Page 387 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

172 SAMAGRA TILAK - 2 • THE ARCTIC HOME

further. These night-sacrifices or Ratri-sattras are mentioned
in the Taittiriya Sanihita, the Bn\hmap.as and the Shrauta Stitras
in clear terms and there is no ambiguity abou1 their nature,
number, or duration. The Taittiriya Sarilhita in describing them
often uses the word Ratril; ( nights ) in the plural, stating, that
so and so was the first to institute or to perceive ' so many nights ',
meaning so many nights' sacrifice ( vimshatim ratriJ;, VII. 3,
9, 1; dvatrimshatam ratr£1} Vll, 4, 4, 1 ). According to the prin-
ciple of division noted above all night-sacrifices of less than
thirteen nights' duration will be called Ahtna, while those extend-
ing over longer time upto one hundred nights will come under
Sattras; but this is, as remarked above, evidently an artificial
division, and one, who reads carefully the description of these
sacrifices, cannot fail to be struck by the fact that we have here
a series of night-sacrifices from two to a hundred nights, or if we
include the Ati-ratra in this series we have practically a set of
hundred nighdy Soma sacrifices, though, according to the prin-
ciple of division adopted, some may fall under the head of Ahtna
and some under that of Sattras.
Now an important question in connection with these Sattras
is why they alone should be designated ' night-sacrifices ',
( rdtri-kratus ), or ' night-sessions ' ( ratri-sattras ) ? and why
their number should be one hundred ? or, in other words, why
there are no night-sattras of longer duration than one hundred
nights ? The M:lmamsakas answer the first part of the question
by asking us to believe that the word 'night' ( ratril;) is really used
to denote ' a day ' in the denomination of these sacrifices ( Shabara
on Jaimini VIII, 1, 17 ). 1he word dvi-ratra according to this
theory means two days' sacrifice, and shata-ratra a hundred days'
sacrifice. This explanation appears very good at the first sight, and
as a matter of fact it has been accepted by all writers on the sacri-
ficial ceremonies. In support of it, we may also cite the fact that
as the moon was the measurer of time in ancient days, the night
was then naturally more marked than the day, and instead of saying
'so many days' men often spoke of, ' so many nights', much in the
same way as we now use the word 'fort-night'. This is no doubt
good so far as it goes; but the question is why should there be no
Soma sacrifices of a longer duration than one hundred nights ?
and why a gap, a serious gap, is lef1 in the series of Soma sacrifices
after one hundred nights' Sattra, until we come to the annual Sattra