Salutation to holy Ga eśa

[¤ 119]

एवं देशविशेषे याज्ञिका गुडशर्करादिक्षारद्रव्यं⁸⁷⁵ सर्वव्रतघ्नमपि चरु-पुरोडाशादिभिर्हविर्भिर्मिश्रीकृत्यान्धपरम्परया भक्षयन्ति । यद्यपि चातु-र्मास्यादिषु चरुपुरोडाशादिहविषां बाहुल्याद्गिरणसाधनमन्तरेणाञ्जसा हवि-र्भक्षणं कर्तुं न शक्यते तथापि तत्र क्षारद्रव्यं⁸⁷⁶ गुडशर्करादि न ग्राह्यं, किन्त्वनिषिद्धं होमद्रव्यं क्षीरदधिघृतादिकं स्वीकार्यमिति युक्तम् ।

एवं क्षौरकर्माप्यन्धपरम्परया⁸⁷⁷ दर्शपूर्णमासातिरेके कालेऽष्टम्यादि⁸⁷⁸- तिथिषु कुर्वन्ति । तत्रापस्तम्बाचार्यैः `पर्वणि च केशश्मश्रु वापयते,' `अप्यल्पशो लोमानि वापयत इति वाजसनेयक'मित्युक्तम्[ĀpŚS 4.1.4-5]।एवमन्यैरपि सूत्रकारैरुक्तम् । रामाण्डारैरपि `पर्वणि वपनमावश्यकमन्यत्रा-नियम' इत्युक्तम् [Rāmāgnicit’s commentary on ĀpŚS 4.1.4-5]। तत्र बहवः शिष्टाः सूत्रे वीप्साया अभावादमायाः श्राद्धदिनत्वाद्

`दन्तधावनताम्बूलक्षौराभ्यङ्गमभोजनम् ।

रत्यौषधपरान्नं च श्राद्धकर्ता विवर्जयेत् ॥'

इति तत्र क्षौरनिषेधात्सूत्रगतपूर्वपदस्य पर्वद्वयसाधारणत्वेऽपि प्रथमपरि-त्यागे मानाभावाच्च पौर्णमास्यामेव वपनं कुर्वन्ति । अपरे तु दर्शे क्षौर-निषेधस्य स्मार्तत्वाच्छ्रौते तु तस्य दुर्बलत्वात्पर्वशब्दस्य पर्वद्वयसाधारणत्वा-दल्पशो लोमानि वापयत इति वाजसनेयिमताच्च पर्वद्वयेऽपि वपनं कुर्वन्ति। तदुभयमपि युक्तिमत्त्वात्साधु । केचिदधुनातनाः शिष्टाः पक्षमध्येऽष्टम्यामपि वपनं कुर्वन्ति तदेवात्यन्तमसमीचीनम् । `कुटुम्ब-हानिरष्टम्या'मिति तत्र क्षौरनिषेधात् । `मासे मासे गृहस्थानां पक्षे पक्षे च यज्वना'मिति क्षौरप्रकरणे धर्मशास्त्रकृद्भिराहिताग्नीनां पक्षान्त एव क्षौरकर्म कर्तव्यमित्युक्तत्वाच्च । ननु रामाण्डारैः `पर्वणि वपनं नियतमन्यत्रानियम' इत्युक्तं तस्य क आशय इति चेदुच्यते । आहिताग्निभिरपि तीर्थयात्रादौ गङ्गादिमहानदीदर्शने वपनं कर्तव्यमेव तैस्तत्र पर्वापेक्षा नास्तीति ध्वनितम् । शिष्टा अपि तथैवाचरन्ति । तस्माद्युक्तमेवोक्तमष्टमीवपनमसाम्प्रदायिकमिति⁸⁷⁹ ।

[¤ 200]

प्रसङ्गादन्यदप्युच्यते । देशविशेषे ब्राह्मणाः शास्त्रीयं क्षौरकर्मानादृत्य यस्य यस्य यथा रुचिस्तथानुतिष्ठन्ति । केचिन्मुखे श्मश्रुधारणं कुर्वन्ति, केचिल्ललाटविस्तीर्णतासिद्ध्यर्थं केशोल्लुञ्चनं कुर्वन्ति, केचिच्छिष्टा-श्चौलोक्तकर्मोत्तरं निषिद्धमपि केशसंग्रहणं⁸⁸⁰ बृहच्छिखासिद्धये⁸⁸¹ केशान् संगृह्य शिखां वर्धयन्ति । केचित्स्वहस्ते क्षुरमादाय गुह्यप्रदेशस्य⁸⁸² लोमानि च्छिन्दन्ति। श्रुतिषु श्मश्रूपपक्षकेशलोमनखानां क्रमेण वपनं कृन्तनं च विहितम् । तदनादृत्य यथाकथञ्चिद्वपनं कारयन्ति । सूत्रकारैस्तु श्मश्रूणां वपनं केशानां कृन्तनं सर्वेषां वा वपनमिति वपनं कर्तनं वा सर्वश्रौत-स्मार्तकर्मणि विहितम् । शस्त्रविशेषेण केशोत्पाटनं तु नास्तिकानां तच्छास्त्रे `केशानुल्लुञ्चेच्चैत्यं वन्देदि'ति वाक्याद्विहितम् । तदप्यास्तिका ब्राह्मणा देशविशेषेऽनुतिष्ठन्ति ।

[¤ 201]

भवत्वेवं वपनविषयेऽन्धपरम्पराप्रवृत्तिः । किञ्चिदन्यद्विचार्यते । केचिद् विप्रा वयं वैष्णवा इति वदन्त एकदेशस्मृतिवाक्यं `विष्णोर्निवेदितान्नेन यष्टव्यं देवतान्तर'मिति श्रुतिविरुद्धं⁸⁸³ श्रुतितुल्यं मन्यमानाश्चरुपुरोडाशा-दिकं विष्णवे निवेद्य तन्निर्माल्येन यागमनुतिष्ठन्ति । केचिद्वैष्णवा एका-दश्यामग्निहोत्रमपि नानुतिष्ठन्ति । अन्ये तु पशुस्थाने पिष्टपशुं निर्माय तेन पाशुकं कर्म कुर्वन्ति । केचित्सोमयागे सोमरसपात्रं भूमौ निधाय सोमं तैजसपात्रेण गृहीत्वा भक्षयन्ति⁸⁸⁴ । एवं बहूनि कर्माणि वैष्णवानामन्ध-परम्पराप्रयुक्तानि सन्ति । तथा स्मार्तानां शैवानां शाक्तानां सौराणां गाण-पतानां च । तान्यत्र ग्रन्थबाहुल्यभयाद् ब्राह्मणदोषानुवादभयाच्च न प्रकटीकृतानीति विद्वद्भिर्बोध्यम् ।

अज्ञानादथवा ज्ञानाद् ग्रन्थेऽस्मिन्यदुदीरितम् ।

तत्सर्वं करुणासिन्धुः क्षम्यतां त्र्यम्बकेश्वरः ॥१॥

अन्तःकरणतद्वृत्तिसाक्षिणा परमात्मना ।

श्रीरामेण प्रेरितोऽहमकार्षं वाक्यसंग्रहम् ॥२॥

तत्सर्वं कृपया विप्राः पण्डिता दीनवत्सलाः ।

विचार्य संशोधयन्तु विप्रस्पर्धानिवृत्तये ॥३॥

इति श्रीमद्द्विवेदिद्रविडशामशास्त्रिविरचितं वेदविचारप्रकरणं संपूर्णता-मगमत् । तेन परमात्मा श्रीरामः सुप्रसन्नो वरदो भवतु । श्रीमहालक्ष्मी-बल्लाळेश्वरार्पणमस्तु ।
Texts and Authors

cited in Vedavicāra

Agni-Brāhma_a

Agnicayana-Brāhma_a (Taittirīyaśākhā)

Agnihotra-Brāhma_a

Aitareya-Brāhma_a

Aitareya-Brāhma_a-Bhā_ya (by Vidyāra_ya)

Aitareyāra_a (= Aitareya-Āra_yaka)

Ānandavallī (in TU)

Āpastamba

Āpastamba-Dharma-Sūtra

Āpastamba-Śrauta-Sūtra

A__ādhyāyī

Āśvalāyana

Āśvalāyana-G_hya-Sūtra

Āśvalāyana-Kārikā-Sm_ti

Āśvalāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra

Aśvamedha-Brāhma_a (Taittirīyaśākhā)

Atharvaveda (Paippalāda)

Atharvaveda (Śaunakīya)

Ātreya

Bahv_ca-Brāhma_a

Bahv_ca-Pariśi__a

Baudhāyana (= Bodhāyana)

Baudhāyana-Sūtra (= Bodhāyana-Sūtra)

Bhagavad-Gītā

Bhāgavata-Purā_a

Bhāgavata-Purā_a-Vyākhyā (by Śrīdhara)

Bhāradvāja

Bhāradvāja-Sm_ti

Bhāradvāja-Śrauta-Sūtra

Bhavi_yottara-Purā_a

Brāhma-Purā_a

Brahma-Sūtra

Brahmayaj–a-Brāhma_a (Taittirīyaśākhā)

B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad

B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad-Bhā_ya

B_haspati

B_haspati-Sm_ti

Cara_a-Vyūha

Cara_a-Vyūha-Vyākhyā

Chanda_sūtra

Chandoga-Brāhma_a (= Chāndogya-Brāhma_a)

Chandoga-Pariśi__a

Chāndogya-Brāhma_a (= Chandoga-Brāhma_a)

Chāndogya-Upani_ad

Chāndogya-Upani_ad-Bhā_ya (by Śa_kara)

Dvaidha-Sūtra (Baudhāyana-śi_ya-k_ta)

Ekādaśī-Nir_aya (by Mādhavācārya)

Ga_eśa-Atharvaśīr_a

Garga

Garga-Sm_ti

Gāyatrī-H_daya

Gītā-Bhā_ya (by Śa_kara)

Gobhila-G_hya-Sūtra

Gopāla-Tāpinī-Upani_ad

Gopatha-Brāhma_a

Hautra-Brāhma_a (YV)

Hemādri

Hira_yakeśi-Sūtra

Jābāla-Upani_ad

Jaimini

Kaiya_a

Kalpasūtra

Kā_haka-(Sa_hitā?, Brāhma_a? )

Kā_haka-Upani_ad

Kātyāyana (author of Vārttikas on A__ādhyāyī)

Kātyāyana-Pariśi__a

Kātyāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra

Kau_ītaki-Āra_yaka (= Kau_ītakīyāra_a)

Kau_itaki-Brāhma_a

Kau_ītakīyāra_a (= Kau_ītaki-Āra_yaka)

Khādira-G_hya-Sūtra

Kumārila

Ku__ina

Kūrma-Purā_a

Lā_yāyana-Śrauta-Sūtra

Mādhavācārya

Mahābhārata

Mahābhā_ya

Mahābrāhma_a (= Tā__i-Brāhma_a)

Mahādeva Dīk_ita

Mahār_ava

Maitrāya_īya-Sa_hitā

Maitrāya_īya-Upani_ad

Maitreyī-Brāhma_a (in B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad)

Mānava-Śrauta-Sūtra

Mānava-Sūtra-Bhā_ya (by Kumārila)

Mantra-Brāhma_a (SV)

Manu

Manusm_ti

Mu__aka-Upani_ad

Nārāya_īya-Upani_ad

Nirukta

N_si_ha-Tāpinī-Upani_ad

N_si_ha-Pūrva-Tāpinī-Bhā_ya (by Śa_kara)

Nyāya-Sūtra

Pādma-Purā_a

Pai_gi

Pa–cāgnividyā

Pā_ini

Pā_inīya-Śik_ā

Parāśara

Parāśara-Mādhavīya

Parāśara-Purā_a

Parāśara-Sm_ti

Pata–jali

Pi_gala

Praśna-Upani_ad

Prātaranuvāka-Brāhma_a

Pravargya-Brāhma_a

Purā_a

Pūrvamīmā_sā

Rāma-Tāpinī-Upani_ad

Rāmā__āra (Rāmāgnicit) (commentator on Āp. Śr. Sū.)

Rāmāya_a

_gveda (Bā_kala)

_gveda (Śākala)

_gveda (Sā_khyāyana)

_gveda-Bhā_ya (by Sāya_a-Mādhava)

_gvidhāna (by Śaunaka)

Śabara

_a_vi_śa-Brāhma_a

Sāmadhenī-Brāhma_a

Sāmaveda

Sāma-Vidhāna-Brāhma_a

Sā_hityopani_ad (Taittirīyaśākhā)

Sa_vargavodyā (in Chandoga-Brāhma_a)

Śa_kara

Sārasvatapā_ha (of the Taittirīya-Sa_hitā)

Sarpaśīr_opadhāna-Brāhma_a

Sarvānukrama_ikā

Śatapatha-Brāhma_a

Saptaśatī

Śātātapa

Śātātapa-Sm_ti

Satyā_ā_ha

Satyā_ā_ha-Śrauta-Sūtra

Śaunaka (author of Sarvānukrama_ikā)

Śiva-Atharvaśīr_a

Śiva-Kavaca

Śiva-Purā_a

Śiva-Rahasya

Śrīdhara

Śukla-Yajurveda (Kā_va)

Śukla-Yajurveda (Mādhyandina)

Sureśvara

Sūta-Gītā

Sūta-Sa_hitā

Sūtrakāra (= âpastamba)

Svādhyāya-Brāhma_a (in BU?)

Taittirīya-Brāhma_a

Taittirīya-Sa_hitā

Taittirīya-Upani_ad-Bhā_ya (by Śa_kara)

Tā__i-Brāhma_a (=Mahābrāhma_a)

Tittiri

Ukha

Uttara-Tapanīya-Upani_ad

Vādhūla-Śrauta-Sūtra

Vaijayantī, Hira_yakeśi-Sūtra-Vyākhyā (by Mahādeva Dīk_ita)

Vaikhānasa-Śrauta-Sūtra

Vaiśampāya

Vaiśe_ika-Sūtra

Vājapeya-Brāhma_a

Vājasaneyī-Sa_hitā

Vājasaneyī-Sa_hitā-Bhā_ya (by Mādhavācārya)

Vālmīki

Va_śa-Brāhma_a (in B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad)

Vārāha-Śrauta-Sūtra

Vārttika (on A__ādhyāyī)

Vasi__ha

Vasi__ha-Sm_ti

Vedārthaprakāśa (by Mādhavācārya)

Vidyāra_ya

Vi__u-Atharvaśīr_a

Vi__u-Purā_a

Vi__u-Sahasra-Nāma

Vi__u-Sahasra-Nāma-Bhā_ya (by Śa_kara)

Vyāsa

Vyāsa-Sm_ti

Yājamāna-Kā__a

Yāj–avalkya

Yāj–javalkya-Sm_ti

Yāj–ikī-Upani_d

Yajur-Brāhma_a (different from TB?)

Yaju˛-Sa_hitā (different from TS?)

Yajurveda-Bhā_ya (Sāya_a-Mādhava)

Yāska

1 This edition is based on four sources, an older edition of this text published from Vai in 1912 in the journal Dharma by Kāśīnātha Vāmana Lele (henceforth: L), a manuscript from the Bhārata Itihāsa Sa_śodhaka Ma__a_a, Pune (No. 717, henceforth: A), and two manuscripts from the Vaidika Sa_śodhana Mandala, Pune (Nos. 611 and 4561, henceforth: B and C). I have given details of the manuscripts in the introduction. Lele’s printed edition and the manuscripts use Ò|Ó and Ò||Ó without any detectable logic, and I have decided to replace all double da__as with single da__as, except when required to mark the completion of a verse. By and large, the placement of da__as in my text is based on my sense of appropriate sentence divisions. Similarly the division of the text into numbered paragraphs is based on my sense of where the new arguments or pieces of information begin. A begins with: vedavicārākhyoya_ gra_tha_ prāra_bha_ // śrīsiddheśvarāya nama_ // śrīga_eśāya nama_ //. B begins with: atha vedavicārākhyoya gra_thaprāra_bha_ / śrīga_eśāya nama_ / atha vedavicārākhyo gra_tho likhyate /. C: begins with: atha vedavicārākhyo gra_tho prāra_० // śrīga_eśāya nama_ /. L begins with: śrīma_galamūrtaye nama_ /

2 L: pūrvottarakā__arūpasamastavedārtho

3 L: iti / na ca tadudyamo ...; A, B, C: iti ca / na tadudyamo...

4 A, C: niruktai

A, C: pita; A corrects to j–āpita

5 A, B, C: athāpyarhitatvāt; L: athābhyarhitatvāt

6 Cf. Sāya_a’s commentary on RV, Max MŸller’s edn, Vol. I, p. 1.

7 A: -na cāya_ ti niyama_; C: -na cāyati niyama_

8 A, B, C: prāmā_yādhikyam ukta_; L drops ukta_.

9 This maxim is seen with the wording yathottara_ hi munitrayasya prāmā_yamfor the first time in Kaiya_a’s Pradīpa on Pata–jali’s Mahābhā_ya (MB, Motilal Banarsidass edn, Vol. I, Sec. I, p. 217, on P. 1.1.29). For details, see Deshpande, ÒEvolution of the Notion of Authority (Prāmā_ya) in thePā_inian TraditionÓ, Histoire EpistŽmologie Langage, 1997 (??) volume.

10 A, B, C: ...catu__aye hy anumāna...; L: ...catu__aye ’py numāna...

11 A, B, C: mīmā_sayor bhā_yā...; L: mīmā_sayo_ / bhā_yā...

12 A, B, C: śi__ā_; L: śre__hā_

A, B, C: kira_a; L: vikira_a

13 A, B, C: pūrvajanīyāt; L: pūjanīyāt

14 A, B, C: _ācamāvat

15 A, B, C, L: cāk_pta. A corrects the original cāk_pra to cāk_pta.

16 L: sayugmeti; A, B, C: sayugveti

17 A, B, C, L: jāmi syāt; the Anandashrama edition: jāmi_ syāt.

18 The Anandashrama edition, Vol. II, p. 938, mistakenly reads: utpanīyāt

19 B generally marks accents for passages from the Taittirīya tradition.

20 The phrase praśli__apā_havatā_ is rendered differently in the Marathi translation by Lele: ज्यांचा पाठ एकसारखा आहे. See PMS 2.1.37 and Śabara’s Bhā_ya on it for this phrase. Ganganatha Jha(Vol. I, p. 209) renders this expression as "mixed sort of text".

21 It may be noted that the Taittirīya-Brāhma_a passage, which is so astutely cited by our author, further identifies this chandas with Sāvitrī _c (sāvitriyarcā), supporting his identification of chandas with _c.

22 A, C: ... tatraupacārikatva_ na tu mukhyam; B, L: ...pacāriko na tu mukhya_

23 B: _cāmeva _giti

24 These Mantras are fully specified in AB 37.3.

25 Lele adds in his translation (p. 7): ÒThe fourth Kā__a of the Taittirīya-Sa_hitā begins with the mantra yu–jāna_ prathama_ mana_. The seven mantras beginning with this mantra are called _k, and the eighth mantra,ima_ no deva, is called yajusÓ.

26 L adds: yajur antama_ kuryāt.

27 A, C: satya; BL: sapta

28 A, B, C: ...tyagrima...; L: ...tyantima...

29 A, B, C: upacārakalpanāparasparamiti; L: upacārakalpatā vā parasparamiti

30 A, C: aśvamedhabrāhma_e agnicayana_ brāhma_e ca //

31 A: aśvābhidhānyāsya dāne; C: aśvābhidhānyāsra dāne

32 A, C: vica_ya

33 For a discussion of this phrase, see: Jan E.M. Houben, 1991: note 13, p. 108.

34 A, C: yaju_enāsyā; BL: yāju_e_āsyā

35 A, C: ...dhāna_ brāhma_e; B: ...dhānabrāhma_e; L: ...dhāne brahma_e

36 A, C: yaju_vam...

37 C: yaju_ā yunakti yaju_ā vyāv_ttyā

38 L omits vyāv_ttyā.

39 A, B, C: ...krama_a...; L: ...krama...

40 B: iti chando...

41 The tradition of Mīmā_sā, which is the source of the present discussion, deals with this issue in the same way, cf. Adhvaramīmā_sākutūhalav_tti of Vāsudeva Dīk_ita on PMS 2.1.34, Vol. I, p. 179: yajurvedapa_hitatvena lak_a_ayā tadupapatte_ / Appropriation of _ks as Yajus already begins in the Brāhma_a portions of the Taittirīya tradition.

42 B: yaju_ā vyāv_ttyā

43 A, C: yaju_va_; C corrects to yaju__va_.

44 L: gītaktva_; A, B, C: pragītavatva_.

45 The rule bahula_ chandasi occurs in Pā_ini’s A__ādhyāyī in many places: 2.4.39, 2.4.73, 2.4.76, 3.2.88, 5.2.122, 6.1.34, 7.1.8, 7.1.10, 7.1.103, 7.3.97, 7.4.78, and part of 2.3.62 and 6.4.75. The sequence chandasi bahulamdoes not occur as a separate rule, but is found in 6.1.70, śe_e chandasi bahulam.

46 A, B, C: hyupāk_tya; L: upāk_tya

47 L: yukta_ chandā...

48 A, C: aupacārakamityukta_; BL: aupacārikamityukta_

49 The 7th Prapā_haka of the Taittirīya-Āra_yaka, which contains part of the Taittirīya-Upani_ad, is also called Sā_hitya-Upani_ad. See the colophonsof the commentary by Sāya_a on TA, for example, TA, Vol. II, p. 105.

50 The exact wording of Śa_kara’s commentary reads: yaś chandasā_ vedānām __abha ivar_abha_ / prādhānyāt / viśvarūpa_ sarvarūpa_ ... / chandobhyo vedebhyo vedā hy am_ta_ tasmād am_tād adhi sambabhūva /[TU, ASS Edn., p. 14].

51 B, L: iveti

52 The Pūrvamīmā_sāsūtras 2.1.35 (te_ām _g yatrārthavaśena pādavyavasthā), 2.1.36 (gīti_u sāmākhyā), and 2.1.37 (śe_e yaju_śabda_) define these terms. On PMS 2.1.32, Śabara himself highlights the word pādavyavasthā and deemphasizes the word arthavaśena. Of interest is the order in which theseterms are defined in the PMS and in our Vedavicāra. The PMS definition treats Yajus as a default category of mantras, rather than defining it in any positively specific way. Śabara says (Ganganath Jha’s transl, Vol. I. p. 209): ÒWhat is the definition of the Yajus? It is not necessary to propound a definition of Yajus; as by the process of elimination the nature of the Yajus would be understood from the definitions of _k and Sāman; i.e.that which is not set to music and where there is no division into ‘feet’, is Yajus, which is a mixed sort of textÓ. The wording praśli__apā_ha goes back to Śabara.

See the note on the Sanskrit text for details.

Besides Manusm_ti, which is obviously a Sm_ti text, Pā_ini’s grammar is also traditionally considered to be a Sm_ti.

See the footnote on the Sanskrit text.

As is clear from the subsequent discussion, Śāmaśāstrī takes this passage to refer to the origin of the sacred syllable Om. The original passage, however, refers to the origin of the Vedic god Indra, as is clear from the remainder of the passage: sa mendro medhayā sp__otu, where sa indra_ is the correlative connected with the relative pronoun ya_. Cf.Radhakrishnan's translation of this passage, The Principal Upani_ads,p. 530.

53 A, B, C: āv_tatvāt; L: ād_tatvāt; B corrects to ād_tatvāt.

54 L: abhyarhitatvam_cām iti śe_a_ //

55 L: sarvānupakrama_ikāyā_.

56 A: prapa_cita_ // ttvāttatraiva; C: prapa_cita_ ta / traiva; B, L: prapa_citattvāttatraiva

57 The priest who represents the Yajurveda at a sacrificial session.

58 This is the beginning of the first verse of Halāyudha’s Chandov_tti on Pi_gala’s Chanda_-sūtra (1.1.)referring to the codes used for sequences of syllables, i.e. ma ( ), ya ( ), ra (- -), sa ( -), ta (- - ), ja ( - ), bha (- ), na ( ),la (), and ga (-). Pi_galacchanda_sūtra, p.3.

59 L: nanu vedavicārasya prastutatvāt tat parityajya kuto ’prastuta _gādīnā_ vicāra_ kriyata iti / na ca vastuta _gādīnāmapi vedānanyatvāt /

60 Missing in B.

61 Missing in B.

62 Missing in A and C. B: ida_; L: iti.

63 A, C: ni_kevalyasya; B, L: ni_kaivalyasya

64 B, L: ityupakrasya; B corrects to ityupakramya.

65 L: pratipādyam // anantaram...

66 A, B, C: satyā...; B corrects to saptā...

67 A, B, C: satpo...; B corrects to sapto...

68 AB (1.6) says, ÒNow the Virāj is a meter of five strengths; in that it has three Pādas, it is the U__ih and Gāyatrī; in that its Pādas have eleven syllables, it is the Tri__ubh; in that it has thirty-three syllables, it is the Anu__ubhÓ.

B: vedalak_a_amucyate

69 L: prak_tatvāllak_a_a...

70 A, C: pratipādya artha_

71 B: tatsa_gatyartha_ sa_k_ipta_ arthāntaravar_anam ityukta_ śāstrak_dbhi_

72 Missing in B.

73 Cited by Sāya_a in the Introduction to his commentary on the TS,ASS edn, Vol. I, p. 3.Sāya_a reads: pratyak_e_ānumityā vā.

74 Sāya_a’s commentary on the RV, Max MŸller’s edn, Vol. I, p. 2.

75 B, L: nirdu__alak_a_am...

76 A, C: nāmadheya iti

77 The word ÒVedaÓ is thus derived from the root vid Òto findÓ.

A, B, C: agna...

78 L: _gviśe_ā _gvedaśe_ā_

79 A, B, C: ...pratipāditāni; L: pratipādakāni; B corrects to pratipādakāni.

80 A, B, C: ...dharmamūla ityādi...

81 A, B, C: ...bhā_ya eva samāhita_; L: bhā_ye samāhitam

82 A, C: nityabodhakā; B, L: nityatvabodhikā; L drops ca.

83 Sāya_a says [M. MŸller’s edn., RV, Vol. I, p. 2]: nāpi tatsadbhāve pramā_a_ paśyāma_ / Ò_g-veda_ bhagavo ’dhyemi yajurveda_ sāmavedam ātharva_a_ caturtha_Ó [Chāndogya Upani_ad 7.1.2] ityādivākya_ pramā_am iti cen na / tasyāpi vākyasya vedānta_pātitvenātmāśrayatva-prasa_gāt / na khalu nipu_o ‘pi svaskandham āro_hum prabhavati / Òveda eva dvijātīnā_ ni_śreyaskara_ para_Ó ityādism_tivākya_ pramā_am iti cen na / tasyāpy ukta-śrutimūlatvena nirāk_tatvāt / ... iti pūrva_ pak_a_ /

84 A, B, C: ...atharvavede; L: ...atharva_avede

85 This is most probably a variation of the passage mananāt [or tāra_āt] mantra_ found in the Rāma-(Pūrva)Tāpinyupani_ad (1.12), Vai__ava-Upani_ads, Adyar Library, Madras, 1953, p. 308.One may also note that our author includes the Upani_ads associated with the Atharvaveda within the scope of his ÒAtharva_aveda.Ó A, C: mananātrāpyanama_tra iti //

86 A, B, C: sa_sidhyati; L: siddhyati

87 A, C: ... mantrayo_ gātiri ucyate

88 B: iti ca. For parallel passages, see: Jaiminīya-Upani_ad, 1.56.10, Eighteen Principal Upani_ads, p. 416: atha yat tis_bhi_ samapādayat tasmād u t_ce sāma /

89 Missing in B.

90 A, C: _gākhyānam

91 A, C: upanayanam

92 L: vinigada...; A, C: vi_nigada...; B: nigada... The Marathi translation supplies nivida and nigada.

93 A, C: yāj–agāthāślokādayaśca; B: yāj–āgathāślokādayaśca; L: yaj–agāthādyā_ ślokādayaśca

94 A: ...traividā...

B drops uktam.

95 L: cāturvidhya_ tu

96 The italicized text is missing in all three mss. All read pā_ha nanu ... where nanu is the beginning of the next sentence. It appears that the ms used by Lele contained the complete phrase tatpā_haphala_ ca bahudhā prapa–citam, which is uniformly missing in all our mss, indicating their common ancestry.

97 L: ātharva_a...

98 The expression atharvā_girasa_ is found in the B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad in two places, 2.4.10 and 4.5.11, but I am unable to trace the cited explanation in Śa_kara’s commentary on either of these two occurrences. However, the expression occurs in the Taittirīya-Upani_ad 2.3 and Śa_kara’s commentary on that passage contains the cited explanation, see: Ten Principal Upani_ads with Śā_karabhā_ya, p. 365: अथर्वणाङ्गिरसा च दृष्टा मन्त्राः ।

99 L: iti vyākhyānamuktam. This looks like an elaboration of ityuktam found in all our mss.

100 After tu, L adds: _ca_ sāmāni yajū__īti vākyaśe_e_a.

101 B: dvaividhya_ yadukta_

102 Missing in L.

103 L: śrīmacha_karācāryabhagavatpādair ...

104 A parallel passage is found in the Maitrāya_ī-Upani_ad (6.32), Eighteen Principal Upani_ads, p. 348.

105 L: sāmavedo ’tharvā_girasa ...

106 A, C: itihāsapurā_a_; B, L: itihāsa_ purā_a_

107 A, C: vidyādupani_adaślokā_

108 L drops vyākhyānāni.

109 The wording of Śa_kara’s commentary is not exactly identical with our author’s citation, but the relevant parallel passage reads: ni_śvasitam iva ni_śvasitam / yath aprayatnenaiva puru_ani_śvāso bhavati / ... niyataracavato vidyamānasyaiva vedasyābhivyakti_ puru_ani_śvāsavan na ca puru_abuddhiprayatnapūrvaka_ / [Ten Principal Upanishads with Śā_kara-bhā_ya, B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad, p. 144].

110 Ashok Aklujkar (personal communication) comments: ÒThe reading I remember is nārāya_a_ svayam, that is svayam in place of hari_.Ó Vidyasankar Sundaresan suggests (personal communication): ÒThe line śa_kara_ śa_kara_ sāk_āt vyāso nārāya_a_ svayam is attributed to Ānandagiri, in the footnotes to the Vani Vilas (Srirangam, 1927) edition of MM Lakshmana Kavi’s Bhagavatpādābhyudaya (an early 20th century work).This seems to be a traditional attribution, as Ānandagiri’s text is not available”. I do not have access to the Vani Vilas edition of this text,but the text of this edition, along with its footnotes, was reprinted in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vols. LXXV-LXXVI,1994-95. The verse in question occurs as verse 36 of Chapter 5, p. 32,Vol. LXXVI, along with the footnote: śa_kara_ śa_kara ityādiślokaānandagirīya_. I wish to thank both Ashok Aklujkar and Vidyasankar Sundaresan for their assistance.

111 L: ...sarvajanaprasiddheś caturbhi_ ...

112 Source? Ashok Aklujkar has provided the following comment: ÒLines very similar to the second quotation occur in Śrīmaccha_karadigvijaya (1.42cd-43ab, edited by V.A. Gadgil, Śāradā-Gaurava-Granthamālā 20, Pune, 1970, p. 6) attributed to Mādhava or Vidyāra_ya: caturbhi_ sahita_ śi_yaiś caturair harivad bhujai_ | yatīndra_ śa_karo nāmnā bhavi_yāmi mahītale // A first person form, bhavi_yāmi, is used here because god Śa_kara is the speaker. As the various Śa_karavijayas overlap with each other in content, a line exactly or more similar to the one Deshpande is trying to trace may exist in one of themÓ. I which to thank Professor Aklujkar for his help. I have checked other versions of Śa_karavijaya available to me, but not yet come across a verse identical with our quote. Also note that our author qualifies the quote with ār_avākyāt, suggesting that he believes it comes from a __i, most possibly from a Purā_a source. Vidyasankar Sundaresan comments (personal communication): ÒOther than Śa_karavijaya texts, I have heard that the line caturbhi_ etc. is to be found in the Vi__udharmottara-purā_a, which explains the ār_avākyāt reference. And I think a similar line also found in those (Bengali?) versions of the Padma-Purā_a which describe Śa_kara as a pracchanna bauddha, and māyāvāda as an asacchāstra. The Gau_īyas often quote the Padma-Purā_a’s latter reference to Śa_karaÓ.

113 A, C: ār_ya...

114 The actual wording of Śa_kara’s commentary reads: evam a__avidha_ brāhma_am /

115 B: b_hadāra_yake

116 A, B, C: kalpāgāthā; B corrects to kalpān gāthā; L: kalpān gāthā

117 A: sa_vādādi

118 A, B, C: devajanavidyā; B corrects to devayajanavidyā; L: devayajanavidyā. The reading of the Śā_karabhā_ya is vidyā devajanavidyā veda_ so ’yam ityādyā. Ānandagiri’s _īkā on this passage says: devajanavidyā n_tyagītādiśāstram / veda_ so ’yam vedād bahir na bhavatīty artha_ / ityādyā vidyeti sambandha_, BU, Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series, Vol. 15, p. 349.

119 A, B, C: tadetyete; L: tadapyete; Śā_karabhā_ya, BU, ASS, Vol. 15, p. 349: tadete

120 Phrases like tad apy e_a śloko bhavati are found in numerous places in the Brāhma_as and Upani_ads, e.g. Taittirīya-Upani_ad 2.1-8, EighteenPrincipal Upani_ads, pp. 55-58.

121 A, B, C: ātmetyevopāsītetyādi; L: ...tyādīni; Śā_karabhā_ya, BU, ASS, Vol. 15, p. 349: ...tyādīni

122 A, C: vyākhyāni // arthavādā_ evam... Śā_karabhā_ya, BU, ASS, Vol. 15, p. 349, adds: athavā vastusa_grahavākyavivara_āny anuvyākhyānāni / yathā caturthādhyāya ātmetyevopāsītetyasya yathā vānyo ’sāv anyo ’ham asmīti na sa veda yathā paśur evam ity asyāyam evādhyāyaśe_a_ / mantravivara_āni vyākhyānāni.

123 Said to be the last verse of the Bā_kala Sa_hitā of the RV. L offfers the full text of the verse. The mss abreviate it as given above.

124 C: eva_ d_śyate

125 L: brāhma_e ‘pi.

126 C: d_śyase

127 Even while referring to these Mantras as occurring in the Aitareya-Brāhma_a, our author calls them Yajurmantras. This simply refers to the fact that these are prose Mantras. But, note that these Mantras are found in KS, 35.18 and Śatapatha-Brāhma_a 14.9.4.19. The reading in AB is sa tvam, but it is sā tvam elsewhere.

128 A, C: vidyata

129 L: atharva_avede

130 A, B, C: samaya_tetyādi; B corrects to samayata_tetyādi; L: samayata_tetyādi

131 Normally one would expect ...pādanaparam, but all our sources read: ...pādakaparam. I have emended the text to ...pādanaparam.

132 A, C: prajāe; B, L: prajāyeya

133Lele’s Marathi translation understands the passage prajāpatir akāmayata etc. as an instance of vidyā. I believe it goes better with the preceding as a second instance of purā_a characterized as s___ipratipādakaparam.

134 L: avatu vaktāram avatu vaktāram

135 L adds vā after āra_yaka_.

136 The printed edition of Kātyāyana’s Sarvānukrama_ī, p. 811, reads antyas t_co rogaghna upani_at, but in a footnote, an additional phrase is given: antyo ’rdharca_ śatrughnaś ca dvi_aghna_ /

137 Sāya_a on RV 1.50.11 refers to this Anukrama_ī statement and also offers some further details: yasmād anena t_cena tvagdo_aśāntaye praska_va_ sūryam astaut tena t_cena stuta_ sūryas tam __i_ rogān niragamayat tasmād idānīm api rogaśāntaye ’nena t_cena sūrya upāsanīya_ / tad ukta_ śaunakena – ‘udyan nadyeti mantro ’ya_ saura_ pāpapra_āśana_ / rogaghnaś ca vi_aghnaś ca bhuktimuktiphalaprada’ iti /

138 A, C: uktas; B, L: uktam

139 A, B, C: nāpravakra; L: nāpravaktra

140 L: t_tīyāra_yaka_

141 B: tad apy e_a śloko ’bhigīta

142 L: prathamāra_yakam; our sources read ājya_ kuryāt, and I have corrected it to ājye kuryāt.

A, C: prehityanvāha

143 TA 2.9.1:yad brāhma_ānītihāsān purā_āni kalpān gāthā nārāśa_sī_ /

144 ĀśGS 3.3.1-3 list is similar to the list in TA 2.9.1, though in a different order: yad brāhma_āni kalpān gāthā nārāśa_sīr itihāsapurā_āni /

145 L: brāhma_etihāsapurā_akalpān gāthā nārāśa_sīriti

146 A: _a_vidha_

147 A, C: sāmānye; B: sāmānya_; L: sāmānyena

148 A, B, C: brāhma_ā; L: brāhma_āni; B corrects to brāhma_āni

149 A, C: ...tūdāh_ta_

150 A, C: āsannityā //

151 L adds vā.

152 A, B, C: ...dyanuvāka_; L: ...dyanuvākā_

153 The words athaitasya samāmnāyasya occur in the first sūtra of the Āśvalāyana-śrauta-sūtra, 1.1.1, but this text has only 12 Adhyāyas, and not 16 as stated by our author. However, the Āśvalāyana-G_hya-Sūtra has four Adhyāyas, and it picks up where the first one leaves off (cf. uktāni vaitānikāni, g_hyā_i vak_yāma_, ĀśGS, 1.1.1). It appears that our author is referring to the combined Āśvalāyanasūtra, with its Śrauta and G_hya divisions, as containing 16 Adhyāyas.

154 A, B, C: dvirājyopastīrya; L: ...jyasyopastīrya, also in AB in the ASS edn.

155 B: vapāmādāya

156 Lele’s wording, i.e. atharva for athavā of the ms, is rather confusing at this point. Lele’s Marathi translation ends the previous sentence with sūtrā_i, and takes atharva as a stand-alone expression rendering it with अथर्ववेदासंबंधानेही असेच समजावे Òone should understand it the same way in connection with the AtharvavedaÓ.

157 A, C: ...bhiryaj–a...; B: ...bhiryamagāthā... presumably under the influence of the subsequent reference to yamagāthā.

158 A, B, C: śa_sasīti; L: śa_satīti, also AB in the ASS edn.

159 L: yadindro dāśarāj–e mānu_avyagāha gāthā itīndragāthāś ca.A, B, C: yadindro dvādaśarāj–e mānu_anyahāhathā itīndragāthāś ca.

160 L reads nārāśa_sīyā_ śa_sati, which is not found in any Vedic text. However, the statement nārāśa_sī_ śa_sati is found in AB 30.6. Sāya_a on this passage says: ida_ janā ityādyās tisra _co nārāśa_sya_ / tatra narāśa_sas stavi_yata iti narāśa_saśabdasya śrutatvāt /

B marks the accents as: नरा॒शंस॒ःप्रति॑ शूरो मि॒मान॑ः. I have followed the accentuation of the ASS edn of TB.

161 A, C: atharvādanidā...

162 A, C: āpasta_basyāparanāma; B: ...syāpara_ nāma; L: āpastambanāma

163 A, B, C: baudhāyanasūtre; L: bodhāyanasūtre

164 A, B, C: ...ardha..; L: ...artha...

165 See: BDS 2.5.14: āpastamba_ sūtrakāra_ tarpayāmi /

Missing in L.

166 A, C: sarvai hūyamānāt

167 Missing in L.

168 A, C: sarvai hūyate

169 A, B, C: ...māsādi_u sarva..; L: ...māsādisarva...

170 This entire sentence, beginning with sāmavede ‘pi, is missing in L.

171 The passage cited by our author is not a contiguous text in the original, but pieces together parts of two passages: yo ha vai śrīrāmacandra_ sa bhagavān advaitaparamānandātmā yat para_ brahma bhūr bhuva_ svas tasmai vai namo nama_ / ... yo vai śrīrāmacandra_ sa bhagavān yo brahmā vi__ur īśvaro ya_ sarvadevātmā bhūr bhuva_ svas tasmai vai namo nama_ /

172 B: ...dāh_taśrutibhireva

173 L: ityādīni vākyā...

174 C: ...pra_amya...

175 A, B, C: nairuktam; L: niruktam

176 B: iti ced ucyate

177 A, C: ...prādhānatvamityeka_

178 B: _gvedasyaiva

179 L: _gyaju_o_ prādhānyam iti t_tīya_. A, C: ...taditarayoragrādhānyam ...

180 A, B, C: śreyānnatatpūrvam...; L drops na.

181 I have added te in the bracket to provide a smoother reading.

182 B: na kuta_

183 B: tadapi do_ābhāvopi kuta_

184 B, C: ...vi_aye samatvāditi; A, L: ...vi_ayasamatvāditi

185 Here all our sources read: anavasthārūpo, which is most likely an old shared error for avyavasthā, the term seen in the subsequent statements.

186 śruti is missing in L.

187 A, B, C: katham avyavasthetiti; Lele: katham anavastheti.

188 A, L: avyavasthā; B: anavasthā. C looks much like anyavasthā, which may explain how some scribes read avyavasthā and others anavasthā. Looking at the variation in the three instances, I believe the original reading must be avyavasthā, rather than anavasthā.

189 Missing in B, L.

190 L: kartumaśakyam; A, C: kartumapyaśakyam; B: kartumaśakya_ ca

191 B: ...pradhānatvapak_o

192 T. N. Dharmadhikari informs me that this distinction between Ācārya versus _tvik is not seen in Śrauta ritual, but is seen in Smārta rites like the Śānti.

193 The italicized text is found in all mss, but is missing in L.

194 A, C: apādya...

195 A, B, C: ityartha_; L: iti

196 A, B, C: ...śīr_air n_...; L: ...śīr_e n_...

The italicized text is found in all mss, but is missing in L.

197 A, C: ...dravyādyanu__hāne; L: ...dravyānu__hāne

198 Missing in C.

199 A, C: sarvamapyanūnami__āpūrtādika_; B: original sarvamapyanumi__ā... corrected to sarvamapyanūktami__ā..; L: ...pyanu__hānami__ā...

200 L: uttarasa_graha_ //

201 A, B, C: ...nyāyavirodhena; B corrects to ...nyāyāvirodhena; L: ...nyāyāvirodhena

202 Missing in L.

203 Lele: ...mitīti

204 B: ...samiti

205 A originally reads ...gnivāyvāditya..., but later crosses out the syllable yvā. C reads ...gnivā_ditya..., with a blank space between vā and di. This indicates that C is most likely copied from A. The copyist could not decipher the crossed out character and left a blank space.

206 Ms: ...tvādittanni_daiva

207 The mss give an abbreviated version of this passage: yāvatīrvai devatās ta_ o devatā_ prī_ātīti //. L gives the full quote.

208 A, B, C: bahva_; B corrects to bahvya_.

209 A, C: ...bodhikā_, L, B: ...bodhakā_.

210 C: suh_dbudha_

211 The correct reading is probably garhitānadyayor jagdhi_, referring to garhita and anadya kinds of food items.

212 This verse with the first word as brahmojjhatā rather than brahmadve_o is Manu 11.57.

213 A, C: v_thapākī

214 This verse is not found in the Nirnaya Sagara edition of the Yāj–avalkyasm_ti. It is quoted in the Parāśaramādhavīya 2.293; 2.419 in the Calcutta, Asiatic Society edition. I would like to thank Patrick Olivelle for this reference and his help on interpreting this verse.

215 L reads vedabrāhma_ānandakānām, though the Marathi translation renders it correctly.

216 This verse is not found in the edition of Śātātapasm_ti contained in Sm_tīnā_ Samuccaya_, Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series, No. 48, Pune, 1905.

217 The verse is not found in the Vā_īvilāsa edition of _gvidhāna (= __-mantra-parihāra).

218 B: ...lopaprasa_gāt

219 A, B, C: pārāśara_; L: parāśara_

B: sm_tivedavākyāni

220 A, C: vidyavidyamānāni

221 A, B, C: _kpraśa_soktā; L: _gvedapraśa_soktā

222 A, C: d_śyante; missing in B; L: d_śyate

223 A, B: __i_; C: __i; L: __i_

224 A, B, C: īk_amā_a iti; L: ī_amā_a iti. L is identical with the AB reading in the ASS edn.

225 B: parame vyoman ityādi

226 A, C: ...prāśastya_ bodhaka...

227 C: śrūyate

228 L: jāgati

229 L: jātavidyo

230 A, C: _cā_ tva_ po_amā o mātrā_ vi mimīta u tva iti //; B, L: full quote.

231 L adds: `अ॒ग्निमी॑ळ' [RV 1.1.1]इत्यादि संहिताभाष्योपोद्घातेश्रीविद्यारण्यगुरुभिर्यजुर्वेदभाष्यमादौ कृत्वाऽथेदमृग्वेदभाष्यं क्रियत इति प्रतिज्ञाय तत्रर्ग्वेदस्यैव `ऋच॒ः सामा॑नि जज्ञिरे'[RV 10.90.9b]इत्यादौ सर्वत्र प्राथम्यादनुचितमिदमित्याशङ्क्य अस्त्वेवं सर्ववेदाध्ययन-तत्पारायणब्रह्मयज्ञजपादौ ऋग्वेदस्यैव प्राथम्यम् । अर्थज्ञानस्य तु यज्ञानुष्ठानार्थत्वात्तत्र तु यजुर्वेदस्यैव प्रधानत्वात्तद्व्याख्यानमेवादौ युक्तम्। तत्प्राधान्यं च काचिदृगेवाहेत्यवतार्यान्यामृचमुदाहृत्य तन्निरुक्तं च समग्रं सप्रपञ्चं विलिख्य एवं सत्यध्वर्युसम्बन्धिनि यजुर्वेदे निष्पन्नं यज्ञशरीरमुपजीव्य तदपेक्षितौ स्तोत्रशस्त्ररूपावयवावितरेण वेदद्वयेन पूर्येते इत्युपजीव्यस्य यजुर्वेदस्य प्रथमतो व्याख्यानं युक्तमिति समाहितम् । तेन सनिरुक्तैतत्पदव्याख्यानादिविस्तरस्तत्रैव । This passage is missing in all our mss.

232 A, C: _gda o // sāmotta o k_a_ //

233 The Prapā_hakas 10, 11, and 12 of the third Kā__a of the TB, and the first two Prapā_hakas of the TA are called Kā_hakas in the Taittirīya tradition. See: bhadra_ (TA 1.1.1) ca saha (TA 2.1.1) sa_j–āna_ (TB 3.10.1.1) lokas (TB 3.11.1.1) tubhyam (TB 3.12.1.1) iti kramāt / ete kā_haka-sa_j–ā_ syu_ pa–ca praśnā na cetare //, Āra_yaśik_ā, Lokesh Chandra edn., p. 185.

234 L: samajyāyānvā...; A, B, C: sāmajyāyānvā

235 A, B, C: evamekāgnikā__epi; L: evamevāgnikā__epi

236 B: taittirīyabrāhma_e ’pi - sāmāham_ktva_ tāvehi sa_bhavāva iti /

237 A, B, C: ...de_eti...; L: ...deveti... The ASS edn. of Āśv.ŚS (5.10) reads: ...t e_eti...

238 A, B, C: ...śāstrāpek_ayā; L: ...śastrāpek_ayā

239 L: kathamāho; A, B, C: kathamaho

240 A, B, C: ...pāta_; L: ...pāta_; B corrects to ...pāta_

241 A, C: tathādanusāri_o; B, L: tathā tadanusāri_o

242 Sentence missing in B.

243 A, C: ...ūrjayityādiyājamāna...; B: ...yajamāna...

244 A, B, C: etanma_trabrāhma_amapi. L: ...brāhma_e ’pi.

245 A, B, C: yastuvanti; B corrects to yatstuvanti; L: ye stuvanti

246 Passages cited in this discussion seem to suggest a performative distinction between the actions denoted by the roots stu and śa_s. The _ks are used in the context of śa_sati, while the Sāmans are used in the context of stauti.

247 C: ...hīyamiti

248 iti is missing in A, C. The passage is also found in Kā_haka-Sa_kalanam, p. 27.

249 L: ...yajamāna... for ...yajana...

250 Nirukta 13.7 and Kā_haka-Sa_kalanam, p. 27, specifically refer to krama: rorava_am asya savanakrame_a _gbhir yajurbhi_ sāmabhi_.

251 A, B, C, Marathi translation: ...anumantrayate; L: ...abhimantrayate

252 Missing in L.

253 L: mukhyād bhūyastva_

254 A, B, C: mukhyatve ‘pi; L: mukhyatvam api

255 The term yāvajjīvaśruti refers to the passage yāvajjīva_ darśapūr_amāsābhyā_ yajeta. This passage is cited by Śabara on Mīmā_sāsūtra 2.4.1 as coming from the Bahv_ca-Brāhma_a, and is not traced to any extent text.

256 L reads sāmavedoktodgātrabhāvāt, but offers a correct Marathi rendering: सामवेदोक्त उद्गातृत्वाचा अभाव असल्यामुळे. He seems to have analysed the word as -udgāt_+abhāvāt. The mss offer a reading that lends to an analysis as sāmavedokta+audgātra+abhāvāt.

257 A, C: siddhe; L, B: siddham

258 L: hi_kārastattatvamuktam

259 A, C: vāmade ० tsāmanvanta_; B: vāmadevyasyai ० sāmanvanta_

260 Missing in L, though the Marathi translation has it.

261 Missing in B

262 B: ...yajamāna...

263 A, B, C: ...triv_tādi...; L: ...triv_dādi...

264 A, B, C: agnihotre ca brāhma_e ’pi; L: agnihotrabrāhma_e ca

265 The italicized text is missing in L.

266 B: āyāhi vītaya ityādaya_

267 L: sāmatva_ kathamiti

268 The GB edition of Vijay Pal, p. 16, reads: bh_gūn a_girasa_ śritā

269 Sentence missing in B.

270 The GB edition of Vijay Pal, p. 16, reads: bh_gva_giraso ’dhīyīta

271 B adds eva.

272 A, B, C: yaj–ādyanuś_hāne; L: yaj–ānu__hāne

273 A, B, C: sāmātharva_o ’pi; L: sāmātharva_orapi

274 A, B, C: vājasanepi...; B corrects to vājasaneyi.

275 A, B, C: vājasanepi...; B corrects to vājasaneyi.

276 This is of course contested by the followers of the Śukla Yajurveda. See the introductory discussions in the commentary Sa_skāraga_apati on the Pāraskarag_hyasūtra. They argue that the trigu_atva consists in the threefold recitation in the form of Sa_hitā, Pada, and Krama. These features are found in the tradition of the Śukla Yajurveda, as well as in the Maitrāya_ī tradition, and are indeed not restricted to the branches of the Yajurveda. See the subsequent footnotes.

277 The italicized text is missing in B.

278 The reading for this verse in the Chowkhamba edition of Cara_avyūha (p. 31) is: trigu_a_ pa_hyate yatra mantrabrāhma_ayo_ saha / yajurveda_ sa vij–eya_ śe_ā_ śākhāntarā_ sm_tā_ //