Part 6 - A Literary study of the Parisistas

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Parisistas are compiled by various authors, with varying degree of skill and from material derived from various sources. They are a collection of tracts dealing with a great variety of subjects and are written in different styles. The Atharvaveda, Saunakiya recension -Parisistas are composed mostly in verse, with the exception of a few passages which are written in prose. Many of the Parisistas are in the form of dialogues,

722 87 It is Bhargava (25.1.1) or in the manner of the Puranas. Narada (29.1.1, 71.1.1) or Gautama (30.1.1; 70°.1.1; 70°.1.1) or Kankayana (30°.1.1) or Saunaka (52.1.1) or sages in general (39.1.1; 66.1.3; 69.1.1; 70.1.1) or gods in general (31.1.1) who put the questions and it is Saunaka (25.1.1; 30.1.1) or Brhaspati (29.1.1; 70°.1.1) or Atharvan (30°.1.1; 52.1.1) or Brahma (31.1.1; 66.1.3; 70.1.1) or Paippalada (39.1.1) or Bhrgu (69.1.1; 70.1.1) or Usanas (71.1.1) who give the answers. A number of Parisistas commence in the Sutra-style with on The Brahmanic style is seen in atha vyakhyasyamah.88 such statements as rdhnuyat ya evam veda (72.2.8). It is also seen that a verse or verses are introduced with the 89 words like bhavati ca 'tra alokah. ca When there are a number of similar statements to be made, the repetition is avoided by mentioning only the 90 differing words. The first and the last statements, in such cases, are made in full. Thus for example the Naksatra-Kalpa 87. According to Keith (JRAS 1912, p.786), the words jangala, camupala, karbura as well as lekhaka used in Atharvaveda-Parisistas 61, and karenu, karataka, cipita as well as sa sanka employed in Atharvaveda-Parisistas 68 show their epic character. 88. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1,6,8,11,19,20,41,44,46,49,65,72. Cf. 43.1.1 and 13.1.1 (om atha ... .. anukramisyamah); 1.1.1 (om atha anukramam vaksyet; 17.1.1 (om atha vaksyamah). The Parisistas 15, 16 and 18 begin only with atha. cf. 40.1.1: om atha pasupata vratadeso. 89. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 4.1.20; 65.1.2,6,9,2.2,5,10; 72.3.12. 90. This method very well compares with the rules laid down in Pancapatlika 1.

723 (Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.12-16) describes the ritual to be performed under the different groups of constellations. The ritual relating to the first group and the last group is described in full and that relating to other intervening groups is only pointed 91 out by the initial words. Similar is the case in the Uechugma-kalpa (36.1.6-11), wherein the deities of the the respective quarters are to be invoked. In Atharvaveda-Parisistas 62, She words prakampitayan bhumau (2.1, 3.1, 4.1) refer to the verse 62.1.3 and in Atharvaveda-Parisistas 67 the statements are made in full only 92 in the first and the seventh khandas, The last quarter of a verse at the end of certain Parisistas is repeated to denote the end of the Parisista. 93 The Parisistas are characterised by a general looseness of style. A certain amount of looseness in respect of the construction of sentences is found at a number of places. Some times the subject or the verb is lacking and certain words hang loosely not being closely connected with the main 91. Atharvaveda-Parisistas make a reference to a similar previous portion by quoting a few words followed by iti samanam (18°.5.3; 45.1.15). Cf. Kausika Sutra 106.9 which refers back to 94.16- 17 with the same words. 92. It may be noted that similar statements repeated in full are seen at Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.17-20, 23-24, 27-30. 93. Such Parisistas are 1,3,9-15, 20-23,25.30,30,31,35,36, b 38-44, 48-51, 53,55, 58, 58, 61-64 and 66-72. OND

724 94 sentence. At 30.3.1, there is no verb and a word like juhuyat has to be supplied. Similar is the case at 31.17.1 where a word like juhoti has to be understood. At 68.1.33 the adjective kunda-goksira-gaurabhih has no substantive. All these deficiencies may be due to the verisification of the subject-matter. The restrictions of metre do not allow the inclusion of certain words, and the forms of certain words have to be modified to suit the limitations of a metrical foot. As metre gains an upper hand, grammar is set aside as a natural consequence. Hence we find many irregularities in respect of case, number and sandhi. Thus at 1.40.3, apah (nom.) is used for apah (acc.); at 1.48.4, aslesa (nom.) is used for aslesayan (loc.); at 1.49.7, uttaram (neu. nom. sing.) is used for uttarasu (fen. loc. pl.); at 5.5.1, namaskaret is used for nama skuryat; at 9.4.5, purohite (loc.) is used for purohitaya (dat.); at 26.2.1, vinasyati (prim.) is used for vinasayati (caus.); at 30°.1.10, vreabhadh vajah (nom.) is used in place of vreabhadh vaja sya (gen.); at 31.3.3, prayojayat is used for prayojayat; at 43.6.1, caturdasim (acc.) is used for caturdasyam (loc.); at 51.1.3, avantyayam is used for avantyam; at 63.3.1, yuvarajanam is used in stead of yuvarajam; at 64.10.6, dare (sing.) is used for daresu (pl.) 94. Cf. 35.1.9: sudras tu lavanami sraih rajikan pistayed budhah; and 69.8.3: trih samhitam havisyadyam japet krechram ca suddhaye.

725 95 at 64.8.1, prasravet (sing.) is used in place of prasraveyuh (pl.); at 68.1.47, kananah (masc.) is used instead of kananani (neu); at 70.3.1, tisthet (sing.) is used for tistheyuh (pl.); at 70.6.4, bhavaiva is used for bhavaneva and at 70°.32.33, samcalet (sing.) is used for samcaleyuh 96 (pl.). At 22.3.1 (ubhe apyeka), 37.2.4 (no astu), 52.1.1 (nama skrtva uvaca); 65.5.6 (prayunjita avrsteh), 68.3.9 (prayunjita adityam), 68.5.8 (va ajagaro), 69.6.2 (va abhayam), 69.7.2 (visesena atharvagam) and 70°.16.3 (rogaya ativreti ) samdhi rules have not been observed presumably on account of metrical expediency. It should, however, be noted that, even where there is no metrical expediency, grammatical irregularities are found. Thus at 29.1.4, siddhib should be siddhim (being the object); at 30.4.3 palasi (nom.) should be palasya (instr.); at 31.10.5, panineyaya should be paniniyaya; at 40.1.10, dipodana should be dipaudana; at 43.2.15, trpyatam (sing.) should be typyetem (dual); at 43.5.4, trpyatu (sing.) should be trpyantu (pl.); at 47.2.1, matah (masc.) should be matam (neu.), at 68.1.8, kovidah (nom.) should be kovidaih (instr.); at 68.2.28, mattam karenum should be mattan karenum; 95. Here the word sraveyuh could have been used without violating the metre. 96. Samdhi could have been made here as ubhayapyeka without violating the metre. But such samdhis are generally not found in the Atharvaveda-Parisistas

726 at 68.2.32, the words sukarin, mahisim, hastinim and sakunim should be in the nominative; at 68.5.19, prthivipatih (nom.) should be prthivipatim (acc.) at 70.13.1, bahvannadaksinam (adj.) should be bahvannadaksinam (adv.); and at 70 b.13.2 prajarthi should be prajarthi. At 1.1.2, the adjective catasrah is feminine plural whereas the substantive prosthapadau is masculine dual. At 1.38.4 the word carganidhrtah is treated as nominative while in fact it is genitive (Cf. Rgveda III.37.4, 59.6). Cases of double samdhi are quite common in the Parisistas. 97 Following are some of the examples: pusya al esa (pusyah aslega 1.1.2), noragaih (nah ura jaih 1.38.2), gayatryayajyayajakah (gayatryah ayajyayajakah 2.6.3), udapatraniya (udapatre aniya 11.1.6), suryaloketi (suryaloke iti 11.2.5), desebhyobhayato desebhyah ubhayato 19.1.8), hrasvartvijam (hrasvah rtvijam 27.2.3), maitrottaresu (maitre uttaresu 31.5.2), daksinodapatram (daksine udapatram 40.2.1), snatopasparsana (snatah upasparsana 43.2.1), tanmantramhomucaih (tanmantrah amhomucaih 46.7.3), adyaigam 97. Double samdhis are seen in other ancillary texts also. Cf. Kausika Sutra 6.17: patnyanjalau (patnyah anjalay), 6.34: daivateti (daivate iti), 17.3: talpargabham (talpe argabham). Santi-Kalpa 2.1.1: ahata vasagneh (ahatavasah agneh) (Cf. Weber, Omina und Portenta, p.390, f.n.3). Atharva-Prayascitta 3.3: pranmukhopavisya (pranmukhah upavisya) and 3.4: Karmavi paryaseti (karmavi paryase iti).

727 (adyah esam 47.1.8), dhamurvedopavedah (dhanurvedah upavedah etc. 49.1.3), aeveti (asvab iti 52.5.3), kranatha (krsnah atha 58.1.7), vasardra (vasah ardra 65.2.8), rajnopa sevakam (rajnah upasevakam 68.5.3), sivatiraudram (sivah atiraudram 70°.32.22) and tatoparistat (tatah uparistat 70°.32.25). Double samdhi is made also while introducing pratikas such as 98 dadhikravneti (dadhikravmah iti 38.2.2). Para-samdhi is seen in the word adhitapi (adhitam api 69.9.1) and in kairodana (kaira odana 70.6.4 Cf. 40.1.10). A strange samdhi like apyidam (api idam) occurs at 69.9.2. There are certain peculiar phrases and unusual words used in the Parisistas. In the Naksatra-Kalpa , which is the first Parisista, we come across phrases like arthavijnaya bhejire. tatra (1.8.2,8,9,10), upayanti bhaktya tatra (1.7.8,10,8.1. 6), niyanti yojadhanah (1.6.5, 8.4,7. Cf. 1.6.7 niniyoja dhanah), samyujyante devaprasadanena (1.6.10,7.2,3) and achyutakesam vahanam (1.7.5, 8.9). Unreduplicated perfect form vinivoja is seen at 1.37.2 and unaugmented perfect prasarjatah is found at 1.40.1. One comes across the Vedic dative infinitive patave at 1.41.1. A word like laksajapa (not japa) is seen at 36.26.1; peculiar phraseology like param asimahi is seen at 4.3.5 and svargasya 'ksyyam icchatam is met with at 39.1.12. The word carusthali and parakrtih (image) are treated 98. Cf. gandhadvareti (38.2.2) and manastokena (38.2.5).

728 as masculine at 23.1.4 and 33.6.6 respectively. A feminine word kamsyapatri is found at 68.5.5. The word nihprabha (for nisprabha) is seen at 52.8.5,11.2; avanchirah (for avaksirah) at 50.4.7, 6.5; and nabhapati (for nabhaspati) is found at 67.7.4. The un-Paninian forms namaskaret and draksanti are seen at 5.5.1 and 70°.32.8 respectively. At 36.1.16, the word acetasah is transferred to a-inflection; At 51.6.2, the verb bhavate is seen and the use of the expletive sma is found at 61.4.6. A relative compound (sapeksa samasa) is seen at 64.5.8.99 At Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.27-30, the 1.27-30, the instrumental case has been used throughout instead of the accusative (argabhena mamsena bhuktva in place of argabham mamsam etc.). At 9.4.7, the word purnimam is used as an accusative of time. At 33.1.7, there is a string of nominatives which is taken up by the words ity etan. The 100 pleonastic use of ca is seen at 9.2.7 and the shortened. "compound" natisthulam kraam tatha is seen at 3.2.3 and 27.2.2. At 58 b.4.12, the word utkrata has the sense 'distorted', at 68.1.11 the word khalatin (i.e. bald) is found instead of the regular khalati. The word akrana is 99. tvamasarudhirasthina medomannadivryyah | cr 68.1.22: sirodarakatiskandhapaksmayo vimaleksanah | 100. balatve yacca kaumare yat papam yauvane krtam | kyah parinata yacca yacca janmantaresu ca ||

729 noteworthy especially at 52.2.5 as it occurs in the technical 101 It can be seen that the sense "verging on black". construction indicating comparison at 2.1.3 is clumsy (daivat purusakarac ca daivam eva visisyate). Keith has pointed out that "the interchange of the gerund with a case-form and its reference to some person other than the real subject is very clear at 2.6.4 where sarvadravya-parityagat is parallel with vedanan adhitya 'dyottama reah and the subject is quite different (guddhir 102 anyair udahrta). He further points out that the reading at 37.2.1, atha yat kako 'bhimreati tan mrtyum asankyam bhavati is more unusual. As regards the use of moods of verbs, the only point of interest concerns the use of the potential. At 2.2.2 werfind atharva srjate ghoram adbhutam samayet tatha. This points to the growing equivalence of the indicative with the potential. Similar is the case at 12.2.10 (nasayati, prapayet), 64.4.8 (abhyudiryate, vinasveta) 103 and 67.8.7 (bhavet, sidhyanti). Good examples of the potential in indefinite relative clauses is seen at 2.5.2; 37.9.1, 19.1; 50.2.1; 68.2.54; 71.5.3,6.1,2,7.1 etc. The potential and the indicative alternate at 9.4.7 (ya imam pathate nityam yas ce 'mam aruyad api), 31.10.4 (yas tv 101. Cf. Patanjali on Panini’s Astadhyayi II.2.18; Wackernagel, Atind Gramm. II.1.237. 102. "The Parisistas of the Atharvaveda, Saunakiya recension by Bolling and Negelein Review" JRAS 1912, p. 774. A 103. The change in moods is possibly necessited by the metre.

730 imam sravayed vidvan pathate cai va sarvada), and 37.17.1 (mekhala prapatati jirna va syat). Future fom and potential form alternate at 5.5.2 (dasyanti, anurajyeta). The potential of characteristic is noteworthy at 1,9,2 (utpatan yas tu yan vidyat: one who can know whatever portents). The style of the Parisiatas ranges from mere prosaic versification to a literary flourish of considerable poetic beauty. The versification has been made in a simple manner and no effort is made at ornamentation or embellishment. The substance is put down in a plain and matter-of-fact narrative way; yet we come across a certain refinement of style, some beautiful descriptions and occasionally a few figures of speech. In certain places, the Atharvaveda-Parisistas may be said to come close to the classical poetry in their style. For instance, a kind of poetic flourish is seen in the Vedilaksana (24.2.5-6.4) wherein the description of the where sacrificial fire occurs. The fire is compared with a varied number of objects in respect of its appearance, colour, sound, 104 smell, movement etc. A similar beautiful passage is found at 62.4.2-3, in which the clouds have been described. 10. Cf. 24.4.2: 24.5.4: prahasanniva sabdena dhayanniva tejasa | syojubhih krtavighatana hemapadma- kinnakacurnanikarupatamahah || 24.5.5: ksirodasuktiputa vikirnamukta- samghatapandurarajo rathanemisah | data nrpaya vasudha tu himalumauli- jyotsna vikasitasamudrajali hutasah ||

731 We come across many conventional similes like 105 tarapanke hasti 'va majjati (3.3.3), uttitirgur iva 106 manam adatte svavadhaya sah (3.3.4), panke gaur iva majat. (4.6.2; 69.7.1), agnau tulam yatha tatha (10.2.4), pradipto gnir ive 'ndhanam (38.3.2), rathanam iva sagare (61.1.25), and duhkharta iva yositah (64.2.3). A metaphor of the kavyastyle is found at 9.3.1 in the word brahmana-pungavah. Dratantas are seen at 2.1.5,5.1,70.12.1 etc. and a mixed simile like marutavegatungani bhuvanani vanani ca is seen at 68.1.45. One comes across a continued metaphor (paramparita rupaka) at 61.1.22-23 wherein the clouds are compared to the weapon, and the thundering of the clouds is likened to the jingling sound of the bells (tied to the necks of the elephants). Personification is seen at 62.2.5 (rajaputra sahasranam bhumih pibati sonitam). Certain words and phrases, like guddhatmano japair homair (21.1.8; 70.2.3) and sarvadiksu-prakalpitaih (68.5.21, 22) occur frequently. Battles are described as sarudhirapamsu-misrah (51.4.1.5.2) or as mamsa-sonita-kardamah (62.1. 8,2.4), and strong winds as sarkara-karsinah (i.e. blowing off sand-particles: 62.2.7; 64.2.4, 3.10; 70 b.3.3). For the most part, the Atharvaveda-Parisistas are written in the 105. Cf. Kiratarjuniya 2.6: 106. M karini pankamivavasidati | Gf. Arechakatika IX. 25: matistu gah pankagateva sidati |

732 ordinary anustubh metre, but other metres also are not infrequently used. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.6-8 dealing with objects affected 107 by the constellations is cryptic in style. It appears to contain some old verses which are taken from some other source and introduced here. They are in a different metre which is not used elsewhere in the Parisistas. Some of these verses contain only two lines, some three. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.37-41 are composed in jagati mixed with tristubh. They do not confirm to the classic requirements and show the freedom of the older period and the imperfection of Atharvan metres. Hiatus, resolution of semi-vowels and protraction of long vowels are of common occurrence. In the Samuccayaprayascittani (31.1.8-10, 14.2-4, 19.4-5), there are some verses which are sub-Vedic. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 7.1.10 is in upendrava.jra and 7.1.13 in vasantatilaka metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 24.2.5-3.2 are in upajati and 24.5.1-6.4 in vasantatilaka metre. The purely iambic metre pramanika used at the end of the Pasupata vrata is noteworthy. 108 In the Parisistas following Atharvaveda-Parisistas 50, diverse metres are handled with ease, especially the upajati metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 51 107. Cf. Bloomfield, The Atharvaveda, Saunakiya recension (Grundriss), p. 41 and Gonda Stylistic Repitition in the Veda (Amsterdam 1959), p. 24. 108. 40.6.16: vilina pasapanjarah samapta tattvagocarah | prayanti samkaram param patim vibhum sadasivam ||

733 110 The 109 makes use of a number of ornate metres: upajati (51.1.1-2), vamsastha (also called vamsasthavila or vamsastanita: 51.2. 1-2, 3.2) and praharsini (51.2.5.3.1, 4.1,3,4,5.1-4) metre of 51.3.3 is irregular with 14 syllables in the first quarter, 13 in the second, 12 in the third, and 13 in the fourth. The second and the fourth quarters consist of the 111 ganas na, ja, ja and ra followed by a guru syllable. 51. 4.2 is in arya-giti metre which is a matra-vrtta and 51.4.5 is in puspitagra metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 56 is a rechauffe of arya metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 65 also appears to be originally composed in some form of arya metre, but is spoilt by interpolations. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 68. 2.61 is in indravajra and 68.2.62 is in some kind of ardhasama-vrtta with 12 syllables in the odd quarters consisting of the ganas na, na, ra, ya, and 11 syllables in the second and fourth quarters consisting of the ganas sa, sa, ja and bha, sa, ja respectively, both followed by two guru syllables. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 69.6.4 is in vamsastha and 69.6.1 in some kind of 112 8. 109. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 51.1.1 is defective at nagaran. 110. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 51.5.3° is irregular at vidyudvarsaih. 111. The metre would be puspitagra if the first word of the verse dhana is dropped. The ganas in the first and third quarters in that case would be na, na, ra, ya. "It is impossible to determine whether the verse has been corrupted by the scribes or deliberately turned into prose by the authors."- Bolling and Hegelein, The Parisistas of the Atharvaveda, Saunakiya recension , p. 421. 112.

734 upajati metre. 113 115 Atharvaveda-Parisistas 70.23.14 is in irregular arya metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 70.32.1-36, which is professedly a summary of the twelve 114 sections of Gargyani, is composed in diverse metres. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 70.32.8,11,15-19,24,25,27 and 30 are in upajati metre, 70°. 32.12,20,31 and 32 are in upendrava ira, 70°.32.13 is in indravajra; 70°.32.14 is in puspitagra, 70°.32.21-23 in vasantatilaka and the two verses 70°.32.26 and 29 are in the long sragdhara metre. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 72.5.3-4, 6.1-3,6 are composed in the upajati metre. The anustubh metre which occupies a major portion of the Atharvaveda-Parisistas is handled with considerable ease. The anustubh verses are mostly of the pathya type and a few of the third vipula type. 116 Some irregularities, such as padas consisting of nine syllables, are seen at 9.2.1 (suvarnasrugi raupyakhuri), 23.3.4 (caturvim satyangulam dangam), 67.8.8 (pratipurusam nibodhata), and 69.7.8 (laghusantyudaka-vidhina). At 2.2.3 113. This verse consists of the ganas ta, bha and ta, followed by two guru syllables in the odd quarters, and in the even quarters the ganas are ta, ta and ja followed by two guru syllables (as in indravajra). 114. Atharvaveda-Parisistas 70.32.3 is irregular. The first and the second quarters consist of 13 syllables, the third quarter contains 10 syllables and the fourth 12. 115. 70.32.30° is slightly irregular and can be amended by changing proroditi to prarauti. v 116. The pathya type has the second set of four syllables having the form -- y, and the third vipula type has the form v - --, --- For a detailed consideration of this topic, see A. B. Keith, op. cit. pp. 755-76.

735 the compound brahmavedajnah is broken by caesura. Similarly it is seen that a pada ends in the middle of a compound at 58.1.8 and 10. It is but natural that when the pratikas of mantras 117 are to be quoted in a verse, the metre is violated. Irregular verses are almost the rule at Atharvaveda-Parisistas 1.5 wherein the final cadences are defective. In Atharvaveda-Parisistas 39, the irregularities are necessited by the subject-matter. Similar is the case with Atharvaveda-Parisistas 47 which deals with so difficult and technical a subject as phonetics. In all such cases the defective nature 118 is excused by the number of termini technici. The rule of classical poetry, namely ending a s section with a verse (or verses) composed in a different metre is 119 observed in many Parisistas.