Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra (II)

Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra (II)1 § 0. Introduction The KauśikaSūtra (KauśS) opens with a set of general rules giving indications about the sources of the text (1.1-8). Then another set of paribhāṣās with a special character follows, applicable only in the rituals of the full moon and new moon that are prescribed subsequently (1.14-6.37). After the description of these rituals, three chapters consisting of rules with a more general character (7.1-9.7) follow. Their applicability (adhikāra) starts from this point on and it seems they are prescribed for the whole sutra-text (Bloomfield 1889: xxvii). There are also several metarules which are inserted in different places, regularly in juxtaposition to the sūtras to which they apply: KauśS 11.11; 12.4; 21.21; etc. Bloomfield considers that the text was compiled at a certain time out of different materials, with an evident individual character, and that the redactor(s) did not try or did not succeed to harmonize and unify the discrepancies (1889: xxii ff.). In this way it is possible that the general rules would be applied strictly in some passages and loosely or at all in others2. While translating the so called magical rites of the KauśS Caland has fathomed and specifically pointed out (1900: v) the essential understanding of the paribhāṣās for the overall comprehension of the sutra-text. Yet, a systematic study3 regarding a methodology of the application of the general rules in the KauśS is wanting. 1 The paper was presented in the Vedic Section of the Fourteenth World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, September 1- 5, 2009, and it is the second in an ongoing study on the employment of the general rules of the KauśikaSūtra, the first having appeared in Acta Orientalia Vilnensia (2008) 2010, 9,2, Vilnius: Vilnius University. 2 Based on the irregular application of the paribhāṣā 7.8, corroborated with other arguments, Bloomfield (1889: xxvi) postulates the later incorporation of the fourteenth chapter into the main corpus of the KauśS. 3 The subject is dealt with by Bahulkar (1977, taken up again in 1994: 2-7), with regard to the paribhāṣās 8.7 and 8.21. The difficult sūtras are translated and explained, and some instances of their viniyoga are mentioned. The applicability of these metarules is verified while identifying a certain Śaunakin pratīka in the KauśS and other Atharvavedic ritual texts in Rotaru 2012.  In my connected study, previously mentioned, I have raised the questions whether Kauśika had in mind some of these metarules at the time of his composition and if the later redactor(s) attempted to maintain a high degree of consistency in applying them to the newly introduced fragments. The present work evaluates the paribhāṣā 8.10, apparently added by a second redaction and maladroitly applied by the two medieval commentators, The existing edition of the KauśS reads: viśaye yathāntaram |. Bloomfield emends the sūtra as viśaye, against the unanimous reading of the eight MSS. of the KauśS, viṣaye. The emendation is retained by Bahulkar in his edition of the first ādhyāya of the KauśS on the basis of new MSS., all having the same reading as viṣaye. In addition, I have consulted four new manuscripts4 which unanimously have the lectio viṣaye. Two of them read viṣaye yatthotaram, variant present also in two manuscripts5 used by Bahulkar, who does not report the same. The nityakarmadhāra yathāntaram is a cliché found in many śāstric works, where the recurrent stereotyped passages are referred, chiefly due to the oral textual transmission, by the “as above” technique. It is surprising that at least four scribes of the KauśS have understood yatthotaram, which conveys precisely the opposite.6 Caland (1900: 14 and n.8) translates the paribhāṣā 8.10 and comments in the following way: 8.10. Bei Bezugnahme (mache man es) wie in der Nähe (angedeutet worden ist). -- Ein sehr schwieriges Sutra. Die von BR vorgeschlagene Deutung von yathāntaram (“je nach dem Zwischenraume”) hilft uns nichts. Da alle HSS. viṣaye (nicht viśaye so Bloomfield) bieten und sowohl Dārila und Keśava immer viṣaye mit ṣ citiren, haben wir dieses für das Richtige zu halten. Ich vermuthe, dass unser Sūtra diese Bedeutung hat: “ wo in den Vorschiften dieses Ritualtextes der Ausdruck, dadurch dass er elliptisch ist, auf Anderes Bezug nimmt, soll man die Ellipsis mit den Terminis ergänzen, die am meisten in der Nähe zuvor erwähnt worden sind. “ 4 Two from Oriental Institute, Baroda, accession nos. 889 and 6854 and two from Staatsbibliothek, München, accession nos. 177 and 178. 5 Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 4/1866-68 and Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 5/1866-68. 6 Dr. M.G. Dhadphale (B.O.R.I.) has commented my Kyoto presentation pointing out that the Pali word to indicate “as above” is heṭṭhānaya, “as in the below way”, sense derived from the actual copying of the MSS., wherein the completed folio would go down in the basket on which the subsequent ones were piled, resulting a filling from the latest to earliest.  So ist, nach Dārila, bei 26.21 als Prädikat badhnāti zu ergänzen (es läge indessen näher, an 13.3 zu denken, wo gleichfalls badhnāti, nach 13.2, hinzuzudenken ist); 13.1 ist zu hastinam als Prädikat aus 12.14 upatiṣṭhate zu entnehmen: antaratvāt (Dārila). Kauś. 46.7 wird nicht ausdrücklich gesagt, was weiter nach der Weihung des śāntyudaka zu machen sei; hier sollen nun aber die Handlungen von 39.8-9 anschliessen. Auf Grund dieser Stellen möchte man fast meinen, dass yathāntaram bedeute: “so wie an den analogen Stellen”. Ist diese Deutung möglich? However, Speyer (1901: 249)7 in his review of Caland’s translation does not endorse the latter’s contesting of Bloomfield’s emendation, doubting that the term viṣaye alone may have the meaning “in a reference”. § 1. Dārila’s assumption Curiously enough, Dārila reads in the mūla viṣaye yathāṃtaram8, emended by the editors as viśaye yathāntaram, but glosses in the bhāṣya, saṃśaye. Caland rightly noticed that both commentators, Dārila and Keśava9 have maintained the reading viṣaye all throughout. mantrakarmadravyasaṃśaye yat nikṛṣṭaṃ10 tat pratyetavyam | brahma jajñnānam iti sūtikāriṣṭakau prapādayati (KauśS 28.15) iti māhākāṇḍikāsaṃdeho bhavati | karmasaṃdehe manthāntāni iti saṃdeho bhavati | bahuvacanatvāt11 | śirasi mantham upamathya (KauśS 27.10) sūktasya pāraṃ gatvā prayacchati (KauśS 10.13, cf. 20.8) iti vidhāvevodāhariṣyāmaḥ | -- When a doubt arises as to the [employment] of a hymn, of a rite, or of a substance, then [all these] should be inferred from the juxtaposed context. Thus, [in the case of the sūtra] “With the hymn brahma jajñnāna, [the sacrificer] makes the pregnant woman or the one having unlucky symptoms of disease to take a few steps[, and then he gives her mantha or porridge to eat].” 7 I am very thankful to Arlo Griffiths for drawing my attention to this reference. 8 ad KauśS 8.10, v. Dārila ad KauśS 46.7. 9 Jan Houben (September 2009, Kyoto) accurately drew my attention that the mūla of Keśava, which is not bracketed by the editors as being reconstructed, reads in the edition viśaye. My impression is that their policy is to regularize throughout viṣaye, as in the case of the Dārila edition. 10 The editors’ emendation: saṃnikṛṣṭaṃ. 11 bahunatvāt in the MS.  (KauśS 28.15), there is an uncertainty as to the hymn belonging to the great kaṇḍikā12. There is an uncertainty as to the rite, in the case of the rites ending with mantha. [In this case the uncertainty arises] from the plural. [As for the dravya used in the actions prescribed by the sūtras:] “He stirs the mantha on the head” (KauśS 27.10) [and] “Having completed the recitation of the hymn [1.1]13, he gives [dhānā on kṛṣājina]” (KauśS 10.13, cf. 20.8), we shall cite the instances under the actual prescriptions. Therefore Dārila understands the difficult KauśS 8.10 as related to the confusion of a mantra, a karma or a dravya, which can be avoided by referring to the adjacent context. He gives illustrations of this paribhāṣāviniyoga featuring each of the three situations. We shall subsequently analyse them. § 1.1. The hymn’s confusion For the identification of the pratīka brahma jajñnāna denoting two Śaunakin hymns having the same beginning, 4.1 and 5.6, I refer to my presentation in the Vedic Workshop, Texas, Austin, 2007 (Rotaru forth.). As I have therein concluded, there is a paribhāṣā referring to the mantra viniyoga which might help ascertaining the identity of the intended hymn: KauśS 8.21. grahaṇam ā grahaṇāt -- [The pratīka] denotes the employment of the hymn [in the rite prescribed by the subsequent sūtras] upto the next pratīka [quoted in that section of the sūtra] (Bahulkar 1977: 38, n.133, taken up again in 1994: 5 ff.) The sūtra under discussion in Dārila’s exemplification, 28.15, has been hitherto much analyzed and we have shown how the metarule 8.21 could be applied for identifying the hymn, which is 5.6. According to the paribhāṣā 8.10 this time, we are told to look in the proximate context. In the previous sūtra, 28.14, a mention of “the [the verses] having [the word] lakṣa as an indication” (lākṣāliṅgābhiḥ), is made. The hymn in question is 5.5, wherein the word lākṣā occurs (cf. Dārila ad KauśS 28.14)14are 5.5 and also 4.12, where Rohiṇī occurring in the first 12 The great book is the name of the fifth kāṇḍa of ŚS, which appears with this name in ŚS 19.23.18, a hymn extolling the Saṃhitā and describing its composition. v. Whitney (1962: 931) and the general introduction (1962: clvii-viii). 13 Unless otherwise specified, the hymns referred to in this paper are from the Śaunakasaṃhitā (ŚS). 14 Dārila, and probably following him Sāyaṇa (under the verse 4.12.1), considers that the hymns connected with lākṣā. verse is equated with Arundhatī, Silācī and Lākṣā.. Applying the rule 8.10, the hymn denoted by the pratīka brahma jajñnāna in the sūtra 28.15 is 5.6. Both paribhāṣās, KauśS 8.10 and KauśS 8.21, prescribe the referrence to the closest context, one being restricted to the mantra, the other enjoyning further applications. Therefore we may assume that the understanding of the viniyoga as related to mantra application renders the paribhāṣā 8.10 redundant15. § 1.2. The rite’s confusion Dārila cites as the adhikāra of KauśS 8.10 the ‘rites ending with mantha’ (manthāntāni). A pertinent question is which are the ‘rites ending with mantha’? The term is employed twice in KauśS, at 12.4 and 18.26. Both the occurrences shall be further investigated. § 1.2.1. KauśS 12.4 vatso virājo [13.1.33] iti manthāntāni | Dārila under KauśS 12.4 explains: vatso virāja ityṛcā (13.1.33) trirjyotiṣ kurute ityādīni pṛśnimanthaḥ ityevam antāni manthāntāni16 karmāṇi bhavanti | na audumbaryādīny anirdeśakatvāt | sarvasāṃpadaśabdena nāvyavadhānāt |17-- With the verse (13.1.33) [he performs the manthāntani rites]. The manthāntāni are the rites [prescribed by the rules] beginning with KauśS 11.12 and ending with KauśS 11.15. [This term is used in order] not to point out [the rules] beginning with KauśS 11.11 [and] because there is no contiguity with the word “ obtaining every desire”. A close analysis of the rules referring to manthāntāni is essential. 15 Cf. Keśava under KauśS 25.10 (v. bellow 2.1). 16 This is the editors’ felicitous emendation of ityevaṃ maṃthāṃtāni. 17 This is our reading of the text which is quite corrupt: noduṃbaryādīnyānideśikatvātman || sarvasāṃpadaśabdaṃ na navyaṃ vadhānāt || (cf. iti nāvyavadhānāt p.25, line 21, emended by the editors itinā vyavadhānāt and restored thus by Patyal (1974 : 138)). The editors’ reading: na audumbaryādīni anirdeśāt | sarvasāṃpadaśabdena vyavadhānāt |  KauśS 11.11. audumbarādīny18 bhakṣaṇāntāni19 sarvasāṃpadāni | -- The rites for obtaining every desire [are performed with the actions prescribed in the sūtras] beginning with KauśS 7.4 [and] ending with KauśS 7.6 [, accompanied by the recitation of 1.1]20. For understanding this sūtra one has to refer to the paribhāṣās mentioned herein: KauśS 7.4. samidham ādadhāti | - [When the verb] “he places a fuel on the fire” [is used], fuel [should be understood]. For the identification of the samidhs there is another prescription, in the manner of a paribhāṣā, inserted in the actual description of the medhājanana rite, a practice not unlikely KauśS’s style. KauśS 10.4. audumbarapalāśakarkandhūnām ādadhāti -- He places fuel on the fire, udumbara, palāśa or karkandhū (Zizyphus Jujuba)21. KauśS 7.5. āvapati vrīhiyavatilān | -- [When the verb] “he scatters” [is used] rice, barley or sesame [should be understood]. KauśS 7.6. bhakṣayati kṣīraudanapuroḍāśarasān | -- [When the word] “he makes one eat”[is used] rice boiled in milk, sacrificial cake, or rasas [should be understood]. The rasas are prescribed by KauśS 8.19: dadhi ghṛtaṃ madhūdakam iti rasāḥ | -- The flavors are curds, ghee, and honey mixed with water. Thus, the main actions in the rites for obtaining every desire (sarvasāṃpadāni) are performed as follows: While reciting 1.1 one has to place on the fire’s pile udumbara, palāśa or karkandhū. Afterwards, he offers into the fire rice, barley or sesame with the same hymn. Having recited the same hymn, he proceeds to eat either of the following plates: rice boiled in milk, sacrificial cake, curds, ghee, or honey mixed with water. The subsequent manthāntani regulating sūtras are as follows: 18 This is the sūtrapratīka of KauśS 7.4. Cf. KauśS 12.11 audumbaryādīni trīṇi |-- [He performs] the three [rites] beginning with 7.4, viz. 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6. 19 Sūtrapratīka of KauśS 7.6. 20 Cf.KauśS 8.21. 21 Keśava glosses for this term ‘bṛhadbadarī ‘(cf. Keśava under KauśS 11.11).  KauśS 11.12. trir jyotiḥ kurute| -- [With the hymn 1.1]22 [the one desiring the fulfillment of every desire] kindles the sacred fire for three [days]. KauśS 11.13. upatiṣṭhate | -- [With the hymn 1.1]23 [the one desiring the fulfillment of every desire] prays to deities [three times a day]. KauśS 11.14. savyāt pāṇihṛdayāl lohitaṃ rasamiśram aśnāti | -- [With the hymn 1.1]24 [the one desiring the fulfillment of every desire] eats blood mixed with rasas (i.e. curds, ghee, and honey mixed with water)25 by means of the left hand. KauśS 11.15. pṛśnimanthaḥ | -- [With the hymn 1.1]26 [the one desiring the fulfillment of every desire drinks] a beverage made by stirring and mixing ingredients coming from a speckled cow27. These are the couplets of sūtras ending with mantha, the so called manthāntāni. Afterwards eight sūtras follow prescribing different rites for obtaining every desire. The last sūtra in this ritual sequence is precisely 12.4. KauśS 12.4. vatso virājo [13.1.33] iti manthāntāni | -- [With the hymn] 13.1.33 [he performs the rites prescribed in the sūtras] ending with [the word] mantha. One question rises: why the actions prescribed under 11.11-11.15, designated as manthāntani, and performed this time with another mantra, 13.1.33, were not mentioned subsequent to the sūtra ‘ending with mantha,’ that is 11.15. It is because KauśS uses a combination of two methods for enjoyning the rites, mantrādhikāra and phalādhikāra28, i.e. following the Saṃhitā’s order, and according to the portent of the rite, respectively. In the sequence of rites having as a goal the obtaining of every desire, the sūtrakāra prescribes actions which are performed with Śaunakin hymns in the Saṃhitā’s order, from ŚS 1.1 to ŚS 13.1.33, following the mantrādhikāra method, but switches to phalādhikāra method for introducing the manthāntāni at 12.4, and resumes the former method for the next sequence of rites used for obtaining harmony, from 12.5 onwards. 22 Cf.KauśS 8.21. 23 Cf.KauśS 8.21. 24 Cf.KauśS 8.21. 25 Cf. KauśS 8.19. 26 Cf.KauśS 8.21. 27 Thus translates M-W. 647, c.2 the hapax pṛśnimantha. 28 Cf. Dārila, Intro. v. et Bahulkar (1994: 27 ff.).  This is the meaning of Dārila’s comment on manthāntanī, too: the sarvasāṃpadakarma ādhikāra holds from 11.11 to 12.4. The term manthāntani is used in the sūtra 12.4 to describe the sequence of rites 11.11-11.15 for the sake of brevity. § 1.2.2. The second occurrence of manthāntāni is KauśS 18.26. For its understanding, a reference to the surrounding context is indispensable. KauśS 18.24-26. śaṃbhumayobhubhyāṃ [1.5 and 1.6] brahma jajñnānam [4.1] asya vāmasya [9.9] yo rohita [13.1.25] ud asya ketavo [13.2] mūrdhāhaṃ [16.3] viṣāsahim [17.1] iti salilaiḥ kṣīraudanam aśnāti | manthāntāni| -- With the mantras from salilagaṇa29, [that is] 1.5 and 1.6, 4.1, 9.9, 13.1.25-2630, 13.2, 16.3.1-431, 17.1.1-532, he eats rice boiled in milk. [With the same hymns] [he performs] the manthāntāni. Although there is no paribhāṣā regulating the function of the manthāntāni karmāṇi, Keśava is consequent in prescribing in the two instances wherein the latter ones are mentioned, the actions from KauśS 11.11-11.15: the kindling on the fire with samidhs made of udumbara, palāśa or karkandhūna; the offering of vrīhi, yava, or tila besmeared with the residues of the oblation (saṃpāta), after having consecrated them with the mantra employed in the respective rite; the eating of kṣīraudana, puroḍāśa, or rasas (i.e. dadhi, ghṛtaṃ, or madhūdakam) besmeared with the residues of the oblation, after having consecrated them with the mantra employed in the respective rite; the fire’s kindling, and watching it over three nights; the prayer to deities; the eating from the left palm blood seasoned with rasas. Both instances analyzed under § 1.2.1 and § 1.2.2 describe sets of rites connected with the obtaining of sarvakāma. In the first instance they are to be performed with the recitation of the verse 13.1.33, in the second, with the hymns of salilagaṇa. The paribhāṣā 8.10 referred by Dārila 29 This gaṇa is not defined along with the other groups of hymn, viz. mātṛnāmāni, etc, in the general paribhāṣās’ section. 30 On the basis of KauśS8.7: anantarāṇi samanāni yuktāni -- the consecutive hymns having common use are to be employed [in the ritual collectively, though the sūtra mentions the pratīka of the first hymn in the series] (Bahulkar 1977: 35, n.126). 31 Cf. KauśS 8.7 32 Cf.KauśS8.7 in connection to manthāntāni rites may be applied to the sūtras 12.4 and 18.26 as follows: “The rites should be done as described subsequently (yathāntaram) in the rules ending with the word mantha”, and “The rites should be done as described in the analogous [sūtras] (yathāntaram) ending with the word mantha”, respectively. § 1.3. The substance’s confusion: On the third instance Dārila cites three examples: § 1.3.1. KauśS 27.10: prāṅmukhaṃ vyādhitam pratyaṅmukham avyādhitaṃ śākhāsūpaveśya vaitase camasa upamanthanībhyāṃ tṛṣṇāgṛhītasya śirasi mantham upamathyātṛṣitāya prayachati | -- Having placed the ill one facing the east and the healthy one facing the west, on the branches, he stirs mantha in a cup made of vetasa by means of two stirring staffs, upon the head of the person seized by thirst, and [with the hymn 2.19] he gives [that mantha] to the person who is not thirsty. Mantha which is stirred on the patient’s head it should be given, coincidentia oppositorum, to the person who is neither ill nor thirsty. Mantha is the substance which has to be administered to the second person, and this may be inferred from the first action, which is expressed in the same sūtra. It might be objected that the second mantha is a case of implicit enounce and that the application of the KauśS 8.10 is not quite necessary. The confusion envisaged by Dārila consists in the fact that there is another paribhāṣā, 7.7, restricting the usage of the verb prayachati: ‘manthodanau prayachati | -- When the verb “he gives” is used without mentioning the object, mantha or odana should be supplied.’ In this case, the paribhāṣā 7.7 is not to be applied, but 8.10. Or otherwise said, here the paribhāṣā 8.10 restricts the application of 7.7. § 1.3.2. KauśS 10.13: sūktasya pāraṃ gatvā prayachati | -- Having completed [the recitation] of the hymn [1.1] he gives [dhānā on kṛṣṇājina]. The objects are taken from the immediately preceding sūtra 10.12, within the rite for medhājanana, which mentions them explicitly, and from where they could have been inferred through anuvṛtti. By applying KauśS 8.10 Dārila prevents the application of KauśS 7.7.  § 1.3.3. KauśS 20.8. sūktasya pāraṃ gatvā prayacchati |-- Having completed [the recitation] of the hymn [3.17] he gives [the plough]. The object should be supplied from the prior sūtra, 20.7, where the verb “he plows” occurs. By applying KauśS 8.10, the viniyoga of KauśS 7.7 is prevented. However, the main ‘doubt’ for Dārila is not concerning the object, but the hymn to be employed, and he has explained the latter under KauśS 20.1. KauśS 20.1. sīrā yuñnjanīti [3.17] sūktasaṃpratyayo’viśeṣanirdeśāt | senāgnimanthanasūktavat | -- The hymn 3.17 is appropriately used on account of the indication of similarity. Like in the case of the hymn [employed] in the churning of the fire, in the martial rite. The mentioned martial rite is prescribed at KauśS 16.9-14, and the actions are to be carried out with the entire or partial recitation of the hymn 8.8. Dārila explains the employment of the latter: sūkte ṛci samānāditvāt | manthanasamidādhānayoḥ prayogārtham | aśvatthabandhakayor agniṃ manthati ityatra ṛk | sapatnakṣayaṇīrādadhāti ityatra sūktam | -- The hymn and the verse is designated by the same [pratīka]. Its employment is in the rite of putting on fuel for churning the fire, [as follows]: the verse 8.8.1 at KauśS 16.11, the hymn 8.8 at KauśS 16.14. Coming back to Dārila’s comment under KauśS 20.1 on the employment of the hymn section wise, in the agricultural rite prescribed by KauśS 20.1-8 ff., he gives the following explanation: sīrā yuñnjantīti [3.17] yojanapratanayor āvartane manthanavadvibhāgaḥ syād vacanavirodhaḥ pāraṃ gatvā ity ca | -- The hymn 3.17 is used repeatedly in the yoking [of the bulls] and the measuring of the ground; there should be a section like in the fire’s churning and an apparent contradiction of the enounce “having completed the hymn” (KauśS 20.8). Dārila does not explain again under KauśS 20.8 -- and this speaks by itself about his scholarship -- which is the hymn to be employed herein, but he aptly quotes the paribhāṣā 8.21 in order to ascertain the same33. He says that the hymn under discussion, 3.17, should be used until the 33 The hymn ŚS 3.17 is mentioned once, at KauśS 20.1, in the beginning of the section dedicated to the rites for good plowing, it is inferred through the subsequent sūtra, 20.2, it is followed by an unidentified pratīka at 20.3, and by a whole verse from 8.18.6 at 20.5 (Griffiths 2004: 58 indexes this Paippalāda mantra quotation in the entry KauśS 820), again by one unidentified verse and one pratīka at 20.6 and 20.7, respectively. Which hymn should next mentioned mantra that occurs in the sūtra 20.10, namely the last verse of the hymn 3.17, the verse number eight. Yet, he says that: uparyuktasya śeṣasya sūktasyāntaṃ gatvā kartā karṣakebhyaḥ prayacchati halam | -- Having completed the remaining portion of the hymn in question, the priest gives the plough to the farmers. § 2. Keśava’s assumption Keśava, likewise Dārila34, understands the paribhāṣā 8.10 in the same spirit, elucidating a possible confusion of mantra or dravya with the help of a juxtaposition. mantradravyasaṃśaye saṃnidhānaṃ gṛhītavyam || yathā lomāni (KauśS 13.3) hastiromāṇi35 yathā vidma śarasya iti pramehaṇaṃ badhnāti (KauśS 25.10) || -- When in doubt, the close context should be referred to. Thus [it is the case with] “hair” (KauśS 13.3), [where it should be inferred] “elephant’s hair”. Thus [it is the case in] “[With the hymn] vidma śarasya he ties the pramehaṇa at [the patient’s neck]” (KauśS 25.10). § 2.1. Lomāni is the sūtrapratīka of KauśS 13.336, an elliptic enounce which can be completed from the adjacent sūtra, within a rite for obtaining splendor. KauśS 13.2. hāstidantaṃ badhnāti | -- [With the hymn 3.22]37, [the warrior] ties on an amulet of ivory. then be employed at KauśS 20.8? According to 8.21, it should be the one designated by the last mentioned unidentified pratīka. Yet, Dārila says it is ŚS 3.17. How can we account for this? Should it be the case that Dārila is counting only the Śaunakin hymns? What was then his approach towards the hymns of the other Atharvavedic śākhā? 34 Keśava’s explanation on 8.10 looks like an abridged version of Dārila’s, yet he quotes independently from the latter instances in support of his assumption. It is worth noticing the superiority of Dārila’s understanding of the sutra 8.10 and his outstanding scholarship, as noted in this paper under 1.3.3. For a contrary opinion see Caland 1900: v and recently Meulenbeld 2004: 296. 35 Cf. Keśava on KauśS 13.3, MS. Ba. The other MSS. read hastilomāni. 36 This has passed unnoticed by the editors. 37 Cf. KauśS 8.21. The hymn is mentioned at KauśS 13.1.  KauśS 13.3. lomāni jatunā saṃdihya jātarūpeṇāpidhāpya | -- [With the hymn 3.22]38, [he ties on the warrior an amulet made of the elephant’s] hair, after having besmeared [the hair] with lac, and having covered [the same] with gold, [and after having consecrated the amulet with the hymn in question39, and on which the remnants of clarified butter have been poured40]. Keśava considers that the difficulty concerns the identification of the substance, namely hair, which should be from an elephant, the mention of the latter occuring in the previous sūtra. Although Dārila does not specifically refer to the adhikāra of 8.10 on KauśS 13.3, he glosses here badhnātīti vākyaśeṣaḥ, supplying thus the verb from the adjoining sūtra. Caland also thinks that the verb badhnāti should be added from 13.2, likewise in KauśS 26.21, which will be further discussed. § 2.2. KauśS 25.10. vidmā śarasya iti pramehaṇa badhnāti | Under the sūtra 25.10 Keśava glosses for the hymn employed ‘vidmā śarasya dvitīyena’. There are two hymns having the same beginning designated by this pratīka, 1.2 and 1.3. By referring to the close context, one can distinguish the right hymn to be employed. The pratīka occurs at 25.6 and it must be inferred throughout the sūtras 25.7, 8 and 9, by the rule 8.21, as seen previously. Since the pratīka is mentioned anew at 25.10 it means that it denotes another hymn, namely 1.3. The application of the paribhāṣā 8.10 in this case is redundant. § 3. Viniyoga paribhāṣā Besides the viniyogas discussed by Dārila and Keśava under KauśS 8.10 and explained above by us, there are other instances whereto the paribhāṣā under discussion may be applied. 38 Cf. KauśS 8.21. 39 Cf. KauśS 7.15. 40 Cf. KauśS 7.19. § 3.1. The sūtra 13.1 is an instance briefly discussed by Caland, in connection with the paribhāṣā 8.10. It prescribes a rite for attending splendor (tejaskāmaḥ). KauśS 13.1. hastivarcasam [3.22] iti hastinam | Dārila glosses: yadi kṣatriya upatiṣṭhate | agnim upatiṣṭhate antaratvāt | -- When the warrior [sees an elephant] he does the service to the fire. “He does the service to the fire” (KauśS 12.14) [should be substituted] from the previous passage. Thus, a whole action is to be supplied from an antecedent sūtra, 12.14, which prescribes a rite having the same purport, varcaskāmaḥ41. The prescription 13.1 reconstructed is as follows: With the hymn 3.22, [the warrior, having seen] an elephant[, does the service to the fire]. § 3.2. In a rite against the demons’ possession, KauśS 25.33 prescribes: 25.33. ukto homaḥ | -- The offering has been prescribed. Dārila explains: yathāntaravacanāt | asya homasyedhmābarhiṣaḥ śālāyām āsaktam || -- [Having found] the grass and the fuel fastened in the house, [he should do] the homa, as per the juxtaposed context. Keśava is more explicit as to the reference: vīriṇatūlamityādi, which is the sūtrapratīka of KauśS 25.30. The rule contains the verb juhoti: KauśS 25.30. vīriṇatūlamiśram iṅgiḍaṃ prapuṭe juhoti | -- He offers iṅgiḍa mixed with vīriṇa by means of a large folded leaf. Dārila under 25.31 comments that the adhikāra of KauśS 25.31 (idhmābarhiḥ śālāyām āsajati), is 25.32 and 25.33, hence the performance of the homa should be put in connection with the objects mentioned herein, idhma and barhi. 41 Thus glosses Keśava under 12.4.  The paribhāṣā 8.10 could be applied to the confusing succinct sūtra 25.33, by supplying thus the paraphernalia necessary in the homa: offering of the substances mentioned at 25.30 into the fire kindled with the combustibles stated at 25.31. § 3.3. Under KauśS 26.21. Dārila applies the paribhāṣā 8.10 for elucidating the action implying the usage of an object particularly described in 26.16. KauśS 26.21. kroḍalomāni jatunā saṃdihya jātarūpeṇāpidhāpya | -- [With the hymn 1.12]42 [he ties to the patient] [an amulet made of] hair from the bosom [of a red bull]43, after having besmeared [the hair] with lac, and having covered [the same] with gold, [and after having consecrated the amulet with the hymn in question44, and on which the remnants of clarified butter have been poured45]. Dārila says: badhnāti yathāntaratvāt | -- He ties on [an amulet] as per the paribhāṣā 8.10. The verb badhnāti is mentioned in KauśS 26.16, quite far from the sūtra under discussion, nonetheless, within the framework of the same medical rite for curing jaundice and heart diseases. § 3.4. The rite for removing the worms in the child’s body has the following action: KauśS 29.21. grāmāt pāṃsūn | Dārila: utkarati | āharati grāmāt pāṃsūn upamathya | yathāntaratvāt | -- He digs and brings dust from the village, having rubbed it. As per the analogous passage. The term upamathya is the sūtrapratīka of KauśS 27.18, from a rite for removing the worms: 42 Cf. KauśS 8.21. The hymn is mentioned at KauśS 26.14. 43 Cf. Keśava: vṛṣabhahṛdayalomabhiḥ. For the translation of the whole sūtra v. Bahulkar (1994: 112-113). 44 Cf. KauśS 7.15. 45 Cf. KauśS 7.19.  KauśS 27.18. savyena dakṣiṇāmukhaḥ pāṃsūn upamathya parikirati | -- [With the hymn 2.31], facing the south, he rubs the dust by means of the left hand and scatters it around. Thus, the rendering of 29.21 would be: [With the hymn 5.23] [he digs] dust from the village, [rubs it by left hand, and scatters it around the patient]. The action to be performed with the dust in a rite for removing the worms is to be supplied from the closest sūtra wherein the dust is referred, 27.18, from a rite with a similar function, over an interval of 19 medical rites having different purposes46. § 3.5. The sūtras 40.7-9 describe a second rite in a section dedicated to charms for directing the course of a river (nadīpravāhavidhi). KauśS 40.7. mārutaṃ kṣīraudanaṃ mārutaśṛtaṃ mārutaiḥ paristīrya mārutena sruveṇa mārutenājyena varuṇāya trir juhoti | -- [With the hymn 3.13]47 he offers thrice oblation of Marut’s ghee to Varuṇa by means of Marut’s ladle, Marut’s rice boiled with milk, Marut’s ghee, having strewn Marut’s grass around.48 KauśS 40.8. uktam upamanthanam | -- The act of stirring is described [at KauśS 27.10]49. Dārila glosses: vaitase camase upamanthanam | te ca upamanthanyau yathāntaratvāt | -- He stirrs the mantha on a cup made of vetasa. The two stirring staffs are as per the anterior passage. The next sūtra prescribes what is to be done with the mantha so prepared: KauśS 40.9. dadhimanthaṃ baliṃ hṛtvā saṃprokṣaṇībhyāṃ prasiñncan vrajati | -- Having carried along an oblation consisting of milk with mantha, by means of two sprinkling strainers, he walks pouring out water. 46 This hiatus is due to the mantrādhikāra order of the rites. 47 Cf. KauśS 8.21. 48 Mārutāni are a specific class of rites intended to bring rain, prescribed by KauśS 41.1-7. “The three offerings to Varuṇa are given according to the manner mentioned at KauśS 23.1-3, where the first two offerings are given with two different verses, and the third one is given with the recitation of both.” (Bahulkar 1994: 115) 49 For this sūtra v. supra 1.3.1). The past pasive participle uktam of KauśS 40.8 already refers to a previous instance wherein the upamanthana has been described. The application of KauśS 8.10 is therefore redundant. § 3.6. KauśS 41.10. pūrvāsvaṣāḍhāsu gartaṃ khanati | -- Under the constellation Pūrvāṣāḍhā he digs out a hole. KauśS 41.11. uttarāsu saṃcinoti | -- Under the constellation Uttarāṣāḍhā he fills this up. KauśS 41.12. ādevanaṃ saṃstīrya | -- He spreads the board for gambling [in that filled up hole]. KauśS 41.13. udbhindatīṃ saṃjayantīṃ [4.38.1] yathā vṛkṣam aśanir [7.50.1] idam ugrāyeti [7.109.1] vāsitān akṣān nivapati | -- [Reciting the hymns] 4.38.1, 7.50.1, and 7.109.1, he throws the dices which have been “dressed”, i.e. [kept in milk and honey for three nights, beginning with the thirteenth day of the latter half of the month, besmeared with the remnants of the oblation, and consecrated with the hymns in question]. This is a rite for success in gambling (dyutajayakarma). Dārila comments on vāsana: nanvatra vāsanasaṃyogāt dadhimadhuni vāsanaṃ yathāntaratvāt | -- Now as concerning vāsana, it should be understood ‘a dressing in honey and milk’, as per the previous (?)/analogous instance. The instance intended by Dārila is the paribhāṣā 7.19. KauśS 7.19. trayodaśyādayas tisro dadhimadhuni vāsayitvā badhnāti | -- [When the words] ‘having put on, he ties’ [are used] [one should understand that] [the amulet is to be kept] in honey and milk for three nights beginning with the thirteenth day of the latter half of the month]. In fact the sūtra 41.13 becomes clear with the help of three paribhāṣās. The second is 7.15.: āśyabandhyāplavanayānabhakṣāṇi saṃpātavanti | -- In the acts of eating, binding, bathing, riding [a vehicle], consuming, [the substance in question should be anointed with] the remnants of the oblation, i.e. the clarified butter”; and the third 7.16.: sarvāṇy abhimantryāṇi | -- All these [actions, i.e. those mentioned under 7.15, should be done] having been consecrated with the [relevant] mantras. We suspect that Dārila’s reference to 8.10 is erroneous. Vāsanam already functions as an indication for the paribhāṣā 7.19. § 3.7. The sūtra 46.7 prescribes a rite for warding off the evil effects of seeing certain birds: KauśS 46.7. mantroktāni patitebhyo devāḥ kapota [6.27.1] ṛcā kapotam [6.28.1] amūn hetir [6.29.1] iti mahāśāntim āvapate | -- [With the verses] 6.27.1, 6.28.1, and 6.29.1 he performs the mahāśānti [and] pours out śāntyudaka [to ward off] against the birds mentioned in these verses. Keśava gives an account of the ritual performance. The śāntyudaka is duly prepared, with the hymns mentioned in the respective section50. Dārila has a very interesting statement about the viniyoga paribhāṣā 8.10. : mantroktā ulūkakapotāḥ | tebhyaḥ anucitadeśagatebhyaḥ yadaśamaṃ51 tan niṣkrayāyedam ucyate | etāni trīṇi mahāśāntiṃ cānārabhyavādoktam | na cakāro’tra paṭhitaḥ gamyamānatvāt | kṛtyāpratiharaṇavat | tattulyanirdeśaś cobhayoḥ samānakarmatvāt | viśaye yathāntaram iti | tasmāt [sic! tasmād] agrataḥ prokṣan ityādeḥ (KauśS 39.8) kṛtyāpratiharaṇavat mābhūriti (KauśS 39.9) ityantāt | niśi’iti cāvayavagrahaṇād vidhānāc ceha kṛtyāyāḥ avamucyoṣṇīṣī iti kṛtyānidarśanāt prāpnuyāt | iha tvarthavattvān nivarteta || -- [The birds are those] mentioned in the hymns, i.e. owl and pigeon. The following is prescribed for those birds to fly to improper places and to expel them to an unquiet place. The mahāśānti is expressed without the reference of “ca” to these three [hymns]. The conjunction “ca” is not read here from the act of that who is being gone, likewise in the rite of expelling the witchcraft. That similar specification of both “ca” is due to the analogy of the rite. For it is said “In case of confusion, [it should be understood] as per the analogous instance”. On this basis, likewise in the rite of expelling the witchcraft, it should begin with “[he walks] forward sprinkling around” (KauśS 39.8) and end with “ on me, you, Earth!” (KauśS 39.9). It should result “in the night” from taking a part from the prescription and here “having taken off his shoes, wearing a turban” from the witchcraft, from the injunction concerning the witchcraft. However, here the connotation is missing. 50 The preparation of the śāntyudaka is described at KauśS 9.1-10., and with the addition of these three. In the night he sprinkles around up to the place where the birds have been seen sitting, reciting certain kalpaja mantras. The priest besprinkles the officiant and makes him sip śāntyudaka. 51 This is our emendation to yadaśamāṃ taṃ niṣkriyayedam. The editors read yadaśarma tan niṣkrayāyedam. Dārila refers to 39.8 and 39.9, a rite for removing the effects of the witchcraft (abhicāraradoṣān), in order to complete the elliptic sūtra under discussion. KauśS 39.8-9. niśy avamucyoṣṇīṣyagrataḥ prokṣan vrajati | yatāyai yatāyai śāntāyai śāntivāyai bhadrāyai bhadrāvati syonāyai śagmāyai śivāyai sumaṅgali prajāvati suśīme52 ‘ahaṃ vā mābhūr iti | -- In the night, having taken of his shoes, wearing a turban, he walks forward sprinkling [śāntyudaka]53, [reciting] “For the self-controlled one, for the self-controlled one, for the peaceful one, for Śāntīvā, for the auspicious one, O, Bhadrāvatī, for the pleasant one, for the kind one, for the holy one; O, you, lucky one, O, you, having offspring, O, you, reliable one! I, or on me, you, Earth!”54 According to him these two rites are analogous, hence, on the basis of the paribhāṣā 8.10, the elliptic parts in 46.7 should be taken from 39.8-9. Caland has discerned the new meaning of yathāntaram in this peculiar fragment, as “so wie an den analogen Stellen”, and considered it might be the sense to be applied to all its occurrences. In fact this new meaning is a secondary one, a sense adapted by the commentator in his endeavor to fit the viniyoga of the paribhāṣā 8.10 to the context under discussion. § 3.8. KauśS 46.22. saṃsam id [6.63.4] iti svayaṃprajvalite’gnau | -- When the fire kindles by itself, he [offers] in the fire [with the hymn] 6.63.4. Dārila refers to 45.1 on the basis of yathāntaratvāt. This is also a prāyaścitta performed in the vaśāśamana, if the cow is found pregnant. KauśS 45.1. yadyaṣṭāpadī syād garbhamañnjalau sahiraṇyaṃ sayavaṃ vā ya ātmadā [4.2] iti khadāyāṃ tryaratnāvagnau sakṛjjuhoti | -- If it is found with eight legs (i.e. pregnant), [having taken] in the folded hands the fetus with gold or with barley, he kills it while reciting the hymn 4.2 and sacrifices it at once in the fire pit of three aratnis. This is another instance whereto paribhāṣā 8.10 may be applied based on the analogy of the rites, that are both expiations. 52 Cf. KauśS 24.14 and 76. 2. Bloomfield reads susīme. 53 Mentioned in the previous sūtra, 39.7. dūṣyā duṣir asi [2.11.1] ye purastād [4.40.1] īśānāṃ tvā [4.17.1] samaṃ jyotir [4.18.1] uto asy abandhukṛt [4.19.1] suparṇas tvā [5.14.1] yāṃ te cakrur [5.31.1] ayaṃ pratisaro [8.5.1] yāṃ kalpayantīti [10.1.1] mahāśāntim āvapate. 54 This is a tentative translation of a maybe untranslatable “hocus-pocus” incantation (Caland 1900: 134, n. 7). Caland considers that the series of feminine nouns in Dative may refer to kṛtyā or to bhū. § 4. Conclusions Although much work has been done since the first translations of individual chapters and the editio princeps of the KauśS, all meant to improve the present edition, remarkable results have not been achieved in the field of the sūtra text’s composition. The state of affairs is not much beyond what Bloomfield had stated in the introduction to his edition: I do not venture to assert that there was a time, when there existed a corresponding treatise of approximately the same scope, which would justify us in speaking of an earlier form of the text, or in claiming, that certain parts were added after the text left the hands of the last redactors. (1889: xxii) Pushing one step forward, Bahulkar concluded his refutation to Bloomfield’s judgment on the composition of the KauśS with the following remark: However, there is ground to assume that there must have been an earlier form of the KauśS, approximately of similar scope, but different from that of the present text. (1994: 26) According to Bloomfield (1889: xxvii-xxviii) the first six kaṇḍikās are interpolated to the nucleus of the KauśS, which in fact starts at the 10th kaṇḍikā, with medhājanana. He considers that those kaṇḍikās might have well fit at the beginning of the section prescribing the proper gṛhya ritual, between the 52nd and 53rd kaṇḍikās. Bahulkar (1994: 20-21) refutes his argument that the rite of the full moon and new moon have been described in the beginning of the KauśS in deference to the śrauta tradition, on the basis that this rite serves as the archetype for all the domestic rites, hence it is described at the outset. The thirteenth adhyāya, on omens and portents has been considered by Weber (1858: 345, 384) as a later incorporation, and by Bloomfield (1889: xxiii-xxiv) an independent piece added to the KauśS due to its pertinence of subject to the Atharvanic matters. Bahulkar (1994: 24) goes further envisaging the existence of a tradition on omen and portents in the Atharvanic quarters, formally recognized at a later date and hence incorporated in the KauśS. The fourteenth adhyāya, treating on subjects occured in the previous chapters, is unanimously (Bloomfield 1889: xxv-xxvi, Bahulkar 1994: 26) recognized as a later addition to the KauśS.  These much has been said, according to my knowledge, about the composition of the KauśS. Nowhere it is expressly said that the kaṇḍikās 7-8, especially the parbibhāṣā section 7.1- 8.22, might be an after thought added to the corpus of the KauśS, whatever the latter might have been. Prof. Bahulkar has hinted to that in 2002 while reading individually for me the text of the KauśS. The reason for the addition of the entire section or at least of certain paribhāṣās of this section was evidently the need for clarity and consistency of the composite sutra-text55. One more argument in favor of the later addition of the paribhāṣā section is the fact that the self alleged paddhati ĀtharvaṇīyaPaddhati which comments on the first set of special rules, ignores the second set56. Out of the sixteen above discussed cases whereto the paribhāṣā 8.10 might be applied, we may rule out from the outset the two instances of ‘mantra’s confusion’, mentioned so by Dārila and Keśava as not genuine viniyogas (under § 1.1 and § 2.2). Dārila’s application of 8.10 to KauśS 41.13 (under § 3.6) seems also erroneous, and to KauśS 40.9, redundant (under § 3.5). From the remaining twelve instances, one refers to an ellipsis supplied from the same sūtra (under § 1.3.1), three others imply the ākāṅkṣita from the next sūtras (under § 1.3.2; § 2.1; § 3.1) and one, by maṇḍūkaplūtī, from a close sūtra (under § 3.2). In seven other instances (under § 1.2.1; § 1.2.2; § 1.3.3; § 3.3; § 3.4; § 3.7; § 3.8) the enounce is completed with terms and actions supplied from quite remote passages. On this basis we may safely conclude that yathāntaram does not mean that the ellipsis should be inferred “as per the adjacent passage”, but it rather points to the “anterior passage”, regardless their juxtaposition. Furthermore, in the case of the juxtaposed sūtras, both, the ākāṅkṣita and the reference are circumscribed within the same rite, whereas in the other cases, 55 Similarly there were incorporated into the Caranavyūhopaniṣād, the Paippalādin version of the so alleged Śaunakin Caranavyūha (Griffiths 2007: 141-194), a list of twenty three Upaniṣads (although only eighteen announced, as against the fifteen listed in the Caranavyūha). 56 Cf. Bloomfield 1885: 375, n. †. of indication to remote passages, they are based on the analogy of the rite or of the action. Hence Caland’s estimation over the meaning of 8.10 as “so wie an den analogen Stellen” might be only partially accepted. A clause should be added, “as per the analogous passages mentioned previously in the KauśS”. This latter clause amounts to a conscientious effort of composing the rule 8.10 after a perusal of the whole sutra-text. This paribhaṣā was called to account for supplying the deserved term or the missing action to a variety of situations bearing very little in common. Dārila has considered the “doubt” baffling the elliptic sutras and tried to remove it by applying 8.10 even in the cases where these sūtras were not so “doubtful” and where the ellipsis could be easily filled in by means of anuvṛtti or by implicit enounce57. Hence he might have read in earnest throughout viśaye, but since the codex unicus records the reading viṣaye, the former becomes a mere hypothesis. It might be that Bloomfield, and by all means Bahulkar, were lead by Dārila’s commentary and emended viṣaye to viśaye. As it was shown above, the meaning of the enounce converges to the lectio viṣaye. KauśS 8.10. viṣaye yathāntaram | -- In case of a reference [it should be taken] as per the analogous passage mentioned previously [in the KauśS]. Bibliography Manuscripts ĀtharvaṇīyaPaddhati, MSS. Accession no.1495 and 1496, Staatsbibliothek, Berlin. ĀtharvaṇīyaPaddhati, MS. accession no. 1870-71, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. 57 For a critique of the traditional and modern sūtra exegetes’ unnecessary supposed additions to the succinct enounce v. Renou (1963: 187): “Mais il faut se garder de penser que tout ce qu’ajoutent entre parenthèses des traducteurs comme Oldenberg ou Bühler, tout ce que suppléent les commentateurs indiens, passes maitres dans l’art du vākyaśeṣa, répond à une réelle ellipse dans le texte originel: ce sont les commodités de nos langues ou quelque intention pédagogique qui nous amènent à multiplier les parenthèses.” KauśikaSūtra MSS.accession nos. 4/1866-68, 5/1866-68, Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. KauśikaSūtra MSS.accession nos. 889 and 6854, Oriental Institute of Baroda. KauśikaSūtra MSS.accession nos. 177 and 178, Staatsbibliothek, München. Secondary Works Bahulkar, S. Shrikant 1977. Bhaiṣajyāni in the Kauśika Sūtra. Ph.D. Thesis, Pune, University of Pune (unpublished). -------------. 1990. “Kauśikasūtra.” Edited by S.S. Bahulkar. In T.N. Dharmadhikari, R.S. Shastri, N.P. Jain, S.S. Bahulkar (eds.) Vedic Texts: A Revision. Professor C.G. Kashikar Felicitation Volume, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. -------------. 1994. Medical Ritual in the Atharvaveda Tradition. Shri Balmukund Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Research Series No. 8 Pune: Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth. Bloomfield, Maurice. 1885. “The Position of the Vāitāna-Sūtra in the Literature of the Atharva- Veda.” JAOS XI: 357-388. ------------. 1889. “The Kauśika Sūtra of the Atharva Veda. With Extracts from the Commentaries of Dārila and Keҫava.” edited by M. Bloomfield. JAOS XIV: v-LXviii, 1-422. Caland, Willem. 1900. Altindisches Zauberritual, Probe einer Uebersetzung der wichtigsten Theile des Kauśika Sūtra.Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Nieuwe Reeks, Deel III. No. 2, Amsterdam: J. Müller. Griffiths, Arlo. 2004. “Paippalāda Mantras in the Kauśikasūtra.” In A. Griffiths and J.E.M. Houben (eds.), The Vedas: Texts, Language and Ritual. Proceedings of the 3rd International Vedic Workshop, 49-99, Groningen: Egbert Forsten. ------------. 2007. “The Ancillary Literature of the Paippalāda School: A Preliminary Survey with an Edition of the Caraṇavyūhopaniṣad.” In Arlo Griffiths and Annette Schmiedchen (eds.), The Atharvaveda and its Paippalādaśākhā. Historical and Philological Papers on a Vedic Tradition, Indologica Halensis, 141-194, Aachen: Shaker Verlag. Kauśikasutra-Dārilabhāṣya. Critically edited for the first time on the basis of a single codex which is reproduced by offset process. ed. by H.R. Diwekar, V.P. Limaye, R.N. Dandekar, C.G. Kashikar, V.V. Bhide. 1972. Poona: Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapitha. Keśava’s Kauśikapaddhati on the Kauśikasūtra of the Atharvaveda, critically edited by V.P. Limaye, R. N. Dandekar, C.G. Kashikar, V.V. Bhide, S. S. Bahulkar. 1982. Pune: Shri Balmukund Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Research Series 1. Meulenbeld, G. Jan. 2004. “ Āyurveda and Atharvaveda: Their Interrelationship in the Commentaries on the Kauśikasūtra.” In Du corps humain au carrefour de plusieurs savoirs en Inde, Mélanges offerts à Arion Roșu par ses collègues et ses amis a l’occasion de son 80e anniversaire, Stvdia Asiatica, Volumes IV (2003)-V (2004): 289-312, Bucarest-Paris. Patyal, Hukam C. 1974. “Remarks on the Kauśikasūtra with Dārilabhāṣya.” Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute vol. XXXIV, 1-4: 134-142. Renou, Louis 1963. “Sur le genre du sūtra dans la littérature sanskrite.” Journal Asiatique, 165- 216. Rotaru, Julieta. 2010. “Towards a methodology of applying the paribhāṣās in the KauśikaSūtra (I).” Acta Orientalia Vilnensia 9,2 (2008): 57-82, Vilnius: Vilnius University. ------------. forth. “The Identification of the Hymn brama jajñnāna (ŚS 4.1 or 5.6) in Ritual Sources of the Atharvaveda.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Vedic Workshop: The Vedas in Indian Culture and History. Joel Brereton (ed.). London, Delhi, New York: Anthem Press. Speyer, J.S. 1901. Review of Caland 1900. Museum. Maandblad voor Philology en Geschiedenis, no.9: 248-251. Śaunaka Saṃhitā. Atharvaveda (Śaunaka) with the Pada-pāṭha and Sāyaṇācārya’s Commentary, edited and annotated with text-comparative data from original manuscripts and other Vedic works by Vishva Bandhu, Part I (Kāṇḍas I-V), 1990, second edition (first edition 1960), Part II (Kāṇḍas VI-X), 1993, second edition (first edition 1961), Part III (Kāṇḍas XI-XVIII), 1994, second edition (first edition 1961), Part IV, Fasc. I (Kāṇḍas XIX-XX), 1995, second edition (first edition 1962), Fasc. II (Mantra, Pada, Ṛṣi, Devatā, and Chanda Indices), first edition 1964, Hoshiarpur, Vishveshvaranand Vedic Research Institute Series 13-17. Weber, von Albrecht. 1859. Zwei vedische Texte über Omina und Portenta., Berlin: Druckerei der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 320-413. Julieta Rotaru Lecturer, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures University of Bucharest