Paninian And Veda Reconsidered

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269665/1

Page #1
PANINI AND THE VEDA RECONSIDERED Johannes Bronkhorst The relationship between Panini and the Veda has been much debated. The presupposition underlying a major part of this debate has been that much or even most of Vedic literature existed in its present form prior to Panini. In this article an attempt will be made to establish, as far as possible, the relationship between Panini and the Veda without taking the correctness of this presupposition for granted. 1.1 A fundamental question is whether Papini knew the Vedic texts, i.e., the ones with which he was familiar, in the same form as we do. Were the Vedic texts that Panini knew identical in all details with the editions we have now? It appears that the answer to this question must be negative. It is not always possible to decide that a text has not reached us in its original form. In the case of metrical texts this may be possible, however, and to some extent we may be in a position to determine what the original text was like. This is the case regarding the Rgveda. In another study (Bronkhorst 1981) it has been shown that certain rules of sandhi of the Astadhyayi fit an earlier stage of the text of the Rgveda than the one we now have. The conclusion was 75

Page #2
drawn that "the lack of agreement between the Astadhyayi and our Rgveda may henceforth have to be looked at through different eyes. Certainly, where phonetic questions are concerned, Panini may describe an earlier form of the Rgveda, and may not deserve to be blamed for being lacunary..." (pp. 91-92). This conclusion has far-reaching implications. The Rgueda has been handed down with great care, with greater care perhaps than any other Vedic text. Yet even here Panini's rules of sandhi do not fully agree with the present text, although we know that at least some of them once fitted. How much less can we expect full agreement between Panini's rules of sandhi and all other Vedic texts. This means that a comparison of Panini's rules of sandhi and the Vedic evidence, if it is to be made at all, must be made with the greatest care. A straight confrontation of Panini's rules with the Vedic facts cannot be expected to yield more than partial agreement, and says little about the state of affairs in Panini's day. In the present context it is important to recall that "Panini's rules on Vedic sandhi do not necessarily describe the sandhi which was actually used in the Vedic texts which Panini had before him. Rather, they describe the sandhi as it ought to be according to Panini. This is confirmed by the circumstance that Panini sometimes gives the opinions of others besides his own, for example, in P.8.3.17-19" (Bronkhorst 1982, 275).2 A development in tone patterns, too, must have taken place after Panini. Kiparsky (1982, 73) sums up the results of an investigation into this matter: "[T]he tone pattern described by Panini represents an older stage than that 76 described for the Vedic samhitas by the Pratisakhyas. While the samhitas themselves are of course older than Panini's grammar [?; see below], we may assume that they were accented in Panini's time with the tone pattern described in the Astadhyayi, and that their present tone pattern, as well as the Pratissakhyas that codify it, are post-Paninian revisions." It is true that Kiparsky derives the different tone patterns from accent properties belonging to morphemes that are stable in time. Yet it is at least conceivable, also, that these accent properties changed in the time before the tone patterns reached their final form. This means that little can be concluded from such deviations from Panini in the accentuation of Vedic words as occur in arya (Thieme 1938, 91f.; Balasubrahmanyam 1964; 1969), hayana (Balasubrahmanyam 1966), jyestha and kanistha (Devasthali 1967, 7-8), arpita and justa (Balasubrahmanyam 1974), sriyase (Balasubrahmanyam 1969; 1972), vodhave (Balasubrahmanyam 1983), and vrsti, bhuti, and vitti (Keith 1936, 736)." 3 This is further supported by the fact that accents were not noted down until very late (Thieme 1935, 120f., 129f.). A passage in the Satapatha Brahmana (1.6.3.10) gives further proof for this. There Tvast pronounces a mantra wrongly, and as a result Vrtra is killed by Indra instead of the reverse. The mantra concerned is indrasatrur vardhasva. The later tradition--Patanjali's Mahabhasya (1:2, 1. 12), Paniniya Siksa (verse 52), Bhattabhaskara and Sayana (on TS 2.5.2), etc.--agrees that the mistake concerned the accent: an intended Tatpurusa compound 'killer of Indra' becomes a Bahuvrihi 'whose killer is Indra'. The formulation of TS 2.5.2.1-2--yad abravit svahendrasatrur vardhasveti tasmad 77

Page #3
asyendrah satrur abhavat--fully agrees with this. MS 2.4.3 is even clearer: svahendrasatrur vardhasva itindrasyahainam satrum acikirsad indram asya satrum akarot. Yet the Satapatha Brahmana formulates the story in a way that can only be explained on the assumption that there was no way to make the difference in accentuation visible. Rather than writing (or reciting!) the Tatpurusa compound with the appropriate accent, it analyzes the compound into indrasya satruh. The passage then reads: atha yad abravid indrasatrur vardhasveti tasmad u hainam indra eva jaghana / atha yaddha sasvad avaksyad indrasya satrur vardhasveti sasvad u ha sa indram evahanisyat 1. These considerations show that any comparison between the linguistic data in Panini and those in the Veda must be extremely careful in the fields of sandhi and accentuation. They also suggest that in other respects the Vedic texts known to Panini may have undergone modification since Panini's time. 8 As an example of a feature that may have changed since Panini, consider the word ratri/ratri in the mantras of the Taittiriya Samhita. According to P.4.1.31 (ratres cajasau), ratri occurs in ritual literature (chandasi, see below) before all endings except the nominative plural (cf. Bhat 1968; Wackernagel 1896-1930, 3:185f.). Five times the mantras of the Taittiriya Samhita contain the word in a form that allows us to determine whether ratri or ratri is used. Twice (TS 4.3.11.3 and 5.7.2.1) it is ratri, thrice ratri. However, it is not impossible that originally all five occurrences had a form of ratri. TS 4.1.10.1 (ratrim ratrim aprayavam bharantah) recurs as ratrim ratrim (at MS 2.7.7 78 and 3.1.9; KS 16.7 and 19.10; and SB 6.6.4.1). TS 4.4.1.1 (ratrim jinvosigasi) occurs as ratrim jinvo at KS 17.7. In these two cases the shortening of i to i was a minor change. More problematic seems to be TS 7.4.18.1 (ratrir asit pisangila), to which no parallels with long i correspond (Bloomfield 1906, 823). Here a substitution of ratri would lead to ratry asit, which differs rather strongly from the mantra as we know it. However, no such objection can be raised against an earlier ratri asit; this in its turn might be looked upon as the result of sandhi applied to ratri asit, by P.6.1.127 (iko' savarne sakalyasya hrasvas ca), a rule of sandhi that also held in the Rgveda, at least according to Sakalya (see Bronkhorst 1982a, 181). 1.2 The second introductory question we have to ask is whether or not Panini's Vedic rules were meant to be universally valid in the Vedic texts. Our observations on sandhi have made it clear that here, at least, there is nothing to contradict the supposition that Panini's rules were meant to be adhered to throughout. (This does not necessarily mean, however, that the texts known to Papini always had Panini's kind of sandhi.) It is at least conceivable that all the Vedic rules of the Astadhyayi were meant to be strictly followed unless the opposite is explicitly stated. This takes us to the main point of this subsection. If Panini's Vedic rules were not meant to be followed strictly, this should have been indicated in the Astadhyayi. Kiparsky (1980) has shown that Panini distinguished three kinds of optionality: va 'preferably', vibhasa 'preferably not', and anyatarasyam 'either way. This means that Panini used various means to indicate optionality. As a matter of fact, 79

Page #4
option is indicated in a number of Vedic rules. P.1.2.36, 6.2.164, and 7.4.44 read vibhasa chandasi, P.1.4.9 (sasthiyuktas chandasi va), P.8.3.49 (chandasi va'pramreditayoh), P.5.3.13 (va ha ca chandasi), P.3.4.88 and 6.1.106 (va chandasi), P.6.4.5 and 6.4.86 (chandasy ubhayatha), P.6.4.162 (vibhasarjos chandasi), P.8.2.70 (amnarudharavar ity ubhayatha chandasi), P.8.3.104 (yajusy ekesam), P.8.3.119 (nivyabhibhyo'd vyavaye va chandasi), P.8.3.8 (ubhayatharksu), and P.6.4.9 (va sapurvasya nigame). The words bahulam chandasi 'variously in ritual literature' occur no less than seventeen times together, not counting the rules wherein they may have to be continued. In P.1.2.61 (chandasi punarvasvor ekavacanam) and 62 (visakhayos ca [chandasi]), the word anyatarasyam is in force from P.1.2.58, and is not cancelled until nityam in 1.2.63. In P.6.1.52 (khides chandasi) there is continuation of vibhasa from sutra 51, cancelled by nityam in 6.1.57. P.3.1.85 (vyatyayo bahulam) continues chandasi from 3.1.84 (chandasi sayaj api), which itself indicates optionality by means of the word api. Similar devices are used in P.1.4.81 (chandasi pare'pi), and 82 (vyavahitas ca); P.3.3.130 (anyebhyo'pi drsyate [chandasi 129]); P.5.3.14 (itarabhyo'pi drsyante [chandasi 13]); P.6.3.137 (anyesam api drsyate [rci 133][?]); P.6.4.73 and 7.1.76 (chandasy api drsyate); P.7.1.38 (ktvapi chandasi); P.5.2.50 (that ca chandasi); P.5.3.20 (tayor darhilau ca chandasi); P.5.3.33 (pasca pasca ca chandasi); P.5.4.12 (amu ca chandasi); and P.5.4.41 (vykajyesthabhyam tiltatilau ca chandasi). P.3.2.106 (litah kanaj va) is confined to ritual literature because only there lit occurs (P.3.2.105 [chandasi lit). P.8.1.64 (vaivaveti ca chandasi) continues 80 vibhasa (63), cancelled by nityam in 8.1.66. P.6.1.209 (justarpite ca chandasi) continues vibhasa from 208, discontinued by 6.1.210 (nityam mantre). In P.6.3.108 (pathi ca chandasi) the word ca continues vibhasa from 6.3.106 (cf. Kiparsky 1980, 62). P.8.3.105 (stutastomayos chandasi) appears to continue ekesam from 8.3.104. P.4.4.113 (srotaso vibhasa dyaddyau) continues chandasi from 4.4.110. Nityam in P.4.1.29 (nityam samjnachandasoh), in 4.1.46 and 7.4.8 (nityam chandasi), and in 6.1.210 (nityam mantre), does not indicate that here, exceptionally, some Vedic rules are universally valid. Rather, it is meant to block the option that is valid in the preceding rules, as so often occurs in the Astadhyayi. We have no alternative but to assume that, just as in his other rules, Panini's Vedic rules not indicated as being optional were meant to be generally valid.10 From this we must conclude that deviations from Panini in the Vedic texts known to Panini either did not exist in his time or were not considered correct by him. 1.3 We now come to the question of what range of literature Panini considered "Vedic" in one way or another. This is best approached by studying Panini's use of the word chandas by which he most often refers to Vedic literature. It is clear that Panini employs this word in a special way. The most common meaning of chandas is 'meter', and then 'metrical text'. But this is not the only sense in which Panini uses it. Thieme (1935, passim, esp. 67-69) showed that rules given under chandasi 'in chandas' are also valid for prose passages (brahmana and yajus). He therefore rendered chandasi as 'in Sacred Literature'. Thieme criticizes 81

Page #5
Liebich's (1891, 26) translation 'pre-classical language', saying: "I do not think it an appropriate translation, since it appears to endow Panini with a historical perspective he hardly could have possessed" (p. 67). This makes sense, but a major difficulty remains. Many of the forms taught under the heading chandasi occur in Sutra texts. Instances are numerous and only a few will be given here. The name Punarvasu, used optionally in the singular in chandas according to P.1.2.61 (chandasi punarvasvor ekavacanam (anyatarasyam 58]), is so found at Visnusmyti (78.12) and Vass (1.5.1.5), besides several places in the Black Yajurveda. The singular of visakha, only allowed chandasi by P.1.2.62 (visakhayos ca), occurs similarly at VaSS 2.2.2.14. The grammatical object of the root hrs can have an instrumental ending in chandas, according to P.2.3.3 (tytiya sa hos chandasi). One instance is MSS 1.6.1.23 (payasa juhoti dadhna yavagvajyena va (cf. Thieme 1935, 10]). Some forms are only attested in Sutras. Khanya(P.3.1.123) only occurs in LSS 8.2.4 and 5; (pra-)stavya(id.) in LSS 6.1.20; unniya (id) in Sacs 4.14.4; and yasobhagina (P.4.4.132) in HisS 2.5.43, 6.4.3. It seems safe to conclude that Panini's term chandas covered more than just 'Sacred Literature'. We may have to assume that certain works, primarily the ritual Sutras, and among those first of all the Srauta Sutras, belonged to a fringe area wherein Vedic usage was sometimes considered appropriate. The effect of this assumption for our investigation is that, where a chandas word prescribed by Panini is attested in one Vedic text and in one or more Sutras, we are not entitled to conclude that Panini certainly knew that Vedic text 1.4 The final introductory question we have to consider is the following. Are Panini's Vedic rules descriptive or prescriptive? To be sure, to some extent they describe the language that Panini found in Vedic texts, and are therefore descriptive. But are they exclusively so? It may well be that Vedic texts were still being composed in Panini's day, and that he gives in his grammar guidelines regarding correct Vedic usage. This possibility has been discussed elsewhere (Bronkhorst 1982, 275f.) and is further strengthened by the evidence to be provided in the following sections of this article. Here attention may be drawn to another reason to conclude that at least some of Panini's rules may have been meant to be prescriptive, besides, or rather than, being descriptive. They may have been composed with something like wha in mind. Oha" is the term used to describe the adjustments Vedic mantras undergo to make them fit for other ritual contexts. An original mantra such as agnaye tva justam nirvapami, directed to Agni, can become modified into suryaya tva justam nirvapami, directed to Surya. Devir apah suddha yuyam (MS 1.1.11, 1.2.16, 3.10.1; KS 3.6), directed to the waters, becomes deva ajya suddham tvam when directed to clarified butter (ajya). Sometimes only the number needs adjustment, as when ayur asaste (MS 4.13.9; TS 2.6.9.7; TB 3.5.10.4) becomes ayur asasate or ayur asasate. Only the gender is modified when jur asi dhyta manasa justa vienave tasyas te satyasavasah (MS 1.2.4, 3.7.5; KS 2.5, 24.3; TS 1.2.4.1, 6.1.7.2; VS 4.17; SB 3.2.4.11; SBK 4.2.4.9) becomes 82

Page #6
14) specifies that which is not a mantra without mentioning tiha! Apparently, at one time, modified mantras were mantras. This view is supported by the fact that modified mantras have actually been included in the Vedic collections as mantras. A particularly clear example is the long adhrigu passage that occurs, or is discussed, in MS 4.13.4, KS 16.21, TB 3.6.6, AB 2.6-7 (6.6-7), KB 10.4, AsvSs 3.3, and SSS 5.17, with this difference: TB, AB, KB, and SSs have medha patibhyam where MS and KS have medha pataye. Interestingly, the difference is explained in AB 2.6.6 (6.6.6) in the following words: jur asi dhrto manasi justo visnave tasya te satyasavasah because a bull is under discussion. Another interesting question is whether modified mantras are in fact mantras themselves. The later Mimamsa tradition appears to be unanimous in its opinion that they are not PMS 2.1.34 and Sabara's Bhasya thereon state explicitly that the result of uha is not a mantra, and all later authorities in this field seem to have followed their example. This opinion is found, perhaps for the first time, in Apss 24.1.35, which reads anamnatas tv amantra yatha pravarohanamadheyagrahananiti "Die nicht (im Mantra. oder Brahmanateile) uberlieferten Teile sind indessen nicht als Mantra zu betrachten, z. B. der Pravara, die 'Verschiebung (uha), die Nennung eines Namens" (tr. Caland 1928a, 387). It is not surprising that modified mantras were not considered mantras in their own right from an early date onward. After all, the opposite opinion would leave almost unlimited scope for creating new mantras. At a time when efforts had been made to gather all mantras into Vedic collections this must have been undesirable. Yet there are clear traces of evidence that modified mantras were not always considered nonmantras. As late an author as Bharthari (fifth century A.D.)," who includes a long discussion on uha in his commentary on the Mahabhasya (Ms 2b9 f.; AL 5.18 f; Sw 6.17 f.; CE Ahn. 1, 5.1 f.) mentions "others" who think that modified mantras are themselves mantras." And several Srauta Sutras make no mention of the nonmantric nature of modified mantras in contexts in which that would have been appropriate, for example, Bhass (6.15), MSS (5.2.9), and SSS (6.1). Moreover, HisS (1.1.13 sa yady ekadevatyah pasuh syan medha pataya iti bruyat yadi dvidevatyo medha patibhyam iti yadi bahudevatyo medha patibhya ity etad eva sthitam If the victim be for one deity, 'for the lord of the sacrifice' (medha pataye) he should say; if for two deities, 'for the two lords of the sacrifice' (medhapatibhyam]; if for many deities, 'for the lords of the sacrifice' (medha patibhyah). That is the rule. (Tr. Keith 1920, 138) This is as clear a case of uha as is possible. TS 2.3.10.1-2 repeats the same sacrificial formula four times, with differences in number, in a single passage in order to adjust it to different numbers of gods: asvinoh prano'si tasya te dattam yayoh prano'si svaha indrasya prano'si tasya te dadatu yasya prano'si svaha

Page #7
mitravarunayoh prano'si tasya te dattam yayoh prano'si svaha visvesam devanam prano'si tasya te dadatu yesam prano'si svaha The question we must now consider is to what extent the Vedic rules of the Astadhyayi can be looked upon as having been composed with this kind of uha in mind. Obviously, it cannot be maintained that this was the only purpose of these Vedic rules, for some were undoubtedly intended to describe isolated Vedic facts. But this does not exclude the possibility that uha was one of the purposes for which some of the Vedic rules of the Astadhyayi were formulated. There is some reason to accept this last view. Some Srauta Sutras lay down rules pertaining to the modification of certain verbal forms. MSS 5.2.9.6, for example, lists the following acceptable modified forms: adat, adatam, adan, ghasat, ghastam, ghasan, aghasat, aghastam, aghasan, karat, karatam, karan, agrabhit, agrabhistam, agrabhisuh, and aksan. AsvSS 3.4.15, similarly, lists adat, ghasat, karat, jusatam, aghat, agrabhit and avivrdhata. SSS 6.1.5, finally, lists adat, adan, ghastu, ghasantu, aghasat, aghasan, or aghat, aksan, agrabhit, agrabhisuh, avivrdhata, avivrdhanta, and others. This shows that there was concern in ritual circles regarding the correct use of certain verbal forms in modified mantras. Among the recurring forms are the aorists of the roots ghas, ad," and kr. 16 The shared concern of AsvSS 3.4.15, SSS 6.1.5, and MSS 5.2.9.6 is explained by the fact that most of the modifications are meant for virtually identical texts, the so-called Praisa suktas, in particular RV Khila 5.7.2 (f and 1), which 86 correspond to MS 4.13.7 (p. 208, 1.3-7) and 4.13.9 (p. 211, 1.5-12). It is very probable that Panini knew the Praisa suktas in which these modifications were to take place, for Scheftelowitz (1919, 47f.) has adduced reasons to believe that the Praisas are among the oldest Vedic texts in prose. This allows us to surmise that a Paninian sutra may have been composed partly to solve this same problem. This sutra would then be P.2.4.80 (mantre ghasahvaranasavrdahadvrckygamijanibhyo leh), which deals with the aorists of a number of roots, among them ghas and kr, in a mantra. It favors here such forms as (a)ghat, (a)ghastam, aksan and akah, and akran (not in all cases the same forms as the above Srauta Sutras). If it can be accepted that P.2.4.80 was composed to serve the purpose of uha (besides other purposes), the same may be true of other rules of the Astadhyaya. This, in turn, would mean that these rules not only describe Vedic data but also prescribe the means for modifying Vedic mantras when necessary. This implies that we cannot always be sure that Panini's Vedic rules describe forms that occurred in Vedic texts known to Panini. Unattested forms accounted for by rules in the Astadhyayi do not, then, in all cases have to have been part of texts that are now lost. 2. We can now turn to the main part of the present investigation: an attempt to determine which Vedic texts Panini knew and which he did not. The above considerations make it clear that in this context Panini's rules on sandhi and accent will be of little help. Moreover, none of the rules that concern details of the phonetic shape of words, 87

Page #8
i.e., the orthoepic diaskeuasis of texts, can be relied upon to determine which texts Panini knew, for the simple reason that these features may have changed, and in some cases certainly changed, after him. Our enquiry must in the main rely on word-forms prescribed in the Astadhyayi. Here another consideration arises. We have decided to take Panini seriously, but this does not mean that we demand his grammar to be complete. Nor does it exclude the possibility that he made occasional mistakes. It does, however, imply that, where Panini ciearly and explicitly excludes certain features from the Vedic language, we must regard with suspicion the Vedic texts containing those features, We proceed in a twofold manner. On one hand, we collect forms prescribed by Panini for Vedic and attested in but one Vedic text and nowhere else. If a sufficient number of such forms are found for a particular Vedic text and nothing else pleads against it, we may then assume that this Vedic text was known to Panini. On the other hand, we shall look for Vedic texts that contain features excluded by Panini. If the number of such features is sufficiently large, we may consider the possibility that Panini did not know these texts. This double approach will provide us with the material to be evaluated in subsequent sections. 2.1 Many words prescribed by Panini are found only in the Rgveda. Some examples are vrkati (P.5.4.41) at RV 4.41.4; cicyuse (P.6.1.36) at RV 4.30.22; yajadhvainam (P.7.1.43) at RV 8.2.37; jag?bhma (P.7.2.64) at RV 1.139.10 and 10.47.1;"' vrsanyati (P.7.4.36) at RV 9.5.6; tetikte (P.7.4.65) at RV 4.23.7; and svatavamh payuh (P.8.3.11) at RV 4.2.6. 2.2 Three words prescribed by Panini for Vedic are only found in the Taittiriya Samhita: khanya- (P.3.1.123) at TS 7.4.13.1; the denominative kavya. (P.7.4.39) at TS 7.1.20.1; and anghuh (P.6.1.36) at TS 3.2.8.3. Note that all three words occur in mantras. Thieme (1935, 64) was of the opinion that a fourth word, brahmavadya (P.3.1.123), is found only in the Taittiriya Samhita. This word occurs in a brahmana portion (at TS 2.5.8.3) but not only there; it is also found at JUB 3.2.3.2; ApSS 21.10.12; and VadhSs (Caland 1928, 176). Thus, no direct evidence remains that Panini knew the brahmana portion of the Taittiriya Samhita. 2.3 Not all the evidence produced by Leopold von Schroeder (1879, 194f; 1881-86, 1:xi f., 2.viii f.) to show that Panini knew the Maitrayani Samhita can stand scrutiny. Some cases are derived not from Panini but from his commentators. Others correspond to rules of Panini that are not confined to Vedic usage; these cases do not prove that Panini knew the Maitrayani Samhita, or a part thereof, for the simple reason that the words concerned were apparently also in use in other than ritual contexts. Finally, there are cases wherein Schroeder was mistaken in thinking that certain Vedic words prescribed by Panini occurred only in the Maitrayani Samhita and not in other texts. However, the following cases can be used to establish Panini's acquaintance with at least certain parts of the Maitrayani Samhita. P.3.1.42 teaches the Vedic (chandasi, but amantre) verbal forms abhyutsadayam akah, prajanayam akah, and pavayam kriyat. They occur at MS 1.6.5, 1.6.10 and 1.8.5, and 2.1.3, respectively, and nowhere else. The Vedic (nigame) forms sadhyai and sadhva (P.6.3.113) are

Page #9
nowhere found except in MS 1.6.3 and 3.8.5, respectively. Agriya. (P.4.4.117) is only attested at MS 2.7.13, 2.9.5, and in the colophon to 3.1.10. Noncompounded bhavienu (P.3.2.138) is found only at MS 1.8.1. Praniya- (P.3.1.123) is found at MS 3.9.1 and nowhere else; ucchisya- occurs only at MS 3.9.2. Purisyavahana (P.3.2.65) is found only at MS 2.7.4. 2.4 Vedic forms attested only in the Kathaka Samhita are the following (cf. Schroeder 1880; 1895): ramayam akah (P.3.1.42) at KS 7.7; upacayyaprda (P.3.1.123) at KS 11.1; and ksariti (P.7.2.34) at KS 12.11. One word occurs only in the Kathaka Samhita and in the Kapisthala Samhita. Since the latter "is practically a variant of the Kathaka" (Gonda 1975, 327), it is here included: jagatya- (P.4.4.122) at KS 1.8 - Kaps 1.8, and at KS 31.7. Adhvarya in P.3.1.123 may indicate acquaintance with KS 35.7 = Kaps 48.9 (Thieme 1935, 23-24; Goto 1987, 191, n. 355). 2.5 A Vedic form found exclusively in the Atharvaveda is ailayit formed by P.3.1.51 (cf. Thieme 1935, 64); it occurs at AVS 6.16.3. Sivatati (P.4.4.143) is only found at AVP 5.36.1-9. The word mamaki, formed by P.4.1.30, occurs only AVP 6.6.8.19 2.6 Two Vedic forms occur in the Latyayana Srauta Sutra of the Samaveda and nowhere else (except, of course, in the later Drahyayana Srauta Sutra, which is often no more than a recast of the former): khanya- (P.3.1.123) at LSS 8.2.4 and 5 (DrSS 22.2.5 and 6); and (pra-)stavya. (id.) at LSS 6.1.20 (DrSS 16.1.22 and 18). Hvarita (P.7.2.33) occurs only in a mantra in MSS 2.5.4.24d and 4.4.39. Sanim sasanivamsam (P.7.2.69) occurs in mantras in MSS 1.3.4.2 and Vass 1.3.5.16 (cf. Hoffmann 1974). Dadharti is only attested in JB 2.37.20 Yasobhagina (P.4.4.132) is only attested Hiss 2.5.43 and 6.4.3. 3.1 We now turn to forms excluded by Panini. P.3.1.35 (kaspratyayad am amantre liti) forbids a periphrastic perfect to occur in a mantra, yet AVS 18.2.27 has gamayam cakara (cf. Whitney 1893, 249). AVP 18.65.10 has gamayam cakartha. P.5.1.91 (vatsarantac chas chandasi) prescribes -iya after words ending in vatsara, resulting in forms like samvatsariya. The next rule, 5.1.92 (samparipurvat kha ca), adds -ina in the same position, provided that vatsara.is preceded by sam- or pari. This means that Panini did not know, or approve of, forms wherein vatsarina is not preceded by sam- or pari.. Yet such forms occur: idavatsarina at TB 1.4.10.2 and anuvatsarina at TB 1.4.10.3. P.5.4.158 (tas chandasi) forbids the addition of kap after a Bahuvrihi compound ending in . An exception is brahmanabhartyka (AA 5.3.2). P.6.3.84 (samanasya chandasy amurdhaprabhytyudarkesu) forbids substitution of sa- for samana before murdhan, prabhyti, and udarka. Yet this substitution has taken place in saprabhyti (PB 15.1.6 and KB 20.4, 21.4, etc.); sodarka (PB 13.7.9, 13.8.1, 13.8.4, and 13.8.5; and KB 20.4, 21.4, etc.). P.7.1.26 (netarac chandasi) prohibits the use of neuter itarad in ritual literature. Yet it occurs at AB 6.15; KB 12.8; SB 4.5.8.14 and 13.8.2.9; TB 3.10.11.4; JB 1.213, 2.75, and 2.249; and at SadB 4.3.7, 4.4.10, and 4.5.8. 90

Page #10
P.7.2.88 (prathamayas ca dvivacane bhasayam) prescribes the nominatives avam and yuvam with long penultimate a for secular language, thus excluding these nominatives from the Vedic language. Yet they occur in avam (AB 4.8; Sana 5.7; SB 4.1.5.16 and 14.1.1.23; BAU[K] 3.2.13; CHU 8.8.1) and yuvam (PB 21.1.1). 3.2 We obtain further results by applying more strictly our rule that Panini's grammar is to be taken seriously. Grammatical sutras that are not indicated as being optional must be accepted as intended to be of general validity. In incidental cases this may give rise to doubts, but no such doubt seems to attach to the following cases. P.2.3.61 (presyabruvor haviso devatasampradane) is a rule valid for Brahmana literature (anuvytti of brahmane from rule 60; see Joshi and Roodbergen 1981, 101, n. 331), prescribing a genitive for the object of prepya and bru, if it is an oblation in an offering to a deity. It thus excludes the use of the accusative in such cases. Yet the accusative is often used in the Satapatha Brahmana, most clearly in agnisomabhyam chagasya vapam medah presya (SB 3.8.2.27; SBK 4.8.2.21), agnisomabhyam chagasya havih presya (SB 3.8.3.29; SBK 4.8.3.18), indraya soman prasthitan presya (SB 4.2.1.23; SBK 5.2.1.20), and chaganam havih prasthitam presya (SB 5.1.3.14).22 P.3.1.59 (krmydsruhibhyas chandasi) is a nonoptional rule (cf. Kiparsky 1980, 62) prescribing an as an aorist marker after the roots kr, ms, dr, and ruh in ritual literature. It excludes in this way the forms akarsit, akarsih, akarsam, and aruksat from Vedic literature. Yet these forms occur, as follows: (a)karsit (GB 1.3.4; CHU 6.16.1); akarsih (SB 10.5.5.3; GB 1.3.11); akarsam (AVP 20.1.6; TB 3.7.5.5; TA 10.24.1, 10.25.1; GB 1.3.12); and aruksat (AVS 12.3.42; AVP 17.40.2). P.4.4.105 (sabhayah yah) prescribes the suffix ya after sabha in the sense tatra sadhuh (4.4.98). The next rule, P.4.4.106 (dhas chandasi), makes an exception for ritual literature. The form sabhya derived by P.4.4.105 should apparently not occur in Vedic literature. It does, though, at the following places: AVS 8.10.9, 19.55.5; AVP 16.133.5; MS 1.6.11; TB 1.2.1.26, 3.7.4.6; and SB 12.9.2.3. P.5.4.103 (anasantan napumsakac chandasi) prescribes for ritual literature the addition of tac to neuter Tatpurusa compounds the last member of which end in an or-23. Patanjali in his Mahabhasya (2:441) makes this rule optional, in order to account for words like brahmasaman and devacchandas, but this merely emphasizes the fact that Panini's rule is not optional. Yet there are numerous exceptions, some of which occur in the following texts: AVS 5.10.1-7 (asmavarman), 19.7.2 (mygasiras), 19.30.3 (devavarman). AVP 5.29.1 (suryavarcas), 6.12.9-11 and 6.13.1-3 (asmavarman), 13.11.21 (devavarman), 19.48.14 Chiranyanaman). MS 3.6.7 (diksitavasas), 3.11.9 (vyaghraloman). VSM 19.92 (vyaghraloman - MS 3.11.9). VSK 21.6.13 (vaghraloman - MS 3.11.9 and VSM 19.92). AB 1.26 (devavarman), 4.19 (brahmasaman, agnistomasaman), 7.19 (isudhanvan), 8.5 and 8.6 (vyaghracarman). KB 2.1, 5.7, and 27.1 (devakarman), 5.5 (purvedyuhkarman and pustikarman), 5.7 (pitTkarman), 8.7 (pasukarman), 27.1 (agnistomasaman), 30.11 (ratricchandas).

Page #11
GB 1.3.16 (sarvacchandas), 1.5.25 (svakarman), 2.1.23 (pustikarman, purvedyuhkarman), 2.6.6 (yajna parvan). TB 1.7.8.1 (sardulacarman). SB 4.6.6.5 and 13.3.3.5 (brahmasaman), 5.3.5.3, 5.4.1.9, and 11 (sardulacarman), 6.6.1.4, 7.3.1.4, etc. (adhvarakar. man, agnikarman), 13.3.3.4 (maitravarunasaman), 13.3.3.6 (acchavakasaman), 13.5.1.1 and 13.5.3.10 (agnistomasaman), 14.3.1.35 (patnikarman). SBK 1.1.2.5-6 (mrgasiras), 7.2.4.3 and 7.3.1.9-10 (sardulacarman). JB 1.149, etc. (rathantarasaman), 1.155, etc. (acchava. kasaman), 1.172, etc. (agnistomasaman), 2.240 (uttaravayas), 2.276 (acaryakarman), etc. PB 4.2.19, etc. (agnistomasaman), 4.3.1, etc. (brahmasaman), 8.10.1, etc. (acchavakasaman), 9.2.7 and 15 (ksatrasaman), 9.2.20, etc. (ratrisaman), 11.3.8 and 9 (somasaman), 13.9.22 and 23 (varunasaman). SadB 4.2.12-14 (brahmasaman). ArsB 1.378 (varunasaman), 2.3.11 (arkasiras), etc. JAB 5.3, etc. (somasaman), Arkaparvan 3.9 (arkasiras), etc. SaB 1.5.15 (svakarman), 2.1.6 (setusaman), 2.3.3 (sarpasaman), 2.3.6 (arkasiras). SatyB, p. 72 (brahmasaman, acchavakasaman). VamsaB 1 (girisarman). Sana 1.5 (devacchandas), 3.5 (brahmayasas, brahmatejas). TA 1.15.1, etc. (svatejas). P.5.4.142 (chandasi ca) prescribes substitution of datae for danta final in a Bahuvrihi compound in ritual literature. It excludes from the Vedic language Bahuvrihi com pounds ending in danta. Yet there are some: krenadanta at AA 3.2.4 and Sana 11.4; visadanta at AVP 5.9.8; isikadanta at AVP 1.44.2; ubhayatodanta at AA 2.3.1, SB 1.6.3.30, SBK 2.6.1.21, JB 1.128, 2.84, and 2.114, and SaB 1.8.2; and anyatodanta at SBK 2.6.1.21 and JB 1.128, 2.84, and 2.114. P.7.1.56 (srigramanyos chandasi) determines the form of the genitive plural of fri and gramani as frinam and gramaninam, respectively. But genitive sutagramanyam occurs at SB 13.4.2.5 and 13.5.2.7. P.6.4.141 reads mantresv any ader atmanah (lopah 134) "In mantras there is elision of the initial (sound a) of atman when (the instrumental singular ending) an follows." It is not easy to determine the precise meaning of this sutra. It may not imply that atman never loses its initial a before other case endings, since for all we know Panini may have looked upon tman as a separate vocable, but this sutra clearly excludes the occurrence of atmana in mantras. This form is found, however, in mantras at the following places: AVS 3.29.8; AVS 5.29.6-9 - AVP 13.9.7-8; AVS 8.2.8 - AVP 16.3.9; AVS 9.5.31-36 AVP 16.99.8; AVS 18.2.7; AVS 19.33.5 12.5.5; AVP 3.28.1, 16.100.5-11, and 16.119.1-3; VSM 32.11 - VSK 35.3.8; and MS 2.8.14. To the above cases the following may be added: P.2.4.48 (hemantasisirav ahoratre ca chandasi) implies, as Thieme (1935, 13) rightly pointed out, that Panini "must have known fisira as a neuter." However, sisira is masculine at SVK 3.4.2; SVJ 2.3.3; AVS 6.55.2 and 12.1.36; AVP 17.4.6 and 19.9.3; SB 2.1.3.1, 2.6.1.2, 8.7.1.7 and 8, 13.6.1.10 and 11; SBK 1.1.3.1 and 1.2.3.6; JB 1.313, 2.51, 2.211, 2.356; and TA 1.6.1.

Page #12
P.3.1.118 (pratyapibhyam graheh [without chandasi; see Kielhorn 1885, 192 (195); Thieme 1935, 16]) prescribes pratigrhya- and apigrhya-. Katyayana's varttika on this sutra confines it to Vedic literature (chandas) and Patanjali mentions the alternatives pratigrahya- and apigrahya-. The last two forms were apparently not known to Panini, yet apratigrahya- occurs at SaB 1.7.2. 4. What patterns arise from these data? Which Vedic texts did Panini know, and which did he not know? We shall try to arrive at an opinion on the basis of the forms emphatically accepted or rejected by Panini himself.24 4.1 Panini records a number of forms that occur in the Rgveda and nowhere else. Among the forms he clearly rejects, not one occurs in the Rgveda. To this must be added the fact that P.1.1.16-18 refer to Sakalya's Padapatha. The Padapatha was added to the collection of hymns (excepting six verses; see Kashikar 1951, 44) and presupposes the latter. We may safely assume that Panini knew the collected Rgveda, not just the individual hymns. Note that this is in no way obvious. Panini knew Vedic stanzas (rc) and sacrificial formulas in prose (yajus)--both of these went by the term mantra--besides brahmana and kalpa. He nowhere says that he knew the mantras in collections. In this connection it is interesting to observe that the term that came to designate such collections (samhita) did not yet have this meaning in Panini's grammar and in the Vedic scriptures. There it is synonymous throughout with sandhi. The samhita-patha, as opposed to the pada-patha, is the version of the text with sandhi. 4.2 The question as to whether the Vedic collections, 96 the Samhitas, existed in Panini's time as collections becomes pertinent with regard to the Taittiriya Samhita. We saw that three forms prescribed by Panini occur in the Taittiriya Samhita. and nowhere else (2.2, above). All these words occur in mantras. This means that possibly Panini may not have known the brahmana portions of the Taittiriya Samhita. This possibility is supported by the fact that these brahmana parts frequently contain a conspicuous non-Papinian feature, viz., the ending -ai instead of -as (see Caland 1927, 50; Keith 1914, 1:cxlv f.). Note also that the brahmana portion of the Taittiriya Samhita refers twice (6.1.9.2, 6.4.5.1) to Aruna Aupavesi, whose grandson Svetaketu Aruneya is characterized as modern in the Apastamba Dharma Sutra (1.5.5). All this suggests that the Taittiriya Samhita was collected in its more or less final form at a late date, perhaps later than Panini. This agrees with some facts regarding the Taittiriya Brahmana and Taittiriya Aranyaka, to which we now turn. Both the Taittiriya Brahmana and the Taittiriya Aranyaka contain forms that are explicitly rejected by Panini. The Taittiriya Brahmana has idavatsarina, anuvatsarina, itarad (3.1, above), akarsam, sabhya; and sardulacarman (3.2). The Taittiriya Aranyaka has akarsam, svatejas, and sisira (m.) (3.2). It seems safe to conclude that these works were not known to, or accepted by, Panini. The Baudhayana and Apastamba Srauta Sutras "accord in recognizing the whole content both of the Brahmana and of the Aranyaka" (Keith 1914, 1:lxxviii). Yet "it would be impossible, so far as can be seen, to prove that to [these Sutras] even the 97

Page #13
Sanhita was yet a definite unit" (ibid., lucix-lxxx). The sutras only distinguish between mantra and brahmana, which occur in each of the three, Taittiriya Samhita, Taittiriya Brahmana, and Taittiriya Aranyaka.25 The interrelationship of mantras and brahmana portions of the three Taittiriya texts suggests that they, or parts of them, once existed as an undivided whole. We see, for example, that the brahmana portions of TS 2.5.7 and 8 comment on the mantras of TB 3.5.1 and 2: TS 2.5.9 on TB 3.5.3.1-4.1; TS 2.6.1 and 2 on TB 3.5.5-7; TS 2.6.7 on TB 3.5.8; TS 2.6.9 on TB 3.5.10; and TS 2.6.10 on TB 3.5.11 (Keith 1914, 1:lxxxiv). TS 3.5.11 supplements TB 3.6.1, giving the mantras for the hot for the animal sacrifice (Keith 1914, 1:286, n. 4). Keith (1914, 1:1xxix) comes to a similar conclusion on the basis of the Srauta Sutras: "So far as we can judge there is no trace of any distinction being felt by the Sutrakaras between the nature of the texts before them." It is not impossible that the creation of a Pada patha differentiated the Taittiriya Samhita from Taittiriya Brahmana and Taittiriya Aranyaka, just as the Rgveda may conceivably have been collected by the author of its Padapatha (Bronkhorst 1982a, 187). The fact that Panini derives the term Taittiriya, in the sense 'uttered by Tittiri', in P.4.3.102 does not, of course, prove that the Taittiriya texts, as now known, were known to him. Panini probably knew the mantras, or a number of them, that are now part of the Taittiriya Samhita, and he may indeed have considered them taittiriya 'uttered by Tittiri'. Note, finally, that the Taittiriya Samhita appears to borrow from the Aitareya Brahmana 1-5, as argued by Keith (1914, 1:xcvii f.); see also Aufrecht (1879, vi, 431f.) and Keith (1920, 46). The Aitareya Brahmana itself, including its first five chapters, deviates in a number of points from Panini (4.5, below). 4.3 Some of the other Samhitas of the Yajurveda sin occasionally against Panini. The Vajasaneyi Samhita has atmana, masculine sisira, and one Tatpurusa compound in -an (vyaghraloman). It shares this, however, with the Maitrayani Samhita. The Maitrayani Samhita has sabhya, some Tatpurusa compounds in -as and -an, atmana; note further dadhrati (see note 19, above). These deviations from Panini in the Maitrayani Samhita are most surprising because Panini appeared to know both the mantra and brahmana portions of this text (see 2.3, above). This warns us once again that we cannot assume that the texts we know now existed in the same form in Panini's day. 4.4 Did Panini know the Atharvaveda? Two forms prescribed by him are found only there, one in the Saunakiya version and one in the Paippalada version. However, opposed to these two forms are numerous others forbidden by Panini. They include gamayam cakara, gamayan cakartha (3.1), akarsam, aruksat, sabhya, several neuter Tatpurusa compounds ending in -an and -23, visadanta and isikadanta, haricandra, atmana, and sisira (masc.) (3.2). One might raise the question of whether the word-forms in the Atharvaveda may not have been Vedic in Panini's opinion, that is, whether, perhaps, they were covered by

Page #14
non-Vedic rules of the Astadhyayi. This is suggested by Balasubrahmanyam's remark (1984, 23): Among the seven khyun- derivatives taught by Planini) in Alstadhyayi) 3.2.56, subhagamkarani and priyam-karanam are only attested in the Samhita texts of the (Atharvaveda)--the former occurring at (AVS) 6.139.1 and AVP 7.12.5, and the latter at the Paippalada Samhita (3.28.5; 6). Neither in the other Vedic Samhitas nor in the Brahmana-Aranyaka texts, do we come across these derivatives. Balasubrahmanyam's observation is misleading in that subhagamkarani is not taught in P.3.2.56 nor anywhere else in the Astadhyayi. This is so because a varttika of the Saunagas (Mbh, 2:105, 1.8; on P.3.2.56) is required to provide subhagamkarana with its feminine ending, i, as shown by Balasubrahmanyam himself. Thus, P.3.2.56 did not derive subhagamkarani in the Atharvaveda. The fact that the Atharvaveda contains two more words of the same kind (ayaksmamkarani at AVS 19.2.5 and AVP 8.8.11; sarupamkarani at AVS 1.24.4 and AVP 1.26.5; see Balasubrahmanyam 1984, 25f.) and that these words are not even partiallyco derived in Panini's grammar, makes it less than likely that the priyamkaranam of AVP 3.28.6 was meant to be explained in P.3.2.56. An interesting confirmation that the Atharvaveda did not exist as a collection until long after the other three Vedas were collected is found in the Chandogya Upanisad. Sections 3.1-5 make a number of comparisons, or rather identifications, of which the following are of interest to us. Section 3.1 states that the bees are the res, the flower is the Rgueda; in 3.2 the bees are the yajus (pl.), the flower is the Yajurveda; and in 3.3 the bees are the samans, the flower is the Samaveda. The interesting observation comes in section 3.4, where the bees are the atharvangirasah and the flower is itihasa puranam. In 3.5, finally, the bees are the hidden teachings (guhya adesah), which may be the Upanisads, and the flower is Brahman (n.). Since the athar. vangirasah constitute the Atharvaveda as we know it, the logic of the situation would have required that the flower in 3.4 be identified with the Atharvaveda. The fact that it is not hardly allows an explanation other than that the author of this passage did not know of such a definite collection of atharvans and angirases. Itihasa and purana certainly do not designate the Atharvaveda, neither separately nor jointly (see Horsch 1966, 13f.). Bloomfield (1899, 2f.), too, came to the conclusion that many hymns and prose pieces in the AV. date from a very late period of Vedic productivity." Indeed, there is nothing in the way of assuming that the composition of such texts as the AB. and SB. preceded the redactions of the Atharvan Samphitas." Patanjali's Mahabhasya cites in its opening passage the first lines of the four Vedas; these apparently existed as collections in those days (second century B.C.). The first line is sam no devir abhistaye, which begins the Paippalada version of the Atharvaveda. Patanjali even informs us of the size of the Atharvaveda known to him, saying (Mbh, 2:378, 1.11; on P.5.2.37): vimsino'ngirasah. This fits the twenty books of the Paippalada Samhita. We may conclude 100 101

Page #15
from this that the Paippalada Samhita existed in its present form, at any rate, in the second century B.C. 4.5 The Aitareya Brahmana transgresses Panini's rules in containing itarad, nominative avam (3.1), and several neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an (3.2). It is also interesting that AB 7.17 has the periphrastic perfect amantrayam asa, as opposed to P.3.1.40, which allows only ky in such formations (Keith 1936, 747). We also find optatives in (aylita instead of (ay)eta (Renou 1940, 11), and the ending -ai for both genitive and ablative -as (Caland 1927, 50), not prescribed by Panini. By way of exception some older arguments adduced by Keith (1920, 42.) to determine the date of the Aitareya Brahmana will be reviewed here (see also Bronkhorst 1982, 276). The language of this Brahmana is said to be "decidedly older than the Bhasa of Panini," on the basis of Liebich's Panini (1891). The circularity of Liebich's arguments has been shown elsewhere (Bronkhorst 1982, 275f.). The fact that Yaska knew the Aitareya Brahmana is irrelevant, since it is very likely that he is later than Panini (Bronkhorst 1984, 8f.). The Aitareya Brahmana contains indications that it knew the Rgveda before the completion of the orthoepic diaskeuasis but this implies nothing in view of the fact that the orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Rgveda was not completed until long after Panini (Bronkhorst 1981). The absence of reference to metempsychosis must be viewed against the background of the unwillingness of orthodox Brahmanism to let these ideas find entrance into their sacred texts even at a time when they had become generally known and widely accepted (Bronkhorst 1989, 125). 4.6 The other Brahmanas that are considered early are the Kausitaki Brahmana, Pancavimsa Brahmana, Jaiminiya Brahmana, and Sata patha Brahmana (Renou 1957, 14). We can be brief about them.. The Kausitaki Brahmana has a number of forbidden words: saprabhyti, sodarka, and itarad, besides many neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an and at least one in -as. Like the Aitareya Brahmana, it has optatives in (ay)ita and -ai for -as. The Pancavimsa Brahmana, too, has saprabhyti and sodarka, as well as nominative yuvam, and many neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an. The Jaiminiya Brahmana goes against Panini's grammar in having itarad, many neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an and -as, ubhayatodanta and anyatodanta, and masculine sisira. The Satapatha Brahmana deviates from Panini's grammar in the words itarad, nominative avam, akarsih, sabhya, an accusative rather than a genitive for the object of presya, many neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an, ubhayatodanta, genitive plural -gramanyam, and masculine sisira. The Kanva version of the Sata patha Brahmana, finally, deviates in fewer respects, containing a few neuter Tatpurusa compounds in -an and -as, ubhayatodanta and anyatodanta, an accusative rather than a genitive for the object of presya, and masculine sifira. 5. The above considerations must be treated with caution. For one thing, it is not known in any detail what changes were made in the texts during the process we refer to as their worthoepic diaskeuasis." This implies that we cannot be altogether sure what features of those texts can 102 103

Page #16
nowhere else, but this proves no more than that Panini was acquainted with certain portions of them, if it proves any. thing at all. The regional origin and early spread of most of the Vedic texts may account for Panini's lack of acquaintance with some of them. Panini is held to have lived in northwest India. Texts from other parts of the country may only have become known to him if they were generally accepted as Vedic in their region and beyond it. Notes be used to determine their relationship with Panini's Astadhyayi. We also do not know how many serious deviations from Panini's explicit statements must be considered evidence that Panini was ignorant of a particular text. Further, we should remember that we made an assumption, which may not be acceptable to everyone, that Panini's, grammar can be taken seriously. Neither should we be rash in concluding that Vedic texts that transgress the rules of Panini repeatedly were for that reason completely unknown to Panini. The problem is that, probably, no Vedic text has a single author. All are collections of parts of more or less heterogeneous origin. This applies to the Samhitas as well as to the Brahmanas and Aranyakas. The most we can conclude from the deviations between the majority of Vedic texts and Panini's grammar is that Panini did not know much of Vedic literature in its present form, that is, in the collections known to us. Much of Vedic literature was still in a state of flux in Panini's day, and had not yet reached the unalterable shape in which we know it. These considerations are of value with regard to the texts that would seem to have been unknown to Panini on the basis of the evidence reviewed in this article. They are, however, of equal value where the texts that appear to have been known to Panini are concerned. The Rgveda may be an exception; it was known to Panini along with its Padapatha, which leaves little room for major changes other than sandhi. But we must be cautious with respect to such texts as the Maitrayani Samhita and Kathaka Samhita. It is true that they contain words prescribed by Panini, which occur This study was carried out as part of a project of professors M. Witzel and T. E. Vetter, which was financed by the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.). In particular, Professor Witzel took a lively interest in the project. One of his own fields of specialization is the geographical distribution of Vedic schools in different periods. It is hoped that from that side additional evidence will come forth to shed light on the problems discussed here. Meanwhile, Witzel's "Tracing the Vedic Dialects" (1989) has appeared, which, unfortunately, could not be taken into consideration for the present article. 1. For a survey, see Cardona (1976, 226-28). Some important articles have been reproduced and discussed in Staal (1972, 135-204) 2. This means that one cannot conclude from certain peculi arities of sandhi in the Maitrayani Samhita which are 104 105

Page #17
not described by Panini, that they "escaped his observa tion," as Palsule (1982, 188) claims. 3. Balasubrahmanyam (1981, 400) notes that in the sample studied by him, "three per cent of the exclusive Vedic vocabulary differs from Planini)'s accentual system, and four per cent of the common vocabulary manifests the apparent difference between P[anini) and the Veda with reference to the systems of Kyt accentuation." 4. Even Katyayana and Patanjali sometimes ascribe an accent to a Vedic word that deviates from the accent found in the surviving texts (see Balasubrahmanyam 1974, 3, on sthasnu). 5. The fact that the Phitsutras of Santanava ascribe to arya, jyestha, and kanistha the accents found in the extant Vedic literature is reason to think that Santanava is later rather than earlier than Panini; cf. Kielhorn (1866, 1f.) and Devasthali (1967, 39f.). Kapila Deva Shastri (Sam 2018, 28f.) argues for an earlier date of the Phitsutras on insufficient grounds (Cardona 1976, 176). 6. Cf. Kiparsky (1980, 69) and Devasthali (1984, 137). 7. Thieme (1985) shows that the accents prescribed by Panini in the case of words that are commonly used to address people are the initial accents of the vocative. He concludes that Panini's accents are later than the (differing) Vedic ones. This may be correct, yet it does not by itself prove that all the texts having Vedic accentuation in these cases are older than Panini. It is certainly conceivable that the Vedic texts were composed in a form of language that was kept archaic also in its accents. Panini's bhasa, too, is younger than Vedic, yet Panini does not for that reason necessarily postdate scriptures that use the Vedic language. 8. Note that MS-1.5.12 (p. 81 1.2-6) uses ratri in the language used by the gods and ratri elsewhere; this was pointed out to me by Professor Witzel. 9. P.2.3.62, 4.39, 73, 76, 3.2.88, 5.2.122, 6.1.34, 70, 133, 178, 2.199, 4.75, 7.1.8, 10, 103, 3.97, 4.78. Cf. Shiva ramaiah (1969) 10. It goes without saying that the generality of such rules can be restricted in various ways such as the presence of rules that account for exceptions (apavada). 11. For a brief description, see Chakrabarti (1980, 134-36) and Jha (1942, 294-99). 12. The following examples are taken from Bharthari's dis cussion of iha in his commentary on the Mahabhasya (see below). 13. We should not be misguided by this late date. Bhart hari made use of works on Mimamsa older than Sabara's, among them probably the one by Bhavadasa. See Bronk horst (1989a). 14. The relevance for grammar is, of course, that in this way it can be decided whether or not Vedic rules are to be used in the modified mantras. Note that Kumarila's Tantravarttika on PMS 1.3.24 maintains that uha is brought about without the help of grammar but rather with forms found in the Veda. 15. SSS 6.1.15, similarly, prescribes substitution of medha pataye or medhapatibhyah for, apparently, medha patibhyam, as instances of wha. 106 107.

Page #18
16. ghas replaces ad before aorist endings according to P.2.4.37 (lunsanor ghas!). 17. The value of this case is somewhat in doubt since TB 2.8.2.5 cites the same mantra as RV 10.47.1 with jagrohna; it may have contained jagrbhma. 18. My friend Dr. Harry Falk points out in a forthcoming article that Panini cannot have known AV$ 6.16.3, the reason being that Panini derives ailayit from elayati: the same mantra contains the form ilaya (avelaya), so that Panini, had he known AVS 6.16.3 as a whole, would have derived ailayit from ilayati rather than from elayati. 19. This was pointed out by Manjul Mayank in a paper read at the Seventh World Sanskrit Conference, Leiden, 1987. 20. The corresponding plural dadhrati occurs at TS 2.3.1.2, 5.3.9.2; MS 2.2.1; and KS 11.6. However, the juxtaposi. tion of dadharti, dardharti, dardharsi, and other finite verb forms seems to indicate that the precise form dadharti is meant. 21. For example, P.7.1.57 goh padante) prescribes that the genitive plural of go at the end of a verse-foot in ritual literature is gonam. This is illustrated in RV 10.47.1. But the Kasika rightly observes that there are exceptions: RV 10.166.1 has gavam at the end of a verse foot. 22. The Kanva parallel SBK 6.1.3.12 (chaganam havisam prasthitam presya) seems to be the only example in Vedic literature in which P.2.3.61 is obeyed. Note that the single varttika on P.2.3.61 is intended to make the rule invalid where the oblation is prasthita. This would justify all, or almost all, deviations from Panini's rule, yet the fact that Panini says nothing about prasthita in this context shows that he did not know, or accept, these counterexamples. Similarly, see Navathe (1987). 23. bahvojas in RV 8.93.2 is considered a Bahuvrihi, and not therefore a Tatpurusa compound, by Oldenberg (1909-12, 2:144). soma parvabhih in RV 1.9.1 - AVS 20.71.7 - VSM 33.25 - VSK 32.2.8 - SVK 1.180 = SVJ 1.2.1.7.6 can be derived from parva, by P.7.1.10. 24. Note that the insufficiency of Panini's grammar with regard to the Vedic data has been known for a long time in the Paninian tradition. Kumarila Bhatta, in his Tantravarttika, cites in this connection SVK 2.1006 = SVJ 4.17.11 (madhya apasya tisthati), which has apasya instead of apam. 25. Caland (1921, 3) observed that the Apastamba Srauta Sutra refers to mantras of the Taittiriya Samhita by way of their initial words, and to those of the Taittiriya Brahmana by citing them in full. Kashikar (1968, 400) has also shown that mantras from the Taittiriya Brahmana are often quoted by pratika. The Bharadva ja Srauta Sutra follows a similar practice (Kashikar 1968, 401). 26. That is, not even the forms ayaksmamkarana and sarupam karana, without the feminine i, are derived. 27. Note that the Mahabhasya also prefers the Paippalada version of the Atharvaveda in some citations (see Renou 1953, 463). 108 109

Page #19
Abbreviations SaB Samavidhana Brahmana SadB Sadvimsa Brahmana, edited by Bellikoth Ramachandra Sharma. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. 1967. SaGS Sankhayana Grhya Sutra Sana Sankhayana Aranyaka SatyB salyayana Brahmana SB Sata patha Brahmana SBK Satapatha Brahmana (Kanva) SSS Sankhayana Srauta Sutra Sw Swaminathan's edition of Bharthari's Mahabhasyadipika tv Taittiriya Brahmana VamsaB Vamsa Brahmana Vass Varaha Srauta Sutra Aitareya Aranyaka Aitareya Brahmana Abhyankar and Limaye's edition of Bharthari's Mahabhasyadipika ApSS Apastamba Srauta Sutra Ar$B Arseya Brahmana Asss Asvalayana Srauta Sutra AVP Atharvaveda (Paippalada) AVS Atharvaveda (Saunakiya) BAU(K) Brhadaranyaka Upanisad (Kanva) Bhass Bharadvaja Srauta Sutra CE "Critical edition" of Bharthari's Mahabhasyadipika Chu Chandogya Upanisad DrSs Drahyayana Srauta Sutra HISS Hiranyake i Srauta Sutra JAB Jaiminiya-Arseya-Brahmana, edited by Bellikoth Ramachandra Sharma. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha. 1967 JUB Jaiminiya Upanisad Brahmana KB Kausitaki Brahmana Kathaka Samhita LSS Latyayana Srauta Sutra Ms Manuscript of Bharthari's Mahabhasyadipika MS Maitrayani Samhita MAS Manava Srauta Sutra Paninian sutra Pancavimsa Brahmana PMS Purva Mimamsa Sutra Bibliography Aufrecht, Theodor, 1879: Das Aitareya Brahmana. Bonn: Adolph Marcus. KS Balasubrahmanyam, M. D., 1964: "The accentuation of arya in Panini and the Veda." 26th International Congress of Orientalists. New Delhi. Summaries of Papers, III, 54-55. P. PB ..., 1966: "An accentual problem in Panini and the Veda apropos of the word hayana-." Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 25, 43-58. 110 111

Page #20
---- 1969: "Arya-: an accentual study." Indian Antiquary, Third Series, 3 (R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume), 112-27. 1972: "Vedic sriyase and Panini 3.4.9." Vishveshvarananda Indological Journal 10, 7-10. 1974: "Panini 6.1.209-210." Charudeva Shastri Felicitation Volume. Delhi, 189-93. - 1974a: "Katyayana and some Vedic formations." Samskrtavimarsah 1(2), 1-4. , 1981: The System of Krt Accentuation in Panini and the Veda. Tirupati: Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha (Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha Series No. 32). 1983: "An accentual note on Vedic vodhave." Surabhi. Sreekrishna Sarma Felicitation Volume. Tirupati: Sri Venkateswara University, 229-40. " 1984: "Subhagamkarani in AV 6,139,1." Amrtadhara. R. N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume. Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 21-27. Bhartrhari: Mahabhasya Dipika. (1) Edited by K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1970 (Post-Graduate and Research Department Series No. 8). (2) Partly edited by V. Swaminathan under the title Mahabhasya Tika. Varanasi: 112 Banaras Hindu University. 1965 (Hindu Vishvavidyalaya Nepal Rajya Sanskrit Series Vol. 11). (3) Manuscript reproduced. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1980. (4) "Critical edition" and translation. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. To date, six volumes have been published: Ahnika 3 by G. B. Palsule (1983); Ahnika 5 by V. P. Limaye, G. B. Palsule, and V. B. Bhagavat (1984); Ahnika 6, part 1, by V. B. Bhagavat and Saroja Bhate (1986); Ahnika 1 by Johannes Bronkhorst (1987); Ahnika 2 by G. B. Palsule (1988); and Ahnika 4 by G. V. Devasthali and G. B. Palsule (1989). Bhat, M. S., 1968: "The Vedic stem ratri- and Panini." Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 41-42 (1966-67, N.S.), 8-11. Bloomfield, Maurice, 1899: The Atharva Veda. Asian Publication Services. 1978. 1906: A Vedic Concordance. Delhi, Varanasi, and Patna: Motilal Banarsidass. 1964 (Harvard Oriental Series, Vol. 10). Bronkhorst, Johannes, 1981: "The orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Rgveda and the date of Panini." Indo-Iranian Journal 23, 83-95. 1982: "The variationist Panini and Vedic." IndoIranian Journal 24, 273-82. 113

Page #21
......, 1982a: "Some observations on the Padapatha of the Rgveda." Indo-Iranian Journal 24, 181-89. Chakrabarti, Samiran Chandra, 1980: The Paribhasas in the Srautasutras. Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar. -----, 1984: "Nirukta, Unadi Satra, and Astadhyayi." Indo-Iranian Journal 27, 1-15. Devasthali, G. V., 1967: Phitsutras of Santanava. Edited with introduction, translation, and critical and exegetical notes. Poona: University of Poona. (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 1). ......., 1989: "L'indianisme et les prejuges occidentaux." Etudes de Lettres (Lausanne), April-June 1989, 119-36. ---, 1989a: "Bharthari and Mimamsa." Studien zur Indo logie und Iranistik 15, 101-17. ......., 1984: "Panini and Vedic-a critique." Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 64 (1983), 137-48. Caland, W. (tr.), 1921: Das Srautasutra des Apastamba. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Gonda, Jan, 1975: Vedic Literature (Samhitas and Brahmanas). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (A History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, Fasc. 1). ........ 1927: "On a paragraph of Vaidic syntax." Acta Orientalia 5, 49-51. Goto, Toshifumi, 1987: Die "1. Prasensklasse" im Vedischen. Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. ..., 1928: "Eine vierte Mitteilung uber das Vadhala sutra." Acta Orientalia 6, 97-241. Hoffman, Karl, 1974: "Panini VII 2, 69 sanim sasanivamsam." Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 32, 73-80. (tr.), 1928a: Das Srautasutra des Apastamba. Sechszehntes bis vierundzwanzigstes und einunddreissigstes Buch. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen. Horsch, Paul, 1966: Die vedische Gatha- und Sloka-Literatur. Bern: Francke Verlag Cardona, George, 1976: Panini: A Survey of Research. Delhi, Varanasi, and Patna: Motilal Banarsidass. 1980. Jha, Ganganatha, 1942: Purva-Mimamsa in its Sources. Second edition, 1964. Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University. 114 115

Page #22
1936: "Panini and the Veda." Indian Culture 2, 735-48. Joshi, S. D., and Roodbergen, J. A. F., 1981: Patanjali's Vyakarana Mahabhasya, Pratipadikarthasepahnika (P.2.3.46-2.3.71). Pune: University of Poona (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, No. 14). Kielhorn, Franz, 1866: Cantanava's Phitsutra. Mit verschie denen indischen Commentaren, Einleitung, Uebersetzung und Anmerkungen herausgegeben. Genehmigter Nachdruck. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, Ltd. 1966 (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, IV. Band No. 2). Kapila Deva Shastri, Sam 2018: Samskrta Vyakarana mem Gana patha ki Parampara aura Acarya Panini. Ajmer: Bharatiya-Pracyavidya-Pratisthana. Kashikar, C. G., 1951: "The problem of the Galantas in the Rgvedapadapatha." Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference 13 (1946), 39-46. ...., 1885: "Der Grammatiker Panini." Gottinger Nachr. 1885, 185-99. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften I, 188202. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1969. 1968: "The Taittiriya-Brahmana in relation to the Satrakaras." Pratidanama. Festschrift Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 398-408 Kiparsky, Paul, 1980: Panini as a Variationist. Edited by S. D. Joshi. Pune: Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, in collaboration with the MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., and London. ......., 1982: Some Theoretical Problems in Panini's Gram mar. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Keith, Arthur Berriedale (tr.), 1914: The Veda of the Black Yajus School entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. 2 parts. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press (Harvard Oriental Series 18, 19). Kumarila Bhatta: Tantravarttika. In: Mimamsadarsana. Edited by Kasinatha Vasudevasastri Abhyamkara and Pt. Ganesasastri Josi. Poona: Anandasrama. 1973-84 (Anandasrama Samskstagranthavali 97). --, (tr.), 1920: Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya and Kausitaki Brahmanas of the Rigveda. Delhi, Patna, and Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass. 1971 (Harvard Oriental Series 25). Liebich, Bruno, 1891: Panini: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der indischen Literatur und Grammatik. Leipzig: H. Haessel. 116 117

Page #23
Mayank, Manjul, 1990: "Panini's acquaintance with the Atharvaveda." In: Panini and the Veda. Edited by Madhav M. Deshpande. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ......., 1953: "Le Veda chez Patanjali." Journal Asiatique 241, 427-64. Navathe, P. D., 1987: "On the prasthitam havih." Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 68 (Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar 150th Birth Anniversary Volume), 645-51. ---, 1957: Altindische Grammatik: Introduction generale. Nouvelle edition du texte (by Jacob Wackernagel) paru en 1896, au tome I. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht Scheftelowitz, Isidor, 1906: Die Apokryphen des Rgveda. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1966. Oldenberg, Hermann, 1909-1912: Rgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. 2 vols. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Klasse, N.F. Band XI Nro. 5 and Band XIII Nro. 3). -1919: "Die Nividas und Praisas, die altesten vedischen Prosatexte." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 73, 30-50. Palsule, G. B., 1982: "Two Vedic rules of Panini: 8.3.47 and 8.3.10." Golden Jubilee Volume. Poona: Vaidika Samsodhana Mandala, 185-88. Schroeder, Leopold von, 1879: "Ueber die Maitrayani Samhita, ihr Alter, ihr Verhaltniss zu den verwandten Cakha's, ihre sprachliche und historische Bedeutung." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 33, 177-207. Paniniya Siksa. Edited by Manomohan Ghosh. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. 1938. Patanjali: Vyakarana-Mahabhasya. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third Edition by K. V. Abhyankar. 3 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962-72. 1880: "Das Kathakam und die Maitrayani Samhita." Monatsberichte der Koniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1879), 675-704. ------, (ed.), 1881-86: Maitrayani Samhita. Parts I-IV. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Renou, Louis, 1940: "Sur certaines anomalies de l'optatif sanskrit." Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 41, 5-17. ---, 1895: "Das Kathaka, seine Handschriften, seine Accentuation und seine Beziehung zu den indischen Lexi 118 119

Page #24
cographen und Grammatikern." Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 49, 145-71. Witzel, M., 1989: "Tracing the Vedic dialects." In: Dialectes dans les litteratures indo-aryennes. Edited by Colette Caillat. Paris: Institut de Civilisation Indienne (Publications de l'Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Fasc. 55), 97-265. Shivaramaiah, B. K., 1969: "A note on 'bahulam chandasi." The Mysore Orientalist 2(1), 7-11. Staal, J. F. (ed.), 1972: A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammar ians. Cambridge, Mass., and London, MIT Press. Thieme, Paul, 1935: Panini and the Veda. Studies in the early history of linguistic science in India. Allahabad: Globe Press. 1938: Der Fremdling im Rgveda. Eine Studie uber die Bedeutung der Worte ari, arya, aryaman und arya. Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft. Reprint: Kraus Reprint, Ltd., Nendeln, Liechtenstein. 1966. 1985: "Nennformen aus Anrede und Anruf im Sanskrit." Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 44 (Festgabe Karl Hoffmann) I, 239-58. Wackernagel, Jakob, 1896-1930: Altindische Grammatik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Whitney, W. D., 1893: "The Veda in Panini." Giornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana 7, 243-54. 120 121