No products in the cart.
PARASKARA GRIHYA SUTRA
Introduction
The Grihya-sûtra of Pâraskara, which belongs to the White Jagur-veda and forms an appendix to Kâtyâyana’s Srauta-sûtra, was edited with a German translation by the scholar who first made the Grihya text available to Orientalists and to begin to grapple with the first and most serious difficulties which beset its interpretation , and who has since gone on to shed more light on this important branch of Vedic literature than anyone else. It would be very unbecoming of any one engaged in the study of the Grihyic texts not to acknowledge as heartily as possible the debt which he owes to Professor Stenzler. At the same time, the respect due to the experienced editor and interpreter of Âsvalâyana and Pâraskara not only allows but requires that he who sets himself the same task on which Prof. Stenzler has done so much learning to state as clearly as possible what this eminent scholar left to others and why the one preparing the English translation of the Pâraskara has a completely different task than just translating the German translation of Prof. Stenzler.
If I may allow myself to express in one word the difference between the method of Prof. Stenzler, as I understand it, for understanding the meaning of a doubtful or obscure passage, and by the method I have endeavored to follow, I should say that with Prof. Stenzler first step a
p. 264
[paragraph continues] I believe that in many cases the last step is also to ask ourselves how Gayarâma and Râmakrishna understand the passage in question, while I believe that we should rather separate ourselves from these commentators in the sense that Prof. Max Müller once expressed 1, ‘not that I ever despise the traditional interpretation which the commentators have preserved for us, but because I think we have a right to judge for ourselves after examining it.’ There is a commentary on the Pâraskara-Grihya which far surpasses Gayarâm’s Sagganavallabha and Râmakrishna’s Samskâraganapati in credibility, and which is not composed by an author who, as Goethe says,—im Auslegen ist munter;
Legt er nicht aus, so legt er unter.
Hopefully it won’t be out of place to point out ours
p. 265
criticism, lest it should be thought unjust, with a few remarks on a single passage of Pâraskara, in which the difference between the mode of translation of Prof. Stenzler’s and our own. Of the many passages which might be selected for this purpose, I select Sûtra I, 2, 5, belonging to the description of the establishment of the sacred domestic fire. The text of this Sûtra reads as follows:
5. aranipradûnam eke.
Prof. Stenzler translates as follows:
“Einige sagen, es müsse durch Reibhölzer gerztetes Feuer sein.”
The two preceding sutras give an account of that ceremony from which the opinion of “eke” mentioned in this sutra evidently differs, or to which they consider it necessary to add something. These sutras work like this:
3. Having brought fire from the house of a vaisya who is rich in cattle—
4. All ceremonies are performed as in the cooking of kâtushprâsya 1 food.
It seems clear that the Âkâryas, who hold the view discussed in Sûtra 5, add to, or perhaps substitute for, the procuring of the fire to be worshiped as the domestic fire of the sacrificer from the house of a wealthy vaisya, another ceremony in which the arani, i.e. .a stick for kindling a fire by rubbing, is used in some way.
If this can be accepted as a vague expression of the general meaning of the sutra, what is the literal meaning of these words? ‘Some (teachers),’ he says, ‘(prescribe) pradâna a kindler (or kindlers).’
What does pradâna mean? Gayarâma says,
‘prasabda upasabdârthe. aranyupâdânakam eka âkâryâ ikkhanti.’
p. 266
Thus: ‘The word pra stands for the meaning of the word upa. Some teachers wish it (i.e. fire) to have as its physical basis the kindling sticks 1.’
So if Gayarâma is right, the translation by Prof. Stenzlera would be justified. But can we really agree to simply accept the commentator’s point of view? Pradâna is pradâna and not upâdâna, just as pradadâti is not upâdatte. Pradadâti means ‘hands over’ and pradâna ‘handing over’. This is an established fact, and the interpreter of the Vedic text should not be induced by a statement like Gayarâma’s about the preposition pra standing in the sense of upa, to mitigate one iota of it. Therefore, until passages are discovered which change our knowledge of what pradâna means—but such passages will most certainly never be discovered—we are obliged to translate:
5. Some (teachers say) passing of lighters (take place).
We should give that translation even if we were unable to find an explanation for it. It seems that Prof. Stenzler, so far as we may judge from his note, did not even think of the possibility of ignoring the authority of Gayarâma and Râmakrishna, or of looking into the parallel texts to see if they throw any light on what the ‘passing of the incendiaries’ means. The text to consult first is, of course, the Kâtyâyana Srauta-sûtra. Since the Srauta ritual contains a description of an âdhâna which is in some way the prototype of the corresponding Grihya rite, we may perhaps expect to find in the course of this description the statements concerning the arani-pradâna we are looking for. Now Kâtyâyana 2, after describing the establishment of the fire in the gârhapatyâgâra, states that at sunset the sacrificer and his
p. 267
the wife seats herself to the west of the fire which has just been started, and then the Adhvaryu hands them two kindling sticks 1. The Paddhati goes into further detail in describing this act. The Adhvaryu hands over to the sacrificer two Arani, which, as custom requires, are wrapped in new clothes. The woman takes the adharârani from his hand and places it on her lap; the sacrificer places the uttarârani on his lap and they pay homage to them with flowers, saffron, sandalwood, etc.; then, after performing some other rites, they put both the Arani down on a chair or bench. Both Arani must be kept by the sacrificer; if they are lost or burned or otherwise destroyed, other Aranis must be obtained, and by their destruction a new fire must be kindled 2.
Âpastamba similarly mentions in his description of Agnyâdhâna 3 the handing over of two Aranis and indicates the mantra which the Adhvaryu recites when giving them to the sacrificer and two other mantras with the one from which the sacrificer receives them while reciting the other over the Aranis after taking them into his hands .
Finally, we may quote here, as testimony to the Aranipradâna custom, a passage taken from Nârâyana’s commentary on the Sâṅkhâyana-Grihya. Although the decisive words in this passage rest only on the authority of the commentator, and not on the Sûtrakâra itself, they deserve our notice, as they are not open to the suspicion of being influenced by a misunderstanding of this very Sûtra. from the Pâraskara we are treating. Nârâyana in his explanation of Sâṅkhâyana I, 1, 10 4 says: “To the west of the fire the sacrificer sits and to the south (of him) the wife. The
p. 268
handover of the bilge does not take place. Because it is the fire brought (from the house of the Vaisya, etc.) which is solemnly opened here 1.’ Then the commentator quotes the Stanza:
“The transmission of the Arani, which the Adhvaryu sometimes performs,
“It is not in accordance with the opinion of Suyagña 2; does not approve of starting a fire by wearing 3:
I think, then, that there can be no doubt as to the real meaning of the Pâraskara Sutra: it means what its words mean, and what is consistent with Kâtyâyana and Âpastamba, and not what the gratuitous commentators would have it mean.
Perhaps I have lingered too long here explaining a few words that are not particularly interesting in themselves. But I dare to hope that the discussion of these words will serve as an example in which one can distinguish the fundamental difference between the two ways of dealing with our texts. Let us never forget how much we owe to the scholars who followed the first of these methods, but we ourselves choose the second.
Footnotes
264:1 Sacred Books of the East, Vol. xv, p. 2, note 2.
265:1 Food eaten by the four chief officiating priests of the Srauta ritual. A mess of food is prepared for these priests at the âdhâna ceremony of the Srauta fires.
266:1 Râmakrishna also, according to Professor Stenzler’s note, explains the pradâna by means of upâdâna, kârana, utpattisthâna.
266:2 IV, 7, 55 seq. The corresponding passage of the Paddhati is found on p. 358 of Prof.’s edition. Weber.
267:1 IV, 7, 22: asvatthasamîgarbhâranî prayakkhati.
267:2 See the commentary on IV, 7, 22 and the Karmapradîpa passages cited there.
267:3 Srauta-sûtra V, 8, 7; St. i, p. 255, edition of prof. Garbe.
267:4 Sâyamâhutisamskâroཽdhvaryupratyaya ity âkâryâh.
268:1 Agneh paskâd yagamâno dakshinatah patnî ka upavisati. aranipradânam na kartavyam. âhritasyâgner eva samskârah.
268:2 On this name Sâṅkhâyana, see my Introduction to the Sâṅkhâyana-Grihya translation, above, p.3.
268:3
Atrâranipradânam yad adhvaryuh kurute kvakit,
matam tan na Suyagñasya mathitam soཽtra nekhati.
p. 269
