Arlo Griffiths

The Ancillary Literature of the Paippalāda School A Preliminary Survey with an Edition of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad *

§1. Introduction

With this paper, I wish to shed light on the extent of Paippalāda ancillary literature still available in Orissa -the last remaining stronghold of this Śākhā -, mainly on the basis of material collected by me during several field-trips over the past 8 years. 1 The edition of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad, which forms the main part of this contribution, will serve as an example of what kind of literature the extant sources preserve, and as an introduction to one specific category of manuscripts. It will also form the basis of a comparison between what literature is still available today, and what we have reason to believe may have been extant in the past in the domain of the Paippalādins' ancillary literature. This will lead, in conclusion, to some hypotheses concerning the relationships between the textual corpora of the Paippalāda and Śaunaka schools of the Atharvaveda, as well as some proposals for further research.

The ancillary literature of this Śaunaka school is relatively well known. Brahmins of this school, abiding in western India and Benares, 2 have left us a Brāhman . a (the Gopathabrāhman . a [GB]), two S ūtras (the Kauśikas ūtra [KauśS], the Vaitānas ūtra [VaitS], with its supplement of Atharvan Prāyaścittas [AVPrāy]), two Prātiśākhyas, a large collection of Pariśis . t . as (AVPariś), commentaries on most of the above texts, and even Paddhatis are available in published form. 3 This enumeration shows that the difference from the sister school, the Paippalāda-Śākhā, could not be greater; because for this school, besides its Sam . hitā (partly), almost nothing has been published, 4 and next to nothing is known * Diwakar Acharya has read and commented on two versions of the edition of and commentary on the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad, and given many suggestions for improvement. I am grateful to him, as I am to Peter Bisschop, Harunaga Isaacson and Shilpa Sumant, who have also made several suggestions for improvement of the paper. 1 The hitherto collected manuscripts of the Paippalādasam . hitā (PS) have been described in GRIFFITHS 2003a. A few additional PS mss. have been obtained since 2003, and will be presented by me elsewhere.

2 See BAHULKAR (forthc.). 3 For information on editions and translations, see GONDA 1975 and[START_REF] Witzel | An Unknown Upanis . ad of the Kr . s . n . a Yajurveda: The Kat . ha-Śiks . ā-Upanis[END_REF], the lengthy and valuable introduction to BAHULKAR 1977 (only very partially reproduced in the published version [1994]), and MODAK 1993; concerning the Atharvavedapariśis . t . as, see also the introduction to BISSCHOP & GRIFFITHS 2003;on Śaunaka-Atharvan Paddhatis, BAHULKAR 2002and 2003[START_REF] Diwekar | Kauśikas ūtra-Dārilabhās[END_REF][START_REF] Limaye | Keśava's Kauśikapaddhati on the Kauśikas ūtra of the Atharvaveda[END_REF]; on Prātiśākhya and Vikr ˚tipāt . ha literature, DESHPANDE 1997 and 2002 respectively. 4 Concerning the two exceptions, viz. the two Paddhatis published by Umākānta PAN . D . Ā respectively in 2000 and 2003, see below, §2C and 2D; see also the contribution of Alexis Sanderson about its corpus of ancillary texts. Till now, only the discoverer of the Orissa Paippalāda tradition, Durgamohan BHATTACHARYYA, in his collection of lectures entitled The Fundamental Themes of the Atharvaveda, published posthumously in 1968, has dedicated some paragraphs to this theme, and summarized them as follows (1968: viii): "The Paippalāda [Atharvaveda] had its Brāhman . a and a vast ancillary literature, a part of which has survived in Eastern India along with thousands of orthodox adherents almost unnoticed by Vedic scholars."

It has to be admitted frankly, at the outset, that the tradition in Orissa, although there are a large number of manuscripts lying in private collections, has not left us a broad variety of ancillary genres, by which I mean in this context any kind of non-Sam . hitā literature: I have hitherto only found manuscripts containing collections of Upanis . ads, on the one hand, and several categories of manuals for the performance of various rituals, on the other. After having undertaken several field-trips, I am not optimistic that any further genres may still be lying undiscovered. The following two sections give a survey of the available manuscript sources. These sources are admittedly limited, but nonetheless worthy of study in and of themselves, besides the fact that some of them offer important information on the history of the Paippalāda canon. Such information will be discussed further below ( §5), after I have presented an edition of a relevant text, the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad ( §4).

I call my survey preliminary, because it seems to me that I am at once trying to do too much and too little, and the reader will notice that the materials collected in the survey have been treated in rather varying measure of detail. I have simply not yet had the chance seriously to investigate the contents of mss. representing some of the genres to be introduced below (KS), while for others, considerably more progress has been made, but this article did not seem to be the appropriate place to publish the findings (KP). Finally, for a third category of mss. (AK), this volume contains a separate paper (the one by Alexis Sanderson) that provides a first glimpse into the nature of the concerned genre of Atharvavedic ancillary literature. §2. Paippalāda Ancillary Literature: Sources Rather differently from the text corpus of other Vedic traditions, that of the Orissa Paippalādins cannot be studied primarily on the basis of manuscripts lying in public library collections: besides the T übingen Paippalādasam . hitā ms. in Śāradā script, I am only aware of two Orissan mss. preserved in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune (see §2D), and of small collections in the Orissa State Museum (see [START_REF] Mishra | An Alphabetical Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collection of the Orissa State Museum[END_REF], MOHAPATRA 2002-03) and the to this volume. Some publications in (heavily sanskritised) Oriya language and in Oriya script are also mentioned below, §2E.

Parija Library of Utkal University (see [START_REF] Dev | A Descriptive-Alphabetical Catalogue of Manuscripts[END_REF], both in Bhubaneswar. The Paippalāda textual traditions must in the first instance be studied on the basis of private manuscript collections. This circumstance, which no doubt holds true for other traditions historically limited to Orissa -an area poorly covered by nineteenth century expeditions in search of manuscripts, due to various (political) reasons 5 -has certainly contributed to the comparatively undeveloped state of Paippalāda studies.

This section offers a rapid overview of the primary sources for the study of Paippalāda ancillary literature that I have hitherto collected. 6 Besides four locally published books, these sources are in manuscript form, and for (future) reference to these, sigla will be proposed. Because identical sigla are found under the different lettered categories, genre acronymns are also given, to allow for unambiguous expanded sigla of the type Up/Ku 1 , AK/Ku 1 etc. Only the Upanis . ad (Up.) mss. will be described in detail, in the next section ( §3). Due to constraints of time and space, no detailed presentation of the contents of the other sources could be provided in this article.

With the exception of P 1 and P 2 ( §2D), all mss. are in Oriya script; with the exception of those same two mss., and the four OSM mss. listed under B and D, all mss. listed here are from private collections, and none have appeared in previous catalogs; all mss. are written on palm-leaves, bound by a single string in the middle and enclosed in cover boards.

A. Upanis . ads (Up)

1. Gu 1 . Photographs only of the folios containing the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad, from a ms. belonging to Ven . udhara Pan . d . ā of the village Guhiāpāl . a.7

2. Gu 2 . Photographs of a ms. in pristine condition, kept by Sudhākara Pan . d . ā of the village Guhiāpāl . a. Complete.

3. Jā. Photographs only of the folios containing the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad, from a badly damaged ms. belonging to Haraprasāda Miśra of the village Jāmbhan . i.

4. Ku 1 . Large and worn ms., received from the late Harihara Upādhyā ẏa of the village Kurum . caini. Painting on insides of front and back coverboards.

5. Ku 2 . Smaller ms., in good condition, from the same collection.

5 See Bh. PANDA 2003: 346f. for a warmly nationalistic account.

6. Ku 3 . Previously uninked ms., now inked by the author, in good condition, from the same collection.

7. Ni. Photographs of an extensive (composite) ms., kept by Maheśvara Miśra of the village Nirmal . ā.

B. Karmapa ñjikā (KP)

For preliminary information on this text, and some quotations from it, see BHATTACHARYYA 1968: 2, 23. The papers GRIFFITHS 2003b and 2004-05 contain some longer excerpts in edited form. A critical edition of this text is currently being prepared, on the basis of the following materials.

1. Dh/903. Photographs of a seemingly old, worn, and incomplete ms. covering only the third secton (on Śrāddha), from the Orissa State Museum (Bhubaneswar), previously reported as lost (GRIFFITHS 2003b: 365, n. 55), but found and photographed in 2005. Listed in MISHRA 1973, ser. nr. 1077. 8 2. Gu 1 . Photographs of a large, complete, but rather carelessly written ms. kept by Ven . udhara Pan . d . ā of the village Guhiāpāl . a.

3. Gu 2 . Rather poorly legible photographs of a ms. belonging to Ambujāks . a Upādhyā ẏa of the village Guhiāpāl . a.

4. Ku. A large ms. in perfect condition, received from the late Harihara Upādhyā ẏa of the village Kurum . caini. The scribe of this ms. seems to be identical to that of the dated and localized ms. Up/Ku 3 , described in §3 below.

5. Ni. Photographs of a seemingly old, worn, and incomplete ms., with generally good readings, belonging to Prahlāda Upādhyā ẏa of the village Nirmal . ā.

C. Karmasamuccaya (KS)

For an early mention of this title, see BHATTACHARYYA 1968: 2. Despite the misguided information in the second sentence of the p ūrvābhāsah . to PAN . D . Ā [2003] (no page number), karmapa ñjikā karmasamuccayo vā iti granthe, where the Karmasamuccaya is confused with the Karmapa ñjikā, it is clear that only mss. attributed to the KS lay at the basis of PAN . D . Ā's Paddhati published in 2000. The text seems to consists of (at least) three distinct parts, that are referred to by the Paippalādins as Vratapustaka, Vivāhapustaka and Durbalakr ˚tya[pustaka] respectively. 9 1. Go. Photographs of a ms. of the Vratapustaka kept by Raghunātha Miśra of the village Goruāl . a. See the article by BHATTACHARYA in the mentioned edition, where a convincing argument is made (pp. 38f.) against the commentator's acquaintance with the PS, and hence against the authenticity of the text's attribution to the Paippalāda tradition -although BHATTACHARYA claims actually to cast doubt on the authenticity of a Paippalāda-connection of the S ūtras themselves, his strongest arguments seem rather to involve the commentator. The authenticity of the entire text has been called into question as well (see e.g. the review of the edition by Frederick M. ASHER in JAOS 104 [1984], 599f.), but the verses found in this notebook, which are not likely to have been influenced by an acquaintance with the edition, confirm at least that a text of this name has been in circulation. 11 The connection of this village with a transmission of the Ā ṅgirasakalpa was already suggested by VASU (1911: x-xi, n. 1), which places it among the first modern Paippalādin villages to have appeared in Indological literature, several decades before the famous discoveries of Durgamohan BHATTACHARYYA.

12 At the time of writing (March 2007), my photocopies of this and the following BORI ms. were still in the custody of Alexis Sanderson. The codicological facts are mentioned here from memory, but no greater detail can be given. Although BAHULKAR (1987: 576) notes that the BORI records report these two mss. "to have been collected by R. G. Bhandarkar from some place in Maharashtra during 1887-91", he also concludes, although on other grounds, that "they belong to the Paippalāda recension prevalent in Orissa" (p. 579). BAHULKAR provides some codicological details for both mss., and refers to the descriptive catalog of BORI mss. (vol. XVI, pt. II, 1976, ser. nos. 16 and 17, pp. 18-25). nr. 17. This being one of the Atharvanic "V/" mss. from the OSM collection, details of its contents are given by MOHAPATRA (2002-03: 31-34).

12. Publication Paippalādavaśādis . at . karmapaddhati (PAN . D . Ā [2003]).

E. Miscellaneous

1. An old, worn and incomplete ms. received from the late Harihara Upādhyā ẏa, village Kurum . caini. The text covers various p ūjās and vidhis, seemingly connected with the Śrāddha rite. A Śrāddhas ūtra is apparently cited f. 53v. A Durbalakr ˚tyapaddhati starts on f. 90r. Although it seems to be related to it in terms of genre, I have found no attribution to the Karmasamuccaya. The various extant corpora of Upanis . adic literature have attracted attention in recent years through the publications of BOUY (1990aBOUY ( /b, 1994BOUY ( , 1995)). The existence of a more or less standardized collection of Atharvanic Upanis . ads (or texts styled as such), that is commonly found among the Paippalādins in Orissa, was not yet known previously, and the existing mss. have hence not been utilized in the study of this branch of literature.

Photographs of a

As is clear from §2A above, I presently have access to (photographs of) 5 full mss. containing this collection: Gu 2 , Ku 1 , Ku 2 , Ku 3 and Ni. For the other mss. there listed, I possess only photographs of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad, the critical edition of which will be presented in §4. The five mentioned mss. will first be described in detail in this section. A number of mss. with largely identical contents is available also in two public libraries of Orissa: the Parija Library of Utkal University (see [START_REF] Dev | A Descriptive-Alphabetical Catalogue of Manuscripts[END_REF], and in particular the Orissa State Museum (see [START_REF] Mishra | An Alphabetical Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Collection of the Orissa State Museum[END_REF]. MOHAPATRA (2002-03: 10-12) has drawn up an alphabetical synopsis showing which mss. from the latter collection contain each Upanis . ad.

A specific investigation of this previously unkown Atharvavedic corpus from Orissa, in continuation of BOUY's research, is beyond the scope of this article. However, the tables to be presented below, showing the contents of the five mss. that are accessible to me in their entirety, combined with MOHAPATRA's synopsis, are meant to facilitate such further research. For this same purpose, the orthography of titles has, to a large extent, been normalized in the tables. In principle, only the main part of each ms. is taken into account here, while some indication of the extra material that every bundle contains is given as part of the codicological information.

Gu 2

The description of this ms. was done from photographs, and for that reason lacks some of the detail given for other mss. (1956/7-1971). TRUHART (1985) gives "1739-1751 (dep.)" for the only Vīra Kishor Deva that is listed there (p. 1452). 22 The data in the colophon are anyhow not sufficient in themselves to determine which ruler of this name was intended, but (Dash's) Vīrakeśari II's reign can be excluded for it lasted less than 5 years. The ms. is not likely to be more than 200 years old, so the conclusion would have to be that the ms. dates to Vīrakeśari III's reign, i.e. to ca. 1961/2, if this did not seem equally unlikely to one who sees its physical condition. Collection Formerly in the possession of Harihara Upādhyā ẏa, Kurum .caini. Now deposited in the Kern Institute, Leiden.

Physical

The codex is in excellent condition. Its dimensions are ca. 34 × 4 cm on average; 5 (rarely 4) lines per side.

Foliation

The codex contains 10 + 110 (-9) + 2 = 113 folios. There are 9 blank leaves at the head. The verso of the 10 th contains one (partial) line. Then follow 1 1 2 leaves with a Mantrarājajapavidhi, four lines per side, by a different scribe than the one of the main part of the codex. This texts ends on f. 1r. The main part of the codex starts on 1v, with śrī vighnarājāẏa namah . . There are two blank leaves at the back of the codex. Folios 48-56 are missing; numbering is on the right side of the verso of ff. 1-2, thenceforward on the right side of the recto. Colophon I have found no colophons giving extra information to be reported here.

Date I have found no indications concerning the date of this codex. Ham . sopanis . ad (in 2 khan . d . as) 24 There is a gap of 9 folios in the ms. The 4 th upanis . ad is incomplete, the 5 th is entirely lost. 25 Due to the gap in the ms., khan . d . as 1-5 are lost, 6 is incomplete, while 7-9 are complete. 26 BHATTACHARYYA (1968: 20) mentions Baladeva Vidyābh ūs . an . a's commentary on the Gopālatāpanī Upanis . ad, the text we see figuring here and in Up/Ni (below): "The work is introduced by Baladeva as a tract of the Paippalādaśākhā specially studied by the Atharvavedins of Utkala: utkalādibhir ātharvan . ikair adhīyamānā pippalādiśākhāntah . sthiteyam . gopālopanis . at |". The same quote had been given already by BHATTACHARYYA in 1955 (p. 2), where a reference is given to Catalogus Catalogorum III, 159, and another commentarial passage quoted that links this Upanis . ad rather to Brahmins residing in Gurjara and other regions. 27 The ms.: tripurī.

Physical

This codex, which is in excellent condition, seems to have been written by the scribe of KP/Ku (see §2B). It was previously uninked, and ink has been applied by myself: in the process, some of the unnumbered folios may have been put in disorder. Dimensions ca. 35.5 × 4 cm on average. Up to f. 120, 6 lines per folio-side; thereafter 5 lines per side. Foliation 160 (-15) + 13 + 1 + 11 + 1 = 171 leaves. Numbering on right side of verso of ff. 1-14 (14: the recto is blank); numbering on right side of recto of ff. 15-160 (104: the verso is blank). Missing folios: 72-74, 121, 123, 126, 128-130, 149-151, 155-157; two folios are numbered 80. Colophon The colophon on f. 160v reads: . . . ity ā ṅgirasakalpe sahaśrāks . aranr ˚hamantrah . samāptah . | śrīnr ˚ha raks . ā karibe adhama bhovanika ṅku . . . bhimasyāpi . . . vidyate tailād . . . pustakam .

. . . samasta makundadeva mahārājā ṅka 13 ṅka kumbha 25 nare āt . hagar . a tālukā bhitara mut . hā yemādeipurasāsana{•}ra mahājana bhovanikare upādhyā ākul . a karena lekhitam . m i{•}dam . pustakam . |. Evidently, the ms. originates from the Paippalāda village Jemādeipura.

Date

According to the colophon, the copying of the main part of this ms. was concluded in the 13 th a ṅka = 11 th regnal year of a king Mukundadeva, on the 25 th day of the Naks . atra Aquarius (kumbha). According to Professor Dash's geneaology of Gajapati incumbents mentioned under Ku 1 (p. 152), the dynasty has known three kings of the indicated name. Professor Dash gives 1795-1817 as the dates for Mukunda II and 1878-1926 as those of Mukunda III. TRUHART (1985) gives 1659-1661 (dep.) / 1662/3-1689 for Mukunda I, 1791-1810 for Mukunda II and does not cover Mukunda III because his list stops with the year 1871. Anyhow, the data are not sufficient to determine which ruler of this name was intended. Even if we choose the most recent of these reigns, the codex would date to ca. 1898, which seems unlikely in view of its pristine physical condition. We may suspect the colophon to have been copied from an exemplar. There is a separate folio numbered 102 at the front of the codex. The folio contains three uninked drawings on the unnumbered side, only one of which -the leftmost -is fairly clearly identifiable (as a rooster); on this same side we find two lines of inked writing: ye pākha patra bhuli kari lekhī achi [line] dosa bāchiba nāhim . he pnamāne 'This side of the leaf I have written by mistake, don't mind this mistake, please, you all'. On the reverse (numbered) side, besides the number, there are only two lines of (uninked) writing: danta kāt . hi bhā ṅgi dāmatrae | ā{r}ẏu{bha}r va{ẏa}l . am . yaśo varccam . prajā paśu vaś ūni ca | [line] brahma praj ñā ca me pāpam . tvam . nno dhehi vanaspate | 1 |.

In the main part of the codex, the larger (older?) hand is found on ff. 1-10, 61-91, 94-99, 112-159; the smaller (younger?) hand on 11-60, 92-93, 100-111, 160-171; it is not clear whether the remaining folios are attributable to one of these two hands, or to a third. In this description, the continuous numbering on the verso (from 166 on the recto) is followed; there is also numbering on the recto of ff. 1-39, 51-60, but this has been crossed out; ff. 40-44, 46-48 and 50 bear numbering only on the verso, but each time the present number is the result of correction of a previously noted number, which is still identifiable throughout (order: 45, 49, 48, 47, 46, 44, 43, 42, 54); ff. 61-91 bear numbering 11-41 on the recto (11-19 crossed out); ff. 94-99 (verso) bear 44-49 (recto); ff. 112-159 32 bear 50-98. 33 Letter-numbering is found in the left margin of ff. 100-111, but with two mistakes: ka kha ga gha ṅa ca 34 cha ja śrī ña t . a t . ha d . a. The four folios comprising the Kumārabodhinī bear respectively the aks . aras ku mā ra bodhinyām . in the left margin of the verso. From f. 70 onwards, the verso numbering was not inked, and arabic numbering, up to 171, has been added before photographing by the author (also on the front folio numbered '102'). There is no numbering at all on the folios that follow 171, although (if we continue counting) up to 177, they are not extraneous. There are finally two folios with unrelated material at the back of the codex. Colophon On f. 165r6, after the Mahānārāyan . opanis . ad, in the smaller hand, there is a colophon which provides information about the scribe or his patron: śrī nārāyan . a uddharibe u{dhā}ddhāra karibe adhama arakhita mādhaba miśra ṅka putra banamāl . iku | jān . imā hebe suj ña

There are two folios numbered 133 on the verso, corresponding to recto 71, 72.

For the last number, the ms. in fact reads '998'. On the verso of ṅa.

janamāne ' Śrī Nārāyan . a will save, will perform the saving of Vanamālī, the lowly and unprotected son of Mādhava Miśra.

The intelligent people will know it'. Date I have found no indications concerning the date of this codex. After passing through materials concerning respectively the R ˚gveda, the Yajurveda, and the Sāmaveda, this Caran . avy ūha depicts in some detail the extent of the Atharvavedic Mantra-collection, discusses the former and extant size of the Atharvavedic Gopathabrāhman . a, and cites a verse listing the five Kalpas of this Veda -the Kauśikas ūtra alias Sam . hitāvidhi, Vaitānakalpa (presumably = • s ūtra), the Naks . atrakalpa, Śāntikalpa, and Ā ṅgirasakalpa. The resources developed for the correct transmission of the Sam . hitā, viz. the so-called Laks . an . agranthas, are also mentioned. The text gives two -only partially overlapping -lists of Atharvavedic Upanis . ads, surveys the collection of 72 Paralipomena (Pariśis . t . as), which it itself forms part of, the final piece of the Śaunakīya canon, before closing with a list of 18 vratas said to be specific to the Atharvaveda. In short, the text offers a kind of catalog of Atharvavedic primary and ancillary literature, and may therefore be considered of indirect relevance to the topic of this contribution, despite its association with the Śaunaka school. 45 It is not generally known that the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha (AV-CV) not only exists as part of the corpus of Atharvavedapariśis . t . as, but is also to be found among the Paippalāda brahmins in Orissa, transmitted in their Upanis . ad manuscripts under the title Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad. This text, by virtue of its association with the Paippalāda school, is directly relevant to my investigation. Making use of the mss. described above, I will first ( §4.1) present an edition of the 'Upanis . ad' with some text critical commentary ( §4.2), and will then ( §5) analyze its contents mainly insofar as these contents throw light on the canon of Paippalāda ancillary texts.

Two recensions?

Although mention has been made by me elsewhere of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad 44 For the complete text, I use the edition by Pt. Anantarām DOG ĀR Ā Ś ĀSTRI. 45 This Caran . avy ūha has drawn attention in relatively recent years because of the two Upanis . ad-lists it contains in the BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN edition, which, according to BOUY (1994: 31, 65-67), are of importance to the determination of the chronology of some medieval Upanis . ads.

(CVU) as a second Atharvavedic recension of the Caran . avy ūha,46 now, after studying the text, I think I should not have suggested so casually the existence of two Atharvavedic recensions, because there are few differences that cannot be ascribed merely to the very poor care that seems to have been taken in transmitting the Orissan Paippalāda (CVU) and the Śaunaka (AVPariś) versions of the text, and there are many common errors that suggest a descent from a common source.

On the other hand, this same poor transmission is perhaps one of the main reasons due to which WITZEL (1985: 288 n. 35) had to observe: "Obwohl weitgehend mit AV-Par. 49 übereinstimmend, kann die letztlich gujaratische Tradition der AV-Par. und die von Or[issa] nicht auf einen gemeinsamen (schriftlichen) Archetyp zur ückgef ührt werden". There is one major difference between the two versions -namely in the listing of Atharvavedic Upanis . ads -which indeed demonstrates some redactional intervention at some stage, and justifies speaking of two versions, if not recensions.

My basic aim here is to restore the archetype only of the Orissan version (CVU A ), from which I believe all the presently extant Orissan mss. to descend. In other words, I am not taking the further step of reconstructing the Ur-AV-CV on the basis of systematic critical comparison of the CVU with AVPariś 49 (WITZEL's "common (written) archetype"), because there are too many cases where no criteria for making a choice between the two seem to be at hand. However, I have not tried to keep my text wholly free of the positive influence that can be had from the AVPariś version, and have at times emended precisely on that basis, where I felt that bringing out the intended meaning of the text was more important than keeping the two versions distinct. My edition thus constituted is therefore, admittedly, somewhat hybrid. Important differences between the two versions have been pointed out in my commentary ( §4.2).

About the edition

For this edition of the CVU, I use four of the mss. described in §3 (Ni, Ku 1 , Ku 3 , Gu 2 ) plus two extra mss. photographed in the village Guhiāpāl . a: the ms. Gu 1 , belonging to Ven . udhara Pan . d . ā, plus a ms. Jā, belonging to Haraprasāda Miśra of the village Jāmbhan . i, who had brought it from there to show it to me in Guhiāpāl . a. Only the folios containing the CVU were photographed of these last two mss., and no descriptive notes were taken.

The text is found on the following folios in each ms.: Ni 120r1-123v1 (= pr. m. 58-61), Ku 1 on 4 unnumbered/uninked leaves (7 sides) immediately following f. 131, Ku 3 113r3-115r6, Gu 1 153r2-155v1, Gu 2 179b1-183r1. The numbering in Jā has been lost due to wear of the right side of every folio; I have made no attempt at precision in indicating the extent of the lacunae in this ms. Several variants make it clear that Gu 2 is a copy from Gu 1 : e.g., at 3.3, the Gu 2 scribe has misinterpreted a correction in Gu 1 concerning s . ad . bhedā, which has led him to write s . ad . bhedo; at 4.1, Gu 1 marginally inserts saubhagāh . , but this is found as part of the text proper in Gu 2 .

The division of the text into paragraphs is mine, and follows that in the edition of AVPariś 49, for ease of comparison: this also entails some gaps in the CVU numbering, because this version does not contain every paragraph that is found in the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha of AVPariś 49. The CVU mss. do not make any subdivisions in the text above the dan . d . a-level. The punctuation of my edition to a large extent obeys the placement of dan . d . as in the manuscripts.

My apparatus is not fully positive, as variants judged to be insignificant have been omitted from it: among such insignificant variants figure prominently the presence or absence of visarga in prose context where the scribes often seem consciously not to apply sandhi, in order to make case endings explicit. In the absence of other errors, my critical apparatus does not report variants of punctuation (including confusion of h . and | in Gu 1 and Gu 2 ); errors involving sibilants; variants involving doubling around r (rn . n . , rtt, rddh etc.) and y (ddhy); variants/errors involving the signs r ˚/ r ˚/ ru / r ū; absence of avagrahas inserted into the edited text for the sake of clarity. Typically Oriya spellings with l . and ẏ are maintained when a variant is quoted for other reasons, but are not counted among variants in and of themselves. For those passages where the evidence from ms. Jā is lost due to lacuna, the apparatus has not been subjected to the above limitations, but has been given in full. Some other variants that could stricly speaking be considered insignificant have also been retained, in order to demonstrate particular irregular phenomena in the mss.

I use the following editorial signs and symbols: NEGELEIN (p. 339), however, report AETU vaikhā • . The same name Vaikhāyana occurs also at the end of the .

1.5. On the allotment of a color per Veda, cf. GOUDRIAAN 1978: 176. suvyaktagrīvah . : Cf. 49.1.5 suvibhaktagrīvah . (thus also p. 47 l. 6). With a different division of words, and a few other differences, it seems that 49.1.5 • jānuja ṅghah . | pramān . ena sa vitastayah . pa ñca has preserved the correct text here. YV-CV (p. 47, l. 7): pramān . am . tāvat tis . t

. han vitastīh . pa ñca. 1.6.

In this list and subsequent lists of Śākhā names, NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā omit visargas before all dan . d . as (here rendered by hyphens), while Gu 1 and Gu 2 omit all dan . d . as and seem to replace them by visarga. The Atharvavedic list in 4.1, with the names brahmavarti and devadarśi, which can certainly not be nom. pl. forms (as in AVPariś), and can be made into nom. sg. forms only with some good will, provides an argument for assuming long compounded lists of Śākhānames throughout. The closing ca behind every list I then take to be a sign of pardonable confusion on the part of the redactor.

2.1. Between Carakas and Mitrāyan . īyas, the Maitras, who figure there in AVPariś 49, are omitted in CVU. The Ni and Ku 1 insertion of hvarakāh . after the Carakas does not seem to merit being taken seriously, as it is more likely to be due to eye-skip from the preceding Āhvarakas. Since our list thus only comprises 23 names, it seems that CVU A had already lost the Maitras, unless the fact that the suspected eye-skip in Ni and Ku 1 occurs precisely at the place where the Maitras have gone missing is significant.

2.2. 49.2.2 reads: tes . ām adhyayanam | dve sahasre śate ny ūne vede vājasaneyake | sakalam . parisam . khyātam . brāhman . am . tu caturgun . am . Our version ruins the meter by inserting r ˚cām . (probably under the influence of 1.7 and 4.2 -the same error, but less widely spread, at 3.4, in ms. Ku 3 ), and omitting tu. Note a similar omission in all mss. but one in the verse at 3.4 (ca caturdaśa → caturdaśa). The CVU reading ślokena could also be combined with a more incisive emendation after AVPariś: parisam . khyātam . . Emending the reading khyāto found in all CVU mss. anyhow seems unavoidable.

2 3). So we may either presume that the text was still being transmitted by Paippalādins after the separation between our two Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha versions, or that a forerunner of the CVU-version was influenced by the Naks . atrakalpa at an earlier medieval stage, when the ancestors of the Orissa Paippalādins still inhabited western Indian regions, along with Śaunakīya Atharvavedins. br ˚hatsarvānukraman . īś: This same ungrammatical form is supported by all mss. in 4.8 below. It has presumably been copied here under influence from that very Atharvaveda section of the text.

2.6. 49.2.6 reads . . . sth ūlagalakapālo rakto . . . prādeśāh . s . ad . dīrghatvena yajurvedasyaitad . . . (YV-CV, p. 47 l. 9: prādeśamātrah . s . ad . dīrghatvena). I have made the slight emendation of prām . śu (thus, disregarding trivial variants, all the CVU mss.) to prām . śuh . ; the same error is reported for mss. ABE in 49.2.6. AVPariś mss. TU read kapola-, as do all CVU mss. The instr. form in our text is probably unoriginal (YC-CV, p. 47, l. 8: sth ūlagalakapolas). All mss. read prādeśā dīrgha • , but the erroneous omission is easily understandable as due to the similarity of the syllables śāh . and s . ad . , and I have therefore followed the AVPariś reading in emending to prādeśāh . s . ad . dīrgha • .

3.1. BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN print vinihatāh . | [pravilīnās] at 49.3.1, presumably considering pravilīnās superfluous after the punctuation. The CVU parallel shows the punctuation to be misplaced, and a verbal adj. in • līnās to form an original part of this little itihāsa.

3.4. 49.3.4 has no doubt preserved better readings of this verse: . . . sohyāni sarahasyāni etat . . . . Since confusion of the clusters hy and jy is rampant in Orissa mss. (see ZEHNDER 1999: 15), I suppose the error may be a rather recent one, and do not hesitate to emend on the basis of the parallel text.

3.5. The reading vayanena here is odd, as is kātarah . svaren . eti at 49.3.5. The unanimous reading • vayanah . in the next section of CVU shows that the ante correctionem reading nayanena in Ku 1 must be a learned guess -although probably a correct one (cf. YV-CV, p. 47 l. 11: kātaranayana); an alternative restoration would be vacanena. Both CVU A and AVPariś have lost the original text here.

3.6. NEGELEIN (p. 341) report this passage to be absent also in their mss. CTURoth, while it is placed elsewhere in their B.

4.5. 49.4.5 reads tatra gopathah . śataprapāt . hakam . brāhman . am āsīt tasyāvaśis . t . e dve brāhman . e p ūrvam uttaram . ceti. This is the basis for my emendation tasyāvaśis . t

. e. We might also consider emending p ūrvottare iti, to avoid the inelegant combination of dual dvandva with ca.

4.6. 49.4.6 reads tatra s . ad . a ṅgāny adhītya s . ad . a ṅgavid bhavati s . ad . a ṅgāni bhavanti, śiks . ā kalpo vyākaran . am . niruktam . chando jyotis . am iti. Our version of the A ṅga list seems to have been abbreviated, perhaps not erroneously, but because it has already occurred above (2.5). The AVPariś mss. BCTURoth reported by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN agree with all but one of our mss. in entirely omitting here the words s . ad . a ṅgāny adhītya s . ad . a ṅgavid bhavati.

4.7. On this verse, see n. 22 (pp. 202f.) in Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume.

4.8. I emend laks . an . agranthā on the basis of AVPariś. That version's dantyos . t

. havidhi is omitted in our text. As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to prove that this text is connected only with the Śaunaka school; in fact, there seems to be some evidence against this assumption (MODAK 1993: p. 164 with n. 155). But even if we assume that this Laks . an . agrantha was not connected in any way with the Paippalāda tradition, this assumption cannot explain the omission in the CVU version, because the same seems to hold for the other Laks . an . agranthas listed here too -at least in the form they are known to us (as transmitted by Śaunakīya brahmins). AVPariś repeats br ˚hatsarvānukraman . ī ceti at the end of 49.9: the absence of this Laks . an . agrantha in the corresponding part of our text seems to identify it as unoriginal in the list of Pariśis . t . as. It clearly belongs only here. We may note that the grammatically impossible form • kraman . īś, supported by all CVU mss., has probably entered the text from the Śākhā-lists. 4.9. tulāpurus . am: Note the neuter (AVPariś • purus . ah . ). hastidīks . ā | vr ˚s . otsargah . : In comparison with AVPariś, note the omission of Aśvadīks . ā between these two Pariśis . t . as in our text. vināyakābhis . ekah . : No Pariśis . t . a of this title is found in AVPariś, where we find the Skandayāga (alternative title: Dh ūrtakalpa 'Practice of the Rogue') in its place. Skandayāga (AVPariś 20) 3.1 reads: sam . viśasva varaghan . t

. āpsarah . stave yatra subhujo hi nirmitāh . | sam . vis . t . o me dhehi dīrgham āyuh . prajām . paś ūm . ś caiva vin āyakasena . In their apparatus (p. 133), the editors suggest that emending the obscure vināyakasena (left untranslated by GOODWIN 1893: xi) to pinākasena "would improve the metre", and is supported by the parallel with pinākasenāya in 20.4.2. 47 Peter Bisschop has pointed out to me, however, that the S . an . mukhakalpa, a handbook of sorcery and thievery, contains in its §59 a vocative vināyakasenāpate which is (almost certainly) used of Skanda (see GEORGE 1991: 72f. and 133f.). This supports the authenticity of the reading vināyakasena, as voc. addressed to Skanda, at AVPariś 20.3.1, and on this basis Bisschop proposes to emend as follows the uniformly transmitted CVU title for the text corresponding to the Skandayāga: vināyakasenābhis . ekah . . In AVPariś, the order of the aran . i • and sam . bhāralaks . an . as is different, which gives the sequence: brahmayāgah . | skandayāgāh . | sam . bhāralaks . an . am | aran . ilaks . an . am |. laks . ahomah . : This corresponds to AVPariś 30 (Laghulaks . ahoma); the following item in our list, called kātyāyanavidhi, corresponds to AVPariś 30b (Br ˚hallaks . ahoma). Note at the beginning of that Pariśis . t . a: atha k ā ṅk āyano bhagavantam atharvān . am . papraccha (30b.1.1). The editors record no variant for kā ṅkāyano, but the connection with the name of the Pariśis . t . a in CVU seems evident. ghr ˚takambalam . | anulomakalpah . : Thus restored by emendation on the basis of AVPariś. tad . āgavidhih . : This is called pait . hīnasitad . āgavidhih . in 49.4.9 (cf. §6 on the name Pait . hīnasi). snānavidhih . : With support from only one ms. (Jā)the other mss. omit it entirely -CVU lists this Pariśis . t . a before, rather than after Sandhyopāsanavidhi (as in AVPariś). naks . atragrahotpātalaks . an . am | indracāpalaks . an . am | sadyovr ˚s . t . ilaks . an . am | bh ūmikampalaks . an . am: In AVPariś, note the different places occupied by Bh ūmikampalaks . an . a and Utpātalaks . an . a, for which latter our text seems to substitute Indracāpalaks . an . a. The order there is: bh ūmikampalaks . an . am | naks . atragrahotpātalaks . an . am | utpātalaks . an . am | sadyovr ˚s . t . ilaks . an . am |. Is it possible that our text preserves a trace of the correct order, in view of the mismatches between the titles and contents of Atharvavedapariśis . t . as 61 and 63 noted by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN,pp. 395 and 403? All in all, we seem to have a few more than the announced 72 Pariśis . t . as.

The three mss. Gu 1 Gu 2 Jā all omit the Samidhalaks . an . a, Sruvalaks . an . a and the Indracāpalaks . an . a: the agreements between these mss. here is striking, because even though they originate from two neighboring villages, Jā generally shows more signs of affiliation with the mss. Ku 1 and Ku 3 . The first two omitted Pariśis . t . as are found quite commonly in other Paippalāda ancillary texts (cf. §5.5), and it is therefore unlikely that these three mss. have preserved an older state of the text in omitting them from the list here. Note, finally, that CVU omits at the end the words br ˚hatsarvānukraman . ī ceti that we find in AVPariś, and in this our version probably preserves the original state of the text.

4.10. The list in this section presents stem-forms for some Upanis . adnames, a form in o[panis . at] for others, while still others are given fully with the element • upanis . at. I have not tried to impose any regularity in this regard.

Instead of the list of 15 Upanis . ads that AVPariś gives in the corresponding paragraph, we find a list of 18 announced here,48 while the mss. quite uniformly present a list of 23 (with possible repetition of one if mahopanis . ad = maho). Up to the 17 th Upanis . ad listed here ( Śrutipratyagānanda), the list corresponds exactly with the texts found at the beginning of the five Upanis . ad mss. described in §3, where in all cases except Ku 2 , the Ātharvana . follows as 18 th : in our list, it comes after nr ˚sim . ha-maho-brahmavedo (where maho might be a spurious element). The CVU contains no direct trace of the list of 28 Upanis . ads that the AVPariś version presents, entirely out of context, in 49.4.4 -there is some overlap between the list of 28 and especially the one of 15 in AVPariś, on the one hand, and the CVU list of '18'/23, on the other, but there are considerable differences too. tatratvaśāntiś ceti: This incomprehensible conclusion seems to correspond in some way to the conclusion of AVPariś 49.4.10: vaitathyam | advaitam | alātaśāntiś ceti.

4.11.

Note the fact that all mss. except Jā insert the Śikhāvrata between Yamavrata and Śāntivrata. The parallel in 49.4.11 suggests that Jā may have preserved the original state of affairs here, although there the sequence yamavratam | śāntivratam is followed by a separate śikhivrata. anujavratam | dadhivratam: AVPariś here reads marudvratam | adhivratam. The readings clearly go back to the same original, but I cannot tell what it was: anad . udadhivratam? marudadhivratam? anad . udvratam ( ŚS 4.11.11d) | dadhivratam? The CVU, as edited here, also reaches 18 vratas, but the ordering and names differ in several ways from the list in AVPariś. mailavratam: I have hesitantly made this emendation, relying for the name of the vrata on Gu 1 Gu 2 . However, the reading mail . āra • , found in the better mss., may conceal the pair mailavratam | mailottaravratam found in AVPariś, in which case our list would come to exceed the indicated number of 18 vratas.

4.12. 49.4.12 has one more element, and a slightly different order for this additional list of vratas (see e.g. the index to [START_REF] Gampert | Die S ühnezeremonien in der altindischen Rechtsliteratur[END_REF] | ko brahmatvam . ceti tān brahmābravīt . The words brahmān . am ūcuh . seem to have been lost in transmission before CVU A , because they are indispensable. The same must be true for ko brahmatvam . ceti (the last phrase of 49.5.5), because the next paragraph shows that this is not likely to have been an intentional omission. The other differences seem to be redactional. 5.7. vai . . . atharvan . ā brahmatvam . : Cf. 49.5.7, which reads atharvā vo jyes . t

. ho 'tharvopanetātharvācāryo 'tharvā brahmatvam . ceti . vo (omitted in the editors' ADE, read va in their B: see apparatus, p. 342) is clearly the better reading, atharvā brahmatvam . very likely so.

5.8. 49.5.8 only gives a pratīka: tad apy etad r ˚coktam | brahmajyes . t . heti etayā |, perhaps because the mantra had already been quoted in full at 46.9.21 = ŚS 19.22.21. The mantra is also found as PS 8.9.1. BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN report (p. 342) that their ms. T "gives AV. 19.23.30 in full, reading: prathamota." The significance of the last specification is unclear, because this is precisely the reading we expect (and find in CVU).

5.9. 49.5.9 opens with iti tasyārham . brahmavedaś caturn . ām . . . . (which seems somewhat more comprehensible than our atharvavede caturn . ām . . . . ), and then reads setihāsa • , although the reading itihāsa • is reported for ms. T by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN: another agreement of that ms. with In CVU and AVPariś 49 alike, mention is made of several texts, among which the Gopathabrāhman . a, the Vedā ṅgas, and the typically Atharvavedic five Kalpas. Then follows first a list of the so-called Laks . an . agranthas and after that a list of (somewhat more than) 72 Pariśis . t . as; finally, the CVU version of the text announces that it will enumerate 18 Upanis . ads, but when it enumerates them actually seems to give a few more than 18. Only for this last genre of ancillary literature does the CVU version differ substantially from the version that is AV-Pariś 49. The list of Upanis . ads in the CVU shows a remarkable overlap with what we actually find in the common initial parts of the Upanis . ad-manuscripts that are available in Orissa, and whose contents have been presented in detail in §3. At least for the Upanis . ads, the CVU thus seems to describe the Paippalāda rather than the Śaunaka canon.

I now propose to pursue this matter a bit further, and discuss the extent to which the other statements in the CVU can be verified directly or indirectly, if assumed to be valid for the Paippalāda school. By directly, I mean that mss. of the texts mentioned in the CVU are available among Paippalādins today; by indirectly, I mean that there is evidence that they may have been in the past, and that the CVU hence may be taken to describe a canon of which parts have subsequently been lost. §5.1. The Gopathabrāhman . a While there seem to be no extant mss. of the text other than the ones found in western India, among Śaunakīya brahmins, and used for the available editions, there is good evidence that the Paippalādins considered some version of this Brāhman . a to belong to their canon. In his contribution to this volume, Kei Kataoka has demonstrated that Bhat . t . a Jayanta was probably a Paippalāda brah-min. If this is correct, then the elaborate quotations in the Nyāyama ñjarī virtually prove that the GB was known to Paippalādins in 9 th century Kashmir, and that substantial parts of the text as known to them agreed with the GB as known to us. There is further indirect evidence from the Paippalādins in Orissa: references to the GB are found in their ritual manual called Karmapa ñjikā, composed by Śrīdhara. I have hitherto found one passage, 49 where a positively indentifiable quotation is made from the Gopathabrāhman . a: it is GB 1.2.6, referred to as p ūrvabrāhman . e. This proves that Śrīdhara knew the same division of the text in two parts, that is found in the extant western Indian mss., and referred to in CVU. It may also mean that he still had access to the text, but this cannot be proved. The fact that he also quotes several passages as found gopathabrāhman . e, that are not found in that text as we know it, but of which most can be identified in the collection of Atharvavedapariśis . t . as, 50 could be taken to suggest the contrary. This last phenomenon of possible misattribution, also observed in other ritual manuals from Orissa, 51 may be compared with the observation made by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN on p. XVI of their AVPariś introduction: "Hemādri in his Caturvargacintāman . i has also drawn extensively upon the Pariśis . t . as, calling them either by their proper title or Ātharvan . a Gopatha Brāhman . a." 52 BHATTACHARYYA (1955: 7; 1968: 24) has pointed out that Ve ṅkat . a Mādhava makes mention of a paippalāda Brāhman . a, 53 and that the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya, a 49 Ni 83v5-84r1; Ku 94r2-3; Gu 1 97v4 (see §2B above, about these manuscripts). 50 ). All KP fragments quoted here and on the following pages are given in preliminary editions, without reporting most of the (rather substantial amount of) variant readings.

51 Cf. the reference to AVPariś 37 (Samuccayaprāyaścittāni) as Vaitānakalpa in Bh ūdhara's Āsurīdīpikā, discussed in Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume, p. 209 n. 39 (end). 52 These passages have been listed as an appendix, pp. 645f., in their edition. 53 BHATTACHARYYA's reference in 1968 was to R ˚gvedabhās . yānukraman . ī (8.1), without specification of the edition used. In 1955 he had referred to "the Anukraman . ī portion of the R . garthadīpikā, probably fairly late South Indian text of doubtful reliability, states this text to have had eight Adhyāyas. 54 WITZEL (1977: 146f.), who does not discuss the possible relevance of Ve ṅkat . a Mādhava's statement, is inclined to take the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya evidence seriously, and to connect it with the following statement by Śa ṅkara in his Brahmas ūtrabhās . ya (3.3.25): asty ātharvan . ikānām upanis . adārambhe mantrasamāmnāyah . "sarvam . pravidhya hr ˚dayam . pravidhya dhamanīh . pravr ˚jya śiro abhipravr ˚jya tridhā vipr ˚ktah . " ityādih . . WITZEL convincingly demonstrates (pp. 144ff.) that the passage from which this statement is taken lists texts that Śa ṅkara knew to find their place "near to the Upanis . ads, in the arrangement of the Veda texts of the various schools quoted by him". Hence, WITZEL concludes, this Atharvavedic pratīka, which cannot be traced in any known source, is likely to have come from a lost Brāhman . a (or Āran . yaka-Upanis . ad) of the Atharvaveda, which he assumes to be the lost Paippalādabrāhman . a of (Ve ṅkat . a Mādhava and) the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya. 55

There is some evidence that Śa ṅkara, when using the term ātharvan . ika, was indeed thinking specifically of a Paippalāda text. As BHATTACHARYYA also already pointed out (1955: 5; 1968: 46f.), he uses it at Brahmas ūtrabhās . ya 2.3.43 in discussing a Brahmas ūkta with a stanza that is known only from the PS: tathā hy eke śākhino dāśakitavādibhāvam . brahman . a āmananty ātharvan . ikā brahmas ūkte "brahma dāśā brahma dāsā brahmaiveme kitavā" [PS 8.9.11] ityādinā. 56 This fact, then, comes in support of the connection that WITZEL wants to make be- SAK 1987, p. 14 (Trivandrum ed. p. 21). On the uncertain date and doubtful reliability of this text, see BRONKHORST 2007: 292, n. 30; 294; 297, n. 44. 55 See BHATTACHARYYA 1968: 49f. for a different explanation of the passage as referring directly to PS 1.76.4cd prabha ñja ñ chatr ūn prati yāhy agne kr ˚tyākr ˚tam . dus . kr ˚tam . hr ˚daye vidhya marman . i . This is not convincing because (a) the verbal correspondence is only very partial and moreover imprecise, and (b) PS 1.76.4 cannot clearly be said to be found upanis . adārambhe in any sense.

56 Kengo Harimoto, whom I thank for helping me with the interpretation of these passages from Śa ṅkara's work, points out to me that ātharvan . ika is used elsewhere in the Brahmas ūtrabhās . ya only to denote the Mun . d . akopanis . ad, a fact which tends to corroborate the hypothesis that Śa ṅkara knew the Paippalāda-Śākhā, since that Upanis . ad stands at the head of all known Upanis . ad collections associated with the Paippalādins (see the mss. described in §3, and the list of Upanis . ads in CVU 4.10). -Peter Bisschop points out to me that the fact that it also stands at the head of the supposedly Śaunakīya list at AVPariś 49.4.4 reduces the force of this last argument.

tween the lost source of the mantra(s) sarvam . pravidhya . . . and the Paippalāda school. We do know some Vedic texts styled • brāhman . a that consist partly or wholly of mantras, but the fact that Śa ṅkara knew this particular mantrasamāmnāya to be ātharvan . ikānām upanis . adārambhe, which must here contextually be interpreted to mean 'immediately preceding the beginning of the Upanis . ads in the Paippalāda-Atharvavedins' canon', does not seem to me sufficient evidence for assuming that this particular group of mantras stems from a lost Brāhman . a rather than some other kind of text that may have contained mantras. I know of no explicit evidence, besides that from Ve ṅkat . a Mādhava and the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya, that there was ever any Atharvavedic Brāhman . a, and specifically a Paippalādabrāhman . a, besides the Gopathabrāhman . a.

If it were not for the information that this Brāhman . a had eight Adhyāyas, there would be no strong arguments at all against identifying the Paippalāda • with the Gopathabrāhman . a. Since this information is found only in the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya -a source which, as we will see below, offers some other uncorroborated information too -I in fact consider this the most likely hypothesis. 57 The idea, expressed in CVU, that the two extant books of the GB would be the remainder of a text which once contained 100 prapāt . hakas (5 of which remain forming GB 1, and another 6 forming GB 2) may well be a fiction, 58 but even if it is not, neither the number nor the name of the textual divisions quoted in the CV, and found in the extant GB, match with the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya statement. 59 §5.2. The Six A ṅgas Except the so-called Kautsavyaniruktanighan . t . u (AVPariś 48) and an Atharvavedajyotis . a available e.g. in a BORI ms. of which I have a xerox but that I have not yet studied, 60 I know no evidence that could corroborate the implicit claim made in the AV-CV that the Atharvaveda had its own A ṅgas, besides the Kalpas, to be treated in the next paragraph. In the case of the Paippalāda school, I don't even know any such Nirukta and Jyotis . a exceptions. It seems that our Caran . avy ūha must not be taken literally here, in either of its two versions. §5.3. The Five Kalpas On the tradition of the five Atharvavedic Kalpas, see Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume, pp. 202f. Concerning the evidence for a specific Paippalāda transmission of these Kalpas, we can state the following.

(1) The Naks . atrakalpa. There is a text transmitted under this name that stands at the head of the Atharvavedapariśis . t . as in the mss. of that collection; in the list of Pariśis . t . as that we find in both versions of the AV-CV, it is called Kr ˚ttikārohin . ī after its initial words. BAHULKAR (1984) concludes from this and other facts that the Naks . atrakalpa which is AVPariś 1 in fact consists of two originally separate texts, the first of which uses mantras from PS, while still showing internal signs of being affiliated to the Śaunaka school. No mss. of any version of this Kalpa seem to be extant in Orissa, and no other evidence is known to me for another transmission of a text under this name, except the fact that ritual manuals of the Paippalādins in Orissa refer very frequently to a naks . atrakalpokta tantratantra here in the sense of ritual sequence: cf. the Atharvavedic technical terminology of p ūrva • and uttaratantra (CALAND 1900: VIf.), of which the naks . atrakalpokta tantra indeed seems to be composed. 61 I have not yet investigated how precisely this tantra is built up, but do not believe it has anything to do with the contents of the extant Naks . atrakalpa. One may speculate that if any textual basis for it exists in extant literature, it may rather be in one of the other known Pariśis . t . as, or a similar work, and that the Orissan usage may be a mistake resulting from the placement of the Naks . atrakalpa, that would have taken up a large portion of the beginning of most Pariśis . t . a-codices. 62 the text of this title is different from the Atharvajyotis . a (Punjab Sanskrit Series 6) discussed by DIKSHIT (1969: 97-100). I thank Toke Lindegaard Knudsen for bringing DIKSHIT's work to my attention. 61 The mss. of the Karmapa ñjikā contain a description. LIMAYE et al. 1982: 22). For an example of a reference to this tantra, see GRIFFITHS 2003b: 10.

62 Cf. BOLLING's speculation (1913: 267) involving a possibly similar phenomenon to explain Pseudo-Sāyan . a's references to the second chapter of the Śāntikalpa under the name Naks . atrakalpa in his Bhās . ya on ŚS: "The Chambers Codex of the Paric ¸is . t . as is an edition in three volumes, containing respectively AVPar. i=the true Naks . atrakalpa, AVPar. ii-xxxvi and AVPar. xxxvii-(2) The Vaitānakalpa. BHATTACHARYYA (1955: 8;1968: 24) quotes the Prapa ñcahr ˚daya mention of an Agastyaśrautas ūtra in 7 Adhyāyas. 63 I know of no evidence to support the veracity of this information, or for the existence of any other Śrautas ūtra associated with the AV than the known Vaitānas ūtra. I am not aware of any evidence that this text was ever known among the Paippalādins in Orissa. 64 (3) The Sam . hitāvidhi. This is the traditional name for the text that western scholarship refers to as the Kauśikas ūtra. 65 There is some slim evidence that the text may have been known to Śrīdhara, in the following passages that I have found in his Karmapa ñjikā, two of which refer specifically to expiations deriving from the Sam . hitāvidhi. (1) (4) On the Ā ṅgirasakalpa, see Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume.

(5) The Śāntikalpa has been published by BOLLING in two installments , the latter publication containing the first of the text's two Adhyāyas. According to BAHULKAR (1984: 179) this text shows internal signs of being affiliated to the Śaunaka school. I have not yet undertaken any study of this or related Śānti-literature. 68 As for mss. from Orissa, I believe the only possibly relevant manuscript that I have seen is the Grahaśānti ms. listed in §2E.

lxxii. If we assume that Sāyan . a had only a broken set, namely vol. ii., of such an edition, we can understand why his citations from the Paric ¸is . t . as are so limited and also his ignorance of the Naks . atrakalpa. He was however familiar with the tradition of the five kalpas, and as the second chapter of the C ¸āntikalpa began with an elaborate naks . atrayāga, he identified this portion of the text with the Naks . atrakalpa of which he had no knowledge except the name".

63 Ed. MĪM ĀM . SAK 1987, p. 23 (Trivandrum ed. p. 33 . akr ˚tah . kuryān nānāpi sati daivata iti . The second verse = ĀśvGS 1.3.10, also found as the concluding verse of MānGS (after 2.18.4). The second is unidentified, but is attributed to GB by Dārila (DIWEKAR et al.,p. 32), who is followed herein by Keśava (LIMAYE et al. 1982: 20), and ultimately by Pseudo-Sāyan . a (at the very end of the Upodghāta to his ŚS Bhās . ya), who is known to have used Keśava's Paddhati extensively (LIMAYE et al., pp. xxiv f.). Since the KauśS itself does not hint at a Śruti source for these verses, the attribution is likely to be fictitious.

68 I may mention the random collection of BORI mss. that any such systematic study should probably cover: 208/1880-81 and 209/1880-81 (NAVATHE 1994: 341-343, nos. 708 and 709); 190/1884-87 (I do not know whether this ms. has been described in any catalog). §5.4. The Laks . an . agranthas As noted above (p. 175), the only discrepancy between the lists of Laks . an . agranthas that the two versions of the AV-CV contain, is that the CVU omits the Dantyos . t

. havidhi, and that too possibly as a mere accident. Among the Laks . an . agranthas listed we find the Prātiśākhya called Caturādhyāyikā. Now this text, as we know it, belongs without any doubt to the Śaunaka school, because it is called Śaunakīyā Caturādhyāyikā. There is no evidence known to me that for any of the texts which the CVU mentions under the heading of Laks . an . agranthas -the Caturādhyāyikā, Prātiśākhya, 69 Pa ñcapat . alikā, Br ˚hatsarvānukraman . ī -, there existed once upon a time, next to the known Śaunaka texts, also independent but parallel Paippalāda-recensions, with precisely the same titles. In any case, no mss. of texts with such titles are found today among the Atharvavedic brahmins in Orissa, nor do any of the extant ancillary text from Orissa seem to refer to them. §5.5. The Seventy-two Pariśis . t . as I have found several cases of a reference to a Pariśis . t . a in the Karmapa ñjikā, but none can be connected with any text known as part of AVPariś. No collection of Pariśis . t . as as such is known to me to exist in Orissa, but several of the listed titles are found as parts of other texts: one example is the Caran . avy ūha, that we have seen figuring in Upanis . ad mss. As part of Ā ṅgirasakalpa mss., but also in quotations in the Karmasamuccaya and the Karmapa ñjikā, I have noticed that texts called Vedilaks . an . a, Samidhalaks . an . a, Jvālālaks . an . a, Agnivarn . alaks . an . a are found quoted in the Paippalāda ritual manuals, and that these show some clear correspondences with the texts known respectively as AVPariś 24.1, 26, 29 and 24.2. See further n. 50 above for quotations from AVPariś 27 (Sruvalaks . an . a) and 28 (Hastalaks . an . a), attributed to the Gopathabrāhman . a, and n. 39 (end) in Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume for a quotation from AVPariś 37 (Samuccayaprāyaścittas), attributed to the Vaitānakalpa. Some of the Ā ṅgirasakalpa mss., including the ms. As that was used for PAN . D . Ā [2003], contain an Āsurīdīpikā (attributed to a Bh ūdhara) besides the actual verses of the Āsurīkalpa also known as AVPariś 35. 70 In the ms. listed above ( §2E) as item 3 under Miscellaneous Sources, I have found a text called Svapnādhyāya (cf. AVPariś 68). I expect that a specific investigation of the Orissa sources with a view to identifying Pariśis . t . a texts might yield some more, and that a comparison with the 69 Mention may be made here also of the Varn . apat . ala, AVPariś 47, which is a supplement to these two phonetic ancillary texts of the AV, which "do not contain the treatment of the varn . as which they take for granted. The purpose of the Varn . apat . ala is to make up for this deficiency" (MODAK 1993: 383-388). Whether this Pariśis . t . a has any specific Śākhā affiliation has not, to my knowledge, been investigated. 70 See PAN . D . Ā [2003]: 42ff., 113ff., and Sanderson's contribution to this volume, pp. 211f., items 14-29, p. 216, and p. 220, item 38;see also MAGOUN 1899. versions of these texts as contained in the western Indian Atharvavedapariśis . t . a collections, used by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN for their edition, will lead to interesting text-historical findings.

Not (yet) traced in Orissa, but preserved in quotations in Hemādri's Caturvargacintāman . i, and partly reconstructed on that basis by CALAND (1893: 96f., 107f., 243f.), is a Paippalādaśrāddhakalpa, as well as a separate Atharvanic Śrāddha description attributed to Pait . hīnasi (pp. 99, 110f.),71 both of which correspond to a Śaunaka recension entitled Śrāddhavidhi or Śrāddhakalpa, known as AVPariś 44 (see BHATTACHARYYA 1955: 8). §5.6. Evaluation All in all, we might say that the evidence of the CVU seems to be rather misleading. Only for the category of Upanis . adic texts do its indications match fairly well with the Paippalāda canon, if we define that canon as the corpus of literature transmitted by the Paippalādins of Orissa. Now it could be that the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha, as implicitly assumed by previous scholarship, was compiled at some early period by Śaunakīya priests, to give a fitting description of their canon. The fact that it is found also in Orissa, in an only marginally altered version, could then mean that it was taken over for some unknown reason by the Paippalādins, was taken along by them when they settled in Eastern India, and was changed consciously only in the list of Upanis . ads. On the other hand, it seems to be the case that for many Atharvavedic ritual texts, such as the Kauśikas ūtra, the Gopathabrāhman . a, the Vaitānas ūtra with its appendix of Atharvaprāyaścittas, and the Pariśis . t . as, the Śākhā-distinction Śaunaka/Paippalāda is only a vague one, because mantras are quoted in them from both Śākhās. So could it not be that these texts, although (with marginal exceptions that I have just discussed) transmitted only by Śaunakīyas, were originally in fact canonical for both Śākhās? 72In my 2004 study of Paippalāda Mantras in the Kauśikas ūtra, I have argued that this question may be answered in the affirmative as regards the KauśS. Since writing that article, I have prepared collections of similar data concerning the GB and the AVPrāy, that I hope to publish in the future, after I have done the same for the VaitS. All of these texts show the striking phenomenon that PS mantras are sometimes quoted first in pratīka, followed almost immediately by their sakalapāt . ha, a phenomenon on whose explanation I have speculated for the KauśS (2004: 60, n. 28). I now consider it quite likely that all of these were originally conceived as multi-Śākhā texts, and were used by Śaunakīyas and Paippalādins alike, during the time that they inhabited the same (western) part of India. If this is true, it is also easily imaginable that the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha was originally intended to describe the canons of both Śākhās jointly with some degree of accuracy.

An enticing piece of evidence that may support this assumption seems to lie in the indication of the total number of Atharvavedic r ˚cs (CVU 4.2; AVPariś 49.4.2; see p. 175), that MODAK could not explain with reference to the Śaunaka-Śākhā (1993: 396). The only real problem for my hypothesis is posed by that small portion of the AV-CV which lists texts for which no direct or indirect evidence is known to connect them (also) with the Paippalāda-Śākhā, or to assume a separate (now lost) Paippalāda-recension besides the known Śaunaka one: the Laks . an . agranthas. At this stage, I am willing to keep open the possibility that a few of such separate Paippalāda Laks . an . agranthas did exist at one point of time. That independent Anukraman . ī-type material existed also for the Paippalāda school is in any case very likely, as we see fragments of it ubiquitously in the R ˚s . i-Chando-Devatā-Viniyoga-indications of the ritual manuals from Orissa. 73 The fact that we cannot confidently associate with the Paippalāda-Śākhā all of the ancillary literature that the CVU mentions, I would like to explain, in short, as a result of the Paippalādins' in Orissa having transmitted only a small fragment of their original canon, that was largely shared with the Śaunakīyas. But the CVU does not only mention too much, it also mentions too little. Concerning those ancillary texts that we do have good direct evidence for, but that it ignores, we now turn to the final section of this contribution. §6. Ancillary Literature Ignored by the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad

The direct evidence for Paippalāda ancillary literature ignored by the CVU comes from the sources listed in §2, particularly, once again, Śrīdhara's Karmapa ñjikā. 74 I have not yet undertaken a careful collection and analysis of the evidence, but may mention here, once again (cf. GRIFFITHS 2002: 39), the elaborate quotations from a S ūtrakāra called Pait . hīnasi, of Ślokas attributed to him, and of a Paribhās . ā, also composed in Ślokas, that may or may not have been authored by this Pait . hīnasi. 75 A proper weighing of the evidence and attempt to 73 Where this habit is even taken over into Tantric materials: see Sanderson's contribution to this volume, p. 225. 74 The CV clearly does not aim to cover secondary (non-canonical) ancillary texts, like Paddhatis and Prayogas. Hence, the AVPariś version ignores Pseudo-Sāyan . a's and Dārila's Bhās . yas on the ŚS and the KauśS, respectively, as well as Keśava's Kauśikapaddhati; similarly, the fact that the CVU version does not mention the Karmapa ñjikā or the Karmasamuccaya is in no sense an omission. That the composition of the AV-CV likely predates most or all of these ancillary texts is not necessarily relevant in this connection, because we do not know when its CVU version became closed to additions. 75 On Pait . hīnasi, see RENOU (1947: 85, n. 1) and the references given there, one of which is to Pseudo-Sāyan . a ad ŚS 2.16. It may be observed that Keśava after KauśS 6.37 (ed. LIMAYE et al. p. 22 l. 5) is the source for the pait . hīnasiparibhās . ā mentioned by Pseudo-Sāyan . a; further refer-place this author in the development of Atharvavedic ancillary literature will have to await a serious study of the Karmapa ñjikā and the many previously unknown quotations it transmits. The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for the question whether any of the texts mentioned by Sanderson (p. 202) from AK mss. can be shown to have had a properly Atharvavedic (Paippalāda) affiliation. Not mentioned by SANDERSON is the author Nīlakan . t . ha, whose work entitled Brahmavedoktavis . t

. āriyaj ñapaddhati has been referred to by BAHULKAR (1987: 578) on the basis of the AK/P 2 ms., and is found also in my AK/Ni. This text seems to take PS 6.22 as its starting point, and is thus far the only text known to me that might perhaps be called a direct commentary on any Paippalāda-S ūkta. Finally, mention may be made here of the Atharvavidhāna belonging to the Paippalāda school reconstructed from Vis . n . udharmottarapurān . a (II.127) and Agnipurān . a (262) by BHATTACHARYYA (1955: 8-14).

  2. Gu 1 . Photographs of a ms. of the Vivāhapustaka kept by Kr ˚s . n . acandra Upādhyā ẏa of the village Guhiāpāl . a.

	tithivārasamāyukta ekikr ˚tyam . ca sthāpitam . | muninā kurute bhāgam . , śes . am . kāryye niyojaẏet
	candrāgnau kas . t . akāryyam . siddhiyugmaś ca vedake
	vān . arasau śighrakāryyam . śunye ca kāryyanāśanam .

3. Gu 2 . Photographs of a notebook copy of the Vratapustaka (beginning [p. 1] with adhivāsa and ending [p. 207] with samāvartana, to which are appended several short texts including, e.g., vratare janmatithīra devatā ṅka nāma [p. 208], pān . ipādārghyavidhi [209], nāndimukhaśrāddhavidhi [228-231] and three and a half verses attributed to the Vāstus ūtropanis . ad 10 [unnumbered last page of the notebook]) from the collection of Venu . dhara and the late Vidyādhara Pan . d . ā, village Guhiāpāl . a. 4. Ku 1 . A fine ms. of the Vratapustaka, nicely written and in good condition (dated to the 13 th a ṅka of a king Rāmacandradeva), received from the 9 In the Ā ṅgirasakalpa materials presented in this volume by Alexis Sanderon, we also occasionally see attributions to the KS. 10 I am not sure whether these verses occur in the edition of BONER et al. 1996. I transliterate: prabhāte vā ñchitam . pus . pam . , madhyāhne phal . avā ñchitam . | sāẏāhne devanāmam . tu, rātrau tu nadīnāmakam . | praśnāks . aram . dvīgun . itam . mātrā caturgun . am . bhavet |

  late Harihara Upādhyā ẏa, village Kurum . caini. Attributions to Karmasamuccaya e.g.ff. 35r, 65v, 76v, 79r, 129r. Begins with adhivāse śālāropan . avidhi, ends with nāndimukhaśrāddhavidhi. 5. Ku 2 . Another ms. in pristine condition, covering the same text, from the same collection. 6. Kk. Another ms. of the Vratapustaka (beginning with adhivāsa and ending with samāvartana) in reasonable, though uninked, condition, received from Praphulla Upādhyā ẏa of the village Kukur . ājujhā. 7. Publication Paippalādavivāhādisam . skārapaddhati (PAN . D . Ā 2000). Ku 2 . A younger, extensive ms. from the same collection. 4. Ku 3 . A small sized ms. from the same collection. 5. Ni. Photographs of a ms. kept by Maheśvara Miśra, village Nirmal . ā. 6. P 1 . Photocopies of the ms. 960 (1887-91) of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. Devanāgarī, but most likely copied from an Oriya exemplar, because Oriya marginalia are found occasionally, and the folio numbering is largely in Oriya numerals. 12 For details of this manuscript's contents, see Alexis Sanderson's contribution to this volume, pp. 210-216.

D. Ā ṅgirasakalpa (AK)

BHATTACHARYYA (1968) mentions and quotes some stanzas from the AK on pages: 2, 23, 35, 37. On this last page, it becomes clear that he had access to only one ms.

1. As. Photographs of a ms. kept by Dāmodara Miśra, village Asimil . ā,

11

which served as the basis of the last item in this list.

2. Ku 1 . An old ms. received from the late Harihara Upādhyā ẏa, village Kurum . caini, with very fine writing and illustrations of yantras at the back. Concerned with rituals involving Nr ˚sim . ha. 3.

  7. P 2 . Photocopies of the ms. 959 (1889-91) of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Pune. Devanāgarī, but most likely copied from an Oriya exemplar (on the same grounds as P 1 ). For details of this manuscript's contents, see the same contribution to this volume, 217-224.

	8. Sa. Photographs of a ms. from the collection of the late Vaidyanātha Pan . d .	ā
	of the village Sa ṅkhāmari, now kept by his son Mr ˚tyu ñjaya Pan . d . ā. Con-tents (partially) shared with Ku 3 .
	9. T/121. Photographs of a ms. from the Orissa State Museum, Bhubaneswar
	(OSM). Listed in MISHRA 1973, ser. nr. 197.
	10. T/187. Photographs of a ms. from the OSM. Listed in MISHRA 1973, ser.
	nr. 198.

11. V/124. Photographs of a ms. from the OSM. Listed in MISHRA 1973, ser.

  Grahaśānti ms. from the collection of the late Vaidyanātha Pan . d . ā of the village Sa ṅkhāmari, now kept by his son Mr ˚tyu ñjaya Pan . d . ā. 3. Photographs of a ms. from the collection of (late) Vidyādhara Pan . d . ā and his brother Ven . udhara Pan . d . ā of the village Guhiāpāl . a, containing: Abhicārikatantra, Gāyatrīkavaca, Pratya ṅgirāmantra, Mr ˚ttikaśa ṅkaravidhi ( • kāsam . kara • ?), Skandapurān . e Śītalāstotra, Aśvatthapradaks . in . avidhi, Agnisvar ūpakathana, Agnijvālālaks . an . a, (Ugra)tārāstotra, Svapnādhyāya. . Publication Ātharvan . īẏa P ūjā Paddhati (in Oriya) compiled by Ven . udhara PAN . D . Ā (Kendujhara, Manamohinī Prin . t . im . Pres 2004). Contents: Ātharvan . īẏa sandhyā praẏoga, Madhyāhna sandhyāẏām . , Gāẏatrī śāpoddhāra, O ṁ śrī śrī Satyanārāyan . a p ūjā, Arghya sam . skāra, Ghat . a p ūjā, Homa vidhi, P ūjā prakaran . am, Āsana pramān . a, Āsana śuddhi, Sāmānyarghya vidhi, Sam . kalpa vidhi, Śrī śrī Viśvakarmā p ūjā, Rādhā ṅka p ūjā, Païtā mantra, Yaj ñopavīta pramān . a, S ūryya ṅku prārthanā, Pa ñcāmr ˚ta śodhana vidhi, Mitādi p ūjā, As . t . alokapāl . a man . d . al . e p ūjaẏet, Brahmā man . d . al . e, Pa ñcagavyaśodhana vidhi. 6. A booklet, probably similar in contents to the preceding items, seems to have been published by Dāmodara PAN . D . Ā, of the former Pāt . haśālā in Baiśi ṅgā (WITZEL & GRIFFITHS 2002: 176), but I have not seen it yet. §3. Detailed Catalog of Upanis . ad Manuscripts

	4. Publication Atharvavedīẏa Nityakarmapaddhati (in Oriya) compiled by
	Lalita Mohana BHAT . T . A ŚARM Ā (Bhubanesvar, Khan . d . agiri Pres 1993).
	Contents: Sandhyāvidhi, N ūtana yaj ñopavīta dhāran . a mantra, Bhojanavidhi, Tarpan . avidhi, Vaiśvadevavidhi, Sam . ks . ipta pa ñcopacāra p ūjāvidhi, Śrī Vakra-tun . d . a p ūjāvidhi, Śrī Śiva p ūjāmantra, Śrī S ūryya p ūjāmantra, Śrī Laks . mī p ūjā-mantra, Śrī Nr

˚sim

. ha p ūjāmantra, Śrī Gopāl . a p ūjāmantra, Śrī Vanadurgā p ūjāmantra, Śrī Laks . mīnārayan . a p ūjāmantra, Ekoddis . t

. aśrāddhavidhi, Pun . yastotram . vā Somopanis . ad, Dīpadāna śrāddhavidhi, Aparapaks . a śrāddhavidhi.

5

  Collection Formerly in the possession of Harihara Upādhyā ẏa, Kurum .caini. Now deposited in the Kern Institute, Leiden. Contents Atharvanic Upanis . ads: for details, see the list below. The bundle contains three more items. The first of these (A), by the same Madhuparkavidhāna; the third (C) consists of a single folio from another text ( Śaktabījāks . aranirn . aya, part of an Ātharvan . īyopanis . adbhās . ya attributed to Śa ṅkara), probably written by the same scribe, numbered 44.

	98v2-99v5	Paramaham . sopanis . ad
	99v5-103r2 103r3-110r2 110r3-110v5 Siddhivināyakastotra 30 Gāyatrīhr ˚daya Rudrābhis . eka 29
		Ku 3

28

The ms.: viśvar ūpāks . araprakaran . a. scribe, is separately numbered 1-13 (numbering on left margin of recto), and contains the Mun . d . akopanis . ad, Praśnopanis . ad, Garbhopanis . ad and Prān . āgnihotropanis . ad; the second (B), seemingly starting off in the hand of our main scribe, then continuing in that of another, and then once again in that of the first, consists of eleven unnumbered folios, containing i.a. various Pratis . t

. hās (Prāsāda • , Dvāra • , Hr ˚daya • , Dhvaja • , Pin . d . ikā • ), the Purus . as ūkta, and a

  The colophons give more fully: śrīrāmacandrasya p ūrvatāpanīye ātharvan . asya rahasye. The colophon at the end of the text: ity ātharvan . arahasyeti mahānārāyan . opanis . adi paramasāyujyamuktisvar ˚panir ˚pan . am . nāmās . t . amo dhyāyah . | devadarśītyāks . atharvan . aśākhāyām . paramatve rahasyākhyātharvan . amahānārāyan . opanis . adi paramamu bha ktimārgasvargasvar ˚pa{•}nir ˚pan . am . nāma dvitīyottarakān . d . ah . samāptah . . Note the association of this text with a non-Paippalāda-Śākhā (corr.: devadarśītyākhyātharvan . a • ); cf. also the Gāyatrīyantropanis . ad in this ms. (110r7-111r5) and Gu 2 (216v3-217v2). Gu 2 and Ku 3 . §4. The Orissa version of the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha The Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha Since Wilhem SIEGLING's Inaugural-Dissertation, published a hundred years ago, the various recensions of the Caran . avy ūha appear to have sunk almost entirely into oblivion as a source on the history of Vedic Śākhās. SIEGLING's study contained only a sample edition of a small part (concerning the Yajurvedic canon) of the Yajurvedic recension of this text, but otherwise no serious study or attempt at critical edition of the Yajurvedic recension (YV-CV) is known to me. 44 In 1910, Herman Melville BOLLING und Julius VON NEGELEIN published an Atharvavedic recension as the 49 th Pariśis . t . a of the Śaunakīya Atharvaveda.

	80v4-84v1	Rāmacandrottaratāpanīya 39 (in 4 numbered sections)
	84v1-86r4	Ātharvan . e Śrīrāmacandropanis . ad
	86r4-93v2 93v2-98v3 98v3-99v4 100r1-100r4	Kat . havallī (in 2 adhyāyas, with further vallī subdivisions) Kr ˚s . n . asya Śāntopanis . ad Advaitopanis . ad Brahmajyotyupanis . ad 40
	Folios 1-5v3 5v3-11r4 100r4-101v3 Hayagrīvasam . hitāyām . Hayagrīvaikāks . aravidhāna (in 2 adhyāyas) Contain Mun . d . akopanis . ad 101v3-102v2 Ārun . yupanis . ad 102v2-103r1 Ātmopanis . ad Praśnopanis . ad 11r4-12v4 103r1-103v1 Mān . d . ukopanis . ad Garbhopanis . ad 12v4-14r5 Prān . āgnihotropanis . ad 14r5-15r4 103v1-104v3 Kaivalyopanis . ad 104v3-105r1 Brahmajyotyupanis . ad 41 Mahopanis . ad 15r4-17r1 Brahmopanis . ad 17r1-17v1 Brahmavidyopanis . ad 17v1-18v1 105r1-105r5 Jyotyupanis . ad 105r6-106r5 Ātharvan . arahasye Vajraśucyupanis . ad 106r5-109v2 Ānandavallī (in 2 adhyāyas) Ks . urikopanis . ad 18v1-19r4 C ūlikopanis . ad 19r4-20r2 Anuc ūlikopanis . ad 20r2-23r3 Atharvaśiropanis . ad 23r4-24r1 Atharvaśikhopanis . ad 24r1-24v3 Amr 109v2-110r7 Jābālopanis . ad 110r7-111r1 Ātharvan . arahasye Śaunakīśākhāyā (!) Gāyatrīyantropanis . ad 111r2-111r5 Ātharvan . īye Saubhāgyakān . d . e Mahākālyupanis . ad 111r5-111v2 Īśopanis . ad 112r1-120r1 Śvetāśvataropanis . ad (in 6 adhyāyas) ˚tabind ūpanis . ad 24v4-26r2 Amr ˚tan ādopanis . ad 26r3-26v1 Yogaśikhopanis . ad 26v1-27r2 120r1-123v1 Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad 123v1-139v4 Ātharvan . īpurus . asubodhinī (in 12 prapāt . hakas) 140r1-165r6 Mahānārāyan . opanis . ad (in 8 adhyāyas and 2 kān . d . as) 42 Nārāyan . opanis . ad 27r2-27v1 166r1-166v4 Dhyānabind ūpanis . ad Śrutipratyagānandopanis . ad 27v1-28r1 Ātharvan . opanis . ad 28r2-36r1 Ātharvan . a(p ūrva)tāpanīya (in 5 upanis . ads) 36r2-43v1 (Nr ˚sim . hasyottaratāpanīya) 35 in 9 khan . d . as 43v1-46v6 Mahopanis . ad (in 12 numbered sections) 47r1-48v1 48v1-50v3 Tripuryupanis . ad 37 Viśvar ūpāks . opanis . ad 36 166v5-167v5 Tejobind ūpanis . ad 168r1-169r3 Ātharvan . e rahasye Caitanyopanis . ad 169r3-171r3 Ātharvan . akumārabodhinī (in 4 prapāt . hakas) 172r1-173v5 Ātharvan . e Pippalādaśākhāyām . Vāsudevopanis . ad 174r1-177v4 Ātharvan . e Tattvabodhinī 43 (in 3 prapāt . hakas)
	50v3-51v2	Ham . sopanis . ad (in 2 khan . d . as)
	51v2-52r6 52r6-55r5	Paramaham . sopanis . ad Ātharvan . e Gan . eśatāpanīya (in 3 upanis . ads)
	55r5-56r1	Saubhāgyakān . d . e Kālikopanis . ad
	56r2-56v1	Kālāgnirudropanis . ad
	56v1-56v5	Vibh ūtigrahan . amantrāh .
	56v5-57v2	Somotpattyupanis . ad
	57v2-57v5	Pin . d . opanis . ad
	57v6-58r6	Gārud . opanis . ad
	58v1-59r1	Gāyatryupanis . ad
	59r1-60v6 61r1-61r4 61r4-64v4 64v4-71v2 71v2-73v1	Gāyatrīhr ˚daya (struck out: end of Praśnopanis . ad) Gopālatāpanī ( Śrīkr ˚s . n . ap ūrvatāpanīyam . , in 5 numbered sections) Śrīkr ˚s . n . asyottaratāpanīya Atharvan . i Tāropanis . ad
	73v2-75r2 75r3-80v3	Ugratāropanis . ad Rāmacandrap ūrvatāpanīya 38 (in 5 upanis . ads)

The ms. does not give this name. The spelling of the colophon in Ni seems to be: viśvr ˚pā + ks . aprakaran . a ks . opanis . at samāptam . . Precise spelling in Ni: trīpuripanis . at.

39

The ms.: ātharvan . arahasye śrīrāmacandrasyottaratāpanī.

40

The ms.: brahmayotipanis . at.

41

The same text occurred already above, 100r1-100r4. The ms. here: brahmajyotaupanis . at. 42 43 The ms.: ity ātharvan . e tatvodhanyām . tr ˚tīyaprapāt . hakah . . The correct spelling of the title is found in mss.

  • A single raised dot represents an illegible aks . ara. If a vowel follows, this means that the consonantal (basic) part of the sign is illegible, but that its vowel component is clear.[[. . .]] Editorial observations on the preceding reading(s) appear in double square brackets. {. . .} Curly braces enclose aks . aras or vowel elements thereof deleted by the scribe. . . . Angle brackets enclose aks . aras wholly or partially lost due to damage suffered by the palmleaves. The number of intervening raised dots (•) is an approximate reflection of the number of lost aks . aras. . . . Square brackets with open bottom enclose material appearing interlinearly or in margine. The sign + marks marginal additions. The sign → signals corrections: the marginal or interlinear material replaces the preceding material that appears in the actual line of writing. Both additions and corrections are frequently followed by a number referring to the line in which the correction is to be made. (. . .) The same → sign is used to mark other scribal corrections, where the corrected reading appears in parentheses. om. The word(s) in question is/are omitted in the following mss. em. The reading has been established through emendation. Σ All collated mss. ms. ac The ante correctionem reading in the ms. concerned. ms. pc The post correctionem reading in the ms. concerned. sec. m. Material written 'secunda manu': in these mss., this often merely means that the correction or addition has been made after the ink was applied to the manuscript. §4.1. Edition of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad | yajurvedasya dhanurveda upavedah . | sāmavedasya gāndharvaveda upavedah . | atharvavedasyāyurveda upavedah . | divyasāmpadaprāyaścittīyābhicārikāh . 1.3 r ˚gvedasyātreyagotrah . | gāyatrī chandah . | agnir devatā yajurvedasya kāśyapagotrah . | trais . t . ubham . chandah . | vāyur devatā sāmavedasya bhāradvājagotrah . | jagatī chandah . | vis . n . ur devatā atharvavedasya vaikhāyanagotrah . | ānus . t . ubham . chandah . | brahmā devatā 1.4 r ˚gvedah . pītavarn . ena padmapatrāks . ah . suvyaktagrīvah . ku ñcitakeśaśmaśruh . supratis . t . hitajānuja ṅghāpramān . ena | so 'pi vis . t . hitah . pa ñca 1.. śatih . śākhā bhavanti tad yathā | kan . vā-madhyandinā-jābālā-śāpeyā-śvetā-śvetatarā-tāmrāyan . īyā-paurn . arasāāvat . ikā-paramāvat . ikā-auks . yā-bodhā-śān . d . ikā-āhvarakā-carakā-mitrāyan . īyāhāritakarn . ā-śālābalīyā-marcakat . hā-prācyakat . hā-kapis . t . halakat . hā-upavanātittiriyāś ceti 2.1 tāsām adhyayanam . r ˚cām . dve sahasre śatam . ny ūne mantre vājasaneyake | ślokena paramam . khyātam . brāhman . am . caturgun . am 2.2 as . t . ādaśa sahasrān . i bhavanti | tāny eva trigun . am adhītya kramapāro bhavati | sapta sthāvarāś ceti 2.3 śākhās tisro bhavanti | pārām . sarvāpārah . samaśi pārakramajat . am . kramapāraś ceti 2.4 s . ad . a ṅgāny adhītya s . ad . a ṅgavid bhavati | 1 sādhyāyanā] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, sāddhyā ẏanāh . Gu 1 , sādhyāyanāh . Gu 2 1 śākalā] NiKu 1 Jā, sākalā Ku 3 , śākalyāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 1 bākalā] NiKu 1 Jā, bājalā Ku 3 , bākalyāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 2 adhyayanam . ] NiKu 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 , adhya ẏanah . Ku 1 , adhya ẏana Jā 3 ca] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , cah . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 4 aśītih . ] Ku 1 , aśibhih . Ni, aśittih . Ku 3 , aśībhi Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 4 cety etat] em., ce{tye}tratra Ni, ceyetatra Ku 1 , cetitatra Ku 3 , cetatra Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 4 pāran . am] em., pārāyan . am NiKu 1 , parāyanyam Ku 3 , pārāyanyam Gu 1 Gu 2 , ga ẏan . yam Jā 6 kan . vā] em., kanvā NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, kānyāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 6 madhyandinā] Ku 1 Ku 3 Jā, ma{ks . ya}dhyandinā Ni, mārdhyandināh . Gu 1 Gu 2 6 jābālā] NiKu 1 Jā, yābālā Ku 3 , sākalāh . bākalāh . kābāl . āh . Gu 1 , sākalyāh . bākalyāh . kābāl . āh . Gu 2 [[Gu 1 Gu 2 inserted from R ˚V]] 6 tāmrāyan . īyā] em., tāmrāks . an . iyā Ni, tāmrāks . an . ī ẏā Ku 1 , tāmbrā | ks . an . i ẏā Ku 3 , tāmbrāh . ẏun . i ẏāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 , tāmrā | ks . an . i ẏā Jā 7 auks . yā] auks . ā NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, auks . āh . Gu 1 , auks . yāh . Gu 2 7 bodhā] Ku 1 Ku 3 , boddhā Ni, bodhāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 , bo • Jā 7 śān . d . ikā] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , sān . d . ikāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 7 āhvarakā] em., āhurakā NiKu 1 , āharakā Ku 3 , āhv ūrakāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 7 carakā] Ku 3 , carakā | {hvarakā} Ni, carakāhvarakā Ku 1 , carakāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 8 marcakat . hā] NiKu 3 , marcikat . hā Ku 1 , maricikat . hāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 , marcika{t . a}t . hā Jā 8 prācyakat . hā] Ku 1 Jā, + prācyakat . hā Ni, om. Ku 3 , prācyakat . hāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 10 adhyayanam . ] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, adhya ẏana Gu 1 Gu 2 11 ny ūne] ny ūne | NiJā, ny ūnam . Ku 1 , nyun(+ e)m . | Ku 3 , nyuno Gu 1 Gu 2 11 vājasaneyake] em., vājaśanityeke NiKu 3 Jā, vājaśanītyeke Ku 1 , vā{ja}śa + ta 2 nityekah . Gu 1 , vā[line]śanityekah . Gu 2 12 khyātam . ] em., khyāto Σ 12 caturgun . am] NiKu 1 , caturgun . am . m Ku 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 , c•••• Jā 12 ] om. NiKu 1 Ku 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lacuna Jā 13 as . t . ādaśa] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Gu 2 , as . t . ādasa Gu 1 ; lost in lacuna Jā 13 sahasrān . i] NiKu 1 , sahan . i Ku 3 , śahaśrān . i Gu 1 , sahaśrān . i Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 13 tāny eva] em., tāne NiKu 1 Gu 1 Gu 2 , tāneva Ku 3 ; lost in lacuna Jā 13 trigun . am adhītya] em., trigun . am adhītyā NiJā, tigun . a(+ ma)dhītyā Ku 1 , trigun . am adhityā Ku 3 , trigun . am adhyātma Gu 1 Gu 2 14 sthāvarāś] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 , sthāvaroś Jā 15 bhavanti] em., bhavati Σ 15 pārām . sarvāpārah . ] Ni, pārāsarvāpārah . Ku 1 Ku 3 Jā, pārāsarvāpāra Gu 1 Gu 2 15 samaśi] Ku 1 , sama{rśa}(→ sec. m. śi) Ni, saman . i Ku 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 , samaśī Jā śiks . ā kalpo vyākaran . am . niruktam . chando jyotis . am | caturtho ' ṅgirasām . kalpah . śāntikalpaś ca pa ñcamah . 4.7 1 s . ad . aratnimātrapramān . avayanah . ] s . ad . aratnimātrapramān . ava ẏana NiKu 1 , s . ad . ayarimātrapramān . avina ẏa Ku 3 , śad . aratnimātrapramān . ava ẏana sec. m. → • (sec. m. + h . ) Gu 1 , śad . aratnimātrapramān . aja ẏavah . Gu 2 , s . ad . aratnimātrepramān . avana Jā Ku 1 Ku 3 Jā, śat . sahaśrān . i Gu 1 Gu 2 9 gopathabrāhman . am . ] • brāhman . e Ni ac , • brāhman . a Ni pc Ku 1 Ku 3 , gopathobrāhmam . n . am . Gu 1 , gopathobrāhman . am . Gu 2 , go p••••• Jā 9 śataprapāt . hakam] NiKu 1 Gu 2 , śataprapāt . hak{e}am Ku 3 , + śata prapāt . hakam Gu 1 ; lost in lacuna Jā 9 āsīt] Ni, āsīta Ku 1 Ku 3 , āśīta Gu 1 Gu 2 , •• ta Jā 9 tasyāvaśis . t . e] em., tasyāvastis . t . he NiKu 1 Gu 1 Gu 2 Jā, tasyāvatis . t . he Ku 3 9-10 brāhman . e] em., brāhman . o Σ 11 tatra . . . bhavanti ] Ni adds in margine: tatra s . ad . a • ny adhītya s . ad . a ṅgavid bhavati |. Cf. 2.5 above. 12 kalpā] Ku 1 Ku 3 Jā, kalpā sec. m. + ni NiGu 1 , kalpāni Gu 2 13 vaitānakalpah . ] Ku 3 Jā, vaitā ẏanakalpah . NiKu 1 Gu 1 Gu 2 13 tr ˚tīyah . ] NiKu 1 Jā, tr ˚tī ẏakalpa Ku 3 , tr ˚tī ẏa Gu 1 Gu 2 14 ' ṅgirasām . ] Ku 3 , a ṅgirasam . Ni, '{•} ṅgirasām . Ku 1 , a ṅgirasa Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā tatra laks . an . agranthā bhavanti caturādhyāyikā | prātiśākhyam . | pa ñcapat . alikā | br ˚hatsarvānukraman . īś ceti 4.8 tatra dvāsaptatih . pariśis . t . āni bhavanti kauśikoktāni kr ˚ttikārohin . ī | rās . t . rasam . sargah . | rājyaprathamābhis . ekah . | purohitakarmān . i | pus . yābhis . ekah . | pis . t . arātryāh . kalpah . | ārātrikam . | ghr ˚tāveks . an . am . | tiladhenuh . | bh ūmidānam . | tulāpurus . am . | ādityaman . d . alah . | hiran . yagarbhah . | hastirathah . | aśvarathah . | gosahasradānam . | hastidīks . ā | vr ˚s . otsargah . | indrotsavah . | brahmayāgah . | vināyakābhis . ekah . | aran . īlaks . an . am . | sam . bhāralaks . an . am . | yaj ñapātralaks . an . am . | vedilaks . an . am . | kun . d . alaks . an . am . | samidhalaks . an . am . | sruvalaks . an . am . | hastalaks . an . am . | jvālālaks . an . am . | laks . ahomah . | kātyāyanavidhih . | kot . ihomah . | gan . amālā | ghr ˚takambalam . | anulomakalpah . | āsurīkalpah . | ucchus . makalpah . | samuccayaprāyaścittāni | brahmak ūrcavidhih . | tad . āgavidhih . | pāśupatavratavidhih . | snānavidhih . | sandhyopāsanavidhih . | tarpan . avidhih . | śrāddhavidhih . | agnihotravidhih . | uttamapat . alam . | varn . apat . alam . | nighan . t . uh . | caran . avy ūhah . | candraprātipadikam . | grahayuddham . | graha-sam . grahah . | rāhucārah . | ketucārah . | r ˚tuketulaks . an . am . | k ūrmavibhāgah . | man . d . alāni | digdāhalaks . an . am . | ulkālaks . an . am . | vidyullaks . an . am . | nirghātalaks . an . am . | parives . alaks . an . am . | naks . atragrahotpātalaks . an . am . | indracāpalaks . an . am . | sadyovr ˚s . t . ilaks . an . am . | bh ūmikampalaks . an . am . | gośāntih . | adbhutalaks . an . am . | svapnādhyāyah . | atharvahr ˚dayam . | bhārakī-gārgyabārhaspatyośanādbhutāni | mahādbhutāni 4.9 tatrās . t . ādaśopanis . ado bhavanti mun . d . aka | praśna | garbhopanis . at | prān . āgnihotra | mahopanis . at | brahmopanis . at | brahmavidyopanis . at | ks . urika | c ūlika | anuc ūlika | atharvaśira | atharvaśikha | amr ˚tabindu | amr ˚tanāda | yogaśikhā | nārayan . o | śrutipratyagānando | nr ˚sim . ha | maho | brahmavedo | atharvan . o | paramātmā | tatratvaśāntiś ceti 4.10 tatra brahmavede 's . t . ādaśa vratāni caris . yan sāvitrīvratam . | vedavratam . | nīlavratam . | nīlotpalavratam . | mr ˚gāruvratam . | rohitavratam . | vis . āsahivratam . | yamavratam . | śāntivratam . | kalpavratam . | r ˚s . ivratam . | śirovratam . | mailavratam . | śikhāvratam . | anujavratam . | dadhivratam . | a ṅgirovratam . | pāśupatavratam . caret 4.11 kr ˚chram . | atikr ˚chram . | taptakr ˚chram . | sām . tapanam . | mān . d . ūkīyam . | tulāpurus . am . | mahāsām . tapanam . ceti 4.12 yo vai brahmavedes . ūpanītah . sarvavedes . ūpanītah . 5.1 | kapilo varn . ah . | tīks . n . ah . | can . d . ah . | kāmar ūpī | viśvātmā | jitendriyah . | sa bhagavān brahmaveda iti caturmukho dvipaks . o ati-dharmā ativantaprāj ñah . | ks . udratvāyukr ūrah . vaikhāyanagotrah . | brahmā devatā 5.10-11 ya ekaikasmin vedānām . nāmagotrapramān . am . ca kīrtayet | sa sarvapāpaviśuddho bhavati | mr ˚taś ca brahmalokam . sa gachati brahmalokam . sa gachatīti iti caran . avy ūhopanis . at samāptā 5.12 §4.2. Text Critical Commentary on the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad Since the primary focus of this article is on the ancillary literature of the (Paippalāda) AV, the first paragraphs of the text will be commented on only in a summary fashion. Variation in names of Śākhās is entirely excluded from discussion here. Three-digit textual references beginning with 49. are to the 49 th Atharvavedapariśis . t . a. I hesitantly adopt this reading, (a minimal emendation) based on the Ni pc reading, which is corroborated by 49.1.1 athātaś caran . avy ūham . vyākhyāsyāmah . . But since all mss. in fact do contain the reading • vidhim . , it seems rather likely that CVU A read thus, although our text can be called a Vidhi with just as little justification as it can be called an Upanis . ad. Note the tendency to style every text as • vidhi also in other Paippalāda ancillary texts (e.g. the Karmapa ñjikā and the Ā ṅgirasakalpa). 1.3. 49.1.3 reads tatra r ˚gvedasyārthaśāstram upavedah . | . . . āyurvedopavedah . | abhicārakārthaśāstram ity ucyate . śāstraveda upavedah . : CVU A had already become corrupt. Restore arthaśāstram upavedah . with 49.1.3, or perhaps śastravedah . ? divyasāmpada • : The text is almost completely different at 49.1.3. The balance of the variant readings might rather be taken to support restoring • cittā abhi • , but I prefer the reading of Ku 1 and Jā, cf. AVPariś 3.1.10 yasyānyakulopayuktah . purodhāh . śāntikapaus . t . ikapr āyaścittīy ābhic ārikanaimittikordhvadehikāny atharvavihitāni karmān . i kuryāt sa tasya pratya ṅgiro bh ūtvā hastyaśvarathapadātikam . prakr ˚timukhebhyo . . . . Could it be that the last phrase of this paragraph, if correctly preserved in CVU, associates the R ˚V with divya, the YV with sāmpada, the SV with prāyaścittīya, and the AV -unsurprisingly -with abhicārika, i.e. with rites of those four types? . at samāptā Ku 1 , caran . avyuhapanīs . at samāptā Ku 3 , caran . avyuhapanis . atsamāptam . h . Gu 1 Gu 2 , caran . avyuha + u panis . at samāptā Jā

	sādhyāyanā-śākalā-bākalā-audumbarā-mān . d . ūkyāś ceti 1.6 tāsām adhyayanam . s . ad . aratnimātrapramān . avayanah . smr ˚tah . anye r 1.4. vaikhāyanagotrah . : Cf. 49.1.4 brahmavedo vaitāyanasagotro, where ˚s . ayo brahmā sāmāni tis . t . ha-nti sam . nidhau | sa bhagavān sāmavedo maheśvarabhaktah . 3.6 BOLLING & VON
	atha caran . avy ūham . vyākhyāsyāmah . 1.1 tatra catvāro vedā bhavanti r ˚gvedo yajurvedah . sāmavedo brahma-vedah . 1.2 r ˚gvedasya śāstraveda upavedah . 5 r ˚gvedasya sapta śākhā bhavanti tad yathā | āśvalāyanā-śā ṅkhāyanā-r ˚cām . daśa sahasrān . i r ˚cām . pa ñca śatāni ca | r ˚cām aśītih . pādaś cety etat pāran . am ucyate 1.7 tatra yajurvedasya caturvim itihāsapurān . am . s . ad . a ṅgāni | br tatra brahmavedasya nava śākhā bhavanti tad yathā | pippalādā-pradāntā-˚hatsarvānukraman . īś ceti 2.5 atha yajurvedah . prām . śuh . pralambajat . harah . sth ūlagalakapālena | rakto var-n . ena | prādeśāh . s . ad . dīrghatvena yajurvedasya etad r ūpam . bhavati 2.6 sāmavedasya śākhāsahasram āsīt | anadhyāye 'dhīyamānāh . sarve te śakre-n . a vinihatāh . pralīnāh . 3.1 tatra ke cid avaśis . t . āh . pracaranti | tad yathā | rān . āyanīyā-satyamugrā-kālayā-mahākālayā-kaithimā-lā ṅgalikāś ceti 3.2 kaithimānām api s . ad . bhedā bhavanti | tad yathā | rān . āyanīyā-vātarāyan . īyā-vainavr ˚thāh . -prācīnā-tejasā-śaunakīyāś ceti 3.3 tāsām adhyayanam . as . t . au sāmasahasrān . i sāmāni ca caturdaśa | sohyāni sarahasyān . i etat sāmagan . am . smr ˚tam 3.4 atha sāmavedah . suvāsāh . sugandhī tejasvī mr ˚duvaktā brahman . yah . pra-lambabāhuh . susnigdhacarmā kr ˚s . n . o varn . ena kātaro vayanena 3.5 śaunakā-stodā-jājalā-jaladā-brahmavarti-devadarśi-caran . avedāś ceti 4.1 tes . ām adhyayanam . r ˚cām . dvādaśa sahasrān . y aśītitriśatāni ca | paryāyakam . dve sahasre anyām . ś caivārcikān bah ūn 4.2 tadgrāmyāran . yakāni dvādaśa s . at . sahasrān . i bhavanti 4.3 tatra gopathabrāhman . am . śataprapāt . hakam āsīt tasyāvaśis . t . e dve brāhma-n . e p ūrvottare ceti 4.5 tatra s . ad . a ṅgāni bhavanti śiks . ā kalpo vyākaran . am . niruktam iti 4.6 tatra pa ñca kalpā bhavanti naks . atrakalpo vaitānakalpah . tr ˚tīyah . sam . hitāvidhih . 1 anye r ˚s . ayo] Ku 1 , any{e}a(+ ka) r ˚s . ayo Ni, anyava r ˚s . ayo Ku 3 , {••}samyak r ˚s . ayo Gu 1 , samyak r ˚s . ayo Gu 2 , anyakr ˚s . a ẏo Jā 1 sāmāni] em., samāna NiKu 1 Gu 1 Gu 2 , vamāmī Ku 3 , samānī Jā 1-2 tis . t . hanti] Jā, tis . t . hati NiKu 1 Ku 3 Gu 1 , tis . t . hatih . Gu 2 2 sa] Gu 1 Gu 2 , sa(+ mi) Ni, samāna Ku 1 , sami Ku 3 Jā 2 maheśvarabhaktah . ] Ku 1 Jā, maheśvarabhaktah . (→ vatkrah . ) Ni, maheśvaravaktah . Ku 3 , maheśvaro bhaktah . Gu 1 Gu 2 3 pradāntā] Ku 1 Ku 3 , {prahāntā} Ni, pradātāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 , om. Jā 4 jājalā] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , jājval . āh . Gu 1 Gu 2 , jāja • Jā 4 jaladā] NiKu 1 , jal . a{kā}dā Ku 3 , jaladāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 4 brahmavarti] Ku 1 Ku 3 , brah-mavrattī Ni, brahmam . varttih . Gu 1 , brahmavarttih . Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 4 devadarśi] devadarśī NiKu 1 , devadars . i Ku 3 , devadars . ih . Gu 1 Gu 2 , •• rśī Jā 4 caran . avedāś] Ku 1 , + saubhagā caran . avedāś Ni, śaubhagā | caran . avedāś Ku 3 , + śaubhagāh . caran . avedāś Gu 1 , śaubhagāh . caran . avedāś Gu 2 , + śauradā 2 caran . avedāś Jā 5 adhyayanam . ] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, addhya ẏana Gu 1 Gu 2 6 aśītitriśatāni] aśittitreśatāni Ni, aśī{tri}titriśatāni Ku 1 , aśītatraśatāni Ku 3 Jā, am . śitatraśatāni Gu 1 Gu 2 7 paryāyakam . ] Ku 1 Gu 1 Gu 2 , pāryā ẏakam . NiJā, pīparyā ẏasī ẏa Ku 3 7 anyām . ś] Ku 1 , anvoś NiJā, anneś Ku 3 , anvai(sec. m. → au)ś Gu 1 , anyauś Gu 2 7 caivārcikān] em., cevārcikā Ni, caivārcikā Ku 1 Jā, cenācil . ā Ku 3 , caivārccikā Gu 1 Gu 2 8 tadgrāmyāran . yakāni] em., tadgrāmyārakah . NiKu 1 , tadgamyārakr Ku 3 , tadgrāmyāra{nya}kam . Gu 1 , tadgrāmyārakam . Gu 2 , tadgrāmyārikah . Jā 8 dvādaśa] NiKu 1 Gu 2 Jā, dvedaśa Ku 3 , dvādasa Gu 1 8 s . at . sahasrān . i] s . at . asaha + srā n . i Ni, anyavede dvijottamah . | brahmavedam adhītukāmah . | sa punarupa-neyo 5.3 devāś ca r ˚s . ayaś ca ko asmākam . jyes . t . hah . | ka upanetā | ka ācāryah . brahmā uvāca 5.4-5 atharvā vai jyes . t . hah . | atharvā upanetā | atharvā ācāryah . | atharvan . ā brahmatvam . ceti 5.7 tad apy etad r ˚coktam . brahmajyes . t . hā sam . bhr ˚tā vīryān . i brahmāgre jyes . t . ham . divam ā tatāna | bh ūtānām . brahma prathamota jaj ñe tenārhati brahman . ā spardhitum . kah . 5.8 atharvavede caturn . ām . vedānām . sā ṅgopā ṅgānām . savākovākyānām . itihāsa-s . at . asahasrān . i yo vai brahmavedes . v anupanītah . sarvavedes . v anupanītah . 5.2 purān . ānām 5.9 atha brahmavedah . 1.1. caran . avy ūham: 1 ativantaprāj ñah . ] NiKu 1 Jā, ativataprāj ñah . Ku 3 , ativantadharma ativantaprāj ñam . h . Gu 1 , ati-
	vantadharma ativantaprāj ñah . Gu 2	1 ks . udratvāyukr ūrah . ] ks . udratvā ẏukru ūrah . Ni [[two
	vowels u and ū marked]], ks . udratvā ẏuk ūrah . Ku 1 Jā, ks . udratvākr ˚rah . Ku 3 , ks . udratvā sec. m. + • kr ˚rah . Gu 1 , ks . udratvā ẏukr 3 ya ekaikasmin] em., ekasmin NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, ẏekasmin ˚rah . Gu 2 Gu 1 Gu 2 3-4 sarvapāpaviśuddho] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , sarvapāpovis . uddho Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna
	Jā	4 mr

˚taś ca] em., mr ˚tam . sa NiKu 1 Gu 2 , mr ˚tasa Ku 3 , mr ˚tasam . Gu 1 ; lost in lacuna Jā 6 caran . avy ūhopanis . at samāptā] caran . avyuha upanis . at samāpta Ni, caravy ūha upas

  .3. 49.2.3 reads as . t . ādaśa śatāni bhavanti | tāny eva . . . | saptasu vīrāś ceti . My emendation tāny eva rests on this basis. kramapāro: BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN observe (p. 340) that "the text is mutilated at this point", and refer to SIEGLING, p. 32, where the Yajurvedic Caran . avy ūha is edited as follows: tes . ām adhyayanam | as . t . aśatam . yajuh . sahasrān . y adhītya śākhāpāro bhavati | tāny eva dvigun . āny adhītya padapāro bhavati | . . . trigun . āny adhītya kramapāro . . . | s . ad . a ṅgāny adhītya . . . . 2.4. 49.2.4 reads śākhās tisro bhavanti | tad yathā | vārcikam arthādhyayanīyāh . | pāraścaryāh . | pāraśraman . īyāh . | pārakramavat . ah . | kramapāraś ceti . 2.5. 49.2.5 finishes the list of six A ṅgas simply with . . . iti s . ad . a ṅgāni . It seems that itihāsapurān . am . has entered our text under the influence of the Naks . atrakalpa, AVPariś 1.15.1: r ˚gvedo yajurvedah . sāmavedo brahmavedah . śiks . ā kalpo vyākaran . am . niruktam . chando jyotis . am itihāsapurān . am . vākovākyam idāvatsarah . parivatsarah . sam . vatsaro daśamam . śītos . n . e ekādaśadvādaśe. Although I have no evidence yet that this Kalpa was ever transmitted as such in Orissa, there are frequent references to a naks . atrakalpokta tantra in the ritualistic manuals (see §5.

  49.3.6 reads s . ad . aratnih . pramān . ena ca smr ˚tah . | stuvanty r ˚s . ayo brahmā sāmāni tis . t . hati . . . . It seems likely that AVPariś has here stayed close to the correct text for the first sentence, while • vayanah . entered CVU A after the preceding section had become corrupt. Diwakar Acharya suggests to me that the extant CVU and AVPariś readings may conceal an originally metrical passage, which might diagnostically be restored as follows: [tathā] s . ad . aratnimātrah . pramān . ena ca yah . smr ˚tah . | anye r ˚s . ayo brahmā ca sāmni tis . t . hanti sam . nidhau . I have brought the text of CVU as close to this restoration as the mss. permit. 4.1. It is to be noted first that AVPariś reads bhedā for CVU śākhā, but that CVU, with its tes . ām in the next section, preserves evidence that the AVPariś pairing bhedāh . . . . tes . ām is original; second, that most CVU mss. insert an extra Śākhā before the Caran . avedas (mostly in margine), apparently called Saubhaga. Since it has no parallel in AVPariś, and would cause the list to exceed the indicated number 9, I reject it from my edition. 4.2. 49.4.2 reads aśītis triśatāni . . . paryāyikam . . The number of r ˚cs quoted, viz. 12380, exceeds that of both extant Atharvavedic Sam . hitās individually, but agrees remarkably closely with the sum total of Śaunaka and Paippalāda mantras, if for the former we take the total of 4432 stanzas calculated by LAN-MAN for the authentic parts of ŚS (WHITNEY 1905/I: cxlvii) and for the latter the provisional figure of 7899 given by BHATTACHARYA (1997: xxii): 12331 stanzas. 4.3. 49.4.3 reads etadgrāmyāran . yakāni s . at . sahasrān . i bhavanti, with a rather different figure. Since we do not know which units are being measured, little more can be said, except that dvādaśa in the CVU version may have been copied from 4.2, and that the characterization grāmyāran . yakāni seems to belong rather to the Sāmavedic domain, which might mean that the original Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha had already suffered an intrusion here. *4.4. No corresponding paragraph is found in CVU for 49.4.4, which lists 28 Upanis . ads of the Atharvaveda, a list that has been discussed at some length by BOUY (see n. 45 above). Note that BOLLING & VON

  that the tradition has seen fit not to announce as such: kr ˚cchram | taptakr ˚cchram | atikr ˚cchram | sarvakr ˚cchram | maundabhāyah . | tulāpurus . ah . | sām . tapanam | mahāsām . tapanam . ceti. 5.2. 49.5.2 reads yo vai brahmavedes . v anupanītah . sa sarvavedes . v anupanītah . . The word sa is omitted in CVU. 5.3. dvijottamah . : Cf. 49.5.3 . . . dvijo yo brahmavedam adhītukāmah . sa . . . . The corrupt CVU reading, whose dvijottamāh . I have corrected to dvijottamah . , spoils the connection between relative and main clause, which could be solved by emending still further to dvijottamo yo. punarupaneyo: The syllable ne had been lost already in CVU A . | ka upanetā | ka ācāryah .

	5.4-5. jyes . t . hah .	49.5.4-6 reads: devāś ca r ˚s . ayaś ca brahmān . am ūcuh .	ko no [smo]

  reads athāto brahmavedah . kapilo varn . ena tīks . n . ah . pracan . d . ah . kāmar ūpī viśvātmā jitendriyah . | sa tasmin bhagavati durvārajvālah . | 10 | ks . udrakarmā sa ca bhagavān brahmavedaś caturmukho dvipaks . o dānto dharmī balavān prāj ñah . kr ˚totthāpanīyah . kr ūrah . s . ad . rātrān . i vimr ˚śī [s . ad . rātrān . i s . ad . ] vaitāyano gotren . a. There is a free field here for various emendations of the corrupt CVU readings. To mention just one: atibalavanta • (with thematization not unknown in low register Sanskrit), might do in the place of ativanta • . BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN (p. 342) again report the reading vaikhā • for several mss. (YV-CV, p. 47 l. 17 reads vaitānasagotram . ). 5.12. 49.5.12 reads ya ekaikasmin vedānām . nāmavarn . agotrar ūpapramān . am . ca kīrtayed yo vidvān jātismaro bhavati mr ˚tah . sa brahmalokam . gacchati . I have restored ya ekaikasmin on this basis. All CVU mss. point to ekasmin, a reading reported by BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN only for their ms. E (whether that ms. does have ya, or not, is unclear). §5. Paippalāda Ancillary Literature: Evaluation of the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad Evidence The main purpose of the Atharvavedic Caran . avy ūha seems to be to give an overview of the Atharvavedic canon, and to this end it comprises a catalog of Atharvedic ancillary texts. Neither of the two known versions of this Caran . avy ūha specifies for which Śākhā it describes the canon of Atharvavedic literature. Since only one version was known until recently, and it seemed to correspond fairly well with the Śaunaka canon as available in mss. transmitted by adherents of that Śākhā, it was naturally assumed to be valid for, and was compared with, the literature of this school in MODAK's detailed analysis (1993: 391-399) of the 49 th Pariśis . t . a in BOLLING & VON NEGELEIN's edition, based on mss. transmitted by Śaunakīya Atharvavedins. The availability of the version styled Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad in mss. transmitted by Paippalādins in Orissa raises the question, to which I will also return at the end of this section, whether that natural assumption was a correct one.

   Ku 20v4, Gu 1 23v4-5: ke cit p ūjanāt prāg darbhakos . t . hīm . trih . paryuks . an . am . cecchanti tathā ca gopathabrāhman . e tasmād devatāh . sarvakarmasv ādito antar udayanes . u (em., • yames . u Ni Ku, • pames . u Gu 1 ) ca h ūyanta iti (em., ca h ūyanta ca iti mss.) vidhānāt (unidentified -cf. GB 1.1.14d?); Ni 25v5-26r1, Ku 28v1, Gu 1 31r5: gopathabrāhman . e gopuchāgrākr ˚tir dan . d . o hastamātrapramān . atah . | ardhā ṅgus . t . hapramān . ena nimnam . śirasi khānayed iti (cf. AVPariś 27.2.4-5: gopucchāgrākr ˚tir dan . d . o man . d . alāgra[m] śiro viduh . | a ṅgus . t . hāgrapramān . ena nimnam . śirasi khānayet etal laks . an . am uddis . t . am . sruvasya phalabhedatah . | gopathena yathāśāstram uddhr ˚tam . śruticodanāt | sruven . a kurute karma hastenāpi tathā śr ˚n . u ); Ni 26r2, Ku 28v3, Gu 1 31r2-3: atha śruvagrahan . alaks . an . am . gopathe hīyate yajamāno vai śruvasya m ūladarśanāt | putrair is . t . aphalaih . p ūrtaih . śrutir es . ā purātanī tasmāt sam . gopayen m ūlam . homakāle śruvasya ca (unidentified); Ni 26v3-4, Ku 29v1-2, Gu 1 31v5-32r1: gopathabrāhman . e | adhunvan (em., dhunvan mss.) vāpi juhuyāc chruven . āsphut . itāhutih . (em., chruven . o • mss.) | dhunvan hinasti putrām . ś ca rāks . asām . sphut . itāhutih . nānyat kim . cid abhidhyāye †juhudāpatatāhutih . † | tad daivatam abhidhyāye āhutir yasya dīyate śruve p ūrn . e japen mantram . uttānah . śāntike karah . | śāntike paus . t . ike caiva varjayet tu kanīnikām iti (cf. AVPariś 27.1.4-5, 27.2.1); Ni 32v1-2, Ku 36v1-2, Gu 1 37v1-2: tathā ca gopathabrāhman . e kriyāpraśam . sā brāhman . am . havih . sam . skārakam . yajuh . stutipradānam . mantro vai vidhānam . kalpa ucyata iti (unidentified); Ni 85r3, Ku 95r4, Gu 1 98v5-99r1: gopathabrāhman . e yadā juhoti hastenetyādivākyabalāt pa ñcabhir a ṅgulībhir annam . hutvā (cf. AVPariś 28.1.1: om . yadā juhoti hastena daks . in . enetaren . a vā | tadā vaks . ye vidhim . tasya śreyasī syād yathāhutih .

paippal ādam atharvan . ām |

  8, 1". With the kind help of George Cardona and Walter Slaje, I have been able to trace these divergent references to the text published under the title R ˚gvedānukraman . ī by KUNHAN RAJA (1932), where verses viii.i.10-12 read (p. 74): atha ye br āhman . ārthānām . vivektārah . kr ˚taśramāh . | śabdarītim . vijānanti te sarva ṅ kathayanty api 10 tān . d . ake śāt . hyāyanake śramah . śatapathe 'pi ca | kaus . ītake kāt . hake ca syād asyeha sa pan . d . itah . 11 aitareyakam asmākam

	tr ˚tīyan tittiriprokta ñ jānan vr ˚ddha ihocyate 12
	54 Ed. MĪM ĀM .

  Ni 39v3-40v4, Ku 45r4-46v2, Gu 1 45v4-47r4: tatra naks . atrakalpoktam . tantram . nigadyate avyasaś cety uktvā | . . . etā p ūrvatantram iti tatah . kartā yajamānam . spr ˚s . t . vā ayam . no 'gnir iti dvābhyām . mahedhmānam . sakr ˚d dhutvā | p ūrvavan māhāvyāhr ˚tyādibhir hutvā | tatah . pradhānahomah . | athottaratantram ucyate . . . yasmāt kośād ity ātmano hr ˚dayābhimantran . am . kuryāt | yatrayatra naks . atrakalpoktam . tantram iti bravīti tatratatraitat karma kuryād iti . . . naks . atrakalpoktam . tantram . samāptam . . This seems to agree quite well with the summary description of what is called the ājyatantra at the very end of the sixth kan . d . ikā in Keśava's Kauśikapaddhati (

  Ni 41v2, Ku 46v2, Gu 1 48r4: end of the sam . hitāvidhikalpoktaprāyaścittavidhi; (2) Ni 58v1-2, Ku 66v3-4 (not traceable in Gu 1 ): tathā ca sam . hitāvidhau | pākayaj ñakān samāsādya †ekavahus . ikah . † 66 | ekah . svis . t . akr ˚tah . kuryān nānāpi sati daivata iti | (quotation from KauśS 6.34 67 ); Ni 97r5-v1, Ku 108r5, Gu 1 109r2: prāyaścittavidhim . vaks . ye yad uktam . sam . hitāvidhau.

  ). 64 Cf. the misattribution of a phrase known from AVPariś 37 to the Vaitānakalpa in the work of a Bh ūdhara from Orissa, mentioned by Alexis Sanderson in his contribution to this volume (see the reference in n. 51 above). 65 Cf. Sanderson's contribution to this volume, p. 203 n. 22. 66 Ni, ekadvahus . ikah . Ku; both mss. insert a space after eka. 67 athāpi ślokau bhavatah . | ājyabhāgāntam . prāktantram ūrdhvam . svis . t . akr ˚tā saha | havīm . s . i yaj ña āvāpo yathā tantrasya tantavah . | pākayaj ñān samāsādyaikājyān ekabarhis . ah . | ekasvis . t

The survey does not aim at completeness for the limited number of sources accessible in the mentioned public libraries, but includes from their collections only those mss. to which I have access in photographs or photocopies at the time of writing (March 2007).

For this place name, and all the other place names from Orissa (and Jharkhand) mentioned in this article, see[START_REF] Witzel | A List of Paippalāda-AtharvaVedin Settlements[END_REF]

This ms. does not seem to have been noticed in MOHAPATRA 2002-03, where however no mss. with serial number other than "V/" have been included. After my most recent visit to the OSM (in 2005), I found in MOHAPATRA's work (p. 50), in the description of the contents of V/126, that this PS-ms. also contains śrīdharaviracitāyām . vivāhādikarmapa ñjikāyām . cyutavratipunarupanayanavidhih . (the colophon for the vidhi coming immediately before the KP portion published in GRIFFITHS 2003b, see p. 7 of that article), i.e. possibly a substantial part of the first third (upanayana related) part of the KP. I had failed to notice this in my own description of the ms.(see GRIFFITHS 2003a: 364). The photographs available to me do not seem to cover anything but PS material, but this may be due to my not having realized that the bundle contained important other material, when I took the photographs.

On this era of the Mughal emperor Akbar, see GRIFFITHS 2003a: 339.

In all mss. presented here, the 1 st division of this text is explicitly called khan . d . a, whereas the second is closed with a simple numerical indication.

The ms.: ātharvan . e somotpattih . .

The ms.: ātmanopanis . at.

The ms.: śrīkr ˚s . n . asya p ūrvatāpanīkaivalyapanis . at.

Note that this text seems to have three prapāt . hakas in Ku 3 and Ni.

The ms.: • vidyupanis . at.

On the calculation of regnal years from a ṅkas, see GRIFFITHS 2003a: 338.

Based on such sources as H.K. MAHATABs History of Orissa, Vol. II (Prajatantra Prachar Samiti, Cuttack: 1960), pp. 471f. and K.N. MAHAPATRA's Khurudā Itihāsa (1969) [both unavail-

The title does not seem to be mentioned in any of the colophons, but the text agrees with the one given an explicit title in ms.Ni.

Including Śatarudriya/Rudrādhyāya.

The ms.: nr ˚sim . hapurān . āntargataśrīsiddhivināyakastotra.

The title does not seem to be mentioned in any of the colophons, but the text agrees with the one given an explicit title in ms. Ni. The adhyāya division seems to be absent in this ms.

See BISSCHOP & GRIFFITHS 2003: 317, n. 8. Since writing that footnote, where I referred to the Caran . avy ūhopanis . ad as a second recension, I have managed to obtain an electronic file of Christa BASTIAANSEN's MA thesis that I also mentioned, through the kind offices of Michael Witzel. The file does not contain a title page or a date, and the thesis that it contains does not offer an edition of the text, which was known to BASTIAANSEN only in one recent paper copy of a ms. from Baiśi ṅgā. The only published information I am aware of is the short note byWITZEL 1985: 288 (n. 35), and the excerpt from the text on pp. 274f. of that article.

caran . avy ūham . ] em., • vyuham . Ni pc , • vy ūhavidhi Ku 1 , ran . avyuhavidhi Ku 3 , • vyuhavidhi Ni ac Gu 1 Gu

, caran . avyuhavidhim . Jā 2 tatra] NiKu 1 Ku

Jā, tatah . Gu 1 Gu 2

r ˚gvedasya] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, r ˚gvedesya Gu 1 Gu 2 4 śāstraveda upavedah . ] Ni, śāstravedo upa • Ku 1 Ku 3 Gu 1 Gu 2 , śāstravedopa • Jā 4 dhanurveda upavedah . ] NiKu 1 Gu 1 , dhanurvedo upavedah . Ku 3 , dhanurvedopavedah . Gu 1 Gu 2 , dhanurvedopa veda• Jā

sāmavedasya] NiKu 1 , śāmavedasya Ku 3 , sāmavedo Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 5 gāndharvaveda] NiKu 1 , gāndharvavedo Ku 3 , gāndharvavedah . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 5• vedasyāyurveda upa • ] Ku 1 , • vedasya ā ẏurvedo upa • Ku 3 , • vedasya ā ẏurveda upa • NiGu 1 Gu 2 , • vedasyā ẏurvedopa • Jā

• cittīyābhi • ] Ku 1 Jā, • cittā ẏabhi • Ni, • cittābhi • Ku 3 , • citā'bhi• Gu 1 Gu 2 8 vāyur] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , vāryu Gu 1 Gu 2 ; lost in lacuna Jā 8 devatā] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Gu 2 , devatāh . Gu 1 ; lost in lacuna Jā 8 sāmavedasya] NiKu 1 Ku 3 , śāma • Gu 1 Gu 2 , ••ve dasya Jā 9 vaikhāyana • ] NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, vaiks . ā ẏana • Gu 1 Gu 2 11 r ˚gvedah . ] Gu 1 Gu 2 Jā, r ˚gveda{sya}h . Ni, r ˚gvedasya Ku 1 , r ˚gveda Ku 3 11 • śmaśruh . ] • śmaśru Ni, • smaśruh . Ku 1 , • smaśru Ku 3 , • smas . mr ˚h . Gu 1 , • s . as . mr ˚Gu 2 , • s•• Jā 12 • ja ṅghāpramān . ena] NiKu 1 , • jaghapramān . ena Ku 3 , • yaghanapramān . enah . Gu 1 Gu 2 ; almost the entire compound (except • mān . ena) is lost in lacuna in Jā 12 'pi] om. NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, pi Gu 1 Gu 2 12 vis . t . hitah . ] Ku 1 Jā, vis . t . hitam . h . Ni, nis . t . hitah . Ku 3 , vis . t . itam . Gu 1 Gu 2

laks . an . agranthā . . . caturādhyāyikā] laks . agranthā bhavanti tatra laks . agra caturādhyā ẏakā Ku 1

rāhucārah . ] Ni ac Ku 3 , rāhusam . cārah . Ni pc , rāhucāra Ku 1 , rāh ūcārah . Gu 1 Gu

, • hucārah . Jā

sām . tapanam . ] em., śānt{i}apanam . Ni, śāntipanam . Ku 1 Ku 3 , śyāntipanam . h . Gu 1 Gu

, śānta ••

Peter Bisschop has suggested to me that the number 18 may have entered the CVU here from the list of 18 vratas in 4.11.

See below, p. 187, on the Paippalāda affiliation of Pait . hīnasi.

This suggestion has been made, in a slightly different form, already byRENOU (1947: 78ff.). See alsoBHATTACHARYYA 1955: 7, with n. 30.

1 laks . an . agranthā] em., laks . agranthā NiKu 1 Ku 3 Jā, laks . agranthā + ni Gu 1 , laks . agranthāni Gu 2 1 caturādhyāyikā] em., caturādhyā ẏakā NiKu 1 Jā, catu{rthā}rādhya ẏakā Ku 3 , caturāddhyā ẏakāh . Gu 1 Gu 2 1 prātiśākhyam . ] em., prītisākhyam . Ni, prītimākhyam . Ku 1 , prītisākham . Ku 3 , prītisām . khyam . h . Gu 1 Gu 2 , prītiśākhyam . Jā 2 br ˚hatsarv ānukraman . īś] Ku 1 Jā, • sarvā'nukraman . iīś Ni [[two vowel signs: i