Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9.s2: The Brâhmaṇas

A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9.s2

Language
English

Contents

The Brâhmaṇas

c9.s2.1

The difficulty of giving an exhaustive definition of what a Brâhmaṇa is, has been felt by the Brahmans themselves. The name given to this class of literature does not teach us more than that these works belonged to the Brahmans. They were brahmanic, *i. e.* theological tracts, comprising the knowledge most valued by the Brahmans, bearing partly on their sacred hymns, partly on the traditions and customs of the people. They profess to teach the performance of the sacrifice; but for the greater part they are occupied with additional matter; with explanations and illustrations of things more or less distantly connected with their original faith and their ancient ceremonial.

c9.s2.2

Sâyaṇa, in his introduction to the Rig-veda ¹, has given such extracts from the Pûrva-mîmânsâ philosophy as may furnish a pretty correct idea of the Brâhmaṇas, and he has treated the same subject again in his Introduction to the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa.

c9.s2.3

¹ Rig-veda-bhâshya, p. 11.

c9.s2.4

“A Brâhmaṇa,” he says, “is twofold, containing either commandments (vidhi), or additional explanations (arthavâda). This is confirmed by Âpastamba, saying: ‘The Brâhmaṇas are commandments for the sacrifices; all the rest consists of additional explanations.’ The commandments, too, are of two kinds, either causing something to be done, which was not done before, or making something known which was not known before. Of the former kind are all those commandments occurring in the prac-

c9.s2.5

tical part, such as, ‘At the Dîkshaṇîyâ ceremony he presents a puroḍâśa oblation to Agni and Vishṇu.’ Of the latter kind are all philosophical passages, such as, ‘Self was all this alone in the beginning.’

c9.s2.6

“But how can it be said,” Sâyaṇa goes on, “that the Veda consists of Mantras and Brâhmaṇas, as the essential qualities neither of the one nor of the other part can be satisfactorily defined? For if it be said that a Mantra alludes to those things which are commanded, this definition would not comprehend all Mantras, because there are some which are themselves commandments, as, for instance, ‘He takes Kapinjalas for the Spring.’ Again, if it be said that a Mantra is what makes one think (man, to think), this definition would comprehend the Brâhmaṇas also. Other definitions have been given, that a Mantra ends with the word ‘thou art,’ or that it ends with the first person plural; but none of these definitions can be considered as exhaustive. The only means, then, by which Mantras can be distinguished from Brâhmaṇas lies in their general sacrificial appellation, which comprehends the most different things under the one common name of Mantras. There are some recording the performance of sacrifices; some contain praises, some end with the word thee (tvâ), some are invocations, some are directions, some contain deliberations, some contain complaints, some are questions, some are answers, &c. All these attributes are so heterogeneous, that none of them can be used for a definition. Knowing, however, that the Veda consists only of two parts, we may say that whatever does not come under the name of Mantra is Brâhmaṇa, whether it contain reasons, explanations, censures, recommendations, doubts, commandments, relations, old stories, or particular determinations. Not one of these subjects belongs to the Brâhmaṇas exclusively, but they occur more or less frequently in the Mantras also, and could therefore not be used as definitions of the Brâhmaṇas. The same objection applies to all other definitions which have been attempted. Some have said that the frequent occurrence of the particle *iti* (thus) constitutes a Brâhmaṇa; others, that a Brâhmaṇa closes with the words *ityâha* (thus he said); others that a Brâhmaṇa contains stories, &c.; but all this would apply with equal force to some of the Mantras. The only division therefore of the Veda that holds good consists in comprehending one part under the old traditional appellation of Mantra, and considering all the rest as Brâhmaṇas.

c9.s2.7

“But it might be objected,” Sâyaṇa continues, “that for instance in the chapter on the Brahmayajna, other parts of the Veda are mentioned besides the Brâhmaṇas and Mantras, under the title of Itihâsas, (epic stories) Purâṇas (cosmogonic stories), Kalpas (ceremonial rules), Gâthâs (songs), Nârâśansîs, (heroic poems). This however would be the same mistake, as if we should place a Brahman coordinate with a Brahman who is a mendicant. For all these titles, like Itihâsa, &c., apply only to subdivisions of the Brâhmaṇas. Thus, passages from the Brâhmaṇas, like ‘The gods and the Asuras were fighting,’ &c., would be called Itihâsas; other passages like ‘In the beginning there was nothing,’ would be called Purâṇas; therefore we may safely say, that the Veda consists of two parts only, of Mantras and Brâhmaṇas.”¹

c9.s2.8

¹ According to Madhusûdana’s view, the Brâhmaṇas consist of three parts; of commandments, additional explanations, and Ve-

c9.s2.9

If after these not very satisfactory definitions of what a Brâhmaṇa is, and how it differs from a Mantra, we turn to the Brâhmaṇas themselves, such as we possess them in MS., we find that their number is much smaller than we should have expected.

c9.s2.10

If every Śâkhâ consisted of a Saṃhitâ and a Brâhmaṇa, the number of the old Brâhmaṇas must have been very considerable. It must not be supposed, however, that the Brâhmaṇas which belonged to different Śâkhâs, were works composed independently by different authors. On the contrary, as the Saṃhitâs of different Śâkhâs were nothing but different recensions of one and the same original collection of hymns, and could be distinguished from each other only by a number of authorised variæ lectiones or by the addition and omission of certain hymns, the Brâhmaṇas also, which were adopted by different Charaṇas of the same Veda, must be considered not as so many independent works, but in most instances as different recensions of one and the same original. There was originally but one body of Brâhmaṇas for each of the three Vedas; for the Rig-veda, the Brâhmaṇas of the Bahvṛichas, for the Sâma-veda the Brâhmaṇas of the Chhandogas, and for the Yajur-veda in its two forms, the Brâhmaṇas of the Taittirîyas, and the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. These works were not written in metre, like the Saṃhitâs, and were therefore more exposed to

c9.s2.11

dânta doctrines, the latter being more particularly represented by the Upanishads. The same author speaks of four classes of commandments. "A commandment may consist," he says, "either in a simple definition ('the oblation to Agni is given in eight cups,'); or it may include the aim ('he who wishes for life in heaven may perform the sacrifices of the new and full moon'); or it may detail the means by which the sacrifice is performed ('let him sacrifice with rice'); or it may contain all this together."

c9.s2.12

alteration in the course of a long continued oral tradition.

c9.s2.13

We possess the Brâhmaṇa of the Bahvṛichas, in the Śâkhâs of the Aitareyins and the Kaushîtakins. The various readings of other Śâkhâs, quoted by the commentator on the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa, show evidently that there were other Śâkhâs of the Bahvṛichas, which differed but little in the wording of their Brâhmaṇas. But even the Brâhmaṇa of the Kaushîtakins which has been preserved to us as a distinct work, different from the Brâhmaṇa of the Aitareyins, can only be considered as a branch of the original stock of Brâhmaṇa literature, current among the Bahvṛichas. Its arrangement differs considerably from that of the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa. The sacrifice described in the beginning of the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa forms the seventh Adhyâya of the Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa¹, and most of the other sacrifices are equally displaced. Others which are discussed in the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa are altogether wanting in the Kaushîtaki-brâhmaṇa, and must be supplied from the Sûtras of the Śânkhâyana-śâkhâ, a subdivision of the Kaushîtakins. But whenever parallel passages occur, it becomes clear that the coincidences in the description of sacrifices and the wording of legends cannot be accidental.

c9.s2.14

¹ Aitareya-br. i. 1. अग्निर्वै देवानामवमो विष्णुः परमः, &c. Kaush.-br. vii. 1. अग्निर्वै देवानामवराद्धो विष्णुः परार्द्धः, &c. Ait.-brâhm. ii. 2.=Kaush.-br. x. 2. ; ii. 6.=x. 4. (Śânkh.-sûtra, v. 17.); ii. 3.=xii. 1.

c9.s2.15

Most of the Brâhmaṇas which are left to us are collective works. A tradition has been preserved in confirmation of this fact. The Brâhmaṇa of the Taittirîyas, in the Śâkhâs both of the Âpastambîyas and the Âtreyas, contains some portions which bear the name of Kaṭha, and were formerly the property of his followers. The component parts are frequently called Brâhmaṇas, instead of chapters or sections. The same applies to the Âraṇyakas and Upanishads. In some cases, these smaller Brâhmaṇas are quoted by their special titles¹; and in their collected form they are handed down, not always by the name of the Charaṇa by which they were adopted, but more frequently by that of the Charaṇa in which their original collection took place. Thus the Aitareya-brâhmaṇa, though adopted by the Âśvalâyanîyas, is more frequently quoted by its original name than by that of Âśvalâyana-brâhmaṇa.² The Brâhmaṇa of Kaushîtakin or the Kaushîtakins is more usually referred to by this name than by that of the later Charaṇa of the Śânkhâyanas.

c9.s2.16

¹ Maitreyî-brâhmaṇa is the title given to that portion of the Bṛihadâraṇyaka which contains the dialogue between Yâjñavalkya and Maitreyî. The Saulabhâni brâhmaṇâni, quoted by Âśvalâyana and Pâṇini as modern compositions, may refer to sections containing a dialogue similar to that between Janaka and Sulabhâ, which exists in the Mahâbhârata, III. v. 11,854. Cf. Lassen, Ind. Alterth. xv. note. According to Pâṇini, however, they ought to be taken as Brâhmaṇas composed by Sulabha.

c9.s2.17

² Quoted as such by Yâjnikadeva on Kâty. 2. 5. 18.; 6. 6. 25. Weber, Ind. Stud. i. 230.

c9.s2.18

In the Brâhmaṇa of the Chhandogas it is evident that, after the principal collection was finished (called the prauḍha or pañchaviṁśa-brâhmaṇa, *i. e.* consisting of twenty-five sections), a twenty-sixth Brâhmaṇa was added which is known by the name of Shaḍviṁśa-brâhmaṇa. This Brâhmaṇa together with the Adbhuta-brâhmaṇa must be of very modern date. It mentions not only temples (Devâyatanâni), but images of gods (daivata-pratimâ) which are said to laugh, to cry, to sing, to dance, to burst, to sweat, and to twinkle. These two have long been supposed to be the only Brâhmaṇas of the Chhandogas, and they constitute, no doubt, the most important part of that class of literature. It is curious, however, that whenever the Brâhmaṇas of the Chhandogas are quoted, their number is invariably fixed at eight. Kumârila Bhaṭṭa, i. 3¹, says, “in the eight Brâhmaṇas, together with the Upanishads, which the Chhandogas read, no single accent is fixed.” Still more explicit is a statement by Sâyaṇa which I quoted in the introduction to the first volume of my edition of the Rig-veda.² Here Sâyaṇa says: “There are eight Brâhmaṇas; the Prauḍha is the first, (this means the large Brâhmaṇa, or the Panchavinśa); the one called Shaḍvinśa or Shaḍvinśad-brâhmaṇa, is the second; then follows the Sâmavidhi; then the Ârsheya-brâhmaṇa, the Devatâdhyâya-brâhmaṇa, and the Upanishad. These with the Sanhitopanishad and the Vanśa are called the eight books.” Of these the Sâmavidhâna-brâhmaṇa was well known, the very quotation of Sâyaṇa being taken from his commentary on this very curious work. It might have been difficult, however, to identify the other five works if there had not been among the MSS. of Professor Wilson’s collection at the Bodleian Library, one (No. 451) containing four of these small tracts, the Sanhitopanishadam-brâhmaṇam, the Devatâdhyâyaḥ, the Vanśa-brâhmaṇam, and the Ârsheya-brâhmaṇam.¹ The only Brâhmaṇa, therefore, on which any doubt could remain, was the Upanishad, and here we shall probably not be wrong if we adopt one of Professor Weber’s less bold conjectures, that Sâyaṇa intended this for the Chhândogya-upanishad.² With the exception of this and the Sâmavidhâna, which contains most important information on questions connected with Âchâra or customs, all the other tracts are of comparatively small importance.

c9.s2.19

¹ Brâhmaṇâni hi yâny aṣṭau sarahasyâny adhîyate Chhandogâs teṣu sarveṣu na kaśchin niyataḥ svaraḥ.

c9.s2.20

² P. xxvii. note.

c9.s2.21

¹ See also “A Catalogue Raisonée (sic) of Oriental Manuscripts in the Library of the late College Fort St. George,” by the Rev. W. Taylor, Madras, 1857, p. 69.

c9.s2.22

² The Vanśa-brâhmaṇa has lately been printed, with some valuable remarks, by Prof. A. Weber, Ind. Stud. iv. 371.

c9.s2.23

It is in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, however, that we can best observe the gradual accumulation of various theological and ceremonial tracts which were to form the sacred code of a new Charaṇa. The text of this work has been edited by Professor Weber, and we can likewise avail ourselves of several essays on this branch of Vedic literature, published from time to time by that industrious scholar. According to Indian traditions, Yâjnavalkya Vâjasaneya, the founder of the new Charaṇa of the Vâjasaneyins is himself, if not the author, at least the first who proclaimed the Saṃhitâ and Brâhmaṇa of the Vâjasaneyins. We can see clearly that the composition of both the Saṃhitâ and Brâhmaṇa was guided by the same spirit, and it is not at all unlikely that in this, the most modern of all Vedas, the final arrangement of the Saṃhitâ may have been contemporaneous with, or even later than, the composition of the Brâhmaṇa.

c9.s2.24

First of all, it ought to be remarked that the story which has been preserved by tradition of the schism introduced by Yâjnavalkya among the followers of the Adhvaryu or Yajur-veda is confirmed by internal evidence. The general name of the ancient Śâkhâs of the Yajur-veda is Charaka, and the Taittirîyas, therefore, together with the Kaṭhas, and others are called by a general name, Charaka-śâkhâs. This name Charaka is used in one of the Khilas of the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ as a term of reproach. In the 30th Adhyâya a list of people is given who are to be sacrificed at the Purushamedha, and among them we find the Charakâchârya, the teacher of the Charakas, as the proper victim to be offered to Dushkṛita or Sin. This passage, together with similar hostile expressions in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, were evidently dictated by a feeling of animosity against the ancient schools of the Adhvaryus, whose sacred texts we possess in the Taittirîya-veda, and from whom Yâjnavalkya seceded in order to become himself the founder of the new Charaṇas of the Vâjasaneyins.

c9.s2.25

If we compare the Saṃhitâ and Brâhmaṇa of the Vâjasaneyins with those of the Charakas, we see that the order of the sacrifices is on the whole the same, and that the chief difference between the two consists in the division of Mantras and Brâhmaṇas, which is carried out more strictly by Yâjnavalkya than in the ancient text of the Taittirîyas. This was most likely the reason why the text of Yâjnavalkya was called Śukla Yajur-veda, which is generally translated by the White Yajur-veda. But some commentators explain Śukla more correctly by śuddha¹, and translate it by "cleared," because in this new text the Mantras had been cleared and separated from the Brâhmaṇas, and thus the whole had been rendered more lucid and intelligible. In opposition to this they suppose that the old text was called Kṛiṣhṇa or dark, because in it the verses and rules are mixed together, and less intelligible; or because, as Vidyâraṇya says, it contained the rules of the Hotṛi as well as of the Adhvaryu priests, and thus bewildered the mind of the student.¹

c9.s2.26

¹ Dvivedaganga explains शुकानि यजूंषि by शुद्धानि यज्ञा ब्राह्मणैनामिश्रितं चात्मकानि॥

c9.s2.27

¹ विद्यारण्यश्रीपादैर्व्याख्यातमेवाध्वर्यवं क्वचिद्धौत्रं क्वचिदित्यव्यवस्था बुद्धिमलिन्यहेतुत्वाद्यजुः कृष्णमीर्यते॥ Râmakṛiṣhṇa's Saṃskâragaṇapati. Weber, Ind. Stud. i. 27. 84.

c9.s2.28

It was in the nature of the duties which the Adhvaryus had to perform at the sacrifices, that their hymns and invocations could hardly be separated from the rules (vidhi), contained in the Brâhmaṇas. It was not a mere accident therefore that in the Veda of the ancient Adhvaryus the hymns and rules were mixed up, and it must be considered as a mere innovation if what is now called the Saṃhitâ of the Black Yajur-veda is distinguished by this name from the Brâhmaṇa, which in reality is a continuation of the same work. It is not unlikely that it was the very wish to have, like the Bahvṛichas and Chhandogas, a Saṃhitâ, *i. e.* a collection of hymns distinct from the ceremonial rules, which led to the secession of the Vâjasaneyins, and, by a kind of reaction, to the absurd adoption of the titles of Saṃhitâ and Brâhmaṇa among the Taittirîyas. In the new code of the Vâjasaneyins the most important part was nevertheless the Brâhmaṇa, the Saṃhitâ being a mere collection of verses, extracted and collected for the convenience of the officiating priest. The differences in the text of these verses and formulas would be marked in the Brâhmaṇa, and transferred from the Brâhmaṇa into the Sanhitâ. This is, therefore, the very opposite of what happened with the text of the Sanhitâ and Brâhmaṇa of the Bahvṛichas. Here the Sanhitâ existed long before the Brâhmaṇa, and it had diverged into different Śâkhâs, before the Brâhmaṇa of the Aitareyins was composed. The Vâjasaneyi-sanhitâ may possibly represent various readings which existed in the Śâkhâs of the Taittirîyas; but these verses were collected and formed into a Sanhitâ only as an appendix to the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, the real code of the Vâjasaneyins. Where the sacrificial invocations of the Vâjasaneyins differ from those of the Taittirîyas, we ought to recognise in those differences the last traces of Śâkhâs which existed previous to the establishment of the Vâjasaneyins. In the beginning, for instance, of the Darśa-pûrṇamâsa sacrifice, the Adhvaryu priest, having called the cows and calves together, has to touch the calves with a branch. This act of the sacrifice was originally accompanied by the words “vâyava stha, upâyava stha,” “you are like the winds,”—and the whole ceremony, together with these invocations, is contained in the Taittirîya-sanhitâ. In the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ, on the contrary, not only are the words “upâyava stha” omitted in the Sanhitâ, but a distinct warning is given in the Brâhmaṇa not to use these words, belonging to a different Śâkhâ.¹

c9.s2.29

¹ Cf. Sâyaṇa, Rig-veda-bhâshya, p. 12.; Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, i. 7. 3. तस्मादाह वायव स्थेत्युपायव स्थेत्यु हैक आङ्गरुप हि

c9.s2.30

A comparison of the texts of the Taittirîyas and Vâjasaneyins shows that it would be a mistake to call Yâjnavalkya the author, in our sense of the word, of the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ and the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. But we have no reason to doubt that it was Yâjnavalkya who brought the ancient Mantras and Brâhmaṇas into their present form, and, considering the differences between the old and new text, we must admit that he had a greater right to be called an author than the founders of the Charaṇas of other Vedas whose texts we possess. In this sense, Kâtyâyana says, in his Anukramaṇî, that Yâjnavalkya received the Yajur-veda from the Sun.¹ In the same sense the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa ends with the assertion that the White Yajur-veda was proclaimed by Yâjnavalkya Vâjasaneya²; and in the same sense Pâṇini, or rather his editor, says in the first Vârttika to iv. 3. 105. that there were modern

c9.s2.31

¹ शुकानि यजूंषि भगवान्याज्ञवल्क्यो यतः प्राप्त तं विवस्वंतं॥

c9.s2.32

² आदित्यानीमानि शुकानि यजूंषि वाजसनेयेन याज्ञवल्क्येनाख्यायंते॥

c9.s2.33

द्वितीयोऽयतीति तदु तथा न ब्रूयात्॥ In the commentary on Baudhâyana’s Sûtras, a passage from a Brâhmaṇa is quoted, which may have belonged to the Baudhâyanîya-śâkhâ. इषे त्वोर्जे लेति शाखामाच्छिनत्ति वायव स्थोपायव स्थेति वत्सान्-पाकरोति॥ The Baudhâyana-sûtras enjoin the first sentence for male calves, the second for female ones, वायव स्थेति पुंस उपायव स्थेति स्त्रियः॥

c9.s2.34

Brâhmaṇas proclaimed by Yâjnavalkya, and that their title differed by its formation from the title given to more ancient Brâhmaṇas. At the time when these titles were framed Yâjnavalkya was still alive; and his work, therefore, was not yet considered as one handed down by tradition through several generations. There might seem to be some difficulty in making Yâjnavalkya the author or editor of the whole Yajur-veda, because there are several portions of the Brâhmaṇa where Yâjnavalkya himself is introduced as one of the chief interlocutors, so much so that part of the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, the last book of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, is designated by the name of Yâjnavalkîyam kâṇḍam. But similar instances occur in several of the traditional works of the Brahmans, and in this case the decided traces of a later origin which are to be found in the Bṛihadâraṇyaka, would justify us in supposing that these portions were added after Yâjnavalkya’s decease, particularly as it is called Yâjnavalkîya, not Yâjnavalkya-kâṇḍa.¹

c9.s2.35

¹ See Pân. v. 4. 105, on the purport of this difference.

c9.s2.36

That Yâjnavalkya, though deserting the Charakas, derived great advantage from their Veda, is seen at once by the whole arrangement of his work. I give a list of the various subjects treated in the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ, according to Mahîdhara. The Saṃhitâ of the Vâjasaneyins begins with The Darśapûrṇamâsamantrâs, Adhyâya, i.—ii. 28. Then follow:— Pitṛiyajnamantrâs, ii. 29—34. Agnyâdheyamantrâs, iii. 1—8. Agnihotram, iii. 9—10. Agnyupasthânam, iii. 11—43.

c9.s2.37

Châturmâsyâni, iii. 44—63. Soma. Agnishtomas, iv. 1—viii. 23. Śalâpraveśas, iv. 1—37. Âtithyeshṭau havirgrahaṇâdimantrâs, (yûpanirmâṇam), v. 1—fin. Yûpasanskâra (agnishomîyapaśu)-somâbhishavaman-trâs, vi. 1—fin. Grahagrahaṇamantrâs (upâṅśvâdi-pradânânta), vii. 1—fin. Tritîyasavanagatâ âdityagrahâdimantrâs, viii. 1—23. Prâsaṅgikâs, viii. 24—63. Vâjapeyas, ix. 1—34. Râjasûyas, ix. 35—40. Râjasûya abhishekârthajalâdânâdirâjasûyaśeshas, Charakasautrâmaṇî cha, x. 1—fin. Agnichayanam, ix.—xviii. Ukhâsambharaṇâdimantrâs, xi. Ukhâdhâraṇa, gârhapatyachayana, kshetrakarshaṇa, aushadhavapanâdi, xii. Pushkaraparṇâdyupadhânamantrâs (prathamâ chitiḥ), xiii. Dvitîyâdichititrayam, xiv. Panchamachitiḥ, xv. Śatarudriyâkhyahomamantrâs, xvi. Chityaparishekâdimantrâs, xvii. Vasordhârâdimantrâs, xviii. Sautrâmaṇî, xix.—xxi. Surâdîndrâbhishekântam, xix. Sekâsandyâdi-hautrântam, xx. Yâjyâdi-preshaṇântam, xxi. Aśvamedhas, xxii.—xxv. Homamantrâs, xxii. Śishṭam âsvamedhikam, xxiii.¹

c9.s2.38

¹ According to the forty-eighth Atharvapariśishṭa, the thirty-

c9.s2.39

Śrutirûpamantrâ âśvamedhikânâm paśûnâm, xxiv. Khilâni, xxvi.—xxxv. Anuktamantrakathanam, xxvi. Panchachitikamantrâs, xxvii. Sautrâmaṇîsambandhiprayâjânuyâjapraishanirûpaṇam, xxviii. Śiṣṭâśvamedhamantrâs, xxix. Purushamedhas, xxx.—xxxi. Sarvamedhas, xxxii.—xxxiii. 54. Brahmayajnas, xxxiii. 55—xxxiv. fin. Pitrimedhas, xxxv. Śukriyam (panchâdhyâyî), xxxvi.—xl.¹ Pravargya Śântipâthas, xxxvi. Abhryâdi-rauhiṇântam, xxxvii. Mahâvîranirûpaṇam, xxxviii. Gharmâdinishkritis, lxi. Jñânakâṇḍam, xl.

c9.s2.40

¹ According to the Mitâkshara commentary on Yâjnavalkya’s Dharma-śâstra, xxxvi. 1. forms the beginning of an Âraṇyaka. Weber, Vorlesungen, p. 103.

c9.s2.41

According to this list the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ may be divided into different sections. The first section comprises the Darśapûrṇamâsa, &c., i.—iii.; the second the Soma sacrifices, iv.—x.; the third the Agnichayanas, xi.—xviii.

c9.s2.42

These eighteen Adhyâyas, which correspond to the Taittirîya-saṃhitâ, are explained in the first nine books of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa and the first eighteen chapters of Kâtyâyana’s Sûtras. They form, no doubt, the most important part of the Adhvaryuveda, but there is no evidence to show that they ever existed in a separate form. It has been well re-

c9.s2.43

second verse of the twenty-third Adhyâya would be the last verse of the Saṃhitâ. See Weber, Ind. Stud. iv. p. 432.

c9.s2.44

marked, however, by the editor of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, that the first nine books consist altogether of sixty Adhyâyas¹, and that the name of Shashti-patha, the Sixty Paths, which is mentioned in the Vârttika to Pâṇ. iv. 2. 60., may refer to this portion, whereas the whole Brâhmaṇa, consisting of one hundred Adhyâyas, received the title of Śatapatha, the Hundred Paths.

c9.s2.45

¹ A similar ingenious remark has been made by the same savant with regard to the Aitareya and Kaushîtaki, or, as he calls it, Śânkhâyana-brâhmaṇa. The former consists of forty, the latter of thirty Adhyâyas, and it is not unlikely that the rule in Pâṇini, v. 1. 62, how to form the names of Brâhmaṇas, consisting of thirty and forty Adhyâyas, had special reference to these works. The names are "trainśâni and châtvârinśâni brâhmaṇâni;" the explanation, "trinśad adhyâyâḥ parimâṇam eshâm brâhmaṇânâm."

c9.s2.46

The Sautrâmaṇî ceremony, which begins with the 19th Adhyâya, has nothing corresponding to it in the Taittirîya-sanhitâ, but, like the following sacrifices, it has been incorporated in the Taittirîya-brâhmaṇa. There is a difference also in the treatment which this sacrifice receives in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. Adhyâya xix. and xx. are indeed explained there, in the 12th book, but they do not receive the same careful explanation which was given to the preceding sacrifices. The last Adhyâya, containing verses of the Hotṛi, is not explained at all. Kâtyâyana treats these three Adhyâyas in the 19th book of his Sûtras.

c9.s2.47

The Aśvamedha, which fills Books xxii. — xxv. of the Vâjasaneyi-sanhitâ, is but partially contained in the Taittirîya-sanhitâ; and the Śatapatha also, though it devotes to this ceremony a considerable part of the 13th book, treats it in a much more superficial manner than the former sacrifices. Kâtyâyana explains it in his 20th book.

c9.s2.48

The Adhyâyas, which follow the Aśvamedha, are distinctly called Khilas or supplements by Kâtyâyana. They are relegated to the Brâhmaṇa by the Taittirîyas, and explained with less detail in the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. Adhyâya xxvi.—xxix. contain some hymns belonging to sacrifices previously explained, and they are passed over entirely by the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa and by Kâtyâyana. Adhyâya xxx. and xxxi. contain the Purushamedha, which the Taittirîyas treat in their Brâhmaṇa. The Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa devotes but a short space to it in its 13th book, and Kâtyâyana explains Adhyâya xxxi. in his 21st book.

c9.s2.49

The ceremonies comprised in the three following Adhyâyas, xxxii. to xxxiv., Sarvamedha and Brahmayajna, are passed over by the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa and Kâtyâyana. The Taittirîyas allow them no place in their Brâhmaṇa, but include them in their Âraṇyaka.

c9.s2.50

The Pitṛimedha which follows in the xxxvth Adhyâya, finds its place in the Brâhmaṇa of the Taittirîyas. The Śatapatha and Kâtyâyana explain it, the former in the 13th, the latter in the 21st book.

c9.s2.51

The Śukriya portion of the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ, xxxvi.—xl., is excluded from the Brâhmaṇa of the Taittirîyas, and treated in their Âraṇyaka. The Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa explains three of these Adhyâyas, xxxvii.—xxxix., in full detail in its 17th Kâṇḍa, and Kâtyâyana devotes to them the Sûtras of his last book.

c9.s2.52

Those who only take into account the general object of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa, have called it a running commentary on the Vâjasaneyi-saṃhitâ. But this applies strictly to the first nine books only, and with the tenth book the Brâhmaṇa assumes a new and more independent character. The tenth book is called the Agnirahasyam, the mystery of the fire, and it refers to no particular portion of the Sanhitâ, but enlarges on the ceremonies which have been described in the four preceding books. Towards the end (x. 4. 6.), it contains two chapters, which, in the Kânva-śâkhâ, form the beginning of the Brihadâranyaka-upanishad, and are there followed by the Madhu-kânḍa, the Yâjnavalkîya-kânḍa, and Khila-kânḍa of the 14th book of the Mâdhyandina-śâkhâ. The tenth book or Agnirahasyam closes with its own genealogy or Vanśa.

c9.s2.53

With the 11th book begins, according to Sâyaṇa, the second part of the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa. It is called Ashṭâdhyâyî, and gives additional information on all the sacrifices mentioned before, beginning with the Agnyâdhâna.

c9.s2.54

The 12th book, which is called Sautrâmaṇî, treats of prayaśchitta, or penance in general, and it is only in its last portion that it refers to the text of the Sanhitâ, and to that ceremony in particular from which it has derived its name. Besides this name of Sautrâmaṇî, the 12th book is also known by the name of Madhyama or the middle book, and this title can only be explained if we begin the second part of the Śatapatha, not, as Sâyaṇa suggests, with the 11th, but with the 10th book.

c9.s2.55

The 13th book is chiefly concerned with the Aśvamedha, and its first three Adhyâyas may again be considered as a kind of commentary on the Sanhitâ. Towards the end some sacrifices, beginning with the Purushamedha, which the Sanhitâ treats in its Khila portion, are explained, but other ceremonies also are mentioned, for which there is no precedent in the Sanhitâ. The Brihadâranyaka, the last book of the Śatapatha, contains in its first three Adhyâyas, a close commentary on the Pravargya of the Sanhitâ, but becomes quite independent afterwards. Its object is no longer the sacrifice, but the knowledge of Brahman, without any particular reference, however, to the last Adhyâya of the Sanhitâ, which, as we saw, was equally devoted to the doctrine of the Upanishads.

c9.s2.56

It is clear, therefore, that the Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa was not simply a running commentary on the Sanhitâ; nay there is nothing to prove that the hymnbook of the Vâjasaneyins existed previous to their Brâhmaṇa. The Śatapatha-brâhmaṇa may have been edited by Yâjnavalkya, but its component parts, like the component parts of the other Brâhmaṇas, must have been growing up during a long period of time in different localities before they were collected. The collection of ancient Brâhmaṇas must always have been the work of individual teachers, and their Brâhmaṇas, in their new and complete form, were at first the exclusive property of that Caraṇa to which the collectors belonged, or of which they became the founders. Afterwards these collective Brâhmaṇas were adopted by the members of other Caraṇas, who either added some chapters of their own, or introduced certain modifications, by which we now find that different texts of one and the same Brâhmaṇa differ from one another. We must distinguish, therefore, between old and new Brâhmaṇas, the former being those which from time immemorial had been living in the oral tradition of various Caraṇas, the latter comprising the great collective works. Some of the latter vary slightly in the editions adopted in various Caraṇas; others, and these the most modern, show the distinct influence of individual editors. Pâṇini, whose views are not shackled by the inspiration-doctrine which blinded and misled all the followers of the orthodox Mimânsâ school, broadly states the fact, that there are old and new Brâhmaṇas; whereas, according to the doctrine of later divines, the Brâhmaṇas are neither old nor new, but eternal, and of divine origin. Pâṇini, who is a grammarian, rests his opinion as to the different dates of the Brâhmaṇas on the evidence of language. “A book,” he says, “composed by a certain author, may be called by an adjective derived from the author’s name.”¹ For instance, a book composed by Vararuchi, may be called “Vârarucho granthaḥ.” A work, on the contrary, which has only been taught and promulgated² by a person, is not to be called his book (grantha), but bears its own title, such as “grammar,” or, whatever else it may be, together with an adjective, derived from the author’s name. Pâṇini’s grammar, for instance, is not to be called “Pâṇinîyo granthaḥ,” but “Pâṇinîyam vyâkaraṇam”; because it is a canonical work, revealed to Pâṇini, but not invented by him. It may also be called “Pâṇinîyam,” in the singular neuter; *i. e.* Pâṇineum.³ In the same way it is perfectly correct to speak of an “Âpiśalam,” a work composed by Apiśala, of a “Paingî Kalpaḥ,” an old ceremonial of Pinga’s, of a “Mâdhurî Vṛittiḥ,” a commentary of Madhura⁴, and of “Chârakâḥ Ślokâḥ,”

c9.s2.57

¹ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 116. कृते ग्रन्थे॥ Kaiyyaṭa says that this Sûtra does not belong to Pâṇini. See page 184.

c9.s2.58

² Pâṇ. iv. 3. 115. उपज्ञाते। Bhâshya : विनोपदेशेन ज्ञातं॥ iv. 3. 101. तेन प्रोक्तं। Bhâshya: यत्तेन प्रोक्तं न च तेन कृतं॥

c9.s2.59

³ Cf. iv. 3. 101 ; iv. 2. 64.

c9.s2.60

⁴ Cf. Pâṇ. iv. 3. 108.

c9.s2.61

verses composed by Charaka. "But," says Pāṇini, "if the work referred to consists either of Vedic hymns (Chhandas), or of old Brāhmaṇas (purāṇaprokteshu Brāhmaṇeshu), then it is not correct to use these derivative adjectives in the singular (unless we employ secondary derivatives, such as Taittirīyakam, Kaṭhakam), but it is necessary to use the masculine plural." It is wrong to use the word Kaṭham as an adjective from Kaṭha, in the sense of hymns promulgated by Kaṭha; or to use Taittirīyam (from Tittiri, like Pāṇinīyam from Pāṇini), or Taittirīyam Brāhmaṇam, in the sense of a Brāhmaṇa promulgated by Tittiri. Even Kalpas and Sūtras like the Kalpas of Kāśyapa, and Kauśika, or the Sūtras of Pārāśarya, Śilāla, Karmanda, and Kṛśāśva, are better quoted as "the Kāśyapins" &c. if they are old works.¹ According to Pāṇini, we must speak of "the Kaṭhas," i. e. those who study and know the hymns promulgated by Kaṭha ²; of "the Taittirīyas," those who study and know the Brāhmaṇa promulgated by Tittiri. This peculiarity of the Sanskrit language, which reminds us of the Greek expression of οἱ περὶ, admits of a very natural explanation, if we remember that in these old times literary works did not exist in writing, but were handed down by oral tradition in different communities, which represented, so to say, different works, or even different recensions of one and the same work, like so many manuscripts in later times. It was much more natural, therefore, to say, "the Taittirîyas relate," than to speak of a Taittirîyam, a work proclaimed by Tittiri, who was perhaps a merely nominal ancestor of the Taittirîyas, or to refer to a Taittirîya grantha, *i. e.* Tittiri's book, which in reality never existed. That this is the real ground for this Sanskrit idiom becomes more evident by the exceptions mentioned by Pâṇini himself. There are no exceptions with regard to the names of hymns, or rather of the supporters of their texts; but there are Brâhmaṇas, Kalpas, and Sûtras spoken of in the same way as Pâṇini's own work. It is wrong, for instance, to speak of the Yâjnavalkyâs in the same sense as we speak of the Taittirîyas, and the works promulgated by Yâjnavalkya, although they are Brâhmaṇas, are called Yâjnavalkyâni Brâhmaṇâni.¹ "And why?" says Kâtyâyana; "because they are of too recent an origin; that is to say, they are almost contemporaneous with ourselves." Here, then, we see that as early as Pâṇini and Kâtyâyana a distinction was made, not only by learned men, but in common language, between old and modern Brâhmaṇas. We see that the Brâhmaṇas of Yâjnavalkya, whose works, as those of a seceder, we had reason to consider as modern, are by their very name classed as modern. What other Brâhmaṇas belong to the same class, it is not so easy to say², because the only other instance quoted, besides the Brâhmaṇas of Yâjnavalkya, are the Saulabhâni Brâhmaṇâni; and they have not yet been met with. It is not unlikely, however, that the so-called Anubrâhmaṇâni ¹, or supplementary Brâhmaṇas, which we have, for instance, in the Sâma-veda ², may come under this category.³

c9.s2.62

¹ Cf. Pāṇ. iv. 2. 66. छंदंसि ब्राह्मणानि च प्रोक्तप्रत्ययांता-न्यध्येतवेदितप्रत्ययं विना न प्रयोक्तव्यानि॥

c9.s2.63

² That the Kaṭhas were an old Charaṇa, possessing their own tradition and laws, is seen from the 11th Vārttika to Pāṇ. iv. 3. 120. and from Paṇ. iv. 3. 126.

c9.s2.64

¹ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 105. 1. याज्ञवल्क्यादिभ्यः प्रतिषेधस्तुल्यकालत्वात्।

c9.s2.65

² There is no Gaṇa, Yâjnavalkyâdiḥ.

c9.s2.66

¹ Cf. Pâṇ. iv. 2. 62.

c9.s2.67

² The Anubrâhmaṇaḥ are mentioned in the Nidâna-sûtra belonging to the Sâma-veda. Cf. Ind. Stud. i. 45.

c9.s2.68

³ Ancient Chhandas (Sanhitâ-śâkhâs) are those of the Kaṭhas, Charakas, Maudas, and Paippalâdas, Śâunakins, Vâjasaneyins, &c., iv. 2. 66. Ancient Brâhmaṇas are those of the Bhâllavins, Taittirîyas, Vâratantavîyas, Khâṇḍikîyas, Aukhîyas; the Âlambins, Pâlangins, Kâmalins, Ârchâbhins, Âruṇins, Tâṇḍins, Śyâmâyanins, Kaṭhas, and Kâlâpas (these descended from the nine pupils of Vaiśampâyana); the Hâridrâviṇs, Taumburaviṇs, Aulapins, and Chhâgaleyins (these derived their origin from the four pupils of Kalâpin); the Śâtyâyanins. Old Kalpas are those of the Kâśyapins, Kauśikins, the Paingî and Âruṇaparâjî Kalpaḥ. Old Sûtras those of the Pârâśarins, Śailâlins, Karmandins, and Kṛiśâśvins.

c9.s2.69

That different Brâhmaṇas existed at the time when the great collective Brâhmaṇas were composed, might be proved, even without the testimony of Pâṇini, by quotations occurring in the Brâhmaṇas themselves. The original Charaṇas were not all rival sects, and it was natural that one Charaṇa should be ready to accept Brâhmaṇas of another, if they contained any additional traditions or precepts which seemed to be valuable. Thus we find the Brâhmaṇas of the Kaṭhas added to the Brâhmaṇas of the Taittirîyas. In other cases we find that one Brâhmaṇa quotes the opinion of another Śâkhâ, not in support of its own doctrines, but in order to refute it. Thus the Kaushîtakins are frequently attacked in the Tâṇḍya-brâhmaṇa. Now, if these quotations of different authorities, which we meet with in Brâhmaṇas, alluded only to the opinions of certain individuals we might still be doubtful whether these opinions had formerly been laid down in separate Brâhmaṇa works. But when we see quotations like “iti Kaushitakam,” “iti Paingyam,” “so says the work of the Kaushîtakins or Paingins,” there can be little doubt that separate Brâhmaṇas, propagated by separate Charaṇas, are here intended, whatever commentators may say to the contrary.¹

c9.s2.70

¹ Indische Studien, i. 393.

c9.s2.71

What became of these numerous Brâhmaṇa-charaṇas which are quoted both in the Brâhmaṇas and in the Sûtras, is not quite clear. Most likely they were absorbed or replaced by a more modern class of Charaṇas, the Sûtra-charaṇas. When the Sûtras once came to be regarded as part of the sacred canon, they gave rise to a large number of new Charaṇas.² Their members would preserve the text of the Sanhitâ and Brâhmaṇa of an earlier Charaṇa from which they originally branched off.³ The ground of division being in the Sûtras, the minor differences between the texts of the Sanhitâs and Brâhmaṇas might be waived in these modern Charaṇas, and this would gradually lead to the loss of many of the old Śâkhâs. We saw before, in the case of the Śâkalas and Bâshkalas, that at the time when Sûtras began to be composed there was a tendency to reunite different Śâkhâs into one. That the introduction of Sûtras encroached on the study of the Brâhmaṇas and Sanhitâs in the schools of the Brahmans, becomes evident from passages in which the custom of performing sacrifices after the prescriptions of Sûtras only is declared to be without merit and without effect. Kumârila in one passage simply states the fact that priests perform sacrifices by means of the Kalpa-sûtras only, and without the Veda, but that they could not do the same by means of the Mantras and Brâhmaṇas, and without the Kalpas.¹ In another place² he declares that the reason why the Smritis or law-books, which he considers to be founded on the Veda, had not been made up of literal extracts, was because this would have endangered the sacred study of the whole Veda. The Veda would thus have been read in a different order, or small extracts only would have been studied instead of the whole Veda. Now this is what seems to have happened to a certain extent by the introduction of the Sūtras, and it would account for the loss of many of the old Śākhās, Saṃhitās as well as Brāhmaṇas.

c9.s2.72

² Colebrooke has taken a different view with respect to the Sûtras. He says, “But those numerous Śâkhâs did not differ so widely from each other as might be inferred from the mention of an equal number of Sanhitâs, or distinct collections of texts. In general, the various schools of the same Veda seem to have used the same assemblage of prayers; they differed more in their copies of the precepts or Brâhmaṇas; and some received into their canon of scripture portions which do not appear to have been acknowledged by others. Yet the chief difference seems always to have been the use of particular rituals taught in aphorisms (sûtras) adopted by each school; and these do not constitute a portion of the Veda, but, like grammar and astronomy, are placed among its appendages.” Misc. Essays, i. 18.

c9.s2.73

³ तैत्तिरीयके समाम्नाये समानाध्ययने नाना सूत्राणि। तस्मादपि शाखाभेदः॥ तथा चैकस्यां तैत्तिरीयशाखायां समानपाठायां सूत्रभेदादवांतरशाखाभेदः॥

c9.s2.74

¹ Kumârila, i. 3. वेदादृतेऽपि कुर्वन्ति कल्पैः कर्माणि याज्ञिकाः। न तु कल्पैर्विना केचिन्मंत्रब्राह्मणाचकात्॥

c9.s2.75

² Kumârila, i. 3. 1. यत्तु किमर्थं वेदवाक्यान्येव नोपसंगृहीतानीति। संप्रदायविनाशभीतेः। विशिष्टानुपूर्व्यव्यवस्थितो हि स्वाध्यायोऽध्येतव्यः श्रूयते। स्मार्त्ताश्चाचाराः केचित्कचित्क्वांश्चिच्छाखायां। तत्रापि तु केचित्पुरुषमेवाधिकृत्याम्नायन्तेऽपरे ऋतुप्रकरणाम्नाताः केचिन्निमित्तनोल्लव्यमाणाः पुरुषधर्मतां भजते। यथा मलवद्वाससा सह न संवदेत्तस्मान्न ब्राह्मणायावगुरेदित्येवमादयः। तत्र यदि तावत्तान्येव वाक्यान््युद्धृत्याध्यापयेद्युक्ततः क्रमान्यत्वात्स्वाध्यायविधिविरोधः स्यात्। अनेन च निदर्शनेनान्येऽप्यर्थवादोद्धारेण विधि-

c9.s2.76

In order to show more clearly to how great an extent the Vedic literature was fostered by means of the Charaṇas, I shall give a list from the Charaṇavyūha. This Pariśiṣṭa is a document of a comparatively late period, though it may be one of the oldest works belonging to this class of literature.¹ It is, therefore, no good authority as to the number of the old Saṃhitā-charaṇas and Brāhmaṇa-charaṇas, many of which were lost or merged into others during the Sūtra period; but it is of interest as the first attempt at a complete enumeration of all Charaṇas, and may be trusted particularly with regard to the Sūtra-charaṇas, which, at the time of its composition, were still of recent origin. The number of the old Charaṇas would, no doubt, have to be increased considerably, if the quotations of different Śākhās were

c9.s2.77

¹ It has been printed by Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien. I possess the collation of some of the Berlin MSS., but not of all. In addition to the MSS. collated by Prof. Weber, I have used the text and various readings given in Râdhakântadeva's Śabdakalpadruma.

c9.s2.78

मात्रमधीयीरन् कर्मौपाधिकमात्रं वा। तत्र वेदप्रलयः प्रसज्येत॥

c9.s2.79

taken into account, which occur in the Brâhmaṇas as well as in the Sûtras. But at the same time we may conclude from the lists given in the Charaṇavyûha that most of these old Charaṇas were extinct shortly after the Sûtra-period, and that their works as well as their names, began to be forgotten.

c9.s2.80

Of the Rig-veda five Charaṇas are mentioned:
1. The Śâkalas.¹
2. Bâshkalas.²
3. Âśvalâyanas.³
4. Śânkhâyanas.⁴
5. Mâṇḍukâyanas.⁵

c9.s2.81

¹ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 128. : iv. 2. 117.

c9.s2.82

² Bâshkala. Not mentioned in Pâṇini. As to its etymology, cf. Pâṇ. ii. 1. 65.

c9.s2.83

³ Pâṇ. iv. 1. 99. : Gaṇa naḍadi.

c9.s2.84

⁴ This Śâkhâ is spelt Sânkhyâyana, Śânkhyâyana, Śânkhâ-yana and Śânkhâyana. The last, however, is the most correct spelling. See Pâṇini, Gaṇapâṭha, aśvâdi, and kunjâdi. This Śâkhâ is omitted by accident in MS. E. I. H.

c9.s2.85

⁵ Pâṇ. iv. 1. 19 (text). Mâṇḍûka; derivative, Mâṇḍukâyana. See also Pâṇ. iv. 1. 119.

c9.s2.86

We miss the names of several old Śâkhâs such as the Aitareyins, Śaiśiras⁶, Kaushîtakins, Paingins,

c9.s2.87

⁶ The Śaiśira-śâkhâ, however, may perhaps be considered as a subdivision of the Śâkala-śâkhâ. Śaiśira, or Śiśira, is mentioned in the Purâṇas as one of the five Śâkala pupils, who propagated different Śâkhâs of the Rig-veda, all of them derived from the original recension of Śâkalya Vedamitra. In the Viṣṇu-purâṇa these five pupils or descendants of Śâkalya Vedamitra are called Mudgala, Gosvalu, Vâtsya, Śâlîya, and Śiśira. (Viṣṇu-pur. 277.) In the Vâyu-purâṇa their names are Mudgala, Golaka, Khâlîya, Mâtsya, Śaiśireya. In the commentary on the Śâkala-prâtiśâkhya they are called Mudgala, Gokula, Vâtsya, Śaiśira, and Śiśira, according to the Paris MS.; or Mudgala, Gokhula, Vâtsya, Śârîra, and Śaiśira, according to the MS. at the E. I. H.

c9.s2.88

इदं शास्त्रं पार्षदख्यमखिलं सम्पूर्णमुत्तरत्र वक्ष्ये वक्ष्याम while the Âśvalâyanas, who are mentioned, must be considered as the founders of one of the latest Śâkhâs of the Rig-veda.

c9.s2.89

The number of Śâkhâs of the Yajur-veda is stated at eighty-six. We have first the twelve Charaṇas comprehended under the common name of Charakas. They are, according to the MS. of the Charaṇavyûha:
1. Charakas.¹
2. Âhvarakas.²
3. Kathas.³
4. Prâchya-kathas.⁴
5. Kapishṭhala-kathas.⁵
6. Chârâyaṇîyas.⁶

c9.s2.90

¹ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 107. text; v. 1. 11. text. Gaṇa Kshipakâdi. ² Âhvarakas, Ś. K. D. Âhûrakas, Sansk. G. P. Hvarakas, MS. Berol.

c9.s2.91

इत्यर्थः। शैशिरीये पारायणपाठ इति वाक्यशेषः। शैशिरी- यायां संहितामित्यर्थः। शैशिरी संहिता शिशिरदृष्टत्वात्। तथा पुराणे उक्तं। मुद्गलो गोकुलो वात्स्यः शैशिरः शिशिरस्तथा। पंचैते शाकलाः शिष्याः शाखाभेदप्रवर्तका इति। तथा च ऋग्वेदे शैशिरीयायां संहितामिति। यथा ऋग्वेदे पारायणाम्नाये शाकल्ये शैशिरीयकमिति वा।

c9.s2.92

The verses to which this commentary refers are not in the MS.

c9.s2.93

⁷⁸⁵ Cf. Pâṇ. ii. 4. 20.; vi. 2. 124.; iii. 2. 135. comment. Several of these names are very problematical. ³ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 107. text; ii. 1. 65. com.; vii. 4. 38. text; vi. 3. 42. com.; ii. 4. 3. com.; i. 3. 49. com.; ii. 1. 163. com. ⁴ Cf. Pâṇ. vi. 2. 10. ⁵ Pâṇ. viii. 3.

c9.s2.94

⁹¹ Kapishṭhalaḥ and Kapisthalam. Gaṇa kraudyâdi and upakâdi. As to Καμβίσθολοι, see Megasthenes, edit. Schwanbeck, p. 33. note, and p. 108. ⁶ Pâṇ. iv. 1. 89. com.; iv. 1. 63. com.; iv. 1. 99. com.; iv. 3. 80. com. Gaṇa naḍâdi.

c9.s2.95

7. Vâratantavîyas.¹
8. Śvetâśvataras.²
9. Aupamanyavas.³
10. Pâtas.⁴
11. Aiṇḍineyas.⁵
12. Maitrâyaṇîyas.⁶ The Maitrâyaṇîyas are subdivided into seven Charaṇas:—
13. Mânavas.⁷
14. Vârâhas.⁸
15. Dundubhas.
16. Chhâgaleyas.⁹
17. Hâridravîyas.¹⁰
18. Śyâmas.¹¹ 19. Śyâmâyanîyas.¹ Then follow
20. Taittirîyas, subdivided into
21. Aukhîyas² and
22. Khâṇḍikîyas.³ The Khâṇḍikîyas are again subdivided into:—
23. Kâleyas.⁴
24. Śâtyâyanins.
25. Hiraṇyakeśins.
26. Bhâradvâjins.
27. Âpastambins. This gives altogether twenty-seven Śâkhâs, the same number which is mentioned in the Viṣṇu-purâṇa⁵, although the manner of computing them is different.

c9.s2.96

¹ Vâratantavîya, MSS. See, however, Pâṇ. iv. 3. 102.

c9.s2.97

² A different reading is mentioned in the Ś. K. D., namely, Śvetâ Śvetatarâḥ. MS. Chamb. 785., has Śvetâḥ Śvetântarâḥ; 376. Śvetâ Aśvatarâḥ. Sansk. G. P., Śvetâḥ Śvetatarâḥ.

c9.s2.98

³ See Gaṇa Vidâdi.

c9.s2.99

⁴ Âshṭhalakaṭhas, Ś. K. D. Pâṭâṇḍinîyas, Chamb. 785.

c9.s2.100

⁵ Vârâyaṇîyas, Ś. K. D.

c9.s2.101

⁶ See Gaṇapâṭha, arîhaṇâdi.

c9.s2.102

⁷ Pâṇ. iv. 1. 105. Gaṇa Gargâdi, unless the reading be manutantu.

c9.s2.103

⁸ Pâṇ. iv. 2. 80. Gaṇa Varâhâdi. Pâṇ. iv. 1. 78.

c9.s2.104

⁹ Chaikeyas Ś. K. D. MSS. Chamb. 376. 785, have Chhâgeyas. MS. 785. places the Hâridravîyas at the end, adding five new divisions. तत्र हारिद्रवीया नाम पंच भेदा भवंति। हारिद्रवमासुरं गार्ग्यं शार्कराक्षसाग्रावसवीयं पंचममेते हारिद्रवसंयहाः। Pâṇ. iv. 1. 117, Chhâgala, âtreyaś chet, chhâgalir anyaḥ; iv. 3. 109, Chhâgaleyinaḥ; vii. 1. 2, Gaṇa takshaśilâdi. Chhâgaleyaḥ, Pâṇ. iv. 2. 30, Gaṇa Sakhyâdi.

c9.s2.105

¹⁰ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 104, Haridru and hâridraviṇaḥ; iv. 4. 53, Gaṇa kisarâdi.

c9.s2.106

¹¹ Gaṇa âśvadi.

c9.s2.107

¹ Pâṇ. iv. 3. 104. ² Aukhyas and Aukhyas, Ś. K. D. ; Aukhîyas, Ch. 785. ; Ausheyas, Ch.

c9.s2.108

Then follow the fifteen Śâkhâs of the Vâjasaneyins, a number which is confirmed by the Pratijñâ-pariśiṣṭa, and has also been preserved in the Viṣṇu-purâṇa, while the Caraṇavyûha of the Śabdakalpa-druma brings their number to seventeen. They are:—
28. Jâbâlas.⁶ 29. Baudheyas.¹
30. Kâṇvas.²
31. Mâdhyandinas.³
32. Śâpheyas.⁴
33. Tâpanîyas.⁵
34. Kapolas.⁶
35. Pauṇḍravatsas.⁷
36. Âvaṭikas.⁸
37. Paramâvaṭikas.⁹
38. Pârâśaryas.¹⁰
39. Vaineyas.¹¹
40. Vaidheyas.¹²
41. Auḍheyas.¹³
42. Mauneyas.¹⁴ Though the number of the Śâkhâs of the Yajurveda is stated as eighty-six by the Charaṇavyûha, the names given, including the Vâjasaneyins, amount only to forty-three, exactly half the number expected.¹ It is difficult to account for this, for although some other names are mentioned, for instance the Prâchya, Udîchya and Nairṛitya Kathas, yet this would not increase the number of Śâkhâs sufficiently.

c9.s2.109

³⁷⁶ Cf. Pâṇ. iv. 3. 102. ³ Khâṇḍikîyas, Ch. 785. ; Śâṇḍikeyas, Ch. 376. ; Pâṇ. iv. 3. 102. ⁴ The Caraṇavyûha of the Ś. K. D. has, — 23. Âpastambins ; 24. Baudhâyanins ; 25. Satyâshâḍhins ; 26. Hiraṇyakeśins ; 27. Aukheyas or Audheyins. MS. Ch. 785. has, — 23. Kâleyas (Kâleyâḥ, Pâṇ. iv. 2. 8.); 24. Śâtyayanas (Pâṇ. iv. 3. 105.); 25. Hiraṇyakeśas ; 26. Bhâradvâjas ; 27. Âpastambîyas. MS. 376., Kaletas, Śâtyâyinins, Hiraṇyakeśins, Bhâradvâjins, Âpastambins. ⁵ P.

c9.s2.110

²⁷⁹ “Of the tree of the Yajur-veda there are twenty-seven branches, which Vaiśampâyana, the pupil of Vyâsa, compiled and taught to as many disciples.” ⁶ Pâṇ. vi. 2. 38. text ; ii. 4. 58. 1.

c9.s2.111

¹ Baudheyas, P.-p. Ch. 785. ; Augheyas, Ś. K. D. ; Gaudheyas, S. G. P. ; Baudhâyanas, Ch. 376. E. I. H. ; Baudhiḥ, Pâṇ. ii. 4. 58. 1.

c9.s2.112

² Pâṇ. iv. 2. 111. text.

c9.s2.113

³ Mâdhyandineyas, Ch. 376. See Gaṇa utsâdi.

c9.s2.114

⁴ Śâpeyas, P.-p. ; Śâpîyas, Ś. K. D. ; Śâpeya, Gaṇa śaunakâdi.

c9.s2.115

⁵ Tâpâyanîyas, Ś. K. D. ; Ch. 376. ; Tâpâyanas, Ch. 785.

c9.s2.116

⁶ Kalâpas, P.-p. ; Kapâlas, Ś. K. D. ; Ch. 785. ; Kapolas, Ch. 376.

c9.s2.117

⁷ Pauṇḍravachhas, P.-p. ; Ch. 376. Cf. Pâṇ. vii. 3. 24.

c9.s2.118

⁸ Cf. Gaṇa gargâdi, Pâṇ. iv. 1. 17. ; iv. 1. 75, text.

c9.s2.119

⁹ Pâmâvaṭikas or Paramâvaṭikas, Ś. K. D.

c9.s2.120

¹⁰ Pârâśaras, P.-p. ; Ch. 785. 376. ; Pârâśarîyas, Ś. K. D. ; Gaṇa kṛiśâsvâdi ; gargâdi.

c9.s2.121

¹¹ Vaidheyas, Ch. 785. ; Vaineyas, Ch. 376.

c9.s2.122

¹² Vaidheyas, Ch. 376. ; Vaineyas, Ch. 785.

c9.s2.123

¹³ Aukhyas, P.-p. ; Addhas, Ch. 376. ; Ugheyas, Ś. K. D. ; See Pâṇ. ii. 4. 7. ; Aukhîyas, Ch. 785.

c9.s2.124

¹⁴ Baudhyaśvas, P.-p. ; Mauneyas, Ch. 785. ; Bodheyas, Ch. 376. The Ś. K. D. adds here,—42. Galavas ; 43. Vaijaras ; 44. Kâtyâyanîyas.

c9.s2.125

¹ In a MS. of the Charaka-śâkhâ of the Kâṭhaka, 101 Śâkhâs of the Yajur-veda are mentioned. Catalogue of the Berlin MSS., p. 38. "Ekottaraśatâdhvaryuśâkhâprabhedabhinne yajurvedakâṭhake."

c9.s2.126

The largest number of Śâkhâs is ascribed to the Sâma-veda. It is said to have been a thousand. The author of the Charaṇavyûha, however, confesses that the greater part of them no longer exist. Those remaining at the time when the Charaṇavyûha was composed were the seven Śâkhâs of the

First 126 of 522 passages. Read on

Linked texts (41)