The History of Indian Literature c8.197

Language: English

c8.197.1

This Sūtra, like that of Maśaka, connects itself closely with the Pañchaviṅśa-Brāhmaṇa, and indeed often quotes passages of some length from it, generally introducing them by "*tad uktam brāhmaṇena;*" or, "*iti brāhmaṇam bhavati;*" once also by "*tathā purāṇam Tāṇḍam.*" It usually gives at the same time the different interpretations which these passages received from various teachers. Śāṇḍilya, Dhānaṃjayya, and Śāṇḍilyāyana are most frequently mentioned in this manner, often together, or one after the other, as expounders of the Pañchaviṅśa-Brāhmaṇa. The first-named is already known to us through the Chhāndogyopanishad, and he, as well as Śāṇḍilyāyana, is repeatedly mentioned also in another Sútra, the Nidána-Sútra; the same is the case with Dhánaṃjayya. Besides these, how-ever, Láṭyáyana mentions a number of other teachers and schools, as, for example, his own *ácháryas*, with especial frequency; the Ársheya-Kalpa, two different Gautamas, one being distinguished by the surname Sthavira (a technical title, especially with the Buddhists); further Śauchivṛikshi (a teacher known to Páṇini), Kshairakalambhi, Kautsa, Várshagaṇya, Bháṇḍitáyana, Lámakáyana, Ráṇáyaníputra, &c.; and in particular, the Śátyáyanins, and their work, the Śátyáyanaka, together with the Śálaṅkáyanins, the latter of whom are well known to belong to the western part of India.

c8.197.2

Such allusions occur in the Sútra of Láṭyáyana, as in the other Sútras of the Sámaveda, much more frequently than in the Sútras of the other Vedas, and are in my opinion evidence of their priority to the latter. At the time of the former there still existed manifold differences of opinion, while in that of the latter a greater unity and fixedness of exegesis, of dogma, and of worship had been attained. The remaining data appear also to point to such a priority, unless we have to explain them merely from the difference of locality. The condition of the Śúdras, as well as of the Nishádas, *i.e.*, the Indian aborigines, does not here appear to be one of such oppression and wretchedness as it afterwards became. It was permitted to sojourn with them (Śáṇḍilya, it is true, restricts this permission to "in the neighbourhood of their *grámas*"), and they themselves were allowed to attend in person at the ceremonies, although outside of the sacrificial ground. They are, moreover, now and then represented, though for the most part in a mean capacity, as taking an actual part on such occasions, which is not to be thought of in later times. Toleration was still a matter of necessity, for, as we likewise see, the strict Brahmanical principle was not yet recognised even among the neighbouring Aryan tribes. These, equally with the Brahmanical Indians, held in high esteem the songs and customs of their ancestors, and devoted to them quite as much study as the Brahmanical Indians did;

c8.197.3

nay, the latter now and then directly resorted to the former, and borrowed distinct ceremonies from them. This is sufficiently clear from the particulars of one ceremony of the kind, which is embodied, not indeed in the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa, but in the Shaḍviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa, and which is described at full length by Láṭyáyana. It is an imprecatory ceremony (called *śyena*, falcon); and this naturally suggests the idea that the ceremonial of the Atharvan, which is essentially based upon imprecations and magical expedients,—as well as the songs of the Atharvan itself,—may perhaps chiefly owe its cultivation to these western, non-Brahmanical, Aryan tribes. The general name given to these tribes by Láṭyáyana (and with this Páṇini v. 2. 21 agrees) is Vrátínas, and he further draws a distinction between their *yaudhas*, warriors, and their *arhants*, teachers. Their *anúchánas*, *i.e.*, those versed in Scripture, are to be chosen priests for the above-mentioned sacrifice. Śáṇḍilya limits this to the *arhants* alone, which latter word—subsequently, as is well known, employed exclusively as a Buddhistic title—is also used in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus, and in the Áraṇyaka of the Black Yajus, to express a teacher in general. The turban and garments of these priests should be red (*lohita*) according to Shaḍviṅśa and Láṭyáyana; and we find the same colour assigned to the sacrificial robes of the priests of the Rákshasas in Laṅká, in the Rámáyaṇa, vi. 19. 110, 51. 21;

c8.197.4

with which may be compared the light red, yellowish red (*kasháya*) garments of the Buddhists (see for instance Mṛichhakaṭ., pp. 112, 114, ed. Stenzler; M.-Bhár., xii. 566, 11898; Yájnav., i. 272), and the red (*rakta*) dress of the Sáṃkhyabhikshu in the Laghujátaka of Varáha-Mihira. Now, that these western non-Brahmanical Vrátyas, Vrátínas, were put precisely upon a par with the eastern non-Brahmanical, *i.e.*, Buddhistic, teachers, appears from an addition which is given by Láṭyáyana to the description of the Vrátyastomas as found in the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa. We are there told that the converted Vrátyas, *i.e.*, those who have entered into the Brahman community, must, in order to cut off all connection with their past, hand over their wealth to those of their companions who still abide by the old mode of life—thereby transferring to these their own former impurity—or else, to a "Brahmabandhu Mágadhadeśíya." This latter expression is only explicable if we assume that Buddhism, with its anti-Brahmanical tendencies, was at the time flourishing in Magadha; and the absence of any such allusion in the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa is significant as to the time which elapsed between this work and the Sútra of Láṭyáyana.∗