A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, so far as it illustrates the Primitive Religion of the Brahmans c9.s2.69

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