A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9.s2.56

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,”