The History of Indian Literature c8.95

c8.95

Both Brāhmaṇas presuppose literary compositions of some extent as having preceded them. Thus mention is made of the *ākhyānavidas*, *i.e.*, "those versed in tradition;" and *gāthās*, *abhiyajna-gāthās*, a sort of memorial verses (*kārikās*), are also frequently referred to and quoted. The names Ṛigveda, Sāmaveda, and Yajurveda, as well as *trayī vidyā*, a term used to express them collectively, repeatedly occur. In the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa, however, special regard is had to the Paiṅgya and Kaushītaka, whose views are very frequently quoted side by side, that of the Kaushītaka being always recognised as final. The question now arises what we are to understand by these expressions, whether works of the Brāhmaṇa order already extant in a written form, or still handed down orally only—or merely the inherited tradition of individual doctrines. Mention of the Kaushītaka and the Paiṅgya occurs in the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa only in a single passage—and that perhaps an interpolated one—in the latter part of the work. This at all events proves, what already seemed probable from its more methodical arrangement, that the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa is to be considered a later production than the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa, since it appears to be a recast of two sets of views of similar tenor already extant under distinct names, while the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa presents itself as a more independent effort. The name Paiṅgya belongs to one of the sages mentioned in the Brāhmaṇa of the White Yajus and elsewhere, from whose family Yāska Paiṅgi[^asterisk] was descended, and probably also Piṅgala, the author of a treatise on metre. The *Paiṅgī Kalpaḥ* is expressly included by the commentator of Pāṇini, probably following the Mahābhāshya, among the ancient Kalpa-Sūtras, in contradistinction to the *Aśmarathaḥ Kalpaḥ*, with which we shall presently become acquainted as an authority of the Aśvalāyana-Sūtra. The Paiṅgins are, besides, frequently mentioned in early writings, and a Paiṅgi-Brāhmaṇa must still have been in existence even in Sāyaṇa's time, for he repeatedly refers to it. The case stands similarly as regards the name Kaushītaka, which, is, moreover, used directly in the majority of passages where it is quoted for the Śāṅkhāyana-Brāhmaṇa itself—a fact easy of explanation, as in the latter the view represented by the Kaushītaka is invariably upheld as the authoritative one, and we have in this Brāhmaṇa but a remoulding by Śāṅkhāyana of the stock of dogma peculiarly the property of the Kaushītakins. Further, in its commentary, which, it may be remarked,