taxonomy question

Thrasher, Allen athr at LOC.GOV
Wed Aug 24 20:34:26 UTC 2011


A strikingly small number of females listed.  Without actually counting, I would estimate at most 10%.  But then, it is a puruSamedha or naramedha, "Sacrifice of a man/men (vir/viri)," not manuSyamedha, "sacrifice of a human being/human beings." And the central deity involved is PuruSa, "the Male Person" (or some similar phrase).

Aside from the basic list of the varNas, there doesn't seem to be an attempt to represent all kinds and conditions of men (either viri or homines), but an apparently somewhat random assortment.  Were the abstractions listed already treated as deities before the lists were compiled (with some sort of attempt at comprehensiveness),  so that the procedure was from deity to type of person rather than from type of person to deity?

Allen

From: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Herman Tull
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:36 PM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question

There is, but it is rather elaborate.

See Satapatha Brahmana 13.6

for Eggeling’s translation, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44111.htm

Herman Tull
Princeton, NJ

From: Slakter, David<mailto:D.Slakter at LIVERPOOL.AC.UK>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:10 PM
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk<mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question

Is there no hierarchy within the category of humans for the Vedic sacrifice?  That is, if you're going to sacrifice a human, will any human do?

David Slakter
________________________________
From: Indology [INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] on behalf of George Thompson [gthomgt at GMAIL.COM]
Sent: 23 August 2011 14:01
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fw: Re: [INDOLOGY] Fwd: [INDOLOGY] taxonomy question
Dear List

Maybe nobody noticed my mistake, or maybe many of you did, but you decided to forgive me.  In any case, the Vedic hierarchy of sacrificial victims is not:

5. sheep
4. goat
3. cattle
2. horse
1. human

It is instead:

5. goat
4. sheep
3. cattle
2. horse
1. human

I make this mistake all the time.  It is clear that in my urban world the value of the goat and the sheep is negligible.  But this is not true of the Vedic clans.

Best,
George



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20110824/17887abc/attachment.htm>


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list