tute the texts of the Black Yajurveda, while the explanatory prose (S ́B) is sepa-
rated from the Mantras (VS) in the White YV whose Sam.hita ̄ (VS) was only sec-
ondarily extracted from the late Vedic S ́B.
The YV Mantras have not been arranged numerically as in the RV, SV, and AV
but in the order they are used in S ́rauta ritual: they form small, individual
Mantra collections meant for each ritual. However, the order of these individual
Mantra collections inside the two dozen extent YV Sam.hita ̄s followed a fixed
order already by the time of the first YV Sam.hita ̄ collection; this order is main-
tained, with minor variations, down to the Su ̄tras.
The YV starts with two small collections, that of the vegetarian New and Full
Moon offerings (haviryajña) and of that of the all important Soma ritual, both of
which form the paradigm (prakr.ti) of (most) other S ́rauta rituals; even the
animal sacrifices (pas ́ubandha) are technically considered as haviryajñas.
The Post-R.gvedic Reform of the S ́rauta Ritual
While the S ́rauta ritual (yajña) has been central to most post-R.gvedic texts,
detailed descriptions are only found in the late Vedic period, in the S ́rauta Su ̄tras.
Earlier texts, such as the MantraSam.hita ̄s and the discussion of selected details
in the Bra ̄hman.a texts allow only to infer the general course of the ritual, while
its exact order is not strictly followed. We need a new, detailed survey of S ́rauta
rituals and their contents (Hillebrandt 1897, Keith 1925, Renou & Filliozat
1947; Gonda 1960, Mylius 1973: 475–98, cf. Renou 1953 with a lexicon of
ritual terminology, Dandekar and Kashikar 1958–, with the extensive but still
only half-complete S ́rautakos ́a compendium).
A thorough interpretation of the S ́rauta ritual that uses the wealth of Vedic
descriptions and contemporaneous native interpretation is a desideratum.
Though begun a hundred years ago (S. Lévi 1898, Hubert & Mauss 1923–4,
Mus 1935: 79–121, cf. Sahlins 1972, Witzel 1992, 1998, Lopez 1997), a com-
prehensive interpretation still is outstanding – disregarding for the moment
recent monolateral theories (agonistic origins: Heesterman 1985, 1993; mean-
inglessness: Staal 1979a,b; 1990). In addition, the structure(s) of the ritual, the
interrelations of particular rituals, and their internal development (Staal 1982,
1990, cf. Witzel 1981/2, 1997a,b, Falk 1986, 1988) still deserve more
study. The S ́rauta ritual is built up of multiple frames or “boxes” (Heesterman
1957, 1993, Witzel 1984b, 1986b: 172, 1987a, 1992, Minkowski 1992). For
example, ava ̄ntaradı ̄ks.a ̄means “the lower, inner consecration,” i.e. the one which
has been inserted into the normal consecration rite of the Soma ritual. Smaller
and larger sets put together form new (sub)units, and there is a tendency, just
as in Pan.inean grammar, to substitute one set by another (Hillebrandt 1897,
Heesterman 1957, Witzel 1986b).
For now, the meaningof Vedic ritual (yajña) may be summarized as follows
(Witzel 1992, 1998, Jamison and Witzel, 2002): its most important feature,
vedas and upanis.ads 77