Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra ( i ) ( with special reference to 7 . 1 )

the KauśikaSūtra (KauśS) represents a complex work of the Śaunaka school, collected from various sources of atharvavedic ritual literature. Bloomfield considered that the KauśS was compiled at a certain time from different materials with clearly individual characters and that the redactor(s) did not try or did not succeed in harmonising and unifying the text by removing the discrepancies. One of the effects which would follow from these inconsistent revisions would be that the general rules would be applied strictly to some passages and loosely or not at all to others. a systematic study regarding a methodology for applying metarules to the KauśS is wanting. The present work represents such an attempt, restricted to the elucidation of the paribhāṣā 7.1. Following an exhaustive analysis of all its potential uses, underlined by a new translation of the respective passages, it is noted that the metarule is quite consequently applied. One of the questions arising from this is whether Kauśika had in mind some of these metarules at the time of his composition and the later redactor(s) attempted to maintain a high degree of consistency in applying them to the newly introduced fragments. Secondarily, the paper addresses another issue, the use of the preverb pra in prāśnāti and prāśayati allegedly as a tool for disambiguation in the KauśS. the KauśikaSūtra (KauśS) represents a complex work of the Śaunaka school, collected from various sources of atharvavedic ritual literature. Due to its comprehensive nature, the work was added to and revised by later ritualists, who found there a place to accommodate similar and other well-known topics from the floating tradition. It is the only text comprising gṛhya practices of the atharvavedins critically edited so far. the KauśS has two extant commentaries, KauśikaSūtra-DārilaBhāṣya (7th century) and KauśikaPaddhati by Keśava (12th/14th century), published by tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune, in 1972 and 1982, respectively. Besides these there are some I wish to thank Arlo Griffiths, who peer-reviewed an earlier draft of this paper and reported corrections to be made and suggestions for improvement. The paper has benefited from vivid discussions on some renderings with Prof S.S. Bahulkar and Shilpa Sumant. As this paper was being revised, I finalised and presented at the Vedic Section of the Fourteenth World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, 1–5 September 2009, the paper ‘Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra (ii)’. ISSN 1648–2662. ACTA ORIENTALIA VILNENSIA 9 .2 (2008) : 57–82 58 J u L I E TA R O TA R u unedited paddhatis1 and prayogas2 belonging to the Śaunaka school and other ritual works of the Paippalādins.3 since the KauśS was used by more than one school (Bahulkar 2002a; Griffths 2004 [re-evaluated in 2007]), the information from the ritual works of the Paippalāda school is rewarding for a better understanding and an accurate translation of the former. In the analysis of the Paippalāda mantras quoted in the KauśS, Griffiths 2004 offers at a number of places emendations to the Saṃhitā based on testimony of the KauśS, mutual improvements of the two texts, emendations to the sūtra text based on readings of the Saṃhitā, and five new manuscripts not used by Bloomfield. the KauśS opens with a set of general rules which give indications about the sources of the text (1.1–8). Then another set of paribhāṣās with a special character follows, applicable only to the rituals prescribed immediately thereafter (1.14–6.37), those of the full moon and the new moon. After the description of these rituals, three chapters consisting of metarules of a general character (7.1–9.7) follow. Their applicability (adhikāra) starts from this point on and it seems that they are prescribed for the whole KauśS (Bloomfield 1889, xxvii). There are also several metarules which are inserted in different places of the sūtra. Bloomfield considers that the KauśS was compiled at a certain time from different materials with an evident individual character and that the redactor(s) did not try or did not succeed in harmonising and unifying the text by removing the discrepancies (ibid., xxii). One of the effects which would follow from these inconsistent revisions, I suppose, would be that the general rules would be applied strictly to some passages and loosely or not at all to others. a systematic study regarding a methodology of the metarules’ application to the KauśS is wanting.4 Future research could verify the exactness of the application of 1 i have used in this paper the AtharvaṇīyaPaddhati (AthPaddh), a so-called commentary on the KauśS (Saṃhitāvidhivivaraṇa) that was quoted by Maurice Bloomfield in his edition of the KauśS. 2 there are in various collections in europe and india some atharvavedic prayogas on individual topics and other comprehensive ones. to the latter category belongs SaṃskāraRatnaMālā (SRM), an allegedly late Śaunakin prayoga, available in one MS, on the basis of which a critical edition and translation have been done by the author as a doctoral dissertation defended at the university of Bucharest (2008). another one is PrayogaBhānu (PraBhā), a manual of ritual instruction composed by Raviśaṅkara Dviveda towards the end of the 18th century, and used by the atharvavedin communities in Gujarat (Bahulkar 2002). For this study, I have referred to the preliminary edition carried out by Prof s.s. Bahulkar. 3 For an estimation of the ancillary literature of the Paippalāda school, see Bhāttacharyya 1968, and for updated information and announcement of works in progress see Griffiths 2002 and 2007. I have referred in this article to the manual composed by the Oriya scholar Umākānta Paṇḍā in 2000 under the title Paippalādavivāhādisaṃskārapaddhati (PaippPaddh). 4 caland 1900, v points out that for translating the KauśS one needs to get acquainted with the paribhāṣās. The subject is dealt with by Bahulkar 1977, 2–7 (retaken in 1994) with regard to the paribhāṣās 8.7 and 8.21. The difficult sūtras are translated and explained and some instances of their viniyoga are mentioned. 59 T O WA R D S A M E T h O D O L O g y O F A p p Ly I N g T h E P A R I B H Ā ṣ Ā S I N T h E K au ś i K a S ū t r a ( I ) the general rules in the KauśS, aiming for an accurate interpretation of this text, in particular, and of Atharvavedic ritual, in general. The present work represents such an attempt, restricted to the elucidation of the first paribhāṣā from the set of a more

the KauśikaSūtra (KauśS) represents a complex work of the Śaunaka school, collected from various sources of atharvavedic ritual literature.Due to its comprehensive nature, the work was added to and revised by later ritualists, who found there a place to accommodate similar and other well-known topics from the floating tradition.It is the only text comprising gṛhya practices of the atharvavedins critically edited so far.
the KauśS has two extant commentaries, KauśikaSūtra-DārilaBhāṣya (7 th century) and KauśikaPaddhati by Keśava (12 th /14 th century), published by tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune, in 1972 and 1982, respectively.Besides these there are some unedited paddhatis1 and prayogas2 belonging to the Śaunaka school and other ritual works of the Paippalādins. 3ince the KauśS was used by more than one school (Bahulkar 2002a; Griffths 2004 [re-evaluated in 2007]), the information from the ritual works of the Paippalāda school is rewarding for a better understanding and an accurate translation of the former.In the analysis of the Paippalāda mantras quoted in the KauśS, Griffiths 2004  offers at a number of places emendations to the Saṃhitā based on testimony of the KauśS, mutual improvements of the two texts, emendations to the sūtra text based on readings of the Saṃhitā, and five new manuscripts not used by Bloomfield.
the KauśS opens with a set of general rules which give indications about the sources of the text (1.1-8).Then another set of paribhāṣās with a special character follows, applicable only to the rituals prescribed immediately thereafter (1.14-6.37),those of the full moon and the new moon.After the description of these rituals, three chapters consisting of metarules of a general character (7.1-9.7)follow.Their applicability (adhikāra) starts from this point on and it seems that they are prescribed for the whole KauśS (Bloomfield 1889, xxvii).There are also several metarules which are inserted in different places of the sūtra.
Bloomfield considers that the KauśS was compiled at a certain time from different materials with an evident individual character and that the redactor(s) did not try or did not succeed in harmonising and unifying the text by removing the discrepancies (ibid., xxii).One of the effects which would follow from these inconsistent revisions, I suppose, would be that the general rules would be applied strictly to some passages and loosely or not at all to others.a systematic study regarding a methodology of the metarules' application to the KauśS is wanting. 4Future research could verify the exactness of the application of the general rules in the KauśS, aiming for an accurate interpretation of this text, in particular, and of Atharvavedic ritual, in general.The present work represents such an attempt, restricted to the elucidation of the first paribhāṣā from the set of a more general character.rice is normally boiled in water and optionally in milk, but in the latter case Kauśika explicitly prescribes it. 5The subsequent paribhāṣā of the KauśS further regulates the way this porridge is prepared: the PaippPaddh (Paṇḍā 2000, 95ff.) has a special section designated carupākavidhi, describing at length the preparation of the rice.among the necessary instruments, ulūkhala, musala, śūrpa, and carusthālī are mentioned.if the rice is boiled in milk (kṣīraudana), milk from a cow having a living calf (jīvatvatsyāyāḥ godugdham), instead of the peculiar atharvavedin sārūpavatsa, is used.at KauśS 7.1 aśnāti is a jñāpaka for all the forms of the verb aś-.Dārila says this about KauśS 7.1: atra saṃhitāvidhau yasmin yasmin pradeśe aśnāty āśayati iti vocyate tasyāś codanāyāḥ sthālīpākaśeṣo vidhīyate | -'Wherever in the Saṃhitāvidhi "he eats" or "he makes to eat" are mentioned, sthālīpāka should be understood as a remainder'.
Dārila considers that the paribhāṣā 7.1 should not be applied to the cases in which the item is explicitly stated: anādeśagrahaṇaṃ na kartavyam ādeśasya balīyastvāt | -'The paribhāṣā concerning the not-stated should not be taken because the explicitly stated is stronger'. 6e act of eating has another clause: Kauśika uses accurate words, āśya, implying sthālīpāka, and bhakṣya implying rice boiled in milk, sacrificial cake, and saps (rasas). 8Yet, Dārila 9 says that this rule is not applicable to the passages in which prāśnāti and the causative prāśayati occur and considers that the upasarga pra is a device used by Kauśika for disambiguation.He gives as an example KauśS 21.21, the adhīkārasūtra of the rasakarmāṇi (tve kratum (5.2.3) 10 iti rasaprāśanī | -'5.2.1 is the verse [to be employed in the act of] eating the saps (rasa)'), in which he opines that the act denoted by the verb prāś-does not imply the besmearing of the saps with the dregs of the ghee oblation.Keśava prescribes the saṃpātakaraṇa and the abhimantraṇa here and in other instances analysed in this paper, however.the paribhāṣā 7.15 has a clause: i have restricted the evaluation of the application of metarule 7.1 to the analysis of all the occurrences of aśnāti, prāśnāti, and the causatives āśayati and prāśayati.the lamp) close by, he offers three offerings of rice in the same.… This is the oblation with rice; the dregs of the ghee oblation are put in the rice, according to the prescription of the rice oblation.Here rice is to be taken since there would be a contingency of the ghee oblation [if the usual paribhāṣā would be applied, i.e.KS 7.3: ājyaṃ juhoti]'.Thus Dārila anticipates the explanation of the next sūtra where saṃpātakaraṇa is mentioned (v.note 102).there is a detailed description of the rice oblation in the PaippPaddh, under the section caruhomavidhiḥ: tataḥ kartta (sic! kartā) vedyuttarataḥ sthāpitacaruprastare sthāpayitvā uparikṛtapidhānīṃ bhūmau nidhāya antarudapātrajalena caruṃ saṃprokṣya upastīrya ājyaṃ śruve madhyāt pūrvapradeśāc ca śruveṇa dvir haviṣo gṛhītvā tadupari ca abhighāraṃ datvā ṛcā vā sūktena vā yathādaivataṃ juhuyāt | … nahi (sic!) tvad anyaḥ ity ṛcā prajāpataye juhoti | -'Next the priest, having placed at the north of the altar a handful of rice, having placed a lid upon it, having placed it on the earth, he sprinkles the rice with the water from a jar, and having poured ghee in the ladle, he takes two oblations with the ladle from the middle and from the front part and besmears it above with ghee and offers it in the fire with a verse or with a hymn as per the deity… With the verse "No other than you…" he offers to Prajāpati'.

The occurrences of aśnāti
98 cf.KauśS 8.21. 99Dārila: hutaśiṣṭās taṇḍulāḥ |. 100 Keśava, MS.Bhā 2: sārupavatsa odane saṃpātān ānayati | -'He pours the ghee dregs in the rice boiled in the milk of a cow having a calf of a similar color'.The purpose of the rasakarmāṇi is prosperity (Keśava on KauśS 21.21-22: kāmaḥ puṣṭir eva |).The Keśava's editors note that the MS.Bhā 2 'gives [an] elaborate description of the ritual[,] which fact seems to be quite consistent with the general trend of the KP' (Keśava 1982, Intro., xii).It is surprising that the editors, although elsewhere have professedly considered the MS.Bhā 2 closest to the archetype, did not follow its readings in the two instances mentioned under this sūtra.
101 cf.KauśS 8.19.note the misprint in caland's translation as 7.19. 102According to Dārila, the actions from the two previous sūtras are repeated at 21.25, as follows: At the full moon one holds a lamp on the top of an ant hill on which darbha was strewn, and on that fire lamp makes three rice dish offerings besmeared with the oblation's dregs consecrated with hymn 5.2.7.He sprinkles the rice with ghee and eats it.Caland (n.13) also understands the first two sūtras together, but he considers that the object of aśnāti is valmīkaśiraḥ, or else the object should be sthālīpāka, in which case, the use of saṃpāta would be redundant, and translates the sutra 21.24: 'nachdem er (reis)körner und die neigen (einer unter ausprechung der citierten strophe darge-(reis)körner und die neigen (einer unter ausprechung der citierten strophe dargebrachten Butterspende) darauf (nl.auf den Kopf der ameise) gegossen hat und die säfte (vgl, 7.19 sic!) dazu gegossen hat, ist er (ihn)'. in fact saṃpāta is an indication of the taṇḍulahoma, as pointed out by Dārila under 21.23 (v.note 97).The sūtra is an application of 7.1.
dish from] parched flour of mixed cereals (i.e.rice, barley, wheat, Indra grain, sesame, long pepper, śyāmaka), 103 flavoured with blood and mixed with saps (rasas, i.e. curds, ghee, and honey mixed with water), 104 n. 17 accounts for the repetition of this sūtra by the later addition of kaṇḍikās 67 and 68 to the original corpus of the savayajña consisting of kaṇḍikas 60 to 66.I shall further summarize Ambarish Khare's interesting and short paper.The eighth adhyāya of the KauśS consists of nine kaṇḍikās (60-68) referring to a category of specific Atharvavedic rites, savayajñas, corresponding, mutatis mutandis, to the somayajñas.the entire adhyāya has been translated with ample notes and commentaries by Gonda 1965.He has noticed that Kauśika has arranged the subjects according to the order of the acts as described by the AtharvavedaSaṃhitā, whereas Keśava has attempted to rearrange the subjects in the order of the ritual practice.Ambarish Khare displays the exact order of the acts, first according to Kauśika, and next according to Keśava.He gives arguments that the last two kaṇḍikās, 67 and 68, have been added later and at a phase when the KauśS was assimilating the Paippalāda mantras.However, the last two kaṇḍikās contain mostly subjects which have been dealt with previously; hence Keśava rearranges them under the earlier sūtras of the same topics.Khare points out some of the shortcomings of Keśava's rearrangement: the sūtras 61.11 and 67.21 are culled from two different kaṇḍikās under the havirnirvāpana rubric, each prescribing the employment of a different mantra, the former ŚS 11.16, the latter a famous prose formula.Keśava does not state which of the two mantras is to be employed or whether they are used together.This is an important issue which might be questioned in regard to all the conflicting passages arrived from later redaction(s).V. also infra note 160. 160For the hymns v. KauśS 66.2.The identification of the hymns recited in the pratimantraṇa is problematic.Keśava inserts KauśS 63.3-5 between KauśS 66.1-2 and KauśS 66.3, and subsequently adds KauśS 68.34.According to him, the acts are as follows: some specified mantras are recited by the sacrificer and given in response by the priests (KauśS 66.1-2); the sacrificer makes the priests sit near the offering, then he sprinkles their hands with water and takes away the boiled rice (KauśS 63.3-5); after the response has been given (pratimantrite), the priests cut a portion from the offering of boiled rice and partake of it (KauśS 66. 3, 68.34).as to the pratimantraṇa, his comment is: dātā puṇyāhaṃ dīrgham āyur astu ity evamādi vācanam (but MSS.Ga, Vā, Sā, Bhā 1: tata dātā puṇyāhavācanaṃ kŗtvā-'Next the giver should perform the rite of the blessings of the auspicious day)-the giver should pronounce words such as "May I be auspicious!","May it be long life!", etc.'.On the other hand, according to Kauśika's order of the sūtras, it would follow that the pratimantraṇa is prescribed by KauśS 66.2. in the case of KauśS 68.34, the hymns employed are to be inferred from KauśS 66.2 too. the mantraviniyogaparibhāṣā is not applied to KauśS 68.34, but the paribhāṣā 8.10: viṣaye yathāntaram.For the interpretation of this rule v. the author's presentation to the Fourteenth World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, 1-5 September 2009, 'Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra (ii)'. 161For the technical term avadāya, cutting off a portion of the sacrificial food, v. Gonda 1965, 275 et passim, cf.avadāna 'découpage de l'offrande (notamment du gâteau) et portion ainsi découpée' (renou 1953, 21).The sacrificial food in this context is the one referred to in KauśS 65.12, i.e. boiled rice (v.infra). 162Cf.Keśava, MSS.Ga, Vā, Sā, Bhā 1: te brāhmaṇāḥ. 163cf.KauśS 8.21.For the hymn, see KauśS 10.1. 164Anuvṛtti from KauśS 10.10. 165the verb prāśnāti, here and in the following three occurrences, denotes eating from the remaining portion of the oblation after it has been offered (cf. prāśana and prāśitra [Mylius 1995,  100; Renou 1953, 117]).Since the oblation is not ghee, it follows that the paribhāṣā 7.15 cannot be applied to all these instances. 166Cf.Keśava: somena pūtaḥ ity ardharcena. 167Cf.Keśava: iti tribhir ṛgbhir.
next, after having twice cut off pieces from the middle and from the front part of this rice mass and from the portions (avadāna), 168

Conclusions
Dārila (wherever prāśnāti and prāśayati occur, in the available portion of his commentary) tries to make a clear cut distinction between the usage of the simple verb, aś-, and the one composed with the preverb pra: the former envisages the food mixed with the saṃpāta and the latter implies the food without the dregs of the ghee oblation.The object of the verb prāśnāti in the KauśS is the remaining portion of the oblation consisting of food other than ghee, after it has been offered.Since the oblation is not ghee, it follows that the paribhāṣā 7.15 cannot be applied to any of these instances.
274 cf.KauśS 7.15 cum 7.16, and 109.7:uttamaṃ saṃpātam odane pratyānayati | -'With the last [verse of hymn 3.28 (mentioned at KauśS 109.5)], he pours the dregs of the oblation in the cooked rice'.the sūtra 109.7 is not superfluous since the saṃpātakaraṇa is prescribed to be accomplished with a particular mantra, viz. the last one. 276cf.KauśS 7.3. 277First, the oblations of saps without honey and besmeared with ghee are offered, and second, the saps with honey and besmeared with ghee are offered, although Keśava has a hysteron proteron description of the saṃpātakaraṇa: raseṣu saṃpātān ānayati prathamaṃ madhusahiteṣu tato madhuvarjiteṣu.According to Keśava, in all rasakarman there is saṃpātakaraṇa and abhimantraṇa.Saṃpātān is not redundant because the besmearing is not the usual procedure for food offered as oblation, but for food to be eaten. 278For the hymn, see paribhāṣā KauśS 21.22: tve kratum (5.2.3) iti rasaprāśanī |.
279 the verb prāśayati refers to the partaking of the sacrificial food. 280the deictic etān indicates that the rasas remaining after the offering has been done are used.
281 cf.KauśS 8.19.this bahūvrīhi seems to be spurious since the two items are not congruous with the context.According to the previous rule, the last homa consisted of three saps besmeared with ghee.
the causative composed with the preverb is used by Kauśika quite inconsistently.In two passages (nos 65 and 66) the object of prāśayati is the food besmeared with the dregs of the ghee oblation, whereas the saṃpātakaraṇa has been prescribed in the previous sūtras.Yet, in another two instances (nos 62 and 64) Kauśika mentions abhimantraṇa along with prāśayati, which in turn does not imply the saṃpātakaraṇa.It stands to reason that the explicit mention of abhimantrya is an indication that 7.15 is not to be applied here.However, Keśava accurately takes notes of the ritual performance and records only the abhimantraṇa in all the instances of prāśayati (except for nos 65 and 66, for the reasons stated before), usage which is supported by the AthPaddh, the PraBhā and the PaippPaddh (but not by the SRM, which might have recorded an innovative practice).
Dārila is probably partially correct regarding the usage of the verb prefixed with pra.Prāśnāti, keeping with its employment in śrauta ritualism, is, at least in one instance (under no.36, in which the root verb occurs in a place where one would have expected the compound), constantly restricted to the partaking of a portion from the oblation consisting of substances other than ghee, hence the saṃpātakaraṇa cannot be carried out.Dārila extended this connotation to the causative of prāś-too, which is partly supported by actual practices, as recorded by the paddhatis and the prayogas.There are at least two instances (under nos 64 and 66) in which the causative prāśayati implies the partaking of the oblation.
One of the questions arising from this consequent application is whether Kauśika had in mind some of these metarules at the time of his composition, and the later redactor(s), has/have attempted to maintain a high degree of consistency in apply-ing them to the newly introduced fragments.We see in a paragraph of the fourteenth adhyāya, which is by all means a later addition (Bloomfield 1889, xxv-xxvi; Bahulkar  1994, 26), no less than four paribhāṣās underlying the text (no.66): 7.3, 7.16, 8.19,  and 21.22.This question may be answered only after a thorough examination of the application of all the paribhāṣās of the KauśS.r e f e r e n c e s

7. 2 .
puṣṭikarmasu sārūpavatse | -'In the rites for prosperity [the rice should be boiled] in milk from a cow having a calf of the same colour'.

7 .
16. sarvāṇy abhimantryāṇi | -'All [these above prescribed acts are accomplished with the consecration by means of] the recitation of appropriate mantras'.