The History of Indian Literature c8.209

c8.209

While the above-named four Sútras of the Sámaveda specially attach themselves to the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa, the Sútras now to be mentioned stand out more independently beside the latter, although of course, in part at least, often referring to it. In the first place, we have to mention the *Nidána-Sútra*, which contains in ten *prapáṭhakas* metrical and other similar investigations on the different *ukthas*, *stomas*, and *gánas*. The name of the author is not given. The word *nidána*, ‘root,’ is used with reference to metre in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus;⁸¹ and though in the two instances where the Naidánas are mentioned by Yáska, their activity appears to have been directed less to the study of metre than to that of roots, etymology, still the Nidánasaṃjnaka Grantha is found cited in the Bṛihaddevatá, 5. 5, either directly as the Śruti of the Chhandogas, or at least as containing their Śruti.∗ This Sútra is especially remarkable for the great number of Vedic schools and teachers whose various opinions it adduces; and in this respect it stands on pretty much the same level as the Anupada-Sútra. It differs from it, however, by its particularly frequent quotation also of the views of the Sáman theologians named by Látyáyana and Dráhyáyaṇa, viz., Dhánaṃjayya, Śáṇḍilya, Śauchivṛikshi, &c.—a thing which seldom or never occurs in the former. The animosity to the Kaushítakis, with which we have already become acquainted in the Pañchaviṅśa-Bráhmaṇa, is here again exhibited most vividly in some words attributed to Dhánaṃjayya. With regard to the Rigveda, the *daśatayí* division into ten *maṇḍalas* is mentioned, as in Yáska. The allusion to the Átharvaṇikas, as well as to the Anubráhmaṇins, is particularly to be remarked; the latter peculiar name is not met with elsewhere, except in Páṇini. A special study of this Sútra is also much to be desired, as it likewise promises to open up a wealth of information regarding the condition of literature at that period.⁸²