The History of Indian Literature c8.293

c8.293

In the White Yajus we find, what does not occur in the case of any other Veda, that Saṃhitá and Bráhmaṇa have been handed down in their entirety in two distinct recensions; and thus we obtain a measure for the mutual relations of such schools generally. These two recensions agree almost entirely in their contents, as also in the distribution of them; in the latter respect, however, there are many, although slight, discrepancies. The chief difference consists partly in actual variants in the sacrificial formulas, as in the Bráhmaṇa, and partly in orthographic or orthoepic peculiarities. One of these recensions bears the name of the *Káṇvas*, the other that of the *Mádhyaṃdinas*, names which have not yet been found in the Sútras or similar writings. The only exception is the Prátiśákhya-Sútra of the White Yajus itself, where there is mention both of a Káṇva and of the Mádhyaṃdinas. In the supplement to the Vṛihad-Áraṇyaka again, in the lists of teachers, a Káṇvíputra (vi. 5 1) and a Mádhyaṃdináyana (iv. 6. 2) at least are mentioned, although only in the Káṇva recension, not in the other; the former being cited among the latest, the latter among the more recent members of the respective lists. The question now arises whether the two recensions are to be regarded as contemporary, or if one is older than the other. It is possible to adopt the latter view, and to consider the Káṇva school as the older one. For not only is Káṇva the name of one of the ancient Ṛishi families of the Ṛigveda—and with the Ṛigveda this recension agrees in the peculiar notation of the cerebral *ḍ* by *ḷ*—but the remaining literature of the White Yajus appears to connect itself rather with the school of the Mádhyaṃdinas. However this may be,¹¹⁹ we cannot, at