Srotn ff)e £i6rarg of Oprofeeeor J5enrE AS A TOKEN OF ADMIRATION AND GRATITUDE RT HIS PUPIL AND FRIEND MAX MULLER. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. A few words of personal explanation are due to those who may have seen, in the Preface to the First Volume of my edition of the Rig-Veda*, a note announcing as ready for publication an Introductory Memoir on the Literature of the Veda. Ten sheets of this Memoir were printed when, in the beginning of the year 1851, I was appointed Deputy Professor, and, after the death of my lamented friend, Francis Trithen, in the year 1854, Professor of Modern Euro- pean Languages and Literature in the University of Oxford. In compliance with the statutes of the Foundation of Sir Robert Taylor, I had to write “ Three Courses of Lectures in every year, on the Philology or Literature of some of the principal Languages of Europe.” These new and unexpected, duties rendered it necessary for me to discontinue for a time my favourite studies. And when, after the first years of my new office, I was able to employ again a greater amount of leisure on their prose- * Rig-Veda- Sanliita, the sacred songs of the Brahmans, together with the Commentary of Sayanacharya, edited by Max Muller, Vol. I., 1849; Vol. II., 1854; Vol. III., 1856. There will be three more volumes, the first of which is to be published next year. The first volume of Professor Wilson’s Translation was published 1850 ; the second, 1854 ; the third, 1857. a 3 VI PREFACE. cution, I felt that I should better serve the in- terests of Sanskrit Philology by devoting all my spare time to editing the text and commentary of the Veda, than by publishing the results, more or less fragmentary, of my own researches into the language, literature, and religion of the ancient Brahmans. In resuming now, after the lapse of nearly ten years, the publication of these Essays, I may regret that on many points I have been anticipated by others, who during the interval have made the Yeda the special subject of their studies. But this regret is fully balanced by the satisfaction I feel in finding that, in the main, my original views on the literature and religion of the Yedic age have not been shaken, either by my own continued researches or by the re- searches of others ; and that the greater part of this work coAld be printed, as it now stands, from the original manuscript. It will be seen, however, that in the notes, as well as in the body of the work, I have availed myself, to the best of my ability, of all the really important and solid information that could be gathered from the latest works of Sanskrit philologists. The frequent references to the works of Wilson, Burnouf, Lassen, Benfey, Roth, Boehtlingk, Kuhn, Regnier, Weber, Aufrecht, Whitney, and others, will show where I have either derived new light from the labours of these eminent scholars, or found my own conclusions confirmed by their independent testimony. Believing, as I do, that literary controversy is more apt to impede than to advance the cause of truth, I have throughout carefully abstained from it. Where it PREFACE. Vll seemed necessary to controvert unfounded statements or hasty conclusions, I have endeavoured to do so by stating the true facts of the case, and the legitimate conclusions that may be draAvn from these facts. My readers have to thank Dr. Biihler, a pupil of Professor Benfey of Gottingen, for the alphabetical index at the end of this volume. MAX MULLER Ray Lodge, Maidenhead, Auy 3, 1859. a 4 FABLE OF CONTENTS. Tage PliEFACE . . . . . . . V. INTRODUCTION. Origin and Progress of Sanskrit Philology . . .1 The true Object of Sanskrit Philology . . .8 The Veda is the basis of Sanskrit Literature . . 9 The Veda represents the Vedic Age . . .10 Necessity of establishing the Antiquity of the Veda . 1 1 Absence of Synchronistic Dates in the early History of the Aryan Family . . . . .11 The earliest History of the Aryan Family . . .12 Separation of the Northern and Southern Branches of the Aryan Family . . . . . .12 Their distinctive characters . . . . .14 Comparison between the early Histories of India and Greece 17 The peculiarities of the early Colonists of India . .18 Their neglect of the Real and Historical Elements of Life . 18 Their interest in Supernatural Problems . . .19 The meaning of Atman or Self . . .20 Dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi . . 22 The character of the Indians at the time of Alexander’s ex- pedition . . . . . . .25 The Indians have no place in the Political History of the Ancient World . . . . . .29 Their place in the Intellectual History of the World . 32 The influence of India on the Religious History of Asia . 32 The origin of Buddhism . . . . .33 The Buddhistic Era and its importance for the Chronology of India . • . . . . . .34 X CONTENTS. Page Traces of the Buddhistic crisis in the latest productions of the Yedic Literature . . . . .35 Distinction between Yedic and non-Yedic works . . 36 The Epic Poems, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, no au- thority for the History of the Yedic Age . . 36 Traces of earlier Epic Poetry . . . .37 Extract from the Sankhayana-sutras . . .37 Meaning of Gatha, Narasansi, Itihasa, A&liyana, Purana, Kalpa, Vidya, Upanishad, Sloka, Sutra, Vyakhyana, and Anuvyakhyana, as titles of Vedic Literature . . 40 Supposed quotation of the Bharata or Mahabharata, in the Sutras of Asvalayana . . . . .42 The war between the Kurus and Pandavas, unknown in the Vedic Age . . . . . .44 The original Epic Traditions of India were remodelled by the Brahmans . . . . . .46 The Five Husbands of Draupadi . . . .46 The Two Wives of Pandu, and the Burning of Madri at his Death . . . . . .48 King Dasaratha killing the Son of a Brahman . . 49 The relation between Parasu-Rama and Rama . . 49 Variety of Local Customs during the Vedic Age . . 49 Family-laws and Traditions . . . .51 Yedic customs differing from the later Brahmanic Law . 56 The Story of Kakshivat . . . . .56 The Story of Kavasha Ailusha . . . .58 The Puranas, no authority for the History of the Yedic Age 61 The so-called Laws of Manu, no authority for the History of the Vedic Age . . . . ’. .61 The Veda the only safe basis of Indian History . . 62 Importance of the Veda in the History of the World . 63 Importance of the Veda in the History of India . . 63 The Veda, the most Ancient Book of the Aryan Family . 65 HISTORY OF VEDIC LITERATURE. External criteria for distinguishing between Vedic and non- Vedic Works . . . . . .67 Metre, as an external Criterion . . . .68 No work written in continuous Anushtubh-slokas belongs to the Vedic Age . . . . . .68 CONTENTS. xi Page Division of the Vedic Age . . . . .70 The Chhandas, Mantra, Brahmana, and Sutra Periods . 70 CHAPTER I. TIIE SUTRA PERIOD. The peculiarities of the Sutras . . . .71 The Paribhasha or key to the Sutras . . .72 The Law of Anuvritti and Nirvritti . . .73 The system of Purva-paksha, Uttara-paksha, and Siddhanta 73 The Sutras belong to the Smriti or non-revealed Literature of the Brahmans . . . . . .74 The distinction between Sruti (revelation) and Smriti (tradi- tion) was made by the Brahmans after their ascendancy was established . . . . . .76 It preceded the Schism of Buddha . . . .77 Attacks on the Brahmans before Buddha’s time . . SO Visvamitra, Janaka, Buddha, all Kshatriyas . . 80 Arguments used by the Brahmans against the Buddhists . 82 The Brahmans appeal to the absolute authority of the Sruti or revelation . . . . . .82 A similar argument adopted in later times by the Buddhists themselves . . . . . .83 Extract from Kumarila . . . . .84 The Admission of a human Authorship for the Sutras shows, that at the time of the Buddhistic Controversy the Sutras were works of recent origin . . .86 Smriti and Smritis . . . . . .86 The Authority of the Smriti defended . . .87 Extract from Sayana’s Commentary on Parasara’s Smriti . 87 The Sutras are not classed as Sruti, though they treat on subjects connected with the Veda . . .95 Extract from Kumarila . . . . .95 The Sutras divided into Srauta and Smarta . . 99 The Admission of Lost Sakhas discussed . . . 100 Extract from Haradatta's Commentary on the Sarnaya- charika-sutras . . . . . ..100 Extract from Apastamba . . . . .105 Probability of the loss of Sakhas . . . .106 The distinction between Sruti and Smriti known to the authors of the Sutras . . . . .107 XU CONTENTS. Page The Six Vedangas, or Branches of Vedic Exegesis . 108 The Name of the Vedangas .... 109 The Number of the Vedangas . . . .111 The First Vedanga, Siksha or Pronunciation . .113 It formed part of the Aranyakas . . . .113 It became the principal Subject of the Pratisakhyas . 116 Origin of the Pratisakhyas . . . . .117 Numerous Authors quoted in the Pratisakhyas . .118 Pratisakhyas attached to the different Sakbas of each Veda . . . . . . .118 The proper meaning of Sakha and Pratisakhya . .119 Difference between Sakha and Charana . . .125 Difference between Charana and Parishad . . .128 Character of Parishads, in ancient and modern times . 129 Legal Sutras, belonging to the Charanas . . ,132 The original sources of the “Laws of Manu,” &c. . . 132 The threefold Division of Law .... 133 The Pratisakhya of the Sakala-sakha of the Rig-veda by Saunaka ....... 135 The Pratisakhya of some Sakha of the Taittirxya-veda . 137 The Pratisakhya of the Madhyandina-sakha of the Yajur- veda by Katyayana . . . . .138 The Pratisakhya of some Sakha of the Atharva-reda . 139 List of Teachers quoted in the Pratisakhyas, the Nirukta, and Panini . . . . . .142 No Pratisakhya required for the Sama-veda . .143 General character of the Pratisakhyas . . .144 The metrical Vedanga on SikshU . . . .145 The Manduki-siksha . . . . .146 The Second Vedanga, Chhandas or Metre . . . 147 Treatise by Saunaka . . . . .147 Treatise by Katyayana . . . . .147 The Nid&na-sutra of the Sama-veda . . .147 The Treatise ascribed to Pingala . . . .147 Lost Works on Metre, by Yaska, and Saitava . .148 Nomenclature of Metres . . . . .149 The Third Vedanga, Vyakarnna or Grammar .150 Paninr and his predecessors . . . .150 The Unadi-sutras . . . . . .151 The Phitsutras of Santana . . . . .152 The Fourth Vedanga, Nirukta or Etymology . .152 CONTENTS. Xlll Pftge Yaska and his predecessors .... 153 Distinction between Yaska’s Nirukta, and the Commentary on the Nirukta . . . . • .154 Both works divided into three parts . . . 155 Naighantuka, Naigama (Aikapadika), Daivata . .155 History of the Science of Language in India and Greece . 158 The Fifth Vedanga, Kalpa or the Ceremonial . .169 The Kalpa-sutras based on the Brahmanas . . . 169 Some Bralnnanas resembling Sutras, some Sutras resembling Brahmanas . . . . • .171 l'istinction between Brahmanas and Sutras . . .171 Origin of the Brahmanas . . . . .172 System of their collection . . . . .173 The threefold division of the ceremonial leads to the threefold division of the Brahmanas . . . .173 The Adhvaryu priests, and the Taittiriyaka . . 173 The modern Sakha of the Vajasaneyins and their Sanhita . 175 The Udgatri priests and their Sanhita . . .175 The Hotri priests . . . . . .175 The Rig-veda-sanhita . . . . .175 The three collections of Brahmanas .... 176 The Kalpa-sutras presuppose the existence of Brahmana- sakhas ....... 177 They are intended for more than one Cliarana . .180 They lead to the establishment of new .Charanas . . 182 They have no authorised various readings, like the Brahmanas 182 They were handed down in a different manner . . 183 Difference between ancient and modern Sutras . .184 No Kalpa-Sutras quoted in the nominative plural . .185 The Kalpa-sutras cause the extinction of the Brahmanas . 186 They absorb the ancient Sakhas .... 187 The three classes of Charanas .... 187 Sanhita-charanas ...... 188 Brahraana-charanas . . . . . * . 189 Sutra-charanas . . . . . .193 Modern character of the Sutras . . . .196 List of Kalpa-sutras . . . . .198 The Smarta-sutras ...... 200 The Grihya-sutras different from the Samayacharika-sutras 201 Meaning of Grihya ..... 202 Meaning of Pakayajna ..... 203 XIV CONTENTS. Fage Character of the Grihya sacrifices .... 204 The Samayacharika, or Dharma-sutras . . . 206 Their modern date ...... 206 The Four Castes, the degradation of the Sudras . . 207 The Ten Sutras of the Sama-veda .... 209 The Sixth Vedanga, Jyotisha, or Astronomy . , 210 No Work on Astronomy written in Sutras . . .211 The metrical Jyotisha . . . . .211 Astronomical elements in the Hymns, Brahmanas, and Sutras . . . . . . .212 General character of the Vedangas . . .214 Their practical object . . . . .214 Their Authors do not claim to be inspired . . .214 Their peculiar style . . . . .214 Their position as intermediate between the Vedic and non- Yedic literature . . . . . .215 How to fix their date . . . .215 The Works ascribed to Saunaka and his School . .215 Katyayana’s Sarvanukraraa to the Rig-veda . . 216 Five previous Anukramanis, ascribed to Saunaka . . 216 Their style . . . . . . .217 The Brihaddevata and its Authors . . . .218 Number of Hymns, Verses, and Words, according to different Anukramanis . . . . . .219 The three Anukramanis of the Yajur-veda . . . 222 The Anukramanis of the Sama-veda ; two classes . . 226 The Brihatsarvanukramani to the Atliarvana . . 228 IIow to fix the age of Saunaka and Katyayana as Authors of the Anukramanis ..... 229 The peculiarities of style in Saunaka and Katyayana . 229 Shadgurusishya’s account of Saunaka and his Pupils . 230 Their Works ...... 233 Five generations of Teachers .... 239 Katyayana, the same as Vararuchi .... 239 Somadeva’s account of Katyayana and Panini . . 240 Indian tradition places Katyayana and Panini contempora- neous with King Nanda . . • . 242 Nanda, the successor of Chandragupta, the contemporary of Alexander ...... 242 Date of Katyayana in the second half of the Fourth Century B.C 243 CONTENTS. XV Abhimanyu adopts the commentary of Kutyayana in thejfirst Century A.D. ...... Sutra period from 600 to 200 B.C. Objections. Date of Unadi-sutras . . . . The words dinars, tirita, stupa, Jina The Parisishtas, the latest branch of Vedic literature Parisishtas of the Rig-veda, Sama-veda, Yajur-veda, Atharva- veda ....... Gradual Rise of the Brahmanic Literature . The Parisishtas mark the decline of Brahmanism They are contemporai’y with the Political Ascendancy of Buddhism ....... Buddhism, before Asoka, was but modified Brahmanism The Chronology of the earlier Period of Buddhism is purely theoretical ...... The Northern Chronology, and its rationale The Southern Chronology, and its rationale Both Chronologies irreconcileable with Greek Chronology . The date of Chandragupta, the basis of Indian Chronology . Classical accounts of Sandrocyptus .... Indian Accounts of Chandragupta .... Coincidences between the two . . . • . Apparent differences explained . Buddhist Fables invented to exalt Chandragupta’s descent . Brahmanic Fables invented to lower Chandragupta’s descent Chandragupta’s real Date brings the real beginning of the Ceylonese Era to 477 B.C. . . . . All dates before Chandragupta are merely hypothetical The compromise between the different systems of Chronology proposed by Lassen ..... Katyayana’s real Date ..... Other Arguments in support of Katyayana’s Date considered Sutra Works that cannot be fixed chronologically . Sutras quoted, some lost, others never committed to writing Gradual change of Style in the Sutras CHAPTER II. THE BRAHMANA PERIOD. Aranyakas intermediate between Sutras and Brahmanas Meaning of Aranyaka . Page 243 244 245 245 249 252 257 257 257 260 262 263 266 275 275 275 278 278 279 280 295 298 299 299 300 301 310 311 311 313 313 XVI CONTENTS. Page Aranyakas ■considered as Sruti, but some of them ascribed to human Authors . . . . . .314 Aranyakas presuppose Brahmanas . . . .315 The Upanishads, the principal Portion of the Aranyakas . 316 The Upanishads quoted as the highest Authority by various Philosophers . . . . . .316 New Upanishads supplied when required . . .317 Upanishads in the Sanhitas . . . . .317 Upanishads in Aranyakas and Brahmanas . . .317 Later Upanishads unattached . . . .318 Etymology of Upanishad . . . . .318 The Upanishads regarded as the repositoi’ies of the Highest Knowledge . . . . . .319 Great Variety of Opinion in the Upanishads . . 320 Growing Number of Upanishads .... 324 The Names of the Authors of the Principal Upanishads un- known ....... 327 The Aranyakas and their reputed Authors . . 329 The Brihadaranyaka and Yajnavalkya . . . 329 Attempts at fixing the age of Yajnavalkya . . . 330 The Taittiriyaranyaka ..... 334 The Aitareyaranyaka ..... 335 The Kaushitaki-aranyaka ..... 337 Modern form, but ancient matter .... 338 Literary Works alluded to in the Aranyakas . .340 Aranyakas, intermediate between Brahmanas and Sutras . 341 The Brahmanas ...... 342 Definition of the word Brahmana .... 342 Sayana’s definition ...... 342 Madhusudana’s definition ..... 344 Origin of the Brahmanas, &c., &c. . ... . 345 The Brahmanas of the Bahvrichas .... 346 The Brahmanas of the Aitareyins and Asvalayaniyas . 347 The Brahmanas of the Kaushitakins and Sankhayani} as 347 The Brahmanas of the Chhandogas .... 347 The Brahmanas of the Adhvaryus .... 349 The Ancient School of the Charakas . . . 350 The Modern School of the Vajasaneyins . . 350 Yajnavalkya’s Authorship ..... 353 Table of Contents of the Vajasaneyi-sanhita 354 Correspondence between the Sanhita and Brahmana . 356 CONTENTS. XVII Distinction between Ancient and Modern Brahmanas Panini’s Rules on the Formation of the Titles of Ancient and Modern Brahmanas ..... The Brahmana-charanas reduced in number by the introduc- tion of Sutras ...... List of Charanas from the Charanavyuha Its Authority for the Sutra-charanas, not for Brahmana and Sanhita-charanas ...... How to distinguish between Sutra, Brahmana, and Sanhita- charanas ....... Difference between Charanas and Gotras Lists of Gotras ...... The Rules of Pravara ..... The general Character of the Brahmanas Extract from the Aitareya-brahmana (the Diksha) . Extract from the Kaushitaki-brabmana Extract from the Aitareya-brahmana (the Story of Sunah- 6epha) ....... On the Character of Human Sacrifices Extract from the Satapatha-brahmana (the Story of Janaka) Extract from the Aitareya-brahmana (the Story of Nabha- nedishtha) ...... Extract from the Satapatha-brahmana (the Story of the Deluge) ....... The Mimansa Method of discussion in the Brahmanas What is presupposed by the Brahmanas The Threefold Division of the Ceremonial completed before the Brahmanas ...... The Yedic Hymns misinterpreted . . . . Duration of the Brahmana period . . . . Lists of Teachers ...... The Gopatha-brahmana . . . . . CHAPTER III. THE MANTRA PERIOD. Its Character ...... The Rig-veda-sanhita, the only Document in which it can be studied ....... Difference between the Rig-veda-sanhita and the other Sanhitas ....... a Page 360 361 365 367 367 375 378 380 386 389 390 406 408 419 421 423 425 427 428 430 432 435 435 445 456 457 457 XVI 11 CONTENTS. Sayana’s Remarks on this point Principles of collection followed in the Rig-veda-sanhita The order of the Hymns according to the Deities . The Apri Hymns ...... Traces of priestly influence in the Rig-veda-sanhita Was the Rig-veda-sanhita collected for the benefit of the Brahman priests ? ..... The Offices of the Four Classes of Priests . The Adhvaryu Priests . The Udgatri Priests The Hotri Priests ...... The Brahman Priests . . . . . The Rig-veda-sanhita, not intended for any Class of Priests Old Hymns collected during the Mantra period New Hymns composed during the Mantra period . Distinction between ancient and modern Hymns Allusions to the Ceremonial . The Purohitas ...... The Professional Priests . The Natural Sacrifices . . . . . The Artificial Sacrifices . ... . The Panegyrics or Danastutis . Satirical Hymn ...... The Character of the Mantra period The Introduction of Writing, an epoch in the History of San- skrit Literature ...... Page 458 468 461 463 467 468 468 471 472 473 475 477 477 478 480 484 485 489 490 491 493 494 496 497 CHAPTER IY. THE CIIIIANDAS PERIOD. Character of the Chhandas period .... 525 Antecedent Elements ..... 526 Specimens of primitive Yedic Poetry . . . 531 Hymn to the Visve Devas . . . . .531 Gods invoked collectively ..... 532 Each God conceived as supreme .... 532 Hymn to Varuna ....•• 534 Moral Truths ...... 537 The primary Elements of Religion .... 538 Hymn to Varuna ...... 540 CONTENTS. XIX Pago Law and Mercy ....•• 540 The Conception of Sin and Forgiveness . • • 540 Ilymn to Iudra ...... 542 Hymns to Agni ...... 547 Hymn to Ushas . . . . . .551 Modern Hymns ...... 552 Hymn to the Horse ...... 553 Philosophical Hymns ..... 556 The idea of one God ...... 558 The idea of a Creation ..... 559 Antiquity of Philosophy ..... 564- Hymn to the Supreme God ..... 569 Date of the Chhandas Period .... 570 Appendix. The Story of Sunahsepha . . . 573 Index ....... 589 INTRODUCTION. Tull seventy years have passed since Sir William Jones published his translation of Sakuntala1, a work which may fairly be considered as the starting-point of Sanskrit philology. The first appearance of this beautiful specimen of dramatic art created at the time a sensation throughout Europe, and the most rapturous praise was bestowed upon it by men of high authority in matters of taste.2 At the same time the attention of the historian, the philologist, and the philosopher was roused to the fact that 1 “ Sacontala, or the Fatal Ring, an Indian drama, translated from the original Sanskrit and Prakrit. Calcutta, 1789.” There have since appeared three editions of the Sanskrit text, and trans- lations in French, German, Italian, Danish, and Swedish. A new and very elegant English version has lately been published by Professor Williams. Hertford, 1856. 2 Goethe was one of the greatest admirers of Sakuntala, as may be seen from the lines written in his Italian Travels at Naples, and from his -well-known Epigram : “ Willt Du die Bliithe des friiheD, die Friichte des spateren Jabres, Willt Du was reizt und entziickt, willt Du was sattigt und nahrt, Willt Du den Himinel, die Erde mit einem Namen begreifen, Nenn ich, Sacontala, Dich, und soist Alles gesagt.” “ Wilt thou the blossoms of spring and the fruits that are later in season, Wilt thou have charms and delights, wilt thou have strength and support, Wilt thou with one short word encompass the earth and the heaven, All is said if I name only, Sacontala, thee.” B 2 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT 1'IIILOLOGY. a complete literature had been preserved in India, which promised to open a new leaf in the ancient history of mankind, and deserved to become the object of serious study. And although the en- thusiasm with which works like Sakuntala were at first received by all who took an interest in literary curiosities could scarcely be expected to last, the real and scientific interest excited by the language, the literature, the philosophy, and antiquities of India has lasted, and has been increasing ever since. England, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Russia, and Greece have each contributed their share towards the advancement of Sanskrit philology, and names like those of Sir W. Jones, Colebrooke, Wilson, in England, Burnouf in France, the two Schlegels, W. von Hum- boldt, Bopp, and Lassen, in Germany, have secured to this branch of modern scholarship a firm standing and a universal reputation. The number of books that have been published by Sanskrit scholars in the course of the last seventy years is but small.1 Those works, however, represent large and definite results, important not only in their bearing on Indian anti- quities, but, as giving birth to a new system of Com- parative Philology, of the highest possible importance to philology in general.2 In little more than half a 1 Professor Gildemeister, in his most laborious and accurate work, “ Bibliotheca; Sanscrit® Specimen, Bonn®, 1847,’’ brings the number of books that have been published up to that time in Sanskrit philology to G03, exclusive of all works on Indian anti- quities and Comparative Philology. During the last twelve years that number has been considerably raised. 2 Professor Lassen, in his work on Indian Antiquities, now in course of publication, is giving a resume of the combined labours of Indian philologists during the last seventy years, sifted critically HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 3 century, Sanskrit has gained its proper place in the republic of learning, side by side with Greek and Latin. The privileges which these two languages enjoy in the educational system of modern Europe Avill scarcely ever be shared by Sanskrit. But no one who wishes to acquire a thorough knowledge of these or any other of the Indo-European languages, — no one who takes an interest in the philosophy and the historical growth of human speech, — no one who desires to study the history of that branch of man- kind to which we ourselves belong, and to discover in the first germs of the language, religion, and my- thology of our forefathers, the wisdom of Him who is not the God of the Jews only, — can, for the future, dispense with some knowledge of the language and ancient literature of India. And yet Indian philology is still in its infancy, and the difficulties with which it has had to contend have been great, much greater, indeed, than those which lay in the way of Greek philology after its revival in the fifteenth century. Seventy years after the fall of Constantinople, the classical works of Greek literature were not only studied from manuscripts : they had been edited and printed. There were men like Beuchlin, Erasmus, and Melanchthon, who had inves- tigated the most important documents in the different periods of Greek literature, and possessed a general knowledge of the historical growth of the Greek and arranged scientifically by a man of the most extensive learning, and of the soundest principles of criticism. His work may indeed be considered as bringing to its conclusion an important period of • Sanskrit philology, which had taken its beginning with Sir W. Jones’s translation of Sakuutala. Indische Alterthums-Kunde, von Christian Lassen. Bonn, 1847 — 1858. 4 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. mind. Learned Greeks who were taking refuge in the west of Europe, particularly in Italy, had brought with them a sufficient knowledge to teach their lan- guage and literature ; and they were able and ready to guide the studies of those who were afterwards to contribute to the revival of classical learning in Europe. Men began where they ought to begin, namely, with Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides, and not with Anacreontic poetry or Neo-Platonist philo- sophy. But when our earliest Sanskrit scholars directed their attention to Indian literature, the dif- ficulties they had to struggle with were far greater. Not to mention the burning and enervating sky of India, and the burden of their official occupations, men like Halhed, Wilkins, and Sir W. Jones could hardly find a single Brahman who would undertake to teach them his sacred idiom. When, after some time, learned Pandits became more willing to impart their knowledge to Europeans, their own views of Indian history and literature were more apt to mislead their pupils than to guide them in a truly historical direction. Thus it happened that, at the beginning of Sanskrit philology, preference was given either to works which still enjoj’ed amongst the Hindus them- selves a great, but frequently undeserved, popularity, or to those which by their poetical beauty attracted the attention of men of taste. Everything Indian, whether Mann’s Code of Laws, the Bhagavadgitfl, Sakuntala, or the Hitopadesa, was at that time con- sidered to be of great and extravagant antiquity, and it was extremely difficult for European scholars to ' form a right opinion on the real merits of Indian literature. The literary specimens received from India were generally fragments only of larger works : HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. or, if not, they had been chosen so indiscriminately from different and widely distant periods, that it was impossible to derive from them an adequate know- ledge of the rise and fall of the national literature of India. Herder, in other respects an excellent judge of ancient national poetry, committed himself to some extraordinary remarks on Indian literature. In his criticism on Sakuntala, written in the form of letters to a friend, he says : “ Do you not wish with me, that instead of these endless religious books of the Vedas, Upavedas, and U pangas, they would give us the more useful and more agreeable works of the Indians, and especially their best poetry of every kind ? It is here the mind and character of a nation is best brought to life before us, and I gladly admit, that I have received a truer and more real notion of the manner of thinking among the ancient Indians from this one Sakuntala, than from all their Upnekats and Bagavedams.” 1 The fact is that at that time Herder’s view on the endless religious books of the Vedas, could only have been formed from a wretched translation of the Bagavedam, as he calls it, — that is, the Bhagavatapurana, — a Sanskrit work composed as many centuries after as the Vedas were before Christ ; or from the Ezour-vedam, a very coarse for- gery, if, indeed, it was intended as such, written, as it appears, by a native servant, for the use of the famous Jesuit missionary in India, Roberto de No- bilibus.2 1 Herder’s Schriften, vol. ix. p. 226, Zur schdnen Literatur und Kunst. Tubingen, 1807. 2 Comp. Account of a discovery of a Modern Imitation of the 6 HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. Even at a much later time, men who possessed the true tact of an historian, like Niebuhr, have abstained from passing sentence on the history of a nation whose literature had only just been recovered, and had not yet passed through the ordeal of philological criticism. In his Lectures on Ancient History, Niebuhr leaves a place open for India, to be filled up when the pure metal of history should have been extracted from the ore of Brahmanic exaggeration and superstition. Other historians, however, thought they could do what Niebuhr had left undone ; and after perusing some poems of Kalidasa, some fables of the Hitopade&a, some verses of the Ananda-lahari, or the mystic poetry of the Bhagavadgita, they gave, with the aid of Mega- sthenes and Apollonius of Tyana, a so-called historical account of the Indian nation, without being aware that they were using as contemporary witnesses, authors as distant from each other as Dante and Virgil. No nation has, in this respect, been more unjustly treated than the Indian. Not only have general conclusions been drawn from the most scanty materials, but the most questionable and spurious authorities have been employed without the least historical investigation or the exercise of that critical ingenuity, which, from its peculiar character, Indian literature requires more than any other.1 Vedas, with Remarks on the genuine works, by Fr. Ellis ; Asiatic Researches, xiv. p. 1 — 59: Calcutta, 1822. 1 Professor H. H. Wilson, in the preface to his translation of the Vishnu-Purana, remarks : “ It is the boast of inductive philo- sophy that it draws its conclusions from the careful observation and accumulation of facts ; and it is equally the business of all philosophical research to determine its facts before it ventures HISTORY OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. 7 There is another circumstance which hns retarded the progress of Sanskrit philology : an affectation of that learned pedantry which has done so much mis- chief to Greek and Latin scholarship. We have much to learn, no doubt, from classical scholars, and nothing can be a better preparation for a Sanskrit student than to have passed through the school of a Bentley or a Hermann. But in Greek and Latin scholarship the distinction between useful and useless knowledge has almost disappeared, and the real objects of the study of these ancient languages have been well nigh forgotten. More than half of the publications of clas- sical scholars have tended only to impede our access to the master- works of the ancients; and a sanction has been given to a kind of learning, which, however creditable to the individual, is of no benefit to the public at large. A similar spirit has infected Sanskrit philology. Sanskrit texts have been edited on which no rational man ought to waste his time. Essays have been written on subjects on which it is folly to be wise. These remarks are not intended to disparage critical scholarship or to depreciate the results which have been obtained by minute and abstruse erudition. But scholars who devote all their time to critical nice- ties and recondite subtleties are apt to forget that these are but accessories. Knowledge which has no object beyond itself is, in most cases, but a pretext for vanity. It is so easy, even for the most superfi- upon speculation. This procedure has not been observed in the investigation of the mythology and traditions of the Hindus. Impatience to generalise has availed itself greedily of whatever promised to afford materials for generalisation ; and the most erro- neous views have been confidently advocated, because the guides to which their authors trusted wrere ignorant or insufficient.” 8 AIM OF SANSKRIT PHILOLOGY. cial scholar, to bring together a vast mass of informa- tion, bearing more or less remotely on questions of no importance whatsoever. The test of a true scholar is to be able to find out what is really important, to state with precision and clearness the results of long and tedious researches, and to suppress altogether lu- cubrations, which, though they might display the laboriousness of the writer, would but encumber his subject with needless difficulty. The object and aim of philology, in its highest sense, is but one, — to learn what man is, by learning what man has been. With this principle for our pole-star, we shall never lose ourselves, though en- gaged in the most minute and abstruse inquiries. Our own studies may seemingly refer to matters that are but secondary and preparatory, to the clearance, so to say, of the rubbish which passing ages have left on the monuments of the human mind. But we shall never mistake that rubbish for the monuments which it covers. And if, after years of tiresome labour, we do not arrive at the results which we expected, — if we find but spurious and unimportant fabrications of individuals, where we thought to place ourselves face to face with the heroes of an ancient world, and among ruins that should teach us the lessons of former ages, — we need not be discouraged nor ashamed, for in true science even a disappointment is a result. If, then, it is the aim of Sanskrit philology to sup- ply one of the earliest and most important links in the history of mankind, Ave must go to work histo- rically ; that is, we must begin, as far as we can, with the beginning, and then trace gradually the growth of the Indian mind, in its various manifestations, as far as the remaining literary monuments allow us to HISTORICAL POSITION OP THE VEDA. 9 follow this course. What has been said with regard to philosophy, that “ we must acquire a knowledge of the beginning and first principles, because then only can we say that we understand any thing when we be- lieve we know its real beginning,” applies with equal force to history. Now every one acquainted with In- dian literature, must have observed how impossible it is to open any book on Indian subjects without being thrown back upon an earlier authority, which is ge- nerally acknowledged by the Indians as the basis of all their knowledge, whether sacred or profane. This earlier authority, which we find alluded to in theolo- gical and philosophical works, as well as in poetry, in codes of law, in astronomical, grammatical, metrical, and lexicographic compositions, is called by one com- prehensive name, the Veda. It is with the Veda, therefore, that Indian philo- logy ought to begin, if it is to folloAv a natural and historical course. So.great an influence has the Yedic age (the historical period to which we are justified in referring the formation of the sacred texts) exercised upon all succeeding periods of Indian history, so closely is every branch of literature connected with Yedic traditions, so deeply have the religious and moral ideas of that primitive era taken root in the mind of the Indian nation, so minutely has almost every private and public act of Indian life been regulated by old traditionary precepts, that it is impossible to find the right point of view for judging of Indian religion, morals, and literature without a knowledge of the literary remains of the Yedic age. No one could fairly say that those men who first began to study Sanskrit, now seventy years ago, ought to have begun with reading the Yeda. The difficulties connected 10 THE VEDIC AGE. with the stud}7 of the Veda would have made such a course utterly impossible and useless. But since the combined labours of Sanskrit scholars have now ren- dered the study of that language of more easy access, since the terminology of Indian grammarians and commentators, which not long ago was considered un- intelligible, has become more familiar to us, and. manu- scripts can be more readily procured at the principal public libraries of Europe, Sanskrit philology has no longer an excuse for ignoring the Yedic age. It might be inferred from the very variety of sub- jects upon which, as has been just observed, the Yeda is quoted as the last and highest authority, that by Yeda must be understood something more than a single work. It would be, indeed, much nearer the truth to take “Yeda” as a collective name for the sacred literature of the .Yedic age, which forms, so to speak, the background of the whole Indian world. Many of the works which belonged to that period of literature have been irrecoverably lost. With regard to many of them, though their existence cannot be doubted, it is uncertain whether they were ever com- mitted to writing. A large number, however, of Yedic works does still exist; and it will require many years before they can be edited together with their commentaries. Till then it will be impossible to arrive at definite results on many questions con- nected with Yedic literature, and it would not be safe to take a comprehensive view of the whole Yedic age before all the sources have been exhausted from which its history and character can be studied. Nothing could be farther from the purpose of this historical essay than to attempt anything of this kind at present. What I have to offer are but Prolego- THE VEDIC AGE. 1L mena to the Veda, or treatises on some preliminary questions connected with the history of the Vedic age. There are points whicli can be settled with complete certainty, though it may be impossible to bring, as yet, the whole weight of evidence to bear upon them; and the general question as to the au- thenticity, the antiquity, and the different periods of Vedic literature, ought to be answered even before beginning an edition of Vedic works. Again, there are many questions of special interest for Sanskrit literature, in which even now, with the materials that have been published, and with the help of manu- scripts that are accessible in the public libraries of Europe, it is possible to arrive at certain results ; while other points are such that even after the com- plete publication of all Vedic texts and commentaries, they will remain open to different views, and will necessarily become the subject of literary discussions. The principal object of the following essays will be to put the antiquity of the Veda in its proper light. By antiquity, however, is meant, not only the chrono- logical distance of the Vedic age from our own, mea- sured by the revolutions and the progress of the heavenly bodies, but also and still more, the distance between the intellectual, moral, and religious state of men as represented to us during the Vedic age, com- pared with that of other periods of history, — a dis- tance which can only be measured by the revolutions and the progress of the human mind. No one who is at all acquainted with the position which India occupies in the history of the world, would expect to find many synchronisms between the his- tory of the Brahmans and that of other nations before the date of the origin of Buddhism in India. Al- 12 THE ARYAN FAMILY. though the Brahmans of India belong to the same family, the Aryan or Indo-European family, which civilised the whole of Europe, the two great branches of that primitive race were kept asunder for centuries after their first separation. The main stream of the Aryan nations has always flowed towards the north- west. No historian can tell us by what impulse those adventurous Nomads were driven on through Asia towards the isles and shores of Europe. The first start of this world-wide migration belongs to a period far beyond the reach of documentary history ; to times when the soil of Europe had not been trodden by either Celts, Germans, Slavonians, Romans, or Greeks. But whatever it was, the impulse was as irresistible as the spell which, in our own times, sends the Celtic tribes towards the prairies or the regions of gold across the Atlantic. It requires a strong will, or a great amount of inertness, to be able to withstand the impetus of such national, or rather ethnical move- ments. Few will stay behind when all are going. But to let one’s friends depart, and then to set out ourselves — to take a road which, lead where it may, can never lead us to join those again who speak our language and worship our gods — is a course which only men of strong individuality and great self-de- pendence are capable of pursuing. It was the course adopted by the southern branch of the Aryan family, the Brahmanic Aryas of India and the Zoroastrians of Iran. At the first dawn of traditional history we see these Aryan tribes migrating across the snow of the Himalaya southward toward the “Seven Rivers” (the Indus, the five rivers of the Panjab and the Sarasvati), and ever since India has been called their TIIE ARYAN FAMILY. 13 home. That before that time they had been living in more northern regions, within the same precincts with the ancestors of the Greeks, the Italians, Slavo- nians, Germans, and Celts, is a fact as firmly esta- blished as that the Normans of William the Conqueror were the Northmen of Scandinavia. The evidence of language is irrefragable, and it is the only evidence worth listening to with 'regard to ante- historical periods. It would have been next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between the swarthy natives of India and their conquerors, whether Alexander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language. What other evidence could have reached back to times when Greece was not peopled by Greeks, nor India by Hindus ? Yet these are the times of which we are speaking. What authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian army, that their gods and their hero ancestors were the same1 as those of King Torus, or to convince the English soldier that the same blood was running in his veins and in the veins of the dark Bengalese ? And yet there is not an English jury now a days, which, after examining the hoary documents of lan- guage, would reject the claim of a common descent and a legitimate relationship between Hindu, Greek, and Teuton. Many words still live in India and in England, that have witnessed the first separation of the northern and southern Aryans, and these are witnesses not to be shaken by cross-examination. The terms for God, for house, for father, mother, son, daughter, for dog and cow, for heart and tears, for axe and tree, identical in all the Indo-European idioms, are like the watchwords of soldiers. We challenge the seeming stranger ; and whether he 14 THE ARYAN FAMILY. answer with the lips of a Greek, a German, or an Indian, we recognise him as one of ourselves. Though the historian may shake his head, though the physio- logist may doubt, and the poet scorn the idea, all must yield before the facts furnished by language. There was a time when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavonians, the Greeks, and Italians, the Persians, and Hindus, were living together with- in the same fences, separate from the ancestors of the Semitic and Turanian races. It is more difficult to prove that the Hindu was the last to leave this common home, that he saw his brothers all depart towards the setting sun, and that then, turning towards the south and the east, he started alone in search of a new world. But as in his language and in his grammar he has preserved something of what seems peculiar to each of the northern dialects singly, as he agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the German seem to differ from all the rest, and as no other lan- guage has carried off so large a share of the common Aryan heirloom — whether roots, grammar, words, mythes, or legends — it is natural to suppose that, though perhaps the eldest brother, the Hindu was the last to leave the central home of the Aryan family. The Aryan nations who pursued a north-westerly direction, stand before us in history as the principal nations of north-western Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in the great drama of history, and have carried to their fullest growth all the elements of active life with which our nature is endowed. They have perfected society and morals, and we learn from their literature and works of art THE ARYAN FAMILY. 15 the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy. In continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history, and it seems to be their mission to link all parts of the world together by the chains of civilisation, com- merce, and religion. In a word they represent the Aryan man in his historical character. But while most of the members of the Aryan family followed this glorious path, the southern tribes were slowly migrating towards the mountains which gird the north of India. After crossing the narrow passes of the Hindukush or the Himalaya, they conquered or drove before them, as it seems without much effort, the aboriginal inhabitants of the Trans-Hima- layan .countries. They took for their guides the prin- cipal rivers of Northern India, and were led by them to new homes in their beautiful and fertile valleys. It seems as if the great mountains in the north had afterwards closed for centuries their Cyclopian gates against new immigrations, while, at the same time, the waves of the Indian Ocean kept watch over the southern borders of the peninsula. None of the great conquerors of antiquity — Sesostris, Semirainis, Ne- buchadnezzar, or Cyrus, who waged a kind of half- nomadic warfare over Asia, Africa, and Europe, and whose names, traced in characters of blood, are still legible on the threshold of history1, disturbed the 1 Thus Strabo says, xv. 1.6.: 'llpilv he rig civ §tcata y evoiro -long rrepi rivv Ivhticwv ek rijg roiaiiryg orpareiag rov Kvpov y rijg 2e- /.iipapthog ; ~vvairo oraXrjvai 7 Tore orpciriciv our' k? reXdekv k^wdev cat Kparijoai, rrXyv rijg pe6’ 'H paicXkovg cat \iovvoov, cat rijg vvv per'a Maceddrair. 1G GREECE AND INDIA. peaceful seats of these Aryan settlers. Left to them- selves in a world of their own, without a past, and without a future before them, they had nothing but themselves to ponder on. Struggles there must have been in India also. Old dynasties were destroyed, whole families annihilated, and new empires founded. Yet the inward life of the Hindu was not changed by these convulsions. His mind was like the lotus leaf after a shower of rain has passed over it ; his cha- racter remained the same, passive, meditative, quiet, and full of faith. The chief elements of discord amongst the peaceful inhabitants of this rich country were, the struggle for supremacy between the different classes of so- ciety, the subjugation of the uncivilised inhabitants, particularly in the south of India, and the pressure of the latest comers in the north upon the possessors of the more fertile countries in the south. These three struggles took place in India at an early period, and were sufficiently important to have called forth the active faculties of any but the Indian K airoi "ZioiooTpiv piv rov Aiyvnnov cal Tti'ipKioi'a tov Aidiona tw e Eupwnr]c npoeXOtiv. Na/3oKoSpd(ropov Si tov napd Xa XSatotc ev- Sokipi'itravra IIpa/c\tou£ paXAov kai tiuc 2rr]\wv iXdrrat • pi yjpi piv a) Seopo Kill Tedpkiova dtv 6ptj.itpti‘ to ptv yap iroXepiov, to ci (piXov avroie ' ra Se owpara au Koval 7 rpoe rrovov, tv’ a i yvwpai pwvvvoivro, cap’ wv Kai araati e iravouv, cat avpfiovXot —atnv ayadwv iraptltv, Kai Koivfj Kai lola. 1 Sayana, in his commentary on the Rig-veda, i. 131. 3., ex- plaining the words ft |fs A 3 >±1 bfcl A fV- f«W| d si a c< duced to a mere skeleton. All the important points and joints of a system are laid open with the greatest precision and clearness, but there is nothing in these Avorks like connection or development of ideas. “Even the apparent simplicity of the design vanishes,” as Colebrooke remarks, “ in the perplexity of the struc- ture. The endless pursuit of exceptions and limi- tations so disjoins the general precepts, that the reader cannot keep in view their intended connection and mutual relation. He wanders in an intricate maze, and the clew of the labyrinth is continually slipping from his hands.” There is no life or meaning in these Sutras, except what either a teacher or a running commentary, by which these works are usually accompanied, may impart to them. Many of these works go even further: they not only express their fundamental doctrines in this con- cise form of language, but they coin a new kind of language, if language it can be called, by which they succeed in reducing the whole system of their tenets to mere algebraic formulas. To understand these is quite impossible without finding first what each algebraic x, y, and z, is meant to represent, and without having the key to the whole system. This key is generally given in separate Sutras, called Pariblidsha , which a pupil must know by heart, or always have present before his eyes, if he is to ad- vance one step in the reading of such works. But 1 Benares Magazine, Oct. 1819. StJTRA STYLE. 73 even then it would be impossible to arrive at any real understanding of the subject, without being also in possession of the laws of the so-called Anuvritli and Nirvritii. To explain the meaning of these technical words, wc must remember that the Sutras generally begin by putting forward one proposition (Adhikara), which is afterwards never repeated, but always to be understood, till a new subject of the same kind is introduced. After the statement of a sub- ject, the author goes on by giving a first rule, which may extend its influence over the next following rules, whether these be restrictions or amplifications of it. These restrictive rules exercise again their influence to a certain extent over other rules, so that the whole becomes one continuous chain, each link held and modified by the others, and itself holding to and modifying the rest. The influence of one rule over the others is called Anavritti, its cessation, Nirvritti. Without knowing the working of these two laws, which can only be learnt from commentaries, the Siitras appear very much confused. This is particularly the case in those works where the so-called Mimansa method of Purva-paksha (reasons contra), Uttara- paksha (reasons pro), and Siddhanta (conclusion), is adopted. Here the concatenation of pros and cons is often so complicated, and the reasons on both sides defended by the same author with such seriousness, that we sometimes remain doubtful to which side the author himself leans, till we arrive at the end of the whole chapter. It is indeed one of the most curious kinds of literary composition that the hu- man mind ever conceived ; and though altogether worthless in an artistic point of view, it is wonderful that the Indians should have invented and mastered 74 SUTRA STYLE. this difficult form, so as to have made it the vehicle of expression for every kind of learning. To introduce and to maintain such a species of literature was only possible with the Indian system of education, which consisted in little else except implanting these Sutras and other works into the tender memory of children, and afterwards explaining them by com- mentaries and glosses. An Indian pupil learns these Sutras of grammar, philosophy, or theology by the same mechanical method which fixes in our minds the alphabet and the multiplication-table ; and those who enter into a learned career spend half their life in acquiring and practising them, until their memory is strengthened to such an unnatural degree, that they know by heart not only these Sutras, but also their commentaries, and commentaries upon commentaries. Instances of this are found among the learned in India up to the present day. These numerous Sutra works which we still possess, contain the quintessence of all the knowledge which the Brahmans had accumulated during many cen- turies of study and meditation. Though they are the works of individuals, they owe to their authors little more than their form ; and even that form was, most likely, the result of a long-continued system of tradi- tional teaching, and not the invention of a few indi- viduals. There is a great difference, according to the notions of the Hindus themselves, between a work composed previous to the Sfitra period, and a Sutra composi- tion. The difference of style between a Bralnnana and a Sfitra work (with the exception of some Kalpa- Sfitras, to be mentioned hereafter) would strike every SRUTI AND SMRITI. 75 body at first sight, although, as regards the gram- matical forms, Vedic irregularities are, according to Sanskrit grammarians, allowed in Sutras also.* 1 But there is another, and more important difference. Li- terary works, belonging to the preceding periods, the Brahmanas as well as the Mantras, are considered by Indian theologians as forming the Sruti, or divine revelation, in contradistinction to the Sutras and all the rest of their literature. In the dogmatical lan- guage of orthodox Hindus, the works, which contain the Sruti, have not been composed, but have only been seen or perceived by men, i.e., they have been revealed to men. The Sfitras, on the contrary, although based upon the Sruti, and therefore in some instances also called Srauta Sutras, are yet avowedly composed by human authors. Whenever they appear to be in con- tradiction with the Sruti, their authority is at once overruled, and only in cases where anterior evidence 1 Yedic forms occur in the Pratisakhya- Sutras, and are pointed out as such by the commentators. For instance, I. Pratisakhya, iv. 33. rfl instead of <=nf% The Commentator says ?TTf%lT^^rRT I The same applies also to the Samayacharika-Sutras, for instance, those of Apastamba, i. 53., where we read ^VT- The Commentator explains this irregular form by ^ti Again, i. 93. we find ^S| 1 ^ explained by the Commentary as 1 i wrriT tti Gautama- Sutras, p. 40. 1. 20. we read WlTTcNTC wh TWrfJI 76 BRAHMANAS AND SUTRAS. is wanting from the Sruti, can they have any claim to independent authority. Now, even if we had no other means of proving that the Sutras could have been composed only after the composition of the Brahmanas, there would be no reason to consider this distinction, drawn by the In- dians themselves between their sacred and profane literature, as altogether artificial and devoid of his- torical meaning, particularly if it can be shown how great an influence that very distinction has exercised on the religious struggles of India. It is clear that this distinction has ever been the stronghold of the hierarchical pretensions of* the Brahmans. We can understand how a nation might be led to ascribe a superhuman origin to their ancient national poetry, particularly if that poetry consisted chiefly of prayers and hymns addressed to their gods. But it is different with the prose compositions of the Brahmanas. The reason why the Brahmanas, which are evidently so much more modern than the Mantras, were allowed to participate in the name of Sruti, could only have been because it was from these theological compositions, and not from the simple old poetry of the hymns, that a supposed divine authority could be derived for the greater number of the ambitious claims of the Brahmans. But, although we need not ascribe any weight to the arguments by which the Brahmans endeavoured to establish the contemporaneous origin of the Mantras and Brahmanas, there seems to be no reason why we should reject as equally worthless the general opinion with regard to the more ancient date of both the Brahmanas and Mantras, if contrasted with the Sutras and the profane literature of India. It BRAHMANAS AND SUTRAS. 77 may easily happen, where there is a canon of sacred books, that later compositions become incorporated together with more ancient works, as was the case witli the Brahmanas. But we can hardly imagine that old and genuine parts should ever have been excluded from a body of sacred writings, and a more modern date ascribed to them, unless it be in the interest of a party to deny the authority of certain doctrines con- tained in these rejected documents. There is nothing in the later literature of the Sutras to warrant a sup- position of this kind. We can find ho reason why the Sutras should not have been ranked as Sruti, except the lateness of their date, if compared with the Brahmanas, and still more with the Mantras. Whether the Brahmans themselves were aware that ages must have elapsed between the period during which most of the poems of their Rishis were com- posed, and the times which gave rise to the Brah- manas, is a question which we need hardly hesitate to answer in the affirmative. But the recklessness with which Indian theologians claim for these Brahmanas the same title and the same age as for the Mantras, shows that the reasons must have been peculiarly strong which deterred them from claiming the same divine authority for the Sutras. To ascribe to literary compositions such as the Mantras and Brahmanas a divine origin, and to claim for them a divine and absolute authority, is a step which can hardly pass unnoticed in the intellectual history of a nation, whether for the circumstances which led to it, or for the results which it produced. Now, in India the results of that fatal step are pal- pable. It may have been intended as a check on re- ligious reforms, but it led to a religious revolution. 78 THE BRAHMANAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS REVELATION. Buddhism would be unintelligible, unless as the over- throw of a system which had tried to maintain its position by an appeal to a divine revelation ; and we may be certain that the distinction between Sruti and Smriti, between revealed and profane literature, was established by the Brahmans, previous to the schism of Buddha. If the belief was once established, that not only the simple effusions of the Rishis, but the pointed doc- trines of the Brahmanas also, emanated from a divine source, and could not therefore be attacked by human reasoning, it is clear that every opposition to the pri- vileges which the Brahmans claimed for themselves, on the sacred authority of the Veda, became heresy ; and where the doctrines of the Brahmans were the religion of the people, or rather of the king, such op- position was amenable to the hierarchical laws of the state. The Brahmans themselves cared much more to see the divine authority of the Sruti as such, im- plicitly acknowledged, than to maintain the doctrines of the Rishis in their original simplicity and purity. In philosophical discussions, they allowed the greatest possible freedom; and, although at first three philo- sophical systems only were admitted as orthodox (the two Mimansas and the Kyaya), their number was soon raised to six, so as to include the Vai&eshika, Sankhya, and Yoga-schools.1 The most conflicting views on points of vital importance were tolerated as 1 Kumarila quotes Sankhya and Yoga, together with other heretical systems. As to the Vaiseshikas, sco page 84. TIIE AUTHORITY OF REVELATION ATTACKED. 79 long as their advocates succeeded, no matter by what means, in bringing their doctrines into harmony with passages of the Veda, strained and twisted in every possible sense. If it was only admitted that, besides the perception of the senses and the induction of rea- son, revelation also, as contained in the Veda, fur- nished a true basis for human knowledge, all other points seemed to be of minor importance. Philo- sophical minds were allowed to exhaust all possible views on the relation between the real and transcen- dental world, the Creator and the created, the divine and the human nature. It was not from such lucu- brations that danger was likely to accrue to the caste of the Brahmans. Nor was the heresy of Buddha Sakya Muni found so much in his philosophical doc- trines, many of which may be traced in the orthodox atheism of Kapila. His real crime lay in his opposi- tion to the exclusive privileges and abuses of the Brahmans. These abuses were sanctioned by the divine authority of the Veda1, and particularly of the Brahmanas. In attacking these abuses, Buddha at- tacked the divine authority on which they were founded, and the argument was short : he is a heretic ; anathema esto. Buddha was a Kshatriya.2 He was of princely 1 The Buddhists say that the three Yedas were propounded originally by Maha Brahma, at which time they were perfect truth ; but they have since been corrupted by the Brahmans and now contain many errors. Cf. R. Spence Hardy, Eastern Mona- chism, p. 185. 2 Kumarila always speaks of Buddha as a Kshatriya who tried to become a Brahman. For instance, And again, ^T^.* 80 THE AUTHORITY OF REVELATION ATTACKED. origin, and belonged to the nobility of the land. He was not the first of his caste who opposed the ambition of the Brahmans. Several centuries before Buddha, Yisvamitra, who, like Buddha, was a member of the royal caste, had to struggle against the exclusiveness of the priests. At that early time, however, the posi- tion of the Brahmans was not yet impregnable ; and Yisvamitra, although a Kshatriya, succeeded in gain- ing for himself and his family the rights for which he struggled, and which the Brahmans had previously withheld from all but their own caste. King Janaka of Yideha again, whose story is given in the Brah- manas, refused to submit to the hierarchical preten- sions of the Brahmans, and asserted his right of per- forming sacrifices without the intercession of priests. However great the difference may have been between the personal character of these two men and of Buddha, 75 Tfa * f%*r *rW%crra WfkTW- “ And this very transgression of Buddha and his followers is represented as if it did him honour. For he is praised because he said, ‘ Let all the sins that have been committed in this world fall on me, that the world may be delivered.’ It is said that if he thus transgressed the duty of a Kshatriya, and entered the life of a Brahman and preached, it was merely for the good of mankind ; and that in adopting for the instruc- tion of excluded people a law which had not been taught by the Brahmans, he took the sin upon himself and was benefit- ting others.” THE AUTHORITY OF REVELATION ATTACKED. 81 the first principle of their opposition was the same. All three were equally struggling against the over- weening pretensions of a selfish priesthood. But while Visvfimitra contented himself with main- taining the rights of his tribe or family, and became reconciled as soon as he was allowed to share in the profits of the priestly power, — while King Janaka expressed himself satisfied with the homage paid to him by Yajnavalkya and other Brahmans, — while, in short, successive reformers as they appeared were either defeated or gained over to the cause of the Brahmans, — the seeds of discontent were growing up in the minds of the people. There is a dark chapter in the history of India, the reported destruction of all the Kshatriyas by Parasu-rama. It marks the be- ginning of the hierarchical supremacy of the Brahmans. Though the Brahmans seem never to have aspired to the royal power, their caste, as far as we know the his- tory and traditions of India, has always been in reality the ruling caste. Their ministry was courted as the only means of winning divine favour, their doctrines were admitted as infallible, their gods were worshipped as the only true gods, and their voice was powerful enough to stamp not only the simple strains of the Rishis, but the absurd lucubrations of the authors of the Brahmanas, with a divine authority. After this last step, howover, the triumph of Brahmanism was preparing its fall. In India, less than in any other country, would people submit to a monopoly of truth ; and the same millions who were patiently bearing the yoke of a political despotism threw off the fetters of an intellectual tyranny. In order to overthrow one of the oldest religions of the world, it was sufficient G 82 BRAHMANISM VERSUS BUDDHISM. that one man should challenge the authority of the Brahmans, the gods of the earth, (bhudeva), and preach among the scorned and degraded creatures of God, the simple truth that salvation was possible without the mediation of priests, and without a belief in books to which these very priests had given the title of revelation. This man was Buddha SdJcya Muni. Now if we inquire how Buddha’s doctrines were met by the Brahmans, it is true that here and there in their philosophical works they have endeavoured to overthrow some of his metaphysical axioms by an appeal to reason. An attempt of this kind we have, for instance, in Vachaspati Misra’s commentary on the Vedanta Sutras. In commenting on the tenet of Buddha, that “ ideas like those of being, and not- being, &c., do not admit of discussion,”1 Vachaspati observes that the very fact of speaking of these ideas., includes the possibility of their conception ; nay, that to affirm they do not admit of reasoning involves an actual reasoning on them, and proves that the mind can conceive the idea of being as different from that of not-being. Such, however, were not the usual weapons witli which Brahmanism fought against Buddhism. The principal objection has always been, that Buddha’s teaching could not be true, because it did not derive its sanction from Sruti or revelation. The Brah- mans, as a caste, would readily have allowed being and not-being, and the whole of Buddha’s philoso- phy, as they did the Sankhya philosophy, which BRAHMANISM VERSUS BUDDHISM. 83 on the most important points is in open opposition to the Vedanta. But while Ivapila, the founder of the Sfinkhya school, conformed to the Brahmanic test by openly proclaiming the authority of revelation as paramount to reasoning and experience, Buddha would not submit to this, either for his philosophi- cal (abhidharma), or for his much more important moral and religious doctrines (vinaya). No doubt it would have been easy for him to show how some of his doctrines harmonised with passages of the Veda, as in the Veda all possible shades of the human mind have found their natural reflection. If he had done so only for some of his precepts, such, for instance, as, “ Thou shalt not murder,” 1 “ Thou shalt not drink,”2 “ Thou shalt eat standing,”3 the Brah- mans would readily have passed over other doctrines, even such as came into practice after Buddha’s death, like “ Who longs for heaven, shall worship the holy sepulchre,”4 “ He shall pull out his hair,”5 &c. As he refused to do so, the line of argument taken by the Brahmans was simply confined to an appeal to reve- lation, in disproof of the possibility of the truth of Buddha’s doctrines. There must be something very tempting in this line of argument, for we see that in later times the 1 ^ WTr*J| 2 fwn i. e. “ thou shalt not drink intoxicating liquors.” 4 ^wrr:ii 5 *3TSTR || 84 REVELATION OF THE BUDDHISTS. Buddhists also endeavoured to claim the same divine character for their sacred writings which the Brah- mans had established for the Areda. A curious in- stance of this is given in the following discussion, from Kumarila’s Tantra-varttika. Here the opponent (purva-paksha) observes, that the same arguments which prove that the Veda is not the work of human authors, apply with equal force to Sakya’s teaching. His authority, he says, cannot be questioned, because his precepts are clear and intelligible ; and as Sakya is not the inventor, but only the teacher of these pre- cepts, and no name of an author is given for S&kya’s doctrines, the frailties inherent in human authors affect them as little as the Veda.1 Everything, in fact, he concludes, which has been brought forward by the Mimansakas to prove the authority of the Veda, proves in the same way the authority of Buddha’s doc- trine. Upon this, the orthodox Kum&rila grows very wroth, and says “ These Sakyas, Vaiseshikas, and other heretics, who have been frightened out of their wits by the faithful Mimansakas, prattle away with our own words as if trying to lay hold of a shadow. They say that their sacred works are eternal ; but they are of empty minds, and only out of hatred they wish to deny that the Veda is the most ancient book. i ^^rrsTT *rrfq <*T ^T^tfSr^TTf^cn^ll Nj ^ REVELATION OF TIIE BUDDHISTS. 85 And these would-be logicians declare even that some of their precepts (which they have stolen from us), like that of universal benevolence, are not derived from the Veda, because most of Buddha’s other say- ings are altogether opposed to the Veda. Wishing, therefore, to keep true on this point also, and seeing that no merely human precept could have any au- thority on moral and supernatural subjects, they try to veil their difficulty by aping our own arguments for the eternal existence of the Veda. They know that the Mimansakas have proved that no sayings of men can have any authority on supernatural sub- jects ; they know also that the authority of the Veda cannot be controverted, because they can bring for- ward nothing against the proofs adduced for its divine origin, by which all supposition of a human source has been removed. Therefore, their hearts being gnawed by their own words, which are like the smattering of children, and having themselves nothing to answer, because the deception of their illogical arguments has been destroyed, they begin to speak like a foolish suitor who came to ask for a bride, saying, ‘ My family is as good as your family.’ In the same manner they now maintain the eternal existence of their books, aping the speeches of others. And if they are challenged and told that this is our argument, they brawl, and say that we, the Miman- sakas, have heard and stolen it from them. For a man who has lost all shame, who can talk away without any sense, and tries to cheat his opponent, will never get tired, and will never be put down ! ” Towards the end of this harangue, Kum&rila adds, what is more to the point, that the Bauddhas, who 86 CHARACTER OE THE SMRITI. ascribe to everything a merely temporary existence, have no business to talk of an eternal revelation. Now, it ought not to be overlooked, that in all these discussions the distinction between Sruti (Man- tras and Brahmanas) and Srnriti (Sfitras) is always taken for granted. If, at the time of the first con- troversies between Bauddhas and Mimansakas, the authors of the Mantras or Brahmanas, and particu- larly the founders of the so-called ancient Brahmanas, had still been alive, or their names generally known, even a Brahman could not have ventured to stand up for the divine and eternal origin of this part of the Sruti. On the other hand, nothing could have pre- vented the Brahmans from ascribing the same super- natural origin to the Sutras, if at the time of the rising power of Buddhism their authors also had been lost in oblivion. The distinction, therefore, between Sruti (revelation) and Srnriti (tradition) which is a point of such vital importance for the whole Brah- manic system, will also be found significant in an historical point of view. It must be observed, however, before we proceed farther, that what is called Srnriti includes not only Sutras, but also Sloka works, such as the laws of Manu, Yajnavalkya, and Parasara (the Manava, Ya- jnavalkya, and Para&ara-dharma-sastras), which some- times are called the Smritis, in the plural. Most of these, if not all, are founded on Sfitras ; but the texts of the Sfitras have mostly been superseded by these later metrical paraphrases. IIow then did the Brahmans, after they had esta- blished the distinction between Sruti and Srnriti, defend the authority of the Srnriti, including the Sutras and the later works in Slokas ? CHARACTER OF TIIE SMRITI. 87 That the Smriti has no claim to an independent authority, but derives its sanction from its intimate connection with the Sruti, is implied by its very name, which means recollection. For, as Kuinarila remarks (in the piirva-paksha), “ Recollection is knowledge ; the object of which is some previous knowledge; and if Manu and other authors of Smritis had not originally been in possession of an authoritative knowledge, it would be impossible to appeal to their recollection as an authority.1 It would be as if a man, omitting his son or daughter, was to appeal to the son of a barren daughter. For the original knowledge of Manu might be compared to his son, but his recollection could only be like a grandson. Now as people, if they have reason to doubt the existence of a daughter, would disbelieve every mention of the son of a daughter, thus the recollection (smriti) of Manu would be futile, if he himself had not possessed some means of authoritative knowledge.” The following extracts from Sayana’s Commentary on Parasara’s Code2 will show the use which the 1 ^TsJT^Tf^T =\ C\ cRTT: 3TT7TPig 1 4M II And again, ^ rfrT: wtw itfi f% ^rr^: ^=rrf7i ttst Tr^rf^-fa: -Rcjpsrsm- 2 MS. BodL 172. 173. 88 CHARACTER OF THE SMRITI. Brahmans made of this argument, in order to sub- stantiate the authority of their legal text-books. “ Does it not seem after all,” he says, “ as if this Smriti (containing as it does the laws of men) hardly deserved a commentary of its own, inasmuch as it is difficult to make out on what grounds it claims any authority? For if we appeal to a Sutra of Jaimini’s (the founder of the Purva-mimansa) wherein he has proved that the Veda possesses an authority irrespec- tive of anything else, these arguments can hardly ap- ply to books which are evidently the works of men, and entirely dependent on the authority of their sources. These sources again, if they be considered as the life and strength of that authority, are often very in- distinct. First, they could never fall under the cog- nizance of the senses, because the very nature of duty or law is transcendental. Nor can this ultimate reason or source be found in induction, inasmuch as induc- tion is only possible after observation. Neither can it be looked for in the sayings of other men, because man is exposed to error, and cannot even express things as he has really perceived them. But even if man were free from error, there would always be room for doubt and opposition. And as to finding the authority for these laws in direct precepts of the Sruti (Mantras and Brahmanas) this is out of the question, because such precepts are not to be found there. We have never seen a passage in the Veda where precepts like those of the Smriti, to keep the body clean, &c., are given. To admit the right of induction for laws of this kind would be most dan- gerous, for it would apply with equal force to the pre- cepts of Buddha, to worship the holy sepulchre, &c. “ However, there is an answer to all these doubts. CHARACTER OF TIIE SMRITI. 89 A great difference exists between the Smritis of Manu and the Smritis of Buddha, because Manu’s authority is asserted by the undeniable Veda itself. It is said in the Veda, ‘ Whatever Manu said, was medicine;’ but there is no passage there in any way favourable to the Smriti of Buddha, and there- fore the right of applying induction cannot be con- sidered dangerous, because it never could be extended to Buddha’s doctrines. “ Quod non,” says the opponent. “ This passage of the Veda, ‘ Whatever Manu said, was medicine,’ is only an Arthavada (an explanatory remark), and has no evidence by itself. It only serves to illustrate or recommend another precept, viz., that two verses of Manu’s are to be used at a certain sacrifice.1 There- fore, there is no passage in the Yeda to warrant the authority of the Smriti ; and if Sakya’s, i.e. Buddha’s, Smriti be exceptional, the same applies to the Smriti of Manu. Thus it is said, ‘ As men speak often untruth and are exposed to error, as no divine precept is given, faith only can be authority.’ But 1 As dhayyas at the Somaraudra Charu, in the middle of the Saraidheni, or fire-kindling hymns. The same argument occurs in Kumarila’s Tantra-varttika, i. 3., cTST ^ WTRqinl ^^TrtT^T Tf^TII Mahadeva, in his Commentary on the Hiranyakesi-sutras, says that the Sruti bears witness to the authority of the Smritis by de- claring that whatever Manu said was medicine. sS f%rrf*rar4: 11 90 CHARACTER OF THE SMRITI. further, even admitting that there was a shadow of authority for Manu, what could be said in favour of Parasara’s Smriti, which is now to be explained ? For, although the Yeda may praise Manu, it never does the same for Parasara, and thus Parasara’s authority at least can hardly be defended. “ Against all this our answer is : the Smritis are an authority, because that they should have authority is understood by itself ; and there is no reason why they should not be considered as having authority. Three reasons are given why Manu and the rest could not claim any authority, viz., ‘that men speak untruth, that they are exposed to error, and that no divine precept is given.’ These objections, how- ever, are entirely out of order, because nobody would ever think that Manu and Parasara, who have been perfect from their very birth, could have spoken untruth, and could have erred. So much for the first two objections. And who ever denied that these sages were perfect from their very birth, as Mantras, Arthavadas, Itihasas, and Puranas, prove distinctly not only the existence of Parasara and others, but also their perfection ? Nay, even if we had not the testimony of the Mantras, how could the perfection of Parasara and others be denied, which is involved in their very existence ? A dif- ference of opinion is quite impossible. And has it not been proved in the chapter on the gods 1 in the Uttara-mimansa, that the Mantras do not require 1 If this refers to the Sankarshanakanda, which is ascribed to Jaimini, and forms an appendix to the Karmamimansa-sutras (cf. Prasthanabheda), wc ought to read Purva-mimansa instead of Uttara-mimansa. CHARACTER OF TIIE SMRITI. 91 any further proof for what they say ? It is true that in the chapter on the Arthavadas it has been admitted that tvhat the Arthavadas contain is not always to be believed. But this is only on account of some impossible things which are occasionally mentioned therein. Therefore an Arthavada like this ‘ Whatever Manu says is medicine,’ although it only serves to recommend another rule, must yet be considered as true in itself. With regard to Sakya, nothing similar can be brought forward ; and thus it is well said elsewhere, ‘ May a man scorn all the erroneous doctrines of Arhat, Charvaka, and Buddha.’ As regards Parasara in particular, it is wrong to say that his fame is not equally founded on the Veda, for it is said in the Sruti, ‘ Thus spoke Vyasa, the son of Parasara.’ If, therefore, the famous Veda- Vyasa is praised as the son of Parasara, how much more famous must not Parasara, his father, have been ! In the genealogical Brahmana of the Yajasaneyi-sakha, the son also and the grandson of Parasara are mentioned in the succession of pupils and teachers who handed down the Veda1, ‘ Ghritakausika received from Parasaryayana, Para- saryayana from Parasarya, Par&sarya from Jatu- karnya, &c.’ Therefore Parasara stands quite on a level with Manu ; and the same applies to all the other Rishis, like Vasishtha and Yajnavalkya, who are authors of Smritis, and are mentioned in the !§ruti. Thus we read, ‘ The Rishis did not see Indra clearly, but Vasishtha saw him clearly.’ 2 ‘ Atri 1 Brihadaranyaka, 5. 6. 3. See page 439. 2 Taittiriya-Sanhita, 3. 5. 2. 3T i't ^ ft 92 CHARACTER OF THE SMRITI. gave his children to Aurva, who longed for a son.’ 1 ‘ Yajnavalkya had two wives.’2 Therefore one must not think of attacking the Smritis of Manu and others by any means. “ The third reason also which was brought forward against the authority of the Srnriti, viz. that the 3T5TT: TTT VYR Tf%l rim XTrfT^ WWPTT*T*nfrfT. rffiY %rTT: V*\T: VT^TT^rT r^T^fWt =npT II “ The Rishis did not see Indra clearly, but Vasishtha saw him clearly. Indra said, ‘I shall tell you a Bralimana, so that all men that are born will have thee for Purohita ; but do not tell of me to the other Rishis.’ Thus he told him these parts of the hymns ; and ever since, men were born having Vasishtha for their Purohita. Therefore a Vasishtha is to be chosen as Brahman.” Cf. Tandya Brahmana, xv. 5., where it is said of the Bharatas that they will always have a Vasishtha as Purohita. The Com- mentator there observes, that Bharata may either mean the kings of that name, or men in general. 1 Taittiriya-Sanhita, 7. 1. 8: f%fN: fafwt * Tlrf riw\ % to ^ttt ^rr- HT ^TrTT II “ Atri gave his children to the son of Urva, who longed for a son. Then he felt lonely, and saw that he was without power, weak, and decrepit. Ho saw this Chaturatra ; he took it and sacrificed with it. Four sons were born to him from it, — a good Ilotri, a good Udgatri, a good Adhvaryu, and a good Brahman.” 2 6atapatha-brahmuna, xvii. 4. 5. CHARACTER OF TnE SMRITI. 93 precepts given there are not based upon passages of the Sruti, does not hold good, because passages are met with which are the source of all the laws given in the Smriti. Thus we read, ‘ These five great sacrifices are every daj’ commenced and every day finished : the Devayajna (to the gods), the Pitriyajna (to the fathers, the manes), the Bhutayajna (to all beings), the Manushyayajna (to men), the Brah- mayajna (to Brahman, the divine Self).’ 1 And although there is no distinct precept in the Veda for ablutions, &c., yet all this is implied. Thus the Bhattacharyas say, 4 It is right to respect the Smritis, because they are delivered by Vedic au- thors, because their origin is well established, and because they derive their authority from the Veda, if but rightly understood.’ The Munis see the Sruti, and they deliver the Smriti ; therefore the authority of both is proved on earth by full evidence. A man who despises these two, and adopts fallacious doctrines, is to be avoided by good men as a heretic and Veda-blasphemer. “ But one might object that if these precepts can be learnt from the Sruti, the Smriti would be un- necessary, because that only which cannot be learnt from other sources forms a fit object for a new work. Here then we say that these precepts, though they can be learnt from the Veda, are nevertheless put together in the Smritis for the purpose of making the order of their performance more easy, by leaving out the Arthavadas, and by taking from some Sakhas of the Yeda particular facts omitted in others. Now it might again be objected that this 1 Taittiriya-aranyaka, ii. 10. 94 SfjTRAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SRUTI. is done in the Kalpa- sutras, and that therefore there was no necessity for the Smritis. But this is wrong, because there are two different kinds of duties to be performed, called Srauta (based on Sruti) and Smarta (based on Smriti). The Srauta ceremonies consist in sacrifices like the Darsa-purnamasa, &c., which can only be performed after the sacred fire has been placed in the house, and they are clearly based upon the Veda, as we read it. The Smarta sacraments and traditional customs, on the contrary, consist in ablutions, rinsing the mouth, &c., and they are to be considered as based upon a Sakha of the Yeda which is hidden, but the existence of which must be inferred. Although, therefore, those precepts which regard the placing of the sacred fire, &c., are put together in the Kalpa-sutras, yet as other duties, such as ablutions, rinsing, &c., are not included in them, the Smritis have still their legiti- mate object.” This discussion has been given here at full length because it is a genuine specimen of Indian ortho- dox dialectics. Whatever may be thought of this style of argument, we see at all events how great an importance has always been attached by the Brah- mans to the distinction between Sruti and Smriti. It may also have been observed in this extract, that it is not quite in accordance with the language of Sayana to speak of Sutra works as Smritis in the plural. He applies this term to metrical codes only, like those ascribed to Manu, Yajnavalkya, and Para- sara, but not to Sutras or Veclangas.1 This, however, 1 Kumarila remarks that, although the six Veclangas are not called by the name of Smriti, they are Smriti in the same sense SUTRAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SRUTI. 95 does not affect our present question, because even Sayana, though he does not call the Sfttras by the name of Smritis, places them notwithstanding in the same category with the codes of law, and separates them from the Sruti, upon which they are founded, but with which they are not to be confounded. The Kalpa-sfttras are called by him Srauta, i. e. based on revelation, but not Sruti (revelation), because al- though they treat of the same subjects as the Sruti, they are themselves extracts only from the sacred writings. They are arranged by authors whose names are given, while, according to Indian notions, Mantras and Brahmanas were only seen by the Rishis, but neither composed nor arranged by them.1 That Sutras, even where they contain Vedanga- doctrines, are distinctly excluded from the Sruti, may be seen from the following passage. In the Tantra- varttika (1. 3.), Kumarila says, “There is a great as the Dharma-sutras, i. 3. 9. <4*TTWT Mahadeva, in his Com- mentary on the Hiranyakesi-sutras, says distinctly, f%rjl Tft 1 “ When we spoke of this (the authorship of Madhuchhan- das) to a learned Hindu friend, he exhibited very marked dis- satisfaction and distress, begging us to write and tell Professor Wilson that the hymn had no author ; that it had existed from everlasting ; and that Madhuchhandas was only the fortunate seer to whom, on the last occasion of its revelation, it had been re- vealed.”— Benares Magazine for June , 1851, “ On Muller’s Edition and Wilson’s Version of the Rig-Veda.” 96 SlJTRAS excluded from the sruti. difference between the Kalpa-sutras, which teach the performance of sacrifices enjoined by the Vedas, such as we now possess them, and the Smritis, which de- rive their authority from parts of the Veda that have either disappeared or are dispersed, or the existence of which can be proved by induction only. It is easier, therefore, to establish the authority of the Kalpa-siitras than that of the Smritis. The objec- tions which have been raised against the authority of the Smritis, and which had to be removed by us before, cannot be thought of with regard to the Kalpa-sutras, not even if it were only for argument’s sake.1 The question, therefore, is only this, whether the Kalpa-sutras have the same authority as the Veda, or whether they merely derive their authority from it. As the Veda is called 1 shadanga,’ ‘ having six members,’ these six members, and amongst them the Kalpa-sutras, might seem to be implied by the common name of Veda. This, however, would be wrong2 ; for the Kalpa-sutras, as is well-known, are composed by human authors like Ma&aka, &c. They do not take their names, like the Kathaka and other Sakhas of the Veda, from those by whom they were proclaimed, but from their real authors. It is true, no doubt, that the authors of the Kalpa-sfitras have the name of Rishis, and it might be said that as Sisu 1 wnW ^ ^H^rPrrf^rTI *T ir^jTj II Hi | h ^rotwrii 2 HT *THT*rfal| StJTKAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SRUTI. J>7 Angirasa was not the author of the Saisava hymns in the Sama-veda, the Kalpa-shtras too were not com- posed, but only proclaimed, by those whose names they bear, particularly as there are even Brahmanas, for instance those of the Aruna and Pa rasara- sakha, which have nearly the same form as the Kalpa-sutras. Nevertheless, nothing can be more mistaken than the opinion of those who would put the Kalpa-sutras on the same footing as the Veda, because people who teach and learn the Kalpa-sutras know that there was a time when these works did not exist, ami that they were composed by certain authors like Masaka, Baudhayana, Apastamba, Asvalayana, Katyayana, and others.” 1 They are drawn, as he 1 Kumarila expressly observes that these name* signify certain individuals, and not Charanas (sects), like those of Katha, by which certain isakhas of the Veda were promulgated. tt rtnrfrr : i “The branches of the Veda which were proclaimed by the sects of Katha and others from all eternity, have a fair claim to be called eternal. But this does not apply to works handed down by the sects or families of Masaka and others, however long they may have been established. For names like Masaka, Baudhayana, and Apastamba, imply an individual being which had a beginning, and therefore it is impossible that a title derived from these names should ever belong to an eternal work.” And again : H 98 SUTRAS EXCLUDED FROM TIIE SRUTI. observes in another place, parti}' from the Veda, but partly also from other sources ; and the same applies, according to him, to all the Vedangas and Smritis ; nay, even to later works, such as the epic and pauranic poems. 1 “ For teachers and pupils do not only know by heart the Kalpa- sutra books, and the other Vedanga and Smriti compositions, but they also remember Asvalayana, Baudhuyana, Apastamba, Katyayana and others, as the authors of these books.” “ All that has reference to virtue and final beatitude is taken from the Veda, while other matters, the purpose of which consists in pleasure and gain, are according to the customs of men. This distinction applies not only to the Vedangas, but also to authoritative passages in the Puranas and Itihasas.” Uvata, in his commentary on the S:\kala-pratisakhya, takes the same view. He says, “that as the Veda was too difficult to be used by itself, learned men have extracted from it different doc- trines on the ceremonial, the metre, and grammar, and brought them into a more intelligible form in the Sutras.” HTfai far^T ^r^rr 5?fTf?refaf?T And again: -n 7T ^IT^T^f SRAUTA- AND SMARTA-StJTRAS. 99 It might therefore be best to distinguish between Smriti or tradition in general, and the Smritis or law- books in particular. We might then speak of srauta- and smdrta-siltrus, comprehending by the former name all Sutras, the source of which can be traced in the Sruti; by the latter those of which no such source exists, or is at least, known to exist.1 The title of Smritis in the plural (orSmriti-prabandhas) might then be left, for convenience sake, to such works as Say ana is speak- ing of, which are composed not in Sutras but in Slokas. It ought, to be remembered, however, that the same subjects which are treated in the metrical Smritis of Manu and others, had similarly been treated in Sutras (srauta, grihya, and samayacharika), and that the principal difference between the two lies, not in their matter, but in their age, and their style. fWUTW fSfRTfafFni 1 Thus, smartam karma is well defined by Shadgurusishya in the Sarvanukramanibhashya, as “ nishekadi smasanantam smriti- grihyavihitam karma.” In the Commentary on Asvalayana’s Sarauta-sutras, it is said, #that, if observances like rinsing the mouth, &c., are prescribed in the 6rauta-sutras (as they are for instance Asval. i. 1. 3.), this is only done in order to show that such observances are acknowledged and presupposed by the Srauta- sutras, though they belong to the province of the Grihya cere- monies. fuT^TrTJ 1 TRIWT- rTcr^TT 1 35% W?TTT^fT^II H 2 100 LOST SAKHAS. An objection against this division and terminolog}7, not unknown to the Brahmans themselves, is that it is difficult to say whether certain Smarta-sutras may not be based upon some lost Sakha of the Veda. The Srauta portions of the Kalpa-sutras, there can be no doubt, are founded on Sruti, if by this name we understand not only the hymns, but also the Brah- manas of the Veda. But there are only few allusions, even in the Brahmanas, to the ceremonies described in the Grihya-sutras ; and the few passages which are quoted from the Sruti in their support, are chiefly taken from the Aranyakas and Upani shads, the latest branches of .Yedic literature. As to the Acharas, or the established rules of conduct with regard to parti- cular temporal duties, even Indian writers admit that there are oidy very vague allusions to them in the Sruti, and they try to prove that these laws are based on parts of the Yeda which are now lost. This is a view which is taken, for instance, by Ilaradatta in his Commentary on Apastamba’s Samayacharika- sutras, and it deserves to be examined more closely. On the first Sutra ', “ Therefore let us now explain the Sdmaydchdrika duties ,” 1m makes the following observations : — “The word Ltherefore' implies a reason, which is that as the srauta (sacrificial) and gdrhya (domestic) cere- monies have been explained, and as these ceremonies presuppose other observances, these other observances must now be explained too. For when it was said before (in the Srauta and Grihya-sutras), that such and such an act was to be performed by a man after ^TrT: II ^ II l LOST SAKIIAS. 101 lie had rinsed his mouth, by a man who is clean, who holds a pavitra in his hand, who is invested with the sacred thread, &c., an acquaintance with all these things, such as rinsing, &c., is presupposed. The twilight prayers, too, are referred to in the preceding Sutras, when it is said, that a man who does not perform his twilight prayers is impure, and unworthy to perform any sacrifice. Several other instances occur ; and it is therefore necessary to explain now immediately those other precepts called samayacharika (temporal). Sdmaydchdrika is derived from samaya (agreement) and dchdra (custom). Samaya , a human agreement, is of three kinds: vidhi, injunction; niyama , restriction; pra- tishedha , prohibition. Rules founded upon samaya are called samaydchdras , from which the adjective samayachdrika . Dharma (virtue) is the quality of the individual self, which arises from action, leads to happiness and final beatitude, and is called apurva supernatural. But, in our Sutra, dharma means law, and has for its object dharma as well as adliarma : things to be done and things to be avoided. “ It might be said, however,” continues the Com- mentator Haradatta, alluding to the same controversy which we saw before treated of by Sayana, “ that if samaya (human agreement) be the authority for the law, it would be difficult to deny the same authority to the Bauddlias and their laws, to worship the holy sepulchre, &c. ; and therefore Apastamba has added the next Sutra : 1 1 wfrraro: wwil^ll H 3 102 LOST SAKHAS. “ ‘ Those agreements are of authority which icere made by men who knew the law.' “ We do not say,” Haradatta remarks, with regard to these words, “ that every agreement becomes of authority, but those only made by men like Manu, &c., who knew the law. But then, it might be asked, how it can be found out that Manu knew the law, and Buddha did not ? People answer, that Buddha could not have had a knowledge of the divine law. But the same might be said also of Manu ; and if a knowledge of divine things be ascribed to Manu, on account of the excellence which he acquired by his virtue, then, again, it would be the same for Buddha. There is a. known verse 1 : ‘If Buddha know the law, and Kapila does not, what is truth ? If they 1 ^T?ft wsr: 3ffwr wi ^ wrr ^ rrtfr.u '-i Dr. Weber, in his dissertation on the Upanishads, thinks it is not impossible that Kapila, the founder of the Sankhya, and Buddha were in fact one and the same person. (Indische Studien, i. 436.) He afterwards qualifies this conjecture, and calls it not very pro- bable. It is true that the Indians themselves observed a certain similarity between the doctrines of Kapila and Buddha. But this would rather show that the two were different persons. Nor would the legend that Buddha was born at Kapila-vastu, the town of Kapila, or rather of the Kapilas, seem to prove the identity of Kapila and Buddha. By another conjecture, the same ingenious scholar makes the founder of the Sankhya (Panchasikha Kapileya) the same person with Kapya Patanchala, who occurs in the Sata- patha-brahmana ; while, in a former article (i. 84.), both Kapila and Patanchali together, the former as the founder of the Sankhya, the latter as the author of the Yoga system, are merged into Kapya Patanchala. Afterwards, however, this opinion also is retracted, because Dr. Weber thinks that the Yoga system might be a later development of the Sankhya. LOST SAKHAS. 103 were both omniscient, how could there be difference of opinion between them?’ If this be not so, a distinction must be made ; and this has been done by Apastamba in his next Sutra : ‘ And the Vedas (are of authority).’ This Sfttra is explained by Ilaradatta in the fol- lowing manner : — “ The Vedas are the highest au- thority for good and bad ; and none of the objections made before could apply to the Vedas, which are faultless from all eternity, evident by themselves, and, as they were revealed, unaffected by the faults of human authors. Therefore, while to us those agreements are of authority which were made by men who knew the law, the Vedas, again, were the authority for those men themselves, like Manu, &c. And although we have not before our eyes a Veda, which is the source of these laws, we must still con- clude that Manu and the rest had.” 2 1 q^Tgil^ll 2 Somesvara, who calls hiuiself a son of Madliava, and of whose work “ Tantra-varttikatika ” there is a manuscript at the E. I. H. (No. 1030.), dated Samvat, 1552, goes even a step farther, and says that, although rules of the Smritis may be against the sacred law, the Yeda must notwithstanding be considered as their source, because the Smritis themselves maintain that the Veda is the highest authority, an admission which the followers of Buddha protest against. Cf. p. 80. ^ i .si H 4 104 LOST SAKHAS. It is a matter of considerable interest to know whether this opinion of Haradatta’s, as to the previous existence of a larger number of Yedic works, deserves credit or not. The opponent of the orthodox Ivuma- rila in the Tantra-varttika remarks very truly, that to invoke the testimony of lost parts of tile Yeda is like calling a dead person as a witness.1 And if we had no better authority for this opinion than so late a commentator as Haradatta, we should hardly be justi- fied in mentioning it as an argument. Anybody, however, who is acquainted with the character of Indian commentators, will admit that they seldom f^"«TT ?r: &c- cf- Yajna- valkya, ed. Stenzler, i. 56., i. 40. ; Manu, iii. 12, 13., where the Commentator mentions Vasishtha as having spoken of the marriage of a Brahman with a Sudra, the ceremony not being accompanied by sacred hymns, as a kind of morganatic marriage, kamato vivahah, ' the intention of speech (or art of reasoning) (WT^rfar^j), the maxims of ethics (T^T^-T), the divine science (or construc- tion of scriptures) com. the sciences append- ant on holy writ (or accentuation, prosody, and religious rites) (sTflfW). the adjuration of spirits (^rffir^TT, com. ?J7T?r^)> the art of the soldier |\ com. the science of as- tronomy, (•PST^f^RTT) the charming of serpents (RRf^^jf), the science of demigods (or music and mechanical arts, see page 39.) : all this I have studied ; yet do I only know the text, and have no knowledge of the soul. SIKSI1A. 113 Svt\ha, that her body consists of the four Vedas, and that her limbs are the six Angas, or mem- bers of the Veda.1 It is possible, however, that more ancient Brahmanas allude to the number of six ; at all events we see that it was sanctioned for the Vedangas before the end of the Brahmana period. The six doctrines commonly comprehended under the title of Vedangas, are Siksha (pronunciation), Chhandas (metre), Vyakarana (grammar), Nirukta (explanation of words), Jyotisha (astronomy), and Kalpa (ceremonial). The first two are considered necessary for reading the Veda, the two next for un- derstanding it, and the last two for employing it at sacrifices. Siksha, or Phonetics. Sayana, in his commentary on the Rig-vcda, defines Siksh a as the science of the pronunciation of letters, accents, &c. ; and he quotes from a work of the Tait- tiriyas, who have devoted a chapter of their Aranyaka to this subject. Now in the seventh book of the Taittiriy a- Aranyaka we still find the following head- ings : “ Let us explain the Siksha,” 2 “ On Letters,” 1 wrftsli nftv v3*TT*hrTf% i *rraTf%n w The four Vedas are her body ; the six Angas her limbs ; herbs and trees her hair.” See also the text frequently quoted from the Veda, WSH “ The Veda, with its six members, o :ght to be known and understood by a Brahman without any further inducement.” 2 ifNt The i in Siksha is short (hrasva), though it is strong (guru). It is only in the Aranyaka that Siksha I 114 SIKSHA. “ On Accents,” “ On Quantity,” “ On the Organs of Pronunciation,” “On Delivery,” “On Euphonic Laws.” Unless we admit that the rules on Siksha had for- merly their place in this chapter of the Taittiriya- Aranyaka, it would be difficult to explain why all the principal subjects of the Siksha should be mentioned here, why the whole chapter should be called the Siksha chapter (ityuktah sikshadhyayah), and why it should begin with the words “ Let us now explain the Siksha.” Sayana, who was certainly acquainted with the Vedic tradition, takes the same view in his Commentary on the Sanhiti-upanishad.1 He states that the Taittiriya-upanishad consists of three parts2, of the Sanhiti, Yajniki, and Varuni-upanishad. Of occurs instead of Siksha. Siksha is derived from sak to be able, and means originally a desire to know. From the same root we have sa/ita, a teacher (Rv. vii. 103. 5.) ; sikshatnana, a pupil (Rv. vii. 103. 5.). Sishya, a pupil, comes from a different root. Sa- yana says, fsp^TI '3fp3Tll The other headings are, =pifi | 1 TFT^TI sp?il 1 I owe a copy of this Commentary of Sayana’ s to the kindness of Dr. Roer, at Calcutta. Seeing, in the catalogue of manuscripts published by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, a work of Sayana’s called Sikshabhashya, and imagining this to be a commentary on the Siksha-vedanga or one of the Pratisakhyas, I wrote to Dr. Riier for a copy of it. Though I was ultimately disappointed when 1 found that it had nothing to do with the Pratisakhyas, I still con- sider the Commentary of great interest, particularly Sayana’s in- troduction to the Vedanta-system in it. Dr. Rber has since pub- lished the whole Taittiriya-upanishad, with the Commentaries of Sankara and Ananda Giri, in No. 22. of the Bibliotheca Indica. 2 ^ fM^VTi ^t- SJKSIIA. 115 tlicse the last is the most important, because it tcaclies the knowledge of the Divine Self. The first serves as an introduction or preparation, in order to bring the mind of the pupil into a proper state for receiving the doctrines on the highest subjects. Now immediately after the first invocation, the Upanishad begins with the Siksha chapter ; and in order to explain this, Sayana remarks that this doctrine is necessary here, in order to enable the pupil to read and pronounce the sacred texts correctly, and thus to understand their real meaning.1 It might be objected, Sayana remarks, that as a correct pronunciation is equally required for the earlier ceremonial portion of the Veda (Karma- kanda), the Siksha ought to have been inserted there. But then, he says, this chapter in its present place stands between the ceremonial and the philosophical portion of the Veda, like a lamp on the threshold of a door giving light to both. He adds, that a right pro- nunciation and understanding is of greater importance for the philosophical part ; because mistakes in the sacrifices and the ceremonial can be made good by penance, while there is no penance for a wrong un- derstanding of philosophical principles. If then there is reason to believe that the doctrine f^fw TOf I &c. Tfret Wl jre«TTf?rir^ f^rr?5*?^r to xf 116 PRATISAKHYAS. of the Siksha was formerly embodied in the Aranya- kas, perhaps even in the Brahmanas1 * * * *, the question is, why it afterwards lost this place. This can only be accounted for by the appearance of more scien- tific treatises, which embraced the same subjects, but in a much more systematic style than anything which we could expect to meet with in the Brahmanas and. Aranyakas. These were the Pratisakhyas, a branch of literature which will claim our particular attention for more than one reason. If we compare the Pratisakhyas with Brahmanas and Aranyakas, they evidently indi- cate a considerable progress of the Indian mind. They were written for practical purposes ; their style is free from cumbrous ornaments, and unnecessary subtleties. It is their object to teach and not to edify; to explain, not to discuss. Where the Brahmanas or Aranyakas allude to grammatical, metrical, or etymo- logical questions, they give nothing but theological and mystical dreams. So far from receiving elucida- tion, the points in question generally become involved in still greater darkness. It is not unlikely that teachers appealed to these passages of the Brahmanas in order to derive from them the highest possible sanction for their doctrines. But these doctrines, if they were intended for use and instruction, must have been delivered in a more homely and more intelligible form. The origin of the Pratisakhyas ma}7 therefore 1 The passage from the Pushpa-sutras (viii. 8.) which was quoted before, Joes not prove that the rules on the accent were laid down in the Brahmana of the Kulabavins, because it may also mean that the accented delivery of sacred texts was enjoined in the Brahmana. l’RATISA K II Y A S . 117 be accounted for in the following manner: — During the Brahmana period the songs of the Veda were pre- served by oral tradition only : and as the spoken lan- guage of India had advanced and left the idiom of the Veda behind as a kind of antique and sacred utterance, it was difficult to preserve the proper pronunciation of the sacred hymns without laying down a certain number of rules on metre, accent, and pronunciation in general. The necessity, however, of such a provi- sion could hardly have been felt until certain dif- ferences had actually arisen in different seats of Brahmanic learning. Thus, when the attempt was made to prevent a further corruption, a certain number of local varieties in accent and pronunciation, and in the recital of the hymns, had actually crept in and be- come sanctioned by the tradition of different families or schools. These could not be given up, nor was there any means of determining which was the ancient and most correct way of reciting the sacred songs of the Veda. Discussions having arisen on this subject, we find in the Brahmanas occasional mention of verses which, if improperly pronounced, become changed in their meaning. But even where the sense of the Veda was not affected, the respect paid by each teacher, by each family, and by each Brahmanic community to its own established oral tradition, was sufficient to give an imaginary value to the slightest peculiarities of pronunciation, accent, or metre. A twofold advantage was gained when the rules and exceptions of the old sacred dialect were first re- duced to a system. First, ancient dialectical differ- ences, many of which are not so much attributable to corruptions as to the freedom of the old spoken language, were carefully preserved, and even apparent 118 PRATISAKHYAS. irregularities and exceptions were handed down as such, instead of being eliminated and forgotten. Se- condly, a start was made towards a scientific study of language ; by the collection of a large number of similar passages, general laws were elicited which afterwards served as the phonetic basis of a grammar like that of Panini ; — a work which, although ascribed to one author, must have required ages of observation and collection before its plan could be conceived or carried out by one individual. Even the Pratisakhyas, though they do not refer to grammar properly so called, but principally to the phonetie laws of language, pre- suppose a long-continued study of grammatical sub- jects previous to the time of their composition. The best proof of this lies in the great number of authors quoted in the Pratisakhyas, whose opinions are fre- quently at variance with the precepts contained in the Pratisakhyas themselves. Though we are not now in possession of the works of these earlier authors, yet we have a right to assume that their doctrines existed formerly in the shape of Pratisakhyas. In the same way as one only of the different Sakh&s or recensions of the Rig-veda has been preserved to us in manuscript, the Sakala-£akh&, which was followed by Saunaka, we may understand how one only of the Pratisakhyas of the lvig-veda has come down to us; particularly as its composition is ascribed to the same Saunaka who is said to have united the Bfishkala and the Sakala-saklms, and who, as far as the Sanhita is concerned, was a follower of the Saisira-sakha. *$au- naka’s Pratisakhya of the 6akalas, being one of the latest compositions of this kind, was probably also the most perfect and complete. As Saunaka states the different opinions of Sfikala grammarians on im- PRATISAKHYAS. 119 portant points, wliere lie himself differs from them, his work was the more likely to supersede previous Pratisakhyas, particularly at the time when the Yedic religion was on its decline, and Brahmanic doctrines daily losing in influence. Though it is true that as yet only one Pratisakhya belonging to each Veda has been found in manuscript, yet they all belong not to one of the four Vedas in general, but to one S&kha of each of them. Pratisakhya, therefore, does not mean, as has been supposed, a treatise on the pho- netic peculiarities of each Veda, but a collection of phonetic rules peculiar to one of the different branches of the four Vedas, i. e. to one of those different texts in which each of the Vedas had been handed down for ages in different families and different parts of India. The differences between the Sakhas of the same Veda, as far as the words of the hymns are concerned, seem certainly not to have been very great, if we may judge from the few instances in which different Sakhas of the same Veda have been preserved in manuscripts. Most Sakhas do not differ in the general arrangement of the Sanhitas, or collec- tions of hymns, but merely in single words or verses. In a few cases only one Sakha contains some hymns more than another. The Sakhas were not indepen- dent collections of the old hymns, but different edi- tions of one and the same original collection, which in the course of a long-continued oral tradition had become modified by slight degrees. The texts of the Veda as they existed and lived in the oral tra- dition of various. sects of people became Sakhas, dif- fering from other Sakhas somewhat in the same way as the MSS. of the New Testament differ from each other. The Pratisakhyas, besides giving general 120 PE ATISAKH Y AS. rules for the proper pronunciation of the Vedic language in general, were intended to record what was peculiar in the pronunciation of certain teachers and their schools. Even in cases where these schools had become extinct, we find the names of their founders, preserved as authorities on matters con- nected with the pronunciation of certain letters or words. The real object of the Pratisakhyas, as shown be- fore, was not to teach the grammar of the old sacred language, to lay down the rules of declension and conjugation, or the principles of the formation of words. This is a doctrine which, though it could not have been unknown during the Vedic period, has not been embodied, as far as we know, in any ancient work. The Pratisakhyas are never called Vyakaranas, grammars x, and it is only incidentally that they al- lude to strictly grammatical questions. The perfect phonetic system on which Panini’s grammar is built, is no doubt taken from the Pratisakhyas ; but the sources of Panini’s strictly grammatical doctrines must be looked for elsewhere. Although, then, there is no necessity to suppose that every one of the numerous Vedic 8akhas possessed full and complete Pratisakhyas, like that belonging 1 According to the first Pratisakhya, i. 58., their rules would seem to affect passages of the Brahmanas too, like TTriT & c. : and the Commentator adds, Most of these Praishas, however, are taken from the hymns ; as, for instance, the words y?TrfT Rv. i. 139. 10. This is different from the Yajur-veda where the general rules of the Pratisakhya extend their influence to the sacrificial invocations. riiATISAKHYAS. 121 to the Sakala-sakha, which was finally collected by Saunaka, yet the great number of previous autho- rities quoted in our Pratisakhyas makes it likely that a large number of similar works did actually exist for the principal Sakhas that are mentioned in earlier writings. In the Pratijnaparisishta 1 it is stated that there were fifteen codes of law for the fifteen Sakhas of the Yajasaneyins : and Kumarila says that the text of these Codes of law and of the Grihyas was peculiar in each Charana, in the same manner as the formal rules of the Pratisakhyas.2 Madhusudana Sarasvati’s definition of Pratisakhya is perfectly in accordance with this view of the subject. He says : — “The Veda3 consists of two parts : one teaching the sacrifice, the other teaching Brahman, or the Su- 1 MS. Bodl.W. 510.: uutwi: vfovr: vfrntTW ^ The meaning of “ Yathasvaram pratishthas” is doubtful. Should it mean “ rules with reference to accents ? ” If so, they would be the rules of Pratisakhyas. That the Sakhas differed about the accents is seen in the case of the Mandukeyas and Sakalas. Pratisakhya I. 200. Katyayana, as the author of a Pratisakhya is called ii 2 Tantra Y. I. 3. (MS. Bodl. W. 325. p. 15 b.) 3 Yeda is taken here in the general sense of sacred literature, as Uvata says, T^I^II “ Every single collection of hymns which existed at any time, and in any place, without reference to the divisions in each Cha- rana (sect), is called Veda.” 122 PR ATISAKII Y AS .. preme Being. As there are three different branches of the ceremonial, the Veda is, for the better per- formance of the sacrilices, divided into three : the Rig- Veda, Yajur-Veda, and Sama-Veda. The cere- monial of the Hotri priests is performed with the Rig- Veda; that of the Adhvaryu priests with the Yajur-Veda; that of the Udgatri priests Avith the Sama-Veda. The duties of the Brahman priests, and of him for whom the sacrifice is offered, are also con- tained in these three Vedas. The Atharva-Veda is not used for solemn sacrifices, and is very different from the others, as it teaches only expiatory, pre- servative, or imprecatory rites. For each Veda there are several Vakhas, and their differences arise from various readings.”1 Afterwards he goes on to observe that “ the rules of pronunciation (siksha), which apply to all the Vedas in general, have been explained by Panini, but that the same rules, as they apply to the Sakhas of each Veda, have been taught by other sages under the title of Pratisakhyas.”2 If 1 According to Madhusudana, the Brahman part of the Veda, by which he can only mean the Upanishads, is not affected by the peculiarities of the Saklias. If this were true, it would only prove the late origin of the Upanishads. Some Upanishads, how- ever, show traces of various readings, which must properly be attributed to various Sakhas. This is admitted, for instance, by Sayana, in his Commentary on tlieYajniki orNarayamya-upanishad. “ Tadiyapathasampradayo desavisesheshu bahuvidho drisyate ; tatra yadyapi Sakhabhedah karanam tathapi Taittiriyadhyayakais tattaddesanivasibhih sishtair adritatvat, sarvo’pi pfitha upadeya eva.” Ind. Stud. i. 76. 2 See also Somesvara’s Tantra-varttikatika. (MS. E. I. II. 1030. p. 95.) ^ facr^T I PRATISAKI1YAS. 123 wc here take the word feakhns (branches) in the sense of different traditionary texts of the four Vedas, MadhusMana’s words do not require any alteration ; they would become obscure if, as has been proposed, we took sakha either in the sense of “ a school ” or of “ a portion of the Veda.” The word saklni is used, however, by some writers in so vague a manner that we need not wonder if its meaning lias sometimes been misapprehended. “ Tra- ditional text (‘recension’) of the Veda” is perhaps the nearest approach to its real meaning. The word is sometimes applied to the three original Sanhitas, the Eig-veda-sanhita, Yajur-veda-sanhita, and Sama-veda-sanhita1, in their relation to one an- other, and without any reference to subordinate sakhas trcrer: vwtt- ii “ There are two kinds of Siksha, a general and one which has regard to particulars. It is true that the authority of the general Siksha is established, on account of its belonging to the Ve- dangas ; but in order to remove all doubt as to the authority of the particular 6ikshas, published by Katyayana and others, which determine the pronunciation of each sentence and each word, it is clear that it is not different from the other, inasmuch as both are one by their common character of Siksha, although they are spoken of separately.” 1 It is said of Sayana that he wrote commentaries on each of the 6akhas of the Rich, Yajush, and Sama. :^T^n[T^rT5fT^i^T ptoti rTTCTTT rn^TPTTsh- VTV II Ekaika could hardly meaa “ one from among the 6akhas of each Yeda.” 124 PRATISAKIIYAS. belonging to each of them. They may be called the original branches or the three stems of the Veda-tree, each of them branching off again in a number of other Vakhas. The “branches,” as Kumarila says, have all the same root, revelation (sruti), and they bear all the same fruit, the sacrifice (karman). If otherwise, they would be different trees, not different branches.1 In the same acceptation the word is used for instance by Apastamba, where he is giving rules as to the time and place where the Veda ought not to be read. He says there (Sam. Sutra, 3. 44, 45,) that it ought not to be rehearsed where music or Sarna-hymns are performed, and he adds, that Sama-hymns ought not to be practised in the neighbourhood of another sakha, that is, as the commentator observes, of another Veda.2 More frequently, however, sakha is used to signify the various editions, or, more properly, the various traditions, that branched off from each of the three original branches of the Veda. In this latter sense sakha seems sometimes synonymous with charana. But there was originally an important difference in the meaning of these two terms. 1 ^ T^WTHT^T- f^?T TlffTT^ rTCTfa II %rra:ii ^ I) Bill •x •x • srrai ^rsmii The first Sutra is paraphrased by the Manavas, iv. 123., ^hrii si ' rRATISAKIIYAS. 125 In order to appreciate the difference between Sakha and charana, it need only be remembered that we find “ sakliam adhite,” “ lie reads a certain edition of the Veda,” but never “ charanam adhite,” still less “ parishadam adhite,” “ he reads a cliarana or a Pa- rishad.” Hence it is clear that Sakha means origin- ally a literary work, and that Cliarana does not. If Sakha is sometimes used in the sense of cliarana or sect, this is because in India the Sakhas existed in reality not as written books, but only in the tradition of the Charanas, each member of a Cliarana represent- ing and embodying what, in our modern times, avc should call the copy of a book. The Brahmans themselves were fully aware of this difference between Sakha and charana. In a Varttika to Panini, iv. 1. 63., we find charana explained by Sakhadhyetri, &c., “the readers of a sakha.” In a passage of Jagaddhara’s Commentary on Malatima- dhava, Charana is said to mean “ a number of men who are pledged to the reading of a certain sakha of the Veda, and who have in this manner become one body.” 1 Panini2 speaks of Charanas as constituting a multitude, that is to say, as comprising a number of followers. In Apastamba’s Samayacharika-sutras, where rules are given as to the relative age of persons who ought to be saluted, the Charanas or members of the same Charana are mentioned immediately after the PauraSakhyam, or town acquaintances ; and in Cf. Zur Litteratur, p. 57. 2 Pan. iv. 2. 46. scil. ^ Cv 126 PRATISAKHYAS. the third place stand the Srotriya-Brahmans.1 Panini speaks of the Kathaka and Kalapaka as works belonging to Charanas of the Kathas and Kalapas.2 In a Varttika to iv. 1. 63., women are mentioned as belonging to a Charana ; for Kathi is the wife or daughter of a Brahman who belongs to the Charana, or reads the Sakha, of the Kathas. A s&kha, which is always a portion of the Sruti, cannot properly include law books. But followers of certain Sakhas might well, in the course of time, adopt a code of laws, which, as it was binding on their Charana only, would naturally go by the name of their Charana. That this actually took place may be seen from a V&rttika to Pan. iv. 3. 120., where it is said that Kathaka may be used not only for the sacred traditions, but also for the laws of the Kathas. Thus the Pratisakhyas also were called by the name of the Charanas, because they were the exclusive property of the readers of certain sakhas, and even more so than the Kuladharmas or family-laws. As a sakha consisted of a Sanhita as well as a Brahmana, at all events in later times, differences in the text of the hymns, as well as discrepancies in the Brahmanas, might lead to the establishment of new Charanas, founded as they were on sacred texts peculiar to themselves.3 Stikhas of this kind, which 1 Ap. i. 4. 4. The Commentator says that | ’JJJ- ! | Charana, therefore, means a member of a Charana. Lassen (Inch Alterthumsk. i. 640.) takes Charana in the sense of wandering poets, so named still in Western India. 2 Pan. iv. 3. 126. soil. 3 Mahadeva’s Iliranyakesibhashya : 127 PRATISAKIIYAS. differed through the various readings of the Sruti, were considered by the Brahmans as eternal sakhtis, and the Charanas to which they belonged, were not supposed to have been founded by human authors.1 It will be seen hereafter that the Brahmans admitted another class of sakhas, which were founded on Sutras2 and derived their names from historical personages. They were confessedly of a later date. But although, after a careful examination of these passages, we cannot doubt that there was an original difference between 6akha and charana, it is not less certain that these two words were frequently used synonymously 3 ; in the same way as we may speak of the Jews when we mean the Old Testament, or of the Koran when we mean the Mohammedans. “ Any portion of oral tradition consisting of Mantras and Brah- manas is called a sakha, and it is clear that differences of either the Mantras or Brahmanas will necessarily lead, in the Veda, to a variety of subordinate sakhas.” % # “ The various sakhas which arise from various readings are eternal.” 2 7TT^TM\ ^Fg*TT- «TRT ^Tfwi Mahadeva’s Commentary on the Hiranyakesi- sutra. 3 Cf. Nirukta, i. 17., where is explained by ^ I and Pan. ii. 4. 3. HTWTI Pan. vi. 3. 86. 128 PR ATISAK H YAS . After having established the difference between sa- kha and charana, we have still to inquire how both differ from parishad, in order to determine the mean- ing of Parshada, another title which is frequently applied to the Pratisakhyas. Here it is important to observe that although every Prati&akhya may be called a Parshada1, i. e. a word belonging to a Parishad, not every Parshada can be called a Pratisakhya, but those only which contain the rules of pronunciation for a particular sakha or text of the Yedic hymns, studied and taught in certain Parishads.2 Atnara explains parishad by sabha or goshthi, an assembly ; but the codes of law lay down more accurately the number, age, and qualifications of the Brahmans, necessary to form such an assembly as should be competent to give decisions on all points on which the people, or, if we may say so, the parishioners, might demand advice. That such Parishads or Brahmanic settlements existed in old times, we see in the Brihadaranyaka3, where it is said that Svetaketu 1 Parshada. instead of Parishada. Cf. Pan. iv. 3. 123. 2 I doubt the existence of a word like which Dr. Roth mentions (Zur Literatur, p. 16.). One may speak of T3P?TPTf or Sec., and a Pratisakhya current in one of these Parishads may, perhaps, be called But is not the name of a Parishad, but of a 6akha; and therefore the Commentary on Gobhila speaks of a but could not well have spoken of a 3 Brh. Ar. vi. 2. 3T ^T^TT^t T?^“ W^TP5!*rT*?ll I'RATISAIvIlYAS. 120 went to the Parishacl of the Panchalas, and many similar passages. The character of a Pari shad is described in Manu’s Code of Laws, xii. 110 — 113., and by Yajnavalkya, i. 9., where we have the con- tracted form Parshad instead of Parishad. According to the ideas of these modern writers a Parishad ought to consist of twenty-one Brahmans well versed in philosophy, theology, and law.1 This number, how- ever, can be reduced according to circumstances, as will be seen from passages of Parasara’s Dhannasastra. It must not be supposed that the rules laid down in these law-books have always been observed in the formation of a Parishad, particularly as regards the early times of India ; yet we may be able to form some conception of their original character by seeing what has become of them in later times. Parasara says2 : “ Four, or even three able men from amongst the Brahmans in a village, (gramamadhye) who know the Yeda, and keep the sacrificial fire, form a Parishad. ^ =}T TlfTTOT ^^"3 WlrTT^TWrsf^ 3fqftf^cTTII si K 130 rit ATIS AKH Y AS. “ Or, if they do not keep the sacrificial fire, five or three who have studied the Vedas and Vedangas, and know the law, may well form a Parishad. “ Of old sages who possess the highest knowledge of the Divine Self, who are twice-born, perform sacri- fices, and have purified themselves in the duties of the Veda, one, also, may be considered as a Parishad. “ Thus, five kinds of Parishads have been described by me ; but if they all fail, three independent men may form a Parishad.” Madhava, in his Commentary on Parasara, quotes a similar passage1 from Brihaspati’s Code : — “ Where seven, five, or three Brahmans, who know the customs of the world, the Vedangas (or the Vedas and the Angas), and the law, have settled, that assembly is like a sacrifice.” The real difference, therefore, be- tween a Charana and a Parishad, seems to be that the former signifies an ideal succession of teachers and pupils who learn and teach a certain branch of the Veda ; while the latter means a settlement of Brahmans, a community or college to which members of any Charana might belong. Thus members of the same Charana might be fellows of different Parishads, and fellows of the same Parishad might be members of different Charanas.2 fain-: *rr wii 2 See Gobhilablmshya, MS. W. 72.p. 71. a. tJTR' It! ^ II Com. tfR^T TfTrT Tfa rt I ^^RT*T w 7T 131 PR ATISAKHY AS. Now as P&rshada may bo used as the title of any work that belonged to a Parishad, or formed, so to say, the traditional library of the Parishadyas, it is clear that this title could not be confined to the Pra- tisakhyas, though it would necessarily include them. If a follower of the Sakala-charana Avas a felloAV of the Yatsa-parishad, the Sakala-pratisfikhya would neces- sarily be one of the Parshada Avorks of the Yatsas, and the Parishad of the Yatsas Avould, through this lelloAv, be connected AArith the Sakala-charana. This is what Durga means Avlien in the Commentary on the Nirukta1 he says “that those Parshadas only are called Pratisakhyas Avliich are adopted in a Parishad of one’s OAvn Charana for teaching certain grammatical doc- trines connected Avith the reading of the Yeda ac- cording to one or the other Sakha.” The Prati&akhyas are in fact a subdivision of the Parshada books, and The expression , “ thus say some,” which occurs frequently in the Sutras, is stated to refer to different Sakhas, Com. Y^ Tft YTYTYTTYYYYTY Yl YWfr Y I N arayana’s Commentary on Gobhila, MS. W. 72. page 23. b. 1 Nir.i. 17. qTYYTf^l I: nfrTYTYi Yl Tmvmi 2 Mandukeya is quoted in the 6akala-pratisakhya, I. 200. CIIIIANDAS. 1 17 their Mantra texts, are now lost or preserved only under a more modern form, as in the case of this Maiuluki-Siksha. Chhandas, oh Metre. The second Vedanga doctrine, Chhandas , or metre , stands very much in the same position as the Siksha. Some names which have been afterwards adopted as the technical designations of metres, occur in some of the Mantras of the Rig-veda, and there are frequent allusions to metres in the Brahmanas. What is said, however, in the Brahmanas with reference to metres, is generally so full of dogmatic and mystical ingredients as to be of scarcely any practical use. In the Aranyakas and Upanishads whole chapters are devoted to this subject. Yet it is again in the Sutras only that a real attempt has been made to arrange these archaic metres systematically. We have some chapters on metres at the end of the Sakala-pratisakhya, written in Saunaka’s usual style of mixed Slokas. This treatise is anterior to that of Katyayana, which we find in the introduction to his Sarvanukrama, because Katyayana is the pupil of Saunaka, as we shall see hereafter. For the metres of the Sama-veda we have the Ni- dana-sutra in ten prapathakas, which after ex- plaining the nature and different names of all the Yedic metres, gives a kind of index (anukramani) to the metres as they occur in the hymns em- ployed at the Ekaha, Ahina, and Sattra sacrifices. As to Pingalanaga’s work on Chhandas, which is most frequently quoted under the title of Vedanga, it does not pretend to be of greater antiquity than L 2 148 CHHANDAS. the Mahabhashya, supposing it were admitted that Patanjali, the author of this famous commentary on Panini, was the same as Pingala.1 There would be nothing extraordinary in the fact that Pingala treats of Prakrit as well as Sanskrit metres. For we have the instance of Katyayana-Vararuchi, who wrote the Varttikas on Panini and lived before Pa- tanjali, and is said to be the same who wrote a gram- mar of the Prakrit dialects. It must be admitted, however, that Pingalanaga’s Metric is one of the last works that could possibly be included in the Sutra period; though there is no sufficient ground for exclud- ing it from this period altogether, merely because those rules which refer to metres not yet employed in the Yeda are ascribed to the same author. Besides, Pin- gala is quoted as an authority on metres in the Pa- risishtas2, a class of literature which does not seem to be separated from the Sutra period by a long interval. To the same class of Chhandas works to which Pin- gala’s treatise belongs, and which are not restricted to certain Vakhas, but are intended for the Veda in general, two other works are added by the com- mentator on the Sakala-pratisakhya, the one ascribed to Yaska, the other to Saitava.3 Both these works, however, seem to be lost at present. 1 Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 63. 2 MS. Bodl. W. 466. *fTSRTT*Tt I 3 rTST I See Dr. Roth’s preface to the Nirukta, CIIIIANDAS. 149 The difference between a Chhandas work belonging to one of the Sakluis, and those treatises which are occupied with metre in general, may be seen from the following instance. According to Pingala’s Sutras, a metre of seventy- six syllables is called Atidhriti, a metre of sixty- eight syllables Atyashti. Now Kv. i. 127, 6. a verse occurs of sixty-eight syllables which ought therefore to be called an Atyashti. According to Pingala him- self, however, some syllables may be pronounced as two1, and if we follow his rules on this point, the same verse consists of seventy-six instead of sixty-eight syl- lables. In order, therefore, to remove the uncertainty attached to the metre of this verse, the Chhandas chapter in the Sakala-pratisakhya (towards the end of the 16th Patala) declares that, according to the tradition of the Sakala or Saisira-sakha, this verse is to be pronounced as an Atidhriti, i. e. with seventy-six syllables. The same direction is given in Katyayana’s index to the Sakala-sanhita. p. 10.; and quaere whether in the &akala-pratis. xvii. 25. one might read ^ instead of ^f?f as the com- mentator proposes. Saitava is the pupil of Parasarya and divided by thirteen teachers from Yaska. Cf. Brih. Arany. Kativa. ii. 6. 2, 3. ; Indische Studien, i. p. 156. n. i Pingala, 3. 1. II dWT -?m (trr^t) wrf^rrfc^r^: i 75 Tr%7i 1 7prR7Tr4:i rfwrf^rfir: 1 *t?it TT^fqrj- fir* i ^r: T& 11 150 VYAKARANA. Vyakarana, or Grammar. The third Yed&nga is Vyakarana or Grammar. According to the account which Indian authors give of their literature, this branch of Yedic learning would be represented by the Grammar of Panini. Here the contradiction becomes even more glaring. In Pingala’s Sutras the Yedic metres were at least treated in the same way as the non- Yedic. But in Panini, the rules Avhich refer to Yedic grammar in particular, form only the exceptions to all the other rules which treat of the regular or classical lan- guage. Instead, therefore, of considering the third Yedanga doctrine as represented by the grammarians beginning with Panini ( Paniny adayah ) , as Indian authors do, it would be more correct to say that it is represented by the grammarians ending with Panini (Paninyantah). It unfortunately happened that Pa- nini’s work acquired by its great merits such a cele- brity as to supersede almost all that had been written on grammar before him, so that except the names and some particular rides of former grammarians, wc have little left of this branch of literature, except what occurs occasionally in the Pratisakhyas. That P&nini knew the Pratisakhyas had been indicated long ago by Professor Bohtlingk ; and it can be proved now by a comparison of Panini’s Sutras with those of the Pratisakhyas, that Panini largely availed himself of the works of his predecessors, frequently adopting their very expressions, though he quotes their names only in cases where they have to serve as authorities for certain rules. There are two separate treatises on grammatical V YAK AH ANA. 151 subjects, which belong to a period anterior to Panini ; the Sfttras on the Unadi affixes, and the Sutras of Sant an &ch ary a on accents. The Unadi affixes are those by which nouns are formed from roots, the nouns being used in a conventional sense, and not in strict accordance with their radical meaning. They are called Unadi, because, in the Sutras as we uoav possess them, un is the first-mentioned affix. That Panini was acquainted with the same arrangement of these formative affixes cannot be doubted, because he uses the same technical name (unadi) for them. We do not know by whom these Unadi affixes were first collected, nor by whom the Unadi-sutras, as we now possess them, were first composed. All we can say is, that, as Panini mentions them, and gives several general rules with regard to them, they must have existed before his time. But how many of the Sutras existed before the time of Panini, and how many were added afterwards, is a question that can hardly be solved. In their present form the Sfttras seem to treat the Vedic words as exceptions, at least they give now and then a hint that a certain derivation applies to the Chhandas only. Neverthe- less it is curious to observe that the greater number of words, explained by the genuine Unadi-sutras, are Vedic, some of them exclusively so. If the author of the Sfitras had intended his rules for the Bhasha, there would have been no reason why he should have paid such prominent regard to words of a purely Vedic character. In fact, I believe, that originally the Unadi-sutras were intended for the Veda only, and that they were afterwards enlarged by adding rules on the formation of non- Vedic words. At last the non- Vedic or laukikci words assumed such a prepon- 152 NIRUKTA. derance that some rules, affecting Vedic words only, had actually to be inserted as exceptions. If a clear line could be drawn between words purely Yedic, and words never used in the Veda, and if the Sutras referring to the former were separated from those of the latter class, we might perhaps arrive at the origi- nal text of this interesting work. This, however, is an undertaking which would require a more compre- hensive and more critical knowledge of the history of the languages of India, than any scholar at present is likely to command. As to Santana’s Phitsutras, we know with less cer- tainty to what period they belong. A knowledge of them is not presupposed by Panini, and the gram- matical terms used by Santana are different from those employed by Panini, — a fact from which Professor Bohtlingk has ingeniously concluded, that Santana must have belonged to the eastern school of grammarians.1 As, however, these Sdtras treat only of the accent, and the accent is used in the A'edic lan- guage only, the subject of Santana’s work would lead us to suppose that he was anterior to Panini, though it would be unsafe to draw any further conclusions from this. Nirukta, or Etymology. The fourth Vedanga is Nirukta or Etymology. In the same way as, according to Indian authors, Gram- mar, as a Vedanga, was represented by Panini’s Grammar, we find Nirukta also represented by but one work, generally known by the name of Y aska’s 1 Cf. Bohtlingk, Ein erster Versuch liber den Accent ini San- skrit, p. 61. ; and Panini, page xii. NIRUKTA. 153 Nirukta. Nirukta, however, lias had this advan- tage over Vyakarana, that Yaska’s work applies itself exclusively to Yedic etymologies. In the same way as we considered Panini’s Grammar as the work where Yy&karana, as a Vedanga, took its final shape, so Yaska also would seem to be one of the last authors who embodied the etymological lexico- graphy of Yedic terms in one separate work. Niruk- takaras, or authors of Niruktas, are mentioned by Yaska ; and some of them must have been as famous as Yaska himself, because we find that their merits in this respect were not forgotten even at the time of the compilation of the Puranas.1 For explanations of old Vedic words, for etymologies and synony- mous expressions, the Brahmanas contain very rich materials, and, with the exception of the Kalpa, no other Yedanga has a better claim than the Nirukta to be considered as founded upon the Brahmanas. Whole verses and hymns are shortly explained there; and the Aranyakas and Upanishads, if included, would furnish richer sources for Yedic etymologies than even the Nirukta itself. The beginning of the Aitareya-aranyaka is in fact a commentary on the 1 Thus Sakapurni is mentioned as a Niruktakrit in the Vishnu- puraua (p. 277. n. 9.); but this is no reason whySakapurni should be the same as Yaska, as Colebrooke supposed. (Miscell. Essays, i. 15.) In fact Sakapuni is quoted by Yaska himself, for there can be no doubt that fsakapurni is the same name as ^akapuni. In later times, also, Yaska and Sakapuni are regarded as distinct persons ; for instance, in a verse ascribed to Parasara (Anukr. Bh. iv. 5. 7.), which occurs in the Brihaddevata, °\ Another Niruktakrit mentioned by Sayana is the son of Sthula- sbthivi, or, as Yaska calls him, Sthaulashthivi. 154 NIRUKTA. beginning of the Rig-veda ; and if all the passages of the Brahmanas were collected where one word is explained by another with which it is joined merely by the particle vai , they would even now give a rich harvest for a new Nirukta. It is important, however, not to confound Yaska’s Nirukta with Yaska’s Com- mentary on the Nirukta, although it has become usual, after the fashion of modern manuscripts, to call that commentary Nirukta, and to distinguish the text of the Nirukta by the name of Nighantu. The original Niruktasthat formed an integral part of the Vedanga literature, known to Yaska himself, can have con- sisted only of lists of words arranged according to their meaning, like that upon which Yaska’s Commentary is based. Whether the same Yaska who wrote the Commentary had some part in the arrange- ment of the lists of words, is unknown ; probably these lists existed in his family long before his time, as Yaska implies himself (Nir. i. 20.). But, as he preserved them by his Commentary, it was natural that their authorship, too, should have been ascribed to him. Sayana gives the following account of this matter : — “ Nirukta is a work where a number of words is given, without any intention to connect them in a sentence. In that book, where a traditional number of words is taught, which begin with Gauh, gina, and end with Ya- savali, Vajinah, Devapatnyah, there is no intention to state things which arc to be understood1, because 1 If Sayana means to give in these lines an etymology in- stead of a simple definition of Nirukta, the attempt would be very unsuccessful. Nirukta comes from nirvach, to explain. Mis definition, however, is right, in so far as the Nirukta does not NIRUKTA. 155 it is only said there that ‘ so many are the names of earth,* ‘ so many the names of gold,’ ” &c. This Nirukta consists of three parts, as may be seen from the Commentary on the Anukramanika. Here we read : “ The first part is the Naighantuka, the second the Naigama, and the third the Daivata, and thus must this traditional doctrine be considered as con- sisting of three parts. “ The Naighantuka begins with Gauh, and goes as far as Apdre. 1 The Naigama begins with Jahd, and goes as far as Ulbam HiM'sam.2 The third, or Deity- chapter, begins with Agni and ends with 'the Deva- patnis.3 Here the gods from Agni to Devi Urjahuti4 are gods of the earth ; from Vayu to Bhaga0, gods of the air ; from Surya to the Devapatnis6, gods of contain a connected string of ideas, but merely an enumeration of words. There is another definition of Nirukta, which is quoted by Radhakant in his 6abdakalpadruma, and occurs as one of the Karikas in the Kasikavritti (Pan. vi. 3. 109.): “ A Nirukta contains the doctrine of five things ; of the addition, transposition, change, and dropping of letters, and of the use of one particular meaning of a root.” Instances of this are given in another verse ; ftrfi ^Tfeqwrrrj “ Hansa is formed by an addition, Sinha by a transposition, Gu- dhotma by a change, Prishodara by a dropping of letters.” 1 1 — 3 Adhyaya. 2 4 Adhyaya. 3 5 Adhyaya. 4 SS 1 — 3. 3 §§ 4-6. e § 6. 156 NIRUKTA. the sky. People learn the whole traditional number of words, from Gauh to Dempatnyah. “ The word Nigliantu applies to works where, for the most part, synonymous words are taught. Thus, ten Nighantus are usually mentioned ; and this title has been applied to such works as Amara- sinlia, Vaijayanti, Halayudha, &c. Therefore1, the first part of this work also has been called Naiglian- tuka , because synonymous words are taught there. In this part there are three lectures : in the first, we have words connected with things of time and space in this and the other worlds ; in the second, we have words connected with men and human affairs ; and, in the third, words expressing qualities of the preceding objects, such as thinness, multitude, short- ness, & c. “ Nigama means Yeda. As Yaska has quoted many passages from the Veda, which he usually introduces by the words, ‘For this there is also a Nigama;’ and as, in the second part, consisting of the fourth Adh- yaya, words are taught which usually occur in the Veda only, this part is called Naigama. “Why the third part, consisting of the fifth Adhyaya, is called Daivata is clear. The whole work, consisting of five Adhyayas and three parts, is called Nirukta, because the meaning of words is given there irre- spective of anything else. A commentary on this 1 Sayaua inverts liere the historical order of things, because Yaska’s Nighantu must have been called by this name before the time of Amara’s Dictionary. Several Koslias are quoted which have not yet been met with in manuscript : Sarva Kosha, Ranti or Rantideva Kosha, Yadava Kosha, Bhaguri Kosha, Bala Kosha, all of which must have been in existence as late as the Commen- tary on the Meghaduta. NIRUKTA. 157 has been composed by Yaska in twenty Adhyayas. This also is called Nirukta, because the real meaning conveyed by each word is fully given therein.”1 The Nirukta, together with the Pratisakhyas and 1 I have translated this passage of Sayana, because Dr. Roth has adopted a different division of the Nirukta in his edition, where he calls the first five books, containing the list of words, Naighantuka ; the first six books of Yaska’s Commentary, Nai- gama ; and the rest Daivata. It would have been better to preserve the old divisions, which are based not only upon the authority of Yaska himself, but also of his commentators, with this exception, only that, according to them, the Naigama may also be called the Aikapadika. Thus Durga says, TJcfT^rT: WvTO *TT- R Ip*: vl *PT TTT^ff 7T3Tf^- thu^hi^tctji to Again, after having defined the third part, the Daivata, Durga goes on saying : rfT^qrTTH | And further on : II He afterwards seems to imply that the whole may also be called • 158 HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. Panini’s Grammar, supply the most interesting and important information on the growth of grammatical science in India. It would be out of place to enter here into this subject, but I cannot pass it over with- out at least pointing out the valuable materials preserved in these works, for tracing the origin of one of the most ancient branches of philosophy, Grammar. There are only two nations in the whole history of the world which have conceived independently, and without any suggestions from others, the two sciences of Logic and Grammar, the Hindus and the Greeks. Although the Arabs and Jews, among the Semitic nations, have elaborated their own system of grammar, in accordance with the peculiar character of their language, they owe to the Greeks the broad outlines of grammatical science, and they received from Aris- totle the primary impulse to a study of the categories Nighantu, but there is no authority whatever for calling the first part of Yaska’s Commentary, as Dr. Roth does, Naigama. Deva- raja also takes the same view when he says, fafTfci fvfsfcrfT f^mT- TTrTT^72T^ •TTOWiftfiT fR , this development of the grammatical categories in Greece with the parallel, yet quite independent, history of grammatical science in India. It is only by means of such a comparison that we can learn to understand what is organic, and what is merely accidental, in the growth of this science, and appreciate the real diffi- culties which had to be overcome in the classification of words and the arrangement of grammatical forms. The Greeks and Hindus started from opposite points. The Greeks began with philosophy, and endeavoured to transfer their philosophical terminology to the facts of language. The Hindus began with collecting the facts of language, and their generalisations never went beyond the external forms of speech. Thus the Hindus excel in accuracy, the Greeks in grasp. The grammar of the former has ended in a colossal pedantry ; that of the latter still invigorates the mind of every rising generation throughout the civil- ised world. Language had become with the Hindus an object of wonder and meditation at a very early period. In the hymns of the Yeda we meet with poetical and philo- sophical speculations on speech, and Sarasvati, the god- dess of speech, is invoked as one of the most powerful deities. The scientific interest in language, however, dates from a later period. It was called forth, no 160 HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. doubt, by the careful study of a sacred literature, which in India, as elsewhere, called into life many an ancient science. In India the sacred strains of the Rishis were handed down with the greatest care, the knowledge of these songs constituted the only claim and hope of man for a higher life, and from a very early time they were looked upon with such a super- stitious awe, that a mere error of pronunciation was supposed to mar their miraculous power.1 We need not wonder, therefore, that the minutest rules were laid down as to the pronunciation of these hymns, and that the thoughts of the early teachers were led to dwell on the nature of language and its grammatical organisation. Where so much depended on letters, it was natural that words also and their grammatical vari- ations should attract attention. A number of letters, or even a single letter, as Katyayana says, may form a syllable (akshara), a number of syllables or even a single syllable may form a word (pada).2 There are many lucubrations on letters, syllables, and words in the Brahmanas and there are numerous expressions, occurring in the Brahmanas, which mark a certain advance of grammatical knowledge.3 In the Brah- mana of the Yajasaneyins (xiii. 5. 1. 18.) we meet with the names for Singular, Dual, and Plural. In the Chhandogya-upanishad (p. 135, ed. Roer) we find a classification of letters, and technical terms such as spar'sa , consonants ; svara, vowels ; ushman , sibilants. However, we must not expect in those sacred treatises anything sound and scientific. It is in the Sfttra lite- 1 An analogous feeling among the Polynesians is mentioned in Sir G. Grey’s Polynesian Mythology, p. 32. 2 Kat.-pr. viii. 98. 3 Ind. Studien, iv. p. 76. HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. 1G1 rature that we meet with discussions on language of a purely scientific character; and what we do find in the Pratisakhya, in the Nirukta and Panini, is quite sufficient to show that at their time the science of lan- guage was not of recent origin. I can only touch upon one point. It is well known how long it took before the Greeks arrived at a complete nomenclature for the parts of speech. Plato knew only of Noun (oi/o(ua) and Verb (^rjju. a), as the two component parts of speech, and for philosophical purposes Aristotle too did not go beyond that number. It is only in dis- cussing the rules of rhetoric that he is led to the admission of two more parts of speech, the (r6vh) ovvOeti rrpuuvTiKii &vtv \porov, II ISTOliY OF GRAMMAR. 1G3 The distinction of the numbers was first pointed out by Aristotle, but the technical terms for singular and plural (apj^aot,- svixog, TrT^rjQuvnxog) date from a later time. In India the terms for the three num- bers, Singular, Plural, and Dual were known in the Br&hmana period. Aristotle had no clear conception of cases, in the grammatical sense of the word. Ptosis , with him, refers to verbs as well as nouns. The introduction of the five cases, in our sense of the word, is due to the Stoics. In the Pratisakbyas we find not only a name for case, restricted to nouns (vibhakti, i. e. but the number of cases also is fixed at seven. The distinction of the genders is the only point on which the Greeks may claim a priority to the Hindus. It was known in Greece to Protagoras ; whereas in India the Prati&akhyas seem to have passed it over, and it appears first in Panini.1 There are some discussions in the beginning of the Nirukta which are of the highest interest with regard to etymology. While in Greece the notions of one of her greatest thinkers, as expressed in the Cratylus, represent the very infancy of etymological science, the Brahmans of India had treated some of the vital problems of etymology with the utmost sobriety. In the Pratisakhya of Katyayana we find, besides the philosophical division of speech into nouns, verbs, prepositions and particles, another division of a purely grammatical nature, and expressed in the most strictly technical language. “ Verbs with their con- VC p-tpoc ovZiv t< 7-i naff avro apjiavriKov ' pijp.a ce (piovt) avi’Qerp, rrrj- fiavriKt) fiira ypovov, r]c ovcty fiipoc dipai i'ti taiO’ avro, vimrip kul £7ri rwv dvofiarojv. 1 Katyayaniya Pratisakhya, iv. 170. 164 HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. jugational terminations, Nouns , derived from verbs by means of krit-suffixes, Nouns derived from nouns by means of taddhita-suffixes, and four kinds of Com- pounds, — these constitute language.”1 In the Nirukta this division is no longer considered sufficient. A new problem has been started, one of the most important problems in the philosophy of language, whether all nouns are derived from verbs ? No one would deny that certain nouns, or the majority of nouns, were derived from verbs. The early gram- marians of India were fully agreed that kartri , a doer, was derived from kri, to do ; pachaka, a cook, from pack, to cook. But did the same apply to all words ? Sakatayana, an ancient grammarian and philosopher, answered the question boldly in the affirmative, and he became the founder of a large school, called the Nairuktas or (Etymologists), who made the verbal origin of all words the leading principle of all their researches. They were opposed, and not without violence, by another school, emphatically called the Vaiydkaranas or Analysers, who, following the lead of Gargya, the etymologist2, admitted the verbal origin of those words only for which an adequate grammatical analysis could be given. The rest they left unexplained. Let us hear how Yaska states the arguments on both sides. After having explained the characteristics of the four classes of words, lie says: “ Sakatayana maintains that nouns are derived from verbs, and there is an universal agreement of all Ety- mologists (Nairukta) on this point. Gargya, on the contrary, and some of the grammarians say, not all 1 I- 27. || 2 Durga. HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. 165 (nouns are derived from verbs). For first, if the accent and formation were regular in all nouns and agreed entirely with the appellative power (of the root), nonns such as go (cow), asva (horse), purusha (man), would be in themselves intelligible.1 Se- condly, if all nouns were derived from verbs, then if any one performed a certain action, he would, as a subject, be called in the same manner. For instance, if asva , horse, were derived from as, to get through, then any one who got through a certain distance, would have to be called asva, horse. If trina, grass, were derived from trid, to pierce, then whatever pierces would have to be called trina. Thirdly, if all nouns were derived from verbs, then everything would take as many names as there are qualities belonging to it. A pillar, for instance, which is now called stMna, might be called daresay a , hole-rest, because it rests in a hole ; or sanjani, joiner, because there are beams joined to it. Fourthly, people would call things in such a manner that the meaning of nouns might be at least intelli- gible, whatever the regular formation may be by which the actions of these things are supposed to be expressed. Instead of purusha, man, which is sup- posed to be formed from purisaya, dwelling in the body, they would say purisaya, body-dweller; instead of asva, horse, ashtri, pervader ; instead of trina , grass, tardana, piercer. Fifthly, after a noun has been formed, these etymologists begin to discuss it, and say for instance that the earth is called prithivi, broad, irom pratliana, stretching. But, who stretched it, and what was his resting-place while he stretched 1 This construction is against the Commentary, but, if the MS. such as we have it, is correct, it seems to me the only pos- sible construction. 166 HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. the earth ? Sixthly, where the meaning cannot be discovered, no modification of the root yielding any proper signification, Sakatayana has actually taken whole verbs, and put together the halves of two distinct words. For instance, in order to form satya, true, he puts together the causal of 2, to go, which begins with ya, as the latter half, and the participle of as , to be, which begins with sa. Lastly, it is well known, that beings come before being, and it is therefore impossible to derive the names of beings which come first, from being, which comes after. “Now all this arguing,” Yaska continues, “is totally wrong. For however all this may be, first, with regard to what was said, namely that, if iSakata- yana’s opinion were right, all words would be signi- ficative, this we consider no objection1, because we shall show that they are all significative. With regard to the second point, our answer is, that we see as a matter of fact, that it is not so, but that of a number of people who perform the same action, some only take a certain name, and others do not. Not every one that shapes a thing is called takshan , a shaper, but only the carpenter. Not every one that walks about is called a jjarivrajaka , but only a religious mendicant. Not everything that enlivens is called jivana , but only the sap of the sugar- cane. Not everything that is born of Bhftmi (earth) is called BMmija, but only the planet Mars (an- garaka).2 And the same remark serves also as an 1 The Commentator translates “even if it were so, even if some remained inexplicable, this would be no objection for, “ boni grammatici est nonnulla etiam nescire.” 2 The remarks of the Commentator on this passage are so HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. 167 answer to the third objection. With regard to the fourth objection, we reply, We did not make these words, we only have to explain them ; and there arc also some nouns of rare occurrence, which you gram- marians derive by means of krit-suflixes, and which are liable to exactly the same objection. For who could tell, without some help from etymologists, that some of the words mentioned in the Aikapadika- chapter mean what they do mean ? Vratati is derived by you from vrinati , he elects, but it signifies a garland. The same applies to your grammatical derivations of such words as damunas, jatya, atneira, curious, that they deserve to be copied. “ You may well ask (he says) why this is so. But, my friend, go and ask the world. Quarrel with the world, for it is not I who made this law. For although all nouns are derived from verbs, yet the choice of one action (which is to be predicated in preference to others) is beyond any control. Or it may be that there is a certain law with regard to those who perform certain actions more exclusively. A man who performs one particular action more exclusively, what- ever other actions he may perform, will have his name from that particular action. Nor do we say that he who at one time and in one place shapes things is a carpenter, but he who at any time or any place is a carpenter, him we always call carpenter. This is not a predicate restricted to one, it may freely be given to others. Now and then there may be other actions, more peculiar to such persons, and they may take other names accordingly, yet their proper name remains carpenter.” And with regard to the next problem the Commentator says : “ A carpenter may well perform other actions, but he need not therefore take his name from them. If it is said, several things might have one and the same name, and one and the same thing might have different names, all we can answer is, that this is not proved by the language such as it is. Words are fixed in the world we cannot say how (svabhavatah, by nature).” This, together with the text, shows a clearer insight into the nature of Homonyma and Synonyma, or, as the Peripatetics called the latter, Polyonyma, than anything we find in Aristotle. m 4 168 HISTORY OF GRAMMAR. jagaruka , clarvihomin. In answer to the fifth objec- tion we say, Of course we can discuss the etymolo- gical meaning of such words only as have been formed. And as to the questions, who stretched the earth, and what was his resting-place, all we can say is, that our eyes tell us that the earth is broad, and even though it has not been stretched out by others, yet all men speak as they see. With respect to the sixth objection, we admit, that he who combines words without thereby arriving at their proper meaning, is to be blamed. But this blame attaches to the individual etymologist, not to the science of etymology. As to the last objection, we must again appeal to the facts of the case. Some words arc derived from qualities, though qualities maybe later than subjects, others not.” I doubt whether even at present, with all the new light which Comparative Philology has shed on the origin of words, questions like these could be dis- cussed more satisfactorily than they were by Yaska. Like Yaska, we maintain that all nouns have their de- rivation, but, like Yaska, we must confess that this is a matter of belief rather than of proof. We admit with Yaska that every noun was originally an appel- lative, and, in strict logic, we are bound to admit that language knows neither of homonymes nor synonymes. But granting that there are such words in the history of every language, granting that several objects, sharing in the same predicate, may be called by the same name, and that the same object, possessing various predicates, may be called by different names, we shall find it as impossible as Yaska to lay down any rule why one of the many appellatives became fixed in every dialect as the proper name of the sun, the moon, or any other object; or why generic KALPA. 169 words (homonymes) were founded on one predicate rather than another. All we can say is what Yaska says, it was so svabhavatah, by itself, from accident, through the influence of individuals, of poets or law- givers. It is the very point in the history of language where languages are not, amenable to organic laws, where the science of language ceases to be a strict science, and enters into the domain of history. We leave this subject not without reluctance, and hope to return to it in some more appropriate place. Kalpa, or tiie Ceremonial. The most complete Yedanga is the fifth, the Kalpa, for which we have not only the Brahmanas of the different Vedas, but also their respective Sutras. The Sutras contain the rules referring to the sacri- fices1, with the omission of all things which are not immediately connected with the performance of the ceremonial. They are more practical than the Brah- manas, which for the most part are taken up with mystical, historical, mythological, etymological and 1 Kumarila Tantravarttika, i. 3. 1. fw: ii “ Thus the real sense has been ascertained in the Sutras by means of collecting the commandments which were to he obtained systematically as they were dispersed in different Sakhas and mixed up with Arthavadas, &c. One or the other authority was selected, and, to afford greater facility, some performances of the priests which are connected with worldly matters were also taken 170 KALPA. theological discussions. Thus Sayana says, in his Commentary on the Baudhayana-sutras : “ The whole mass of Vedic literature consists of three parts: Mantras, Yidhis, and Arthavadas. The Vidhis en- join an act, the Arthavadas recommend it, the Mantras record it. In order to make the under- standing of the prescribed ceremonies more easy, the Reverend Baudhayana composed the Kalpa. For the Brahmanas are endless, and difficult to under- stand, and therefore have old masters adopted the Kalpa-sutras according to different Sakhas. These Kalpa-sutras have the advantage of being clear, short, complete, and correct.”1 rTrahmana pre-suppose some point from whence they both started in common. The same applies to the Bahvricha-brahmana in the widely differing recensions of the Aitareyins, the Sankha- yanins or the Ivaushitakins. There is a common stock in the Brahmanas of each Yeda. The same ceremonial is described, the same doubts are raised, similar solutions are proposed, and many chapters are repeated in the same words. Before each recension took its present shape — and few only of these numerous recensions have been preserved to us — they must have rolled from hand to hand, sometimes losing old, sometimes gathering new mat- ter; now broken to pieces, now rearranged, till at last the name of their author became merged in the name of the Charana that preserved his work. No traces of this kind can be discovered in the Sutras. We probably read them in our MSS. exactly as they were written down at first by Katyayana, Asvalayana and others. They are evidently the works of indivi- 184 KALrA. dual writers, the result of careful and systematic re- search. They presuppose the Sanhitas and the Saklms of the Sanhitas ; they presuppose the Brahmanas and the Sakhas of the Brahmanas. And they also refer to individual writers, whether they had become the founders of Charanas, or whether they enjoyed an authority as teachers of law and other subjects con- nected with the intellectual pursuits of the early Brahmans. There is, however, one fact that seems to militate against the distinction between the Brahmanas and Sutras, in so far as it assigns a very early origin, and a traditionary character, to at least some works which were written in Sutras. At the time of K&tyayana, if not at the time of Panini, there ex- isted Sutras, which were not then considered as the works of modern or at least well-known au- thors, like Asvalayana or Katyayana, but indicated by their very name, that they had formed, for a time, part of the traditional literary property of a Charana, or of some learned school. Their titles are formed on the same principle as the titles of ancient Brah- manas. The affix in (nini) is added to the names of their reputed authors, and this, as we know, is a mark that their authors were considered as Rishis or inspired writers.1 Their works are not quoted in the singular, like all modern Sutras (for instance, “ this is the ceremonial of A&maratha,” iti kalpa as- marathah), but, — and this is a characteristic feature of the ancient traditional literature of India — in the masculine plural, the literary works being supposed 1 Cf. Pan. iv. 3. 103 — 110. The Sutras from 106 are not ex- plained in the Mahabluishya according to the Calcutta edition. KALrA. 185 to have their only substantial existence in the minds or memories of those persons who read or taught them. We find, for instance, “ thus say the Parfi- sarins, the Sail&lins, the Karmandins, the Krisasvins,” whereas the work even of Panini himself is quoted as “ the Paniniyam,” as it were “ Panineum,” not as “the Panineyins.” 1 But although these quotations refer to Sfitras, it ought to be observed that not one of them refers to Kalpa, or ceremonial Sutras. Where Panini (iv. 3. 105.), or rather his commentator, quotes works on Kalpa in a similar, though not in ex- actly the same manner, we must bear in mind that expressions like “ Paingi kalpah,” “ the ceremonial taught by the old sage Pinga,” “ Kausiki kalpah,” “ the ceremonial taught by the old sage Kusika,” may refer to portions of the Brahinanas which are called kalpa, ceremonial, in contradistinction to the brahmana or the purely theological discussions2 ; and it is nowhere said that these old Kalpas were written 1 Kalpa-sutras were composed contemporaneously with Panini, and even after his time, as, for instance, the Sutras of Asvalayana and Katyayana, which we still possess, and those of Asmarathya, which are lost. The last are quoted in the commentary to Panini (iv. 3. 105.), as a modern work on Kalpa ; yet Asvalayana in his Sutras, v. 13., refers to Asmarathya as an authority, whom he follows in opposition to other teachers whose opinion he rejects. Cf. Asv. Sutra, v. 13. ; Indische Studien, i. 45. 2 The wording of the Sutra, “ Puranaprokteshu brahmanakal- peshu” seems to confirm this interpretation. The Paingins must he considered as a Brahmana-charana, for there is a Paingyam, the work of a Paingin, quoted in the Kaushitaki-brahmana, and in a doubtful passage of the Aitareya-brahmana. It is difficult to say anything equally positive about the Kausiki kalpah, an expres- sion which may possibly refer to the Kausika-sutras of the Atharva-veda. 186 KALPA. in Sutras. Unless, therefore, a quotation can be brought forward previous to Katyayana, and referring to a collection of Kalpa-sutras, such quotation calling the Sutras not by the name of their author, but by the name of a Charana, not in the singular, but in the masculine plural, Kumarila’s distinction between Brahmanas and Sutras remains unshaken, and we are justified in maintaining that the Kalpa-sutras, in spite of some apparent similarity with the later Brahmanas, belong to a period of literature different in form and character from that which preceded it, and which gave rise to the traditionary literature of the Brah- manas. The Kalpa-sutras are important in the history of Yedic literature for more than one reason. They not only mark a new period of literature, and a new purpose in the literary and religious life of India, but they contributed to the gradual extinction of the numerous Brahmanas, which to us are therefore only known by name. The introduction of a Kalpa-sutra was the introduction of a new book of liturgy. If it was adopted by different Charanas, smaller differences in the ceremonial and its allegorical interpretation, which had been kept up by the Brahmanas of each Charana, would gradually be merged in one common ceremonial ; or, if they were considered of sufficient importance, a short mention, such as we find here and there in the Sfitras, would suffice, and render the tedious discussions of the Brahmanas on the same points, superfluous. If the Sutras were once acknow- ledged as authoritative, they became the most important part of the sacred literature which a Brahman had to study. Those who had to perform the sacrifices might do so without the Veda, simply by means KALrA. 187 of the Kalpa-sfitras ; but no one could learn the ceremonial from the hymns and Brahmanas alone, without the help of the Sutras.1 There remained, indeed, the duty of every Brahman to learn his Sva- dhyaya, which comprised the hymns and the Brah- manas. But complaints were made, at least at a later time, that the hymns and the Brahmanas were neglected on account of the Sfitras, and one of the reasons why the Hotri priests were never allowed to have a prayer-book, such as the hymn-books of the Yajur-veda and Sama-veda, was the fear that they would then neglect their Svadhyaya, and learn only those hymns which were enjoined for the sacrifices by the Kalpa-sutras. We need not wonder, there- fore, if, after a short time, the authors of Ivalpa- sutras became themselves the founders of new Chara- nas, in which the Sutras were considered the most essential portion of the sacred literature; so that the hymns and Brahmanas were either neglected, or kept up under the name of “ the hymns and Brah- manas of the new Charana,” having ceased to form by themselves the foundation of an independent tradition or school. In order to make quite clear the influence which the Sutras exercised on the final constitution of the Yedic Charanas we ought to distinguish between three classes of Charanas: 1. Those which originated with the texts of Sanhitas; 2. Those which originated with the texts of Brahmanas; 3. Those which ori- ginated with the Sutras. Kumarila. 188 KALPA. We need not enter here into the question, whether originally there was but one Veda, and whether this original Yeda became afterwards divided into three branches or Sftkhas, the Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, and Sama-veda. This is the view adopted by the Brah- mans, and they consider these three divisions as the three most ancient Sakhas, and their propagators or pravartakas as the three most ancient Charanas. This is a natural mistake. It is the same mistake which leads to the assumption of a common literary lan- guage previous to the existence of the spoken dia- lects, whereas in fact the various dialects existed previous to the establishment of the classical lan- guage. The first collection of Yedic hymns is that which we have in the Rig-veda, a collection, not made with any reference to the threefold division of the later ceremonial, and therefore not one of three branches, but the original stock, to which the other two, the Yajur-veda and Sama-veda, were added at a much later period. The most ancient Sakhas and Charanas of which we have any knowledge are those which arose from differences in the text of the Rig-veda-sanhita, such as the Bashkalas and Sakalas. We never hear of either Brahmanas or Sutras peculiar to these sakluis, and the natural conclusion, confirmed besides by native authority, is that they diverged and became separated on the strength of various readings and other peculiarities, affecting the texts of their San- liitas. There is no evidence as to the existence of similar Sanhita-sakhas for the Yajur-veda or Sama- veda. If we take the two sakhas of the Yajur-veda- sanhita, that of the Kanvas and that of the Madliy- andinas, both presuppose the existence of a Yaja- KALI’ A. 189 saneyi-sanhita, and this Vajasaneyi-sanhita would have been perfectly useless without a Brahmana. It was not the Sanhita, but the Bralnnana of the Vajasa- neyins, handed down as it was in various texts, which gave rise to the fifteen Charanas of the Vajasaneyins, and among them to the Kanva and Madhyandina- charanas. Their Sanhitas were of secondary im- portance, and, startling as such an opinion might sound to an orthodox Brahman, were probably not put together till after the composition of the Vaja- saneyi- brahmana in its original and primitive form. The peculiar differences in the text of the Mantras of the Kanvas and Maxlhyandinas depend on the differ- ences occurring in their respective Brahmanas, and not vice versd. On the same ground we must doubt the existence of ancient Sanhita-sakhas for the Satna- veda. The next step which led to the formation of Chara- nas was the adoption of a Brahmana, and we therefore call this second class the Brahmana-charanas. When the growth of a more complicated ceremonial led to the establishment of three or four classes of priests, each performing peculiar duties, and requiring a special training for their sacerdotal office, there must have been a floating stock of Brahmanas, dicta theo- logica , peculiar to each class of priests. They treated of the general arrangement of the sacrifice. They handed down the authoritative opinions of famous sages : they gave the objections raised against such opinions by other persons : and gradually they clothed these contradictory statements in the form of a logical argument. Occasionally an allegorical inter- pretation was given of the meaning of certain rites, the simple and natural import of which had been for- 190 KALPA. gotten. Rewards were vouchsafed to the pious wor- shipper, and instances were recorded of such rewards having been obtained by the faithful of former ages. All these sayings and discussions were afterwards col- lected as three distinct Brahmanas, belonging to the three classes of priests. We still meet with the general names of Bahvricha-br&hmanas for the Rig-veda, of Adhvaryu-brahmanas for the Yajur-veda, and of Chhandoga-brahmanas for the Sama-veda, without any further reference to particular Charanas by which these Brahmanas were collected or adopted. But those Brahmanas are no longer met with in their original form. They have come down to us, without excep- tion, as the Brahmanas of certain Charanas of each Veda. Instead of one Bahvricha-brahmana of the Rig- veda, we only find the Bahvricha-brahmana of the Aitareyins, or the Kaushitakins, or the Sankhayanins. Instead of one Chhandoga-brahmana or Chhandogyam, we have the Chhandoga-brahmana of the Tandins or the Tandy a, and we find quotations from other Charanas, such as the S&tyayanins1 or the Kauthumas. 1 In one of the most interesting Brahmanas of the Chliandogas, the Samavidhana-brahmana, we see how the two last, in a series of teachers, became the founders of a Charana. by teaching this Brahmana, which had been handed down to them through a suc- cession of nine or at least six masters, to a multitude of followers. -RrsTRrefr crfa*r KALPA. 191 Instead of one Adhvaryu-br&hmana, wc have the dark code of the old Charakas, or the Taittiriyas and the Kathas, and the new Br&hmana of the Vajasaneyins, and their descendants, the Kanvas and M&dhyandi- nas. We nowhere find the original collection from which the various recensions might be supposed to have branched off and deviated in time. In most cases, where we possess the texts of a Brahmana, preserved by different Sakhas, the variations are but small, and they point clearly to one and the same original from which they descended. Sometimes, however, the variations are of a different kind, so much so that we are inclined to admit several independent collec- tions of that floating stock of Brahmanic lore, which went on accumulating in different places and through various generations. If we compare the Brahmanas of the Aitareyins and the Kaushitakins, we find their wording, even where they treat of the same matters, very different. The order in which the sacrifices are described is not always the same, nor are the ceremo- nial rules always identical. Illustrations and legends are interspersed in the Brahmana of the Kaushitakins of which no trace can be found in the Brahmana of the Aitareyins. And yet, with all these differences, the literal coincidence of whole chapters, the frequent occurrence of the same sentences, the same compari- sons and illustrations, render it impossible to ascribe to each of these Brahmanas a perfectly independent origin. The two Brahmanas of the Kanvas and Madhyandinas, in spite of their differences, in spite of f%«rri it On the 6atyayanins and their relation to the Sama-veda, see Indische Studien, i. 49. 192 KALPA. additions and omissions that have been pointed out in either, compel us to admit that they had a common starting-point. To judge from frequent quotations, the number of Brahmanas, differing from each other more or less considerably, and the number of Char anas founded on these Brahmanas, must have been very large. We can easily imagine how this happened. The name of a famous teacher, who gathered a number of students around himself in a village, or who lived under the protection of some small Baja, was preserved by his pupils for generations. The sacred litera- ture which he was, perhaps, the first to teach in a newly-founded colony, was afterwards handed down under the sanction of his name, though differing but slightly from the traditional texts kept up in the community from which he himself had started. Ide might, perhaps, add a few chapters of his own compo- sition, a change quite sufficient, in the eyes of the Brahmans to constitute a new work, or at least to disqualify it for claiming any longer its original title. When these new Charanas had once been founded, it was but natural, though they originated chiefly with a Brahmana of their own, that the text of their Sanhitas also should be slightly modified. This w'as not the case necessarily. The Aitareyins, for instance, and the Kaushitakins, though they differed in their Brahmanas, preserved, as far as we know, the same sakha of the Sanhita, and preserved it each with the same minute accuracy. No Sanhita peculiar to the Kaushitakins and Aitareyins is ever mentioned, and the points on which they differed were, from the very first, connected with the subject matter of the Brah- manas. Students following different sakhas, as far as their Brahmana was concerned, might very well KALPA. 193 follow one and the same Sakha of the SanbitA, though they would no longer call it by its own ori- ginal name. In most cases, however, and particularly in the Charanas of the Yajur-veda, a difference in the Brahman as would necessitate, or, at least, naturally lead to, corresponding differences in the Sanhita, such as we find, for instance, in the hymns of the Kanvas and Madhyandinas.1 These Brahmana-charanas existed previous to the first composition of the SAtras, and in the Sutras belonging to the Sama-veda, which are the earliest SAtras we possess, they are quoted. No Sutra is ever quoted in any of the Brahmanas, but there is no collection of SAtras in which the various Sakhas of the Brahmanas are not referred to by name. The authorities quoted in the Sutras on doubtful points of the Yedic ceremonial, are invariably taken from the Brahmana-charanas. In the commentary on Pa- nini, such names as “the Aitareyins, theS&tyayanins, and Bhallavins ” are distinctly explained as sup- porters of ancient Brahmanas ; and the antiquity of the two last is still further confirmed by the fact of their being quoted as Brahmanic authorities in the Satapatha-brahmana.2 The third and most modern class of Charanas con- sists of those which derive their origin from the in- troduction of a new body of Sutras, such as the A&va- layaniyas, the Katyayaniyas, and many of the subdi- visions of the Taittiriyas. It is not always possible to determine with certainty whether a Charana dates * 1 The differences of these schools may be seen in Weber’s edition of the Yajur-veda at the end of each Adhyaya. 2 See Weber’s Indische Studien, ii. 44. O 194 KALPA. from the Brahmana period, or from the Sutra period, because so many of the Br&hmanas and Sutras have been lost, and some of the Brahmanas have been handed down to us under the names of more modern Sutra-charanas, by which they were adopted. It is easy to determine that the Kaushitakins date from the Brahmana period, because there is neither a Kaushi- taki-sutra nor a Kaushitaki-sanhita, but only aKaushi- taki-brahmana ; but in other instances our knowledge of the ancient literature of India is too fragmentary to enable us to fix the age of the numerous Charanas which are quoted by later authorities. Some of the Sutras again, as we saw before, are older than others, and seem almost to trespass on the frontiers of the Brahmana period. How are we to determine, for in- stance, whether the.Sankhayanas were originally a Brahmana-charana, and had their Sutras written by one of their own sect, or whether the foundation of their Charana rested on the text of the Sutras ', a new text of the original Brahmana of the Balivrichas being adopted by them in later times, and thenceforth quoted as the Sankhayana-brahmana ? In some instances the relative age of certain Sutras has been preserved by the tradition of the schools. Thus the most ancient Sutra of the Taittiriyas is said to have been that of Baudhayana, who was succeeded by Bh&ra- dvaja, Apastamba, Satyashadha HiranyakeSin, Ya- dhuna, and Yaikhanasa ; all of whom, with the ex- ception of the two last, have lent their names to dif- ferent Charanas of the dark Yajur-veda. 1 It should be observed, that in some MSS. of the Charanavyuba the two Charanas, which belong most likely to the Sautra period, those of Asvnlayana and Sankhayana, are not mentioned. KALFA. 195 Although none of the Sfttras seem to have been written with the distinct purpose of founding a new Charana, it can easily be imagined how different communities, after adopting a collection of Sutras as the highest authority for their ceremonial, became inclined to waive minor points of difference in the Sanhitas and Brahmanas, and thus coalesced intoa new Charana under the name and sanction of their Sutra- kara. After these new Sautra-charanas had once been started, we find that the Sanhitas and Brahmanas, cur- rent among their members, Avere designated by the name of the new Charanas. TIiusavc may explain the title of Asvalayana-brahmana given to the Aitareya- brahmana in one of the MSS. of the Bodleian Library1; and Ave shall not hesitate to ascribe the same meaning to an Asvalayana-brahmana, said to be quoted by Yajnikadeva in his commentary on Katyayana.2 Why such a Brahinana should not be quoted by early writers, such as the authors of Sutras, is easily un- derstood. Its title Avas necessarily of late origin, and it is important as marking the progressive changes in the nomenclature of Indian literature. We have a similar and still better authenticated instance in the so-called Apastamba-brahmana, Avhicli is but a dif- ferent title of the Taittiriya-brahmana, as adopted by the folloAvers of the Apastamba-sutras. It is in this manner that the Sutras may be said to have contri- buted partly to the formation of new Charanas, some of Avhich are not mentioned in the ancient lists, as, for instance, the Katyayaniyas ; partly to the extinction 1 MS. Wilson, 473. The title is (sic); it contains the fifth Book of the Aitareya-brahmana. c Katyayana, ii. 5. 18. ; vi. 6. 5. Inuische Studien, i. 230. o 2 196 KALPA. of the more ancient Brahmana-charanas and Sanhita- charanas, many of which are now known to us by name only. That the introduction of the Sutras and the founda- tion of Sutra-charanas was felt as an innovation by the Brahmans themselves, we perceive from the man- ner in which even modern writers speak of them ; half objecting to their authority, yet glad to admit and even to defend what could no longer be prevented. The Sutras were not, indeed, admitted as part of the Sruti, yet they were made part of the Svadhyaya, and had to be learned by heart by the young student. They might, therefore, like the Sanhitas and Brah- manas, claim a kind of sacred character, and in time become the charter of a new Charana. Thus we read in Mahadeva’s Commentary on the Hiranyakesi-su- tras1 : “The Kalpa-sutra is sometimes different for different Sakhas, sometimes it is not. The difference of the Sakhas arises partly from a difference of the sacred texts ( adhyayana being used in the sense of svddhydya , perhaps with reference to the peculiar pronunciation taught in the Pratisakhyas), partly from a difference in the Sutras. The Sutras of Asva- layana and Katyayana, for instance, are the same for 1 7PJ 7TTW- ft : tTwntr- ^ *TT«TT ^TfWI ^ t Tfn II KALPA. 197 two Sakhas whose respective texts are different, while in the Taittiriya-veda we find Sakhas with different Sutras, but no differences in their sacred texts. Hence it may be said that sometimes, where there is a dif- ference in the Sfttras, there is also a difference of Sakha ; and, on the other hand, where there is a dif- ference of Sakha, there may be a difference in the Sutras.” Mahadeva goes even further, and tries to show that, like all the revealed literature of the Brah- mans, the Sutras also existed previous to the beginning of time and had no historical origin.2 “ As the various Sakhas,” he says, “which arise from various readings of the sacred texts are without a beginning, or eternal, so are also the various Sakhas which arise from dif- ferent Sutras. *For the titles of certain Sutras, derived from their authors, are not modern ; but being eternal, as inherent in individual Rishis, whose names occur in certain Kalpas or ceremonials, and retaining the same character when applied to the Sutras, which have been promulgated by the Rishis, they hold good as titles for 1 Afterwards he says again : 7f2JT %fri ^faN: H “It has been shown in the Charanavyuha, that in the Taittiriya-sakha, where there is but one and the same sacred text, subordinate Sakhas arise from different Sutras.” ^ f% fcj TTTrTTcfrwqTT- (Trr^T?T^f^^f^ fwr rpsnrtcr^;^ ^ far?rr 5^w7Ttf%rr5iTwrg ^tii “ Nanakalpa-gatasu ” cannot refer to the chronological Kalpas, because these are after the beginning of time. 198 KALPA. Vakhas, which apparently are marked by the names of men.”1 We may now understand in what sense the same Mahadeva gives to the word Charana the meaning both of Sakha and Sutra. “ It is true,” he says, “ that s 75 7 th 77 6 77 104 8 th 77 10 77 92(+ll Valakhilyas) 9 th j» 7 >5 114 10th 75 12 77 191 The 10 have 85 and 1017 + 11 = 1028. The Bashkala-sakha had 8 hymns more=1025 hymns. The 64 Adhyayas have 2006 Vargas. These are arranged as follows : — Verses. Vargas consisting of O O 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Vargas. Verses. = 1 = 1 = 2 = 4 = 97 = 291 = 174 = 696 = 1207 = 6035 = 346 *= 2076 = 119 = 833 = 59 = 472 = 1 = 9 64 Adhyayas = 2,006 = 10,417 Here we have to observe a difference between the number of verses, as deduced from the Vargas, and the number stated by 6aunaka. The latter gives the ' Trim satani shatkanam chatvarinsat shat cha vargah. ANUKRAMANIS. 221 sum total of verses=10,580.\, but, immediately after- wards, the sum total of half verses=21, 232^=10, 61G verses. llow this difference arose it is difficult to say ; but it should be observed that, if we divide the sum total of half verses, 21,232, by 2, we get 10,61G verses, and this number comes very near to 10,622, which the Charanavyuha gives as the sum total of the verses of the Rig-veda. According to the Charana- vyftha (MS. Ch. 785.) the 64 Adhyayas of the Rig- veda have : — Verses. Vargas. Verses. Vargas consisting of 1 = 1 = 1 v 2 = 2 = 4 15 3 = 93 = 279 5> 4 = 176 = 704 55 5 = 1228 = 6140 55 6 = 357 = 2142 55 7 = 129 = 903 55 8 = 55 = 440 55 9 = 1 = 9 2042 10,622 The number of padas or words in the Rig-veda- sanhita is stated as 153,826, which gives an average of between 14 to 15 words to each verse. Another computation brings the number of the charcha-padas (i. e. words which are used in the Kramapatha, omit- ting the repeated passages or galitas) to 110,704, and the number of syllables to 432,000.* In another Anukramani, 6aunaka gives a list of verses arranged according to the metres in which they are written ; and at the end he states the sum 222 ANUKRAMANis. total of verses as 10,402 ; but here again, if we cast up the number of verses in each metre, according to his own statement, we get 10,409 instead of 10,402. These differences are startling if we consider the general accuracy of the exegetical works of the Brahmans ; but they may arise either from faults in the MSS. of the Anukramanis, or from the fact that some of the Khilas were included, though, ac- cording to their own professions, both Saunaka and Katyayana would seem to exclude these later hymns from their Anukramanis. The following table will show the distribution of metres according to Sau- naka : — Gayatri 2,451 Brought forward 9793 U shnih 341 Ashti 6 Anushtubh - 855 Atyashti - 84 Brihati 181 Dhriti 2 Pankti 312 Atidhriti - 1 Trishtubh 4,253 Ekapada - 6 Jagati 1,348 Dvipad& - 17 Atijagati 17 Pragatha Barhata 194 6akvari 26 Kakubha - 55 Atisakvari - 9 Mahabarhata - 251 Carried forward .9793 10,409 For the Yajur-veda we have three Anukramanis, one for the Atreyi-sakha of the Taittiriyas, the other for the Sakh& of the Charayaniyas, the third for the Madhyandina-&akh& of the Vajasaneyins. The former1 differs from other Anukramanis in so far as it contains an index not of the Sanhitfi only, but 1 MS. E. I. H. 1623, 965. ANUKRAM AN IS. 223 also of the Brahmana and the Aranyaka. Its object is not simply to enumerate the Kandas (Ashtakas), Pra&nas, Anuvakas, and K&ndikas as they follow in the text, but rather to indicate the chief subjects of this Veda, and to bring together the different pas- sages where the same sacrifice with its supplements is treated. Though we do not possess a MS. of the Atreyi-sakha, it is possible to identify nearly the whole of the Index with the text of the Sanhita *, the Brdhmana1 2, and the Aranyaka3 which we pos- sess. The Atreyi-Sakha, though not mentioned in the Charanavyfiha, must be considered as a sub- division of the Auklnya-sakha ; and the Anukramani says that Yaisampayana handed it down to Yaska Paingi, Yaska to Tittiri, Tittiri to Ukha, and Ukha to Atreya, who was the author of a Pada-text4, while Ivundina composed a commentary (vritti) on the same Sakha. The xlpastamba-sakha, of which we possess the complete Brahmana, is a subdivision of the Khandikeyas. There is a curious tradition, preserved in the Kan- danukrama, that, although the greater portion of the Atreyi-sakha was originally taught by Tittiri, some chapters of it owed their origin to Katha, the founder of the K 4th aka- sakha. This assertion is confirmed by Sayana in his Commentary on the Taittiriyaran- yaka. The chapters ascribed to Katha and called the Kathakam, are found at the end of the Brahmana and the beginning of the Aranyaka. They contain — 1 MS. E. I. H. 1701, 1702 ; name of Sakha unknown. 2 MS. E. I. H. 293, containing the thi’ee books of the Apastam- ba-brahmana. 3 MS. E. I. H. 1690, &c. 4 See MS. Bodl. Wilson, 361. 224 ANUKRAMANIS. 1. The Savitragnichayana with the Brahmana, Tait.-brahm. iii. 10. 2. The Nachiketachayana. Tait.-br. iii. 11. 3. Divahsyenaya ishtayali. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 1 & 2. 4. Apadya ishtayali. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 3 & 4. 5. Chaturhotrachiti. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 5. 6. Vai&vasrijachiti. Tait.-br. iii. 12. 6 — 9, end of Brahmana. 7. Arunaketukachiti. Tait.-aranyaka, i. 1. 8. Svadhyaya-brahmana. Tait.-aranyaka, i. 2. They are given here as they follow one another in the text of the Apastamba-s&kha, and this order is con- firmed in every particular by Sayana’s Commentary (MS. E. I. H. 1145), which is in fact a commentary intended for the Apastamba-sakha of the Taittiriya- bralnnana. According to his introductory remarks prefixed to each Anuvaka, the Savitrachit.i occupies the tenth, the Nachiketachiti the eleventh Prapathaka. In the twelfth Prapathaka, he remarks, the Chaturhotra and Vaisvasrija should be explained. But as the ishtis, called the Divahsyenis and Apadyas, form part of the complete Chaturhotra (they stand either in the middle or at the end of it), they are explained first. Thus we find in the beginning of the twelfth Prapa- thaka (iii. 12. 1.), the pratikas of the Y ajy anuvaky as of the Divahsyenis ; in iii. 12.2. the rules for the same ishtis ; and in the same manner, the Yajyanuvakyas of the Apadyas in iii. 12. 3., and the rules in iii. 12. 4. Then follows the Chaturhotra-chayana in iii. 12. 5., and in the last four Anuvakas the Vaisvasriju- chayana. A dilferent order seems to have been observed in the Atreyi-sfikha of the Taittiriya-brahmana, for, although the same chapters are here ascribed to ANUKRAMAN1S. 225 Katha, tlieir arrangement must have differed, unless we suppose that the author of the Kandanukratna in- troduced an alteration. He writes : “ Tavat Tittirili provacha. (Tittiris Taittiriyasakhapravartako ’nye- bhyo munibhyah sishyebhyah provacha.) Athashtau Kathakani (athanantaram Kathakasakhapravartakena Kathakamunina proktany uchyante) : 1. Silvitra, Taittiriya-brahmana, iii. 10. 2. Nachiketa „ „ iii. 11. 3. Chaturhotra „ ,, iii. 12. 5. 4. Vai&vasrija „ „ iii. 12. G — 0. 5. Aruna, Taittiriya-aranyaka, i. 1. G. Divahsyents, Taittiriya-briilimana, iii. 12. 1 — 2. 7. Apadyas „ „ iii. 12. 3—4. 8. Svadhyfiya-brahmana, Taittiriya-aranyaka, i. 2.” The second Anukramani of the Yajur-veda which we possess, belongs to the Charayaniya-sakha, and is called the Mantrarshadhyaya.1 The only copy which we have of it is found in the same MS. which con- tains the Charaka-sakha,2 and it is evidently intended as an index to this s&kha. Nor is there anything anomalous in this, if we remember that the Cha- rayaniya-sakha is a subdivision of the Charaka-sakha. But what is less intelligible is the title given to the text, which instead of Yajur-veda, is called in the MS. Y ajur-veda-kathaka. This title, Kathaka, cannot well refer to the sakha of the Kathas, for this is itself a subdivision of the Charakas. It must most likely be taken in the same sense in which Kathaka was explained before, i. e. “ Kathakamunina proktam though it is strange that the very chapters which in the Apastnmba- > See Catalogue of the Berlin MSS., No. 142. 2 The title is “ Ekottarasatadhvaryusakhaprabhedabhinne Y ajurvedakatbakc Charakasakha.” Q 226 ANUKRAMANts. sakha of the Taittiriyaka are ascribed to Katha, are wanting in our Sakha, while all the other sacrifices which are described in the Taittiriya-sanhita and Brah- mana, are laid down in very much the same order. The third Anukramani, that of the Madhyandina- sakha of the Yajasaneyaka, is ascribed to Katya- yana, who is mentioned also as the author of an Anuvakanukramani. It gives the names of the poets, the deities, and the metres, for all the verses of the Sanhita, including the Khila (Adhyaya26 — 35.), and the Sukriya portions (Adhy. 36 — 40.). For the Sama-veda we have two classes of Anukra- manis, the former more ancient, thelatter more modern than those of the other Yedas which we have hitherto examined. One index to the hymns of the S&ma-veda (following the order of the Veyagana and Aranyagana) has been preserved under the name of Arsheya-brah- mana *, a title by which this work is admitted within the pale of the revealed literature of the Brahmans. Allusions to the names of poets and deities of different hymns occur in the Br&hmanas of other Yedas also; but in none, except the Sama-veda, have these scat- tered observations been arranged into regular Anukra- manis before the beginning of the Sutra period, or been incorporated in the body of their revealed lite- rature. What the Brahmans call Sruti or revelation, signifies, as we saw, what is more ancient than the Sutras ; and that the Arsheya- brahmana is earlier at least than Katyayana, can be proved by the fact of Katyayana’s quoting passages from it.2 It has been pointed out as a distinguishing mark of the Brah- 1 See Bonfey, Sama-veda, p. vii. 2 In the first chapter of the Arsheya-bruhmana, we read : ANUKIv AMAN IS. 227 inanas of the Sfima-vcda that they are never ac- cented, but it is doubtful whether any conclusion could be drawn from this as to their being of later origin than the Brahmanas of the other Vedas.1 But while the existence of an Arsheya-brahmana shows that the Chhandogas were the first to compose an index to their sacred literature, we find that their regular Anukramanis are more modern than those of the Eig-veda, and must be referred to a class of works known by the name of Parisishtas. They are contained in MS. Bodl. Wilson 466, where they form the fifth and sixth of the twenty Parisishtas attached to the Sama-veda. Their title is, “ Nai- geyanam rikshv arsliam,” and “Naigeyanam rikshu daivatam,” and they give respectively the names of the poets and the deities for the verses composing the Arehika of the Chhandogas according to the oakha gT^Ttr^rfrT WT (MS. 689. cTR^) It rrnfTgT'F^frt ^TrPtT- This passage is referred to by Ka- tyayana, when he says : ^Trr^TT»TTf% wt m qnfr- ferTT^ni See also Ivatyayana’s Introduction to his Anukramani of the Madhyandina-sakha, and Rig-veda- blnishya, p. 40. i Rumania says : ^5 ^TT*TPlTf^Rf%R- ^i^T7iTsrrii% stTuwifa f% 228 ANUKRAMAXlS. of the Naigeyas, a subdivision of the Kautliumas. It agrees on the whole, but not in all particulars \ with the £akh& published by Stevenson and Benfey, and it has been supposed that their text is taken from MSS. belonging to the Ranayaniya Sakha. The most characteristic difference between these Parisish- tas and the Arsheya-brahmana seems to lie in this, that the latter refers to the original prayer-books of the Chhandogas, the Veyagana, and Aranyagana, while the former follow the Sanhita, including Archika and Staubhika, or as they are also called, Purvarchika and Uttararchika. For the fourth Yeda, the Atharvana, or Brahma- veda, an Anukramani has been discovered by Pro- fessor Whitney in a MS. of the British Museum, prepared for Col. Polier. A copy of this MS. is found in MS. 2142 of the East India House. It is a complete index to the Sanhita in 10 Patalas, written in a simple and intelligible style. Its title is Brihat- sarvanukramani. It is evident, that if it were possible to determine the age of the Anukramanis, we should have a ter- minus ad quem for the Yedic age. The index of the Rig-veda enables us to check almost every syllable of the hymns ; and we may safely say that we possess exactly the same number of verses, and words, and syllables in our MSS. of the Rig-veda as existed at the time of Katyayana. The index of the Atreyi- sakha (by Laugakshi ?) authenticates our MSS. not only of the Sanhita, but also of the Brahmana and Aranyaka of the Taittiriya-veda, and the index to the K&thaka refers to a work exactly the same as that of which we possess the text in MS. The Arsheya- 1 Cf. Sama-veda, ed. Itcnfey, p. xx. ANUKRAMANIS. 225) brahmana presupposes the existence of the Gftnas of the Stima-veda, and the Anukramanis of the Naigeyas could only have been written after the text of the more modern Archika had branched off into diffe- rent Vakhas. The only Anukramanis of which the authors are known are, the Anukramanis of Saunaka to the Rig- veda, and the two Sarvanukramas of Ivatyayana, one to the Rig-veda, the other to the white Yajur-veda. We shall see whether it is possible to fix the age of these two writers. We remarked before, that the Anukramani of Ivatyayana, if compared with the Anuvakanukramani of Saunaka, shows the same progress in style which we may always observe between these two writers. Saunaka writes in mixed Slokas, and takes great liberties with the metre ; Ivatyayana writes in prose, and introduces the artificial contrivances of the later Sutras. Again, Saunaka’s index follows the origi- nal division of the Rig-veda into Mandalas, AnuvA,- kas, and Suktas ; Ivatyayana has adopted the more practical and more modern division into Ashtakas, Adhyayas, and Yargas. The number of hymns is the same in Saunaka and Ivatyayana. They both follow the united Sakha of the Sakalas and Bashkalas, and bring the number of hymns, exclusive of all Ivhilas, to 1017. Before this union took place, the Bash- kalas counted eight hymns more than the Saka- las, i. e. 1025 instead of 1017 ; and they read some of the hymns in the first Mandala in a different order.1 1 In the Sakala-sakha, the hymns of Gotama are followed hy those of Kutsa, Kakshivat, Paruchchhepa, and Dirghatamas ; in the Bashkala- sakha their order was, Gotama, Kakshivat, Paruch- chhepa, Kutsa, Dirghatamas. 230 SAUNAKA. The Khilas, or supplementary hymns, are omitted in the Anukramanis of Saunaka and Katyayana, though they were known to both ; Saunaka, however, ex- cludes them more strictly than Katyayana.1 The latter has admitted the eleven Yalakhilya-hymns, and thus brings the total number of hymns to 1028. From all these indications we should naturally be led to expect that the relation between Saunaka and Katyayana was very intimate, that both belonged to the same !§akha, and that Saunaka was anterior to Katyayana. We know of only one other writer whose works are equally intended for the united Sakha of the Sakalas and Bashkalas ; this is Asva* layana, the author of twelve books of Srauta-sutras, of four books of Grihya-sutras, and of some chapters in the Aitareyaranyaka.2 Let us see now, whether these indications can be supported by other evidence. Shadgurusishya in his Commentary on Katyayana’s Sarvanukrama, says: — “Sunahotra, the great Muni, was born of Bharad- vaja, and of him was born Saunahotra, all the world being a witness. Indra himself went to the sacrifice of the Rishi in order to please him. The great Asuras, thinking that Indra was alone, and wishing ; or, according to MS. 502., WfBH 2 Thus it is said : *TT*T ^TrT^fTTII Srauta- sutra-bhushya, i. 1. SAUNAKA. 231 to take him, surrounded the sacrificial inclosure. Indra, however, perceived it, and taking the guise of the Rishi, he went away. The Asuras seeing the sa- erificer again, seized Saunahotra, taking him for Indra. He saw the god that is to be worshipped, and saying, ‘ I am not Indra, there he is, ye fools, not I,’ he was released by the Asuras. Indra called and spake to him : ‘ Because thou delightest in praising, there- fore thou art called Gritsamada, 0 Rishi ; thy hymn will be called by the name of Tndrasya indriyam , the might of Indra. And thou, being born in the race of Bhrigu, shalt be Saunaka, the descendant of Sunaka, and thou shalt see again the second Mandala, together with that hymn.’ lie, the Muni Gritsamada, was born again, as commanded by Indra. It was he who saw the great second Mandala of the Rig-veda as it was revealed to him together with the hymn Sa- janiya ; it was he, the great Rishi, to whom at the twelve years’ sacrifice, Ugrasravas, the son of Roma- harshana, the pupil of Yyasa, recited, in the midst of the sacrifice, the story of the Maluibharata, together with the tale of the Harivansa, a story to be learnt from Yyasa alone, full of every kind of excellence, dear to Hari, sweet to hear, endowed with great blessing. It was he who was the lord of the sages, dwelling in the Naimishiya forest ; he, who to the King Satanika, the son of Janamejaya, brought the laws of Vishnu, which declare the powers of Hari. That Saunaka, celebrated among the Rishis as the glorious, having seen the second Mandala, and heard the collection of the Mahabharata, being also the propagator of the laws of Yishnu, the great boat on the ocean of existence, was looked upon by the great Rishis as the only vessel in which worshippers 232 SAUNAKA. might get over the Bahvricha, with its twenty-one Sakh&s, like one who had crossed the Rig-veda. There was one Sakha of Sakala, another of Bashkala : taking these two Sanhitas, and the twenty-one Brah* manas, the Aitareyaka, and completing it with others, Saunaka, revered by numbers of great Rishis, com- posed the first Kalpa-sfitra.” It need hardly be pointed out that this passage contains a strange and startling mixture of legendary and historical matter, and that it is only the last portion which can be of interest to us. The story of Saunahotra, the son of Sunahotra, and grandson of Bharadvaja, being born again as Gritsamada-Sau- naka, may have some historical foundation, and the only way in which it can be interpreted, is, that the second Mandala, being originally seen by Grit- sainada, of the family of Bhrigu, was afterwards preserved by &aunahotra, a descendant of Bharadvaja, of the race of Angiras, who entered the family of Bhrigu, took the name of Saunaka, and added one hymn, the twelfth, in praise of Indra. This is partly confirmed by Katyayana’s Anukramani1, and by the Rishyanukramani of Saunaka.2 It would by no means follow that Saunaka was the author of the hymns of the second Mandala. The hymns of that Mandala belong to Gritsamada of the Bhrigu race. But Saunaka may have adopted that Mandala, and 2 r^T cjlfa I ?fR3rr 7irr:i SAUNAKA. 233 by adding one hymn, may have been said to have made it his own. Again, it does not concern us at present whether Saunaka, the author of the Kalpa- sutra, was the same as Satmaka, the chief of the sages in the Naimishiya forest, to whom, during the great twelve-years’ sacrifice, Ugrasravas related the Ma- habharata, and who became the teacher of Satanika, the son of Janamejaya. If this identity could be established, a most important link would be gained, connecting Saunaka and his literary activity with another period of Indian literature. This point must be reserved for further consideration. At present we are only concerned with Saunaka, the author of the Kalpa-sutras and other works composed with a view of facilitating the study of the Rig-veda. Shadgurusishya continues : “ The pupil of Saunaka was the Reverend Asvala- yana. He, having learned from Saunaka all sacred knowledge, made also a Sutra and taught it, thinking it would improve the understanding and please Saunaka. Then, in order to please his pupil, Saunaka destroyed his own Sutra1, which consisted of a thou- sand parts and was more like a Brahmana. ‘ This Siitra,’ he said, ‘ which Asvaltiyana has made and taught, shall be the Sutra for this Veda.’ There are 1 means “ torn,” and corresponds with Sutra, “ a thread.” A similar expression is which is applied, for instance, to the Mahabhashya, when it fell into disuse in Kashmir. See Rajatarangini, Histoire des Rois du Kashmire, traduite et eoramentee par M. A. Troyer, iv. 487. ; and Bohtlingk, Panini, p. xvi. The true sense seems to be that in which Devarajayajvan uses in such passages as rT^"P2J^HT 1?T^XTT A work was lost wlien the chain of the oral tradition was broken. 234 SAUNAKA. altogether ten books of Saunaka, written for the pre- servation of the Rig-veda ; 1 . The index of the Rishis ; 2. The index of the Metres ; 3. The index of the Deities; 4. The index of theAnuvakas; 5. The index of the Stiktas ; 6. The Vidhana (employ- ment) of the Rich-verses; 7. The employment of the Padas1 ; 8. The Barhaddaivata ; 9. The Pratisakhya2 of the Saunakas ; 10. His Smarta work on matters of law.3 Asvalayana having learnt all these ten Sutras, and knowing also the Gotras (genealogies4), became versed in all the sacrifices by the favour of Saunaka. The sage Katyayana had thirteen books before him : ten of Saunaka and three of his pupil A&valayana.5 The latter consisted of the Sutras in twelve chapters, 1 I read because these must be two different works, the Rigvidhana and Padavidhana, in order to complete the number of ten. The Rigvidhana exists in MS. (E. I. H. 1723), and is not only written in Saunaka's mixed Slokas, but distinctly ascribed to him in the second verse: 1 | The book ends with the words | Nevertheless, in the form in which we have it, it is later than Saunaka. The term Rigvidhana is mentioned in the Taitti- riyaranyaka. 2 This must be the Pratisakhya of the Rig-veda, and not of the Atharva-veda, which is likewise ascribed to Saunaka, the Chatur- adhyayikam Saunakiyam. 3 See Stenzler, Indische Studien, i. p. 243. 4 wTUrT^fr^: is unintelligible. Should it be ^TUSrPTT- 6 All the works of Asvalayana still exist, as Shadgurusishya describes them. Instead of it would be better to read SAUNAKA. 235 (Sruuta-sutra), the Grihya-sutras in four chapters, anil the fourth Aranyaka (of the Aitareyaranyaka) hy Asvalayana. The snge Katyayana, having mas- tered the thirteen1 books of Saunaka and of his pupil, composed several works himself ; the Sutras of the Vajins2, the Upagrantha3 of the Sama-veda, the Slokas4of the Smriti (the Karmapradipa),theBrahma- Karikas of the Atharvans5, and the Mahavarttika6, which was like a boat on the great ocean of Panini’s Grammar. The rules promulgated by him were ex- plained by the Reverend Patanjali7, the teacher of the Yoga-philosophy, himself the author of the Yoga-sastra and the Nidana, a man highly pleased by the great commentary, the work of the descendant of Santanu. Now it was Katyayana, the great sage, endowed with these numerous excellencies, who composed, by great exertion, this Sarvanukramani. And because it gives the substance of all the works composed by Saunaka and his pupils, therefore the chief among the Bahvri- chas have called it the General Index.” 1 If this number is right, Saunaka’s Srauta-sutra could not have been destroyed at the time of Katyayana. 2 The Kalpa-sutras of the Yajur-veda. On the Vajins or Vajasaneyins, see Colebrooke, Essays, i, 61. 3 See page 210. Upagrantha is not to be taken in the sense of Parisishta. 4 Bhrajamana, is unintelligible ; it may be Parshada. 5 These Karikas have not yet been met with. 6 The Varttikas to Panini. 7 Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhasliya, according to tradi- tion called by the name of Bhartrihari also, was the reputed author of the Yoga-sutras. On these a commentary was written by Vyasa, who might be called a descendant of San tan u. The reading may not be quite correct, and Mahabhashya is more likely to refer to Patanjali’s own work ; but the dental n of the JNISS. speaks rather in favour of the reading mahabhagycna. 236 SAUNAKA. iir iwm:n f^r ^pq| *T*?T TR^T^T: II yf^WsT^Tt isTts fa ^fjTmJv fa*Trr:ii 3^T^t ^"21?% *nr§TT: i ^TST^fH ?HPf *.*H ^ WIT ^f^«pTWTJ ^ii WTTrerr^^T ^i w^ ^fa^fa II r* ?5 ^T HR I TTrP^IWrT W farffa IpT II *? ^TTrr: *pnj(^?wt ^fa:i ^T^ft^^rT ^ft I farfN ?TI*T WTJI ^r1 2 3 4 5 6* w rtr% *w snraiifw i ^^iTHTwf«w ffan ii 1 ^R^SJrT Ch. 192. Weber, Catalogue, p. 12. sj 2 ’q-Q Ch. 192., W. 379. ? 3 ?J<^*T^T Ch., W. 4 rf «TT^TCh., W. 5 Rv. II. 12., the Sukta with the refrain, “sa janasa indrah.” 6 3FW Ch., W. SAUNAKA. 237 ^frfjr^ ^f?iw swra ^rTT^TTO TT1J * *JT *T*W*re^fWII wr^f%^wr\ ^t:i * ^T^T ^f^TTffT ^^TTTrr iTTRnTT! II sj 6s *r?*r t^t g?wn7ref% StJTRA PERIOD. 245 during which the Brahmanic literature was carried on in the strange style of Sutras. In order to try the strength of our supposition we shall ourselves attempt the first attack upon it. There is a work called the Unadi-sfttras, which, as it is quoted under this name by Panini, must have existed previous to his time. The author is not known. Among the words the formation of which is taught in the Unadi-sutras1, we find (iii. 140) di- ndrah, a golden ornament ; (iii. 2) Jinah , synony- mous with Arhat, a Buddhist saint ; (iv. 184) tiri- tam , a golden diadem; (iii. 25) stupa h , a pile of earth. The first of these words, dindra , is derived by the author of the Unadi-sutras from a Sanskrit root, dm. By other grammarians it is derived from dtna, poor, and n, to go, what goes or is given to the poor. It is used sometimes in the sense of ornaments and seals of gold. These derivations, however, are clearly fan- ciful, and the Sanskrit dindra is in reality the Latin denarius.2 Now, if Panini lived in the middle of the fourth century b.c., and if the Unadi-sutras were an- terior to Panini, how could this Roman word have found its way into the Unadi-sutras ? The word de- 1 A new and more correct edition of the Unadi-sutras has lately been published by Dr. Aufrecht, Bonn, 1859. 2 J. Prinsep says : “ The Roman denarius, from which Dinar was derived, was itself of silver, while the Persian Dirhem (a silver coin) represents the Drachma, or dram weight, of the Greeks. The weight allowed to the Dinar of 32 ratis, or 64 grains, agrees so closely with the Roman and Greek unit of 60 grains, that its identity cannot be doubted, especially when we have before us the actual gold coins of Chandragupta (?) (didrachmas), weighing from 120 to 130 grains, and indubitably copied from Greek originals, in device as well as weight.” 246 SUTllA PERIOD. narius is not of so late a date in India as is generally supposed. Yet the earliest document where it occurs is the Sanclii inscription No. I.1 Burnouf remarked that he never found the word dina-ra used in what he considered the ancient Buddhist Sutras. It occurs in the Avadana-sataka, and in the Divyavadana. It would seem to follow, therefore, either that the Una- di-sutras and Panini must be placed later than Chan- dragupta, or that the Sutra in which this word is explained is spurious. It would not be right to adopt the latter supposition without showing some cause for it. It is well known that in a literature which is chiefly preserved by oral tradition, correc- tions and additions are more easily admitted than in works existing in MS. The ancient literature of India was continually learnt by heart ; and even at the present day, when MSS. have become so common, some of its more sacred portions must still be ac- quired by the pupil from the mouth of a teacher, and not from MSS. If new words, therefore, had been added to the language of India after the first com- position of the Unadi-sutras, there would be nothing surprising in a Sutra being added to explain such words. Happily, however, we are not left in this instance to mere hypothesis. Ujjvaladatta, the author of a commentary on the Un&di-sutras, forms a favourable exception to most Sanskrit commen- tators, in so far as he gives us in his Commentary some critical remarks on the readings of MSS. which he consulted. He states in his introduction that he had consulted old MSS. and commentaries, and he evi- dently feels conscious of the merit of his work, when 1 Journal A. S. B., vol. vi. p. 455. Notes on the facsimiles of the inscriptions from Sanclii near Bhilsa, by James Prinsep. StJTRA PERIOD. 247 lie says, “ If anybody, after having studied this com- mentary of mine, suppresses my name in order to put forth his own power, his virtuous deeds Avill perish.”1 Now in his remarks on our Sutra, Ujjvala- datta says, “ Dinara means a gold ornament, but this Sutra is not to be found in the Siitivritti and Deva- vritti.”2 If, therefore, the presence of this word in the Unadi-sutras would have overthrown our calcu- lations as to the age of Panini and his predecessor who wrote the Sutras, the absence of it except in one Svttra, which is proved to be of later date, must serve to confirm our opinion. Cosmas Indicopleustes re- marked that the Roman denarius was received all over the world ; and how the denarius came to mean in India a gold ornament we may learn from a pas- sage in the “ Life of Mahavira.”3 There it is said that a lady had around her neck a string of grains and golden dinars, and Stevenson adds that the custom of stringing coins together, and adorning with them children especially, is still very common in India. That Ujjvaladatta may be depended upon when he makes such statements with regard to MSS. or com- mentaries, collated by himself, can be proved by another instance. In the Unadi-sutras IV. 184, we read: “ kritrikripibhyah kitan.” Out of the three words of which the etymology is given in this Sutra, kripitam , water, and kintam , a crest, are known as ancient words. The former occurs in the Gana TO TOfall 2 ^ 11 3 Kalpa-sutra, translated by Stevenson, p. 45. 248 SUTRA PERIOD. Kripanadi (Pan. VIII. 2. 18. 1.) ; the other in the Gana arddharchadi. The third word, however, tirita, a tiara, has never been met with in works previous to Panini. Now, with regard to this word, Ujj valadatta observes that it is left out in the Nyasa.1 The au- thority of this work, a commentary by Jinendra on the Kasikavritti, would, by itself, be hardly of sufficient weight ; but on referring to the MS. of Mahabhashya at the Bodleian Library, I find that there also the Sutra is quoted exactly as Ujj va- ladatta said, i. e. without the root from which tirita is derived. Having thus found Ujjvaladatta trust- worthy and accurate in his critical remarks, we feel inclined to accept his word, even where we cannot control him, or where the presence of certain words in the Sutras might be explained without having recourse to later interpolations. Thus s tup ah, which occurs III. 25, might be explained as simply meaning a heap of earth. Nay, it is a word which, in its more general sense, is found in the Veda. Yet the most common meaning of stupa, is a Buddhist monument, and as we are told by Ujjvala, that this word does not occur in the Sativritti, and that in the Sarvasva it is derived in a different manner, we can have little doubt that it was not added till after the general 1 ireY ft (m° -c. Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 40, mentions this work in liis list of Sanskrit grammars: “ Nyasa or Kasika vritti pan- jika by Jinendra : another exposition of the Kasika vritti, with explanatory notes by Rakshita.” He adds, however, with his usual caution : “ I state this with some distrust, not having yet seen the book. The Nyasa is universally cited ; and the Bo- dhinyasa is frequently so. Vopadeva’s Kavyakamadhenu quotes the Nydsa of Jinendra and that of Jinendrabuddhi.” PARISISHTAS. 249 spreading of Buddhism and the erection of Topes in India ; a negative argument which gives additional strength to the supposition that the original Unadi- siitras were composed before that period.1 To add one more instance. In all the editions of the Unadi-sutras, Jina occurs as the name of the founder of a Bauddha sect. As many scholars have assigned to Jina and the Jains a very modern date, the presence of this name might seem to throw considerable doubt on the antiquity ascribed to the Unadi-sutras. In a passage of Say ana, however (Rv. i. 61. 4.), where he has occasion to quote the Sutra containing, among other words, the etymology of Jina, all the MSS. omit the root ji, from Avhich Jina is said to be derived. It is equally omitted in Nrisinha’s Svaramanjari. The test which has thus been applied to our chrono- logical arrangement of the Sutra literature in general, in the case of the Unadi-sutras, so far from invali- dating, has rather strengthened our argument for placing the whole literature of the Sutras, at least of those which are connected with the Vedas, between the years 600 and 200 b.c. Parisishtas. her e is one class of works which must be men- tioned before we leave the Sutra period, the so-called Parisishtas. They are evidently later than the Sutras, and their very name, Paralipomena, marks their secondary importance. They have, however, a cha- racter of their own, and they represent a distinct period of Hindu literature, which, though it is of 1 The word stupa does not occur in Panini or the Ganapatha. Sayana to Rv. i. 24. 7. does not quote the Unadi-sutra, but de- rives stupa from a root styai, affix pa. 250 PARISISHTAS. less interest to the student, and though it shows clear traces of intellectual and literary degeneracy, is not on that account to be overlooked by the historian. Some of the more substantial Parisishtas profess to be composed by authors whose names belong to the Sutra period. Thus Saunaka is called the author of the Charanavyuha by the commentator of Paraskara’s Grihya-sutras, Rama-krishna 1 (MS. E.I.H. 440. 577. 912.) ; a writer no doubt quite untrustworthy where he gives his own opinions, but yet of some import- ance where he quotes the opinions of others. Ka- ty ay ana is quoted as the author of the Chhandoga- parisishta.2 The same Kusika, who is known as the author of the Sutras for the Atharvana, is mentioned as the author of the Atharvana-parisishtas also. Other Parisishtas, though not ascribed to Ivatyayana, are said to be composed in accordance with his opi-. nions.3 Again, while the Grihya-sutras of the Chhandogas are acknowledged as the work of Go- bhila, a Parisishta on the same subject is ascribed to the son of Gobhila.4 The names of Saunaka and Katyayana are frequently invoked at the beginning or end of these works, and though some of them appear to us simply useless and insipid, it is not to be 1 ^fafrr: n wfa:n 3 MS. Bodl. W. 510. Tsnnraj rT^T^ft^W- W5W q»TfZlTqqTr?tTTr^TII MS. llodl. W. 501. «TT^t qf^fag’ ii sJ PARISISIITAS. 251 denied that others contain information which we should look for in vain in the Sutras. Their style is less concise than that of the Sutras. The simple Anushtubh Sloka preponderates, and the metre is more regular than that of the genuine Anushtubh compositions of Saunaka. Their style resembles that of the Barhaddaivata and Rig-vidhana, works ori- ginally composed by Saunaka, but handed down to us, as it Avould seem, in a more modern form. But on the other side the Parisishtas have not yet fallen into that monotonous uniformity which we find in works like the Mftnava-dharma-sastra, the Paddhatis, or the later Puranas ; and passages from them are literally quoted in the Puranas. The Pari&ishtas, therefore, may be considered the very last outskirts of Yedic literature, but they are Vedic in their cha- racter, and it would be difficult to account for their origin at any time except the expiring moments of the Vedic age. The following argument may serve to confirm the favourable view which I take of some of the Pari- sishtas. Besides the MSS. of the Charanavyiiha, there is a printed edition of it in Raja Radhakanta Deva’s Sabdakalpadruma. This printed text is evi- dently taken from more modern MSS. It quotes seven- teen instead of fifteen Sakhas of the Vajasaneyins ; whereas the original number of fifteen is confirmed by our MSS. of the Charanavyiiha, by the Pratijnft-pari- sishta, and even by so late a work as the Vishnu-purana (p. 281.). We may therefore suppose that at the time when the Parisishta, called the Charanavyiiha, was originally composed, these two additional Sakhas did not yet exist. Now one of them is the Sakha of the Katyayaniyas, a Sakha like many of those men- tioned in the Puranas, founded on Sutras, not on 252 PARISISHTAS. Brahmanas. The fact, therefore, of this modern Sakha not being mentioned in the original Charanavyuha serves as an indication that at the time of the original composition of that Parisishta sufficient time had not yet elapsed to give to Katyayana the celebrity of being the founder of a new Sakha. On the other hand it should be stated that Panini does not seem to have known literary wTorks called Parisishtas.1 The number of Parisishtas is frequently stated at eighteen. This may have been their number at some time, or for one particular Yeda, but it is now considerably exceeded. The Charanavyiiha, itself a Parisishta, gives the same number ; but it seems to speak of the Parisishtas of the Yajur-veda only. There is a collection of Parisishtas for each Yeda. Works, such as the Bahvricha-parisishta, Sankhayana-pari- sishta, Asvalayana-grihya-parisishta, must be ascribed to the Rig-veda. One MS. (Bodl. 466.) contains a collection of Parisishtas which belong to the Sama- veda. At the end of the first treatise it is said : “ iti Samaganam chhandah samaptam,” “here end the metres of the Sama-singers.”2 Other treatises be- gin with the invocation, “ Namah Samavedaya.” The second is called Kratu-sangraha3, on sacrifices ; the third, Yiniyoga-sangraha, on the employment of hymns; the fourth, Somotpattih, on the origin of Soma. The fifth and sixth treatises contain the index to the Archika of the Sama-veda after the Naigeya- sakha. As no pointed allusions to other Yedas occur 1 Parisishta occurs only as a pratyudaharana in Pan. iv. 1. 48, but it is used there as a feminine, and in quite a different sense. 2 It is also called chhandasam vichayah, and contains quotations from the Tandya-brahinana, Pingala, the Nidana, and Uktha-sastra. 3 The Kratu-sangraha and Viniyoga-sangraha are frequently quoted by Sayana in his commentary on the Tandyabrahmana in elucidation of obscure passages. (Biihler.) rAUISISIITAS. 253 in these tracts, the whole collection of these Pari- sishtas may be classed as Sama-veda literature. The Chhandoga-parisishta, however, which is commonly ascribed to Katyayana, is not found in this IMS. The Parisishtas of the Yajur-veda are enumerated in the Charanavyuha, and will have to be examined presently. Those of the Atharvana are estimated by Professor Weber at seventy-four1, and are said to be written in the form of dialogues, in a style similar to that of the Puranas, and sometimes, we are told, agreeing literally with chapters of the astrological Sanhitas. According to the Charanavyuha2 the following are the eighteen Pari&ishtas of the Yajur-veda : 1. The Yupalakshanain ; according to Yyasa’s Charanavyuha, the Upajyotisham. 2. The Chhagalakshanam ; Mangalalakshanam, (Yyasa). 3. The Pratijna ; Pratijnanuvakyam ? (Yyasa). 4. The Anuvakasankhya ; Parisankhya (Yyasa). 5. The Charanavyuhah ; Charanavyuhah (Yyasa). 6. The &raddhakalpah ; Sraddhakalpah (Yyasa). 7. The Sulvikani or Sulvani. 8. The Parshadam. 1 According to a passage in the Charanavyuha, belonging to the Atharvana, the number of the Kausikoktani Parisishtani would amount to 70. 2 Besides the MS. of the E. I. II., and collations of some of the MSS. at Berlin, I have used the printed edition of the Charana- vyuha in Radhakanta’s Sanskrit Encyclopaedia. The MSS. differ so much that it would be hazardous to correct the one by the other. They probably represent different versions of the same text. The name of the author varies likewise. Sometimes he is called Saunaka, sometimes Katyayana, and in Radhakanta’s edi- tion, Vyasa. The last is, perhaps, meant for the same whom we found mentioned before as the author of a Commentary on Patan- jali’s Yoga. The text has since been published by Prof. Weber. 254 PARISISHTAS. 9. The Rigyajunshi. 10. The Ishtakapiiranara. 11. The Pravaradhyayah ; Pravaradhayah (Vyasa, No. 7.) 12. The Uktha-sastram ; &astram (Yyasa, No. 8.) 13. The Kratusankhya ; Kratu (Vyasa, No. 9). 14. The Nigamah ; Agamah (Yyasa, No. 10). 15. The Yajnaparsve or parsvam ; Yajnam (Yyasa, No. 11); Parsvan (Vyasa, No. 12). 16. The Hautrakam; Hautrakara (Yyasa, No. 13). 17. The Prasavotthanam ; Pasavah (Yyasa, No. 14) ; Ukthani, (Yyasa, No. 15). 18. The Kurmalakshanam ; Kurmalakshanam, (Yyasa, No. 16). A similar order has evidently been followed in a collection of the Parisishtas, forming part of Professor Wilson’s valuable collection of MSS., now deposited in the Bodleian Library. The MS., however, is incomplete, and seems to have been copied by a person ignorant of Sanskrit from another MS., the leaves of which had been in confusion. Most of the MSS. of these Parisishtas are carelessly copied, whereas the MSS. of the Sutras are generally in excellent condition. The MSS. which Raja Radhakantadeva used seem to have been in an equally bad state, if we may judge from the various readings which he occasionally mentions.1 But although the Bodleian MS. leaves much to desire, it serves at least to support the authenticity of the titles given in the MS. of the Charanavyuha against the blunders of the printed text. We find there: 1 For instance m?:i instead of m- FARISISIITAS. 255 1. The Yftpalakshanam1, a short treatise on the manner of preparing the sacrificial post. 2. The Chhagalakshanam2, on animals fit for sacri- fice. 3. The Pratijna.3 It begins with giving some defi- nitions of sacrificial terms, but breaks off with the fourth leaf, whereas the Pravaradhyaya (No. 11) had already been commenced on the third, and is after- wards carried on on the fifth leaf. Thus we lose from the fourtli to the eleventh Parisishta, which formed part of the original MS. if we may judge from the fact that the Pravaradhyaya is here also called the eleventh Parisishta. 4. The Anuvakasankhya exists in MS. E.I.H. 965. 5. The Charanavyuhah is found in numerous copies. 6. The Sraddhakalpali exists in MS. E.I.H. 1201, and MS. Chambers 66. It is there ascribed to Katya- yana. There is also among the Chambers MSS. at Berlin (292 — 294) a Sraddha-kalpa-bhashya ascribed to Gobhila. 7. The Sulvikani are found in MS. Chambers 66, and a Sulvadipika, MS. E.I.H. 1678. 8. The Parshadam. This must not be mistaken for a Pratisakhya, nor would it be right to call the Pratisakhyas Parisishtas. The Parshada is a much smaller work, as may be seen from a MS. in the Royal Library at Berlin, Chambers 378. 9. The Rigyajunshi is the only Parisishta that can- not be verified in MS. ; there is no reason for sup- posing that it was an Anukramani either of the Yajur-veda or Rig-veda. 10. The Ishtak&puranam has been preserved in 1 MS. Chambers, 66. 2 MS. Chambers, 66. 3 Called Pratishthalakshanam in MS. Chambers, 66. 256 PARISIS H T AS . MS. Chambers 389, with a commentary by Karka, and in MS. Chambers 392, with a commentary by Yajnikadeva. 11. The Pravaradhyayah is found again in our own MS., and is followed by a small tract, the Gotranir- nayah. The seven principal Pravaras are those of theBhrigus, Angiras, Yisvamitras, Yasishthas, Ivasya- pas, Atris, and Agastis. The eight founders of Gotras or families are Jamadagni, Bharadvaja, Yisvamifra, Atri, Gautama, Vasishtha, Kasyapa and Agastya.1 The whole treatise, of which more hereafter, is ascribed to Katyayana.2 12. The Uktha-sastram is found in our MS. So is 13. The Kratusankhya, which gives an enumeration of the principal sacrifices. 14. The Nigama-parisishta is the last in our MS. It contains a number of Yedic words with their ex- planations, and forms a useful appendix to Yaska’s Nirukta. It alludes not only to the four castes, but the names of the mixed castes also, according to the Anuloma and Pratiloma order, are mentioned. The four last Pari&ishtas are wanting in our MS. The fifteenth, however, the Yajnaparsvam is found in MS. E.I.H. 1729, Chambers, 358; the sixteenth, the Hautrakam, exists with a commentary in MS. Chambers 669. The two last Parisishtas have not yet been met with in MS., but we may probably 1 fa^TfWTSfMYrWtl *rhrarcfair:ii xr^f riTf% ^rt^Tfw 2 frJTTWt f%fT^T^TI trcnr DECLINE OF BRAHMANISM. 257 form some idea of the last, the Kurinalakshanam, from some chapters of Yarahamihira’s Brihatsanhita, where we find botli a Kurmavibha^ah and a Kurmala- O • kshanam, the last being there followed by a chapter, called by the same name as the second Parisishta, Chh&galakshanam. Although there is little of real importance to be learned from these Parisishtas, the fact of their exist- ence is important in the history of the progress and decay of the Hindu mind. As in the first or Chhandas period, we see the Aryan settlers of India giving free utterance to their thoughts and feelings, and thus creating unconsciously a whole world of religious, moral, and political ideas ; as we find them again during the second or Mantra period, carefully collect- ing their harvest ; and during the third or Brahmana period busily occupied in systematising and interpret- ing the strains of their forefathers, which had already become unintelligible and sacred ; as in the fourth or Sutra period we see their whole energy employed in simplifying the complicated system of the theology and. the ceremonial of the Brahmanas; so we shall have to recognise in these Parisishtas anew phase of the Indian mind, marked by a distinct character, which must admit of historical explanation. The object of the Parisishtas is to supply information on theological or ceremonial points which had been passed over in the Sutras, most likely because they were not deemed of sufficient importance, or because they were supposed to be well known to those more immediately concerned. But what most distinguishes the Parisishtas from the Sutras is this, that they treat everything in a popular and superficial manner ; as if the time was gone, when students would spend ten or twenty years of their lives 258 DECLINE OF BRAHMANISM. in fathoming the mysteries and mastering the intrica- cies of the Brahtnana literature. A party driven to such publications as the Parisishtas, is a party fighting a losing battle. We see no longer that self- compla- cent spirit which pervades the Brahmanas. The authors of the Brahmanas felt that Avhatever they said must be believed, whatever they ordained must be obeyed. They are frightened by no absurdity, and the word “ impossible ” seems to have been banished from their dictionary. In the Sutras we see that a change has taken place. Their authors seem to feel that the public which they address will no longer listen to endless theological swaggering. There may have been deep wisdom in the Brahmanas, and their authors may have sincerely believed in all they said ; but they evidently calculated on a subrnissiveness on the part of their pupils or readers, which only exists in countries domineered over by priests or pro- fessors. The authors of the Sutras have learned that people will not listen to wisdom unless it is clothed in a garb of clear argument and communicated in in- telligible language. Their works contain all that is essential in the Brahmanas, but they give it in a practical, concise and definite form. These works were written at a time when the Brahmans were fighting their first battles against the popular doctrines of Buddha. They were not yet afraid. Their lan- guage is firm, though it is no longer inflated. “ Buddhism,” as Burnouf says,1 “ soon grew into a system of easy devotion, and found numerous recruits among those who were frightened by the difficulties of Brahmanical science. At the same time that 1 Burnouf, Introduction a l’Histoire du Buddliisme. Roth, Abhandlungcn, p. 22. DECLINE OF BRAHMANISM. 259 Buddhism attracted the ignorant among the Brahmans, it received with open arms the poor and the miserable of all classes.” It was to remove, or at least to sim- plify, the difficulties of their teaching, that men like Saunaka and Katyayana adopted the novel style of the Sutras. Such changes in the sacred literature of a people are not made without an object, and the ob- ject of the Sutras, as distinct from that of the Brfih- manas, could be no other than to offer practical manuals to those who were discouraged by too elabo- rate treatises, and who had found a shorter way to salvation opened to them by the heretical preaching of Buddha. After the Sutras there is no literature of a purely Yedic character except the Parisishtas. They still presuppose the laws of the Sutras and the faith of the Bralmianas. There is as yet no trace of any definite supremacy being accorded to Siva or Vishnu or Brahman. New gods, however, are men- tioned ; vulgar or popular ceremonies are alluded to. The castes have become more marked and multiplied. The whole intellectual atmosphere is still Vedic, and the Vedic ceremonial, the Vedic theology, the Vedic language seem still to absorb the thoughts of the authors of the Parisishtas. Any small matter that had been overlooked by the authors of the Sutras is noted down as a matter of grave importance. Subjects on which general instructions were formerly con- sidered sufficient, are now treated in special treatises, intended for men who would no longer take the trouble of reading the whole system of the Brah- manic ceremonial. The technical and severe lan- guage of the Sutras was exchanged for a free and easy style, whether in prose or metre ; and however near in time the Brahmans may place the authors of 260 RISE OF BUDDHISM. the Sutras and some of the Parisishtas, certain it is that no man who had mastered the Sutra style would ever have condescended to employ the slovenly dic- tion of the Parisishtas. The change in the position and the characters of the Brahmans, such as we find them in the Sutras, and such as we find them again in the Parisishtas, has been rapid and decisive. The men who could write such works were aware of their own weakness, and had probably suffered many de- feats. The world around them was moving in a new direction, and the old Vedic age died away in im- potent twaddle. Considerations like these, in addition to what we found before in inquiring into the age of Katyayana, tend to fix the Sutra period, as a phase in the literary history of India, as about contemporaneous with the first rise of Buddhism ; and they would lead us to recognise in the Parisishtas the exponents of a later age, that had witnessed the triumphs of Buddhism and the temporary decay of Brahmanic learning and power. The real political triumph of Buddhism dates from Asoka and his council, about the middle of the third century b.c., and while most of the Vedic Sutras belong to this and the preceding centuries, none of the Parisishtas were probably written before that time. Before the Council of Pataliputra the Buddhists place, indeed, 300 years of Buddhist history, but that history was clearly supplied from their own heads and not from authentic documents. Buddhism, up to the time of Asoka, was but one out of many sects esta- blished in India. There had been as yet no schism, but only controversy, such as we find in the Br&h- manas themselves between different schools and par- ties. There were as yet no Brahmans as opposed to RISE OE BUDDHISM. 261 Buddhists, in the later sense of the word. No separa- tion had as yet taken place, and the greatest reformers at the time of Buddha were reforming Brahmans. This is acknowledged in the Buddhist writings, though they probably were not written down before Asoka’s Council. But even then Buddha is represented as the pupil of the Brahmans, and no slur is cast on the gods and the songs of the Veda. Buddha, according to his own canonical biographer, learned the Rig- veda and was a proficient in all the branches of Brahmanic lore. Ilis pupils were many of them Brahmans, and no hostile feeling against the Brah- mans finds utterance in the Buddhist Canon. This forms a striking contrast with the sacred literature of the Jains. The Jains, though supposed to have made their peace with the Brahmans, yet in their sacred works, written towards the beginning of the fifth cen- tury a. d., treat their opponents with marked disrespect. Their great hero Mahavira, though at first conceived by a Brahman woman, is removed from her womb and transferred to the womb of a Kshatriya woman, for “surely,” as Sakko (Indra) says1, “such a thing as this has never happened in past, happens not in present, nor will happen in future time, that an Arhat, a Chakravarti, a Baladeva, or a Yasudeva should be born in a low caste family, a servile family, a degraded family, a poor family, a mean family, a beggar’s family, or a Brahman’s family ; but, on the contrary, in all time, past, present, and to come, an Arhat, a Chakravarti, a Vasudeva, receives birth in a noble family, an honourable family, a royal family, a Kshatriya family, as in the family of Ikshvaku, or the Harivansa, or some such family of pure descent.” 1 Kalpa-sutra, p. 35. 262 RISE OF BUDDHISM. Now this is mere party insolence, intelligible in the fifth century a.d., when the Brahmans, as a party, , were re-establishing their hierarchical sway. Nothing of the kind is to be found in the canonical books of the Buddhists. Buddha had his opponents, and among them chiefly the Tirthakas ; but so had all eminent sages of whom we read in the Brahmanas. But Buddha had also his friends and followers, and they likewise Avere Brahmans and Rishis ; some of them accepted his doctrines, not excluding the abolition of caste. Buddhism, in its original form, was only a modifica- tion of Brahmanism. It grew up slowly and imper- ceptibly, and its very founder could hardly have been aware of the final results of his doctrines. Before the time that. Buddhism became a political power it had no history, no chronology, it hardly had a name. We hear nothing of Bauddhas in the Brahmanas, though we meet there with doctrines decidedly Bud- dhistic. The historical existence of Buddhism be- gins with Asoka, and the only way to fix the real date of Asoka is by connecting him with Chandra- gupta, his second predecessor, the Sandrocottus of the Greeks. To try to fix it according to the early Buddhist chronology would be as hopeless as fixing the date of Alexander according to the chronology of the Puranas. It is possible to discover in the decaying literature of Yedic Brahmanism the contemporaneous rise of a new religion, of Buddhism. Every attempt to go beyond, and to bring the chronology of the Buddhists and Brahmans into harmony has proved a failure. The reason, I believe, is obvious. The Brahmans had a kind of vague chronology in the different capitals of their country. They remembered the names of their kings, and they endeavoured to remember the years CHRONOLOGY. 263 of their reigns. But to note the year in which an individual, such as Gautama Sakyasinha, was born, however famous he may have been in his own neigh- bourhood or even in more distant Parishads, would have entered as little into their thoughts as the Romans, or even the Jews, thought of preserving the date of the birth of Jesus before he had become the founder of a religion. Buddha’s immediate followers may have recollected and handed down, by oral com- munication, the age at which Buddha died; the age of his disciples too may have been recollected, to- gether with the names of some local Rajas who patronised Buddha and his friends ; but never, until the adoption of Buddhism as the state religion by Asoka, could there have been any object in connect- ing the lives of Buddha and his disciples with the chronology of the Solar or Lunar Dynasties of India. 'When, at the time of Asoka, it became necessary to give an account of the previous history of Buddhism, the chronology then adopted for the early centuries of that faith was necessarily of a purely theoretical kind. We possess more than one system of Bud- dhist chronology, but none of them can be considered authentic with regard to the times previous to Asoka, the second successor of Chandragupta. There is the system of the Southern Buddhists, framed in Ceylon ; there are the various systems of the Northern Bud- dhists, prevalent in Nepal, Tibet, and China ; and the system of the Puranas, if system it can be called, in which Sakya is made the father of his father, and grandfather of his son. To try to find out which of these chronological systems is the most plausible seems useless, and it can only make confusion worse confounded if we attempt a combination of the 264 CHRONOLOGY. three. It has been usual to prefer the chronology of Ceylon, which places Buddha’s death in 543 b.c. But the principal argument in favour of this date is extremely weak. It is said that the fact of the Cey- lonese era being used as an era for practical purposes speaks in favour of its correctness. This may be true with regard to the times after the reign of Asoka. In historical times any era, however fabu- lous its beginning, will be practically useful ; but no conclusion can be drawn from this, its later use, as to the correctness of its beginning. As a conventional era, that of Ceylon may be retained, but until new evidence can be brought forward to substantiate the authenticity of the early history of Buddhism as told by the Ceylonese priests, it would be rash to use the dates of the Southern Buddhists as a corrective standard for those of the Northern Buddhists or of the Brahmans. Each of these chronological systems must be left to itself. They start from different pre- mises, and necessarily arrive at different, results. The Northern Buddhists founded their chronologv on a reported prophecy of Buddha, that “ a thousand years after his death his doctrines would reach the Northern countries.”1 Buddhism was definitely in- troduced into China in the year 61 a.d. ; hence the Chinese fix the date of Buddha’s death about one thou- sand years anterior to the Christian era. The varia- tions of the date, according to different Chinese au- thorities, are not considerable, and may easily be explained by the uncertainty of the time at which Buddhism found its way successively into the various countries north of India, and at last into China. ' Lassen, Indian Antiquities, ii. p. 58. Schiefner, Melanges Asiatiques, i. 436. CHRONOLOGY. 205 Besides 950 or 949 u.c.1, which are the usual dates assigned to Buddha’s death by Chinese authorities, we may mention the years 1130, 1045, 707, for eacli of which the same claim has been set up. The year 1130 rests on the authority of Tchao-chi, as quoted by Matouanlin in the annals of the Sou'i.2 Fahian, also, seems to have known this date ; for, according to his editor, he placed the death of Buddha towards the beginning of the dynasty Tcheu, and this, according to Chinese chronology, took place in 1122. 3 In another place, however, Fahian, speaking of the spreading of Buddhism towards the north, places this event 300 years after Buddha’s Nirvana, or in the reign of the Emperor Piling- Wang. As this em- peror reigned 770—720, Fahian would seem to have dated the Nirvana somewhere between 1070 and 1020. The date 767 rests on the authority of Ma- touanlin.4 From Tibetan books no less than fourteen dates have been collected 5 ; and the Chinese pilgrims who visited India found it impossible to fix on any one date as established on solid evidence. The list of the thirty-three Buddhist patriarchs, first published by Reinusat (Melanges Asiatiques, i. p. 113), gives the date of their deaths from Chakia-mouni, who died 950 b.c., to Soui-neng, who died 713 a.d., and bears, like everything Chinese, the character of the most exact chronological accuracy. The first link, 1 Lassen, ii. 52. Foucaux, Rgya Tcber Rol Pa, p. xi. 2 Foucaux, 1. c. note communicated by Stan. Julien. 3 Neumann, Zeitsckrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, ii. 117; Lassen, ii. 54. 4 Foucaux, 1. c. According to Klaproth Matouanlin places Buddha 688 to 609. 5 Csoma, Tibetan Grammar, p. 199 — 201. They are: 2422, 2144, 2139, 2135, 1310, 1060, 884, 882, 880, 837, 752, 653, 576, 546. 266 CHRONOLOGY. however, in this long chain of patriarchs is of doubtful character, and the lifetime of Buddha, from 1029 to 950, rests only on his own prophecy, that a Millennium would elapse from his death to the conversion of China. If, therefore, Buddha was a true prophet he must have lived about 1000 b.c., and this date once established, everything else had to give way before it. Thus Nagarjuna, called by the Chinese Naga Koshuna, or Loung-chou, is placed in their own tradi- tional chronology, which they borrowed from the Bud- dhists in Northern India, 400 years after the Nirvana.1 The Tibetans assign the same date to him.2 In the list of the patriarchs, however, he occupies the four- teenth place, and dies 738 years after Buddha. The twelfth patriarch, Maning (Deva Bodhisatva), is tra- ditionally placed by the Chinese 300 years after Buddha. In the list of the patriarchs he dies 618 years after the Nirvana. But if in this manner the starting-point of the Northern Buddhist chronology turns out to be merely hypothetical, based as it is on a prophecy of Buddha, it will be difficult to avoid the same conclusion with regard to the date assigned to Buddha’s death by the Buddhists of Ceylon and of Burinah and other coun- tries which received their canonical books from Cey- lon. The Ceylonese possess a trustworthy and intel- ligible chronology beginning with the year 161 b.c.3 Before that time their chronology is traditional, and full of absurdities. According to Professor Lassen, we ought to suppose that the Ceylonese, by some 1 Lassen, ii. 58. Burnouf, Introduction, i. p. 350. n. 51. 2 As they place Vasumitra more than 400 after Buddha, the date for Nagarjuna ought to he about 450. 3 Tumour, Examination of the Pali Buddhistical Annals, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vi. p. 721. CHRONOLOGY. 267 means or other, were in possession of the right date of Buddha’s death ; and as there was a prophecy of Buddha, that Vijaya should land in Ceylon on the same day on which he himself entered the Nirvana,1 we are further asked to believe that the Ceylonese historians placed the founder of the Vijayan dynasty of Ceylon in the year 543, in accordance with their sacred chronology. AVe are not told, however, through what channel the Ceylonese could have re- ceived their information as to the exact date of Buddha’s death, and although Professor Lassen’s hy- pothesis would be extremely convenient, and has been acquiesced in by most Sanskrit scholars, it would not be honest were we to conceal from our- selves or from others that the first and most impor- tant link in the Ceylonese, as well as in the Chinese chronology, is extremely weak. All we know for certain is, that the Ceylonese had an historical cliro- 1 Mahavanso, p. 46. The Mahavansa was written in Pali by Mahanama. lie was a priest anil uncle of king Dasenkelleya or Dhatusena, who reigned from A.n. 459 to 477. Mahanama made use of earlier histories, and mentions among them the Dipavansa. This work, also called Mahavansa, and written in Pali, is supposed to be still in existence, and carries the history to the reign of Mahasena, who died a. d. 302. Mahanama, though he lived more than a hundred years after Mahasena’s death, does not seem to have carried the history much further. His work ends with the account of Mahasena’s reign. It terminates with the 48th verse of the 37th chapter of what is now known as the Mahavansa, and it is only from conjecture that Tumour, the editor and translator of the first 38 chapters of the Mahavansa, ascribes the end of the 37th, and the whole of the 38th chapter, to the pen of Ma- hanama. Mahanama’s work was afterwards continued by dif- ferent writers. It now consists of 100 chapters, and carries the history of Ceylon to the middle of the 18th century. He is likewise the author of a commentary on his own work, which commentary ends at the 48th verse of the 37th chapter. 268 CHRONOLOGY. nology after the year 161 b.c., that is to say, long before the Brahmans or Buddhists of the North can show anything but tradition. If, then, the exact Ceylonese chronology begins with 161 b. c., it is but reasonable to suppose that there existed in Ceylon a traditional native chronology extending beyond that date ; and that, at all events, the first conquest of Ceylon, the establishment of the first dynasty, had some date, whether true or false, assigned to it in the annals of the country. Vijaya , the founder of the first dynasty, means Conquest , and such a person most likely never existed. But his name and fame belong to Ceylon ; and even the latest traditions have never connected him with the Buddhist dynasties of India. lie is called in the Mahavansa, the son of Sinhab&hu, the sovereign of Lala (supposed to be a subdivision of Magadha, near the Gandaki river), and he is connected by a miraculous genealogy with the kings of Banga (Bengal) and Ivalinga (Northern Circars), but not with the Buddhist dynasties of Magadha. The only trace of Buddhism that can be discovered in the legends of Vijaya consists in the fact that his head, and the heads of his seven hundred companions, were shaved when they were sent adrift in a ship that was ultimately to bring them to Ceylon. But the author of the Mahavansa takes care to say that this shaving of their heads was part of the pun- ishment inflicted on Vijaya by his father, who, when asked by the people to execute his own son for num- berless acts of fraud and violence, preferred to send him and his companions adrift on the ocean, after their h.eads had been shaved. Supposing then that before Dushtagamani, i. e. before 161 b.c., the Ceylonese possessed a number of royal names, and that by as- CHRONOLOGY. 2G!) signing to each of them a more or less fabulous reign, they had arrived at the year 543 as the probable date of the Conquest, we can well understand how, under the influence of the later Buddhists, exactly the same thing took place in Ceylon which took place in China. Various temples in Ceylon had their le- gends, by which their first foundation was ascribed to Buddha himself. Hence the Mahavansa begins with relating three miraculous visits which Buddha, during his lifetime, paid to Ceylon. At that time, however, it is said that Ceylon was still irdiabited by Yakshas. If thus the very earliest history of the island had been brought in connection with Buddha, it is but natural that some sanction of a similar kind should have been thought necessary with regard to the Conquest. A prophecy was, therefore, invented. “ The ruler of the world, Buddha,” so says the Maha- vansa, “ having conferred blessings on the whole world, and attained the exalted, unchangeable Nir- vana, seated on the throne on which Nirvana is achieved, in the midst of a great assembly of devatas, the great divine sage addressed this celebrated in- junction to Sakra, who stood near him : ‘One Vijaya, the son of Sinhabahu, king of the land of Lala, to- gether with seven hundred officers of state, has landed on Lanka. Lord of Devas ! my religion will be established in Lanka. On that account thoroughly protect, together with his retinue, him and Lanka.’ The devoted King of Devas having heard these in- junctions of the successor (of former Buddhas), as- signed the protection of Lanka to the Deva Utpala- varna (Vishnu). He, in conformity to the command of Sakra, instantly repaired to Lanka, and in the character of a parivrajaka (devotee) took his station at the foot of a tree. 270 CHRONOLOGY. “ With Vijaya at their head the whole party ap- proaching him, inquired, ‘ Pray, devotee, what land is this ? ’ he replied, ‘ The land Lanka.’ Having thus spoken, he blessed them by sprinkling water on them out of his jug, and having tied (charmed) threads on their arms, departed through the air.” At the end of the preceding chapter, the date of the event is still more accurately fixed. “ This prince named Vijaya,” we read there, “ who had then attained the wisdom of experience, landed in the di- vision Tamraparni of this land Lanka, on the day that the successor of former Buddhas reclined in the arbour of the two delightful sal-trees, to attain Nir- vana.” In this manner the conquest of Ceylon was invested with a religious character, and at the same time a connection was established between the tra- ditional chronology of Ceylon and the sacred history of Buddha. If Buddha was a true prophet, the Cey- lonese argue quite rightly that he must have died in the year of the Conquest, or 543 b.c. This synchronism once established, it became ne- cessary to accommodate to it, as well as possible, the rest of the legendary history of the Buddhists. It con- tained but few historical elements previous to A&oka’s Council, but that council had again to be connected with the history of Ceylon. Asoka was the cotem- porary of Devanainpriya Tishya, King of Ceylon. This king adopted Buddhism, and made it, like Asoka, the state religion of the island. No'w, according to the traditional chronology of Ceylon, Devanainpriya Tishya came to the throne 23G years after the landing of Vijaya1, and he reigned forty years (307 — 2G7 b.c.) He was intimately connected with Asoka, as we shall 1 Mahavanso, Pref. p. lii. CHRONOLOGY. 271 sec, and it was necessary that the same interval which in the historical traditions of Ceylon separated Devan&rnpriya Tishya from Vijaya should separate Asoka from Buddha. This was achieved in the fol- lowing manner: One Asoka is supposed to have come to the throne ninety years after Buddha, and a council (the second, as it was called) is supposed to have taken place in the tenth year of his reign, or just one hundred years after Buddha. At that second council a prophecy was uttered that in 118 years a calamity would befall the Buddhist religion. This refers to the reign of the so-called second ASoka, who was at first a great enemy to religion. Now the first Asoka is represented to have reigned 18 years after the Council (100 anno Buddhas), and if we cast up these 118 years, the 22 years of Asoka’s sons, the 22 years of the Nine, the 24 years1 of Chandragupta, the 28 years of Bindusara, and the 4 years which elapsed before Asoka’s inauguration2, we find that A&oka’s inauguration would fall just 118 years after the second Council, 218 years after Buddha, or 325 b.c. The Council of this real Asoka was held in the 17th year of his reign, or 235 after Buddha. Mahendra, the son of Asoka, pro- ceeded to Ceylon in the next year, or 236 }Tears after Buddha ; and in this manner the arrival of Mahendra in Ceylon, and the inauguration of Devanampriya Tishya as King of Ceylon, are brought together in the same year. It is true that in order to achieve this, it has become necessary to add a first Asoka3, 1 Not thirty-four years, as printed in the Mahavanso. See Lassen, ii. 62. n. 2 As. Res. xx. p. 167. 3 This first Asoka is called Kalasoka, a name which it would be too bold to explain as the chronological Asoka. 272 CHRONOLOGY. of whom the Northern Buddhists know nothing; it has become necessary to admit another Moggali- putto, and another Council, all equally unknown ex- cept in the traditional chronology of Ceylon. The Northern Buddhists know but one Asoka, the grand- son of Chandragupta ; they know but one Council, besides the Assembly immediately following on the death of Buddha, viz. the Council of Pataliputra under Dharmasoka, and this they place 110 years after Buddha’s Nirvana.1 Pindola, a contemporary of Buddha, was seen as an old man by Asoka. But who was to contradict the Ceylonese historians? They possessed, what the Buddhists of Magadha did not possess, a history of their island and their sovereigns. They valued historical chronology for its own sake, forming an exception in this respect to all other nations of India. They were a colony, and like most colonies, they valued the traditions of the past. The Buddhists of Magadha, as far as we are able to judge, preserved but a few historical recollections, frequently in the form of prophecies, which they afterwards forced into the loose frame of the Brah- manic chronology. The Buddhists of Ceylon did not borrow the outlines of their history either from the Brahmans or from the Buddhists of Magadha ; and this is a point which has never been sufficiently considered. Their outlines of history were not con- structed originally in order to hold the Buddhist traditions of the North. They may have been slightly modified, so as to avoid glaring inconsisten- 1 In some instances that date is changed to 200 a.b., by means of a reaction exercised by the literature of Ceylon on the chronology of the Continental Buddhists. Burnouf, Introduc- tion, p. 436- 578. CHRONOLOGY. 273 cics between the profane history of Ceylon and the sacred history of Buddhism. But there is evidence to show that, on the other hand, the historical legends of Magadha had to yield much more considerably, — the framers of the final chronology finding it impossible to ignore the annals of their island and the reigns of their ancient half-fabulous kings. The chronology of the Mahavansa is a compromise between the chro- nology of Ceylon and that of Magadha, but the latter was the more pliant of the two. There is nothing to prove that the terminus a quo of the chronology of Ceylon, — the date of Vijaya’s landing — was borrowed from the North. There were Buddhist traditions connecting Vijaya’s landing with the death of Bud- dha, but the date 543 b. c. is never found in the sacred chronology of Buddhism, before it was bor- roAved from the profane chronology of Ceylon. There were similar, and, as it Avould seem, better founded traditions, connecting Devanampriya TishyaAvith the great Asoka; but the date of Devanampriya Tishya Avas not determined by the date of the great Asoka, nor avus the date of Asoka’s Council, as 110 after Buddha, accepted in Ceylon. On the contrary, the interval betAveen Vijaya and Devanampriya Tishya Avas allowed to remain as it stood in the Ceylonese annals, and the Buddhist traditions Avere stretched in order to suit that interval. An intermediate Asoka and an intermediate Council Avere admitted, Avhicli Avere unknoAvn to the Northern Buddhists. The pro- phecy that Nagarjuna should live 400 years after Bud- dha1, had been altered by the Chinese so as to suit their chronology. They placed him 800 years after 1 As. Res. xx. 513. T 274 CHANDRAGUPTA. Buddha. In like manner the Ceylonese Buddhists, having fixed Buddha’s death at 543 b.c., changed the traditional date of Nagarjuna from 400 to 500 after Buddha.1 All this is constructive chronology, and whether we follow the Chinese or Ceylonese date of Buddha, we must always remember that in both the terminus d quo is purely hypothetical. This does not interfere with the correctness of minor details, such as the number of years assigned to each king, and in particular the chronological distance between certain events. These may have formed part of popular tradition, long before any system of chronology was established. A very old man, Pindola, was repre- sented in a popular legend to have been a contem- porary both of Buddha and of Dharmasoka. Hence the interval between the founder and the royal patron of Buddhism would naturally be fixed at about 100 years. This is a tradition which may be used for historical purposes. Again, when we see that a date like that of Nagarjuna fixed in the North of India at 400 after Buddha, is altered to 800 and 500, so as to suit the requirements of two different systems of chronology, we may feel inclined to look upon the unsystematic date as the most plausible. But in order to make use of such indications we must first of all establish a 7rou ott< 7>, and this can only be found in Chandragupta. Everything in Indian chronology depends on the date of Chandragupta. Chandragupta was the grandfather of Asoka, and the contemporary of Seleucus Nicator. Now, according to Chinese chronology, Asoka would have lived, to waive minor 1 Tumour, Examination of some points’ of Buddhist Chro- nology, Journal of the As. S. B., v. 530. Lassen, ii. 58. CIIANDRAGUPTA. 275 differences, 850 or 750 b.c., according to Ceylonese chronology, 315 b.c. Either of these dates is im- possible, because it does not agree with the chrono- logy of Greece, and hence both the Chinese and Ceylonese dates of Buddha’s death must be given up as equally valueless for historical calculations. There is but one means through which the history of India can be connected with that of Greece, and its chronology be reduced to its proper limits. Although we look in vain in the literature of the Brahmans or Buddhists for any allusion to Alexander’s conquest, and although it is impossible to identify any of the historical events, related by Alexander’s companions, with the historical traditions of India, one name has fortunately been preserved by classical writers who describe the events immediately follow- ing Alexander’s conquest, to form a connecting link between the history of the East and the West. This is the name of Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus, the Sanskrit Chandragupta. We learn from classical writers, Justin, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Quintus Curtius and Plu- tarch, that in Alexander’s time there was on the Ganges a powerful king of the name of Xandrarnes, and that soon after Alexander’s invasion, a new empire was founded there by Sandracottus or Sandrocyptus. Justin says : “ Sandracottus gave liberty to India after Alexander’s retreat, but soon converted the name of liberty into servitude after his success, subjecting those whom he had rescued from foreign dominion to his own authority. This prince was of humble origin, but was called to royalty by the power of the gods ; for, having offended Alexander b}r his impertinent lan- 276 CHANDKAGUPTA. guage,1 2 he was ordered to be put to death, and escaped only by flight. Fatigued with his journey he lay down to rest, when a lion of large size came and licked off the sweat that poured from him with his tongue, and retired without doing him any harm. The prodigy inspired him with ambitious hopes, and collecting bands of robbers he roused the Indians to rebellion. When he prepared for war against the captains of Alexander, a wild elephant of enormous size ap- proached him, and received him on his back as if he had been tamed. He was a distinguished general and a brave soldier. Having thus acquired power, Sandra- cottus reigned over India at the time when Seleucus was laying the foundation of his greatness, and Seleucus entered into a treaty with him, and settling affairs on the side of India directed his march against Anti- gonus. i Besides this we may gather from classical writers the following statements, bearing on Xandrames and Sandrocyptus : “ When Alexander made inquiries about the interior of India, he was told that beyond the Indus there was a vast desert of 12 (or 11, accord- ing to Curtius,) days’ journey, and that at the farthest borders thereof ran the Ganges. Beyond that river, he was told, the Prasii (Prachyas) dwelt, and the Gan- garidre. Their king was named Xandrames, who could bring into the field 20,000 horse, 200,000 foot, 2,000 chariots, and 4,000 (or 3,000, Curtius,) elephants. Alexander who did not at first believe this, inquired from King Porus whether this account of the power 1 Plutarch, Vita Alex. c. 62, says that Sandracottus saw Alexander when he was a fieipaixov. 2 .T ust ini Hist. Philipp. Lib. xv. cap. iv. CHANDRAGUPTA. 277 of Xandrames was true ; and he was told by Porus that it was true, but that the king was but of mean and obscure extraction, accounted to be a barber’s son ; that the queen, however, had fallen in love with the barber, had murdered her husband, and that the kingdom had thus devolved upon Xandrames.” 1 Quintus Curtius says2, “ that the father of Xandrames had murdered the king, and under pretence of acting as guardian to his sons, got them into his power and put them to death ; that after their extermination he begot the son who was then king, and who, more worthy of his father’s condition than his own, was odious and contemptible to his subjects.” Strabo adds3, “ that the capital of the Prasii was called Pali- bothra, situated at the confluence of the Ganges and another river,” which Arrian 4 5 specifies as the Eran- noboas. Their king, besides his birth-name, had to take the name of the city, and was called the Palibothrian. This was the case with Sandracottus to whom Mega- sthenes was sent frequently. It was the same king with whom Seleucus Nicator contracted an alliance, ceding to him the country beyond the Indus, and receiving in its stead 500 elephants.6 Megasthenes visited his court several times G ; and the same king, as Plutarch says7, 1 Diodorus Siculus, xvii. 93. The statement in Photii Biblioth. р. 1579, that Porus was the son of a barber, repeated by Libanius, tom. ii. 632., is evidently a mistake. Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, с. 62, speaks of 80,000 horse, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 elephants. 2 Quintus Curtius, ix. 2. 3 Strabo, xv. 1. 36. 4 Arrian, Indica, x. 5. 5 Strabo, xv. 2. 9. 6 Arrian, Exped. v. 6, Indica, v. 3. 7 Plutarch, Vita Alexandri, c. 62. 278 CHANDRAGUPTA. “ traversed India Avith an army of 600,000 men, and conquered the whole.” These accounts of the classical writers contain a number of distinct statements which could leave very little doubt as to the king to Avhorn they referred. Indian historians, it is true, are generally so \Tague and so much given to exaggeration, that their kings are all very much alike, either all black or all bright. But nevertheless, if there ever Avas such a king as the king of the Prasii, an usurper, residing at Pataliputra, called Sandrocyptus or Sandracottus, it is hardly possible that he should not be recognized in the his- torical traditions of India. There is in the lists of the kings of India the name of Chandragupta, and the resemblance of this name Avith the name of Sandra- cottus or Sandrocyptus Avas first, I believe, pointed out by Sir William Jones.1 Wilford, Professor Wilson, and Professor Lassen have afterwards added further evidence in confirmation of Sir W. Jones’s conjecture ; and although other scholars, and particularly M. Troyer, in his edition of the Rajatarangini, haATe raised objections, Ave shall see that the evidence in favour of the identity of Chandragupta and Sandro- cyptus is such as to admit of no reasonable doubt. It is objected that the Greeks called the king of the poAverful empire beyond the Indus, Xandrames , or Aggramen. Noav the last name is evidently a mere misspelling for Xandrames, and this Xandrames is not the same as Sandracottus. Xandrames, if Ave under- stand the Greek accounts rightly, is the predecessor of Chandragupta or rather the last king of the empire conquered by Sandracottus. If, hoAvever, it should be Asiatic Researches, vol. iv. p. 11. i CHANDRAGUPTA. 279 maintained, that these two names were intended for one and the same king, the explanation would still be very easy. For Chandragupta (the protected of the moon), is also called Chandra1, the Moon ; andChandra- mas, in Sanskrit, is a synonyme of Chandra. Xandra- mes, however, was no doubt intended as different from Chandragupta. Xandrames must have been king of the Prasii before Sandracottus, and during the time of Alexander’s wars. If this Xandrames is the same as the last Nan da, the agreement between the Greek account of his mean extraction, and the Hindu account of Nanda being a Sudra, would be very striking. It is not, however, quite clear whether the same person is meant in the Greek and Hindu accounts. At the time of Alexander’s invasion Sandracottus was very young, and being obliged to fly before Alexander, whom he had offended, it is said that he collected bands of robbers, and with their help succeeded in establishing the freedom of India. Plutarch says distinctly that Sandracottus reigned soon after, that is, soon after Xandrames, and we know from Justin, that it was Sandracottus, and not Xandrames, who waged wars with the captains of Alexander. Another objection against the identifica- tion.of Chandragupta and Sandracottus was the site of their respective capitals. The capital of Chandra- gupta, Pataliputra, was no doubt the same as the Pali- botlira of Sandracottus, the modern Patna. But ex- ception was taken on the ground that Patna is not situated near the confluence of the Ganges and the Sone or Erannoboas, where the ancient Palibothra stood. This, however, has been explained by a change 1 See Wilson’s notes on the Mudra Rakshasa, p. 132. 280 CHANDRAGUPTA. in the bed of the river Sone, -which is established on the best geographical evidence. There are several points on which the histories of Chandragupta and Sandracottus agree completely. Sandracottus founded a new empire at Palibothra. Chandragupta was the founder of a new dynasty, the Mauryas1 at Pataliputra. Sandracottus gained the throne by collecting bands of robbers. Chandragupta did the same. Sandracottus was called to royalty by the power of the gods and by prodigies. So was Chandragupta, although the prodigy related by Jus- tin is not exactly the same as the prodigies related by Hindu authors. So far, therefore, there is nothing in the Greek accounts that is not confirmed by Hindu tradition. That there should be a great deal more in Hindu tradition than was known to the Greeks is but natural, particularly as many of the Hindu stories were evidently invented at a later time and with a certain object. As the grandson of Chan- dragupta was the great patron of the Buddhists, attempts were naturally made by Buddhist writers to prove that Chandragupta belonged to the same race as Buddha ; while on the other hand the Brahmanic writers would be no less fertile in inventing fables that -would throw discredit on the ancestor of. the Buddhist sovereigns of India. Some extracts from the writings of these hostile parties will best show 1 The name of Maurya seems to have been known to the Greeks. See Cunningham, Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal, xxiii. p. 680. The wooden houses in which the tribe of the Morieis are said to have lived, may refer to the story of the Mauryas living in a forest. See Mahavanso, p. xxxix. The statement of Wilford, that Maurya meant in Sanskrit the offspring of a barber and a Sudra woman, has never been authenticated. CIIANDKA GUPTA. 281 how this was achieved. In the Mahavanso1 we read : “ Kalasoko had ten sons: these brothers (conjointly) ruled the empire righteously for twenty-two years. Subsequently there were nine brothers : they also ac- cording to their seniority reigned for twenty-two years. Thereafter the Brahman Chanakko, in grati- fication of an implacable hatred borne towards the ninth surviving brother, called Dhana-nando, having put him to death, installed in the sovereignty over the whole of Jambudipo, a descendant of the dynasty of Moriyan sovereigns, endowed with illustrious and beneficent attributes, and surnamed Chandagutto lie reigned 24 (not 34) 3'ears.” The commentary on this passage adds the following details2: “Subsequent to Kalasoko, who patronised those who held the second convocation, the royal line is stated to have consisted of twelve monarchs to the reign of Dhammasoko, when they (the priests) held the third convocation. Kfdasoko’s own sons were ten brothers. Their names are specified in the Attha- katha. The appellation of ‘ the nine Nandos ’ origi- nates in nine of them bearing that patronymic title. “ The Atthakatha of the Uttaraviharo priests sets forth that the eldest of these was of an extraction (maternally) not allied (inferior) to the royal family ; and that he dwelt in one of the provinces3; it gives 1 Mahavanso, p. 21. The Pali orthography has been preserved in the following extracts. 2 Mahav., p. 38. 3 It would seem that the eldest son of Asoka did not participate in the general government of the country, but received a pro- vincial vice-royalty. But in the Burmese histories it is stated distinctly that the eldest son, named Bhadrasena, reigned with nine of his brothers during a period of twenty-two years. 282 CHANDRAGUPTA. also the history of the other nine. I also will give their history succinctly, but without prejudice to its perspicuity. “ In aforetime, during the conjoint administration of the (nine) sons of Ivalasoko, a certain provincial person appeared in the character of a marauder, and raising a considerable force, was laying the country waste by pillage. His people, who committed these depredations on towns, whenever a town might be sacked, seized and compelled its own inhabitants to carry the spoil to a wilderness, and there securing the plunder, drove them away. On a certain day, the banditti who were leading this predatory life having employed a daring, powerful, and enterprizing individual to commit a robbery, were retreating to the wilderness, making him carry the plunder. He who was thus associated with them, inquired : ‘ By what means do you find your livelihood?’ ‘Thou slave’ (they replied) ‘we are not men who submit to the toils of tillage, or cattle tending. By a pro- ceeding precisely like the present one, pillaging towns and villages, and laying up stores of riches and grain, and providing ourselves with fish and flesh, toddy and other beverage, we pass our lives jovially in feasting and drinking.’ On being told this, he thought : ‘ This mode of life of these thieves is surely excellent ; shall I, also, joining them, lead a similar life ?’ and then said, ‘ I also will join you, I wall be- come a confederate of yours. Admitting me among you, take me (in your marauding excursions).’ They replying ‘ sadhu,’ received him among them. “ On a subsequent occasion, they attacked a town which was defended by well armed and vigilant inha- bitants. As soon as they entered the town the people CHANDRAGUPTA. 283 rose upon and surrounded them, and seizing their leader, and hewing him with a sword, put him to death. The robbers dispersing in all directions re- paired to, and reassembled in the wilderness. Dis- covering that he (their leader) had been slain ; and sa)7ing, ‘ In his death the extinction of our prosperity is evident; having been deprived of him, under whose control can the sacking of villages be carried on ? even to remain here is imprudent ; thus our disunion and destruction are inevitable they resigned them- selves to desponding grief. The individual above mentioned, approaching them, asked : ‘ What are ye weeping for ?’ On being answered by them, ‘ We are lamenting the want of a valiant leader, to direct us in the hour of attack and retreat in our village sacks.’ ‘In that case, my friends,’ (said he) ‘ye need not make yourselves unhappy ; if there be no other person able to undertake that post, I can myself perform it for you : from henceforth give not a thought about the matter.’ This and more he said to them. They, relieved from their perplexity by this speech, joyfully replied ‘sadhu,’ and conferred on him the post of chief. “ From that period proclaiming himself to be Nando, and adopting the course followed formerly (by his predecessor), he wandered about, pillagingthe country. Having induced his brothers also to co-operate with him, by them also he was supported in his marauding excursions. Subsequently assembling his gang, he thus addressed them : ‘ My men ! this is not a career in which valiant men should be engaged ; it is not worthy of such as we are ; this course is only befitting base wretches. What advantage is there in persever- ing in this career, let us aim at supreme sovereignty ? ’ 284 CHANDRAGUPTA. They assented. On having received their acquies- cence, attended by his troops and equipped for war, he attacked a provincial town, calling upon (its in- habitants) either to acknowledge him as sovereign, or to give him battle. They on receiving this demand all assembled, and having duly weighed the message, by sending an appropriate answer, formed a treaty of alliance with them. By this means reducing under his authority the people of Jambudipo in great num- bers, he finally attacked Patiliputta1 (the capital of the Indian empire), and usurping the sovereignty, died there a short time afterwards, while governing the empire. “ His brothers next succeeded to the empire in the order of their seniority. They altogether reigned twenty-two years. It was on this account that (in the Mahavanso) it is stated that there were nine Nandos. “ Their ninth youngest brother was called Dhana- nando, from his being addicted to hoarding treasure. As soon as he was inaugurated, actuated by miserly desires the most inveterate, he resolved within him- self, ‘ It is proper that I should devote myself to hoarding treasure;’ and collecting riches to the amount of eighty kotis, and superintending the trans- port thereof himself, and repairing to the banks of the Ganges, by means of a barrier constructed of branches and leaves interrupting the course of the main stream, and forming a canal, he diverted its waters into a different channel ; and in a rock in the bed of the 1 Pataliputra was then governed by the youngest son of Asoka, called Pinjamakh, and the robber-king, who first called himself Nanda, is said to have reigned a short time under the title of Ugrasena. As. Res. xx. p. 170. CHANDRA GUPTA. 285 river having caused a great excavation to be made, he buried the treasure there. Over this cave he laid a layer of stones, and to prevent the admission of water, poured molten lead on it. Over that again he laid another layer of stones, and passing a stream of molten lead (over it), which made it like a solid rock, he restored the river to its former course. Levying taxes even on skins, gums, trees, and stones, among other articles, he amassed further treasures, which he disposed of similarly. It is stated that he did so repeatedly. On this account we call this ninth brother of theirs, as he personally devoted himself to the hoarding of treasure, ‘ Dhana-nando.’ “ The appellation of ‘ Moriyan sovereigns ’ is de- rived from the auspicious circumstances under which their capital, which obtained the name of Moriya, was called into existence. “ While Buddha yet lived, driven by the misfortunes produced by the war of (prince) Vidhudhabo, cer- tain members of the Sakya line retreating to Hima- vanto, discovered a delightful and beautiful location, well watered, and situated in the midst of a forest of lofty bo and other trees. Influenced by the desire of settling there, they founded a town at a place where several great roads met, surrounded by durable ram- parts, having gates of defence therein, and embel- lished with delightful edifices and pleasure gardens. Moreover that (city), having a row of buildings covered with tiles, which were arranged in the pat- tern of the plumage of a peacock’s neck, and as it resounded with the notes of flocks of ‘ konchos ’ and ‘ mayuros ’ (pea-fowls), was so called. From this circumstance these Sakya lords of this town, and their children and descendants, were renowned throughout 7 O 286 CHANDRAGUPTA. Jambudipo by tlie title of ‘ Moriya.’ From this time that dynasty has been called the Moriyan dynasty.” After a few isolated remarks, the Tika thus pro- ceeds in its account of Ch&nakko and Chandagutto : “ It is proper that in this place a sketch of these two characters should be given. Of these, if I am asked in the first place, ‘ Where did this Chanakko dwell? Whose son was he?’ I answer, ‘ He lived at the city of Takkasila. He Avas the son of a certain Brahman at that place, and a man who had achieved the knowledge of the three Yedas ; could rehearse the mantos ; skilful in stratagems ; and dexterous in intrigue as well as policy. At the period of his father’s death he was already well known as the dutiful maintainer of his mother, and as a highly gifted individual worthy of swaying the chhatta. “ On a certain occasion, approaching his mother, who was weeping, he inquired, ‘ My dear mother, why dost thou weep?’ On being answered by her, ‘ My child, thou art gifted to sway a chhatta. Do not, my boj7, endeavour by raising the chhatta, to become a sovereign. Princes everywhere are un- stable in their attachments. Thou also, my child, wilt forget the affection thou owest me. In that case, I should be reduced to the deepest distress. I weep under these apprehensions.’ He exclaimed : ‘ My mother, what is that gift that I possess ? On what part of my person is it indicated ?’ and on her re- plying, ‘ My dear, on thy teeth,’ smashing his own teeth, and becoming ‘ Kandhadatto ’ (a tooth-broken man) he devoted himself to the protection of his mother. Thus it was that he became celebrated as the filial protector of his mother. He was not only a tooth-broken man, but he Avas disfigured by a CIIANDRAGUPTA. 287 disgusting complexion, and by deformity of legs and other members prejudicial to manly comeliness. “ In his quest of disputation, repairing to Puppha- pura, the capital of the monarch Dhana-nando, (who, abandoning his passion for hoarding, becoming im- bued with the desire of giving alms, relinquishing also his miserly habits, and delighting in hearing the fruits that resulted from benevolence, had built a hall of alms-offering in the midst of his palace, and was making an offering to the chief of the Brahmans worth a hundred kotis, and to the most junior Brah- man an offering worth a lac,) this Brahman (Cha- nakko) entered the said apartment, and taking possession of the seat of the chief Brahman, sat him- self down in that alms hall. “ At that instant Dhana-nando himself — decked in regal attire, and attended by many thousands of ‘ siwaka ’ (state palanquins), glittering with their various ornaments, and escorted by a suite of a hun- dred royal personages, with their martial array of the four hosts, of cavalry, elephants, chariots, and infantry, and accompanied by dancing-girls, lovely as the attendants on the devos, himself a person- ification of majesty, and bearing the white parasol of dominion,’ having a golden staff and golden tassels, with this superb retinue repairing thither, and entering the hall of alms-offering, beheld the Brah- man Chanakko seated. On seeing him, this thought occurred to him (Nando) : ‘ Surely it cannot be proper that he should assume the seat of the chief Brahman.’ Becoming displeased with him, he thus evinced his displeasure. ’ He inquired : ‘ Who art thou, that thou hast taken the seat of the chief Brahman? ’ and being answered (simply), ‘It is I ; ’ 288 CHANDRAGUPTA. ‘ Cast from hence this cripple Brahman ; allow him not to be seated,’ exclaimed Nando ; and although the courtiers again and again implored of him, say- ing, ‘ Devo ! let it not be so done by a person pre- pared to make offerings as thou art, extend thy forgiveness to this Brahman ; ’ he insisted upon his ejection. On the courtiers approaching Chanakko, and saying, ‘ Achariyo ! we come, by the command of the raja, to remove thee from hence ; but in- capable of uttering the words, “ Achariyo, depart hence,” we now stand before thee abashed.’ En- raged against him (Nando), rising from his seat to depart, he snapt asunder his Brahmanical cord, and dashed down his jug on the threshold, and thus in- voking malediction : ‘ Kings are impious : may this whole earth, bounded by the four oceans, withhold its gifts from Nando,’ he departed. On his sallying out, the officers reported this proceeding to the raja. The king, furious with indignation, roared, ‘Catch, catch, the slave.’ The fugitive, stripping himself naked, and assuming the character of an aji- vako, and running into the centre of the palace, con- cealed himself in an unfrequented place, at the San- kharathanan. The pursuers, not having discovered him, returned and reported that he was not to be found. “ In the night he repaired to a more frequented part of the palace, and meeting some of the suite of the royal Prince Pabbato, admitted them into his con- fidence. By their assistance he had an interview with the Prince. Gaining him over by holding out hopes of securing the sovereignty for him, and at- taching him by that expedient, he began to search the means of getting out of the palace. Discovering CIIANDRAGUPTA. 289 that in a certain place there was a ladder leading to a secret passage, he consulted with the prince, and sent a message to his (the prince’s) mother for the key of the passage. Opening the door with the ut- most secrecy, he escaped with the prince, and they fled to the wilderness of Vinjjha ( Vindhya). “ While dwelling there, with the view of raising resources, he converted (by recoining) each kaha- pana into eight, and amassed eighty kotis of kaha- panas. Having buried this treasure, he commenced to search for a second individual entitled (by birth) to be raised to sovereign power, and met with the aforesaid prince of the Moriyan dynasty called Chandagutto. “ His mother, the queen consort of the monarch of Moriya-nagara, the city before mentioned, was preg- nant at the time that a certain powerful provincial raja conquered that kingdom, and put the Moriyan king to death. In her anxiety to preserve the child in her womb, she departed for the capital of Puppha- pura under the protection of her elder brothers, and under disguise she dwelt there. At the completion of the ordinary term of pregnancy she gave birth to a son, and relinquishing him to the protection of the devos, she placed him in a vase, and deposited him at the door of a cattle pen. A bull named Chando stationed himself by him, to protect him ; in the same manner that Prince Ghoso, by the interposition of the devata, was watched over by a bull. In the same manner, also, that the herdsman in the instance of that Prince Ghoso repaired to the spot where that bull planted himself, a herdsman, on observing this prince, moved by affection, like that borne to his own child, took charge of and tenderly reared him ; and 290 CHANDRAGUPTA. in giving him a name, in reference to his having been watched by the bull Cliando, he called him ‘ Chan- dagutto,’ and brought him up. When he had at- tained an age to be able to tend cattle, a certain wild huntsman, a friend, of the herdsman, becoming ac- quainted with the boy, and attached to him, took him from (the herdsman) to his own dwelling, and esta- blished him there. He continued to dwell in that village. “ Subsequently, on a certain occasion, while tending cattle with other children in the village, he joined them in a game called ‘ the game of royalty.’ He himself was named Raja ; to others he gave the offices of sub-king, &c. Some being appointed judges, were placed in a judgment hall ; some he made officers of the king’s household ; and others, outlaws or robbers. Having thus constituted a court of justice, he sat in judgment. On culprits being brought up, when they had been regularly impeached and tried, on their guilt being clearly proved to his satisfaction, according to the sentence awarded by his judicial ministers, he ordered the officers of the court to chop off their hands and feet. On their replying, ‘ Devo ! we have no axes;’ he answered : ‘ It is the order of Chandagutto that ye should chop off their hands and feet, making axes with the horns of goats for blades, and sticks for handles.’ They acted accordingly ; and on striking with the axe, their hands and feet were lopped off. On the same person commanding, ‘ Let them be reunited,’ the hands and feet were restored to their former condition. “ Chanakko happening to come to that spot, Avas amazed at the proceeding lie beheld. Accompanying (the boy) to the village, and presenting the huntsman with a thousand kahapanas, he applied for him ; say- ing, ‘ T will teach your son every accomplishment ; CHANDRAGUPTA. 291 consign him to me.’ Accordingl}', conducting him to his own dwelling, he encircled his neck with a single fold of a woollen cord, twisted with gold thread, worth a lac. “ The discovery of this person is thus stated (in the former works) : ‘ He discovered this prince de- scended from the Moriyan line.’ “ He (Chanakko) invested Prince Pabbato, also, with a similar woollen cord. While these youths were living with him, each had a dream, which thpy separately imparted to him. As soon as he heard each (dream), he knew that of these Prince Pabbato would not attain royalty ; and that Chan- dagutto would, without loss of time, become para- mount monarch in Jambudipo. Although he made this discovery, he disclosed nothing to them. “ On a certain occasion having partaken of some milk-rice prepared in butter, which had been received as an offering at a bralunanical disputation, they re- tired from the main road, and lying down in a shady place, protected by the deep foliage of trees, fell asleep. Among them the Acluiriyo awakening first, rose, and for the purpose of putting Prince Pabbato’s qualifica- tions to the test, he gave him a sword, and telling him : ‘ Bring me the woollen thread on Chandagutto’s neck, without either cutting or untying it,’ sent him off. He started on the mission, and failing to accom- plish it, he returned. On a subsequent day, he sent Chandagutto on a similar mission. He repairing to the spot where Pabbato was sleeping, and considering how it was to be effected, decided : ‘ There is no other way of doing it ; it can only be got possession of, by cutting his head off.’ Accordingly chopping his head off, and bringing away the woollen thread, he 292 C1IANDRAGUPTA. presented himself to the Brahman, who received him in profound silence. Pleased with him, however, on account of this (exploit), he rendered him in the course of six or seven years highly accomplished, and profoundly learned. “ Thereafter, on his attaining manhood, he decided : ‘ From henceforth this individual is capable of form- ing and controlling an army ;’ so he repaired to the spot where his treasure was buried, and took possession of it, and employed it, enlisting forces from all quarters, and distributing money among them ; and having thus formed a powerful army, he entrusted it to him. From that time throwing off all disguise, and invading the inhabited parts of the country, he commenced his campaign by attacking towns and villages. In the course of their (Chanak- ko and Chandagutto’s) warfare, the population rose to a man, and surrounding them, and hewing their army with their weapons, vanquished them. Dispers- ing, they re-united in the wilderness ; and consulting together, they thus decided : ‘ As yet no advantage has resulted from war ; relinquishing military opera- tions, let us acquire a knowledge of the sentiments of the people.’ Thenceforth, in disguise, they travelled about the country. While thus roaming about, after sunset retiring to some town or other, they were in the habit of attending to the conversation of the in- habitants of those places. “ In one of these villages, a woman having baked some ‘ appalapuva ’ (pancakes) was giving them to her child, who leaving the edges would only eat the centre. On his asking for another cake, she re- marked : ‘ This boy’s conduct is like Chandagutto’s in his attempt to take possession of the kingdom.’ On his inquiring: ‘ Mother, why, what am I doing; and ClIANDRA GUPTA. 293 Avliat lias Cliandagutto clone ? ‘ Tliou, my boy,’ said she, ‘ throwing away the outside of the cake, eatest the middle only. Cliandagutto also in his ambition to be a monarch, without subduing the frontiers, before he attacked the towns, invaded the heart of the country, and laid towns waste. On that account, both the inhabitants of the town and others, rising, closed in upon him, from the frontiers to the centre, and destroyed his army. That was his folly.’ “ They, on hearing this story of hers, taking due notice thereof, from that time again raised an army. On resuming their attack on the provinces and towns, commencing from the frontiers, reducing towns, and stationing troops in the intervals, they proceeded in their invasion. After a respite, adopting the same system, and marshalling a great army, and in regular course reducing each kingdom and province, then assailing Patiliputta and putting Dhana-nando to death, they seized that sovereignty. “ Although this had been brought about, Chanakko did not at once raise Cliandagutto to the throne ; but for the purpose of discovering Dhana-nando’s hidden treasure, sent for a certain fisherman (of the river) ; and after deluding him with the promise of raising the chhatta for him, and securing the hidden trea- sure, within a month from that date, put him also to death1, and inaugurated Cliandagutto monarch. “ Hence the expression (in the Mahavanso) ‘ a de- scendant of the dynasty of Moriyan sovereigns ; ’ as well as the expression ‘installed in the sovereignty.’ All the particulars connected with Chandagutto, both before his installation and after, are recorded in the 1 This is probably the Kaivarta-nanda of the Rajaratnakara. 294 CIIANDRAGUPTA. Atthakatha of the Uttaraviharo priests. Let that (work) be referred to, by those who are desirous of more detailed information. We compile this work in an abridged form, without prejudice however to its perspicuity. “ His (Chandagutto’s) son was Bindusaro. After his father had assumed the administration, (the said father) sent for a former acquaintance of his, a Jati- lian, named Maniyatappo, and conferred a commission on him. ‘ My friend, (said he) do thou restore order into the country ; suppressing the lawless proceedings that prevail.’ He replying ‘ sadhu,’ and accepting the commission, by his judicious measures, reduced the country to order. “ Chanakko, determined that to Chandagutto — a monarch, who, by the instrumentality of him (the aforesaid Maniyatappo) had conferred the blessings of peace on the country, by extirpating marauders who were like unto thorns (in a cultivated land) — no calamity should befall from poison, decided on inuring his body to the effects of poison. Without imparting the secret to any one, commencing with the smallest particle possible, and gradually increasing the dose, by mixing poison in his food and beverage, he (at last) fed him on poison, at the same time taking steps to prevent any other person participating in his poisoned repast. “ At a subsequent period his queen consort was pro- nounced to be pregnant. Who was she ? Whose daughter was she ? ‘ She was the daughter of the eldest of the maternal uncles who accompanied the rAja’s mother to Pupphapura.’1 Chandagutto wedding this daughter of his maternal uncle, raised her to the dignity of queen consort. 1 See page 289. CIIANDRAGUPTA. 295 “ About this time, Chanakko, on a certain day having prepared the monarch’s repast sent it to him, himself accidentally remaining behind for a moment. On recollecting himself, in an agony of distress, he ex- claimed, 4 1 must hasten thither, short as the interval is, before he begins his meal ; ’ and precipitately rushed into the king’s apartment, at the instant that the queen who was within seven days of her confine- ment, was in the act, in the raja’s presence, of placing the first handful of the repast in her mouth. On beholding this, and finding that there was not even time to ejaculate 4 Don’t swallow it,’ with his sword he struck her head off; and then ripping open her womb, extricated the child with its caul, and placed it in the stomach of a goat. In this manner, by placing it for seven days in the stomach of seven dif- ferent goats, having completed the full term of gesta- tion, he delivered the infant over to the female slaves. He caused him to be reared by them, and when a name was conferred on him — in reference to a spot, (Bindu) which the blood of the goats had left — he was called Bindusaro.” This Bindusara succeeded his father as king, and, after a reign of 28 years, he was succeeded by the great Asoka. In this manner the Buddhists prove that through the Mauryas, Asoka belonged to the same family as Buddha, to the royal family of the Sakyas. The Brahmans, on the contrary, endeavour to show that Chandragupta belonged to the same con- temptible race as the Nandas. Thus we read in the Yishnu-purana1 : — 44 The last of the Brihadratha dynasty, Ripunjaya, will have a minister named Sunika (Sunaka, Bh. P.), 1 Vishnu -purana, translated by H. H. Wilson, p. 466. 296 CIJANDRAGUPTA. who having killed his sovereign, will place his son Pradyota upon the throne (for 23 years, Yayu and Matsya P.). His son will be Palaka (14 years, Y. ; Tilaka or Balaka, 28 years, M.P.). His son will be Vi&akhayupa (50 years, V. ; 53, M.P.). His son will be Janaka (Ajaka, 21 years, V. ; Suryaka, 21 years, ]V1 . ; Rajaka, Bh. P.). And his son will be Nandi- vardhana (20 3Tears, Y. and M.P.). These five kings of the house of Pradyota will reign over the earth for 138 years (the same number in Y. and Bh. P.). “ The next prince will be ^isunaga1 ; his son will be Kakavarna (36 years, Y. and M.) ; his son will be Kshemadharman (Kshemakarman, 20 years, Ah, Kshemadharman, 36 years, M.) ; his son will be Kshatraujas (40 years, Y. ; Kshemajit or Kshe- marchis, 36 years, M. ; Kshetrajna, Bh. P.) ; his son will be Yidmisara (Yimbis&ra, 28 years, Y. ; Yin- dusena or Yindhyasena, 28 years, M. ; Vidhisara, Bh.); his son will be Ajatasatru2 ; his son will be Dharbaka (Harshaka, 25 years, Y.; Yansaka, 24 years, M.); his son will be Udayasva (33 years, X.; Udiblii or Udasin, 33 years, M.)3; his son also will be Nandivardhana ; and his son will be Mahananda (42 and 43 years, Y. ; 40 and 43 years, M.). These ten Saisunagas will be kings of the earth for 362 years. “ The son of Mahananda will be born of a woman of the Sudra-class ; his name will be Nanda, called Mahapadma, for he will be exceedingly avaricious. 1 6isunaka, who, according to the Vayu and Matsya Purana, relinquislied Benares to his son, and established himself at Girivraja or Rajagriha in Behar, reigned 40 years, V. and M.P. 2 25 years, V. ; 27 years, M. : the latter inserts a Kauvayana, 9 years, and Bhumimitra or Bhumiputra, 14 years, before him. 3 According to the Vayu, Udaya or Udayasva founded Patali- putra, on the southern angle of the Ganges. C11ANDRAGUPTA. 297 Like another Parasu-ramn, he will be the annihilator e, for after him tlie kings of the under one umbrella, he will have eight sons, Sumfilya, and others, who will reign after Mahapadma ; and he and his sons will govern for a hundred years. The Brahman Kautilya will root out the nine Nandas. “ Upon the cessation of the race of Nanda, the Mauiyas will possess the earth. Kautilya Avill place Chandragupta1 on the throne; his son will he Vin- dusara2; his son will be Asokavardhana ; his son will be Suyasas; his son will be Pasaratha; his son will be Sangata ; his son will be Sali6uka ; his son will be SomaSarman ; his son will be iSasadharman, and his successor will be Yrihadratha. These arc the ten Mauryas who will reign over the earth for 137 3'ears.” The title of Maurya, which by the Buddhists was used as a proof of Asoka’s royal descent, is explained by the Brahmans3 as a metronymic, .Mura being given -as the name of one of Xanda’s wives. If now, we survey the information here brought to- gether from Buddhist, Brahmanic, and Greek sources, we shall feel bound to confess that all we really know is this : — 1 The length of this monarch’s reign is given uniformly by the Puranas and the Buddhist histories, as 24 years. The number is given by the Vayu-Purana , the Dipavansa, the Mahavansa (where 34 is a mistake for 24), and in Buddhaghosha’s Arthakatha. Cf. Mahav. p. lii. 2 The Vayu-Purana calls him Bhadrasara, and assigns 25 years to his reign. 3 Vishnu -purana, p. 468. n. 21. This rests only on the autho- rity of the commentator on the Vishnu-purana ; but Chandra- gupta’s relationship with Nanda is confirmed by the Mudra- rakshasa. lie will bring the whole earth 298 CHANDRAGUPTA. Chandragupta is the same person as Sandrocyptus, or Sandracottus. This Sandracottus, according to Justin (xv. 4.), had seized the throne of India after the prefects of Alexander had been murdered (317 b. c.). Seleucus found him as sovereign of India when, after the taking of Babylon and the conquest of the Bactrians, he passed on into India. Seleucus, however, did not conquer Sandracottus, but after concluding a league with him, marched on to make war against Antigonus. This must have taken place before 312, for in that year, the beginning of the Seleucidan era, Seleucus had returned to Babylon. We may suppose that Chandragupta became king about 315, and as both the Buddhist and Brahtnanic writers allow him a reign of 24 years, the reign of Bin- dusara would begin 291 b.c. This Bindusara again had according to both Brahmanic and Buddhistic authors, a long reign of either twenty-five or twenty-eight years. Taking the latter statement as the better au- thenticated, we find that the probable beginning of Asoka’s reign took place 263 b.c. ; his inauguration 259 b.c. ; his Council either 246 or 242 b.c. At the time of Asoka’s inauguration, 218 years had elapsed since the conventional date of the death of Buddha. Hence if we translate the language of Buddhist chronology into that of Greek chronology, Buddha was rgally sup- posed to have died 477 b.c., and not 543 b.c. Again, at the time of Chandragupta’s accession, 162years were believed to have elapsed since the conventional date of Buddha’s death. Hence Buddha was supposed to have died 315-(-162 = 477 b.c. Or, to adopt a different line of argument, Kanishka, according to the evidence of coins1, must have reigned before andafter theChristian 1 Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, ii. 413. C1IANDRAGUPIA. 29D era. In the Stupa of Man iky ala, which was built by Ka- nishka1, llonian coins have been found of as late a date as 33 b.c. How long before that date this Turushka or Indoscythian king may have assumed the sovereignty of India it is difficult to determine. But under him the Northern Buddhists place a new Council which was presided over by Vasumitra2, and the date of which is fixed at more than 400 after Buddha’s Nirvana.3 If we add 400 and 33, and take into account that the Council took place more than 400 years after Buddha, and that Kanishka must have reigned some years before he built his Stupa, we find again that 477 b. c. far more likely than 5 13, as the conventional date of Buddha’s death. All the dates, however, before Chandragupta are to be considered only as hypotheti- cal. The second council under Ival&soka is extremely problematical, and the date of Buddha’s death, as 218 before Asoka, is worth no more than the date of Yijaya’s landing in Ceylon, fixed 218 before Deva- nampriya Tishya. Professor Lassen, in order to give an historical value to the date of 543 assigned to the death of Buddha, adds 66 years to the 22 years of the reign of the Nandas, and he quotes in support of this the authority of the Puranas, which ascribe 88 years to the first Nanda. The Puranas, however, if taken in their true meaning, are entirely at variance with the Buddhist chronology before Chandragupta, and it is not allowable to use them as a corrective. As to 1 A. Cunningham in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, xviii. p. 20. 2 Asiatic Researches, xx. 297. 3 Nagarjuna, who must be somewhat later than Vasumitra, is roughly placed 400 years after Buddha by the Northern, 500 after Buddha by the Southern Buddhists. 300 CHANDRAGUPTA. the chronology of the Ceylonese Buddhists, so far from becoming more perfect by the addition of those sixty-six years, it would really lose all consistency. The most useful portions of that chronology are the prophecies of Buddha and others, as to the number of years intervening between certain events. All these dates would have to be surrendered if we adopted Professor Lassen’s correction. The great Council would not fall 218 years after Buddha’s death, Chandragupta would not come to the throne 162 years after the Nirvana: Buddha, in fact, as well as his apostles, would be convicted as false prophets by their very disciples. Whatever changes may have been introduced into the earlier chronology of India, nothing will ever shake the date of Chandragupta, the illegitimate successor of the Nandas, the ally of Seleucus, the grandfather of Asoka. That date is the sheet- anchor of Indian chronology, and it is sufficient for the solution of the problem which occupies us at present. It enables us to place Katyayana before Chandragupta, the successor of the Nandas, or, at all events, the founder of a new dynasty, subsequent to the collapse of Alexander’s empire. It enables us to fix chronologically an important period in the litera- ture of India, the Sutra period, and to extend its limits to at least three generations after Katyayana, to about 200 b. c. In doing so, I am far from main- taining that the evidence which connects the names of Katyayana and Nanda is unexceptionable. Nowhere except in Indian history should we feel justified in ascribing any weight to the vague traditions con- tained in popular stories which were written down more than a thousand years after the event. The most that can be said in favour of these traditions is, first, CHRONOLOGY. 301 that there was no object in inventing them ; secondly, that they are not in contradiction with anything we know of the early history of India from other sources ; and thirdly, that the date which from their sugges- tions we assign to the literary works of Katyayana and his predecessors and successors, harmonises with the conclusions, derived from the literature of the Brahmans, as to the probable growth and decay of the Hindu mind previous to the beginning of our era. Although these chronological discussions have oc- cupied so much of our space, it is necessary to add a few words of explanation. It might seem as if, in bringing together all the evidence available for our purpose, certain authorities had been overlooked which might have confirmed our conclusions. Pro- fessor Bohtlingk, whose researches with regard to the age of Panin i deserve the highest credit, has endeavoured to fortify his conclusions by some ad- ditional evidence, derived from the works of Chinese travellers ; and other writers on the same subject have followed his example, though they have given a dif- ferent interpretation to the statements of those tra- vellers, and have arrived at different results as to the probable date of Panin i. The evidence of these Bud- dhist pilgrims, however, yields no real results, either for or against the date assigned to Panini and Katya- yana, and it is for this reason that it has been entirely discarded in the preceding pages. Professor Bohtlingk relied on the testimony of Hiouen-thsang, a Buddhist pilgrim who travelled through India in the years 629 — 645 after Christ, and whose travels have lately been translated by M. Stanislas Jnlien. There we read1: 1 Memoires sur les Contiees occidentales par Hiouen-thsang, liv. iv. p. 200. 302 CHRONOLOGY. “ Apres avoir fait environ cinq cent li, au sud-est de la capitale (de Chinapati), il arriva au couvent ap- pele Ta-mo-sou-fa-na-seng-kia-lan (Tamasavana-san- gharama), ou le couvent de la Foret Sombre. On y comptait environ trois cent religieux qui suivaient les principes de l’ecole des Sarvastivadas. Ils avaient un exterieur grave et imposant, et se distinguaient par la purete de leur vertu et l’elevation de leur carac- tere. Ils approfondissaient surtout, l’etude du petit Vdhicule. Les mille Buddhas du Kalpa des Sages (Bhadrakalpa) doivent, dans ce lieu, rassembler la multitude des Devas et leur expliquer la sublime loi. Dans la trois centieme annee apres le Nir- vana de Sakya Tathagata, il y eut un maitre des Sastras, nomme Katyayana , qui composa, dans ce couvent, le. Fa-tchi-lun (Abhidharma-jnana-pra- sthana).” At first sight this might seem a very definite state- ment as to the age of Katyayana, placing him, if we accept the conventional date of Buddha’s death, about 243 b.c. But how can we prove that Hiouen-thsang was speaking of Katyayana Vararuchi ? It might be said that the Katyayana, so simply mentioned by Hiouen-thsang, must be a person of note. Hiouen- thsang does not mention ancient authors except men of note, and the Katyayana whose dates he gives in this place, cannot be a chance person of that name, but must be some well-known author.1 It could hardly be meant for Mahakatyayana, because he was the pupil of Buddha, and could not be placed 300 years after his Nirvana. Besides Mahakatyayana there is certainly no person of the same name of greater 1 Foucaux, Lalitavistara, pp. 3. 41o. 417. CHRONOLOGY. 303 literary fame than Katyayana Yararuchi. But the Katyayana of whom lliouen-thsang speaks was a Buddhist, and the author of a work on metaphysics, which lliouen-thsang himself translated from San- skrit into Chinese. Making all possible allowance for the tendency of later Buddhist writers to refer the authorship of certain works to names famous in ancient Bralnnanic history, we can hardly build much on the supposition that the author meant by the Chinese traveller was the old Katyayana Yararuchi, the contemporary of Panini. But, even if all these objections could be removed, what use could we make of Iliouen-thsang’s chronology, who follows the system of the Northern, and not of the Ceylonese, Buddhists, who makes Asoka to reign 100 years after Buddha, Kanishka 400, the king of Hiinatala GOO, and so on ? We should first have to deter- mine what, according to lliouen-thsang, was the real date of Buddha’s Nirvana, and what was the era used at his time in the monasteries of Northern India ; whether he altered the dates, assigned by the Buddhists of India to the various events of their traditional history, according to the standard of the Chinese Buddhist chronology, or whether he simply repeated the dates, such as they were communicated to him in the different places Avhich he visited. All these questions would have to be answered, and if they could be answered, we should in the end only arrive at the date of a Katyayana, but not of the Katyayana with whom we are concerned. There is another passage in Hiouen-thsang which has been frequently discussed, and according to which it would seem that we should have to place Panini much later, and that Katyayana, the critic of 304 CHRONOLOGY. Panini, could not have lived before the first century after Christ. M. Reinaud, in his excellent work, “ Memoire Gdographique, Historique et Scientifique sur l’lnde, anterieurement au milieu du XIe siecle, d’apres les ecrivains arabes, persans et chinois (Paris, 1849),” was the first to call attention to this passage. He says (p. 88.): “ Ainsi que pour plusieurs autrespersonnages notables du bouddhisme, Hiouen-thsang attribue a Panini deux existences, la premiere a une epoque oil la vie de l’homme etait plus longue qu’ii present, et la seconde vers l’an 500 apres la mort de Bouddha, c’est-a-dire au temps du second Vikramaditya, un siecle environ apres le regne de Kanika. Dans sa premiere existence, Panini professait le brahmanisme; mais dans la seconde il se convertit avec son pere au bouddhisme.” M. Reinaud pointed out with great sagacity the various consequences which would follow from such a statement, and he remarked besides that the fact of the Yavanani (lipi), the writing of the lonians or the Greeks, being mentioned in Panini, would likewise tend to place that grammarian rather later than was commonly supposed. The same legend, thus partially translated from Hiouen-thsang, was made by Professor Weber the key-stone of a new system of Indian chronology. Admitting the double existence of Panini, he says that his second existence falls 500 years after Buddha, or 100 after Kanishka, whom Hiouen-thsang places 400 after Buddha. The date assigned by Hiouen- thsang to Kanishka is rejected by Professor Weber. He takes, however, the real date of Kanishka, as es- tablished on numismatic evidence, about 40 a. d. ; he then adds to it the hundred years, which, ac- TANINl’S DATE. 305 cording to the constructive chronology of the Northern Buddhists, elapsed between Kanishka and Panin i, and thus deduces 140 a.d. as a new date for Panini. Without entering into the merits of these calcula- tions, we are enabled by the publication of the com- plete translation of Iiiouen-thsang to show that, in reality, the Chinese pilgrim never placed Panini so late as 500 after Buddha. On the contrary, he re- presents the reputation of that old grammarian as firmly established at that time, and his grammar as the grammar then taught to all children. I subjoin the extracts from Iiiouen-thsang: — “ Apres avoir fait environ vingt li au nord-ouest de la ville de Ou-to- kia-han-t'cha (Udakhanda ?), il arriva a la ville de P'o-lo-ton-lo (Salatura) qui donna le jour au Rishi Po-ni-ni (Panini), auteur du Traite Chine]- ming-lun ( Vy akaranam ). “ Dans la haute antiquite, les mots de la langue etaient extremement nombreux ; mais quand le monde eut etc detruit, l’univers se trouva vide et desert. Des dieux d’une longevite extraordinaire descendirent sur la terre pour servir de guides aux peuples. Telle fut l’originc des lettres et des livres. A partir de cette epoque, leur source s’agrandit et depassa les bornes. Le dieu Fan (Brahman) et le roi du ciel (Indra) etablirent des regies et se confor- merent au temps. Des Rishis heretiques compo- sbrent chacuti des mots. Les hommes les prirent pour modeles, continuerent leur oeuvre, et travaillerent a l’envi pour en conserver la tradition ; mais les etudi- ants faisaient de vains efforts, et il leur etait difficile d’en approfondir le sens. “A l’epoque oil la vie des hommes etait reduite a cent ans, on vit paraitre le Rishi Po-ni-ni (Panini), x 30G PANINl’s DATE. qui etait instruit des sa naissance et possedait un vaste savoir. Afflige de l’ignorance du siecle, il voulut retrancher les notions vagues et fausses, de- barrasser la langue des mots superflus et en fixer les lois. Comme il voyageait pour faire des recherches et s’instruire, il rencontra le dieu Tseii-Thsai (lsvara Deva), et lui exposa le plan de l’ouvrage qu’il me- ditait. “ ‘ A merveiile ! ’ lui dit le dieu Tseu-Thsai (lsvara Deva) ; ‘ vous pouvez compter sur mon secours.’ “ Apres avoir re§u ses instructions, le Jiishi se retira. Il se livra alors a des recherches profondes, et deploya toute la vigueur de son esprit. Il re- cueillit une multitude d’expressions, et composa un livre de mots1 qui renfermait mille slokas ; chaque sloka etait de trente-deux syllabes. Il sonda, jusqu’a leurs dernieres limites, les connaissances anciennes et nouvelles, et ayant rassemble, dans cet ouvrage, les lettres et les mots, il le mit sous une enveloppe cachetee et le presenta au roi, qui en con9ut autant d’estime que d’admiration. Il rendit un decret qui ordonnait a tous ses sujets de l’etudier et de l’en- seigner aux autres. Il ajouta que quiconque pourrait le reciter, d’un bout a l’autre, recevrait, pour recom- pense, mille pieces d’or. De la vient que, grace aux le9ons successives des maitres, cet ouvrage est encore aujourd’hui en grand honneur. C’est pourquoi les Brahmanes de cette ville ont une science solide et des talents elevds, et se distinguent a la fois par l’etenduc 1 “ Livre de mots ” is intended as the title of Panini’s grammar, which was “ Sabdanusasanam.” This title is left out in the Calcutta edition, and likewise in Professor Bdlitlingk’s edition of Panini. See Zeitschrift der Deutschcn Morgenliindischen Gesellscliaft, vii. 162. PANINI’S DATE. 307 de leurs connaissances et la richesse de leur memoire. “ Dans la ville de P'o-lo-tou-lo (lisez So-lo-tou-lo — Salatura), il y a un Stupa. Ce fut en cet endroit qu’un Lo-han (un Arhat) convertit un disciple de Po-ni-ni (Panini). Cinq cents ans apres que Jou-la'i (le Tathagata) eut quitte le monde, il yeut un grand ’ O-lo-han (Arhat) qui, venant du royaume de Kia- chi-mi-lo (Cachemire), voyageait pour convertir les hommes. Quand il fut arrive dans ce pays, il vit un Fan-tchi (un Brahmach&rin) occupe h fouetter un petit gar^on qu’il instruisait. ‘ Pourquoi maltraitez- vous cet enfant?’ dit V Arhat au Fan-tchi (Brah- macharin). “ ‘ Je lui fais etudier,’ repondit-il, ‘ le Traite de la Science des Sons (Ching-ming — Vyakaranam), mais il ne fait aucun progrks.’ “ L* Arhat se derida et laissa ecliapper un sourire. Le vieux Fan-tchi (Brahmacharin) lui dit: ‘Les Cha-men (Sramanas) ont un coeur affectueux et com- patissant, et s’apitoient sur les creatures qui souffrent. L’homine plein d’humanite vient de sourire tout a l’heure ; je desirerais en connaitre la cause.’ “ ‘ Il n’est pas difficile de vous l’apprendre,’ repon- dit l’Arhat, ‘ mais je crains de faire naitre en vous un doute d’incr6dulite. Vous avez, sans doute, entendu dire qu’un Rislii , nomme Po-ni-ni (Panini) a compose le Traite Ching-ming -lun (Vyakaranam), et qu’il l’a laisse, apres lui, pour l’instruction du monde.’ Le Po-lo-men (le Brahmane) lui dit : ‘ Les enfants de cette ville, qui sont tous ses disciples, reverent sa vertu, et la statue, elevee en son honneur, subsiste encore aujourd’kui.’ “‘Eh bien !’ repartit V Arhat, ‘cet enfant, ^ qui 308 PANINl’s DATE. vous avez donne le jour, est precisement, ce liishi. (Dans sa vie ant^rieure,) il employ ait sa forte me- moire a etudier les livres profanes ; il ne parlait que des traites her^tiques et ne chercliait point la verite. Son esprit et sa science deperirent, et il parcourut, sans s’arreter, le cercle de la vie et de la mort. Grace a un reste de vertu, il a obtenu de devenir votre fils bien-aime. Mais les livres profanes et l’eloquence du siecle ne donnent que des peines inutiles. Pourrait- on les comparer aux saintes instructions de Jou-lai (du Tathagata), qui, par une influence secrete pro- curent l’intelligence et le bonheur ? “ 1 Jadis, sur les bords de la mer du midi, il y avait un arbre desseche dont le tronc creux donnait asile a cinq cents chauves-souris. Des marchands s’arre- t&rent un jour au pied de cet arbre. Comme il regnait alors un vent glacial, ces homines, qui etaient tour- mentes par la faim et le froid, amasserent du bois et des broussailles et allumerent du feu au pied de l’arbre. La flanune s’accrut par degres et embrasa bientot l’arbre desseche. “ ‘ Dans ce moment, il y eut un des marchands qui, apr&s le milieu de la nuit, se mit a lire, a haute voix, le Becueil de V O-pi-ta-mo (de l’Abhidharma). Les chauves-souris, quoique tourment6es par l’ardeur du feu, ecouterent avec amour les accents de la loi, supporterent la douleur sans sortir de leur retraite, et y terminerent leur vie. En consequence de cette conduite vertueuse, elles obtinrent de renaitre dans la classe des homines. Elies quitt^rent la famille, se livrerent a l’etude, et, grace aux accents de la loi, qu’elles avaient jadis entendus, elles acquirent une rare intelligence, obtinrent toutes ensemble la dignitd d 'Arhat, et cultiv^rent, de siecle en siecle, le champ PANINl’S DATE. 300 du bonheur. Dans ces dcrniers temps, le roi Kia-ni- se-kia (Kanishka) et l’honorable Uie (Ary a Parsvika) convoquerent cinq cents sages dans le royaume do Kia-chi-mi-lo (Cachemire), et composerent le Pi-po- cha-lun (lc Vibhasha-sastra). Tous ces sages etaient les cinq cent chauves-souris qui liabitaient jadis le creux de l’arbre dcsseche. Quoique j’aie un esprit borne, j’etais moi-meme l’une d’elles. Mais les hom- ines different entre eux par la superiority on la me- diocrity de leur esprit ; les uns prennent leur essor, tandis que les autres rampent dans Pobscurite. Main- tenant, 6 homme plein d’humanite, il faut que vous permettiez a votre fils bien-aiiny de quitter la famille. En quittant la famille (en embrassant la vie reli- gieuse), on acquiert des merites ineffables.’ “ Lorsque YArhat eut acheve ces paroles, il donna une preuve de sa puissance divine en disparaissant a l'instant raeme. “ Le Brahmane se sen tit penetre de foi et de respect, et apres avoir fait eclater son admiration, il alia raconter cet evenement dans tout le voisinage. 11 permit aussitot a son fils d’embrasser la vie re- ligieuse et de se livrer a l’etude. Lui-meme se con- vertit immediatement, et montra la plus grande estime pour les trois Precieux. Les hommes de son village suivirent son example, et, aujourd’hui encore, les habitants s’affermissent de jour en jour dans la foi. “ En partant au nord de la ville de Ou-to-Jcia-han- t'clia (Udakhanda ?), il franchit des montagnes, tra versa des vallees, et, apres avoir fait environ six cents li, il arriva au royaume de Ou-tchany-na1 (LTdyana).2 1 Inde du nord. 2 Memoires sur les contrees occidentales, traduits du Sanscrit 310 fanini’s date. Whatever the historical value of this legend may he, it is quite clear that it lends no support of any kind to the opinion of those who would place the grammarian Panini 500 years after Buddha, or 100 years after Kanishka. It is possible that the inquiries into the ancient literature of Buddhism, particularly in China, may bring to light some new dates, and help us in un- ravelling the chronological traditions of the Brah- mans of India. The services already rendered to Sanskrit archaeology by the publications of M. Stanis- las Julien are of the highest value, and they hold out the promise of a still larger harvest ; but for the present we must be satisfied with what we possess, and we must guard most carefully against rash con- clusions, derived from evidence that would break down under the slightest pressure. Even without the support which it was attempted to derive from Pliouen-thsang, Katy ay ana’s date is as safe as any date is likely to be in ancient Oriental chronology ; and the connection between Katyayana and his predecessors and successors, supported as it is not only by tradi- tion but by the character of their works which we still possess, supplies the strongest confirmation of our chronological calculations. As to other works of the Sutra period, there are no doubt many, the date of which cannot be fixed by any external evidence. Tradition is completely silent as to the age of many of their authors. With regard to them cn Chinois, en l’an 648, par Iliouen-thsang, et du Chinois en Fran^ais par M. Stanislas Julien, Membre de l’lnstitut; tome i. p. 125 ; Voyages des Piderins Bouddhistes, vol. ii. See also the author’s edition of the Rig-veda and Prati&akhya, Introduction, p. 12. I? 1-SUM K. 311 we must trust, at least for the present, to the simi- larity of their style and character with the writings of those authors whose age has been fixed. It is possible that the works of earlier authors quoted by Yaska and Panini and others might still come to light, if any systematic search for ancient MSS. was made in different parts of India. Many works arc quoted by Sayana, Devaraja, Ujjvaladatta, and other modern writers, which arc not to be found in any European Library. Some of them may still be recovered.1 We must not, however, expect too much. Vast as the ancient literature of India has been, we must bear in mind that part of it existed in oral tradition only, and was never consigned to writing. In India, where before the time of Panini we have no evidence of any written literature, it by no means follows that, because an early Rishi is quoted in support of a theory, whether philosophical or grammatical, there ever existed a work written by him with pen and ink. His doctrines were handed down from generation to generation ; but, once erased from the tablets of memory, they could never be recovered. In the Sutras which we still possess, it is most important to observe the gradual change of style. Saunaka’s style, when compared with that of his successors, is natural, both in prose and verse. His prose more particularly runs sometimes so easily and is so free from the artificial contrivances of the later Sutras, that it seems a mistake to apply to it the 1 According to the opinion of M. Fitz-Edward Hall, a scholar of the most extensive acquaintance with Sanskrit literature, the number of distinct Sanskrit works in existence is, probably, not less than ten thousand. (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1S58, p. 305.) x 4 312 RESUME. name of Sutra. It is not unlikely that this title was assigned to his works at a time when its meaning had not yet been restricted either to the long “ yarns ” of the Buddhists or to the compendious paragraphs of the Brahmans, and we may well believe the state- ment that Saunaka’s works on the ceremonial re- sembled more the Brahmanas than the later Sutras. Asvalayana’s style is still intelligible, and less cramped by far than the style of the Nirukta, a work commonly ascribed to Yaska, the collector of the Nighantus. Panini is more artificial. He is no longer writing and composing, but he squeezes and distils his thoughts, and puts them before us in a form which hardly deserves the name of style. Katyayana is still more algebraic ; but it is in Pingala that the absurdity of the Sutras becomes complete. If any writers succeeded him, they could hardly have ex- celled him in enigmatic obscurity, and we may well believe that he was one of the last writers of Sutras. The authors of the Parisishtas, unwilling to wear the strait-jacket of the Sutrakaras, and unable to invent a more appropriate dress, adopted the slovenly metre of epic poetry, well adapted for legendary narration, but unfit for scientific discussion. 313 CHAPTER II. THE BRAIIMANA PERIOD. Having assigned to the Sutra literature of India the wide limits of a period extending from GOO to 200 b.c., we have now to examine another and con- fessedly more ancient class of Vedic writings, differ- ing in style both from the Sutras, which are posterior, and from the Mantras, which are anterior to them. These are called by the comprehensive name of Brahmanas. But as between the Sutras and the later Sanskrit literature we discovered a connecting link in the writings known under the name of Pari- sishtas, so we meet on the frontier between the Brfili- mana and the Sutra literature, with a class of works, intermediate between the Brahmanas and Sutras, which claim to be considered first. These are the Aranyakas, or “ The Treatises of the Forest.’’ The Aranyakas. The Aranyakas are so called, as Sayana informs us, because they had to be read in the forest.1 It 1 Sayana on the Taittiriyaranyaka. And again, *3 *TTsf?fT 3TTrJ*Hf?TII Parts of the Taittiriyaranyaka are exempted from the restriction that they 314 aranyaka s. might almost seem as if they were intended for the Vanaprastlias only, people who, after having per- formed all the duties of a student and a householder, retire from the world to the forest to end their days in the contemplation of the deity. Thus it is said in the Arunikopanishad, that the Sannydsin, the man who no longer recites the Mantras and no longer performs sacrifices, is bound to read, out of all the Vedas, only the Aranyaka or the Upanishad. In several instances the Aranyakas form part of the Brahmanas, and they are thus made to share the authority of Sruti or revelation. We have seen, however, that part of an Aranyaka was ascribed to a human author, to Asvalayana. Another part is quoted by Sayana, in his Commentary on the Rig- veda1, as being a Sfitra work of Saunaka’s. Cole- brooke found, in one transcript of this Aranyaka, that it was ascribed to Asvalayana ; but he remarks, “ probably by an error of the transcriber.” This is not the case ; and it is a good proof of a certain critical conscience even amongst the orthodox dog- should be read in the forest only : : WTfa- ; and hence they are ranged with the Brahmanas, 35pT 1 p. 112. wi ?hr- fafa % Tfal These words occur in the Aitarey aranyaka, v. 2. 11- Tfa Tfafafa ^1 Other passages quoted by Sayana from this Aranyaka can always be identified in the Aitareyaranyaka. Cf. Colebrooke, Wise. Essays, i. 46. ARANYAKAS. 315 matists of the Hindus, that they acknowledged a cer- tain difference between the Brahmanas and Aran- yakas, although it was of great importance to them, particularly in their orthodox philosophy, to be able to appeal to passages from the Aranyakas as in- vested with a sacred authority. The most important Upanishads, which are full of philosophy and theo- sophy, form part of the Aranyakas, and particularly in later times the Aranyaka was considered the quint- essence of the Vedas.1 Nevertheless it is acknow- ledged by Indian authors2 that a mistake may be made, and the work of a human author may be er- roneously received as a part of the sacred book by those who are unacquainted with its true origin. An instance, they say, occurs among those who use the Bahvrich, a Sakha of the Rig-veda, by whom a ritual of Asvalayana has been admitted, under the title of the fifth Aranyaka, as a part of the Rig-veda. That the Aranyakas presuppose the existence of the Brahmanas may be clearly seen from the Bri- hadaranyaka, of which we possess now a complete edition by Dr. Roer, of Calcutta, together with two 1 Mahabharata i. 258. : “ This body of the Mahabharata (bhe index) is truth and immortality ; it is like new butter from curds, like the Brahman among men, like the Aranyaka from the Vedas, like nectar from medicinal plants, like the sea, the best among lakes, like the cow, the highest among animals.” Thus the Upanishad is called the essence of the Veda ; 6atap.-brahm. x. 3. 5. 12. rm 3T vw v* 2 This is taken from Colebrooke’s extracts from the Pu r ya- rn im ansa ; a system of philosophy of which it would be most desirable to have a complete edition. (Miscellaneous Essays, i. 307.) Dr. Goldstiicker, of Konigsberg, has collected large ma- terials for such a work ; and I trust he will shortly find an op- portunity of publishing the important results of his studies. 316 UPANISHADS. Sanskrit commentaries. If we take for instance the story of Janaka, who promised a large prize to the wisest Brahman at his sacrifice, and compare this story, as it is given in the Satapatha-brahmana (xi. 4. 6.) with the third Adhyaya of the Brihadaranyaka where the same subject occurs, we find in the Aran- yaka all the details given almost in the same words as in the Brahmana, but enlarged with so many addi- tions, particularly with respect to the philosophical disputations which take place between Yajnavalkya and the other Brahmans, that we cannot hesitate fora moment to consider the Aranyaka as an enlargement upon the Brahmana. The chief interest which the Aranyakas possess at the present moment consists in their philosophy. The philosophical chapters well known under the name of Upanishads are almost the only portion of Vedic literature which is extensively read to this day. They contain, or are supposed to contain, the highest authority on which the various systems of philosophy in India rest. Not only the Vedanta philosopher, who, by his very name, professes his faith in the ends and objects of the Veda1, but the Sankhya, the Vaise- shika, the Nyaya, and Yoga philosophers, all pretend to find in the Upanishads some warranty for their tenets, however antagonistic in their bearing. The same applies to the numerous sects that have existed and still exist in India. Their founders, if they have 1 Vedanta is used, but not yet in its technical sense, Taittiriya- aranyaka, x. 12.; a verse frequently repeated elsewhere. 7T W’pTT: UPANISHADS. 317 any pretentions to orthodoxy, invariably appeal to some passage in the Upanishads in order to substan- tiate their own reasonings. Now it is true that in the Upanishads themselves there is so much freedom and breadth of thought that it is not difficult to find in them some authority for almost any shade of phi- losophical opinion. The old Upanishads did not pre- tend to give more than “guesses at truth,” and when, in course of time, they became invested with an inspired character, they allowed great latitude to those who professed to believe in them as revelation. Yet this was not sufficient for the rank growth of philosophical doctrines during the latter ages of In- dian history ; and when none of the ancient Upa- nishads could be found to suit the purpose, the founders of new sects had no scruple and no diffi- culty in composing new Upanishads of their own. This accounts for the large and ever growing number of these treatises. Every new collection of MSS., every new list of Upanishads given by native writers, adds to the number of those which were known be- fore ; and the most modern compilations seem now to enjoy the same authority as the really genuine treatises. The original Upanishads had their place in the Aranyakas and Brahmanas. There is only one in- stance of a Sanhita containing Upanishads — the Vajasaneyi-sanhita, which comprises the Isa-upa- nishad, forming the 40th book, and the 6ivasankalpa, forming part of the 34th book. This, however, so far from proving the greater antiquity of that Upa- nishad, only serves to confirm the modern date of the whole collection known under the name of Vajasa- 313 UPANISHADS. neyi-sanhita.1 But though the proper place of the genuine Upanishads was in the Brahmanas, and here chiefly in those secondary portions commonly called Aranyakas, yet in later times, the Upanishads ob- tained a more independent position, and though they still professed to belong more particularly to one or the other of the four Vedas, that relationship became very lax and changeable. The true etymological meaning of the word Upa- nishad had been forgotten in India. It is generally explained by raliasya , or guhyd dde'sdh, mystery ; and an artificial etymology is given, according to which Upanishad would mean “ destruction of passion or ignorance, by means of divine revelation.” 2 The ori- ginal signification of the word, however, must have been that of sitting down near somebody in order to listen, or in order to meditate and worship. Thus we find up sad used in the sense of sitting and worshipping : Rv. ix. 11. 6. — Namasa it upa sidata, “Approach him with praise.” Rv. x. 73. 11. — Vayah suparna/h upa sedur Un- dram priyamedhah rishayah na'dhamanah, “ The poets with good thoughts have approached lndra begging, like birds with beautiful wings.” The root ds, which has the same meaning as sad , to sit, if joined with the preposition upa , expresses the same idea as upa sad, i. e. to approach respect- fully, to worship (Rv. x. 153. 1). It is frequently used to express the position which the pupil occupies 1 Mahidhara maintains that some parts of the Upanishad were aimed at the Buddhists, who denied the existence of an intelligent Self, called life a water-bubble, and knowledge intoxication. 2 Colebrookc, Essays, i. 92. UPANISIIADS. 319 when listening to his teacher1, and it clearly expresses a position of inferiority in such passages as, Sat.- brahraana, i. 3. 4. 15: “tasmad uparyasinam ksha- triyam adhastad imah praja upasate,” “ therefore those people below (the Vis or Vaisyas) sit under, or pay respect to the Kshatriya who sits above.” Still more decisive is another passage in the same work (ix. 4. 3. 3), where upanishddin is used in the sense of subject: “ kshatraya tad vi&am adhastad upanisha- dinim karoti,” “ he thus makes the Ads below subject to the Kshatriya.” There can be little doubt there- fore that Upanishad meant originally the act of sitting down near a teacher2 3, of submissively listening to him ; and it is easy to trace the steps by which it came to mean implicit faith8, and, at last, truth or divine revelation. The songs of the Aeda contained but little of philosophy or theosophy, and what the Brahmans call the higher knowledge is not to be sought for in the hymns of the Rishis. “What,”4 * * * says the author of the Svetasvatara-upanishad, “ what shall a man do with the hymns, who does not know that eternal word of the hymns in the highest heaven, that in which all the gods are absorbed? Those who know it, they are blessed.” The same sentiment is fre- 1 Pan. iii. 4. 72. comment. : Upasito gurum bhavan ; and upa- sito gurur bhavata. 2 In this sense Upanishad is frequently used in the plural, and signifies sessions. 3 Chliandogya-upanishad, i. 1. 9. What a man performs with knowledge, trust, and faith, that is effectual.” 1 6vetasvatara-upanishad, ed. Roer, Bibliotheca Indica, vii. 339. 320 UPANISHADS. quently expressed, but nowhere with greater force than in a passage of the Katha-upanishad1, a passage most remarkable in many respects. “ That divine Self,” the poet says, “ is not to be grasped by tra- dition2, nor by understanding, nor by all revelation ; by him whom He himself chooses, by him alone is He to be grasped; that Self chooses his body as his own.” Rammohun Roy when he visited the British Museum and found the late Dr. Rosen engaged in preparing an edition of the hymns of the Veda, ex- pressed his surprise at so useless an undertaking. But the same philosopher looked upon the Upani- shads as worthy to become the foundation of a new religion, and he published several of them himself with notes and translations. “ The adoration of the invisible Supreme Being,” he writes, “ is exclusively prescribed by the Upanishads or the principal parts of the Veda, and also by the Yedant,” and if other portions of the Yeda seem to be in contradiction with the pure doctrine of the Upanishads, he hints that the whole work must not only be stripped of its autho- rity, but looked upon as altogether unintelligible.3 The early Hindus did not find any difficulty in reconciling the most different and sometimes con- tradictory opinions in their search after truth ; and a most extraordinary medley of oracular sayings might be collected from the Upanishads, even from those which are genuine and comparatively ancient, all tending to elucidate the darkest points of philosophy and religion, the creation of the world, the nature of 1 II. 23. It is also found in the Mundaka. 2 Pravachana, tradition, the Brahmanas ; see p. 109. Commen- tary : “ ekavedasvikaranena,” “by learning one Veda.” 3 Translation of the Kena-upanishad by Rammohun Roy. Cal- cutta, 1816, p. 6. Ul’ANISlIADS. 321 God, the relation of man to God, and similar subjects. That one statement should be contradicted by another seems never to have been felt as any serious difficulty. Thus we read in the first verse of the Svetasvatara- upanishad: “ Is Brahman the cause? Whence are we born? By what do we live? Whither do we go? At whose command do we walk after the Law, in happiness and misery ? Is Time the cause, or Na- ture, or Law, or Chance, or the Elements? Is Man to be taken as the source of all ? — Nor is it their union, because there must be an independent Self, and even that independent Self has no power over that which causes happiness and pain.” 1 The an- swers returned to such questions are naturally vague and various. Thus Madhava in his Commentary on Parasara, quotes first from the Bahvrieha-upanishad. “In the beginning this (world) was Self alone, there was nothing else winking. He thought, Let me create the worlds, and he created these worlds.” From this it would follow that the absolute Self was supposed to have created every thi ng out of nothing. But im- mediately afterwards Madhava quotes from another Upanishad, the Svetasvatara (IV. 10.), where Maya or delusion is called the principle, and the Great Lord himself, the deluded.2 This is evidently an 1 far STTrTT W ^ I ^jfaferTT: snufaTT ^wril 2 ^rrsrr T^far fauTRnfaR Y 322 UPANISIIADS. allusion to Sankhya doctrines, but Madhava explains it in a different sense. He maintains that here also the Divine Self is meant by the Great Lord, and that Delusion is only one of his powers, as heat is a power of fire.1 And he appeals to another passage in the same Upanishad (I. 3.), where it is said “ that sages endowed with meditation and intuition, saw the power of the Divine Self, concealed by his own qualities.” This same interpretation is adopted in the Sutras of the V edanta-philosophy , but it by no means follows that therefore it is the true one. The principal interest of the older Upanishads con- sists in the absence of that systematic uniformity which we find in the later systems of philosophy, and it is to be regretted that nearly all scholars who have translated portions of the Upanishads have allowed themselves to be guided by the Brahmanic commen- tators. The commentators wrote all, more or less, under the influence of philosophical systems, and thought themselves justified in explaining the Upani- shads in such a manner that they should agree, even in the most minute points, with the Sutras of the philosophical schools. But the authors of the Upani- shads were poets rather than philosophers. Truth itself assumed, in their eyes, an aspect varying ac- 1 ^ *rurr c$° Tfai i *tt- w. Hf i^rnrrrrj ^ ^rT ^ W*- ^r»rr^?TT -J N s» C\ UPANISI1ADS. 323 cording to their own feelings and misgivings. We saw that the Bahvricha-upanishad placed Atman or the Self at the beginning of all things. The Taittiriya- upanishad 1 speaks of Brahman the true, omniscient, and infinite, and derives from it the ether, the air, fire, water, earth, plants, food, seed, and body.2 This, in the eyes of the later commentators, may appear substantially the same doctrine as that of the Bahv- richa-upanishad. But to us it is of interest to mark the difference, and to watch the various attempts which were made to express the idea of a creator. The Bahvrichas, by calling him Atman in the mascu- line, showed that they were impressed more strongly with the idea of a personal Being ; the Taittiriyas, speaking of Brahman as neuter, gave more promi- nence to the idea of a Power. It was an epoch in the history of the human mind when the identity of the masculine Self and the neutral Brahman was for the first time perceived, and the name of the dis- coverer has not been forgotten. It was Sandilya who declared that the Self within our heart is Brah- man (Chhand.-up. iii. 4. 14. p. 208.), and this tenet, somewhat amplified, is quoted as “ Sandilya’s wis- dom ” by the author of the Satapatha-bralnnana (x. 6. 3.). Other sages among the Chhandogas 3 again 1 Bibl. Ind. vii. 56. 2 Purusha is body rather than man. Madhava says : fw1 rT^f ¥ ^ \rr ^TfcWrTT II 3 Chhand.-up. vi. 2. ; Bibl. Ind. iii. 394. v Oupnekhathai quorumvis quatuor librorum Beid, quod, designatum cum secreto magno (per secretum magnum) est, et integram cognitionem luminis luminum, hie Fakir sine tristitia (Sultan) Mohammed Dara Schakoh ipse, cum significatione recta, cum sinceritate, in tempore sex mensium, (postremo die, secundo rov Sehonbeh, vigesimo,) sexto mensis rov Ramazzan, anno 1067 roii Hedjri (Christi, 1657) in urbe Delhi, in mansione nakhe nou- deli, cum absolutione ad finem fecit pervenire.” The MS. was copied by Atma Ram in the year 1767 A.n. Duperron adds: Absolutum est hoc Apographum versionis Latina: rwy quinquaginta Oupnekhatha, ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samscreticis vocabulis intermixto, facta:, die 9 Octobris, 1795, 18 Brumaire, anni 4. Reipubl. Gall. Parisiis. UPANISIIADS. 327 zeb.1 Secondly, there is Colebrooke’s Essay on the Vedas, which gives a more complete enumeration ot the Upanishads. Thirdly, Weber’s Analysis of Duper- ron’s translation of the Upanishads, in his “ Indian Studies.” Fourthly, an article by Mr. W. Elliot in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1851, giving an account of Upanishads known in the South of India, among the Telugu Brahmans. Fifthty, Dr. Boer’s introduction to the various Upanishads, edited and translated by him in the volumes of the Bibliotheca Indica. There are other works, the well- known pamphlets of Rammohun Roy, the Essays of Pauthier, Poley, d’Eckstein, Windischmann, and the publications of the Tattvabodhini Society, all of which had to be consulted in drawing up our own alphabetical list. The names of the authors of the principal Upa- nishads2 are unknown. This is owing to the very character of these works. They contain authorita- tive statements on the highest questions, and such statements would lose all authority if they were re- presented to the people at large as the result of human reasoning and imagination. They, in a higher degree than any other part of the Vedas, must 1 Elphinstone, History of India, ii. 446. An earlier instance of a translation of the Upanishads is mentioned in Elliot’s His- torians of India, i. 260. “ Abdul Kadir, author of the Tarikh- badaurn, who died at the close of the 16th century, says that he was called upon to translate the Atharvana-veda from the Hindi, which he excused himself from doing on account of the exceeding difficulty of the style and abstruseness of meaning ; upon which the task devolved on Hajl Ibrahim Sirhindi, who accomplished it satisfactorily.” 2 Some of the most modern Upanishads are confessedly the works of Gaudapada, Sankara, and other more recent philosophers. 328 UPANISHADS. have been considered from the very beginning as re- velation, and as directly communicated to mankind by the Supreme Spirit. This sentiment is boldly expressed in the beginning of the Mundaka-upanishad : “ Brahman (masc.), the creator of the universe, the preserver of the world, appeared first among the gods. He taught the knowledge of Brahman (neuter), the foundation of all knowledge, to Atharvan, his eldest son. Atharvan long ago imparted the knowledge of Brahman, which Brahman had explained to him, to Angis : he told it to Satyavaha Bharadvaja, Bharad- vaja in succession to Angiras. Saunaka, the great lord, approached respectfully, and asked: ‘What is it through which, if known, all this becomes known ? ’ ” 1 It is stated that the text of the Upanishads, after it had once been revealed, was never affected by differ- ences, arising from the oral tradition of various Sakhas; and in one instance where various texts of the same Upanishad have been noted by the Brahmans, they are ascribed to various localities, but not to various Sakhas. Each Sakha, however, was supposed to be possessed of a Upanishad, and the Muktika states that, as there are 1 180 Sfikhas, there ought properly to be as many Upanishads. • Another reason why we never hear of the authors of Upanishads as we hear of the Rishis of hymns is that in many instances the Upanishads are mere compilations from other works. Verses from the hymns are incorporated into various Upanishads, and stories originally propounded in the Brahmanas, are enlarged upon by the compilers of these philo- sophical tracts. 1 Son Mundaka-iip. od. Roer. IUUIIADARAtfVAKAS. 329 In cases only where the Upanishads form part of an Aranyaka, the reputed authors of the larger works might likewise he considered as the authors of the Upanishads. This authorship, however, is dif- ferent from the authorship of a Gaudapada and San- kara. As the Brihadaranyaka forms part of the Satapatha-br&hmana, Yajnavalk}Ta, the reputed au- thor of the Brahmana, might well be considered as the author of the Upanishad known by the name of Brihadaranyaka. It forms the last five Prapathakas of the 14th book of the Sat a patha-brahmana in the Madhyandina-saklia, whereas in the Kanva-s&kha the whole of the 17th book is comprised under the name of Upanishad. Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya is mentioned towards the end of the Brihadaranyaka as the person who received the whole of the White Ynjur-veda from Aditya or the Sun. His influential position at the court of Janaka, king of Yideha, is alluded to several times, and one portion of the Brihadaranyaka is called the Yajnavalkiyam Kandam, as specially celebrating the victories gained by that sage over all his rivals. But even if we accept the traditional opinion that Yajnavalkya was the author of the Brahmana and the Aranyaka, such a supposition would be of very little help to us in determining the probable age of the Upanishad portion of the Satapatha-brahniana. We need not enter at present into the question whether the supposed authorship of Yajnavalkya implies that he actually composed, or only that he collected and arranged the sacred code of the Vajasaneyins. That code is, no doubt, in some peculiar sense, considered as Yajnavalkya’s own work. At the time of Panini it was called by a name which, by its very character, indicated that the 330 BRIIIADAKANYAKAS. Satapatha-brahmana was a work due to the exertion of one individual, and that it was not, like other Brahmanas, simply proclaimed by him (prokta ), or formed the traditional property of an ancient Vedic Sakha bearing his name. This, together with a re- mark in the Varttika to Panini, iv. 3. 105., may be interpreted as indicating the more modern date of this Brahman a and its Aranyaka, as compared with the Brahmanas and Aranyakas of other Vedas. But beyond this, the name of Vajasaneya Yajnavalkya, as the reputed author of these works, will not help us in fixing the age of the Vajasaneyi-brahmana- upanishad. Attempts have been made to fix the age of Ya- jnavalkya, as the author of a Law-book, and to trans- fer this date to the author of the Yedic works, just mentioned. The versifier, however, of these laws is as distinct from the original Yajnavalkya, as the poetical editor of the Laws of the Manavas is from the mythic Manu, the founder of the Manava-sakha. Although the poetical editor of this code of laws speaks of the Aranyaka 1 as his own work, nobody will be misled by an assertion of this kind.2 But 1 This can only mean the Brihadaranyaka, as the commentator also observes. 2 Yajn. Dh. iii. 110. ^ wr# iH *fr*rwtwn “ He who wishes to attain Yoga (union with the Divine Spirit) must know the Aranyaka, which I have received from Aditya, and the Yoga sastra, which I have taught.” 1 thought, at first, that there might have been old Dharma-sutras of Yajnavalkya, and that the versifier of these Sutras took this sentence simply YAJNA VALKYA. 331 the age even of the versifier of the Yajnavalkiya code of laws is difficult to determine. Professor Wilson, in his “Ariana Antiqua” (page 364), ob- serves that the word Nanaka, a gold or silver coin having upon it the figure of Siva, may be derived from Nana, a term which occurs on the coins of Kanerki, and is supposed to be “ the name of a goddess ; probably the same as the Anaitis or Anahid of the Persians, or the tutelary goddess of Armenia, Anaia, or Nanaca.” If so (and 1 think the explanation ex- tremely doubtful) the age of Yftjnavalkya’s legal dicta in which the word Nanaka occurs, would be subse- quent. to the era of Kanerki, and, as Professor Stenz- ler remarks in his edition of Yajnavalkya, the second century after Christ would be the earliest date that could be assigned to Yajnavalkya. Now the identi- fication of Nanaka and Nana (Nanaia, Nana Rao,) is a very ingenious conjecture, but no more. Even if admitted to be true, we should still have to prove that the same goddess did not occur in the same way on more ancient oriental coins. As the Hindus derived from the Sutras. I have not yet found, however, Yajnavalkya- sutras on Achara. The so-called Vaislmava-dharma-sastra, or Sri- bhagavad-Vishnu-sanhita, which has been printed at Calcutta, contains Large portions of Sutras which have been worked up in a very crude manner into a law treatise. The whole chapter on the anatomy of the human body, which in the Yajnavalkiya Code precedes the verse in question (iii. 110.), a chapter which does not stand in the Manava code, exists, still in prose, in the Vishnu- sanhita (fol. 28. a. line 11.). The simile of the lamp, also, representing the mind in the middle of the body, is borrowed by the editor of the Yajnavalkiya Code from the Vishna-sanhita (fol. 29. a. line 1.). Y"et, although the Vishnu-sanhita, like the Code of Yajnavalkya, goes on describing the Yroga, no mention is made here of the Aran- yaka, nor does the author speak of himself in the first person, as the author of the metrical Code does. 332 YAJNAVALKYA. their knowledge of coined money from foreign nations, Nanakas may have been current in India long before the time of Kanerki, though the Nanakas of Kanerki may be the first known to us as coined in India. The occurrence of a word like Nanaka1, therefore, is not sufficient by itself to prove that the second cen- tury after Christ is the earliest date of the Yajnaval- kiya Code, still less of Yajnavalkya, as Professor Stenzler supposes. But whatever date may be as- signed to this 6loka work, the date of Yajnavalkya, the author of the Aranyaka and the Satapatha-brah- inana, would not be affected by it in any way, and 1 In the same way it might he said that the Rig-veda-sanhita could not have been collected before the second century after Christ, because the word Nishka occurs in the hymns. Nishka is a weight of gold, or gold in general, and it certainly has no satis- factory etymology in Sanskrit. Nothing seems to be more likely than that it should be derived from Kanishka, the Sanskrit name of Kanerki, as we speak of a Sovereign,” the French of a “ Louis.” The first syllable Ka may be taken as the usual royal prefix, particularly as Faliian calls the same king Kanika and Nika. (Cf. Reinaud, Memoire sur l’lnde, p. 76.) Yet nobody would draw from this the conclusion that the Veda was written after the time of Kanishka. If Nishka be really derived from the name of Ka-Nishka, Kanishka must have been the name or title of more ancient kings, whose money became known in India. But Nishka may have a very different etymology, and at all events it does not furnish any solid basis for chronological conclu- sions. Nishka does once occur in Panini’s Sutras, v. 2. 119,; and it is frequently quoted as an example. Pan. iv. 3. 156. fror: I f%f %TeR: I Pan. i. 4. 87. fspzfi gn'in'qUTI v. 2. 119. vi. 2. 55. fa-EfiTTpim iv- 3- 153- | Cf. V. 1. 37. YAJNAVALKYA. 333 the Satapatha-br&hmana is the only work from which wo may expect information on this point. Another attempt has been made to fix the age of Yajnav&lkya, or, at least, to assign certain chronolo- gical limits to the first origin of the Sakha of the M&dhyandinas, a subdivision of the Yajasaneyins. Arrian, when speaking of the course of the Ganges, mentions among the rivers falling into the Ganges, the “ Andomatis, flowing from the country of the Mandiadini, an Indian people.” 1 Lassen thought he discovered in this the Sanskrit word Madhyandina, meridional ; and, as a mere conjecture, such a re- mark was valuable. Professor Weber, however, went beyond this, and, taking for granted the identity of Mandiadini and Madhyandina, taking for granted also the identity of this Indian people with the Madhyan- dina, a subdivision of the Sakha of the Yajasaneyins, he concluded that the text of this SakhA, i. e. the Sanliita and Brahmana of the White Yajur-veda, pub- lished by himself, must have existed in the third cen- tury b. c. Such rapid conclusions are rarely safe. There may have been such a people as the Madhyan- dinas at any time before or after Christ, and there may have been such a Sakha as that of the Madhyandinas at any time before or after Christ ; but the people need not have had any connection with that Sakha, as little as the Prachyas or Prasii had anything in com- mon with the Sakha of the Prachya-Kathas, or the Ka^laSoXoi, another Indian people, mentioned by Greek writers, with the Sakha of the Kapishthalas. Granted, however, that the SakhA was formed in the country of the Madhyandinas, and derived its name 1 Indische Alterthumskunde, i. 130. ; Sclnvanbeck, Megasthenis Indica, p. 106. 334 TAITTIRIYA-ARANYAKA. from it, nothing whatever would follow from this as to the exact date when this was effected. A second Aranyaka is that of the Taittiriyas. As the Taittiriya-veda (or the Black Yajur-veda) is always represented as anterior to the White Yajur- veda, the Tait ti riy a-arany aka also might be expected to be older than the Brihadaranyaka. It is more likely, however, that the Taittiriy a-arany aka did not yet exist at the time when Yajnavalkya, after seceding from his master, founded a new school, and endowed it with a new Sanhita and Brahmana. The Aranyaka of the Taittiriyas may have been added to their Brahmanas subsequently to this schism, in the same Avay as the Brihadaranyaka is certainly later than many portions of the Satapatha-brahmana. At all events the Taittiriya-aranyaka represents the latest period in the development of the Yedic reli- gion, and shows a strong admixture of post-vedic ideas and names. The same applies also to several parts of the Taittiriya-brahmana, the last part of which does not belong to Tittiri, but is ascribed to Katha, the same Muni to whom the beginning of the Aranyaka is said to have been revealed.1 There are some traces which would lead to the supposition that the Taittiriya-veda had been studied, particu- larly in the south of India, and even among people which are still considered as un-Aryan in the Brahmana of the Rig-veda. In the Taittiriya-aran- yaka different readings are mentioned, which are no longer ascribed to different S&khas but to certain countries in the south of India, like those of the Dra- vidas, Andhras, and Karnatakas. This fact by itself 1 See page 224. AITAREYA-ABANYAKA. 335 would throw some doubt on the antiquity and gen- uineness of this class of Yedic writings at least in that form in which we now possess them. The Taittiriya-aranyaka consists of ten books, of which the four last are devoted to Upanishad doctrines. No author is mentioned, and Tittiri, who might seem to hold the same position for the Taittiriyaranyaka which Yajnavalkya holds for the Brihadaranyaka, is repre- sented by the Brahmans themselves neither as the author nor as the first teacher. lie received the tra- dition from Yaska Paingi, who received it from \ai- &ayana. Tittiri himself handed it on to Ukha, and he to Atreya. Tittiri, therefore, was believed to be the founder of a Sakha, but not the author of the Aranyaka. A third Aranyaka is the Aitareya-aranyaka, be- longing to the Rig-veda. It forms a work by itself, and is not counted as part of the Aitareya-brahmana. This is an important point. The work consists of five books or Artgiyakas 1 2, the second and third of which 1 I find that Haris v ami n also, in his commentary on the Sata- patha-brahmana, quotes the Dakshinatyas and fSaurashtras, to- gether with the Kanvas, as authorities on Yedic subjects. See Dr. Weber’s Ind. Studien, i. 77. In the same place Dr. Weber attempts to prove the late origin of this work by the contraction of sa indrah into sendrah. This contraction, however, occurs already in the Rig-veda-sanhita. See also Pan. vi. 1. 134. 2 The first Aranyaka consists of five Adhyayas and twenty-two Khandas. The second Aranyaka consists of seven Adhyayas and twenty-six Khandas. The Upanishad begins with the fourth Adhyaya and the twenty-first Khanda. The third Aranyaka consists of two Adhyayas and twelve Khandas. The fourth Ara- nyaka consists of one Adhyaya and one Khanda (ascribed to Asvalayana in Shadgurusishya’s commentary on the Sarvanu- krama). The fifth Aranyaka consists of three Adhyayas and fourteen Khandas (ascribed to 6aunaka). 336 AITAREYA-ARANYAKA. form the Bahvricha-upanishad, if by this name we like to distinguish the complete Upanishad from a portion of it, viz. : Adhy&yas 4 — 6, of the second Aranyaka, commonly quoted as the Aitareyopanishad. If we ask for the name of the author, we find again the same un- certainty as in the Brihadaranyaka and the Taittiri- yaranyaka. All we know for certain is that there was a Sakha of the Aitareyins, which was in the pos- session of a Brahmana and an Aranyaka. Both these works were afterwards adopted by the later Sakhas of the Rig-veda,so that we actually hear of an Asvalayana text of the Aitareyakain. We also know from the Chhandogya-upanishad (iii. 16.) that there was a Mahidasa Aitareya, who, by means of his sacred know- ledge was supposed to have defied death for 1,600 years ; and in the Aitareya-aranyaka, not in the Brah- mana, he is several times quoted by the same name as an authority. In the later commentaries, a story is mentioned according to which the Brahmana and Aranyaka of the Rig-veda were originally revealed to one Aitareya, the son of Itara. The story, how- ever, sounds very apocryphal, and had a merely etymological origin. Itara, in Sanskrit, means not only the other of two, but also low, rejected. Thus, if the patronymic Aitareya was to be accounted for, it was extremely easy to turn it into a me- tronymic, and to make Aitareya the son of an Itara, a rejected wife. Thus Say ana, in his introduc- tion to the Aitareya-brahmana, tells us that there was once a great Rishi who had many wives. One of them was called Itarfi, and she had a son called Mahidasa. His father preferred the sons of his other wives to Mahidasa, and once he insulted him in the sacrificial hall, by placing all his other sons kausiiitaki- Aranyaka. 337 on his lap. Mahidasa’s mother, seeing her son with tears in his eyes, prayed to her own tutelary goddess, the Earth (sviyakuladevata Bhuinih), and the goddess in her heavenly form appeared in the midst of the assembly, placed Mahidasa on a throne, and gave him on account of his learning the gift of knowing the Brahmana, consisting of forty Adhya* yas, and, as Sayana calls it, another Brahmana, treat- ing “ of the Aranyaka duties.” This, and similar stories mentioned by Colebrooke1, are not calculated to inspire much confidence. On the contrary we feel inclined to attach more value to the accidental admissions of the Brahmans who ascribe the later portions of the Aitareyaranyaka to such well known authors as Saunaka and Asvalayana. There may have been an Aitareya, the founder of the Sakha of the Aitareyins, and himself the expounder of those ceremonial, philological, and philosophical tracts which are incorporated in the Brahmana and the Aranyaka of the Aitareyins. He is quoted him- self as an authority in those works. But nothing is said in them of his degrading descent, nor of the eru- dition granted to him by the goddess of the earth. Another Aranyaka, belonging to another Sakha of the Rig-veda, is the Kaushitaki-aranyaka. Colebrooke stated in his Essay on the Veda that “ the original of the Kaushitakain was among the portions of the Yeda which Sir Robert Chambers collected at Be- nares, according to a list which he sent to me some time before his departure from India.” According to the catalogue of Sir Robert’s MSS. which are now at the Royal Library at Berlin, there is in that col- 1 Miscellaneous Essays, i. 46, n. Z 338 KAUSIiItAKI-ABANYAKA. lection not only the text and commentary of the Kaushitaki-brahmana, but likewise the Aranyaka, in three Adhyayas, of which the third constitutes the Kaushitaki-upanishad. Here again we know nothing as to the name of an author, Kauslntakin being simply the name of that sect in which the text of these works was handed down from teacher to pupil. There are no Aranyakas for the Sama-veda, nor for the so-called fourth Veda, the Atharvana. Traces of modern ideas are not wanting in the Aranyakas, and the very fact that they are destined for a class of men who had retired from the world in order to give themselves up to the contempla- tion of the highest problems, shows an advanced, and already declining and decaying society, not un- like the monastic age of the Christian world. The problems, indeed, which are discussed in the Aran- yakas and the old Upanishads are not in them- selves modern. They had formed the conversation of the old and the young, of warriors and poets, for ages. But in a healthy state of society these ques- tions were discussed in courts and camps : priests were contradicted by kings, sages confounded by children, women were listened to when they were moved by an unknown spirit.1 This time, which is represented to us by the early legends of the Aran- yakas, was very different from that which gave rise to professional anchorites, and to a literature composed exclusively for their benefit. As sacrifices were per- formed long before a word of any Brfihmana or Sfitra 1 A Kumari gandharvagrihita is quoted as an authority in the Kaushitaki-brahmana, and it is explained by “ viseshabhijna.” Kaush.-br. ii. 9.; Ait.-br. v. 29. Ind. Studien, i. 84. 217. Aranyakas. 339 had been uttered, so metaphysical speculations were carried on in the forests of India long before the names of Aranyaka or Upanishad were thought of. We must carefully distinguish between a period of growth, and a period which tried to reduce that growth to rules and formulas. In one sense the Aranyakas are old, for they reflect the very dawn of thought ; in another, they are modern, for they speak of that dawn with all the experience of a past day. There are passages in these works, unequalled in any lan- guage for grandeur, boldness, and simplicity. These passages are the relics of a better age. But the ge- neration which became the chronicler of those Titanic wars of thought, was a small race ; they were dwarfs, measuring the footprints of departed giants. Chronologically we can see with great clearness that the Aranyakas are anterior to the Sutras. It is only in their latest portions that they show traces of the style of Stitra compositions. We can likewise see that they are later than the Brahmanas, to which they themselves, in several instances, form a kind of appendix. Beyond this we cannot go, but an im- partial consideration of the arguments adduced in favour of a much earlier or a much later date for this class of Yedic literature, will show a complete absence of facts and arguments, such as are required for historical inductions. Whether Panini knew the Aranyakas as a branch of sacred literature is uncertain. Although he mentions the word “aran- yaka,” he only uses it in the sense of “ living in the forest;” and it is the author of the Varttikas1 who first remarks that the same word is also used in the 1 IV. 2. 129. z 2 340 ARANYAKAS. sense of “ read in the forest.” The word Upanishad, besides being used in the Upanishads themselves1, occurs in the Sutras of Panini (i. 4. 79.), but there is nothing to prove that Panini knew Upanishad as the name of a class of sacred writings. It is hardly necessary to remark that at the time when the Aranyakas were written, the hymns of the Sanhitas were not only known, but known in the same form in which we now possess them.2 The Rig-veda is quoted as a whole, and as consisting of ten Mandalas. Though the name of Mandala is not used, the names assigned to each of the -ten books are the same as those used in the Anukramanis, and they follow each other in the same succession. Nay, these names had evidently been current for some time before, for the author of the Aranyaka assigns the most extraordinary etymologies to them, and uses them in support of the wildest speculations. He first mentions the Satarchins or the poets of the first Mandala. He then comprehends the poets of Mandala II. to IX. under the common name of the Ma- dhyamas, assigning to the poets of the tenth and last Mandala the name of Kshudrasuktas and Mahasuktas. The middle books are related more in detail under their usual names, Gritsamada, (ii. ), Visvamitra (iii. ), Vfimadeva (iv.), the Atris (v.), Bharadvaja (vi.), Vasishtha (vii.), the Pragathas (viii.), the Pavamanis (ix.) The names also of Rig-veda, Yajur-veda, and Sama-veda occur as literary titles in this Aranyaka.3 1 Ait.-ar. iii. 1.; ibid, i. 11. Upanishasada. 2 Ait.-ar. ii. 9. 3 Ait.-ar. i. 10.: Bhur bliuvah svar ityeta vava vyaliritaya ime trayo veda, bhur ityeva Rig-veda, bhuva iti Ynjur-vedah, svar iti Sama-vedah. ARANYAKAS. 341 The etymologies assigned to these names are not perhaps more absurd than those which we find in the Brahmanas. But there are other etymological explanations in the Aranyakas such as we scarcely find in any genuine Brahmana. Part of the first Aranyaka (i. 4.) reads almost like a commentary on the first hymns of the Rig-veda, and the short glosses scattered about in these books of the forest might well be considered as the first elements of a Nirukta. The grammatical study of the hymns of the Veda was evidently far advanced, and scholastic pedantry had long taken the place of sound erudition, when the early portions of the Aranyaka were composed. Not only the ten books of the Rig-veda are mentioned, but likewise their subdivisions, the hymns (sukta), verses (rich), half- verses (arddharcha), feet (pada), and syl- lables (akshara). Sometimes the syllables of certain hymns and classes of hymns are counted, and their number is supposed to possess a mysterious signifi- cance. In one passage (ii. 12.) speculations are propounded on the division of letters into consonants (vyanjana), vowels (ghosha), and sibilants (ushman). Admitting, therefore, that the Aranyakas repre- sent the latest productions of the Brahmana period, and that in some cases the authors belong to the age of Saunaka, in others even to a more modern age, we have now to consider the character of the genuine Brahmanas, in order to point out the differences which distinguish the Brahmanas from the Sutras by which they are followed, and from the Mantras by which they are preceded. 342 BRAHMANAS. THE BRAHMANAS. The difficulty of giving an exhaustive definition of what a Brahmana is, has been felt by the Brahmans themselves. The name given to this class of litera- ture does not teach us more than that these works belonged to the Brahmans. They were Brahmanic, i. e. theological tracts, comprising the knowledge most valued by the Brahmans, bearing partly on their sacred hymns, partly on the traditions and customs of the people. They profess to teach the performance of the sacrifice ; but for the greater part they are occupied with additional matter ; with explanations and illustrations of things more or less distantly connected with their original faith and their ancient ceremonial. Sayana, in his Introduction to the Rig-veda1, has given such extracts from the Purva-mimansa philo- sophy as may furnish a pretty correct idea of the Brahmanas, and he has treated the same subject again in his Introduction to the Aitareya-brahmana. u A Brahmana,” he says, “ is twofold, containing either commandments (vidhi), or additional explana- tions (arthavada). This is confirmed by Apastainba, saying : ‘ The Brahmanas are commandments for the sacrifices ; all the rest consists of additional explanations.’ The commandments, too, are of two kinds, either causing something to be done which was not done before, or making something known which was not known before. Of the former kind are all those commandments occurring in the prac- 1 Rig-vcda-bhashya, p. 11. BRAHMAN AS. 343 tical part, such as, ‘ At the Dikshaniya ceremony he presents a purodasa oblation to Agni and Vishnu.’ Of the latter kind are all philosophical passages, such as, ‘ Self was all this alone in the beginning.’ “ But how can it be said,” Sayana goes on, “ that the Veda consists of Mantras and Brahmanas, as the essential qualities neither of the one nor of the other part can be satisfactorily defined ? For if it be said that a Mantra alludes to those things which are com- manded, this definition would not comprehend all Mantras, because there are some which are them- selves commandments, as, for instance, ‘ He takes Ivapinjalas for the Spring.’ Again, if it be said that a Mantra is what makes one think ( man , to think), this definition would comprehend the Brahmanas also. Other definitions have been given, that a Mantra ends with the word 1 thou art,’ or that it ends Avith the first person plural ; but none of these definitions can be considered as exhaustive. The only means, then, by which Mantras can be distinguished from Brahmanas lies in their general sacrificial appellation, which comprehends the most different things under the one common name of Mantras. There are some recording the performance of sacrifices ; some contain praises, some end Avith the Avord thee (tva), some are invocations, some are directions, some contain deliber- ations, some contain complaints, some are questions, some are ansAvers, &c. All these attributes are so heterogeneous, that none of them can be used for a definition. Knowing, however, that the Veda consists only of tAVO parts, Ave may sa}^ that whatever does not come under the name of Mantra is Brahmana, whether it contain reasons, explanations, censures, recommen- dations, doubts, commandments, relations, old stories, 344 BKAHMANAS. or particular determinations. Not one of these sub- jects belongs to the Brahmanas exclusive^, but they occur more or less frequently in the Mantras also, and could therefore not be used as definitions of the Brah- manas. The same objection applies to all other defi- nitions which have been attempted. Some have said that, the frequent occurrence of the particle iti (thus) constitutes a Brahmana ; others, that a Brahmana closes with the words ityaha (thus he said); others that a Brahmana contains stories, &c. ; but all this would apply with equal force to some of the Man- tras. The only division therefore of the Veda that holds good consists in comprehending one part under the old traditional appellation of Mantra, and con- sidering all the rest as Brahmanas. “ But it might be objected,” Sayana continues, “that for instance in the chapter on the Brahmayajna, other parts of the Veda are mentioned besides the Brahma- nas and Mantras, under the title of Itihasas, (epic stories) Puranas (cosmogonic stories), Ivalpas (cere- monial rules), Gathas (songs), Narasansis, (heroic poems). This, however, would be the same mistake as if we should place a Brahman coordinate with a Brahman who is a mendicant. For all these titles, like Itihasa, &c., apply only to subdivisions of the Brahmanas. Thus, passages from the Brahmanas like ‘ The gods and the Asuras were fighting,’ &c., would be called Itih&sas ; other passages like ‘In the beginning there was nothing,’ would be called Pura- nas ; therefore we may safely say, that the Veda consists of two parts only, of Mantras and Brah- manas." 1 1 According to Madhusudana’s view, the Brahmanas consist of three parts ; of commandments, additional explanations, and Ve- BRAHMANAS. 345 If after these not very satisfactory definitions of what a Brahmana is, and how it differs from a Mantra, we turn to the Br&hmanas themselves, such as we possess them in MS., we find that their number is much smaller than we should have expected. If every Sakha consisted of a Sanhitfl and a Briih- mana, the number of the old B rah in anas must have been very considerable. It must not be supposed, how- ever, that the Brahmanas which belonged to different, Saklias were works composed independently by dif- ferent authors. On the contrary, as the Sanhitas of different S;\khas were nothing but different recensions of one and the same original collection of hymns, and could be distinguished from each otheronlybya number of authorised varia’ lectiones or by the addition and omission of certain hymns, the Brahmanas also, which were adopted by different Charanas of the same Veda, must be considered not as so many independent works, but in most instances as different recensions of one and the same original. There was originally but one body of Brahmanas for each of the three Vedas; for the Rig-veda, the Brahmanas of the Bahvrichas, for the Sama-veda the Brahmanas of the Chhandogas, and for the Yajur-veda in its two forms, the Brahmanas of the Taittiriyas, and the Satapatha- brahmana. These works were not composed in metre like the Sanhitas, and were therefore more exposed to danta doctrines, the latter being more particularly represented by theUpanishads. The same author speaks of four classes of command- ments. “ A commandment may consist,” he says, “ either of a sim- ple definition (‘the oblation to Agni is given in eight cups ’); or it may include the aim (‘he who wishes for life in heaven may perform the sacrifices of the new and full moon ’) ; or it may detail the means by which the sacrifice is performed (‘let him sacrifice with rice’); or it may contain all this together.” 346 BRAHMANAS OF THE BAHVRICHAS. alteration in the course of a long continued oral tra- dition. We possess the Brahmana of the Bahvrichas in the Sakhas of the Aitareyins and the Kaushitakins. The various readings of other Sakhas, quoted by the commentator on the Aitareya-brahmana, show evi- dently that there were other Sakhas of the Bahvri- chas, which differed but little in the wording of their Brahmanas. But even the Brahmana of the Kaushitakins which has been preserved to us as a distinct work, different from the Brahmana of the Aitareyins, can only be considered as a branch of the original stock of Brahmana literature, current among the Bahvrichas. Its arrangement differs con- siderably from that of the Aitareya-brahmana. The sacrifice described in the beginning of the Aitareya- brahmana forms the seventh Adhyaya of the Kaushi- taki-brahmana1, and most of the other sacrifices are equally displaced. Others which are discussed in the Aitareya-brahmana are altogether wanting in the Kaushitaki-brahmana, and must be supplied from the Sutras of the 6ankhayana-sakha, a subdivision of the Kaushitakins. But whenever parallel passages occur, it becomes clear that the coincidences in the descrip- tion of sacrifices and the wording of legends cannot be accidental. Most of the Brahmanas which are left to us are collective works. A tradition has been preserved in confirmation of this fact. The Brahmana of the / * • i Aitareya.br. i. 1. fiw &c- Kaush.-br. vii. 1. &c. Ait.-bra.hin. ii. 2.= Kaush.-br. x. 2.; ii. 6. = x. 4. (6ankh.- sutra,.v. 17.); ii. 3. = xii. 1. BUAIIMANAS OF THE CIIIIANDOGAS. 317 Taittiriyas, in the Sakhfts both of the Apustambiyas and the Atreyas, contains some portions which bear the name of Katha, and were formerly the property of his followers. The component parts are frequently called Brahmanas instead of chapters or sections. The same applies to the Aranyakas and Upanishads. In some cases these smaller Brahmanas are quoted by their special titles1; and in their collected form they are handed down, not always by the name of the Charana by which they were adopted, but more fre- quently by that of the Charana in which their original collection took place. Thus the Aitareya-brfdimana, though adopted by the A&valtiyaniyas, is more fre- quently quoted by its original name than by that of Asvalayana-brahmana.2 The Br&hmana of Kaushi- takin or the Ivaushitakins is more usually referred to by this name than by that of the later Charana of the Sankhayanas. In the Brahmana of the Chhandogas it is evident, that after the principal collection was finished (called the praudha or panchavinsa-brahmana, i. e. consisting of twenty-five sections), a twenty-sixth Brahmana was added which is known by the name of Shadvinsa- brahmana. This Brahmana together with the Ad- bhuta-brahmana must be of very modern date. It 1 Maitreyi-brahmana is the title given to that portion of the Brihadaranyaka which contains the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi. The Saulabhani brahmanani, quoted by Asvala- yana and Panini as modern compositions, may refer to sections con- taining a dialogue similar to that between Janaka and Sulabha, which exists in the Mahabharata, III. v. 11,854. Cf. Lassen, Ind. Alterth. xv. note. According to Panini, however, they ought to be taken as Brahmanas composed by Sulabha. 2 Quoted as such by Yajnikadeva on Katy. 2. 5. 18.; 6. 6. 25. Weber, Ind. Stud. i. 230. 348 BRAHMANAS OF THE CHHANDOGAS. mentions not only temples (Pevayatanani), but images of gods (daivata-pratima) which are said to laugh, to cry, to sing, to dance, to burst, to sweat, and to twinkle. These two have long been supposed to be the only Brahmanas of the Chhandogas, and they constitute, no doubt, the most important part of that class of literature. It is curious, however, that when- ever the Brahmanas of the Chhandogas are quoted, their number is invariably fixed at eight. Kumarila Bhatta, i. 3 ’, says, “ in the eight Brahmanas, together with the Upanishads, which the Chhandogas read, no single accent is fixed.” Still more explicit is a state- ment by Sayana which I quoted in the introduction to the first volume of my edition of the Rig-veda.1 2 Here Sayana says : “ There are eight Brahmanas ; the Praudha is the first (this means the large Brahmana, or the Panchavinsa) ; the one called Shadvinsa or Shadvinsad-brahmana, is the second ; then follows the Samavidhi ; then the Arsheya-brahmana, the Devata- dhyaya-brahmana, and the Upanishad. These with the Sanhitopanishad and the Vansa are called the eight books.” Of these the Samavidhana-brahmana was well known, the very quotation of Sayana being taken from his commentary on this very curious work. It might have been difficult, however, to identify the other five works if there had not been among the MSS. of Professor Wilson’s collection at the Bod- leian Library, one (No. 451) containing four of these small tracts, the Sanhitopanishadam-brahmanam, the Pevatadhyayah, the Van isa-br ah m an a m , and the 1 Brahmanani hi yany ashtau saraliasyany adhiyate Chhandogas leshu sarveshu na kaschin niyatah svarah. 2 P. xxvii. note. BRAHMANAS OF THE CI1IIANDOGAS. 349 Arsheya-brahmanam.1 The only Brahmana, there- fore, on which any doubt could remain, was the Upanishad, and here we shall probably not be wrong if we adopt one of Professor Weber’s less bold conjectures, that Sayana intended this for the Chhan- dogya-upanishad.2 With the exception of this and the Samavidhana, which contains most important in- formation on questions connected with Achara or cus- toms, all the other tracts are of comparatively small importance. It. is in the 6atapatha-brahmana, however, that we can best observe the gradual accumulation of various theological and ceremonial tracts which were to form the sacred code of a new Charana. The text of this work has been edited by Professor Weber, and we can likewise avail ourselves of several essays on this branch of Vedic literature, published from time to time by that industrious scholar. According to In- dian traditions, Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya, the founder of the new Charana of the Vajasaneyins is himself, if not the author, at least the first who proclaimed the Sanhita and Brahmana of the Vajasaneyins. We can see clearly that the composition of both the San- hita and Brahmana was guided by the same spirit, and it is not at all unlikely that in this, the most modern of all Vedas, the final arrangement of the Sanhita may have been contemporaneous with, or even later than, the composition of the Brahmana. First of all, it ought to be remarked that the story 1 See also “A Catalogue Raisonee (sic) of Oriental Manuscripts in the Library of the late College Fort St. George,” by the Rev. W. Taylor, Madras, 1857, p. 69. 2 The Vansa-brahmana has lately been printed, with some valuable remarks, by Prof. A. Weber, Ind. Stud. iv. 371. 350 BRAIIMANAS OF THE VAJASANEYINS. which has been preserved by tradition of the schism introduced by Yajnavalkya among the followers of the Adhvaryu or Yajur-veda is confirmed by internal evidence. The general name of the ancient Sakhas of the Yajur-veda is Charaka, and the Taittiriyas, therefore, together with the Kathas, and others are called by a general name, Charaka-sakhas. This name Charaka is used in one of the Khilas of the Va- jasaneyi-sanhita as a term of reproach. In the 30th Adhy&ya a list of people are given who are to be sacrificed at the Purushamedha, and among them we find the Charakacharya, the teacher of the Charakas, as the proper victim to be offered to Dush- krita or Sin. This passage, together with similar hostile expressions in the Satapatha-brahmana, were evidently dictated by a feeling of animosity against the ancient schools of the Adhvaryus, whose sacred texts we possess in the Taittiriya-veda, and from whom Yajnavalkya seceded in order to become him- self the founder of the new Charanas of the Vajasa- neyins. If we compare the Sanhita and Brahmana of the V&jasaneyins with those of the Charakas, we see that the order of the sacrifices is on the whole the same, and that the chief difference between the two consists in the division of Mantras and Brahmanas, which is carried out more strictly by Yajnavalkya than in the ancient text of the Taittiriyas. This was most likely the reason why the text of Yajnavalkya was called Sukla Yajur-veda, which is generally translated by the White Yajur-veda. But some commentators ex- plain Sukla more correctly by suddha1, and translate 1 Dvivedaganga explains riP* Tf% II CODE OF THE TAITTIIttYAS. 351 it by “ cleared,” because in this new text the Mantras had been cleared and separated from the Brahmanas, and thus the whole had been rendered more lucid and intelligible. In opposition to this they suppose that the old text was called Krishna or dark, because in it the verses and rules are mixed together, and less intelligible ; or because, as Yidyaranya says, it contained the rules of the Hotri as well as of the Adhvaryu priests, and thus bewildered the mind of the student.1 It was in the nature of the duties which the Adhvaryus had to perform at the sacrifices, that their hymns and invocations could hardly be sepa- rated from the rules (vidhi) contained in the Brah- manas. It was not a mere accident therefore that in the Y eda of the ancient Adhvaryus the hymns and rules were mixed up, and it must be considered as a mere innovation if what is now called the Sanhita of the Black Yajur-veda is distinguished by this name from the Brahinana, which in reality is a continuation of the same work. It is not unlikely that it was the very wish to have, like the Bahvrichas and Chhandogas, a Sanhita, i. e. a collection of hymns distinct from the ce- remonial rules, which led to the secession of the Yaja- saneyins, and, by a kind of reaction, to the absurd adop- tion of the titles of Sanhita and Br&hmana among the Taittiriyas. In the new code of the Yajasaneyins the most important part was nevertheless the Brah- mana, the Sanhita being a mere collection of verses, 1 fNjTTTSRPfa l\_4n5TTrT^TT^^ fjf%- makrishna’s Sanskaraganapati. Weber, Ind. Stud. i. 27. 84. 352 CODE OF THE TAITTIRIYAS. extracted and collected for the convenience of the officiating priest. The differences in the text of these verses and formulas would be marked in the Brah- mana, and transferred from the Brahmana into the Sanhita. This is, therefore, the very opposite of what happened with the text of the Sanhita and Brah- mana of the Bahvrichas. Here the Sanhita existed long before the Brahmana, and it had diverged into different Sakhas, before the Brahmana of the Aita- reyins Avas composed. The Vajasaneyi-sanhita may possibly represent various readings which existed in the Sakhas of the Taittiriyas ; but these verses were collected and formed into a Sanhita only as an ap- pendix to the Satapatha-brahmana, the real code of the Vajasaneyins. Where the sacrificial invocations of the Vajasaneyins differ from those of the Taittiriyas, we ought to recognise in those differences the last traces of Sakhas which existed previous to the establishment of the Vajasaneyins. In the beginning, for instance, of the Darsa-purnamasa sacrifice, the Adhvaryu priest, having called the cows and calves together, has to touch the calves with a branch. This act of the sacrifice was originally accompanied by the words “ vayava stha, upayava stha,” “ you are like the winds,” — and the whole ceremony, together with these invocations, is contained in the Taittiriya- sanhitA In the Madhyandina-sakha, on the con- trary, not only are the words “ upayava stha ” omitted in the Sanhita, but a distinct warning is given in the Brahmana not to use these words, be- cause they belong to a different SakhA1 1 Cf. Sayana, Rig-veda-bhashya, p. 12. ; 6atapatha-brahmana, i. 7. 3. rT^RT^T^ f% BRAHMANAS OF TI1E VAJASANEYINS. 353 A comparison of the texts of the Taittiriyas and Vajasaneyins shows that it would be a mistake to call Yajnavalkya the author, in our sense of the word, of the Vajasaneyi-sanhita and the Satapatha- brahmana. But we have no reason to doubt that it was Yajnavalkya who brought the ancient Man- tras and Brahmanas into their present form, and, considering the differences between the old and new text, we must admit that he had a greater right to be called an author than the founders of the Charanas of other Yedas whose texts Ave possess. In this sense, Katyayana says, in his Anukramani, that Yajnavalkya received the Yajur-veda from the Sun.1 In the same sense the 6atapatha-brahmana ends Avith the assertion that the White Yajur-veda was proclaimed by Yajnavalkya Vajasaneya2 ; and in the same sense Panini, or rather his editor, says in the first Varttika to iv. 3. 105. that there Avere modern f%rfr^TS^rprf?T rTVJT 5T In the commentary on Baudhayana’s Sutras, a passage from a Brahmana is quoted, which may have belonged to the Baudhayaniya-sakha. wrvrm #f?r wn- The Baudhayana-sutras enjoin the first sentence for male calves, the second for females ones, c{ | v5 1 stct: hn ff A A 354 RRAHMANAS OF TIIE VAJASANEYINS. Brahmanas proclaimed by Y &j navalky a, and that their title differed by its formation from the title given to more ancient Brahmanas. At the time when these titles were framed Yajnavalkya was still alive ; and his work, therefore, was not yet considered as one handed down by tradition through several genera- tions. There might seem to be some difficulty in making Yajnavalkya the author or editor of the whole Yajur-veda, because there are several portions of the Brahmana where Yajnavalkya himself is intro- duced as one of the chief interlocutors, so much so that part of the Brihadaranyaka, the last book of the Satapatha-brahmana, is designated by the name of Yajnavalkiyam kandam. But similar instances occur in several of the traditional works of the Brahmans, and in this case the decided traces of a later origin which are to be found in the Brihadaranyaka, would justify us in supposing that these portions were added after Yajnavalkya’s decease, particularly as it is called Yajnavalkiya, not Yajnavalkya-kanda.1 That Yajnavalkya, though deserting the Charakas, derived great advantage from their Veda, is seen at once by the whole arrangement of his work. I give a list of the various subjects treated in the Vajasa- neyi-sanhita, according to Mahidhara. The Sanhita of the Vajasaneyins begins with The Darsapurnamasamantras, Adhyaya, i. — ii. 28. Then follow : — Pitriyajnamantras, ii. 29 — 34. Agnyadheyamantr&s, iii. 1 — 8. Agnihotram, iii. 9 — 10. Agnyupasth&nam, iii. 11 — 43. 1 See Pan. v. 4. 105, on the purport of this difference. BRAHMANAS OF TIIE VAJASANEYINS. 355 Ch&turmasy&ni, iii. 44 — 63. Soma. Agnishtomas, iv. 1 — viii. 23. S&lapravefeas, iv. 1 — 37. Atithyeshtau havirgrahanadimantras, (yftpanirrail- nain), v. 1 — fin. Y fipasanskara ( agnishomiy apa&u ) -somabhishavaman- tras, vi. 1 — fin. Grahagrahanamantras (upansvadi-pradananta), vii. 1 — fin. Tritiyasavanagata adityagrahadimantras, viii. 1 — 23. Prasangikas, viii. 24 — 63. Yajapeyas, ix. 1 — 34. Rajasfiyas, ix. 35 — 40. Rajasuya abhishekarthajaladanadiFajasuyaaeshas, Cha- rakasautramani cha, x. 1 — fin. Agnichayanam, xi. — xviii. Ukhasambharanadimantras, xi. Ukhadharana, garhapat.yachayana, kshetrakarshana, ausliadhavapanadi, xii. Pnshkaraparnadyupadhanamantras(prathamachitib.), xiii. Dvitiyadichititrayam, xiv. Panchamachitih, xv. Satarudriyakhyahomamantras, xvi. Chityaparishekadimantras, xvii. Yasordharadimantras, xviii. Sautrdmam , xix xxi. Suradindrabhisliekantam, xix. Sekasandyadi-hautrantam, xx. Yajyadi-presbanantam, xxi. Asvamedlias , xxii. — xxv. Homamantras, xxii. Sishtam asvamedhikam, xxiii.1 1 According to the forty-eighth Atharvaparisishta, the thirty- A A 2 356 BKAHMANAS OF THE VAJASANEYINS. 6rutirupamantra fisvamedhikanam pasunam, xxiv., xxv. Khildni, xxvi. — xxxv. Anuktamantrakathanam, xxvi. Panchachitikamantras, xxvii. Sautramanisambandhiprayajanuyajapraishanirupa- nam, xxviii. Sishtasvamedhamantras, xxix. Purushamedhas, xxx., xxxi. Sarvatnedhas, xxxii — xxxiii. 54. Brahmayajnas, xxxiii. 55 — xxxiv. fin. Pitrimedhas, xxxv. Sukriyam (panchadhyayi), xxxvi. — xl.1 Pravargya Santipathas, xxxvi. Abhryadi-rauhinantam, xxxvii. Mahaviranirupanam, xxxvii i. Gharmadinishkritis, xxxix. Jnanak&ndam , xl. According to this list the Vajasaneyi-sanhita may be divided into different sections. The first section comprises the Darsapfirnamasa, &c., i. — iii. ; the second the Soma sacrifices, iv x. ; the third the Agnichayanas, xi. — xviii. These eighteen Adhyayas, which correspond to the Taittiriya-sanhita, are explained in the first nine books of the Satapatha-brahmana and the first eighteen chapters of Katyayana’s Sutras. They form, no doubt, the most important part of the Adhvaryu- veda, but there is no evidence to show that they ever existed in a separate form. It has been well re- second verse of the twenty-third Adhyaya would be the last verse of the Sanhita. See Weber, Ind. Stud. iv. p. 432. 1 According to the Mitakshara commentary on Yajnavalkya’s Dharma-sastra, xxxvi. 1. forms the beginning of an Aranyaka. Weber, Vorlesungen, p. 103. BRAHMANAS OF THE VAJASANEYINS. 357 marked, however, by the editor of the Satapatha- brahmana, that the first nine books consist altogether of sixty Adhyayas1, and that the name of Shashi i- patha, the Sixty Paths, which is mentioned in the Varttika to Pan. iv. 2. 60., may refer to this portion, whereas the Avliole Brahmana, consisting of one hun- dred Adhyayas, received the title of Satapatha, the Hundred Paths. The Sautramani ceremony, which begins with the 19th Adhyaya, has nothing corresponding to it in the Taittiriya-sanhita, but, like the following sacrifices, it has been incorporated in the Taittiriya-brahraana. There is a difference also in the treatment which this sacrifice receives in the Satapatha-brahmana. Adhyaya xix. and xx. are indeed explained, there, in the 12th book, but they do not receive the same careful explanation which was given to the preceding sacrifices. The last Adhyaya, containing verses of the Hotri, is not explained at all. Katyayana treats these three Adhyayas in the 19th book of his Sutras. The ASvamedha, which fills Books xxii. — xxv. of the Yajasaneyi-sanhita, is but partially contained in the Taittiriya-sanhita ; and the Satapatha also, though it devotes to this ceremony a considerable part of the 13th book, treats it in a much more superficial manner than the former sacrifices. Katyayana explains it in his 20th book. 1 A similar ingenious remark has been made by the same savant with regard to the Aitareya and Ivausbitaki, or, as be calls it, 6ankhayana-brahmana. The former consists of forty, the latter of thirty Adhyayas, and it is not unlikely that the rule in Panini, v. 1. 62, how to form the names of Brahmanas, consisting of thirty and forty Adhyayas, had special reference to these works. The names are “ trainsani ” and “ chatvarinsani brahmanani ; ” the explanation, “ trinsad adhyayah parimanam esham brahmananam.” A A 3 358 BRAHMANAS OF THE vijASANEYINS. The Adhy&yas which follow the Asvamedha are distinctly called Khilas or supplements by Katyayana. They are relegated to the Brahmana by the Taitti- riyas, and explained with less detail in the datapatha- brahmana. Adhyaya xxvi. — xxix. contain some hymns belonging to sacrifices previously explained, and they are passed over entirely by the Satapatha- brahmana and by Katyayana. Adhyaya xxx. and xxxi. contain the Purushamedha, which the Taitti- riyas treat in their Brahmana. The datapatha-brah- mana devotes but a short space to it in its 13th book, and Katyayana explains Adhyaya xxxi. in his 21st book. The ceremonies comprised in the three following Adhyayas, xxxii. to xxxiv., Sarvamedha and Brahma- yajna, are passed over by the datapatha-brfdnnana and. Katyayana. The Taittiriyas allow them no place in their Brahmana, but include them in their Aranyaka. The Pitrimedha which follows in the xxxvtli Adhy&ya, finds its place in the Brahmana of the Taittiriyas. The datapatha and Katyayana explain it, the former in the 13th, the latter in the 21st book. The dukriya portion of the Vajasaneyi-sanhita, xxxvii. — xl., is excluded from the Brahmana of the Taittiriyas, and treated in their Aranyaka. The da- tapath a-b rah mana explains three of these Adhyayas, xxxvii. — xxxix., in full detail in its 17th Kanda, and Katyayana devotes to them the Sutras of his last book. Those who only take into account the general object of the datapatha-brahmana, have called it a running commentary on the Vajasaneyi-sanhita. But this ap- plies strictly to the first nine books only, and with the tenth book the Brahmana assumes a new and more BRAHMAN AS OF TIIE VAJASANEYINS. 359 independent character. The tenth book is called the Agnirahasyara, the mystery of fire, and it refers to no particular portion of the Sanhita, but enlarges on the ceremonies which have been described in the four preceding books. Towards the end (x. 4. G.)> it contains two chapters, which, in the Kanva-6akha, form the beginning of the Brihadaranyaka-upanishad, and are there followed by the Madhu-kanda, the Ya- jnavalkiya-kanda, and Khila-kamla of the 14th book of the Madhyandina-sakha. The 10th book or Agnira- hasyam closes with its own genealogy or Vansa. AVith the 11th book begins, according to Sayana, the second part of the Satapatha-brahmana. It is called Ashtadhyayi, and gives additional information on all the sacrifices mentioned before, beginning with the Agny&d liana. The 12th book, which is called Sautramani, treats of prayaschitta, or penance in general, and it is only in its last portion that it refers to the text of the Sanhita, and to that ceremony in particular from which it has derived its name. Besides this name of Sautramani, the 12th book is also known by the name of Madhyama or the middle book, and this title can only be explained if we begin the second part of the Satapatha, not, as Sayana suggests, with the 11th, but with the 10th book. The 13th book is chiefly concerned with the Asva- medha, and its first three Adhyayas may again be considered as a kind of commentary on the Sanhita. Towards the end some sacrifices, beginning with the Purushamedha, which the Sanhita treats in its Khila portion, are explained, but other ceremonies also are mentioned, for which there is no precedent in the Sanhita. The Brihadaran}raka, the last book of the A A 4 360 ANCIENT AND MODERN BRAHMANAS. Satapatha, contains in its first three Adhyayas, a close commentary on the Pravargya of the Sanhita, but becomes quite independent afterwards. Its ob- ject is no longer the sacrifice, but the knowledge of Brahman, without any particular reference, however, to the last Adhy&ya of the Sanhita, which, as we saw, was equall}’’ devoted to the doctrine of the Upani shads. It is clear, therefore, that the Satapatha-brahinana was not simply a running commentary on the San- hita ; nay there is nothing to prove that the hymn- book of the Vajasaneyins existed previous to their Brahmana. The Satapatha-brahmana may have been edited by Yajnavalkya, but its component parts, like the component parts of the other Brahmanas, must have been growing up during a long period of time in different localities before they were collected. The collection of ancient Brahmanas must always have been the work of individual teachers, and their Brah- manas, in their new and complete form, were at first the exclusive property of that one Charana to which the collectors belonged, or of which they became the founders. Afterwards these collective Brahmanas were adopted by the members of other Charanas, who either added some chapters of their own, or introduced certain modifications, by which we now find that different texts of one and the same Brah- mana differ from one another. We must distin- guish, therefore, between old and new Brahmanas, the former being those which from time immemorial had been living in the oral tradition of various Charanas, the latter comprising the great collective works. Some of the latter vary slightly in the edi- tions adopted in various Charanas ; others, and these the most modern, show the distinct influence of ANCIENT AND MODERN BRAHMANAS. 361 individual editors. Panini, whose views are not shackled by the inspiration-doctrine which blinded and misled all the followers of the orthodox Mimansa school, broadly states the fact that there are old and new Brahmanas ; tvliereas, according to the doctrine of later divines, the Brahmanas are neither old nor new, but eternal, and of divine origin. Panini, who is a grammarian, rests his opinion as to the different dates of the Brahmanas on the evidence of language. “A book,” he says, “composed by a certain author, may be called by an adjective derived from the author’s name.” 1 For instance, a book composed by Vararuchi may be called “ Yararucho granthah.” A work, on the contrary, which has only been taught and promul- gated2 by a person, is not to be called his book (grantha), but bears its own title, such as “gram- mar,” or, whatever else it may be, together with an adjective derived from the author’s name. Panini’s grammar, for instance, is not to be called “ Paniniyo granthah,” but “ Paniniyam vyakaranam ” ; because it is a canonical work, revealed to Panini, but not invented by him. It may also be called “Paniniyam,” in the singular neuter ; i. e. Panineum.3 In the same way it is perfectly correct to speak of an “Apisalam,” a work composed by Apisala, of a “ Paingi Kalpah,” an old ceremonial of Pinga’s, of a “ Madhuri Vrittih,” a commentary of Madhura 4, and of “ Charakah 6lokah,” 1 Pan. iv. 3. 116. II Kaiyyata says that this Sutra does not belong to Panini. See page 184. 2 Pan. iv. 3. 115. Bhashya: ^TTlII iv. 3. 101. ifNill Bhashya : ^rf 5T ^ ^TlirTlI 3 Cf. iv. 3. 101 ; iv. 2. 64. 4 Cf. Pan. iv. 3. 108. 362 ANCIENT AND MODERN BRAHMANAS. verses composed by Charaka. “ But,” says Panini, “ if the work referred to consists either of Vedic hymns (Chhandas), or of old Brahmanas (puranaprokteshu Brahmaneshu), then it is not correct to use these derivative adjectives in the singular (unless we employ secondary derivatives, such as Taittiriyakam, Katha- kam), but it is necessary to use the masculine plural.” It is wrong to use the word Katham as an adjective from Katha, in the sense of hymns promulgated by Katha ; or to use Taittiriyam (from Tittiri, like Paniniyam from Panini), or Taittiriyam Brahmanam, in the sense of a Brahmana promulgated by Tittiri. Even Kalpas and Sutras like the Kalpas of Kasyapa, and Kausika, or the Sutras of Parasarya, Silala, Karmanda, and Kri&asva, are better quoted as “ the Kasyapins ” &c. if they are old works.1 According to Panini, we must speak of “ the Kathas,” i. e. those who study and know the hymns promulgated by Katha2 ; of “ the Taittiriyas,” those who study and know the Brahmana promulgated by Tittiri. This peculiarity of the Sanskrit language, which re- minds us of the Greek expression of ol 7 rsp), admits of a very natural explanation, if we remember that in these old times literary works did not exist in writing, but were handed down by oral tradition in different communities, which represented, so to say, different works, or even different recensions of one and the same work, like so many manuscripts in 1 Cf. Pan. iv. 2. 66. ^ff% sTT^WTfa ^ TTY^W^TrTT- ^ wr^ITfall 2 That the Kathas were an old Charana, possessing their own tradition and laws, is seen from the 11th Varttika to Pan. iv. 3. 120. and from Pan. iv. 3. 126. ANCIENT AND MODERN BRAHMANAS. 3G3 later times. It was much more natural, therefore, to say, “ the Taittiriyas relate,” than to speak of a Taittiriyam, a work proclaimed by Tittiri, who was perhaps a merely nominal ancestor of the Taittiriyas, or to refer to a Taittiriya grantha, i. e. Tittiri’s book, which in reality never existed. That this is the real ground for this Sanskrit idiom becomes more evi- dent by the exceptions mentioned by Panin i himself. There are no exceptions with regard to the names of hymns, or rather of the supporters of their texts ; but there are Brahmanas, Kalpas, and Sdtras spoken of in the same way as Panin i’s own work. It is wrong, for instance, to speak of the Yfijnavalkyas in the same sense as we speak of the Taittiriyas, and the works promulgated by Yajnavalkya, although they are Brahmanas, are called Yajnavalkyani Brahmanani.1 “ And why ? ” says Katyayana ; “ because they are of too recent an origin ; that is to say, they are almost contemporaneous with ourselves.” Here, then, we see that as early as Panini and Katyayana a distinction was made, not only by learned men, but in common lano-uacre, between old and modern Brahmanas. We see that the Brahmanas of Yajnavalkya, whose works, as those of a seceder, we had reason to consider as modern, are by their very name classed as modern. What other Brahmanas belong to the same class it is not so easy to say 2, because the only other instance quoted, besides the Brahmanas of Yajnavalkya, are the Saulabhani Brahmanani, and they have not yet been met with. It is not unlikely, however, that 1 Pan. iv. 3. 105. 1. (SiTcf I 2 There is no Gana, Yajnavalkyadih. 364 ANCIENT AND MODERN BRAHMANAS. the so-called Anubrahmanani *, or supplementary Brahmanas, which we have, for instance, in the Sama-veda 2, may come under this category.3 That different Brahmanas existed at the time when the great collective Brahmanas were composed, might be proved, even without the testimony of Panini, by quotations occurring in the Brahmanas themselves. The original Charanas were not all rival sects, and it was natural that one Charana should be ready to ac- cept Brahmanas of another, if they contained any additional traditions or precepts which seemed to be valuable. Thus we find the Brahmanas of the Kathas added to the Brahmanas of the Taittiriyas. In other cases we find that one Brahmana quotes the opinion of another Sakha, not in support of its own doctrines, but in order to refute it. Thus the Kaushitakins are frequently attacked in the Tandya-brahmana. Now, if these quotations of diffe- rent authorities, which we meet with in Brahmanas, alluded only to the opinions of certain individuals we might • still be doubtful whether these opinions had formerly been laid down in separate Brahmana 1 Cf. Pan. iv. 2. 62. 2 The Anubrahmaninah are mentioned in the Nidana-sutra belonging to the Sama-veda. Cf. Ind. Stud. i. 45. 3 Ancient Chhandas (Sanhita-sakhas) are those of the Kathas, Charakas, Maudus, and Paippaladas, Saunakins, Vajasaneyins, &c., iv. 2. 66. Ancient Brahmanas are those of the Bhallavins, Taittiriyas, Varatantaviyas, Khandikiyas, Aukhiyas; the Alambins, Pfilangins, Kamalins, Archabhins, Arunins, Tandins, Syamayanins, Kathas, and Kalapas (these descended from the nine pupils of Vai- sampayana) ; the Haridravins, Taumburavins, Aulapins, and Chhagaleyins (these derived their origin from the four pupils of Kalapin) ; the Satyayanins. Old Kalpas are those of the Kasyapins, Kausikins, the Paingi and Arunaparaji Kalpah. Old Sutras those of the Parasarins, Sailalins, Karmandins, and Ivrisasvins. BRAIIMANA- AND SUTRA-CIIARANAS. 305 works. But when we see quotations like “ iti Kau- shitakam,” “ iti Paingyam,” “ so says the work of the Kaushitakins or Paingins,” there can be little doubt that separate Brahmanas, propagated by separate Charanas, are here intended, whatever commentators may say to the contrary.1 What became of these numerous Brahmana-charanas which are quoted both in the Brahmanas and in the Sutras, is not quite clear. Most likely they were absorbed or replaced by a more modern class of Cha- ranas, the Sfttra-charanas. When the Sutras once came to be regarded as part of the sacred canon, they gave rise to a large number of new Charanas.2 Their members would preserve the text of the Sanhita and Brahinana of an earlier Charana from which they originally branched off.3 The ground of division being in the Sutras, the minor dif- ferences between the texts of the Sanhitas and 1 Indische Studien, i. 393. 2 Colebrooke has taken a different view with respect to the Sutras. He says, “ But those numerous Sakhas did not differ so widely from each other as might be inferred from the mention of an equal number of Sanhitas, or distinct collections of texts. In general, the various schools of the same Veda seem to have used the same assemblage of prayers ; they differed more in their copies of the precepts or Brahmanas ; and some received into their canon of scripture portions which do not appear to have been acknowledged by others. Yet the chief difference seems always to have been the use of particular rituals taught in apho- risms (sutras) adopted by each school ; and these do not consti- tute a portion of the Veda, but, like grammar and astronomy, are placed among its appendages.” Misc. Essays, i. 18. 3 *jtstt ^Tfwi rf •' II 366 BRAI1MANA- AND SXJTRA-CHARANAS. Brahmanas might be waived in these modern Charanas, and this would gradually lead to the loss of many of the old Sakhas. "We saw before, in the case of the Sakalas and Bashkalas, that at the time when Sutras began to be composed there was a ten- dency to reunite different Sakhas into one. That the introduction of Sutras encroached on the study of the Brahmanas and Sanhitas in the schools of the Brah- mans, becomes evident from passages in which the custom of performing sacrifices after the prescriptions of Sutras only is declared to be without merit and without effect. Kumarila in one passage simply states the fact that priests perform sacrifices by means of the Kalpa-sutras only, and without the Veda, but that they could not do the same by means of the Mantras and Brahmanas, and without the Kalpas.1 In another place2 he declares that the reason why the 1 Kumarila, i. 3. 2 Kumarila, i. 3. 1. TtrTpfTfrn | f%7^tf%^T^T*rh TT^Tfq 75 ^753t^TWT^T7TT : : I 7T^ TTRrTRta 3T- WTJ ^ W fafa- CIIARANA-Vl'fillA. 3G7 Smritis or law-books, which he considers to be founded on the Yeda, had not been made up of literal extracts, was because this would have endan- gered the sacred study of the whole Veda. The Veda would thus have been read in a ditferent order, or small extracts only would have been studied in- stead of the whole Veda. Now this is what seems to have happened to a certain extent by the introduction of the Sutras, and it would account for the loss of many of the old Sakhas, Sanhittls as well as Bndimanas. In order to show more clearly to how great an extent the Vedic literature was fostered by means of the Charanas, I shall give a list from the Chara- navyuha. This Parisishta is a document of a com- paratively late period, though it may be one of the oldest works belonging to this class of literature.1 It is, therefore, no good authority as to the number of the old Sanhita-charanas and Brahmana-charanas, many of which were lost or merged into others during the Sfitra period ; but it is of interest as the first attempt at a complete enumeration of all Chara- nas, and may be trusted particularly with regard to the Sutra-charanas, which, at the time of its composi- tion, were still of recent origin. The number of the old Charanas would, no doubt, have to be increased con- siderably, if the quotations of different Vakhas were 1 It has been printed by Prof. Weber in his Indische Studien. I possess the collation of some of the Berlin MSS., but not of all. In addition to the MSS. collated by Prof. Weber, I have used the text and various readings given in Eadliakantadeva’s Sabdakalpa- druma. 368 CHARANAS. taken into account, which occur in the Brahmanas as well as in the Sutras. But at the same time we may conclude from the lists given in the Charanavyuha that most of these old Charanas were extinct shortly after the Sutra-period, and that their works as well as their names, began to be forgotten. .Of the Rig-veda five Charanas are mentioned : 1. The Sakalas.1 2. Bashkalas.2 3. Asval&yanas.3 4. Sankhayanas.4 5. Mandukayanas.5 We miss the names of several old Vakhas such as the Aitareyins, &aisirasG, Kaushitakins, Paingins, 1 Pan. iv. 3. 128.: iv. 2. 117. 2 Bashkala. Not mentioned in Panini. As to its etymology, cf. Pan. ii. 1. 65. 3 Pan. iv. 1. 99.: Gana nadadi. 4 This Sakha is spelt Sankhyayana, Sankhyayana, Sankha- yana and Sankhayana. The last, however, is the most correct spelling. See Panini, Ganapatha, a6vadi, and kunjadi. This Sakha is omitted by accident in MS. E. I. H. 6 Pan. iv. 1. 19 (text). Manduka; derivative, Mandukayana. See also Pan. iv. 1. 119. G The Saisira-sakha, however, may perhaps be considered as a subdivision of the Sakala-saklia. Saisira, or Sisira, is mentioned in the Puranas as one of the five Sakala pupils, who propagated different Sakhas of the Rig-veda, all of them derived from the original recension of Sakalya Yedamitra. In the Vishnu-purana these five pupils or descendants of Sakalya Vedamitra are called Mudgala, Gosvalu, Vatsya, Saliya, and SiSira. (Vishnu-pur. 277.) In the Vayu-purana their names are Mudgala, Golaka, Ivhaliya, Matsya, Saisireya. In the commentary on the Sakala-pratisakhya they are called Mudgala, Gokula, Vatsya, Saisira, and Sisira, according to the Paris MS. ; or Mudgala, Gokhula, Vatsya, Sarira, and Saisira, according to the MS. at the E. I. II. TT tir&TTOTf^r CIIAKANAS. 3G9 while the Asvalayanas, who are mentioned, must be considered as the founders ol one ot the latest Sakh&s of the Rig-veda. The number of Sakhas of the Yajur-veda is stated at eighty-six. We have first the twelve Charanas comprehended under the common name of Charakas. They are, according to the MS. of the Charanavyiiha : 1. Charakas.1 2. Ahvarakas.2 3. Kathas.3 4. Prachya-kathas.4 5. Kapishthala-kathas.5 6. Charayaniyas.6 ^ f%rTT^7Tfrr : i flfarfr *f%?TT farfar'^'ir'sr^Tr^i TTsrr *rn$*rr frfirT: irT^r: firw: in^Tif^-RofTf^T Tfal rr^T ^ ^f%rTTmfaf?TI IfTStil frfjTT^^fafa =ITI The verses to which this commentary refers are not in the MS. 1 Pan. iv. 3. 107. text ; v. 1. 11. text. Gana Kshipakadi. 2 Ahvarakas, S. Iv. D. Ahurakas, Sansk. G. P. Hvarakas, MS. Berol. 785. Cf. Pan. ii. 4. 20.; vi. 2. 124.; iii. 2. 135. comment. Several of these names are very problematical. 3 Pan. iv. 3. 107. text; ii. 1. 65. com.; vii. 4. 38. text; vi. 3. 42. com. ; ii. 4. 3. com. ; i. 3. 49. com. ; ii. 1. 163. com. 4 Cf. Pan. vi. 2. 10. 5 Pan. viii. 3. 91. Kapishthalah and Kapisthalam. Ganakrau- dyadi and upakadi. As to Ka^urdoXoi, see Megasthenes, edit. Schwanbeck, p. 33. note, and p. 108. 6 Pan. iv. 1. 89. com. ; iv. 1. 63. com. ; iv. 1. 99. com.; iv. 3. 80. com. Gana nadadi. B B 370 CHARANAS. 7. Varatantaviyas.* 1 8. Svetasvataras.2 9. Aupamanyavas.3 10. Patas.4 11. Aindineyas.5 12. Maitrayaniyas.6 The Maitrayaniyas are subdivided into seven Cha- ranas : — 13. Manavas.7 14. Varahas.8 15. Dundubhas. 16. Chhae of the Paingins, Kaushita- kins, Aitareyins, Satyayanins, &c., are not mentioned in connection with any Sutras composed by authors bearing these names; and it is most likely, therefore, that they derive their origin from authors whose names have been perpetuated in the titles of certain Brahmanas. Whether these Charanas were in posses- sion of Sutras is doubtful, nor have we any means of determining whether, for instance, a member of the Aitareyi-charana, after adopting the Kalpa-sutras of 1 Pan. iv. 3. 106. B B 4 2 Gani Saunakadi. 376 CHARANAS. Saunaka, would retain his allegiance to the Aitareyins or not. The ancient Sanhitas used in these Brahmana- charanas, and originally adopted from older Cha- ranas, were not likely to be affected by considerable differences after their adoption. The fact that we never find a Kauslntaki-sanhita or Paingi-sanhita quoted tends to show that the Charanas, which owe their independent constitution to the introduction of a Brahmana, retained in most instances the original text of their Sanhitas. Charanas, lastly, like those of the Sakalas, Bashkalas, Saisiras, &c., whose names are connected neither with Sutras nor Brahmanas, but with Sanhitas only, must be referred to the earliest period of the formation of Vedic communities, and must have existed, as the bearers of their own traditional collection of hymns, before the composition of either Brahmanas or Sutras. With regard to many Charanas, however, it will remain doubtful to which of these three classes they belong, until a larger number of Vedic works peculiar to each Charana becomes available. Charanas like those of the Madhyandinas and Kanvas must be re- ferred to the Brfihmana period, because their San- hitas and Brahmanas are ascribed to one and the same teacher. This teacher, Yajnavalkya, is repre- sented as the author of modern Brfdnnanas, and we saw that, in all probability, his Sanhita was even more modern than his Brahmanas. The fact, how- ever, that the Shtras adopted by the Madhyandina and Kanva-eharanas are ascribed to Katyayana, shows that these Charanas existed certainly previous to the Sfitra period. With regard to the Sanhitfi- charanas it will always be difficult to determine how far their differences were fixed, if not originally CI1ARANAS. 377 called forth by the introduction of the Brahmanas. Most likely the Sanhitacharanas are restricted to the Rig-veda. It is certain, at least, that no Brah- manas belonging to any Veda was composed before the division of priests into Ilotris, Udgatris, and Adhvaryus had taken place. Before that division there was but one collection of hymns, that of the Bahvrichas, and it is among the Bahvrichas only that we have any distinct traces of Sanhitd-charanas. It will always be very difficult to assign a distinct meaning to such terms of Charana and Sakha, because we have nothing that exactly corresponds to them in our own experience. Literary works, such as the Sal qt qqq qiqTqr^q TT qfqqqT ffmqYqq qr qfqr^q ^fqfq qfqi-qfqfq ^YiqqY q^T qYqrn The commentator tries to show that the Darsa-purna-masa sacrifices are connected with all other rites. Although the Soma sacrifice is not a modification of the Darsa-purna-m&sa, still the Ishtis, as, for instance, the Dikshaniya and Prayaniya, are, and they form part of the Soma sacrifice. The Agnihotra also, with all its parts, does not follow the rule of the D. P., but it has reference to the Ahavaniya and the other sacred fires, and these fires must be placed by means of the Pavamana-ishti. Now, as all the Ishtis are modifications of the D. P., the relation is esta- blished ; and therefore the D. P. may be called the beginning of all sacrifices. 6 The commentator says: Jiavili means the sacrifice, and barhih BU ADM AN AS. 393 This is one Dikslni.1 The Ilotri must recite seventeen Sainidheni verses.2 The Prajapati, the Lord of the World, is seventeen- fold, the months are twelve, and the seasons five, by putting the Ilemanta and Sisira seasons as one. So much is the year, and the year is Prajapati.3 lie who knows this prospers by those verses which reside in Prajapati.4 The sacrifice went away from the gods. They wished to find it by means of the Ishtis. The Ishtis are called Ishtis because with them they wished (ish, to wish) to find it.5 They found it.0 means the same, and he takes the two locatives in the sense of “after this new moon and full moon sacrifice has been performed.” *f?r 1 The last wards, “ this is one Diksha,” indicate that there is an- other ; that is to say, some allow the Soma sacrifice, which begins with the Diksha, before the Darsa-purna-masa. The number is stated, because generally the Samidhenis are only fifteen in number. These fifteen were originally but eleven verses, of which the first and last are repeated three times. 3 ^TT^rafr % %^/rrfax- farT^T: wriN 3^nraf7nii 5 The Brahmana gives here three fanciful etymologies, of ishti, the technical name of the sacrifice; of d/iuti, the oblations enjoined at the sacrifice ; and of uli, another name for the same. The real etymology of ishti is not ish, to wish, but yaj, to sacrifice ; of ahuti, not hvayati, to call, but jnhoti, to offer; of uti, not ayati, to come, but avati, to protect. 6 wt 394 BRAHMANAS. He who knows this prospers after having found the sacrifice.1 What are called oblations (ahuti) are invocations (ahuti) ; with them ihe sacrificer calls the gods, this is why they are called ah utis.2 They are called Utis, for by their means the gods come to the calling of the sacrificer ( dyanti , they come). Or because they are the paths and the ways, they are called utis-; for they are the way to heaven for the sacrificer.3 There they say, as another priest makes the obla- tion (soil, the Adhvaryu), then why do they call him the Ilotri (the offerer), who recites the prayers and formulas ? 4 Because he causes the deities to be brought near 1 ^f^Trwt TTirrf?r ^ 2 TT^r % «TT^rTT TTrflf^ 3 ^frr€t ^ 1 rfT «TT^f ^f^ll 4 rT^n?%v?rr ^ wttt wmrqr^rT Tfall The commentator says, that the proper name for the Ilotri would seem to be Anuvaktri or Yashtri, because ^■R*m ^ irefo II sf Cs BRAIIMANAS. 395 according to their station, saying, “ Bring him, bring him,” this is the reason why lie is called Hotri ; he is a Hotri (from avah , to bring near).1 lie who knows this is called a Hotri.2 He whom the priests initiate (by means of the Diksha ceremony), he is made again to be an embryo (he is born again).3 They sprinkle him with water.4 Water is seed; having thus given this to him, they initiate him.5 They anoint him with fresh butter (navanita). Clarified butter for the gods is (called) Ajya ; for men Surabhighrita ; for the manes Ayuta ; for the embryos Navanita. Therefore by anointing him with navanita, they increase him with his own portion.6 ' v> r*n?r^jf?T ^TrTT ^fall 5\m 3T ,?tr: rrm^T ^p5?j % ^TWRTT^TTqrt The commentator quotes a verse to the effect that molten ghee is called ajya ; hardened, it is called ghrita ; slightly molten, it is called ayuta; and well seasoned, it is called surabhi. But the Taittiriyas say, “ ghrita is for the gods, astu for the manes, nish- pakva for men.” Astu is here the same as ayuta, slightly molten, and nishpakva, quite li juid. 396 BRAHMANAS. They anoint his eyes v/ith a collyrium.1 Anointing is light for the eyes. Having thus im- parted light to him, they initiate him.2 They rub him clean with twenty-one handfuls of Ivusa grass.3 Him who is pure and has thus been cleaned, they initiate.4 They take him to the hall.5 The hall is the womb for the pupil (dikshita). By taking him to the hall they take him (who was before represented as an embryo) into his womb.6 In this true womb he sits, and hence he departs.7 Therefore the fruit is borne in the true womb and brought forth from it.8 Therefore let not the sun shine upon him in its 1 2 ’OTSraiiM rTTST^T 3 ^^frfii 4 rtr^rf Tft^frni The hall is called Dikshita-vimita, because it was made (vi- mita) for the initiated (dikshita). It is commonly called Prachi- navansa. W^frTlI 7 ^ ^11 8 \{\W1 R T{ R *lT*mll BRAIIMANAS. 397 rising or setting away from the hall, nor let the priests speak to him.1 They cover him with a cloth.2 This cloth is the caul in which the pupil is to be born ; thus they cover him with the caul.3 The skin of a black antelope is his next cloak.4 Next to the caul is the Jarayu ; thus they cover him with the Jarayu.5 He closes his hands.6 With closed hands the embryo lies, with closed hands the child is born. As he closes his hands, he holds the sacrifice, and all its gods between his hands.7 They say, there is no confusion for him who has first finished his Diksha ; for his sacrifice is held fast (between his hands), and the gods are so likewise. Therefore there can be no loss for him, like that which falls on him whose Diksha was finished later.8 2 3rWfcf?Tii 3 ^ 3T TJr TTTJrW^fTTII 4 s^Tfa^rrrt 5 TT rTrqiW^II 6 ^ 7 1 *wfirr: im ^ttt 8 st 398 BRAHMANAS. After haying put off his cloak, he descends to the bath. Therefore an embryo is born after he is sepa- rated from the Jarayu.1 He descends together with his cloth — therefore a child is born together with the caul.2 For him who has not offered a sacrifice before, let (the Hotri) recite two puronuvakyas, “ tvam agne sapratha asi,” (v. 13. 4.) for the first, “soma yas te mayobhuvah ” (i. 91. 9.) for the second portion of the ghee.3 (The third line of the first verse is) “through thee they carry out the sacrifice and by reciting this line the Hotri carries out the sacrifice for the pupil.4 U/HS qfr^ttrTT TTfTT xnr It is said by the commentator that if two or more Brahmans perform the Soma sacrifice on the same spot and at the same time, they commit a sin, which is called sansava, confusion of libations. They ought to be separated by a river or a mountain. He, how- ever, who has finished his Diksha first and holds the gods between his closed hands, is not exposed to the consequences of the san- sava, because the gods will be with him and not with the other man whose Diksha was finished later. kH^MSii 3 wr: 'SRirarg: wrNt^t: wrrtiii After the general remarks on the Dikshaniyeshti which were given in the first three sections, without any particular regard to the offices of the Hotri, the fourth section begins with the cere- monial rules for the Hotri. The Hotri has to recite certain verses on being ordered to do so by the Adhvaryu. STST farpsj 7T Tfa TJHferHTVfall 4 BRAHMANAS. 399 For him who has offered a sacrifice before, let the Ilotri recite instead “ Agnih pratnena maninana,” (viii. 44. 12.) and “ soma girbhish tva vayam.” (i. 91. 11. )l By saying “ pratnam ” (former) a word which oc- curs in the first verse, he alludes to the former sacrifice.2 Both these rules (of using certain verses for a man who has not, and for a man who lias, sacrificed before) are not to be observed.3 Let him rather use the two verses on the destruc- tion of Vritra “ Agnir vritrani janghanat,” (vi. 16. 24.) and “ tvam Somasi satpatih ” (i. 91. 5.)4 For he whom the sacrifice approaches destroys Vritra ; therefore verses on the destruction of Vritra are to be used.5 Having enjoined these two verses for the introduc- tory ceremony of the offering of ghee, the Brahmana now proceeds to detail the yajyanuvaky&s for the principal offering. Gv 3 cfTPiOT^II 4 ITTTrrfa WrqfrlfTfrT ^TrL'! The reason which the commentator gives for this extraordinary proceeding is, that in each of the two couples of verses which were first recommended, the first verse only contained an allusion to the peculiarities of the sacrifices, while the two verses now enjoined both treat of the destruction of Vritra. 400 brahmanas. “ Agnir mukham prathamo devatanam,” &c., is the Puronuvakya, “ Agnis cha Vishno tapa uttamam mahak,” etc. the Yajya verse. These two verses on Agni and Vishnu are correct in form. The correctness of a sacrifice consists in its correctness of form ; it consists in this that the verse recited alludes to the act performed.1 Agni and Vishnu are the guardians of the Diksha among the gods. They are the lords of the Diksha. Therefore as the oblation is to Agni and Vishnu, they who are the lords of the Diksha are pleased and grant the Diksha, saying, Let those who perform this rite be initiated.2 They are Trishtubhs (by their metre), in order that they may give bodily strength.3 Having explained the verses used by the Hotri at the principal part of the sacrifice, the Brahmana adds some rules on the Svishtakrit verses. 1 fwr rTT ^ Tjsrnifkmm wc i ^rnrr- Instead of saying “ anuvakyayajye,” because the anuvakya comes before the yajya, the compound yajyanuvakye is formed, the shorter word, according to grammar, standing first in a Dvandva compound. The verses are not in the 6akala-sakha of the Rig-veda. 2 ^ \WT*TT ^TVT*Tt ffaTOT 3 BRA II MANAS. 401 He who wishes for beauty and for wisdom, let him use the two Gayatri verses 1 of the Svishtakrit.2 The Gayatri is beauty, full of wisdom.3 He who knowing this uses the two Gayatris be- comes possessed of beauty and wisdom.4 He who desires long life, let him use two LJshnih verses.5 Ushnih is life.0 He who knowing this uses the two Ushnihs, arrives at any age.7 He who desires heaven, let him use two Anush- tubhs.8 There arc sixty-four syllables in the two Anush- tubhs, and three are these worlds (earth, sky and heaven), each of twenty-one parts. With each twenty-one syllables he ascends to these worlds, and with the sixty-fourth he stands firm in heaven.9 1 They are “ Sa kavyaval amartyah,” (iii. 11. 2.) and “Agnir liotu puroliitah.” (iii. 11. 1.) 2 *TT*r2?t ferg^rr: 3 *Tr?rrtii 5 ^ffrrll They are “ Agne vajasya gomatah,” (i. 79. 4.) and “ Sa idhano vasush kavih.” (i. 79. 5.) \l s 8 ^frni They are “ Tvam Agne vasun.” (i. 45. 1.) 9 rj : ^ T^f \3 ^TT^TT ^ * D D 402 BRAIIMANAS. He who knowing this uses the two Auushtubhs stands firm.1 He who desires wealth and glory, let him use two Brihatis.2 The Brihati is wealth and glory.3 He who knowing this uses two Brihatis, gives him- self wealth and glory.4 He who loves the sacrifice, let him use two Panktis.5 The sacrifice is like a Pankti.6 The sacrifice comes to him who, knowing this, uses two Panktis.7 Let him who desires strength use two Trishtubhs.8 Trishtubh is strength, which is vigour and power.9 He who knowing this uses two Trishtubhs, becomes strong, vigorous and powerful.10 1 v archil \3 ^ 3 They are “ Ena vo agnira ” (vii. 16. 1.), and “ Udasya sochih ” (vii. 16. 3.). 4 fqq§? q ^TTII They are “ Agnim tam manye” (v. 6. 1.). 6 qjwt % ii 7 ^*T WT q ^?hl 8 ^ffrni S3 They are “ Dve virupe charatah” (i. 95. 1.). 10 ^oT^f^Tcn-^ fHhfT^ref?r q T^f^frf%^prr $^!l BRAHMAN AS. 403 Let him who desires cattle, use two Jagatis.1 Cattle is Jagati-like.2 He who knowing this uses two Jagatis, becomes rich in cattle.3 Let him who desires food, use two Viraj verses.4 Viraj is food.5 (viraj, to shine.) Therefore he who has the largest food here shines most on earth; this is the reason why it is called Viraj (shining).6 He who knows this shine3 forth among his own people ; he is the best of his friends.7 All these are voluntary verses. We now come to those Avliich are always to be used. Now the metre Viraj possesses five powers. Because it has three lines, therefore it is Gayatri and Uslmih (which also have three lines.) Because its lines have each eleven syllables, therefore it is Trishtubh. Because it has thirty-three syllables, therefore it is Anushtubli. (If it be said that the two Viraj verses in question, i. e. “ preddho ague,” &c. and “imo ague,” &c., have only thirty-one and thirty- They are “ Janasya gopa ” (v. 11. 1.). 3 ^trUrTT % TT3^: II They are “Preddho ague ” (vii. 1. 3.), “ Imo agne” (vii. 1. 18.). 5 ^ 6 rnprerlH v f%TT^f*T rlf^TT^T f^TT^II 7 fa % ^t^tt ^ huh D D 2 404 BRAIIMANAS. two syllables, it must be remembered that) metres do not change by one syllable or by two. The fifth power is that it is Vir&j (shining).1 He who knowing this uses the two Viraj verses, ob- tains the power of all metres, retains the power of all metres, obtains union, uniformity and unison with all metres, eats and has to eat, has food together with his family.2 Therefore the two Viraj verses are certainly to be used, those which begin with “ Preddho agne” and “ Imo agne.” 3 Diksha is right, Diksha is truth, therefore a man who performs the Diksha must speak the truth.4 Now they say, what man can speak all truth? Gods are full of truth, men are full of falsehood.5 1 WT 3T TTrT^^T "T rTrCR*TII 2 wrr w- WT S^Rfa- V 3T^II 3 WTfeTT^f^t *>