Salutation to holy Ga eśa

[¤ 10]

ननु ऋग्वेदस्यैव छन्दःशब्द उपपन्नतरो नेतरेषां त्रयाणाम् । तेषु छन्दसां प्राधान्याभावात् । न चैतदेवम् । सर्वज्ञैर्माधवाचार्यैरुपोद्घातप्रकरणे ऋग्वेद-भाष्ये एतत्प्रपञ्चितम् । कथमिति तदाह । `सर्ववेदगतानि ब्राह्मणानि स्वाभिहितेऽर्थे विश्वासदार्ढ्याय तदेतदृचाऽभ्युक्तमित्यृचमेवोदाहरन्ति । मन्त्रकाण्डेष्वपि यजुर्वेदगतेषु तत्र तत्राध्वर्युणा प्रयोज्या ऋचो बह्व्य आम्नाताः । साम्नां तु सर्वेषामृगाश्रितत्वंप्रसिद्धम्। आथर्वणिकैरपि स्वकीयसंहितायामृच एवबाहुल्येनाभिधीयन्ते । अतोऽन्यैः सर्ववेदैरादृत-त्वा<sup>53</sup>दभ्यर्हितत्व'मृचामिति विशेषः<sup>54</sup>[Sāya_abhā_ya, RV, Max MŸller’s edn., Vol. I, p. 1] । अतः सर्वेषु वेदेषुछन्दःशब्द उपपन्नतर एवेति सिद्धम्। पूर्वमुक्तेभ्यश्छन्दोभ्योऽन्यान्यपि धृत्यष्ट्यादीनि छन्दांसि वेदेषूपलभ्यन्ते । तानि सर्वानुक्रमणिकायां<sup>55</sup> `मयरसतजभनलगसंमितमि'त्यादि [CS 1.1] छन्दःशास्त्रेषु बहुधा प्रपञ्चितत्वात्तत्रैव⁵⁶ द्रष्टव्यानि । ग्रन्थविस्तरभयान्नेहो-दाहृतानि ।

Now [one may argue that] the word chandas is most appropriate for the _gveda alone, and not for the other three Vedas, since they do not primarily contain chandas (meters).

Such is not the case. The all-knowing Mādhavācārya has elaborated this topic in the introduction to his commentary on the _gveda. If there is a question about how [Mādhavācārya explains this topic], this is what he says: ÒThe Brāhma_a-texts from all Vedic traditions cite only Vedic verses (_k) to enhance the confidence (of the listener) in matters they describe by saying, ‘this same matter has been affirmed by a Vedic verse (_k)’. Even in the mantra-sections of the Yajurveda, numerous Vedic verses (_k) are included for the Adhvaryu⁵⁷ to recite. It is well known that the Sāman-recitations are based on Vedic verses (_k). Even the Atharvavedins mainly recite Vedic verses (_k) in their own Sa_hitā-text. All the other Vedas show a high regard for Vedic verses (_k), and hence Vedic verses are most desirableÓ. Therefore, the word chandas is indeed appropriate with respect to all the Vedas.
Besides the [specific] meters (chandas) mentioned earlier [i.e. Gāyatrī, U__ih, Anu__ubh, B_hatī, Pa_kti, Tri__ubh, Jagatī, and Virā_], there are other meters like Dh_ti and A__i to be found in the Vedas. They are elaborately discussed in the Sarvānu­krama_ī and in the Chanda_śāstra in specific rules beginning with ma-ya-ra-sa-ta-ja-bha-na-la-ga-sa_mitam.⁵⁸ They should be consulted from those sources. Out of the fear of prolixity, these have not been cited here.
[¤ 11]

न च वस्तुत ऋगादीनामपि वेदानन्यत्वात् तत्परित्यज्य कुतोऽप्रस्तुत ऋग्यजुःसामच्छन्दोविचारः क्रियत इति⁵⁹। स्मृतस्योपेक्षानर्हत्वं प्रसङ्गइत्युक्तत्वात् `छन्दां॑सि जज्ञिर॒' [RV 10.90.9] इति वाक्येन स्मृतानां छन्द-आदीनामृचामपि विचारः कृतः । ऋग्यजुःसाम्नां लक्षणं पादबद्धत्वा-दिकमुक्तम् । ऋग्विशेषाणां गायत्र्यादिच्छन्दसां लक्षणानि बह्वृचतैत्ति-रीयादिब्राह्मणेषु श्रूयन्ते । `देवविशः कल्पयितव्या' [AB 12.1] इत्यस्मिन् खण्डे `अष्टाक्षरा वै<sup>60</sup> गायत्री । [...] एकादशाक्षरा वै त्रिष्टुप् । [...] द्वादशाक्षरा वै<sup>61</sup> जगती'ति । इदं पादविवक्षयोक्तम् । `दशाक्षरा विराळि'तिवत् [AB 29.4] । `चतुर्विंशत्यक्षरा गायत्री' [AB 14.2] । `द्वात्रिं॑शदक्षरानु॒ष्टुप्' [TB 1.7.5.5; Śā_B 26.1] । `षट्त्रिंशदक्षरा बृहती' [AB 19.2]। `चतुश्चत्वारिंशदक्षरा त्रिष्टुप्' [Śā_B 16.7]। `अ॒ष्टाच॑त्वारिंशदक्षरा॒ जग॑ती' [TB 3.8.8.4] इति<sup>62</sup> कृत्स्नवर्णविवक्षयोक्तम्। `विराड्याज्यास्तु निष्केवल्यस्य⁶³ या त्रयस्त्रिंशदक्षरा' [AB 12.11] इति विराजो लक्षणम् । एवं `पञ्चपदा पङ्क्तिः' [AB 29.4]। `स॒प्तप॑दा॒ शक्व॑री'-[TB 2.1.5.11]-त्याद्यूहनीयम् । यद्यपि छन्दःस्वक्षराणां न्यूनाधिक-भावो दृश्यते तत्परिहारः श्रुत्यैव कृतः । `अथो पञ्चवीर्यं वा' [AB 1.6] इत्युपक्रम्य<sup>64</sup> विराट्छन्दसो गायत्र्युष्णिगनुष्टुप्त्रिष्टुब्विरात्ट्वमिति पञ्च-वीर्यत्वं पादाक्षरसाम्यात् प्रतिपाद्य<sup>65</sup> अनन्तरं `त्रयस्त्रिंशदक्षरा तेनानुष्टुबि'-त्युक्त्वाऽनुष्टुप्छन्दसस्त्रयस्त्रिंशदक्षरत्वं कथमित्याशङ्क्य `न वा एकेनाक्षरेण छन्दांसि वियन्ति न द्वाभ्यामि'ति । एकेन द्वाभ्यामित्युपलक्षणं तस्मादक्षर-न्यूनाधिकभावेन छन्दांसि नान्यथा भवन्ति । उक्तानां छन्दसामेव प्रधानत्वं ब्राह्मणे दृष्टम् । प्रातरनुवाकब्राह्मणे `सप्ताग्नेयानि⁶⁶छन्दांस्यन्वाह । ... सप्तोषस्यानि⁶⁷ छन्दांस्यन्वाह । ... सप्ताश्विनानि छन्दांस्यन्वाहे'ति [AB 7.7]। तैत्तिरीयेऽपि `सर्वा॑णि॒ छ न्दाँस्यँ!32614न्वा॑हे'त्युक्तम् [TS 6.4.3.2] । `अग्नेर्गा॑य॒त्र्य॑-भवत् स॒युग्वे॒'ति [RV 10.130.4-5]मन्त्रद्वयेनैतान्येवाभिहितानि । यजुः-संहितायामपि `गा॒य॒त्री त्रि॒ष्टुब् जग॑त्यनु॒ष्टुप्प॒क्त्ङ्या॑ स॒ह । बृ॒ह॒त्युष्णिहा॑ क॒कुदि'त्येतानि [TS 5.2.11.1] प्राधान्येनाभिहितानि इति दिक् ।
Now one may object as follows. Verses (_k) etc. are in fact not different from the Vedas. Then why are those [Vedas] set aside, and why is an unrelated discussion of the _k-verses, yajus-texts, sāman-songs and meters being launched?
Such an objection should not be raised. There is a saying, Òone must not overlook something that has been [contextually] brought upÓ. Therefore, the terms chandas and _k etc., that were brought up by the citation Òchandas were born from thatÓ [RV, 10.90.9] were also discussed. We have offered definitions of the terms _k, yajus, and sāman, such as Òbeing structured with metrical feet.Ó
Definitions of specific verse forms, i.e. meters like Gāyatrī, are found in Vedic texts like the Brāhma_as of the _gvedins and the Taittirīyas. In the section that begins with ÒThe subjects of the gods must be provided,Ó [the Aitareya-Brāhma_a 12.1 says] Òthe Gāyatrī has eight syllables,Ó ... Òthe Tri__ubh has eleven syllables,Ó and Òthe Jagatī has twelve syllables.Ó These statements are offered with a desire to specify (the number of syllables in) a metrical foot. This is similar to the statement Òthe Virāj has ten syllablesÓ [AB 29.4].
There are Vedic statements which are offered with a desire to specify the total number of syllables (in all the feet of a given verse-form), e.g. Òthe Gāyatrī has twenty-four syllablesÓ [AB 14.12], Òthe Anu__ubh has thirty-two syllablesÓ [TB 1.7.5.5; Śā_B 26.1], Òthe B_hatī has thirty-six syllablesÓ [AB 19.2], Òthe Tri__ubh has forty-four syllablesÓ [Śā_B 16.7], and Òthe Jagatī has forty-four syllablesÓ [TB 3.8.8.4].
The statement Òlet the Virāj of thirty-three syllables be the offering verse of the Ni_kevalyaÓ [AB 12.11] defines [a specific instance of] Virāj. Similarly, one should look up statements [focusing upon the number of metrical feet in a verse form], such as Òthe Pa_kti has five feetÓ [AB 29.4] and Òthe Śakvarī has seven feetÓ [TB 2.1.5.11].
Even though [in particular instances] the number of syllables in a given verse-form varies up and down, the Veda itself counters the likely objections. Beginning with ÒNow it (= Virāj) is a meter of five strengthsÓ, [the Aitareya-Brāhma_a 1.6] points out the five-fold strength due to similarity of Virāj with Gāyatrī, U__ih, Anu__ubh, Tri__ubh, and Virāj itself in terms of the number of feet, syllables etc.⁶⁸After this, saying Òin that it has thirty-three syllables, it is the Anu__ubhÓ, [the Aitareya-Brāhma_a 1.6] suspects an objection how the Anu__ubh can have thirty-three syllables, and answers with: Òmeters do not get altered by deviation of one syllable, nor yet by two.Ó Here, the phrase Òby twoÓ is a general indication that metrical forms (chandas) do not get altered by the difference of a few syllables.
The verse-forms described earlier are the ones seen as being considered prominent in the Brāhma_as. In the Prātar-anuvāka-brāhma_a [AB 7.7], it is said: ÒSeven meters, he recites for Agni. ... Seven meters, he recites for U_as. ... Seven meters, he recites for the AśvinsÓ. So also it says in the Taittirīya-Sa_hitā [6.4.3.2]: ÒHe recites in all metersÓ. In the two verses [RV 10.130.4-5] ÒGāyatrī became joined with AgniÓ etc., the same Vedic meters are mentioned. The Yajurveda [TS 5.2.11.1] principally refers to the same meters: Ò(May) the Gāyatrī, the Tri__ubh, the Jagatī, the Anu__ubh, with the Pa_kti, the B_hatī, U__ih, and the Kakubh, (pierce thee with needles)Ó. This is just the direction [of discussion].
[¤ 12]

अथेदानीं वेदस्य लक्षणमुच्यते । यद्यपि वेदविचारस्य प्रकृतत्वात्त-ल्लक्षणमेवादौ⁶⁹वक्तुमुचितम् । तथापि तद्विशेषाणामृगादीनां बाहुल्यात् तल्लक्षणानि पूर्वमुक्तानीत्यविरोधः।वेदलक्षणप्रमाणविचारोमाधवाचार्यैःऋग्वेदभाष्योपोद्घातप्रकरणेनास्तिकादिमतनिराकरणपूर्वकोबहुधाप्रप-ञ्चितः।उपोद्घातृत्वंच प्रतिपाद्यमर्थं⁷⁰ मनसि निधाय तत्सङ्गत्यर्थमर्थान्तर-वर्णनमुपोद्घात इत्युक्तं शास्त्रकृद्भिः⁷¹ ।
Now, we will state the definition of the Veda. Since the discussion of the Veda is the task currently undertaken, its definition should be stated at the very outset. However, since it has numerous specific manifestations such as Vedic verses (_k), their definitions were stated earlier, and hence there is no contradiction. In the introduction to his commentary on the _gveda, Mādhavācārya has offered a detailed discussion of the definition and authority of the Veda, after rejecting the hetero-dox (nāstika) opinions. The Śāstra authors have described the function of an introduction as Òkeeping the topic under discussion in mind, and describing other (related) matters in order to make proper contextual sense of itÓ.
[¤ 13]

अलौकिकोपायबोधको वेद इत्युक्तम् । तथा च स्मृतिः⁷² -

`प्रत्यक्षेणानुमित्या च यस्तूपायो न बुध्यते ।

एनं विन्दन्ति वेदेन तस्माद्वेदस्य वेदता' ॥⁷³ इति

यजुर्वेदभाष्ये । ऋग्वेदभाष्ये⁷⁴ तु वेदलक्षणं बहुधा प्रतिपाद्य तत्र तत्र दोषमुद्भाव्य निर्दुष्टं⁷⁵ लक्षणमापस्तम्बाचार्यैर्यदुक्तं तदेवोदाहृतम् । `मन्त्र-ब्राह्मणे यज्ञस्य प्रमाणं,' `मन्त्रब्राह्मणयोर्वेदनामधेयम्' [ĀpYPS 33-34] इति⁷⁶ । तस्मात्सर्वोऽपि वेदो मन्त्रब्राह्मणात्मक इति पर्यवसितोऽर्थः ।
The Veda is (a text) which teaches means (to one’s goals) that are supra mundane. A Sm_ti-verse cited in the Yajurveda commentary says: ÒWith the help of the Veda, people find a means that is not to be found either through sense-perception or inference, and hence it is called VedaÓ.⁷⁷
In the commentary on the _gveda, [Mādhavācārya] elucidates the definition of the Veda in various ways, and having pointed out faults in other definitions, finally offers the faultless definition provided by Āpastambācārya: [ĀpYPS 33-34] ÒMantra and Brāhma_a are the authority for sacrificeÓ, [and] ÒMantras and Brāhma_as are [collectively] called the VedaÓ. Therefore, one can conclude that the entire Veda is of the nature of Mantras and Brāhma_as.

[¤ 14]

वेदसद्भावे किं प्रमाणमित्याशङ्क्य `स्वा॒ध्या॒योऽध्ये॑त॒व्य॑' [TA 2.15] इत्यादीनि वाक्यानि बहूनि सन्तीत्युक्तम् । `बृह॑स्पते प्रथ॒मं वा॒चो अग्र॒ -मि'तिसूक्तम्[RV 10.71]।`यःस॒मिधा॒यआहु॑ती॒'-[RV 8.19.5]-त्यादय ऋग्विशेषाः<sup>78</sup> । `ऋग्वेद एवाग्नेरजायत यजुर्वेदो वायोः सामवेद आदित्यात्'[AB 25.7] इत्यादीनिब्राह्मणवाक्यानिप्रमाणत्वेनोदाहरणीयानि। किं च मन्वादिषु स्मृतिषु रामायणभारतपुराणादिषु वेदप्रमाणलक्षण-प्रशंसानित्यत्वापौरुषेयत्वप्रतिपादकानि⁷⁹ वाक्यानि `वेदोऽखिलोधर्ममूलम्'<sup>80</sup>[MS 2.6]इत्यादीनिसहस्रशःसन्तितान्यत्र विस्तरभयान्नोदाहृतानि । सर्वेषां श्रुत्युपजीव्यत्वात् । तदुदाहरणेनैवोदाहृतानीति सिद्धम् । अत्र परस्परा-श्रयशङ्कादिकं भाष्य एव समाहितम्<sup>81</sup>। तथा च नित्यत्वबोधिका<sup>82</sup> श्रुतिः । `तस्मै॑ नू॒नम॒भिद्य॑वे वा॒चा वि॑रूप॒ नित्य॑या । वृष्णे॑ चोदस्व सुष्टु॒तिम्' [RV 8.75.6; TS 2.6.11.2] इति। अतोऽपौरुषेयत्वमपि सिद्धम् ।
Having enquired about the proof to assert the existence of the Veda, it has been said that there are many [Vedic] statements such as ÒOne should study one’s own Vedic [textual] traditionÓ. The hymn [RV, 10.71, beginning with the words] ÒO B_haspati, [when men, giving names to objects, sent out] the first and earliest utterance of Speech ...Ó, and the verse [RV 8.19.5] Òhe who [has ministered to Agni] with oblation, fuel ...Ó are found in the _gveda. [Similarly], as an authority, one should offer Brāhma_a passages such as the following: Òthe _gveda was born from Agni, the Yajurveda was born from Vāyu, and the Sāmaveda was born from Āditya” [AB 25.7].
Moreover, there are thousands of statements like Òthe Veda in its totality is the root of DharmaÓ [MS 2.6] to be found in Sm_tis like the Manusm_ti and in the Mahābhārata, the Rāmāya_a, and the Purā_as. These statements expound the definition of the Veda, its authority, its glory, its eternity, and its lack of human authors. For fear of prolixity, these are not cited here. Since these [Sm_ti-statements] are all dependent on Vedic statements, they are (deemed to have been) covered by citing the Vedic statements. The commentary [of Mādhavācārya on the RV⁸³] provides conclusive answers to doubts regarding circularity etc. So also there is a Vedic passage indicating the eternal character of the Veda: ÒNow, O Virūpa, rouse for him, Strong God who shines early morning, fair praise with voice that does not ceaseÓ [RV 8.75.6, TS 2.6.11.2]. This also establishes that the Veda has no human authors.
[¤ 15]

मन्त्रब्राह्मणात्मको वेद इत्युक्तम्।मन्त्रलक्षणमथर्ववेदे⁸⁴ श्रूयते। `मननात्त्रायत इति मन्त्रः'<sup>85</sup> । किं च निरुक्तकारो यास्कोऽप्याह । [NR 7.12] `मन्त्रा मननाच्छन्दांसि छादनात्स्तोमः स्तवनाद् यजुर्यजतेरि'ति । ते च मन्त्रा बहुविधाः । तथापि प्राधान्येन मन्त्राणां द्वैविध्यं संसिध्यति⁸⁶ । ऋङ्मन्त्रो यजुर्मन्त्रश्चेति । तर्हि सामाथर्वमन्त्रयोः का गतिरिति चेदुच्यते⁸⁷ । तथा च छन्दोगब्राह्मणे [CU 1.6-7] `तस्मादृच्यध्यूढ ँ!43724 साम गीयत' इति श्रूयते । `एकं साम तृचे क्रियत'⁸⁸ इति । अत एव सर्वज्ञैर्माधवा-चार्यैरप्युक्तम् । [Sāya_a’s commentary on the RV, M. MŸller’s edn., Vol. I, p. 2] `उपजीव्यस्य यजुर्वेदस्य प्रथमतो व्याख्यानं युक्तं तत ऊर्ध्वं साम्नामृगाश्रितत्वादुभयोर्मध्ये प्रथमत<sup>89</sup> ऋग्व्याख्यानं<sup>90</sup> युक्तमित्यृग्वेद इदानीं व्याख्यायत' इति तस्मात् साम्नामृच्यन्तर्भावः । अथर्ववेदे तु प्रायश ऋच एव दृश्यन्ते । कानिचिद्यजू ँ!44442षि । तस्माद् द्वैविध्यं मन्त्राणा-मुपपन्नम्<sup>91</sup>। अन्येऽपि निगदप्रेषादयो<sup>92</sup> यज्ञगाथाश्लोकादयश्च<sup>93</sup> यजुःषु ऋक्षु चान्तःपातिनो बोध्याः । अथवा मन्त्राणां त्रैविध्यं चातुर्विध्यं वा भवतु तत्रापि न कोऽपि विरोधः । तयोरपि श्रुतिमूलत्वात् । तथा हि `अहे॑ बुध्निय॒ मन्त्रं॑ मे गोपाय। यमृष॑यस्त्रयिवि॒दा⁹⁴वि॒दुः । ऋच॒ः सामा॑नि॒ यजू॑ ँ!45547षि । सा हि श्रीर॒मृता॑ स॒ताम्'[TB 1.2.1.26]इति त्रैविध्यमुक्तम् । चातुर्विध्यं⁹⁵ तैत्तिरीयके ब्रह्मयज्ञब्राह्मणे [TA 2.10.1] `यदृ॒चोऽधी॑ते॒ ... यजू॑ ँ!45878षि ... यत्सामा॑नि॒ ... यदथ॑र्वाङ्गिरस॒'इति । आश्वलायनब्रह्मयज्ञ-सूत्रेऽपि [ĀśGS 3.3.1-3, p. 124-5] एतच्छरुत्यनुसारेणैव ऋग्यजुःसामाथर्वभेदेन मन्त्राणां चातुर्विध्यं तत्पाठफलं च बहुधा प्रपञ्चितम्⁹⁶ ।
We have said that the Veda consists of Mantras and Brāhma_as. The following definition of a Mantra is found in [the Rāmapūrvatāpinī-Upani_ad 1.12 belonging to] the Atharvaveda: ÒIt is called Mantra since its meditation (manana) protectsÓ. Moreover, Yāska, the author of Nirukta, also says [Nirukta, 7.12]: ÒStanzas (mantra) [are so called] because of thought [i.e. root man], meters (chandas) [are so called] because they cover [i.e. root chad], and songs (stoma) [are so called] because they praise [i.e. root stu]. Yajus is derived from [the root] yaj [to sacrifice]Ó. These Mantras are of many different kinds. However, they are principally of two kinds, i.e. versified (_k) Mantras and prose (yajus) Mantras.
If such is the case, then what about the Mantras from the Sāmaveda and the Atharvaveda?
We shall answer [as follows]. It is heard in the Chandoga-Brāhma_a [i.e. CU 1.6-7]: ÒTherefore, the chant (sāman) is sung as based on the verse (_k)Ó. Also, [it is said]: ÒOne chant (sāman) is made from three verses (_k-s)Ó.
For this very reason, the all-knowing Mādhavācārya says [cf. Sāya_a’s commentary on RV, M. MŸller's edn, Vol. I, p. 2]: ÒIt is appropriate to provide first a commentary on the Yajurveda, the foundational Veda. After that, between the Sāmaveda and the _gveda, it is appropriate first to offer a commentary on the _gveda, since the chants (sāman) are based on verses (_k). Therefore, we are now commenting on the _gvedaÓ.
Therefore, the Sāmans are covered by [mentioning] verses (_k). In the Atharvaveda, there are mostly verses (_k) to be found, along with a few prose passages (yajus). This justifies a two-fold division of the Mantras. The Nigadas, Pre_as, Yaj–agāthās and verses etc. should be recognized as being covered by verses (_k) and prose Mantras (yajus).
Or, let there be a three-fold or a four-fold division of Mantras. Even then there is no contradiction, because these divisions are also based on the Veda.
Thus, a three-fold division is stated in [TB 1.2.1.26]: ÒO Snake Budhniya! Protect my mantra which the sages, the knowers of the three Vedas, know. The verses (_k), musical chants (sāman), and sacrificial formulas (yajus), this is the immortal prosperity of the good folksÓ.
However, a four-fold division is stated in the Brahmayaj–a-Brāhma_a of the Taittirīyas [TA 2.10.1]: ÒIn that he studies the verses (_k), ... [in that he studies] the prose formulas (yajus), ... in that [he studies] the musical chants (sāman), ... in that [he studies the Mantras of] the Atharvā_girasÓ. Following this Vedic passage, the aphorisms of Āśvalāyana dealing with the Brahmayaj–a [ĀśGS 3.3.1-3] also elaborate the four-fold division of the Mantras into verses (_k), prose formulas (yajus), musical chants (sāman), and the Atharvan mantras, and the rewards for the recitation of these Mantras.
[¤ 16]

ननु मन्त्राणां चातुर्विध्ये तल्लक्षणं वाच्यं तत्र ऋग्यजुःसाम्नां लक्षण-मुक्तम् । अथर्वण⁹⁷मन्त्राणां किं लक्षणमिति । तत्रैवं समाधिः । तेषां नैव लक्षणमस्ति । कुतः । तत्र ऋग्यजुर्व्यतिरिक्तमन्त्राभावात् । ऋग्यजुषो-र्यल्लक्षणं तदेव तेषामिति । अत एव भगवत्पादैरथर्वाङ्गिरस इत्यस्य वाक्यस्य बृहदारण्यकभाष्ये⁹⁸ `अथर्वणां चाङ्गिरसां च दृष्टा मन्त्रा' अथर्वाङ्गिरस इत्युक्तम्<sup>99</sup>।एवं तर्हि `अहे॑ बुध्निय॒ मन्त्रं॑ म'[TB 1.2.1.26]इत्यृचा तु¹⁰⁰ मन्त्रत्रैविध्यमुक्तं तदेव समीचीनम् । अथवा साम्नोऽपि गानविशिष्टा ऋक् सामेति लक्षणतो विशिष्टं शुद्धान्नातिरिच्यत इति न्यायाच्च पूर्वोदाहृतश्रुतेश्च लाघवात्पूर्वं मन्त्राणां द्वैविध्यमुक्तं¹⁰¹ तदेव सम्यगिति चेत् मैवम् । अथर्वणमन्त्राणां भिन्नलक्षणाभावेऽपि साम्ना-मृगाश्रितत्वेऽपिच¹⁰² तद्वेदयोर्मन्त्रब्राह्मणात्मकयोर्भेदात्तद्गतमन्त्राणामपि भेदः सिध्यति।श्रीमच्छङ्करभगवत्पादैः¹⁰³ बृहदारण्यकभाष्येमैत्रेयीब्राह्मणे¹⁰⁴ `अस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदो अथर्वाङ्गिरस<sup>105</sup> इतिहासःपुराणं<sup>106</sup>विद्या<sup>107</sup>उपनिषदःश्लोकाःसूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानानि<sup>108</sup>'[BU 2.4.10] इति श्रुतेरर्थ एवं व्याख्यातः । `ऋगादि चतुर्विधमन्त्रजातमितिहासाद्यष्टविधं ब्राह्मणं च परमात्मनः सकाशा-न्निःश्वसितं पुरुषनिःश्वासवदयत्नेनैव जातमि'ति¹⁰⁹ । तस्माद्भगवत्पादस्यशङ्करावतारत्वा`च्छङ्करः शङ्करः साक्षाद् व्यासो नारायणो हरि'<sup>110</sup>रिति सर्वजनप्रसिद्धै`श्चतुर्भिः¹¹¹ सह शिष्यैस्तु शङ्करोऽवतरिष्यती'¹¹²त्यार्ष¹¹³-वाक्यात्तैः स्वीकृतः पक्ष एव प्रशस्तः ।
Now, if the Mantras are four-fold, then the definitions of these [four types] need to be stated. Definitions of verses (_k), prose formulas (yajus), and musical chants (sāman) are already given. But what is the definition of the Atharvan Mantras?
For that [question], this is the answer. These [i.e. the Atharvan Mantras] do not have a [distinct] definition. Why? There are no Mantras [in the Atharvaveda] other than verses (_k) and prose formulas (yajus). Whatever are the definitions of the verses (_k) and prose formulas (yajus) are also the definitions of those [Atharvavedic Mantras]. For this very reason, His Holy Feet [= Śa_karācārya] explains the expression atharvā_girasa_ in his commentary on the Taittirīya-Upani_ad [2.3]: ÒMantras seen by the Atharvans and AngirasesÓ.
If such is the case, then [one may like to think that] the three-fold division stated by the verse ÒO Snake Budhniya! Protect my MantraÓ [TB 1.2.1.26] with its further portion Úverses (_k), musical chants (sāman), and prose formulas (yajus)Ó is the appropriate division.
Or perhaps, [one may argue that] the twofold division of the mantras stated earlier is the correct one, since the musical chants (sāman) are defined as verses accompanied with singing, and there is a maxim that a qualified item does not differ (in classification) from the original (unqualified) item, and there is a previously cited Vedic passage providing a classification with fewer categories.
One should not argue this way. Even though there is no separate definition of the Atharvan mantras, and even though the musical chants (sāman) are based on the verses (_k), a distinction of the mantras of the Atharvaveda and the Sāmaveda (from the _gveda and the Yajurveda) can be justified because they, as collections of Mantras and Brāhma_as, are distinct Vedas.
The great Śa_karācārya, His Holy Feet, in his commentary on the Maitreyī-Brāhma_a of the B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad [2.4.10] has commented on the following passage: ÒIt is the outpouring breath of this Great Being, namely the _gveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvā_girasa, history, ancient lore, sciences, Upani_ads, verses, aphorisms, commentaries, and sub-commentariesÓ. The meaning of this Vedic passage is explained thus [by Śa_karācārya]: ÒThe four-fold Mantras, i.e. verses (_k) etc., and the eightfold Brāhma_a literature came forth as an out-pouring of breath from the Lord, like the breath of a person, without any effortÓ.
His Holy Feet (= Śa_karācārya) is an incarnation of Lord Śa_kara, on the basis of the well known saying ÒŚa_karācārya is Śa_kara himself, and Vyāsa is Nārāya_a Vi__uÓ, and on the basis of a __i-saying ÒŚa_kara will decend in human form along with his four disciplesÓ, and hence the interpretation admitted by him is the only appropriate interpretation.