Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 145

100
M. A. MEHENDALE
To take a hypothetical example given by Fr. E a rsi could say indrasya agneh without doing sandhi and have five syllables. But the SK must do sandhi and thereby reduce the number of syllables to four (indrasyāgneh). But if he could avoid the sandhi by reshuffling the order of words as agner indrasya and thus retain five syllables he would do it as a "minor evil". To me the case looks the opposite. The SK in such a case would rather rest content with the sandhi giving him four syllables as a "minor evil", or no evil at all, than change the word-order and commit an unpardonable evil. What we have to remember is that the two characteristics of the received text noted above-viz. fixed words with a fixed order-do not say anything about changes in pronunciation due to sandhi etc. But they clearly point out that no morphological, syntactical or lexical change was to be effected in the mantras.
I will now present a few examples to show to you how completely unacceptable are the suggestions of Fr. E regarding the changes he proposes to make in the Samhitā text in order to turn the "palimpsest" into the "pure " original text of the rși-kavis. I admit that I have not read all the articles of Fr. E. I had not enough time for that. But from the eight articles which I read for this purpose I think I am sufficiently well informed about Fr. E's views on this subject. In the examples that I now cite I will, in most cases, state after I have stated Fr. E's ideas, how I interpret the available text without making any change in it. If the solutions suggested by me, or by other scholars working in this field, are not acceptable to you I would admit the continued existence of the problem but not change the text one way cr the other to consider the problem as definitively solved. My examples are restricted to the changes proposed by Fr. E in word-forms or word-order i. e, to cases where he thinks he can go beyond Oldenberg.
As was mentioned a little while ago Fr. E blames the SK both for breaking the metre as well as for trying to save it at the expense of the word-order or the word-forms used by the rsi-kavis. RV 2. 1.16.opens as yé stolybhyo... ágne rātím upastjánti sürá yah. The next half then runs as asmán ca tāmś ca prá hi néși vásya ă brhád vadeama vidáthe suvirāk. Since the stanza begins with the correlative yé Fr. E expects the next half to begin, "stylistically and idiomatically" as tämś ca asmán ca.!! But since it does not, Fr. E sees the hand of the SK reshuffling the word-order. The reason ?- to dodge
ABORI 50.18. 10 IL (Bagchi Memorial Vol.) 54-75, 1957; Proc. Tr. 22nd AIOC Vol. II, 6-31, 1966;
IA (Third Ser.) 2.1. 1-23; and 2.4. 1-20, 1967; JASB 41-42 (1966-67) New Series, 1968; ABORI (Golden Jub. Vol.) 1.16, 1968; ABORI 50. 1-40, 1969; ABORI 51,
59-76, 1970. 11 IA (3rd Ser.) 2.1.13. Madhu Vidyā/120