FW: FW: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

[Guest guest]

jyotirved [jyotirved]

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:36 PM

'abhinavagupta '

FW: Re: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

 

 

Dear Shri Francesco Brighenti,

Many thanks indeed for your response.

It may be of interest to you that after reading the statement of S. B. Dikshit in his “Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra” (Hindi translation by Gorakh Prasad), that there were no Mesha etc. Rashis in the Vedas, the Vedanga Jyotisham, Grihya Sutras or Manutsmrit etc., just to find those missing Rashis for myself, I had to go through all those liturgical works of Hindu ethos, and during my studies, if I had come across any “incidents” of burying the dead in those works, it would certainly have come to my notice as it would have been something unexpected.  However, after going through your post, I have rechecked all those references and can assure you that just like missing Rashis in the Vedas or the Vedic lore, burying the dead is also conspicuous by its absence  except for certain exceptional cases and those exceptional cases will be discussed at the end.

Even in the post-Vedic period, whether you take the Grihya Sutras of Ashvalayana or Paraskara or Shankhayana or the Manusmriti or any other work, including the Itihisas (epics) and Puranas, nothing but cremation of the dead  is advised!

The problem of disconnect with cremation, thus, does not lie in the Hindu scriptures, whether the Vedas, the Puranas or the Brahamanas or any other work, but it lies actually with the mind-set of the interlocutor/interpreter!  For most of the non-Hindus, especially Christian and Muslims, it is virtually impossible to think that there can be any community that does not bury its dead, and they will somehow or the other misinterpret the relevant works to prove their points.  Most of that misinterpretation is usually inadvertent, because of the mind-set, but when the interpreter or the interlocutor keeps on insisting on those wrong interpretations either after or without doing proper homework, one starts having doubts as to whether it is being done really inadvertently or there is some design behind the same! 

Let us take the case of the impugned word “Shmashana” which has been interpreted by Eggeling as sepulcher, and which is being accepted as the real meaning in SB 13.8.1-4 by Dr. Witzel and you.

I do not know why Dr. Witzel or other members, including you, of IER did not consult Monier-Williams “Sanskrit English Dictionary” instead of his “English Sanskrit Dictionary”.  This is what the former has to say on page 1094 about “Shmashana”:

“An elevated place for burning dead bodies, crematorium, cemetery or burial place for the bones of cremated corpses, AV etc. etc.; an oblation to deceased ancestors, ParGr; KatySr., Sch”

About “shmashamna-karna” he has said, “the laying out of burning ground, Shadv.Br”.  There are about fifty words in the same lexicon that have the word “shmashana” as prefix and in all the cases, Monier-Williams has translated them as “burning grounds”.  Not even once has he referred to any sepulcher even by mistake!

The word “cemetery” as a synonym of “shmashamna” has been used by him only as “cemetery or burial place for the bones of the cremated corpses”. I do not think there should have been any confusion after having gone through these synonyms but then Dr. Witzel and you preferred to go only by the meaning of “sepulcher” for “shmashana” from Monier-Williams English Sanskrit dictionary!  Why?  It certainly shows either doing a shoddy home work or deliberately ignoring the meaning that does not suit one’s mind-set.

Now coming to your point, “Of course, you should at the same time also explain to us why we don't find the *slightest* reference to cremation in the very detailed and precise ritual

prescriptions contained in those four brAhmaNas;”

Let me take the brAhmaNas quoted by you one by one:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44062.htm

This is how Eggeling, a non-Hindu, has translated it:

 “13. They also say, 'If that performer of a long sacrificial session--to wit, he who (regularly) offers the Agnihotra--were to die whilst staying abroad, how would they supply him with his fires?' Well, some, having burnt him, bring (the bones) home and make the fires smell him as he is brought; but let him not do this, for this would be as if he were to seek to cause the seed implanted in one womb to be born forth from another womb. Having brought home the bones, let him throw them on a black antelope skin, and arrange them in accordance with man's form, and having covered them with wool and sprinkled with ghee, let him by burning unite him with his fires: he thus causes him to be born from his own (maternal) womb.

12:5:1:1414. And some, indeed, burn him in (ordinary) fire (procured) in the village; but let him not do this, for such fire is a promiscuous eater, an eater of raw flesh: it would be capable of devouring him completely, together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1515. And some, indeed, burn him in a forest-fire; but let him not do this; for such fire is unappeased: it would be capable of burning him up together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1616. And some, indeed, burn him in a firebrand; but let him not do this; for such fire belongs to Rudra: it would be capable of destroying him together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1717. And some, indeed, build up a funeral pile in the midst of the (three) fires, and, by burning him, unite him with his fires, thinking, 'There,--to wit, in the midst of his fires,--assuredly is the Sacrificer's abode.' But let him not do this; for if in that case any one were to say of him, 'Verily, this one has caused a cutting up in the middle of the village: the cutting up of him will speedily come about 1: he will weep for his dearest;' then that would indeed be likely to come to pass.”

And still you shout from the house top, “don't find the *slightest* reference to cremation in the very detailed and precise ritual prescriptions contained in those four brAhmaNas”.  Why?

 

Then your next reference is

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm

Again, Eggeling has translated it as:

..Now, Nâka Maudgalya once said, 'If he believe the Sacrificer to be about to die, let him take up the two fires in the churning-sticks, and, having churned out (a new fire), let him continue offering (the Agnihotra) at whatever place may have commended itself to him for the immolation 1. And if the Sacrificer should then depart this world,--

12:5:2:22. Let him build a pile for him  in the midst of his fires, and, by burning him, unite him with his fires.' But let him not do this; for, verily, that (fire) does not submit thereto that they should make offering to it as for the burning of a dead body: it is rather to sacrifice and oblations that it submits, and, unable to endure it, it stays by him with impatience.

12:5:2:33. He should rather proceed thus:--let him bid them seek three pots, and, having put therein either (dried) cowdung or straw 3, let him place them separately on the (three) fires; and let them then burn him by means of the fires produced from that blaze: in this way he is indeed burned by (these) fires, though not visibly, so to speak.

12:5:2:44. Wherefore, also, it has been said by the Rishi (Vâg. S. XIII, 45 4), 'The Agni who was born from Agni, from the pain of the earth or be it of the sky; whereby Visvakarman begat living beings, him, O Agni, may thy wrath spare!' As the verse, so its explanation.

12:5:2:55. Now, in the first place, he cleanses him of all foul matter, and causes the foul matter to settle on this (earth); for this (earth) is indeed foul matter: he thus consigns foul matter to foul matter. For, indeed, from that intestine of his, filled with foul matter, when it is burnt, a jackal is produced: (hence he removes it), 'lest a jackal should be produced.' But let him not do this, or his family will be liable to starve. Having washed him out inside, he anoints him with ghee, and thus makes it (the body) sacrificially pure.

12:5:2:66. He then inserts seven chips of gold in the seven seats of his vital airs; for gold is light and immortality: he thus bestows light and immortality on him.

12:5:2:77. Having then built a pile for him in the midst of his fires, and spread out a black antelope skin with the hairy side upwards, and the neck-part towards the east, he lays him down thereon with the face looking upwards, and puts the guhû-spoon filled with ghee on his right, and the upabhrit on his left hand, the dhruvâ on the breast, the Agnihotra-ladle on the mouth, two dipping-spoons on the nostrils, two prâsitra-haranas 1 on the ears, the cup used for carrying forward the lustral water on the head, two winnowing-baskets at the sides, on the belly the vessel used for holding the cuttings (of the idâ), filled with clotted ghee, the wedge (yoke-pin) beside the male organ, two mallets beside the testicles, and behind them the mortar and pestle, the other sacrificial vessels between the thighs; and the wooden sword on the right hand.

12:5:2:88. Thus supplied with the sacrificial weapons (implements), that Sacrificer passes on to that place which has been won by him in heaven, even as if one who fears spoliation were to escape it; and, verily, those fires (which are) to be enkindled (will) lovingly touch him, even as sons lovingly touch their father when he comes home after staying abroad, and make everything ready for him 1.

12:5:2:99. If the Gârhapatya were to reach him first, one may know that the permanent fire has reached him first: that he will permanently establish himself, and that those behind him will permanently establish themselves in this world.

12:5:2:1010. And if the Âhavanîya were to do so, one may know that the foremost fire has reached him first: that he has been foremost in conquering the (other) world, and that those behind him will be foremost in this world.

12:5:2:1111. And if the Anvâhâryapakana were to do so, one may know that the food-eating fire has reached him first: that he will eat food, and that those behind him will eat food (be prosperous) in this world.

12:5:2:1212. And if they all (were to reach him) at the same time, one may know that he has conquered a blessed world. Such, then, are the distinctions in this respect.

12:5:2:1313. This, then, is that offering of the Sacrificer's body which he performs at the end: front out of that place which has been won by him in heaven he arises immortal in the form of an oblation.

12:5:2:1414. Whatever stone and earthen (vessels of the deceased) there are they may be given to a Brâhmana 1; but, verily, he who accepts them is regarded as a remover of corpses. Let them rather throw these (vessels) into the water, for the waters are the foundation of all this (universe): he thus establishes him firmly on the waters.

12:5:2:1515. Either a son (of the deceased), or a brother, or some other Brâhmana then performs that offering 2, with (Vâg. S. XXXV, 22), 'From out of him thou (O Agni) art born: from out of thee let this N.N. be born again into the heavenly world, hail! They then go away without looking back. and touch water.”

For god’s sake, my dear friend, pl. tell me where has it been said in the above lines that the deceased has to be buried?  On the other hand, all the mantras of the entire kanda talk of nothing but fire and cremation!”

Is your command over English language so poor that you cannot understand these simple lines where “agni” has been repeated several times?  Does “Agni” cremate or bury?

Then in the next reference i.e.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44115.htm

why are you ignoring the words, ” Jarful of bones” by Eggeling himself, since it is for bones that “earth as foundation….”is meant in the following words for the sbe44115.htm

 “2. He then pours out that (jarful of bones 2); for this earth is the foundation: on this (earth), as a foundation, he thus establishes him. Before sunrise (he does so), for, in secret, as it were, are the Fathers, and in secret, as it were, is the night;--in secret, indeed, he does this, (but) so that (the sun) should rise over him doing it: on both day and night he thus establishes him”.

Thus it should not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that the SB was talking of nothing but a crematorium by shmashana, since you will find enough of repetition of the words “cremation” and “”agni” etc. in these Brahmanas but not any reference to any “cemetery for laying the dead to rest”.  You have asked further, “SB 13.8.2.1 as characteristic of, respectively, the " daivya " and the " Asurya " peoples could have been, if they were not -- as you keep on affirming -- sepulchral mounds or tumuli.”

Would you please read the complete second Brahmana of 13/8, since Eggeling himself has clarified in the very second mantra, “2. He then encloses it by means of enclosing-stones: what those enclosing-stones (round the fire-hearths) are, that they are here 2. With a formula he sets up those, silently these: he thus keeps separate what refers to the gods and what refers to the Fathers. With (an) undefined (number of stones he encloses it), for undefined is yonder world”.

Obviously, it is the fire-hearths that must have “enclosing stones” and wherever the word cemetery has appeared, it is, even as per Monier-Williams, “cemetery or burial place for the bones of cremated corpses”.

 

Regarding you queries about the RV anjd AV etc., I will clarify all those points in my second post, since this one has become already quite long.

au revoir

A K Kaul

(Response to Francesco Brighenti’s post of March 2, 2010) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5545  

 

On Vedic burial practices (kind attention: Avtar Krishen Kaul)

 

Avtar Krishen Kaul wrote:

 

> There is a lot of confusion about the " culture " of Indo-

> Eurasian_research forum.

>

> I had sent a mail on January 10 regarding a topic " Burial mounds in the Vedic Literature " that Messrs Witzel and Company were discussing with relish. Since my mail contradicted their pet theories, it never appeared there, though as a " professional forum "

(sic!) they certainly should have allowed it and rebutted my views, if they had the facts to support their arguments.

But since they do not have any such material and since they do not want to appear to be the losers, they preferred to " bury " that " mound " in their " shmashana " (crematorium!). After about a fortnight of that date i.e. on January 25, 2010, it

was sent to Abhinavagupta and is available at Abhinavagupta/message/5490

>

I shall certainly welcome any comments, since for me it is immaterial as to who loses an argument, but it must not be at the cost of Truth and nothing but Truth!

 

Since I, too, participated in the discussion you mention on the IER List, I take the chance to offer my comments (which you state you will " certainly

welcome " ). I had noticed your resolute stance during that discussion: Indo-Eurasian_research/message/13478

The original word in the Shatapatha Brahmana is shmshanani... Eggeling has translated it wrongly as " seplchral mound " instead of " crematorium " . " Shmshanani " cannot be translated as burial grounds by any stretch of imagination. It thus shows as to what great injustice has been done to the original texts by such wrong translations, most probably inadvertantly. It can therefore be safely said that there is thus absolutely no reference to any " burial mound " in any of the Vedic texts. Well, if you don't want to accept the idea that SB 13.8.1-4 may be prescribing a type of funeral ceremony centering round the erection of a sepulchral mound or tumulus (zmazAna) over a grave in which the uncremated body of a dead person is to be buried, so be it. Indeed, a term unambiguously translating as 'sepulchral mound, tumulus' is merely implied, but yet not expressed, in Eggeling's translation of these four brAhmaNas:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44113.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44114.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44115.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44116.htm

 

(See also the original Sanskrit text at http://tinyurl.com/yz7f3cl )

Of course, you should at the same time also explain to us why we don't find the*slightest* reference to cremation in the very detailed and precise ritual prescriptions contained in those four brAhmaNas; moreover, you should also kindly explain to us what the " four-cornered " and the " round and bowl-shaped " burial-places (zmazAna-) mentioned in SB 13.8.2.1 as characteristic of, respectively, the " daivya " and the " Asurya " peoples could have been, if they were not -- as you keep on affirming -- sepulchral mounds or tumuli.

 

Anyway, aside from this section of the SB, there is, to be sure, a whole hymn in the RV (10.18) from which some ideas of these grave-mounds may be formed. This hymn constitutes " a collection of verses for the dead " (Caland) which assembles some obviously traditional material.

 

From RV 10.18.4: zataM jIvantu zaradaH purUcIr antar mRtyuM dadhatAm parvatena ( " Let them [i.e. the living] live a hundred full autumns and bury death under this hill [i.e. the mound raised over the grave]. " Skt. parvata ('hill, mountain') is here used in the sense of 'earth-mound'.

 

If there indeed was a sepulchral mound, what kind of grave was it erected over? From RV 10.18.13: ut te stabhnAmi pRthivIM tvat pari ( " I shore up the earth all

around you " [or " from about you " ]). The Skt. verbal root ut-stabh- [~ -stambh-] means 'to prop up, shore up, support, make firm or steady'. Its use here is suggestive of a burial chamber with timber-shored walls. The burial of an urn

holding the cremated remains of a dead person would not require the earth all around it to be " propped up " ; indeed, urn burial just requires the digging of a modest-size pit in the ground. Furthermore, the second hemistich of this verse says etAM sthUNAm pitaro dhArayantu te ( " Let the Fathers hold firm this house-post for you " -- Skt. sthUNA = 'wooden post or pillar of a house'), which suggests that the hypothesized burial chamber had a wooden plank roof supported

by timber posts. Note that *dhar-sthU-na ('hold firm the house post') is an Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction for a formulaic phrase describing the *house* (cf. Avestan stunâ° vîdhâraiieiti, Yt 10.28). In RV 10.18 this traditional

Indo-Iranian formula, which may be millennia old, is preserved in a metaphor (or actual description?) of the *tomb* as a house whose roof is supported by a single wooden pillar. Likewise, some Vedic scholars opine that the metaphor

mRnmaya-gRha used in RV 7.89.1 -- a phrase translated as 'the abode of the earth' by some, and as 'the house of clay' by others (mRn-maya < Skt. mRd- 'clay, earth'; the specialized meaning is 'crumbling earth') -- may refer to the

subterranean burial chamber as " house " , though other Vedic scholars interpret it as referring to the clay funeral urn as a " house " .

 

From RV 10.18.12: sahasram mita upa hi zrayantAm ( " [For] a thousand posts must support [the earth] " or " [For] a thousand house-posts must be set up [in the earth pit] " -- Skt. verbal root upa-zri- = 'to lean against, support, prop';

mit- = 'pillar, post'). What are these " thousand posts " (obviously a symbolic number here) meant for, and why does the earth " open up " (or, according to K. Hoffmann, 'bend [down], bow' -- the verbal root used here is zvaJc-) and then

" stand firm " (ti-STha-) to make room for the erection of such posts, which are to be leant against her? Note that, consistently with the 'tomb = house' metaphor noted above, in the same verse these " thousand posts " are equated to a

house (lit. 'houses', gRhAso); compare with AV 18.4 (another funeral hymn), verse 37: " This mortal goes to immortality; make a home (lit. 'houses', gRhAn) for him according to his kindred " .

 

Besides referring to the " making of a house " for the dead person, the same verse AV 18.4.37 has the sentence idaM kasAmbu cayanena citaM, which is improbably translated by Whitney as " This funeral pile (? kasAmbu) [is] piled with piling. "

The meaning of the Skt. term kasAmbu, glossed by Monier-Williams as '(?) a heap of wood', is uncertain, as the term itself seems to be non-Indo-European. Other scholars have rendered this word as 'framework' (which, in this case, may

consist of a grave structure made of wood). As mentioned, the kasAmbu is here stated to be cayanena citaM, two words that may either refer to a grave mound (as is suggested by Whitney) or to a structure made (cita = 'piled up') by

assembling logs (cayana = 'the piling up [of wood etc.]'; in post-Vedic times, 'stacked wood'). Thus, the sentence under discussion may be better translated as 'this framework is made by putting up (logs)'. According to this interpretation,

the so-described burial chamber with timber-shored walls and a framework made from logs, supporting a wooden plank roof over which an earthen mound is to be raised, would be identical with the " house " (gRhAn) for the dead mentioned in

the same verse of AV 18.4; it goes without saying, however, that, lacking a certain identification of the etymology and meaning of the Skt. term kasAmbu, this will remain only an interesting conjecture.

 

The above discussed literary evidence for the existence of a Vedic mortuary practice consisting in building a subterranean burial chamber and covering it with an earthen mound, must be integrated with that, of a more general nature, for the existence of the practice of burial as such in early Vedic India. The practice of primary burial (the inhumation of corpses) appears to have been not unknown in the early Vedic period, when it perhaps coexisted side by side with that of cremation. For instance, in RV 10.15.14 we read of " corpses burnt by fire " (agnidagdha) and " unburnt " (anagnidagdha), this being a continuation of the older (Indo-Iranian) distinction between cremation and burial (and/or the exposure to the elements). AV 18.2, a funeral hymn, mentions in verse 34 four classes of departed Fathers, namely, those who were buried (nikhAta), those who were " cast aside " (paropta), that is to say, abandoned to the elements, those who were burnt with fire (dagdha), and those who were " deposited above "

(uddhita), i.e. on something elevated such as a tree or cliff cave.

 

More allusions to burial practices are found in these two Vedic hymns, which seem particularly revealing to me:

 

a) (once again) the funeral hymn RV 10.18, in which the words of verse 11, ucchvaJcasva pRthivi mA ni bAdhathAH ( " Open up, O Earth; do not crush [him] " [or " do not press down " ] -- Skt. verbal root bAdh- = 'to press, force'), appear to

make sense only when erecting a grave-mound over an interred corpse, not when burying an urn in which the cremated bones have been collected (what kind of problems would the pressure of earth cause to a buried clay urn?);

 

b) the funeral hymn AV 18.2, in which the words of verse 19, syonAsmai bhava pRthivy anRkSarA nivezanI ( " Be pleasant to him, O Earth, a thornless resting-place " ), likewise appear to make sense only if it is the actual corpse,

not a bone-urn, that is being interred (what kind of problems would punctures by thorny roots cause to a buried clay urn?).

 

Now I have provided you with some textual data to ponder. I hope you won't say mine is a " pet theory " (see your Abhinavagupta post cited above). Would you like to think about it for a while and give me a reasoned reply in the next days?

 

Regards,

Francesco

 

 

[Response to Avtar Krishen Kaul's post (26 Feb 2010) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5533 ]

[Guest guest]

jyotirved [jyotirved]

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:36 PM

'abhinavagupta '

FW: Re: Burial mounds in Vedic literature

 

 

Dear Shri Francesco Brighenti,

Many thanks indeed for your response.

It may be of interest to you that after reading the statement of S. B.

Dikshit in his “Bharatiya Jyotisha Shastra” (Hindi translation by Gorakh

Prasad), that there were no Mesha etc. Rashis in the Vedas, the Vedanga

Jyotisham, Grihya Sutras or Manutsmrit etc., just to find those missing

Rashis for myself, I had to go through all those liturgical works of Hindu

ethos, and during my studies, if I had come across any “incidents” of

burying the dead in those works, it would certainly have come to my notice

as it would have been something unexpected. However, after going through

your post, I have rechecked all those references and can assure you that

just like missing Rashis in the Vedas or the Vedic lore, burying the dead is

also conspicuous by its absence except for certain exceptional cases and

those exceptional cases will be discussed at the end.

Even in the post-Vedic period, whether you take the Grihya Sutras of

Ashvalayana or Paraskara or Shankhayana or the Manusmriti or any other work,

including the Itihisas (epics) and Puranas, nothing but cremation of the

dead is advised!

The problem of disconnect with cremation, thus, does not lie in the Hindu

scriptures, whether the Vedas, the Puranas or the Brahamanas or any other

work, but it lies actually with the mind-set of the

interlocutor/interpreter! For most of the non-Hindus, especially Christian

and Muslims, it is virtually impossible to think that there can be any

community that does not bury its dead, and they will somehow or the other

misinterpret the relevant works to prove their points. Most of that

misinterpretation is usually inadvertent, because of the mind-set, but when

the interpreter or the interlocutor keeps on insisting on those wrong

interpretations either after or without doing proper homework, one starts

having doubts as to whether it is being done really inadvertently or there

is some design behind the same!

Let us take the case of the impugned word “Shmashana” which has been

interpreted by Eggeling as sepulcher, and which is being accepted as the

real meaning in SB 13.8.1-4 by Dr. Witzel and you.

I do not know why Dr. Witzel or other members, including you, of IER did not

consult Monier-Williams “Sanskrit English Dictionary” instead of his

“English Sanskrit Dictionary”. This is what the former has to say on page

1094 about “Shmashana”:

“An elevated place for burning dead bodies, crematorium, cemetery or burial

place for the bones of cremated corpses, AV etc. etc.; an oblation to

deceased ancestors, ParGr; KatySr., Sch”

About “shmashamna-karna” he has said, “the laying out of burning ground,

Shadv.Br”. There are about fifty words in the same lexicon that have the

word “shmashana” as prefix and in all the cases, Monier-Williams has

translated them as “burning grounds”. Not even once has he referred to any

sepulcher even by mistake!

The word “cemetery” as a synonym of “shmashamna” has been used by him only

as “cemetery or burial place for the bones of the cremated corpses”. I do

not think there should have been any confusion after having gone through

these synonyms but then Dr. Witzel and you preferred to go only by the

meaning of “sepulcher” for “shmashana” from Monier-Williams English Sanskrit

dictionary! Why? It certainly shows either doing a shoddy home work or

deliberately ignoring the meaning that does not suit one’s mind-set.

Now coming to your point, “Of course, you should at the same time also

explain to us why we don't find the *slightest* reference to cremation in

the very detailed and precise ritual

prescriptions contained in those four brAhmaNas;”

Let me take the brAhmaNas quoted by you one by one:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44062.htm

This is how Eggeling, a non-Hindu, has translated it:

“13. They also say, 'If that performer of a long sacrificial session--to

wit, he who (regularly) offers the Agnihotra--were to die whilst staying

abroad, how would they supply him with his fires?' Well, some, having burnt

him, bring (the bones) home and make the fires smell him as he is brought;

but let him not do this, for this would be as if he were to seek to cause

the seed implanted in one womb to be born forth from another womb. Having

brought home the bones, let him throw them on a black antelope skin, and

arrange them in accordance with man's form, and having covered them with

wool and sprinkled with ghee, let him by burning unite him with his fires:

he thus causes him to be born from his own (maternal) womb.

12:5:1:1414. And some, indeed, burn him in (ordinary) fire (procured) in the

village; but let him not do this, for such fire is a promiscuous eater, an

eater of raw flesh: it would be capable of devouring him completely,

together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1515. And some, indeed, burn him in a forest-fire; but let him not do

this; for such fire is unappeased: it would be capable of burning him up

together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1616. And some, indeed, burn him in a firebrand; but let him not do

this; for such fire belongs to Rudra: it would be capable of destroying him

together with his sons and his cattle.

12:5:1:1717. And some, indeed, build up a funeral pile in the midst of the

(three) fires, and, by burning him, unite him with his fires, thinking,

'There,--to wit, in the midst of his fires,--assuredly is the Sacrificer's

abode.' But let him not do this; for if in that case any one were to say of

him, 'Verily, this one has caused a cutting up in the middle of the village:

the cutting up of him will speedily come about 1

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44062.htm> : he will weep for

his dearest;' then that would indeed be likely to come to pass.”

And still you shout from the house top, “don't find the *slightest*

reference to cremation in the very detailed and precise ritual prescriptions

contained in those four brAhmaNas”. Why?

 

Then your next reference is

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm

Again, Eggeling has translated it as:

..Now, Nâka Maudgalya once said, 'If he believe the Sacrificer to be about to

die, let him take up the two fires in the churning-sticks, and, having

churned out (a new fire), let him continue offering (the Agnihotra) at

whatever place may have commended itself to him for the immolation 1

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> . And if the

Sacrificer should then depart this world,--

12:5:2:22. Let him build a pile for him in the midst of his fires, and, by

burning him, unite him with his fires.' But let him not do this; for,

verily, that (fire) does not submit thereto that they should make offering

to it as for the burning of a dead body: it is rather to sacrifice and

oblations that it submits, and, unable to endure it, it stays by him with

impatience.

12:5:2:33. He should rather proceed thus:--let him bid them seek three pots,

and, having put therein either (dried) cowdung or straw 3

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> , let him place

them separately on the (three) fires; and let them then burn him by means of

the fires produced from that blaze: in this way he is indeed burned by

(these) fires, though not visibly, so to speak.

12:5:2:44. Wherefore, also, it has been said by the Rishi (Vâg. S. XIII, 45

4 <http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> ), 'The Agni who

was born from Agni, from the pain of the earth or be it of the sky; whereby

Visvakarman begat living beings, him, O Agni, may thy wrath spare!' As the

verse, so its explanation.

12:5:2:55. Now, in the first place, he cleanses him of all foul matter, and

causes the foul matter to settle on this (earth); for this (earth) is indeed

foul matter: he thus consigns foul matter to foul matter. For, indeed, from

that intestine of his, filled with foul matter, when it is burnt, a jackal

is produced: (hence he removes it), 'lest a jackal should be produced.' But

let him not do this, or his family will be liable to starve. Having washed

him out inside, he anoints him with ghee, and thus makes it (the body)

sacrificially pure.

12:5:2:66. He then inserts seven chips of gold in the seven seats of his

vital airs; for gold is light and immortality: he thus bestows light and

immortality on him.

12:5:2:77. Having then built a pile for him in the midst of his fires, and

spread out a black antelope skin with the hairy side upwards, and the

neck-part towards the east, he lays him down thereon with the face looking

upwards, and puts the guhû-spoon filled with ghee on his right, and the

upabhrit on his left hand, the dhruvâ on the breast, the Agnihotra-ladle on

the mouth, two dipping-spoons on the nostrils, two prâsitra-haranas 1

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> on the ears, the

cup used for carrying forward the lustral water on the head, two

winnowing-baskets at the sides, on the belly the vessel used for holding the

cuttings (of the idâ), filled with clotted ghee, the wedge (yoke-pin) beside

the male organ, two mallets beside the testicles, and behind them the mortar

and pestle, the other sacrificial vessels between the thighs; and the wooden

sword on the right hand.

12:5:2:88. Thus supplied with the sacrificial weapons (implements), that

Sacrificer passes on to that place which has been won by him in heaven, even

as if one who fears spoliation were to escape it; and, verily, those fires

(which are) to be enkindled (will) lovingly touch him, even as sons lovingly

touch their father when he comes home after staying abroad, and make

everything ready for him 1

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> .

12:5:2:99. If the Gârhapatya were to reach him first, one may know that the

permanent fire has reached him first: that he will permanently establish

himself, and that those behind him will permanently establish themselves in

this world.

12:5:2:1010. And if the Âhavanîya were to do so, one may know that the

foremost fire has reached him first: that he has been foremost in conquering

the (other) world, and that those behind him will be foremost in this world.

12:5:2:1111. And if the Anvâhâryapakana were to do so, one may know that the

food-eating fire has reached him first: that he will eat food, and that

those behind him will eat food (be prosperous) in this world.

12:5:2:1212. And if they all (were to reach him) at the same time, one may

know that he has conquered a blessed world. Such, then, are the distinctions

in this respect.

12:5:2:1313. This, then, is that offering of the Sacrificer's body which he

performs at the end: front out of that place which has been won by him in

heaven he arises immortal in the form of an oblation.

12:5:2:1414. Whatever stone and earthen (vessels of the deceased) there are

they may be given to a Brâhmana 1

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> ; but, verily, he

who accepts them is regarded as a remover of corpses. Let them rather throw

these (vessels) into the water, for the waters are the foundation of all

this (universe): he thus establishes him firmly on the waters.

12:5:2:1515. Either a son (of the deceased), or a brother, or some other

Brâhmana then performs that offering 2

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44063.htm> , with (Vâg. S.

XXXV, 22), 'From out of him thou (O Agni) art born: from out of thee let

this N.N. be born again into the heavenly world, hail! They then go away

without looking back. and touch water.”

For god’s sake, my dear friend, pl. tell me where has it been said in the

above lines that the deceased has to be buried? On the other hand, all the

mantras of the entire kanda talk of nothing but fire and cremation!”

Is your command over English language so poor that you cannot understand

these simple lines where “agni” has been repeated several times? Does

“Agni” cremate or bury?

Then in the next reference i.e.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44115.htm

why are you ignoring the words, ” Jarful of bones” by Eggeling himself,

since it is for bones that “earth as foundation….”is meant in the following

words for the sbe44115.htm

“2. He then pours out that (jarful of bones 2

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44115.htm> ); for this earth

is the foundation: on this (earth), as a foundation, he thus establishes

him. Before sunrise (he does so), for, in secret, as it were, are the

Fathers, and in secret, as it were, is the night;--in secret, indeed, he

does this, (but) so that (the sun) should rise over him doing it: on both

day and night he thus establishes him”.

Thus it should not leave any doubt in anybody’s mind that the SB was talking

of nothing but a crematorium by shmashana, since you will find enough of

repetition of the words “cremation” and “”agni” etc. in these Brahmanas but

not any reference to any “cemetery for laying the dead to rest”. You have

asked further, “SB 13.8.2.1 as characteristic of, respectively, the " daivya "

and the " Asurya " peoples could have been, if they were not -- as you keep on

affirming -- sepulchral mounds or tumuli.”

Would you please read the complete second Brahmana of 13/8, since Eggeling

himself has clarified in the very second mantra, “2. He then encloses it by

means of enclosing-stones: what those enclosing-stones (round the

fire-hearths) are, that they are here 2

<http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44114.htm> . With a formula he

sets up those, silently these: he thus keeps separate what refers to the

gods and what refers to the Fathers. With (an) undefined (number of stones

he encloses it), for undefined is yonder world”.

Obviously, it is the fire-hearths that must have “enclosing stones” and

wherever the word cemetery has appeared, it is, even as per Monier-Williams,

“cemetery or burial place for the bones of cremated corpses”.

 

Regarding you queries about the RV anjd AV etc., I will clarify all those

points in my second post, since this one has become already quite long.

au revoir

A K Kaul

(Response to Francesco Brighenti’s post of March 2, 2010) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5545

<Abhinavagupta/message/5545%20%20%203>

 

On Vedic burial practices (kind attention: Avtar Krishen Kaul)

 

 

Avtar Krishen Kaul wrote:

 

> There is a lot of confusion about the " culture " of Indo-

> Eurasian_research forum.

>

> I had sent a mail on January 10 regarding a topic " Burial mounds in the

Vedic Literature " that Messrs Witzel and Company were discussing with

relish. Since my mail contradicted their pet theories, it never appeared

there, though as a " professional forum "

(sic!) they certainly should have allowed it and rebutted my views, if they

had the facts to support their arguments.

But since they do not have any such material and since they do not want to

appear to be the losers, they preferred to " bury " that " mound " in their

" shmashana " (crematorium!). After about a fortnight of that date i.e. on

January 25, 2010, it

was sent to Abhinavagupta and is available at

Abhinavagupta/message/5490

>

I shall certainly welcome any comments, since for me it is immaterial as to

who loses an argument, but it must not be at the cost of Truth and nothing

but Truth!

 

Since I, too, participated in the discussion you mention on the IER List, I

take the chance to offer my comments (which you state you will " certainly

welcome " ). I had noticed your resolute stance during that discussion:

Indo-Eurasian_research/message/13478

The original word in the Shatapatha Brahmana is shmshanani... Eggeling has

translated it wrongly as " seplchral mound " instead of " crematorium " .

" Shmshanani " cannot be translated as burial grounds by any stretch of

imagination. It thus shows as to what great injustice has been done to the

original texts by such wrong translations, most probably inadvertantly. It

can therefore be safely said that there is thus absolutely no reference to

any " burial mound " in any of the Vedic texts. Well, if you don't want to

accept the idea that SB 13.8.1-4 may be prescribing a type of funeral

ceremony centering round the erection of a sepulchral mound or tumulus

(zmazAna) over a grave in which the uncremated body of a dead person is to

be buried, so be it. Indeed, a term unambiguously translating as 'sepulchral

mound, tumulus' is merely implied, but yet not expressed, in Eggeling's

translation of these four brAhmaNas:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44113.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44114.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44115.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44116.htm

 

(See also the original Sanskrit text at http://tinyurl.com/yz7f3cl )

Of course, you should at the same time also explain to us why we don't find

the*slightest* reference to cremation in the very detailed and precise

ritual prescriptions contained in those four brAhmaNas; moreover, you should

also kindly explain to us what the " four-cornered " and the " round and

bowl-shaped " burial-places (zmazAna-) mentioned in SB 13.8.2.1 as

characteristic of, respectively, the " daivya " and the " Asurya " peoples could

have been, if they were not -- as you keep on affirming -- sepulchral mounds

or tumuli.

 

Anyway, aside from this section of the SB, there is, to be sure, a whole

hymn in the RV (10.18) from which some ideas of these grave-mounds may be

formed. This hymn constitutes " a collection of verses for the dead " (Caland)

which assembles some obviously traditional material.

 

From RV 10.18.4: zataM jIvantu zaradaH purUcIr antar mRtyuM dadhatAm

parvatena ( " Let them [i.e. the living] live a hundred full autumns and bury

death under this hill [i.e. the mound raised over the grave]. " Skt. parvata

('hill, mountain') is here used in the sense of 'earth-mound'.

 

If there indeed was a sepulchral mound, what kind of grave was it erected

over? From RV 10.18.13: ut te stabhnAmi pRthivIM tvat pari ( " I shore up the

earth all

around you " [or " from about you " ]). The Skt. verbal root ut-stabh- [~

-stambh-] means 'to prop up, shore up, support, make firm or steady'. Its

use here is suggestive of a burial chamber with timber-shored walls. The

burial of an urn

holding the cremated remains of a dead person would not require the earth

all around it to be " propped up " ; indeed, urn burial just requires the

digging of a modest-size pit in the ground. Furthermore, the second

hemistich of this verse says etAM sthUNAm pitaro dhArayantu te ( " Let the

Fathers hold firm this house-post for you " -- Skt. sthUNA = 'wooden post or

pillar of a house'), which suggests that the hypothesized burial chamber had

a wooden plank roof supported

by timber posts. Note that *dhar-sthU-na ('hold firm the house post') is an

Proto-Indo-Iranian reconstruction for a formulaic phrase describing the

*house* (cf. Avestan stunâ° vîdhâraiieiti, Yt 10.28). In RV 10.18 this

traditional

Indo-Iranian formula, which may be millennia old, is preserved in a metaphor

(or actual description?) of the *tomb* as a house whose roof is supported by

a single wooden pillar. Likewise, some Vedic scholars opine that the

metaphor

mRnmaya-gRha used in RV 7.89.1 -- a phrase translated as 'the abode of the

earth' by some, and as 'the house of clay' by others (mRn-maya < Skt. mRd-

'clay, earth'; the specialized meaning is 'crumbling earth') -- may refer to

the

subterranean burial chamber as " house " , though other Vedic scholars

interpret it as referring to the clay funeral urn as a " house " .

 

From RV 10.18.12: sahasram mita upa hi zrayantAm ( " [For] a thousand posts

must support [the earth] " or " [For] a thousand house-posts must be set up

[in the earth pit] " -- Skt. verbal root upa-zri- = 'to lean against,

support, prop';

mit- = 'pillar, post'). What are these " thousand posts " (obviously a

symbolic number here) meant for, and why does the earth " open up " (or,

according to K. Hoffmann, 'bend [down], bow' -- the verbal root used here is

zvaJc-) and then

" stand firm " (ti-STha-) to make room for the erection of such posts, which

are to be leant against her? Note that, consistently with the 'tomb = house'

metaphor noted above, in the same verse these " thousand posts " are equated

to a

house (lit. 'houses', gRhAso); compare with AV 18.4 (another funeral hymn),

verse 37: " This mortal goes to immortality; make a home (lit. 'houses',

gRhAn) for him according to his kindred " .

 

Besides referring to the " making of a house " for the dead person, the same

verse AV 18.4.37 has the sentence idaM kasAmbu cayanena citaM, which is

improbably translated by Whitney as " This funeral pile (? kasAmbu) [is]

piled with piling. "

The meaning of the Skt. term kasAmbu, glossed by Monier-Williams as '(?) a

heap of wood', is uncertain, as the term itself seems to be

non-Indo-European. Other scholars have rendered this word as 'framework'

(which, in this case, may

consist of a grave structure made of wood). As mentioned, the kasAmbu is

here stated to be cayanena citaM, two words that may either refer to a grave

mound (as is suggested by Whitney) or to a structure made (cita = 'piled

up') by

assembling logs (cayana = 'the piling up [of wood etc.]'; in post-Vedic

times, 'stacked wood'). Thus, the sentence under discussion may be better

translated as 'this framework is made by putting up (logs)'. According to

this interpretation,

the so-described burial chamber with timber-shored walls and a framework

made from logs, supporting a wooden plank roof over which an earthen mound

is to be raised, would be identical with the " house " (gRhAn) for the dead

mentioned in

the same verse of AV 18.4; it goes without saying, however, that, lacking a

certain identification of the etymology and meaning of the Skt. term

kasAmbu, this will remain only an interesting conjecture.

 

The above discussed literary evidence for the existence of a Vedic mortuary

practice consisting in building a subterranean burial chamber and covering

it with an earthen mound, must be integrated with that, of a more general

nature, for the existence of the practice of burial as such in early Vedic

India. The practice of primary burial (the inhumation of corpses) appears to

have been not unknown in the early Vedic period, when it perhaps coexisted

side by side with that of cremation. For instance, in RV 10.15.14 we read of

" corpses burnt by fire " (agnidagdha) and " unburnt " (anagnidagdha), this

being a continuation of the older (Indo-Iranian) distinction between

cremation and burial (and/or the exposure to the elements). AV 18.2, a

funeral hymn, mentions in verse 34 four classes of departed Fathers, namely,

those who were buried (nikhAta), those who were " cast aside " (paropta), that

is to say, abandoned to the elements, those who were burnt with fire

(dagdha), and those who were " deposited above "

(uddhita), i.e. on something elevated such as a tree or cliff cave.

 

More allusions to burial practices are found in these two Vedic hymns, which

seem particularly revealing to me:

 

a) (once again) the funeral hymn RV 10.18, in which the words of verse 11,

ucchvaJcasva pRthivi mA ni bAdhathAH ( " Open up, O Earth; do not crush [him] "

[or " do not press down " ] -- Skt. verbal root bAdh- = 'to press, force'),

appear to

make sense only when erecting a grave-mound over an interred corpse, not

when burying an urn in which the cremated bones have been collected (what

kind of problems would the pressure of earth cause to a buried clay urn?);

 

b) the funeral hymn AV 18.2, in which the words of verse 19, syonAsmai bhava

pRthivy anRkSarA nivezanI ( " Be pleasant to him, O Earth, a thornless

resting-place " ), likewise appear to make sense only if it is the actual

corpse,

not a bone-urn, that is being interred (what kind of problems would

punctures by thorny roots cause to a buried clay urn?).

 

Now I have provided you with some textual data to ponder. I hope you won't

say mine is a " pet theory " (see your Abhinavagupta post cited above). Would

you like to think about it for a while and give me a reasoned reply in the

next days?

 

Regards,

Francesco

 

 

[Response to Avtar Krishen Kaul's post (26 Feb 2010) at

 

Abhinavagupta/message/5533 ]