SOAS Research Online

Abstract

The Rgvedic Brahmanas and Srautasutras, important sources for the study of ancient Indian religious ideas, have received the attention of scholars as early as the beginning of last century. Since H. T. Colebrooke's mention of the contents of the AB in 1805, and H. H. Wilson's comparison of the subject-matter of the Rgvedic Samhita and Brahmanas in 1850, followed by R. Roth's observation of the connexion between the AB and the AS in his introduction to Nirukta in 1852, even before the publication of the text-editions and translations, the texts have been studied in considerable detail in articles, monographs, introductory essays of the editions and translations, and chapters of histories of literature. The interpretation of the texts, however, and the views1 expressed on the relative date of the Rgvedic Brahmanas and Srautasutras appear so greatly at variance that the relationship of the four texts remains a matter of great uncertainty. A detailed and thorough investigation of the internal evidence on the basis of a rigorous textual analysis seems necessary, in order to justify, reject, or modify any of the past results. In view of this, the present dissertation aims at presenting a critical analysis of the Agnistomadiksa section of the Rgvedic Brahmanas and Srautasutras. In a short introduction in chapter one I have outlined the consecration ceremony following the Baudhs with some mention of the modem works describing the ceremony in general, which, I hope, will help us to understand the exposition of the Rgvedic sources that are often laconic and even incoherent at places as to the description of the actual procedure of the rite; also an account is given of the editions and translations of the Rgvedic Brahmanas and Srautasutras, and of the opinions of scholars concerning the four Rgvedic texts. In chapter two I have sought to examine the meaning and etymology of the concept diksa on the basis of the material offered by the Rgvedic and other relevant texts with a discussion of past controversy on the subject. In chapter three, which gives a translation of the AS chapter (of which no translation appears to have been published) and a scarcely less requisite re-translation of the AB, KB, and SS passages, an attempt has been made to understand the arguments contained in the component sections, and to trace the large measure of underlying structural unity which may be shown to exist in the complete corpus of the texts (in accordance with the opinion expressed in another context by K. Hoffmann. The notes on the translation in chapter four are intended to clarify points of interpretation and to examine the composition of the text-portions. The discussion in chapter five as to the structural connexion of the four texts in order to determine their mutual relationship is based on the sections of the translation and the notes.