English
In the twelfth section of his Siitras, when speaking of some rules on the Sv&- dhy&ya (praying), he says^, *^ that certain rules must be considered as given in Br&hmanas of which the tradition or reading has been destroyed. Their former existence," he says, '^must be inferred from The Commentator gajs: ^31Q^;i|nnr ^SjA^t^WMJI '^The original passages were lost by the negligence of the students.** KumSriU observes: KT^T^ filWnHft^lflj^Hln| Jfm- '^The original text from which the Smriti was derived cannot always be founds because the ^has are scattered about, students are negligent, and because these rules stand under different heads." And again: Y^ %^ $^(ft)^R?IJ ^^PfHRfll ''As if we did not see in our own time that subjects are forgotten and works lost.** ** And it must not be said that their destruction is impossible, for we see it take place every day, whether by negligence, idleness, or by the death of men." of considei'a.'ble interest to know ^ ^^\GQ. o£ £[xLx^aa.1;1>a.'s, as to the previous .#5i^^^^^rfeT nuxnlDeT' of Vedic works, deserves ^-'^l^^^^^K^Yjeopponeixt; of the orthodox Kumfi.- '^^ ^^C^-^^^^^'^vSirttika. x'ema.irks very truly, that to ^^ ^^ ^^:^^4Si^l o^ lost paiTts of the Veda is like " ° ^X,' ^^ >W^^on as a. "wltiiess.* And if we had o<^'^^' -C>^^^-::r ^ty*OT^ this opinion than so late a ^^"^of^*^^ ^^^^^^aradatta, -wre should hardly be justi- <JS!* ^e^ -J^t^^^^ a fig ^* *^* *^^ argument. Anybody, ^\>?> t ^ ^^.^ acquainted -with the character ot xo ^.^sS^^^y^ ^^ Atora, will admit that they seldom ^%,e-^<SCi ^<<> ^^ V^^^^tfinrmTTf, &c Cf. T^na- "^^ ^19?^ ^:^<'^f *• ^®'' *• ^*^* ' '^'^^'BCD.yx, iii. 12, 18, where the "V^ -^^^ ^^ 0* "V&swM^a as having spoken of the marriage %*. ^** 4>^^ ^ftdt&, the ceremony not being accompanied f^ ^. <<P®*V>. ^^ ft Wad of morganatic marriage, k&mato tt'^^^^t'^,,— ^,n ,..,, rt(^ ?a "^ lot ^^radition to have been a source, he may \e^<^ .^^ <,\e fo^ it is Uke appeaUng to a dead "^Tr- wi**^. la® *^-o\n: oi S* . precept not been establiahed by 1 ^'^'^uJ BOtJTce of their teaching, which would not i "^nT^ ^<^^ ^ precept not been eatablialied by Manu and '^V* t>**^*t€* *" .otela^^' than to prodidm their own doc- the ^^6* wAv tJ ^^^'^ -whatever he Ukea into the skuU ha^^ ? ^Sm. n* **" invoke it as an authority." of* LOST bbAhmai?as. 107 l§&khft, and thus upset all the arguments of the or- thodox philosophers. But in spite of the bug-bear of the Buddhists, the general fact that some S&kh4s had perished was admitted by Kumftrila, as well as by Apastainba, both endeavouring to prop up the autho^ rity of the Smriti by the broken pillars of the Sruti.^ The evidence which has been brought together is sufficient to establish the fact, that the distinction between Sruti and Smriti, revelation and tradition^ had been established by the Brahmans previous to the rise of Buddhism, or, at all events, previous to the time when the Siitra style began to be adopted in In- dian literature. There existed, previous to the Siitra period, a body of literary works propagated by oral tradition, which formed the basis of all later writing^ on sacred subjects, and which by the Brahmans was believed to be of divine origin. The idea expressed by the verb rfrw, to hear, i. e. to receive by inspiration, is known in the Brjlhmanas. The name of Smriti seems to occur for the first time in the Taittirlya- &ranyaka^ though it is said to be used there in the if^*F^fe*iw(M vim l^r^<if^4^i^ ^Utji ^ Taitt Ar. 1. 1,2.: ^jf^: l||>4^fc^V^ j^H^y^K^^II The Commentator explains Smriti bj yiAMM^[r\W!i JV^" .^ .^^r^^ ^liat these rules are still followc ^ceptiop. l>eixi^ ^^?vliere customs c ^^^^ ^^5 ^^ selfish xYnotives. In this c 1^^^ ^^ ^^r:^ euch. ian&\xt;hoxdse<i customs, sh ^^.^^^e>^ ^"^^ ^the Hymns, it Is in itself ver .&.'^° u^^ ^ 4pt* shoiiia. Have existed than '?*°\'^^o ^r^' ^^^^ ^ collectea. in the Rig-veda '*^*^^-' vc^^^ .^^^^a'w^e see tHat the number of 1 ^° V^'^^^'t ^.^ .^^ ^ commu.xiities. The ancient ] ^^Y^1 ^^^15^^%^^?^, "Vffould hardly have furnished t \,4\A*=^\^^®?rf^'^^ for legal and ceremonial ques e<e<^\\SV^^^^"'^^^oU^* <i^a-t the lost tradition wl ^*^f ^C^<^>*'**^>^^ ^er ^i^ters, refers only to Br&hr °^ A^®^\e -O %^^ dogmatic works are still in t^^* <:vet® vy ^l.-^^ ^Vich are always quoted alon '^^iiS^ ^o^ ^<^*lo®*' ^^ l:nown by extracts *^^<A^^^*, o^ ^ ^tJS^derahle number of ancien ^^e'.'^txre ^a ^ Z.d^^ doctrines, whether on phil* \.^0-> ^8^^^ ^ ^^ metrical or gramraatical ^$Vve<^ ^^'"''^t^^ Aet^* works, which were hande< V fcet^Ac^^ot^g '^T descendants. But, : cf^° \tvV*^ V^ tV^^"S^ *^® carelessness and * tVot>'^^VtvO<^t:^e^ a ^^"^ ^y tlie extinction of ft ' t>y ^^tft o>P*t<ve<^^ \ ticcessarily lost ; and it is, i *** A ess ^^ \f>-\,'!>!^ ^^'^ ""^ *^^s Br&hmanas \ suT^^^ \o*^' p tetnember for how long a tii ' ^%e "oe^ ^^,'^^.\xM *^^ ^^'^^y means of prei \ \^n sa*^^ <t^^ ^M- \ioNvever, was too keen-sightet T^ditioi^^to^7*;ger of adniitting lost §&kb&s ^betn. ^ t\^^ .^^^g, ati4 he makes several reser ^Tcetv^ 0-^*^°^^ ^ against a promiscuous use ^eda ^ Xfi Sjf ^ ^ud^^^*** *^^ might appeal t< \ NUMBte OF VEdAnGAS. 109 The Brahmans say that there are six members of the Veda, the six Yedftngas. This name does not imply the existence of six distinct books or treatises intimately connected with their sacred writings, but merely the admission of six subjects the study of which was necessary either for the reading, the understanding, or the proper sacrificial employment of the Yeda* Manu calls the Vedingas by the name of Pravachanas \ which is a title not unusually ap* plied to the Brihmanas.^ And indeed, instead of t Manu, ill. 184.: ^fUfTl ^ ^^ ^4lW^ ^1 '' Those priests must be considered as the purifiers of a company who are most learned in all the Vedas and all their Angas."— Sir W. Jones. *' Because the meaning of the Veda is proclaimed by them, therefor^ are the Angas called Pravachanas." • *iw*il^^i4<fi irsR^if^n: ^r:: ^masn^i com. ** Among the E^alabavins 'also the accent exists in the perusal of the Veda enjoined bj the IVavachanas. Com. By the word prayachana is meant the Br&hmana, and it is called so because it is proclaimed." There is a passage in the Fk*asth&nabheda ** For each Veda there are several Sftkh&s the difference of which arises from different Pravachanas." Here pravachana means Brahmana, because the difference of the Brahmana-i^h&s does arise from Brabmanas peculiar to each. It IS x>ossible, however, that Madhus^dana used pravachana in the sense of pronunciation, the difference of pronunciation being the chief cause of the Sanhit&H^has. Pravachana is used in the Ea- Ihopaniahad, ii. 23., in the sense of *' reading." ^^^ ^ In .r^^ *^^c, "*^. ^e find vti *^^..^X3 att,^^^^^^?**ti 7^eve, ,, indent tT<Vf^*- 5, ,r^ ^^^i^^^^^i^^^ J^o 5^t ^ ^^ h Y^ Utile dovil=^> ^t^ . 50^^ f^o^^cit''^^'^* ,, far as they ^ "^*^<^t*^^e^^*-ao t^e existence ^^^^i-^ to s. **" i^rZ^ '^W NidJtoo-<t™. if. J. '^yr^j^^ ^'i^.-/ cf Cf. IndioIe Stodien, i. p. 45. ^^^f^Tf , " ^*^'aah NUMBER OF VEDAnGAS. Ill the Ved&ngas were first mentioned as six* In the Mundaka-upanishad the number of the Yed^gas is given as six, but in a line which is not unlikely to have been interpolated. Ydska (Nir. i. 20.) quotes only the Yed&ngas, but not the six Ye* dd.ngas. The number of six occurs in the Cha- ranavy^a, where we meet with the well-known versus mfemorialis, containing the titles of the six Yed&ngas,^ The same number occurs in Manu (iii. 185). There is a passage in the Chh&ndogya-Upani- stamba, who occasionallj quotes ^lokas in his SCltras, does not seem to have known this verse. His words are (ii. 4, 8.), !|>|fl|V q?^'! IF^: *lifr ^l<Hi ^f^M Pt^ fllWI What follows, itt the only MS. I know, is eaten awaj by worms ; bat then comes the word ^^(^fnifr), which was the title of a metrical treatise, and is qnoted as such before Pingala, in the Sabda-EIalpa-druma, . v, f^l One of the Pariiiishtas of the Samaveda^begins with the words ^^l<i*^4^lfN^ ^I4aii4fl|4;i ThePari6i8h.