Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 173 Johannes Bronkhorst On some Vedic quotations in Bhartrhari's works In an earlier volume of this journal Wilhelm Rau (1980) listed and, as far as possible, traced the Vedic quotations in Bhartrhari's Vakya padiya and his commentary to the Vyakarana-Mahabhasya. Some improvements seem called for. 1. Rau has overlooked the fact that AL 5.18-8.17 deals with uha "modification". Modified mantras cannot be expected to be found in the Veda. This follows from the following passage (AL 6.12-15) : jur asi dhrta manasa justa visnave tasyas te satyasavasa iti evam vede strilingena pathitah / tasmad yada sadya skrisu sandas trivatsah somakrayano bhavati tada stryarthavrttitam anapeksyaiva padanam pumarthabhidhayinam adrstam vede pumsabdam uhante / jur asi dhrto manasa justo visnave tasya te satyasavasa iti / "In the Veda the following is read thus with feminine gender : jur asi dhrta manasa justa visnave tasyas te satyasavasah. Therefore, when at the sacrifices to be performed on the day the soma is bought, a three year old uncastrated (bull] is the price to be paid for the soma, then, completely disregarding that female objects are denoted by the words, they modify (each feminine word) into a masculine word, unseen in the Veda, expressive of a male object, as follows: jur asi dhrto manasa justo visnave tasya te satyasavasah." Clearly the first, unmodified, sentence is said to occur in the Veda, the second, modified, one is said not to occur there. This is confirmed by Rau (no. 40 and 41). Again, AL 7.1-7 deals with the question if modified mantras are themselves mantras'. The problem is if, in modifying mantras, Vedic rules of grammar must be applied. This problem could obviously not arise is the modified mantras were simply quoted from the Veda. In view of the above, the following numbers must be dropped from Rau's list : 38, 41, 50, 83, 94, 107. None of these had been satisfactorily traced. Number 44, which clearly concerns a modified sentence, can be connected with an original ta For a partial elucidation of this difficult passage see Bronkhorst, forthcoming. Cf. Sabarabhasya to sutra 2.1.34. 2.
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 174 Johannes Bronkhorst asmai prativedaya, which occurs Mans 1, 8, 3, 1. 2. Number 97 concerns AL 13.5 f. This passage appears to be corrupt. A partial reconstruction may be possible on the basis of Sivaramendra Sarasvati's Ratnaprakasa (MPV, I, p. 57) : haritikayam tu "ye yajamahe samidhah samidho' gne'gna ajyasya vyantu, narasam so 'gnim agna ajyasya vetu, ido' gninagna ajyasya vyantu, barhir agnir agna ajyasya vetu" iti pradarsitam/ tatra tanunapatsthane narasamsah pravarabhedena vyavasthitah/deg. The part samidhah ... vetu occurs verbatim AsvsS 2, 8, 6, with only this difference that Bhartrhari (as here quoted) has narasamso for AsvSs tanunapad. Both Sivaramendra Sarasvati and the commentator Gargya Narayana to AsvsS 2, 8, 6 account for this (as does, perhaps, AL 13, 3-4). Summing up : the numbers 38,41, 50, 83, 94,107 must be dropped from Rau's list; the numbers 44 and 97 can be satisfactorily traced, to Manss 1, 8, 3, i and Asvss 2,8,6 respectively. This result does not conflict with, even strengthens, Rau's conclusion that Bhartrhari was more familiar with the Maitrayaniya-texts than with the texts of any other Vedic school. References Bronkhorst, Johannes. forthcoming. "Meaning Entries in Panini's Dhatupatha'. JIP. Rau, Wilhelm. 1980. "Bhartshari und der Veda." StII 5/6 (Festschrift Paul Thieme), 167-80. Vaidyanatha Payagunda claims in his Chaya (NSP, 1, p. 36) that in Bhartrhari's commentary a passage closely similar to this one is ascribed to the ChandogyaBrahmana. This is mysterious, the more so since nothing like it can be found in that Brahmana, nor in any other Brahmana of the Samaveda. Should we conclude that this part of Bhartrhari's commentary was already highly corrupt in Vaidyanatha's days (18th century)? Or did Vaidyanatha - who knew the Ratnaprakasa (MPV, I, p. XIX; NSP, I, p. 195 n. 16) - wrongly quote from that work ?