Page:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu/394

 thought split that egg in two; and from the two halves he fashioned the heaven and the earth, and in the middle, the sky, and the eight regions (the points of the compass), and the perpetual place of the waters. This theory of Brahmā being born from a golden egg is, however, a mere adaptation of the Vedic conception of Hiranya-garbha (“golden embryo”), who is represented as the supreme god in a hymn of the tenth (and last) book of the Ṛigveda. Another still later myth, which occurs in the epic poems, makes Brahma be born from a lotus which grew out of the navel of the god Vishṇu whilst floating on the primordial waters. In artistic representations, Brahmā usually appears as a bearded man of red colour with four heads crowned with a pointed, tiara-like head-dress, and four hands holding his sceptre, or a sacrificial spoon, a bundle of leaves representing the Veda, a bottle of water of the Ganges, and a string of beads or his bow Parivīta. His vehicle (vāhana) is a goose or swan (hamsa), whence he is also called Haṃsāvhana; and his consort is Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning.

One could hardly expect that a colourless deity of this description, so completely the product of priestly speculation, could ever have found a place in the hearts of the people generally, And indeed, whilst in theoretic theology Brahma has retained his traditional place and function down to our own days, his practical cult has at all times remained extremely limited, the only temple dedicated to the worship of this god being found at Pushkar (Pokhar) near Ajmir in Rājputāna. On the other hand, his divine substratum, the impersonal Brahma, the world-spirit, the one and only reality, remains to this day the ultimate element of the religious belief of intelligent India of whatever sect. Being devoid of all attributes, it can be the object only of meditation, not of practical devotional rites; and philosophy can only attempt to characterize it in general and vague terms, as in the favourite formula which makes it to be sachchidānanda, i.e. being (sat), thinking (chit), and bliss (ānanda).

 BRĀHMAṆA, the Sanskrit term applied to a body of prose writings appended to the collections (samhitā) of Vedic texts, the meaning and ritual application of which they are intended to elucidate, and like them regarded as divinely revealed. From a linguistic point of view, these treatises with their appendages, the more mystic and recondite Āraṇyakas and the speculative Upanishads, have to be considered as forming the connecting link between the Vedic and the classical Sanskrit. The exact derivation and meaning of the name is somewhat uncertain. Whilst the masculine term brāhmaṇa (nom. brāhmaṇas), the ordinary Sanskrit designation of a man of the Brahmanical caste, is clearly a derivative of brahman (nom. brahmā), a common Vedic term for a priest (see ), thus meaning the son or descendant of a Brahman, the neuter word brāhmaṇa (nom. brāhmaṇam) on the other hand, with which we are here concerned, admits of two derivations: either it is derived from the same word brahman, and would then seem to mean a dictum or observation ascribed to, or intended for the use of, a Brahman, or superintendent priest; or it has rather to be referred to the neuter noun brahmān (nom. brahmă), in the sense of “sacred utterance or rite,” in which case it might mean a comment on a sacred text, or explanation of a devotional rite, calculated to bring out its spiritual or mystic significance and its bearing on the Brahma, the world-spirit embodied in the sacred writ and ritual. This latter definition seems on the whole the more probable one, and it certainly would fit exactly the character of the writings to which the term relates. It will thus be seen that the term brāhmaṇam applies not only to complete treatises of an exegetic nature, but also to single comments on particular texts or rites of which such a work would be made up.

The gradual elaboration of the sacrificial ceremonial, as the all-sufficient expression of religious devotion, and a constantly growing tendency towards theosophic and mystic speculation on the significance of every detail of the ritual, could not fail to create a demand for explanatory treatises of this kind, which, to enhance their practical utility, would naturally deal with the special texts and rites assigned in the ceremonial to the several classes of officiating priests. At a subsequent period the demand for instruction in the sacrificial science called into existence a still more practical set of manuals, the so-called Kalpa-sūtras, or ceremonial rules, detailing, in succinct aphorisms, the approved course of sacrificial procedure, without reference to the supposed origin or import of the several rites. These manuals are also called Śrauta-sūtras, treating as they do, like the Brāhmaṇas, of the Śrauta rites—i.e. the rites based on the śruti or revelation—requiring at least three sacrificial fires and a number of priests, as distinguished from the gṛihya (domestic) or smārta (traditional) rites, supposed to be based on the smriti or tradition, which are performed on the house-fire and dealt with in the Gṛihya-sūtras.

The ritual recognizes four principal priests (ṛitvij), each of whom is assisted by three subordinates: viz. the Brahman or superintending priest; the Hotṛi or reciter of hymns and verses; the Udgātri or chanter; and the Adhvaryu or offerer, who looks after the details of the ceremonial, including the preparation of the offering-ground, the construction of fire-places and altars, the making of oblations and muttering of the prescribed formulae. Whilst the two last priests have assigned to them special liturgical collections of the texts to be used by them, the Sāmaveda-saṃhitā and Yajurveda-saṃhitā respectively, the Hotṛi has to deal entirely with hymns and verses taken from the Ṛigveda-saṃhitā, of which they would, however, form only a comparatively small portion. As regards the Brahman, he would doubtless be chosen from one of those other three classes, but would be expected to have made himself thoroughly conversant with the texts and ritual details appertaining to all the officiating priests. It is, then, to one or other of those three collections of sacred texts and the respective class of priests, that the existing Brāhmaṇas attach themselves. At a later period, when the Atharvan gained admission to the Vedic canon, a special connexion with the Brahman priest was sometimes claimed, though with scant success, for this fourth collection of hymns and spells, and the comparatively late and unimportant Gopatha-brāhmaṇa attached to it.

The Udgātṛi’s duties being mainly confined to the chanting of hymns made up of detached groups of verses of the Ṛigveda, as collected in the Sāmaveda-saṃhitā, the more important Brāhmaṇas of this sacerdotal class deal chiefly with the various modes of chanting, and the modifications which the verses have to undergo in their musical setting. Moreover, the performance of chants being almost entirely confined to the Soma-sacrifice, it is only a portion, though no doubt the most important portion, of the sacrificial ceremonial that enters into the subject matter of the Sāmaveda Brāhmaṃas.

As regards the Brāhmaṇas of the Ṛigveda, two of such works have been handed down, the Aitareya and the Kaushītaki (or Śānkhāyana)-Brāhmaṇas, which have a large amount of their material in common. But while the former work (transl. into English by M. Haug) is mainly taken up with the Soma-sacrifice, the latter has in addition thereto chapters on the other forms of sacrifice. Being intended for the Hotṛi’s use, both these works treat exclusively of the hymns and verses recited by that priest and his assistants, either in the form of connected litanies or in detached verses invoking the deities to whom oblations are made, or uttered in response to the solemn hymns chanted by the Udgātṛis.

It is, however, to the Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras of the Yajurveda, dealing with the ritual of the real offering-priest, the Adhvaryu, that we have to turn for a connected view of the sacrificial procedure in all its material details. Now, in considering the body of writings connected with this Veda, we are at once confronted by the fact that there are two different schools, an older and a younger one, in which the traditional body of ritualistic matter has been treated in a very different way. For while the younger school, the Vājasaneyins, have made a clear severance between the sacred texts or mantras and the exegetic discussions thereon—as collected in the Vājasaneyi-saṃhitā and the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (trans. by J. Eggeling, in Sacred Books of the East) respectively—arranged systematically in accordance with the ritual divisions, the older school on the