Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1yayanina/^, Aitareyi;/a//. In accordance with this rule the texts of the White Ya^s are called Va^asaneyina/^. This name does not, however, occur in any of Pacini's rules, but follows only from the word 'va^asaneya' being included in the ga;;a 'i-aunakadi' to Tan. IV, 3, io6 ; and since we have no evidence as to whether any of the words in a ga;/a except the first really belong to Pa;^ini, it must remain doubtful whether or not he knew of the existence of the school known by that name. Katyayana's varttika runs thus : ' Among the Brahma;^as and Kalpas proclaimed by the old, there is an exception in regard to Ya^^iavalkya and others, on account of contemporaneousness : hence (Ya^>7avalkya's Brahma/^as are called, not Ya^/lavalkina//, but) Ya^/7a- valkani Brahma;/Ani ; Saulabhani B.' The question, then, is, Does Katyayana mean to . say that the Brahma;/as proclaimed by Ya^/Tavalkya do not fall under this rule, because he was contemporary with Pa/nni, — and therefore not an old sage in the sense of the rule, — or, that those works should have been excepted by Pacini from his rule, because they are of the same age as those (old) Brahma//as to which the rule applies ? The former alternative was the one generally accepted, until the late Professor Goldstuckcr made known the text of Pata^^ali's and Kaiya/a's com- ments^ on this varttika. He showed that Kaiya/a, at least, clearly interprets it in the sense that Pa/nni should have excepted works like the Ya^>'/avalkani Brahma//ani, since they, too (api), are of the same age as the vSatya- yanina/^ and others. The Mahabhashya, on the other hand, is not cjuite so explicit. It merely says that the Ya^;7avalkani Brahma//ani &c. ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstucker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiya/a. This view was, however, controverted by * Pa«ini, p. 138. INTRODUCTION. XXXVii Professor Weber in his review of Goldstiicker's ' Pa;nni.' The interpretation of the varttika adopted in the Ka^ika V;-/tti — according to which Pa;/ini's ride does not apply to those works, because Yag-yTavalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of Pa;nni's rule — is likewise rejected by him, since in that case Katyayana's exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiya/a's interpretation, Katya- yana's additional remark ' on account of contemporaneous- ness' would be entirely superfluous.
2him, since in that case Katyayana's exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiya/a's interpretation, Katya- yana's additional remark ' on account of contemporaneous- ness' would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, pro- poses, in the passage of the Mahabhashya, to take 'api' in the sense of 'even,' and to interpret the passage thus^: 'Among the Brahmawas and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, Pa//ini ought to have made an exception in regard to Ya^yiavalkya &c., because the Brahmawas and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with Pa/nni him- self).' This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata;7^ali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Ya^;7avalkani Brahma;/ani 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 — Pacini 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 Pata;7^ali 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 Kaiya/a and Goldstucker ; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I sec no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstucker has drawn from this varttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between Pa//ini and Katyayana, that authors, whom Katyayana considered as far older than Pa;nni, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 6S seq.j XIII, 443. ' Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVlll ^'ATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. Katyayana, regarding the age of Pa/nni, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstucker's argument lies in his identification of the Ya^^avalkani Brahma;/ani with the Brahma;/a of the Va^asaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that Pa/nni was perfectly well acquainted with the term ' Va^asaneyina/^,' but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules.
3es in his identification of the Ya^^avalkani Brahma;/ani with the Brahma;/a of the Va^asaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that Pa/nni was perfectly well acquainted with the term ' Va^asaneyina/^,' 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, Katyayana, who was so intimately connected with the White Ya^us that, on Goldstucker's own showing, he composed the Va^'"asaneyi-pratij'akhya before he wrote his varttikas, would have been the first to notice it. The Ya^/Iavalkani Brahma;^ani, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the'Tittiri«a prokta/^ i'loka//^' which, in Pata/7^ali^s time, were excluded from the term ' Taittiriya// ' as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittiriyara;/yaka. 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 Ya^«avalkani Brah- mawani form part of the text of the vSatapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain un- certain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Ya^;7avalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the Ka«va 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 adhyayas, four of these adhyayas 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 ' Mahabhashya on Pa«. IV, 2, 66; 3, 104. ^ Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the thir.l or uddhari-ka«(fa, consisting of 1 24 l<a«(/ikas, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Madhyandina text. We have no MS. of this parti- cular ka/w'a. I may also mention that, while in the first kajida (or second Ka/na"), the Madh)andinas count 9, and the Kii/aas 8 adhyayas, — in the fouith ka;/(;'a (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,
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.
1yayanina/^, Aitareyi;/a//. In accordance with this rule the texts of the White Ya^s are called Va^asaneyina/^. This name does not, however, occur in any of Pacini's rules, but follows only from the word 'va^asaneya' being included in the ga;;a 'i-aunakadi' to Tan. IV, 3, io6 ; and since we have no evidence as to whether any of the words in a ga;/a except the first really belong to Pa;^ini, it must remain doubtful whether or not he knew of the existence of the school known by that name. Katyayana's varttika runs thus : ' Among the Brahma;^as and Kalpas proclaimed by the old, there is an exception in regard to Ya^^iavalkya and others, on account of contemporaneousness : hence (Ya^>7avalkya's Brahma/^as are called, not Ya^/lavalkina//, but) Ya^/7a- valkani Brahma;/Ani ; Saulabhani B.' The question, then, is, Does Katyayana mean to . say that the Brahma;/as proclaimed by Ya^/Tavalkya do not fall under this rule, because he was contemporary with Pa/nni, — and therefore not an old sage in the sense of the rule, — or, that those works should have been excepted by Pacini from his rule, because they are of the same age as those (old) Brahma//as to which the rule applies ? The former alternative was the one generally accepted, until the late Professor Goldstuckcr made known the text of Pata^^ali's and Kaiya/a's com- ments^ on this varttika. He showed that Kaiya/a, at least, clearly interprets it in the sense that Pa/nni should have excepted works like the Ya^>'/avalkani Brahma//ani, since they, too (api), are of the same age as the vSatya- yanina/^ and others. The Mahabhashya, on the other hand, is not cjuite so explicit. It merely says that the Ya^;7avalkani Brahma//ani &c. ought to have been excepted, because they, too (api), are of the same age. Goldstucker naturally took this explanation to convey the same meaning as that of Kaiya/a. This view was, however, controverted by * Pa«ini, p. 138. INTRODUCTION. XXXVii Professor Weber in his review of Goldstiicker's ' Pa;nni.' The interpretation of the varttika adopted in the Ka^ika V;-/tti — according to which Pa;/ini's ride does not apply to those works, because Yag-yTavalkya and others are not old authorities in the sense of Pa;nni's rule — is likewise rejected by him, since in that case Katyayana's exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiya/a's interpretation, Katya- yana's additional remark ' on account of contemporaneous- ness' would be entirely superfluous.
2him, since in that case Katyayana's exception would be no exception at all. On the other hand, Professor Weber thinks that, if we accept Kaiya/a's interpretation, Katya- yana's additional remark ' on account of contemporaneous- ness' would be entirely superfluous. He, therefore, pro- poses, in the passage of the Mahabhashya, to take 'api' in the sense of 'even,' and to interpret the passage thus^: 'Among the Brahmawas and Kalpas proclaimed by the ancients, Pa//ini ought to have made an exception in regard to Ya^yiavalkya &c., because the Brahmawas and Kalpas proclaimed by them, though indeed going back to ancient (sages), are nevertheless contemporaneous (with Pa/nni him- self).' This rather paradoxical argumentation, on the part of Pata;7^ali, would have to be understood to mean, that the Ya^;7avalkani Brahma;/ani 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 — Pacini 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 Pata;7^ali 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 Kaiya/a and Goldstucker ; and I, too, can take no other view. But, like him, I sec no necessity for accepting the inferences which Goldstucker has drawn from this varttika, viz. that we have to assume so long an interval between Pa//ini and Katyayana, that authors, whom Katyayana considered as far older than Pa;nni, were in reality his contemporaries. This assumption, surely, would involve a degree of ignorance, on the part of 1 Ind. Stud. V, 6S seq.j XIII, 443. ' Sacred Laws of the Aryas, I, p. xxxix note. XXXVlll ^'ATAPATHA-BRAHMAiVA. Katyayana, regarding the age of Pa/nni, such as would seem altogether unaccountable. The weakness of Goldstucker's argument lies in his identification of the Ya^^avalkani Brahma;/ani with the Brahma;/a of the Va^asaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that Pa/nni was perfectly well acquainted with the term ' Va^asaneyina/^,' but saw no occasion for specially mentioning it in his rules.
3es in his identification of the Ya^^avalkani Brahma;/ani with the Brahma;/a of the Va^asaneyins. With Professor Weber I believe that Pa/nni was perfectly well acquainted with the term ' Va^asaneyina/^,' 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, Katyayana, who was so intimately connected with the White Ya^us that, on Goldstucker's own showing, he composed the Va^'"asaneyi-pratij'akhya before he wrote his varttikas, would have been the first to notice it. The Ya^/Iavalkani Brahma;^ani, in their relation to the sacred canon of the school, seem to me to stand somewhat on a par with the'Tittiri«a prokta/^ i'loka//^' which, in Pata/7^ali^s time, were excluded from the term ' Taittiriya// ' as uncanonical, and which Professor Weber would identify, perhaps rightly, with some portions of the Taittiriyara;/yaka. 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 Ya^«avalkani Brah- mawani form part of the text of the vSatapatha which has come down to us, and what exact portions of that text we have to understand by this designation, must remain un- certain for the present. Most probably, however, we have to look for them to certain portions of the last book (or books) in which Ya^;7avalkya figures so prominently. If we had a complete copy of the Ka«va 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 adhyayas, four of these adhyayas 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 ' Mahabhashya on Pa«. IV, 2, 66; 3, 104. ^ Possibly, however, this redundancy may have been caused by the insertion of the thir.l or uddhari-ka«(fa, consisting of 1 24 l<a«(/ikas, to which there seems to be nothing corresponding in the Madhyandina text. We have no MS. of this parti- cular ka/w'a. I may also mention that, while in the first kajida (or second Ka/na"), the Madh)andinas count 9, and the Kii/aas 8 adhyayas, — in the fouith ka;/(;'a (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,
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.