Upanishads · Prāṇāgnihotra 3.2
॥
Devanāgarī
कानि यज्ञपात्राणि । कानि हवींषि । का वेदिः । कोत्तरवेदिः । को द्रोणकलशः । को रथः । कः पशुः
Transliteration (IAST)
kāni yajñapātrāṇi | kāni havīṃṣi | kā vediḥ | kottaravediḥ | ko droṇakalaśaḥ | ko rathaḥ | kaḥ paśuḥ
Word-by-word
SanskritIASTMeaning
कानि यज्ञ-पात्राणि कानि हवींषिkāni yajña-pātrāṇi kāni havīṃṣiwhat are the sacrificial vessels, what the offerings
का वेदिः का उत्तर-वेदिःkā vediḥ kā uttara-vediḥwhat is the altar, what the upper altar
कः द्रोण-कलशः कः रथःkaḥ droṇa-kalaśaḥ kaḥ rathaḥwhat is the vat, what the chariot
कः पशुःkaḥ paśuḥwhat is the animal
Translation
What are the sacrificial vessels? what are the offerings? what is the altar? what is the upper altar? what is the vat? what is the chariot? what is the animal?
Version
7776f193abf2 · published Aug 12, 2026, 5:00:00 AM UTC
Available inRUENPage between verses with
A list of requisites, and in it the last question deserves noting: kaḥ paśuḥ, "what is the animal." Paśu means "cattle, animal"; and in the sacrifice, it is what is slaughtered. This question, in a book that transfers the sacrifice into the body, is the sharpest of all; and the answer to it, which will be given in the fourth part, is, to my mind, the finest passage of the whole work.
Let us not cite it yet, so as not to spoil the order; let us say only that here the book approaches the very difficulty discussed when reading the Jābāla-darśana (1.7): the Vedic sacrifice included slaughter, and harmlessness did not agree with it. Note also that the question is put on a par with the rest: between the chariot and the priest. That is, the questioner does not single it out as difficult.
The Vaiṣṇava side resolved this question differently and more decisively, and this was discussed: it performs no slaughter at all, and explains the precepts about it as a restriction on an already-existing custom (Bhāgavatam 11.5.11–13). Let us add that these two solutions — this book's and its own — do not contradict each other, but are two ways of dealing with one inheritance. One way: reinterpret the rite so that the slaughter turns out to be inward.
The other: abolish the rite and replace it with another. The first preserves continuity and risks keeping the letter; the second breaks with it and risks losing something. Both were used, and both, to my mind, are legitimate.