________________
non-Vedic rules of the Astādhyāyi. This is suggested by Balasubrahmanyam's remark (1984, 23):
Among the seven khyun- derivatives taught by Plānini) in Alstādhyāyi) 3.2.56, subhagamkarani and priyam-karanam are only attested in the Samhita texts of the (Atharvaveda)--the former occurring at (AVS) 6.139.1 and AVP 7.12.5, and the latter at the Paippalada Samhita (3.28.5; 6). Neither in the other Vedic Samhitās nor in the Brahmana-Aranyaka texts, do we come across these derivatives.
Balasubrahmanyam's observation is misleading in that subhagamkarani is not taught in P.3.2.56 nor anywhere else in the Astädhyāyi. This is so because a vārttika of the Saunāgas (Mbh, 2:105, 1.8; on P.3.2.56) is required to provide subhagamkarana with its feminine ending, i, as shown by Balasubrahmanyam himself. Thus, P.3.2.56 did not derive subhagamkarani in the Atharvaveda. The fact that the Atharvaveda contains two more words of the same kind (ayakşmamkarani at AVS 19.2.5 and AVP 8.8.11; sarūpamkarani at AVS 1.24.4 and AVP 1.26.5; see Balasubrahmanyam 1984, 25f.) and that these words are not even partiallyco derived in Pāņini's grammar, makes it less than likely that the priyamkaranam of AVP 3.28.6 was meant to be explained in P.3.2.56.
An interesting confirmation that the Atharvaveda did not exist as a collection until long after the other three Vedas were collected is found in the Chandogya Upanişad. Sections 3.1-5 make a number of comparisons, or rather identifications, of which the following are of interest to us.
Section 3.1 states that the bees are the res, the flower is the Rgueda; in 3.2 the bees are the yajus (pl.), the flower is the Yajurveda; and in 3.3 the bees are the sämans, the flower is the Sāmaveda. The interesting observation comes in section 3.4, where the bees are the atharvangirasah and the flower is itihäsa purānam. In 3.5, finally, the bees are the hidden teachings (guhyā ādesah), which may be the Upanişads, and the flower is Brahman (n.). Since the athar. vāngirasah constitute the Atharvaveda as we know it, the logic of the situation would have required that the flower in 3.4 be identified with the Atharvaveda. The fact that it is not hardly allows an explanation other than that the author of this passage did not know of such a definite collection of atharvans and angirases. Itihāsa and purāna certainly do not designate the Atharvaveda, neither separately nor jointly (see Horsch 1966, 13f.).
Bloomfield (1899, 2f.), too, came to the conclusion that many hymns and prose pieces in the AV. date from a very late period of Vedic productivity." Indeed, there is nothing in the way of assuming that the composition of such texts as the AB. and SB. preceded the redactions of the Atharvan Samphitās."
Patañjali's Mahābhāşya cites in its opening passage the first lines of the four Vedas; these apparently existed as collections in those days (second century B.C.). The first line is sam no devir abhiştaye, which begins the Paippalada version of the Atharvaveda. Patañjali even informs us of the size of the Atharvaveda known to him, saying (Mbh, 2:378, 1.11; on P.5.2.37): vimsino'ngirasah. This fits the twenty books of the Paippalāda Samhita. We may conclude
100
101
