India as Known to Panini: A Study of the Cultural Material in the Ashtadhyayi c10.s3.t1.45

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.