02.zend Avesta

Vedic Śākhās:
Past, Present, Future.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop,

Bucharest ,
edited by
Jan E.M. Houben, Julieta Rotaru and Michael Witzel


Table of contents
On the Current Situation of Vedic Śākhās (Materials on Vedic Śākhās, )

– Michael Witzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Indication of Divergent Ritual Opinions in the Maitrāyan.ı̄ Saṁhitā

– Kyoko Amano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Cantillation et tonalité - Les deux paradigmes de tonalité dans le Taittirı̄ya-Āran.yaka

et la Taittirı̄ya-Upanis.ad
– Michel Angot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Attempts towards Preservation and Revival of the Śaunakı̄ya Atharvaveda

– Shrikant S. Bahulkar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Négation et complémentarité dans le Veda, à la lumière de Pān.ini (et de Platon)

– Radu Bercea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Atirātra
– Joel P. Brereton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Vedic schools in northwestern India

– Johannes Bronkhorst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Some Salient features of the Āśvs

– B.B. Chaubey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Morphosyntactic change in Vedic: Reassessing the evolution of the Subjunctive

– Eystein Dahl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Vedicizing a post-vedic text: the case of Gan.eśa Atharvaśı̄rs.a Upanis.ad

– Madhav M. Deshpande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Some observations regarding the concept of Time in Vedic ritual as reflected in the
several Vedic schools
– Maitreyee Deshpande . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Les Écoles védiques et la pratique de l’exégèse: le cas de Skandasvāmin

– Silvia D’Intino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Ks.etrasya Pati and Mandhātar

– Eijirō Dōyama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Formation of a Śrautasūtra: the influence of preceding texts on the Baudhāyana-Śrau-

tasūtra
– Makoto Fushimi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
The power of the printed Veda: on early Indian editions of the R . gveda
– Cezary Galewicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Survivals & Revivals: the transmission of Jaiminı̄ya Sāmaveda in modern south India
– Finnian M.M. Gerety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
A survey of new evidence as to the formation of the Yajurveda and Brāhman.a texts
– With special reference to recent Vedic studies in Japan –
– Toshifumi Gotō . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
From Fuzzy-Edged “Family-Veda” to the canonical Śākhas of the Catur-Veda: struc-

tures and tangible traces
– Jan E.M. Houben . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Aspects of continuity of the Vedic tradition

– Joanna Jurewicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Formation and Chronology of Some of the Taittirı̄ya Gr.hyasūtras

– Ambarish V. Khare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Intrastanzaic Repetition in the Rigveda (Verba and Res): a Final Integration

– Jared S. Klein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Avaks.ayan.a: Contribution of Yājñavalkya or Śukla Yajurveda to Indian Culture

– Madhavi Kolhatkar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Scribes of the Śukla Yajurvedic Manuscripts

– Nirmala R. Kulkarni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Trends of Standardization and Institutionalization in the Transmission of the Vedas:

Examples from Contemporary Maharashtra
– Borayin Larios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism

– Timothy Lubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
The Development of the New- and Full-Moon Sacrifice and the Yajurveda Schools:
mantras, their brāhman.as, and the offerings
– Naoko Nishimura . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
The Periphrastic perfect in the Vedic language and Pān.ini’s Grammar

– Jun’ichi Ozono . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
References to ritual authorities and Vedic schools in the Jaiminı̄ya-Śrautasūtra and

its commentary, collected and evaluated

– Asko Parpola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
On Br.haspati’s name
– Georges-Jean Pinault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Roots and Branches: the Veda as an Inverted Tree?

– Alexis Pinchard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Le Sāmavidhānabrāhman.a: le prāyaścitta décrypté

– Anne Marie Quillet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Donees and their Śākhās in Epigraphical Sources: Orissa

– Saraju Rath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
The Priests of the Avudaiyar Temple in Tamil Nadu: Promoters of the Āgniveśya-
gr.hyasūtra
– S.A.S. Sarma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Two on a Swing: a New Perspective on the R . gveda

– Hartmut Scharfe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Karmasamuccaya: a Paippalādin Corpus of Domestic Rituals

– Shilpa Sumant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Āpastamba and Other Schools of Vedic Ritual

– Ganesh Thite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
The language of sūktas and tr.cas shared by the R . k, Paippalāda and Śaunakı̄ya
Saṁhitās
– Elizabeth Tucker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??
Tolerance and Intolerance in Kumārila’s Views on the Vedic śākhā

– Kiyotaka Yoshimizu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ??


Roots and Branches: the Veda as an Inverted Tree?
Alexis Pinchard
. The Vedavrks.a after the Veda

˚
.Early evidences for śākhā- as a name of the Vedic
Schools
This paper does not aim at giving a detailed account of the various Vedic
“branches”, but at understanding why the Brahmanic tradition viewed itself
as a kind of tree.
Of course, it is not a mere random if the various Vedic schools are called
śākhā- already in the early post-Vedic period, especially for the Yajur-Veda,
as it is evidenced in the Manu-Smrti III,  and in Patañjali’s Mahābhās.ya:
˚
yatnena bh ojayet śrāddh e bahvrcam. vedapāragam /
śākh āntagam ath ādh varyum ˚
. c andogam. tu samāptikam //
h
Let him [take] pains [to] feed at a Śrāddha an adherent of the Rig-veda who has
studied one entire [recension of that] Veda, or a follower of the Yajur-Veda who
has finished one branche (śākhāntaga), or a singer of Sāmans who [likewise]
has completed [the study of an entire recension] (MSm III, , personal
translation).
catvārah. vedāh. sāṅgāh. sarahasyāh. bahudhā vibhinnāh. ekaśatam adhvaryu-

śākhāh. sahasravartmā sāmavedah. ekavim . satidhā bāhvrcyam navadhā
ātharvan.ah. / ˚
The four Vedas with their auxiliaries and secret doctrines are divided into
many [recensions]: there are  branches for the Adhvaryu priest, the Sāma-
veda has thousand ways, the Rg-Veda has  recensions and the Atharvaveda
has nine (MhB; Paspaśa  =˚KA I, .-. = Ro I, -).

I am greatly indebted to the Center for Hellenic Studies (Harvard University) for having
enabled me to read during my fellowship (-) many rare papers that were needed for this
work.

A similar compound occurs in the BGPS I, .: śrotriyā iti te jñeyāh. śākhāpārāś ca ye
dvijāh. // “those twice-born who have crossed to the far shore of their branch of the Veda are to
be known as ‘learned’ ” (quoted and translated by Lubin , ).
Alexis Pinchard
The Veda was really conceived of as a tree or in connection with a tree.

Some late manuscripts even furnish the picture of the complete vedavrks.a of
which the śākhā-s are vāṅmaya, “made of speech”. But there, whole ˚ Vedic
schools (for example Caraka or Paipallāda schools) are to be found only at
the levels of the leaves, i.e., at the extremity of the tree, and these leaves do
not represent single texts only, so that such an expressions as śākhāntaga-
(MSm III, c) does not make sense. In such a case, how could Sam . hitās,
Brāhman.as, Āran.yakas and Upanis.ads be distinguished?
. The Vedavrks.a in the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā

˚
The connection between the structure of the Vedic śruti and the image of
a tree, as a means to reconcile the unity of the sacred intuition with the
multiplicity of transmitted texts, is well established in the post-Vedic texts.
Nevertheless the various ways of imaging this tree do not always agree with
one another: sometimes, whereas the tree is inverted, it symbolizes the whole
cosmos with its material diversity depending on an invisible principle rather
than the Vedic canon with its various Śākhās, although it is called brahman.
Sometimes it really deals with the Vedic canon, but there the tree is not
inverted and the idea of a progressive development, with the rise of novelty at
each generation, is forgotten. The multipliciy of the Vedic texts would thus
result merely from the division of a set of eternal texts and this division itself
would be due to the decline of the human memory during the Dvāpara-Age.
Of course, the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā seems to contain both elements, the inverted
tree as well as an explicit reference to the Vedic various texts:
ūrdhvamūlam adhah.śākham aśvattham . prāhur avyayam /
chandām
. si yasya parn
. āni yas tam
. veda sa vedavit ////
The imperishable fig tree is rooted upwards and its branches are directed
downwards. Its leaves are the hymns. The one who knows it knows the Veda
(Bhagavad-Gı̄tā XV, ).
But here it deals only with the chandas, which are the basis just of the
Rg-Veda, the Sāma-Veda and the Atharvaveda, so that the Yajur-Veda is
˚
excluded. Moreover these Chandas-Sam . hitās appear only at the level of the
leaves of tree; it follows that the Brāhman.as, Āran.yakas and Upanis.ads
depending on them are not mentionned. On the contrary, in the Manu-Smrti,
it was clear that a good brahmin, who completely knows by heart his śākhā, ˚
also knows the Brāhman.as, Āryan.yakas and Upanishads: the Sam . hitā is only
the beginning of the Śākhā. Therefore the śākhā-s of this Bhagavad-Gı̄tā tree

See the Appendix at the end of this paper, quoted from Witzel -,  (fac-simile
from Deshpande and Śāstrı̄ ).

seem not to be the various Vedic schools. According to this text, the Vedic
hymns are in a tree, but the Vedic tradition itself is not a tree. Moreover,
the tree is inverted and permanent, a conception which does not match the
Vis.n.u-Purān.a.
. The Vedavrks.a in the Vis.n.u-Purān.a

˚
In this Purān.a, the word śākhā- is endowed with its technical meaning and
the branches of the tree really symbolize Vedic schools:
vedadrumasya maitreya śākhābhedāh. sahasraśah. /
na śaktā  vistarād vaktum . sam. ks.epen.a śrn.us.va tam //
˚
dvāpare dvāpare vis.n.ur vyāsarūpı̄ mahāmune /
vedam ekam . subahudhā kurute jagato hitah. //
vı̄ryam
. tejo balam . cālpam. manus.yān.ām aveks.ya ca /
hitāya sarvabhūtānām. vedabhedān karoti sah. //
The branches of the great tree of the Vedas are so numerous,
Maitreya, that it is impossible to describe them at length. I will
give you a summary account of them.
In every Dwapara (or third) age, Vis.n.u, in the person of Vyāsa, in
order to promote the good of mankind, divides the Veda, which
is properly but one, into many portions: observing the limited
perseverance, energy, and application of mortals, he makes the
Veda fourfold, to adapt it to their capacities (ViPu III, .-;
edition revised by the author).
However such a Vedavrks.a is not explicitly inverted and is explicitly
unpermanent. The division ˚ of the Veda begins with the Dvapara age and
progressively develops. It is not a permanent structure of the world. The
purān.ic Vedavrks.a is eternal only inasmuch as the same divisions happen
˚
again in each cosmic period:
sarvamanvantares.v evam . śākhābhedāh. samāh. smrtāh. //
prājāpatyā śrutir nityā tadvikalpās tv ime dvija ˚ //
In every Manu-antara the same various Śākhās are taught in this
way. Prajāpati’s revelation is eternal whereas these Śākhās are
transformations of it, O twice-born (ViPu III, .-)!
The progressive rise of diversity in the Vedic tradition is not viewed as the
result of the creative activity of the śis.ya-s, but as the fruit of the decision of

Cf. Yāska, Nirukta .: śākhāh. śaknoteh. / “the word ‘branches’ originates from ‘he can’.”

Alexis Pinchard
the guru, who understands that his disciples cannot learn by heart a whole
Veda. Hence the divisions of the Veda are conceived of as a sign of decadence.
It is not positively valued. This decadence comes to a head in the Kali-Yuga,
where are no new divisions anymore, but some Śākhās are forgotten. This
Purān.ic view about the progessive division of the Veda seems to be directly
inspired by Yāska:
sāks.ātkrtadharmān.a r.sayo babhūvuh. / te ’varebhyo ’sāks.ātkrtadharmabhya upa-
deśena˚mantrān sam ˚ ˚
. prādur / upadeśāya glāyanto ’vare bilmagrahan.āyemam .
grantham samām . nāsis.ur vedam
. ca vedāṅgāni ca / bilmam . bhilmam. bhāsanam
iti vā /
The primeval seers had a direct perception of the world order. By teaching
they transmitted the efficient incantations to their successors who did not
have a direct perception of the world order. The later ones, growing tired of
learning, in order to keep only small parts in their memory, organized the
oral transmission of the present sacred canon, i.e. the Veda and its auxiliaries.
Indeed bilma- means small part or explication (Yāska, Nirukta I, , personal
translation).
However there is a contradiction in the Purān.a: according to it, on the

one hand, the appearance of the various Śākhās is due to the division of
a set of preexisting eternal texts, what could make sense only for the first
division between the fours Vedas, i.e., Rg-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sāma-Veda and
Atharvaveda. On the other hand, the ˚Vis.n.u-Purān.a acknowledges that the
Śākhās concern the various recensions of what is basically the same text.
The Purān.a makes no essential difference between the functional division of
the Veda into four Vedas and the compositional division of each Veda into
many recensions:
so ’yam eko yathā vedas tarus tena prthak krtah. /
caturdhāthā tato jātam ˚ ˚
. vedapādapakānanam //
bibheda prathamam . vipra pailo rgvedapādapam /
˚ ca samhite //
indrapramitaye prādād bās.kalāya .
The unique tree of the Veda, having been divided by him [Vyāsa] into four
principal stems, soon branched out into an extensive forest. In the first place,
Paila divided the Rig-Veda tree, and gave the two Sam . hitās to Indrapramati
and to Báshkali (ViPu III, .-).
Are the Vedic schools the result of a division of an eternal and always
perfectly detailed revelation into different parts, or the result of a transfor-
mation (vikalpa, see above) of a single spiritual intuition in different ways ?
Even though it is not very clear, the image of the tree fits better with the
second interpretation. Moreover, in the Purān.ic texts, there still are some
traces of a creative power or, more exactly, of an intuitive faculty as the
source of the various Śākhās. For example, Yajñavalkya in Vis.n.u- Purān.a III,
 is said to have rejected the teaching of his guru Vaiśam . pāyana and have

obtained his own revelation from the sun. This revelation was the beginning
of the Kanva-school.
Of the tree of the Yajur-veda there are twenty-seven branches, which
Vaiśampāyana, the pupil of Vyāsa, compiled, and taught to as many dis-
ciples. Amongst these, Yājñavalkya, the son of Brahmarāta, was distinguished
for piety and obedience to his preceptor.
It had been formerly agreed by the Munis, that any one of them who, at a
certain time, did not join an assembly held on mount Meru should incur the
guilt of killing a Brahman, within a period of seven nights. Vaiśampāyana
alone failed to keep the appointment, and consequently killed, by an accidental
kick with his foot, the child of his sister. He then addressed his scholars, and
desired them to perform the penance expiatory of Brahmanicide on his behalf.
Without any hesitation Yājñavalkya refused, and said, “How shall I engage in
penance with these miserable and inefficient Brahmans?” On which his Guru,
being incensed, commanded him to relinquish all that he had learnt from
him. “You speak contemptuously,” he observed, “of these young Brahmans,
but of what use is a disciple who disobeys my commands?” “I spoke,” replied
Yājñavalkya, “in perfect faith; but as to what I have read from you, I have
had enough: it is no more than this--” (acting as if he would eject it from his
stomach); when he brought up the texts of the Yajus. in substance stained with
blood. He then departed. The other scholars of Vaiśampāyana, transforming
themselves to partridges (Tittiri), picked up the texts which he had disgorged,
and which from that circumstance were called Taittirı̄ya; and the disciples
were called the Caraka professors of the Yajus., from Caran.a, ‘going through’
or ‘performing’ the expiatory rites enjoined by their master.
Yājñavalkya, who was perfect in ascetic practices, addressed himself strenuously
to the sun, being anxious to recover possession of the texts of the Yajush.
“Glory to the sun,” he exclaimed, “the gate of liberation, the fountain of bright
radiance, the triple source of splendour, as the Rig, the Yajur, and the Sāma
Vedas. Glory to him, [. . . ] whose banners scatter ambrosia.”
Thus eulogized by Yājñavalkya, the sun, in the form of a horse, appeared to
him, and said, “Demand what you desire.” To which the sage, having prostrated
himself before the lord of day, replied, “Give me a knowledge of those texts of
the Yajus. with which even my preceptor is unacquainted.” Accordingly the
sun imparted to him the texts of the Yajus. called Ayātayāma (unstudied),
which were unknown to Vaiśampāyana: and because these were revealed by
the sun in the form of a horse, the Brahmans who study this portion of the
Yajus. are called Vājis (horses). Fifteen branches of this school sprang from
Kan.va and other pupils of Yājñavalkya (Vis.n.u-Purān.a III, ).
In order to overcome, if possible, these discrepancies about the structure

of the Vedic tradition, and to reach a unique understanding of the connection
between the Veda and the image of a tree, let us take a look at the Veda
itself. I suppose that, there, the tree of the sacred poetic tradition should be
essentially symbolized by an inverted tree.

Alexis Pinchard
The remote past may be more consistant than the classical period and
may allow us to understand why the late tradition do not agree with itself.
My paper will be itself a kind of inverted tree since it progressively approches
the root of tradition.
. Sacred speech and vrks.a in the Veda itself

˚
. Upanis.ads
Indeed the situation in the Upanishads is even worse for our hypothesis of the
Veda as an inverted tree than in the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā, although they actually
tell us about an inverted tree. For linguistic elements do not explicitly occur:
ūrdhvamūlo ’vaśākha es.o ’aśvatthah. sanātanah. /
tad eva śukram . tad brahma tad evāmrtam ucyate /
tasmim̆l ˚ eti kaś cana  //
˙ lokāh. śritāh. sarve tad u nāty
This permanent fig tree has its roots upwards and its branches downwards. It
is bright, it is the brahman; that is it which is called immortality. In it all the
worlds have their support and nobody goes beyond it (Kat.hU VI, ).
Here no concret language element is mentioned. Are the śākhā-s of this tree
the Vedic schools? Seemingly it is not the case:
hy āhordhvamūlam tripād brahma śākhā ākāśavāyvagnyudakabhūmyadaya
eko ’śvatthanāmaitad brahmaitasyaitat tejo yad asā ādityah. om ity etad
aks.arasya caitat tasmād om ity anenaitad upāsı̄tājasram ity eko ’sya sam-
bodhayitety evam. prāha /
For, indeed, the brahman, inasmuch as it has three feet, is rooted upwards; its
branches are ether, wind, fire, water, earth, and so on. This brahman is called
“the unique fig tree”. His sap is what the sun is. The syllabe om̆˙ is also the
sap of this imperishable [fig tree]. Therefore the brahman is always worshiped
by uttering om̆.
˙ This syllabe is the only waker of this [world]. So does the
tradition speal (MaiU VI, ).
Here again the word śākhā- does not refer to Vedic schools, but to material
elements.
Nevertheless, in other well-known Vedic texts, brahman is somehow co-
extensive with vāc, Speech (cf. RV X, , d: yā´vad bráhma vís..thitam .
˚
tā´vatı̄ vā´k //). Even more precisely, in BĀU I, , , the brahman consists
in whatever is recited (anūktam). Moreover the bahuvrı̄hi tripād- which,
according to me, refers only to the roots of the inverted tree, reminds us of
the famous division of Vāc into four quarters in RV I, , :
˚
catvā´ri vā´k párimitā padāńi tāńi vidur brāhman.ā´ yé manı̄s.ín.ah. /
gúhā tr´ı̄n.i níhitā néṅgayanti tur´ı̄yam. vācó manus.yā` vadanti //

Cf. Skambha in AVŚ X, , d: tád u nā . caná ////
´ty kím

Speech has been measured into four quarters. Those who are acquainted with
the brahman, thinking about it, know them. Three quarters have been laid in
secret and they do not move them; the human beings speak the fourth quarter
of Speech (RV X, , ).
˚
The fourth quarter might match the visible part of the brahman-tree, the
branches and the leaves, and thus the śākhā-s of MaiU VI,  (quoted just
above) could also symbolize the speech as it is concretly spoken in time and
space. The bahuvrı̄hi tripād- also reminds us of the Purus.asūkta (RV X,
, d-a: tripā´d ˚ ˚
. diví // tripā´d ūrdhvá úd ait púrus.ah.) where
asyāmŕtam
it is said how Rc, Yajur˚and the Sāman were produced from the primeval
sacrifice: ˚
tásmād yajñā´t sarvahútah. sámbh rtam pr.sadājyám /
paśū
ń tā´m ˚ ˚
. ś cakre vāyavyā`n āran.yāń grāmyā´ś ca yé // //
tásmād yajñā´t sarvahúta ŕcah. sā´māni jajñire /
ch ándām ˚
. si jajñire tásmād yájus tásmād ajāyata ////
From that great general sacrifice the dripping fat was gathered up. He formed
the creatures of the air, and animals both wild and tame. From that great
general sacrifice Rc- and Sāma-hymns were born. Therefrom were verse-meters
˚ had its birth from it (RV X, , -).
produced; the Yajus
˚
Indeed there is another Upanishadic passage where the inverted cosmic
tree is directly identified with the Purus.a:
vrks.a iva stabdho divi tis..thaty ekas tenedam pūrn.am purus.ena sarvam //
˚
He stands like a unique tree fixed in the sky; the universe is filled by this
Person (ŚvU III, ).
To sum up, these upanishadic texts do not invalidate our hypothesis of the
Veda as an inverted tree, although they are a little bit disapointing inasmuch
as they do not explicitly connect the inverted tree and the structure of the
Vedic tradition.
. Taittirı̄ya-Āran.yaka
In the TaiĀ, we can find almost the same text as in the Kat.hU, but in a
different context, which is very instructive for the interpretation:
striyas satı̄h. / tā u me pum̆sa
˙ āhuh. / paśyad aks.anvān na viceta andhas /
kavir yah. putras sa im ā ciketa //.// yas tā vijānāt sa pitus. pitāsat / andho
man.im avindat / tam anaṅgulir āvayat / agı̄vah. pratyamuñcat / tam ajihvo
asaścat / ūrddhvamūlam avākchākham / vrks.am yo veda samprati / na sa jātu
janah. śraddhadhyāt / mrtyur mā mārayād˚ iti / hasitam̆ ˙ ruditaṅ ı̄tam //.//
(personal edition) ˚

We already justified this translation in Pinchard , , footnote . Contra Falk
.

Alexis Pinchard
Although they are females, I am told that they are males. He who has eyes sees
them, but the blind one does not perceive them. The poet who is a [real] son
[of his father] understands this (solves the riddle). The one who acknowledges
them, he will be the father of his own father! Even if he is blind, he found
the necklace (= the mystic part of the soul, the ātman?); even if he has no
finger, he interwove [the jewels] on [it]; even if he has no neck, he put it on
himself; even if he has no tongue, he worshipped it [with speech]. The one who
exactly knows the tree with the roots upwards and the branches downwards,
he should absolutely not believe that Death will let him die: it would be a
ridiculous lament (TĀ I, , -)!
This passage contains a series of riddles which are based on a systematic

inversion: sexual inversion, inversion between the lack of an organ and the
presence of a faculty, and at least the spacial inversion of the tree. In each
case, the understanding of the riddle brings salvation and immortality, as it
is common in Āran.yakas and Upanishads. The first riddle of this passage
is a direct quotation from a Rg-Vedic hymn in which several riddles allude
the special upanayana ritual˚to access the Pravargya mantras, as Jan E.M.
Houben has shown:
sākam . jāńām . saptát am āhur ekajám
h
. .sál. íd yamā´ ŕ.sayo devajā´ íti /
tés.ām i .s.tāńi víhitāni d h āmaśá st h ātré rejante vík˚ rtāni rūpaśáh. // //
stríyah. sat´ı̄ tā´m̆
˙ u me pum sá āhuh páśyad aksan v ˚n ná ví cetad andh áh /
ā
´
. . . . .
kavír yáh. putráh. sá ı̄m ā´ ciketa yás tā´ vijānā´t sá pitús. pitā´sat // //
Among those who are born together, the seventh one is said sole-born while
six are twins; they are called the Rs.is born from the gods. Their heats are
distributed in accordance with law; their ˚ heats are trembling for the Immovable,
changing their aspects. Although they are females, they are told me as males.
He who has eyes see them, but the blind one does not perceive them. The
poet who is a [real] son [of his father] understands this (solves the riddle). The
one who acknowledges them, he will be the father of his own father (RV I,
, -)! ˚
Since the identification with the primeval Rs.is is always the ultimate purpose
of an Upanayana, the decipherer of the riddle ˚ must actually be “the father
of his own father”, as it is said at the end of the riddle, because the Rs.is,
who the very origin of every priest lineage (brahmanic family) consists ˚ in,
are entitled “our first Fathers” (nah. pū´rve pitáras, RV I, , c = RV VI,
, a; cf. RV III, , b). ˚ ˚
˚
The fact that our Taittirı̄ya-Āran.yaka passage mentions the mystic in-
tuitive power of a blind man (andha) might be a supplementary proof of
the connection with the Pravargya Upanayana, because, during this special
dı̄ks.ā, the future initiate shall have his head and eyes covered by a veil, and
he has to keep silence, as if he were ajihva, “without any tongue”.

Houben  and , -.

Moreover Paul Thieme has demonstrated that the two complementary

Rg-Vedic stanzas of RV I, , - (quoted just above) refer to the stars
˚
of the Ursa Major in the night sky and to the krttikā-naks.atra, which are
˚ primeval Rsis and their
identified by the oldest tradition with the seven .
wives. ˚
. Atharva-Veda-Sam . hitā

.. The sacred speech coming from heaven and creating
the world
The explicit idea that the Vedic revelation comes from above, especially from
the night sky where the seven Rs.is have their seat while singing, is to be
found in the Atharva-Veda-Sam ˚
. hitā even though it is deconnected from the
image of the tree:
v rcó ak .sáre paramé vyòman yásmin devā´ ád h i víśve ni .sedúh. /
˚ tán ná véda kím rcā´ kari syati yá ít tád vidús te am´ı̄ sám āsate 
yás .
rcáh. padám ˚
. mā´trayā kalpáyanto ’rd arcéna cakl.pur víśvam éjat /
h
˚tripā´d bráhma  pururū´pam. ví tas..t e téna jı̄vanti pradíśaś cátasrah. ////
h
In the syllabe of the stanza, in the highest firmament, on which all the gods
sat down: he who knoweth not that, what will he do with a stanza? They who
know that sit together yonder (= the seven Rs.is: cf. AVŚ X, , c). Shaping
with measure the step of the stanza, they shaped ˚ by the half-stanza all that
stirs; the bráhman of three feet (tripād ; cf. Mai VI, ), many formed, spread
out ; by that do the four quarters live (AVŚ IX, , -= AVP XVI, ).
This celestial and permanent origin of the sacred tradition is confirmed by
the late RV:
˚
mantráyante divó amús.ya pr.s.thé viśvavídam. vāćam áviśvaminvām //
˚
On the back of that sky, [the Rs.is] claim the all-knowing speech, which can
not be moved by everybody (R˚V I, , , c-d).
˚
This uttering of the first sacred speech by the primeval seers still happens in
heaven: it is described with a verbe using the present tense.
.. Aśvattha and sacred speech

In the Veda, while we are ascending towards the oldest texts, the AVP offers
us the first explicit evidence for a connection between the symbol of tree
and precise linguistic elements:

See Thieme . Thus the image of the inverted tree appears in a context which is directly
connected with the fondation of the Vedic tradition and the night sky.

te am´ı̄ sám āsate: it deals with the saptars.i; cf. AVŚ X, , c. ////

´d : cf. MaiU VI, , quoted above.
trip ā

Alexis Pinchard
ya indrasya sabhādhāno yasmin samitim āsate /

hiran.yam . yasya parn.āni tasmā aśvattha te namah. ////
yah. śākhābhir antariks.am ā pūrayati nis..thayā /
chandām . si yasya parn.āni tasmā aśvattha te namah. ////

yam . mrgo na samāpnoti paks.ābhyām . śakunis. patan /

divam ˚yah sarvām stabhnāti tasmā aśvattha te namah ////
. . . .
The [tree] that is the place of Indra’s assembly, in which the ritual meeting is
celebrated, of which the leaves constitute something made of gold, homage to
it, O fig tree ! The [tree] that fills the intermediate space by the position of
its branches, of which the leaves are the verse meters (chandas), homage to
it, O fig tree ! The [tree] that neither a deer can reach nor the flying bird with
its two wings, the [tree] that sustains the whole sky, homage to it, O fig tree
(only AVP XIX, , -)!
In this Atharvan.ic fig tree, the language elements appear only at the last
level of the parn.as-s, not of the śākhā-s, just like in the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā XV,
 (quoted above). And the fact that these leaves are equaled with gold likely
means that they are eternal. Nevertheless, if the word chandas- meant “verse
meter” instead of “hymn” (like in RV X, ), the creative power of each
next poets generation might be not˚denied.
Alas, the tree is not explicitly inverted. The impossibility that birds and
deers reach it might just mean that this fig tree is nothing material, nothing
visible. Moreover, if it were inverted, such a position could not be permanent
because it has also to “sustain the whole sky”.
The AVP furnishes another connection between sacred Speech and an
Aśvattha, marked with the same word samiti-. However the fig tree is now
more clearly inverted:
divo jāto divas putro yasmāj jātam . mahat sahas /
aśvattham agre jaitrāya--ācchā devam . vadāmasi ////
yo aśvatthena mitren.a samitı̄r avagacchati /
jayāt sa sarvāh. prtanā yāś ca satyā utānrtāh. ////
˚ ˚
The son of Sky is born from the sky. From him is born a great strength.
We firstly invoke the fig tree god for victory [. . . ] The one who goes in
a trial (or a philosophical debate ?) with the fig tree as an associate,
he will obtain victory in every strife, so well the true (fair) ones as the false
(unfair) ones (only AVP II, , -, to Aśvattha , ed. Zehnder).
This samiti connected with an aśvattha is not necessary a trial or a law-suit.

It may also be an agonistic riddle play (for the use anrta- in a riddle context,
see RV IV, , ) or a philosophical debate. It has its˚ paradigm in Yama’s
˚
realm, as it is evidenced by some funerary hymns for the Pitrs: 
˚

= Bhagavad-Gı̄tā XV, c.

Text established with the kind help of Dipak Bhattacharya.

abhrātáro ná yós.an.o vyántah. patirípo ná jánayo durévāh. / pāpā
´sah. sánto anrtā
´ asatyā
´ idám
˚

tā
´bhyām
. yamásya sā´danam
. sámitı̄ś cāva gacchāt //
[I yoke for thee these two conveyers, to convey thee to the oher life ;] with
them you will attain Yama’s seat and his assemblies (AVŚ XVIII, , c-d).
Even when the word sámiti- does not occur, the thing is there:
yásmin v rk .sé supalāśé devaíh. sampíbate yamáh. /
˚
átrā no viśpáti h. pitā´ purān.ā´m̆
˙ ánu venati //
In the fair-leaved tree where Yama drinks together with the gods, until this
point our father, the chief of the tribe, follow the Ancesters with his spirit
(RV X, , ).
˚
This archetypal Aśvattha of Yama’s realm is clearly rooted in heaven,
and its branches, while being identified with the Kus.t.ha herb, may even go
downwards:
aśvatt h ó devasádanas trt´ı̄yasyām itó diví /
tátrāmŕtasya cák .san.am ˚
. tátah. kús..t o ajāyata /
h
sá kús.˚
t.h o viśváb h es.ajah. sākám. sómena ti .s.th ati /
takmāńam . sárvam . nāśaya sárvāś ca yātud h
ānyàh. ////
The Aśvattha is the seat of the gods, in the third heaven from here. There is
the manifesation of immortality. From there Kus.t.ha was born: so, allhealing
Kus.t.ha stands together with Soma, causing all fever and all sorceresses to
vanish (transl. Arlo Griffiths modified, p. -, AVŚ XIX, ,  = AVP
VII, , ).
We have now to explain the close association between the fig tree and
Soma or the plants in general.
.. The Aśvattha as a theological tree
This Artharvan.ic Aśvattha, rooted in the “third heaven from here”, is not
viewed as a physical tree, even at the mythological level, but as a kind of
theological tree. It symbolizes the way the various divinities are articulated
together. The mutiplicity of gods is related to its single trunk, so that the
same sap, the same vital power enters every god. To be set in such a tree
means to have a divine power or a divine aspect. Such a seat has no physical
signification.
For example, the medicinal plants (os.adhi) are said to have their seat in
the Aśvattha:
padám ajanatā gabı̄rám //// “Prenant l’initiative comme des filles sans frères, se conduisant
mal comme des épouses qui trompent leur mari, alors même qu’ils sont pécheurs [dans leurs
actes], faux [dans leur discours] et dépourvus d’être [dans leur personne], ils ont engendré ce
symbole profond (RV IV, , , personal translation)!”
˚

Alexis Pinchard
aśvatt h é vo ni .sádanam par n.é vo vasatís. k rtā´ /

˚
Your seat is in the fig tree, your residence has been made in the Parn.a tree
(RV X RV X, , a-b, to the medicinal herb, os.adhi).
˚ ˚
It means that each herb has a second tanū or ātman which is connected
with the source of all divinity. We have to distinguish the concret single
body of the plant and the higher divine personality (devatā) which is only
manifested in space and time by its material shape and that has a healing
power, just like we have to distinguish the soma plant on the sacrificial area
and the invisible Soma who has his abode in the third heaven from here
and whom only the Rs.is can perceive with their mind. The plant only as a
transcendantal being˚has its seat in the theological tree. The plants are not
physically fixed on a visible tree, but their healing power depends on the
inverted aśvattha:
varcasvān asi deves.u varcasvān os.adhis.v ā /
atho varcasvinam krdhi yam aśvatthādhirohasi ////
˚ rsabho vı̄rudhām patih / a-b
rājā vā asi bhūtānām . .
˚
You are endowed with vigour for the gods, endowed with vigour for the plants.
Hence make vigorous the one whom you grow toward, O Fig Tree! [. . . ] You
are the king of every being, the bull, the lord of plants (AVP I, ,  + a-b,
to Aśvattha).
This is why the Os.adhis are rooted in heaven, just like Yama’s Aśvattha:
divo mūlam avatam . prthivyām ota āhitah. /
˚ pari nah pātu viśvatah //
dharbhah. sahasravı̄ryah. . . .
The root [of it] is stretched down from heaven, it is placed on, woven into
the earth: let the darbha, having thousand powers, protect around us from all
sides (AVP VII, , , transl. Arlo Griffiths, p. ).
gandharvas te mūlam āsic cākhā apsarasas tava /

marı̄cı̄r āsan parn.āni sinı̄vālı̄ kulam
. tava ////
ajarā devā adadhur amrtam . martyes.v ā /
tasyaitad agram ā dade˚tad u te vis.adūs.an.am ////
The Gandharva (in the sky) was your root, the Apasaras (in the Antariks.am)
were your branches, the rays of light were your leaves; Sinı̄vālı̄ is your family.
The undecaying gods established immortality among the mortal; I take the
best part of it. This, of you, destroys the poison (only AVP IX, , , ed.
Bhattacharya).
But if Yama’s Aśvattha is the divine trunk of which branches constitute

secondary gods, the Veda must be organized in the shape of a tree since,
according to the ŚB, the gods consist only in Speech: vāg eva devāh. (BĀU
I, , ). This idea does not necessarily imply that each part of the Veda is

Quoted by Bhattacharya , .

perfectly eternal, because at least the secondary gods may endure growth
and exhaustion. The theological tree is so alive as a physical tree.
.. Skambha and sacred speech

The second connection between a symbolic tree and the structure of the
Vedic tradition is also to be found in the Atharva-Veda-Sam . hitā. Skambha,
the cosmic wood pillar, just like the Purus.a of the Rg-Vedic Purus.asūkta
(RV X, , -), is presented as the material of a ˚sacrificial action that
˚
produces the four Vedas. The stress is firstly laid on the ritual making of
the Vedas rather than on any natural growth by the use of the root TAKS.-
which is typical for the poetic composition in the Rg-Sam . hitā when it is
compared with the work of a carpenter: ˚
yátra ŕ.sayah. prath amajā´ ŕcah. sā´ma yájur mah´ı̄ /
˚ yásminn ā
ekars.ír ´rpitah. ˚skamb h ám . tám
. brūhi katamáh. svid evá sáh. ////
yásmād ŕco apā´taks.an yájur yásmād apā´kas.an /
˚
sā´māni yásya lómāny ath arvāṅgiráso múkh am . skamb ám
h
. tám. brūhi katamáh.
svid evá sáh. ////
mahád yaks.ám . b úvanasya mád ye tápasi krāntám
h h
. salilásya pr.s.t é /
h
h h ˚
tásmin c rayante yá u ké ca devā´ vrks.ásya skánd ah. paríta iva śā´kh āh. ////
˚
Where the first-born seers, the verses, the chant, the sacrificial formula,
the great one, in whom the sole seer is fixed — that Sakambha, tell [me]:
which forsooth is he? [. . . ] From whom they fashioned off the verses, from
whom they scraped off the sacrificial formula, of whom the chants are the
hairs, the Artharvans-and-Aṅgirases the mouth — that Skambha, tell [me]:
which forsooth is he? [. . . ]. A great marvel in the mids of the world strode
in penance on the back of the sea; in it are set whatever gods there are,
like branches of the tree roundabout the trunk (AVŚ X, , ,  and ).
As we can see in the last quoted stanza (), the operation of apa-TAKS.-
does not exclude the idea that Skambha is a tree with many branches. On the
contrary, the ritual dismembering of the material pillar allows the constitution
of a theological tree which is perfectly alive but invisible, just like the ritual
killing of an animal allows the constitution of a new immortal ātman for
him, which shall be organized in accordance with the law of thought and
language: such an ātman will be chandomaya, “made of hymns”.

The part of the yajamāna that goes to the gods is just the hypostasis of the ritual process
itself, i.e., a new ātman consisting in the mantra-s of the RV, YV and SV. This ritually constituted
ātman is said chandomaya or vāṅmaya, “made of [Vedic] ˚ speech” (KauB II, ). Cf. AiB I, :
so’agner devayonyā āhutibhyah. sam . bhavati rgmayah . sāmamayo vedamayo brahmamayo ’mrta-
mayo sam bhūya devatā apy eti ya evam veda ˚yaś caivam vidvān anena yajñakratunā yajate (“He
˚
. . .
who knowing this, sacrifices according to this rite, is born from the womb of Agni and offerings,
and since he now is made of Vedic stanzas and songs, of Veda, of brahman and of immortality, he
goes to the divinities themselves.”) See Lévi , , Malamoud ,  and Pinchard ,

Alexis Pinchard
.. Inversion of Skambha?

a/ Salila: the celestial Ocean where the Pitrs have their
abode ˚
Skambha might be inverted, although not explicitly. For there is no Ocean

(salila) in the mids of the terrestrial world. Moreover the syntagma salilasya
pr.s.the usually works as a substitute of the Rg-Vedic divás pr.s.thé where the
R˚sis are said to have their poetic vision (cf.˚AVŚ XVIII, , ˚
 = RV I, ,
.
˚ In this Atharvanic salila the deceased Pitr, as origin of every˚religious
). .
˚
tradition, can find a blissful abode after his death:
út ti .s.th a préhi prá dravaúkah. k rn.us.va salilé sad h ást h e /
tátra tvám ˚
. pitŕb i h. sam
. vidānáh. sám
. sómena mádasva sám . svad ā´b i h. ////
h h h
˚
Rise thou, go forth, run forth, make thee a home in the sea as station; there
do thou, gathered together with the Fathers, revel with soma, with the ritual
exclamations “svādhā” (AVŚ XVIII, , , transl. Whitney, modified)
Kuiper’s theory () is here to be considered: during the night, the

primeval waters from which cosmic tree suck its food ascent the sky and
thus the tree becomes rooted upwards.
b/ Skambha and Ursa Major (Saptars.i)

Moreover the interpretation of the pāda param nedı̄yo avaram davı̄yah. said
about Skambha in the AV becomes clearer if we keep in mind that, especially
in the Paippalāda Sam . hitā, this pāda about Skambha is to be found just
before two riddles about the heavenly Saptars.i which look very similar to
the riddle hymn of RV I, , i.e., in the same context as the one where the
˚
inverted tree of the TĀ was presented:
pañcavāh´ı̄ vahatyágram es.ām . prás..tayo yuktā´ anusám
. vahanti /
áyātam asya dad rśé ná yātám . páram . nédı̄yó ’varam
. dávı̄yah. //ŚS //
idám ˚
. savitar ví jānı̄hi .sád. yamā´ éka ekajáh.

tásmin hāpitvám ic ante yá es.ām éka ekajáh. //ŚS //

h
tiryágbilaś camasá ūrd h vábud h nas tásmin yáśo níhitam . viśvárūpam /

tád āsata ŕ.sayah. saptá sākám . yé asyá gopā´ maható bab ūvúh. //ŚS //
 h
˚
One carrying five carries the summit; side-horses, harnessed, carry
also along; what is not gone of it was seen, not what is gone:
-. The branches of Skambha’s new ātman are vāṅ-maya, made of speech (see the vedavrks.a
presented by Witzel , , here in the Appendix) and thus are immortal. Reciprocally,˚the
sacred Speech, inasmuch as it constitutes the transcendantal ātman of the sacrified pillar, has to
assume the shape of a tree which only mind can grasp.

Cf. RV I, , a-b.

Cf. ˚
RV I, , a.
˚

the higher thing [is] closer, the lower more distant. This, O Savitar, do thou
distinguish: six are twins, one [is] sole-born; they seek participation in him
who is the sole sole-born. A bowl with orifice sideways, bottom-side up — in
it is deposited glory of all forms; there sit together the seven Seers, who have
become the keeper of it, the great one (AVP XVI, , - = AVŚ X, , , ,
to Skambha, transl. by Whitney).
Indeed, in param nedı̄yo avaram davı̄yah., the word nedı̄yah. might refer to the
roots of the cosmic tree, and the word davı̄yah. to the leaves. This paradoxical
sentence might be a riddle that alludes the inversion of the cosmic tree.
c/ Skambha and the inverted sacrificial stake

The verbs apa-TAKS.- in the Skambha hymn (AVŚ X, , , quoted above)
also reminds us of a ritual discussion that connects Skambha and the ritual
stake:
The sacrificer who lived after the ancient ones, observed that the svaru
(shaving) being a piece of the Yūpa [represents the whole of it]. He [who now
brings a sacrifice] should therefore throw the svaru at this time, afterwards
[into the fire]. In this way any thing obtainable through the throwing of the
Yūpa into the fire (svarga with a golden body), as that of obtainable through
its remaining standing (cattle), is obtained (AiB II, ).
The Rc-s, Sāman-s and Atharva-Aṅgirasas may be these little svaru-s
which are˚ thrown into fire so that they go upwards to the gods with the
smoke. The fourfold Veda assumes the form of a unified tree only when
the svaru-s are burn in Agni, because at this moment they constitute the
invisible ātman of the sacrificial stake. Agni converts every visible thing into
an invisible one.
Moreover, the sacrificial stake can be inverted sometimes:
The gods went up to the celestial world by means of the sacrifice. They were
afraid that men and rs.is after having seen the celestial abode (svarga) might
search for them in this ˚ direction [and finally find them]. The gods made an
obstacle (ayopayan) with the sacrificial post, and this why it is called yūpa. The
gods, after having come back, before going up to the celestial world, struck the
sacrificial post in the earth, turning its point downwards. Thereupon men and
rs.is came to the spot where the gods had performed their sacrifice, thinking:
˚
“What might indicate the sacrifice?”. They found only the sacrificial post in
the earth with its point turned downwards. They learnt that the gods had by
this means precluded the sacrificial secret [from being known]. They dug the
sacrificial post out, and turned its pont upwards, whereupon they got aware
of the sacrifice and beheld the celestial world. That is the reason why the
sacrificial post is erected with its point turned upwards: it is done in order to
get aware of the sacrifice and to indicate the direction of the celestial world
(AiĀ II, , , transl. Haug modified).

Alexis Pinchard
I suppose that this Brāhman.a text conveys an old and authentic story of the
cosmic tree inversion, but it may give a wrong explanation for this religious
fact. I suppose that the Rs.is received the knowledge of sacrifice precisely
˚ was inverted, and not in spite of its inversion.
because the sacrificial stake
The idea of an “obstacle” is just motivated by the search for an etymology of
the word yūpa-. This story should be compared with Śunh.śepa’s liberation
from the sacrificial stake by Varun.a who had been pleased by his songs (RV
I, , ): did the sacrificial stake act as a means of knowledge? Anyway ˚the
topic of the sacrificial stake leads us to the Rg-Veda-Sam . hitā.
˚
. Rg-Sam. hitā

˚
.. The sacrificial stake and poetic inspiration
It seems that there is a discrepance between the AV and RV about the

˚ only between
sacrificial stake: the Atharvan.ic Skambha structures the relation
the gods themselves, whereas, in the RV, the sacrificial stake constitutes a
link between the praise of the men and ˚ the favors of the gods. In the RV
the sacrificial stake, which is compared with a many-twigs tree and plays˚an
important part in the poetic inspiration, is endowed with a twofold function:
on the one hand it works as a scale for the gods in order them to come down
to the sacrifice organised by human beings, and on the other hand as a lift
for the human offerings, of which poetic speech is the best part. However it
is normally not inverted:
[. . . ]bráhma vanvānó ajáram . suv´ı̄ram /
tám . d ı̄
h´
rāsah. kaváya ún nayanti svād h yò mánasā devayántah. //  //
punánti d ı̄irā apáso manı̄s.ā´ devayā´ vípra úd iyarti vāćam // 
h´
unnı̄yámānāh. kavíb h i h. purástād devā´ devāńām ápi yanti pā´t h ah. // 

vánaspate śatávalśo ví roha sahásravalśā ví vayám . ruhema / 
b: [The stake] wins the poetic formula (bráhman), which is undecaying and
very heroic. c-d: The wise poets lead him (it) upwards, endowed with good
thought, desiring the gods in their mind. c-d: The wise poets, active and
thinking in themselves, purify [it]; desiring the gods and being inspired, it
impulses upwards the speech. c-d: Erected before our eyes by the poets, the
gods (the stakes) go along the paths of those who also are gods (RV III, ).
a-b: O Tree, grow in many directions with hundred twigs. May we ˚ grow in
different directions with thousand twigs (RV III, , to the sacrificial stake)!
˚
At the end of this hymn, by being compared with a growing tree, the
sacrificial stake is viewed dynamically and not anymore as a mere piece of
wood fashionned by an axe. This change results from its connection with
the poetic speech. The sacrificial stake does not go to the gods as a mere
piece of wood since it is itself a god, but he does so only inasmuch as it has

a new ātman, which is made of sacred poetry (chandomaya) and which is

delivered from matter by the sacrificial violence.
.. The growth of the tree: time converted into space

a/ The time of sacrificial performance
In the RV the metaphor of the poetic tree is based on the idea that time is
˚ into space. The origin distinguishes itself from the present solely
converted
by its place in the tree, but not by the fact that it does not exist anymore.
To compare the development of poetry with the growth of a tree is a way to
deny the fleeting nature of each word:
prá vo yajñés.u devayánto arcan dyā´vā námobh ih. prth iv´ı̄ i .sádh yai /
˚ ná śā´kh āh //
yés.ām bráhmān.y ásamāni víprā vís.vag viyánti vaníno .
During your sacrifices, may [the poets] who desire the gods praise Heaven
and Earth with homage so that they come: their best poetic formulae, never
similar to each other, excited by inspiration, go apart in all directions like the
branches of a tree (RV VII, , ).
˚
Here the diversity of songs is very positively valued and takes over a cosmic
dimension. There is a poetic etymological pun on the syllab vi-. The time
of the various poetic utterances during a single sacrifice is converted into
a space as large as the world . This diversity, generating the greatness of
the world, manifests the creative power of each Kavi and is necessary to the
achievement of sacrifice. The single bráhman-s have to reach the gods in
every point of the sky in order to have them hear the invitation of men and
come to their sacrifice on the earth. This is why the tree is not inverted: the
final goal of its growth is the sky where the gods have their abode. Moreover
the fact that the word bráhman occurs in this stanza constrasts with the
Upanishads where the brahman-tree is clearly inverted.

Such a conversion of ritual from time into space is also to be found in the later Vedic tradition.
The various kinds of successive oblations in a single ritual performance may be compared with
the various parts of a tree, especially the world-tree by which each being is sustained, because
each sacrifice is a new cosmogony. For example, in the BGPS I, .-, there occurs a certain
yajñavrks.a, of which upper part only is identified with Vedic speech: “As a tree, spung from
˚ with good roots, firm grounding, with many branches, fine blossoms, full of fruit, is
good soil,
used by gods, titans, angels, by sages and by ancestors, by birds, bees, flies, and ants, so too in
the simple worship rites (pākajajñes.u), all this [world] stands firm: the huta is to be recognized
as the good soil; the prahuta is called the root, the āhuta is the firm grounding; the tree of
worship (yajñavrks.a) is lofty! Numerous are its branches (śākhā), laden with blossoms and fine
˚
fruits. Those [branches] are easily perceived by the worshippers who really know the mantras
and brāhman.as, for he who understands the tree of worship is deemed learned” (Quoted and
translated by Lubin , ).

Alexis Pinchard
b/ The time of tradition (RV VII, , )

˚
In the RV the comparison between the development of the poetic tradition
and the˚growth of a tree is not isolated, but this growth does not only happen
during sacrifice:
tá ín nin.yám
. hŕdayasya praketaíh. sahásravalśam ab ísám
h
. caranti /
˚
yaména tatám parid ím . váyanto ’psarása úpa sedur vásis..t āh. //
h h
Thanks to the intuitions of their heart, they enter together the secret that
has thousand twigs. While weaving the wood frame stretched by Yama, the
Vasis.t.has worship the Apsaras (RV VII, , ).
˚
Here the mention of Yama enables us to understand that the various places
in the tree match various moments of the poetic tradition. Nothing excludes
that the tree is inverted. The thousand twigs are the various poetic creations
of Vasis.t.ha’s pupils. Each new Kavi tries to formulate through the best
riddle the same ultimate mystery of the cosmos: he thus becomes closer to
his own real origin. This mystery may be identified with Agni “in the heart”,
as a source of inspiration (cf. RV VI, , b), because Agni, in other texts, is
˚
identified with the cosmic Aśvattha.
. From the regular alternation toward the privilege of the in-

verted tree
. Original religious system
.. The poetic tree rooted in the earth
But how to explain the alternation of positions of the cosmic and poetic
tree?
Originally, in the most ancient religious system of the Indo-Iranian tra-
dition, during a diurnal sacrificial performance, I suppose that the human
speeches reinforced the gods and the Pitr, just like in the Śraddhā ritual.
Theses speeches impulsed the nourrishing˚primeval waters upwards or were
identified with them. The gods needed such a help from the men because
they were quite weak. The gods sucked the sap of the sacrifice in order to
make their lives longer. This process of vital ascent was symbolized by an
Aśvattha because of the sacrificial stake. At this moment, during the day,
the visible sacrificial stake and the invisible tree of sacred Speech, which
constitutes the transcendantal tanū of the sacrificial stake, both bringing
food to the gods, were not inverted.
The idea that the various divinities are gathered in a single theological
tree results from this first situation. For, during the sacrifice, the offerings

that nourrish and reinforce the celestial gods are poured into āhavanı̄ya
fire on earth. Therefore fire is the common principle of the gods (AiĀ II, :
agnir vai devayonih.). Hence Agni, despite of consuming the fig tree wood, is
somehow identified with the symbolic Aśvattha of sacrifice:
aśvattho jātah. prathamo ’gneh. priyatamā tanūh. /
The Fig Tree, who is born at first, is Agni’s most intimate aspect (only AVP
VII, , a-b).
But Agni is also a god! He is the immortal among the mortals. The fact
that Agni himself is the dvijánman par excellence, the main “twice-born”,
and even śatā´tman, “endowed with hundred visible or invisible personalities”
(RV I, , a and c, to Agni), has contributed to the gathering of the
˚
invisible ātman-s or tanū-s of the various secondary gods around him, in the
shape of a tree. Agni was a part of the process that promoted henotheism
and this god is also the law of the whole process. Nevertheless the theological
tree was originally not rigid, it was growing like the gods themselves during
the sacrifice and like the poetic performance.
.. The poetic tree rooted in the night sky

Then, when the gods have been nourrished by sacrifice and human prayers,
they become able to help the mortal beings. They start giving non-death
(amrta) from above. The madhu, ,the sacrificial post was anointed with now
˚ downwards. Each visible thing receives a invisible tanū or ātman, I
dropes
mean a transcendantal power or aspect. It is the typical Atharvan.ic moment
because it is the right time for magic healing. Even spiritual salvation and
immortality can take place for human beings. Thus there is reciprocity and
balance in the relations between human beings and gods.
Such an alternation is still visible in the speculations about the right
moment for offering Agnihotra, although ritual is present on both sides of the
process. So Vājasaneya taught Janaka a secret doctrine about the reciprocal
offering between fire and sun in order to justify an offering before the sunset
in the evening and after the sunrise in the morning:
tád āhuh. / agnā´v evaìtát sāyam . sū
´ryam . juhoti sū
´rye prātár agnim íti tad
vai tád uditahomínām evá yadā hy èva sū ´ryo ’stam ety áth āgnir jyótir yadā
sū
´rya udety áth a sū ´ryo jyótir nā`sya sā´ paricaks.èyám evá paricaks.ā yat tásyai
nā`ddh ā´ devátāyai hūyáte yā`gnihotrásya devátāgnir jyótir jyótir agnih. svāhéti
tátra nāgnáye svāhety áth a prātah. sū ´ryo jyótir jyótih. sū
´ryah. svāhéti tátra na
sū
´ryāya svāhéti
In this regard, [some scholars] say: “One pours the sun into the very fire in this
way in the evening; then one pours the fire into the sun in the morning.” Thus
is the [Agnihotra] of those who offer after the sun has risen, for, indeed as

Alexis Pinchard
soon as this sun in question sets, then the fire is the light; as soon as the sun
rises, then the sun is light. That is not reproach towards him (the sacrificer).
Just this is the reproach that [the Agnihotra] is offered not evidently towards
that divinity which is the divinity of Agnihotra. [One says:] “The fire is light,
the light is fire, svāhā”; in that case not, “for the fire, svāhā”. Now [one says]
in the morning, “The sun is the light, the light is the sun, svāhā”; in that case,
not “for the sun, svāhā” (ŚB (M) II , , ).
Night is thus the very cosmic situation where gods are able to dispatch their
powers towards the mortal beings. Nevertheless the period of the alternation
may also be longer:
JB (I.) says that men press out Soma juice in the first fortnight and
the gods in the second fortnight. But those who perform the sacrificial session
press out Soma in both fortnights. When men press out Soma in the first
fortnight, they thereby increase the heavenly world and generate it, and
when gods press Soma in the second fortnight they thereby increase and
generate this world. So performers of a sacrificial session, by pressing Soma
in both the fortnights increase and generate the heavenly world as well as
this world.
Varun.a, the god of Rta, is responsible for the alternation of the tree,
˚ night and day alternation. During the night
especially when it fits the
he carries up into the sky the primeval waters in which the cosmic tree is
rooted.
abudhné rā´jā várun.o vánasyordhvám . stū
´pam. dadate pūtádaks.ah. /
nı̄cı̄nā sthur upári budhná es.ām asmé antár níhitāh. ketávah. syuh. //
´
In the bottomless [space], the King Varun.a, whose mind is purified, holds
upwards the stūpa (the set of the roots?) of the tree. [The branches] stand
downwards whereas their bottom is above. May the flags [of the sacrificial
stake] be deposited among us (RV I, , , by Śunah.śepa)!
˚
Theses waters appear as the Milky Way: they are the rivers in the night
sky. Such a daily alternation is also to be found in the double movement
of the sun himself:
The sun never really sets or rises. In that they think of him “He is setting”,
verily having reached the end of day, he inverts himself; thus he makes evening
below, day above. Again in that they think of him “He is rising in the morning”,
verily having reached the end of night he inverts himself; thus he makes day
below, night above (AiB III, .).

Quotation and translation by Sakamoto-Gotô , -.

Quotation from Deshpande , -.

See Kuiper .

See Witzel . The bahuvrı̄hi adjective tripād- which applies to the inverted tree in MaiU
VI,  might have an astronomical meaning. The three roots of the inverted tree may symbolize
three stars which stood round the polar star in the old Vedic age. See Janda , -.

As Asko Parpola rightly noticed, the sun is compared with the single
wheel of the sun’s chariot, revolving horizontally (parallely to level ground),
and is understood to have a bright side and a dark side: when the chariot
comes back to its starting point, in the east, by turning round the axis mundi
in the opposite direction, its unique horizontal wheel has to be inverted,
so that it presents its dark side to mortal beings. Thus everything in the
universe is inverted when the night happens.
When the sacrificial stake is inverted and the poetic tree is rooted in
heaven, the movement of its vital sap is going downwards :
tvád víśvā sub h aga saúb h agāny ágne ví yanti vaníno ná vayā´h. /
Every auspicious happiness coming from you, o Agni, goes apart in all directions
like the branches of a tree (RV VI, , a-b, to Agni).
˚
The gods themselves are the trunk of a tree rooted in heaven, which every
help for the mortal beings comes from:
v rk .sásya nú te puruhūta vayā´ vy ū
`táyo ruruhur indra pūrv´ı̄h. //
˚
Like the branches of a tree, O many-invoked [god], your manyfold helps grew
in all directions (RV VI, , c-d, to Indra).
˚
This divine favor happens during the night because when the eyes are not
excited by light, one can pay attention to invisible things with one’s mind.
But, during the night, the time that is changed into space by the symbol of
the poetic tree is not the same. There are two scales of time: during the day,
it deals with the duration of a single poetic performance, whereas during the
night it deals with the duration of the whole poetic tradition, from “our first
Fathers” (nah. pū´rve pitáras, RV I, , c = RV VI, , a; cf. RV III, ,
˚
b) until the current Kavis. During ˚ primeval waters˚— I mean
the night, the
the origin of everything — become visible as Milky Way, also called Saravası̄,
the goddess of learning and eloquence. During the day, when a Kavi utters
the last word of his poem, the first word still exists but in heaven, among

See Parpola ,  and .

In this respect, we agree with Bhattacharya , when he writes: “The reversion is an
Indian development out of soteriological need (underlined by us). One must go back to the root
of the world, which is divine and must be farthest away from the mundane world.” But we do not
think that this reversion is only Indian and quite late in the Vedic tradition (see Bhattacharya
,  and , -). A similar reversion occurs also in Siberia among the Shamanes, in
Plato and in the Iranian Manicheism, likely without influence from India. See Jacoby , ,
Kagarow  and Pinchard , -.

Anquetil-Duperron , II: , while translating KauU I,  gives unusual details about
the Ilya-tree which stands in heaven: “Et ex illā ut transierunt, una arbor est, quod nomen ejus
‘al’ est; id est, quilibet fructus qui in mundo est, in illa arbore est.” These details do not directly
occur in the Sanskrit text. Maybe they come from a brahmanic oral comment still alive at the
time when the Sanskrit text was translated into Persian language. See also Jacoby , ,
footnote .

Alexis Pinchard
the gods whose lives are saved by it. The poetic diversity that is praised
with the image of the growing normal tree concerns a single poem, with a
lot of stanzas, or a single sacrifice with sāman and rc.
On the contrary, during the night, the current ˚ Kavis are brought in
touch with the immortal speech of the seven Rs.is. Night is the moment of
communication with the divine ancesters who are ˚ drinking soma with Yama
“in the third heaven from here”. At this moment, the tree of sacred speech is
also a genealogical tree. The inverted tree symbolizes the moment when a
poet is looking at the very origin of his person, which remains as a kind of
internal center, and of his art. Such a spiritual activity is directed toward
past and unity. The experienced duration of life is being concentrated in a
single point, called “immortality” (amrta). Diversity in speech is not anymore
˚ as means to express the primeval unity.
directly valuated, but it is praised just
The religious upwards movement is no longer a creative process, but a return
to the eternal origin. Indeed the process through which the divine powers or
tanū-s come down (the inverted tree) is the same one as that through which
the human soul turns to the unique source of its inspiration. Both bring
salvation. During the night, each generation of poets lets the tradition grow
and diversify although respecting the common rules of poetic composition.
The novelty results from new combinations of the inherited elements. The
best way to imitate the primeval poets and to remain faithful to tradition
consists in acting creatively just like they did, instead of merely repeating
their poems word for word. Therefore the primeval speech is still alive while
the current Kavis are finding out new poems and thus this primeval speech
is sustaining the actual inspiration. The origin of tradition is not past away
although the present is not a mere repetition of the origin. The seven Rs.is
are still speaking “on the back of the sky” (divás pr.s.thé). ˚
˚
. Logical transformation
Now we can explain why the periodic inversion of the cosmic tree stopped
in the later stages of the Vedic thought and why the brahman-tree was
mainly conceived of as rooted in heaven, whereas it was no longer clearly
identified with the structure of the poetic tradition, this latter remaining
quite normally rooted in earth. So we can explain the discrepancy in the
Brahmanic tradition about the symbol of the Tree. Three factors are to be
considered:
) The gods need no longer the human help because they are absolutely
immortal. This new conception results from a logical process. In the original
religious system, the perpetual life of the gods was viewed as due to the
periodic performance of a sacrifice which conveyed food to them. But each

sacrifice must have an archetype and such an archetype can be performed by

nothing but the gods themselves, with gods themselves as victim, because
human beings are not yet created at the beginning of the world. Hence, at the
beginning of the world the gods lived further because they practiced sacrifice
for themselves. Indeed this sacrifice was the archetypal sacrifice, so that the
sacrifice performed for oneself in order to repel death for some time became
the essence of sacrifice. Then, if every sacrifice is essentially reflexive, its
efficiency does not result from its conveying of material offerings but from the
perfect organization of its successive parts; for the mediation of a material
offering between me and myself is neither necessary nor possible. Then, if
the most important point in sacrifice is its temporal structure, it follows
that the knowledge of sacrifice must be the same thing as the sacrifice itself.
Thus the external performance of sacrifice is no longer necessary. And if
the principle of a longer life is nothing but knowledge for human beings as
well as for gods, a longer life changes into a real immortality, i.e., a real
impossibility to die, because as long as one is thinking one is sacrificing. The
effects of the sacrifice do not cease because the sacrifice itself does not cease.
So long as the gods are conscious of themselves, they cannot die. Thus they
no longer need human beings to perform sacrifices for them. The sap of the
non-inverted cosmic tree is no longer necessary for their existence. This is
why the symbolic tree sustaining the whole world, inasmuch as it is rooted
is earth, has disappeared from the late Vedic texts. Even if the thirty three
gods are still organized in the shape of a tree, this tree is a motionless tree,
deprived of growth.
) With Āran.yakas and Upanis.ads, the descent of the gods to the mortal
beings is not viewed as temporary anymore. Each being has a permanent
divine part inside himself, i.e., the ātman. Hence the tree that connects
the human beings with the divine principle is always inverted. As a matter
of fact the contact with divinity no longer constitutes an event since it

See Houben , -, while commenting RV I, ,  (yajñéna yajñám ayajanta devā ´s
ńi dhármān.i pratham ā
tā ńy āsan / té ha nā ´kam ˚ ńah.sacanta yátra pū´rve sādhyā
´h. santi
. mahim ā
dev ā´h.) in connection with the svis..takrt offering to Agni: “In our case, the object of ritual worship
is ritual worship itself. The statement ˚ in the first part of the verse therefore amounts to: with
invigoration they invigorate invigoration. [. . . ] This situation is not considered counter-logical or
otherwise problematic; on the contrary, it constitutes the first dharmān.i of fundational institutions.
[. . . ] More important in the present context are the Sādhyas: an ancient class of gods who are
said to have preceded the current generation of gods (PB .. sādhyā vai nāma devebhyo pūrva
āsan). In accordance with their name (which means ‘to be accomplished’ or ‘perfectible’) they are
said to rise up to heaven, or to have a wish to do so, with the help of certain ritual performances.
They are said to be the divine guardians of the directions in a region beyond that of the (current)
gods. In their ritual worship they used fire to worship fire, because nothing else was available.
What is presented as cosmogonically primitive and cosmologically distant refers to what is, in
fact, structurally basic and primordial.”

Alexis Pinchard
brings nothing new. Therefore the creative power of a poet does not manifest
anymore his being in touch with divinity. The Veda may be viewed as
an eternal text rather than a living tradition. This is why the progressive
diversification of the poetic canon was considered as a sign of decadence, due
to a lack of memory and mental energy. Faithfulness and loyalty towards
the revelation of the primeval Seers were understood as a mere repetition
instead of a variation.
) The tree symbolizing the Vedic canon and its various schools was
distinguished from the cosmic tree, which was rooted in heaven and called
brahman because the brahman-tree had to be absolutely eternal whereas
it was still remembered that the division of the Vedic canon into various
recensions was the result of history. In accordance with this late distinction,
the Veda-vrks.a was almost always presented as rooted in earth. The image
of the tree˚for the Vedic canon and its schools was saved, but its original
meaning was lost.
. Conclusion: some comparative perspectives

The only point where the original meaning of the inverted tree, i.e, the
inverted tree as refering to the development of Vedic canon, was saved is
to be found in the assimilation between every real human being and an
inverted tree, as it said in ŚvU III,  (quoted above) and in other later
texts. For this assimilation might be secondary and might be explained by
the primary identification between every perfect human being and the Veda.
In the brahmanic tradition, each man of the highest varn.a (brāhman.āyana,
BĀU VI, , ) should be secretly named “Veda” at the moment of his birth
because as a possible future guru he embodies the Veda:
athāsya nāma karoti vedo ’ı̄ti tad asyaitad guhyam eva nāma bhavati /
Then [the father] gives a name to his [son], saying: “you are Veda”. This name
will be his secret name (BĀU VI, , ).
This secret name will be publicly revealed for the first time at the Upanayana,
when the child accesses the Vedic speech. It announces the fact that the
ritual new ātman of the sacrificial victim will be chandomaya whereas the
sacrificer is potentially the main victime of every sacrifice. For example, in
AiB II, , when the sacrificial stake is entirely thrown into fire, the sacrificer
directly obtains svarga instead of cattle on earth. This is why the sacrificer’s
ritual body has the shape of a tree, just like the ritual body of the sacrificial
stake which is vāṅmaya. Such a tree is inverted because the sacrificer is

vrks.a iva stabdho divi tis..thaty ekas tenedam pūrn.am purus.ena sarvam // “He stands like a
˚ tree fixed in the sky; the universe is filled by this Person (ŚvU III, ).” For the role of the
unique
tree symbol in the yoga-physiology, see also Uttarā Gı̄tā II, -.

sacrified for himself, for his own transcendental immortality, but not for the
gods; of course the sacrificer goes to the gods through sacrifice, but for his
own sake only. Such a sacrifice does not occur in order to nourrish the gods.
It has an individual soteriological goal, although it also has a cosmogonic
power like every sacrifice.
Inasmuch as the figure of an inverted tree symbolizes the Vedic tradition,
is constitutes the common mark that brings the Macro-cosmos and the
human Micro-cosmos into correspondence. Veda is a power that organizes
the relations between Sky and Earth, as well as the relations between the
various parts of the human body, because on the one hand no human thought
would be possible without the Veda, and on the other hand the human body
gets its specificity among the other living beings out of the manifestation of
our self-consciousness.
Such an interpretation of the assimilation between the human being and
an inverted tree, inasmuch as it is focused on language and poetic tradition,
lets foresee some comparative perspectives. The image of the inverted tree
is also to be found in Plato, where the upper part of soul, i.e., the rational
part, works as a root that fixes the human head in the direction of the sky;
the sky itself is moved by a divine soul which is perfectly rational:
τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρ΄ ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε, ὡς
ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν, τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲν ἡμῶν
ἐπ΄ ἄκρῳ τῷ σώματι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ συγγένειαν ἀπὸ γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν
ὡς ὄντας φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιον, ὀρθότατα λέγοντες· ἐκεῖθεν γάρ,
ὅθεν ἡ πρώτη τῆς ψυχῆς γένεσις ἔφυ, τὸ θεῖον τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥίζαν ἡμῶν
ἀνακρεμαννὺν ὀρθοῖ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα.
And we should consider that God gave the sovereign part of the human soul
to be the divinity of each one, being that part which, as we say, dwells at
the top of the body, inasmuch as we are a plant not of an earthly but of a
heavenly growth, raises us from earth to our kindred who are in heaven. And
in this we say truly ; for the divine power suspended the head and root of us
from that place where the generation of the soul first began, and thus made
the whole body upright (Plato, Timaeus, a).
So human beings are rooted in a heavenly lógos (“reason” or “language”)

through their own reason. Human beings are to be compared with an
inverted plant or tree because their thought share in the cosmic grammar
which structures the movement of stars and planets. The nervous system of
their body develops according to this spiritual principle.

See AiĀ II, , : “The self (ātman) is more clear in man [than in other animals]. For he is
the most endowed with intelligence, he says what he has known, he sees what he has known, he
knows tomorrow, he knows the world and what is not the world.”

See Plato, Timaeus, b-c and Pinchard , . Nevertheless, in contradistinction to
the initial Vedic inverted tree, the memory which enables a soul to access this primeval lógos is

Alexis Pinchard
It is here quite tempting to quote an old Manichean evidence for the

inverted tree, which originates from Iran:
τὸ γὰρ σῶμα τοῦτο κόσμος καλεῖται πρὸς τὸν μέγαν κόσμον, καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι
πάντες ῥίζας ἔχουσι κάτω ῾ὄντες᾿ συνδεθείσας τοῖς ἄνω.
The [human] body is called “world” because of a comparaison with the great
world, and every human being, while living down, has its roots fastened to
the above things (Hegemonius, Acta Archelai c.,  Beeson , ).
So, does the representation of the human being as an inverted tree constitute
an Indo-European inheritance? It is quite difficult to answer, because there are
also inverted trees which represent a human being in the shamanic culture,
whereas the Manichean evidence, on the Iranian side, might be due to some
Platonician influence. But, at least, Plato has transmitted to the West a very
old wisdom. He transmitted this wisdom not because it was Indo-European
or from any other origin, but because it was, according to him, meaningful
and true. The result of such a free, conscious and selective transmission
may retrospectively appear to us as what we use to call an “Indo-European”
inheritance. But, at Plato’s time, there was no “Indo-European” culture
which would have constituted as a real unity transcending individual minds.
only internal (anamnèsis). Philosophy does not require to learn by heart the speech of any guru.
The Platonician inverted tree does not convert the time of any human successive generations into
space, but converts the relation between time and eternity in general into space. Upanis.ads will
rejoin Plato when the only real guru of a man will be identified with his ātman which contains
the whole brahman symbolized by an inverted tree.

For the correction and the exact translation of the Greek text, see Jacoby , .

See Kagarow . The author furnishes the picture of a strange wood sculpture which is
made of an inverted tree with a human face just under the roots. These roots work as a kind
of hairs. We have no proof that such an inversion was connected with the development of any
poetic tradition.

. Appendix: Witzel : .
Abbreviations
AiĀ = Aitareya-Āran.yaka, ed. and tr. A.B. Keith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, .
AiB = Aitareya-Brāhman.a, ed. Th. Aufrecht, Bonn ; tr. A.B. Keith in
Rigveda-Brāhman.as, Cambridge (Mass.), ; M. Haug and S. Jain, Śrı̄ Aitareya
Brāhman.am. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation,  ( vols).
AVP = Atharvaveda, Paippalāda-Sam

. hitā:
——— . ed. and tr. Th. Zehnder, Atharvaveda-Paippalāda Buch . Text, Übersetzung,
Kommentar. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner Verlag, ;
——— . ed. and tr. A. Lubotsky, Atharvaveda-Paippalāda. Kan.d.a Five: Text, Transla-
tion, Commentary. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Oriental Series (Opera Minora vol.
), ;
——— . ed. and tr. Arlo Griffths, The Paippalādasam

. hitā of the Atharvaveda. Kān.d.ās
 and . A New Edition with Translation and Commentary. Leiden: PhD thesis,
;
Other kān.d.as:
——— . ed. Dipak Bhattacharya, The Paippalāda Sam . hitā of the Atharvaveda. Volume
One, Consisting of the first fifteen Kān.d.as. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, ;
——— . ed. Dipak Bhattacharya, Paippalāda-Sam . hitā of the Atharvaveda. Volume Two,
Consisting of the Sixteenth Kān.d.a. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, ;
Remaining kān.d.as:
——— . Witzel, Michael et alii. Electronic text of Leiden (unpublished).
AVŚ = Atharvaveda (Śaunaka), ed. R. Roth, W.D. Whitney and M. Lindenau, rd
reprint Bonn ; tr. W.D. Whitney, Harvard Oriental Series -, .
BĀU = Brhad-Āran.yaka-Upanis.ad, ed. and tr. É. Senart. Paris: Belles Lettres, .
˚
BG = Bhagavad-Gı̄tā, ed. and tr. É. Senart, Paris: les Belles Lettres, .
BGPS = Baudhāyana-Grhya-Paribhās.ā-Sūtra, ed. and tr. W. Caland, Leipzig .

˚
ChU = Chāndogya-Upanis.ad, ed. and trad. É Senart. Paris: Belles Lettres, .
JB = Jaiminı̄ya-Brāhman.a, ed. Raghu Vira et Lokesh Candra. Nagpur ; tr. H.R.
Bodewitz, Jaiminı̄ya Brāhman.a I, -. Translation and Commentary, with a Study
on Agnihotra and Prān.āgnihotra. Leiden: Brill, .
JUB = Jaiminı̄ya-Upanis.ad-Brāhman.a, ed. Oertel, in Journal of American Oriental

Society , , pp. -.
KauU = Kaus.ı̄taki-Upanis.ad, ed. and tr. L. Renou, Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, .
MaiU = Maitry-Upanis.ad, ed. and tr. A.-M. Esnoul. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, .
MBh = Patañjali: Mahābhas.ya, ed. George Cardona, Patañjali: Vyakaranamahabhasya.

Based on the edition by Franz Kielhorn (Bombay -:  vols), revised by K.
V. Abhyankar (Poona -:  vols), http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/
ebene_/fiindolo/gretil/_sanskr/_sastra/_gram/pmbh_su.htm.
MS = Maitrāyan.ı̄-Sam
. hitā, ed. L. von Schroeder, Leipzig - ( vols.).
MSm = Manu-Smrti, ed. and tr. P. Olivelle, Manu’s Code of Law. Oxford: Oxford
˚ .
University Press,
PB = Pañcavim . śa-Brāhman.a, ed. Ānandachandra Vedāntāvagı̄sa, Tan.d.ya-Mahā-

brāhman.a, with the commentary of Sāyan.a Āchārya. Calcutta -; tr. W.
Caland, Pañcavim . śa: the Brāhman.a of the twenty five chapters. Calcutta .
RV = Rg-Veda-Sam . hitā, ed. F.M. Müller, Sam
. hitā and Pada Texts ( vols.), rd reprint
˚
˚ Varanasi ; tr. K.F. Geldner, Harvard Oriental Series -, .
ŚB = Śatapatha-brāhman.a with Vedarthaprakash commentary, ed. by several learned

persons. Kalyan-Bombay: Laxmi Venkateshwar Steam press, Samvat / San
; transl. Eggeling, Sacred Books of the East , , , ,  (-).
ŚveU = Śvetasvātara-Upanis.ad, ed. and trad. A. Silburn, Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve,

.
TĀ= Taitttirı̄ya-Āran.yaka, ed. Subramania Sarma, Chennai . http://www.

sanskritweb.net/yajurveda/index.html#TA
TS = Taittirı̄ya-Sam
. hitā, ed. A. Weber, Indische Studien -, -; tr. A.B.
Keith, Harvard Oriental Series -, .
ViPu: Vis.nu-Purān.a, input by the members of the SANSKNET-project, based on the

edition Bombay: Venkatesvara Steam Press,  ; transl. H.H. Wilson, The Vishnu
Purana, A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition Translated from Original
Sanskrit. London: John Murray, .
References
Anquetil-Duperron, Abraham Hyacinthe. -. Oupnek’hat (id est, Secretum

Tegendum): Opus ipsa in India rarissimum.  vol., Strasbourg: Levraut.
Bhattacharya, Dı̄pak. . “The doctrine of Four in the Early Upanis.ads and Some
Connected Problems.” Journal of Indian Philosophy : -.

Alexis Pinchard
——— . . Mythological and ritual Symbolism: A Study with Reference to the Vedic
and Tantric Agni. Calcutta: Sankrit Pustak Bhandar.
——— . . “Atharvaveda: Notes on History and Text-History.” In Lars Göhler,

Indische Kultur im Kontext: Rituale, Texte und Ideen aus Indien und der Welt:
Festschrift für Klaus Mylius. Wiesbadem: Harrassowitz, -.
Deshpande, Maitreyee. . “Some Observations Regarding The Concept Of Time

In Vedic Ritual As Reflected In The Several Vedic Schools.” In Jan E.M. Houben,
Julieta Rotaru and Michael Witzel (eds.), Vedic śākhās: Past, Present and Future,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop. -th of September .
Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Oriental Series (Opera Minora), ??.
Deshpande, Yaśvam . t Khuśāl and śrı̄ Rāmakrs.n.a Govinda Deva Śāstı̄.  (śaka ).
Veda śākhā vāṅmaya an.i caraka brāhman ˚a yāmcā itihas ( vols. in one). Nāgpur:
.
śrı̄. bā. go. Ogle, Naks.atra Press.
Falk, Harry. . “Die Kosmogonie von RV X ” Zeitschrift für Kunde Südasiens
: -. ˚
Griffths, Arlo. . The Paippalādasam

. hitā of the Atharvaveda. Kān.d.ās  and . A
New Edition with Translation and Commentary, Leiden: PhD thesis.
Houben, Jan E.M. . “The Ritual Pragmatics of é Vedic Hymn: the ‘Riddle
Hym’ and the Pravargya Ritual.” Journal of American Oriental Society /,
October-December: -.
——— . .“Transmission sans écriture: énigme et structure rituelle dans l’Inde

ancienne.” In Gérard Colas and Gerdi Gerschheimer (ed.), Ecrire et transmettre
dans l’Inde classique (Études thématiques ). Paris: École française d’Extrême
Orient, -.
——— . . “The Svis.t.akrt: Formal Structure and Self-Reference in Vedic Ritual.” In
A. Berciu, R. Pop and˚J. Rotaru (eds.), Lucrările Simpozionului Internat, ional
“Cartea. România. Europa.” Edit, ia a II-a – - septembrie . Bucharest:
Éditeur Bibliothèque de Bucharest, -.
Janda, Michael. . Elysion. Entstehung und Entwiklung der griechischen Religion,
Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.
Jacoby, Adolf. . “Der Baum mit Wurzeln nach oben and den Zweigen nach unten.”
Zeitschrift für Missionskundé und Religionswissenschaft : -.
Kagarow, Eugen. . “Der umgekehrte Shamanenbaum.” Archiv für Religionwis-

senschaft : -.
Kuiper, Franciscus B.J. . “The Inverted Fig-Tree.” In Ancient Indian Cosmology,
Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, -.
Lévi, Sylvain. . La doctrine du sacrifice dans les Brahménas, Paris: Ernest Leroux
Éditeur.

Lubin, Thimothy. “The Baudhānı̄ya Contribution to Smārta Hinduism.” In Jan E.M.

Houben, Julieta Rotaru and Michael Witzel (eds.), Vedic Śākhās: Past, Present
and Future, Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop. -th of
September . Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Oriental Series (Opera Minora), ??.
Malamoud, Charles. . “Un corps fait de parole et de rythmes poétiques” In La
danse des pierres. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, -.
Parpola, Asko. -. “The Nāsatyas, the Chariot and Proto-Aryan Religion.”
Journal of Indological Studies, -: -.
——— .. “ ‘Hind Leg’ + ‘Fish’: Towards Further Understanding of the Indus
Script.” SCRIPTA, Volume .: The Hunmin Jeongeum Society, -.
Pinchard, Alexis. . “Les Mystères d’Eleusis et la Veda: enquête comparative sur la
connaissance, l’invisible et l’immortalité.” Bulletin d’Études Indiennes : -.
——— .. Les langues de sagesse dans la Grèce et l’Inde anciennes. Lille: Atelier
national de reproduction des thèse (thèse microforme).
——— .. “Les deux corps du roi. Une lecture de PS ..” In Eli Franco and
Monica Zin (ed.), From Turfan to Ajanta. Felication Volume for Dieter Schlingloff,
 vols. Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute, vol II, -.
Sakamoto-Gotō, Junko. “A Dialogue between Yājñavalkya and King Janaka on

the Ultimate Agnihotra.” In Vedic śākhās: Past, Present and Future, the Fifth
International Vedic Workshop. -th of September , Bucharest (hand-out).
Renou, Louis. . Les écoles védiques et la formation du Veda. Paris: Imprimerie
nationale.
Thieme, Paul. . “Das Rätsel RV . . -.” In Renate Söhnen (ed.), Kleine
˚ -.
Schriften II. Stuttgart: F. Steiner,
Witzel, Michael. -. “Materialen zu den vedischen Schulen I. Über die
Caraka-Sākhā.” Studien zur Indo-Iranistik -: -.
——— .. “Sur le chemin du ciel.” Bulletin d’Études Indiennes : -.

——— .. “The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Social and
Political Milieu.” In Michael Witzel (ed.), Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts.
New approach to the Study of the Veda Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Oriental Series
(Opera Minora ), -.

Alexis Pinchard


02.zend Avesta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02.zend Avesta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vedic Śākhās:

Past, Present, Future.

Proceedings of the Fifth International Vedic Workshop,

Jan E.M. Houben, Julieta Rotaru and Michael Witzel

On the Current Situation of Vedic Śākhās (Materials on Vedic Śākhās, )

Indication of Divergent Ritual Opinions in the Maitrāyan.ı̄ Saṁhitā

Cantillation et tonalité - Les deux paradigmes de tonalité dans le Taittirı̄ya-Āran.yaka

Attempts towards Preservation and Revival of the Śaunakı̄ya Atharvaveda

Négation et complémentarité dans le Veda, à la lumière de Pān.ini (et de Platon)

Vedic schools in northwestern India

Some Salient features of the Āśvs

Morphosyntactic change in Vedic: Reassessing the evolution of the Subjunctive

Vedicizing a post-vedic text: the case of Gan.eśa Atharvaśı̄rs.a Upanis.ad

Les Écoles védiques et la pratique de l’exégèse: le cas de Skandasvāmin

Ks.etrasya Pati and Mandhātar

Formation of a Śrautasūtra: the influence of preceding texts on the Baudhāyana-Śrau-

From Fuzzy-Edged “Family-Veda” to the canonical Śākhas of the Catur-Veda: struc-

Aspects of continuity of the Vedic tradition

Formation and Chronology of Some of the Taittirı̄ya Gr.hyasūtras

Intrastanzaic Repetition in the Rigveda (Verba and Res): a Final Integration

Avaks.ayan.a: Contribution of Yājñavalkya or Śukla Yajurveda to Indian Culture

Scribes of the Śukla Yajurvedic Manuscripts

Trends of Standardization and Institutionalization in the Transmission of the Vedas:

Baudhāyanı̄ya Contributions to Smārta Hinduism

The Periphrastic perfect in the Vedic language and Pān.ini’s Grammar

References to ritual authorities and Vedic schools in the Jaiminı̄ya-Śrautasūtra and

Roots and Branches: the Veda as an Inverted Tree?

Le Sāmavidhānabrāhman.a: le prāyaścitta décrypté

Donees and their Śākhās in Epigraphical Sources: Orissa

Two on a Swing: a New Perspective on the R . gveda

Karmasamuccaya: a Paippalādin Corpus of Domestic Rituals

Āpastamba and Other Schools of Vedic Ritual

Tolerance and Intolerance in Kumārila’s Views on the Vedic śākhā

. The Vedavrks.a after the Veda

catvārah. vedāh. sāṅgāh. sarahasyāh. bahudhā vibhinnāh. ekaśatam adhvaryu-

The Veda was really conceived of as a tree or in connection with a tree.

. The Vedavrks.a in the Bhagavad-Gı̄tā

. The Vedavrks.a in the Vis.n.u-Purān.a

However there is a contradiction in the Purān.a: according to it, on the

In order to overcome, if possible, these discrepancies about the structure

. Sacred speech and vrks.a in the Veda itself

This passage contains a series of riddles which are based on a systematic

Moreover Paul Thieme has demonstrated that the two complementary

. Atharva-Veda-Sam . hitā

.. Aśvattha and sacred speech

ya indrasya sabhādhāno yasmin samitim āsate /

yam . mrgo na samāpnoti paks.ābhyām . śakunis. patan /

This samiti connected with an aśvattha is not necessary a trial or a law-suit.

.. The Aśvattha as a theological tree

aśvatt h é vo ni .sádanam par n.é vo vasatís. k rtā´ /

gandharvas te mūlam āsic cākhā apsarasas tava /

But if Yama’s Aśvattha is the divine trunk of which branches constitute

.. Skambha and sacred speech

.. Inversion of Skambha?

Skambha might be inverted, although not explicitly. For there is no Ocean

Kuiper’s theory () is here to be considered: during the night, the

b/ Skambha and Ursa Major (Saptars.i)

tásmin hāpitvám ic ante yá es.ām éka ekajáh. //ŚS //

tiryágbilaś camasá ūrd h vábud h nas tásmin yáśo níhitam . viśvárūpam /

c/ Skambha and the inverted sacrificial stake

. Rg-Sam. hitā

It seems that there is a discrepance between the AV and RV about the

unnı̄yámānāh. kavíb h i h. purástād devā´ devā´nām ápi yanti pā´t h ah. // 