Prajapati's relations with Brahman, Brhaspati and Brahma - DWC

(AiÄ. 3, 2, 3) 20 and the injunction to choose a b rahmán priest who is brahmi~tha
, i.e. "especially or excessively characterized by or filled with bráhman"
(ibidem). For the brahmán is explicitly declared to embody Bráhman:
TB. 3, 8, 3, 1 "since the brahmán, who is being addressed, '0 brahmán, I ·
shall bind the sacrificial horse for the gods, for Prajäpati ... ' is (embodies)
Bráhman, it is forsooth af ter having announced it to Bráhman, to the gods,
to Prajäpati that he binds the horse" . In Bh8. 3, 18 , 7; Äp8. 3, 20, 7 the
brahmán is explicitly identified with Bráhman. It is therefore not surprising
that he performs his function "with the greatest abundance of Bráhman"
(AiB. 5, 34, 3). Compare also TB. 3,12,9, 3 dealingwith a mythical
soma sacrifice at which Bráhman, itself acted as the brahmán priest. Brhaspati,
the brahmán of the gods (SB. 1, 7, 4, 21 etc.), is sarva'!l brahma
"complete, unimpaired Bráhman" (GB. 2,1,3 ; 4). He has this identification
in common with Prajäpati 05B. 7, 3, 1, 42 "Prajäpati is sárva'!l bráhma").
When the epithet sarvavid "omniscient,,21 is applied to him (GB. 1, 2, 18;
1, 5, 11), this does not mean that he knows everything contained in the
Veda, but rather that he knows the sarvam "totality" that is represented
by "the ot her Vedas" mentioned in SB. 12 , 3, 4, 9, which as the fourth
Veda were no doubt supposed to surpass and encompass the other three 22 .
Now , the term sarvavid does not, as far as I have been able to establish,
characterize Prajäpati, but when the brahmán priest is homologized to sarvam
(GB. 1, 5, 15), he has this qualification in common with that god 23 ,
who is likewise declared to be sarvam "the All, Totality" (KB. 6, 15 (6,
11,12); GB . 2,1,26).
Now, the idea denoted by sarvam is declared to be aniruktam "beyond
verbal e?,pression or definition ": Prajäpati is sarvam, ... sarvam is aniruktam
(SB . 1, 3, 5, 10; see also 1, 4, 1, 21) 2", Prajäpati is anirukta1:t (AiÄ.
1,2,2) and, as we have se en (PB. 18, 1, 23), the brahmán priest is anirukta1:t.
The author of AiB. 7, 26, 5 is quite explicit on the brahmán's 'identity'
with the sacrifice (yajna u ha vä e~a pratyak~a'!l yad brahmä) 25. "Where
the, brahmán is, there 26 the sacrifice is situated" (GB. 2, 1,4). According
to SB. 6, 2, 2, 40 this officiant "is" even the complete sacrifice (sarvo yajna1:t).
Remember that as the fourth officiant he represents completeness or
totality. On the other hand, "Prajäpati is the year, and Prajäpati is the
sacrifice" (SB. 5, 2, 1, 2), "Prajäpati, the sacrifice, is the year" (11, 1,
1, 1; cf. 12, 6, 1, 1)27. - By means of the Purul?a-hymn (~V. 10, 90; VS .
20 See also passages such as JUB. 3, 4, 3,10 sa ha väva brahmä ya eval]l veda.
21 1 refer to J. Gonda, The 'omniscience' of Vedic gods, forthcoming.
22 I omit a discussion of the fourth Veda = Brahmaveda = Atharvaveda and of GB. 1, 5,
15; see Bodewitz, The fourth priest, in Selected studies on ritual (Vol. D. J.
Hoens, Suppl. to Numen 45), p. 46 f. As to Prajäpati as the fourth see p. 45 above.
23 For Prajäpati and sarvam see Gonda , All ... in Sat. Br. , p. 15 and Prajäpati and
the year, p. 80 f. ,
24 See p. 47 above. - Renou and Silburn , op . cit. , p. 74 incorrectly say that SB.
5, 4, 4, 13 Bráhman is characterized as aniruktam.
25 "because" , he continues , "the whole sacrifice is firmly established in the brahmán
, the patron on the sacrifice" (cf. the comm. : the brahmán is the sacrifice ,
i.e. yajffasvarüpa eva , tatsädhakatvät). Cf. also GB . 2, 1,4; 2,2, 15 ; ~B . 1,
6, 5.
26 Thus the manuscripts. The conjecture in D. Gaastra's edition, Leiden 1919,
cannot be justified.
27 For particulars and implications see Gonda, Prajäpati and the year, p. 62 f. ; 78;
80 etc. - See also GB. 2,3,8.
54