________________
360
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[DECEMBER, 1894.
bráhmaņas. This is because Sayana was not professionally a sámavedin. He did not receive his knowledge of this Veda from the mouth of a gurit. The commentary then, which he coinpiled, as best he could, is not a real sú mavedabháshya in the eyes of the sámuvedins, but a mere piece of of schoolboys' work. The brahmana portion of the Veda has given rise, no less than the mantra portion, to erroneous speculations. Thus, with regard to the branyakas it has been maintained that they cannot have more than a single book (adhyaya), that they are nothing but parisishtas of the brahmanas, that they are later than Pâņini, that they do not form a part of the Veda. All this, unfortunately, shews that the knowledge of the Veda is dying out. If the precepts which enjoin the study of the whole text were still held in reverence, and not in words only, it would he recognised that there is not a single áranyaka which does not possess more than one book, that they are not found solely in the brahmanas, and that one of them is a part of the Sámisarihita. Pâņini, it is true, teaches that the derivative dranyaka is said of a man, to designate him as an inhabitant of the forest, which has called forth the remark of Kåtyîyana that the same derivative may be used also of a road, an elephant, and of certain chapters (of the Veda). All that we may fairly draw from this is, that, at the time of Påņini, the word was not yet used to designate writings of this kind. To infer that these works were not yet in existence, would be the same as to say that in his time there were neither forest-roads, nor wild elephants. And it is just as hasty to exclude the áranyakas from the Veda by means of a false interpretation of a passage of Manu.24 There are, no doubt, aranyakas which are questionable or notoriously spurious, like those of the fifth book of the Aitareya Aranyaka. That only proves that the brahmanas, as well as the mantras, have their khilas, unauthentic supplements, about which in other respects, however, tradition has never been entirely mistaken. No less daring opinions have been expressed with regard to the upanishads, which commonly form part of the aranyakas, but several of which are to be found in the brahmanas and even in the sahitás. The Upanishads would thus be later than Påņini, because he does not teach that this word is used to denote certain parts of the Veda. But Katyayana and Patañjali have not taught this either, nor have many other grammarians, some of whom are quite modern. Shall we be coza pelled to say that for this reason the Upanishads are very recent works? Doubtless, there are ananthentic Upanishads, composed in imitation of the ancient, to give more credit to certain doctrines, as for example, the Rámalápaní. There are also some palpable forgeries like the alla Upanishad, which cannot deceive any one. But those which form an integral part of the Vedic books are quite as authentic as those books themselves. Those PÅņini not only knew, but he knew the imitations of them, since he teaches the formation of a special and compound upanishatkritya, to denote these imitations.. Besides this, Paņini mentions the Bhilshusútras, which, if they are not our present Vedántasútras are at any rate their source, and most like the Vedantasútras have been based on the Upanishads. Lastly, Yâska knew and used the name upanishad, and Yâska is older than Pâņini, according to these same critics. How do they get out of this?
10. What is the age of the Veda P - All tradition teaches that the Veda is apaurusheya, that it is not the work of man. It exists from all eternity in the mind of the divinity: the wise men, who have revealed it to us have seen it, did not make it. That being the case, it is useless to look for its origin. But even if we admit, as the most ancient texts lead us to suppose, that these sages, who must be thought of as living in time, were themselves the real authors of it, its origin would not be more easily determined on that account. We have seen above that Panini must have lived about 2300 B. C., or in the first thousand years of the current yuga. Before him there lived the authors of the Kramapátha, such as Babhravya ; before them, the authors of the Padapatha, such as 'SAkalya; before them again the anthors of treatises like the Riktantra, Sakatayana and others, and still further removed at the beginning of the yuga (3102 B. O.) the editors of the Kalpasútras. Then come, always
* The passage in question is Manu, IV. 123, where we read the well-known prohibition to reciting the rich and yajus verses where the saman vores are being sung. Our author sees in this a prohibition to recite the one immediately after the recitation of the others, and explains it by the desire of Manu to spare the priest the painful effort of altering his voice from the seven accents of the aimons, to the three accents of the other texts.
