Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c10.s3: Section 3. Literature

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c10.s3

Language
English

Contents

Section 3. Literature

c10.s3.1

*CLASSES OF LITERATURE*—Pāṇini classifies literature on the basis of the character of the creative effort producing it. This is indicated by the following terms:

c10.s3.2

(1) *Dṛishṭa* (IV.2.7). Literature that is revealed or seen. Under this class he mentions the *Sāmans* named after their seers or Ṛishis, e.g. *Kāleya* (IV.2.8) and *Vāmadevya* (IV.2.9).

c10.s3.3

He also must have known the *Saṁhitās* of the Ṛigveda and Yajurveda, and their divisions like *Sūkta* (V.2.59), *Adhyāya* and *Anuvāka* (V.2.60).

c10.s3.4

(2) *Prokta* (IV.3.101). Literature promulgated or enounced by Ṛishis, as founders of the different Vedic *Charaṇas*. Under this class were included the *Chhandas* works (IV.2.66), or *Śākhās*, e.g. the *Śākhā* works of the Taittirīyas (IV.3.102), Kaṭhas (IV.3.107) and Kālāpās (IV.3.108); and the older Brāhmaṇas (IV.3.105). As pointed out above the *Prokta* works were connected with the teachers and students devoted to their study in the *Charaṇas*. This complete identity of the name of a Vedic text with that of its students held good for Śākhā and Brāhmaṇa works only (IV.2.66). For example, in the School of the Taittirīyas, the original Śākhā and its Brāhmaṇa alone would be entitled to a name in accordance with the rule of *tad-vishayatā*, as *Taittirīya Śākhā* and *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa*. But in course of time the Āraṇyaka and Upanishad portions were also developed as constituent parts of the *Brāhmaṇas*, and the name *Taittirīya* was applied to them also.

c10.s3.5

A third kind of *Prokta* works developed in the Vedic schools was that of the *Kalpas*, or *Śrautasūtras*, classed as Vedāṅga works. Kātyāyana and Patañjali definitely state that the rule of *tad-vishayatā* did not apply to Kalpa works, but an exception was made in the case of only two such Kalpa books, *viz.*

c10.s3.6

those of Kāśyapa and Kauśika, who are mentioned by Pāṇini as Ṛishis (IV.3.103). The schools of Kāśyapa and Kauśika were known as *Kāśyapinaḥ* and *Kauśikinaḥ* (*Kāśyapa-Kauśika-grahaṇaṁ cha Kalpe niyamārtham*, *Vār.* 6 on IV.2.66).

c10.s3.7

Another variety of *Prokta* literature mentioned by Pāṇini consisted of two special kinds of *sūtra* works, *viz.* (1) the *Bhikshusūtras* of Pārāśarya and Karmanda, and (2) the *Naṭa-sūtras* of Śilālin and Kṛiśāśva (IV.3.110-11). It is surprising that the strict principle of *tad-vishayatā* which applied to Vedic works should have been extended to these four works of later origin and secular character. The examples cited by Patañjali, *Pārāśariṇo bhikshavaḥ*, *Śailālino naṭāḥ*, show that these treatises were connected with their own schools with a succession of teachers and pupils (*adhyetṛi veditṛi*), like other orthodox sacred works. The *Pārāśara* and *Śailālaka Charaṇas* were originally related to the *Ṛigveda*, but their activity later on centred round new subjects of study dealt with in their *Bhikshusūtras* and *Naṭasūtras*. Probably the *Naṭasūtras* of Śilālin were the original sources of the material in Bharata's *Nāṭyaśāstra*. The Vedic schools lent their authority to the secular subjects promoted by them, which were thus given the rank of Chhandas works (*Bhikshu-Naṭa-sūtrayoś-Chhandastvam*, *Kāśikā*), and the status of Vedic schools applied to them (*Atrāpi tad-vishayatā chetyanuvartishyate*, *Bhāshya*, II.286). That Pāṇini looked upon the dramaturgical works as *āmnāya* of sacred authority associated with the *Charaṇas*, is borne out by the reference to *Nāṭya* in *sūtra* IV.3.129, (cf. *naṭa śabdādapi dharmāmnāyayoreva bhavati*, *Kāśikā*). The *Bhikshusūtra* of Karmanda and the *Naṭasūtra* of Kṛiśāśva were no doubt the product of the Vedic *Charaṇas* (*atrāpi tad-vishayatārthaṁ chhando-grahaṇam*, *Kāśikā*, IV.3.111). It is not known to which Veda these latter belonged.

c10.s3.8

(3) *Upajñāta* (IV.3.115). Literature bringing to light new knowledge expounded for the first time (*ādya āchikhyāsā*, II.4.21), came under this class, *e.g.* the works of such original authors as Āpiśali, Pāṇini, Vyāḍi and Kāśakṛitsna (IV.3.115). *Upajñāta* formed a special class under *Prokta* literature, since the grammatical treatises of Āpiśali, Pāṇini, etc, are both regarded as *Prokta* and *Upajñāta* (*Pāṇininā proktam*, *Pāṇininā upajñātam*, both were *Pāṇinīyam*). This is just what should have been expected in the transitional period. Such texts combined certain features of the *Chhandas Prokta* works and other features of independent texts cultivated outside the *Charaṇas*. The most distinctive feature was the principle of individual authorship, which did not operate in the case of the *Prokta* class of Vedic texts, but was applied to *Upajñāta* works being the exclusive fruit of the creative efforts of their authors. Special scientific treatises, mostly the Vedāṅga literature, were being written outside the *Charaṇas*, as a result of the intense intellectual activity on the part of their authors. The works of Yāska and Śākaṭāyana, Audavraji and Pāṇini were of this category and named after the first exponents (*e.g. Pāṇininopajñātam Pāṇinīyam akālakaṁ vyākaraṇam*, *Kāśikā*, IV.3.115).

c10.s3.9

The school-denoting (*adhyetṛi-veditṛi*) suffix was elided in this case also (*Proktāl-luk*, IV.2.64). Thus both the treatise of Pāṇini and its teachers and students were called *Pāṇinīya*. Although in its effect on the formation of names of the text and its school there was no difference, but from the institutional point of view the difference was remarkable between the method of study as applied to the new works like those of Pāṇini on the one hand and the traditional *Charaṇa* literature on the other. The followers of new sciences were not organized into the same sort of educational fraternity as in the case of the *Śākhā* works. Moreover, the *Pāṇinīya* treatise and the *Pāṇinīya* students did not belong to one particular *Charaṇa*, but were connected with Vedic schools in general.

c10.s3.10

*Sūtra* IV.2.65 states that the students of the new *sūtra* works were also named after the number of chapters in the texts studied by them, such as *Ashṭakāḥ*, *Daśakāḥ*, *Trikāḥ*. Thus all the *Pāṇinīyas* to whichever Vedic school they belonged would be called *Ashṭakāḥ*.

c10.s3.11

As a sequel to intensive efforts at compilation and computation this special phase of naming texts had been evolved much earlier, as names like *Śatapatha*, and *Shashṭipatha* testify. Pāṇini himself refers to two *Brāhmaṇa* works with 30 and 40 *adhyāyas*, and on that account known as *Traiṁśa* (=\*Kaushītakī\*) and *Chātvāriṁśa* (=\*Aitareya\*) (V.1.62).

c10.s3.12

(4) *Kṛita* (IV.3.87; IV.3.116). This class of literature comprised ordinary works, termed *grantha*, which were named after their subject-matter (*Adhikṛitya kṛite granthe*, IV.3.87) or by an adjective derived from the author's name (*Kṛite granthe*, IV.3.116). The rise of the *śloka* metre and with it the emergence of the classical poet (*ślokakāra*, III.2.23) rapidly brought into being a new type of *kāvya* and *nāṭaka* literature as a medium of literary effort, and these were put under the *Kṛita* class. For example, *Saubhadra* (a book based on the story of Subhadrā); *Yāyāta* (on the legend of Yayāti); and *Vāraruchāḥ ślokāḥ* (a book of verses composed by Vararuchi), all later examples recorded in the *Kāśikā*. Pāṇini himself cites *Śiśukrandīya*, *Indrajananīya* (works relating to the birth of Kṛishṇa and Indra) as instances of *Kṛita* works.

c10.s3.13

*Kṛita* is to be distinguished from *Upajñāta* in that the former referred to a book composed by a certain author; where-as the latter always had reference to a topic promulgated by a person. As Maxmuller puts it: 'A work which has only been taught and promulgated by a person, is not to be called his book (*grantha*), but bears its own title, such as "grammar", or, whatever else it may be, together with an adjective derived from the author's name. Pāṇini's grammar, for instance, is not to be called *Pāṇinīyo granthaḥ*, but *Pāṇinīyaṁ Vyākaraṇam*, because it is a canonical work revealed to Pāṇini, but not invented by him." (*Hist. of Skt. Literature*, p. 361).

c10.s3.14

(5) *Vyākhyāna* (IV.3.66). Literature of Exposition and Commentaries. It comprised miscellaneous works on religious and secular subjects. These were not to be reckoned as original works, but were called for by the practical needs of interpreting and conserving Vedic texts, performance of rituals, and also to advance the knowledge embodied in the Vedāṅgas, works of philosophy and miscellaneous subjects, such as astrology (*Jyotish*), divination (*Aṅgavidyā*), military science (*Kshatra-vidyā*), etc. These included a vast and varied range of literature, like the extensive works on *Soma-Kratus* and smaller handbooks on *Puroḍāśa*, explanations of special parts (*Adhyāyas*) of the Ṛigveda, specialised grammatical works like *Nāmika* and *Ākhyātika* (IV.3.72). The literature of Commentaries added to the volume and variety of Sanskrit literature by the contributions made to it by authors of different capacities, competent to deal with such scientific subjects as grammar and etymology, and others to treat such minor topics as portents (*utpāta*, IV.3.73), and fortune-telling (*nimitta*), its text being called *naimitta*, (IV.3.73) and an interpreter of prognostics as *naimittika*, (IV.2.60). Pāṇini refers to foretelling in *sūtra* I.4.39 (*Rādhīkshyor-yasya vipraśnaḥ*).

Works Known to Pāṇini

c10.s3.t1.1

VEDIC TEXTS—The extent of Pāṇini's acquaintance with Vedic texts is known by (1) works mentioned by name, and (2) texts that provided him material for his Grammar. Thieme, tracing Pāṇini's references to their original sources, has shown that Pāṇini derived his grammatical material from the texts of the *Ṛigveda*, *Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā*, *Kāṭhaka Saṁhitā*, *Taittirīya Saṁhitā* and *Atharvaveda*, probably also from the *Sāmaveda*. To these may also be added the Śākalya Pada-pāṭha of the *Ṛigveda* which has supplied him with material for *sūtras* I.1.16-18 (P. Thieme, *Pāṇini And The Veda*, p. 63). Thieme further points out that some of the Vedic forms used by Pāṇini cannot be traced to any extant Vedic works. Possibly they were derived from some text or *Śākhā* of the Black Yajurveda which was known in his time but now lost to us (*ib.*, p. 64). The Atharvaveda used by Pāṇini is believed to be in its Paippalāda recension (*ib.*, p. 66).

c10.s3.t1.2

Goldstücker held that Pāṇini did not know the *Atharvaveda* (*Pāṇini*, p. 108). According to Weber this view is not tenable, since Pāṇini has actually utilised the material from this Veda (Thieme, *ib.*, p. 73). Pāṇini mentions Ātharvaṇikas (students of Atharvan, VI.4.174), and includes the name Atharvan and Ātharvaṇa in the *Vasantādi-gaṇa* (*Bhāshya*, II.320), on which Patañjali says that the Ātharvaṇika students were studying an *Āmnāya* (*i.e.* *Śākhā*) and a *Dharma* (*i.e.* *Dharmasūtra*) of their own.

c10.s3.t1.3

Goldstücker had taken the view that the *Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā* and the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* were also unknown to Pāṇini. Thieme thinks that Pāṇini did not gather any material from the White Yajurveda, but this should not mean that Pāṇini's grammar was anterior to the *Vājasaneyī Saṁhitā* and the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (Thieme, *ib.*, p. 74; K. B. Pathak, *A.B.O.R.I.*, IX.84). Pāṇini refers to Vājasaneya and Vājasaneyin in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* *Śaunakādi* (IV.3.106).

c10.s3.t1.4

*TERMS INDICATIVE OF TEXTS*—Pāṇini has used in his *sūtras* the following terms associated with certain texts: (1) *Chhandas*, (2) *Mantra*, (3) *Ṛich*, (4) *Yajus*, (5) *Brāhmaṇa*, and (6) *Nigama*. *Chhandas* denoted the sacred literature, as distinguished from *Bhāshā*, the spoken language. *Chhandas* included both the Saṁhitā and the Brāhmaṇa literature. The term *Mantra* had a more restricted scope, being applied to a sacred formula whether in verse (*ṛich*) or in prose (*yajush*), as opposed to the *Brāhmaṇa*. Thus the particular linguistic forms noted for *Mantras* do not occur in the *Brāhmaṇas*. The term *Ṛich* stands in Pāṇini for a Vedic stanza, as opposed to a formula in prose which was called *Yajush*. *Brāhmaṇa* stands for the *Brāhmaṇa* works, and *a-mantra* of *sūtra* III.1.35 also pointed to non-*mantra* literature or the *Brāhmaṇas*. The word *Nigama* denoted linguistic and exegetical tradition as embodied in the Vedic literature.

c10.s3.t1.5

*VEDIC ŚĀKHĀS*—The *Śākhās* or different recensions, as we have seen, formed the basis upon which the *Charaṇas* or Vedic Schools were based. They were known also as *Chhandas* texts and as *Āmnāya* (*Bhāshya*, II.319, *Charaṇād dharmāmnāyayoḥ*). The *Brāhmaṇa* works in addition to the *Chhandas* works formed the principal subjects of study in a Vedic *Charaṇa* or School as stated in the *sūtra*, *Chhando-Brāhmaṇāni cha tad-vishayāṇi*, (IV.2.66).

c10.s3.t1.6

ṚIGVEDA—The following Schools of the Ṛigveda were known to Pāṇini:

c10.s3.t1.7

(1) *Śākala*. Pāṇini knew the *Pada-pāṭha* of the Ṛigveda arranged by Śākalya (I.1.16). He also refers to students studying the *Prokta* work of Śākalya (*Śākalād-vā*, IV.3.128). The Śākalas formed an important School of the Ṛigveda. The present recension of the *Ṛik Saṁhitā* is that of the Śākalas, and belongs specially to that branch of this School which bears the name of the Śaiśirīyas. The *Ṛik Prātiśākhya* proclaims its affiliation to the Śaiśirīya Śākhā in its introductory verses. Pāṇini refers to the Śaiśirīyas in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* to IV.2.138. According to Weber, tradition makes the Śākalas intimately connected with the Śunakas, and to Śaunaka in particular a number of accessory works of the Ṛigveda are attributed (*Hist. of Ind. Lit.* p. 33). Pāṇini mentions the *antevāsins* of both these schools, Śākālas and Śunakas, under the compound word *Śākala-Śunakāḥ* (*Kārta-Kaujapādi gaṇa*, VI.2.37), indicating their intimate relationship as offshoots of the same school.

c10.s3.t1.8

The Śākalas again in their development branched off into five divisions founded by the disciples of Śākalya, named as (1) Mudgala, (2) Gālava, (3) Vātsya, (4) Śālīya, and (5) Śaiśirīya.

c10.s3.t1.9

Pāṇini refers to a *Krama-pāṭha* in *sūtra* IV.2.61, which appears to imply the *Krama-pāṭha* of the *Ṛik-Saṁhitā* traced to its author named Pañchāla Bābhravya. A Bābhravya is mentioned in *sūtra* IV.1.106 as belonging to the Kauśika *gotra*. In the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* of *Kārta-Kaujapādi* (VI.2.37) Bābhravya's students are referred to along with those of Śaunaka as *Śunaka-* *Bābhravaḥ*, evidently emptying that they were both followers of the same *Śākhā* of the *Ṛigveda*. In the later text of the *Matsya Purāṇa* (21.30) is recorded the tradition that Bābhravya was the author of the *Krama-pāṭha*, and also that he was the minister of King Brahmadatta of Dakshiṇa-Pañchāla.

c10.s3.t1.10

(2) *Bāshkala*. Another important recension of the Ṛigveda was represented by the Bāshkalas according to the *Charaṇa-Vyūha* (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 32). This recension is not directly mentioned by Pāṇini, but one of the disciples of Bāshkala was Parāśara who founded the Pārāśarī Śākhā. Patañjali refers to a Kalpa work of this school, the students being known as *Pārāśara-kalpika* (*Bhāshya* on IV.2.60). Pāṇini had this Vedic School in mind when he mentioned the *Bhikṣu-sūtras* of Pārāśarya developed as a special branch of study under the auspices of the Pārāśara *Charaṇa*, the followers of which, having embraced the ascetic life, were known as Pārāśarin Bhikhsus (*Pārāśariṇaḥ bhikshavaḥ*, IV.3.110). It may be noted that the Pārāśarya School showed its originality in producing the *Bhikshu-sūtras* as a class of *Prokta* literature, and not any *Chhāndasa* works for which they depended on the Bāshkala School.

c10.s3.t1.11

(3) *Śilālin*. Pāṇini mentions Śilālin as the author of *Naṭa-sūtras*, his students forming the Vedic School of Dancing designated as *Śailālinaḥ naṭāḥ* (IV.3.110). The Śailālakas were originally a Ṛigvedic *Charaṇa* with their own Brāhmaṇa, cited as the *Śailālika Brāhmaṇa* in the *Āpastamba Śrauta-Sūtra* (Keith, Āpastamba and the Bahvṛicha Brāhmaṇa, *J.R.A.S.*, 1915, p. 498). Kātyāyana also knows of the students of this Vedic school as *Śailālāḥ* (VI.4.144). Thus it will be seen that the students of dramaturgy were called *Śailālinaḥ* while those of orthodox Vedic studies were known by the simpler name of *Śailālāḥ*. The growth of a secular text like the *Naṭa-sūtra* under the auspices of a Vedic School shows the scope that Vedic literature gave to new intellectual development not directly connected with religion.

c10.s3.t1.12

(4) *Bahvṛicha*. Pāṇini mentions the *Āmnāya* and *Dharma* of the Bahvṛicha School as *Bāhvṛichya* (IV.3.129), and refers to Bahvṛicha as the name of a *Charaṇa* (*Antargaṇa-sūtra, anṛicho māṇave Bahvṛichaś-charaṇākhyāyām*, V.4.154). That this school once enjoyed wide distribution, is shown by Patañjali speaking in terms of the Bahvṛichas while referring to the Ṛigveda recensions (*ekaviṁśatidhā Bāhvṛichyam*, I.9). The Bahvṛichas are referred to in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* (XI.5.1. 10) and quoted a dozen times in the *Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra*. None of these citations can be traced to the two Ṛigveda Brāhmaṇas known to us, *viz. Aitareya* and *Kaushītakī*, and Keith was led to observe that 'It is perfectly certain that he (Āpastamba) meant some definite work which he may have had before him and in all probability all his quotations come from it' (Keith, *Ṛgveda Brāhmaṇas*, p. 496). It is unfortunate that neither the Saṁhitā, nor the Brāhmaṇa of this school has survived. According to Kumārila the Bahvṛichas were governed by the *Gṛihya-sūtra* of Vasishṭha (*Tantravārttika*, I.3.11). Keith thought that the Bahvṛicha School was identical with Paiṅgya, but they are mentioned as two separate Schools in the *Kaushītaki Brāhmaṇa*.

c10.s3.t1.13

(5) *Śaunaka*. The Śaunaka School had its Chhandas text (*Śaunakādibhyaś-Chhandasi*, IV.3.106), the students being called *Śaunakinaḥ*. As already pointed out the Śaunaka School was intimately connected with the Śākalas. To Śaunaka in particular a number of writings on the Ṛigveda are attributed (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 33).

c10.s3.t1.14

Pāṇini also refers to Paila (II.4.59), although his association with a Vedic text is not mentioned. Paila is known as a redactor of the Ṛigveda, and as following the tradition of Vyāsa. The School of Paila had two offshoots, *viz.* the School of Bāshkali and that of Māṇḍukeya, the latter being mentioned in the Kārta-Kaujapādi *gaṇa* together with Sāvarṇi.

c10.s3.t1.15

*YAJURVEDA*—The Kṛishṇa Yajurveda is referred to by Pāṇini several times. Amongst teachers of this School he mentions Tittiri, Varatantu, Khaṇḍika, Ukha, (IV.3.102), Katha and Kalāpin (IV.3.107-108). The original teacher and founder of this School was Vaiśampāyana whose direct disciples are called Vaiśampāyanāntevāsin (IV.3.104). These had the privilege of personal contact with the teacher (*pratyaksha-kāriṇaḥ*, according to the *Kāśikā*). Each of these became the founder of a school and promulgated its own text. Weber has pointed out: 'Of the many schools which are allotted to the Black Yajus, all probably did not extend to the Saṁhitā and Brāhmaṇa; some probably embraced the Sūtras only. This is likewise the case with the other Vedas.' (*H.I.L.*, p. 88). The following Schools may be noticed:—

c10.s3.t1.16

(1) *Taittirīya* (IV.3.102). Pāṇini mentions Tittiri as the founder of the Taittirīya School. The Taittirīyas had close connection with the Kaṭhas since the last sections of the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* are named *Kāṭhaka* (Bhagavaddatta, *Vaidika Vāṅmaya kā Itihāsa*, p. 197).

c10.s3.t1.17

(2) *Aukhīyas* (IV.3.102). The Taittirīyas grew into two Schools, the Aukhīyas and the Khāṇḍikīyas (cf. *Charaṇa-vyūha*, II.1). The Ātreyas referred to in II.4.65 as a counter-example and in IV.1.117 as a *gotra* name were a branch of the Aukhīyas.

c10.s3.t1.18

(3) *Khāṇḍikīya* (IV.3.102). It was a branch of the Taittirīyas from which grew later the Schools of Āpastamba, Hiraṇyakeśin and Bhāradvāja (*Charaṇavyūha*).

c10.s3.t1.19

(4) *Vāratantavīya* (IV.3.102). This School existed independently in the time of Pāṇini, although not a single text of the same has survived.

c10.s3.t1.20

(5) *Vaiśampāyana and Charaka*. Pāṇini mentions the followers of the Charaka School as Charakas (IV.3.107). The *Kāśikā* informs that Charaka was the name of Vaiśampāyana (*Charaka iti Vaiśampāyanasyākhyā*, IV.3.104). Charaka was originally used in the sense of a "Travelling Scholar", from the root *chara*, "to wander about for instruction" (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 87). In the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* the adherents of the Charaka branch of the Black Yajus are designated Charakādhvaryus. Vaiśampāyana stands out as the pre-eminent Vedic teacher, whom Śabarasvāmī following an old tradition describes as the originator of all the Śākhās of the *Kṛishṇa Yajurveda* (*Smaryate cha, Vaiśampāyanaḥ sarva-śākhādhyāyī*, *Mīmāṁsā Bhāshya*, I.1.30). The *Kāśikā* mentions the names of nine pupils of Vaiśampāyana who were grouped territorially. Patañjali, referring to the three Prāchya (Eastern), three Udīchya (Northern) and three Madhyama (Meridional) *Charaṇas*, alludes to the Schools of Vaiśampāyana as established by his disciples (*Bhāshya*, II.301; IV.2.138, *madhya-madhyamaṁ chāṇ-charaṇe*).

c10.s3.t1.21

(6) & (7). *Schools of Ālambi and Palaṅga*. These were the two eastern disciples of Vaiśampāyana Charaka who founded the Ālambin and Pālaṅgin Schools.

c10.s3.t1.22

(8) *Kāmalinaḥ*. It is the name of the third eastern School of the Charakas. The Purāṇas mention the founder as Kāmalāyani (*Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa*, I.33.6).

c10.s3.t1.23

(9) *Kaṭha* (IV.3.107). Pāṇini mentions the Kaṭhas separately in IV.3.107; they were the Udīchya disciples of Vaiśampāyana and probably belonged to the Panjab. In the time of Patañjali, the Kaṭha School had attained wide celebrity (*grāme grāme Kāṭhakaṁ Kālāpakaṁ cha prochyate*, *Bhāshya*, IV.3.101; II.315), and their text was considered to be of high authority (*Kaṭhaṁ mahat suvihitaṁ*, IV.2.66; II.285).

c10.s3.t1.24

Pāṇini mentions the compound names *Kaṭha-Kālāpāḥ* and *Kaṭha-Kauthumāḥ* in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* of VI.2.37, which indicates that these Schools were closely connected by their texts. The Saṁhitā of the Kaṭha School is extant. In the *Charaṇa-vyūha* two more local branches of the Kaṭha School are mentioned, *viz.* Prāchya-Kaṭhas and Kapishṭhala-Kaṭhas. Pāṇini derives some material from the text of the Kāṭhaka School (*Devasumnayor-Yajushi Kāṭhake*, VII.4.38). He also mentions Kapishṭhala as a *gotra* name (VIII.3.91, *Kapishṭhalo gotre*), which seems to have been applied to an offshoot of the Kaṭha School. Most of the Vedic *Charaṇas* were founded by Ṛishis whose names were also used for *gotra* appellations. Megasthenes mentions the *Kambistholoi* (=Kapiṣhṭhala) as a people in the Panjab through whose territory the river Hydraotes flowed. This would place the Kapiṣhṭhalas in the country of the Kaṭhas (Kathioi) who resisted Alexander's march through their country. It does not seem to have any connection with the place-name Kapisthala or Kaithal in the Panjab (VIII.3.91, counter-example). The Saṁhitā of the Kapiṣhṭhalas is extant to this day.

c10.s3.t1.25

(10) *Kālāpa* (IV.3.108). Kalāpin, a disciple of Vaiśampāyana, belonged to the Udīchya country. The pupils of his School were known as *Kālāpas* (*Kalāpino'ṇ*). Kalāpin appears to be himself a teacher of outstanding merit, since Pāṇini tells us that not only he himself but also his disciples became founders of new Vedic schools. Of the pupils of Kalāpin, the *Kāśikā* mentions four, *viz.* Haridru, Chhagalī, Tumburu and Ulapa, who severally became founders of new *Charaṇas*.

c10.s3.t1.26

(11) *Śyāmāyana*. He was a pupil of Vaiśampāyana who belonged to the north (*Udīchya*). The followers of his School were known as *Śyāmāyaninaḥ*. Śyāmāyana occurs as a *gotra* name in the *Aśvādi-gaṇa* (IV.1.110). The School is counted as one of the six sub-divisions of the Maitrāyaṇīyas.

c10.s3.t1.27

(12), (13) & (14). According to the *Kāśikā* the three Schools of the Charakas belonging to the Middle Country (*Madhyamīya Charaṇas*) were founded by Ṛichāba, Āruṇi and Tāṇḍya. The School of Āruṇi, may be the same as that of Uddālaka Āruṇi, who along with his son, according to Patañjali, belonged to the Bharata country (II.4.66; I.493).

c10.s3.t1.28

(15), (16), (17) & (18). Schools of Haridru, Tumburu, Ulapa and Chhagalin. These were the four disciples of Kalāpī who founded independent Schools named after them as *Hāridraviṇaḥ*, *Taumburaviṇaḥ*, *Aulapinaḥ*, and *Chhāgaleyinaḥ*. The School of Chhagalin is specifically mentioned in *sūtra* IV.3.109 (*Chhagalino ḍhinuk*). Of the others little is known except that Yāska has once quoted from a text called *Hāridra-* *vika* which may have been a *Brāhmaṇa* of this *Charaṇa*. All these four names occur together in the *Mānava Gṛihyapariśishṭa*.

c10.s3.t1.29

(19) *Khāḍāyana*. Pāṇini mentions the School of Khāḍāyana in the *Śaunakādi-gaṇa*, and both Kātyāyana and Patañjali take it to be a genuine reading. Patañjali says that Kaṭha was an *antevāsī* of Vaiśampāyana, and Khāḍāyana that of Kaṭha. Kātyāyana makes the important observation that Pāṇini's intention in mentioning the pupils of Vaiśampāyana and of Kalāpin separately was to restrict himself only to such names as denoted the seers (*pratyaksha-kārin*), *i.e.* only persons by whom a Vedic text had been promulgated (*Kalāpi-Khāḍāyana grahaṇaṁ jñāpakaṁ Vaiśampāyanāntevāsishu pratyakshakāri-grahaṇasya*, *Vār.* on IV.3.104). Kātyāyana also states that only Chhandas works were called after the name of the *Charaṇa* or its founder, and not ordinary secular compositions like the *ślokas* of Tittiri which were called *Taittirīya*.

c10.s3.t1.30

ŚUKLA-YAJURVEDA—The name Vājasaneya stands second in the *Śaunakādi* group (IV.3.106) which seeks to regulate the form Vājasaneyin to denote the *Chhandas* text of this School.

c10.s3.t1.31

SĀMAVEDA—The Saṁhitā of this Veda existed in two forms, *viz.* the *ārchika* (the *ṛich*-text marked with *sāman*-accents) and the *geya* or songs. The *ārchika* is referred to in *sūtra* IV.3.72, and the *geya* in *sūtra* III.4.68 which the *Kāśikā* interprets with reference to the *sāman* songs. Pāṇini mentions *Chhāndogya* in the specific sense of the text belonging to the Chhandoga School of the Sāmaveda (IV.3.129). In *sūtra* VI.2.37, Pāṇini refers to *Kārta* students named after their teacher Kṛita, who according to the *Vishṇu Purāṇa* (IV.19.50-52) was a Paurava prince, and disciple of the Sāmaveda teacher Hiraṇyanābha, king of Kosala. Kṛita is credited with the promulgation through his disciples of twenty-four Saṁhitās which were in circulation in eastern parts of India (*yaś-chaturviṁśatiṁ Prāchya-Sāmagānāṁ Saṁhitāś-chakāra*). He did for the Sāmaveda what Vaiśampāyana had done for the Yajurveda. The *Kārta-Kaujapādi-gaṇa* mentions the names of about thirty Vedic Schools and the compound words indicate some kind of literary collaboration which made these pair names current in the language. Examples of such collaboration are preserved in the compound words *Kaṭha-Kālāpam*, *Kaṭha-Kauthumam* (mentioned as examples of II.4.3, *Anuvāde Charaṇānām*); and *Mauda-Paippalāda* (Schools of the Atharvaveda, as examples of *sūtra* I.3.49 *Aṇorakarmakāt*); *Kauthuma-Laugākshāḥ* (both Schools of Sāmaveda; its *Kauthumī Saṁhitā* being now extant); and *Bābhrava-Śālaṅkāyanāḥ* (the latter a School of the *Sāmaveda* in the Vāhīka country or Panjab, Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 77 and p. 219 f. n.)². The compound name *Bābhrava-Śālaṅkāyana* representing a Ṛigvedic School of Pañchāla and a Sāmaveda School of Vāhīka, is also known to Patañjali who observes: 'Why should you come between the Bābhravas and the Śālaṅkāyanas?' (*Kim te Bābhrava-Śālaṅkāyanānām antareṇa gateneti*, *Bhāshya*, II.3.4; I.444).³ The Śālaṅkāyanas also became known as *Trikāḥ*, probably because of their being divided into three sub-schools (*Bhāshya*, V.¹.57-58).

c10.s3.t1.32

² Also included in *Naḍādi-gaṇa*, IV.1.99, with the *gaṇa-sūtra Śalaṅku Śalaṅkaṁ cha*; the name Śālaṅki being given to Pāṇini himself in later writings; cf. also reference to the students of Śālaṅki, *Śālaṅker-yūnaśchhāttrāḥ Śālaṅkāḥ*, *Bhāshya*, (IV.1.90; II.244).

c10.s3.t1.33

³ Bābhrava of Prāchya and Śālaṅkāyana of Udīchya were geographically separated and Patañjali's remark should have been addressed to a follower of an intervening Vedic School of the Bharata Janapada, most likely of Āruṇi mentioned above.

c10.s3.t1.34

Amongst other *Sāmaveda* teachers Pāṇini mentions Śauchivṛikshi and Sātyamugri (*sūtra* IV.¹.81), of whom the female descendants were called Śauchivṛikshī, Śauchivṛikshyā, and Sātyamugrī, Sātyamugryā respectively. Śauchivṛikshi appears as an ancient authority cited in the *Śrautasūtra* of Maśaka (Weber, *H. I. L.*, p. 77). The Sātyamugris seem to have been a sub-division of the great Rāṇāyanīya School of the *Sāmaveda*, to whom Patañjali refers in connection with a phonetic peculiarity, *viz.* *ardha ekāra* and *ardha okāra* recognised in their Pārshada or Prātiśākhya work, (*Bhāshya*, I.22; also *Āpiśali Śikshā*). The name of Rāṇāyani occurs in the *Pailādi-gaṇa* (II.4.59), and there can be no doubt that they were known to Pāṇini who knew one of their sub-divisions, the Sātyamugris.

c10.s3.t1.35

¹ Also *Khādira Gṛihya Sūtra*, III.2.31, *Kārshvaṁ tu Kaṭha-Kauthumāḥ*, referring to a rule of *anadhyāya* approved both by the Kaṭhas and the Kauthumas.

c10.s3.t1.36

Kāṇṭheviddhi (‘a descendant of Kaṇṭheviddhi’) mentioned after the names of the above teachers (IV.1.81) was possibly also a teacher of the Sāmaveda, whose name occurs as an authority in the *Vaṁśa Brāhmaṇa* of the *Sāmaveda* (*Vedic Index*, I.146).

c10.s3.t1.37

*ATHARVAVEDA*—Pāṇini mentions Ātharvaṇika as a student devoted to the study of a work called *Atharvan* which was enounced by the Ṛishi Atharvan (VI.4.174). Patañjali accepts Atharvan and Ātharvaṇa as genuine readings in the *Vasantādi-gaṇa* (IV.2.63), which according to Pāṇini were names of texts for study (*Tadadhīte tadveda*). Patañjali definitely mentions the *Āmnāya* and *Dharma* of the Ātharvaṇikas. The compound name *Mauda-Paippalādāḥ* in the *Kārta-Kaujapādi-gaṇa* represented two Schools of the *Atharvaveda*. Thieme attributes definite knowledge of the *Atharvaveda* to Pāṇini who mentions the form *ailayīt* (III.1.51) found only in AV., VI.16.3 (Thieme, *op. cit.* p. 64). The Jājalas, a School of the *Atharvaveda* founded by Jājali, are mentioned by Kātyāyana in a *vārttika* to *sūtra* VI.4.144.

c10.s3.t1.38

*OTHER VEDIC SCHOOLS*—Pāṇini also mentions by name certain other Vedic Schools, whose exact affiliations are not konwn, *e.g.* Taitila-Kadrū in *sūtra* VI.2.42 contains an allusion to the students of *āchārya* Titilin, also mentioned by Kātyāyana in the aforesaid *vārttika* to VI.4.144 (*Kāśikā*, *Taitili-Jājalināvāchāryau, tatkṛito grantha upachārāt Taitili-Jājali-śabdābhyām abhidhīyate, taṁ grantham adhīyate Taitilāḥ, Jājalāḥ*). Patañjali mentions Krauḍāḥ and Kāṅkatāḥ as names of Schools (IV.2.66; II.286), of which the former appear to be students of Krauḍi mentioned in the *Krauḍyādi-gaṇa* (IV.1.80). The *Kāṅkata Brāhmaṇa* is referred to in the *Āpastamba Śrauta-sūtra* (XIV.20.4) along with other unknown texts (Keith, *J.R.A.S.*, 1915, p. 498). The Schools of Karmanda and Kṛiśāśva which are known only from Pāṇini (IV.3.111), and those of Kāśyapa and Kauśika (IV.3.103) were confined to their *sūtra* works only, showing to what extent specialisation under the Vedic *Caraṇas* had advanced. The Kauśikas belonged to the *Atharvaveda*, but the affiliations of the other three are not known.

c10.s3.t1.39

*BRĀHMAṆA LITERATURE*—The *Brāhmaṇa* works were on a footing with the *Śākhās* in one respect, *viz.* they were represented by Vedic Schools comprising students who studied those texts. It is possible that some Vedic Schools did not evolve their own independent *Chhandas* texts or *Śākhās*, but depended on their compilations of *Brāhmaṇa* texts only. Of the names of Vedic Saṁhitās given above, many are traced in citations as Brāhmaṇa works. Similarly the activity of some Schools as pointed out above was confined to the composition of *sūtra* works only.

c10.s3.t1.40

*BRĀHMAṆAS OF THIRTY AND FORTY ADHYĀAS*—Pāṇini mentions two Brāhmaṇa works by the names of 'Thirty and Forty Adhyāyas', called *Triṁśa* and *Chātvāriṁśa* respectively (*Triṁśach-chatvāriṁśator-Brāhmaṇe saṁjñāyāṁ ḍan*, V.1.62). The *Kaushītakī Brāhmaṇa* is of 30 and the *Aitareya* of 40 *adhyāyas*. As Keith states: 'The *Kaushītakī Brāhmaṇa* and the *Aitareya* were both known to Pāṇini, who in his grammar (V.1.62) mentions the formation of the names of Brāhmaṇas with thirty and forty *Adhyāyas*. The same conclusion as to their relation to Pāṇini is clearly proved by their language which is decidedly older than the Bhāshā of Pāṇini, as Liebich has shown in detail for its verbal forms, and as is not disputed by any scholar.' (Keith, *Ṛigveda Brāhmaṇas*, *H.O.S.*, Vol. 25, p. 42).

c10.s3.t1.41

OLDER BRĀHMAṆA WORKS—In *sūtra* IV.3.105 Pāṇini refers to *Brāhmaṇa* and *Kalpa* works enounced by older Ṛishis (*Purāṇa-prokteshu Brāhmaṇa-Kalpeshu*). As examples of older *Brāhmaṇa* works, Patañjali mentions the *Brāhmaṇa* works of the *Bhāllavins* and the *Śāṭyāyanins* (IV.2.104; II.296), to which the *Kāśikā* adds that of the *Aitareyins*. The *Bhāllavins* were a well-known school of the *Sāmaveda*, and Śāṭyāyana figures in the Vaṁśa list of Jaimini whose *Brāhmaṇa* work known as the *Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa* is still extant. Of all the lost Brāhmaṇa works that of Śāṭyāyana has been quoted most frequently (B. K. Ghosh, *Fragments of Lost Brāhmaṇas*, p. ii).

c10.s3.t1.42

Talavakāra, a pupil of Jaimini, re-edited his teacher's work, which then became known as the *Talavakāra Brāhmaṇa*. It may be noted that Talavakāra is included in the *Śaunakādi-gaṇa* (IV.3.106), as an author of a *Chhandas* work or Vedic *Śākhā*.

c10.s3.t1.43

The *Hāridravika* and the *Śailāli Brāhmaṇas* were also older works known to Pāṇini, since Haridru as a pupil of Vaiśampāyana is implied in IV.3.104, and the name of Śilālin occurs in *sūtra* IV.3.110. The *Hāridravika Brāhmaṇa* was also known to Yāska (*Nirukta*, X.5).

c10.s3.t1.44

Attention may also be drawn to Pāṇini's mention of the name Māshaśarāvin whose descendants were called *Māshaśarāvayaḥ* according to the suffix added to words of the *Bāhvādi* group (IV.1.96). In the *Chāndravṛitti*, Māshaśarāvin is one word, and so also in Hemachandra and Vardhamāna (*Māshaśarāviṇa risheḥ*, verse 206), but in the *Kāśikā* it is wrongly split up. The Drāhyāyaṇa and Lāṭyāyana Śrauta-Sūtras cite an old authority saying that the Māshaśarāvins were organized as a Vedic school having their own Brāhmaṇa work (B. K. Ghosh, *Frag. of Lost Brāhmaṇas*, p. 112).

c10.s3.t1.45

YĀJÑAVALKA - BRĀHMAṆA—On *sūtra* IV. 3. 105 (*Purāṇa-prokteshu Brāhmaṇa-Kalpeshu*) Kātyāyana has a *vārttika*, *Yājñavalkyādibhyaḥ pratishedhas - tulyakālatvāt*. 'Among the Brāhmaṇas and Kalpas proclaimed by the old, there is an exception with regard to Yājñavalkya and others, on account of contemporaneity and therefore Yājñavalkya's Brāhmaṇas are called, not *Yājñavalkinaḥ* but *Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni*. This passage has often been discussed. The *Kāśikā* considers Yājñavalkya as a recent author (*achira-kāla*). Kaiyaṭa clearly interprets the *vārttika* in the sense that the Brāhmaṇas of Yājñavalkya were of the same age as those of the older authors like Śāṭyāyana, and in order that they may not come under the scope of Pāṇini's rule, Pāṇini should have made an exception in their case. In his opinion this omission on the part of Pāṇini to exclude the name of Yājñavalkya from the operation of *sūtra* IV.3.105 is now made good by Kātyāyana. Patañjali has not made himself quite explicit on the point, but in his remark, *etānyapi tulyakālāni*, the force of *api* becomes justified only when we understand Yājñavalkya as an ancient writer. Both Goldstücker and Eggeling accept this view (*Pāṇini*, p. 132; *ŚB.*, Vol. I, Intro.). In view of this if we accept Yājñavalkya as an ancient teacher coeval in time with Śāṭyāyana and other older authors of *Brāhmaṇa* works, the question remains why did not Yājñavalkya also found a Vedic school similar to other older seers and why the principle of *Tad-vishayatā* which, according to Pāṇini, was an invariable feature of the *Chhandas* and *Brāhmaṇa* texts, and in some cases also of the *Kalpa sūtras* of older Ṛishis, as *Kāśyapinaḥ*, *Kauśikinaḥ*, did not apply to the *Brāhmaṇa* texts promulgated by Yājñavalkya. Another *vārttika* on *sūtra* IV.2.66 ordains that the *adhyetṛi-veditṛi* suffix is not added after the name of Yājñavalkya and others (*Yājñavalkyadibhyaḥ pratishedhaḥ*, II. 285). The question arises why the *Yājñavalkya Brāhmaṇas*, if they were old, were not represented by their *Charaṇa* students like the other older Brāhmaṇas. The answer to this question largely depends on what we understand by *Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni*; or as Eggeling has put it: 'whether or not the *Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni* form part of the text of the *Śatapatha* which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation'. He was inclined to the view that we should look for them in certain portions of the last Book (or Books) in which Yājñavalkya figures so prominently. Weber in his modified opinion accepted 'that it is to this Yājñavalkīya-kāṇḍa (XIV Book of *Śatapatha*) that the *vārttika* to Pāṇini (IV.3.105) refers when it speaks of the *Yājñavalkāni Brāhmaṇāni* as not *purāṇa-prokta*, but *tulyakāla*, *i.e.* 'of the same age as Pāṇini'. (*H.I.L.*, p. 129). Weber was, however, not disposed to regard Yājñavalkya himself or the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* as being of the same age with Pāṇini. The last *Kāṇḍa* was so named not because it was produced by Yājñavalkya himself, but because it gives prominence to him.

c10.s3.t1.46

*THE GENESIS OF THE ŚATAPATHA*—The whole of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* of 100 *adhyāyas* is now generally attributed to Yājñavalkya, but the fact remains that the present text of the *ŚB.* was a composite work made up of different portions of ritualistic texts. The grammatical literature throws some light on this textual problem of the *ŚB.* Its first nine Books consist of two broad divisions, Books I-V deal with *Ishtis* and *Paśubandha*, being a complete exposition of Havir-Yājña and Soma sacrifices. These were subjects of special study as shown by the example *seshṭi-paśubandham adhīte* (*Kāśikā*, II.1.6). In these Books Yājñavalkya is cited as an authority. The next four Books deal with the Fire-ritual (*Agnichayana*) and refer to Śāṇḍilya more frequently than to Yājñavalkya. These Books were also separate subjects of study as shown in the expression *sāgni adhīte* (II.1.6, *Kāśikā*); or *kashṭo'gniḥ*, 'difficult to master is the Agni text' (VII.2.22). These nine Books contain sixty *adhyāyas*, and may be identified with *Shashṭipatha* mentioned by Patañjali in an old *Kārikā* (II.284). Book X (*Agnirahasya*) deals with the same subject as the preceding four *kāṇḍas*; and here also Śāṇḍilya and not Yājñavalkya figures as authority. The XI Book is called *Saṁgraha*, as it contains a summary of the preceding ritual. Kāṇḍas XII-XIV treat of miscellaneous subjects and are called *Parishishṭa* or Appendices. The last of these contains the famous philosophical discourse of Yājñavalkya. The text so constituted finds corroboration from the *Mahābhārata* which speaks of Yājñavalkya as the author of certain portions of the *Śatapatha* described as (a) Rahasya (Ritual, Book X), (b) Saṅgraha (Book XI) and (c) Pariśesha (Books XII-XIV; Śāntiparvan, 318.16). Saṅgraha mentioned by Pāṇini in the *Ukthādi-gaṇa* (IV.2.60) as the name of a treatise, seems to refer to the XI Book of the *Śatapatha*. A student of Saṅgraha was known as *Sāṅgrahika*. These portions of the *Śatapatha*, viz. Agni-Rahasya, Saṅgraha, and Pariśishṭa may be taken to be what were known as the Yājnavalka-Brāhmaṇas. The term Madhyama was applied to Book XII, showing that the Books preceding and following it were parts of one whole. The *ŚB.* was rather a voluminous text. Those who mastered its earlier portions consisting of 60 Chs. were designated as *Shashṭipathika*; while students studying its 100 Chs. were called *Śatapathika*. The names *Shashṭipatha* and *Śatapatha* appear analogous to *Bhārata* and *Mahābhārata* existing side by side for some time.

c10.s3.t1.47

From their very nature the last five Books of 40 Chs. could not form the basis of an independent *Charaṇa* text, and therefore the rule of *tad-vishayatā* did not apply to them. These later portions attributed to Yājñavalkya were not given the same status as that of the older established works of Śāṭyāyana and Bhāllavin. Kātyāyana, however, as a follower of the Mādhyandina School of the *Śukla Yajurveda* and of its Brāhmaṇa work the *Śatapatha*, did not consider the last five Books or 40 Chs. as of less authenticity in his time. He, therefore, joins issue with Pāṇini for not treating the Yājñavalkya Brāhmaṇas as *purāṇa-prokta*.

c10.s3.t1.48

*ANUBRĀHMAṆA* (Supplementary Brāhmaṇas). These supplementary texts formed special subjects of study by students whom Pāṇini calls *Anubrāhmaṇī* (*Anubrāhmaṇād iniḥ*, IV.2.62). The *Kāśikā* explains *Anubrāhmaṇa* as a work taking after a Brāhmaṇa (*Brāhmaṇa-sadṛiśo'yam granthaḥ*).

c10.s3.t1.49

Bhaṭṭa Bhāskara in his commentary on the *Taittirīya Saṁhitā* (I.8.1) refers to a portion of the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* (I.6.11.1) as *Anubrāhmaṇa* (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 82, note). Books XIV and XV of the *Śāṅkhāyana Śrautasūtra* were sometimes reckoned as parts of the *Kaushītakī Brāhmaṇa*, which were incorporated into its Kalpa by Suyajña. The commentator Ānartīya Brahmadatta calls them Anubrāhmaṇa (*Śāṅkh. S.*, XIV.2.3; Bhagavaddatta, *Vaidika Vāṅmaya*, I.113). Professor Caland discovered a special Brāhmaṇa work called *Anvākhyāna*, which belongs to the *Vādhūla Sūtra* and contains secondary Brāhmaṇas which may also be considered as *Anubrāhmaṇa* (Bhagavaddatta, op. cit., II.p.34). (Cf. *Baudh. G. S.*, III.1.21-24).

c10.s3.t1.50

*UPANISHAD*—It has been argued that Pāṇini does not refer to the Upanishads. So far as he is concerned, the word *Upanishad* forming part of the *Ṛigayanādi* group (IV.3.73) serves the same purpose as if it were read in a *sūtra*. On the basis of linguistic evidence Liebich had come to the conclusion that 'Not only the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa*, but also the *Bṛihadāraṇyaka Upanishad* are certainly older than Pāṇini.' (*Pāṇini*, p. 37). The fact is that Pāṇini shows an acquaintance not only with the *Aitareya* and *Kaushītakī Brāhmaṇas* (cf. V.1.62) and the *Anubrāhmaṇas* of a later date, but also with the *Śrauta Sūtras* (IV.3.105) and the *Dharma Sūtras* which were developed as special subjects of study inside *Charaṇas* (IV.2.46). Pāṇini actually mentions the term Upanishad in one of the *sūtras* (*Jīvikopanishadāvaupamye*, I.4.79), where it denotes 'that which is secret.' This accords with its meaning known to Kauṭilya under the head *Aupanishadikam*. A term used originally as the name of esoteric religions texts, had acquired a pejorative sense by the time of Pāṇini. Keith also concludes on the basis of *sūtra* I.4.79 that Pāṇini was acquainted with the Upanishads (*Tait. S.*, H.O.S., p. clxvii).

c10.s3.t1.51

*KALPA LITERATURE*—Pāṇini refers to Kalpa works promulgated by ancient authors (*Purāṇa-prokta Kalpa*, IV.3.105), of which the Paiṅgī Kalpa and the Aruṇaparājī Kalpa are cited as examples. Pāṇini refers to works of two older Ṛishis named Kāśyapa and Kauśika (*Kāśyapa-Kauśikābhyāṁ ṛishibhyāṁ ṇiniḥ*, IV.3.103), which Kātyāyana takes to be Kalpa works. These were studied in Vedic *Charaṇas* by students called after them *Kāśyapinaḥ* and *Kauśikinaḥ*. It is also pointed out that the literary activity of these two old Schools was confined to their Kalpa Sūtras only round which centred a group of their students and teachers (*Kāśyapa-Kauśika-grahaṇaṁ cha Kalpe-niyamārtham*, II.286). We know of a Kauśika Sūtra of the Atharvaveda.

c10.s3.t1.52

Patañjali in addition knows of a Parāśara Kalpa, which must have belonged to the Parāśara School of the Ṛigveda mentioned by Pāṇini.

c10.s3.t1.53

But the exigencies of sacrificial religion required special treatises bearing on different parts of the ritual, and Pāṇini mentions several types of commentaries written with the avowed purpose of bringing sacrificial ritual within the easy reach of priests. Special commentaries are mentioned on important Soma sacrifices, and on the different kinds of *yajñas*, such as the Pākayajña, Haviryajña, etc. (IV.3.68). The preparation of the sacrificial cake offered to the deities was of great practical importance and special handbooks called *Puroḍāśika* explaining its details were written. Similarly others known as *Pauroḍāśika* were compiled with a view to explain the particular *mantras* that were used in the Puroḍāśa ceremony (IV.3.70). Commentaries on the Adhvara sacrifices were called *Ādhvarika*, and those which treated of preparatory ceremonies preceding regular sacrifices were known as *Pauraś-charaṇika* (IV.3.72). The significance of the commentary called *Prāthamika* is not clear; possibly it treated of Puraścharaṇa rites (IV.3.72). Illustrating the word *dvyachaḥ* of this *sūtra* the *Kāśikā* gives two interesting examples, *viz.*, *Aishṭika* and *Pāśuka*, the former was a commentary on the Darśa-Paurṇamāsa Ishṭis and the latter on the animal sacrifices. These two are covered respectively by Books I-II and III-V of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa*. It appears that the course of sacrificial studies was planned topically, for on *sūtra* II.1.6 the *Kāśikā* speaks of a student studying the portions known as Ishṭi-paśubandha (*seshṭi-paśubandham adhīte*). The advanced course in sacrificial lore included the Fire ritual or *Agnichayana* (Books VI-IX of *Śatapatha*) and the expression *sāgni adhīte* pointed to the final stage in the study of that subject.

c10.s3.t1.54

*LITERATURE ON RECITATION*—Proper recitation of Vedic texts (*pārāyaṇa*, V.1.72) required methodical training. It involved mastery of the Pada and Krama texts as implied in Pāṇini's words *Padaka* and *Kramaka* to denote students devoted to such studies (IV.2.61). Pāṇini also refers to the Pada text of the *Ṛigveda* by Śākalya (I.1.16), and to a work known as *Ārgayana*, which was a commentary on the methods and details of the Pārāyaṇa of the Ṛigveda.

c10.s3.t1.55

There are names of other phonetical works treating of Vedic pronunciation and recitation. The *Ukthādi-gaṇa* (IV.2.60) refers to students of Saṁhitā, Pada, and Krama. The word *Krametara*, was applied to the recitation of texts 'other than Krama'. The technical term for instruction and exercise in recitation was *charchā* (III.3.105; also in the *Ukthādi* group). The *Charaṇavyūha* refers to instruction in recitation depending on (1) *charchā* (exercise), (2) *śrāvaka* (the teacher reciting), (3) *charchaka* (the pupil repeating), and (4) *śravaṇīyapāra* (completion of recitation). A student who qualified in *charchā* (regulated recitation) was called *charchika* (IV.2.60).

c10.s3.t1.56

Pāṇini uses *Pada-vyākhyāna* for a text explanatory of the Pada-pāṭha, and its derivative *Pāda-vyākhyāna* denoted a commentary on such a text (*Ṛigayanādi-gaṇa*, IV.3.73). Such a commentary was intended to explain every word of the Vedic text, similar to the style of the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* explaining the first eighteen Books of the *Yajurveda*. These commentaries were also known as *Anupada* works, of which a student was called *anupadika* (IV.3.60). Śaunaka mentions the *Anupada* work of the *Yajurveda*, which Mahīdāsa defines as the work which explained the text word for word (*Anupade anyat-padam kartavyam*). One of the Sāma *sūtras* is *Anupada-sūtra* in ten *prapāṭhakas*, which explains the obscure passages of the *Pañchaviṁśa Brāhmaṇa* and of the *Shaḍviṁśa Brāhmaṇa*, step by step (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 80).

c10.s3.t1.57

UKTHA—The *Uktha* treatise mentioned at the head of the *Ukthādi* group (IV.2.60) of which the students were called *aukthika*, appears to be a work partaking of the nature of *Pārshada* works of the *Sāmaveda*. Patañjali writes: 'What are Ukthas? Sāmans are the Ukthas. If so, all chanters of Sāmans will be called *aukthika*. No, there is no fault if we take *Uktha* in the sense of a work dealing with Uktha' (*tād-arthyāt tāchchhabdyam*, *Bhāshya*, IV.2.60; II.283). Kaiyaṭa following Patañjali informs us that one of the Sāma-lakshaṇa treatises was known as *Uktha*. A selection of Ṛik verses for the purpose of recitation suited to each particular occasion bears the name *śastra* to be recited by the Hotṛi priest, and a similar selection of different *Sāmans* made into a group to be recited by the Udgātā priest was called *Uktha* (from *vach*, to speak) (Weber, *H.I.L.*, p. 67). It must have been the task of the Sāmaveda teachers to fix rules for the making of Uktha songs. The texts which dealt with this subject were also called *Uktha*, and must have been considered important among the *lakshaṇa* works of the Sāmaveda.

c10.s3.t1.58

JYOTISHA—Some works on Jyotisha were possibly known, as we find reference in the *sūtras* to belief in divination from bodily signs (III.2.53), and also to fortune-telling by sooth-sayers (I.4.39, *Rādhīkshyor-yasya vipraśnaḥ*). The mention of *utpāta*, *saṁvatsara*, *muhūrta* and *nimitta* as subjects of study in the *Ṛigayanādi-gaṇa* (IV.3.73) indicates the study of astro-nomy and omens. Early Buddhist literature is full of refer-ences to divining by means of signs (*nimittam*) and fortune-telling from marks on the body (*lakkhaṇam*, the word being used in an identical sense by Pāṇini in III.2.52-53), which were forbidden for monks. Five topics of study included in the *Ṛigayanādi group* (IV.3.73) are also found in the *Brahmajāla Sutta*, *viz.* (1) *Nimitta*, (2) *Uppādo* (=*utpāda* in the *gaṇa*), (3) *Aṅgavijjā*, (*Aṅgavidyā*), (4) *Vatthuvijjā* (determining whether the site for a proposed house is lucky or not; *Vāstuvidyā* in the *gaṇa*), and (5) *Khattavijjā* (=*Kshatravidyā* of the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* which is also mentioned in the list of sciences in the *Chh. Up.*, VII.1.4) (cf. *Brahmajāla Sutta*, Rhys Davids Trans. pp. 16-18, f.n.). Buddhaghośa renders *Uppāda* as 'the portents of the great ones, thunderbolts falling, and so on' caused by divine agency (cf. *Jātaka*, I.374; and commentary on *Uppāda*). Kauṭilya mentions the *naimittikas* and *mauhūrtikas* (*Arth.*, p. 23), and Megasthenes also refers to experts who 'gathered together at the beginning of the year to forewarn the assembled multitudes about droughts and wet weather, and also about propitious winds', (*Diod.* II.40, M'Crindle, Frag.I). These latter correspond to the *Sāṁvatsarikas* of Pāṇini (IV.3.73, *Gaṇa-pāṭha*).

First 72 of 152 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)