# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book II/Hymn 27

27. For victory in disputation: with a plant.
[Kapiñjala.—saptarcam. vānaspatyam. ānuṣṭubham.]
Found in Pāipp. ii. Kāuç. uses the hymn in the rite or charm for overcoming an adversary in public dispute: one is to come to the assembly from the north-eastern direction (because of its name aparājita 'unconquered'), chewing the root of the plant, and to have it in his mouth while speaking; also to bind on an amulet of it, and to wear a wreath of seven of its leaves (38. 18-21). Verse 6, again, is reckoned (50. 13, note) to the rāudra gaṇa. The comm. further quotes from the Nakṣ. ⌊error for Çānti⌋ K. (17, 19) a prescription of the use of the hymn in a mahāçānti called aparājitā.
Translated: Weber, xiii. 190; Ludwig, p. 461; Grill, 1st edition, 18, 51; Bloomfield, JAOS. xiii., p. xlii (PAOS. May, 1885), or AJP. vii. 479; Grill, 2d edition, 23, 93; Griffith, i. 66; Bloomfield, SBE. xlii. 137, 304.—Bloomfield was the first to point out (on the authority of Kāuç.) the connection of prāç with root prach, and to give the true interpretation of the hymn. Grill follows him in the second edition.
1. May [my] foe by no means win (ji) the dispute; overpowering, overcoming art thou; smite the dispute of [my] counter-disputant; make them sapless, O herb.
"Dispute" (prā́ç) is literally 'questioning.' The comm. renders the word in a by praṣṭar 'questioner,' but in c gives us our choice between that and praçna 'question,' and in 7 a acknowledges only the latter meaning. Prátiprāças is translated here as genitive; the comm. takes it secondly as such, but first as accus. pl.; the Ppp. reading favors the latter: sā ’mūn pratiprāço jaya rasā kṛ-. With either understanding, the accent is anomalous; we ought to have pratiprā́ças. Arasā́n also is in favor of the plural. If we could emend prā́çan in c to prāçí 'in the disputation,' it would make things much easier. For a Ppp. has yaç catrūn saṁjayāt. Néd in a is simply the emphasized negative.
2. The eagle discovered (anu-vid) thee; the swine dug thee with his snout: smite the dispute etc. etc.
Pāda b shows that the root is the part of the plant employed. If we struck off the impertinent refrain from vss. 2-5, and combined the lines into two verses, the hymn would conform to the norm of the second book (as in more than one case above ⌊p. 37⌋).
3. Indra put (kŗ) thee on his arm, in order to lay low (stŗ) the Asuras: smite the dispute etc. etc.
The comm., both here and in the next verse, understands -bhya(ḥ) stárītave as -bhyas tárī-, though he then explains tarītave by starītum. Pāda a is rendered in accordance with the comm. and with Weber; Grill, 'took thee into his arm.'
4. Indra consumed (vi-aç) the pāṭá, in order to lay low the Asuras: smite the dispute etc. etc.
The comm. reads in a pāṭhām, and uses that form in all his explanations; pāṭām seems to be given in all the mss., and in Ppp., and both editions adopt it; but the mss. are very little to be trusted for the distinction of ṭ and ṭh. "The plant is the Clypea hernandifolia, whose bitter root is much used. It grows all over India, and is said to be applied to ulcers in the Penjab and in Sindh (W. Dymock, Vegetable mat. med.)" (R.). ⌊In his note, Roth gives pāṭām as Ppp. form; but in his collation, he gives as Ppp. reading in a, b pāyam indro⌋ vyāṣṇān hantave as-. The Anukr. apparently expects us to resolve vi-ā-çn-āt in a.
5. With it will I overpower the foes, as Indra did the sālāvṛkás: smite the dispute etc. etc.
The translation implies emendation of the inadmissible sākṣe to sākṣye, than which nothing is easier (considering the frequent loss of y after a lingual or palatal sibilant) or more satisfactory, for both sense and meter; it is favored, too, by the Ppp. reading, sakṣīye. No other example of long ā in a future form of this verb appears to be quotable; but the exchange of a and ā in its inflection and derivation is so common that this makes no appreciable difficulty. The comm. accepts sākṣe, rendering it by abhi bhavāmi. The Anukr. notes no metrical irregularity in the verse. In our text, accent sālāvṛkā́n (an accent-mark out of place). ⌊To Weber's note on sālāvṛká, add Oertel, JAOS. xix.$^2$ 123 f. This allusion adds to the plausibility of W's suggestion about the Yatis, note to ii. 5. 3.⌋
6. O Rudra, thou of healing (?) remedies, of dark (nī́la) crests, deed-doer! smite the dispute etc. etc.
Ppp. has for c, d pṛṣṭam durasyato jahi yo smāṅ abhidāsati, which is plainly much better than the repetition of the refrain, and for which the latter has perhaps been substituted in our text. The comm. draws out to great length a series of derivations for rudra, and gives two for jalāṣa, and three different explanations of karmakṛt. ⌊Bloomfield discusses jal- etc. at length, AJP. xii. 425 ff.⌋
7. Do thou smite the dispute of him, O Indra, who vexes us; bless us with abilities (çákti); make me superior in the dispute.
Ppp. reads pṛṣṭam for prāçaṁ tvam in a, and ends b with -dāsate. The comm. has prāçam instead of prāçi in d and is supported in it by two of SPP's authorities. The prāçam in a he explains by vākyam, and that in his d by praṣṭāram.