[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Literature, language and dating](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature) › [The History of Indian Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878) › c8 # The History of Indian Literature c8: First Period. Vedic Literature The History of Indian Literature c8 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [c8.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.13) — 3 parts - [c8.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.26) — 4 parts - [c8.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.46) — 5 parts - [c8.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.76) — 4 parts - [c8.132](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.132) — 4 parts - [c8.197](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.197) — 4 parts - [c8.245](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.245) — 5 parts - [c8.252](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.252) — 5 parts - [c8.300](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.300) — 6 parts - [c8.308](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.308) — 5 parts - [c8.362](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.362) — 6 parts - [c8.473](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.473) — 7 parts - [c8.488](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.488) — 4 parts ### First Period. Vedic Literature ### [c8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.2) WE have to distinguish four Vedas—the Rig-Veda, the Sáma-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, which is in a double form, and the Atharva-Veda. Each of these is again subdivided into three distinct parts—Saṃhitá, Bráhmaṇa, and Sútra. ### [c8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.3) Their relation to each other is as follows:— ### [c8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.4) The Saṃhitá\[^asterisk\] of the Ṛik is purely a lyrical collection, comprising the store of song which the Hindús brought with them from their ancient homes on the banks of the Indus, and which they had there used for "invoking prosperity on themselves and their flocks, in their adoration of the dawn, in celebration of the struggle between the god who wields the lightning and the power of darkness, and in rendering thanks to the heavenly beings for preservation in battle."dagger The songs are here classified according to the families of poets to which they are ascribed. The principle of classification is consequently, so to speak, a purely scientific one. It is therefore possible, though more cannot be said, that the redaction of the text may be of later date than that of the two Saṃhitás which ### [c8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.5) dagger See Roth, \*Zur Litteratur und Geschichte des Weda\*, p. 8 (Stuttgart, 1846). ### [c8.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.6) \[^asterisk\]: The name Saṃhitá (collection) first occurs in the so-called Áraṇyakas, or latest supplements to the Bráhmaṇas, and in the Sútras; but whether in the above meaning, is not as yet certain. The names by which the Saṃhitás are designated in the Bráhmaṇas are—either \*ṛichaḥ\*, \*sámáni\*, \*yajúṅshi\*,—or Ṛigveda, Sámaveda, Yajurveda,—or Bahvṛichas, Chhandogas, Adhvaryus,—or \*trayí vidyá\*, \*svádhyáya\*, \*adhyayana\*, also 'Veda' alone. It is in the Sútras that we first find the term Chhandas specially applied to the Saṃhitás, and more particularly in Páṇini, by whom Ṛishi, Nigama, Mantra (?) are also employed in the same manner. ### [c8.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.7) will come next under our consideration, and which, providing as they do for a practical want, became necessary immediately upon the institution of a worship with a fixed ritual. For the Saṃhitá of the Sáman, and both the Saṃhitás of the Yajus, consist only of such \*ṛichas\* (verses) and sacrificial formulas as had to be recited at the ceremonies of the Soma offering and other sacrifices, and in the same order in which they were practically used; at least, we know for certain, that this is the case in the Yajus. The Saṃhitá of the Sáman contains nothing but verses (\*ṛichas\*); those of the Yajus, sentences in prose also. The former, the \*ṛichas\*, all recur, with a few exceptions, in the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, so that the Sáma-Saṃhitá is nothing more than an extract from the songs of the latter, of the verses applied to the Soma offering. Now the \*ṛichas\* found in the Sáma-Saṃhitá and Yajuḥ-Saṃhitá appear in part in a very altered form, deviating considerably from the text of the Ṛik, the Ṛik-Saṃhitá. Of this a triple explanation is possible. First, these readings may be earlier and more original than those of the Ṛik, liturgical use having protected them from alteration, while the simple song, not being immediately connected with the sacred rite, was less scrupulously preserved. Or, secondly, they may be later than those of the Ṛik, and may have arisen from the necessity of precisely adapting the text to the meaning attributed to the verse in its application to the ceremony. Or, lastly, they may be of equal authority with those of the Ṛik, the discrepancies being merely occasioned by the variety of districts and families in which they were used, the text being most authentic in the district and family in which it originated, and less so in those to which it subsequently passed. All three methods of explanation are alike correct, and in each particular case they must all be kept in view. But if we look more closely at the relation of these verses, it may be stated thus: The \*ṛichas\* occurring in the Sáma-Saṃhitá generally stamp themselves as older and more original by the greater antiquity of their grammatical forms; those in the two Saṃhitás of the Yajus, on the contrary, generally give the impression of having undergone a secondary alteration. Instances which come under the third method of explanation are found in equal numbers, both in the Sáma-Saṃhitá and the Yajuḥ-Saṃhitá. Altogether, too much stress cannot be laid on this point, namely, that the alterations which the songs and hymns underwent in the popular mouth during their oral transmission, must in any case be regarded as very considerable; since preservation by means of writing is not to be thought of for this period. Indeed we can hardly admit it for the time of the Bráhmaṇas either, otherwise it would be difficult to account for the numerous deviations of the various schools with regard to the text of these works also, as well as for the great number of different schools (Śákhás) generally. ### [c8.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.8) But although the songs of the Ṛik, or the majority of them, were composed on the banks of the Indus, their final compilation and arrangement can only have taken place in India proper; at what time, however, it is difficult to say. Some portions come down to an age so recent, that the system of caste had already been organised; and tradition itself, in ascribing to Śákalya and Pañchála Bábhravya a leading part in the arrangement of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, points us to the flourishing epoch of the Videhas and Pañchálas, as I shall show hereafter. The Saṃhitá of the Sáman, being entirely borrowed from the Ṛik, gives no clue to the period of its origin; only, in the fact that it contains no extracts from any of the later portions of the Ṛik, we have perhaps an indication that these were not then in existence. This, however, is a point not yet investigated. As for the two Saṃhitás of the Yajus, we have in the prose portions peculiar to them, most distinct proofs that both originated in the eastern parts of Hindustán,⁷ in the country of the Kurupañchálas, and that they belong to a period when the Brahmanical element had already gained the supremacy, although it had still to encounter many a hard struggle, and when at all events the hierarchy of the Brahmans, and the system of caste, were completely organised. Nay, it may be that we have even external grounds for supposing that the present redaction of the Saṃhitá of the White Yajus dates from the third century B.C. For Megasthenes mentions a people called ΜΑδιανδινοί, and this name recurs in the Má- dhyamdinas, the principal school of the White Yajus. More of this later on. ### [c8.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.9) ⁷ Or rather to the east of the Indus, in Hindustán. ### [c8.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.10) The origin of the Atharva-Saṃhitá dates also from the period when Brahmanism had become dominant. It is in other respects perfectly analogous to the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, and contains the store of song of this Brahmanical epoch. Many of these songs are to be found also in the last, that is, the least ancient book of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá. In the latter they are the latest additions made at the time of its compilation; in the Atharvan they are the proper and natural utterance of the present. The spirit of the two collections is indeed entirely different. In the Ṛik there breathes a lively natural feeling a warm love for nature; while in the Atharvan there prevails, on the contrary, only an anxious dread of her evil spirits, and their magical powers. In the Ṛik we find the people in a state of free activity and independence; in the Atharvan we see it bound in the fetters of the hierarchy and of superstition. But the Atharva-Saṃhitá likewise contains pieces of great antiquity, which may perhaps have belonged more to the people proper, to its lower grades; whereas the songs of the Ṛik appear rather to have been the especial property of the higher families.∗ It was not without a long struggle that the songs of the Atharvan were permitted to take their place as a fourth Veda. There is no mention made of them in the more ancient portions of the Bráhmaṇas of the Ṛik, Sáman, and Yajus; indeed they only originated simultaneously with these Bráhmaṇas, and are therefore only alluded to in their later portions. ### [c8.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.11) ∗ This surmise, based upon certain passages in the Atharvan, would certainly be at variance with the name ‘Atharváṅgirasas,’ borne by this Saṃhitá; according to which it would belong, on the contrary, to the most ancient and noble Brahman families. But I have elsewhere advanced the conjecture, that this name was simply assumed in order to impart a greater sanctity to the contents, see \*I. St.\*, i. 295. \[\*Zwei vedische Texte über Omina und Portenta\*, pp. 346–348.\] ### [c8.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.12) We now come to the second part of Vedic literature, the Bráhmaṇas. ### [c8.13.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.13.1) The character of the Bráhmaṇas† may be thus generally defined: Their object is to connect the sacrificial songs and formulas with the sacrificial rite, by pointing out, on the one hand, their direct mutual relation; and, on the other, their symbolical connection with each other. In setting forth the former, they give the particular ritual in its details: in illustrating the latter, they are either directly explanatory and analytic, dividing each formula into its constituent parts, or else they establish that connection dogmatically by the aid of tradition or speculation. We thus find in them the oldest rituals we have, the oldest linguistic explanations, the oldest traditional narratives, and the oldest philosophical speculations. This peculiar character is common generally to all works of this class, yet they differ widely in details, according to their individual tendency, and according as they belong to this or that particular Veda. With respect to age they all date from the period of the transition from Vedic civilisation and culture to the Brahmanic mode of thought and social order. Nay, they help to bring about this very transition, and some of them belong rather to the time of its commencement, others rather to that of its termination.∗ The Bráhmaņas originated from the opinions of individual sages, imparted by oral tradition, and preserved as well as supplemented in their families and by their disciples. ### [c8.13.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.13.2) The more numerous these separate traditions became, the more urgent became the necessity for bringing them into harmony with each other. To this end, as time went on, compilations, comprising a variety of these materials, and in which the different opinions on each subject were uniformly traced to their original representatives, were made in different districts by individuals peculiarly qualified for the task. But whether these compilations or digests were now actually written down, or were still transmitted orally only, remains uncertain. The latter supposition would seem probable from the fact that of the same work we here and there find two texts entirely differing in their details. Nothing definite, however, can be said on the subject, for in these cases there may possibly have been some fundamental difference in the original, or even a fresh treatment of the materials. It was, moreover, but natural that these compilers should frequently come into collision and conflict with each other. Hence we have now and then to remark the exhibition of strong animosity against those who in the author’s opinion are heterodox. The preponderant influence gradually gained by some of these works over the rest—whether by reason of their intrinsic value, or of the fact that their author appealed more to the hierarchical spirit¹—has resulted, unfortunately for us, in the preservation of these only, while works representative of the disputed opinions have for the most part disappeared. ### [c8.13.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.13.3) Here and there perhaps in India some fragments may still be found; in general, however, here as everywhere in Indian literature, we encounter the lamentable fact that the works which, in the end, came off victorious, have almost entirely supplanted and effaced their predecessors. After all, a comparatively large number of Bráhmaṇas is still extant—a circumstance which is evidently owing to their being each annexed to a particular Veda, as well as to the fact that a sort of petty jealousy had always prevailed among the families in which the study of the different Vedas was hereditarily transmitted. Thus in the case of each Veda, such works at least as had come to be considered of the highest authority have been preserved, although the practical significance of the Bráhmaṇas was gradually more and more lost, and passed over to the Sútras, &c. To the number of the Bráhmaṇas, or recensions of the Saṃhitás, which were thus lost, belong those of the Váshkalas, Paiṅgins, Bhállavins, Śátyáyanins, Kálabavins, Lámakáyanins, Śámbuvis, Kháḍáyanins, and Śálaṅkáyanins, which we find quoted on various occasions in writings of this class; besides all the Chhandas works (Saṃhitás) specified in the \*gaṇa\* ‘Śaunaka’ (Páṇ., iv. 3. 106), whose names are not so much as mentioned elsewhere. ### [c8.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.14) † This term signifies ‘that which relates to prayer, \*brahman\*.’ \*Brahman\* itself means ‘drawing forth,’ as well in a physical sense ‘producing,’ ‘creating,’ as in a spiritual one ‘lifting up,’ ‘elevating,’ ‘strengthening.’ The first mention of the name Bráhmaṇa, in the above sense, is found in the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus, and especially in its thirteenth book. In cases where the dogmatical explanation of a ceremonial or other precept has already been given, we there find the expression \*tasyoktam bráhmaņam\*, 'of this the Bráhmaņa has already been stated;' whereas in the books preceding the thirteenth, we find in such cases \*tasyokto bandhuḥ\* 'its connection has already been set forth.' \[\*I. St.\*, v. 60, ix. 351.\]—Besides Bráhmaņa, Pravachana is also used in the \*Sáma-Sútras\*, according to the commentary, in the same sense; they also mention Anubráhmaņa, a term which does not occur elsewhere except in Páņini. ### [c8.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.15) ∗ Páņini, iv. 3. 105, directly mentions 'older (\*puráņaprokta\*) Bráhmaņas;' and in contradistinction to these there must, of course, have been in existence in his day 'more modern (or as the scholiast says, \*tulyakála\*) Bráhmaņas.' \[See on this Goldstücker, \*Páņini\*, p. 132, ff., and my rejoinder in \*I. St.\*, v. 64, ff.\] ### [c8.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.16) ¹ \* The difficulty of their preservation is also an important factor in the case, as at that time writing either did not exist at all, or at any rate was but seldom employed. \[“In considering the question of the age and extent of the use of writing in India, it is important to point out that the want of suitable materials, in the North at least, before the introduction of paper, must have been a great obstacle to its general use.”—Burnell, \*Elements of South Indian Palæography\*, p. 10.\] ### [c8.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.17) The difference between the Bráhmaṇas of the several Vedas as to subject-matter is essentially this: The Bráhmaṇas of the Ṛik, in their exposition of the ritual, generally specify those duties only which fell to the Hotar, or reciter of the \*ṛichas\*, whose office it was to collect from the various hymns the verses suited to each particular occasion, as its \*śastra\* (canon). The Bráhmaṇas of the Sáman confine themselves to the duties of the Udgátar, or singer of the \*sámans\*; the Bráhmaṇas of the Yajus, to the duties of the Adhvaryu, or actual performer of the sacrifice. In the Bráhmaṇas of the Ṛik, the order of the sacrificial performance is on the whole preserved, whereas the sequence of the hymns as they occur in the Ṛik-Saṃhitá is not attended to at all. But in the Bráhmaṇas of the Sáman and Yajus, we find a difference corresponding to the fact that their Saṃhitás are already adapted to the proper order of the ritual. The Bráhmaṇa of the Sáman enters but seldom into the explanation of individual verses; the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus, on the contrary, may be almost considered as a running dogmatic commentary on its Saṃhitá, to the order of which it adheres so strictly, that in the case of its omitting one or more verses, we might perhaps be justified in concluding that they did not then form part of the Saṃhitá. A supplement also has been added to this Bráhmaṇa for some of those books of the Saṃhitá which were incorporated with it at a period subsequent to its original compilation, so that the Bráhmaṇa comprises 100 \*adhyáyas\* instead of 60, as formerly seems to have been the case. The Bráhmaṇa of the Black Yajus does not, as we shall see further on, differ in its contents, but only in point of time, from its Saṃhitá. It is, in fact, a supplement to it. The Bráhmaṇa of the Atharvan is up to the present time unknown, though there are manuscripts of it in England.⁸ ### [c8.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.18) ⁸ It has since been published, see below. It presents no sort of direct internal relation to the Ath. Saṃhitá. ### [c8.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.19) The common name for the Bráhmaṇa literature is \*Śruti\*, ‘hearing,’ \*i.e.\*, that which is subject of hearing, subject of exposition, of teaching, by which name their learned, and consequently exclusive, character is sufficiently intimated. In accordance with this we find in the works themselves frequent warnings against intrusting the knowledge contained in them to any profane person. The name Śruti is not indeed mentioned in them, but only in the Sútras, though it is perfectly justified by the corresponding use of the verb \*śru\* which occurs in them frequently. ### [c8.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.20) The third stage in Vedic literature is represented by the Sútras.∗ These are, upon the whole, essentially founded on the Bráhmaṇas, and must be considered as their necessary supplement, as a further advance in the path struck out by the latter in the direction of more rigid system and formalism.⁹ While the Bráhmaṇas, with the view of explaining the sacrifice and supporting it by authority, &c., uniformly confine themselves to individual instances of ritual, interpretation, tradition, and speculation, subjecting these to copious dogmatic treatment, the object of the Sútras is to comprehend everything that had any reference whatever to these subjects. The mass of matter became too great; there was risk of the tenor of the whole being lost in the details; and it gradually became impossible to discuss all the different particulars consecutively. Diffuse discussion of the details had to be replaced by concise collective summaries of them. The utmost brevity was, however, requisite in condensing this great mass, in order to avoid overburdening the memory; and this brevity ultimately led to a remarkably compressed and enigmatical style, which was more and more cultivated as the literature of the Sútras became more independent, and in proportion as the resulting advantages became apparent. Thus the more ancient a Sútra, the more intelligible it is; the more enigmatical it is, the more modern will it prove.∗ ### [c8.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.21) ∗ The word Sútra in the above sense occurs first in the Madhukáṇḍa, one of the latest supplements to the Bráhmaṇa of the White Yajus, next in the two Gṛihya-Sútras of the Ṛik, and finally in Páṇini. It means ‘thread,’ ‘band,’ cf. Lat. \*suere\*. Would it be correct to regard it as an expression analogous to the German \*band\* (volume)? If so, the term would have to be understood of the fastening together of the leaves, and would necessarily presuppose the existence of writing (in the same way, perhaps, as \*grantha\* does, a term first occurring in Páṇini?). Inquiry into the origin of Indian writing has not, unfortunately, led to much result as yet. The oldest inscriptions, according to Wilson, date no earlier than the third century b.c. Nearchus, however, as is well known, mentions writing, and his time corresponds very well upon the whole to the period to which we must refer the origin of the Sútras. But as these were composed chiefly with a view to their being committed to memory—a fact which follows from their form, and partly accounts for it—there might be good grounds for taking exception to the etymology just proposed, and for regarding the signification ‘guiding-line,’ ‘clue,’ as the original one. \[This is the meaning given in the St. Petersburg Dictionary.—The writing of the Indians is of Semitic origin; see Benfey, \*Indien\* (in \*Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopædia\*, 1840), p. 254; my \*Indische Skizzen\* (1856), p. 127, ff.; Burnell, \*Elem. of South Indian Pal.\*, p. 3, ff. Probably it served in the first instance merely for secular purposes, and was only applied subsequently to literature. See Müller, \*Anc. S. Lit.\*, p. 507; \*I. St.\*, v. 20, ff.; \*I. Str.\*, ii. 339. Goldstücker (\*Páṇini\*, 1860, p. 26, ff.) contends that the words \*sútra\* and \*grantha\* must absolutely be connected with writing. See, however, \*I. St.\*, v. 24, ff.; xiii. 476.\]—Nor does etymology lead us to a more certain result in the case of another word found in this connection, viz., \*akshara\*, ‘syllable.’ This word does not seem to occur in this sense in the Saṃhitá of the Ṛik (or Sáman); it there rather signifies ‘imperishable.’ The connecting link between this primary signification and the meaning ‘syllable,’ which is first met with in the Saṃhitá of the Yajus, might perhaps be the idea of writing, the latter being the making imperishable, as it were, of otherwise fleeting and evanescent words and syllables (?). Or is the notion of the imperishable λόγος at the root of this signification? \[In the \*Errata\* to the first German edition it was pointed out, on the authority of a communication received from Professor Aufrecht, that \*akshara\* is twice used in the Ṛik of the 'measuring of speech,' viz., i. 164. 24 (47), and ix. 13. 3, and consequently may there mean 'syllable.' According to the St. Petersburg Dictionary, this latter meaning is to be derived from the idea of 'the constant, simple' element in language.\] ### [c8.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.22) ⁹ On the mutual relations of the Bráhmaṇas and Sútras, see also \*I. St.\*, viii. 76, 77; ix. 353, 354. ### [c8.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.23) ∗ Precisely as in the case of the Bráhmaṇas, so also in the case of the Kalpas, \*i.e.\*, Kalpa-Sútras, Páṇini, iv. 3. 105, distinguishes those composed by the ancients from those that are nearer to his own time. ### [c8.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.24) But the literature of the Sútras can by no means be said to rest entirely upon the Bráhmaṇas, for these, as a rule, give too exclusive a prominence to the ritual of the sacrifice. Indeed, it is only one particular division of the Sútras—viz., the Kalpa-Sútras, aphorisms exclusively devoted to the consideration of this ritual¹⁰—which bears the special name of Śrauta-Sútras, \*i.e.\*, “Sútras founded on the Śruti.” The sources of the other Sútras must be sought elsewhere. ### [c8.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.25) ¹⁰ On the sacrifice and sacrificial implements of the Śrauta-Sútras, see M. Müller in \*Z. D. M. G.\*, IX. xxxvi.–lxxxii.; Haug's notes to his translation of the \*Aitareya-Bráhmaṇa\*; and my paper, \*Zur Kenntniss des vedischen Opferrituals\*, \*I. St.\*, x. xiii. \\* Who were distinguished by their very colour from the three other castes; hence the name \*varṇa\*, \*i.e.\* colour, for caste. \[See \*I. St.\*, x. 4, 10.\] ### [c8.26.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.26.1) Side by side with the Śrauta-Sútras we are met by a second family of ritual Sútras, the so-called Gṛihya-Sútras, which treat of domestic ceremonies, those celebrated at birth and before it, at marriage, as well as at death and after it. The origin of these works is sufficiently indicated by their title, since, in addition to the name of Gṛihya-Sútras, they also bear that of Smárta-Sútras, \*i.e.\*, “Sútras founded on the \*Smṛiti\*.” \*Smṛiti\*, ‘memory,’ \*i.e.\*, that which is the subject of memory, can evidently only be distinguished from \*Śruti\*, ‘hearing,’ \*i.e.\*, that which is the subject of hearing, in so far as the former impresses itself on the memory directly, without special instruction and provision for the purpose. It belongs to all, it is the property of the whole people, it is supported by the consciousness of all, and does not therefore need to be specially inculcated. Custom and law are common property and accessible to all; ritual, on the contrary, though in like manner arising originally from the common consciousness, is developed in its details by the speculations and suggestions of individuals, and remains so far the property of the few, who, favoured by external circumstances, understand how to inspire the people with a due awe of the importance and sanctity of their institutions. It is not, however, to be assumed from this that Smṛiti, custom and law, did not also undergo considerable alterations in the course of time. ### [c8.26.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.26.2) The mass of the immigrants had a great deal too much on their hands in the subjugation of the aborigines to be in a position to occupy themselves with other matters. Their whole energies had, in the first instance, to be concentrated upon the necessity of holding their own against the enemy. When this had been effected, and resistance was broken down, they awoke suddenly to find themselves bound and shackled in the hands of other and far more powerful enemies; or rather, they did not awake at all; their physical powers had been so long and so exclusively exercised and expended to the detriment of their intellectual energy, that the latter had gradually dwindled away altogether. The history of these new enemies was this: The knowledge of the ancient songs with which, in their ancient homes, the Indians had worshipped the powers of nature, and the knowledge of the ritual connected with these songs, became more and more the exclusive property of those whose ancestors perhaps composed them, and in whose families this knowledge had been hereditary. These same families remained in the possession of the traditions connected with them, and which were necessary to their explanation. To strangers in a foreign country, anything brought with them from home becomes invested with a halo of sacredness; ### [c8.26.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.26.3) and thus it came about that these families of singers became families of priests, whose influence was more and more consolidated in proportion as the distance between the people and their former home increased, and the more their ancient institutions were banished from their minds by external struggles. The guardians of the ancestral customs, of the primitive forms of worship, took an increasingly prominent position, became the representatives of these, and, finally, the representatives of the Divine itself. For so ably had they used their opportunities, that they succeeded in founding a hierarchy the like of which the world has never seen. To this position it would have been scarcely possible for them to attain but for the enervating climate of Hindustán, and the mode of life induced by it, which exercised a deteriorating influence upon a race unaccustomed to it. The families also of the petty kings who had formerly reigned over individual tribes, held a more prominent position in the larger kingdoms which were of necessity founded in Hindustán; and thus arose the military caste. Lastly, the people proper, the \*Viśas\*, or settlers, united to form a third caste, and they in their turn naturally reserved to themselves prerogatives over the fourth caste, or Śúdras. ### [c8.26.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.26.4) This last was composed of various mixed elements, partly, perhaps, of an Aryan race which had settled earlier in India, partly of the aborigines themselves, and partly again of those among the immigrants, or their Western kinsmen, who refused adherence to the new Brahmanical order. The royal families, the warriors, who, it may be supposed, strenuously supported the priesthood so long as it was a question of robbing the people of their rights, now that this was effected turned against their former allies, and sought to throw off the yoke that was likewise laid upon them. These efforts were, however, unavailing; the colossus was too firmly established. Obscure legends and isolated allusions are the only records left to us in the later writings, of the sacrilegious hands which ventured to attack the sacred and divinely consecrated majesty of the Brahmans; and these are careful to note, at the same time, the terrible punishments which befell those impious offenders. The fame of many a Barbarossa has here passed away and been forgotten! ### [c8.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.27) The Smárta-Sútras, which led to this digression, generally exhibit the complete standpoint of Brahmanism. Whether in the form of actual records or of compositions orally transmitted, they in any case date from a period when more than men cared to lose of the Smriti—that precious tradition passed on from generation to generation—was in danger of perishing. Though, as we have just seen, it had undergone considerable modifications, even in the families who guarded it, through the influence of the Brahmans, yet this influence was chiefly exercised with reference to its political bearings, leaving domestic manners and customs¹¹ untouched in their ancient form; so that these works cover a rich treasure of ideas and conceptions of extreme antiquity. It is in them also that we have to look for the beginnings of the Hindú legal literature,¹² whose subject-matter, indeed, in part corresponds exactly to theirs, and whose authors bear for the most part the same names as those of the Grihya-Sútras. With the strictly legal portions of the law-books, those dealing with civil law, criminal law, and political law, we do not, it is true, find more than a few points of connection in these Sútras; but probably these branches were not codified at all until the pressure of actual imminent danger made it necessary to establish them on a secure foundation. The risk of their gradually dying out was, owing to the constant operation of the factors involved, not so great as in the case of domestic customs. But a far more real peril threatened them in the fierce assaults directed against the Brahmanical polity by the gradually increasing power of Buddhism. Buddhism originally proceeded purely from theoretical heterodoxy regarding the relation of matter to spirit, and similar questions; but in course of time it addressed itself to practical points of religion and worship, and thenceforth it imperilled the very existence of Brahmanism, since the military caste and the oppressed classes of the people generally availed themselves of its aid in order to throw off the overwhelming yoke of priestly domination. The statement of Megasthenes, that the Indians in his time administered law only ἀπὸ μνήμης, ‘from memory,’ I hold therefore to be perfectly correct, and I can see no grounds for the view that \*μνήμη\* is but a mistranslation of Smṛiti in the sense of Smṛiti-S’ástra, ‘a treatise on Smṛiti.’¹ For the above-mentioned reason, however—in consequence of the development of Buddhism into an anti-Brahmanical religion—the case may have altered soon afterwards, and a code, that of Manu, for example (founded on the Mánava Gṛihya-Sútra), may have been drawn up. But this work belongs not to the close of the Vedic, but to the beginning of the following period. ### [c8.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.28) ¹¹ For the ritual relating to birth see Speijer's book on the \*Játakarma\* (Leyden, 1872)—for the marriage ceremonies, Haas's paper, \*Ueber die Heirathsgebräuche der alten Inder\*, with additions by myself in \*I. St.\*, v. 267, ff.; also my paper \*Vedische Hochzeitssprüche\*, \*ibid.\*, p. 177, ff. (1862)—on the burial of the dead, Roth in \*Z. D. M. G.\*, viii. 487, ff. (1854), and M. Müller, \*ibid.\*, IX. i.-xxxvi. (1855); and lastly, O. Donner's \*Piṇḍapitṛiyajna\* (1870). ### [c8.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.29) ¹² Besides the Grihya-Sútras we find some texts directly called Dharma-Sútras, or Sámayáchárika-Sútras, which are specified as portions of Śrauta-Sútras, but which were no doubt subsequently inserted into these. ### [c8.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.30) ¹ \* This latter view has been best set forth by Schwanbeck, \*Megasthenes\*, pp. 50, 51. \[But see also Burnell, \*Elements of S. Ind. Palæogr.\*, p. 4.\] ### [c8.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.31) As we have found, in the Smṛiti, an independent basis for the Gṛihya-Sútras—in addition to the Bráhmaṇas, where but few points of contact with these Sútras can be traced—so too shall we find an independent basis for those Sútras the contents of which relate to language. In this case it is in the recitation of the songs and formulas at the sacrifice that we shall find it. Although, accordingly, these Sútras stand on a level with the Bráhmaṇas, which owe their origin to the same source, yet this must be understood as applying only to those views on linguistic relations which, being presupposed in the Sútras, must be long anterior to them. It must not be taken as applying to the works themselves, inasmuch as they present the results of these antecedent investigations in a collected and systematic form. Obviously also, it was a much more natural thing to attempt, in the first instance, to elucidate the relation of the prayer to the sacrifice, than to make the form in which the prayer itself was drawn up a subject of investigation. The more sacred the sacrificial performance grew, and the more fixed the form of worship gradually became, the greater became the importance of the prayers belonging to it, and the stronger their claim to the utmost possible purity and safety. To effect this, it was necessary, first, to fix the text of the prayers; secondly, to establish a correct pronunciation and recitation; and, lastly, to preserve the tradition of their origin. It was only after the lapse of time, and when by degrees their literal sense had become foreign to the phase into which the language had passed—and this was of course much later the case with the priests, who were familiar with them, than with the people at large—that it became necessary to take precautions for securing and establishing the sense also. To attain all these objects, those most conversant with the subject were obliged to give instruction to the ignorant, and circles were thus formed around them of travelling scholars, who made pilgrimages from one teacher to another according as they were attracted by the fame of special learning. These researches were naturally not confined to questions of language, but embraced the whole range of Brahmanical theology, extending in like manner to questions of worship, dogma, and speculation, all of which, indeed, were closely interwoven with each other. We must, at any rate, assume among the Brahmans of this period a very stirring intellectual life, in which even the women took an active part, and which accounts still further for the superiority maintained and exercised by the Brahmans over the rest of the people. Nor did the military caste hold aloof from these inquiries, especially after they had succeeded in securing a time of repose from external warfare. We have here a faithful copy of the scholastic period of the Middle Ages; sovereigns whose courts form the centres of intellectual life; Brahmans who with lively emulation carry on their inquiries into the highest questions the human mind can propound; women who with enthusiastic ardour plunge into the mysteries of speculation, impressing and astonishing men by the depth and loftiness of their opinions, and who—while in a state which, judging from description, seems to have been a kind of somnambulism—solve the questions proposed to them on sacred subjects. As to the quality of their solutions, and the value of all these inquiries generally, that is another matter. But neither have the scholastic subtleties any absolute worth in themselves; it is only the striving and the effort which ennobles the character of any such period. ### [c8.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.32) The advance made by linguistic research during this epoch was very considerable. It was then that the text of the prayers was fixed, that the redaction of the various Saṃhitás took place. By degrees, very extensive precautions were taken for this purpose. For their study (Páṭha), as well as for the different methods of preserving them—whether by writing or by memory, for either is possible¹³—such special injunctions are given, that it seems all but impossible that any alteration in the text, except in the form of interpolation, can have taken place since. These directions, as well as those relating to the pronunciation and recitation of the words, are laid down in the Prátiśákhya-Sútras, writings with which we have but recently been made acquainted.∗ Such a Prátiśákhya-Sútra uniformly attaches itself to the Saṃhitá of a single Veda only, but it embraces all the schools belonging to it; it gives the general regulations as to the nature of the sounds employed, the euphonic rules observed, the accent and its modifications, the modulation of the voice, &c. Further, all the individual cases in which peculiar phonetic or other changes are observed are specially pointed out;¹⁴ and we are in this way supplied with an excellent critical means of arriving at the form of the text of each Saṃhitá at the time when its Prátiśákhya was composed. If we find in any part of the Saṃhitá phonetic peculiarities which we are unable to trace in its Prátiśákhya, we may rest assured that at that period this part did not yet belong to the Saṃhitá. The directions as to the recital of the Veda, \*i.e.\*, of its Saṃhitá,† in the schools—each individual word being repeated in a variety of connections—present a very lively picture of the care with which these studies were pursued. ### [c8.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.33) ¹³ All the technical terms, however, which occur for study of the Veda and the like, uniformly refer to speaking and reciting only, and thereby point to exclusively oral tradition. The writing down of the Vedic texts seems indeed not to have taken place until a comparatively late period. See \*I. St.\*, v. 18, ff. (1861). Müller, \*Anc. S. Lit.\*, p. 507, ff. (1859): Westergaard, \*Ueber den ältesten Zeitraum der indischen Geschichte\* (1860, German translation 1862, p. 42, ff.); and Haug, \*Ueber das Wesen des vedischen Accents\* (1873, p. 16, ff.), have declared themselves in favour of this theory. Haug thinks that those Brahmans who were converted to Buddhism were the first who consigned the Veda to writing—for polemical purposes—and that they were followed by the rest of the Brahmans. On the other hand, Goldstücker, Böhtlingk, Whitney, and Roth (\*Der Atharvaveda in Kashmir\*, p. 10), are of the opposite opinion, holding, in particular, that the authors of the Prátisákhyas must have had written texts before them. Benfey also formerly shared this view, but recently (\*Einleitung in die Grammatik der ved. Sprache\*, p. 31), he has expressed the belief that the Vedic texts were only committed to writing at a late date, long subsequent to their ‘\*diaskeuasis\*.’ Burnell also, \*l. c.\*, p. 10, is of opinion that, amongst other things, the very scarcity of the material for writing in ancient times “almost precludes the existence of MSS. of books or long documents.” ### [c8.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.34) ∗ By Roth in his essays, \*Zur Litteratur und Geschichte des Weda\*, p. 53, ff. (translated in \*Journ. As. Soc. Bengal\*, January 1848, p. 6, ff.). ### [c8.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.35) ¹⁴ This indeed is the real purpose of the Prátiśákhyas, namely, to show how the continuous Saṃhitá text is to be reconstructed out of the Pada text, in which the individual words of the text are given separately in their original form, unaffected by \*saṃdhi\*, \*i.e.\*, the influence of the words which immediately precede and follow. Whatever else, over and above this, is found in the Prátiśákhyas is merely accessory matter. See Whitney in \*Journal Am. Or. Soc.\*, iv. 259 (1853). ### [c8.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.36) † Strictly speaking, only these (the Saṃhitás) are Veda. ### [c8.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.37) For the knowledge of metre also, rich materials have been handed down to us in the Sútras. The singers of the hymns themselves must naturally have been cognisant of the metrical laws observed in them. But we also find the technical names of some metres now and then mentioned in the later songs of the Ṛik. In the Bráhmaṇas the oddest tricks are played with them, and their harmony is in some mystical fashion brought into connection with the harmony of the world, in fact stated to be its fundamental cause. The simple minds of these thinkers were too much charmed by their rhythm not to be led into these and similar symbolisings. The further development of metre afterwards led to special inquiries into its laws. Such investigations have been preserved to us, both in Sútras¹⁵ treating directly of metre, \*e.g.\*, the Nidána-Sútra, and in the Anukramaṇís, a peculiar class of works, which, adhering to the order of each Saṃhitá, assign a poet, a metre, and a deity to each song or prayer. They may, therefore, perhaps belong to a later period than most of the Sútras, to a time when the text of each Saṃhitá was already extant in its final form, and distributed as we there find it into larger and smaller sections for the better regulation of its study. One of the smallest sections formed the pupil’s task on each occasion.—The preservation of the tradition concerning the authors and the origin of the prayers is too intimately connected herewith to be dissociated from the linguistic Sútras, although the class of works to which it gave rise is of an entirely different character. The most ancient of such traditions are to be found, as above stated, in the Bráhmaṇas themselves. These latter also contain legends regarding the origin and the author of this or that particular form of worship; and on such occasions the Bráhmaṇa frequently appeals to Gáthás, or stanzas, preserved by oral transmission among the people. It is evidently in these legends that we must look for the origin of the more extensive Itihásas and Puráṇas, works which but enlarged the range of their subject, but which in every other respect proceeded after the same fashion, as is shown by several of the earlier fragments preserved, \*e.g.\*, in the Mahá-Bhárata. The most ancient work of the kind hitherto known is the Bṛihaddevatá by Śaunaka, in \*ślokas\*, which, however, strictly follows the order of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá, and proves by its very title that it has only an accidental connection with this class of works. Its object properly is to specify the deity for each verse of the Ṛik-Saṃhitá. But in so doing, it supports its views with so many legends, that we are fully justified in classing it here. It, however, like the other Anukramaṇís, belongs to a much later period than most of the Sútras, since it presupposes Yáska, the author of the Nirukti, of whom I have to speak presently; it is, in fact, essentially based upon his work. \[See Adalb. Kuhn in \*I. St.\*, i. 101–120.\] ### [c8.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.38) ¹⁵ See Part i. of my paper on Indian Prosody, \*I. St.\*, viii. 1, ff. (1863). ### [c8.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.39) It was remarked above, that the investigations into the literal sense of the prayers only began when this sense had gradually become somewhat obscure, and that, as this could not be the case among the priests, who were familiar with it, so soon as amongst the rest of the people, the language of the latter may at that time have undergone considerable modifications. The first step taken to render the prayers intelligible was to make a collection of synonyms, which, by virtue of their very arrangement, explained themselves, and of specially obsolete words, of which separate interpretations were then given orally. These collected words were called, from their being “ranked,” “strung together,” \*Nigranthu\*, corrupted into \*Nighaṇṭu\*,\[^asterisk\] and those occupied with them \*Naighaṇṭukas\*. One work of this kind has been actually preserved to us.¹⁶ It is in five books, of which the three first contain synonyms; the fourth, a list of specially difficult Vedic words; and the fifth, a classification of the various divine personages who figure in the Veda. We also possess one of the ancient expositions of this work, a commentary on it, called \*Nirukti\*, “interpretation,” of which Yáska is said to be the author. It consists of twelve books, to which two others having no proper connection with them were afterwards added. It is reckoned by the Indians among the so-called Vedáṅgas, together with Śikshá, Chhandas, and Jyotisha—three very late treatises on phonetics, metre, and astronomical calculations—and also with Kalpa and Vyákaraṇa, \*i.e.\*, ceremonial and grammar, two general categories of literary works. The four first names likewise originally signified the class in general,¹⁷ and it was only later that they were applied to the four individual works ### [c8.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.40) ¹⁶ To this place belong, further, the Nighaṇṭu to the Atharva-S., mentioned by Haug (cf. \*I. St.\*, ix. 175, 176,) and the Nigama-Pariśishṭa of the White Yajus. ### [c8.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.41) ¹⁷ Śikshá still continues to be the name of a species. A considerable number of treatises so entitled have recently been found, and more are constantly being brought to light. Cf. Kielhorn, \*I. St.\*, xiv. 160. ### [c8.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.42) \[^asterisk\]: \* See Roth, Introduction to the Nirukti, p. xii. ### [c8.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.43) now specially designated by those titles. It is in Yáska's work, the Nirukti, that we find the first general notions of grammar. Starting from the phonetic rules, the observance of which the Prátiśákhya-Sútras had already established with so much minuteness—but only for each of the Veda-Saṃhitás—advance was no doubt gradually made, in the first place, to a general view of the subject of phonetics, and thence to the remaining portions of the domain of language. Inflection, derivation, and composition were recognised and distinguished, and manifold reflections were made upon the modifications thereby occasioned in the meaning of the root. Yáska mentions a considerable number of grammatical teachers who preceded him, some by name individually, others generally under the name of Nairuktas, Vaiyákaraṇas, from which we may gather that a very brisk activity prevailed in this branch of study. To judge from a passage in the Kaushítaki-Bráhmaṇa, linguistic research must have been carried on with peculiar enthusiasm in the North of India; and accordingly, it is the northern, or rather the north-western district of India that gave birth to the grammarian who is to be looked upon as the father of Saṃskṛit grammar, Páṇini. Now, if Yáska himself must be considered as belonging only to the last stages of the Vedic period, Páṇini—from Yáska to whom is a great leap—must have lived at the very close of it, or even at the beginning of the next period. Advance from the simple designation of grammatical words by means of terms corresponding to them in sense, which we find in Yáska, to the algebraic symbols of Páṇini, implies a great amount of study in the interval. Besides, Páṇini himself presupposes some such symbols as already known; he cannot therefore be regarded as having invented, but only as having consistently carried out a method which is certainly in a most eminent degree suited to its purpose. ### [c8.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.44) Lastly, Philosophical Speculation also had its peculiar development contemporaneously with, and subsequently to, the Bráhmaṇas. It is in this field and in that of grammar that the Indian mind attained the highest pitch of its marvellous fertility in subtle distinctions, however abstruse or naïve, on the other hand, the method may occasionally be. ### [c8.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.45) Several hymns of a speculative purport in the last book of the Ṛik-Saṁhitá testify to a great depth and concentration of reflection upon the fundamental cause of things, necessarily implying a long period of philosophical research in a preceding age. This is borne out by the old renown of Indian wisdom, by the reports of the companions of Alexander as to the Indian gymnosophists, &c. ### [c8.46.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.46.1) It was inevitable that at an early stage, and as soon as speculation had acquired some vigour, different opinions and starting-points should assert themselves, more especially regarding the origin of creation; for this, the most mysterious and difficult problem of all, was at the same time the favourite one. Accordingly, in each of the Bráhmaṇas, one at least, or it may be more, accounts on the subject may be met with; while in the more extensive works of this class we find a great number of different conjectures with regard to cosmogony. One of the principal points of difference naturally was whether indiscrete matter or spirit was to be assumed as the First Cause. The latter theory became gradually the orthodox one, and is therefore the one most frequently, and indeed almost exclusively, represented in the Bráhmaṇas. From among the adherents of the former view, which came by degrees to be regarded as heterodox, there arose, as thought developed, enemies still more dangerous to orthodoxy, who, although they confined themselves in the first place solely to the province of theory, before long threw themselves into practical questions also, and eventually became the founders of the form of belief known to us as Buddhism. The word \*buddha\*, "awakened, enlightened," was originally a name of honour given to all sages, including the orthodox. ### [c8.46.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.46.2) This is shown by the use both of the root \*budh\* in the Bráhmaṇas, and of the word \*buddha\* itself in even the most recent of the Vedántic writings. The technical application of the word is as much the secondary one as it is in the case also of another word of the kind, \*śramaṇa\*, which was in later times appropriated by the Buddhists as peculiarly their own. Here not merely the corresponding use of the root \*śram\*, but also the word \*śramaṇa\* itself, as a title of honour, may be pointed out in several passages in the Bráhmaṇas. Though Megasthenes, in a passage quoted by Strabo, draws a distinct line between two sects of philosophers, the Βραχμᾶνες and the Σαρμάναι, yet we should hardly be justified in identifying the latter with the Buddhist mendicants, at least, not exclusively; for he expressly mentions the ὑλόβιοι—\*i.e.\*, the Brahmachárins and Vánaprasthas, the first and third of the stages into which a Brahman's life is distributed—as forming part of the Σαρμάναι. The distinction between the two sects probably consisted in this, that the Βραχμᾶνες were the "philosophers" by birth, also those who lived as householders (Gṛihasthas); the Σαρμάναι, on the contrary, those who gave themselves up to special mortifications, and who might belong also to other castes. The \*Πράμναι\*, mentioned by Strabo in another passage (see Lassen, \*I. AK.\* i. ### [c8.46.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8.46.3) 836), whom, following the accounts of Alexander's time, he describes as accomplished polemical dialecticians, in contradistinction to the Βραχμᾶνες, whom he represents as chiefly devoted to physiology and astronomy, appear either to be identical with the Σαρμάναι—a supposition favoured by the fact that precisely the same things are asserted of both—or else, with Lassen, they may be regarded as Prámáṇas, \*i.e.\*, founding their belief on \*pramáṇa\*, logical proof, instead of revelation. As, however, the word is not known in the writings of that period, we should in this case hardly be justified in accepting Strabo's report as true of Alexander's time, but only of a later age. Philosophical systems are not to be spoken of in connection with this period; only isolated views and speculations are to be met with in those portions of the Bráhmaṇas here concerned, viz., the so-called Upanishads (\*upanishad\*, a session, a lecture). Although there prevails in these a very marked tendency to systematise and subdivide, the investigations still move within a very narrow and limited range. Considerable progress towards systematising and expansion is visible in the Upanishads found in the Áraṇyakas,∗ \*i.e.\*, writings supplementary to the Bráhmaṇas, and specially designed for the ὑλόβιοι; _First 52 of 592 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8)_ ## Linked texts (39) - [Aṣṭādhyāyī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.vyakarana.astadhyayi.4.3.105) — Pāṇini, Sanskrit - [Aitareyabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.aitreya.6.24) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.1.164.24) — Sanskrit - [Śatapathabrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.satapatha.14.9.2) — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit - [Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.kausitaki.14.1) — Kauṣītaki, Sanskrit - [Śāṅkhāyanaśrautasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.srauta.sankhayana.12.13.6) — Śāṅkhāyana, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.4.123) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Yājñavalkyasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.yajnavalkya.1.145) — Yājñavalkya, Sanskrit - [Vājasaneyiprātiśākhya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.siksa.pratisakhya.suklayajur.vajasaneyi.1.1) — Kātyāyana (Vājasaneyi sūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Pāraskaragṛhyasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.grhya.paraskara.2.10) — Pāraskara, Sanskrit - [Kauṣītakibrāhmaṇopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.kausitaki.2.10) — Sanskrit - [Taittirīyaprātiśākhya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.siksa.pratisakhya.krsnayajur.taittiriya.2.12) — Sanskrit - [Nirukta](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.nirukta.yaska.4.4) — Yāska, Sanskrit - [Śāṅkhāyanāraṇyaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.aranyaka.kausitaki.8.2) — Sanskrit - [Aitareyāraṇyaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.aranyaka.aitareya.1.4.1) — Sanskrit - [Brahmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darsana.vedanta.brahmasutra.3.3.32) — Bādarāyaṇa, Sanskrit - [Viṣṇupurāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.purana.visnu.3.4.8) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Āśvalāyanaśrautasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.srauta.asvalayana) — Āśvalāyana, Sanskrit - [Taittirīyasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*taittiriya) — Sanskrit - [Nidānasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.chanda.nidana) — Patañjali (grammarian), Sanskrit - [Sarvānukramaṇī (Ṛgveda)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.misc.anukramani.katyayana.sarvanukramani) — Kātyāyana (Vājasaneyi sūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.siksa.pratisakhya.rg) — Śaunaka, Sanskrit - [Mānavagṛhyasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.grhya.manava) — Sanskrit - [Ṛgvidhāna](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.misc.vidhana.rg) — Śaunaka, Sanskrit - [Bṛhaddevatā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.misc.anukramani.brhaddevata) — Śaunaka, Sanskrit - [Kāṭhakasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.krsnayajur*kathaka) — Sanskrit - [Chāndogyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.chandogya) — Sanskrit - [Taittirīyāraṇyaka](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.aranyaka.taittiriya) — Sanskrit - [Māṇḍūkīśikṣā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.siksa.siksa.manduki) — Māṇḍūka, Sanskrit - [Aitareyopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.aitreya) — Mahidāsa Aitareya, Sanskrit - [Āśvalāyanagṛhyapariśiṣṭa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.misc.parisista.asvalayana) — Sanskrit - [Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.upanisad.mukhya.brhadaranyaka) — Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Vājasaneyisaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.suklayajur*vajasaneyi) — Sanskrit - [Sāmavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.sama) — Sanskrit - [Atharvavedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.atharva) — Atharvan & Aṅgiras, Sanskrit - [Bhāllavibrāhmaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.brahmana.bhallavi) — Sanskrit - [Nighaṇṭu](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.nirukta.nighantu) — Yāska, Sanskrit - [Anuvākānukramaṇī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.misc.anukramani.saunaka.anuvaka) — Śaunaka, Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.literature.weber-1878.c8) · Pramāṇa