Speculation on procreation and creation are abundant in these ritualistic texts and are hinged on the perceived potency of sacrifice as a perfect means of orchestrating ‘paradigmatic’ cosmic creation and human procreation. Underlying this was the ‘fundamental Vedic assumption’ that natural or biological processes of creation on both cosmic and human planes were inherently ‘defective’, ‘chaotic’, and ‘profane’, and had to be forged into ‘true cosmogony and anthropogony’ only by sacrifice.² At the same time, while stressing a metaphysical notion of ritual as a means of creation and procreation, these texts serve to subtly convey the complex social reality of stratified gender roles and relations in the later Vedic period (circa 1000-500 bce) heavily mediated by the priestly perception. This essay explores the use of certain motifs on procreation in the Brāhmaṇa³ and thereby demonstrates how the notion of hierarchical and unequal gender relations is embedded in them.

Sacrifice was thought to ensure the accomplishment of many goals which encompassed notions of spiritual and material well-being. The spiritual well-being, for instance, includes the attainment of intangible, abstract ideals like bliss (svasti),⁴ glory (yaśas, dyumna),⁵ prosperity (śrī),⁶ plentitude (bhūman) and greatness (varimān),⁷ vigour (vīrya)⁸ breath (prāṇa),⁹ energy (tejas),¹⁰ holy lustre (brahmavarcas),¹¹ power (indriya),¹² dominion/command (praśāsana),¹³ ascendancy (paramatā),¹⁴ life/longevity (ayus, āyuṣya;¹⁵ dīrghāyutva;¹⁶sarvamāyus;¹⁷ sarvayutva¹⁸), ascent to heaven or heavenly abode (divya dhāman, deva loka, svarga),¹⁹ manhood (suvīrya),²⁰ etc. Besides, the sacrificial rituals were thought to make the sacrificer (yajamāna) immortal (amṛta),²¹ unconquerable (astarya),²² sinless (apahata pāpmāna),²³ superior (śreyas),²⁴ most powerful (ojiṣṭha), lustrous (varcarvān), most splendid (bhrājiṣṭha),²⁵ excellent (śreṣṭha),²⁶ etc. The notion of material well-being was encapsulated by such goals as success against coevals (sajātas)²⁷ and rival kinsmen (bhrātṛvyas, sapatnas);²⁸ and acquisition of sovereignty (rājya),²⁹ food (anna),³⁰ wealth (rai, draviṇa, dhana),³¹ prosperity (puṣṭi),³² excellence (śrī),³³ cattle (paśu),³⁴ etc.

An important aspect of the material well-being in the Vedic-Brahmanical tradition was procreation.³⁵ Begetting progeny/offspring (prajā) was one of the central concerns of the human sacrificer: he is often described as prajākāma (desirous of progeny)³⁶ and progeny is the recurrent object of prayers.³⁷ Given the centrality of the sacrifice, its procreative role was amply emphasized. That its performance is purported to obtain progeny is specifically stated.³⁸ Thus, sacrifice, among other things, was a charm for procreation and fertility.³⁹ This procreative purpose of the sacrifice was served by recurrently employing three specific but related ritual devices/motifs: sexual coupling, analogy with copulation, and imagery of reproduction.

The first strategy was that of creating heterosexual productive pairs (mithunas) out of inanimate objects, verses, chants and even deities.⁴⁰ This often involved the use of a standard expression for such mimed productive copulation: mithunam evaitat prajananam-kriyate (‘a union productive of offspring is thereby effected’). In fact, so ubiquitous is this mithuna motif in the exegeses (arthavādas) which made the ritual acts and sexually charged that it has been considered a ‘full fledged science of couple formation (mithuna-karaṇa) . . . well rooted in the ritual tradition’.⁴¹ For instance, in the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, ritual utensils were fetched in pairs (dvandva) by the adhvaryu priest.⁴² Speech (vāc) and breath (prāṇa) were paired to produce (i.e., to recite) sāmidhenīs or kindling verses (ṛcs).⁴³ The phenomenon of new moon night was thought to result from an implicit sexual union effected by the moon, a masculine entity, entering into and staying with/dwelling with waters and plants, both feminine.⁴⁴ In the dākṣāyaṇa sacrifice, curd, grammatically feminine, was mixed with whey that is equated with semen (retas) to simulate a productive union (mithunam-prajananam).⁴⁵ In the varuṇapraghāsa sacrifice, a ram and an ewe of barley were conceived as a conjugal pair, placed respectively on the north and south dishes of curd — since the woman lay to the left/north of a man — and used as an offering to Varuṇa.⁴⁶ In the Soma sacrifice, clotted ghee being twofold (dvi), i.e., the mixture of ghee and sour milk, represented a productive union.⁴⁷ In the pravargya rite of the Soma sacrifice, the cauldron was conceived of a divine sexual pairing (devamithunam) with the cauldron as the phallus, the two handles as the testicles, the spoon as the thigh bone and the milk as the seed.⁴⁸

Forging such mithunas not only emphasized the procreative function of ritual, but also explicitly endowed the sacrificer with progeny as well as other desirable possessions. For instance, in the Soma sacrifice, a rice cake was to be offered to Agni and Viṣṇu in ghee since ghee being the milk of woman and the rice grains in the cake being that of man formed a mithuna, and the hotṛ priest with this pairing propagates thesacrificer with offspring and cattle.⁴⁹ In the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, kneading water and ground rice are mixed by the adhvaryu to produce the dough/sacrificial cake and thereby bring offspring, together prosperity and food, to the sacrificer.⁵⁰

Masculine and feminine identities of these paired elements are not always explicitly stated, but are implicit in their grammatical gender or are intelligible through analogies with masculine and feminine physicality. In fact, the paired elements need not be gendered as can be seen in the cases of pairing of the first and second libations of the agnihotra ritual⁵¹ and of the two days of the new moon and full moon in the dākṣāyaṇa sacrifice.⁵² Moreover, the mithunas need not always be of the opposite sex, as even the male deities were sexually paired. An instance is a series of procreative unions between Agni and Soma;⁵³Agni and Indra;⁵⁴ and Mitra and Varuṇa⁵⁵ who were offered oblations on the two days of full and new moon each in the dākṣāyaṇa sacrifice. In another instance, in the vaiśvadeva sacrifice, Agni was conceived of as the progenitor (prajanayitā) and Soma as the seed (retas), with Savitṛ as the impeller (prasavitṛ) of the union and hence the intermediate progenitor (madhyataḥ prajanayitā).⁵⁶ In such pairings, a continuum was envisaged between the poles of masculinity and feminity with the less masculine being defined as feminine vis-à-vis more masculine. In the pairing of Mitra and Varuṇa, the latter was conceived of as less masculine vis-à-vis the former who was conceived of as implanting seed in him (retaḥ siñcati),⁵⁷ his feminization being linked to his demotion in the Vedic pantheon in the social context of sharpening gender and varṇa stratification.⁵⁸ Similarly, in the pairing of Soma and Agni, Soma as the seed was conceived of as passive and implicitly feminine vis-à-vis Agni who, as ‘he cast semen in the Soma’, was an active agent of procreation (mithunam-prajananam) and hence masculine. Alternatively, it has been argued that for the purpose of rite or for a moment of thought, one party was believed to be of the opposite sex.⁵⁹ All such unions of entities/elements of indeterminate, inexplicit or same gender were premised on the logic that the pair (dvandva) of two (dvi) connoted a procreative sexual union (mithunam-prajananam).⁶⁰

However, procreative union was sometimes conceived of in unequal terms especially when the gender of the sexual partners was explicit. First, this was almost formulaically phrased in specific instances −− unions of Prajāpati and his daughter,⁶¹ Agni and Āpaḥ,⁶² Agni and cow (go)⁶³ and yajña and Vāc⁶⁴−− so as to suggest that the unions was effected upon male ‘desire’ or ‘approach’, apparently without female consent. Here, the projection of active and dominant masculinity vis-à-vis passive feminity implies masculine control over the procreation process. This clearly contrasts with the early Vedic context represented by the Ṛgveda wherein, ‘relatively egalitarian roles (were) envisaged for men and women in . . . unions [which] were initiated by interested individuals of either sex’.⁶⁵ Second, some of these unions are implicitly polygamous and thus unequal, such as those of the vaṣaṭ call, conceived as masculine, with anuvākyā (invitatory prayer) and yājyā (offering prayer), both conceived as feminine.⁶⁶ Third, potentially polygynous situations are created by ritual acts, such as brushing one dipping spoon, conceived as masculine, before three offering spoons, conceived as feminine. This is considered analogous to a male youth leading several women⁶⁷ suggesting male precedence over the female.⁶⁸ Thus, all these mithunas constructed gender roles in the procreation process on hierarchical terms.

A ritually undesirable counterpoint to mithuna is jāmi or jāmitva. In the Ṛgveda, the word implies a close bond, as also a brother-sister tie which might even have been of sexual nature, but conflicting notions about its desirability, too, appear, reflecting a situation of change in socio-sexual norms. This is exemplified by the famous dialogue between the primeval twins, Yama and Yamī⁶⁹ wherein the latter desires sexual union with the former on the basis of jāmitva, while the former denies this possibility on the ground of their similarity and virtual identity.⁷⁰ Subsequently, such unions came to be increasingly disfavored, and jāmi became ‘a common designation for the members of a non-marriageable group’ and thereby integral to the exogamous system.⁷¹ Social de-recognition or devaluation of unions based on jāmi or jāmitva was extended to the ritual realm, wherein the word designates rites that are ‘fruitlessly reduplicative within a ritual sequence’.⁷² In this sense, jāmi connotes a ritual error arising out of the virtual identity or the lack of sufficient differentiation between acts, entities and objects. In contrast, mithuna implicitly rests on the principle of distinction between the paired elements, encapsulated by the idea of duality (dvi, dvandva).

The repetition of specific ritual acts—for instance, announcing oblations to different deities in the same way,⁷³ invoking a deity several times in the same way⁷⁴ or with the same grammatical case-form (vibhakti),⁷⁵ using the same ritual item/object in performing the same ritual act more than once,⁷⁶ reciting certain verses that have the same import in the same rite⁷⁷—are explicitly advised against, and substitutive acts are prescribed to avoid sameness (ajāmitā). Sameness is also sought to be prevented by certain acts, even when how exactly they could be repeated is not specified.⁷⁸ Even acts that have the inherent element of jāmitva are to be done in a prescribed way to avoid it, or rather to overcome it.⁷⁹

Jāmitva is explicitly counterpoised to procreative coupling (mithunam-prajananam). In one instance, by using the same verses as offering verses for the deities on the same day sameness (jāmi) is created in the sacrifice, to avoid which an offering is made to a male deity before the minor female deities (devikās) to make pairing between him and all the female deities, since ‘even if there are many wives as it were, one husband is a pair with them’.⁸⁰ Thus, the possibility of committing the ritual fault of jāmi is eliminated by the ritually desirable act of mithuna-formation. In another instance, jāmi is considered non-coupling (a-mithunam) and unprocreative (a-prajananam), and likened to the fruitless coupling of two men or two women. On the other hand, that which is not jāmi (ajāmi) is considered procreative pairing (mithunam . . . prajananam).⁸¹ Stressing on the procreative nature of mithuna valorizes heterosexual—and even polygynous—relations and disfavoring jāmitva de-recognizes homosexual ones. At the same time, privileging differentiation as the basis of the mithuna over identity or equality as that of jāmitva implicitly conveys the desirability of hierarchical and unequal relations.

Besides sexual pairing, the second ritual device for effecting procreation was the analogy of ritual acts, chants or exegeses with copulation. In the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, making the vaṣaṭ call was equated with the impregnation of fire and the birth of sacrifice.⁸² The vauṣaṭ or vaṣaṭ was fancifully explained as being composed of vauk/vāk (equated with semen) and ṣaṭ (six, implying six seasons), implying a procreative polygamous union, one seed being cast into six seasons.⁸³ The prefixes pra and a were to be added to the kindling verses (sāmidhenīs), the reason being that ‘with pra semen is cast and with a progeny is born’ (pra-iti vai retaḥ sicyate, a-iti prajāyate).⁸⁴ In the same sacrifice, the adhvaryu’s act of touching the altar or vedi (equated with a woman) with the veda (equated with a man) is conceived of as effecting their productive union,⁸⁵ and the hotṛ’s act of strewing the veda from the gārhapatya fire as far as (eastern end of) the vedi was considered analogous to the sexual advances of male towards the female from behind.⁸⁶ The sexual connotation of the male’s approach from behind perhaps was implicitly procreative as the hind part (jaghana) of female contains its generative organs.⁸⁷ Further, the vedi and the fire were conceived of as a woman lying, while embracing a man and implicitly engaged in productive copulation.⁸⁸ More subtly, that the fire was lit atop the vedī suggests a dominant male in a missionary copulative posture. Moreover, the vedi was shaped like a woman:

It [the altar] should be broader on the west side, contracted in the middle, and broad again, on the east side; for thus shaped they praise a woman: broad about the hips, somewhat narrower between the shoulder and contracted in the middle [or about the waist]. Thereby he [the adhvaryu] made it [the altar] pleasing to the gods.⁸⁹

The praise for narrow-shouldered, slender-waisted, and broad-hipped woman and the instruction for constructing a similarly shaped altar convey a specific sexually charged ideal of female anatomy envisioned by the male mentality. Broad hips also allude to her generative powers; hence the link between the hind part and reproduction.⁹⁰ For instance, by making altar broader/wider from behind, the adhvaryu makes the womb at the hind part wider from where creatures are born.⁹¹ At another level, this equation implies an attempt to regulate female sexuality by putting the female body, metaphorically within the confines of the sacrificial altar’s shape.⁹² This is also reflected in the reference to the altar being ‘hemmed in’ by the gods and brāhmaṇas, and to its being covered with sacrificial grass (barhis) by the adhvaryu to avoid nudity.⁹³ Thus, while her sexual appeal was praised, her sexuality was also contained thereby implying an underlying ambiguous male attitude towards female sexuality and fertility. At the same time, the act of spreading the sacrificial grass on the altar had association with fertility and sustenance: the altar and the barhis were thought to represent the earth and plants respectively; hence, by spreading the barhis on the earth the adhvaryu was thought to furnish the earth with plants and establish the plants on the earth; by spreading them abundantly the ahdvaryu was thought to make the plants most abundant and thereby the earth the best source of sustenance (upajīvanīyatam).⁹⁴

In the dākṣāyaṇa sacrifice, offering whey (equated with retas or semen) to the (divine) horses (equated with seasons) was likened to casting semen into the seasons and causing the birth of creatures. Sprinkling whey in the five quarters (equated with five seasons) was thought to effect the union of the two.⁹⁵ Offering whey from behind the sacrifice was considered analogous to a male approaching and pouring semen into the female.⁹⁶ In the agnihotra sacrifice, collecting ritual objects was likened to equipping Agni with a mate⁹⁷ and sprinkling three lines of the gārhapatya or household fire (masculine) with waters (āpaḥ, feminine) to supplying the former with a productive mate.⁹⁸ Gold, the priestly fee (dakṣiṇā),⁹⁹ was thought to be produced from the seed ejected during the union of Agni with Āpaḥ or waters.¹⁰⁰ The officiating priests were stated to place the sacrificer in the (heavenly) world just as seed was placed into the womb.¹⁰¹ In the agnicayana sacrifice, the placement of the āhavanīya or offering fire, conceived as masculine, on the right or north side of the ground and the spade, conceived as feminine, on the left or south was interpreted as a male lying on the right side of the female.¹⁰² The fire, conceived as masculine and heating the fire pan, conceived as feminine, was likened to a male infusing semen in the female¹⁰³ and the fire-pan was conceived of as a female receiving the sand poured into it as semen and bearing Agni.¹⁰⁴ Offering the libation of ghee (equated with semen) in the sruva spoon (masculine) with the svāhā call (masculine) was compared to a male pouring semen.¹⁰⁵ Depositing a lump of clay on a lotus leaf placed on the black antelope skin was likened to the pouring of semen into the womb.¹⁰⁶ Covering the gārhapatya fire (equated with the womb) with sand (equated with semen) and enclosing it with enclosing stones (equated with the womb) were analogous to filling the womb with semen¹⁰⁷ and enclosing the cast semen in the womb,¹⁰⁸ respectively. Throwing sand on the uttaravedī (northern altar) was considered akin to infusing seed into the womb and thereby making the seed generative (prajaniṣṇu).¹⁰⁹ In the Soma sacrifice, the hotṛ’s acts of mutteringwas analogous to pouring semen, reciting the silent praise to ‘developing’ it and reciting the puroruc formula to propagating/giving birth.¹¹⁰ In another and more graphic instance, the hotṛ separating the first two padas of a verse makes a woman separate her thighs; and his creating the last two padas makes a man unite his thighs. In so doing, the hotṛ makes a pairing at the beginning of the litany, and the sacrificer is propagated with offspring and cattle.¹¹¹ By laying down the two fire-churning sticks on the top of each other, calling the lower one Urvaśī and the upper one Purūravas, and touching the (ghee in the) ghee-pan with the upper churning-stick and calling it Āyus, the adhvaryu mimes the union of nymph (apsaras) Urvaśī and Purūravas that produced Āyus, and thereby produces the sacrifice from that union (since sacrificial fire is produced from two sticks).¹¹² At the savana (Soma-pressing rite), the acts of singing stotra (chant) and reciting śastra (hymn of praise) in succession are likened to a procreative union: by chanting the stotra, the udgātṛ, as Prajāpati, implants semen in the hotṛ who is equated with the ṛc, the female; and by reciting the śastra the hotṛ produces it.¹¹³

This rich repertoire of sexual symbolism with simulations and analogies of productive copulation appropriately and logically extended to the related realm of reproduction as well. Here, the symbolism assumed two forms: use of womb and embryo imagery; and ritual intervention/assistance in reproduction through acts/chants. In an instance of the first, the setting of the sun was conceived of as the state of being enveloped by night like an embryo (garbha);¹¹⁴ and its rise as birth from its embryonic state enacted by the morning offering in the agnihotra.¹¹⁵ A natural phenomenon was thus rationalized in terms of procreation and ritualized by stressing the indispensability of making oblation to its occurrence.¹¹⁶ In the agnicayana sacrifice, the enclosing stones of the gārhapatya hearth were visualized as Agni’s womb (yoni); the saline earth scattered on it as the embryo’s amnion (ulba); and the sand scattered inside as the semen cast in the womb — all instrumental in Agni’s birth.¹¹⁷ Thereafter, building the gārhapatya hearth with bricks was likened to fashioning the infused semen into his body.¹¹⁸ Again, the reed grass was visualized as his womb encased in the fire pan, the (female) body; the kindling sticks as his embryonic form (garbha) with ghee as the outer membrane and hemp as the inner one.¹¹⁹ Elsewhere,¹²⁰ bamboo served as a womb for him. Thus, Agni’s birth was ritually enacted but conceived in biological terms on several occasions. In the agniṣṭoma sacrifice, Soma, bought for the purpose of obtaining offspring/descendents,¹²¹ was conceived of as an embryo and wrapped up to hide it from the evil spirits.¹²² This ritual ‘embryonization’ and ‘reproduction’ of deities was also replicated by the human sacrificer who enacted his own ritual rebirth through a symbolic entry into and egress from the embryonic state.¹²³ Occasionally, certain chants are identified with the human embryo and the manner of their utterance likened to that of its birth. For instance, insofar as the nivids are the embryos of the litanies and are inserted before (the ukthas) in the morning pressing, in the middle at the midday pressing and at the end at the third pressing, the embryos are deposited at the back and come into being at the back, are held in the middle and are born downward for generation.¹²⁴

Besides the womb-embryo imagery that dramatically simulated and implicitly ensured childbirth, there was more direct ritual intervention in reproduction by the priests and the sacrificer that governed the manner, continuity and success of childbirth, and the desired nature of the offspring. For instance, the adhvaryu’s act of untying the band of barhis in the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice, whilst wishing easy delivery of child by the wife¹²⁵ ritually assured painless delivery, i.e., the male’s ritual labor was thought to ease the travails of the female’s biological labor. Offering libation silently in the agnihotra sacrifice on account of the uncertainty of progeny implicitly lessened the uncertainty surrounding pregnancy and childbirth.¹²⁶ Offerings made from specific spatial points in the ritual arena and with specific items that were likened to the generative parts of the female body were meant to control procreation. For instance, in the Soma sacrifice performing the by-offerings (upayaja) behind (paścāt) the altar produced offspring, since from behind the offspring was born from woman.¹²⁷ Similarly, performing the patnīsaṃyājus rite in the same sacrifice with the tail of the sacrificed animal victim produced offspring, as the tail was the hindpart (jaghanārdha) representing the hindpart of woman from which offspring was produced.¹²⁸ Further, certain offerings called ati-upayaja ensured that the living beings were ‘propagated’ and ‘again born repeatedly’.¹²⁹ The adhvaryu’s act of inserting a chip of each of the 11 stakes for 11 victims (by) under the respective ropes of each without confounding them ensured that the sacrificer’s offspring was not born disorderly and foolish.¹³⁰ It is recommended that a black horn be used by the sacrificer to scratch himself in the place of a chip of wood, as use of the latter was considered a ritual error causing progeny to be diseased with scab/itch.¹³¹ This intervention was occasionally extended to the pre-natal stage, as in one instance the movement of the consecrated sacrificer between the āhavanīya and gārhapatya fires regulated by the priests is envisaged as facilitating the movement of the embryo within the womb, the sacrificer and the fire being identified with the embryo and the womb (of the sacrifice) respectively.¹³² Such ritual intervention in and enactment of the reproductive process implicitly invested the priests with a degree of control over the process.

These devices/motifs were recurrently deployed reiterating the relation between ritual and procreation to the point of redundancy, since redundancy reduced mistakes in reception and thus was necessary for effective communication.¹³³ They fostered a ritualistic definition of a biological process of reproduction, whereby the efficacy of ritual devices of symbolic representation of sexuality and fertility in acquiring progeny was privileged over that of actual sexual union.¹³⁴ Thus, a hierarchy of ritual birth and biological birth was established on ritual occasions.¹³⁵ However, the physicality of procreation was not totally ruled out as can be seen in the case of the patnīsaṃyājus rite in the darśapūrṇamāsa sacrifice¹³⁶ and the pātnīvatagraha rite in the Soma sacrifice.¹³⁷ Here, while sacrifice as a means of procreation was emphasized, the equivalence of both biological and ritual means was occasionally implied as well. But all the same, the success of procreation had to be ritually ensured.

Projecting the sacrificial ritual as a procreative act invested its male patron and officiants, i.e., the sacrificer and the priests, with a notional control over the procreation process through ritual performances. In other words, by defining procreation in terms of ritual observance rather than a physical process, they marginalized and appropriated the actual procreative role of the female. Thus, a particular masculinist notion of procreation valorizing the ritual performance by the male and devaluing the biological role of the female structured the gender relations in unequal terms.

To conclude, identifications, metaphors and analogies served to ritualize procreation and hierarchize gender relations on the basis of unequal gender roles in the entire gamut of productive processes from copulation to reproduction to rearing. However, the objective of fostering a ritualistic concept of procreation is at odds with the ubiquity of sex-motif in ritual. This can be explained by a possible situation wherein social acceptance of such a concept was not complete and it had to be made more comprehensible in terms of human sexual experience, but at the same time, realizable only within the ritual arena and by ritual means. Thus, sex-motif merely served as a ‘biological veneer’ for ritualized procreation. The ideal of acquiring progeny through ritual was meant for emulation by human performers, but had little feasibility, which necessitated the use of extravagant sexual symbolism in ritual to bridge the gap between the ideal and reality, or rather ‘forge’ the latter on the lines of former within a strict ritual framework.

REFRENCES:

1. J. C. Heesterman, ‘Vedism and Brahmanism’. In Encyclopaedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones. Thomson Gale. 2005[1987]; 2nd ed.; vol. 14: p. 9566; J. C. Heesterman, ‘Vedic Sacrifice and Transcendence’, in J. C. Heesterman, ‘Vedic Sacrifice and Transcendence’. In J. C. Heesterman, The Inner Conflict of Indian Tradition: Essays in Indian Ritual, Kingship and Society. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1985: p. 81.

2. Brian K. Smith, Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual and Religion, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989; p. 51ff.

3. The list of primary sources consulted are as follows: Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa (hereafter ŚB), Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (hereafter AB), Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa (hereafter TB), Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa (hereafter PVB), Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa (hereafter JB) and Kauṣītakī Brāhmaṇa (hereafter KB).

4. ŚB 1.9.1.27.

5. ŚB 2.1.4.9, 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.6, 3.1.4.19.

6. ŚB 2.1.4.9, 2.1.2.8, 1.8.1.36, 2.2.3.6, 2.4.4.2,4, 1.2.2.3.

7. ŚB 2.1.4.28.

8. ŚB 2.2.1.8; AB 2.17.

9. ŚB 2.2.1.6, 2.1.4.20, 22; AB 2.29.

10. ŚB 2.2.2.19; AB 2.1, 2.4, 2.17.

11. ŚB 2.3.1.31, 4.1.1.14; AB 2.1, 2.4.

12. AB 2.17.

13. ŚB 1.9.1.14, 4.2.3.11.

14. ŚB 2.2.3.5, 2.4.4.5.

15. AB 2.17.

16. ŚB 1.9.1.13.

17. ŚB 2.1.3.5, 2.1.4.9.

18. AB 2.21, 2.30, 3.8.

19. ŚB 1.9.1.16, 4.3.4.6, 4.3.4.8, 4.3.4.20; AB 1.9, 2.1, 2.3, 2.11, 2.17, 2.32.

20. ŚB 6.5.2.3.

21. ŚB 2.2.2.14, AB 2.13.

22. ŚB 2.2.2.14.

23. ŚB 2.1.4.9,2.1.3.5.

24. ŚB 2.2.2.19.

25. ŚB 4.5.4.13.

26. AB 2.1, 2.22, 2.24.

27. ŚB 1.9.1.15.

28. ŚB 2.1.2.17, 2.2.2.14, 7.4.2.34; AB 2.35.

29. ŚB 2.2.3.1, 2.4.4.8.

30. ŚB 1.9.1.4, 1.2.2.3, 2.2.1.7.

31. ŚB 4.5.7.8, 3.1.4.19, 6.5.2.3,5,6; AB 2.2.

32. ŚB 3.1.4.19, AB 2.1.

33. ŚB 2.3.1.13.

34. ŚB 2.1.3.8, 2.1.2.6, 1.9.1.14, 4.1.1.15; AB 2.1, 2.17, 2.30, 2.33, 3.7.

35. Kumkum Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy in North India Eighth–Fourth Centuries B.C. as Reflected in the Brahmanical Tradition. Oxford University Press, New Delhi. 1994; pp. 39, 156.

36. ŚB 2.5.1.7; AB 2.17.

37. For instance, ŚB 1.8.1.36, 4.5.6.4, 6.5.2.3, 6.5.2.5, 6.5.2.6.

38. ŚB 1.9.2.5, 2.1.2.6, 2.1.3.8, 2.2.4.7, 2.3.1.13, 2.4.4.2, 2.5.1.7.

39. S. A. Dange, Sexual Symbolism from the Vedic Ritual. Ajanta Publications, New Delhi. 1979; p. 58.

40. Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy, p. 255-6, 290.

41. Dange, Sexual Symbolism from the Vedic Ritual, p. 58.

42. ŚB 1.1.1.22. The ritual utensils paired are: ladle and winnowing basket; black antelope skin and wedge; wooden sword and potsherds; pestle and mortar; and large and small mill stones.

43. ŚB 1.4.1.2.

44. ŚB 1.6.4.5; cf. ŚB 1.6.4.15.

45. ŚB 2.4.4.21.

46. ŚB 2.5.2.17.

47. ŚB 3.8.4.7.

48. AB 1.22.

49. AB 1.1.

50. ŚB 1.2.2.3.

51. ŚB 2.3.1.23.

52. ŚB 2.4.4.6.

53. ŚB 2.4.4.7.

54. ŚB 2.4.4.8, 9.

55. ŚB 2.4.4.10.

56. ŚB 2.5.1.8-10.

57. ŚB 2.4.4.19.

58. Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy, pp. 118, 165.

59. Dange, Sexual Symbolism, p. xii.

60. ŚB 1.1.1.22, 2.4.4.7-10, 1.9.2.6, 2.3.1.23, 3.9.3.34, 6.2.2.2.

61. ‘Prajāpati desired his own daughter, either the sky or the dawn. “May I be paired with her!”, thus [thinking, he] united with her’ (ŚB 1.7.4.1). ‘Prajāpati longed for Uṣas, his own daughter’ (PVB 8.2.10). ‘Prajāpati desired his own daughter, the sky some say, the dawn others’ (AB 3.33). ‘Prajāpati desired Uṣas, his own daughter’ (JB 3.262).

62. ‘Now Agni at one time cast his eyes on the waters. “May I pair with her”, he thought. He came together with them’ (ŚB 2.1.1.5).

63. ‘Now Agni coveted her (cow). “May I pair with her” he thought. He united with her’ (ŚB 2.2.4.15).

64. ‘The yajña lusted after Vāc, thinking, “May I pair with her”. He [thus] united with her’ (ŚB 3.2.1.25).

65. Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy, p. 246.

66. The sequence of recitation of invitatory and offering prayers, followed by the vaṣaṭ call is compared to a male approaching the female from behind (ŚB 1.7.2.12).

67. ŚB 1.3.1.9.

68. That such situations were valorized in the actual gender relations is indicated by a reference to many wives being a form (rūpa) of śrī (prosperity or social eminence/excellence), which was supposed to be conferred on the royal performer of the aśvamedha sacrifice through having his wives anoint different parts of the sacrificial horse (ŚB 13.2.6.4-7).

69. Ṛgveda 10.10, in Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy, p. 247.

70. Ibid.

71. A. C. Banerjea, Studies in the Brāhmaṇas. Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi. 1963; p. 31.

72. Smith, Reflections on Resemblance, p. 52.

73. ŚB 1.3.2.7-9.

74. ŚB 1.8.1. 24-25.

75. ŚB 2.2.3.27.

76. ŚB 2.2.3.11.

77. ŚB 4.2.3.18.

78. For instance, it is stated that offering liqor in the āhavanīya or offering fire will cause confusion and repetition of the sacrifice (jāmi yajñasya) (ŚB 12.9.3.5). In another instance, oblations are offered to Agni and Soma inaudibly and audibly to avoid sameness (ajāmitāyai) (KB 3.6).

79. For instance, all ājya śastras or invocatory verses, having the accent and thus characterised by sameness, are addressed to different deities to avoid sameness (PVB 7.2.5).

80. AB 3.47, 3.48.

81. JB 1.300. Elsewhere (JB 1.330), it is stated that what is uniform (ekarūpa) is considered non-procreative pairing.

82. ‘By the vaṣaṭ call, [the adhvaryu priest] pours it [the sacrifice] into the fire, as seed [is poured] into the womb; for the fire is indeed the womb of the sacrifice, from thence it is brought forth’ (ŚB 1.5.2.11, 14).

83. ŚB 1.7.2.21.

84. ŚB 1.4.1.6.

85. ŚB 1.9.2.21.

86. ŚB 1.9.2.24.

87. Stephanie W. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife, Sacrificer’s Wife: Women, Ritual, and Hospitality in Ancient India, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 41.

88. ŚB 1.2.5.15.

89. ŚB 1.2.5.16; cf. Āpastamba Śulba Sūtra 4.18.19, cited in Yajurveda Saṃhitā, trans. R. T. H. Griffith, ed. and rev. Ravi Prakash Arya, Delhi: Parimal Publications, 2012, p. 2, note.

90. Jamison, Sacrificed Wife, Sacrificer’s Wife, pp. 42-43.

91. ŚB 3.5.1.11.

92. Roy, The Emergence of Monarchy, p. 270.

93. ŚB 1.3.3.8.

94. ŚB 1.3.3.9-10.

95. ŚB 2.4.4.24.

96. ŚB 2.4.4.23.

97. ŚB 2.1.1.1.

98. ŚB 2.1.1.4.

99. ŚB 2.2.3.28.

100. ŚB 2.1.1.5.

101. ŚB 2.2.2.7.

102. ŚB 6.3.1.30.

103. ŚB 6.6.2.8.

104. ŚB 7.1.1.41-44.

105. ŚB 6.3.3.18.

106. ŚB 6.4.1.7.

107. ŚB 7.1.1.11.

108. ŚB 7.1.1.12.

109. ŚB 7.3.1.28.

110. AB 2.38-39.

111. AB 2.35.

112. ŚB 3.4.1.22.

113. ŚB 4.3.2.3.

114. ŚB 2.3.1.3.

115. ŚB 2.3.1.5.

116. ‘But assuredly, it [sun] would not rise, were he [the adhvaryu] not to make that offering; this is why he performs that offering’ (ŚB 2.3.1.5).

117. ŚB 7.1.1.16.

118. ŚB 7.1.1.17.

119. ŚB 6.6.2.15-16.

120. ŚB 6.3.1.32.

121. ŚB 3.3.2.18.

122. ŚB 3.3.4.6.

123. ŚB 3.2.1.11, 3.2.1.1; AB 1.3. The use of womb-embryo imagery by the sacrificer with the aid of the priests was a ritual means to remedy the ‘imperfection’ of his biological birth and appropriate the procreative role.

124. AB 3.10.

125. ŚB 2.6.1.23, 2.6.1.24, 1.5.3.18, 4.4.5.14.

126. ŚB 2.3.1.29.

127. ŚB 3.8.4.10.

128. ŚB 3.8.5.6.

129. ŚB 3.8.4.18.

130. ŚB 3.7.1.22. The chip obtained in rough hewing of the stake was conceived of as the offspring of the stake and, by implication, the sacrificer’s offspring.

131. ŚB 3.2.1.31.

132. ŚB 3.1.3.26.

133. Frits Staal, The Meaninglessness of Ritual. Numen. 1979; 26(1): 19.

134. Birth or ‘life gained’ as a result of the performance of the agnihotra was privileged over birth from the sexual union of parents: ‘Even as he is born from his father and mother, so he is born from the fire. But he, who offers not the agnihotra, verily, does not come into life at all’ (ŚB 2.2.4.8).

135. Kumkum Roy, Changing Kinship Relations in the Later-Vedic Society. Indian Historical Review. 1991; 53: 13. Also, ritual performance served as the basis for establishing hierarchy of progeny of the same parentage, as reflected in the injunction (ŚB 3.1.3.5) that among Vivasvat Āditya’s offspring, he who would offer a rice pap to the Ādityas, would be successful.

136. ŚB 1.9.2.5.

137. ŚB 4.4.2.9.

Received on 05.04.2017

Modified on 20.05.2017

Accepted on 09.06.2017

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 8(2): April- June, 2017, 123-130.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2017.00018.3