The History of Indian Literature c8.213

c8.213

Not much information of this sort is to be expected from the *Pushpa-Sútra* of Gobhila,∗ which has to be named along with the Nidána-Sútra. The understanding of this Sútra is, moreover, obstructed by many difficulties. For not only does it cite the technical names of the *sámans*, as well as other words, in a very curtailed form, it also makes use of a number of grammatical and other technical terms, which, although often agreeing with the corresponding ones in the Prátiśákhya-Sútras, are yet also often formed in quite a peculiar fashion, here and there, indeed, quite after the algebraic type so favoured by Páṇini. This is particularly the case in the first four *prapáṭhakas*; and it is precisely for these that, up to the present time at least, no commentary has been found; whereas for the remaining six we possess a very good commentary by Upádhyáya Ajátaśatru.† The work treats of the modes in which the separate *ṛichas*, by various insertions, &c., are transformed into *sámans*, or "made to blossom," as it were, which is evidently the origin of the name Pushpa-Sútra, or "Flower-Sútra." In addition to the Pravachana, *i.e.* (according to the commentary), Bráhmaṇa, of the Kálabavins and that of the Śáṭyáyanins, I found, on a cursory inspection, mention also of the Kauthumas. This is the first time that their name appears in a work connected with Vedic literature. Some portions of the work, particularly in the last books, are composed in *ślokas*, and we have, doubtless, to regard it as a compilation of pieces belonging to different periods.⁸³ In close connection with it stands the *Sáma-Tantra*, composed in the same manner, and equally unintelligible without a commentary. It treats, in thirteen *prapáṭhakas*, of accent and the accentuation of the separate verses. A commentary on it is indeed extant, but at present only in a fragmentary form. At its close the work is denoted as the *vyákaraṇa*, grammar, of the Sáman theologians.⁸⁴