Page:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu/556

1012 and vii. 93 are perhaps doubtful. As to book xix., see p. 896. The table follows according to the three grand divisions.⌋

i. none

ii. none

iii. none

iv. none

v. 4, 5, 16, 18, 19

vi. 47, 95, 120, 131, 132

vii. 5, 23, 27, 28, 40, 47-49, 58, 59, 94

viii. 4, 9, 10

ix. 6, 10

x. 2, 7, 8

xi. 3, 5, 7, 8

xii. 5

xiii. 4

xiv. none

xv. all

xvi. 's 4, 5, 7, 8

xvii. none

xviii. none

xix. all but 51, 52, 59, 60, 64, 68

xx. all

⌊The references to this treatise in the commentary as printed in the Bombay edition are made by adhyāya, and by kaṇḍikā as numbered from the beginning of each adhyāya, but without giving the individual sūtra. Bloomfield and Whitney cite by kaṇḍikā as numbered from the beginning of the treatise, and by sūtra. The addition of the sūtra makes the reference more precise and convenient; but both methods are at fault. The citations should be by adhyāya, by kaṇḍikā as numbered from the beginning of the adhyāya, and by sūtra. For the convenience of those who wish to study the Kāuçika as cited by the comm., the following concordance is given. The Roman numerals with the smaller Arabic figures (at the left and middle of each column) show the citations according to the method of the Bombay edition; the larger Arabic figures show the kāṇḍikas as numbered by Bloomfield. A better way to harmonize the two methods than by the use of this table is to write on the upper outside corner of each odd page of Bloomfield' s text-edition the adhyāya with a Roman numeral, and the kaṇḍikā as numbered from the beginning of the adhyāya with an Arabic numeral.