कौषीतकि ब्राह्मण (शाङ्खायन ब्राह्मण - उदय प्रणीत व्याख्या सहित सटीक)

Page VI

VI Preface
In the meantime, I was corresponding with a few traditional scholars in Kerala
who were well-versed in chanting as well as in conducting sacrifices. One of them,
aged 76, was Mr. RĀMAN NAMPŪTIRI of ĒRKKARA Mana. This enthusiastic scholar
consented to chant the entire text of the KB for recording. Accordingly, I could
tape-record the entire text (ER) in April, 1966.
Besides, I could also procure two more palm-leaf manuscripts (BM² and BM³)
of the text from the Brahmasvam Maṭham.
Detailed information on the manuscripts on which the present text is based
is given below:
I. Photo-copy of the palm-leaf manuscript from the India Office Library,
London (designated M by LINDNER and IO in the present edition). See No.
4267, Vol. II, Pt. I, p. 21, left hand column of the Catalogue of the Sanskrit
and Prākrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office.
II. Palm-leaf manuscript (29,5 x 5,5 cm) from the Brahmasvam Maṭham, Tri-
chur, No. 166 (designated BM¹). Script: Malayāḷam. Folios: 179. Lines up
to the middle of the manuscript: 8 per page, afterwards: 9 or 10 per page.
Legible good hand. The ends of a few leaves are injured. Complete in 30
Adhyāyas. On the last page inscribed: Vaṭakke Maṭham, Brahmasvam vaka
Kauṣītakam Brāhmaṇam. Up to folio 87 the ‘na nna nya’ method of num-
bering, afterwards the Malayāḷam numerals.
III. Palm-leaf manuscript (38 x 4,5 cm) belonging to the Brahmasvam Maṭham,
Trichur, No. 28 (designated BM²). Folios: 145. The KB in 30 Adhyāyas ends
on 124. Folios 125 to 145 contain the Mahāvratam. Lines: 8 per page. Very
legible and beautiful hand. The ‘na nna nya’ method of numbering.
IV. Palm-leaf manuscript (35 x 4,5 cm) belonging to the Brahmasvam Maṭham,
Trichur, No. 102 (designated as BM³). Folios: 113. Lines: 9 per page. Beautiful
legible hand. Very old. Most of the leaves are broken and in disorder. Complete
in 30 Adhyāyas but with gaps due to injured leaves. The ‘na nna nya’ method
of numbering. Only sparingly used by me.
V. Paper manuscript (foolscap size) in 5 volumes belonging to Mr. ĒRKKARA
RĀMAN NAMPŪTIRI (designated EM). This manuscript contains the text
of the KB written in red ink and the commentary written in blue ink. Some
of the pages are partly eaten up by white ants. The commentary was copied by
the owner himself from a palm-leaf manuscript belonging to TAIKKĀṬṬU Mana.
Apart from these five manuscripts containing the text in its entirety, the
manuscripts of the commentary belonging to the Adyar Library, to the Madras
Government Oriental Manuscript Library (modern transcript on paper), to
VARIKKĀŚŚERY Mana and to the Brahmasvam Maṭham are also made use of.
The edition of LINDNER (1887) and the text printed in Poona (Ānandāśrama
Skt. Ser. 65) are designated L and P, respectively.
In all cases of doubt the authority I have relied upon was the recital of the
KB by Mr. ĒRKKARA RĀMAN NAMPŪTIRI (designated ER).

---

Page VII

Preface VII
When printing was in progress and the second proofs were being received by
me, I could procure three more palm-leaf manuscripts of the text of the KB in
Malayāḷam characters which were consulted in all doubtful cases. A description
of these manuscripts is given below:
VI. Belonging to AKKIṬṬAM Mana, Kumāranallūr, Kerala. This consists of the
30 Adhyāyas of the KB (folios 1 to 166 with the Malayāḷam numerals) and
the Āraṇyaka in six Adhyāyas (folios 167 to 193); 26 x 4,5 cm in size,
9 lines per page, 26 letters per line.
VII. Belonging to KĀPPARA Mana of the same place referred to above. This
manuscript consists of the KB (folios 1 to 167) and the Āraṇyaka (folios
168 to 196); 23,5 x 4 cm in size, 10 lines per page, 27 letters per line. Dated
as: Kollam era 1085 Meṭam 26 Wednesday, the first day of aparapakṣa and
coti star (corresponding to circa May, 1910).
VIII. Belonging to ŚAṄKARAN NAMPŪTIRI of KĀPPARAKAṆAYŪR Mana of the
same place referred to above. This manuscript also consists of the KB
(folios 1 to 148) and the Āraṇyaka (folios 149 to 171). Dated as: Kollam
era 1097, Eṭavam 16 (corresponding to circa May, 1922). This manuscript
was written, as I am informed, with very special care and has been gone
through and checked by about sixteen traditional Vaidikas. It is said that
the man who actually wrote down the manuscript used to discard that leaf
altogether on which even one single mistake was found. This manuscript
has been very helpful to me because of its distinctive legibility and authen-
ticity due to the reason mentioned above.
All these Malayāḷam manuscripts are written well with utmost care and do not
show much variation from each other. The differences in their readings, if at
all, are of negligible importance¹.
The two printed editions of KB (L and P) which are referred to above do not
punctuate the text. The Malayāḷam manuscripts without exception put a daṇḍa
to mark the end of each passage. There is also another notable way of marking
the ending of a passage: Before the third or fourth letter of the ending of a passa-
ge² there is a marking which shows that the reciter has to prepare himself for a
svaraṇa, as it is called by the Nampūtiris, which is in the form of a slur (kampa).
The recitation by Mr. Ē. RĀMAN NAMPŪTIRI also clearly marks the end of a passage
by the slur. Besides, the number of the passages in each Khaṇḍa is indicated at
the end by the words puram (21) balam (33), etc., using the Kaṭapayādi system
¹ There are two schools of Ṛgvedins in Kerala, one designated as Triśśūr yogam
and the other as Tirunāvāya yogam. These two schools have some small differences
in the recitations of the RV as well as in ritual procedure. Mr. Ē. RĀMAN NAMPŪTIRI
belongs to the Tirunāvāya school. For a difference between readings of these schools
see: footnote No. 6–6 on page 92.
² When the last letter but one of the passage is a guru or the passage ends with iti,
the mark is found before the third letter from last; but when the last letter but one is
a laghu, it is found before the fourth letter.