Vedas and Adhy\u0101tma Tradition<\/span><\/a><\/span>,\u201d by Vasudeva S. Agrawala, Indian Culture<\/i>, vol. 5, no. 3, Jan. 1939, pp. 285-292, attached). Atharva-veda<\/i> verse 10.7.28 says that in the beginning skambha poured forth the golden germ (hira\u1e47ya-garbha). In verse 10.7.34 wind or air is the breath of skambha. In verses 10.7.17 and 10.8.20 the \u201cgreat Br\u0101hma\u1e47a\u201d spoken of in the verses 37-38 quoted above is apparently identified with skambha.<\/p>\nA brief English summary followed by a translation of most of Atharva-veda<\/i> hymn 10.7 and part of hymn 10.8 was given by John Muir in his Original Sanskrit Texts<\/i>, vol. 5, 1870, pp. 378-386, in the section titled, \u201cSkambha and Brahma.\u201d This preceded the first published English translation of the whole Atharva-veda<\/i> by Ralph Griffith (1895-1896), and the posthumously published full translation (less chap. 20) by Whitney already mentioned (1905), both made independently of each other. Four more English translations of the Atharva-veda<\/i> have been published. Three of these are connected with the \u0100rya Sam\u0101j and were made in accordance with the monotheistic interpretation of the Vedas put forward in the late 1800s by Sv\u0101m\u012b Day\u0101nanda Sarasvat\u012b. These are by Devi Chand (1982), Vaidya Nath Shastri (2 vols., 1984), and Satya Prakash Sarasvati (5 vols., 1992, less chap. 20). Devi Chand translates verse 10.8.38 as: \u201cI know the Vast Matter, on which all these creatures are strung. I know the Efficient Cause of Matter, Who is God the Almighty.\u201d The translation by R. L. Kashyap (6 vols., 2010-2012) was made in accordance with the psychological interpretation of the Vedas put forward by Sri Aurobindo.<\/p>\n
What I regard as the best of the three references given by Scherman, Atharva-veda<\/i> verse 13.1.6, does not seem to have been picked up by Vedic scholars. Atharva-veda<\/i> hymn 13.1 is about rohita, the \u201cred,\u201d referring to something that is common to both fire and the sun (yet it is not either of these per se, both of which have many Vedic hymns addressed to them individually as agni (fire) and s\u016brya (sun), etc.). Verse 13.1.6 first says that rohita gave birth to heaven and earth, placing us in the same setting at the beginning of creation as in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> hymn 10.129. It then speaks of the tantu, the \u201cthread, cord, line, web,\u201d that the supreme parame\u1e63\u1e6dhin stretched out (tat\u0101na). This hymn 13.1, like hymns 10.7 and 10.8, also has adhy\u0101tma as its \u201cdeity\u201d (devat\u0101) or subject, and is thus about the inner or higher side of things. Interestingly, the \u1e5b\u1e63i or seer of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> hymn 10.129 is Praj\u0101pati parame\u1e63\u1e6dhin, explained by S\u0101ya\u1e47a as Praj\u0101pati named Parame\u1e63\u1e6dhin; i.e., the supreme as the Lord of Progeny. This is the same term as the parame\u1e63\u1e6dhin here in Atharva-veda<\/i> 13.1.6 who stretched out the thread or cord. Verse 13.1.6 may be translated as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe red (rohita) gave birth to heaven and earth. There the supreme (parame\u1e63\u1e6dhin) stretched out the thread (tantu). There reposed the unborn (aja) one-footed (eka-p\u0101da). [It] established heaven and earth by [its] strength.\u201d<\/p>\n
I have translated this verse with reference to the eight existing English translations known to me. The verb \u015bi\u015briye in 13.1.6c, like the verb dadhe in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.7b (see below), is a perfect tense middle voice verb that can be understood as a passive voice verb (or better, the middle voice should be understood as what Jan Gonda calls an \u201ceventive\u201d voice; see below). Three translators took this verb in a passive sense: Muir (1870, \u201cwas sustained\u201d), Whitney (1905, \u201cwas supported\u201d), and Kashyap (2010, \u201cwas supported\u201d) following Whitney. Like the other five translators, I did not take this verb in a passive sense. My translation, \u201creposed,\u201d reflects the perfect tense (a past tense) as do those of Bloomfield (1897, \u201cdid fix himself\u201d) and Sarasvati (1992, \u201chas taken shelter\u201d), and follows the meaning given by Griffith (1896, \u201creposeth\u201d), and Shastri (1984, \u201clies\u201d). The other translation, Chand (1982, \u201cpervades\u201d), is more of a paraphrase. The subject of this verb is aja eka-p\u0101da, translated by me as the \u201cunborn\u201d (aja) \u201cone-footed\u201d (eka-p\u0101da). Some translators take aja in its other meaning, \u201cgoat,\u201d thus translating, \u201cthe one-footed goat.\u201d It is because I took aja as the \u201cunborn\u201d rather than as a \u201cgoat\u201d that I did not take the verb \u015bi\u015briye in a passive sense.\u00a0 The verb in 13.1.6d, ad\u1e5b\u1e43hat, given by me as \u201cestablished\u201d (in agreement with Muir, 1870; Griffith, 1896; Chand, 1982), can also be understood as \u201cmade firm\u201d (Whitney, 1905; Bloomfield, 1897; Sarasvati, 1992; Kashyap, 2010), or \u201cholds firm\u201d (Shastri, 1984).<\/p>\n
The third reference given by Scherman in 1887 is to Atharva-veda<\/i> verse 2.1.5. Hymn 2.1 has brahm\u0101tma as its \u201cdeity\u201d (devat\u0101) or subject, so it is also concerned with the inner or higher side of things. Verse 2.1.5 speaks of the \u1e5btasya tantu\u1e43 vitatam, the \u201cextended\/stretched thread of the cosmic order (\u1e5bta),\u201d that the speaker of the hymn beholds. This gives us a third parallel to the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5 phrase, vitato ra\u015bmi (\u201cextended cord\u201d). The rest of the verse, however, is not clear. It speaks of gods (deva), their immortality, and moving in some way in a common birthplace or origin (yoni). Because of its obscurity of meaning, I have not counted this verse as a parallel used by me. Similarly, there is a possible but uncertain parallel in the famous hymn \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164, whose verse 5 speaks of the sages (kavi) stretching out seven threads (tantu). This verse is, as translated by Vasudeva S. Agrawala (Vision in Long Darkness<\/i>, 1963, p. 31):<\/p>\n
\u201cImmature in understanding, undiscerning in spirit, I ask where the stations of the Gods exist. When the Calf had become the yearling, the Sages [kavi] spread the Seven Threads [tantu] to form a web.\u201d<\/p>\n
The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentaries take ra\u015bmi as a \u201cray,\u201d both comparing it to a ray of the sun (s\u016brya-ra\u015bmi). In order to comprehend what it is a ray of, we have to know how these two commentaries take the pronoun e\u1e63\u0101m, \u201cof them, their.\u201d For most translators, the obvious referent for this pronoun is the sages (kavi) from the immediately preceding verse quarter. In support of this, Geldner (1951) gives references to \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.159.4 and 10.5.3d. Checking these, we see that they both refer to a thread (tantu) of the sages (kavi). In the translation by Griffith (1892), the first reference says: \u201cThey, the refulgent Sages, weave within the sky, yea, in the depths of sea, a web for ever new.\u201d The second reference says: \u201cthey wove the Sage\u2019s thread with insight.\u201d Jwala Prasad in his article on this verse (1929, pp. 594-595) provides evidence that the sages or kavis referred to are the Vedic deities called the \u1e5abhus. The \u1e5abhus are called kavis, being skillful workmen, and according to \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 4.34.9 they divided the universe into heaven and earth. The S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries, however, do not take the pronoun e\u1e63\u0101m here as referring to the sages (kavi).<\/p>\n
According to the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary on 10.129.5, the pronoun e\u1e63\u0101m, \u201cof them,\u201d refers to avidy\u0101-k\u0101ma-karma\u1e47\u0101m, \u201cof ignorance, desire, and karma.\u201d These three, made by beings in the previous manifestation of the cosmos, are the cause of the creation or emanation of the about to be manifested cosmos. The ra\u015bmi, \u201cray,\u201d is of these; it is the ray of ignorance, desire, and karma. It is the k\u0101rya-varga, the \u201cmultitude of effects,\u201d produced by these three causes. It is therefore the \u201ccreated universe,\u201d as paraphrased by Jwala Prasad (1929, p. 598). This S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary says: \u201cJust as a ray of the sun, immediately upon arising, in a mere wink pervades the whole world all at once, so this ray, which is the multitude of effects, quickly pervading everything, was extended or spread out.\u201d Here the questions asked in the next verse quarter, \u201cWas there a below? Was there an above?,\u201d are also being explained. Because this ray of karmic effects manifests so quickly, it is hardly possible to determine a sequence of above or below in the manifestation of the cosmos.<\/p>\n
The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary gives us yet another take on the pronoun e\u1e63\u0101m and the ra\u015bmi as a \u201cray.\u201d It says that the ray (ra\u015bmi), the same as a ray of the sun (s\u016brya-ra\u015bmi-sam\u0101na), is a certain light of itself (svayam-prak\u0101\u015ba), something that is consciousness (caitanya-pad\u0101rtha). The pronoun \u201cof them\u201d refers to everything that makes up the world (jagad-vastu), in the form of the elements and what is made of the elements (bh\u016bta-bhautika-r\u016bpa). So the ray is the param\u0101tman or highest self, in the form of consciousness (caitanya-r\u016bpa), that pervades everything. It is the light (prak\u0101\u015ba) that shines in everything. The questions asked in the next verse quarter, \u201cWas there a below? Was there an above?,\u201d are explained accordingly. Because the ray of the light of consciousness is shining in everything, it is not possible to speak of it in one particular place such as above or below.<\/p>\n
Related to the idea of a \u201cray\u201d of consciousness, a few translators have understood ra\u015bmi here as a \u201cline\u201d of thought or a \u201cline\u201d of vision of the mind\u2019s eye (e.g., Maurer 1975, pp. 228, 230: \u201ctheir line (of vision)\u201d).<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.5b:<\/b> adh\u00e1\u1e25 svid \u0101si\u0301\u03043d up\u00e1ri svid \u0101s\u012b3t, \u201cWas there a below? Was there an above?\u201d As noted under 10.129.1d, the questions made by interrogatives in Sanskrit can be understood in more than one way. Thus, this could also be asking, \u201cWas [it] below? Was [it] above?,\u201d etc. For the interpretations of the two S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries on what these questions are asking about, see the paragraphs immediately above.<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.5c:<\/b> retodha\u0301\u0304 \u0101san mahima\u0301\u0304na \u0101san, \u201cThere were seed-placers, there were powers.\u201d The two nouns in this verse quarter are etymologically clear, but exactly what they refer to is unclear. For the noun retodh\u0101\u1e25, \u201cseed-placers,\u201d consisting of retas + dh\u0101, the meaning of retas (\u201cseed, semen, rain\u201d) has been discussed under 10.129.4b. The verb-root dh\u0101 means primarily to \u201cput\u201d or \u201cplace.\u201d It can also mean to \u201cbear,\u201d so that retodh\u0101\u1e25 could also be translated as \u201cseed-bearers.\u201d Who or what, specifically, does this term refer to? It can refer to Agni (Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 2.1.2.11), to Soma (\u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 9.86.39), to Soma as the moon (Maitr\u0101ya\u1e47\u012b-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 1.6.9), to bulls (\u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 5.69.2), to rain as a bull (\u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 7.101.6), etc. It may be generic here. Retodh\u0101\u1e25 has also been translated as \u201cimpregnators\u201d or as \u201cfathers.\u201d<\/p>\n
The noun mahim\u0101na\u1e25 means literally, \u201cgreatnesses.\u201d It can refer to \u201cmighty forces\u201d or \u201cpowers,\u201d as I have translated it here, and as I have translated it or its synonym mahin\u0101 in 10.129.3d. These \u201cgreatnesses\u201d or \u201cpowers\u201d can also be the \u201cmighty ones,\u201d the \u201cgods\u201d (deva) of the Vedic pantheon, as for example in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 1.164.50: \u201cBy means of yaj\u00f1a<\/i> the gods [dev\u0101\u1e25] performed their yaj\u00f1a<\/i>: those were the primeval ordinances. Those mighty ones [mahim\u0101na\u1e25] attained the height of heaven, where the S\u0101dhya<\/i> Gods of old dwell.\u201d (translated by Vasudeva S. Agrawala, Vision in Long Darkness<\/i>, p. 193). Indeed, the Vedic gods have long been equated with powers. See on this the 1957 book by Jan Gonda, Some Observations on the Relations between \u201cGods\u201d and \u201cPowers\u201d in the Veda, a propos of the Phrase s\u016bnu\u1e25 sahasa\u1e25<\/i>. Gonda there writes (p. 32): \u201cIt is clear that a mighty person and his specific might were\u2014like a god and his \u015bakti-<\/i> in later times, when the latter was considered his spouse\u2014conceived as a kind of \u2018unit\u00e9-dualit\u00e9\u2019, as a pair of complements forming unity.\u201d Again, referring to names of deities such as sahasa\u1e25 s\u016bnu\u1e25<\/i>, \u201cson of power,\u201d for Agni, Gonda writes (p. 50):<\/p>\n
\u201cThe idea underlying these names is, irrespective of the vagueness of the conception of the divine powers, no doubt the conviction that every superhuman potency or phenomenon has two aspects, which can for the sake of simplicity be called \u2018personal\u2019 and \u2018impersonal\u2019, or\u2014to express it otherwise\u2014the belief that there must be sentient and rational beings \u2018possessing\u2019, supervising and representing the mighty and often dangerous powers which make their presence felt in the universe, beings which, if need be, can dispose of these powers.\u201d<\/p>\n
RV 10.129.5d:<\/b> svadha\u0301\u0304 av\u00e1st\u0101t pr\u00e1yati\u1e25 par\u00e1st\u0101t, \u201cinherent power below, impulse above.\u201d The word svadh\u0101, which I have translated as \u201cinherent power,\u201d has been discussed above under 10.129.2.c. What is the inherent power by which the \u201cone\u201d breathed without air could be simply \u201cforce\u201d below. I have retained \u201cinherent power\u201d for consistency of translation.<\/p>\n
The noun prayati, tentatively taken by me as \u201cimpulse,\u201d vies with \u0101bhu for being the least understood word in the hymn (with svadh\u0101 being a close third). Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava glosses prayati as yajam\u0101n\u0101n\u0101\u1e43 prad\u0101nam, the \u201coffering of the sacrificers,\u201d and glosses the preceding svadh\u0101 (which I have taken as \u201cinherent power,\u201d as in verse 2) as udakam, \u201cwater.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary glosses prayati as bhokt\u0101 (bhokt\u1e5b), the \u201cenjoyer, eater, experiencer,\u201d referring to the preceding svadh\u0101, which he here glosses as anna, \u201cfood,\u201d and this as bhogya, what is \u201cto be enjoyed, eaten, experienced.\u201d It may be noted that the strange-sounding glosses of svadh\u0101 as udaka, \u201cwater,\u201d by Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava, and as anna, \u201cfood,\u201d by S\u0101ya\u1e47a, have their basis in the ancient Vedic word-list called the Nigha\u1e47\u1e6du<\/i>, where svadh\u0101 occurs at 1.12 in a list of names for udaka, \u201cwater,\u201d and at 2.7 in a list of names for anna, \u201cfood.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary glosses prayati as param\u0101tm\u0101 (param\u0101tman), the \u201chighest self,\u201d in a complementary pair with the preceding svadh\u0101, which he glosses as m\u0101y\u0101, \u201cillusion,\u201d or avidy\u0101, \u201cignorance,\u201d and this as p\u0101rame\u015bvar\u012b \u015bakti, the feminine \u201chighest god power,\u201d the power of param\u0101tman, the \u201chighest self.\u201d He then compares the two of them as \u015bakti, \u201cpower,\u201d and param\u0101tman, the \u201chighest self,\u201d to prak\u1e5bti, \u201cmatter, substance,\u201d and puru\u1e63a, \u201cspirit,\u201d respectively.<\/p>\n
The existing English translations of prayati in this hymn are similarly diverse. Starting with the most recent, these are: Kashyap 2007, \u201cpurpose\u201d; Hock 2007, \u201cwill\u201d; Brereton 1999, \u201coffering\u201d; Sarasvati & Vidyalankar 1987, \u201cthe creator\u2019s effort\u201d; O\u2019Flaherty 1981, \u201cgiving-forth\u201d; Panikkar 1977, \u201cforward move\u201d; de Nicol\u00e1s 1976, [not translated?, typographical error?]; Maurer 1975, \u201cimpulse\u201d; Le Mee 1975, \u201cthe Will\u201d; Miller 1971, \u201cwill\u201d; Dumont 1969, \u201cimpulse\u201d; Gonda 1966, \u201cwillingness (to give oneself)\u201d; Bose 1966, \u201cforward movement\u201d; Edgerton 1965, \u201cimpellent force\u201d; Brown 1965 and 1941, \u201cemanation\u201d; Kunhan Raja 1963, \u201cactivity\u201d; Mehta 1956, \u201cenergy\u201d; Coomaraswamy 1933, \u201cPurpose\u201d; Jwala Prasad 1929, \u201cthe act of offering\u201d; Thomas 1923, \u201cendeavour\u201d; Macdonell 1922 and 1917, \u201cimpulse\u201d; M\u00fcller 1899, \u201cwill\u201d; Griffith 1892, \u201cenergy\u201d; Wallis 1887, \u201cthe presentation of offerings\u201d; Kaegi 1886, \u201cstriving\u201d; Whitney 1882, \u201coffering\u201d; Gough 1882, \u201cenergy\u201d; Monier-Williams 1875, \u201cactive forces that energized\u201d; Muir 1870 and 1863, \u201cenergy\u201d; Wilson 1860?, \u201cthe eater\u201d [of food]; Anonymous 1859, \u201cPower and Will\u201d; Colebrooke 1805, \u201che, who heeds.\u201d It may be noted that translations of the preceding word svadh\u0101 are equally diverse, and some of the same English words used for prayati are used for svadh\u0101.<\/p>\n
Etymologically, the noun prayati may be derived either from the verb-root yam, in its meaning \u201cgive, offer,\u201d or from the verb-root yat, in its meaning \u201cexert oneself, make effort\u201d; these along with the prefix pra, \u201cforth.\u201d The first of these, yam as \u201coffer,\u201d may be seen in the above translations, \u201cgiving-forth,\u201d \u201coffering,\u201d \u201cthe act of offering,\u201d \u201cthe presentation of offerings.\u201d The second of these, yat as \u201cmake effort,\u201d may be seen in the majority of the above translations, including \u201ceffort,\u201d \u201cenergy,\u201d \u201cimpellent force,\u201d \u201cimpulse,\u201d \u201cwill,\u201d \u201cpurpose,\u201d \u201cstriving,\u201d \u201cactivity,\u201d \u201cactive forces that energized.\u201d Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava takes prayati as derived from yam, \u201cgive, offer,\u201d glossing it as prad\u0101na, \u201cgift, offering.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries take prayati as derived from yat, \u201cexert oneself, make effort\u201d (or simply \u201cact\u201d in some contexts). It is explained in his \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary with the noun prayatit\u1e5b, \u201cone who acts\u201d (not prayant\u1e5b, \u201cone who offers\u201d), as the bhokt\u1e5b, the \u201cenjoyer, eater, experiencer.\u201d It is explained in his Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> commentary with the verb prayatate and the noun prayatna. He there says that the param\u0101tman in which that power, i.e., svadh\u0101, exerts itself\/acts (prayatate), being the basis for the exercise (prayatna) of that power, is the prayati.<\/p>\n
For parallel passages in which prayati occurs, throughout the Vedic texts, we can now consult the monumental 16-volume Vedic Word-Concordance<\/i>, by Vishva Bandhu and his assistants (Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute, 1935-1965; rev. ed. of vol. 2, parts 1 and 2, 1973; rev. ed. of vol. 1, part 1, 1976; the 2nd eds. of the other volumes are unrevised reprints). For just the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i>, besides Hermann Grassmann\u2019s long standard 1873 W\u00f6rterbuch zum Rig-Veda<\/i>, we can now also (or instead) use the 1951 Indices<\/i> volume (vol. 5) to the Vaidika Sa\u1e43\u015bodhana Ma\u1e47\u1e0dala edition of the \u1e5agveda-Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i>, or the 1966 Indices<\/i> volume (vol. 8) to the Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute edition of the \u1e5agveda<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The noun prayati occurs in the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> in three other places, at 1.109.2, 1.126.5, and 8.69.18. In these places it apparently means \u201cgift\u201d or \u201coffering,\u201d and thus would be derived from the root yam. This meaning is based on context, and is also stated by the commentators. For example, 8.69.18 is (Wilson\u2019s translation): \u201cThe Priyamedhas have reached the ancient dwelling-place of these deities, having strewed the sacred grass and placed their oblations after the manner of a pre-eminent offering [prayati].\u201d At 1.109.2, where Skandasv\u0101min\u2019s commentary is available, he writes: prayatir d\u0101n\u0101rtha\u1e25, \u201cprayati has the meaning \u2018gift\u2019.\u201d He then also glosses it with prad\u0101na, \u201coffering.\u201d Both Ve\u1e45ka\u1e6da-M\u0101dhava and the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary gloss prayati in all three of these places as prad\u0101na, \u201coffering.\u201d The context of prayati in these three verses is, however, quite different from its context here in 10.129.5.<\/p>\n
The noun prayati also occurs in the Yajur-veda<\/i>, both in the \u201cwhite\u201d or \u015aukla Yajur-veda<\/i>, and in the \u201cblack\u201d or K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a Yajur-veda<\/i>. In the \u201cwhite\u201d or \u015aukla Yajur-veda<\/i>, called the V\u0101jasaneyi-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i>, it occurs in the M\u0101dhyandina recension at 18.1 and 20.13, and again at 33.74 where this same \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> verse 10.129.5 is repeated. In the K\u0101\u1e47va recension these places are 19.2.1, 21.7.14, and 32.6.5 (or 32.74). In the \u201cblack\u201d or K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a<\/i> Yajur-veda<\/i>, the verse corresponding to 18.1 is found at Taittir\u012bya-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 4.7.1.1, at Maitr\u0101ya\u1e47\u012b-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 2.11.2, at K\u0101\u1e6dhaka-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 18.7, and at Kapi\u1e63\u1e6dhala-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 28.7, while the verse corresponding to 20.13 is found at Maitr\u0101ya\u1e47\u012b-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 3.11.8, and at K\u0101\u1e6dhaka-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> 38.4. In these two verses, 18.1 and 20.13, prayati apparently does not refer to offerings, but rather to something that is (or can be) a quality of a person.<\/p>\n
In verse 18.1 of the \u201cwhite\u201d or \u015aukla Yajur-veda<\/i> (M\u0101dhyandina recension) the person says (Griffith\u2019s translation): \u201cMay my strength and my gain, and my inclination [prayati] and my influence, and my thought and my mental power, and my praise and my fame, and my renown and my light, and my heaven prosper by sacrifice.\u201d Similarly, in verse 20.13 the person says (Griffith\u2019s translation): \u201cMy hair is effort and attempt [prayati], my skin is reverence and approach. My flesh is inclination, wealth my bone, my marrow reverence.\u201d The commentators do not gloss prayati in these places as \u201coffering,\u201d but rather with words derived from the root yat, \u201cmake effort\u201d (e.g., Mah\u012bdhara on 20.13: prayatanam, prayatna\u1e25). They also bring in another gloss, \u015buddhi, \u201cpurity.\u201d<\/p>\n
The verse corresponding to M\u0101dhyandina recension 20.13 is K\u0101\u1e47va recension 21.7.14. It is numbered 21.111 (also 21.7.16) in the 1978 \u015aarm\u0101 and \u015aarm\u0101 edition of the latter half of the K\u0101\u1e47va recension that includes a commentary said to be by S\u0101ya\u1e47a (likely wrongly; see B. R. Sharma\u2019s comments in his Introduction to his edition of the K\u0101\u1e47va<\/i> Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i>, vol. 1, 1988, pp. vii-ix). This commentary says: mama mad\u012by\u0101ni lom\u0101ni prayati\u1e25 prayatnasya \u015buddher v\u0101 k\u0101ra\u1e47\u0101ni sant\u012bty artha\u1e25, \u201cMy hairs are prayati, i.e., are the causes (k\u0101ra\u1e47\u0101ni) of effort (prayatna) or of purity (\u015buddhi); this is the meaning.\u201d At the verse corresponding to 18.1 in the Taittir\u012bya-sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> (4.7.1.1), the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary simply says: prayati\u1e25 \u015buddhi\u1e25, \u201cprayati is purity (\u015buddhi).\u201d A. B. Keith here translates prayati as \u201cinfluence.\u201d Mah\u012bdhara in his commentary on this M\u0101dhyandina \u015aukla Yajur-veda<\/i> verse 18.1 says the same as S\u0101ya\u1e47a, prayati\u1e25 \u015buddhi\u1e25, \u201cprayati is purity (\u015buddhi).\u201d None of the English translations of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5 take prayati as \u201cpurity.\u201d<\/p>\n
At K\u0101\u1e47va recension verse 19.2.1, corresponding to M\u0101dhyandina recension 18.1, the (undisputed) S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary on the first half of the K\u0101\u1e47va recension glosses prayati as prak\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6da-yatanam, \u201cexertion in a high degree.\u201d \u0100nandabodha\u2019s commentary says the same: prak\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e43 yatana\u1e43 prayati\u1e25. I have here cited the Vaidika Sa\u1e43\u015bodhana Ma\u1e47\u1e0dala edition of the K\u0101\u1e47va<\/i> Sa\u1e43hit\u0101<\/i> with commentaries, critically edited by B. R. Sharma in four volumes, 1988-1999 (vol. 5, Indices, 2009). The S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary then adds: prayatir yatna-vi\u015be\u1e63a\u1e25, \u201cprayati is a particular kind of effort.\u201d This phrase is not in the 1915 Madhava Sastri edition of the first half of the K\u0101\u1e47va recension with the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary (p. 169 of the relevant section). This edition has the erroneous prapati instead of prayati, and glosses prapati as prak\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6da-gamanam, \u201cgoing in a high degree.\u201d The Sharma edition lists gamana as a variant reading for yatana from two of the seven manuscripts used for this commentary. The gloss gamana, \u201cgoing\u201d (rather than yatana, \u201cexertion\u201d), probably an error, apparently takes prayati as derived from the verb-root yam in its meaning \u201cgo.\u201d The English translations of \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5 by Bose 1966, \u201cforward movement,\u201d and by Panikkar 1977, \u201cforward move,\u201d take prayati in this meaning.<\/p>\n
The noun prayati also occurs in the br\u0101hma\u1e47as, as these texts repeat the Vedic verses to show their usage in Vedic ritual. The verse corresponding to 20.13 is repeated at \u015aatapatha-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 12.8.3.31 (M\u0101dhyandina recension; it is not found in the K\u0101\u1e47v\u012bya recension), where Julius Eggeling translates prayati as \u201cendeavour.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary is apparently missing on this part of the \u015aatapatha-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i>, and the extant commentary by Harisv\u0101min does not specifically gloss prayati here. This verse is also repeated at Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> 2.6.5.8, where the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary again brings in \u015buddhi, \u201cpurity,\u201d to gloss prayati: mad\u012by\u0101ni lom\u0101ni prayati\u1e25 \u015buddhi-kar\u0101\u1e47i santu, \u201cMay my hairs be prayati, i.e., makers of purity (\u015buddhi-kar\u0101\u1e47i).\u201d The commentary by Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Bh\u0101skara-Mi\u015bra is missing on this part of the Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i>, and unfortunately also on 2.8.9, where the whole \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> hymn 10.129 is repeated.<\/p>\n
As we saw, the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary on this hymn 10.129 differs substantially in the two locations (\u1e5ag-veda<\/i> and Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i>). The specific verse of this hymn that includes the word prayati (10.129.5) is repeated in the \u201cwhite\u201d or \u015aukla<\/i> Yajur-veda<\/i>, as noted above, in the M\u0101dhyandina recension at 33.74, and in the K\u0101\u1e47va recension at 32.6.5 (or 32.74). The commentary that is (probably wrongly) attributed to S\u0101ya\u1e47a on K\u0101\u1e47va verse 32.74 (or 32.6.5) matches the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentary on this verse as it occurs in the Taittir\u012bya-br\u0101hma\u1e47a<\/i> almost word for word, such that one was apparently copied from the other. There, we recall, he glossed prayati with words derived from yat, \u201cmake effort,\u201d and equated it with param\u0101tman, the \u201chighest self,\u201d also comparing this with puru\u1e63a, \u201cspirit.\u201d The S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary had also glossed prayati with a word derived from yat (prayatit\u0101), but there he equated it with bhokt\u1e5b, the \u201cenjoyer, eater, experiencer.\u201d Mah\u012bdhara, too, in his long commentary here (M\u0101dhyandina recension 33.74) glosses prayati with words derived from yat (prayatate, prayatnav\u0101n, prayatn\u0101t, prayatit\u0101), and he equates it with bhokt\u1e5b as does the S\u0101ya\u1e47a \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> commentary. Uva\u1e6da, even though explaining this verse in relation to a soma sacrifice, also glosses prayati with a word derived from yat: prayatana, \u201ceffort, exertion.\u201d<\/p>\n
The noun prayati does not occur in the Upani\u1e63ads. It is found in Y\u0101ska\u2019s Nirukta<\/i> only as it occurs in the \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> verse 1.109.2, which is there quoted. In that verse it means \u201cgift, offering,\u201d and thus is glossed in the Nirukta<\/i> (6.9) as prad\u0101na, \u201coffering.\u201d The noun prayati is not used in classical Sanskrit.<\/p>\n
What all the above tells us is that the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries distinguish two different nouns prayati used in the Vedas: one derived from the root yam, \u201cgive, offer\u201d; and one derived from the root yat, \u201cexert oneself, make effort,\u201d with an associated meaning, \u201cpurity.\u201d For its usage here in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5, both of the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries derive prayati from the root yat, \u201cmake effort.\u201d Following the method of comparing the usage of a word in all its occurrences throughout the Vedic writings, we saw that the noun prayati does indeed appear to be used in two different senses.<\/p>\n
Karl Geldner was among the first of the third generation of Western Vedic scholars, coming after the first generation who fully used the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries, and the second generation who rejected S\u0101ya\u1e47a and used comparative word studies instead. Geldner at first went back to S\u0101ya\u1e47a fully, and then later took the approach that is still widely used today: fully consult the traditional commentaries; fully use comparative word studies; and then when they agree, accept the results; and when they disagree, choose which makes the most sense. Geldner rejected the contention of Hermann Oldenberg (a severe critic of S\u0101ya\u1e47a) that prayati in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5 must be derived from the root yam (Oldenberg 1912, p. 347), and agreed with the S\u0101ya\u1e47a commentaries that prayati in \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5 is used within the range of meanings derived from yat, \u201cmake effort\u201d (Geldner 1907, p. 118; 1908, pp. 14, 22, 32; 1909, p. 213; 1951, vol. 3, p. 360). Such a meaning appears to the majority of translators, including myself, to be intended here. Although the exact meaning of prayati remains uncertain, I think the general idea of \u201cimpulse\u201d can be accepted as being within the range of its meanings. This would be true even if prayati did turn out to be a technical term referring to some higher principle such as param\u0101tman, the \u201chighest self,\u201d or puru\u1e63a, \u201cspirit.\u201d<\/p>\n
In summary, the noun prayati is an old and rare Vedic word. By tracing out all the references to it given in the Vedic Word-Concordance<\/i>, we found that it occurs in only six different Vedic verses, however many times those verses may be repeated in the various Vedic texts. In three of these verses, it fairly clearly means \u201cgift, offering.\u201d In two more of these verses it seems to refer to something that is (or can be) a quality of a person, something related to \u201ceffort.\u201d Then in the remaining one of these six verses, \u1e5ag-veda<\/i> 10.129.5, it appears as some sort of cosmogonic principle, a principle that is above, paired with another principle that is below. That it here functions as a cosmogonic principle is true even if, on analogy to a Vedic sacrifice, we take it symbolically and translate it as \u201coffering.\u201d We should recall that several schools of Vedic interpretation are known to have once existed, from references in the ancient Nirukta<\/i> by Y\u0101ska. The tradition known to us from the now extant commentaries by S\u0101ya\u1e47a and others represents only one or two of these schools of Vedic interpretation. The others are lost, and no doubt with them a more precise understanding of the meaning of the noun prayati.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Part 2: Translation of \u1e5ag-veda 10.129, the \u201cHymn of Creation\u201d Translation Notes (continued) RV 10.129.5: This verse is repeated in the \u201cwhite\u201d or \u015aukla Yajur-veda, i.e., the V\u0101jasaneyi-sa\u1e43hit\u0101, in both the M\u0101dhyandina recension at 33.74, and in the K\u0101\u1e47va recension at 32.6.5 (or 32.74). RV 10.129.5a: tira\u015bci\u0301\u0304no v\u00edtato ra\u015bm\u00edr e\u1e63\u0101m, \u201cTheir cord was extended across.\u201d […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-creation-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=587"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":590,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/587\/revisions\/590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/prajnaquest.fr\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}