A TALE OF TWO CITI-S

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

Almost all the altar (citi)-s mentioned in the ¤ulbasƒtra (¤us)-s are nearly look-alike; the

difference lies only in the arrangements of the bricks. Thus the falcon (¤yena) altar,

whether of the rectilinear or of the bird-shaped kind, is similar in appearance in all the

¤us-s. Unless one is well-versed in the ¤ulba tradition, one cannot distinguish them at first

sight. However, the difference in the layouts of the rectilinear ¤ma†‚na citi in B¤us, 8. 1-

17 and •¤us, 14. 9-15 is most glaring (figs. 1-2). Even a novice cannot help noticing the

dissimilarities in the shapes of the two, although the number of bricks employed (200 x 5

= 100) and the area (108, 000 sq. a¥gula) are identical. The B¤us does not mention the

circular ¤ma†‚na altar, nor does the K¤us. However, •¤us, 14. 11 and M¤us, 3. 6. 6

mention this variety but they give no details regarding the construction. So we can

postpone the discussion about the circular ¤ma†‚na altar for the present.

B¤us ¤ma†‚na citi

Fig. 1a Layer 1 Fig. 1b Layer 2 Fig. 1c

•¤us ¤ma†‚na citi

Fig. 2a Layer 1 Fig. 2b Layer 2

2

Why do the B¤us and •¤us differ in the form of the rectilinear ¤ma†‚na altar? It

seems that the redactors of the ¤us-s had no idea about the shape of this kind of altar. All

they knew was what the Taittir„ya Sa‰hit‚ (TS) says about this: “he (sc. the sacrificer)

should pile in the form of a cemetry, who desires, ‘May I be successful in the world of the

fathers (pit±loka)’; verily he is successful in the world of the fathers” (5. 4. 11). Following

this dictum, the •¤us says:

He who desires to stay in the pit±loka must perform the ¤ma†‚na citi—

such is known by (tradition) (iti vijñ‚yate). The ¤ma†‚na fire-altars are

of two types, e. g., squares or caturasra-s and circles or parima‹‡ala-s.

He can take whatever sense he likes (yathak‚m„) on account of the

word (in ¤ruti) meaning in different ways (vi†ayitv‚t). Only a square

(is to be taken) for which the Gu‹a†‚stra (speaks in support of it).

(Hence) it (is) a square. The deduction of tsaru [handle] is told in

dro‹a citi (which is to applied here also) (14. 10-15). (Trans. Prakash

and Sharma).

The word, yath‚k‚m„ (as one desires) and vi†ayitv‚t (due to doubtfulness), occur

conjointly in other places of the •¤us too.1 Apparently no details concerning the piling of

the ¤ma†‚na altar was available to the redactors of the •¤us.

The word gu‹a†‚stra, in the passage, is obscure.2 It is not found in the dictionaries

of Böhtlingk-Roth or of Monier-Williams. Sen and Bag render gu‹a†‚stra as

‘consideration of quality’, which does not make sense. All that can be said is that the

redactors of the •¤us visualized the ¤ma†‚na altar as the Dro‹a without its spout (see

fig. 3).

•¤us Dro‹a citi

Fig. 3a Layer 1 Fig. 3b Layer 2

3

On the other hand, the layout of the ¤ma†‚na citi as given in the B¤us is quite

different from that of the rectilinear Dro‹a (see fig. 4).

B¤us Dro‹a citi

Fig. 4a Layer 1 Fig. 4b Layer 2

The redactors of the B¤us seem to have been prompted by the layout of the PRAÜGA and

Ubhayata¶ Praüga citi-s with their rhombus-shaped bricks (see figs. 5-6).

B¤us Praüga citi

Fig. 5a Layer 1 Fig. 5b Layer 2

4

B¤us Ubhayata¶ Praüga citi

Fig. 6a Layer 1 Fig. 6b Layer 2

The slanting arrangements of the bricks in the top layer (see fig. 7) is also quite unique:

no other altar in any ¤us looks like it.

B¤us ¤ma†‚na citi

Fig. 7

One wonders whether this peculiar brand of the rectilinear ¤ma†‚na altar has any

textual support excepting the B¤us itself.

Now to the M¤us. The relevant passage runs as follows:

The ¤ma†‚na fire altar is to be surrounded by a circle or by a square.

The dro‹a (trough) fire altar (as a square) has a handle, that shall be the

part. (3. 6. 6)

5

Like the •¤us, the M¤us too prefers to juxtapose the (rectilinear) ¤ma†‚na and the

(rectilinear) Dro‹a altar. But, as Van Gelder, the translator, notes, “the tenth part of the

whole surface seems too large, as B.¤ gives only 70 x 80 = 5600 a¥g.2 to the handle.”3

As to the circular Dro‹a altar the M¤us says: “he (sc. the sacrificer) shall make in a

circle, (covering nearly 71/2 p.2) an (inscribed) square, as at the g‚rhapatya, with the

twentieth part of a square double b‚hu...” (3. 6. 7).

Here too Van Gelder notes: “the side of the inscribed square in the circle of 71/2 p.2

is 262 a¥g., is somewhat more, because here are spout is to be made.” The solution she

offers is as follows: “probably first the square is to be made then the circle around it”, and

refers to B. ¤rs. 30. 18, in which a square of 71/2 puru¹a is turned into a circle.4

Apparently the redactors of the M¤us were as much in the dark about the shape of

the ¤ma†‚na altar (and thus made mistakes) as those of the •¤us. At the same time the

redactors of both the ¤us-s did not think it prudent to follow the B¤us design. Now, the

B¤us’s preference for the square type of altar (when nothing specific is told in y‚jñic

literature) is attested by 1. 80.5 It is further to be noted that no reference is made to the

g‚rhapatya ved„ in the B¤us in relation to the ¤ma†‚na altar, whereas the M¤us does so.

Here may lie a solution to the crux regarding the two types of the ¤ma†‚na altar. The

g‚rhapatya ved„ according to all the ¤us-s are of both circular and rectilinear types.6 But

the B¤us does not refer to the circular variant of the ¤ma†‚na altar and concerns itself

with the rectilinear variety alone, although such variants are noted in cases of Kƒrma and

Dro‹a.7 In other words, the B¤us does not consider the g‚rhapatya ved„ to be in any way

relevant to the ¤ma†‚na altar, which the M¤us explicitly and the •¤us implicitly do,

although they are unable to provide any details. The forms of the rectilinear ¤yena, Dro‹a

and ¤ma†‚na altars in the •¤us thus follow one pattern while those of the Praüga,

Ubhayata¶ Praüga and ¤ma†‚na altar in the B¤us follow another.

Notes and References 1 Such helplessness is also apparent in the juxtaposition of iti vijñ‚yate (such is the

tradition) and avi†e¹‚t (since no particular is given) in B¤us, 5. 1-4, 6. 1-4 and 9. 1-3 (3.

182, 218, 282 in Thibaut), all in relation to circular altars. The word, avi†e¹a and its

derivatives are found in other contexts too. See •¤us, 4. 5 (2 in Bürk) and 21. 12 (7 in

Bürk) and B¤us, 1. 80.

6

2 The word, gu‹a†‚stra, also occurs in •¤us, 13. 10 (7 in Bürk); yath‚k‚m„ in 6. 3, 23 (2

and 10 in Bürk), 11. 8 (4 in Bürk), 13. 9 (6 in Bürk); see also yath‚k‚m„ in B¤us, 1. 18,

57. 3 Van Gelder, p. 310. 4 Ibid. 5 “It is a square as no particular rule is given” (samacaturasr‚vi†e¹‚t), said in relation to

the uttaraved„. Cf. •¤us, 13. 10-11.

6 See B¤us, 2. 62-63; •¤us, 7. 8-9; M¤us, 1. 1. 8.

7 B¤us, 9.2; 10. 3.

Works Cited

•pastamba†ulvasƒtra, ed. A. Bürk, Zeitschirft der Deutschen Morgenländischen

Gesellschaft (ZDMG), Vol. 55 (1901), pp. 543-591.

•pastamba ¤ulbasƒtra. Ed. and trans. Satya Prakash and Ram Swarup Sharma. New

Delhi: The Research Institute of Ancient Scientific Studies, 1968.

Baudh‚yana†ulvasƒtra, ed. by G. Thibaut, The Pandit, Old Series: Vol. 9 (1874), 10

(1875), and New Series: Vol. 1 (1876-77), reprinted in Baudh‚yana ¤ulbasƒtra, ed.

Satya Prakash. New Delhi: The Research Institute of Ancient Scientific Studies,

1968.

C‚r ¤ulbasƒtra. Trans. into Hindi by Raghunath Purushottam Kulkarni. Ujjain,

Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Vedavidya Pratishthan, 2003. (References to

chapter- and aphorism numbers are to this edition).

The K‚ty‚yana ¤ulbasƒtra with the Bhashya of Karka and Vritti of Mahidhara. Ed.

Gopal Sastri Nene and Anantaram Sastri Dogre. Benares, The Chowkhamba

Sanskrit Series Office, 1936.

The K‚ty‚yana ¤ulbasƒtra. Ed. S. D. Khadilkar. Poona, Vaidika Sa‰†odhana

Ma‹‡ala, 1974.

The M‚nava ¤rautasƒtra. Ed. and trans. Jeannette M. Van Gelder. New Delhi:

International Academy of Indian Culture, 1959 and 1963.

Sen, S. N. and A. K. Bag. The ¤ulbsƒtras. New Delhi: Indian National Science Academy,

1983.

Acknowledgment: Amitava Bhattacharya, Shyamal.