Mimamsasutra 42.2

Are the designations ‘sāman’ and the designations ‘Bṛhat’ and so on used for the sung ṛc, / or for the melody alone? For the melody alone: thus what was stated in the seventh [chapter] is recalled.

This conclusion, namely, “The word ‘sāman’, expressing the general class, and the words ‘Bṛhat’, ‘Rathantara’, etc., expressing the specific varieties, apply to melody alone, and not to an ṛc qualified by melody,” was established in the second quarter of the seventh chapter. That is recalled here because of its utility for the inquiry about to be stated.

He formulates the second alternative presentation, showing the human origin of the Ūhagrantha:

Is the Ūhagrantha of non-human origin, or of human origin? The former, / because it is equal to Vedic sāmans; the latter, because injunctions have purpose.

If it is argued: "The book of adaptation (Ūhagrantha), in which the Sāmaveda singers sing each single sāman across a triplet [of verses], is eternal, not composed by a human being. Why? Because of the avoidance of unpropitious days of study, the non-remembrance of an author, and the teachers' renown of its being the Veda, just like the archetype book (Yonigrantha) named Veda-sāman."—
It is not so; because, if it were not of human origin, an injunction would be rendered meaningless. It is enjoined: "Whatever [sāman] is on the basic verse, that he sings on the following two [verses]." The meaning of this is: 'The sāman named Vāmadevya that is taught on that single basic verse "By what manner of help was the wonderful [friend]..." in the book named Veda-sāman accepted to be of superhuman origin, that very same [sāman] must be sung on the following two verses, namely the second and third verses: "Who is the true [protector] among delights?" and "To us, O friends...".' This injunction would be purposeless if the book of adaptation were the Veda, since that [adaptation] would already be established merely by study, just like the Veda-sāman. Even though the adaptation of the sāman on the upper two verses is of human origin, the unpropitious days of study must be avoided because the nature of the sāman and the three verses that are its substrate are the Veda. The non-remembrance of an author is explicable by the intervention of a long period of time, just as in the case of dilapidated wells, gardens, and the like. The teachers' renown of its being the Veda is rooted merely in this non-remembrance. Just as the teachers of the Ṛgveda, studying in the forest the Kalpasūtra composed by Āśvalāyana which sets forth the performance of the Mahāvrata, refer to it as the Veda, calling it the 'Fifth Āraṇyaka'. Nor can it be said: "Let that too be the Veda," because it is redundant with the First Āraṇyaka, and because it lacks the resemblance to a Brāhmaṇa through conjunction with corroborative statements. Therefore, like the Fifth Āraṇyaka, the adaptation is of human origin. And since that which is of human origin has its basis in exegetical principle, wherever there is a contradiction with an exegetical principle to be stated later, that is not an authority.
(In the second topical section, demonstrating that the sāman is an action of refining the verse, sūtras 3–13:)
Or [the sāman is] an action, characterized by an injunction,

because of the mention of that verse as the substance, as in the domestic sacrifice,

in that case, there being no conflict, there would be difference and transference to another substance,

but because [the sāman] is the sense of the word, it would not be so,

and because words are for the sake of another,

and because of the non-connection with an action, since the two words have different meanings,

and the refinement would occur outside the context, like the fire, because of its being applied,

and because words are not products, non-application would be understood,

and because it is dependent,

if it is objected that it is applied,

it would be applied for the purpose of acquisition.

He sets forth the second topical section:
Is the sāman primary in relation to the verse, or a subordinate element, because of recitation outside [the sacrifice]?
It is primary; the recitation is for practicing; it is a subordinate element, because praise is by means of the sung syllables.

The singing enjoined in "He sings the Rathaṃtara" and so forth is indeed the meaning of the word 'sāman'—this has been demonstrated and recalled. This singing must be the primary action in relation to the verse. Why? Because it is recited even during study outside the sacrificial performance. If, on the other hand, it were a subordinate action, singing would be performed only within the sacrificial performance, like the sprinkling of rice grains and the like. Therefore, a fruit for the singing outside must be posited, as in the Viśvajit sacrifice and the like; whereas the singing performed in the midst [of the ritual] is an indirect auxiliary, like the fore-offerings and the like. Therefore, this is primary, not a subordinate action. When it has thus been reached—

We reply: Recitation outside cannot establish its being a primary action, because the study of singing is accounted for as serving proficiency in performance, according to the principle of the earth-charioteer and the dry sacrifice—just as an earth-charioteer practices by drawing a chariot on the earth, or just as a student achieves proficiency in performance through a dry sacrifice, so it is here. Nor should it be said that it is a primary action because there is no purpose if it is a subordinate action; for praise is possible by means of the verses' syllables refined by the singing, since praise is enjoined in: "They praise with the Ājya [stotras]," "They praise with the Pṛṣṭha [stotras]." Therefore, because the manifestation of the form of the verse syllables qualified by notes is the visible purpose, and an invisible result is not to be posited, singing is an act of refinement.

(In the third topical section, that the whole sāman is concluded on each single verse in a triplet, sūtras 14–20:)
It would be across the triplet, because of the direct Vedic statement,

because the modification belongs to the meaning of the word,

and it shows it.

But because the sentences are distinct, there would be completion on each word [verse], because the refinement is for that purpose,

and so is the indication of the meaning of this,

and the instruction on not drawing breath is like that,

the other direct statement is by repetition.

He sets forth the third topical section:
Is the sāman [divided] by parts across the verses, or whole on each verse, because of the direct statement of three?
By parts; it is not so, because praise would not be accomplished by parts; it must be on each verse.

It is stated in the Veda: "One sāman is made into a praise-chant on a triplet of verses." There, when the parts of the sāman are divided into three, each single part must be sung on each single verse. Why? Because of the Vedic hearing that a single sāman is brought about by three verses. When it has thus been reached—

We reply: By the word 'praise-chant' (stotrīya), the bringing about of praise is enjoined for the entire sāman, not for parts of the sāman. Praise is a single sentence whose purpose is the statement of qualities. And that sentence is complete in a single verse. Therefore, because that sentence is to be refined by the entire sāman, the sāman must be repeated on each verse. That being so, since that very sāman is repeated in the second and third verses and is not a different sāman, its being brought about by a triad of verses is also uncontradicted. Therefore, the entire sāman must be brought to completion on each verse.

(In the fourth topical section, that the singing is only on three verses of equal meter, sūtras 21–22:)
Its repetition would be on equal [verses],

and because of the observation of an indicatory mark.

He sets forth the fourth topical section:
Is the sāman declared on three verses on unequal or on equal [verses]?
Since there is no restriction upon one's wish; the latter, to remove a slight defect.

If it is argued that: “The chant is to be sung upon three verses of either unequal metres or equal metres at will, because there is no determining rule stating ‘only thus’”; / [we reply:] it is not so; because the danger of destruction and deficiency serves as the determining rule. “Destruction” (śara) means injury; “deficiency” (leśa) means smallness; for the two verbal roots are observed: śṝ in the sense of injuring, and liś in the sense of becoming small. If one were to sing a chant that originated upon a base verse of greater metre upon two subsequent verses of smaller metre, then since it would be completed by a mere portion of the chant, the remaining portion of the chant, lacking a support, would be destroyed. If one were to sing it upon two verses whose metre is greater even than that of the base verse, then, because of the smallness of the chant, the remaining portion of the verse would be devoid of chant. Therefore, it must be sung only upon verses of equal metre.

(In the fifth [topical section], in the first interpretation on the phrase “he sings upon the two subsequent verses”: sūtras 23–24):

(In the topical section on the taking of the two verses found in the textual collection:)

[Sūtra 2.2.23:] But the status of being subsequent would be occasioned; it would be understood from immediate succession.

[Sūtra 2.2.24:] And its repetition is on account of having a single purpose.

He arranges the first interpretation in the fifth topical section: / Is the adaptation of the chant here onto two [verses] residing in the Chandaḥ [collection] or onto two residing in the Uttarā [collection]? / There would be an option because of no distinction; the latter [is correct] because the conventional name is stronger.

There are two textual collections for the recitation of verses by the Sāmaveda chanters: the Chandaḥ and the Uttarā. There, in the text named Chandaḥ, only the verses that serve as the base verses of various chants are recited. In the Uttarā text, hymns consisting of triplets are recited. In a single triplet, the base verse occurring in the Chandaḥ is the first, and the other two are subsequent. This being established, when it is said: “He sings the Rathaṃtara on the two subsequent verses; what is on the base verse, that he sings on the two subsequent verses,” two kinds of “subsequent verses” are conceivable. In the Chandaḥ text of the Rathaṃtara, this verse, “abhi tvā śūra” (To thee, O hero), is recited as the base verse. Above it, verses such as “tvām iddhi havāmahe” (Thee indeed we invoke), which are base verses of chants like the Bṛhat, are recited. In the Uttarā text, however, in the hymn “ā tvā śūra,” after that verse, this [verse], “na tvā vām̐ anye” (None other than thee), which is not the base verse of any chant, is recited. There, in relation to the Chandaḥ text, two base verses of other chants are subsequent to its own base verse for the Rathaṃtara. In relation to the Uttarā text, the second and third [verses] occurring in the triplet are subsequent to its own base verse. If it is said that, there being no specific determinant, singing is upon whichever two subsequent verses;

[we reply:] it is not so. The conventional name “uttarā” immediately comes to mind, because it is independent of a counterpart. The status of being subsequent in relation to a previously recited base verse, being understood with delay, is weak. Such status of being subsequent belongs only to the two recited in the Chandaḥ,

namely, the two verses serving as base verses of other chants that immediately follow its own base verse. But for the second and third occurring in the triplet, the status of being subsequent exists through the conventional name. Therefore, singing is upon those two alone. This being so, singing upon equal [metres], which was determined in the previous topical section, is respected. Moreover, among hymns consisting of triplets, by the name of the first that serves as the base verse, there is the teachers' designation of the Chandaḥ text as “Yonigrantha” (the Base-Verse Collection). But of the other text, which consists of an aggregation of triplets, by the name of the two upper verses, there is the designation “Uttarā.” That very text is the context that supplies the subsidiaries of the rite, because stomas such as the fifteenfold and seventeenfold originate only in triplets. Therefore, this adaptation is onto the second and third verses occurring in the triplet situated in the Uttarā text.

(In the second interpretation—in the topical section on the singing of the Traiśoka being repeated on an Atijagatī: sūtras 21–24): / Its repetition should be on equal [verses].

[Sūtra 2.2.22:] And because of the observation of an indicatory mark.

[Sūtra 2.2.23:] But the status of being subsequent would be occasioned; it would be understood from immediate succession.

[Sūtra 2.2.24:] And its repetition is on account of having a single purpose.

He arranges the second interpretation: / For singing the Traiśoka [chant], are two Atijagatī verses of the Āgneya [rite] to be brought in, or the two Bṛhatī verses? / The former [is correct]; they should not be other, on the strength of the direct statement of the status of being subsequent.

In the Twelve-Day Rite, on the fourth day, the chant named Traiśoka is enjoined. And that originated on this Atijagatī verse, “viśvāḥ pṛtanāḥ” (all the battles). And in that triplet, subsequent to that base verse, two Bṛhatī verses such as “nemiṃ namanti” (they bend the rim) are handed down. There, setting aside the two Bṛhatī verses, bringing in two Atijagatī verses established at origin in their place, one should sing on those three. That being so, singing on equal [verses], determined earlier, is respected. If it is argued that the plurality of Atijagatī verses heard in “they praise on Atijagatī verses” would otherwise not be tenable; / [we reply:] it is not so; because the word “uttarā,” having the nature of a conventional name mentioned as “he sings on the two subsequent verses,” is primary with respect to the two Bṛhatī verses that are being recited. And direct Vedic statement is stronger than the indicatory mark of plurality and than the exegetical principle that “singing is on equal [verses].” As for this plurality of Atijagatī verses, it is tenable even when the two Bṛhatī verses are accepted; because, since the twenty-onefold stoma is enjoined here, the first Atijagatī verse must be repeated seven times for its accomplishment. Therefore, the Traiśoka chant is to be adapted onto the two Bṛhatī verses.

(In the sixth [topical section], containing four interpretations: sūtras 25–28): / But the Pragātha and the like;

[Sūtra 2.2.26:] And in its own;

[Sūtra 2.2.27:] And in the Pragātha;

[Sūtra 2.2.28:] And from the non-exclusion of the observation of an indicatory mark.

In the sixth topical section, he arranges the first interpretation (establishing the singing of the Rathaṃtara by means of a pragātha in a Bṛhatī and a Paṅkti only): / In the Rathaṃtara, is a Kakubh verse to be taken, or is it to be intertwined? The former [is correct] because of having a purpose; / the latter, because repeating a word is not established; moreover, let it be seen elsewhere.

This is handed down: “Verily, the Bṛhat and the Rathaṃtara do not have a single metre, because of the two, the prior verse is a Bṛhatī, and the two subsequent verses are Kakubh verses.” The meaning is: “The Bṛhat and the Rathaṃtara, these two chants, do not have a single metre like other chants. For the reason that, among the verses that serve as supports for those two chants, the Bṛhat and the Rathaṃtara, the prior verse has the Bṛhatī metre, while the two subsequent verses have the Kakubh metre.” In the triplet that serves as the support of other chants such as the Vāmadevya, the three verses present are handed down in the Uttarā text as having a single metre, in order to avoid destruction and deficiency.

and are determined by the exegetical principle: ‘One should sing over [verses of] equal [meter].’ Here, however, singing over verses of unequal meter is based on direct statement.” In this context, a triplet is not handed down in the Uttarāgrantha as the support of the Rathaṃtara. What then? A pragātha is handed down as its support. And because that is formed from two verses, it is not a triplet. Among those two verses, the first is ‘abhi tvā śūra’, and that is a bṛhatī. The second is ‘na tvā vā anyo divyaḥ’, and that has the paṅkti meter. That being the case, having set aside that paṅkti, two verses which are original kakubhs found in the Daśatayī are to be taken in its place. Why? Because of purposefulness. When the two kakubhs are applied as the support of the Rathaṃtara chant by the cited sentence ‘The subsequent two are kakubhs’, the original production of kakubhs becomes purposeful; otherwise, it would be futile. Moreover, if the single handed-down paṅkti were accepted, since only two verses would be obtained, the statement ‘A single chant is performed on a triplet of verses as a stotra-verse’ would be contradicted. Therefore, in the Rathaṃtara chant, two subsequent kakubhs must be taken. This same exegetical principle must also be applied to the Bṛhat chant. This prima facie view having been reached—

We reply: The two kakubhs are formed by intertwining the two handed-down verses, the bṛhatī and the paṅkti. For instance: The bṛhatī ‘abhi tvā śūra’ is the first stotra-verse. The Rathaṃtara is to be sung on that without any modification. Then, taking up the fourth quarter in that verse again, it should be intertwined with the first half of the following paṅkti. This twenty-eight-syllable, three-quarter verse is the second stotra-verse, and that constitutes one kakubh. And in that kakubh, having intertwined the final quarter with the second half of the paṅkti, the third stotra-verse should be formed, and that constitutes the second kakubh. By this method of intertwining, since a triplet is produced from the two handed-down verses, there is no aforementioned contradiction of the Vedic statement. In this intertwining, the Vedic expression ‘punaḥpadā’ (‘having a repeated quarter’) is an indicatory mark. And so it is stated in śruti: ‘This indeed is an established bṛhatī which has a repeated quarter. Because it begins the quarter again, therefore the calf makes the sound "hiṃ" toward its mother.’ The meaning is: ‘That bṛhatī which has a repeated quarter, this is established, firm. The “quarter” is the fourth quarter. For it is recited again in order to produce another verse. Hence that bṛhatī has a repeated quarter. This verse is the mother; its quarter is the calf. That being so, because the Udgātṛ begins the fourth quarter of the verse again, therefore in ordinary life the calf makes the sound "hiṃ" towards its mother.’ The intertwining is not based on an indicatory mark alone; rather, there is also the well-known usage of the Sāmavedins, for they remember it thus: ‘The kakubh-pragātha.’ Moreover, even by examining the meaning of the word pragātha, intertwining is understood. That wherein there is singing with excellence (prakarṣeṇa) is a pragātha. ‘Excellence’ means an excess over the recited text of the handed-down verse. And that arises, according to the aforementioned rule, by producing another verse through repetition of a quarter. Therefore, two original kakubhs are not to be taken; rather, having produced the two subsequent kakubhs by intertwining, the Rathaṃtara should be sung on those three [verses]. So also the Bṛhat. That being so, the reading of the paṅkti becomes meaningful. Nor should it be doubted that the original production of kakubhs would thus be futile, because it is useful in the stobha of speech. Therefore, there is no flaw whatsoever in intertwining.

He composes the second formulation (demonstrating that the Raurava and Yaudhājaya chants are sung by intertwining a bṛhatī and a viṣṭārapaṅkti):
In the Yaudhājaya and Raurava [chants], is there the introduction of two bṛhatīs, or / intertwining as before? These are the two positions; the indicatory mark of sixty is stated here.

This is handed down: ‘The Raurava and Yaudhājaya chants are on a triplet in the bṛhatī meter.’ The meaning is: ‘A certain chant is called Raurava, and another is called Yaudhājaya. The support of those two chants is a triplet of bṛhatī meter.’ But in the Uttarāgrantha, a single pragātha is handed down as the support of those two chants. And in that pragātha, the verse ‘punānaḥ soma’ is the first; and that is a bṛhatī. The verse ‘duhāna ūdhardivyam’ is the second; that, however, is a viṣṭārapaṅkti. Having set aside that viṣṭārapaṅkti, two verses that are original bṛhatīs should be introduced in its place. Such is the prima facie view.

The established conclusion is that by a particular intertwining of the bṛhatī and viṣṭārapaṅkti, two subsequent bṛhatīs are to be produced. The reasoning in both respects is to be seen from the previous exegetical principle. As for the indicatory mark, it is handed down thus: ‘Sixty triṣṭubhs are the midday pressing.’ The meaning is: ‘The two chants called Raurava and Yaudhājaya are sung in the midday pressing. And in that pressing there are sixty verses of triṣṭubh meter.’ This
number sixty is logically possible under the position of intertwining. For instance: in the midday pressing, there is one pavamāna; there are four pṛṣṭhastotras. In the pavamāna, there are three hymns. ‘uccā te jātam’ is one hymn; there, there are three gāyatrī verses. ‘punānaḥ soma’ is the second hymn, and that is in the form of a pragātha; there, the former is a bṛhatī, the latter a viṣṭārapaṅkti. ‘pra tu drava parikośam’—

— is the third hymn. There, there are three Triṣṭubh verses. Among the Pṛṣṭhastotras, [the hymn beginning with] 'abhi tvā śūra' is in the form of a pragātha. There, there are a Bṛhatī and a Paṅkti. The fourth [hymn], beginning with 'tarobhirvo vidadvasum', is also in the form of a pragātha. There too, there are a Bṛhatī and a Paṅkti. Thus, in this soma pressing, there are seven hymns. In them, nine Sāmans are to be sung. In the first hymn, there are two Sāmans, namely the Gāyatra and the Āmahīyava. In the second, the Raurava and the Yaudhājaya. In the third, the Auśana. In the fourth, the Rathaṃtara. In the fifth, the Vāmadevya. In the sixth, the Naudhasa. In the seventh, the Kāleya. There, for the execution of the two Sāmans of the first hymn, upon repeating it twice, the verses serving as the basis become six Gāyatrīs. The three verses belonging to the fifth hymn that serve as the basis for the Vāmadevya Sāman, being repeated for the sake of accomplishing the seventeenfold stoma, become seventeen Gāyatrīs; thus, combined, they make twenty-three Gāyatrīs. In the sixth hymn, by interweaving the Bṛhatī and the Paṅkti, there is a triplet of Bṛhatīs. Likewise also in the seventh. There, in both cases, when the stoma is seventeenfold, there are thirty-four Bṛhatīs. In the fourth hymn, for the sake of the Rathaṃtara Sāman, when interwoven in the manner stated in the previous formulation, the two subsequent verses become Kakubhs; but the first is an inherently complete Bṛhatī. There, when the seventeenfold stoma is made, five Bṛhatīs and twelve Kakubhs are produced. And the Brāhmaṇa enjoining its stoma is handed down as follows: 'From five he makes the hiṃ sound: he [sings] with three, he with one, he with one. From five he makes the hiṃ sound: he with one, he with three, he with one. From seven he makes the hiṃ sound: he with one, he with three, he with three.' The meaning is this: 'A triplet of this kind—consisting of one inherently complete Bṛhatī and two interwoven Kakubhs—is to be repeated in three turns. In the first turn, the Bṛhatī is to be sung thrice; the two Kakubhs once each. In the second turn, the Bṛhatī once, the immediately following Kakubh three times, the final Kakubh once. In the third turn, the Bṛhatī once, the two Kakubhs three times each.' 'He makes the hiṃ sound' means he should perform the singing marked by the hiṃ sound. Thus, in the six hymns apart from the third hymn, twenty-three Gāyatrīs, forty-five Bṛhatīs, and twelve Kakubhs are produced. There, a Kakubh has twenty-eight syllables. When two eight-syllable Gāyatrī quarters are added to it, a forty-four-syllable Triṣṭubh is produced. In this manner, to produce Triṣṭubhs from the twelve Kakubhs, twenty-four Gāyatrī quarters must be joined. That being so, eight Gāyatrīs are used up, and fifteen Gāyatrīs remain. They have forty-five quarters. And by joining them to that same number of Bṛhatīs, Triṣṭubhs are to be produced. Then, these forty-five, plus the twelve produced from the Kakubhs, plus the three inherently complete ones in the third hymn—thus on the view of interweaving, the sixty Triṣṭubhs are obtained solely as handed down in the subsequent book. If, on the other hand, an original Bṛhatī were brought in, then since so many would not be obtained from what is handed down in the textual section, there would result the abandonment of what is in the text and the introduction of what is not in the text. Therefore, the statement 'sixty Triṣṭubhs' is an indicatory mark for the interweaving of the Bṛhatī. The manner of interweaving, however, is explained: having taken again the fourth quarter of this Bṛhatī, 'punānaḥ soma', and having repeated it twice, one should join it with the first half of this Viṣṭārapaṅkti, 'duhāna ūdhardivyam'. That becomes a Bṛhatī. Having repeated its fourth quarter twice, one should join it with the second half. That too becomes a Bṛhatī. Therefore, for the Yaudhājaya and the Raurava, the two subsequent Bṛhatīs are to be interwoven. The same should be understood for the Naudhasa and the Kāleya.

He composes the third formulation (establishing the singing of the Śyāvāśva and the Āndhīgava by interweaving an Anuṣṭubh and a Gāyatrī):
Is an Anuṣṭubh to be brought in for the Śyāvāśva and the Āndhīgava, or is it interwoven?
As before, the indicatory mark is the mention of twenty-four Jagatīs.

This is handed down in the text: 'The insertion has five metres; the Ārbhava Pavamāna has seven Sāmans. The Gāyatra and the Samhita are on a Gāyatra triplet. The Śyāvāśva and the Āndhīgava are on an Anuṣṭubh triplet. On the Uṣṇih is the Safa. On the Kakubh is the Pauṣkala. The final Kāva is on Jagatīs.' The meaning is this: 'In the third soma pressing, there is a Pavamāna named Ārbhava. In it, there are five hymns and seven Sāmans. [The one beginning with] svādiṣṭhayā...

"Svādiṣṭhayā madiṣṭhayā" is one hymn. In it are three Gāyatrī verses. Upon them are two sāmans, the Gāyatra and the Saṃhita. "Purojitī vo andhasaḥ" is another hymn. There, one is an Anuṣṭubh, and the following two are Gāyatrīs. Upon them are two sāmans, the Śyāvāśva and the Āndhīgava. "Indram accha sutā ime" is another hymn. In it, the first is a Kakubh, and the following is a Paṅkti. Upon it is the Pauṣkala sāman. "Abhi priyāṇi pavate ca no hitaḥ" is another hymn. There are three Jagatīs. Upon them is the Kāva sāman. Among these five hymns, although the hymn "Purojitiḥ" and the hymn "Pavasva" each have two meters, nevertheless, when interweaving is performed to achieve singing on [verses of] equal meter, each single meter is produced. Thus there are five meters: Gāyatrī, Anuṣṭubh, Uṣṇih, Kakubh, and Jagatī. "The Pavamāna [stotra] is to be inserted in this pressing." In that case, in this hymn "Purojitaṃ vo", in order to sing the Śyāvāśva and Āndhīgava on [verses of] equal meter, having discarded the two Gāyatrīs handed down, two original Anuṣṭubhs should be brought in. This is the prima facie view. / Having taken the fourth quarter again, two Anuṣṭubhs are to be interwoven: this is the established conclusion. In both cases, the reasoning is to be seen according to the exegetical principles of the previous two variations. The indicatory mark, however, is handed down thus: "There are twenty-four Jagatīs in the third pressing, and one Kakubh." This number is explicable only upon interweaving. To explain: when the Gāyatrī triplet, which is the locus of the two sāmans Gāyatra and Saṃhita, is repeated twice, there are six Gāyatrīs. A Gāyatrī has twenty-four syllables. A Jagatī has forty-eight syllables. Hence, by six Gāyatrīs, there are three Jagatīs. The interwoven, twice-repeated verses that form the locus of the Śyāvāśva and Āndhīgava become six Anuṣṭubhs [yielding four Jagatīs]. Combined, seven Jagatīs are produced. The singing of the Sa-sāman and Pauṣkala is not to be done on a triplet like other sāmans, but rather on each individual verse. Whence is this understood? From the specific injunction ending in the locative singular: "in the Uṣṇih, in the Kakubh". From the Uṣṇih and Kakubh of twenty-eight syllables each, one Jagatī and a Gāyatrī quarter are produced. The difference between the two is that in the Kakubh the middle quarter has twelve syllables, and in the Uṣṇih the subsequent quarter has [twelve syllables]. The three Jagatīs that are the locus of the Kāva are established by their very nature; thus, combined in this Pavamāna, there are eleven Jagatīs. And a Gāyatrī quarter is left over. Like the Ārbhava-pavamāna, there is one Yajñāyajñīya-stotra in the third pressing. And its locus is this pragātha: "Yajñāyajñā vo agnayaḥ". There, the first verse is a Jagatī, and the following is a Viṣṭārapaṅkti. By interweaving them, two Kakubhs are to be made following. There, the stoma is twenty-onefold. The viṣṭuti prescribing it is handed down thus: "He hums for seven: he [sings] with three, he with three, he with one. He hums for seven: he with one, he with three, he with three. He hums for seven: he with three, he with one, he with three." The meaning is: "Of the first Bṛhatī, in the three rounds, successively three times, one time, again three times—thus seven Bṛhatīs. Of the middle one, the recitation in the first and second rounds is three times each; in the last round, once. Of the highest Kakubh, once at the beginning, three times each in the second and third [rounds]"—thus fourteen Kakubhs. In those Kakubhs, there are fourteen middle quarters of twelve syllables. Among them, seven quarters are to be combined with the seven Bṛhatīs. Thence seven Jagatīs are formed. The remaining syllables, the initial quarters and the final quarters of the Kakubhs, combined, are twenty-eight. Among them, one Jagatī is made by six quarters; by this method, four Jagatīs are made by twenty-four quarters. Those seven quarters of twelve syllables that remained before—to them, the eight-syllable quarter left over from the Pavamāna is to be joined. To the remaining four eight-syllable quarters of the Kakubhs, four syllables are to be joined. Those become two Jagatīs. Thus, there are thirteen Jagatīs in the Yajñāyajñīya-stotra, and the eleven in the Pavamāna mentioned previously, making twenty-four Jagatīs. The four eight-syllable quarters deprived of four syllables, combined, become one Kakubh. By this indicatory mark, the Śyāvāśva and Āndhīgava must be sung on an interwoven triplet; but it is established that bringing in an original Anuṣṭubh is not [to be done].