For the earliest critical examination of this difficult verse we are indebted to Böhtlingk (1890),1 who was the first to see that a dead man on his way to heaven recites this verse in response to the Moonâs question âWho are you?â Although Deussenâs interpretation2 correctly reproduces the context, in detail it is often wrong. His interpretation, however, next to Böhtlingkâs translation, forms the basis for the later interpretations which can be divided into two groups. The first group, following Böhtlingk, takes erayadhvam and niá¹£iñcata (or Äsiá¹£ikta) as imperatives; the second, following Deussen, takes them as verbs in the past tense.
Let us first follow Böhtlingkâs line of interpretation. Oertel (1898, 117â¯f.) rejects Deussenâs emendation airayadhvam with the words âthe context seems to me to favor imperatives,â without further explaining this assertion. Windisch (1907, 117â¯ff.) has observed that the imperatives (puá¹si kartari) erayadhvam and (amá¹tyava) Äbharadhvam form an inconsistency. Therefore he splits the verse into two answers. The first, until Äsiá¹£ikta, is pronounced by the deceased who is to be reborn on the earth, the second, sa jÄya upajÄyamÄna ⦠etc., is the discourse of the redeemed. This interpretation is untenable. We expect at least an iti between the two answers, just as the whole discourse is closed with iti. AV 18, 2, 59â60, to which Windisch (1907, 120, n. 1) refers, is a pseudo-parallel: for in a Saá¹hitÄ-text consisting only of mantras, two verses which are used as alternatives in the ritual or elsewhere can follow one another directly. In a prose text, however, which tries to explain the background of the rituals and the application of the mantras, this direct succession is hardly possible without further comment and without iti.
As regards content, Windischâs artifice is also to be rejected. Let us first look at the context in the three versions. The deceased meets the heavenly gatekeeper i.e. the moon (Kauá¹£U), one of the á¹tus (JB 1, 49), or all the á¹tus (JB 1, 18, which is the oldest original version insofar as the vocative can thus be explained), and he should answer the question âWho are you?â with this verse (pratibrÅ«yÄd, JB 1, 49; Kauá¹£U) or he should introduce himself without being asked (prabruvÄ«ta, JB 1, 18). So the role of the verse in the three contexts is indeed more or less the same. How does Windischâs forced splitting up of this verse now work in practice, i.e. in his German translation? The second answer (or announcement) runs: âThis way I am born: a leap month born afterwards â¦â (Windisch 1907, 22). A really strange answer! The beginning of the discourse is too little âto the pointâ and too abrupt. In sa jÄya upajÄyamÄna the pronoun sa is probably to be taken anaphorically.
The first answer is just as strange. The deceased commands: âSend me back, do not let me in to your Lordâ; for that would roughly be the meaning if imperatives are assumed. Apart from the fact that such an address to a gatekeeper is hardly conceivable, it is nowhere in the three contexts possible to show that the pitá¹yÄna was the ideal of the authors. Nevertheless, according to Windisch, these authors prescribe for the deceased that he should respond (pratibrÅ«yÄd) with these commands.
In addition, one does not expect commands, but statements. The single statement in the first answer, âFrom the moon the seed has been produced,â is only to be understood in the context of an ancient doctrine of water, which was developed into the five-fire-doctrine (pañcÄgnividyÄ) in JB 1, 45, and which, in connection with the doctrine of the two paths, forms the locus classicus of the transmigration of the soul (BÄU 6, 2; ChU 5, 4â¯ff.). The doctrine of water itself, however, does not yet necessarily imply rebirth; this is evident from ÅB 3, 7, 4, 4.3 Also in the five-fire-doctrine in JB 1, 45, it is only the origin of man that is explained. The water cycle, which Frauwallner4 regards as the starting point of the doctrine of reincarnation, is still absent there. In the verse, the words vicaká¹£aá¹Äd ⦠reto Äbhá¹tam, tam mÄ puá¹si ⦠erayadhvam and mÄtari mÄsiá¹£ikta represent three phases from the water doctrine that are difficult to separate. After the past participle Äbhá¹tam imperatives are therefore excluded, if the ancient water doctrine, which explains only the origin of man, is here dealt with. But if, with Windisch, one reads a water cycle into these words, then the past participle Äbhá¹tam implies that the second cycle has already begun, and that the deceased has already emerged from the moon. This interpretation, however, is in contradiction with the context.
Besides, it is not plausible that the deceased themselves choose their destiny. The sun or the gatekeepers separate the liberated from the non-liberated. In Kauá¹£U 1, 2, for instance, the moon allows the one who can answer his question (taá¹ yaḥ pratyÄha) to pass. Whoever cannot answer him (ya enaá¹ na pratyÄha), he sends down. The answer extends, of course, to the whole verse. That na pratyÄha would refer to Windischâs first answer only, would indeed be hardly possible.
Since, apart from Sivaprasad Bhattacharya (1955), the other representatives of the line of Böhtlingk5 have not substantially modified Windischâs interpretation, their translations can here be disregarded. Bhattacharya presumes negative imperatives, i.e. injunctives with the negation mÄ, while all other scholars interpret mÄ as a pronoun. According to him, mÄ should be regarded as a negation only in the Kauá¹£U. It is not plausible, however, that an Upaniá¹£ad author would attempt to adapt a transmitted BrÄhmaá¹a verse to his ideas by means of a grammatical artifice. Moreover, the same arguments that we have used against Windisch, partly still remain in force.
The main reason for the scant approval of Deussenâs interpretation among later translators probably lies in the fact that the forms erayadhvam and Äsiá¹£ikta are not verbs in the past tense, but imperatives. In Äsiá¹£ikta one may presume an augment, but for erayadhvam Deussen saw himself compelled to propose the emendation airayadhvam. Keith (1908, 17â¯f.), however, notes that the augment is not required, and Geldner (19282, 142) translates as a past tense, without comment. Unfortunately, a detailed exegesis of the text and a discussion with the followers of Böhtlingk is missing in the work of these translators, who thus accept an optional use of the augment. On the other hand, Fürst (1915, 22, n. 2) has defended the assumption of verbs in the past tense, and he rightly observes âthat the whole discourse that follows the question âWho are you?â, is only a lengthy answer in mystic terms to this question, and does not contain any request or appeal.â He considers (1915, 62) erayadhvam and some other forms as exceptionally preserved old forms from a time when the augment could be left out, when the meaning of past tense was evident from the context.
Since the publication of Hoffmannâs Der Injunktiv im Veda (1967), however, this view can no more be accepted just like that. Hoffmann (160â¯ff.) rejects the optional use of the augment and concludes (110) that the non-prohibitive injunctive is no longer used in Vedic prose. The few seeming injunctives which exist, are âeither formally deviating subjunctives or forms in the past tense which lost their augment secondarily.â With regard to erayadhvam in our verse, he observes that the lack of augment can be explained âfrom the endeavor, to distinguish the form of the preposition-less imperfect airayadhvamâ (108, n. 6). But it is questionable whether the assumption of forms in the past tense matches Hoffmannâs own theories. The succession of imperfect (erayadhvam) and aorist (Äsiá¹£ikta), at which Böhtlingk6 already took offence, is in contradiction with Hoffmannâs observation (270), âIn the âreporting narrativeâ of facts of the distant past no aspect difference is indicated, there is always the imperfect.â But is erayadhvam really an imperfect? Would a BrÄhmaá¹a author let two forms in the past tense follow each other without a recognizable augment, just to keep the preposition Ä? In prose texts injunctives are not excluded when they occur in archaizing mantras, as Hoffmann (107, n. 1) observes. On the basis of the contents, it is easy to conceive that our verse is archaizing.7 Admittedly, the second person plural in the injunctive is avoided, since it coincides with the imperative,8 but such a form is not impossible, especially since we are dealing with archaïsms. The difference in function of the imperfect and the injunctive must therefore bring the decision.
Hoffmann (163) sets the âmentioning descriptionâ of the injunctive against the âreporting narrationâ of the imperfect. In a report the speaker tells a fact which he assumes to be unknown to the listener (160). On the other hand, e.g. in a dialogue, shared experiences are not âreportedâ as news, but are only âmentionedâ (199). One could also call the injunctive âmemorative.â
Let us now look at the verse. The deceased says: âFrom the moon the seed has been produced. You, seasons have led me into a man and have poured me into a mother by means of this man. So I am then born, produced by the year as an intercalary month. I know that for sure. Lead me therefore to immortality.â This can hardly be considered as a âreporting narration.â Nothing new is being reported to the gatekeepers . Every deceased recites the same verse. He âmentionsâ a general truth, describes some important singular facts without giving an ordered narrative. Moreover, the gatekeepers are not interested in details about the deceased, e.g., how he was born at a certain time in a certain place as the son of a certain father. Whoever answers in JBÂ 1, 18 to the sunâs question âWho are you?â with his name or gotra, is sent back. In fact the question is not âWho are you?â but rather âWhat are you?â
In this entrance examination the deceased shows by means of his answer, i.e. by means of this âmemorative, mentioning descriptionâ of his (and everyoneâs) immortal origin, that he possesses the liberating knowledge. Thus, he concludes his discourse with saá¹ tad vide âham prati tad vide âham âThat I know thoroughly, that I know certainly.â The repetition of vid- with different preverbs does not imply a twofold knowledge as one has assumed, but is merely stylistic9 and expresses emphasis, among other things. The fact that saṠ⦠vide and prati ⦠vide form a unit and are derived from vid- âto know,â is evident from AÄ 2, 3, 1; 4; 6, where one reads the phrase yo ha vai ⦠veda ⦠sa samprativid. I therefore do not believe that Thieme (1951â1952, 26â¯f.) was correct in separating sam from pratividaḥ in Kauá¹£U 1, 4 and in deriving vide from vid- âto findâ in our verse.
In this âmentionâ before saá¹ tad vide the tenses and moods must match. The participle Äbhá¹tam is probably to be conceived as a statement. The injunctive present (erayadhvam) and injunctive aorist (Äsiá¹£ikta) may stand side by side (Hoffmann 1967, 171). The alternation is evoked by an aspectual difference (271â¯ff.): The production-within-the-man of the seed occurs gradually and is expressed as a progressive action. The pouring-into-the-mother is to be conceived as purely punctual. The present indicative (jÄye) may stand in place of the injunctive (165). Here, an event is âmentionedâ which is basically free of duration. The context defines the past time period.
If we leave out mÄ and replace the first person (jÄye) with a third, a timeless process is described. Every man has the year for his father; the seed from which every man comes forth is the water of immortality from heaven. See the five-fire-doctrine in JB 1, 45, where amá¹tam and Äpaḥ are the first sacrifice. The earthly father is only a kartá¹-, a handler of the year (or the seasons), who performs what the real father lets him do. It is the year as the totality of the á¹tus, who have led the human beings from heaven to earth, who is this real father. The year is equated with PrajÄpati and the sun, represents the totality of time and is the prototype of the imperishable.10 The earthly seed is only a phase of the heavenly waters, that is led by the sun as rain to the earth.11 The man, who emerges from it, is as a yearâs child equal to the other yearâs child, the upamÄsa-, in the classifying way of thinking in the BrÄhmaá¹as. It is interesting to note that in these texts the upamÄsa- is considered identical with the year.12 Man is thus identical with his father, the year (= the sun, PrajÄpati, Brahman). Whoever is aware of this, is liberated.
Translation of the German article on pp. 23â28.
Böhtlingkâs text (1890, 202) of Kauá¹£U 1, 2 reads: vicaká¹£aá¹Äd á¹tavo reta Äbhá¹tam pañcadaÅÄt prasÅ«tÄt pitryÄvataḥ / tan mÄ puá¹si kartari erayadhvam puá¹sÄ kartrÄ mÄtari mÄ niá¹£iñcata. He regarded the next lines as prose: sa jÄya upajÄyamÄno dvÄdaÅatrayodaÅa upamÄso dvÄdaÅatrayodaÅena pitrÄ / saá¹ tad vide âham / prati tad vide âham / tan ma á¹tavo âmá¹tyava Äbharadhvam. The passage, whichâas has been shown laterâis written in verse up to here, closes with tena satyena tena tapasÄ á¹tur asmi / Ärtavo âsmi / tvam asmi / iti / tam atisá¹jate.
Deussen (1897, 25; independently from Böhtlingk). Deussen reads Äsiá¹£ikta instead of niá¹£iñcata (Böhtlingkâs emendation for niá¹£iñca).
idaá¹ hi yadÄ vará¹£aty athauá¹£adhayo jÄyanta oá¹£adhÄ«r jagdhvÄpaḥ pÄ«tvÄ tata eá¹£a rasaḥ sambhavati rasÄd reto retasaḥ paÅavaḥ ⦠Cf. ÅB 1, 3, 1, 25 idaá¹ hi yadÄ â¦ etc. eá¹£a rasaḥ sambhavati (tasmÄd u rasasyo caiva sarvatvÄya); 4, 5, 1, 9 rasÄd dhi retaḥ sambhavati retasaḥ paÅavaḥ â¦; 2, 3, 1, 10 paÅavo âmÅ«lÄ oá¹£adhayo mÅ«linyas te paÅavo âmÅ«lÄ oá¹£adhÄ«r mÅ«linÄ«r jagdhvÄpaḥ pÄ«tvÄ tata eá¹£a rasaḥ (sc. the milk) sambhavati; 2, 6, 3, 7 vá¹á¹£á¹Äd oá¹£adhayo jÄyanta oá¹£adhÄ«r jagdhvÄpaḥ pÄ«tvÄ tata etad adbhyo âdhi payaḥ sambhavati â¦
Frauwallner (1953, 49â¯ff.). Already early on, however, had Indians assumed a water cycle without any relation to human life. See Lüders (1951, 309â¯ff.).
Among others Hertel (19222, 148â¯ff.); Belvalkar (1925, 41â¯ff.); Hume (19312, 303â¯f.); Renou (1948, 15â¯ff.).
Böhtlingk (1897, 98, n. 2). For this aorist form see Oertel (1898, 118) and Renou (1948, 18, n. 24). The form is very irregular and therefore not quite reliable.
See also Renou (1948, 18, n. 24 and 19, n. 30).
Hoffmann (1967, 111).
For examples see Gonda (1959b, passim).
Gonda (1960, 190).
Lüders (1951, 308â¯ff.).
ÅBÂ 12, 8, 2, 31; ÅÄá¹ khBÂ 5, 8; 19, 2; 25, 11. See also Heesterman (1957, 33; 36) on the thirteenth month.