________________
DECEMBER, 1894.)
BULLETIN OF THE RELIGIONS OF INDIA.
361
going back, the rishis, the authors of the anubrahmanas, such as Kusuruvinda, and, before them, those who composed our actual brahmanas, such as Mahidasa and many others. With these, we are fully into another yuga, perhaps even in another kalpa (at least 4,300,000 B. C.) But before them appeared the authors of the slokas, anuslokas and gáthás, which have been worked up in the brahmaņas. Before these latter again, there was a period in which all that doctrine was in a state of scattered tradition, of simple sayings (pravida, whence the corresponding designation of bruti, which has remained). And that age itself was preceded by another, in which the sacrifice was instituted, and in which Atharvan, once for all, constituted the sannhitás. But these, again, were preceded by smaller collections, the mandalas, suktas, etc., which in turn presupposed the composition of mantras by a long series of fishis. Who would venture, at such remote periods, to dream of a chronology? All chronological research sets out from certain precise data, and here we have none. The very names of the rishis, which have been handed down, are often fictitious, as for example the names of divinities; others, that have the look of being real names, such as Vasishtha and Bhrigu, are, for us, outside of all time; others, again, like Visishtha and Kaśyapa, are family names, which tells us absolutely nothing. In this connexion, the essayist says, I, too, am a Kasyapa, my father was a Kaśyapa, and my son and grandson will also be Kasyapas. And what is true of the mantras is true also of the brahmanas. All we can say is that they are later than the mantras, and that some of their parts are earlier, or later, than some other of their parts. But to wish to assign to a single one of these parts a definite epoch, is to be misled by a will of the wish. In the Aitareya Brahmana, for instance, mention is made of a Janamejaya, son of Parikshit. Some have wished to identify him with the king of the Mahabhárata, the great-grandson of Arjuna, and have made the deduction that the brihmana is several centuries later than the great war. But, in that case, it would be nearly of the same age as Pâqini, which is impossible after what has been said. Similarity of name loes not imply identity of person, or we would need to admit that the mantras of the Rigveda which mention a Bhoja, are later than Uvatta, who wrote a commentary on the Vedas under King Bhoja. You cannot roast a fowl and make it lay eggs at the same time. In the same way a false conclusion has been drawn from a sútra of Påņini, 25 and a corresponding várttika of Katyayana, that the Satapathabráhmana was then quite new, while these texts shew that, in reality, then, as now, certain brahmanas were recognized, not as absolutely recent, but as more recent than other brahmaņas.
11. What are the subjects treated in the Nirukta ? -- Here the seventh part comes to an end. This question, as well as the twelfth and last, to the commentators on the Nirukta and their date will fill the eighth part, which is published, but has not reached me. In the course of this analysis I have refrained from pointing out the many cases in wbich the arguments of the worthy áchdrya seem unsound; it is equally useless to insist upon the extreme demand made on our powers of belief, which he makes on us with respect to a past, which, by his own confession, las no bistory. I shall only add a single remark here. The author does not say a word as to the part that writing must have played in all this; and this is the other noteworthy, if intentional, omission I have found. All that we find on this point is a passing remark that in the "time of the rishis" writing was not used. According to him we are therefore compelled to believe, on the one hand, in the purely oral origin and transmission of this long series of Vedic works without any overlapping, each of them fixed in all its parts, before the composition of the following one, and on the other hand, in the employment of writing in India, some two or three thousand years before our era. Some words of explanation would have been necessary on both heads. To give some idea of the abundance of details presented by the essay which have had to be sacrificed here, I must add that the portion analysed numbers 176 pages and that the acharya writes tersely.
Returning after this long digression to the exegesis of the Veda, I must notice in the
The often discussed rule IV. 8,166; the author always writes yijnavallyani brahmanani in place of the more correct reading yojnutalkini.
