________________
P.3.1.118 (pratyapibhyam graheḥ [without chandasi; see Kielhorn 1885, 192 (195); Thieme 1935, 16]) prescribes pratigrhya- and apigṛhya-. Katyāyana's varttika on this sutra confines it to Vedic literature (chandas) and Patanjali mentions the alternatives pratigrāhya- and apigrahya-. The last two forms were apparently not known to Pāņini, 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 Ṛgveda and nowhere else. Among the forms he clearly rejects, not one occurs in the Ṛgveda. To this must be added the fact that P.1.1.16-18 refer to Sakalya's Padapāṭha. 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 Pāņini knew the collected Ṛgveda, not just the individual hymns.
Note that this is in no way obvious. Pāņini knew Vedic stanzas (rc) and sacrificial formulas in prose (yajus)--both of these went by the term mantra--besides brāhmaṇa 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 idävatsarīna, anuvatsarina, itarad (3.1, above), akārşam, sabhya; and sārdulacarman (3.2). The Taittiriya Aranyaka has akārṣam, 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