Critical editions

[kalyans at ix.netcom.com]

You wrote: 
>
>For the record, (not that it matters to anyone) I 
think critical editions >of Brahmanas are essential, 
even if they turn to agree substanially with
>the 19th century editions.
>
>Nath Rao (natharao+ at osu.edu)		614-366-9341

Let me cite from the introduction of Arthur Berriedale
Keith to his 1909 edition of aitareya AraNyaka:

"When, in June 1905, I commenced preparations for the 
production of an edition of aitareya AraNyaka, I was 
mainly influenced by the expectatio, raised in part by 
the reference in Prof. Buhler's Report (J. Bombay 
branch RAS, 1877, Extra No. p. 34) on his Kashmir 
journey to differences in the text of rAjendralAla 
mitra's edition. rAjendralAla used only two complete 
MSS. of the text, and three of sAyaNa's commentary, 
besides three other MSS. of parts of the text or 
commentary, and it seemed reasonable to suppose that 
the employment of additional MS. material would add to 
the correctness of the text. This expectation has not 
been justified. The use of additional MSS. enables me 
to correct a good many slips and one or two serious 
omissions in rAjendralAla's text, but it establishes 
the fact that the tradition as to the text seems 
unbroken. Variant readings occur here and there, but 
none of sufficient importance to justify the idea that 
any different recensions of the text ever existed, and 
it is hardly ever possible to feel serious doubt as to 
the correct reading..."

Now, my inquiry is this: 

Is it not equally critical to analyze (or, perhaps, 
unravel) the rationale for the 'secrecy' that 
permeates the 'allegorical' texts of the brAhmaNas and 
AraNyakas?

S. Kalyanaraman.