{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe32/sbe3215.htm","path":"hin/sbe32/sbe3215.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe32/sbe3215.htm","text":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32), by Max M\u00fcller, [1891]\n1. In the beginning there arose the Golden Child (Hiranya-garbha 1); as soon as born, he alone was the lord of all that is. He stablished the earth and this heaven:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n2. He who gives breath, he who gives strength, whose 1 command all the bright gods revere, whose shadow 2 is immortality, whose shadow is death:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n3. He who through his might became the sole king of the breathing and twinkling 1 world, who governs all this, man and beast:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n4. He through whose might 1 these snowy mountains are, and the sea, they say, with the distant river (the Ras\u00e2 2), he of whom these regions are indeed the two arms:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n5. He through whom the awful heaven and the earth were made fast 1, he through whom the ether was stablished, and the firmament; he who measured the air in the sky 2:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n6. He to whom heaven and earth 1, standing firm by his will, look up, trembling in their mind; he over whom the risen sun shines forth:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n7. When the great waters 1 went everywhere, holding the germ (Hiranya-garbha), and generating light, then there arose from them the (sole 2) breath of the gods:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n8. He who by his might looked even over the waters which held power (the germ) and generated the sacrifice (light 1), he who alone is God above all gods 2:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n9. May he not hurt us, he who is the begetter of the earth, or he, the righteous, who begat the heaven; he who also begat the bright and mighty waters:\u2014Who is the God to whom we shall offer sacrifice?\n[10 1. Prag\u00e2pati, no other than thou embraces all these created things. May that be ours which we desire when sacrificing to thee: may we be lords of wealth!]\nThis hymn is ascribed to Hiranyagarbha Pr\u00e2g\u00e2patya, and is supposed to be addressed to Ka, Who, i. e. the Unknown God.\nFirst translated in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 1859, p. 569; see also Hibbert Lectures; 1882, p. 301; Muir, Original Sanskrit Texts, IV, p. 15.\nVerse 1 = VS. XIII, 4; XXIII, 1; XXV, 10; TS. IV, 1, 8, 3; 2, 8, 2; AV. IV, 2, 7.\nVerse 2 = VS. XXV, 13; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; VII, 5, 17, 1; AV. IV, 2, I; XIII, 3, 24.\nVerse 3 = VS. XXIII, 3; XXV, 11; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; VII, 5, 16, 1; AV. IV, 2, 2.\nVerse 4 = VS. XXV, 12; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4; AV. IV, 2, 5.\nVerse 5 = VS. XXXII, 6; TS. IV, 1, 8, 5; AV. IV, 2, 4.\nVerse 6 = VS. XXXII, 7; TS. IV, 1, 8, 5; AV. IV, 2, 3.\nVerse 7 = VS. XXVII, 25; XXXII, 7; TS. II, 2, 12, 1; IV, 1, 8, 5; TA. I, 23, 8; AV. IV, 2, 6.\nVerse 8 = VS. XXVII, 26; XXXII. 7; TS. IV, 1, 8, 6.\nVerse 9 = VS. XII, 102; TS. IV, 2, 7, 1.\nVerse 10 = VS. X, 20; XXIII, 65; TS. I, 8, 14, 2; III, 2, 5, 6; TB. II, 8, 1, 2; III, 5, 7, 1; AV. VII, 79, 4; 80, 3.\nThis is one of the hymns which has always been suspected as modern by European interpreters. The reason is clear. To us the conception of one God, which pervades the whole of this hymn, seems later than the conception of many individual gods, as recognised in various aspects of nature, such as the gods of the sky, the sun, the storms, or the fire. And in a certain sense we may be right, and language also confirms our sentiment. In our hymn there are several words which do not occur again in the Rig-veda, or which occur in places only which have likewise been suspected to be of more modern date. Hiranyagarbha\nitself is an \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. S\u00e1m avartata is found only in the last Mandala, X, 90, 14; 129, 4. Bh\u00fbt\u00e1 also, in the sense of what is, occurs in the tenth Mandala only. It is used three times (X, 55, 2; 58, 12; 90, 2) as opposed to bh\u00e1vya, i. e. what is and what will be; and once more in the sense of all that is (X, 85, 17). \u00c2tmad\u00e2\u00b4h, in the sense of giving life, is another \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. Pras\u00edsh is restricted to Mandalas I (I, 145, 1), IX (IX, 66, 6; 86, 32), and our passage. Him\u00e1vat, \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd. The repetition of the relative pronoun in verses 2 and 4 is unusual. In the tenth verse the compound yat-k\u00e2mah is modern, and the insertion of et\u00e2\u00b4ni between tvat and any\u00e1h is at all events exceptional. The passage V, 31, 2 is not parallel, because in tv\u00e1t indra v\u00e1syah any\u00e1t, the ablative tv\u00e1t is governed by v\u00e1syah. In VI, 21, 10, n\u00e1 tv\u00e2\u00b4v\u00e2n any\u00e1h amrita tvat asti, any\u00e1h is separated from tv\u00e1t by a vocative only, as in VIII, 24, 11.\nBut when we say that a certain hymn is modern, we must carefully consider what we mean. Our hymn, for instance, must have existed not only previous to the Br\u00e2hmana period, for many Br\u00e2hmanas presuppose it, but previous to the Mantra period also. It is true that no verse of it occurs in the S\u00e2ma-veda, but in the S\u00e2ma-veda-br\u00e2hmana IX, 9, 12, verse 1 at least is mentioned a. Most of its verses, however, occur in the V\u00e2gasaneyi-samhit\u00e2, in the Taittir\u00eeya-samhit\u00e2, and in the Atharva-veda-samhit\u00e2, nay, the last verse, to my mind the most suspicious of all, occurs most frequently in the other Samhit\u00e2s and Br\u00e2hmanas.\nBut though most of the verses of our hymn occur in other Samhit\u00e2s, they do not always occur in the same order.\nIn the V\u00e2g. Samh. we have the first verse in XIII, 4, but no other verse of our hymn follows. We have the first verse again in XXIII, 1, but not followed by verse 2, but by verse 3 (XXIII, 3) b. Then we have verse 1 once more\nin XXV, 10, followed by verse 3 (XXV, 11), by verse 4 (XXV, 12), and then by verse 2 (XXV, 13).\nWe have verses 5, 6, 7, 8 in VS. XXXII, 6 and 7, and verses 7 and 8 in VS. XXVII, 25 and 26, while verse 9 is found in XII, 102 only a, and the last verse in X, 20 b, and XXIII, 65.\nIn the Taitt. Samhit\u00e2 the verses follow more regularly, still never quite in the same order as in the Rig-veda. In TS. IV, 1, 8, 3 c we have verses 1 to 8, but verse 3 before verse 2, and verse 6 before verse 5, while verse 9 follows in IV, 2, 7, 1.\nIn TS. v. 3 stands before v. 2, in VII, 5, 16, 1, and VII, 5, 17, 1.\nIn TS. II, 2, 12, the prat\u00eekas of verses 1, 7, 10 are quoted in succession.\nVerse 7 occurs with important various readings in TA. I, 23, 8, \u00e2\u00b4po ha y\u00e1d brihat\u00ee\u00b4r g\u00e1rbham \u00e2\u00b4yan d\u00e1ksham d\u00e1dh\u00e2n\u00e2 gan\u00e1yant\u00eeh svayambh\u00fam, t\u00e1ta im\u00e9\u093ddhy\u00e1srigyanta s\u00e1rg\u00e2h.\nLastly in the AV. we find verses 1 to 7 from IV, 2, 1, to IV, 2, 7, but arranged in a different order, viz. as 2, 3, 6, 5, 4, 7, 1, and with important various readings.\nVerse 2, y\u00f4\u00b4 3 sy\u00e9se dvip\u00e1do y\u00e1s k\u00e1tushpadah, as third p\u00e2da; also in XIII, 3, 24.\nVerse 3, ek\u00f3 r\u00e2\u00b4g\u00e2; y\u00e1sya kh\u00e2y\u00e2\u00b4mr\u00edtam y\u00e1sya mrity\u00fah, as third p\u00e2da.\nVerse 4, y\u00e1sya v\u00edsve; samudr\u00e9 y\u00e1sya ras\u00e2\u00b4m \u00edd \u00e2h\u00fah; im\u00e2\u00b4ska.\nVerse 5, y\u00e1sya dya\u00far urv\u00ee\u00b4 prithiv\u00ee\u00b4 ka mah\u00ee\u00b4 y\u00e1sy\u00e2d\u00e1 urv\u00e1mt\u00e1riksham, y\u00e1sy\u00e2sa\u00fa s\u00fb\u00b4ro v\u00edtato mahitv\u00e2\u00b4.\nVerse 6, \u00e1vatas kaskabh\u00e2n\u00e9 bhiy\u00e1s\u00e2ne r\u00f3das\u00ee \u00e1hvayeth\u00e2m (sic), y\u00e1sy\u00e2sa\u00fa panth\u00e2\u00b4 r\u00e1gaso vim\u00e2nah.\nVerse 7, \u00e2\u00b4po \u00e1gre v\u00edsvam \u00e2v\u00e1n g\u00e1rbham d\u00e1dh\u00e2n\u00e2 amr\u00edt\u00e2 ritag\u00f1\u00e2\u00b4h, y\u00e2\u00b4su dev\u00ee\u00b4shv \u00e1dhi dev\u00e1 \u00e2s\u00eet.\nVerse 10, v\u00ee\u00b4sv\u00e2 r\u00fbp\u00e2\u00b4ni paribhur gag\u00e2na, see VII, 79, 4, and 80, 3.\nWe are justified, therefore, in looking upon the verses, composing this hymn, as existing before the\nfinal arrangement of the four Samhit\u00e2s, and if we persist in calling a hymn, dating from that period, a modern hymn, we must make it quite clear that, according to the present state of our knowledge, such a hymn cannot well be more modern than 1000 b.c. Besides the variations in the arrangement of the verses of our hymn, the very considerable various readings which we find in the VS., TS., and AV. are highly instructive, as showing the frequent employment of our hymn for sacrificial purposes. In several cases these various readings are of great importance, as we shall see.\nMuir: Hiranyagarbha arose in the beginning; born, he was the one lord of things existing. He established the earth and this sky: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Hiranyagarbha hat zuerst sich gebildet, er ward geboren als einziger herr alles gewordenen, dise erde and disen himel h\u00e4lt er; Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. Hiranyagarbha a has been translated in different ways, and it would perhaps be best to keep it as a proper name, which it is in later times. It means literally the golden embryo, the golden germ or child, or born of a golden womb, and was no doubt an attempt at naming the sun. Soon, however, that name became mythological. The golden child was supposed to have been so called because it was Prag\u00e2pati, the lord of creation, when dwelling as yet in the golden egg, and Hiranyagarbha became in the end a recognised name of Prag\u00e2pati, see Say. on X, 121, 1. All this is fully explained by S\u00e2yana, TS. IV, 1, 8, 3; IV, 2, 8, 2; by Mah\u00eedhara, VS. XIII, 4.\nMuir: He who gives breath, who gives strength, whose command all, [even] the gods, reverence, whose shadow is immortality, whose shadow is death: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Geber des lebendigen hauches, geber der kraft, zu des unterweisung alle Otter sich einfinden, des glanz die unsterblichkeit, dessen der tod ist, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. In order to account for the repetition of yasya, S\u00e2yana and Mahidhara take visve for men, and dev\u00e2h for gods.\nNote 2. It is difficult to say what is meant by kh\u00e2y\u00e2, shadow. I take it in the sense of what belongs to the god, as the shadow belongs to a man, what follows him, or is determined by him. In that sense S\u00e2yana also takes it, TS. IV, 1, 8, 4, yasya prag\u00e2pates kh\u00e2y\u00e2vat sv\u00e2dh\u00eenam amritam, mokshar\u00fbpam, mrityuh, pr\u00e2nin\u00e2m maranam api, yasya kh\u00e2yeva sv\u00e2dhinah; and, though not quite so clearly, in RV. X, 121, 2. Mah\u00eedhara on the contrary takes kh\u00e2y\u00e2 in the sense of refuge, and says, whose shadow, i. e. whose worship, preceded by knowledge, is amrita, immortality, a means of deliverance a, while ignorance of him is death, or leads to sams\u00e2ra.\nMuir: Who by his might became the sole king of the breathing and winking world, who is the lord of this two-footed and four-footed [creation]: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Der des atmenden, augenbewegenden lebendigen durch seine gr\u00f6sze der einzige k\u00f6nig geworden; der verf\u00fcgt \u00fcber disz zwei- und vier-f\u00fcszige, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. It is difficult to say whether nimishatah means twinkling or sleeping. It has both meanings as to wink has in English. S\u00e2yana (X, 121, 3; TS. IV, 1, 8, 4) and Mahidhara (VS. XXIII, 3 b) explain it by winking. This may be right as expressing sensuous perception, in addition to mere breathing. In X, 190, 2, v\u00edsvasya mishat\u00f3 vas\u00ee\u00b4 means, lord of all that winks, i. e.\nlives. The later idea, that the gods do not wink, has nothing to do with our passage.\nMuir: Whose greatness these snowy mountains, and the sea with the Ras\u00e2 (river), declare,\u2014of whom these regions, of whom they are the arms: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Dessen die schneebedeckten (berge, die Himav\u00e2n) verm\u00f6ge seiner gr\u00f6sze, als des eigentum man ocean und Ras\u00e2 nennt, des dise himelsgegenden, des arme sie, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. Muir's translation, which suggests itself very naturally to a European mind, is impossible, because mahitv\u00e2\u00b4 cannot be either mahitv\u00e1m (as S\u00e2yana also and Mah\u00eedhara suggest), or mahitv\u00e2\u00b4ni; and because \u00e2h\u00fah does not mean declare. Otherwise nothing could be better than his rendering: 'Whose greatness these snowy mountains, and the sea with the Ras\u00e2 (river), declare.'\nMahitv\u00e2\u00b4, as S\u00e2yana also rightly perceives, TS. IV, 1, 8, 4, is a very common instrumental (see Lanman, Noun-inflection, pp. 335-6), and the same mahitv\u00e2\u00b4 must be supplied for samudr\u00e1m. We might make the whole sentence dependent on \u00e2huh without much change of meaning. The Atharva-veda text supplies a lectio facilior, but not therefore melior.\nNote 2. The Ras\u00e2 is a distant river, in some respects like the Greek Okeanos. Dr. Aufrecht takes it as a name of the milky way, Z. D. M. G. XIII, 498: see Muir, S. T. II, p. 373, n. 19.\nMuir: By whom the sky is fiery, and the earth fixed, by whom the firmament and the heaven were established, who in the atmosphere is the measurer of the aerial space: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Durch den gewaltig der himel and fest die erde, durch den gest\u00fctzt Svar, and das gew\u00f6lbe, der die r\u00e4ume im mittelgebiete ausgemeszen, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. In this verse I decidedly prefer the reading of the Atharva-veda, yena dyaur ugr\u00e2 prithiv\u00ee ka drilhe. It seems not a lectio facilior, and we avoid the statement that the heaven has been made ugr\u00e2. Ugr\u00e2, as applied to dyaus, means awful and grand, as an inherent quality rather, and not simply strong. See Ludwig, Notes, p. 441.\nNote 2. R\u00e1gaso vim\u00e2\u00b4nah has been fully discussed by Muir, S. T. IV, p. 71, but it is difficult to find a right translation for it, because the cosmography of the Veda is so different from our own (see I, 6, 9, note 1, and I, 19, 3, note 1). I think we may translate it here by the air, or even by space, particularly the bright air in the sky, the sky (antariksha or nabhas) being between heaven (dyu) and earth (prithiv\u00ee), while svah and n\u00e2ka are still higher than the heaven (dyu), svah being sometimes explained as the abode of the sun, the ether, or empyrean, n\u00e2ka, the firmament, as svarga (Mah\u00eedhara); or svah as svarga, and n\u00e2ka as \u00e2ditya (S\u00e2yana). Vim\u00e2na is here simply the measurer, though vim\u00e2, from meaning to measure, is apt to take the meaning of to make, which is an excuse for S\u00e2yana's rendering, 'who makes the rain in the sky.'\nThe Atharva-veda rendering is very free, and certainly no improvement.\nMuir: To whom two contending armies, sustained by his succour, looked up, trembling in mind; over whom the risen sun shines: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Auf den die beiden schlachtreihen durch (ihre) begirde aufgestellt in ordnung ihren blick richten, zitternd, im geiste, wo dar\u00fb\u00b4ber hin aufgegangen S\u00fbra ausstralt, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. It would be well to read r\u00f3das\u00ee for kr\u00e1ndas\u00ee (which B. R. explain by 'two armies'), and the various reading in AV. IV, 2, 3 decidedly points in that direction. But even if kr\u00e1ndas\u00ee stands, it must be taken in the same sense as r\u00f3das\u00ee. Uditau vyeti in TS. IV, 1, 8, 5 is explained by udayavishaye vividham gakkhati.\nMuir: When the great waters pervaded the universe containing an embryo, and generating fire, thence arose the one spirit (asu) of the gods: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Als die groszen waszer kamen, die allen keim in sich faszten, zeugend den Agni, da kam zu Stande der g\u00f6tter einziger lebensgeist; Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. The waters here referred to have to be understood as the waters in the beginning of the creation, where, as we read (RV. X, 129, 3), 'everything was like a sea without a light,' or, as the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana (XI, 1, 6, 1) says, 'everything was water and sea.' These waters held the germ a, and produced the golden light, the sun b, whence arose the life of all the gods, viz. Prag\u00e2pati. The Atharva-veda adds a verse which repeats the same idea more clearly: \u00e2\u00b4po vats\u00e1m gan\u00e1yant\u00eer g\u00e1rbham \u00e1gre s\u00e1mairayan, t\u00e1syot\u00e1 g\u00e2\u00b4yam\u00e2nasy\u00f3lba \u00e2s\u00eed dhirany\u00e1yah, 'In the beginning the waters, producing a young, brought forth an embryo, and when it was being born, it had a golden covering.' The sunrise serves here as elsewhere as an image of the creation.\nNote 2. Grassmann proposes to omit eka, because it is absent in the Maitr\u00e2yan\u00ee S\u00e2kh\u00e2. The metre shows the same.\nMuir: He who through his greatness beheld the waters which contained power, and generated sacrifice, who was the one god above the gods: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Der in seiner gr\u00f6sze sogar die waszer \u00fcberschaute, wie sie die f\u00e4higkeit besitzend erzeugten das opfer, der der einzige gott war \u00fcber den g\u00f6ttern, Ka, dem gotte, m\u00f6chten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nNote 1. In d\u00e1ksham d\u00e1dh\u00e2n\u00e2 gan\u00e1yant\u00eer yag\u00f1\u00e1m, we have a repetition of what was said in the preceding verse,\nd\u00e1ksham standing for g\u00e1rbham, yag\u00f1am for agn\u00edm, which is actually the reading of TS. The Atharva-veda does not contain this verse, which is used as an any\u00e2 vikalpit\u00e2 y\u00e2gy\u00e2 in TS.\nNote 2. It is curious that one of the most important sentences in the Rig-veda, yo deveshv adhi deva eka \u00e2s\u00eet, should have been changed in the Atharva-veda IV, 2, 6 into y\u00e2su dev\u00eeshv adhi deva \u00e2s\u00eet, 'over which divine waters there was the god.' See Ludwig, Notes, p. 441.\nMuir: May he not injure us, he who is the generator of the earth, who, ruling by fixed ordinances, produced the heavens, who produced the great and brilliant waters: to what god shall we offer our oblation?\nLudwig: Nicht sch\u00e4dige uns, der der erde erzeuger, oder der den himel bereitet mit warhafter satzung, der auch die wasser, die hellen, die m\u00e4chtigen erzeugt hat, Ka, dem gotte, mochten wir mit havis aufwarten.\nMuir: Prag\u00e2pati, no other than thou is lord over all these created things: may we obtain that, through desire of which we have invoked thee: may we become masters of riches.\nLudwig: Prag\u00e2pati, kein anderer als du hat umfasst die wesen alle, der wunsch, um deswillen wir dir opfern, der werde uns zu teil, besitzer von reicht\u00fcmern m\u00f6gen wir sein.\nNote 1. This verse is certainly extremely weak after all that preceded, still, to judge from its frequent occurrence, we cannot well discard it. All we can say is that nowhere, except in the Rig-veda, does it form the final verse of our hymn, and thus spoil its whole character.\nThat character consists chiefly in the burden of the nine verses, Kasmai dev\u00e2ya havish\u00e2 vidhema, 'To what god shall we offer sacrifice?' This is clearly meant to express a desire of finding out the true, but unknown god, and to do so, even after all has been said that can be said of a supreme god. To finish such a hymn with a statement\nthat Prag\u00e2pati is the god who deserves our sacrifice, may be very natural theologically, but it is entirely uncalled for poetically. The very phrase Kasmai dev\u00e2ya havish\u00e2 vidhema must have been a familiar phrase, for we find in a hymn-addressed to the wind, X, 168, 4, after all has been said that can be said of him, the concluding line: gh\u00f3sh\u00e2h it asya srinvire n\u00e1 r\u00fbp\u00e1m t\u00e1smai v\u00e2\u00b4t\u00e2ya hav\u00edsh\u00e2 vidhema, 'his sound indeed is heard, but he is not seen\u2014to that V\u00e2ta let us offer sacrifice.'\nBut more than this, on the strength of hymns like our own in which the interrogative pronoun ka, 'who,' occurs, the Br\u00e2hmans actually invented a god of the name of Ka. I pointed this out many years ago in my History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature (1860, p. 433), where I said: In accordance with the same system, we find that the authors of the Br\u00e2hmanas had so completely broken with the past that, forgetful of the poetical character of the hymns, and the yearning of the poets after the unknown god, they exalted the interrogative pronoun into a deity,' and acknowledged a god 'Ka, or Who.' In the Taittir\u00eeya-samhit\u00e2 (I, 7, 6, 6), in the Kaush\u00eetaki-br\u00e2hmana (XXIV, 4), in the T\u00e2ndya-br\u00e2hmana (XV, 10), and in the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana a, whenever interrogative verses occur, the author states, that Ka is Prag\u00e2pati, or 'the Lord of Creatures' (Prag\u00e2patir vai Kah). Nor did they stop there. Some of the hymns in which the interrogative pronoun occurred were called Kadvat, i. e. having kad or quid. But soon a new adjective was formed, and not only the hymns, but the sacrifices also, offered to the god, were called K\u00e2ya, or who-ish b. This word, which is not to be identified with the Latin cujus, cuja, cujum, but is merely the artificial product of an effete mind, is found in the Taittir\u00eeya-samhit\u00e2 (I, 8, 3, 1), and in the V\u00e2gasaneyi-samhit\u00e2 (XXIV, 15). At the time of P\u00e2nini\nthis word had acquired such legitimacy as to call for a separate rule explaining its formation (P\u00e2n. IV, 2, 25). The commentator there explains Ka by Brahman. After this we can hardly wonder that in the later Sanskrit literature of the Pur\u00e2nas, Ka appears as a recognised god, as the supreme god, with a genealogy of his own, perhaps even with a wife; and that in the Laws of Manu, one of the recognised forms of marriage, generally known by the name of Prag\u00e2pati-marriage, occurs under the monstrous title of 'K\u00e2ya.' Stranger still, grammarians who know that ka forms the dative kasmai only if it is an interrogative pronoun, consider kasmai in our hymn as irregular, because, as a proper name, Ka ought to form the dative K\u00e2ya.\n4:a The last line is here, tasmai ta indo havish\u00e2 vidhema, let us sacrifice to him with thy oblation, O Soma!\n4:b Var. lect. nimeshat\u00e1h.\n5:a Var. lect. m\u00e2\u00b4 m\u00e2, saty\u00e1dharm\u00e2 vy\u00e2\u00b4nat, pratham\u00f3 for brihat\u00ee\u00b4h.\n5:b Var. lect., r\u00fbp\u00e2\u00b4ni for bh\u00fbt\u00e2\u00b4ni.\n5:c Var. lect., ver. 5, dridh\u00e9, dual for drilh\u00e2\u00b4; ver. 6, \u00faditau vy\u00e9ti for \u00fadito vibh\u00e2\u00b4ti; ver. 8, agn\u00edm for yag\u00f1\u00e1m.\n6:a M. M., India, What can it teach us? pp. 144, 162.\n7:a muktihetu, not yuktihetu, as Weber prints.\n7:b Is nimesh\u00e1to in XXIII, 3, a varia lectio, or an asuddha? In XXV, 13, we read nimishato.\n10:a See RV. X, 82, 5-6.\n10:b See RV. X, 72, 7.\n12:a Satap. Br\u00e2hm. I, 1, 1, 13; II, 5, 2, 13; IV, 5, 6, 4; also Aitar. Br\u00e2hm. III, 21.\n12:b \u00c2sv. Sr. S\u00fbtra II, 17, 14; K\u00e2ty. Sr. S\u00fbtra V, 4, 23; Vait. S\u00fbtra VIII, 22, ed. Garbe.","title":"Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Vedic Hymns: X, 121. To the ...","type":"page"}