The History of Indian Literature c8.377

c8.377

The number of deviations in regard to ritual or readings cited in the Bráhmaṇa is very great. To these regard is had here and there even in the Saṃhitá itself, two different mantras being quoted side by side as equally good. Most frequently the citation of such variations in the Bráhmaṇa is introduced by the words *ity eke*, or *tad áhuḥ*; yet pretty often the names of individual teachers are also mentioned, who must here, in part at least, be looked upon as representing the schools which bear their names. Thus in addition to those already named we have: Asháḍha Sávayasa, Barku Várshṇa, Aupoditeya, Páñchi, Takshan, Jívala Chailaki, Ásuri, Mádhuki, Kahoḍa Kaushítaki, Várshṇya Sátyayajna, Sátyayajni, Táṇḍya, Buḍila Áśvataráśvi, Ráma Aupatasvini, Kaukústa, Máhitthi, Muḍimbha[^asterisk] Audanya, Saumápau Mánutantavyau, Satyakáma Jábála, Śailáli, &c. Besides the Charakádhvaryus, Bhállaveya in particular is regularly censured, from which I conclude, as already stated (p. 95), that the Bhállavi-Bráhmana should be reckoned among those of the Black Yajus. By the "*eke*," where these are found fault with, we should probably also understand (*e.g.*, once for certain in the first *káṇḍa*) the adherents of the Black Yajus. Once, however (in the eighth *káṇḍa*), a reading of the Káṇva school is quoted by "*eke*" and disputed. How the matter stands in the Bráhmaṇa of the latter as to this passage, whether it finds fault with the reading of the Mádhyamdina school, I am not able to say. A collection of passages of this kind would naturally be of peculiar interest.