Orthoepic Diaskeuasis Of Rgveda And Date Of Panini

Author(s): Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269708/1

Page #1
JOHANNES BRONKHORST THE ORTHOEPIC DIASKEUASIS OF THE RGVEDA AND THE DATE OF PANINI* P. RPr ABBREVIATIONS Paninian sutra Rgveda-Pratisakhya. The sutra numbers both according to Mangal Deva Shastri's and Max Muller's editions are given. Rgveda RV 1.1. The Rgveda is known to us in a form which is fixed down to the minutest details. It obtained this form as the result of a process which, in as far as it concerns details of sandhi etc., is known by the name 'orthoepic diaskeuasis'. The main hypothesis to be defended in this article is that the orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Rgveda was not yet completed in the time of the RgvedaPratisakhya, and ended when but one version of the Rgveda remained, i.e., probably with the disappearance of the Baskala Samhita. (I do not take here into consideration the Kashmir Rgveda; see Bronkhorst, forthcoming.) The hypothesis contrasts with the currently held belief that the Sakhas of the Rgveda, as well as the Rgveda-Pratisakhya, presuppose, and therefore postdate, the final redaction of the Rgveda (Renou, 1947: 21, 35; cf. 1960: 1-2, 10). A decision procedure, on the basis of which we can choose between these two opinions, is provided by the following. We have some idea of the original form of the hymns of the Rgveda, since the present Rgveda often deviates from the metre in a way that can easily be restored by undoing the sandhi or other minor changes. If the Rgveda-Pratisakhya stands somewhere in the process which began with the original form of the Rgvedic hymns, we may expect that at least some of the authorities who preceded the Pratisakhya but took part in the same process, came out in defence of a form of those hymns which, at least in some cases, deviates from their present, and is closer to their original one. If, on the other hand, the Pratisakhya belongs to a period which came after the orthoepic diaskeuasis, we may not expect such opinions on the part of those who took part in the development in which the Pratisakhya participates. The Rgveda-Pratisakhya mentions the following authorities: Anyatareya1 (3.22(208)), Gargya (1.15(16); 6.36(412); 11.17 (629); 11.26(638); 13.31(739)), Pancala (2.33(137); 2.81(185)), Pracya (2.33(137); 2.81(185)); Maksavya (Intr. v. 2); Mandukeya (Intr. v. 2; 3.14(200)), Yaska (17.42(993)), Vedamitra Indo-Iranian Journal 23 (1981) 83-95. 0019-7246/81/0232-0083 $01.30. Copyright (c) 1981 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.

Page #2
84 JOHANNES BRONKHORST (1.51(52)), Vyali (3.23(209); 3.28(214); 6.43(419); 13.31(739); 13.37(745)), Sakatayana (1.16(17); 13.39(747)), Sakala (1.64(65); 1.75(76); 6.14(390); 6.20 (396); 6.24(400); 6.27(403); 11.19(631); 11.21(633); 11.61(673)), Sakalya (3.13 (199); 3.22(208); 4.13(232); 13.31(739)), Sakalya (sthavira) (2.81(185)), sakalyapit? (4.4(223)), Suravira (Intr. v. 3), Suravira-suta (Intr. v. 3). Unfortunately, none of the opinions ascribed to these authorities in the Pratisakhya has an effect on the metre of the hymns, be it positively or negatively. However, many of these authorities are mentioned elsewhere in the ancient, and not so ancient, literature, and opinions are ascribed to them which are not found in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya. Many of these other opinions, also, do not affect the metre, but there are some which do in a way that deserves our attention: (i) Panini's Astadhyayi contains the following rule: P.6.1.127: iko'savarne sakalyasya hrasvas ca (samhitayam (72), ekah purvaparayoh (84), na (115), aci (125)] "[In the opinion) of Sakalya, in connected speech (samhita), no single (substitute] of what precedes and what follows (comes) in the place of the vowels) i, i, u, u, ?, ?, !, when a dissimilar vowel follows; and (if the earlier vowel is long,] a short (vowel comes in its place]." The translation here given follows the interpretation of the Kasika (except in so far as this is not possible in view of footnote 12). The interpretation may, however, be improved upon by understanding the word chandasi "in Sacred Literature" (Thieme, 1935: 68) in this rule, from the preceding one. Both the mention of the name "Sakalya" and the unusual kind of sandhi described support this. We may. expect that this rule was (also) valid for the Rgveda. The Rgveda in its present form is not in agreement with Sakalya's rule. The earlier form of the Rgveda, on the other hand, agrees with it. E. Vernon Arnold (1905) makes the following statements about the original Rgveda. First: "Before dissimilar vowels final -i -i -u -u are regularly used with hiatus" (p. 76). Second: "The vowels -i, -u are regularly shortened when followed by dissimilar vowels, but there are many exceptions" (p. 135). Third: "Final -a, -a are regularly combined with an initial vowel or diphthong following: and final -2 -1 -u -u are regularly combined with similar vowels, that is-i or -1 with either - or -7, and -u or u with either -y or u" (p. 72). These three statements are so close to the opinion ascribed to Sakalya in P. 6.1.127 that they are almost a translation of that rule. (ii) Purusottamadeva's Bhasavrtti on P.6.1.77 contains the following line (quoted in Mishra, 1972: 30n, 32n; Mimamsaka, 1973:1:26): ikam yanbhir vyavadhanam vyadigalavayor iti vaktavyam/dadhiyatra dadhy atra madhuvatra madhv atra/ "It must be stated that in the opinion) of Vyadi and Galava there is separation of [the vowels] i, u, ?, ? by [the consonants) y, v, r, 7 [respectively. Examples are] dadhi-y-atra [for dadhi atra, where we normally find) dadhy atra, madhu-v-atra [for madhu atra, where we normally find) madhv atra." The kind of

Page #3
RGVEDA AND PANINI sandhi here ascribed to Vyadi and Galava is not found in our Rgveda. (It is found in a few places elsewhere in the Vedic literature; see Mimansaka, 1973: I: 27f.) It would, however, make good the metre of the hymns of the Rgveda in innumerable instances (Whitney, 1888: 39, 8113). (iii) The third case rests upon a somewhat unorthodox interpretation of some rules of the Astadhyayi, an interpretation which, however, has rather strong arguments to support it. They will be discussed in SS 1.2.3. Panini's grammar contains the following three rules: P. 8.3.17: bhobhagoaghoapurvasya yo'oi [roh (16), rah (14)] "In the place of r of rU, which is preceded by bho, bhago, agho, a ora, (comes) y, when a vowel or voiced consonant follows." P. 8.3.18: vyor laghuprayatnatarah sakatayanasya (asi (17)] "According to sakatayana, in the place of v and y [comes a substitute] of which the [articulatory] effort is lighter, when a vowel or voiced consonant follows." P. 8.3.19: lopah sakalyasya [vyoh (18), asi (17)] "According to Sakalya, there is elision of v and y when a vowel or voiced consonant follows." When these rules are applied to a word en ding in as that is followed by a-, this sandhi evolves: asta-> -a-rU+a- (8.2.66) > -ay+a-(8.3.17) or ayta-(8.3.17&18) or ata-(8.3.17&19). None of these three forms is ever found in our Rgveda, which invariably haso- or ota-. The metre requires two distinct syllables in the vast majority of cases and that the first syllable be metrically short (Wackernagel, 1896: 324, SS 272b; Ghatage, 1948: 14). Oldenberg (1888: 458) has argued that the original reading was ata-4 We note that this is the opinion of Sakalya expressed in P. 8.3.19. Oldenberg (1888: 457-58) further shows that av for as occurs in the Vedic literature, and does not exclude the possibility that uy+a- for asta- was the original form in the Rgveda. This would correspond to the opinions of Sakatayana (p. 8.3.18) and Panini (if P. 8.3.17 gives indeed Panini's opinion). All these three passages need some further comments. 1.2.1. There is no reason to doubt that the sakalya mentioned in the Astadhyayi is identical with the sakalya mentioned in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya. On one occasion we find in the Astadyayi an opinion ascribed to sakalya which the Rgveda-Pratisakhya ascribes to the followers of Sakalya (Bronkhorst, forthcoming). P. 1.1.16, moreover, seems to bring Sakalya in connection with a Padapatha. We know from Nirukta 6.28 that the author of the Padapatha of the Rgveda was called thus. The connection of the Sakalya mentioned in the Astadhyayi with the Rgveda seems therefore established. 1.2.2. Of the two, Vyali and Galava, only the first one is mentioned in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya." It is unlikely that Purusottamadeva derived his knowledge directly or indirectly from the Samgraha, a work reputedly written by someone

Page #4
86 JOHANNES BRONKHORST called 'Vyadi'. All we know about this work (see Mimamsaka, 1973: 1: 282-90) shows that the Samgraha dealt with philosophical questions, and was not just a grammar. We are therefore justified in neglecting the claim of the commentator Abhayanandin on the Jainendra grammar to the extent that this rule derives from the Samgraha and is there ascribed to "some" (Jainendra Mahavstti 1.2.1: ikam yanbhir vyavadhanam ekesam iti samgrahah; quoted in Mimamsaka, 1973: 1: 26n). We further do not have to decide whether the two Vyadis are one and the same or not. 1.2.3. The example asta- would yield o- according to the orthodox interpretation of Panini's grammar, in the following manner: asta- > -a-rU+a- (8.2.66) > -a-u+a- (6.1.113) > -ota-(6.1.87) > -o- (6.1.109). There can be no doubt that this form of sandhi was also accepted by Panini, for his own grammar makes an . abundant use of it, e.g., in P. 8.3.17 (see above) which has yosi for yastasi. The question is if only this form was accepted. Some circumstances indicate that such is not the case. The fact is that a strict application of the principles of Panini's grammar can not lead to o-, only to -ay+a-, -ayta-, and a+a-! To understand why, we must recall that the substitute rU for s is introduced in P. 8.2.66, a rule which is part of the last three sections of the Astadhyayi, the so-called "Tripadi", which has a linear rule ordering (Bronkhorst, 1980: 72f.). Use of P. 8.2.66 can therefore only be followed by application of a rule which comes after P. 8.2.66, certainly not by application of P. 6.1.113, which would be necessary to obtain o-. The location of P. 6.1.113 is the most flagrant violation of the principle of linear rule ordering of the Tripadi which there is in the Astadhyayi (cf. Buiskool, 1939: 83,99). P. 6.1.113 reads: ato ror aplutad aplute (ati (109), ut (111)] "In the place of rU which follows a that is not prolated, (comes] u, when a nonprolated a follows." This rule presupposes the presence of the substitute rU. But rU is not introduced except in the Tripadi. Strictly speaking P. 6.1.113 should never apply, and be superfluous. Why was P. 6.1.113 not located in the Tripadi, somewhere after P. 8.2.66 and before P. 8.3.17? I think there are two answers to this question, which are simultaneously valid. The first is that P. 6.1.113 has to "feed" P. 6.1.87 in the derivation of o- out of asta- (see above). This answer alone is not fully satisfying, for if the linear ordering of the Tripadi was to be broken, then why not after the application of P. 6.1.113?? The second answer is that if P. 6.1.113 were located in the Tripadi, it would make the derivation of ay+a-/-ay+a-/-a+a- out of asta-impossible. That this second answer leads to a result which agrees so well with the original Rgveda, only confirms that it is most probably correct. 1.3. The above shows that Sakalya was not the final redactor of the Rgveda, as

Page #5
RGVEDA AND PANINI 87 Patanjali's Mahabhasya seems to say he was (on P. 1.4.84, vol. I, p. 347, 1.3: sakalyena sukrtam samhitam anunisamya devah pravarsat). Patanjali's opinion illustrates the process of apotheosis which Sakalya underwent,8 as I observed elsewhere (Bronkhorst, forthcoming). I shall now show that other data we possess about Sakalya and his Padapatha agree, or at any rate do not disagree, with the view that Sakalya preceded the final redaction of the Rgveda. 1.3.1. Aitareya Aranyaka 3.2.6 lays down two rules: where there is doubt whether or not n is to be used, there n must indeed be used;' where there is a similar doubt regarding s, there s must be used (p. 139: sa yadi vicikitset sanakaram bravanim anakara3m iti sanakaram eva bruyat sasakaram bravani3m asakara 3m iti sasakaram eva bruyat). The same chapter of the Aitareya Aranyaka (3.1.2) mentions the opinion of Sakalya regarding the mystical significance of union (samhita). Doubts regarding the correct form of the Rgveda were apparently still alive in the time after Sakalya. 1.3.2. Six verses of the Rgveda have no Padapatha. They are RV 7.59.12; 10.20.1; 121.10; 190.1-2-3 (Kashikar, 1951: 44). This is most easily explained by the assumption that these verses were not considered part of the Rgveda by Sakalya. It further shows that the final redactors did not hesitate to deviate from the composer of the Padapatha in deciding what did, and what did not, belong to the Rgveda. (It is interesting to note that at least one hymn of the Rgveda (10.95) is known to have had fewer verses than at present at as late a date as that of the Satapatha Brahmana. See Oldenberg, 1912: 303.) 1.3.3. Oldenberg (1888: 384-85) points out that the Samhita text contains several nom. sing. fem. words ending in a which are not joined with a following vowel. Oldenberg, following Lanman, explains this by assuming that the final redactors of the Rgveda considered these words as really ending in ah. The Padapatha, on the other hand, presents all these forms as actually ending in a. This indicates that the maker of the Padapatha and the final redactors of the Samhita were different persons. Since the final redactors did not consider the Padapatha authoritative (see above, further fn. 8), this fact does not conflict with Sakalya's temporal priority to these redactors.10 . 2.1. In what phase of the development of the Rgveda does Panini fit? There is no doubt that Panini came after Sakalya, for he mentions the latter four times (P. 1.1.16; 6.1.127; 8.3.19; 4.51; see above pp. 84 and 85. The question is: Had the Rgveda known to Panini already obtained the form which it had in the time of the

Page #6
88 JOHANNES BRONKHORST Rgveda-Pratisakhya, and which was to remain virtually unchanged ever since? Three places of the Astadhyayi seem to indicate that this was not the case. (i) P. 6.1.134: so'ci lope cet padapuranam (sulopah (132)] "There is elision of the nom. sing. case-affix] SU of sa 'he' before a vowel, if, in case of elision, there is completion of the Pada." This rule is obeyed in our Rgveda where sas is followed by a vowel different from a; e.g., in RV 1.32.15: sed u raja ksayati carsaninam for sah/ it/ etc., and in RV 8.43.9: sausadhir anu rudhyase for sah/ osadhih/ etc. (cf. Oldenberg, 1888: 464; Arnold, 1905: 74). Where, however, sas is followed by a- and the metre requires contraction, "ist in einer Reihe von Fallen sa-uberliefert ..., in einigen andern so a- oder so mit dem Abhinihita Sandhi" (Oldenberg, 1888: 464; cf. Arnold, 1897: 292). Oldenberg is of the opinion that all these cases originally had sa- 11 Apparently Panini defends here quite generally an older reading which survived but in a number of cases. Moreover, Panini's concern for metre contrasts with the unconcern for the same found in the RgvedaPratisakhya; see Oldenberg, 1888: 372-73n; Muller, 1891: lxxixf. (u) P. 6.1.115: nantahpadam avyapare 12 (samhitayam (72), ekah purvaparayoh (84), purvah (107), enah padantad ati (109)] "In a Samhita [text], when e or o which are final in a word precede, [and] when a which is not [itself] followed by v or y, follows, (then) the preceding (sound is not the single (substitute) of both the preceding and the following (sound], when these sounds occur] in the interior of a Pada." P. 6.1.116: avyadavadyadavakramuravratayamavantvavasyusu ca [samhitayam (72), ekah purvaparayoh (84), purvah (107), enah padantad ati (109), nantahpadam (115)] "In a Samhita [text], when e or o which are final in a word, precede, [and] when a follows which is the initial sound) in [one of the following words:) avyat, avadyat, avakramuh, avrata, ayam, avantu, avasyu, (then) the preceding (sound is) not the single (substitute] of both the preceding and the following (sound), when [these sounds occur] in the interior of a Pada." P. 6.1.116 is not in agreement with the facts of our Rgveda. There are at least two places where ayam has been joined with a preceding e or 0, viz. RV 1.108.6 vrnano'yam and RV 5.30.3 vahate'yam. Nowhere does ayam behave in the prescribed manner. avasyu is joined with a preceding o in RV 8.21.1 bharanto'vas yavah. And avantu is always joined with a preceding e oro (RPT 2.40(144); Bohtlingk, 1887: 298). The precise prescription contained in P. 6.1.116 makes it very difficult to believe, with Thieme (1935: 51), that this rule does not imply strict application". Indeed, there is reason to believe that sutras 6.1.115 and 116 were forerunners of certain sutras from the Rgveda-Pratisakhya, and, like those, did imply strict application; see below, $ 2.2. (iii) Panini seems to consider the sandhi form ayta- for asta-correct, which agrees with the original Rgveda, but not with the Rgveda known to us. This has been explained in SS 1.2, above.

Page #7
RGVEDA AND PANINI 89 2.1.1. It must still be shown that the sutras 6.1.134 and 6.1.115-116 really are about the Veda. In the case of P. 6.1.134 there can be no doubt. The preceding rule contains the word chandasi "in Sacred Literature". The Kasika illustrates the rule with the help of the two examples from the Rgveda which were reproduced above (and adds that some think that the rule is not confined to Vedic verse alone (padagrahanenatra slokapadasyapi grahanam kecid icchanti; this would justify a verse subsequently quoted in the Kasika)). It seems that wherever in the Astadhyayi the word pada is used to specify a context, it refers to feet of Vedic verse. The remaining places are: P. 3.2.66: here chandasi is understood from rule 63; P. 8.3.9: rksu is understood from the preceding rule; P. 6.1.115 and 8.3.103: here yajusi "in a sacrificial formula in prose" occurs in a following rule (P. 6.1.117 and 8.3.104 respectively), suggesting that the verse-feet (pada) talked about in the earlier rules likewise belong to sacrificial formulas, and therefore to Vedic verse; P. 8.1.6, finally, deals with a phenomenon which is only found in Vedic verse (see the Kasika on this rule). 2.1.2. P. 8.3.17, which justifies the sandhi form ay+a- for asta-, occurs in the company of P. 8.3.18 and 19, which mention Sakatayana and Sakalya respectively (see p. 85, above). These two authorities are mentioned in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya, and their opinions may be considered to apply also to the Rgveda, if not primarily to that work. It is therefore safe to say the same of P. 8.3.17. 2.2. The above seems to show that Panini worked with a version of the Rgveda which is earlier than the versions described in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya. The only serious objection which one might raise, as far as I can see, is that Panini's version is not earlier, but quite simply different from the ones of the Pratisakhya. And indeed, we have no guarantee that the Rgveda-Pratisakhya describes all the versions of the Rgveda which existed in its time. The fact that we obtain opinions of the authorities mentioned in the Pratisakhya from sources other than the Pratisakhya shows that the information provided by the Pratisakhya is in no way complete. There is, nonetheless, reason to think that Panini did not draw upon an altogether different version of the Rgveda. To begin with, Panini mentions Sakalya on four occasions (p. 87, above) and also knows of the Sakalas, or so it seems (P. 4.3.128). Perhaps more important is that his rules 6.1.115-116 (which we discussed in SS 2.1, above) seem to be an earlier version of some rules of the RgvedaPratisakhya, 13 This I shall show now. P. 6.1.115-116 specify the circumstances in which e and o retain their original form before a. The Reveda-Pratisakhya adopts the opposite procedure: it specifies the circumstances when e and o merge with a. In spite of this difference, there is a remarkable similarity.

Page #8
90 JOHANNES BRONKHORST RPr 2.35(139) reads: antahpadam akarac cet samhitayam laghor laghu yakarady aksaram param vakarady api va bhavet "In the interior of a Pada, if, in the Samhita [text], a light syllable beginning with y or even v follows a light vowel a, [this a becomes one with the preceding e or o]". This means the same as P. 6.1.115, and more. In addition it contains a restriction on that rule. According to P. 6.1.115, e and o merge with a following a, when that a is followed by v or y. According to RPr 2.35(139), e and o merge with a following a, when that a is followed by v or y, and is a light vowel, and when moreover the syllable beginning with v or y is light. The advantage of the formulation in the Pratisakhya is clear. Of the seven exceptions which Panini had to enumerate in rule P. 6.1.116, six are excluded by the added restriction of the Pratisakhya. But a price had to be paid. Twenty exceptions are enumerated in the immediately following sutras of the Rgveda-. 14 Pratisakhya. This means that the complicated qualification which we find in RPr 2.35(139) does not in any way simplify the description of the subject-matter. The formulation of the Pratisakhya can most easily be accounted for by taking it as an improvement upon an earlier formulation, the one found in the Astadhyayi or one closely similar to it. 2.3. I shall now enumerate a few more circumstances which seem to fit our conclusion that Panini preceded the Rgveda-Pratisakhya and made use of an earlier version of the Rgveda. 2.3.1. Panini's grammar does not know the retroflex consonant !. Our Rgveda contains this sound, but we know that not all versions had it (Bronkhorst, forthcoming). The introduction of was "doubtless a dialectical anticipation of the more general identical process in MidIA" (Allen, 1962: 54) and may have taken place rather late. This is supported by the fact that / occupies the place of d where our Rgveda would otherwise have had d between two vowels, not where the original Rgveda would otherwise have had d between two vowels (Wackernagel, 1896: 255-56). E.g., vidv-anga was originally pronounced viduv-anga, but contains nonetheless no 1. One way of explaining the absence of in the Astadhyay is that Panini lived before this sound made its appearance in the Veda, and therefore before the Rgveda-Pratisakhya 15 (If Panini lived after the sound / had found entrance into the Sakala version of the Rgveda, it would be hard to account for the absence of from the Astadhyayi by saying that this sound was not used in the language of the region where Panini lived (Luders, 1923: 301-02). Panini knew the Sakalas (above, p. 89) and therefore probably also the peculiarities of their version of the Rgveda. If these peculiarities included in Panini's time, this sound would, and should, have been mentioned in the Astadhyayi, irrespective of the presence or absence of the sound in Panini's own dialect.)

Page #9
RGVEDA AND PANINI 91 2.3.2. Vowels with circumflex accent are described as follows in the Astadhyayi: P.1.2.31: samaharah svaritah [ac (27)] "A vowel which is a mixture (of an udatta and an anudatta vowel] is svarita". P.1.2.32: tasyadita udattam ardhahrasvam "Of that (svarita vowel] half (the length of] a short (vowel, starting) from the beginning, is udatta." There has been some discussion why. this description is included in the Astadhyayi (Thieme, 1957; Cardona, 1968), which does not concern us here. We note the difference from the Rgveda-Pratisakhya, 16 which has the following sutras: RP 3.4(189-90): tasyodattatarodattad ardhamatrardham eva va "Of that (svarita accent 17] half a matra or even half of the svarita accent) is higher than the udatta (accent)". RPr 3.5(191): anudattah parah sesah sa udattasrutih "The following remainder (of the svarita accent] is anudatta; it sounds like udatta." RPT 3.6(192) further specifies that this description is not valid when a syllable follows which has an udatta or svarita accent. The commentator Uvata explains that in such cases the latter part of the svarita accent becomes really udatta (p. 114: yadi tudattam svaritam va param syat tadanudattah parah sesah syat). The description of the Rgveda-Pratisakhya makes the impression of being more sophisticated than the description of the Astadhyayi. This may be due to the fact that the former is of later date than the latter.18 3.1. We see that there are good reasons to think that our hypothesis is correct. The orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Rgveda took place over a rather long period of time, and was not yet fully completed when the Rgveda-Pratisakhya was composed (better perhaps: reached its present form). The investigation has further provided us with some chronological information, most important among which is, no doubt, that Panini's Astadhyayi is older than the Rgveda-Pratisakhya. We also saw that Sakalya, who in Yaska's Nirukta was no more than the composer of the Padapatha, had become the redactor of the Samhita in Patanjali's Mahabhasya. Since in the Anuvakanukramani he is said to have seen the Veda (Bronkhorst, forthcoming) and apparently has reached his apex, it is reasonable to think that these three works have this chronological order: the Nirukta preceded the Mahabhasya, which in its turn preceded the Anuvakanukramani. There have been attempts to discover the rules employed in the orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Rgveda (Hejib-Sharma, 1979; Ghatage, 1948: 18). Such rules may be discoverable in some cases, but the complicated history of the process, in which many people participated while representing different views, makes it unlikely that all phonetic peculiarities of our Rgveda fall under rules. It must, finally, be pointed out that the lack of agreement between the Astadhyayi and our Rgveda may henceforth have to be looked at through different

Page #10
92 JOHANNES BRONKHORST eyes. Certainly where phonetic questions are concerned, Panini may describe an earlier form of the Rgveda, and may not deserve to be blamed for being lacunary, as he is, e.g., by Renou (1960: 27). 3.2. It remains to say a few words about the difference that may have existed between schools that were concerned primarily with the Rgveda Samhita and those that were concerned primarily with the ritual. Karl Hoffmann (1974) has argued - on the basis of P. 7.2.69: sanim sasanivamsam, which is found in Manava Srauta Sutra 1.3.4.2 and Varaha Srauta Sutra 1.3.5.16 - that Panini lived in the older Sutra period, 19 i.e., after the Manava Srauta Sutra and the Varaha Srauta Sutra: I am not sure if Hoffmann's arguments are compelling, for (as Hoffmann himself observes, pp. 75-76) the words sanim sasanivamsam occur in a cited mantra, which may be older than these two Sutras. Be this as it may, Hoffmann's hypothesis places Panini in a time when differences of opinion regarding the ritual had given rise to different schools (Renou, 1947: 25-26). This means that we may have to distinguish between simultaneously existing schools connected with the supposedly correct form of the Rgveda Samhita, and such as owe their existence to particular views on the ritual. Schools belonging to these two groups may, but by no means have to, coincide. We know the names of at least three schools that were concerned with the form of the Rgveda: Sakala, Saisiriya (see Bronkhorst, forthcoming), Baskala. Schools of the second type, which were primarily concerned with the ritual, may have been the Asvalayana and Sankhayana schools (Renou, 1947: 25f). R. G. Bhandarkar (1893). has argued that these two schools belonged to both the Sakala and the Baskala Sakha. This point of view is confirmed by the commentator Gargya Narayana on Asvalayana Srauta Sutra 1.1.1 (p. 1); see also his comments on Asvalayana Grhya Sutra 3.5.9 (pp. 167-68). Some other evidence tends to ascribe both the Asvalayana and the Sankhayana school to the Baskala sakha (Renou, 1947: 25, and esp. Aithal, 1969: 187-89). It is interesting to observe that the unification of Sakhas which we noticed with respect to the form of the Samhita, has its counterpart in the tendency to rejoin which is found in the ritual schools of the Rgveda (Renou, 1947: 46; cf. Surya Kanta, 1933: 9-11, 66). Kern Institute, Leiden NOTES * This article came into existence as a result of discussions which I had with Prof. S. D. Joshi. At a later stage I could avail of valuable suggestions made by Prof. M. Witzel. I wish to express my gratitude to both these scholars.

Page #11
RGVEDA AND PANINI 1 The Rgveda-Pratisakhya does not enable us to decide whether "Anyatareya" or "Anyatareya" is the correct name. The commentator on Caturadhyayika 3.74, however, cites the opinion of one Anyatareya. See Whitney, 1862: 174. Many such passages are given in Mimamsaka, 1973: I: 69-71, and elsewhere in the same book, to be found with the help of the index (Mimamsaka, 1973: III: 111-50). 3 See note 12, below. 4 93 Ghatage's (1948) attempts to prove that the passages concerned must be read -o+a-, with short O, show at best that this was "an intermediate stage of abhinihita sandhi", as he himself seems to admit (p. 18). 5 "Vyali", which is found in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya, is a sakalization of "Vyadi". See Bronkhorst, forthcoming. 6 Explicitly said by Bhartrhari, Mahabhasyadipika p. 23, 1. 19. Vyadi and the Samgraha are both mentioned in Patanjali's Mahabhasya, possibly with the understanding that the former was the author of the latter; see Scharfe, 1977: 125. 7 As far as I can see, no difficulties would arise if P. 6.1.113 and 6.1.87 but then also P. 6.1.109 and 6.1.78 would be taken into the Tripadi, in this order (after 8.2.66 and before 8.3.19, of course). If this is correct, the riddles surrounding P. 6.1.113 intensify and depend for their solution exclusively on the second answer. Interestingly, Patanjali has no respect for the makers of Padapathas (padakara), for he says that they must follow grammar (laksana), rather than vice versa: na laksanena padakara anuvartyah/padakarair nama laksanam anuvartyam/ yathalaksanam padam kartavyam// (vol. II, p. 85, 11. 4-5; vol. III, p. 117, 11. 18-19; p. 398, 11. 8-10). We may recall that also Yaska did not hesitate to disagree with Sakalya's Padapatha (Nirukta 6.28). 9 This advice has been followed by the Taittiriyas with regard to borrowed mantras (Renou, 1947: 33n). According to Bhartrhari (Mahabhasyadipika p. 1, 1. 7) the Taittiriyas read even the word agni with n. This probably refers to Taittiriya Brahmana 3.5.6 (borrowed from RV 6.16.34): agnir vrtrani janghanat. This line has no n in agnir in our version of that text, but Jayantabhatta records that it sometimes has (Nyayamanjari vol. I, p. 685). 10 Oldenberg (1888: 386) thinks that these redactors preceded the Padapatha. Since he gives no real arguments, we can ignore his opinion. 11 Oldenberg later (1907: 834-35) changed his view, on the basis of the later language. This, of course, is a weak argument. Panini's rule is evidence that Oldenberg's earlier opinion was the correct one. 12 This is the reading found in Patanjali's Mahabhasya. The Kasika has: prakrtyantahpadam avyapare. The Bhasya-reading seems to be older, for, although Patanjali is acquainted with the reading prakrtya, Katyayana's varttikas show no sign of such an acquaintance. See Thieme, 1935: 47-48. The word prakrtya may have been borrowed from RPr 2.51 (155), which defines the meaning of pragrhya. 13 Already Renou (1957: 120, n. 580) pointed at the similarity between P. 6.1.115f and RPr 2.35(139) f. 14 Sandhi with preceding e or o takes place in avartrah, avyatyai, ayopastihh, avantu, avirata, avatvacah, avirate, avamsi, avah (RPr 2.40(144)). Further exceptions: agne 'yam (RPr 2.42 (146)); yavase 'visyan, vrtrahatye'vih (RPr 2.43 (147)); tavase 'vaci, vahate'yam, januso'ya (RPr 2.44 (148)); viso 'yanta, santo 'vadyani, bharanto 'vasyavah (RPr 2.45 (149)); te 'vardhanta (RPr 2.46(150)); te'vindan (RPr 2.47(151)). 15 That the Padapatha contains 1, may be explained by the process of sakalization, which also affected the Rgveda-Pratisakhya (Bronkhorst, forthcoming). 16 The Astadhyayi differs in this respect from the other Pratisakhyas as well. See Whitney's (1862: 164-69) description of the svarita in the Pratisakhyas. 17 The terms udatta, anudatta and svarita apply to vowels in the Astadhyayi, to accents in the Rgveda-Pratisakhya (Cardona, 1968: 455).

Page #12
94 JOHANNES BRONKHORST 18 Cardona (1968: 459) thinks that the description of svarita in the Astadhyayi was only meant for svarita vowels occurring in the Astadhyayi. This seems unlikely. 19 Of course, we must be careful not to revert to the belief that there was a clear Brahmana period followed by a clear Sutra period; see Renou, 1947: 36, Gonda, 1975: 22. REFERENCES Aitareya Aranyaka. Edited by Arthur Berriedale Keith. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1909. Aithal, K. Parameswara: 1969, "RV-Khilas and the Sutra-s of Asvalayana." ALB 33, 182-94. Allen, W. Sidney: 1962, Sandhi. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton. Arnold, Edward Vernon: 1897, "Sketch of the Historical Grammar of the Rig and Atharva Vedas." JAOS 18, 203-353. Arnold, Edward Vernon: 1905, Vedic Metre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asvalayana Grhya Sutra. Edited, with the commentary of Gargya Narayana, by Ramanarayana Vidyaratna and Anandachandra Vedantavagisa. Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press. 1869. Asvalayana Srauta Sutra. Edited, with the commentary of Gargya Narayana, by K. V. S. R. Gokhale, Poona: Anandasrama. 1917. Bhandarkar, R. G.: 1893, "The Relations between the Sutras of Asvalayana and Sankhayana and the Sakala and Bashkala Sakhas of the Riksam hita." Transactions of the Ninth International Congress of Orientalists. Vol. I, pp. 411-20. Kraus Reprint. Nendeln/Liechtenstein. 1968. Bharthari: Mahabhasyadipika. Edited by K. V. Abhyankar and V. P. Limaye. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1970. Bohtlingk. Otto: 1887, Panini's Grammatik. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. 1964. Bronkhorst, Johannes: 1980, "Asiddha in the Astadhyayi: A Misunderstanding among the traditional Commentators?" JIP 8, 69-85. Bronkhorst, Johannes: forthcoming. "The Rgveda-Pratisakhya and its Sakha." To appear in SII. Buiskool, H. E.: 1939, The Tripadi. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Cardona, George: 1968, "Panini's Definition, Description and Use of svarita." Pratidanam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European studies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday. Edited by J. C. Heesterman, G. H. Schokker, V.I. Subramoniam. The Hague-Paris: Mouton, pp. 448-61. Gargya Narayana. See Asvalayana Grhya Sutra and Asvalayana Srauta Sutra. Ghatage, A. M.: 1948, "Traces of Short and in Rgveda." ABORI 29, 1-20. Gonda, Jan: 1965, Vedic Literature (Samhitas and Brahmanas). Vol. I, Fasc. I of A History of Indian Literature. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Hejib, Alaka, and Sharma, Arvind: 1979, "The Formulation of a Rule concerning the Cerebralization of a dentals in external Sandhi in the Rgveda." IL 40, 49-50. Hoffmann, Karl: 1974, "Panini VII 2, 69 sanim sasanivamsam." Munchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 32, 73-80. Jayantabhatta. Nyayamanjari. Vol. I. Edited by K. S. Varadacharya. Mysore: Oriental Research Institute. 1969. Kanta, Surya: Editor. 1933, Rktantram. Delhi: Meherchand Lachhmandas. 1970. Kashikar, C. G.: 1951, "The Problem of the Galantas in the Rgveda-Padapatha." PAIOC 13 (1946), 39-46. Luders, Heinrich: 1923. "Zur Geschichte des l im Altindischen." Festschrift Wackernagel. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, pp. 294-308. Mimamsaka, Yudhisthira: 1973, Samskrta Vyakarana-Sastra ka Itihasa. Parts I-III. Sonipat: Rama Lal Kapur Trust. Samvat 2030. Mishra, Vidhata: 1972, A Critical Study of Sanskrit Phonetics. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.

Page #13
RGVEDA AND PANINI 95 Muller, F. Max: 1891, Vedic Hymns. Part I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oldenberg, Hermann: 1888, Die Hymnen des Rigveda. Band I. Metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena. Berlin: Wilhelm Hertz. Oldenberg, Hermann: 1907, "Vedische Untersuchungen." ZDMG 61, 803-36. Oldenberg, Hermann: 1912, Rgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Siebentes bis Zehntes Buch. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Patanjali: Vyakarana-Mahabhasya. Edited by F. Kielhorn. Third Edition by K. V. Abhyankar. 3 volumes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 1962-72.. Renou, Louis: 1947, Les Ecoles Vediques et la Formation du Veda. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Renou, Louis: 1957, Introduction generale. Nouvelle edition du texte paru en 1896. au tome I. In: Jakob Wackernagel. Altindische Grammatik. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Renou, Louis: 1960, "La Forme et l'Arrangement interne des Pratisakhya." JA 248,1-40. Rgveda-Pratisakhya. 1. Edited, with Uvata's commentary, by Mangal Deva Shastri. Vol. II. Allahabad: The Indian Press. 1931. 2. Edited and translated by Max Muller. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. 1869. Scharfe, Hartmut: 1977, Grammatical Literature. Vol. V, Fasc. 2 (pp. 77-216) of A History of Indian Literature, edited by Jan Gonda. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Thieme, Paul: 1935, Panini and the Veda. Allahabad: Globe Press. Thieme, Paul: 1957, "Panini and the Pronunciation of Sanskrit." Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough on his sixtieth Birthday, pp. 263-70. Reprinted: Kleine Schriften. Teil 2. * Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, pp. 612-19. Uvata: See Rgveda-Pratisakhya. Vamana-Jayaditya: Kasika. Edited by Aryendra Sharma, Khanderao Deshpande and D. G. Padhye. 2 parts. Hyderabad: Sanskrit Academy, Osmania University. 1969-70. Wackernagel, Jakob: 1896, Altindische Grammatik. I. Lautlehre. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Whitney, William Dwight: 1862, The Atharva-Veda Pratisakhya or Saunakiya Caturadhyayika. Text, translation and notes. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office. 1962. Whitney, William Dwight: 1888, Sanskrit Grammar. Second Edition. Delhi: Motilal * Banarsidass. 1962.