Yama’s Second Boon in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad

in Vedic Cosmology and Ethics

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

The problems of KaṭhU 1, 13–19 concern the stratification of the text, the interpretation of difficult and rare words1 and the analysis of the ritualistic and metaritualistic contents.

Yama’s three boons in the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (3, 11, 8: a parallel and possible source) and in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad are the following. Naciketas asks that he may happily return home (i.e. that his father is no more angry), that he may learn the imperishableness of the merits of sacrificing and religious liberality (TB), respectively the Agni which gives entrance to heaven (KaṭhU), and as third wish that he may know the escape from renewed death after death in yonder world (punarmṛtyu, TB), respectively an answer to the question whether man lives on after death (KaṭhU).

The threefoldness of the boons is rather problematic. Actually it seems to be based on a general predilection for the number three.2 In the Brāhmaṇa Yama offers three varas, but he has to give only two, since the piling of the Nāciketa fire-altar fulfils both the second and the third wish. In the Upaniṣad Yama first refuses to grant the third boon. Eventually he seems to consent and the rest of the Upaniṣad after the first Vallī may form Yama’s answer.3 The third vara, as it is formulated by Naciketas, is rather unusual for a boon. It is not the wish to obtain something concrete, but an inquiring question.

The greatest confusion is caused by Naciketas himself with his third question in both passages, since it looks superfluous. In fact the imperishableness of the iṣṭāpūrta is identical with the escape from punarmṛtyu in the Brāhmaṇas. The third question in the Upaniṣad on life after death sounds strange after the second one which deals with the way of reaching heaven, i.e. with life after death. Perhaps we have to interpret it as referring to the exact nature of the escape from punarmṛtyu (the obsession of the Brāhmaṇas) and from punarjanman (the Upaniṣadic ideal); i.e. Naciketas asks whether one eternally lives on after death (the old Vedic ideal) or loses one’s identity by absorption into a highest principle or deity (the Upaniṣadic view).

The greatest agreement between both passages lies in the first boon, but there is even some relation between the second/third boon in both texts. The difference is caused by the changing outlook of these texts. The Brāhmaṇa only mentions the actual piling of the fire-altar (in connection with the second and third boon), whereas KaṭhU 1, 14–18 also gives the esoteric explanation of the rite in accordance with the advanced views of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and formulates these views in the even more advanced way of the Upaniṣads. This approach forms the starting point for doctrines in the other Vallīs of this Upaniṣad which have no more connection with the sacrifice. The Upaniṣad does not form a unity. We may compare the Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad, which, as Van Buitenen (1962) has shown, consists of ritualistic passages and later additions. The metaritualism of the MaiU especially concerns the piling of the fire-altar.4

Now the problem is that the verses 1, 15–18 have been regarded as interpolations. In the most elaborate treatment of the stratification of this text Weller (1953) discerned six layers (“Textschichten”) in the first Vallī. For Yama’s second boon the following layers are relevant: 8–14; 15 + 19; 16–18. Before discussing Weller’s argumentation I present the text5 with Hume’s translation:6

13.

sa tvam agniṁ svargyam adhyeṣi mṛtyo prabrūhi tvaṁ7 śraddadhānāya mahyam /

svargalokā amṛtatvaṁ bhajanta etad dvitīyena vṛṇe vareṇa //

“Thyself, O Death, understandest the heavenly fire. Declare it to me who have faith (śraddadhāna). Heaven-world people partake of immortality. This I choose with boon the second.”

14.

pra te bravīmi tad u me nibodha svargyam agniṁ naciketaḥ prajānan /

anantalokāptim atho pratiṣṭhāṁ viddhi tvam etaṁ nihitaṁ guhāyām //

“To thee I do declare, and do thou learn it of me—understanding about the heavenly fire, O Naciketas! The attainment of the infinite world, likewise too its establishment—know thou that as set down in the secret place [of the heart].”

15.

lokādim agniṁ tam uvāca tasmai yā iṣṭakā yāvatīr vā yathā vā /

sa cāpi tat pratyavadad yathoktam athāsya mṛtyuḥ punar evāha8 tuṣṭaḥ //

“He told him of that fire as the beginning of the world, what bricks, and how many, and how [built]. And he too repeated that, as it was told. Then, pleased with him, Death said again—”

16.

tam abravīt prīyamāṇo mahātmā varaṁ tavehādya dadāmi bhūyaḥ /

tavaiva nāmnā bhavitāyam agniḥ sṛṅkāṁ cemām anekarūpāṁ9 gṛhāṇa //

“Delighting, the great soul (mahātman) said to him: A further boon I give thee here today. By thy name indeed shall this fire be [known]. This multifold garland (sṛṅkā), too, accept.”

17.

triṇāciketas tribhir etya sandhiṁ trikarmakṛt tarati janmamṛtyū /

brahmajajñaṁ devam īḍyaṁ viditvā nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti //

“Having kindled a triple Naciketas-fire, having attained union with the three, performing the triple work, one crosses over birth and death. By knowing the knower of what is born from Brahma, the god to be praised, [and] by revering [him], one goes for ever to this peace (śānti).”

18.

triṇāciketas10 trayam etad viditvā ya evaṁ11 vidvāṁś cinute nāciketam /

sa mṛtyupāśān purataḥ, praṇodya śokātigo modate svargaloke //

“Having kindled a triple Naciketas-fire, having known this triad, he who knowing thus, builds up the Naciketas-fire, he, having cast off in advance the bonds of death, with sorrow overpassed, rejoices in the heaven-world.”

19.

eṣa te’gnir naciketaḥ svargyo yam avṛṇīthā dvitīyena vareṇa /

tam agniṁ tavaiva pravakṣyanti janāsas tṛtīyaṁ varaṁ naciketo vṛṇīṣva //12

“This, O Naciketas, is thy heavenly fire, which thou didst choose with the second boon. As thine, indeed, will folks proclaim this fire. The third boon, Naciketas, choose!”

The verses 16–18 have long been regarded as an insertion.13 Weller’s argumentation14 is not quite cogent. The additional boon at which Weller takes offence, does not contain anything really new. It is rather the explanation of the name of a particular piling of the altar and as such an extension of the second boon. The same may be observed with regard to the sṛṅkā, which will be discussed below. The repetition of the namegiving (16 and 19) is not a hard proof; Yama recapitulates before he continues with the third boon. Indeed one may condemn the sequence of athāsya mṛtyuḥ punar evāha tuṣṭaḥ (15) and tam abravīt prīyamāṇo … There seems to be a superfluous repetition (with some variations). However, again this is no hard proof.

Moreover one may ask why someone should have interpolated the verses under discussion, which do not introduce very modern additions. It might even be argued that without these verses the argumentation of the text loses its force. In 16–18 the metaritualism of the Agnicayana is expressed. If one leaves out these verses and connects 15 with 19, Yama only describes the actual piling of the altar without giving the doctrine. The esoteric interpretation condemned by Weller and other scholars lies (at least partly) in the sphere of the late Brāhmaṇas and the Upaniṣads. KaṭhU 1, 15 without 1, 16–18 would form no progress in comparison with the version of the Brāhmaṇa and not suit an Upaniṣad like the Kaṭha.

Now Weller realizes the problematic position of verse 15, which hardly explains why the Nāciketa altar is svargya (cf. vs. 13), and therefore he regards 15 and 19 as belonging to one layer different from 12–14.15 The Agni in the guhā described in verse 14 and the piling of the altar in verse 15 do not agree according to Weller.16 However, he creates a pseudo-contrast between 14 and 15 by throwing out 16–18 and thereby removing the esoteric interpretation which should be applied to 15 and which forms the link with the Agni in the guhā of verse 14. Indeed, one does not actually pile bricks in the heart (guhā), but the ritual may have a counterpart inside man by interiorization.17 Weller’s greatest mistake seems to be his distinction made between Agni = fire and Agni = fire-altar. In the Agnicayana the word agni denotes the citi, the altar which is piled up. Weller, however, describes KaṭhU 1, 15 as the “eingeschobenen Vers i 15, in welchem gar nicht mehr von dem in der (Herz)höhle des Menschen ruhenden, zum Himmel führenden Feuer die Rede geht, sondern von einem auf dem Opferplatz mit Ziegeln zu schichtenden Opferfeuer” (p. 17) and he even states that this “Opferfeuer … anderen Ursprungs ist” (ibid.). His argumentation for this conclusion lacks every foundation: “Das neue Feuer in der Herzhöhle des Menschen, welches über den Wiedertod hinaus zur Unsterblichkeit führt, wird durch ein anderes neues Feuer ersetzt, das der Opfertechniker in vertrauter Art auf dem Opferplatze zu schichten vermag. Das Neue an diesem Feuer wird dadurch gewährleistet, daß man lehrt, wievieler Ziegel es im Unterschiede zu anderen bedarf, seinen Feueraltar zu schichten” (p. 20). It may be observed here that the newness of the particular Agniciti as well as the other newness, namely of the Ātmayajña or interiorized sacrifice, had lost its actuality already centuries before the composition of the rather late KaṭhU.18 The Ātmayajña, and the Agnicayana, far from forming an antithesis, belong together since the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa.19 Therefore Weller’s sketch of the rivalry between the ritualists and the philosophers (p. 20) has no connection with this Upaniṣad and is pure fiction.

In my view KaṭhU 1, 13–19 may be taken together as a uniform (be it carelessly composed or transmitted) treatment of Naciketas’ second boon. These verses deal with the piling of the altar and its esoteric aspects, which in the usual way are based on cosmic and microcosmic equations.

The essential idea behind the piling of the altar20 is that Prajāpati, unity before the creation and plurality after his creative act, becomes desintegrated by his emanation and should be reintegrated again by the sacrifice, especially by the Agnicayana in which the cosmic totality of space (the layers of the altar) and time (the ritual of one year and the number of bricks representing the year) is realized. This achievement has also implications for the Yajamāna, since reaching totality and identifying oneself with the cosmic totality of the universe or with the year means transcending the imperfectness of transitory existence. The esoteric meaning of the ritual is further based on a system of identifications in which the Yajamāna (or his ātman in the heart and the image-soul in his eye), the fire-altar (or Agni/Sun represented by something buried under the altar and the fire on the altar) and the cosmic Puruṣa, Prajāpati (or the visible aspect: the sun in heaven and the puruṣa in the sun), play a role.21

Returning to the KaṭhU we may observe that Naciketas asks from Death the piling of an altar which ultimately overcomes Death (in yonder world) and secures immortality in heaven, where there is no death or no fear of death (vs. 12). He asks for a svargya fire-altar (vs. 13). According to Yama this altar is nihita guhāyām (vs. 14). The word guhā has been differently interpreted.22 Weller seems to be right in taking it to mean “cavity of the heart,”23 but he failed to see that this interiorization concerned the Agnicayana (i.c. the Nāciketa piling). ŚB 7, 4, 1, 1 explicitly states ātmánn agníṁ gṛhṇīte ceṣyán in connection with the Agnicayana.24 This interiorization of the Agnicayana has also drawn the attention of another Yajurvedic Upaniṣad, the Maitrāyaṇīya.25 Three Black Yajurvedic Upaniṣads have dealt with this topic, the Kāṭhaka, the Maitrāyaṇīya and the Taittirīya.26 A fourth, the late Śvetāśvatara, has only adopted (and adapted) some Agnicayana verses in the beginning of its second chapter.

The internal aspect of the Agnicayana, however, does not only refer to a real substitution of the actual rite. It may also play a role in the threefold approach of the sacrifice: the ritualistic, the cosmic and the microcosmic. Of course the adhiyajña, adhidaiva and adhyātma interpretations are not confined to the Agnicayana, but it is especially in relation with this sacrifice that we find this threefold approach in the Brāhmaṇas.27 The gold man buried under the altar is Agni/Prajāpati/Sacrificer. In connection with what has been observed above it should be noted that the gold man is also to be located in the heart.28

The threefoldness of the Agnicayana also appears in the KaṭhU and has caused there many misinterpretations. Indeed, verse 17 triṇāciketas tribhir etya sandhiṁ trikarmakṛt tarati janmamṛtyū is rather difficult. I doubt, however, whether the various triads introduced in the translations and the notes29 have anything to do with the specific context: a particular Agnicayana. It should be borne in mind that the Agni of this rite is primarily single and has no connection with the three fires of the Āhitāgni. There is no threefold kindling. The idea that this particular Nāciketa altar should be piled thrice, does not make sense. All the triads of verse 17 refer to the threefold aspect of the Agnicayana. Every element of the ritual has a cosmic and a microcosmic counterpart and therefore the piling of the altar also takes place in the heart of the sacrificer.

In the preceding verse Death offers an addition to the second boon. The piling of the altar will be called Nāciketa30 and moreover he gives a sṛṅkā. The interpretation of this word is problematic.31 On the assumption that KaṭhU 1, 16–18 form an interpolation, the occurrence of this word in KaṭhU 2, 3 (sa tvaṁ priyān priyarūpāṁś ca kāmān abhidhyāyan naciketo ’tyasrākṣīḥ / naitāṁ sṛṅkāṁ vittamayīm avāpto yasyāṁ majjanti bahavo manuṣyāḥ) has been taken as a starting point by some interpreters. In this context it is said that Naciketas has despised the pleasant things of life which were offered to him and moreover that he did not accept the sṛṅkā which apparently is the obsession of most other people. The pleasant things to which this verse refers, were offered by Yama in 1, 23–25 and indeed rejected by Naciketas, since they did not compensate the original third wish. The sṛṅkā, however, is only an addition to the second boon and there is no reason to refuse it. Actually nowhere it is said in the first chapter that he did so. Therefore I do not believe that 1, 16 was interpolated by someone who was influenced by the contents of 2, 3. Rather I have the impression that the second half of 2, 3 has to explain the particular position of the sṛṅkā in comparison with valuable things mentioned in 1, 23–25.

The meaning of sṛṅkā may tentatively be approached by taking into account the adjectives anekarūpa (1, 16) and vittamaya (2, 3) which qualify it. Moreover it is assumable that imām in verse 17 refers to this very sṛṅkā rather than to the immediately following noun śāntim, since this pronoun denotes something which is present and near.32 If this is correct, the accusative imām depends on nicāyya, which some translators have construed with devam īḍyam.33 This would imply that eternal peace is produced by the sṛṅkā in connection with the action denoted by nicāyya. We should also take into account that just as the other additional boon (the name of the piling of the altar) it should have some relation with the Agnicayana. The combination of these data makes the ascertainment of the correct meaning more than a pure guess.34

The adjectives anekarūpa and vittamaya seem to denote something precious. This interpretation is supported by the commentaries of Śaṅkara and Madhva at least as far as 1, 16 is concerned. Whether the sṛṅkā is indeed a (gold) chain or necklace, as the commentaries assume, is uncertain. Probably Madhva’s association of śṛṅkāṁ (sic) and śṛṅkhalām was an “etymology.”

The connection between anekarūpa and gold seems to be acceptable. My supposition on this point was later confirmed, when I read Madhva.35 In my interpretation of anekarūpa I did not only compare bahurūpa (as was done by Madhva) but also pururūpa and especially viśvarūpa. The latter qualifies Savitṛ’s chariot (ṚV 1, 35, 4) and Sūrya’s (ṚV 10, 85, 20). In the same verse Sūrya’s chariot is explicitly called híraṇyavarṇa. Every part of Savitṛ’s chariot is denoted by the adjective gold and the whole chariot is called hiraṇyáya in ṚV 1, 35, 2. The same adjective viśvárūpa is also used in connection with the word niṣká in ṚV 2, 33, 10, an ornament which is definitely made of gold. Rudra, whose niṣká is viśvárūpa, is himself pururū́pa (ṚV 2, 33, 9) and he is described as decorated with gold. This niṣká perhaps is not just a “Goldschmuck” (Geldner) or a “Halskette” (Arbman 1922, 9), but a “Brustschmuck” (ibid. n. 1).36 The remarkable agreement between Rudra and the solar gods in connection with gold and with the epithet viśvárūpa, does not imply that this god should have any solar aspects in the Ṛgveda. Rudra’s gold is the gold of the charioteer or the chariot-fighter who wears it on his breast and has a chariot adorned with gold. Rudra is gartasád (ṚV 2, 33, 11), i.e. sitting on the throne of a war-chariot. As such the Ṛgvedic Rudra may be compared with the Maruts (sometimes regarded as Rudra’s sons) who are fighters “wearing golden ornaments on the breast”37 (rukmávakṣasaḥ). The war-chariot is also called rukmín in a comparison in ṚV 1, 66, 6. See also JB 2, 103 on a ratha which is rukmin and a charioteer who is niṣkin. Perhaps niṣka and rukma denote similar ornaments, when worn by men. The fact that a niṣka is some sort of breast-plate rather than a necklace seems to be proved by JB 2, 136 tad yathā niṣkaṁ śamalagṛhītam agnau prāsyāyoghanena sarvaṁ śamalaṁ nirhanyād.38 Apparently every chariot was associated with the chariot of the sun by means of the gold ornaments of the charioteer, the chariot-fighter and the chariot itself.

The connection between gold and sun implies that most of the symbolic functions of gold refer to the sun, to eternal life and light, to immortality. If now we can associate anekarūpa by way of similar adjectives like viśvarūpa and pururūpa with gold, sun and immortality, the sṛṅkā may be nearer to its final interpretation.

Evidence for the interpretation of the -rūpa-compounds as referring to colour and outward impression (“glitter”) rather than to form39 has been adduced above from the oldest Vedic literature.40 For the context under discussion evidence from the Upaniṣads is essential.

Prācīnayogya regards the ātman as the sun in ChU 5, 13, 1 and his interrogator Satyayajña Pauluṣi concludes eṣa vai viśvarūpa ātmā vaiśvānaro yaṁ tvam ātmānam upāsse / tasmāt tava bahu viśvarūpaṁ kule dṛśyate. Most translators misinterpret the adjective viśvarūpa and stress the aspect of manifoldness instead of making it refer to glitter, beauty and lustre. The specification of this bahu viśvarūpam in 5, 13, 2 (i.e. a niṣka and a pravṛtta, both ornaments made of gold) and the conclusion that this conception of the ātman only concerns the eye of the ātman seems to prove that glamour and glitter are meant. Rau (1974, 54) translates ChU 5, 13, 1 “Daher sieht man in deiner Familie viel vollkommen Schönes.” Here the outward appearance of gold and comparable beautiful items is expressed without implications of immortality.

Especially the sun receives the epithet viśvarūpa. Senart (1930) is wrong in translating the last words of ChU 5, 18, 2 tasya ha vā etasyātmano vaiśvānarasyacakṣur eva viśvarūpaḥ by “(le soleil) qui fait tout apparaître est l’ œil.” This passage cannot be separated from ChU 5, 13, 1–2 (discussed above), where he renders eṣa (sc. ādityaḥ) vai viśvarūpa ātmā vaiśvānaraḥ, by “C’ est l’ infinité d’ aspects de l’ ātman vaiśvānara …” Nothing in the context indicates why the sun should be “manifold” (tr. Hume) or “allgestaltig” (tr. Deussen). The adjective rather refers to the lustre of the sun and of gold objects like niṣkas. In PrU 1, 7 the rising sun (equated with fire and prāṇa in the well-known threefold homology) is called viśvarūpa. In the next verse (also occurring in MaiU 6, 8) it is called viśvarūpa as well as “golden” (harin). In TU 1, 4, 1 Indra (the cosmic ātman, the sun?) receives this epithet.

The adjective explicitly refers to the ātman in ŚvetU 1, 9 and 5, 7. Here one might be inclined to interpret it as “der alle Gestalten annimmt,”41 since this ātman is the god present in everybody (every body). See also ŚvetU 6, 5 … taṁ viśvarūpam … īḍyaṁ devaṁ svacittastham upāsya (cf. KaṭhU 1, 16–17 sṛṅkāṁ cemām anekarūpām … devam īḍyaṁ viditvā nicāyyemām …) and PrāṇU 23 viśvo ’si vaiśvānaro viśvarūpo … “tu assumes tous les formes” (tr. Varenne 1960, 107). I doubt, however, whether everywhere this connotation of viśvarūpa can be assumed and whether this interpretation is correct at all. In MaiU 7, 7 viśvarūpa refers i.a. to the ātman, but this ātman is equated with the sun and the fire in accordance with the doctrine of the Agnicayana, which forms the subject in this part of the Upaniṣad. It is even possible that viśvarūpa especially refers to the flaming fire in eṣa ho khalv ātmāntarhṛdaye ’ṇīyān iddho ’gnir iva viśvarūpaḥ.42 MaiU 7, 7 concludes with a worship of the sun: tasmai te viśvarūpāya satye nabhasi hitāya namaḥ “Homage to Thee, of all forms, who art residing in the true Ether” (tr. Van Buitenen). It is obvious that the sun has only one form and that the doubtful interpretation “present in every body” (one rather expects viśvadeha) is hardly suitable here.

Sun, fire and gold make a variegated impression, because they are radiant. See also MaiU 6, 34 on the gold-coloured ātman present in the sun, the fire and the heart: hiraṇyavarṇaḥ śakuno hṛdy āditye pratiṣṭhitaḥ / madgur haṁsas tejo vṛṣā so ’sminn agnau yajāmahe. Especially in the case of gold the form does not change or vary at all; it is only the impression, the appearance, the colour that varies. That the highest god is viśvarūpa because he is associated with gold seems to be proved by MNU 287 and 290 namo hiraṇyabāhave hiraṇyavarṇāya hiraṇyarūpāya hiraṇyapatayeviśvarūpāya vai namaḥ “Hommage à celui qui … est couleur d’ or! À celui qui a l’ aspect de l’ or … Hommage, en vérité, à celui qui assume toutes formes” (tr. Varenne 1960, 73).

If now the compounds ending in -rūpa at least in several contexts denote persons and objects which have no more than one body or form and the colour or appearance seem to be expressed, one may ask why especially gold ornaments rather than multi-coloured, painted material are qualified by this epithet. I think that aneka-, puru-, bahu- and viśvarūpa do not primarily express that more than one colour is present. The analysis of the compounds points to variegation, whereas actually brilliance, lustre and glitter are meant. The reverse seems to be the case with citra, which means bright and bright-coloured, but in several contexts denotes something that is variegated, multi-coloured, manifold. Both citra and viśva(rūpa) are associated with the centre in the classifications.43 The deity situated in the centre and associated with the citra or viśva colour is Īśāna, who in some texts is also called viśvarūpa. The combination of four colours or of all colours in the centre is difficult. It might refer to something spotted and variegated, but this hardly applies to gold, fire and sun. Now it is interesting that according to ChU 3, 5, 3 the fifth colour or rūpa of the sun (after red, white, black and deep black) is described as etad yad etad ādityasya madhye kṣobhata iva. The viśvarūpa aspect of sun, fire, gold, crystal etc. is excellently expressed here. The viśva colour is not just the variegated colour of textures. The glitter denoted by citra, viśvarūpa, anekarūpa etc. forms the opposite of dimness, dullness, lack of lustre, monotony. The impression of variety and variegation is caused by the radiation produced by the objects qualified by these adjectives. Sun and fire produce this effect (there is movement, shake, permanent change: kṣobhata iva!!) themselves, other objects like gold and crystal depend on the light falling on them from different angles. In other contexts these adjectives are used metaphorically. The viśvarūpa effect makes a dazzling and bewildering impression especially in connection with the cosmic manifestation of a supreme god.44 For the association of visvarūpa and other -rūpa-compounds45 with gold ornaments we may also draw the attention to the fact that citra, the viśva colour, means ‘ornament’ in some contexts. The adjectives citra, bahu-, puru-, aneka- and viśvarūpa do not refer to a plurality of colours being present at the same time on the surface of something (e. g. an ornament). They denote the changing aspect of these objects. One may compare the proverb in which the policy of the king is describes as anekarūpa and as such is compared with a prostitute whose appearance (and behaviour) also changes continuously.46 Or is it the glitter of her many gold ornaments which makes her appear anekarūpā? Cf. Śakāra’s description of Vasantasenā: eśā śaśuvaṇṇā śahilaṇṇā … gaṇiādāliā (Mṛcchakaṭika, Act I, before vs. 51).

Since in KaṭhU 1, 16 the sṛṅkā is a concrete object which is handed over, we have to conclude that anekarūpa does not denote something which has many forms, but something which has the same lustre as sun, fire and gold. It might be a gold ornament, but in the context of the Nāciketa Agnicayana it may also be a gold object which in the threefold identificatory system has connections with the ātman of the Yajamāna on the one hand and with the sun on the other hand, i.e. it may also symbolize immortality and the victory over death (which Naciketas tries to obtain or learn from Death).

The assumption that the sṛṅkā is made of gold agrees with the qualification which it receives in KaṭhU 2, 3: vittamayī. Gold and gold ornaments also represent wealth.47 As has been observed above, the problem is the relation between the valuable things offered by Yama in KaṭhU 1, 23–25 and rejected by Naciketas and the likewise valuable sṛṅkā offered by Yama in KaṭhU 1, 16 and apparently not refused by Naciketas. Both are mentioned together in KaṭhU 2, 3. Now it is remarkable that in the enumeration of the pleasant things in 1, 23–25 gold is not missing. It occurs in the compound hastihiraṇyam next to cattle, sons, horses, a big house, girls, chariots etc. Gold is also mentioned in parallel enumerations of desired objects.48 The gold ornaments in these passage are pravṛtta, niṣka and rukma. One may ask what is the difference between these gold ornaments to which the compound hastihiraṇyam refers, and the presumably gold sṛṅkā. In my view the difference is based on the function. The pravṛtta, niṣka and rukma represent something beautiful and valuable here. If my hypothesis that the sṛṅkā has something to do with the Agnicayana is correct, the function of this gold object is different. Indeed, KaṭhU 2, 3 states that the sṛṅkā is vittamayī, but the text also contains a negation: naitāṁ sṛṅkāṁ vittamayīm avāpto. Hume translates “Thou art not one who has taken that garland of wealth” and he admits that “garland” is a conjectural rendering. However, “garland of wealth” is strange and the statement that Naciketas did not accept the sṛṅkā is rather surprising. The sṛṅkā was not a proposal (a substitute for the third boon) to be rejected, but a concrete and available object which was handed over (gṛhāṇa!) as an addition to the second (accepted) boon.

Since Naciketas apparently did not refuse to take delivery of the sṛṅkā, we have to conclude that he accepted it. The point is that … na avāptaḥ (object: sṛṅkām) and atyasrākṣīḥ (object: priyān … kāmān) are not synonyms. The first half of KaṭhU 2, 3 states that Naciketas abandoned the chance to get valuable things. The author realized that Naciketas indeed received a gold sṛṅkā and hastens to add that the sṛṅkā which he had actually received (avāptaḥ), was not obtained in the form of value or property (na vittamayīm … avāptaḥ). Yama says: “You do not have this sṛṅkā in your possession as a property of your own.” Note the difference between the aorist and the participle in -ta. Naciketas has to use the sṛṅkā, in the particular Agnicayana which is called Nāciketa.

The use of gold in this ritual is well known.49 Apart from the gold man the most important use of gold in the Agnicayana is the laying of a gold plate under the altar. The name of this plate is rukma according to the texts.50 Now it is interesting that this rukma is not only used in this ritual. It is also one of the gold ornaments like niṣka and pravṛtta which occurred in the enumerations of desired objects mentioned above.

This means that the rukma can be vittamaya as well as a ritualistic implement with a higher, symbolic value. It is my hypothesis that the sṛṅkā is a gold plate worn on the breast which may be compared with the rukma and the niṣka. These ornaments were hung around the neck and in connection with charioteers and chariot-fighters as well as the piling of the altar at the Agnicayana they represent the sun. It is especially the rukma which according to the texts was laid under the altar. For the particular Nāciketa altar a particular gold-plate called sṛṅkā may have been used. The rukma was worn on the breast of the initiated Yajamāna before it was buried under the altar. As the niṣka and the rukma are mentioned together in one and the same passage, we have to conclude that they are not completely identical. Caland (1919, 153, n. 6) equates niṣka and rukma. The symbolic function of the round ornaments worn on the breast may have been the same, their applications became differentiated. The bigger ones became breastplates worn around the neck with a pāśa not made of gold: the rukmas which were also buried under the altar. The smaller ones may have become coins: the niṣkas.51 The latter probably belonged to a gold necklace. About the sṛṅkā the information is scarce. We do not know how far the interpretation of the commentaries (“gold necklace”) is a guess. It might be some sort of niṣka with the function of a rukma in this context which concerns the Agnicayana. In order to ascertain the meaning and function of the sṛṅkā used as a rukma we have to examine the function of the rukma in the Agnicayana ritual and to see whether such a rukma can be substituted for sṛṅkā in the KaṭhU.

When the altar is piled up, first a lotusleaf is placed in the middle, which represents the subterranean waters.52 On top of this leaf the gold plate (rukma) is placed which represents the sun or Agni53 appearing out of these waters. This conception of Agni or the sun arising from the nether world is also expressed by the verse which accompanies the deposition of the gold plate: brahma jajñānaṁ prathamaṁ purastād54 It is evident that this verse supports the identification of the gold plate and the sun. According to MaiU 6, 18 the īśa, the puruṣa who springs from brahman, is rukmavarṇa. The trinity of sun, fire and ātman which finds a synthesis55 in the concept of the īśa or Śiva or another highest god or highest principle, is also found in other texts, often with explicit reference to Īśa or Śiva and to gold or in connection with adjectives which in older texts qualify gold. We have already mentioned the uncertain meaning of viśvarūpa which on the one hand means “brilliant, glittering” (like gold) and on the other hand seems to refer to the presence in all living beings. Now it is remarkable that anekarūpa, the adjective which qualifies the probably gold sṛṅkā in KaṭhU 1, 16, is also used in connection with the Īśa in ŚvetU 4, 14: viśvasya sraṣṭāram anekarūpamjñātvā śivaṁ śāntim atyantam eti. If now we compare KaṭhU 1, 16–17 … sṛṅkāṁ cemām anekarūpāṁ gṛhāṇabrahmajajñaṁ devam īḍyaṁ viditvā nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti, it becomes clear that the verses 16 and 17 belong together, as is also indicated by imām which can hardly be taken with śāntim. The link between the anekarūpā sṛṅkā (KaṭhU 1, 16) and the anekarūpaḥ śivaḥ (ŚvetU 4, 14) may be the viśvarūpa īḍyo devaḥ (ŚvetU 6, 5); cf. KaṭhU 1, 17 devaḥ īḍyaḥ.

Moreover brahmajajñam obviously refers to the verse brahma jajñānam (cf. n. 54), which accompanies the laying down of the gold plate, the rukma, which in my hypothesis is called sṛṅkā in this particular piling. Hillebrandt56 already connected brahmajajñam with the verse. He regarded it as some sort of Pratīka which referred to the beginning of the verse, just as māhitra denotes ṚV 10, 185, 1 máhi trīṇā́m ávo … The same should apply to devam īḍyam, but here the relation with a particular text were uncertain. Rau (1971, 162) follows Hillebrandt with regard to devam īḍyam: “Ähnlich etwa ṚV 10, 53 [879], 2 cd.” The weak point in this attribution is that this Ṛgvedic verse (unlike brahma jajñānam) has no connection at all with the Agnicayana. Moreover, why should knowledge of this more or less ritualistic verse without a specific function or meaning qualify someone for eternal peace?

In the parallel quoted from the ŚvetU (4, 14) knowledge of Śiva, the highest god according to that text, produces the same effect. Therefore Geldner’s interpretation “Weil er das zur Welt gewordene Brahman als den anzurufenden Gott erkannt … hat” (19282, 158)57 is preferable. The devaḥ īḍyaḥ is the sun, the manifestation of brahman, the gold plate, the fire, the soul, the īśvara. Knowledge of these homologies produces the śānti about which the text speaks. Mostly mokṣa is based on this sort of identifications.

However, I do not agree with Geldner in connecting imām with śāntim. His association of nicāyya with ciketi (“… und erschaut hat”) is debatable. Limaye’s edition refers to TB 3, 11, 8, 5 as a parallel (yò ’gníṁ nāciketáṁ cinuté yá u cainam eváṁ véda; i.e. again ci + vid) and observes: “here viditvā and nicāyya.” The difference between the two passages, however, is that in the Brāhmaṇa the two verbs have one and the same object (the altar), whereas in the Upaniṣad there are two objects (devam and imām, sc. sṛṅkām). On the other hand the contents of both passages are very similar. The sṛṅkā denoted by imām and the sun regarded as the īśvara are identical (and both are identified with the fire).

There are two possible interpretations of devam īḍyaṁ viditvā nicāyyemām. Either nicāyya refers to the deposition58 of the gold rukma (here = sṛṅkā), an action accompanied with the mantra brahma jajñānam …, or it denotes the identification of the sṛṅkā with the devaḥ īḍyaḥ (= the brahma jajñānam). Rau correctly connects nicāyya with imām, but his translation (1971, 162) “… [und] diese [sṛṅkā] erschaut hat” does not convince, as seeing the sṛṅkā does not free people from death or saṁsāra. The identification is essential. One may compare ŚvetU 2, 1 agniṁ jyotir nicāyiya (TS 4, 1, 1 nicā́yya), which Hauschild translates by “… das Feuer, als er es als Licht wahrgenommen hatte.” We have already observed that ŚvetU 4, 11 … tam īśānaṁ varadaṁ devam īḍyaṁ nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti (“Wer ihn erschaut […] den Herrn, den gabenreichen, preisenswerten Gott,—der geht in jene Ruhe ein für ewig” [tr. Hauschild]) is a clumsy borrowing in which imām precedes the formula śāntim atyantam eti (= ŚvetU 4, 14), rather than a good parallel.

One may translate KaṭhU 1, 17 (second half) “having known that the brahman which is being born (in the east, i.e. the sun) is the god to be praised (i.e. the īśvara) and having recognized this (sṛṅkā) as this (deity) he reaches peace in eternity.” This threefold homology is also expressed in the first half of KaṭhU 1, 17. In the translation proposed here brahmajajñam has been interpreted as if the text would read brahma jajñānam in accordance with the mantra beginning with these words.59 However, this is against the metre.60

Concluding this treatment of the second boon given to Naciketas I translate some relevant (parts of) verses in order to show where my interpretation is different from Hume’s (quoted above) and from some other translations:

1, 13

You are studying61 the fire-altar which procures heaven, O Death …

1, 14

I shall teach it to you and you, Naciketas, must learn and understand the fire-altar which procures heaven. Know that … it is placed in the cavity (of the heart).

1, 16

… And take this glittering gold-plate.

1, 17

Having piled the Nāciketa fire on three levels (i.e. ritualistic, cosmic and microcosmic), having made a synthesis with these three (citis), having performed the ritual on three levels one transcends birth and death. One comes to peace in eternity, when one knows the brahman which is being born (in the east from the subterranean waters of the nether world) to be the deity who is to be honoured (as the Īśvara) and when one recognizes this (gold-plate) as the same [or: when one lays down this (gold-plate) under the altar].

1, 18

O Naciketas, knowing this tripartite homology and piling this Nāciketa fire-altar with this knowledge one casts off the nooses of Death and passing grief one rejoices in heaven.

1, 19

This, O Naciketas, is your fire-altar, which procures heaven …

2, 3

The pleasant and the pleasantly looking objects of desire you have considered and, Naciketas, you have let them go. You have not obtained this gold-plate as your own permanent property, though it is something in which many people founder.62

First published in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 29, 1985, pp. 5–26.

The word sṛṅkā occurs only in KaṭhU 1, 16 and 2, 3. The adjectives anekarūpa and vittamaya, which qualify it, also have hardly any parallels. In 1, 17 brahmajajñam or brahma jajñam are puzzling.

See Gonda (1976, passim and especially p. 29 f.) on the widespread topic of the three wishes.

Whitney (1890, 91 f.) is extremely negative on the composition of this text: “… the crowning weakness of the whole treatise, is that it after all reaches no definite result; the revelation of Death amounts to nothing at all, so far as concerns the main subject as to which knowledge is sought … there is neither beginning, middle, nor end in what he says …” Several major and minor interpolations and additions have been “discovered” by scholars. The text was defended by Faddegon (1923).

Bodewitz (1973, 275–283).

See Limaye and Vadekar (1958, 13 f.).

Hume (19312, 343 f.).

v. l. tam.

The metre requires the reading punar āha. See also Weller (1953, 16, n. 1).

Alsdorf (1950, 630 [= 1974, 10]) reads naikarūpam in order to restore the correct metre.

Read naciketas with Alsdorf, ibid.

Read yaivaṁ with Alsdorf (1950, 624 [= 1974, 4]).

In this form the verse has a very irregular metre. Some emendations have been proposed. See Weller (1953, 32, n. 3) and Alsdorf (1950, 626 f. [= 1974, 6 f.]).

See Weller (1953, 5, n. 4) for references.

Weller (1953, 18) “Das entscheidendste ist, daß der Todesgott allem zuwider i 16 Naciketas noch eine vierte Bitte zu äußern einräumt … Während anderweit Naciketas, dem drei Wünsche zu tun freigestellt wurde, sich etwas erbittet, ehe Yama dazu Stellung nimmt, erhält er i 16 etwas gewährt, ohne auch nur darum gebeten zu haben: das geschichtete Opferfeuer soll nach ihm benannt werden. Wird aber so das Opferfeuer nach Naciketas genannt, dann wiederholt sich die Aussage im überlieferten Text i 19c … Dies spricht aber nicht dafür, daß ein Mann diese Abfolge von Versen schuf.”

Weller (1953, 207 f.) observes that the doctrine of the Nāciketa-fire was added later. He regards 1, 15–19 as an addition to 1, 12–14. By explaining away 1, 15–19 Weller is able to arrive at the conclusion: “… so bleibt als das Auffälligste bestehen, daß das Opfer in Naciketas’ zweiter Bitte ausschied, Erlösungsmittel zu sein” (p. 210).

Weller (1953, 16) “Wird nun in der Kaṭhopaniṣad dem ringenden Menschen die Unsterblichkeit in der Götterwelt durch das zum Himmel führende Feuer in seiner Herzhöhle zuteil, so ist man doch einigermaßen überrascht, in der Strophe i 15 zu finden, der Todesgott lehre Naciketas, wie die Ziegel beschaffen seien, deren es bedarf, den Feueraltar zu schichten, wieviele dazu gebracht würden und wie sie aufzubauen seien. Denn wie das in der Höhle des menschlichen Herzens vollbracht werden soll und kann, bleibt unerfindlich.”

On this concept see Bodewitz (1973, 319; 323; 328 f.).

Indeed, Weller seems to have realized that his lack of knowledge of the Vedic ritual might be dangerous and therefore he writes: “Hier handelt es sich nur darum, die Kaṭhopaniṣad zu untersuchen. Nur ihre Tatbestände zu klären wird unternommen. Ich darf deshalb füglich in dieser Verbundenheit außer Betracht lassen, ob dies zum Himmel führende Feuer etwa ältere Auffassungen wieder ans Licht bringt, oder etwas grundsätzlich Neues überhaupt ausmacht. Diese Frage zu untersuchen, griffe weit über die Absicht dieser Arbeit hinaus” (1953, 210 f., n. 3). I am afraid that creating history by assuming several layers in a text on the basis of weak arguments which partly concern the history of ideas to the neglect of the historical background of a text is harmful for the image of philology.

See Bodewitz (1973, 278 ff.).

See Eggeling (1897) in his introduction on vol. IV of his translation of the ŚB and Gonda (19782, 191 ff.). See also Staal (1983, 59–166).

Gonda (19782, 376, n. 279): “Dadurch, daß der mit Agni (dem Agnicayana-Ritus) und Prajāpati identifizierte und den Mittelpunkt des Ritus bildende Yajamāna dieses Ritual durchführen ließ, konstruierte er sich ein Selbst, das vor der Vergänglichkeit sicher ist.” Indeed, the Agnicayana is the central theme in ch. IV. 3 “Prajāpati und die rituelle Überwindung des Todes” (19782, 187–197) as well as in the second boon as treated by KaṭhU. As to the identification of Prajāpati, the Yajamāna and Agni it should be observed here that Agni does not primarily denote the “Agnicayana-Ritus,” but the altar and sometimes the fire on this altar.

For a survey see Weller (1953, 6, n. 6).

See also Edgerton (1965, 180, n. 1). The guhā is not only the heart regarded as the seat of the soul and of the highest god or highest principle (cf. Prāṇāgnihotra Upaniṣad 11 antaś carasi bhūteṣu guhāyām …), but it is also the microcosmic counterpart of the cosmic guhā in which Agni or the sun is hidden. See Kuiper (1964, 96–129, especially p. 124 ff.) on Agni’s birth or the vision of the sun in darkness as the central theme of Aryan mysticism. The ātman in the cave of the heart is the sun hidden in the rock (svàr yád áśman). This may be regarded as “a direct continuation of the older mystical speculation of the Veda” (p. 124).

See Eggeling’s translation (1894): “Being about to build Agni (the fire-altar), he takes him up into his own self … when he builds up Agni after taking him up into his own self, he causes Agni to be born from Agni, the immortal from the immortal.” Cf. KaṭhU 2,10 “denn durch unbeständige [Dinge] wird ja dies Beständige nicht erreicht. Deshalb habe ich den Nāciketa-Feuer[altar] geschichtet: durch ewige Dinge habe ich das Ewige erlangt” (tr. Rau 1971, 165). The emphasis on the eternal may, however, also refer to the gold used in the Agnicayana. See n. 49 f. and 53.

MaiU 1, 1 brahmayajño vā eṣa yat pūrveṣāṁ cayanam / tasmād yajamānaś citvaitān agnīn ātmānam abhidhyāyet. Van Buitenen (1962, 37) seems to be wrong in interpreting this cayana as the “agnyādhāna, to which much of the agnicayana symbolism is transferred.” See Bodewitz (1973, 322): “Apparently the intention of the text is a symbolic or perhaps a mental agnicayana, i.e. substitute for the actual śrauta rite … The actual ritualism is not condemned …, but the most important theme is the twofold or threefold homology of prāṇa, sun, (fire) and their relation to brahman.” The agnicit is not only someone who performs the actual piling (cayana), but also someone who is thinking or meditating (-cit) on the fire, especially on its microcosmic equivalent. Therefore ci and abhidhyā are not only connected by MaiU 1, 1, but also by MaiU 6, 34 (tasmād agnir yaṣṭavyaś cetavyaḥ stotavyo ’bhidhyātavyaḥ). Probably the Agnihotra, the Agnicayana and their interiorizations (partly in the form of the Prāṇāgnihotra, partly to be regarded as a mental and symbolic Agnicayana) are meant here. For the combination of the piling and meditation see also ŚB 7, 4, 1, 23 “They said: ‘Think ye upon this, how we may put vigour into this man!’ They said, ‘Meditate ye (ketay)!’, whereby, doubtless, they meant to say, ‘Seek ye to build up (kitim ish)! seek ye how we shall put vigour into this man!’ ” (tr. Eggeling).

See Van Buitenen (1962, 29–33) on MaiU 6, 33 and TU 2, 2. For a discussion of the relation between these two passages see also Bodewitz (1973, 291 f., n. 63).

Eggeling (1897, xix) refers to “the constantly occurring triad—Pragâpati, Agni, and (the human) Sacrificer.” See also p. xxii on the man in the sun, the man in the eye and the gold man under the altar. The seat of the soul varies in Vedic texts. Mostly it is the heart, but sometimes the right or left eye form the abode of the puruṣa. In the Agnicayana the puruṣa under the altar forms an excellent counterpart of the image-soul puruṣa in the eyes. According to Ajātaśatru in KauṣU 4, 17–18 the person in the right eye is the soul of fire, the soul of light, and the person in the left eye is the soul of lightning, the soul of brightness. See also MaiU 6, 35 (dealing with the Agnicayana) etad yad ādityasya madhya ivākṣiṇy agnau caitad brahma. The identification of sun, fire and prāṇa, which is typical for the prāṇāgnihotra speculations, is, however, also found in the agnirahasya of the ŚB. See Bodewitz (1973, 278) and also see Van Buitenen (1962, 35) on the “triple homology of Sun, Prāṇa/Heart/Eye, and Fire.” Cf. MaiU 6, 1 atha ya eṣo ’ntarāditye hiraṇmayaḥ puruṣosa eṣo ’ntare hṛtpuṣkara evāśrito …; 6, 17 yaś caiṣo ’gnau yaś cāyaṁ hṛdaye yaś cāsā āditye sa eṣa ekā iti.

Eggeling (1897, xxiv).

Deussen (1897, 269, n. 2–4): “Wer dreimal das Feuer Nâciketa … schichtet”; “Wer den Bund mit Vater, Mutter und Lehrer eingeht”; “Wer Opfer, Studium und Almosen vollbringt.” These interpretations (sometimes extended with a reference to the trayī vidyā) which are based on the commentaries, are found in the notes on several translations. Rau (1971, 162) translates KaṭhU 1, 17 “Mit drei Nāciketa[-Feueraltären] versehen, mit dreien vereinigt, drei Werke [i.e. Rituale] vollziehend überquert man Geburt und Tod.” See also Edgerton (1965, 181): “performing the threefold ritual acts (three daily sacrifices).”

Some scholars have tried to give an “etymological” analysis of the name Naciketas and Nāciketa. See e.g. Deussen (1897, 263, n. 1) on the “philosophischen Legende von ‘dem tumben (na-ciketas) Menschen’,” and p. 270 n.: “Oder hat die ganze Nâciketa-Zeremonie ihren Grund in der Legende Ṛigv. 10, 51? Vgl. dort Vers 3: taṃ tvâ Yamo aciket: citrabhâno! und Vers 4: etam arthaṃ na ciketa aham Agniḥ.” See also Krick (1982, 548, n. 1489). If the traditional interpretation has assumed that na + cit was present in the name, KaṭhU 2, 3 may contain a reference to this “etymology”: sa tvaṁ priyān priyarūpāṁś ca kāmān abhidhyāyan naciketo ’tyasrākṣīḥ “Thinking about (abhidhyā = cit) the pleasant and pleasantly looking objects of desire you, Mr. Indifferent, have let them go.” According to Helfer (1968, 348 ff.) Naciketa should mean “I do not know” (p. 354) and explain the need of initiation.

For an exhaustive treatment see Wüst (1959, 254–276). His interpretation of the word (“Ausschuss, Wergabfall, Rupfen”) is far from convincing and does not seem to have been accepted. Especially his translation of KaṭhU 1, 16 “und nimm diesen buntfarbigen Ausschuss!” does not make sense, since the sṛṅkā is given as a present and as something to be applied in the Agnicayana or at least in connection with this rite. Rau (1971, 162) does not follow Wüst and translates “Ergreife weiter diese vielgestaltige sṛṅkā!” Helfer (1968, 363) observes: “The ṣṛṇka [sic!] is clearly symbolic of an aspect of Naciketas’ having successfully completed those initiatory ordeals and tests which constitute him an adhvaryu, and, as such, it is a talisman or emblem in the strict sense of those terms.” The connection laid with the ritual is to be praised in this paper, which in general does not convince. The sṛṅkā is not an “emblem.” Moreover Naciketas is a future Yajamāna rahter than a future Adhvaryu.

It is true that imāṁ apparently has to be taken with śāntim in ŚvetU 4, 11, but the second half of this verse (tam īśānaṁ varadaṁ devam īḍyaṁ nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti) seems to be a careless borrowing from KaṭhU 1, 17 (brahmajajñaṁ devam īḍyaṁ viditvā nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti).

See e.g. Hume (19312, 344) “[And] by revering [him]”; Geldner (19282, 158) “… und erschaut hat.” Others like Hertel (19222, 49) follow Hillebrandt (1914, 580) in interpreting devam īḍyam as well as brahmajajñam as references to texts and construe nicāyya with these accusatives: “… und sie verehrt.” See also Weller (1953, 21, n. 2).

Kuiper (1948, 122 f.) observes “The interpretation of the two passages … is too uncertain to allow any conclusion.”

See Heimann (1922, 26) “Das Wort anekarūpa bedeutet hier ‘golden’. Denn [anekarūpam ist gleich bahurūpam und] das Lexikon sagt: ‘… bahurūpam, puraṭam und kartasvaram sind Synonyma [für Gold]’.” Madhva’s quotation from the Padma Purāṇa (not discovered in this text as far as I know) again mentions gold: śṛṅkām svarṇamayīṁ caiva kaṇṭhamālām adād vibhur iti pādme.

Rau (1974, 52 f.) interprets the niṣká as a “Halsreif aus Edelmetall,” but his description (“Der niṣká wurde … ‘nach vorn’ getragen, war also vorn schwerer, d. h. entweder dicker oder breiter”) does not exclude the meaning “ornament worn on the breast.”

Gonda (1959a, 124).

Rau (1974, 32) “Wie jemand da einen von Unreinheit ergriffenen [d. h. wohl ‘blind gewordenen’] niṣka [erst] ins Feuer wirft [und dann] mit einem Hammer aus Nutzmetall dessen ganze Unreinheit herausschlägt, …” The gold plate should again become viśvarūpa, anekarūpa or bahurūpa, i.e. “brilliant, shining, glittering,” the opposite of “blind.” I hardly believe that one hammers a necklace.

Gonda (1965b, 248) observes that “this adjective … helps to suggest the ideas of universality, omnipresence etc.”

See also TB 3, 10, 1, 1–2 for viśvárūpā (-am) occurring in enumerations (pentads) together with darśā́, dṛṣṭā́, darśatā́ and sudarśanā́ (pointing to lustre and glitter rather than multiformity or polychromy) and with prástutam, víṣṭutam, sáṁstutam and kalyā́ṇam (where the metaphorical use is evident: “splendid, brilliant”). According to AV 14, 2, 32 the bride who is compared with Sūrya, is splendid (viśvárūpā); cf. AV 2, 30, 4 on a kanyā́ being denoted by the same adjective. The bridal car mounted by Sūrya is viśvárūpa as well as híraṇyavarṇa (AV 14, 1, 61; cf. 14, 2, 13). See also TS 4, 3, 11, 5 on Uṣas being called viśvárūpā; cf. TB 3, 1, 1, 1 róhiṇī vetu pátnī viśvárūpā and 1, 4, 3, 1 údasthād devy áditir viśvarūpī́.

Hausschild (1927, 31).

Deussen (1897, 364): “gleichwie ein flammend Feuer allgestaltig.” Van Buitenen and other translators do not directly associate viśvarūpa with agni in spite of the wordorder.

Goudriaan (1978, 196 and 201). On the philosophical problem of the variegated colour see Grohma (1970). The colour (rūpa) which is variegated is called citra in the philosophical texts, where there is no reference to gold and primarily multi-coloured textiles seem to be treated.

“In BhGītā 11, 24 one of the characteristics of Viṣṇu’s fearsome cosmical manifestation … is his assuming manifold colours (anekavarṇam). These are among the factors that rob Arjuna of his peace of mind” (Goudriaan 1978, 164 f. in the chapter called “Bewildering colours”). The dazzling effect of the viśvarūpa appearance is also one of the aims of the charioteers wearing gold niṣkas or rukmas.

One of the words denoting gold is jātarūpa, which Rau (1974, 18) explains as “angeborene Gestalt besitzend.” In my view the compound means “having a beautiful colour.” Cf. suvarṇa.

Böhtlingk (1870–18732, III, no. 6739): … veśyāṅganeva nṛpanītir anekarūpā “Eines Fürsten Politik tritt wie eine Buhldirne in mannichfacher Gestalt auf.”

Macdonell-Keith (1912), s.v. niṣka: “As early as the Rigveda traces are seen of the use of Niṣkas as a sort of currency, for a singer celebrates the receipt of a hundred Niṣkas and a hundred steeds; he could hardly require the Niṣkas merely for purposes of personal adornment.” Cf. n. 51.

See Rau (1974, 54) referring to ChU 5, 13, 2 (pravṛtto ’śvatarīratho dāsī niṣkaḥ); 7, 24, 2 (goaśvam … hastihiraṇyaṁ dāsabhāryaṁ kṣetrāṇy āyatanānīti); JB 1, 263 (hastī niṣko ’śvatarīratho ’śvaratho rukmaḥ kaṁsaḥ); 3, 113 (aṁśuṁ rukmaṁ niṣkaṁ hastinam aśvatarīratham aśvaratham); BĀU 6, 2, 7 (hiraṇyasyāpāttaṁ goaśvānāṁ dāsīnāṁ pravārāṇāṁ paridhānānām).

See Rau (1974, 51) on “Schnitzel von Edelmetallblech” and gold bricks and see also p. 48 on the upacāyyapṛḍaṁ hiraṇyam (“Edelmetall in Tropfen[form, wie es] beim [Bau des] upacāyya[-Feueraltars Verwendung findet]”).

Rau (1974, 54 f.) describes the rukma and refers to text places, but is silent on the ritualistic application.

Cf. n. 47. Uddālaka Āruṇi wears a niṣka, when he drives around in the North (ŚB 1, 4, 1, l ff.). This niṣka is not used as an ornament. It represents wealth, is called an ekadhanam and is used to buy off the potential adversaries. See Bodewitz (1974c, 85–88). It is not the stake at the official brahmodya (as is assumed by Krick 1982, 166), since Svaidāyana conceals the gold and dissuades his fellow Brahmins from such an official brahmodya. Geldner (1907, 160) even suggests that the rukma might be a gold coin.

See Eggeling (1897, xx) “Agni is the child of the universe, the (cosmic) waters being the womb from which he springs. Whence a lotus-leaf is placed at the bottom of the fire-altar to represent the waters and the womb from which Agni-Pragâpati and the human Sacrificer are to be born.” Gonda (19782, 192) equates the lotus leaf with “die Erde als Fundament und die Urwasser, der Geburtsort des Feuers (TS 5, 2, 6, 5).” See also ŚB 7, 4, 1, 8 “And, again, why he puts down a lotus-leaf;—the lotus means the waters, and this earth is a leaf thereof: even as the lotus-leaf here lies spread on the water, so this earth lies spread on the waters. Now this same earth is Agni’s womb, for Agni (the fire-altar) is this earth, since thereof the whole Agni is built up: it is this earth he thus lays down” (tr. Eggeling). It would seem to me that in this passage the symbolism of the Agnicayana is onesidedly focused on the bricks of the altar. In view of the tripartite identification of Agni, sun and sacrificer the Agni rather should be regarded as the sun (= the gold plate laid on top of the lotus-leaf) which arises out of the waters (= the lotus-leaf). Compare the situation of the Agnyādhāna: “Nach KātyŚS legt der Adhvaryu … nach dem Niedergießen des Wassers … ein Goldstück ins Zentrum der Feuerstätte [(note 428:) Wie hier wird auch im Agniciti-Ritual der rukmaḥ, des Dīkṣita ins Zentrum des Altars (auf dem Lotosblatt) eingebaut … In der Agniciti ist das Gold im Lichte der Hiraṇyagarbha- und Sonnen(jahr)-Spekulation zu deuten]” (Krick 1982, 168 f.).

Gonda (19782, 194). See ŚB 7, 4, 1, 10 “He then puts the gold plate thereon. Now this gold plate is yonder sun … he thus lays down yonder sun (on the altar)” (tr. Eggeling). This rukma was first worn round the neck. See ŚB 6, 7, 1, 1 “He hangs a gold plate (round his neck), and wears it; for that gold plate is the truth …”; 6, 7, 1, 2 “Now that truth is the same as yonder sun. It is a gold (plate); for gold is light, and he (the sun) is the light; gold is immortality, and he is immortality. It (the plate) is round, for he (the sun) is round.” The aspect of immortality is important for the altar. See KaṭhU 2, 10: … na hy adhruvaiḥ prāpyate hi dhruvaṁ tat / tato mayā nāciketaś cito ’gnir nityair dravyair prāptavān asmi nityam (cf. n. 24). For the identification of the gold plate and the sun see also ŚB 10, 5, 2, 6. The sun is called divó rukmá urucákṣāḥ by ṚV 7, 63, 4.

AV 4, 1, 1; KS 20, 5; TS 4, 2, 8, 2; TB 2, 8, 8, 8; ŚB 7, 4, 1, 14 and other texts. Keith (1914) translates TS 4, 2, 8, 2 “The holy power born first in the east …” Scholars who have connected brahma jajñam (KaṭhU 1, 17) with this verse do not seem to have realized the implications, since they did not draw attention to the fact that it accompanies the deposition of the gold plate.

In my view tribhir etya saṁdhim (KaṭhU 1, 17) refers to the synthesis of the three levels in the identificatory system: adhiyajñam, adhidaivam, adhyātmam.

Cf. n. 33.

Cf. n. 33.

Hume (19312, 344, n. 5) “nicāyya may carry a double meaning here, i.e. also ‘by building [it, i.e. the Naciketas-fire]’.” If nicāyya refers to piling, the object is the sṛṅkā/rukma which is laid down rather than the whole altar.

Cf. ŚB 7, 4, 1, 14 bráhma jajñānáṁ prathamáṁ purástād iti / asáu vā́ ādityó brahmā́harahaḥ purástāj jāyate.

Should we read brahma jajñānaṁ devam īḍyaṁ jñātvā? Cf. ŚvetU 4, 14 viśvasyaikaṁ pariveṣṭitāraṁ jñātvā śivaṁ śāntim atyantam eti and 4, 11 tam īśānaṁ varadaṁ devam īḍyaṁ nicāyyemāṁ śāntim atyantam eti.

Most translators render adhyeṣi, by “you know.” However, in this passage Yama is described as someone who studies a particular ritual and its esoteric implications and is able to teach it. King Yama teaches the young Brahmin a lesson as other kings do in the Upaniṣads and Brāhmaṇas. Cf. ChU 5, 11, 4–6 tān hovāca / aśvapatir vai bhagavanto ’yaṁ kaikeyaḥ saṁpratīmam ātmānaṁ vaiśvānaram adhyetitaṁ hābhyājagmuḥ /te hocuḥātmānam evemaṁ vaiśvānaraṁ sampraty adhyeṣi / tam eva no brūhīti.

Geldner (19282, 160, n. 910) proposes to read sajjanti instead of majjanti. For a criticism see Wüst (1959, 258). Of course a literal translation of majj- is out of the question, if KaṭhU 1, 16 and 2, 3 refer to the same sṛṅkā. For a survey of possible metaphors see Wüst (1959, 273). Most translators interpret the verb as “to sink down, become submerged, come to ruin.” Now I doubt whether the Upaniṣad wants to say that gold or gold sṛṅkās kill people. A metaphor of majj- and money or gold might be expressed by “to wallow.” The verb majj- does not exclusively refer to dangerous situations. It may denote the taking of a bath. However, I do not think that the text states that many people wallow in sṛṅkās in the sense that they possess many sṛṅkās. It is also not assumable that people wallow, in the sense of taking gross delight, in a sṛṅkā, since this connotation of majj- supposes a rather abstract noun in the locative (preferably in the plural). In my interpretation the attachment to the sṛṅkā (as being something precious) is of central importance. The point is that Naciketas has received and accepted this sṛṅkā, but not as a permanent property (vittamayī). He regards the sṛṅkā as the gold disk which is the sun and he will place it under the fire altar. Other people may use the sṛṅkā (just as the rukma) as an ornament (when driving a chariot) or as valuable property. They may even try to use one and the same sṛṅkā/rukma for the ritual and as economic value (or ornament). It is against this misuse that the texts warn. See Krick (1982, 167) on the gold used in the Agnyādhāna, which has the same function as the gold rukma in the Agnicayana: “Nachdem man schönfarbiges (= reingoldenes) Gold auf [die Feuerstätte] geworfen hat, soll das Feuer gegründet werden … . Das (Gold) ist nicht dazu da, daß man es entfernen dürfte. Wie wenn er etwas (als Geschenk) Nachgesandtes (wiederum) herauswürfe (aus dem Haus des Beschenkten), so wäre es, wenn er das (Gold) entfernte … Darum soll man das (Gold) nicht entfernen” (MS 1, 6, 4: 93.9–12); see also p. 169. It is clear that some people get stuck (majj-) in the gold sṛṅkā/rukma like a cow in the morass (cf. Manu 11, 113); i.e. they do not get hold of the gold, but the gold gets hold of them. Since Naciketas refused the hastihiraṇyam (KaṭhU 1, 23; in the parallels specified as gold niṣkas, rukmas etc.) and declared that na vittena tarpaṇīyo manuṣyaḥ (1, 27), Yama may safely assume that Naciketas does not regard the sṛṅkā, which he received, as vitta and that he will not “founder” (Edgerton’s translation of majj- l.c.) in this gold in the sense that he will not keep it as a rukma/niṣka ornament or remove it from the agniciti after the ritual.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Vedic Cosmology and Ethics

Selected Studies

Series:

Table of Contents

Index Card

References

  • Alsdorf Ludwig. 1950. “Contributions to the textual criticism of the Kathopanisad.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 100: 621–637. [= Kleine Schriften pp. 1–17 Wiesbaden 1974].

  • Arbman Ernst. 1922. Rudra: Untersuchungen zum altindischen Glauben und Kultus. Uppsala: Akademiska Bokhandeln.

  • Arbman Ernst. 1926. “Untersuchungen zur primitiven Seelenvorstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Indien [Th. I:] Einleitendes.” Le Monde Oriental 20: 85–226.

  • Arbman Ernst. 1927a. “Untersuchungen zur primitiven Seelenvorstellung mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Indien Th. II: Altindische Seelenglaube sein Ursprung und seine Entwicklung.” Le Monde Oriental 21: 1–185.

  • Arbman Ernst. 1927b. “Tod und Unsterblichkeit im vedischen Glauben.” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 25: 339–389.

  • Arbman Ernst. 1928. “Tod und Unsterblichkeit im vedischen Glauben (Fortsetzung und Schluß).” Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 26: 187–240.

  • Aufrecht Theodor ed. 1861–1863. Die Hymnen des Rigveda. 2 Tln. Berlin: Dümmler (Indische Studien 6–7).—2. Aufl. 1877 Herd. 1973.

  • Baaren Th.P. van. 1987. “Afterlife: geographies of death.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion 1 edited by M. Eliade et al. 116–120. New York-London: Macmillan.

  • Banerjea J.N. 19562. The development of Hindu iconography. 2nd ed. rev. and enl. Calcutta: University of Calcutta.

  • Belvalkar S.K. 1925. “The Paryaṅka-vidyā (Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad chap. 1): an attempt to settle and interpret the text.” In Proceedings and transactions of the Third Oriental Conference Madras December 22nd to 24th 1924 41–50. Madras: Law Printing House.

  • Bertholet Alfred. 19854. Wörterbuch der Religionen. 4. Auflage. Stuttgart: Kröner.

  • Bhattacharya Cintamani. 1936. Gobhilagṛhyasūtram: with Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa’s commentary. Calcutta: Metropolitan Print. and Pub. House (The Calcutta Sanskrit Series 17).

  • Bhattacharya Sivaprasad. 1955. “A passage in the Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad (1. 2. 6) etc.” In Proceedings and transactions of the All-India Oriental conference sixteenth session Lucknow October 1951 volume II (Select papers) ed. by K.A. Subramania Iyer and K.C. Pandey 1–9. Lucknow.

  • Bloomfield Maurice. 1890. “Contributions to the interpretation of the Veda part 2 4: Women as mourners in the Atharva-Veda.” American Journal of Philology 11: 336–341.

  • Bloomfield Maurice transl. 1897. Hymns of the Atharva-veda together with extracts from the ritual books and the commentaries. Oxford: Clarendon Press (Sacred books of the East 42).

  • Bloomfield Maurice. 1899. The Atharvaveda. Strassburg: Trübner (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 2 1B).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1969. “Der Vers vicakṣaṇād ṛtavo … (JB 1 18; 1 50; KauṣU 1 2).” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplementa IXVII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 27. Juli 1968 in Würzberg Vorträge hrsg. von Wolfgang Voigt Teil 3: 843–848.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1973. Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa I 1–65 translation and commentary with a study: Agnihotra and Prāṇāgnihotra. Leiden: Brill (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 17).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1974a. “Gab es damals auch Dyumnas? Die Weltentstehung nach dem Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplement IIXVIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 1. bis 5. Oktober 1972 in Lübeck Vorträge hrsg. von Wolfgang Voigt: 292–298.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1974b. “Vedic anuṣṭhú and anuṣṭh(u)yā́.” Indo-Iranian Journal 16: 1–17.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1974c. “Vedic dhāvayati ‘to drive’.” Indo-Iranian Journal 16: 81–95.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1976. The daily evening and morning offering (Agnihotra) according to the Brāhmaṇas. Leiden: Brill (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 21).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1978. “Atharvaveda Saṁhitā 312: the building of a house.” ABORI 58–59: Diamond Jubilee Volume (1977–1978): 59–68.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1982. “The waters in Vedic cosmic classifications.” Indologica Taurinensia 10: 45–54.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1983. “The fourth priest (the Brahmán) in Vedic ritual.” In Selected studies on ritual in the Indian religions: essays to D.J. Hoens edited by Ria Kloppenborg 33–68. Leiden: Brill (Studies in the History of Religions: supplements to Numen 45).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1985. “Yama’s second boon in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 29: 5–26.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1986. “Reaching immortality according to the first Anuvāka of the Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa.” In Dr B.R. Sharma felicitation volume ed. by Mandan Mishra et al. 32–42. Tirupati (Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series 46).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1987. “The black spot in the moon salt seed and the Devayajana.” In Navonmeṣaḥ: Mahāmahopādhyāya Gopīnātha Kavirāja smṛtigranthaḥ edited by J. Singh G. Mukhopadhyaya and H.N. Chakravorty vol. 4: English 307–313. Varanasi: M.M. Gopinath Kaviraj Centenary Celebration Committee.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1988. Review of K. Strunk Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen und die altindische “Pluti” München 1983. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 83: 612–616.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1989. Review of K. Klaus Die altindische Kosmologie nach den Brāhmaṇas dargestellt Bonn 1986. Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 294–300.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1990. The Jyotiṣṭoma ritual: Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa I 66–364. Leiden: Brill (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 34).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1991. Light soul and visions in the Veda. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1991–1992. “Uddālaka’s experiments with salt (ChU 6 13).” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 72–73 (Amṛtamahotsava 1917–1992 volume) [1993]: 423–436.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1992. Oorsprong en achtergrond van de Indische wedergeboorteleer. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen; Amsterdam etc.: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij (Mededelingen van de Afdeling Letterkunde NR 55 6).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1993a. “Non-ritual karman in the Veda.” In Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office centenary commemoration volume (1892–1992) 221–230. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 105).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1993b. “Sukṛtá and sacrifice.” In Studies in Indology and Musicology: Dr. Prabhakar Narayan Kawthekar Felicitation Volume ed. by Sushma Kulshrestha and J.P. Sinha 69–76. Delhi: Pratibha.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1994. “Life after death in the Ṛgvedasaṁhitā.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 38: 23–41.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1994a. Jan Gonda: 14 April 1905–1928 July 1991 Amsterdam: KNAW—J. Gonda Foundation.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1994b. “Professor Jan Gonda b. 14-4-105 d. 28-7-1991.” ABORI 75 (1994) [1995]: 319–322.—Obituary.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1996a. “The pañcāgnividyā and the pitṛyāna/devayāna.” In Studies on Indology: Prof. M.M. Sharma felicitation volume edited by A.K. Goswami and D. Chutia 51–57. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications (Sri Garib Das Oriental Series 201).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1996b. “Redeath and its relation to rebirth and release.” Studien zur Indologie and Iranistik 20 [= Veda-vyākaraṇa-vyākhyāna. Festschrift Paul Thieme ed by Hanns-Peter Schmidt and Albrecht Wezler]: 27–46.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1997. “ ‘Wortgeschichte’ and Vedic etymology.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 41: 5–16.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1997–1998. “The Hindu doctrine of transmigration: its origin and background.” Indologica Taurinensia 23–24: 583–605.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1999a. “Hindu ahiṁsā and its roots.” In Violence denied: violence non-violence and the rationalization of violence in South Asian cultural history edited by J.E.M. Houben and K.R. van Kooij 17–44. Leiden: Brill (Brill’s Indological Library 16).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1999b. “Pits pitfalls and the underworld in the Veda.” Indo-Iranian Journal 42: 211–226.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 1999c. “Yonder world in the Atharvaveda.” Indo-Iranian Journal 42: 107–120; errata on p. 301.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2000a. “Classifications and yonder world in the Veda.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 44: 19–59.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2000b. “Distance and death in the Veda.” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 54: 103–117.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2001a. “Citra’s questions in KauṣU 1.1.” Indo-Iranian Journal 44: 265–268.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2001b. “Uddālaka’s teaching in Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6 8–16.” Indo-Iranian Journal 44: 289–298.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2002a. “The dark and deep underworld in the Veda.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2) (Special issue: Indic and Iranian studies in honor of Stanley Insler on his sixty-fifth birthday Apr.–Jun. 2002): 213–223.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2002b. Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad: translation and commentary with an appendix Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka. Groningen: Forsten (Groningen Oriental Studies 16).

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2006a. “Vedic aghám: evil or sin distress or death?” Indo-Iranian Journal 49: 105–125.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2006b. “The Vedic concepts ā́gas and énas.” Indo-Iranian Journal 49: 225–271.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2007a. “Sins and vices: their enumerations and specifications in the Veda.” Indo-Iranian Journal 50: 317–339.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2007b. “The special meanings of śrama and other derivations of the root śram in the Veda.” Indo-Iranian Journal 50: 145–160.

  • Bodewitz Henk W. 2013. “Vedic terms denoting virtues and merits.” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 67: 31–73.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 1870–18732. Indische Sprüche: Sanskrit und Deutsch. 2. verm. und verbess. Auflage 3 Tl. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 18772. Sanskrit-Chrestomathie. 2. gänzlich umgearb. Auflage. St. Petersburg etc.: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 1889. Ḱhândogjopanishad. Leipzig: Haessel.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 1890. “Über eine bisher arg missverstandene Stelle in der Kaushîtaki-Brâhmaṇa-Upanishad.” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe 42: 198–204.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 1897. “Bemerkungen zu einigen Upanishaden.” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Classe 49: 78–100.

  • Böhtlingk Otto. 19093. Sanskrit-Chrestomathie. 3. verb. und verm. Auflage. Leipzig: Haessel.

  • Böhtlingk Otto und Rudolf von Roth. 1855–1875. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch Tl 1–7. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.—Tl 1 (1855); 2 (1858); 3 (1861); 4 (1865); 5 (1868); 6 (1871); 7 (1872–1875). Neudruck 1966.

  • Bollée Willem Boudewijn. 1956. Ṣaḍviṃśa-Brāhmaṇa: introd. transl. [of the text and of] extracts from the commentary and notes. Thesis Utrecht.

  • Boyer A.M. 1901. “Étude sur l’ origine de la doctrine du saṁsāra.” Journal Asiatique (neuvième série) 18: 451–499.

  • Bronkhorst Johannes. 19982. The two sources of Indian asceticism. 2nd ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.—1st ed. Bern: Peter Lang 1993.

  • Bühler Georg. 1879. The sacred laws of the Āryas Pt. I. Āpastamba and Gautama. Oxford: Clarendon Press (The Sacred Books of the East 2).

  • Bühler Georg. 1886. The Laws of Manu. London: Oxford University Press (The Sacred Books of the East 25).

  • Buitenen Johannes Adrianus Bernardus van. 1962. The Maitrāyaṇīya Upaniṣad: a critical essay with text translation and commentary. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.

  • Burrow Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit language. London: Faber and Faber.—2nd ed. London 1965.

  • Butzenberger Klaus. 1996. “Ancient Indian conceptions on man’s destiny after death.” Berliner Indologische Studien 9: 55–118.

  • Caland Willem. 1896a. Die Altindischen Todten- und Bestattungsgebräuche. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.

  • Caland Willem. 1896b. The Pitṛmedhasūtras of Baudhāyana Hiraṇyakeśin Gautama edited with critical notes and index of words. Leipzig: Brockhaus (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 103).

  • Caland Willem. 1898. Een indogermaansch lustratiegebruik. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij.

  • Caland Willem. 1900. “Über das Vaitānasūtra and die Stellung des Brahman im vedischen Opfer.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 14: 115–125.

  • Caland Willem. 1910. Das Vaitānasūtra des Atharvaveda. Amsterdam: Müller.

  • Caland Willem. 1915. “Over en uit het Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa.” Verslagen en mededeelingen van de Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. 5 (1): 1–106.

  • Caland Willem. 1919. Das Jaiminīya-Brāhmaṇa in Auswahl: Text Übersetzung Indices. Amsterdam: Müller (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. NR 19 4).—Neudr. Wiesbaden 1970.

  • Caland Willem. 1921–1928. Das Śrautasūtra des ĀpastambaI: 1.–7. Buch Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1921 (Quellen der Religions-Geschichte 8); II: 8.–15. Buch Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 1924 (Verhandelingen der KAW Afd. Lett. NR 24 2); III: 16.–24. und 31. Buch Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen 1928 (Verhandelingen der KAW Afd. Lett. NR 26 4).

  • Caland Willem. 1927–1929. Vaikhānasasmārtasūtram: the domestic rules of the Vaikhānasa school belonging to the Black Yajurveda ed. and trsl. 2 vols. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal (Bibliotheca Indica 242 251).

  • Caland Willem. 1931. Pañcaviṁśa-Brāhmaṇa: the Brāhmaṇa of twenty five chapters. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society of Bengal (Bibliotheca Indica 255).

  • Caland Willem and Victor Henry. 1906–1907. L’ Agniṣṭoma: description complète de la forme normale du sacrifice de soma dans le culte védique. 2 Tomes. Paris: Leroux.

  • Cardona George. 1993. “The bhāṣika accentuation system.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 18: 1–40.

  • Chaubey V.V. 1975. Bhāṣikasūtra of Maharṣi Kātyāyana: with the commentaries of Mahāsvāmin and Anantabhaṭṭa. Hoshiarpur: Vishveshvaranand Vishva Bandhu Institute of Sanskrit and Indological studies Panjab Univ.

  • Chaubey V.V. 1978. “Accent in the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa: the problem of change in its nature.” Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 16: 18–28.

  • Colebrooke Henry Thomas. 1805. “On the Vedas or sacred writings of the Hindus.” Asiatic Researches 8: 369–476.

  • Converse Hyla Stunz. 1971. The historical significance of the first occurrences of the doctrine of transmigration in the early Upaniṣads. Thesis Columbia University [Microfilm Ann Arbor 1985].—Available on microfilm since 1973 (and since 1985 as a xeroxcopy Ann Arbor).

  • Das Veena. 1977. “On the categorization of space in Hindu ritual.” In Text and context: the social anthropology of tradition edited by Ravindra K. Jain 9–27. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

  • Delbrück Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle a. S: Verlag der Buchhandlung der Waisenhauses.

  • Deussen Paul. 1897. Sechzig Upanishad’s des Veda aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt und mit Einleitungen und Anmerkungen versehen. Leipzig: Brockhaus.—2. Aufl. 1905 3. Aufl. 1921.

  • Dumont Paul-Emile. 1951. “The special kinds of Agnicayana (or special methods of building the fire-altar) according to the Kathas in the Taittiriya-Brahmana.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 95(6): 628–675.

  • Edgerton Franklin. 1965. The beginnings of Indian philosophy: selections from the Rig Veda Atharva Veda Upaniṣads and Mahābhārata. London: Allen & Unwin.

  • Eelsingh Herman Frederik. 1908. Ṣaḍviṃśabrāhmaṇam Vijñāpanabhāṣyasahitam: het Ṣaḍviṃśabrāhmaṇa van de Sāmaveda. Leiden: Brill.

  • Eggeling Julius trsl. 1882–1900. The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa according to the text of the Mādhyandina school 5 vols: I (ŚB books 1–2 1882) II (books 3–4 1885) III (books 5–7 1894) IV (books 8–10 1897) V (books 11–14 1900). Oxford: Clarendon Press (Sacred Books of the East 12 26 41 43 44).

  • Ehni J. 1896. Die ursprüngliche Gottheit des vedischen Yama. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.

  • Faddegon Barend. 1923. “De interpretatie der Kāṭhaka-Upaniṣad.” Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. 55 (1): 1–18.

  • Falk Harry. 1986. Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel: Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des vedischen Opfers. Freiburg: Hedwig Falk.

  • Frauwallner Erich. 1953. Geschichte der indischen PhilosophieI. Band: Die Philosophie des Veda und des Epos der Buddha und der Jina das Samkhya und das klassische Yoga-System. Salzburg: Müller.

  • Frenz Albrecht. 1969. “Kauṣītaki-Upaniṣad.” Indo-Iranian Journal 11(2): 79–129.

  • Fürst Alfons. 1915. Der Sprachgebrauch der älteren Upaniṣads verglichen mit dem der früheren vedischen Perioden und dem des klassischen Sanskrit. Diss. Tübingen. Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht.—Sonderabdruck aus der Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen 47.

  • Gaastra Dieuke. 1919. Das Gopatha Brāhmaṇa. Leiden: Brill.

  • Garbe Richard. 1882–1902. The Śrauta sútra of Ápastamba: belonging to the Taittiríya Samhitá 3 vols. Calcutta: Asiatic Society (Bibliotheca Indica 92). I. Praśnas 1–7 / with the commentary of Rudradatta. II. Praśnas 8–15 / with the commentary of Rudradatta. III. Praśnas 16–24.

  • Geldner Karl Friedrich. 1892. Vedische Studien II. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

  • Geldner Karl Friedrich. 1907. Der Rigveda in AuswahlI. Glossar. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

  • Geldner Karl Friedrich. 19282. Vedismus und Brahmanismus. 2. erw. Auflage. Tübingen: Mohr (Religionsgeschichtliches Lesebuch 9).—1. Aufl. 1908.

  • Geldner Karl Friedrich. 1951. Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen. Teil IIII. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press (Harvard Oriental Series 33–35).

  • Ghatage A.M. 1976. An encyclopaedic dictionary of Sanskrit on historical principles vol. I. Poona: Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute.

  • Glasenapp Helmuth von. 1955. Die Religionen Indiens. Neue Ausgabe. Stuttgart: Kröner.—1. Aufl. 1943.

  • Gombrich Richard. 1975. “Ancient Indian cosmology.” In Ancient Cosmologies edited by C. Blacker and M. Loewe 110–142. London: Allen and Unwin.

  • Gonda Jan. 1950. Notes on Brahmán. Utrecht: Beyers.

  • Gonda Jan. 1957a. Some observations on the relations between ‘Gods’ and ‘Powers’ in the Veda a propos of the phrase sūnuḥ sahasaḥ. The Hague: Mouton.

  • Gonda Jan. 1957b. “The Vedic concept of aṁhas.” Indo-Iranian Journal 1: 33–60 [= Selected Studies II. Leiden: Brill 1975 58–85].

  • Gonda Jan. 1959a. Epithets in the Rgveda. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.

  • Gonda Jan. 1959b. Stylistic repetition in the Veda. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij.

  • Gonda Jan. 1959c. Why are ahiṁsā and similar concepts often expressed in a negative form? In Four studies in the language of the Veda 95–117. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 3).

  • Gonda Jan. 1960. Die Religionen Indiens I: Veda und älterer Hinduismus. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer (Die Religionen der Menschheit 11).

  • Gonda Jan. 1962. “Ṛgveda 10.40.10.” In Indological studies in honor of W. Norman Brown edited by E. Bender 78–86. New Haven Connecticut: American Oriental Society (American Oriental Series 47).

  • Gonda Jan. 1963. The vision of the Vedic poets. The Hague: Mouton (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 8).

  • Gonda Jan. 1965a. Change and Continuity in Indian ReligionII: Soma Amṛta and the moon 38–70 The Hague: Mouton (Disputationes Rheno-Trajectinae 9).

  • Gonda Jan. 1965b. The Savayajñas: Kauśikasūtra 60–68 transl. introd. comm. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij (erhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. NR 712).

  • Gonda Jan. 1965c. “Bandhu- in the Brāhmaṇas.” Adyar Library Bulletin 29: 1–29. [Selected Studies II 400 ff. Leiden: Brill].

  • Gonda Jan. 1966. Loka: world and heaven in the Veda. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. NR 731).

  • Gonda Jan. 1970. Viṣṇuism and Śivaism: a comparison. London: The Athlone Press.

  • Gonda Jan. 1971. Old Indian. Leiden: Brill (Handbuch der Orientalistik 2 1 1).

  • Gonda Jan. 1972. “The significance of the right hand and the right side in Vedic ritual.” Religion 2: 1–23.

  • Gonda Jan. 1974a. The dual deities in the religion of the Veda. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. NR 81).

  • Gonda Jan. 1974b. “Triads in Vedic ritual.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 2: 5–23.

  • Gonda Jan. 1975a. “The meaning of the Sanskrit term Āyatana.” In Selected Studies II 178–256. Leiden: Brill [= Adyar Library Bulletin 23 (1969): 1–79].

  • Gonda Jan. 1975b. “Pratiṣṭhā.” In Selected Studies II 338–374. Leiden: Brill [= Samjñāvyākaraṇam Studia Indologica Internationalia I 1–37. Poona-Paris: Centre for International Indological Research 1954].

  • Gonda Jan. 1975c. Vedic Literature (Saṁhitās and Brāhmaṇas). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (A history of Indian literature I 1).

  • Gonda Jan. 1976. Triads in the Veda. Amsterdam etc.: North-Holland Publishing Company (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. NR 91).

  • Gonda Jan. 1977. The ritual Sūtras. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (A history of Indian literature I 2).

  • Gonda Jan. 1978. Die Religionen Indiens I. Veda und älterer Hinduismus. 2. überarb. und erg. Auflage. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Die Religionen der Menschheit 11).—1. Aufl. 1960.

  • Gonda Jan. 1980. Vedic ritual: the non-solemn rites. Leiden etc.: Brill (Handbuch der Orientalistik 2 4 1).

  • Gonda Jan. 1983a. “Die Bedeutung des Zentrums in Veda.” In Sehnsucht nach dem Ursprung: zu Mircea Eliade hrsg. Hans Peter Duerr 374–393. Frankfurt am Main.

  • Gonda Jan. 1983b. “The creator and his spirit (Manas and Prajāpati).” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 27: 5–42.

  • Gonda Jan. 1984. Prajāpati and the year. Amsterdam-Oxford-New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.

  • Gonda Jan. 1985. “Some notes on Prajāpatir aniruktaḥ.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 44: 59–75.

  • Gonda Jan. 1986a. Prajāpatis’s rise to higher rank. Leiden: Brill.

  • Gonda Jan. 1986b. “Mind and moon.” In Deyadharma: studies in memory of D.C. Sircar edited by Gouriswar Bhattacharya and D.C. Sarakāra 147–160. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

  • Gonda Jan. 1989a. The Indra hymns of the Ṛgveda. Leiden etc.: Brill (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 36)

  • Gonda Jan. 1989b. Prajāpati’s relations with Brahman Bṛhaspati and Brahmā. Amsterdam-Oxford- New York: North-Holland Publishing Company.

  • Gonda Jan. 1991. The functions and significance of gold in the Veda. Leiden etc.: Brill (Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina 37).

  • Gotō Toshifumi. 1987. Die ‘I. Präsensklasse’ im Vedischen: Untersuchung der vollstufigen thematischen Wurzelpräsentia. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Goudriaan Teun. 1978. Māyā divine and human: a study of magic and its religious foundations in Sanskrit texts with particular attention to a fragment on Viṣṇu’s Māyā preserved in Bali. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

  • Grassmann Hermann. 1873. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Leipzig: Brockhaus.

  • Griffith Ralph T.H. 1895–1896. The Hymns of the Atharvaveda. 2 vols. Benares: E.J. Lazarus & Co.

  • Griffiths Arlo. 2004. The Paippalādasaṁhitā of the Atharvaveda Kāṇḍas 6 and 7: a new edition with translation and commentary. Thesis Leiden.

  • Grohma O. 1970. “Theorien zur bunten Farbe im älteren Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika bis Udayana.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 19: 147–182.

  • Hamm Frank-Richard. 1968–1969. “Chāndogyopaniṣad VI: ein erneuter Versuch.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 12–13 (Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner): 149–159.

  • Hanefeld Erhardt. 1976. Philosophische Haupttexte der älteren Upaniṣaden. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (Freiburger Beiträge zur Indologie 9).

  • Hartog Hans. 1939. Zur Frage des frühvedischen Sündenbegriffes: eine sprach- und religionswissenschaftliche Untersuchung Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Philosophischen Fakultät der Philipps-Universität zu Marburg. Dortmund: W. Crüwell.

  • Hauschild Richard. 1927. Die Śvetāśvatara-Upaniṣad: eine kritische Ausgabe mit einer Übersetzung und einer Übersicht über ihre Lehren. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft.

  • Heesterman J.C. 1957. The ancient Indian royal consecration: the Rājasūya described according to the Yajus texts and annotated. ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton.

  • Heesterman J.C. 1964. “Brahmin Ritual and Renouncer.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 8: 1–31.

  • Heesterman J.C. 1993. The broken world of sacrifice: an essay in ancient Indian ritual. Chicago etc.: University of Chicago Press.

  • Heiler Friedrich Johann. 1961. Erscheinungsformen und Wesen der Religion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Religionen der Menschheit 1).

  • Heimann Betty. 1922. Madhva’s (Ānandatīrtha’s) Kommentar zur Kāṭhaka-Upaniṣad. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.

  • Helfer James S. 1968. “The initiatory structure of the ‘Kaṭhopaniṣad’.” History of Religions 7(4): 348–367.

  • Henry Victor. 1904. La Magie dans l’ Inde Antique. Paris: Dujarric.—2eme éd. 1909 Paris: Nourry.

  • Henseler Éric de. 1928. L’ âme et le dogme de la transmigration dans les livres sacrés de l’ Inde ancienne. Paris: Boccard.

  • Hertel Johannes. 19222. Die Weisheit der Upanischaden: eine Auswahl aus den ältesten Texten aus dem Sanskrit übers. und erl. 2. verb. Aufl. München: Beck.—1. Aufl. Leipzig 1921.

  • Hertz R. 1973. “The pre-eminence of the right hand: a study in religious polarity.” In Right and left: essays on dual symbolic classicfications ed. by R. Needham 3–31. Chicago–London: University of Chicago Press.

  • Hillebrandt Alfred. 1902. Vedische Mythologie dritter Band Breslau: Marcus Verlag.

  • Hillebrandt Alfred. 1914. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zur Kāṭhaka- und Praśna-Upaniṣad.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 68: 579–582.

  • Hoffmann Karl. 1967. Der Injunktiv im Veda: eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • Hoffmann Karl. 1970. “Die Weltentstehung nach dem Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa.” Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 27: 59–67.

  • Hoffmann Karl. 1975. Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik herausgegeben von Johanna Narten Band 1. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

  • Hopkins Edward Washburn. 1915. Epic Mythology. Strassburg: Trübner (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 3 1B).

  • Hopkins Edward Washburn. 1924. Ethics of India. New Haven etc.

  • Horsch Paul. 1966. Die Vedische Gāthā- und Śloka-Literatur. Bern: Francke Verlag.

  • Horsch Paul. 1971. “Vorstufen der indischen Seelenwanderungslehre.” Asiatische Studien 25: 99–157.

  • Houben Jan E.M. 1997. “The Sanskrit tradition.” In The emergence of semantics in four linguistic traditions: Hebrew Sanskrit Greek Arabic by Wout Jac. van Bekkum et al. 49–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Houben Jan E.M. 2000. “The ritual pragmatics of a Vedic hymn: the ‘Riddle hymn’ and the Pravargya ritual.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124(4): 499–536.

  • Houben Jan E.M. and K.R. van Kooij. 1999. Violence denied: violence non-violence and the rationalization of violence in South Asian cultural history. Leiden [etc.]: Brill (Brill’s Indological Library 16).

  • Hume Robert Ernest. 19312. The thirteen principal Upanishads 2nd ed. revised. London: Oxford University Press.—1st ed. 1921.

  • Ickler Ingeborg. 1973. Untersuchungen zur Wortstellung und Syntax der Chāndogyopaniṣad. Göppingen: Kümmerle.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. 1981. “A Vedic sexual pun.” Acta Orientalia 41: 55–63.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. 1991. The ravenous hyenas and the wounded sun. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press.

  • Jamison Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda: the earliest religious poetry of India. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press (South Asia Research).

  • Jolly Julius. 1896. Recht und Sitte (einschlisslich der einheimische Literatur). Strassburg: Trübner (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 2 8).

  • Kane Pandurang Vaman. 1941. History of Dharmaśāstra: ancient and mediaeval religious and civil law in IndiaII 2. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

  • Kane Pandurang Vaman. 1946. History of Dharmaśāstra III. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

  • Kane Pandurang Vaman. 1953. History of Dharmaśāstra IV. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

  • Kangle R.P. 1972. The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra II: an English translation with critical and explanatory notes. Bombay: University of Bombay.

  • Kashikar C.G. et al. 1958. Śrautakośa: encyclopaedia of Vedic sacrificial ritual comprising the two complementary sections namely the Sanskrit section and the English section. Vol. I: Sanskrit section [based on the Saṁhitās the Brāhmaṇas the Āraṇyakas and the Baudhāyanaśrauta-sūtra]: the seven havis-sacrifices together with the relevant optional and expiatory rites and the pitṛmedha. Poona: Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala.

  • Kashikar C.G. 1970. Vol. II. Sanskrit section part 1 [based on the Saṁhitās the Brāhmaṇas the Āraṇyakas and the Baudhāyanaśrautasūtras]: Agniṣṭoma with Pravargya. Poona: Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala.

  • Keith Arthur Berriedale. 1908. Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka with an appendix on the Mahāvrata. London: Royal Asiatic Society (Oriental Translation Fund N.S. 18).

  • Keith Arthur Berriedale. 1909. The Aitareya Āraṇyaka. London: Royal Asiatic Society (Anecdota Oxoniensia Aryan Series 9).

  • Keith Arthur Berriedale. 1914. The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittirīya Sanhita. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press (Harvard Oriental Series 18 19).

  • Keith Arthur Berriedale. 1920. Rigveda Brāhmaṇas: the Aitareya and Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda translated from the original Sanskrit. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press (Harvard Oriental Series 25).

  • Keith Arthur Berriedale. 1925. The religion and philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads. 2 vols. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Harvard Oriental Series 31 32).—Repr. Delhi-Patna-Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidas 1970.

  • Kelsey Morton. 1987. “Otherworld.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion 11 edited by M. Eliade et al. 133–137. New York–London: Macmillan.

  • Kirfel Willibald. 1920. Die Kosmographie der Inder nach den Quellen dargestellt. Bonn-Leipzig: Schroeder [Hildesheim 19672].

  • Klaus Konrad. 1986. Die altindische Kosmologie nach den Brāhmaṇas dargestellt. Bonn: Indica et Tibetica Verlag.

  • Krick Hertha. 1982. Das Ritual der Feuergründung: (Agnyādheya). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1948. Proto-Munda words in Sanskrit. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitg. Mij.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1964. “The bliss of Aša.” Indo-Iranian Journal 8 (2): 96–129.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1970. “Cosmogony and conception: a query.” History of Religions 10: 91–138.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1972. “The heavenly bucket.” In India maior: congratulatory volume presented to J. Gonda ed. by J. Ensink and P. Gaeffke 144–156. Leiden: Brill.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1975. “The basic concept of Vedic religion.” History of Religions 15: 107–120.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1979. Varuṇa and Vidūṣaka: on the origin of the Sanskrit drama. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Afd. Lett. 100).

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1983. Ancient Indian cosmogony essays selected and introduced by John Irwin. New Delhi: Vikas.

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1991a. Aryans in the Rigveda. Amsterdam etc.: Rodopi (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 1).

  • Kuiper Franciscus B.J. 1991b. “The New ‘Mayrhofer’.” Indo-Iranian Journal 34: 105–120.

  • Lefever Henry. 1935. The Vedic idea of sin. Travancore: London Mission Press.

  • Lesimple Émile. 1948. Taittirīya Upaniṣad ed. and trsl. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve (Les Upanishads 9).

  • Lévi Sylvain. 1898. La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brāhmaṇas. Paris: Leroux.

  • Limaye V.P. and R.D. Vadekar. 1958. Eighteen principal Upaniṣads (aṣṭādaśa-upaniṣaḍaḥ) vol. 1: Upaniṣadic text with parallels from extant Vedic literature exegetical and grammatical notes. Poona: Vaidika Saṁśodhana Maṇḍala.

  • Lincoln Bruce. 1981. “The lord of the dead.” History of Religions 21: 224–241.

  • Lincoln Bruce. 1982. “The house of clay.” Indo-Iranian Journal 24: 1–12.

  • Lindner Bruno hrsg. und übers. 1887. Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇam = Das Kaushîtaki Brâhmaṇa. Jena: Hermann Costenoble.

  • Lokesh Chandra. 1950. The Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda II 1–80. Nagpur: International Academy of Indian Culture (Sarasvati Vihara Series 21).

  • Lommel Herman. 1953. Review of Heinrich Lüders Varuṇa I: Varuṇa und die Wasser Göttingen 1951. Deutsche Literaturzeitung 74: 400–405.

  • Lommel Herman. 1955. Gedichte des Rig-Veda. München-Planegg: Barth.

  • Long J. Bruce. 1987. “Underworld.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion 15 ed. by M. Eliade et al. 126–134. New York-London: Macmillan.

  • Lubotsky Alexander. 2002. Atharvaveda-Paippalāda Kāṇḍā Five: text translation commentary. Cambridge MA: Harvard University (HOS Opera Minora 4)

  • Lüders Heinrich. 1951. Varuṇa I: Varuṇa und die Wasser. Aus dem Nachlaß hrsg. von Ludwig Alsdorf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Lüders Heinrich. 1959. Varuṇa II: Varuṇa und das Ṛta. Aus dem Nachlaß hrsg. von Ludwig Alsdorf. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

  • Macdonell Arthur Anthony. 1916. A Vedic Grammar for Students. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Macdonell Arthur Anthony. 1917. A Vedic Reader for Students. Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Macdonell Arthur Anthony and Arthur Berriedale Keith. 1912. Vedic index of names and subjects. 2 vols. London: Murray.

  • Malamoud Charles. 1977. Le Svādhyāya récitation personnelle du Veda. Taittirīya-Āraṇyaka livre 2. Paris: De Boccard (Publications de l’ Institut de Civilisation Indienne 42).

  • Mallmann Marie-Thérèse de. 1963. Les enseignements iconographiques de l’ Agnipurāṇa Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

  • Manessy Jacqueline. 1961. Les substantifs en -as- dans la Ṛk-Saṃhitā: contribution à l’ étude de la morphologie Védique. Paris (thèse).

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1956. Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen Tl. I: A-TH. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1986. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen Lf. I 1. Heidelberg: Winter

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1988. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen Lf. I 3–4. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen Lf. I 10. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1994. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen Lf. II 15. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • Mayrhofer Manfred. 1994–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen Lf. II 16–19. Heidelberg: Winter.

  • McKenzie John. 1922. Hindu ethics: a historical and critical essay. Oxford: Oxford U.P.

  • Minard Armand. 1936. La subordination dans la prose Védique: étude sur le Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa. Paris: [s.n.].

  • Minard Armand. 1949. Trois énigmes sur les Cent Chemins: recherches sur le Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa I. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  • Minard Armand. 1956. Trois énigmes sur les Cent Chemins: recherches sur le Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa II. Paris: de Boccard.

  • Mitra Rajendralal ed. 1859–1862. Taittirīyabrāhmaṇaṃ kṛṣṇayajurvedīyam Sāyanācāryyakṛta-vedārthaprakāśākhya-bhāṣyasahitaṃ. 2 vols. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press (Bibliotheca Indica 31).

  • Monier-Williams Monier. 1899. A Sanskrit-English Dictionary Oxford-London: W.H. Allen.

  • Müller F. Max. 1859. A history of ancient Sanskrit literature. London: Williams.

  • Müller F. Max trsl. 1892. The Grihya-Sûtras: rules of vedic domestic ceremonies vol. II. Gobhila Hiranyaskesin Âpastamba. Âpastamba Yagña-paribhâshâ-sûtras. Oxford: The Clarendon Press (The sacred books of the East 30).

  • Mylius Klaus. 1975. Wörterbuch Sanskrit—Deutsch. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.

  • Mylius Klaus. 1983. Geschichte der Literatur im alten Indien. Leipzig: Reclam.

  • Mylius Klaus. 1992. Wörterbuch Deutsch—Sanskrit. Leipzig Berlin München.

  • Mylius Klaus. 2008 Wörterbuch Deutsch—Pāli. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  • Oberlies Thomas. 1988. “Die Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad: eine Studie ihrer Gotteslehre.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 32: 35– 62.

  • Oberlies Thomas. 1998. Die Religion des Ṛgveda Tl. 1: Das religiöse System des Ṛgveda. Wien: Sammlung De Nobili.

  • Oberlies Thomas. 1999. Die Religion des Ṛgveda Tl. 2: Kompositionsanalyse der Soma-Hymnen des Ṛgveda. Wien: Sammlung De Nobili.

  • Oertel Hanns. 1896. “The Jāiminīya or Talavakāra Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa: text translation and notes.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 16: 79–260.—Re-edition in Devanāgarī by Rama Deva Lahore 1921. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/592488.

  • Oertel Hanns. 1898. “Contributions from the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa to the history of the Brāhmaṇa literature.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 19(2): 97–125.

  • Oertel Hanns. 1943. Widersprüche zwischen grammatischem Genus und Sexus in der Symbolik der Brāhmaṇas. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Sitzungs-berichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Abteilung 1943 7).

  • O’Flaherty Wendy Doniger ed. 1980. Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions. Berkeley-London: University of California Press.

  • O’Flaherty Wendy Doniger. 1981. The Rig Veda: an anthology: one hundred and eight hymns. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

  • O’Flaherty Wendy Doniger. 1985. Tales of sex and violence: folklore sacrifice and danger in the Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa. Chicago etc.: University of Chicago Press.

  • Oldenberg Hermann trsl. 1886. The Grihya-Sûtras: rules of vedic domestic ceremonies vol. I: Sâṅkhâyana-; Âsvalâyana-; Pâraskara-; Khâdira grihya-sûtra. Oxford: The Clarendon Press (The sacred books of the East 29).

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1901. “Ṛgveda 6 1–20.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 55: 267–330 (Über tyájas: pp. 281–282). [= Kleine Schriften herausgegeben von Klaus L. Janert Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag 1967 pp. 740–741].

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1909. Ṛgveda: textkritische und exegetische Noten Bd. I: Erstes bis sechstes Buch. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse N.F. 11 5).

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1912. Ṛgveda: textkritische und exegetische Noten Bd. II: Siebentes bis zehntes Buch. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse N.F. 13 3).

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 19172. Die Religion des Veda. 2. Aufl. Stuttgart: Cotta.

  • Oldenberg Hermann. 1919. Die Weltanschauung der Brāhmana-Texte: [Vorwissenschaftliche Wissenschaft]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 1992. Saṁnyāsa Upaniṣads: Hindu scriptures on asceticism and renunciation. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 1993. The Āśrama system: the history and hermeneutics of a religious institution. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 1995. Rules and regulations of Brahminical asceticism: Yatidharmasamuccaya of Yādava Prakāsa. Albany: SUNY Press.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 1996. Upaniṣads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 1999. Dharmasūtras: the law codes of Ancient India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Olivelle Patrick. 2004. Manu’s code of law: a critical edition and translation of the Manava-Dharmasastra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Oltramare Paul. 1906. L’ histoire des idées théosophiques dans l’ IndeI. La théosophie brahmanique. Paris: Leroux (Annales du Musée Guimet 23).

  • Organ Troy. 1973. “Three into four in Hinduism.” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 1: 7–13.

  • Pande Govinda Candra. 1978. Śramaṇa tradition: its history and contribution to Indian culture. Ahmedabad: L.D. Institute of Indology.

  • Parpola Asko. 1973. The literature and study of the Jaiminīya Sāmaveda in retrospect and prospect. Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica (Studia Orientalia 43 6).

  • Parpola Asko. 1979. “On the symbol concept of the Vedic ritualists.” Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 10: 139–153.

  • Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli. 1953. The principal Upaniṣads. London: George Allen & Unwin.

  • Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra eds. 1954. Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa of the Sāmaveda complete text critically edited. Nagpur: Chandra (Sarasvati-Vihara series 31).

  • Rau Wilhelm. 1971. “Versuch einer deutschen Übersetzung der Kāṭhaka-Upaniṣad.” Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques 25: 158–174.

  • Rau Wilhelm. 1974. Metalle und Metallgeräte im vedischen Indien. Mainz: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur; Wiesbaden: Steiner (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1973 nr. 8).

  • Rau Wilhelm. 1977. “Vedische Lebensweisheit.” In Beiträge zur Indienforschung: Ernst Waldschmidt zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet ed. by H. Härtel 345–352. Berlin: Museum für Indische Kunst.

  • Renou Louis. 1935. “Index védique.” Journal of Vedic Studies 2.

  • Renou Louis. 1947. Les écoles védiques et la formation de Veda. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

  • Renou Louis. 1948. Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad publ. et trad. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.

  • Renou Louis. 1949a. “Sur la notion de Brahmán.” Journal Asiatique 237: 7–46.

  • Renou Louis. 1949b. “La valeur du silence dans le culte vedique.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 69: 11–18.

  • Renou Louis. 1952. Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon etc.: IAC.

  • Renou Louis. 1955a. “Études Védiques: 5. Atharva-Véda et rituel.” Journal Asiatique 243: 417–438.

  • Renou Louis. 1955b. “Védique Nírṛti.” Indian Linguistics 16: 11–15.

  • Renou Louis. 1956. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes II. Paris: E. de Boccard (Publications de l’ institut de civilisation indienne 2). Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1957. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes III. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1958. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes IV. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1959. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes V. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1960. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes VIVII. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1961a. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes VIIIIX. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1961b. Grammaire Sanscrite 2me éd. rev. corr. et augm. Paris: Librairie d’ Amerique et d’ Orient.

  • Renou Louis. 1962. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes X. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1964. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes XIIXIII. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1965. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes XIV. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1966. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes XV. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1967. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes XVI. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Renou Louis. 1969. Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes XVII. Paris: E. de Boccard.

  • Rodhe Sten Olof. 1946. Deliver us from evil: studies on the Vedic ideas of salvation. Lund–Copenhagen: Glerup-Munksgaard.

  • Roth Rudolf von W.D. Whitney und M. Lindenau hrsg. 19663. Atharva Veda Sanhita. 3. unveränd. Aufl. (nach der von Max Lindenau besorgten zweiten Auflage). Bonn etc.: Dümmler.—1. Aufl. Berlin 1856.

  • Salomon Richard. 1982. Review of Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions ed. by Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty Berkeley-London 1980. Journal of the American Oriental Society 102: 407–410.

  • Sarma E.R. Sreekrishna ed. 1968–1976. Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland. Supplementband 91–3)

  • Śāstrī A. Cinnasvāmī and Paṭṭābhirāma Śāstrī eds. 1935–1936. The Tāṇḍyamahabrāhmaṇa belonging to the Sāma Veda with the commentary of Sāyanāchārya. 2 vols. Benares: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office (Kashi Sanskrit Series 105).

  • Schayer Stanislav. 1925. Die Struktur der magischen Weltanschauung nach dem Atharva-Veda und Brāhmana-Texten. München-Neubiberg: Oskar Schloss (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Buddhismus und verwandter Gebiete 15).—Repr. from Zeitschrift für Buddhismus 6.

  • Schlerath B. 1987. “The slaying of god Soma.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 68: 345–348.

  • Schmidt Hanns-Peter. 1968. Bṛhaspati und Indra: Untersuchungen zur vedischen Mythologie und Kulturgeschichte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

  • Schmithausen Lambert. 1994. “Zur Textgeschichte der pañcāgnividyā.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 38: 43–60.

  • Schroeder Leopold von Hrsg. 1881–1886. Mâitrâyaṇî Saṃhitâ. 4 Tln (1881 1883 1885 1886). Leipzig: Brockhaus.

  • Schroeder Leopold von. 1900–1912. Kâṭhakam: die Saṃhitâ der Kaṭha-Çâkhâ. 3 Tln (1900 1909 1912). Leipzig: Brockhaus.—Contains also the Index verborum von Richard Simon.

  • Senart Émile. 1930. Chāndogya-Upaniṣad. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  • Senart Émile. 1934. Bṛhad-Āraṇyaka-Upaniṣad trad. et annot. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

  • Sharma Bellikoth Ramachandra. 1967. Jaiminīyārṣeya-Jaiminīyopaniṣad-Brāhmaṇas critically edited. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha.

  • Slaje Walter. 2001. “Water and salt (I): Yājñavalkya’s saindhava dṛṣṭānta (BĀU II 412).” Indo-Iranian Journal 44(1): 25–57.

  • Smith Brian K. 1994. Classifying the universe: the ancient Indian “varṇa” system and the origins of caste. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Smith Jane I. 1987. “Afterlife: an overview.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion 1 edited by M. Eliade et al. 107–116. New York-London: Macmillan.

  • Söhnen Renate. 1981. “Die Einleitungsgeschichte der Belehrung des Uddālaka Āruṇi: ein Vergleich der drei Fassungen KauṣU 1. 1 ChU 5. 3 und BṛU 6. 2. 1–8.” Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 7: 177–212.

  • Sparreboom Marcus. 1985. Chariots in the Veda. Leiden: Brill.

  • Speijer Jacobus Samuel. 1886. Sanskrit Syntax. Leyden: Brill.

  • Speijer Jacobus Samuel. 1896. Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Strassburg: Trübner (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde 16).

  • Sprockhoff Joachim Friedrich. 1979. “Die Alten im alten Indien.” Saeculum 30(4) 374–433.

  • Sprockhoff Joachim Friedrich. 1981. “Āraṇyaka und Vānaprastha in der vedischen Literatur: neue Erwägungen zu einer alten Legende und ihren Problemen (Vorbemerkungen—Erster Hauptteil).” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 25: 19–90.

  • Śrautakośa see Kashikar C.G.

  • Staal Frits. 1968. “The twelve ritual chants of the Nambudiri Agniṣṭoma.” In Pratidānam: Indian Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday ed. by J.C. Heesterman e.a. 409–429. The Hague [etc.]: Mouton.

  • Staal Frits. 1983. Agni: the Vedic ritual of the fire altar vol. I. Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press.

  • Stenzler Adolf Friedrich. 1876–1878. Indische Hausregeln = Gṛhyasūtrāṇi: Sanskrit und DeutschII: Pâraskara; hrsg. und übers. Leipzig: Brockhaus (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 62 and 64).

  • Strunk Klaus. 1983. Typische Merkmale von Fragesätzen und die altindische ‘Pluti’. München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Sitzungsberichte Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften phil.-hist. Klasse Jahrgang 1983 Heft 8).

  • Svarūpa Lakṣmaṇa. 1921–1927. The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta: the oldest Indian treatise on etymology philology and semantics. London: Oxford University Press etc. Reprints 1962 1967 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).

  • Thieme Paul. 1941. “Beiträge zur Vedaexegese.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 95: 82–116.

  • Thieme Paul. 1951–1952. “Der Weg durch den Himmel nach der Kaushitaki-Upanishad.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 1(3): 19–36.

  • Thieme Paul. 1952a. “Bráhman.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 102: 91–129.

  • Thieme Paul. 1952b. Studien zur indogermanischen Wortkunde und Religionsgeschichte. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig 985).

  • Thieme Paul. 1966. Upanischaden: ausgewählte Stücke. Stuttgart: Reclam

  • Thieme Paul. 1969. Gedichte aus dem Rig-Veda. Stuttgart: Reclam.

  • Thite G.U. 1975. Sacrifice in the Brāhmaṇa-texts Poona: University of Poona.

  • Tull Herman Wayne. 1989. The Vedic origins of karma: cosmos as man in ancient Indian myth and ritual. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • Varenne Jean. 1960. La Mahā Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad éd. critique avec une traduction française une étude des notes et en annexe la Prāṇāgnihotra Upaniṣad. Paris: De Broccard.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik II 1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre Nominal-komposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

  • Wackernagel Jacob. 1918. “Indoiranisches.” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin) 1. Halbband: 380–411. [= Kleine Schriften von Jacob Wackernagel hrsg. von der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1963 pp. 299–330].

  • Wackernagel Jacob und A. Debrunner. 1954. Altindische Grammatik II 2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

  • Weber Albrecht. 1850. “Zwei Sagen aus dem Çatapatha-Brâhmana über Einwanderung und Verbreitung der Ârier in Indien nebst einer geographisch-geschichtlichen Skizze aus dem weissen Yajus.” Indische Studien 1: 161–232.

  • Weber Albrecht ed. 1855. Çatapatha-Brâhmaṇa in the Mâdhyandina-Çâkhâ with extracts from the commentaries of Sâyaṇa Harisvâmin and Dvivedaganga. Berlin: Dümmler.

  • Weber Albrecht. 1868a. “Collectanea über die Kastenverhältnisse in den Brâmaṇa und Sûtra.” Indische Studien 10: 1–160.

  • Weber Albrecht. 1868b. “Zur Kenntniß des vedischen Opferrituals.” Indische Studien 10: 321–396.

  • Weber Albrecht. 1871–1872. Die Taittirîya-Saṃhitâ hrsg. 2 Teilen. Leipzig (Indische Studien 11–12).

  • Weller Friedrich. 1953. Versuch einer Kritik der Kaṭhopaniṣad Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Deutsche Akademie der Wisssenschaften zu Berlin Institut für Orientforschung Veröffentlichung 12).

  • Werner Karel. 1982. “Men gods and powers in the Vedic outlook.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 114 1: 14–24

  • Wezler Albrecht. 1994. “A Note on Sanskrit bhrūṇa and bhrūṇahatyā.” In Festschrift Klaus Bruhn zur Vollendung des 65. Lebensjahres dargebracht von Schülern Freunden und Kollegen hrsg. von N. Balbir und J. Bautze 623–646. Reinbek: Wezler.

  • Wezler Albrecht. 1995. “Der Tod als Mittel der Entsühnung (gemäss dem Dharmaśāstra).” In Im Tod gewinnt der Mensch sein Selbst: das Phänomen des Todes in asiatischer und abendländischer Religionstradition ed. by G. Oberhammer 97–140. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Wezler Albrecht. 1997. “On the gaining of merit and the incurring of demerit through the agency of others.” In Lex et Litterae: studies in honour of Oscar Botto ed. by S. Lienhard and I. Piovano 567–589. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1873. Oriental and Linguistic Studies. New York: Scribner Armstrong.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1890. “Translation of the Kaṭha Upanishad.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 21: 88–112. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935810.

  • Whitney William Dwight. 1905. Atharva-Veda-Saṁhitā trsl. 2 vols. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press (Harvard Oriental Series 7–8).—Repr. Delhi etc.: Motilal Banarsidass 1962.

  • Windisch Ernst. 1907. “Zu Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇa Upaniṣad I 2.” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse 59: 111–128.

  • Windisch Ernst. 1908. Buddha’s Geburt und die Lehre von der Seelenwanderung. Leipzig: Trübner (Abhandlungen der Königlich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Philol.-hist. Cl. 262).

  • Witzel Michael. 1986. “JB palpūlanī: the structure of a Brahmana tale.” In Dr B.R. Sharma felicitation volume ed. by Mandan Mishra et al. 189–216. Tirupati (Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series 46).

  • Witzel Michael. 1989. “Tracing the Vedic dialects.” In Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes: actes du colloque international organisé par l’ UA 1058 … Paris (Fondation Hugot) 16–18 sept. 1986 ed. C. Caillat 97–265. Paris: Collège de France Institut de Civilisation Indienne.

  • Wüst W. 1959. “sṛṅkā-/śaṅkā- und Zubehör.” In Jñānamuktāvalī: commemoration volume in honour of Johannes Nobel ed. by Claus Vogel 254–276. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture.

  • Zaehner R.C. 1969. The Bhagavad-Gītā. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Zehnder Thomas. 1999. Atharvaveda-Paippalāda Buch 2: eine Sammlung altindischer Zaubersprüche vom Beginn des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner.

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 5 5 5
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

Related Content