Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstiicker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiyata. This view was, however, controverted by 1 Panini, p. 138. INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi Professor Weber in his review of Goldstiicker’s ‘ PAmini.’ The interpretation of the varttika adopted in the K4sika Vritti—according to which Pazini’s rule does not apply to those works, because Yagfavalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of Pazini’s rule—is likewise rejected by him, since in that case K4ty4yana’s exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiyaéa’s interpretation, Katy4yana’s additional remark ‘on account of contemporaneousness’ would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, proposes, in the passage of the Mahabhashya, to take ‘api’ in the sense of ‘even,’ and to interpret the passage thus!: ‘Among the Brahmamwas and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to Yagfavalkya &c., because the Brahmazas and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with Pazini himself).’ This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata&gali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Yagfavalkani Brahmavz4ni and similar works, though ascribed to old authorities, are in reality modern productions; or—if we may venture to express it in somewhat different words—Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to works which, in point of fact, are no exception at all. Now, if this be the correct interpretation, I can only say this— that, had Patafigali been anxious to conceal his real meaning, he could scarcely have done so more effectually than by choosing words which, at first sight, look as clear as day. Professor Biihler*, who has recently touched upon this controversy, sides with Kaiyafa and Goldstiicker; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I see no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstiicker has drawn from this varttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between Pavini and K4tydyana, that authors, whom Katy4yana considered as far older than Paxini, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
2This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. Katy4yana, regarding the age of Pazini, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstiicker’s argument lies in his identification of the YAgfavalkani Brahmaz4ni with the Brahmama of the Vagasaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that P4zini was perfectly well acquainted with the term ‘V4gasaneyinas,’ but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules. Surely, if his silence could possibly have been construed into an act of negligence, Katy4yana, who was so intimately connected with the White Yagus that, on Goldstiicker’s own showing, he composed the Vagasaneyi-pratisakhya before he wrote his varttikas, would have been the ‘first to notice it. The Yagiiavalkani Brahmav4ni, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the‘ Tittiriza prokta/ slokaz!,’ which,in Patajigali’s time, were excluded from the term ‘ Taittiriy4Z’ as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittirily4razyaka. Both kinds of tracts probably belong to the last floating materials of Advaryu tradition, which had not yet been incorporated with the canon. Whether or not the Yagfiavalkani BrahmavAni form part of the text of the Satapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain uncertain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Yagavalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the Kazva recension, we might perhaps be in a better position for forming an opinion on this subject ; for if that version should really turn out to consist of 104 adhydyas, four of these adhydyas may have to be considered as a later interpolation; and the fact might have become obscured in the Madhyandina recension by a different division of the text?. But, however this may 1 Mahabhashya on Pan. IV, 2, 66; 3,104. * Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the third or uddhari-kAnda, consisting of 124 kandikas, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Madhyandina text. We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
3We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or INTRODUCTION. XXXIX be, it appears to me quite intelligible why such portions should have been considered as of equal age to the body of the work; in fact they would probably go back to about the same time as some of the earlier portions ; only that, owing to a longer state of uncertain transmission, they may have been more liable to changes and additions. If these tracts are not mentioned by P4zini, it may be an accidental omission on his part, or he may not have been aware of their existence, for geographical or other reasons: we can hardly expect Pazini to have been so intimately acquainted with the Yagus texts as Ka&ty4yana. As regards the dates of Katyayana and Patafigali, accept with Professor Biihler and others, as by far the most probable, the fourth and the middle of the second century B.C. respectively. Under the title of Vagasaneyaka, the Satapatha-brahmana is quoted once in Latyadyana’s Srauta-sitra IV, 12, 12; but I have not been able to find the passage either in the M&dhyandina text or in that part of the Kava text which I have hitherto had at my disposal, viz. kazdas I, II, IV-VII (Kaava). Far more frequently the work is quoted, either as Vagasaneyaka or as Vagasaneyi-brahmaza, by Apastamba, both in his Srauta and his Dharma-sttras. On comparing one of these quotations in the Dharmastras (I, 4,12, 3) with the corresponding passage in the Madhyandina recension, Professor Biithler found that ‘its wording possessed just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differed from the Satapatha-brahmamva in many details.’ From this he naturally inferred that Apastamba probably took his quotations from the Kava recension. Now, although I have not been able to compare this particular passage with the Kava text?, I have done so regarding a number of other passages quoted from Apastamba in Karka’s commentary on the KaAtiya-Srauta-sdtra. The result was that in no single case did Apastamba’s quotations agree with the corresponding passages in the Kazva, fifth Kava), on the other hand, the Kaavas have 8, instead of 6 adhydyas; and in the fifth kanda (or sixth and seventh Kanvas) they have together 7, instead of 5 adhyAyas. 1 Biihler, loc. cit. p.xxv. 2 The passage occurs in MAdhyandina XI, 5,6, 3. xl SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstiicker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiyata. This view was, however, controverted by 1 Panini, p. 138. INTRODUCTION. XXXVIi Professor Weber in his review of Goldstiicker’s ‘ PAmini.’ The interpretation of the varttika adopted in the K4sika Vritti—according to which Pazini’s rule does not apply to those works, because Yagfavalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of Pazini’s rule—is likewise rejected by him, since in that case K4ty4yana’s exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiyaéa’s interpretation, Katy4yana’s additional remark ‘on account of contemporaneousness’ would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, proposes, in the passage of the Mahabhashya, to take ‘api’ in the sense of ‘even,’ and to interpret the passage thus!: ‘Among the Brahmamwas and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to Yagfavalkya &c., because the Brahmazas and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with Pazini himself).’ This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata&gali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Yagfavalkani Brahmavz4ni and similar works, though ascribed to old authorities, are in reality modern productions; or—if we may venture to express it in somewhat different words—Pazini ought to have made an exception in regard to works which, in point of fact, are no exception at all. Now, if this be the correct interpretation, I can only say this— that, had Patafigali been anxious to conceal his real meaning, he could scarcely have done so more effectually than by choosing words which, at first sight, look as clear as day. Professor Biihler*, who has recently touched upon this controversy, sides with Kaiyafa and Goldstiicker; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I see no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstiicker has drawn from this varttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between Pavini and K4tydyana, that authors, whom Katy4yana considered as far older than Paxini, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
2This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 68 seq. 5 XITI, 443. 3 Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVIli ' SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA. Katy4yana, regarding the age of Pazini, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstiicker’s argument lies in his identification of the YAgfavalkani Brahmaz4ni with the Brahmama of the Vagasaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that P4zini was perfectly well acquainted with the term ‘V4gasaneyinas,’ but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules. Surely, if his silence could possibly have been construed into an act of negligence, Katy4yana, who was so intimately connected with the White Yagus that, on Goldstiicker’s own showing, he composed the Vagasaneyi-pratisakhya before he wrote his varttikas, would have been the ‘first to notice it. The Yagiiavalkani Brahmav4ni, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the‘ Tittiriza prokta/ slokaz!,’ which,in Patajigali’s time, were excluded from the term ‘ Taittiriy4Z’ as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittirily4razyaka. Both kinds of tracts probably belong to the last floating materials of Advaryu tradition, which had not yet been incorporated with the canon. Whether or not the Yagfiavalkani BrahmavAni form part of the text of the Satapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain uncertain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Yagavalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the Kazva recension, we might perhaps be in a better position for forming an opinion on this subject ; for if that version should really turn out to consist of 104 adhydyas, four of these adhydyas may have to be considered as a later interpolation; and the fact might have become obscured in the Madhyandina recension by a different division of the text?. But, however this may 1 Mahabhashya on Pan. IV, 2, 66; 3,104. * Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the third or uddhari-kAnda, consisting of 124 kandikas, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Madhyandina text. We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or INTRODUCTION. XXXIX
3We have no MS. of this particular kauda. I mayalso mention that, while in the first kanda (or second KAnva), the Madhyandinas count g, and the Kazvas 8 adhydyas,—in the fourth kanda (or INTRODUCTION. XXXIX be, it appears to me quite intelligible why such portions should have been considered as of equal age to the body of the work; in fact they would probably go back to about the same time as some of the earlier portions ; only that, owing to a longer state of uncertain transmission, they may have been more liable to changes and additions. If these tracts are not mentioned by P4zini, it may be an accidental omission on his part, or he may not have been aware of their existence, for geographical or other reasons: we can hardly expect Pazini to have been so intimately acquainted with the Yagus texts as Ka&ty4yana. As regards the dates of Katyayana and Patafigali, accept with Professor Biihler and others, as by far the most probable, the fourth and the middle of the second century B.C. respectively. Under the title of Vagasaneyaka, the Satapatha-brahmana is quoted once in Latyadyana’s Srauta-sitra IV, 12, 12; but I have not been able to find the passage either in the M&dhyandina text or in that part of the Kava text which I have hitherto had at my disposal, viz. kazdas I, II, IV-VII (Kaava). Far more frequently the work is quoted, either as Vagasaneyaka or as Vagasaneyi-brahmaza, by Apastamba, both in his Srauta and his Dharma-sttras. On comparing one of these quotations in the Dharmastras (I, 4,12, 3) with the corresponding passage in the Madhyandina recension, Professor Biithler found that ‘its wording possessed just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which Apastamba meant, but differed from the Satapatha-brahmamva in many details.’ From this he naturally inferred that Apastamba probably took his quotations from the Kava recension. Now, although I have not been able to compare this particular passage with the Kava text?, I have done so regarding a number of other passages quoted from Apastamba in Karka’s commentary on the KaAtiya-Srauta-sdtra. The result was that in no single case did Apastamba’s quotations agree with the corresponding passages in the Kazva, fifth Kava), on the other hand, the Kaavas have 8, instead of 6 adhydyas; and in the fifth kanda (or sixth and seventh Kanvas) they have together 7, instead of 5 adhyAyas. 1 Biihler, loc. cit. p.xxv. 2 The passage occurs in MAdhyandina XI, 5,6, 3. xl SATAPATHA-BRAHMANA.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.