ब्राह्मण (brāhmaṇa) [Printed book page 2-080] 1.
Brāhmaṇa, ‘descendant of a Brahman’ (
i.e., of a priest), is
found only a few times in the Rigveda,
1 and mostly in its latest
Page2-081+ 64 parts. In the Atharvaveda
2 and later
3 it is a very common
word denoting ‘priest,’ and it appears in the quadruple division
of the castes in the Puruṣa-sūkta (‘hymn of man’) of the
Rigveda.
4 It seems certain that in the Rigveda this Brāhmaṇa, or
Brahmin, is already a separate caste, differing from the warrior
and agricultural castes.
5 The texts regularly claim for them a
superiority to the
Kṣatriya caste,
6 and the Brahmin is able by
his spells or manipulation of the rite to embroil the people and
the warriors
7 or the different sections of the warriors.
8 If it
is necessary to recognize, as is sometimes done, that the
Brahmin does pay homage to the king at the
Rājasūya,9 nevertheless the unusual fact is carefully explained away so
as to leave the priority of the Brahmin unaffected. But it
is expressly recognized that the union of the Kṣatriya and
the Brāhmaṇa is essential for complete prosperity.
10 It is
admitted
11 that the king or the nobles might at times oppress
the Brahmins, but it is indicated that ruin is then certain
swiftly to follow.
Page2-082+ 55 The Brahmins are gods on earth,
12 like the gods in heaven,
but this claim is hardly found in the Rigveda.
13 In the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa
14 the Brahmin is said to be the
‘recipient of gifts’ (
ādāyī) and the ‘drinker of the offering’
(
āpāyī). The other two epithets applied,
āvasāyī and
yathā- kāma-prayāpya, are more obscure; the former denotes either
‘dwelling everywhere’
15 or ‘seeking food’;
16 the latter is usually
taken as ‘moving at pleasure,’ but it must rather allude to the
power of the king to assign a place of residence to the Brahmin.
In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa
17 the prerogatives of the Brah-
min are summed up as (1) Arcā, ‘honour’; (2) Dāna, ‘gifts’;
(3) Ajyeyatā, ‘freedom from oppression’; and (4) Avadhyatā,
‘freedom from being killed.’ On the other hand, his duties
are summed up as (5) Brāhmaṇya, ‘purity of descent’;
(6) Pratirūpa-caryā, ‘devotion of the duties of his caste’; and
(7) Loka-pakti, ‘the perfecting of people’ (by teaching).
1.
Respect paid to Brahmins. — The texts are full
18 of references
to the civilities to be paid to the Brahmin. He is styled
bhagavant,19 and is provided with good food
20 and entertain-
ment wherever he goes. Indeed, his sanctity exempts him
from any close inquiry into his real claim to Brahminhood
according to the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa.
21 2.
Gifts to Brahmins. — The Dānastuti (‘Praise of gifts’) is a
recognized feature of the Rigveda, and the greed of the poets
for
Dakṣiṇās, or sacrificial fees, is notorious. Vedic texts
22 themselves recognize that the literature thence resulting (
Nārā- Page2-083+ 56 śaṃsī) was often false to please the donors. It was, however,
a rule
23 that Brahmins should not accept what had been
refused by others; this indicates a keen sense of the danger of
cheapening their wares. So exclusively theirs was the right to
receive gifts that the Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa
24 has to explain
how
Taranta and
Purumīḷha became able to accept gifts by
composing a Rigvedic hymn.
25 The exaggerations in the
celebration of the gifts bestowed on the priests has the curious
result of giving us a series of numerals of some interest (
Daśan).
In some passages
26 certain gifts — those of a horse or sheep — are
forbidden, but this rule was not, it is clear, generally observed.
3.
Immunities of Brahmins. — The Brahmin claimed to be
exempt from the ordinary exercise of the royal power. When
a king gives all his land and what is on it to the priests, the gift
does not cover the property of the Brahmin according to the
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.
27 The king censures all, but not the
Brahmin,
28 nor can he safely oppress any Brahmin other than
an ignorant priest.
29 An arbitrator (or a witness) must decide
(or speak) for a Brahmin against a non-Brahmin in a legal
dispute.
30 The Brahmin's proper food is the
Soma,31 not
Surā32 or
Parisrut,33 and he is forbidden to eat certain forms of flesh.
34 On the other hand, he alone is allowed to eat the remains of
the sacrifice,
35 for no one else is sufficiently holy to consume
food which the gods have eaten. Moreover, though he cannot
be a physician,
36 he helps the physician by being beside him
Page2-084+ 56 while he exercises his art.
37 His wife
38 and his cow
39 are both
sacred.
4.
Legal Position of Brahmins. — The Taittirīya Saṃhitā
40 lays down a penalty of a hundred (the unit meant is unknown)
for an insult to a Brahmin, and of a thousand for a blow; but
if his blood is drawn, the penalty is a spiritual one. The only
real murder is the slaying of a Brahmin according to the
Satapatha Brāhmaṇa.
41 The crime of slaying a Brahmin ranks
above the sin of killing any other man, but below that of killing
an embryo (
bhrūṇa) in the Yajurveda;
42 the crime of slaying an
embryo whose sex is uncertain is on a level with that of slaying
a Brahmin.
43 The murder of a Brahmin can be expiated only
by the horse sacrifice,
44 or by a lesser rite in the late Taittirīya
Āraṇyaka.
45 The ritual slaying of a Brahmin is allowed in the
later ceremonial,
46 and hinted at in the curious legend of
Śunaḥśepa;47 and a Purohita might be punished with death for
treachery to his master.
48 5.
Purity of Birth. — The importance of pure descent is seen
in the stress laid on being a descendant of a Ṛṣi (
ārṣeya).
49 But,
on the other hand, there are clear traces of another doctrine,
which requires learning, and not physical descent, as the true
criterion of Ṛṣihood.
50 In agreement with this is the fact
that
Satyakāma Jābāla was received as a pupil, though his
parentage was unknown, his mother being a slave girl who had
been connected with several men,
51 and that in the Śatapatha
Page2-085+ 59 Brāhmaṇa
52 the ceremony on acceptance as a pupil required
merely the name of the pupil. So
Kavaṣa is taunted in the
Rigveda Brāhmaṇas
53 as being the son of a female slave (
Dāsī),
and
Vatsa cleared himself of a similar imputation by a fire
ordeal.
54 Moreover, a very simple rite was adequate to remove
doubts as to origin.
55 In these circumstances it is doubtful
whether much value attaches to the
Pravara lists in which the
ancestors of the priest were invoked at the beginning of the
sacrifice by the Hotṛ and the Adhvaryu priests.
56 Still, in
many parts of the ritual the knowledge of two or more genera-
tions was needed,
57 and in one ceremony
58 ten ancestors who
have drunk the Soma are required, but a literal performance of
the rite is excused. Moreover, there are clear traces of ritual
variations in schools, like those of the
Vasiṣṭhas and the
Viśvāmitras. 6.
The Conduct of the Brahmin. — The Brahmin was required
to maintain a fair standard of excellence.
59 He was to be kind
to all
60 and gentle,
61 offering sacrifice and receiving gifts.
62 Especial stress was laid on purity of speech;
63 thus
Viśvan- tara's excuse for excluding the
Śyāparṇas from his retinue was
their impure (
apūtā) speech.
64 Theirs was the craving for
knowledge
65 and the life of begging.
66 False Brahmins are
those who do not fulfil their duties
67 (
cf. Brahmabandhu) .
Page2-086+ 58 But the penances for breach of duty are, in the Sūtras, of a
very light and unimportant character.
68 7.
Brahminical Studies. — The aim of the priest is to obtain
pre-eminence in sacred knowledge (
brahma-varcasam), as is
stated in numerous passages of Vedic literature.
69 Such
distinction is not indeed confined to the Brahmin: the king
has it also, but it is not really in a special manner appropriate
to the Kṣatriya.
70 Many ritual acts are specified as leading to
Brahmavarcasa,
71 but more stress is laid on the study of the
sacred texts: the importance of such study is repeatedly
insisted upon.
72 The technical name for study is Svādhyāya: the Satapatha
Brāhmaṇa is eloquent upon its advantages,
73 and it is asserted
that the joy of the learned Śrotriya, or ‘student,’ is equal to
the highest joy possible.
74 Nāka Maudgalya held that study
and the teaching of others were the true penance (
tapas).
75 The
object was the ‘threefold knowledge’ (
trayī vidyā), that of the
Ṛc, Yajus, and Sāman,
76 a student of all three Vedas being
called
tri-śukriya77 or
tri-śukra,78 ‘thrice pure.’ Other objects
of study are enumerated in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa,
79 in the
Taittirīya Āraṇyaka,
80 the Chāndogya Upaniṣad,
81 etc. (See
Itihāsa, Purāṇa; Gāthā, Nārāśaṃsī; Brahmodya; Anuśās- ana, Anuvyākhyāna, Anvākhyāna, Kalpa, 2.
Brāhmaṇa; Vidyā, Kṣatravidyā, Devajanavidyā, Nakṣatravidyā, Bhūta- vidyā, Sarpavidyā; Atharvāṅgirasaḥ, Daiva, Nidhi, Pitrya, Rāśi; Sūtra, etc.)
Page2-087+ 55 Directions as to the exact place and time of study are given
in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka
82 and in the Sūtras. If study is
carried on in the village, it is to be done silently (
manasā); if
outside, aloud (
vācā).
Learning is expected even from persons not normally com-
petent as teachers, such as the
Carakas, who are recognized in
the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa
83 as possible sources of information.
Here, too, may be mentioned the cases of Brahmins learning
from princes, though their absolute value is doubtful, for the
priests would naturally represent their patrons as interested in
their sacred science: it is thus not necessary to see in these
notices any real and independent study on the part of the
Kṣatriyas.
84 Yājñavalkya learnt from
Janaka,85 Uddālaka Āruṇi and two other Brahmins from
Pravāhaṇa Jaivali,86 Dṛptabālāki Gārgya from
Ajātaśatru,87 and five Brahmins
under the lead of Aruṇa from
Aśvapati Kaikeya.88 A few
notices show the real educators of thought: wandering scholars
went through the country
89 and engaged in disputes and
discussions in which a prize was staked by the disputants.
90 Moreover, kings like Janaka offered rewards to the most learned
of the Brahmins;
91 Ajātaśatru was jealous of his renown, and
imitated his generosity. Again, learned women are several
times mentioned in the Brāhmaṇas.
92 A special form of disputation was the
Brahmodya, for which
there was a regular place at the Aśvamedha (‘horse sacrifice’)
93 and at the Daśarātra (‘ten-day festival’).
94 The reward of
learning was the gaining of the title of Kavi or Vipra, ‘sage.’
95 Page2-088+ 56 8.
The Functions of the Brahmin. — The Brahmin was required
not merely to practise individual culture, but also to give
others the advantage of his skill, either as a teacher or as a
sacrificial priest, or as a Purohita.
As a teacher the Brahmin has, of course, the special duty of
instructing his own son in both study and sacrificial ritual.
96 The texts give examples of this, such as Āruṇi and
Śvetaketu,97 or mythically Varuṇa and Bhṛgu.
98 This fact also appears
from some of the names in the Vaṃśa Brāhmaṇa
99 of the
Sāmaveda and the Vaṃśa (list of teachers) of the Śāṅkhāyana
Āraṇyaka.
100 On the other hand, these Vaṃśas and the
Vaṃśas of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa show that a father often
preferred to let his son study under a famous teacher. The
relation of pupil and teacher is described under
Brahmacarya. A teacher might take several pupils,
101 and he was bound to
teach them with all his heart and soul.
102 He was bound to
reveal everything to his pupil, at any rate to one who was
staying with him for a year (
saṃvatsara-vāsin),
103 an expression
which shows, as was natural, that a pupil might easily
change teachers. But, nevertheless, certain cases of learning
kept secret and only revealed to special persons are enumer-
ated.
104 The exact times and modes of teaching are elaborately
laid down in the Sūtras,
105 but not in the earlier texts.
As priest the Brahmin operated in all the greater sacrifices;
the simple domestic (
gṛhya) rites could normally be performed
without his help, but not the more important rites (
śrauta).
Page2-089+ 66 The number varied: the ritual literature requires sixteen priests
to be employed at the greatest sacrifices (see
Ṛtvij), but other
rites could be accomplished with four,
106 five,
107 six,
108 seven,
109 or ten
110 priests. Again, the Kauṣītakins
111 had a seventeenth
priest beside the usual sixteen, the Sadasya, so called because
he watched the performance from the Sadas, ‘seat.’ In one
rite, the Sattra (‘sacrificial session’) of the serpents, the
Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa,
112 adds three more to the sixteen, a
second Unnetṛ, an Abhigara, and an Apagara. The later ritual
places the Brahman at the head of all the priests, but this is
probably not the early view (see
Brahman).
The sacrifice ensured, if properly performed, primarily the
advantages of the sacrificer (
yajamāna),
113 but the priest shared
in the profit, besides securing the
Dakṣiṇās. Disputes between
sacrificers and the priests were not rare, as in the case of
Viśvantara and the
Śyāparṇas,114 or
Janamejaya and the
Asitamṛgas;115 and the
Aiṣāvīras are referred to as undesirable
priests.
116 Moreover,
Viśvāmitra once held the post of Puro-
hita to
Sudās, but gave place to
Vasiṣṭha. Page2-090+ 53 The position of
Purohita differed considerably from that of
the ordinary priest, for the Purohita not merely might officiate
at the sacrifice, but was the officiator in all the private sacrifices
of his king. Hence he could, and undoubtedly sometimes did,
obtain great influence over his master in matters of secular
importance; and the power of the priesthood in political as
opposed to domestic and religious matters, no doubt rested on
the Purohita.
There is no recognition in Vedic literature of the rule later
prevailing by which, after spending part of his life as a Brahma-
cārin, and part as a householder, the Brahmin became an
ascetic
117 (later divided into the two stages of Vānaprastha,
‘forest-dweller,’ and Saṃnyāsin, ‘mystic’). Yājñavalkya's
case
118 shows that study of the Absolute might empty life of all
its content for the sage, and drive him to abandon wife and
family. In Buddhist times the same phenomenon is seen
119 applying to other than Brahmins. The Buddhist texts are
here confirmed in some degree by the Greek authorities.
120 The practice bears a certain resemblance to the habit of kings,
in the Epic tradition,
121 of retiring to the forest when active life
is over.
From the Greek authorities
122 it also appears — what is
certainly the case in the Buddhist literature
123 — that Brahmins
practised the most diverse occupations. It is difficult to say
how far this was true for the Vedic period. The analogy of the
Druids
124 — in some respects very close — suggests that the
Brahmins may have been mainly confined to their professional
tasks, including all the learned professions such as astronomy
125 Page2-091+ 54 and so forth. This is not contradicted by any Vedic evidence,
for instance, the poet of a hymn of the Rigveda
126 says he is a
poet, his father a physician (
Bhiṣaj), and his mother a grinder
of corn (
Upala-prakṣiṇī). This would seem to show that a
Brahmin could be a doctor, while his wife would perform the
ordinary household duties. So a Purohita could perhaps take
the field to assist the king by prayer, as Viśvāmitra,
127 and
later on Vasiṣṭha
128 do, but this does not show that priests
normally fought. Nor do they seem normally to have been
agriculturists or merchants. On the other hand, they kept
cattle: a Brahmacārin's duty was to watch his master's
cattle.
129 It is therefore needless to suppose that they could
not, and did not, on occasion turn to agricultural or mercan-
tile pursuits, as they certainly did later. But it must be
remembered that in all probability there was more purity of
blood, and less pressure of life, among the Brahmins of the
Vedic age than later in Buddhist times, when the Vedic
sacrificial apparatus was falling into grave disrepute.
It is clear that the Brahmins, whatever their defects, repre-
sented the intellectual side of Vedic life, and that the Kṣatriyas,
if they played a part in that life, did so only in a secondary
degree, and to a minor extent. It is natural to suppose that
the Brahmins also composed ballads, the precursors of the
epic; for though none such have survived, a few stanzas of this
character, celebrating the generosity of patrons, have been
preserved by being embedded in priestly compositions. A
legend in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa
130 shows clearly that the
Brahmins regarded civilization as being spread by them only:
Page2-092+ 48 Kosala and
Videha, no doubt settled by Āryan tribes, are only
rendered civilized and habitable by the influence of pious
Brahmins. We need not doubt that the non-Brahminical
tribes (see
Vrātya) had attained intellectual as well as material
civilization, but it is reasonable to assume that their civilization
was inferior to that of the Brahmins, for the history of
Hinduism is the conquest by the Brahmins — not by arms, but
by mind — of the tribes Āryan and non-Āryan originally beyond
the pale.
[
Footnote: 1) i. 164, 45; vi. 75, 10; vii. 103, 1. 7. 8; x. 16, 6; 71, 8. 9; 88, 19; 90, 12; 97, 22; 109, 4. See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 12, 251-257; Roth, Nirukta, Erläuterungen, 126; St. Petersburg Dic- tionary, s.v., where Rv. viii. 58, 1, is added; Ludwig, Translation of the Rigveda, 3, 220-226.] [
Footnote: 2) ii. 6, 3; iv. 6, 1; v. 17, 9; 18, 1 et seq.; 19, 2 et seq.; xi. 1, 28; xix. 34, 6; 35, 2, etc.] [
Footnote: 3) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, i. 6, 7, 2; ii. 1, 2, 8, etc.; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, vii. 46. etc.] [
Footnote: 4) x. 90.] [
Footnote: 5) Cf. Oldenberg, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 42, 235; Geldner, Vedische Studien, 2, 146, n. 1; and see Varṇa.] [
Footnote: 6) See Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 3, 8; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxix. 10; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxi. 21; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 4, 4, 15; xiii. 1, 9, 1; 3, 7, 8; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 15; viii. 9; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, ii. 8, 2; xi. 11; 9; xv. 6, 3; and cf. Brahmapuro- hita; Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 27 et seq.] [
Footnote: 7) See Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, ii. 1, 7; iii. 3, 10; Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 2, 11, 2, etc.] [
Footnote: 8) Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iii. 3, 10.] [
Footnote: 9) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, i. 4, 23 (Mādhyaṃdina = i. 4, 11 Kāṇva). Cf. Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxviii. 5; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 2, 3, 2; v. 4, 2, 7. Con- trast the claim that Soma alone is King of the Brahmins, Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, x. 18; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 4, 2, 3.] [
Footnote: 10) See Taittirīya Saṃhitā, v. 1, 10, 3; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xix. 10; xxvii. 4; xxix. 10; Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, ii. 2, 3; 7, 7; iii. 1, 9; 2, 3; iv. 3, 9; Vāja- saneyi Saṃhitā, xx. 25; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xix. 17, 4; Śatapatha Brāh- maṇa, iv. 1, 4, 6; v. 4, 4, 15; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, viii. 10. 17, 24, 25, etc. Cf. Purohita.] [
Footnote: 11) Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, i. 8, 7; Pañca- vimśa Brāhmaṇa, xviii. 10, 8; Av. v. 17- 19; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 7, 2, 6; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 1, 5, 4.] [
Footnote: 12) Av. v. 3, 2; vi. 13, 1; 44, 2; xix. 62, 1 (compared with xix. 32, 8), and probably v. 11, 11; Taittirīya Saṃhitā, i. 7, 3, 1; ii. 5, 9, 6; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, viii. 13; Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, i. 4, 6; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 2, 2, 6; 4, 3, 14; iii. 1, 1, 11; iv. 3, 4, 4. See Weber, op. cit., 10, 35, 36; von Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur, 146, 147.] [
Footnote: 13) Neither in i. 139, 7, nor ix. 99, 6 (see Roth, St. Petersburg Dictionary, (s.v. deva), is this sense at all probable. Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 206, quotes 1, 128, 8, but that also is uncertain.] [
Footnote: 14) vii. 29, 2. Cf. Varṇa. n. 71.] [
Footnote: 15) Weber, Indische Studien, 9, 326.] [
Footnote: 16) Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5, 439.] [
Footnote: 17) xi. 5, 7, 1 et seq. See Weber, op. cit., 10, 41 et seq.] [
Footnote: 18) E.g., Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā; xxv. 3; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 1, 10, 6; Sata- patha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 4, 1, 10; 3, 4, 6, etc.] [
Footnote: 19) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiv. 6, 1, 2.] [
Footnote: 20) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xix. 12.] [
Footnote: 21) vi. 5, 8; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxvii. 2.] [
Footnote: 22) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xiv. 5; Tait- tirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 3, 2, 6, 7.] [
Footnote: 23) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, iii. 5, 1, 25. Cf. also Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 15, 8; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 4, 3, 14, etc.] [
Footnote: 24) xiii. 7, 12.] [
Footnote: 25) ix. 58, 3.] [
Footnote: 26) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 3, 12, 1. 2; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xii. 6, etc.] [
Footnote: 27) xiii. 5, 4, 29; 6, 2, 18; 7, 1, 13.] [
Footnote: 28) Ibid., v. 4, 2, 3.] [
Footnote: 29) Ibid., xiii. 4, 2, 17.] [
Footnote: 30) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 5, 11, 9.] [
Footnote: 31) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xii. 7, 2, 2; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 29. Cf. Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xi. 5; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, ix. 40; x. 18, etc.] [
Footnote: 32) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xii. 8, 1, — 5.] [
Footnote: 33) Ibid., xii. 9, 1, 1.] [
Footnote: 34) Ibid., 1, 2, 3, 9; vii. 5, 2, 37; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 8.] [
Footnote: 35) Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 3, 1, 39; 5, 3, 16, etc. On the food of the Brahmins, cf. also Pañcaviṃśa Brāh- maṇa, x. 4, 5; xvii. 1, 9; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iv. 11.] [
Footnote: 36) Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, iv. 1, 5, 8-14, where the Aśvins, who are famous as physicians (viii. 2, 1, 3; xii. 7, 1, 11). are treated as impure.] [
Footnote: 37) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 4, 9, 3. Contrast Rv. x. 97, 22, where no dis- credit attaches to the profession.] [
Footnote: 38) Av. v. 17.] [
Footnote: 39) Ibid., v. 18.] [
Footnote: 40) ii. 6, 10. 2.] [
Footnote: 41) xiii. 3, 5, 3.] [
Footnote: 42) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxxi. 7; Kapiṣ- ṭhala Saṃhitā, xlvii. 7; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 2, 8, 12.] [
Footnote: 43) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 5, 10, 2; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxvii. 9; Weber, Indische Studien, 9, 481; 10, 66.] [
Footnote: 44) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 3, 1, 1; 5, 4, 1 et seq.] [
Footnote: 45) x. 38.] [
Footnote: 46) Śāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, xvi. 10, 10; 12, 16-20; Weber, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 18, 268, 269.] [
Footnote: 47) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 15; Sāṅkhāyana Śrauta Sūtra, xv. 20.] [
Footnote: 48) Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xiv. 6, 8.] [
Footnote: 49) See Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 6, 1, 4; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, vii. 46; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 4, 4, 2; Śatapatha Brāh- maṇa, iv. 3, 4, 19; xii. 4, 4, 6.] [
Footnote: 50) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 6, 1, 4; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxx. 1; Maitrāyaṇī Saṃhitā, iv. 8, 1.] [
Footnote: 51) Chāndogya Upaniṣad, vi. 4, 4.] [
Footnote: 52) xi. 5, 4, 1; and cf. a citation in the scholiast on Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra, i. 6, 14; ‘Whoever studies the Stomabhāgas (a peculiarity of the Vasiṣṭhas) is a Vasiṣṭha’; Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 73.] [
Footnote: 53) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 19; Kauṣī- taki Brāhmaṇa, xii. 3; Weber, op. cit., 2, 311.] [
Footnote: 54) Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xiv. 6, 6.] [
Footnote: 55) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, vi. 2, 6, 4; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxv. 3; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xxiii. 4, 2.] [
Footnote: 56) See Weber, op. cit., 9, 321; 10, 8. 81; Max Müller. Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 380 et seq.] [
Footnote: 57) Cf., e.g., Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 1, 5, 5; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xiii. 5.] [
Footnote: 58) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, v. 4, 5, 4; Weber, op. cit., 10, 85-88.] [
Footnote: 59) Weber, 10, 88-96; Max Müller, Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 407 et seq.] [
Footnote: 60) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. ii. 3, 2, 12.] [
Footnote: 61) Ibid., ii. 3, 4, 6.] [
Footnote: 62) Ibid., xiii. 1, 5, 6.] [
Footnote: 63) Ibid., iii. 2, 1, 24. Cf. iv. 1, 3, 17; Nirukta, xiii. 9; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xiv. 5; xxxvii. 2; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxiii. 62.] [
Footnote: 64) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 27; Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 12, 438.] [
Footnote: 65) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 8, 8; v. 1, 1.] [
Footnote: 66) Ibid., iii. 4, 1; iv. 4, 26.] [
Footnote: 67) Ibid., vi. 4, 4.] [
Footnote: 68) Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, ii. 18, etc.] [
Footnote: 69) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, iv. 1, 7, 1; vii. 5, 18, 1; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, Aśva- medha, v. 14; Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā, xxii. 22; xxvii. 2; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 8, 13, 1; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iv. 11, 6-9; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 2, 6, 10; x. 3, 5, 16; xi. 4, 4, 1; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, vi. 3, 5.] [
Footnote: 70) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 1, 3, 6; xiii. 1, 5, 3, 5; 2, 6, 9.] [
Footnote: 71) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxxvii. 7; Tait- tirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 7, 1, 1; Pañca- viṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xxiii. 7, 3, etc.; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, ii. 3, 1, 31, etc.] [
Footnote: 72) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 7, 2, 3; xi. 3, 3, 3-6; 5, 7, 10.] [
Footnote: 73) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 5, 6, 3, 9; 7, 1; Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, ii. 13.] [
Footnote: 74) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iv. 3, 35-39; Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, ix. 8.] [
Footnote: 75) Ibid., vii. 8. 10.] [
Footnote: 76) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 1, 4, 2. 3; ii. 6, 4, 2-7; iv. 6, 7, 1, 2; v. 5, 5, 9; vi. 3, 1, 10. 11. 20; x. 5, 2, 1. 2; xi. 5, 4, 18; xii. 3, 3, 2, etc.] [
Footnote: 77) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxxvii. 7.] [
Footnote: 78) Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 7, 1, 2.] [
Footnote: 79) xi. 5, 7, 5-8.] [
Footnote: 80) ii. 9. 10.] [
Footnote: 81) vii. 1, 2, 4; 2, 1; 7, 1.] [
Footnote: 82) ii. 11. 12-15.] [
Footnote: 83) iv. 2, 4. 1.] [
Footnote: 84) Cf. (1) Kṣatriya and (2) Varṇa.] [
Footnote: 85) Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 6, 2, 5.] [
Footnote: 86) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 1, 11; Chāndogya Upaniṣad, v. 3, 1, and i. 8, 1. Cf. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5. 436, 514-516.] [
Footnote: 87) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, ii. 1, 1; Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad, iv. 1.] [
Footnote: 88) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, x. 6, 1, 2.] [
Footnote: 89) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 3, 1. Cf. iii. 7, 1.] [
Footnote: 90) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 4, 1, 1.] [
Footnote: 91) Ibid., xi. 6, 3, 1; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 1, 1-9, 20. 29.] [
Footnote: 92) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, v. 29; Kauṣī- taki Brāhmaṇa, ii. 9; Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 3, 1; 7, 1. Cf. Āśvalāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, iii. 4, 4; Sāṅkhāyana Gṛhya Sūtra, iv. 10.] [
Footnote: 93) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiii. 5, 2, 11.] [
Footnote: 94) Ibid., iv. 6, 9, 20.] [
Footnote: 95) Taittirīya Saṃhitā, ii. 5, 9, 1; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 5, 3, 1; Śata- patha Brāhmaṇa, i. 4, 2. 7; iii. 5, 3, 12. Cf. also Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upanisad, vi. 4, 29.] [
Footnote: 96) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 6, 2, 4.] [
Footnote: 97) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 1, 1. (Mādhyaṃdina = vi. 2, 1 Kāṇva).] [
Footnote: 98) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 6, 1, 1.] [
Footnote: 99) Indische Studien, 4, 376.] [
Footnote: 100) xv. 1.] [
Footnote: 101) Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, vii. 3.] [
Footnote: 102) See Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, vii. 4 (Indische Studien, 2, 211).] [
Footnote: 103) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xiv. 1, 1, 26. 27. Cf. Aitareya Āraṇyaka, v. 3, 3.] [
Footnote: 104) So the Vasiṣṭhas and the Stoma- bhāgas, Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xv. 5, 24; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 5, 2, 1; Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, xxxvii. 17; Pra- vāhaṇa Jaivali and his knowledge of Brahman, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, vi. 1, 11; Chāndogya Upaniṣad, v. 3, where the claim is made that the praśās- ana belongs to the Kṣatriyas. Śaṅkara, in his commentary, takes the word to mean the ‘giving of instruction,’ but this must be regarded as improbable, ‘rule’ being more probably the sense. Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 128; Böhtlingk, Translation of the Bṛhad- āraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii. 8, 9.] [
Footnote: 105) Rigveda Prātiśākhya, xv. 1 et seq.; Aitareya Āraṇyaka, v. 3, 3; and see Weber, op. cit., 10, 129-135.] [
Footnote: 106) Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 3, 6, 1-4; Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xxv. 4, 2. The four are the Hotṛ, Adhvaryu, Agnīdh, and Upavaktṛ: Weber, 10, 139, n. 4.] [
Footnote: 107) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, ix. 13; Pañca- viṃśa Brāhmaṇa, xxv. 4, 2, with a second Adhvaryu, as well as the four enumerated in the previous note.] [
Footnote: 108) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, ix. 13; Tait- tirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 2, 2, 3; Tait- tirīya Āraṇyaka, iii. 4, 6; Satapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 7, 2, 6, where the list has Adhvaryu, Hotṛ, Brahman, with the Pratiprasthātṛ, Maitrāvaruṇa, Āgnīdhra.] [
Footnote: 109) Kāṭhaka Saṃhitā, ix. 13; Tait- tirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 2, 2, 5; Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, iii. 5; Pañcaviṃśa Brāh- maṇa, xxv. 4, 2. The number seems to be made up of the five of note 107 and the Abhigarau — i.e., probably the Abhigara and the Apagara.] [
Footnote: 110) Kāṭhaka Saṃhita, ix. 8, 13-16; Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, ii. 2, 4, 1; 3, 6, 4; Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, iii. 1; Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, v. 25; Pañcaviṃśa Brāh- maṇa, xxv. 4, 2. What ten are meant is uncertain; the four of note 106 are enumerated.] [
Footnote: 111) Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, x. 4, 2, 19; Keith, Aitareya Āraṇyaka, 37.] [
Footnote: 112) xxv. 14, 3.] [
Footnote: 113) Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, i. 6, 1, 20; 9, 1, 12; ii. 2, 2, 7; iii. 4, 2, 15; iv. 2, 5, 9, 10; viii. 5, 3, 8; ix. 5, 2, 16; xii. 8, 1, 17, etc.] [
Footnote: 114) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 27 et seq.; Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 5, 436 et seq.] [
Footnote: 115) Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, vii. 27.] [
Footnote: 116) Cf. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, xi. 2, 7, 32, where Weber, Indische Studien, 10, 153, n. 1, interprets Aiṣāvīra, not as a proper name, but as meaning ‘con- temptible’; but Sāyaṇa thinks a proper name is meant, a view accepted by Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East, 44, 45, n. 2.] [
Footnote: 117) See Deussen, Philosophy of the Upanishads, 372 et seq.] [
Footnote: 118) Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, ii. 4, 1; iv. 5, 1. See iii. 5, 1, for his teaching, of which his action is a logical con- sequence.] [
Footnote: 119) Fick, Die sociale Gliederung, 40 et seq.; Oldenberg, Buddha,^5 72 et seq.] [
Footnote: 120) Arrian, Indica, xii. 8. 9; Strabo, xv. 1, 49, 60.] [
Footnote: 121) Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 179 et seq.] [
Footnote: 122) See Fick, loc. cit.] [
Footnote: 123) Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, 57.] [
Footnote: 124) Cæsar, Bellum Gallicum, vi. 14. The Druids did not fight, did not pay tribute, studied for many years, ob- served secrecy as to matters of ritual and learning, did not use writing, and had a certain belief in transmigration. Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 5, 19.] [
Footnote: 125) Hence the Brahman is the 28th Nakṣatra: Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, i. 5, 3, 3; Weber, Naxatra, 2, 306, 311; Indische Studien, 10, 40.] [
Footnote: 126) ix. 112.] [
Footnote: 127) Rv. iii. 33. 53.] [
Footnote: 128) Rv. vii. 18.] [
Footnote: 129) Chāndogya Upaniṣad, iv. 4, 5; Aitareya Āraṇyaka, iii. 1, 6.] [
Footnote: 130) i. 4, 1, 14-17. Cf. Weber, Indische Studien, 9, 257, 277, 278, and Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, iii. 44. Almost all that can be said of the Brahmins is collected in Weber's Indische Studien, 10, 40-158. Cf. also Ludwig, Translation of the Rigveda, 3, 220-226; Fick, Die sociale Gliederung (for Buddhist times; the evidence is, however, of uncertain, and much of it probably of late, date); Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 13, 82, 182, etc. (for notices of the Brahmins in the Epic): The Mutual Relations of the Four Castes according to the Māna- vadharmacāstram (for the Dharma view). Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 12, 248 et seq., discusses the priesthood in the Rigveda, and Zimmer, Altindisches Leben, 197- 212, gives an excellent summary of the facts.] [ID=2222]
