________________
DECEMBER, 1894.]
BULLETIN OF THE RELIGIONS OF INDIA.
859
sacrifice, who divided this whole according to the requirements of the sacrifice. He made in this way a first collection for the use of the hotri priest, the Riksarhit ; & second for the use of the adhvaryu priest, the Yajussanhtitá; a third for the udgátri, the Sámasa hita, and a fourth collection containing what the superintending priest the Urahman, had to know in addition to the three first, the Atharvaņasoihita, correctly so called by the name of the originator himself. To each of these collections there corresponds a collection of injunctions and explanations, which is its Brahmaya, Samhita and Brâhmaga together forming the Rigveda, the Yajurveda, the Sâmaveda, and the Atharvaņaveda. Then comes a discussion of the other synonyms of the veda : ckhandas, svedhyâya (properly that portion of the scriptures, varying with each individual, which every orthodox believer must repeat and study),úgama and nigama. The last term denotes. strictly speaking, a passage quoted for explanation, or as an authority. The Brahmaņas are therefore really commentaries on passages taken from the Mantras, which are their nigamas ; later on they, in turn, served as nigamus to still more recent explanations. From the Veda considered as a whole the essayist goes on to treat of its two parts, mantra and brahmana. He discusses the word mantra and mentions the different kinds of mantrus: invocation, prayer, praise, wish, etc. The collection of the mantras of each Veda is its Samhita. It admits three chief modes of recitation (pathu): in a continuous text, sannhitápátha; with division of the words padapátha; with repetition and interlacing of the words, kramapátha; this last mode is in torn sub-divided into eight viksitis, or varieties, as the repetition and interlacing are more or less complicated. In the progress of time and as a result of the accidents inseparable from tradition, there have crept into these samhitas certain minute variations, which form the different sakhas, or “branches." One áákhd of a Veda is not merely a portion of that Veda or a chapter of it; it is the whole of that Veda, and whoever has studied one súkhá of the Rigveda, for example, can be at rest in his mind; he has studied the whole Rigveda. A dog whose tail has been cut off is not the less the same dog. A more deeply reaching distinction exists only in the case of the Yajurveda, where several bakhás make up the White Yajurveda, and the others the Black Yajurveda. In this way the number of Sanhitás is in reality five, not four.23 Among these Sasihitás an attempt has been made to establish a certain succession in time; that of the Rigveda would be the oldest ; those of the Saman and Yajus would seem to have been extracted later on, either in whole or in part; that of the Atharvan would be a parisishļa, or supplement to the rest; in the Riksanlita itself, the second mandala would appear to be a secondary addition; the tenth a still later addition. If a merchant brings to market various kinds of fruits, to sell them more readily, he will divide them into as many heaps as there are kinds of fruit. Must we say that this or that heap has been made earlier or later than any other P No doubt the fruits themselves were not grown all at once, but the division took place at one time. In the same way we may grant that such and such a mantra was "seen" after such and such another; but their distribution between the various sarhitás was the work of one and the same arranger. From the first part of the Veda, the mantras, our anthor passes to the second the brihmaņa. This is either a command and declaration (vidhi) or an explanation and development (arthavada), terms which he examines at great length, both with regard to their use and the subdivisions which they include. The Urdhmanas must not be confused with the anubrahmaņas, which are simply imitations of the brahmanas, and have only a certain likeness to them (bráhmanasail risa).
The anubráhmanas are nearly all lost; the substance of them has passed in the Vedanyas, the Mimáinsd, the Itihasas, and the Purúnas. But parts of the an ubrahmaņas of the Sámaveda have been preserved (not to speak of what has been collected from this source in the Nidarasitra): they are the minor Brahmanas of this Veda. Sayaņa, it is true, took them for real
23 The author does not say anything more on this head, notably he does not explain the mixture of mantra and brahmana, which marks the 4khde of the Black Yajurveda. The state of matters is not absolutely incompatible with his views, but would have interfered with the apparent cogency of his demonstration. This and another which we shall noto further ou, is the only point of importance, which he may be said to have passed over intentionally.
