Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c10.s3.t1: Works Known to Pāṇini

India as Known to Pāṇini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashṭādhyāyī c10.s3.t1

Language
English

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*).

c10.s3.t1.59

*PHILOSOPHICAL LITERATURE*—The Pāṇinian epoch was already preceded by intense philosophical activity. The implications of his reference to philosophers of the Āstika, Nāstika, and Daishṭika schools (IV.4.60) have been shown above, the last one being represented by the followers of Maskaṟī Gośāla, and the second by such thinkers as the Lokāyatikas. The Lokāyata doctrine was of high antiquity and its second place in the *Ukthādi-gaṇa* may be an authentic reading. *Nyāya*, mentioned thrice (III.3.122; III.3.37, IV.4.92), stands not for the philosophical system of that name, but for justice or customary law; however, some knowledge of its dialectical terminology is foreshadowed in the *sūtra Nigṛihyānuyoge* VIII.2.94 (cf. *Nyāya*, V.2.1; V.2.23. For *nigṛihya* as a term of *vāda* or disputation, cf. also Āraṇyaka-parva, 132.13; 17). The term *Mīmāṁsā* occurs in the *Gaṇa-pāṭha* in relation to its students called *Mīmāṁsaka*, which points to the subject being studied as a system of philosophy (IV.2.61, also III.1.6, *mīmāṁsate*). *BHIKSHU SŪTRAS*—Pāṇini refers to two Vedic Schools of *Bhikshu sūtras* founded by Pārāśarya and Karmanda (IV.3.110-111), their students being called *Pārāśriṇaḥ* and *Karmandinaḥ* respectively. Weber sees in it an allusion to pre-Buddhist Brahmanical mendicants (*H.I.L.*, p. 305, footnote). We know nothing of the work of Karmanda, but the *sūtras* of Pārāśarya may have been the *Vedānta sūtras* which were based on the philosophical doctrine developed in the *Upanishads*. On the other hand it is also probable that the *Bhikshu-sūtras* of Pārāśarya referred to some Sāṅkhya treatise. Pañchaśikha is spoken of a *Bhikshu* and of Parāśara *gotra* (Śāntiparva, 320.24), and being a historical teacher of outstanding merit in the Sāṅkhya tradition is believed to have written a work in prose Sūtras in which his doctrine leaned more towards Vedānta. (Keith, *Sāṅkhya System*, p. 49). The Chinese tradition makes him the author of the *Shaṣṭitantra* itself (*ib.* p. 48).

c10.s3.t1.60

In either case these early texts must be regarded as the product of a school rather than that of an individual author. The School gave a name both to its members and literary productions. As Pāṇini informs us, all Chhandas and Brāhmaṇa works, two *Kalpa-sūtras*, two *Bhikshu-sūtras*, and two *Naṭa-sūtras* derived their names after the founders of schools, which is the essence of the *tad-vishayatā* principle. Texts attributed to individual authors like Āpiśali and Pāṇini naturally did not admit of growth like those produced in the Vedic schools, which latter incorporated the subsequent graftings on the original text. We may recall that the Pārāśarya school was originally affiliated to a *Charaṇa* of the Ṛigveda in the Śākhā of the Bāshkalas. Parāśara (father of Pārāśarya) is also mentioned as the founder of a School of *Kalpa-sūtras* of which the students were called *Pārāśarakalpika*, as stated by Patañjali (IV.2.60; II.284). These latter were called *Pārāśarāḥ* in distinction to those studying the *Bhikshu-sūtras* and called *Pārāśariṇaḥ*.

c10.s3.t1.61

*NAṬA-SŪTRAS*—The word *Nāṭya* occurring in *sūtra* (IV.3.

c10.s3.t1.62

129) refers to some treatise for the use of actors. As the *Kāśikā* explains, the *Nāṭya* text had the status of an *āmnāya* pointing to its growth under a Vedic *Charaṇa*. We have already referred to the development of *Naṭa-sūtras* in Pāṇini's time under the Schools of Śilālin and Kṛiśāśva (IV.3.110-111). The present treatise on dramaturgy known as the *Nāṭya śāstra* of Bharata describes the *Naṭas* as *Śailālakas*. The corresponding Vedic term used by Pāṇini is *Śailālinaḥ Naṭaḥ*. It seems that Bharata's *Nāṭyaśāstra* was the product of the dramatic school of Śilālin which originated in the Ṛigvedic *Charaṇa* founded by that teacher, who was also the author of a Brāhmaṇa work called *Śailāli Brāhmaṇa* cited in the *Āpastamba Śrauta Sūtra* VI.4.7.

c10.s3.t1.63

Patañjali speaking for later times refers to Naṭa teachers (*ākhyātā*) of dance initiating novices (*ārambhakāḥ*) in the art not through texts (*granthārtha*), but by their direct method of stage-acting (I.4.29; I.329, *ātaśchopayogo yadārambhakā raṅgaṁ gachchhanti naṭasya śroshyāmaḥ*). This instruction, however, did not merit the honorific epithet *upayoga*, a term reserved for instruction under the approved religious system of teachers and initiated pupils.

c10.s3.t1.64

Pāṇini mentions *nāndīkara* (III.2.21), a person who sings the *Nāndī* or prologue to a drama.

c10.s3.t1.65

*ĀKHYĀNA AND KĀVYAS*—Pāṇini refers to *ślokas* and *gāthās*, and to their authors as *ślokakāra* and *gāthākāra* (III.2.23). He also mentions *Ākhyāna* or the literature of stories (VI.2.103), as examples of which Patañjali and the *Kāśikā* cite texts dealing with the legends of Rāma (i.e. Paraśurāma) and Yayāti, each consisting of two parts, called *Pūrvābhirāma*, *Aparādbhirāma*, and *Pūrva-yāyāta*, *Apara-yāyāta* respectively. The latter pair of names occurs in the colophon of the Yayāti legend in the *Mahābhārata* (Ādiparva, Poona, Chs. 70-80 *Pūrva-yāyāta*, and 81-88 *Uttara-yāyāta*).

c10.s3.t1.66

As to *kāvyas* Pāṇini mentions (1) *Śiśukrandīya*, (2) *Yamasabhīya*, and (3) *Indrajananīya* as actual works (IV.3.

c10.s3.t1.67

88). The name *Śiśukrandīya* suggests that the poem related to the Birth of Kṛishṇa, literally 'a work dealing with the cry-ing of child (*śiśu*, Kṛishṇa at the time of birth).' The second name was probably that of a drama dealing with the subject of Yama's Assembly (*Yama-sabhā*). The third name *Indra-jananīya* was that of a work dealing with the subject of Indra's birth and his slaying of the demon Vṛitra, being an ancient legend in which Tvashtā and Dadhīchi also played a part.

c10.s3.t1.68

*MAHĀBHĀRATA*—Pāṇini knows of a *Bhārata* and a *Mahā-bhārata*, (VI.2.38), and refers to its three principal characters, Vāsudeva, Arjuna (IV.3.98) and Yudhishṭhira (VIII.3.95). This admittedly old reference to the Epic throws light on its evolution. In a well-known passage of the Āśvalāyana Gṛihya-sūtra, the two names, *Bhārata* and *Mahābhārata* are similarly mentioned together (III.4.). Utgikar after examining the passage critically observed that 'the mention of the *Bhārata* and the *Mbh.* in the *ĀG Sūtra* is to be held as textually genuine and justified by other important considerations' (*Mbh. in ĀG Sūtra*, Proc. 1st Oriental Conf., Vol. II, p. 60). The *Bhārata* was the original work of about 24,000 stanzas attributed to Vyāsa, which was preserved and popularised by the bards. The Bhṛigus, later, expanded the *Bhārata* adding to it considerable political, philosophical and religious matter (*Dharma* and *Nīti*) and legends (*Upākhyanas*) (V. S. Sukthankar, The Bhṛigus and the Bhārata, a text-historical study, *ABORI.*, XVIII, pp. 15-76). Āśvalāyana's mention of the Epic as a text to be re-cited may be due to the fact that Āśvalāyana was a direct pupil of Śaunaka whose name is closely associated with the final re-daction of the *Mahābhārata*.

c10.s3.t1.69

VYĀKARAṆA—The *Ashṭādhyāyī* extant as the only early Vedāṅga text on *Vyākaraṇa* supplies some reliable data regarding the history of grammatical studies in ancient India.

c10.s3.t1.70

Grammar is called both *Śabda* and *Vyākaraṇa*, and a grammarian *śabdakāra* (III.2.23) and *vaiyākaraṇa* (VI.3.7). PREVIOUS GRAMMARIANS—The period between Yāska and Patañjali witnessed intensive creative activity in the field of grammar. No less than sixty-four teachers are cited as authority in the *Prātiśākhyas*, *Nirukta* and *Ashṭādhyāyī* (cf. Max Muller, *History of Skt. Lit.*, p. 142, where a list is given.) Yāska regards *Nirukta* as a study supplementary to grammar (*Vyākaraṇasya kārtsnyam*), which position remained unchanged until the time of Patañjali who found grammar to be the foremost of the Vedāṅgas.

c10.s3.t1.71

Pāṇini mentions by name the following authorities (*pūrvāchāryas*) whose works he had most probably consulted:

c10.s3.t1.72

(1) *Śākaṭāyana* (III.4.111; VIII.3.18; VIII.4.50), a grammarian, who is quoted by Yāska in support of the view that all nouns are derived from verbs. His dominant position is indicated by an illustration preserved even in the Pāṇinian system, e.g. *Anuśākaṭāyanaṁ vaiyākaraṇāḥ* (*Kāśikā* on I.4.86), ‘all grammarians rank next to Śākaṭāyana’.

c10.s3.t1.73

(2) *Śākalya* (I.1.16; VI.1.127; VIII.3.19; VIII.4.51), said to be the author of the *Padapāṭha* of the Ṛigveda; the *iti* used by him in the *Padapāṭha* is mentioned by Pāṇini as *anārsha*, non-Vedic (I.1.16), and is also referred to by the term *upasthita* (VI.1.129). Pāṇini mentions a *padakāra* in *sūtra* III.2.23, who may be Śākalya.

c10.s3.t1.74

(3) *Āpiśali* (VI.1.91). He was an important predecessor of Pāṇini. Patañjali refers to his students in the compound *Āpiśala-Pāṇinīya-Vyāḍīya-Gautamīyāḥ*, stating that these names were arranged in a chronological sequence (VI.2.36; III.125). The *Kāśikā* records that Āpiśali's treatise dealt with long and short vowels (*Āpiśaly-upajñaṁ gurulāghavam*, VI.2.14).

c10.s3.t1.75

(4) *Gārgya* (VII.3.99; VIII.3.20; VIII.4.67). His view is cited by Yāska on nouns being verbal derivatives. The *Ṛik* and *Yaju Prātiśākhyas* also refer to him.

c10.s3.t1.76

(5) *Gālava* (VI.3.61; VII.1.74). His name occurs in the *Nirukta* and the *Aitareya Āraṇyaka* (V.3). The *Śaiśiri Śikshā* refers to Gālava as a pupil of Śaunaka, and to Śākaṭāyana of Śaiśiri (Pt. Bhagavaddatta, *Vaidika Vāṅmaya*, I. 83).

First 76 of 137 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)