Fwd: [Advaita-l] Purusamedha

[Shrisha Rao]

An interesting question that was posted to another list I am
subscribed to. -- SR

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: BV Giri <rese...@devavision.org>
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Purusamedha
To: adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org

Namaskaram,
I am writing a thesis on certain elements of Yajur Veda and I am somewhat
confused regarding the Purushamedha

It seems quite confusing as to where the Vedas stand on this issue. The
Purusa-medha seems to strongly to suggest that in the Vedic period, human
sacrifices were performed by Brahmanas. Many scholars say that the
Purusa-medha was only symbolic and nobody was really killed. However, in the
Satpatha Brahmana texts and also in Bhagavata Purana we find the story of
Sunahsepha, who was chosen as a sacrificial victim by the brahmanas and was
almost offered in sacrifice.

Anyhow, I am not interested in scholars speculations. I am more interested
in what sampradayik Vaisnavas have to say on this matter. Could you find
time to ask any Sri or Madhva scholars what the Purusa-medha was about and
if anyone was actually sacrificed. If it was symbolic, how do we account for
the story of Sunahsepha?

What do purvacaryas say about the Purusamedha?

BV Giri

_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listm...@advaita-vedanta.org

[Tirumala Kulakarni]

Namaskara,

2009/9/1 Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>

An interesting question that was posted to another list I am
subscribed to. -- SR

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: BV Giri <rese...@devavision.org>
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Purusamedha
To: adva...@lists.advaita-vedanta.org


Namaskaram,
I am writing a thesis on certain elements of Yajur Veda and I am somewhat
confused regarding the Purushamedha

Anyhow, I am not interested in scholars speculations. I am more interested
in what sampradayik Vaisnavas have to say on this matter. Could you find
time to ask any Sri or Madhva scholars what the Purusa-medha was about and
if anyone was actually sacrificed. If it was symbolic, how do we account for
the story of Sunahsepha?

Sri Vishvanandana Theertha-ru is a highly qualified (Ph.D. from IISc, Bangalore 30 years ago, left his job, did svashaakhaa vedadhyayana and in later stage studied other three vedas, well versed in Vedanta-puraNa-itihaasa.) highly regarded by present generation Maadhva community.

I asked him about this issue. His answers are -

1) Other than Itihaasa-ullekha there is no Saampradayik incidents of Purushamedha.

2) Other ullekhas to be considered here are -

         a. `abadhnan puruShaM paSum' in puruShasUta.

         b. In Chaandogyopanishat, while counting paMcha saama-s five types of havis is listed. Purusha is one of them.

         c. In Mahabharata, somewhere in Shantiparva or Anushaasanaparva a story of a king having 100 wives is narrated. There it is said that - he was suggested to sacrifice his one son to get more sons.

3) By seeing these instances it seems there was Purushamedha, where a man was sacrificed. In Shunasshepa story it is clear.

4) Certainly it was very rare. It seems people with special qualification were doing such Yajnas in old age. The time of the practice could not be decided.

The search for the word Purushamedha in Mahabharata gave this answer - (01090019C)  यः पुरुषमेधानामयुतमानयत्.

Dr. Tirumala Kulakarni

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

<it seems there was Purushamedha, where a man was sacrificed. In Shunasshepa story it is clear.>

I do not see how it is clear. The story does not describe an actual sacrifice, does not approve it, but condemns it. How does that prove that there was actual human sacrifice. If there was it was outside the Vedic fold. There is a famous story of Prajapati chasing his daughter. But does that prove that the Vedas approved incest? just see how Kumaarila interprets that. The whole hymn RV 10.10 is a dialogue between brother and sister on whether incest is good or not. Does that prove that there was incest? Similarly the Sunahshepa story  is a ninda variety of arthavaada like the Yama-Yami story. The conclusion that it proves the existence of human sacrifice has no basis, neither traditionally nor from ethical point of view. DB   --- On Wed, 2/9/09, Tirumala Kulakarni <tkula...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looking for local information? Find it on Yahoo! Local

[hn bhat]

I had just referred to the story of Shunashepha to confirm my memory of reading it my childhood days. There are two similar versions of the story of Shunashepha one in the Devibhagavatha and the other in Ramayana Balakanda Sarga-s 61-62. As it happens, there is no mention of Pashumedha sacrifice at all. But in both it is a sort of "prayaschitta" act. In the Devibhagavatha, and others if any, it is Harischandra, the childless king of Ikshvaku dynasty, who had made an offer to give his son born to Varuna, which yielded and he got a son Rohithashva. Later, he evaded offering his son on being repeatedly reminded by Varuna in person and at last out of rage he cursed to be caught hold of jalodara sickness and so without way out of the sufferings, he was adviced to comply to his promise made to Varuna. The king unwilling to give up his son, sought some other means and at the suggestion by them, he sent people to get a boy in llieu of his son for any price and thus he bought Shunashepha. At this juncture, Vishvamithra teaches some mantra-s to him by reciting which Varuna was pleased and released Harischandra out of his pledge and sickness. Thus saved by Vishwamitra, Shunashepha became his dharma-putra, and himself authored many sections in the Rgveda on receiving training from the great sage. This is the brief story of Shunashepha in one version.

In the other, it is Ambarisha, who set out to perform 100th ashvamedha (which will qualify him to become eligible to enthrone to the seart of Indra) and terrified by this Indra stole his sacrificial horse. On the loss of the sacrificial ashva, he was adviced to sacrifice a human being, and on this search, also it was Shunashepha who was sold by his parents out of poverty. In this story also, Vishvamitra met him on their way to the Sacrificial place and preached two mantra-s by reciting which he pleased the gods and was relieved from being sacrificed. In both versions, the interpretation as arthavada  used to glorify the great sages Vishvamithra and his dharma-putra shunashepa is clear. And does not necessarily hint the performance of so called pashumedha. 

Now coming to the allusion, in purushasookta, the whole sookta is full of allegorical phenomenon as it seems it describes humanity as a whole and the parts of which are the four varna-s as envisaged in it. All the commentators, on the particular stanza where the allusion occurs, confirm this. The first creation, Purusha, was made the animal for the sacrifice, who was being described from the beginning of the sookta as sahasrasheershah purushah sahasraakshah sahasrapaat. and in no way the particular line alludes to a Purushamedha, not described in Dharmashastra texts. like "Apastamba: Raajaa saarvabhaumo 'shvamedhena yajeta" (in the case of Ashvamedha). All the commentators, including Sayana, Mahidhara, Mangalacharya and one modern Kamalakrishna describe it the word yajna allegorical : yajnena = sankalpikena manasikena yajnena, yajam = tam yajnapurusham, ayajantha = poojitavantah, devaah . (the last rk of the sookta) and elsewhere the same interpretation is offered. 

I could not check the Yajurveda episode. There also, the participants were gods or so. There also the possibility of being allegorical phenomenon cannot be ruled out.

I also second Dipak bhattacharya's view. Further unmovable testimony is needed to arrive at a firm conclusion than speculations about human sacrifice.  

And one more thing, my google search brought several pages containing the discussion including Vikipedia also which precisely gave the explanation given by Vishvananda on being asked along with that of Grifith (1889) the translator of Vedic literature into English. I didn't quote Vikipedia, since its authority is not always based on reliable sources.

Further opinions are solicited.

With regards

With regards

2009/9/2 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattac...@yahoo.co.in>

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

here I quote कात्यायनश्रौतसूत्र 11.1-15

पुरुषमेधस्त्रयोविंशतिदीक्षः अतिष्ठाकामस्य।

ब्राह्मणराजन्ययोः।

अग्निष्टोमावान्तरेणातिरात्र उक्थ्यपक्षः।

यूपैकादशिनी भवति।

तावन्तोग्रीषोमीयाः।

पशूनुपाकरिष्यन्नतिरात्रे देवसवितरिति प्रत्यृचं तिस्रो जुहोति।

ऐकादशिनानुपाकृत्य ब्राह्मणादींश्च।

नियोजनकाले अष्टाचत्वारिंशंशतमाद्यानग्निष्ठे।

इतरेष्वेकादशैकादश।

द्वितीयोच्छ्रिते शेषान्।

कपिञ्जलादिवदुत्सृजन्ति ब्राह्मणादीन्।

स्विष्टकृद्वनस्पत्यन्तरे पुरुषदेवताभ्यो जुहोति।
सपुरुषमश्वमेधवद्दक्षिणा।

सर्वस्वं ब्राह्मणस्य। 

त्रैधातव्यन्ते समारोह्यात्मन्नग्नी सूर्यमुपस्थाय अद्भ्यः संभृत इत्यनुवाकेन अनपेक्षमाणो अरण्यं गत्वा न प्रत्येयात्।

अत्र कर्कभाष्यं -- सा चेयं पुरुषमेधाख्या सर्वस्वदक्षिणा प्राजापत्येष्टिस्तां निरूप्य पारिव्रज्यं ब्राह्मणस्य। एवं च यावज्जीवमग्निहोत्रं जुहुयात् इति श्रुतिरनया विकल्प्यते। (LBSRSV Ed.p. 407-9)

this is clear what is tradition at least at Katyayanas time (nearly 5000 y.a. according to me). but what tirumala said may be of a very old time. puranas can not be simply arthavada. did not they have any work instead of concocting such stories. this is what I believe, if not others. puranas repeat this story in one or other disguise.

2009/9/2 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>

--
Veeranarayana N.K. Pandurangi
Head, Dept of Darshanas,
Yoganandacharya Bhavan,
Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Samskrita University, Madau, post Bhankrota, Jaipur, 302026.

[hn bhat]

Thanks a lot Dr. Pandurangi.

It is now clear what Poorvacharya-s say in respect of Purushamedha sacrifice. This is what I also was expecting. From the quoted description, it concords with the Brahmana story also, in Yajurbrahmana: Prajapati was the deity for whom the sacrifice was offered and this Purushamedha is synonymous with Prajapatyeshti or at least is the sacrifice to the deity Prajapati according to the Karkabhāṣya quoted also.

Hey, there is something just now I notice in the quotation: puruṣadevatābhyo juhoti which makes imports something essential into the topic. Is it the elaborate form of Nryajna one of the Pañcamahāyajña-s of a Gṛhastha? In other words, does the Nṛ-yajña symbolize the puruṣamedha  which is meant for for a brāhmaṇa after which he is  eligible to opt pārivrajyā setting aside the injunction of the scriptures on him binding life long to perform Agnihotra as per the Karkabhāṣya quoted.  Anyway, in the absence of a commentary on the quoted portion, it is difficult to come to a conclusion.   

Thanks once again to Dr. Veeranarayana, for providing a tenable testimony for the existence of puruṣamedha. It would be helpful, if a commentary on the portion is also made available.
 

2009/9/3 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

[hn bhat]

[Krishna K]

2009/9/2 hn bhat <hnbh...@gmail.com>:

There is mention of shunaHshepa and his meeting Vishvamitra in
Aitareya Brahmana (33rd adhyAya). The story is a mix of two stories
mentioned above. The king is Harishchandra instead of Ambarisha, and
he promises to perform a sacrifice for varuNa if he is granted a son
[This section has the line - na aputrasya loko.asti, a 'samAkhyA
vAkya' of the more popular 'aputrasya gatirnAsti']. Then on, varuNa
keeps pestering him to perform the sacrifice with the very son as the
yajna-pashu. The king postpones the event on different pretexts at
different times (such as 'the pashu needs to have teeth, should become
a proper kShatriya). When the time comes, the son fleeds to the
forest, and varuNa enters Harishchandra (probably the jalodara). His
son is goaded by Indra to go back, and finally shunahshepa is found.
Rest of story remains same.

However, an important difference, or so it appears, is that both
Harishchandra and varuNa (and vashiShTha and other officiators of the
sacrifice) knew that it was a human being sacrifced. In fact, when
Harishchandra asks Varuna if a shunahshepa can be offered, varuNa's
reply: tatheti, bhUyan vai brAhmaNaH kShatriyAditi varuNa uvAca -
is indicative that they were very well aware it is a human sacrifice.
Also the lines 'tam etam abhiShecanIye puruSham pashum Alebhe' makes
it clear.

I did some search on the word 'puruShamedh' in my files (which as
ITRANSized version of the texts at TITUS) and found references in:

1. vaitanasUtra: dvyaho ashvamedhasya tryahaH puruShamedhasya
sarvamedhaH puruShamedhavat... this passage deals with the sacrifices
that kShatriya has to do.

2. Agniveshya grihyasuutra (2nd adhyAya): rAjasUyaM pashubandhA
iShTayo nakShatreShTayo vA divashshyenayo.apAghAH sAtrAyaNa upahomAH
sUktAnyaupAnuvAkyAyAjya __ashvamedhapuruShamedhasautrAmaNyacchidrANi__
pashuhautram upaniShada iti sabrAhmaNAni sAnubrAhmaNAni vaishvadevAni

3. baudhAyana grihyasutra 3.1 (text same as above).

4. baudhAyana shrautasUtra (194th version in Kashikar edn): atha
rAjayaj~nAH, rAjasUyo.ashvamedhaH puruShamedhaH sarvamedhaH
somasavaH pRthisavo mRtyusavaH kAnAndhayaj~naH shunaskarNayaj~na iti
ca |

5. Multiple references in Shatapatha Brahmana. too many to list but
this sure is an interesting and relevant one (14.6.2.1), atha
yasmAtpuruShamedho nAma, ime vai lokAH pUrayameva puruSho yo.ayam
pavate so.asyAm puri shete tasmAtpuruShastasya yadeShu lokeShvannaM
tadasyAnnam medhastadyadasyaitadannam medhastasmAtpuruShamedho.atho
yadasminmedhyAnpuruShAnAlabhate tasmAdveva puruShamedhaH. The previous
section starts with 'atha adhyAtmaM' so this could just be the
adhyatmic meaning of puruShamedhas.

All in all, while the purpose of shunaHshepa episode can be seen as
extolling shunaHshepa and Vishvamitra, the other sutras seem to enjoin
one such sacrifice on a King. What exactly is the nature of this
puruShamedha, still remains a mystery within the known texts (or
atleast the ones that I have and superficially searched within).

Regards,
Krishna

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

In the edition I use the number of the KS sutra is 21.1.13 कपिञ्जलादिवदुत्सृजन्ति ब्राह्मणादीन्। means 'he lets them go' and not  'he sacrifices'. But it is not clear what conclusion you have drawn. Kindly clarify! Secondly of all the authorities cited by my colleagues none is higher than the Aitareya Braahmana. It has an arthavaada censuring human sacrifice. No other injuntion/ suggestion/ option can stand against it. There is no question of doubt about the permissibility of otherwise of human sacrifice according to the Vedas. It is prohibited DB   --- On Thu, 3/9/09, Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com> wrote:

See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Yahoo! Buzz.

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

yes. that is why I said it  was the tradition at katyayana's time. that may have changed in a very long time span. originally a human sacrifice, but changed gradually, to only "let him go". human sacrifice is certainly possible if we go by AB. 

But I am not sure whether AB has anything to do with purushamedha. AB is totally different story of two individuals. purushamedha may be a legacy of SB and nothing has to do with human sacrifice.

veeranarayaba

2009/9/3 Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattac...@yahoo.co.in>

[Veeranarayana Pandurangi]

my wife archana has drawn my attention to an artical by prof. Shrimannarayanamurthy in his "methodology in indological research" (BVP delhi 1991)  where he gave references to purushamedha in Vajasaneya samhita (30) and Taittiriya brahamana (3.4).  

He wrote, wrongly, "in this sacrifice involving butchering of not less than 184 persons according to VS and 178 persons according to TB , women are also included " (p.147). but he does not give exact sentece. 

this is one of the wrong ways of research happening everywhere. you give a reference to something but dont quote exact sentence. what a hell?

could somebody check the reference he cites VS 30.15 etc. or TB 3.4.19. he quotes one thing अथैतमारूपेभ्य आलभेत। अतिह्रस्वम् अतिदीर्घम् अतिकृशम् अत्यंसलम् अतिशुक्लम् अतिकृष्णम् अतिश्लक्ष्णम् अतिलोमशम् TB 3.4.19. but it does not mean they are actually butchered. आलम्भन  is sparsha only.

vnkp

2009/9/4 Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

<purushamedha may be a legacy of SB and nothing has to do with human sacrifice>

It is my view too that purushamedha has nothing to do with human sacrifice in the Vedas. But your view that human sacrifice existed at the time of the AB, though true, may require a little modification. Such a presentation may make one thing that it is permitted by the AB. It exists still now but illegally and is a criminal  offence. It is so also in the eyes of the Vedas. It goes to the credit of the AB that it showed the crime in it and censured it. DB

See the Web's breaking stories, chosen by people like you. Check out Yahoo! Buzz.

[S P Narang]

All! for detail references, please see: Vedic index and HDS -- Kane: of course for exact interpretations, we will have to go afresh. Regards, spnarang

---

From: Veeranarayana Pandurangi <veer...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 4, 2009 2:07:11 PM