Of Chitis, Yajnam & Athirathram – Guest Post by KV Sarma J

Dear All: It is my pleasure to publish this guest post by KV Sarma J on “Athirathram” – one of the most ancient and sacred ritual associates with Vedic Dharma.  I should confess that if you had mentioned the word “Athirathram” to me before April, I would have drawn a blank on it. Now, I know better – in large part due to the efforts of bloggers like KV and others. Below is a condensed version of the full series that appeared on KV Sarma J’s blog…Please read, share and enjoy…

*** Of Chitis, Yajnam and Athirathram by KV Sarma J ***

*** CAUTION: Long Post ***

The Panjal Athirathra Yajnam..takes 12 days to complete and is a very complex process involving Rig, Yajur and Sama Veda recitation and procedural details. Though Athirathram had been performed in 1990 and in 2006 as well, the importance of this Athirathram is that it is again being conducted in Panjal after a gap of 35 years. Panjal in Thrissur District in Kerala is considered as Yajna bhumi as it has a history of several Yajnas in the past.

…Panjal Athirathram 2011, should be treated as the Dharma Karyam of the year. In fact, one would have expected Governments of both Kerala and India to show support and make arrangements to ensure success of this project. However, Government of Kerala is going for polls while Government of India is busy supporting other causes. Vedic Rituals like Athirathram evoke immense sense of history among Hindus, the battered ones of this wretched and ungrateful country. As our tradition is slowly eroding in the waves of modernization, events like Athirathram give some hope that future generations may know that ancient Hindus were not barbaric lot as pictured in some History books, but were masters of various sciences.

For those who are interested in the structural aspects of Yagasala and Yajna-sthanam, please read KV’s first post on Athirathram here.  The history of Athirathram and its mention in historical records is fascinating in itself…As KV Sarma mentions:

“Pravara Sena I, who is placed around at 275 AD to 335 AD by the authors Ramesh Chandra Majumdar and Anant Sadashiv Altekar in this book, is said to have conducted all Yajnams successfully including the most difficult Vajapeya Yajnam, after which he was given the title “Samrat”, which can be loosely translated to Emperor in English.

While dates of Pravarasena I, Vakatakas and Gupta dynasty is a topic of huge controversy and discussion, one cannot disprove the argument that Pravarasena conducted Athirathram and other Yajnams.

ASI Reviews

ASI in its 1957-58 review (page 56) revealed at least two types of altars – Kurmachiti and Syenachiti at Kausmbi near Allahabad. ASI would like to believe that Purushamedha happened at the site, despite no presence of Human Skull but only a Purusha made of lime. That is actually an interesting observation as ASI Review of the year 1997-98 (page 137) revealed another Syenachiti structure found at Mansar near Nagpur. While Mansar site finding is quite clearly syenachiti structure according to description of the sites, even though no human skull was found like at Kausumbi site, ASI seems to have arrived at the conclusion that Purushamedha was performed at both sites. It is astonishing that ASI didnt consult a vedic pundit to ratify these conclusions.

It gets even more interesting as one reads ASI Review of the year 1988-89 (page 76). ASI found a huge structure of several altar constructions mostly in the form of a rectangular structure at Sanghol near Ludhiana in Punjab. From what has been described in the document, it could be the Peethan, which is considered as fully grown falcon. This picture would give an understanding (click to enlarge)

…

One may question the importance of dating these sites properly. The importance of such careful study lies in the fact that all these sites are miles apart. There was also a syenachiti structure found in Purola, Uttaranchal by ASI. This means Syenachiti strucutres were found in Northwest India, Central India, West India, Northern India. Given that Vakataka inscriptions indicate that Pravara Sena III also performed all Somayagams and he ruled from Malwa to Tungabhadra, there is a clear possibility that Somayagam practice was there not just in North/Central India but across India.

Some coins were found in Uttarakhand with Syenachiti imprinted on them. This means that Syenachiti might have been a very popular chiti structure in Soma and Havir yagams. However, the most important point with respect to Syenachiti structure is that Indus Valley civilizations have some fire altars. It is not very clear whether these were household fire altars are specialized fire altars where these yagams could have been conducted. The difference between these special yagams and nithya yagams like Agnohotra etc., lie in the type of material and length of the homa also. Pursuing investigation with this important piece of information could reveal a different story. But for such an open investigation, first we have to come out of the “vedic nomads” and separation of the periods when four Vedas were written. Such a paradigm shift is important in mapping India’s history as putting Indus Valley Civilization in sync with historical findings pointing to later years will mean direct connection that Indus Valley People later were known as Hindus and so invasion of Indus Valley people could have never happened.

Image courtesy: KV Sarma J

Athirathram in Epics

While Athirathram and Syenachiti findings around 2 BC to 2 AD are one side of the story, Athirathram and all other somayagams find mention in two of the most important epics of Hinduism – Ramayana and Mahabharata.

In Ramayana, when Dasaratha conducted Aswamedha Yajnam, he did not stop with Aswamedha Yajnam. He is said to have conducted other Yajnams too. To quote this verse from Bala Kanda,

ukthyam dvitiiyam sa.mkhyaatam atiraatram tathottaram |
kaaritaaH tatra bahavo vihitaaH shaastra darshanaat ||

उक्थ्यं द्वितीयम् संख्यातं अतिरात्रं तथोत्तरम |
कारिताः तत्र बहवो विहिताः शास्त्र दर्शनात् ||

Meaning

The ritual on the second day is called ukthyam, and the next one performed on third day is called athiraathra. These apart many of the preordained rituals are performed there in that ritual as envisaged in scriptures

…the fascinating part is about the mention of chiti that was constructed for these yajnams. The same Sarga (14th) in Bala Kanda has some details:

iSTakaaH ca yathaa nyaayam kaaritaaH ca pramaaNataH |
cito.agniH braahmaNaiH tatra kushalaiH shiplakarmaNi ||

sacityo raaja si.mhasya sa.ncitaH kushalaiH dvijaiH |
garuDo rukmapakSo vai triguNo aSTaa dashaatmakaH ||

इष्टकाः च यथा न्यायं कारिताः च प्रमाणतः |
चितोअग्निः ब्राह्मणैः तत्र कुशलैः शिप्लकर्मणि ||

सचित्यो राज सिंहस्य संचितः कुशलैः द्विजैः |
गरुडो रुक्मपक्सो वै त्रिगुणो अस्ता दशात्मकः ||

Meaning

The bricks for Altar of Fire are well designed and made according to rules and standard measurements. The Brahmans who are experts in the architecture of laying Fire Altar, by calculating the ritual field with a one-ply rope and decide where and how the that shall be, the Altar of Fire is layered well with bricks in that ritual. That Altar of Fire of that King, the Lion, is layered by expert Brahmans in the shape of an eagle with golden wings, with its size being three folds bigger than the altars of other rituals, thus it has eighteen separators, and fire is laid on it.

A mistake that has been done by the translators is in translating “garuda” to “eagle”. Garuda is not considered as an Eagle. Garuda is considered as a Falcon. Some think of Garuda as a Kite. However, Garuda has been referred to in other puranas as Syena i.e., Falcon.  A very important question that could be asked is “if syenachiti constructed was 18 layered as mentioned in Bala Kanda, did people of Ramayana times know detailed mathematics involved in constructing Syenachiti?”. This question requires investigation not just because a Syenachiti is mentioned in Ramayana, but Syenachiti also finds a mention in Mahabharata as well.

In Mahabharata, the word Atiratra as a reference to yajnam along with other yajnams, happens in Vana parva. Following verse clarifies:

कृत्तिका माघयोश्चैव तीर्थं आसाद्य भारत ||
अग्निष्टोमातिरात्राभ्यां फलं प्राप्नोति पुण्यकृत ||

kṛttikā maghayoś caiva tīrtham āsādya bhārata
agniṣṭomātirātrābhyāṃ phalaṃ prāpnoti puṇyakṛt

Meaning

The one who takes the tirtha – piligrimage (of Prabhasa as referred to in preceding shloka) in the month of Karthika Or Krittika would acquire the same result as one who conducts Agnishtoma and Atiratra Yajnas.

…The most important point, with Mahabharata text is, however with respect to Garuda shaped fire altar. That which we now call Syenachiti is not referred to as Syenachiti in available text but as Garuda shaped Chiti.

इष्टकाः काञ्चनीश्चात्र चयनार्थं कृताभवन् |
शुशुभे चयनं तत्र दक्षस्व प्रतपतेः ||

चतुश्चित्यः स तस्यासीदष्टादशकरात्मकः |
स रुक्मपक्षो निचितस्त्रिगुणो गरुदाकृतिः ||

iṣṭakāḥ kāñcanīś cātra cayanārthaṃ kṛtābhavan
śuśubhe cayanaṃ tatra dakṣasyeva prajāpateḥ

catuś cityaḥ sa tasyāsīd aṣṭādaśa karātmakaḥ
sa rukmapakṣo nicitas triguṇo garuḍākṛtiḥ

Meaning

Bricks made of gold were used to build Chayana or Chiti. The Chayana made for the purpose resembled the chiti that was made by Daksha Prajapati. (meaning of only the first shloka above)

For translating the second shloka mentioned above, first compare it with the one describing chiti from Ramayana.

सचित्यो राज सिंहस्य संचितः कुशलैः द्विजैः |
गरुडो रुक्मपक्सो वै त्रिगुणो अष्टा दशात्मकः || [Ramayana description]

चतुश्चित्यः स तस्यासीदष्टादशकरात्मकः |
स रुक्मपक्षो निचितस्त्रिगुणो गरुदाकृतिः || [Mahabharata description]

Both descriptions are different, yet they both curiously use two words – अष्टादश, त्रिगुणो

The translation for अष्टादश is quite straighforward – 18. The translation for त्रिगुणो is different according to valmikiramayan.net and Kisari Mohan Ganguli.  valmikiramayana.net calls it “three times” where as Kisari Mohan Ganguli calls it “having three angles”. Defining त्रिगुणो as “having three angles” does not fit the context of Syenachiti structure – be it panchapatrika, shadpatrika or petthana because all these structures have at least four angles : at beak, two at wings and at tail. So, the meaning of the shloka

चतुश्चित्यः स तस्यासीदष्टादशकरात्मकः |
स रुक्मपक्षो निचितस्त्रिगुणो गरुदाकृतिः ||

should be

The chayana was 18 layered and was three times bigger than usual chiti.

Thus, both Ramayana and Mahabharata clearly mention shlokas describing the use of Syenachiti of 18 layers. Since it is clear from Vedic ritual that the chiti structure is not built as a single monolithic structure but is built out of several bricks of different shapes arranged in an orderly fashion, one can come to several conclusions. These conclusions will be part of concluding post in this series.

During British Raj and Post Independence

Since Athirathra yajnam, which is one of the seven somayagams, occupies such an important place in Hindu history starting much earlier than Ramayana times (by Ramayana time, the complete procedure seems to be quite mature), it would be interesting to see if there is any record of Athirathram being performed during British Raj and after Independence. This investigation is important to understand, support or counter, whichever the case may be, the theory that “Dr. Fritz Staal’s generous funding of 1975 athirathram protected it from extinction”. It is quite well documented that yajnas were performed during British Raj. For instance, this news piece from 1944 Windsor Star Daily records a “maha yajna” conducted on the banks of Jamuna River. Unfortunately not many details are present in this digitized news piece. The photograph (though not very clear) shown in the copy shows a yagasala which is pretty much like the one required for Somayagams.

Also, there are also websites which record history of yajnas done by vedic pundits since 1930s. While there are several records of Agnishtoma and Aptoryama conducted in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, there is very little information on Athirathram being conducted between 1920s and 1950s. It is, however, a well recorded fact that 1956 saw an Athirathram near Panjal. Surekha Pillai who handled PR for Panjal Athirathram 2011 on behalf of Varthathe trust has taken pictures of 1956 and 1918 Athirathram sites. She says “it is amazing to see the site after so many years with a huge Banyan tree growing at the middle of the chiti”. Quite amazing indeed, as the picture itself shows.

Despite lack of direct evidence, there is one documented record from American Philosophical Society 1963 year book that Tamil Nadu was conducting all somayagams regularly.

To quote from the information available on Google Books:

While the Aiyars of Madras State continue to perform somayaga-sacrifices at the rate of 2 to 5 yearly, whilst all other six varities have been performed during the last decades, the Nambudiris used to perform only two i.e., agnistoma and (agnicayana-)atiratra, and this occurred last in 1956. That year may have marked the end of a tradition of millennia…..

This is an very important information, which basically may prove with some more evidence conclusively, that Kerala’s tradition of Athirathram was in danger but not Athirathra Yajnam as a whole. The notion that Athirathra Yajnam required foreign support to be preserved might as well be a misconception. However, the question still remains as to why “Kerala tradition was in danger at all?”. The plausible answer is

Lack of communication among Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala where vedic pundits and financial distress of the time could have been the reasons for such a desperate situation. Without much doubt, one can say the local administration didnt find these vedic procedures worthy enough to be encouraged.

Not that non governmental institutions were silent during this time. Some indepth reading indicates that several institutions were formed to ensure Vedic tradition continues. Several veda vidya peethams across South had collaborative programmes with those in Ujjain and Varanasi – a sort of knowledge sharing.

The history of Athirathram traces to as far as Ramayana. Depending upon which country one is from and the accepted school of thought, it could mean Athirathram goes back to 1400 BC or even further to 7000 BC or beyond Ice age (by Hindu Yuga structure).

…It has been explained on several occasions that ancients Hindus knew a lot about various sciences. There are several references clearly describing economics, politics, probability, geometry, trigonometry, mathematics of numbers, chemical sciences and several other fields. Yajnas are probably the best places to explore how vedas describe laws, rules and assumptions made by the ancient Hindus while exploring these sciences. For instance, many feel that Bhagavata Purana has metaphorical explanation of concepts like Time Dilation. Some feel that Vedas themselves were divided into Shakas by Veda Vyasa using principles of Graph Theory. Mathematicians also worked on mathematical analysis of Sanskrit. Yajna is no exception. Thus, Athirathram is no exception. Specifically, two areas are worth talking about.

1. What is the cumulative effect of a Yajna?
2. What is Mathematics involved in chiti construction?

…What is Mathematics involved in chiti construction?

The most fascinating aspect of Yajna, as described in part 1 of this series is perhaps Chitis (in both mahavedi and agnihotra sala) and its construction. Chiti comes from the sanskrit root Chit. Unfortunately, foreigners relate chiti to “pile”, but apte relates chiti to “chit”. A Chiti is made up of a specific structure. As mentioned in part 1 of this series, several types of chitis are used. Lot of research has already been done on Mathematics involved in chiti construction. All the structures known to Hindus have been explained in a great detail in Srouta Sutras detailed in Kalpa Sutras.

In the papers published so far, researchers quote several sutras as sources for chiti construction process. It is thus logical that chiti construction is distributed across sutras. Another curious question is

Could it be that there was a formal conference during which these sutras were drafted or direction of documentation of these sutras happened?

Foreign historians place each author of Kalpa Sutra books at various points in history. But the similarities present in these sutras is a very important aspect which cannot be ignored. Whatever be the case with dating of Kalpa Sutras, one cannot contest the fact that the chitis are described in these sutras in excruciating detail and often, mathematical precision reaches upto 10 or more decimal points. To quote John F Price in this paper,

For me, there are three outstanding features of the Sulba Sotras: the wholeness and consistency of their geometrical results and constructions, the elegance and beauty of the citis, and the indication that the Sutras have a much deeper purpose

John F Price also explains that all Kalpa Sutras have a common format.

The Sulba Sutras form part of the Kalpa Sltras which in turn are a part of the Vedangas. There are four main Sulba SUtras, the Baudhayana. the Apastamba, the Manava, and the Katvavana, and a number of smaller ones. One of the meanings of Sulba is “string, cord or rope.” The general formats of the main Sulba Sltras are the same; each starts with sections on geometrical and arithmetical constructions and ends rvith details of how to build citis which, for the moment, u’e interpret as ceremonial platforms or altars. The measurements for the geometrical constructions are performed by drawing arcs with different radii and centers using a cord or Sulba.

This quote from a Mathematics researcher actually strengthens our reasons to think in the direction of question posed above. There is a definite possibility that writers of sutras were contemporaries or at best 2-3 generations apart (generation being 2-3 decades). It is also possible that there was a formal mechanism to document these observations. It is common knowledge of every Hindu that all sutras are observations from Vedas. So another area of research would be to identify the sources of Sutras in Vedas so that any sutras which were lost in time could be rewritten.

…Syena Chiti

Syena Chiti is described by John F Price as shown in this picture.

There is a difference in schematic as described by John F Price and S N Sen and AK Bag in their commentaries. S N Sen and A K Bag also provide numbering on each brick used for chiti. This is an important aspect as in Athirathram 2011 also similar numbering was seen.

..Syena Chiti is described in Boudhayana Sulba Sutra in Second Section. First section describes construction of square, circle etc. Second section describes construction of Garhapatya chiti and subsequent sections describe construction of other complex chitis.

Ratha Chakra Chiti

John F Price gives the following schematic of Ratha Chakra Chiti in his paper.

Ratha Chakra chiti description is fairly similar according to others like S N Sen and A K Bag. This chiti has an interesting mathematical detail according to John F Price.

The initial calculations for determining the different parts of the ‘*’heel are in terms of square bricks each of area 1/30 square purusas. Since the final area is required to be 7.5 square purusas, the number of bricks is 7.5 x 30 : 225. The nave of the wheel consists of 16 of these bricks. the spokes 64 and the rim 145, making 225 in all. The spaces between the spokes are equal in area to the spokes and so, if these spaces are included,the overall area is 225 + 64 : 289 bricks.

Notice that overall area is curiously comes from a Pythagorean set {8,15,17}.

…

Subhash Kak explains that there are as many as 95 chitis which are built in sequence. The obvious questions are

Why did the authors of Sulba Sutras propose this sequence?

What is the importance of this sequence?

There are a few questions that would be great points of research. Also, Sutras also describe a very detailed structure for odd and even layers. They are more like Figure and Ground. On this point, another question that comes up is

Whether number sequences described in Rudram relate to Chiti construction and layers involved?

Conclusion

In Truthiyadhyaya (3rd chapter) of Bhagavadgita, Sri Krishna explains to Arjuna on why Yajnas have to be done.

अन्नाद्भवन्ति भूतानि पर्जन्याद् अन्नसंभवः |
यज्ञाद्भवति पर्जन्यो यज्ञः कर्म समुद्भवः ||

Meaning

All living bodies subsist on food grains, which are produced from rains. Rains are produced by performance of yajna [sacrifice], and yajna is born of prescribed duties.

Sri Krishna explains this in third adhyaya which fundamentally gives an explanation of Karma Yoga. Panjal Athirathram thus becomes the Dharma Karyam of the year. Performing of Yajnas is a Hindu’s duty precisely because it results in rain which provides food. Thus, Yajna is a technological process at least by the time of Krishna.

The million dollar question on 15th of April at Panjal was whether or not it would rain. On 15th April 2011, at 9:30, just as Athirathram was about to conclude, Panjal experience heavy downpour for about 30 minutes. The same happened in 1975 according to media archives. More than what happened, people’s reaction is something to be taken into account. At around 9:30, Surekha Pillai tweeted live from Panjal:

there’s thunderstorm and people are cheering and clapping.

This is indication of the faith that people have in Yajna procedures. So, to the question of whether Vedic Ritual is a scientific experiment, well it seems to be so because it did rain during properly performed Yajnas.

Apart from being our duty, Yajnas also become part of Hindu culture i.e., India’s culture. Sutras which document everything related to Yajnas are clearly products of extensive research done on Vedas.

Several questions still remain

Are the detailed notes in Sutras annotated texts of Vedas and Upanishads?

Did civilization at the time of Rama know sutras? If so, were Sutra writers contemporaries or ancestors of the civilization of Rama’s time?

Altars seen in Indus Valley indicate that they are Grahapatya chitis, which are for domestic use. Does this mean Sutra writers were before or during IVC or does it mean IVC were vedic and Sutra writers wrote annotated texts to Vedas?

Given that IVC cities were very sophisticated in urban planning, what are the odds that IVC were using all the complex structures for chitis described in sutras?

Why is there such a great detail on construction sequence of Chitis? Is it only to preserve tradition with hard and fast rules or does it have a greater significance?

Each author of the four major Vedangas – Apasthamba, Boudhayana, Katyayana and Manava – wrote Sutras in four parts : Grihya, Sulba, Srouta and Dharma. Each set of four Sutras are definitely companion works and all the 16 should be put in perspective to get a bigger picture on how a common Hindu household would have been during the time of these works, as all these four describe all duties of a common Hindu. The similarities and cross referencing, if any must also be used while dating these writers because heavy citation/similarities across all 16 works would indicate that the writers were contemporaries and further, these works could have been the result of a formal convention on Vedic Studies of ancient times.

It is our Dharma to do our own research and put all these works in perspective with our Smritis and Puranas because these documents would provide a perspective on the life and times of our ancestors. It does not mean that foreign research should be discouraged. It only means that we should write our own history. If left to foreigners who do not understand terms like Dharma, Karma and other such important aspects of a common Hindu’s life, we would be left with inexplicable theories like Aryan Invasion.

धर्मो रक्षित रक्षतः |

***

To the history and research buffs amongst you, I would urge you read through the whole series on KV’s blog. You will notbe disappointed…and while you are at it, have a look at some pictures too…

Related Post: Lavan Vajra & The Art of Rain-making