________________
Sanhită was yet a definite unit" (ibid., lucix-lxxx). The sütras only distinguish between mantra and brähmana, which occur in each of the three, Taittiriya Samhitā, Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa, and Taittiriya Aranyaka.25
The interrelationship of mantras and brāhmana 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 brāhmana 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 Sūtrakāras between the nature of the texts before them."
It is not impossible that the creation of a Pada pätha differentiated the Taittiriya Samhitā from Taittiriya Brähmana and Taittiriya Aranyaka, just as the Rgveda may conceivably have been collected by the author of its Padapātha (Bronkhorst 1982a, 187).
The fact that Pāṇini 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 Samhită, and he may indeed have considered them taittiriya 'uttered by Tittiri'.
Note, finally, that the Taittiriya Samhitā appears to borrow from the Aitareya Brāhmana 1-5, as argued by Keith (1914, 1:xcvii f.); see also Aufrecht (1879, vi, 431f.) and Keith (1920, 46). The Aitareya Brāhmana itself, including its first five chapters, deviates in a number of points from Pāņini (4.5, below).
4.3 Some of the other Samhitās of the Yajurveda sin occasionally against Păņini.
The Vājasaneyi Samhitā has ātmanā, masculine sisira, and one Tatpuruşa compound in -an (vyāghraloman). It shares this, however, with the Maitrāyani Samhita.
The Maitrāyani Samhita has sabhya, some Tatpuruşa compounds in -as and -an, ātmanā; note further dādhrati (see note 19, above). These deviations from Pānini in the Maitrāyani Samhitā are most surprising because Panini appeared to know both the mantra and brāhmana 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 Pāņini's day.
4.4 Did Pānini know the Atharvaveda? Two forms prescribed by him are found only there, one in the Saunakiya version and one in the Paippalāda version. However, opposed to these two forms are numerous others forbidden by Pāṇini. They include gamayām cakāra, gamayan cakartha (3.1), akārsam, arukşat, sabhya, several neuter Tatpuruşa compounds ending in -an and -23, vişadanta and işikādanta, haricandra, ātmanā, and sisira (masc.) (3.2).
One might raise the question of whether the word-forms in the Atharvaveda may not have been Vedic in Pāņini's opinion, that is, whether, perhaps, they were covered by
