Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s1: The Six Vedângas

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c8.s1

Language
English

Contents

The Six Vedângas

c8.s1.1

We shall now proceed to an examination of those works which belong to the Sûtra-literature of India, as far as they have reference to the Veda.

c8.s1.2

दिशखं। “the laws of Manu and others whose source is a revelation the existence of which must be inferred.” Pratyaksha (sensuous impression) is, according to Sâyaṇa, सर्वपुरुषाणां श्रोत्रिये ग्राह्यं वेदवाक्यं, “the word of the Veda which all men can perceive in their teacher.” Aitihya (tradition) is explained by इतिहासपुराणमहाभारतब्राह्मणादिकं, “legends, Puraṇas, the Mahâbhârata, and the Brâhmaṇas.” Lastly Anumâna, if we believe Sâyaṇa, does not here mean inference, but customs of good men, by which or from which the existence of an authority, that is, of Śruti and Smṛiti, as the source of these customs, is inferred. अनुमानः शिष्टाचारः। तेन हि मूलभूतं श्रुतिस्मृतिलक्षणं प्रमाणमनुमीयते।

c8.s1.3

The Brahmans say that there are six members of the Veda, the six Vedângas. This name does not imply the existence of six distinct books or treatises intimately connected with their sacred writings, but merely the admission of six subjects the study of which was necessary either for the reading, the understanding, or the proper sacrificial employment of the Veda. Manu calls the Vedângas by the name of Pravachanas ¹, which is a title not unusually applied to the Brâhmaṇas.² And indeed, instead of

c8.s1.4

¹ Manu, iii. 184.: श्रव्याः सर्वेषु वेदेषु सर्वप्रवचनेषु च।

c8.s1.5

² कालबविनामपि प्रवचनविहितः स्वरः स्वाध्याये। Com. प्रवचनशब्देन ब्राह्मणमुच्यते। प्रोच्यत इति प्रवचनं।

c8.s1.6

“Those priests must be considered as the purifiers of a company who are most learned in all the Vedas and all their Angas.”—Sir W. Jones.

c8.s1.7

Kullûka: प्रकर्षेणैवोच्यते वेदार्थ एभिरिति प्रवचनान्यंगानि॥

c8.s1.8

“Because the meaning of the Veda is proclaimed by them, therefore are the Angas called Pravachanas.”

c8.s1.9

“Among the Kâlabavins also the accent exists in the perusal of the Veda enjoined by the Pravachanas. Com. By the word pravachana is meant the Brâhmaṇa, and it is called so because it is proclaimed.”

c8.s1.10

There is a passage in the Prasthânabheda,

c8.s1.11

एवं प्रवचनभेदात्प्रिवेदं भिन्ना भूयस्यः शाखाः।
“For each Veda there are several Śâkhâs the difference of which arises from different Pravachanas.”

c8.s1.12

Here pravachana means Brâhmaṇa, because the difference of the Brâhmaṇa-śâkhâs does arise from Brâhmaṇas peculiar to each. It is possible, however, that Madhusûdana used pravachana in the sense of pronunciation, the difference of pronunciation being the chief cause of the Sanhitâ-śâkhâs. Pravachana is used in the Kaṭhopanishad, ii. 23., in the sense of “reading.”

c8.s1.13

looking for the Vedângas to those small and barren tracts which are now known by this name, it is in the Brâhmaṇas and Sûtras that we have to look for the Vedânga-doctrines in their original and authentic form. The short Vedângas which are generally added to the manuscripts of the Veda, and which by several scholars were mistaken for the real Vedângas, represent only the last unsuccessful attempts to bring the complicated and unintelligible doctrines of former sages into an easy and popular form, and to preserve at the same time the names which had been sanctioned by antiquity.

c8.s1.14

A very clear and rational statement as to the character of the Vedângas in early times, is given in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka and its commentary. According to them the different doctrines of the Vedângas are to be considered as integral parts of the Brâhmaṇas, in the same manner as the Purâṇas and Itihâsas. These, as we saw before, were to be taken in the sense of epic or paurâṇic stories, incorporated in the Brâhmaṇas, as illustrations of ceremonial questions. By Itihâsa, as the commentator says, (Bṛih. Âraṇy. ii. 4.) we have to understand stories like those of Urvaśî and Purûravas in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa; by Purâṇa, passages on creation and the like, for instance, “in the beginning there was nothing,” &c. He then proceeds to quote passages from the Brâhmaṇas which he calls Upanishads (mysteries), Ślokas (verses), Sûtras (rules), Anuvyâkhyas (explanations), and Vyâkhyas (comments). It is under these heads that the Vedângas had their original place.

c8.s1.15

It is more difficult to determine where and when the Vedângas were first mentioned as six. In the Muṇḍaka-upanishad the number of the Vedângas is given as six, but in a line which is not unlikely to have been interpolated. Yâska (Nir. i. 20.) quotes only the Vedângas, but not the six Vedângas. The number of six occurs in the Charaṇavyûha, where we meet with the well-known versus memorialis, containing the titles of the six Vedângas.¹ The same number occurs in Manu (iii. 185). There is a passage in the Chhândogya-Upanishad where a mention of the six Vedângas might be expected, at the beginning of the ninth Prapâṭhaka. The number six, however, does not occur there, although Vedânga doctrines are clearly implied under somewhat unusual names.¹ The earliest mention of the number six in reference to the Vedângas seems to be contained in one of the Brâhmaṇas of the Sâma-veda. But there again, though the number six is given, the titles of the several Vedângas are not mentioned. It is said there (Shaḍvinśa-Br. iv. 7.) of Svâhâ, that her body consists of the four Vedas, and that her limbs are the six Angas, or members of the Veda.¹ It is possible, however, that more ancient Brâhmaṇas allude to the number of six; at all events we see that it was sanctioned for the Vedângas before the end of the Brâhmaṇa period.

c8.s1.16

¹ शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं छन्दो ज्योतिषम्॥ Âpastamba, who occasionally quotes Ślokas in his Sûtras, does not seem to have known this verse. His words are (ii. 4. 8.), षडंगो वेदः छंदः कल्पो व्याकरणं ज्योतिषं निरुक्तं शिक्षा। What follows, in the only MS. I know, is eaten away by worms ; but then comes the word छंदोविचिति, which was the title of a metrical treatise, and is quoted as such before Pingala, in the Śabda-Kalpa-druma, s. v. तस्य ग्रंथाः छंदोविचितिपिंगलछंदोमंजरीश्रुतबोधादयः संति॥ One of the Pariśishtas of the Sâmaveda begins with the words अथातश्छंदसां विचयं व्याख्यास्यामः। The Pariśishtas, however, are later than Âpastamba and Pingala; for the author of the Pariśishta declares that he made use of Pingala's work : ब्राह्मणात्तंडिनश्चैव पिंगलाच्च महात्मनः। निदानादुक्थशास्त्राच्च छंदसां ज्ञानमुद्धृतं॥ The title छंदोविचिति refers, therefore, most likely to the Nidâna-sûtra, which also begins with अथातश्छंदसां विचयं व्याख्यास्यामः। Cf. MS. Berol. 95. In the Commentary on the Śakala-prâtiśâkhya, at the end of the 14th Book, the Vedângas are enumerated as follows : कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं शिक्षा छंदोविचितिर्ज्योतिषमयनं॥

c8.s1.17

¹ This passage has been pointed out and translated by Colebrooke (Miscellaneous Essays, i. 12.). “Nârada, having solicited instruction from Sanatkumâra, and being interrogated by him as to the extent of his previous knowledge, says, ‘I have learnt the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sâma-veda, the Âtharvaṇa (which is) the fourth, the Itihâsa and Purâṇa (which are) a fifth, and (grammar, or) the Veda of Vedas, the obsequies of the manes (पितृ्यं), the art of computation (राशिं), the knowledge of omens (दैवं), the revolution of periods (निधिं, com. महाकालादिनिधिशास्त्रं), the intention of speech (or art of reasoning) (वाकोवाक्यं), the maxims of ethics (एकायनं), the divine science (or construction of scriptures) (देवविद्यां, com. निरुक्तं), the sciences appendant on holy writ (or accentuation, prosody, and religious rites) (ब्रह्मविद्यां), the adjuration of spirits (भूतविद्यां, com. भूततंत्रं), the art of the soldier (क्षत्रविद्यां, com. धनुर्वेदं), the science of astronomy (नक्षत्रविद्यां), the charming of serpents (सर्पविद्यां), the science of demigods (or music and mechanical arts, गारुडं see page 39.): all this I have studied; yet do I only know the text, and have no knowledge of the soul.’”

c8.s1.18

¹ चत्वारो ऽस्य वेदा: शरीरं षडंगान्यंगानि। ओषधिवनस्पतयो लोमानि॥ “The four Vedas are her body; the six Angas her limbs; herbs and trees her hair.” See also the text frequently quoted from the Veda, ब्राह्मणेन षडंगो वेदो निष्कारणो ऽध्येयो ज्ञेयश्च॥ “The Veda, with its six members, ought to be known and understood by a Brahman without any further inducement.”

c8.s1.19

The six doctrines commonly comprehended under the title of Vedângas, are Śikshâ (pronunciation), Chhandas (metre), Vyâkaraṇa (grammar), Nirukta (explanation of words), Jyotisha (astronomy), and Kalpa (ceremonial). The first two are considered necessary for reading the Veda, the two next for understanding it, and the last two for employing it at sacrifices.

Śikshâ, or Phonetics

c8.s1.t1.1

Sâyaṇa, in his Commentary on the Rig-veda, defines Śikshâ as the science of the pronunciation of letters, accents, &c.; and he quotes from a work of the Taittirîyas, who have devoted a chapter of their Âraṇyaka to this subject. Now in the seventh book of the Taittirîya-Âraṇyaka we still find the following headings: “Let us explain the Śikshâ,”² “On Letters,”

c8.s1.t1.2

² शीक्षां व्याख्यायाम: The i in Śikshâ is short (hrasva), though it is strong (guru). It is only in the Âraṇyaka that Śikshâ

c8.s1.t1.3

“On Accents,” “On Quantity,” “On the Organs of Pronunciation,” “On Delivery,” “On Euphonic Laws.”

c8.s1.t1.4

Unless we admit that the rules on Śikshâ had formerly their place in this chapter of the Taittirîya-Âraṇyaka, it would be difficult to explain why all the principal subjects of the Śikshâ should be mentioned here, why the whole chapter should be called the Śikshâ chapter (ityuktaḥ śikshâdhyâyaḥ), and why it should begin with the words “Let us now explain the Śikshâ.” Sâyaṇa, who was certainly acquainted with the Vedic tradition, takes the same view in his Commentary on the Sânhitî-upanishad.¹ He states that the Taittirîya-upanishad consists of three parts ², of the Sânhitî, Yâjnikî, and Vâruṇî-upanishad. Of

c8.s1.t1.5

¹ I owe a copy of this Commentary of Sâyaṇa’s to the kindness of Dr. Röer, at Calcutta. Seeing, in the catalogue of manuscripts published by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, a work of Sâyaṇa’s, called Śikshâbhâshya, and imagining this to be a commentary on the Śikshâ-vedânga or one of the Prâtiśâkhyas, I wrote to Dr. Röer for a copy of it. Though I was ultimately disappointed when I found that it had nothing to do with the Prâtiśâkhyas, I still consider the Commentary of great interest, particularly Sâyaṇa’s introduction to the Vedânta-system in it. Dr. Röer has since published the whole Taittirîya-upanishad, with the Commentaries of Śankara and Ânanda Giri, in No. 22. of the Bibliotheca Indica.

c8.s1.t1.6

² सेयं तैत्तिरीयोपनिषत् त्रिविधा। सांहिती याज्ञिकी वारुणी चेति। तत्र प्रथमे प्रपाठके संहिताध्यानस्योक्तत्वात् जपोपनित्सांहिती। द्वितीयतृतीययोः प्रपाठकयोर्या ब्रह्म-

c8.s1.t1.7

occurs instead of Śikshâ. Śikshâ is derived from śak, to be able, and means originally a desire to know. From the same root we have śâkta, a teacher (Rv. vii. 103. 5.); śikshamaṇa, a pupil (Rv. vii. 103. 5.). Śishya, a pupil, comes from a different root. Sâyaṇa says, शिक्षन्ते वेदनायोपदिश्यन्ते स्वरवर्णादयो यत्रासौ शिक्षा। सैव शीक्षा॥ The other headings are, वर्णः। स्वरः। मात्रा। बलं। साम। संतानः। these the last is the most important, because it teaches the knowledge of the Divine Self. The first serves as an introduction or preparation, in order to bring the mind of the pupil into a proper state for receiving the doctrines on the highest subjects. Now immediately after the first invocation, the Upanishad begins with the Śikshâ chapter; and in order to explain this, Sâyaṇa remarks that this doctrine is necessary here, in order to enable the pupil to read and pronounce the sacred texts correctly, and thus to understand their real meaning.¹ It might be objected, Sâyaṇa remarks, that as a correct pronunciation is equally required for the earlier ceremonial portion of the Veda (Karma-kâṇḍa), the Śikshâ ought to have been inserted there. But then, he says, this chapter in its present place stands between the ceremonial and the philosophical portion of the Veda, like a lamp on the threshold of a door giving light to both. He adds, that a right pronunciation and understanding is of greater importance for the philosophical part; because mistakes in the sacrifices and the ceremonial can be made good by penance, while there is no penance for a wrong understanding of philosophical principles.

c8.s1.t1.8

¹ तस्माद्विद्यायामवैकल्याय यथाशास्त्रं बोद्धुमुपनिषत्पाठे प्रयत्नातिशयं विधातुमत्रैव शिक्षाध्यायो ऽभिधीयते॥ ॥ तस्य च ग्रंथस्यार्थज्ञानप्रधानत्वात्पाठे मा भूदौदासीन्यमित्येतदर्थे द्वितीयानुवाके शिक्षाध्यायो ऽभिधीयते।

c8.s1.t1.9

If then there is reason to believe that the doctrine

c8.s1.t1.10

विद्या विहिता तस्यां।&c. तासां तिसृणां मध्ये वारुणी मुख्या। of the Śikshâ was formerly embodied in the Âraṇyakas, perhaps even in the Brâhmaṇas¹, the question is, why it afterwards lost this place. This can only be accounted for by the appearance of more scientific treatises, which embraced the same subjects, but in a much more systematic style than anything which we could expect to meet with in the Brâhmaṇas and Âraṇyakas.

c8.s1.t1.11

¹ The passage from the Pushpa-sûtras (viii. 8.) which was quoted before, कालविनामपि प्रवचनविहितः स्वरः स्वाध्याये, does not prove that the rules on the accent were laid down in the Brâhmaṇa of the Kâlabavins, because it may also mean that the accented delivery of sacred texts was enjoined in the Brâhmaṇa.

c8.s1.t1.12

These were the Prâtiśâkhyas, a branch of literature which will claim our particular attention for more than one reason. If we compare the Prâtiśâkhyas with Brâhmaṇas and Âraṇyakas, they evidently indicate a considerable progress of the Indian mind. They were written for practical purposes; their style is free from cumbrous ornaments, and unnecessary subtleties. It is their object to teach and not to edify; to explain, not to discuss. Where the Brâhmaṇas or Âraṇyakas allude to grammatical, metrical, or etymological questions, they give nothing but theological and mystical dreams. So far from receiving elucidation, the points in question generally become involved in still greater darkness. It is not unlikely that teachers appealed to these passages of the Brâhmaṇas in order to derive from them the highest possible sanction for their doctrines. But these doctrines, if they were intended for use and instruction, must have been delivered in a more homely and more intelligible form. The origin of the Prâtiśâkhyas may therefore be accounted for in the following manner :—During the Brâhmaṇa period the songs of the Veda were preserved by oral tradition only: and as the spoken language of India had advanced and left the idiom of the Veda behind as a kind of antique and sacred utterance, it was difficult to preserve the proper pronunciation of the sacred hymns without laying down a certain number of rules on metre, accent, and pronunciation in general. The necessity, however, of such a provision could hardly have been felt until certain differences had actually arisen in different seats of Brahmanic learning. Thus, when the attempt was made to prevent a further corruption, a certain number of local varieties in accent and pronunciation, and in the recital of the hymns, had actually crept in and become sanctioned by the tradition of different families or schools. These could not be given up, nor was there any means of determining which was the ancient and most correct way of reciting the sacred songs of the Veda. Discussions having arisen on this subject, we find in the Brâhmaṇas occasional mention of verses which, if improperly pronounced, become changed in their meaning. But even where the sense of the Veda was not affected, the respect paid by each teacher, by each family, and by each Brahmanic community to its own established oral tradition, was sufficient to give an imaginary value to the slightest peculiarities of pronunciation, accent, or metre.

c8.s1.t1.13.1

A twofold advantage was gained when the rules and exceptions of the old sacred dialect were first reduced to a system. First, ancient dialectical differences, many of which are not so much attributable to corruptions as to the freedom of the old spoken language, were carefully preserved, and even apparent irregularities and exceptions were handed down as such, instead of being eliminated and forgotten. Secondly, a start was made towards a scientific study of language; by the collection of a large number of similar passages, general laws were elicited which afterwards served as the phonetic basis of a grammar like that of Pânini;—a work which, although ascribed to one author, must have required ages of observation and collection before its plan could be conceived or carried out by one individual. Even the Prâtiśâkhyas, though they do not refer to grammar properly so called, but principally to the phonetic laws of language, presuppose a long-continued study of grammatical subjects previous to the time of their composition. The best proof of this lies in the great number of authors quoted in the Prâtiśâkhyas, whose opinions are frequently at variance with the precepts contained in the Prâtiśâkhyas themselves. Though we are not now in possession of the works of these earlier authors, yet we have a right to assume that their doctrines existed formerly in the shape of Prâtiśâkhyas.

c8.s1.t1.13.2

In the same way as one only of the different Śâkhâs or recensions of the Rig-veda has been preserved to us in manuscript, the Śâkala-śâkhâ, which was followed by Śaunaka, we may understand how one only of the Prâtiśâkhyas of the Rig-veda has come down to us; particularly as its composition is ascribed to the same Śaunaka who is said to have united the Bâshkala and the Śâkala-śâkhâs, and who, as far as the Sanhitâ is concerned, was a follower of the Śaiśira-śâkhâ. Śaunaka’s Prâtiśâkhya of the Śâkalas, being one of the latest compositions of this kind, was probably also the most perfect and complete. As Śaunaka states the different opinions of Śâkala grammarians on important points, where he himself differs from them, his work was the more likely to supersede previous Prâtiśâkhyas, particularly at the time when the Vedic religion was on its decline, and Brâhmanic doctrines daily losing in influence. Though it is true that as yet only one Prâtiśâkhya belonging to each Veda has been found in manuscript, yet they all belong not to one of the four Vedas in general, but to one Śâkhâ of each of them. Prâtiśâkhya, therefore, does not mean, as has been supposed, a treatise on the phonetic peculiarities of each Veda, but a collection of phonetic rules peculiar to one of the different branches of the four Vedas, *i. e.* to one of those different texts in which each of the Vedas had been handed down for ages in different families and different parts of India.

c8.s1.t1.13.3

The differences between the Śâkhâs of the same Veda, as far as the words of the hymns are concerned, seem certainly not to have been very great, if we may judge from the few instances in which different Śâkhâs of the same Veda have been preserved in manuscripts. Most Śâkhâs do not differ in the general arrangement of the Sanhitâs, or collections of hymns, but merely in single words or verses. In a few cases only one Śâkhâ contains some hymns more than another. The Śâkhâs were not independent collections of the old hymns, but different editions of one and the same original collection, which in the course of a long continued oral tradition had become modified by slight degrees. The texts of the Veda as they existed and lived in the oral tradition of various sets of people became Śâkhâs differing from other Śâkhâs somewhat in the same way as the MSS. of the New Testament differ from each other. The Prâtiśâkhyas, besides giving general rules for the proper pronunciation of the Vedic language in general, were intended to record what was peculiar in the pronunciation of certain teachers and their schools. Even in cases where these schools had become extinct, we find the names of their founders, preserved as authorities on matters connected with the pronunciation of certain letters or words.

c8.s1.t1.14

The real object of the Prâtiśâkhyas, as shown before, was not to teach the grammar of the old sacred language, to lay down the rules of declension and conjugation, or the principles of the formation of words. This is a doctrine which, though it could not have been unknown during the Vedic period, has not been embodied, as far as we know, in any ancient work. The Prâtiśâkhyas are never called Vyâkaraṇas, grammars¹, and it is only incidentally that they allude to strictly grammatical questions. The perfect phonetic system on which Pâṇini’s grammar is built, is no doubt taken from the Prâtiśâkhyas; but the sources of Pâṇini’s strictly grammatical doctrines must be looked for elsewhere.

c8.s1.t1.15

¹ According to the first Prâtiśâkhya, i. 58., पादवच्चैव प्रेषान् their rules would seem to affect passages of the Brâhmaṇas too, like होता यक्षत्, &c.: and the Commentator adds, च्चु यज्ञच्चां तत्रैषेष्वापि। Most of these Praishas, however, are taken from the hymns; as, for instance, the words होता यक्षत्। Rv. i. 139. 10. This is different for the Yajur-veda where the general rules of the Prâtiśâkhya extend their influence to the sacrificial invocations.

c8.s1.t1.16

Although, then, there is no necessity to suppose that every one of the numerous Vedic Śâkhâs possessed full and complete Prâtiśâkhyas, like that belonging to the Śakala-śâkhâ, which was finally collected by Śaunaka, yet the great number of previous authorities quoted in our Prâtiśâkhyas makes it likely that a large number of similar works did actually exist for the principal Śâkhâs that are mentioned in earlier writings. In the Pratijnâpariśiṣṭa¹ it is stated that there were fifteen codes of law for the fifteen Śâkhâs of the Vâjasaneyins: and Kumârila says that the text of these Codes of law and of the Gṛihyas was peculiar in each Charaṇa, in the same manner as the formal rules of the Prâtiśâkhyas.² Madhusûdana Sarasvati’s definition of Prâtiśâkhya is perfectly in accordance with this view of the subject. He says:—“The Veda³ consists of two parts: one teaching the sacrifice, the other teaching Brahman, or the Supreme Being. As there are three different branches of the ceremonial, the Veda is, for the better performance of the sacrifices, divided into three: the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, and Sâma-Veda. The ceremonial of the Hotṛ priests is performed with the Rig-Veda; that of the Adhvaryu priests with the Yajur-Veda; that of the Udgâtṛ priests with the Sâma-Veda. The duties of the Brahman priests, and of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, are also contained in these three Vedas. The Atharva-Veda is not used for solemn sacrifices, and is very different from the others, as it teaches only expiatory, preservative, or imprecatory rites. For each Veda there are several Śâkhâs, and their differences arise from various readings."¹ Afterwards he goes on to observe that "the rules of pronunciation (śikshâ), which apply to all the Vedas in general, have been explained by Pâṇini, but that the same rules, as they apply to the Śâkhâs of each Veda, have been taught by other sages under the title of Prâtiśâkhyas."² If

c8.s1.t1.17

¹ MS. Bodl. W. 510.: तेषां पंचदश यथास्वरं प्रतिष्ठाः प्रतिशाखं च कुलधर्माः। The meaning of “Yathâsvaram pratiṣṭhâs” is doubtful. Should it mean “rules with reference to accents?” If so, they would be the rules of Prâtiśâkhyas. That the Śâkhâs differed about the accents is seen in the case of the Mâṇḍukeyas and Śâkalas. Prâtiśâkhya I. 200. Kâtyâyana, as the author of a Prâtiśâkhya, is called खरसंस्कारप्रतिष्ठापयिता॥

c8.s1.t1.18

² Tantra V. I. 3. (MS. Bodl. W. 325. p. 15 b.) धर्मशास्त्राणां गृह्यग्रंथानां च प्रातिशाख्यलक्षणप्रतिचरणं पाठव्यवस्थोपलभ्यते।

c8.s1.t1.19

³ Veda is taken here in the general sense of sacred literature, as Uvaṭa says, सर्वकालं सर्वदेशेषु प्रतिचरणमविभागेनैकको मंत्रराशिर्वेद इत्युच्यते। “Every single collection of hymns which existed at any time, and in any place, without reference to the divisions in each Charaṇa (sect), is called Veda.”

c8.s1.t1.20

¹ According to Madhusûdana, the Brahman part of the Veda, by which he can only mean the Upanishads, is not affected by the peculiarities of the Śâkhâs. If this were true, it would only prove the late origin of the Upanishads. Some Upanishads, however, show traces of various readings, which must properly be attributed to various Śâkhâs. This is admitted, for instance, by Sâyaṇa, in his Commentary on the Yâjnikî or Narâyaṇîyâ-upanishad. "Tadîyapâṭhasampradâyo deśaviśesheshu bahuvidho dṛiśyate; tatra yadyapi śâkhâbhedaḥ kâraṇam tathâpi Taittirîyâdhyâyakais tat- taddeśanivâsibhiḥ śishṭair âdṛitatvât, sarvo'pi pâṭha upâdeya eva." Ind. Stud. i. 76.

c8.s1.t1.21

² See also Someśvara's Tantra-vârttikaṭîkâ. (MS. E. I. H. 1030. p. 95.)

c8.s1.t1.22

साधारणी विशेषविषया च द्विविधा शिक्षा। तत्र साधारण्या we here take the word śâkhâs (branches) in the sense of different tradition texts of the four Vedas, Madhusûdana’s words do not require any alteration; they would become obscure if, as has been proposed, we took śâkhâ either in the sense of “a school” or of “a portion of the Veda.”

c8.s1.t1.23

The word śâkhâ is used, however, by some writers in so vague a manner that we need not wonder if its meaning has sometimes been misapprehended. “Traditional text (recension) of the Veda” is perhaps the nearest approach to its real meaning.

c8.s1.t1.24

The word is sometimes applied to the three original Sanhitâs, the Rig-veda-sanhitâ, Yajur-veda-sanhitâ, and Sâma-veda-sanhitâ¹, in their relation to one another, and without any reference to subordinate śâkhâs

c8.s1.t1.25

¹ It is said of Sâyaṇa that he wrote commentaries on each of the Śâkhâs of the Ṛich, Yajush and Sâma.

c8.s1.t1.26

वेदांगत्वेन धर्मप्रामाण्ये ऽपि कात्यायनादिप्रणीताया विशेषविषयायाः प्रतिवाक्यं प्रतिपदं चोच्चारणं नियच्छंत्या धर्मप्रमाणाभावाशंकानिराकरणार्थं पृथगुपादाने ऽपि शिक्षात्वेनैक्यान्नातिरेकापत्तिः।

c8.s1.t1.27

“There are two kinds of Śikshâ, a general and one which has regard to particulars. It is true that the authority of the general Śikshâ is established, on account of its belonging to the Vedângas; but in order to remove all doubt as to the authority of the particular Śikshâs, published by Kâtyâyana and others, which determine the pronunciation of each sentence and each word, it is clear that it is not different from the other, inasmuch as both are one by their common character of Śikshâ, although they are spoken of separately.

c8.s1.t1.28

ऋग्यजुःसामशाखानामेकैका व्याकृता त्वया। तावता तत्समानार्था ज्ञातुं शक्यास्ततः पराः॥

c8.s1.t1.29

Ekaika could hardly mean “one from among the Śâkhâs of each Veda.”

c8.s1.t1.30

belonging to each of them. They may be called the original branches or the three stems of the Veda-tree, each of them branching off again in a number of other śâkhâs. The "branches," as Kumârila says, have all the same root, revelation (śruti), and they bear all the same fruit, the sacrifice (karma). If otherwise, they would be different trees, not different branches.¹ In the same acceptation the word is used for instance by Âpastamba, where he is giving rules as to the time and place where the Veda ought not to be read. He says there (Sâm. Sûtra, 3. 44, 45,) that it ought not to be rehearsed where music or Sâma-hymns are performed, and he adds, that Sâma-hymns ought not to be practised in the neighbourhood of another śâkhâ, that is, as the commentator observes, of another Veda.²

c8.s1.t1.31

¹ यदि प्रतिशाखं कर्मभेदः स्यात् तत एकमूलाभावादादित एवारभ्य भिद्यमानत्वात् समस्तकर्माख्यफलांतरत्वात् वृक्षांतरवद् वेदांतराख्येवोच्चेरन् न शाखांतराणि॥

c8.s1.t1.32

² गीतिशब्दाश्च सामशब्दाश्च एते श्रूयमाणा अनध्यायहेतवः॥ शाखांतरे च साम्नामध्यायः॥ ४५॥ वेदांतरसकाशे साम नाध्येयं॥ The first Sûtra is paraphrased by the Mânavas, iv. 123., सामध्वनावृग्यजुषी नाधीयीत कदाचन॥

c8.s1.t1.33

More frequently, however, śâkhâ is used to signify the various editions, or, more properly, the various traditions, that branched off from each of the three original branches of the Veda. In this latter sense śâkhâ seems sometimes synonymous with charaṇa. But there was originally an important difference in the meaning of these two terms.

c8.s1.t1.34

In order to appreciate the difference between śâkhâ and charaṇa, it need only be remembered that we find “śâkhâm adhîte,” “he reads a certain recension of the Veda,” but never “charaṇam adhîte,” still less “parishadam adhîte,” “he reads a Charaṇa or a Parishad.” Hence it is clear that śâkhâ means originally a literary work, and that Charaṇa does not. If śâkhâ is sometimes used in the sense of charaṇa or sect, this is because in India the śâkhâs existed in reality not as written books, but only in the tradition of the Charaṇas, each member of a Charaṇa representing what, in our modern times, we should call the copy of a book.

c8.s1.t1.35

The Brahmans themselves were fully aware of this difference between śâkhâ and charaṇa. In a Vârttika to Pâṇini, iv. 1. 63., we find charaṇa explained by śâkhâdhyetṛi, &c., “the readers of a śâkhâ.” In a passage of Jagaddhara’s Commentary on Mâlatîmâdhava, Charaṇa is said to mean “a number of men who are pledged to the reading of a certain śâkhâ of the Veda, and who have in this manner become one body.”¹ Pâṇini² speaks of Charaṇas as constituting a multitude, that is to say, as comprising a number of followers. In Âpastamba’s Sâmayâchârika-sûtras, where rules are given as to the relative age of persons who ought to be saluted, the Châraṇas or members of the same Charaṇa are mentioned immediately after the Pauraśâkhyam, or town acquaintances; and in the third place stand the Śrotriya-Brahmans.¹ Pāṇini speaks of the Kâṭhaka and Kalâpaka as works belonging to the Charaṇas of the Kaṭhas and Kalâpas.² In a Vârttika to iv. 1. 63., women are mentioned as belonging to a Charaṇa; for Kaṭhî is the wife or daughter of a Brahman who belongs to the Charaṇa, or reads the Śâkhâ, of the Kaṭhas. A śâkhâ, which is always a portion of the Śruti, cannot properly include law books. But followers of certain Śâkhâs might well, in the course of time, adopt a code of laws, which, as it was binding on their Charaṇa only, would naturally go by the name of their Charaṇa. That this actually took place may be seen from a Vârttika to Pāṇ. iv. 3. 120., where it is said that Kâṭhaka may be used not only for the sacred traditions, but also for the laws of the Kaṭhas. Thus the Prâtiśâkhyas also were called by the name of the Charaṇas, because they were the exclusive property of the readers of certain śâkhâs, and even more so than the Kuladharmas or family-laws.

c8.s1.t1.36

¹ चरणशब्दः शाखाविशेषअध्ययनपरैकतापन्नजनसंघवाची। Cf. Zur Litteratur, p. 57

c8.s1.t1.37

² Pâṇ. iv. 2. 46. चरणेभ्यो धर्मवत् scil. समूहार्थे.

c8.s1.t1.38

¹ Âp. i. 4. 4. The Commentator says that चारणशब्दः शा-खाध्यायिषु रूढः। Châraṇa, therefore, means a member of a Charaṇa. Lassen (Ind. Alterthumsk. i. 640.) takes Châraṇa in the sense of wandering poets, so named still in Western India.

c8.s1.t1.39

² Pāṇ. iv. 3. 126. गोत्रचरणेष्वाञ् scil. इदमर्थे.

c8.s1.t1.40

As a śâkhâ consisted of a Sanhitâ as well as a Brâhmaṇa, at all events in later times, differences in the text of the hymns, as well as discrepancies in the Brâhmaṇas, might lead to the establishment of new Charaṇas, founded as they were on sacred texts peculiar to themselves.³ Śâkhâs of this kind, which differed through the various readings of the Śruti, were considered by the Brahmans as eternal śâkhâs, and the Caraṇas, to which they belonged, were not supposed to have been founded by human authors.¹ It will be seen hereafter that the Brahmans admitted another class of śâkhâs, which were founded on Sûtras² and derived their names from historical personages. They were confessedly of a later date.

c8.s1.t1.41

³ Mahâdeva’s Hiraṇyakeśibhâshya: स्वाध्यायदेशो मंत्रब्राह्मणात्मकः शाखेत्युच्यते। तयोर्मंत्र-

c8.s1.t1.42

¹ अध्ययनभेदाच्छाखाभेदो ऽनादिः। "The various śâkhâs which arise from various readings are eternal."

c8.s1.t1.43

² शाखभेदे ऽध्ययनभेदादा सूत्रभेदादा। आश्वलायनीयं कात्यायनीयं च सूत्रं हि भिन्नाध्ययनयोर्द्वयोः शाखयोरेकमेव। तैत्तिरीयके मम्नाये समानाध्ययने नाना सूत्राणि। Mahâdeva's Commentary on the Hiraṇyakeśi-sûtra.

c8.s1.t1.44

But although, after a careful examination of these passages, we cannot doubt that there was an original difference between śâkhâ and caraṇa, it is not the less certain that these two words were frequently used synonymously³; in the same way as we may speak of the Jews when we mean the Old Testament, or of the Koran when we mean the Mohammedans.

c8.s1.t1.45

³ Cf. Nirukta, i. 17., where सर्वचरणानां is explained by सर्वशाखांतराणां। and Pâṇ. ii. 4. 3. चरणः शाखा। Pâṇ. vi. 3. 86.

c8.s1.t1.46

ब्राह्मणयोरन्यतरभेदेन वेदे ऽवांतरशाखाभेदः स्यादिति चेत् सत्यं॥

c8.s1.t1.47

"Any portion of oral tradition consisting of Mantras and Brâhmaṇas is called a śâkhâ, and it is clear that differences of either the Mantras or Brâhmaṇas will necessarily lead, in the Veda, to a variety of subordinate śâkhâs."

c8.s1.t1.48

After having established the difference between śâkhâ and charaṇa, we have still to inquire how both differ from parishad, in order to determine the meaning of Pârshada, another title which is frequently applied to the Prâtiśâkhyas. Here it is important to observe that although every Prâtiśâkhya may be called a Pârshada¹, *i. e.* a work belonging to a Parishad, not every Pârshada can be called a Prâtiśâkhya, but those only which contain the rules of pronunciation for a particular śâkhâ or text of the Vedic hymns, studied and taught in certain Parishads.² Amara explains parishad by sabhâ or goshṭhi, an assembly; but the codes of law lay down more accurately the number, age, and qualifications of the Brahmans, necessary to form such an assembly as should be competent to give decisions on all points on which the people, or, if we may say so, the parishioners, might demand advice. That such Parishads or Brahmanic settlements existed in old times, we see in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka³, where it is said that Śvetaketu went to the Parishad of the Panchâlas, and many similar passages. The character of a Parishad is described in Manu's Code of Laws, xii. 110—113., and by Yâjnavalkya, i. 9., where we have the contracted form Parshad instead of Parishad. According to the ideas of these modern writers a Parishad ought to consist of twenty-one Brâhmans well versed in philosophy, theology, and law.¹ This number, however, can be reduced according to circumstances, as will be seen from passages of Parâsara's Dharmaśâstra. It must not be supposed that the rules laid down in these law-books have always been observed in the formation of a Parishad, particularly as regards the early times of India; yet we may be able to form some conception of their original character, by seeing what has become of them in later times. Parâsara says²: "Four, or even three able men from amongst the Brâhmans in a village, (grâmamadhye) who know the Veda, and keep the sacrificial fire, form a Parishad.

c8.s1.t1.49

¹ Pârshada, instead of Pârishada. Cf. Pân. iv. 3. 123.

c8.s1.t1.50

² I doubt the existence of a word like माध्यंदिनपार्षदं, which Dr. Roth mentions (Zur Litteratur, p. 16.). One may speak of पंचालानां परिषद् or वत्सानां परिषद् &c., and a Prâtiśâkhya current in one of these Parishads may, perhaps, be called वत्सपार्षदं. But माध्यंदिन is not the name of a Parishad, but of a Śâkhâ; and therefore the Commentary on Gobhila speaks of माध्यंदिनशाखीयप्रातिशाख्यं। but could not well have spoken of a वत्सशाखीयप्रातिशाख्यं॥

c8.s1.t1.51

³ Bṛih. Âr. vi. 2. श्वेतकेतुर्ह वा आरुणेयः पंचालानां परिषद्माजगाम॥

c8.s1.t1.52

¹ एकविंशतिसंख्याकैर्मीमांसान्यायपारगैः। वेदांगकुशलैस्तैैव परिषत्त्वं प्रकल्पयेत्॥

c8.s1.t1.53

² चत्वारो वा त्रयो वापि वेदवंतो ऽग्निहोत्रिणः। ब्रह्मणानां समर्था ये परिषत्सा विधीयते॥ अनाहिताग्नयो ये ऽन्ये वेदवेदांगपारगाः। पंच त्रयो वा धर्मज्ञाः परिषत्सा प्रकीर्तिता॥ मुनीनामात्मविद्यानां द्विजानां यज्ञयाजिनां। वेदव्रतेषु स्नातानामेको ऽपि परिषद्भवेत्॥ पंच पूर्वं मया प्रोक्तास्तेषां वासंभवे त्रयः। खट्च्निपरिपुष्टा ये परिषत्सा प्रकीर्तिता॥

c8.s1.t1.54

“Or, if they do not keep the sacrificial fire, five or three who have studied the Vedas and Vedângas, and know the law, may well form a Parishad.

c8.s1.t1.55

“Of old sages who possess the highest knowledge of the Divine Self, who are twice-born, perform sacrifices, and have purified themselves in the duties of the Veda, one, also, may be considered as a Parishad.

c8.s1.t1.56

“Thus, five kinds of Parishads have been described by me; but if they all fail, three independent men may form a Parishad.”

c8.s1.t1.57

Mâdhava, in his Commentary on Parâśara, quotes a similar passage¹ from Bṛihaspati’s Code:—“Where seven, five, or three Brahmans, who know the customs of the world, the Vedângas (or the Vedas and the Angas), and the law, have settled, that assembly is like a sacrifice.” The real difference, therefore, between a Charaṇa and a Parishad, seems to be that the former signifies an ideal succession of teachers and pupils who learn and teach a certain branch of the Veda; while the latter means a settlement of Brahmans, a community or college to which members of any Charaṇa might belong. Thus members of the same Charaṇa might be fellows of different Parishads, and fellows of the same Parishad might be members of different Charaṇas.²

c8.s1.t1.58

¹ लोकवेदांगधर्मज्ञाः सप्त पंच त्रयो वापि। यत्रोपविष्टा विप्राः स्युः सा यज्ञसदृशी सभा॥

c8.s1.t1.59

² See Gobhilabhâshya, MS. W. 72. p. 71. a. आचार्यं सपरिषत्कं भोजयेत्ब्रह्मचारिणश्च॥ Com. सह परिषदा शिष्यगणेन वर्तत इति सपरिषत्कः तं। समानं तुल्यकालं ब्रह्मचारित्वं येषां त इमेऽन्यशाखिनोऽपि सब्रह्मचारिणः सवयसो

c8.s1.t1.60

Now as Pârshada may be used as the title of any work that belonged to a Parishad, or formed, so to say, the traditional library of the Pârshadyas, it is clear that this title could not be confined to the Prâtiśâkhyas, though it would necessarily include them. If a follower of the Śâkala-charaṇa was a fellow of the Vatsa-parishad, the Śâkala-prâtiśâkhya would necessarily be one of the Pârshada works of the Vatsas, and the Parishad of the Vatsas would through this fellow be connected with the Śâkala-charaṇa. This is what Durga means when in the Commentary on the Nirukta¹ he says "that those Pârshadas only are called Prâtiśâkhyas which are adopted in a Parishad of one's own Charaṇa for teaching certain grammatical doctrines connected with the reading of the Veda according to one or the other Śâkhâ." The Prâtiśâkhyas are in fact a subdivision of the Pârshada books, and ऽभिधीयन्ते॥ The expression इत्येके, "thus say some," which occurs frequently in the Sûtras, is stated to refer to different Śâkhâs, उत्तरमित्येके॥ Com. इत्येवमेके शाखिन आङ्गः। एक इति स्वमतव्युदासार्थं परशाखाप्रदर्शनार्थं च। एवमेके मन्यते न गोभिल इत्यर्थः। Nârāyaṇa's Commentary on Gobhila, MS. W. 72. page 23. b.

c8.s1.t1.61

¹ Nir. i. 17. किं पार्षदानि। स्वचरणपर्षद्येव यैः प्रतिशाखं नियतमेव पदावग्रहप्रगृह्यक्रमसंहितास्वरलक्षणमुच्यते तानीमानि पार्षदानि प्रातिशाख्यानीत्यर्थः॥

c8.s1.t1.62

"Those Pârshada books by which in a Parishad (parish or college) of one's own Charaṇa (sect), the peculiarities of accent, Sanhitâ and Krama-reading, of Pragṛihya-vowels and separation of words, are laid down as enjoined for and restricted to certain Śâkhâs (branches or recensions of the Veda), are called Prâtiśâkhyas."

c8.s1.t1.63

in this sense it might well be said that Prâtiśâkhya is an adjective to Pârshada.¹

c8.s1.t1.64

¹ See Dr. Roth, Zur Litteratur, p. 58.

c8.s1.t1.65.1

After the true meaning of Śâkhâ, Charaṇa, and Parishad, of Prâtiśâkhya and Pârshada, has thus been determined, we have still to inquire about those other works, which together with the Prâtiśâkhyas were mentioned as the peculiar property of the Charaṇas. I mean the Kula-dharmas, or law books. They of course could not be called Prâtiśâkhyas, but they might claim the title of Châraṇas, (a name which has not been met with,) or Pârshadas. Now we saw before that Âpastamba actually refers to the Parishads in his Sâmayâchârikâ-sûtras (1. 11.), where, after having pointed out the days on which the Veda ought not to be repeated, he remarks, that farther particulars on this point are to be found in the Parishads.² What does this mean? All that Haradatta has to say in the commentary on this very passage, is that by Parishads must here be understood the Mânava, Vâsishṭha, and other Dharmaśâstras.³ These Dharmaśâstras, however, as we now possess them, betray their comparatively modern origin by their form and metre, and occasionally by their matter also. As many of them have been printed at Calcutta, it may be seen that the majority of these small Śloka works are utterly worthless. They were probably made up only in order to fill the gap which had been occasioned by the loss of ancient legal works. This loss was felt the more severely because the names of the old authors retained their celebrity, and were still quoted in common practice and courts of law.

c8.s1.t1.65.2

I have succeeded, however, in recovering in manuscript large portions of the Kula-dharmas, which are written in Sûtras, as might be expected in works contemporaneous with the Prâtiśâkhyas. It has been thought that the sources of Manu and other Dharmaśâstras must be looked for in the Gṛihya-sûtras. This is not quite correct. The Gṛihya-sûtras are concerned chiefly with the Sanskâras, or domestic sacraments, extending from the birth to the marriage of a man, and in so far only as these sacraments form a portion of the subjects treated in the Dharmaśâstras, the Gṛihya-sûtras might be considered as their original sources. But then the same might be said of the Śrauta-sûtras, because the solemn sacrifices prescribed by them are likewise alluded to in the Codes of Law. By far the greater portion, however, of these codes is taken up with Âchâra, *i. e.* laws, manners, and customs. The difference between these observances and the ceremonies laid down in the other two branches of Sûtras is this: the domestic sacraments (gṛihya), as well as the solemn sacrifices (śrauta), are administered by parents or priests for the good of their children and pupils, while the Âchâra comprises all the duties which are to be performed by an individual on his own behalf.¹ These duties refer to the different castes, and to the respective occupations of each.

c8.s1.t1.65.3

The rules of discipline for the young student, the occupations of the married man, the law of inheritance, the duties of the king, the administration of the law, are accurately detailed in these Sûtras. They are of great importance for forming a correct view of the old state of society in India, and the loss of the larger number of them is greatly to be regretted. Their general title is Sâmayâchârika-sûtras, or Dharmasûtras, and they form the third part to the Śrauta and Gṛihya-sûtras. Thus we have, besides the Śrauta and Gṛihya-sûtras of Âpastamba, a collection of Sâmayâchârika-sûtras belonging to the same Charaṇa of the Âpastambas, the members of which, as Kumârila tells us, followed one of the Śâkhâs of the Taittirîya-veda. Another collection of Dharmasûtras, which, however, is liable to critical doubts, belongs to the Gautamas, a Charaṇa of the Sâma-veda. It has been printed at Calcutta. A third one bears the name of Vishṇu, and has been printed at Calcutta, enlarged by modern additions written in Ślokas. The Vâsishṭha-dharma-śâstra, printed at Calcutta, belongs likewise, at least in part, to this class of Dharmasûtras. Whether we shall succeed in finding still more of these Sûtra works is questionable, though prose quotations from other Dharmaśâstras would justify this expectation. There can be no doubt, however, that all the genuine metrical Dharmaśâstras

c8.s1.t1.66

² अन्यतः परिषत्सु॥

c8.s1.t1.67

³ अत एतस्मादनध्यायप्रकरणादन्यदनध्यायनिमित्तं परिषत्सु मानवादिषु धर्मशास्त्रेषु यथोक्तं तथा द्रष्टव्यं। तत्र वासिष्ठः। &c.

c8.s1.t1.68

¹ The threefold division of Dharma is pointed out by the Prayogavaijayantî. (MS. Bodl. W. 68, p. 16. a.) तैः प्रत्येकं मितो धर्मस्त्रिविधः परिकीर्तितः॥४३॥ अनेनैवाभिप्रायेणाह बौधा-

c8.s1.t1.69

यनः। उपरिष्ठ धर्मः प्रतिवेदं तस्यानु व्याख्यास्यामः (sic.)। स्मार्तो द्वितीयः। शिष्टाचारस्तृतीय इति॥

c8.s1.t1.70

“Baudhâyana says, the highest law is that contained in each Veda, which we shall follow in our explanation ; the second is the traditional law; the third, the customs of eminent sages.”

c8.s1.t1.71

which we possess now, are, without any exception, nothing but more modern texts of earlier Sûtra-works or Kula-dharmas belonging originally to certain Vedic Charanas.¹

c8.s1.t1.72

¹ See Prof. Stenzler’s Introduction to his edition of Yâjnavalkya, and his remarks on Indian Law-books in Indische Studien, i. 232.

c8.s1.t1.73

To return to those works of the Pârshada literature which are known by the name of Prâtisâkhyas, I may refer for further particulars to Dr. Roth’s valuable observations on this branch of literature. To him belongs the merit of having first pointed out in manuscript four of these works. The first is ascribed to Saunaka, and belongs to the Sâkala-sâkhâ of the Rig-veda. I call it the Sâkala-prâtisâkhya, not the Saisira-prâtisâkhya, though it pretends to follow, like Saunaka’s Anukramanî, the Sanhitâ of the Saisirîya-sâkhâ, which is itself a subordinate branch of the Sâkala-sâkhâ.² Sîsira, however, is never mentioned in this or any other Prâtisâkhya, as an authority on grammatical questions.

c8.s1.t1.74

² इदं शास्त्रं पार्षदख्यमखिलं सम्पूर्णमुत्तरत्र वक्ष्ये वक्ष्याम इत्यर्थः। शैशिरीये पारायणपाठ इति वाक्यशेषः। शैशिरीयायां संहितायामित्यर्थः। शैशिरी संहिता शिशिरदृष्टत्वात्। तथा पुराणे उक्तं। मुद्गलो गोकुलो वात्स्यः शैशिरः शिशिरस्तथा। पञ्चैते शाकलाः शिष्याः शाखाभेदप्रवर्तका इति। तथा च ऋग्वेदे शैशिरीयायां संहितायामिति। यथा ऋग्वेदे पारायणाम्नाये शाकल्ये शैशिरीयकमिति वा। The verses to which the commentary refers are not in the MS. See also Vishnu Purana. p. 277. n. ऋग्वेदे शैशिरीयायां संहितायां

c8.s1.t1.75

It is doubtful how far the rules given by Saunaka in his Prâtiśâkhya, can be considered as representing the general opinion of the Śâkalas. Śaunaka, no doubt, wrote for the Śâkalas, to whom he likewise addresses his Anukramanî. But the author of the Prâtiśâkhya occasionally quotes the opinions of the Śâkalas, as different from his own, and speaks of them in the same manner as he alludes to the opinions of other grammarians. He mentions (i. 65.) the Śâkalas as observing a certain peculiar pronunciation out of respect for their master, who seems to have sanctioned it in his own rules. Who this master was is difficult to say. But it is most likely the same who (i. 52.) is called the Master, Vedamitra (friend of the Veda), and who (i. 223.) is called Śâkalyapitâ, the father of Śâkalya. His opinions, if we may judge by i. 232., differed from those of the younger Śâkalya. In i. 185. we meet with him again under the name of Śâkalya Sthavira, Śâkalya the elder, and he is there represented as advocating a pronunciation from which Śaunaka, the author of the Prâtiśâkhya, dissents. In i. 199. Śaunaka adopts the opinion of Śâkalya, and in i. 208. he likewise mentions him with approbation. But all this would only tend to show that Śaunaka does not consider himself bound to follow either Śâkalya or the father of Śâkalya, implicitly.¹

c8.s1.t1.76

¹ In xiii. 12. Śâkalya is mentioned as one of three Âchâryas, Vyâḷi, Śâkalya, Gârgya.

c8.s1.t1.77

There is not a single MS. at present existing of the Rig-veda in which the rules of our Prâtiśâkhya are uniformly observed, and the same applies to the MSS.

c8.s1.t1.78

यथाक्रमं। प्रमाणमनुवाकानां सूक्तैः शृणुत शाकलाः॥ Com. मैशिरीयायां शिशिरनाममहर्षिप्रोक्तायां॥ of the other Vedas. The rules of the Prâtiśâkhyas were not intended for written literature, they were only to serve as a guide in the instruction of pupils who had to learn the text of the Veda by heart, and to repeat it, as part of their daily devotions. As Śaunaka was himself a member of the Śâkalas, we may quote his Prâtiśâkhya as the Śâkala-prâtiśâkhya. But strictly speaking it could only be called one of the Śâkala-prâtiśâkhyas, preserved by the pupils of Śaunaka, who, soon after, formed themselves into a new Charaṇa, under the name of Śaunakîyas.¹

c8.s1.t1.79

¹ This Prâtiśâkhya has lately been edited by M. A. Regnier, in the "Journal Asiatique."

c8.s1.t1.80

The second Prâtiśâkhya belongs to the ancient text of the Yajur-veda. There is only one MS. of it at the Bodleian Library, together with a considerable portion of the Commentary, the Tribhâshyaratna. Professor Wilson, in his catalogue of the Mackenzie Collection (i. 7, No. xxxiii.) mentions another MS., "The Prâtiśâkhya of the Yajur-veda, with a Bhâshya or comment, entitled Tribhâshyaratna, from its being said to be the substance of the works of three celebrated sages, Atreya, Mahisha, and Vararuchi." To what particular Śâkhâ of the Black Yajur-veda this Prâtiśâkhya belonged it is difficult to determine. It quotes several of the Charaṇas, belonging to the Black Yajur-veda, such as Taittirîyakas, Âhvarakas, Ukhya, the founder of the Aukhîyas, and Bhâradvâja, the founder of the Bhâradvâjins. It also alludes to Mîmânsakas, a school of philosophers, mentioned in none of the other Prâtiśâkhyas. Until we receive some more complete MSS. of this work we can only say that it belongs to some Śâkhâ of the Taittirîya or Black Yajur-veda. Its grammatical terminology, as might be expected, is less advanced and less artificial than that of the Prâtiśâkhya of the modern or White Yajur-veda.

c8.s1.t1.81

The third Prâtiśâkhya is ascribed to the Śâkhâ of the Mâdhyandinas, one of the subdivisions of the Vâjasaneyins¹; though, perhaps, on the same grounds as those stated above with regard to the Śâkala-prâtiśâkhya, it might seem more correct to call it the Prâtiśâkhya of the Kâtyâyanîyas, a subdivision of the Mâdhyandinas. It was composed by Kâtyâyana, and shows a considerable advance in grammatical technicalities. There is nothing in its style that could be used as a tenable argument why Kâtyâyana, the author of the Prâtiśâkhya should not be the same as Kâtyâyana, the contemporary and critic of Pânini. It is true that Pânini's rules are intended for a language which was no longer the pure Sanskrit of the Vedas. The Vedic idiom is treated by him as an exception, whereas Kâtyâyana's Prâtiśâkhya seems to belong to a period when there existed but one recognised literature, that of the Rishis. This, however, is not quite the case. Kâtyâyana himself alludes to the fact that there were at least two languages. "There are two words," he says (i. 17.) ², "om and atha, both used in the beginning of a chapter; but om is used in the Vedas, atha in the Bhâshyas." As Kâtyâyana himself writes in the Bhâshya or the common language, there is no reason why he should not have composed rules on the grammar of the profane Sanskrit, as well as on the pronunciation of the Vedic idiom.

c8.s1.t1.82

¹ It has been edited by Prof. Weber, Indische Studien, vol. iv.

c8.s1.t1.83

² Indische Studien, iv. p. 103.

c8.s1.t1.84

Some of Kâtyâyana's Sûtras are now found repeated *ipsissimis verbis* in Pânini’s grammar. This might seem strange; but we know that not all the Sûtras now incorporated in his grammar came from Pânini himself, and it is most likely that Kâtyâyana, in writing his supplementary notes to Pânini, simply repeated some of his Prâtiśâkhya-sûtras, and that, at a later time, some of these so-called Vârttikas became part of the text of Pânini.

First 107 of 406 passages. Read on

Cites (61)