Buchbesprechungen Comptes Rendus

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269481/1

Page #1

1210
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1211
zu verdanken, dass Japan ohne aufreibenden Bürgerkrieg zu einer neuen Regierungsform fand und den Sprung in die Neuzeit schaffte.
Shibas Werk bewegt sich ausschliesslich im Rahmen des oberen Schwert- und Hofadels. Dieses Milieu und die auch in der Ubersetzung nachvollzogene gehobene Sprache macht die Lektüre zwar anspruchsvoll, verleiht ihr aber einen besonderen Reiz, den sich der historisch interessierte westliche Leser nicht entgehen lassen sollte. Im Gegensatz zum deutschen Sprachraum erfreuen sich in Japan historische Stoffe in Literatur, Film und Fernsehen grosser Beliebtheit. Das Staatliche Japanische Fernsehen NHK sendet jedes Jahr eine sich über zwölf Monate hinwegziehende Serie zu einem historischen Thema. Die Folge von 1998 trägt den Titel "Tokugawa Yoshinobu", nicht zuletzt in Gedenken an den 1996 verstorbenen Schriftsteller Shiba Ryotaro. Das interessante Nachwort Eduard Klopfensteins behandelt die Person Shibas, seine Schreibhaltung und Bedeutung in der japanischen Literaturgeschichte und Gesellschaft. Es bietet zudem einen erleichterten Zugang zum vorliegenden, aus einem fremden Kulturkreis stammenden Werk. Um den Genuss der Lektüre zu steigern, empfiehlt es sich, das Nachwort zuerst zu lesen.
includes the items Parifiksa Savyakhya and Sarva sammata-siksa Savyakhya.
The book under review illustrates that Wezler's hope has, to at least some extent, been fulfilled and that some of the work that Aithal planned to do has been taken up by someone else, Ralf Stautzebach (RS). It will not cause surprise that RS has prepared this book at the University of Heidelberg, where it has been accepted as dissertation in 1993; the University of Heidelberg is the institution with which also the author of Veda-Laksana is associated
As indicated in the title, the book under review deals with two different Siksäs of the Taittiriya-Sakha. It further contains a short general introduction and an appendix about present-day Taittiriya-recitation in Tamil Nadu. The present review will concentrate on the discussion, edition and explanation of the Parisikşa.
It goes without saying that the book under review leans heavily on Aithal's Veda-Laksana, sometimes to the extent of being rather unintelligible without it. Consider, for example, the ms-basis on which the edition of the Parisikşå and of its commentary Yajuşabhuşana has been prepared. In the relevant section "Zur Texterstellung" we read (p. 13): "Der im fol. genden wiedergegebene Text der (Parisikşa) mit dem Kommentar (Yaju. sabhūsana) gründet sich bis auf [Pariśikṣa) 265-84 auf einer Devanagarikopie des Grantha-Ms. MD 924 in (Sanskrit Texts on Phonetics (Lokesh Chandra 1981)] 317-94. Es ist trotz mehrfachen Bemühungen von Herrn Dr. Aithal nicht gelungen, anderer Mss.-Kopien zu dieser Sikşá habhaft zu werden." This manuscript, then, contains both text and commentary. Three other mss. are mentioned, which are stated to agree largely with the one used by RS. None of them contains verses 265-284. These verses figure nonetheless in the edition. Where do they come from? The following remark is meant to provide the answer (p. 13): "In dieser Hinsicht gibt der Schluss des Hamburger Ms. eine vollständige Ergänzung, wenn auch der letzte Vers nicht abschliesst." None of this is very clear. until one looks up Parisikså in Aithal's Veda-Laksana (p. 429-432), where not only various mss of Parisikşå and Yajusabhasana (or both) are men.
Ursula Koike-Good
STAUTZEBACH, Ralf. Parifikşā and Sarvasarrumarafiksa. Rechtlautlehren der Taittiriya-Sakha. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 1994. (Beiträge zur Südasienforschung, Südasien-Institut, Universität Heidelberg, Bd. 163.) VI + 419 pp.
In the Foreword to Veda-Laksana: Vedic Ancillary Literature, 4 Descriptive Bibliography compiled by K. Parameswara Aithal (Franz Steiner, Stuttgart, 1991), A. Wezler recalled that the Vedic ancillary texts known by the name Veda-Laksana "have been virtually forgotten since about 40 years". Later on in the same Foreword he expressed the hope that Aithal's book "will fulfil its true purpose as a mighty incentive to resume the editorial and similar scholarly activities in this highly interesting field of traditional Indian learning". Aithal himself provided towards the end of his Introduction (p. 20), a list of Sikşas which he intended to edit. This list

Page #2

1212
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
tioned and briefly described, but also the concluding verses in the Hamburg ms quoted. 1
Also elsewhere the clarity of presentation leaves to be desired. There can of course be no doubt that the Siksäs constitute a highly specialized area of research, access to which is not easy for an outsider. But this can be no reason to make the book which tries to provide such access itself inaccessible. Unfortunately there is no other way to describe the book under review. Texts unknown to all but a few readers, even there where they are introduced for the first time, are referred to with the help (?) of obscure abbreviations. The "Einleitung" contains, for example, the following information: "Bei der Bearbeitung der pårs und ssf konnte ich an folgende Publikationen anknüpfen: tpr mit den Kommentaren tbhr, vaid und mah...[:] vyas...[:] ks...[:] kauns ...[:] vass...[:] bhvs... Weiterhin ... su ...[:] sams...] kns[:] [d]ie ārs[:] [d]ie siddhs..." The list of abbreviations is found at the end of the book (pp. 415-16) and makes itself abundant use of abbreviations. The notes, they too full of abbreviations, are also at the end of the book (pp. 275-409). The result is that, in order to read even the least problematic passage of the book under review, one needs to permanently keep at least two fingers on other pages. This might easily have been avoided.
The lack of effort to make the text accessible to a non-initiated public is a general feature of the book. This is to be regretted, for the very neglect into which this type of text had fallen calls for a work that introduces readers not accustomed to this kind of literature. More could have been done to make the work under review fulfill that role.
Questions relating to the Parisikșă are discussed in a short introduction to the text. Here I will take up one of those questions, the one whether the author of the Pärisikșă also wrote its commentary Yajuşabhūṣaṇa or not. RS dedicates less than a page to it and does not come to a clear conclusion. I will show that much more could be said about it, and that a very probable answer can be reached.
1 The Hamburg ms is "Hamburg (Staats- und Universitäts-Bibliothek) (cod. Palmbl. III 8/133)" and is described separately on p. 549-550 of Aithal's Veda-Lakṣaṇa (item 1195: Veda-Laksana (HB)). Strangely, the Păriśiksă is not found among the 39 texts which this codex is here stated to contain.
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
2
1213
The question is taken up in a short section, § 2.8 on p. 26-27 ("Sind Verfasser von [Parisikṣa] und [Yajuṣabhüşaṇa] identisch?"). The question is only dealt with cursorily. Consider the following passage: "Die Identität geht nicht, wie Varma meint, aus der Einleitung des Kommentars hervor. Mit [Cakra] wird lediglich der Autor eines Lehrwerkes zum varṇakrama. benannt, was sich auch auf einen Kommentar beziehen kann." In other words, this introductory verse might identify the author of the Yajuşabhüşana as being Cakra. This is practically all RS says about the issue.
Note here that the preceding introductory verse adds that Cakra's father's name was Rama. With regard to the Hamburg ms, considered above, Aithal's Veda-Laksana states (p. 549): "The Ms. must have been written by or belonged to Cakra, son of Rama Ayyangår (of Uruttiti?), whose writings are found in the codex." It seems likely that the two Cakras are identical. The Hamburg ms, as we have seen, contains the Pariśikşa,2 but not the Yajuşabhüşaṇa. This same ms does however contain commentaries on other Siksas (e.g., the Sarvasammatašikṣa-vyakhya). If Cakra the son of Rama had composed both Parisikşa and its commentary Yajuşabhüşaṇa, it would be hard to explain why he left out the commentary in this case. The situation becomes somewhat more understandable, without as yet becoming fully clear, if we assume that he is the author of the commentary only. In that case the Hamburg ms may be a collection of works he copied, perhaps against payment, and to which he could not, or did not wish to, add his own composition. This agrees with the circumstance that a colophon after Parisikșă 168 explicitly identifies the son of Rama as the author of the Yajuşabhüşaṇa, a commentary on the Parisikșă (...rämasünuviracite pärisikşävyäkhyänabhüte yajuşabhüşaṇākhye ...). Further research-beginning with a detailed inspection of the Hamburg ms-may throw further light on this issue, but RS has not even mentioned it.
Internal criteria will have to be considered next. The use of the first or third person in the commentary to refer to the basic text does not help -here as so often-to determine identity or difference of authorship. Both occur, as in udaharişyāmaḥ introducing [221], against nirupayati to introduce [124] and following slokas, besides numerous occurrences of äha.
See however note 1, above.

Page #3

1214
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1215
Occasionally RS points to a difference between Parisikş and Yajusabhusana, without discussing its relevance for the question of authorship. Parisiksa 65 defines the place of articulation (sthdna) of consonants as the place where contact takes place. The commentary adds that this definition does not literally apply to fricatives etc., because no contact takes place in their case. RS comments (p. 61): "Die Begründung trifft nicht auf (die Pårifiksa) zu, da (Parisikşa) 76 zu den Frikativen lediglich eine Offnung in der Mitte des Artikulators beschreibt." Does this have implications regarding the authorship question? RS does not raise the question, but one is tempted to interpret this difference as due to different authorship.
In this connection it is to be noted that Parisiksa 3 announces an enumeration of sounds (varnasamannaya), but that no such list is given in that text. The Yajuşabhusana, on the other hand, does list these sounds, 59 in number, in four verses. This might at first sight be considered an indication that the commentary is an integral part of the Parisikşa. However, it is equally possible to look upon these four verses as belonging to the Parisikşå rather than to the commentary. It is not clear by what criterion RS has relegated them to the commentary.
Paninian terminology constitutes the background of the terminology of the Parisiksa. Indeed, the Yajuşabhüşana speaks of the agreement with the established conventions of grammar etc." (vyakaranádiśästrasiddhasanketanusára) as an argument justifying certain expressions (p. 41). Many technical terms introduced in the Parisikşå coincide with those known from grammar. Occasionally a grammatical convention is used without it being introduced in the text. Consider the use of after a short vowel-in ar, i and w-to designate just the short vowel (Parisiksa 18). This convention should have been, but is not, explained in the initial section on technical terms (called paribhasprakarana in the commentary). The expressions ar, it and w are explained in the commentary, as akára, ikära and ukara respectively. Had the authors of the Siksa and of the commentary been one and the same person, one might have expected a definition of this convention.
The same is true for the use of the Papinian pratyähäras. Ac, used for the first time in Parisiksa 25, covers all vowels, but nothing in the PariSiksa tells us why. The commentary explains the expression (akärádya ukaraparyanta svara; p. 43), and is clearly aware that it needs explanation
Under Parisiksa 27 it similarly explains ac (svara) and hal vyanjana). Had its author been the author of the Sikşa, he might then have added the required explanation in the section on technical terms.
A strange reading is provided in Parisikşă 43-44 which, even more strangely, seems to be confirmed by the commentary. We read there: nadasya samvrte kanthe vasas tu vivre sari/ hakarah kriyate madhye .../. RS translates/paraphrases "Bei zusammengezogener Stellung im Hals wird Ton, bei geöffneter Hauch und in der Mittelstellung hakára erzeugt". This no doubt gives the intended meaning, but it only translates the Sanskrit if we assume as first word nominative nddah rather than genitive nadasya. The parallel passage in the Taittiriya-Pratisakhya has indeed samvrte kanthe nädah kriyate. Yet the Yajuşabhusana introduces this verse with the words: ... nädāday[ah) ... cyante "nadasya" iryadina, thus confirming the reading nådasya. It does not however try to explain this reading, and comments as if the expected nominative were there. Only one conclusion seems possible here: the author of the Yajusabhūşana found the incorrect reading nadasya in his ms. (The correct reading may have been nadas tu, nadas ca, or something of the sort.) This in its turn is only possible if the author of the Yajuşabhusana was not identical with the author of the Parisikşa. Once again the situation might be further clarified by a detailed inspection of other mss.
(A similar situation occurs in Parisikşå 51, but this time without confirmation by the commentary. The reading ekántarasya does not seem to make sense, and the corresponding sutra of the Taittiriya-Pratisakhya (2.25) has ekantaras tu. The Yajuşabhüşana appears to cite the text as ekäntara ini. It would have been appropriate to explain why ekantarasya has been maintained, but RS has not done so.)
It is also interesting to see that the term hanu "jaw" is feminine in the Parisiksa, but masculine in the Yajusabhusana (except where the latter cites the former). Cp, hanūpasamhstatare in Parisiksa 53, aryupasamhrte hani in 54, näri vyaste hana in 57; against hanu ... atyupasamhrtau ... vivstau etc. in Yajusabhūşana 48 (p. 52 1. 11 f.).
3
Surprisingly, the commentary on Parifiksa 135 explains the plural acah as acidayah svarar This should of course be har upasanhiatare, dual being pragthya (Panini 1.1.11). Is this a mistake?
4

Page #4

1216
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1217
In this context we also have to consider the relationship between Parisikşå 48 and the way it is explained in the Yajuşabhüşana. The Sikşă reads nativyastam avarne harvosthart näryupasamhstam, which RS translates: "Bei den a-Vokalen sind die Kiefer und Lippen nicht zu weit geöffnet und nicht zu sehr angenähert". This line is practically identical to Taittiriya-Prátisakhya 2.12 (avame natyupasamhstam aşthahanu närivyostam) but for the fact that the Parisikşa, unlike the Taittiriya-Pratišākhya, is metrical. Both the Yajusabhusana and the commentaries on the TaittiriyaPrátisakhya interpret this statement in such a manner that the two adjectives concern different sounds: short a on the one hand, long á and pluta a3 on the other. The Yajuşabhusana cites even another part of the Pärifiksā to support its interpretations. RS does not comment in any detail on the significance of this apparent difference between text and commentary, and limits himself to saying that the citation is not very convincing. William D. Whitney (1868:55) is more outspoken and concludes that at least in the case of the Taittiriya-Prátisakhya) the commentator appears to go against the text he comments. If we draw the same conclusion in the case of the Parisiksa, one is led to think that its author was different from the author of the Yajusabhusana. What is more, one may then have to consider the possibility that the author of the Parisikşå was not influenced by any of the three surviving commentaries on the Taittiriya-Pratisakhya, with all the chronological consequences this may entail. The case is not however completely waterproof. One might still maintain that a supposedly single author of both Parisikşå and Yajuşabhusana wished to imitate the Taittiriya-Pratisakhya and one of its commentaries (the Vaidikabharana). But this alternative would seem to be less convincing than the thesis of double authorship.
Parisiksa 167 contains an obscure reading. RS presents it in the form apparently accepted by the commentator: ... niryah dtocyare 'sau kvacid ena orah. The problem lies in the last two words, which in the ms have the form esa orah. Neither reading is clear, but the commentator explains: enta oria ekårena okarena. This leads RS to the paraphrase "der nityakampa (wird) mit a, bisweilen mit e und o (gebildet)". There can however be no doubt that this interpretation does not fit the words of the Sikşd, and indeed that the words of the Sikşå must here be corrupt. The commentator forces an impossible interpretation on a nonsensical reading, which implies that he is different from the Siksakara.
Elsewhere the commentator explains a grammatically incorrect line as being arşa "usage of the seers". Parisikşa 183 concludes with the words: evam ca saptasvarabhakty udährtäh "So sind Beispiele für die 7 svarabhaktis gezeigt worden". The commentator observes: arra svarabhaktaya iti vaktavye svarabhaktity arseryadi vijneyam. It seems unlikely that the commentator describes his own language as arsa
Parišiksa 244-245 express the following: "Ein tonlos unaspirierter Verschlusslaut am pada-Ende wird vor oder s aspiriert". However, "djer Kommentar) führt weiterhin Beispiele zur Aspiration innerhalb eines pada auf: samvathsaram, takhşam. Dem entspricht die Regelfassung in (Sarvasammata-Sikşa] 19-20.1".6 The text commented upon is however very explicit about the requirement that this operation can only take place at the boundary between two words: the expression padänta figures twice over, and the following s and are characterized as apadäntavartin. It seems certain that commentator and Sikşākära did not agree in this matter, and were therefore different people.
This short survey shows, I believe, that all passages allow of the possibility that Pärisikşi and Yajuşabhuşana had different authors, and that some more or less force us to draw this conclusion. I have no doubt that RS, if he had taken the trouble to take this issue somewhat more seriously, would have arrived at the same conclusion. As it is, he seems to be inclined to consider the two identical.
The hypothesis that the Parisikşă could be older than the commentaries on the Taittiriya-Pratisakhya, discussed above, is not without consequences RS draws in the introduction to the Parisikşà attention to its similarity with that Pratiśakhya. He then states (p. 24-25): "In einigen Fällen flossen hierbei Interpretationen ein, die (Tribhasyaratna) und (Vaidikábharana] (i.e., the two commentaries on the Taittiriya-Prátisakhya of that name, JB) gleichermassen entsprechen.... Unter den Auslegungen zum (TaittiriyaPrātiśākhya) geben insbesondere jene einen Impuls zur Bewertung der
5
A similar remark might have been appropriate under Parisiksa 179, which contains apparently an accusative plural svarabhakaayas (daharisye svarabhakrayas sah). Instead the commentator repeats the phrase without grammatical remarks. RS adds a reference to "wiss 10-1". Since this abbreviation does not occur in the list of abbreviations at the end of his book, this reference remains obscure.

Page #5

1218
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1219
(Siksa), die nur auf (Vaidikabharana) zurückzuführen sind ..." After some examples and remarks RS concludes: "ich (halte) es für wahrscheinlich, dass zu den Vorlagen der (Parisikşa) ebenfalls [Vaidikabharana) zählt".
Why not assume the opposite, that the Vaidikabharana was influenced by the Parisiksa? The question is discussed, in the usual cursory manner, in the section dealing with the relationship between Parisiksa and Vyasasiksa. We read here (p. 25): "Dass letztere keineswegs der (Parisikşa] folgt, zeigt (Parisiksa) 239-40. Dieser Vers vereinigt bei der Definition eines Augmentes die Darstellung des [Taittiriya-Prätiśákhya), der (VyasaSiksa) und des (Vaidikábharana). Die (Parisikša] kann hier nicht zugleich von (Vyasasikşa) und (Vaidikabharana) übernommen worden sein, da beide grundsätzlich verschiedene Ansätze vorbringen." This statement is not further explained, neither here nor under Parisiksa 239-40. And indeed, it is not easy to find what part of the Vaidikabharana supposedly exerted an influence here. The most likely candidate, as far as I can see, is the phrase: sa khaly abhinidhana iry ucyate/ abhinidhiyate praksipyata iry abhinidhānah (Shama Sastri & Rangacarya, 1906: 379). Something similar occurs in Parisiksa 240: sa cabhinidhiyate 'trabhinidhana ucyate. But obviously no Sanskrit author needs another text in order to link abhinidhana with abhinidhiyate. It is true that the Yajuşabhusana cites the Vaidikabharana, but this proves nothing with regard to the relationship between Parisikså and Vaidikabharana. Or does RS take it for granted that Pärisikşa and Yajuşabhūsana have the same author? As so often, RS remains vague.
der (Yajurveda) sind nur diese (gemeint sind offensichtlich die im Vers genannten) als Präpositionen anzunehmen. ..." In a note (no. 26 on p. 288) RS observes that the commentary here "(Vaidikabharana) und [Tribhâsyaratna) sinnwidrig zusammengestellt hat." He then explains: "Nach Vorgabe des Merkspruches haben Präpositionen des Typs gari als ... upasarga zu gelten. Es müsste dann aber nach (Parisikşa] 234 anu chandansi zu anu cchandárrisi erweitert werden, was der [Kommentar) ausschliessen will."
This does not seem to make sense. The Merkspruch is, apparently, the etymology. But an etymology cannot be looked upon as a definition, nor as having more than approximate validity in the interpretation of a word, in this case upasarga. It is not therefore justified to conclude that passages from the Vaidikabharana and from the Tribhasyaratna have here "sinnwidrig" been combined. Note also that the Yajusabhusana does not hesitate to use the expression upasarga in connection with prepositions that are not included in the above list, such as sam (p. 31). This appears to mean that the term upasarga is only used in connection with the above enumerated list where the Yajurveda is concerned. Everywhere else Paninian terminology is used.
The same attitude with regard to etymologies shows itself under Parisikşå 15-16. The commentary contains the following etymological explanation (p. 40): anusvaryate pascardhe svaravad uccaryata iry anusvārah "Weil er in der letzten Hälfte (anu) wie ein Vokal (-svaryate) ausgesprochen wird, heisst er anus vāra. A note (no. 5 on p. 288) comments: "Dieser Satz kann als Ergänzung der anus vara-Definition 228-9.1 angesehen werden." This remark does no harm, if its sole aim is to derive information from the etymology. But the etymology was certainly not intended to be a definition, or a supplement to a definition.
Parisiksa 133 explains the expression dhalvata with the help of the verbal form abhisandhiyare. RS comments (p. 89): "Der Name (dhaivata) wird offenbar als derivative veddhi aus einer angesetzten Wz. dhi (aus dha) entwickelt." However, etymology is differentiated in India from grammar, and does not require strict derivations. 7
The Yajusabhusana regularly gives etymologies (nirvacana) of key terms. RS seems to attach more value to these etymologies than they may deserve. This is what one is tempted to conclude from a note added to Parisikşå 1214. These lines assign the name upasarga to parl, a, ni, adhi, abhi, vi, prari, pra, ava and upa. The commentary contains the following two lines, which occur in (have been taken from?) the Vaidikabharana and the Tribhasyaratna respectively: nirvacanam tu garitaya karmapravacanlyataya va padántarair upasriyanta ity upasargah/yajurvedavişaye upasargå etāvanta everi mantavyam/ RS explains (p. 39): "Weiterhin gibt der (Kommentar) die Ableitung: Die Präpositionen (upasarga) heissen so, weil sie mit anderen pada-s zusammengebracht werden (upastjyante) mit der Eigenschaft als gati oder als karmapravacaniya'. [The Yajusabhūsana) verlässt nun den Bereich grammatischer Argumentation und fährt fort: 'Im Bereich
7
Cp. Bronkhorst, 1984.

Page #6

1220
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1221
The Sanskrit text of the Sikså and its commentary is followed by an incomplete, but as a rule reliable paraphrase. Occasionally a literal translation is provided. This, too, is normally reliable, but there are exceptions. Consider the following. The Yajuşabhūsana (under Pärisikşă 39-40) contains the following passage (p. 47 1. 4-7): dvividhah Sabdo nityah karyas ceti/ tatra nityah sarvadesavyāpy avyakta ekah Sabdo brahmety abhidhyare/ tasmāt kāryah Sabda utpadyate/ sa vyaktaḥ kvacitko 'nantabhedaf ca/ tasya varnátmakasyotpartir iha vyakh[yleyatayādhikriyatel. RS translates this as follows: "Der Laut ist zweifach: unvergänglich und hervorgebracht. Der unvergängliche Laut durchdringt alle Orte und ist ungeschieden und einzig. Er wird brahma genannt. Aus diesem entsteht der hervorgebrachte Laut. Er ist isoliert, tritt bisweilen in Erscheinung und hat unendlich viele Arten. Er enthalt die Sprachlaute. Seine Entstehung, die einer weiteren Erklärung bedarf, wird zum adhikara erhoben." The German words in italics present cases where the translation leaves to be desired. Avyakta and vyakta do not, in this context, mean "ungeschieden" and "isoliert", but "non-manifest(ed)" and "manifest(ed)" respectively. And the manifested sound does not contain (enthalt) the phonemes, but is made up of them (varnärmaka). 8 The expression (utpartir) vyakhyeyatayadhikriyate, finally, does not mean "Seine Entstehung, die einer weiteren Erklärung bedarf, wird zum adhikara erhoben", but "Its production is made the subject-matter as something that is in need of explanation / as the thing to be explained".
This last expression contains the instrumental of an abstract noun (vyakhyeyataya) in connection with the object of a verb. It seems that RS has difficulties with such constructions in general. Under Parisikşå 41-42 he paraphrases pratiniyatataya friyate as "Vernommenwerden durch Zurückkommen". The correct translation is "it is heard as fixed for each single case"; cp. Filliozat, 1988: p. 82 9 27d.
The fact that as a rule no literal translation is provided may account for the fact that at times Sanskrit readings are accepted that are untranslatable. Examples are nádasya and ekantarasya in Parisikşă 43 and 51 respectively, considered above. Also the line idaiddvitiyedrasavahnisamjnah in Parisiksa 83 seems to me hard to construe; the obvious emendation idaiddvitiyedrasă vahnisamjñaḥ would go against the metre. Gakärasya in
Parisiksa 229 must be something like gakärah sa, as is confirmed by the commentary. A particularly striking example is svaro na sandhanapade visargah in Parisikş, 198, which must be svaro na sandhau na pade visargah. In all these and similar cases one wonders how RS conceives of the task of editing a text. The notes at the end of the book show that he does not always simply reproduce the manuscript, but on many occasions ne apparently does, even when the result is plainly incorrect, or contrasts with the reading accepted by the commentator (recall that RS considers the commentator as being possibly identical with the Sikşakára!). On p. 128 RS characterizes a passage from the commentary as being "leicht korrupt" without specifying what is wrong with it, nor proposing any emendation
Parisikşă 241 reads, in RS's edition: rante pare sati tarhy anantai kagau, dváv api cagamau stah. This reading cannot be correct, for various reasons. To begin with, we learn from the commentary that this rule concerns the insertion of an augment k between 1 and 1. The rule in its present form says nothing of the kind, but a simple emendation from ante tortát te (confirmed by the commentary: nakārād iti kim and te takäre ... pare sati) solves this problem. However, problems remain. The rule remains metrically chaotic, and still does not express all the commentary ascribes to it. RS could, and should, have recorded this, but he doesn't. Even less does he point out that the rule does fit the upajäri metre (characteristic of many of the surrounding verses) if only some additional syllables be provided. The metrical scheme in its present, unsatisfactory, state is:
--U-UU-U--u--UU-U--
By adding the three syllables in brackets, this becomes:
--U-(-) UU-U--/
-)U--UU-U--
which is a perfect upajāti. On the basis of the elements presented in the commentary, but that are missing in the incomplete verse, one can make the following conjecture as to its full form:
när te pare (dhe) sati tarhy anantat/ skramar) kagau dua api agamau stah//
8
Under Parisiksă 41-42 RS paraphrases again warmātmaka as "Sprachlaut enthaltend".

Page #7

1222
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS
1223
read 'etdy etan', with y. This may look strange at first sight, but is regular Paninian sandhi for ete etan, elision of y being optional by P. 8.3.19 lopah Säkalyasya. 10 The Taittiriya Prátisakhya prescribes elision of y and v by sūtra 10.19, but adds (10.20) that Ukhya disagrees with it. This example shows that the authors of the Parisikşå and of its commentary did not necessarily always know, or accept the reading of the Taittiriya texts known to us. 11
To conclude. With some more attention to details the book under review might have been considerably improved. It is unlikely that someone else will anytime soon edit and interpret the Parisiksa and Sarvasammatasiksa, so the book will, in spite of its shortcomings, become the basis of future studies concerning these Sikşas and related issues. In the situation one can only advise its readers to use it with caution.
There is of course no guarantee that this is the correct reading (which can be checked, and possibly refuted, with the help of the other mss of the text known to exist), but unlike the text presented by RS, it may well be.
A reasonable conjecture might have been made in the case of Pärisiksa 249, too. Consider to begin with the first line of the commentary on 1248-249): idaidaya ikärapurva aikarapurvo yo yakaro dvinipau dvitvam na bhajen napadyate .... A note attached to the word dvinipou says: "ms: dvinipau dvi". This allows us to conclude that RS planned to correct this reading-no doubt into dviripam dvir am, which alone makes sense- but somehow forgot to do so. This sentence, thus emended, paraphrases the expressions dvinipam and na bhajer, which one would therefore expect to find in the passage commented upon. They are not there, but the edited version contains a lacuna, which we must consider in some detail. The second half of (249) reads, in the edition: sparsottarasthe... A note gives the ms reading, which is: visargottarasthobhadvirüpya//. This cannot, of course, be the correct reading, but it does contain similarities to the missing expressions na bhajet and dvirüpam. RS changed the beginning on the basis of its citation in the commentary (usmasparfortarasth(e), where uşma occurs at the end of the first half of [249]). If we add na bhajed dvinipam, we arrive at: sparfotarasthe na bhajed dvirūpam, which is metrically impeccable, and which makes perfect sense in its context.
An interesting case is to be found under Parisiksa 144. The Siksa reads: ivarnakotor yavakarabhave yah svaryate kşalpra udattayoh syd "When there is y or v in the place of udätta i oru, the (resulting) svarita is [called) ksaipra". The commentary raises the question why ivarnakotoh "in the place of i ory" had to be expressed, in the following passage: ivarnakotor iti kim/ eta eran' (TS 6.6.8.3), 'asáv adityah' (TS 2.1.2.4), 'samyartah' (TS 1.5.1.1), 'sam vadante' (TS 4.2.6.5). RS paraphrases: "Gegenbeispiele: (a) andere Laute als i oder u tragen den udätta: 'etá etán', 'asáv adirydh' etc. ..." He has clearly misunderstood the passage, for the context requires that the examples illustrate cases where there is y or v that do not replace i or u. Three of the four examples fit without difficulty: 'asáv adiryah', 'sarrtyartah' and 'sam vadante' all contain y or v that do not replace i or u. What about the first example? It clearly has to
Some suggested improvements in the edition: (Note that no systematic search for errors has been made, and that the following enumeration merely lists some of the errors that a superficial reading brought to light.)
p. 411.2 p. 431.21 p. 461.11 p. 471. 7 p. 491.5 p. 50 1. 26 p. 54 1.4 p. 65 1.25 p. 651. 27
praripsitasya akha procyamana sadvimati vyakheyatayao nadasya "nupradhanam ekantarasya kantham sthanam kanthasthanam
ttttttt
präripsitasya (?) akhya procyamane sadvimsatir vyakhyeyataya nadas tu (?) "nupradanam ekantaras tu (?) kanthah sthanam kanthah sthanam
10 The Kasika under this rule gives, among other examples, the contrasting pair a
adiryah / asav adiryah, precisely the quotation from the Taittiriya Samhith also given in the Yajusabhsana. (This quotation has not been identified in Wilhelm
Rau's Die vedischen Zitate in der Katika Viti (1993).) 11 Note that the counterexample ta enam bhisayari (TS 2.3.11.4) under (196-197)
and in [207) shows that here a hiatus (and not y) separates the two vowels 'ae.
9
Besides Idaidaya/h), cited from Parifiksi 248. I have no idea how to understand this form.

Page #8
1224 BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS BUCHBESPRECHUNGEN/COMPTES RENDUS 1225 REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS (in these last two cases the correct reading might conceivably be kantha sthanam, in accordance with Taittiriya Pratisakhya 9.1) p. 67 1. 12 vargavatsthanayogo + vargavat sthanayogo p. 67 1. 12 mukhasabdenatra + mukhasabdenatra p. 69 1. 27 uktaprakarane uktaprakarane p. 861. 1 madhyakasya madhyamasya (?) p. 87 1. 23 sabdasyoudattao sabdasyodatta p. 89 1. 19-20 degpradhanyotkarsal: + opradhanyotkarsal p. 94 1. 11 eta etan etay etan p. 99 1. 26 bhihate 'bhihate p. 100 1. 20 sa idhanah sa idhanah p. 109 1. 12 sya dhursam ityo + sya dhursad ityo (?) p. 117 1. 2 svaro na sandhanapade vio + svaro na sandhau na pade vio p. 117 1. 24 svarah svarah p. 120 1. 3 ce p. 123 1. 11 prakarena prakarena p. 128 1. 4 gakarasya gakarah sa (?) p. 134 1. 32-33 nante pare sati tarhy anantat kagau, dvav api cagamau stah - nat te pare (dhe) sati tarhy anantat/ (kramat) kagau dvav api cagamau stah|| p. 136 1. 7 kim artham kim artham kimartham p. 1361. 8 tatrafiks tatra Sikso p. 137 1.23 prathamsparsah prathamasparsah p. 139 1. 4 sparsottarasthe ... + sparsottarasthe (na bhajed dvirupam) p. 139 1. 5 dvirupau dvirupam BRONKHORST, Johannes (1984): "Nirukta, Unadi Sutra, and Astadhyayi." Indo-Iranian Journal 27, 1-15. FILLIOZAT, Pierre-Sylvain (1988): Grammaire sanskrite panineenne. Paris: Picard. RAU, Wilhelm (1993): Die vedischen Zitate in der Kasika Vstri. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. (AAWL Jg. 1993, Nr. 5.) SHAMA SASTRI, R., and RANGACARYA, K. (1906): The Taittiriya-Prarisakhya. With the commentaries Tribhasyaratna of Somayarya and Vaidikabharana of Gargya Gopala Yajvan, with an English Introduction, and Sanskrit Introduction by K. Rangacarya. Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985. WHITNEY, William D. (1868): The Taittiriya-Pratisakhya, with its commentary the Tribhashyaratna: Text, Translation and Notes. Reprint: Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1973. ca AAWL Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Klasse Jahrgang Paninian sutra Taittiriya Samhita 11111 Johannes Bronkhorst Other corrections: ++ p. 47 1. 23 Sabdasyodbhava p. 471.34 1.12.12 p. 109 1. 22 hastini p. 132 1. 29 laksyanusara p. 290 1. 35 (n. 7) nicht nicht ++ odbhava 2.4.2 hastini laksyanusara nicht +