601 A, C: ...ma_trodāh_tya; B: ...ma_trānudāh_tya; L: ...matrodāh_tya
602 A: tathā hi athāśvalāyana...
603 A, C: tachāka_
604 A, C: ...pyaha_
605 A, C: ...nyakurute
606 Italicized text is missing in L.
607 A, B, C: coktatvāt; L: cokta_
608 A, C: ...maitareya_ brā...
609 Aitareya-Brāhma_a (34.6): devā_ pitara_ pitaro devā yo ‘smi sa san yaje / sva_ ma idam i__a_ sva_ pūrta_ sva_ śrānta_ sva_ hutam / tasya me ‘yam agnir upadra__āya_ vāyurupaśrotāsāv ādityo ‘nukhyātedam aha_ ya evāsmi so ‘smīti /
610 L: vidyāra_ya_; A, B, C: vaidyāra_ya_
611 A, C: ubhayavidha yūya_
612 Missing in L.
613 B repeats pit_bhyo datta_ twice.
614 After this, L adds: śrānta_ taporūpe_ānu__hita_ mama sva_ bhavatu / tathā huta_ svāhākāre_a datta_ mama sva_ bhavatu /
615 A, B, C: vyākhyātā; L: khyāpayitā
616 A, B, C: prajāpatir ba_dhusthānīyo...; L: prajāpatiś ca ...
617 A, B, C: ...sāk_īka...; L: ...sāk_ika...
618 Śāmaśāstrī has paraphrased Sāya_a’s [= Vidyāra_ya] words, rather than citing directly from his Bhā_ya. The wording of our text does not closely match the wording of Sāya_a’s Bhā_ya.
619 After this, L adds: bahv_cānāmevāya_ vidhiriti ye ’rtha_ var_ayanti te_ā_ j–ānavaiśadya_ ki_ var_anīya_ vidvadbhi_ / tasmād
620 A, B, C, L: prāśastyapara_ ... ni_edhaparam. I have amended the text as given above.
627 L: etadvacanamapi; A, B, C: etadvacanadvayamapi
628 A, C: bahv_casvaprāśastya...; B: bahv_casya prāśastya...; L: bahv_caprāśastya...
629 A, C: anyānām; B: anye_ā_; L: aj–ānā_
630 A, B, C: bahv_cānā_ yāju_ādiśākhīya...; L: bahv_cādīnā_ yāju_aśākhīya...
631 A, C: ...vede; B, L: ...vedo
632 L: ...nu__hita_; A, B, C: ...nu__hite
633 After this, L adds tu.
634 A, B, C: śākhāyā_; L: śākhayā
635 The italicized text is missing in L.
636 A, C: do_aparikalpya
637 A, B, C: ..._gvedād ādhikya_; L: ..._gvedādhikya_
638 L adds cenna.
639 A, B, C: tānyapi; L: bahūnā_ sa_citānyapi
640 A, C: brāhmanā_
641 L: ātharva_a...
642A, B, C: atharva_ā_; Lele: ātharva_ā_. Vijaypal in his edition of GB reads: atharva_ā_. The segments cited here are not a contiguous text, but portions from the same text-division. Also in this passage, B reads daivata for devata.
643 A, B, C: brūyu_; L: brūma_
644 A, B, C: daśāta; B corrects to syāt; L: d_śyata
645 A, C: ānubha_
646 Our author has a specific version of Cara_avyūha before him. The Chaukhambha edition of the Cara_avyūhasūtra (p. 47) ascribes Soma as the divinity for the RV, Indra for the YV, Rudra for the SV, and Brahmā for the AV. With those ascriptions, Śāmaśāstri’s entire argument collapses. On the other hand, the Cara_avyūhasūtra as included in the Śabdakalpadruma (3rd edition of 1967, pt. 4, p. 500) fully agrees with Śāmaśāstri’s statements.
647 Cara_avyūha (Chaukhambha edn., p. 47) lists Arthaśāstra as the Upaveda for the Atharvaveda. Mahidāsa’s Bhā_ya on the Cara_avyūha expands the arthaśāstra of the original into a list: arthaśāstra_ nītiśāstra_ śastraśāstra_ viśvakarmādipra_ītaśilpaśāstram. But the Śabdakalpadruma (I, pt. 4. p. 500) version of Cara_avyūha says: atharvavedasya śastraśāstrā_i bhavanti. This may indicate that the version available to Śāmaśāstrī may be similar to the Śabdakalpadruma version.
648 The Cara_avyūha, 4th kha__a says: sarve_ām eva vedānām upavedā bhavanti. Thus Śāmaśāstrī’s interpretation that the text does not list an Upaveda for the AV is rather disingenious.
649 A, B, C: tatrāpyana_tarbhāvāt; L: trayyanantarbhāvāt
650 A, C: cha_doga...
651 The italicized text is missing in B.
652 A, C: tathātharvavedetyartha_; B: tathātharvavedepyuktamityartha_; L: tathātharva_avede-pītyartha_
653 Satyā_ā_haśrautasūtra: yaj–a_ vyākhyāsyāma_ (1.1), sa tribhir vedair vidhīyate (1.2), _gvedena yajurvedena sāmavedena jyoti__oma_ (1.3), _gvedayajurvedābhyā_ darśapūr_amāsau (1.4), yajurvedenāgnihotram (1.5). Also the Āpastambayaj–aparibhā_āsūtra: yaj–a_ vyākhyāsyāma_ (1), sa tribhir vedair vidhīyate (3), _gvedayajurvedasāmavedai_ (4), _gvedayajurvedābhyā_ darśapūr_amāsau (5), yajurvedenāgnihotram (6), sarvair agni__oma_.
654 A, C: anyapi
655 A, B, C: tatrāpyana_tarbhāvād; L: trayyanantarbhāvād
656 As noted before, the Cara_avyūhasūtra as included in the Śabdakalpadruma (3rd edition of 1967, pt. 4, p. 500) fully agrees with Śāmaśāstri’s statements, though other editions do not agree with this. One may wonder whether the different readings of the Cara_avyūha were a result of these kinds of disputes.