṇas (the third line in each table), which statements are taken from the summations noted by some mss. at the end of the gaṇa-paryāyas, and excepting the "sums" in the last column, and excepting the distribution of the avasānarcas of paryāyas 13 and 11 into 2 categories (as explained in the fourth paragraph of the next page).

Pary.-no in anuv.	i. 1	i. 2	i. 3	i. 4	i. 5	i. 6	i. 7					Sums
" " book	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Gaṇas		4		6	7	9
Gaṇāvasānarcas		28		18	16	26						88
Paryāyāvasānarcas	8		11				5					24
												112
Pary.-no in anuv.	ii. 1	ii. 2	ii. 3	ii. 4	ii. 5	ii. 6	ii. 7	ii. 8	ii. 9	ii. 10	ii. 11
" " book	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Gaṇas				3		5	12
Gaṇāvasānarcas				6		10						16
Vacanāni							24					24
Paryāyāvasānarcas	3	3	11	5	11	4		9	7	10	5	68
												108

Note that the "fourteen" and "eleven" assigned respectively to paryāyas ii. 6 (or 13) and ii. 4 (or 11) represent non-coördinate divisions, as explained below, p. 772.—Some mss. sum up the avasānarcas of the first anuvāka as 112. This agrees with the Old Anukr. (and the table). At the end of the second, we find the summation: gaṇas, 20; gaṇa-avasānarcas, 16; vacana-avasānarcas, 24; paryāya-avasānarcas, 71; in all, 16 + 24 + 71 = 111. This agrees with the table except in the last item, 71, which exceeds the 68 of the table by 3; and the sum for the whole book, (112 + 111 =) 223, shows the same excess.⌋ ⌊See pp. clxi, cxxx end, cxxxvii top, clx.⌋

⌊Differences between the two editions in the divisions of the paryāyas. There are no differences between them in the paryāyas proper (as distinguished from the gaṇa-paryāyas), i.e. in those eleven paryāyas which have no subdivided divisions, to wit, paryāyas 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18. But for 15 and 16 and 17, this statement needs to be modified by rehearsal of the fact that SPP. prefixes to yò ‘sya of each of the avasānarcas of the Berlin ed. from 15. 3 to 17. 7, and also to the 3 remaining avasānarcas of 17, the words tásya vrā́tyasya with an avasāna-mark, but nevertheless makes his numbering as does the Berlin ed.⌋

⌊The differences accordingly are confined to the remaining seven paryāyas (those which have subdivided divisions), that is, to the gaṇa-paryāyas 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14.—In paryāya 14, each of the 12 numbered divisions of the Berlin ed. is really a gaṇa and is subdivided (alike in both editions, by a mark just after kṛtvā́) into 2 vacanas: but the vacanas are numbered as 24 only by SPP.—A similar statement applies to paryāya 4, save that here the subdivision is each time into 3: thus the 6 divisions of the Berlin ed. become 18 with SPP.—We should expect the case of paryāya 6 to be just like that of 4: namely that the 9 gaṇas of the Berlin ed. would become (9 × 3 =) 27 gaṇa-avasānarcas in the Bombay ed.; but in fact the mss. divide one gaṇa (the eighth: see note thereon) into only 2 subdivisions; so that the sum is only 26. Note here especially that the anomalous division is supported by the Old Anukr. and that the two editions do not differ in the marking of the subdivisions, but only in the numbering.⌋

⌊With paryāyas 5 and 2, the case is as explained on pages 628-629: in a sequence of refrains or anuṣan̄gas, the refrain is given in full and counted as a separate avasāna only for its first and last occurrence in that sequence.—In paryāya 5 (see note), there are 7 gaṇas, each with 3 subdivisions (the first ending with akurvan and the second with ī́çānaḥ): therefore we have 2 gaṇas (the first and last), each with 3 subdivisions, making 6; and the remaining 5, each with 2 (a and b-c), making 10; and so, in all, 16.—In paryāya 2 (for minor differences, see notes), we have the first and last, each with 8 subdivisions, making 16; and the remaining 2, each with 6 (a, b, c, d, e, and f-h), making 12; and so, in all, 28.⌋

⌊Finally, in the case of paryāyas 13 and 11, we have divisions which are not coördinate. In 13, each of the first 5 divisions as numbered in the Berlin ed. is really a gaṇa with 2 subdivisions (the prior one ending with vásati); and each of the remaining 4 is undivided: SPP. therefore numbers them as (5 × 2 =) 10 gaṇa-avasānarcas and 4 paryāya-avasānarcas, thus making "14 avasānarcas of both kinds," as required by the Old Anukr.—In the case of paryāya 11, the Old Anukr. requires the division into 11 avasānarcas, and this is the division of both editions. The requirement of the non-coördinate subdivisions, namely into 5 + (3 × 2 =) 6 = 11, is made only by the summations of the mss., and only by some of them, not all. This division, if made at all, is doubtless to be made by taking the first 5 as paryāya-avasānarcas and the last 6 as gaṇa-avasānarcas (3 gaṇas of 2 each).⌋

⌊Of this book we find in Pāipp. (in xviii.) only the first paryāya and a phrase from the second.* Moreover, neither Kāuç. nor Vāit. make any citations from the book; but it may be noted that xv. 5. 1 is reckoned to the rāudra gaṇa by the schol. to Kāuç. 50. 13. In respect of contents and style, the book is quite like the Brāhmaṇas, and it is all in prose. Occasional sequences of words are rhythmical (so the first phrase of 17. 8 and the relative clauses of 15 and 16 and 17); but these are doubtless mere casual lapses into meter (cf. p. 869).⌋ *⌊See p. 1016.⌋

⌊Whitney's ms. appears to indicate that he intended to give to each paryāya-sūkta a heading (in Clarendon type, as before); and I have thought it well, for the sake of convenience and typographical clearness, to carry out his apparent intent—Moreover, to facilitate reference to the Bombay edition, I have added, in ell-brackets (⌊ ⌋), the numbers of SPP's minor divisions, wherever the latter differ from those of the Berlin edition.⌋

⌊The excerpts from the Major Anukr. which concern the kāṇḍa as a whole may first be given.⌋

[aṣṭādaça paryāyāḥ. adhyātmakam; mantroktadevatyā uta vrātyadāivatam.]

Hymn- number			Page
Book XV.—The Vrātya. Seer :—
Hymn 1	Paryāya the first	or xv. 1. 1	773
	Paryāya the second	or xv. 1. 2	774
	Paryāya the third	or xv. 1. 3	776
	Paryāya the fourth	or xv. 1. 4	777
	Paryāya the fifth	or xv. 1. 5	778
	Paryāya the sixth	or xv. 1. 6	780
	Paryāya the seventh	or xv. 1. 7	781
2	Paryāya the eighth	or xv. 2. 1	782
	Paryāya the ninth	or xv. 2. 2	783
	Paryāya the tenth	or xv. 2. 3	783
	Paryāya the eleventh	or xv. 2. 4	784
	Paryāya the twelfth	or xv. 2. 5	785
	Paryāya the thirteenth	or xv. 2. 6	786
	Paryāya the fourteenth	or xv. 2. 7	788
	Paryāya the fifteenth	or xv. 2. 8	789
	Paryāya the sixteenth	or xv. 2. 9	790
	Paryāya the seventeenth	or xv. 2. 10	791
	Paryāya the eighteenth	or xv. 2. 11	791