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 183

118
BRIEF COMMUNICATION
derivations are from either gam-, han-, or hṛ-. The authors of these derivations saw, each at a time, the sign of only one of the above three roots in the word nighantu and not of all of them together. Hence only one derivation, at a time, can be considered correct. The author of the Bṛhad. stanzas would look upon agni, as derived by Sakapûni, as a bahudhatujam padam. It is extremely unlikely that he would consider nighantu the same way.
Next, in support of his view Bronkhorst appeals to Durga. It seems to me that he has perhaps misjudged Durga's commentary on this section (Nir. 1.1). It is true that Durga cites the Bṛhad, stanza 2.102 and understands it, in my opinion incorrectly, the way Bronkhorst does. That is, Durga too considers that the stanza applies to multiple derivations of words like nighantu. But although, he does this Durga's final conclusion is not that all the roots suggested in the multiple derivations are to be used simultaneously for the derivation of that word and hence the different derivations become simultaneously correct. What Durga says is this: Since all nouns are derived from verbs a given noun will express the action conveyed by the verb from which it is sought to the derived. Now in a case like nighantu, the derivation of which is not clear, one may feel that the word is expressive of different actions and consequently as many roots will be available for derivation. In the word. nighantu, different authors imagined different actions, viz. nigamana, samahanana, and samaharaṇa, and hence three derivations became likely viz. from gam-, han-, or har-. Since there is no way by which one may accept only one of these three roots and refuse the others, one should make a collection of all such roots (as has been done for example, by Yäska), and suggest derivations from them. Perhaps there is some ambiguity in Durga's formulation: yavanto dhatavaḥ svalingam radhigatam darśayanti tavataḥ sangrhya sa rūḍhisabdo nirvacyaḥ. This might create an impression that according to Durga the conventional form of the word is to be derived from all the roots together (sangrhya), and not individually from one of them at a time. But the doubt gets cleared up from what Durga says further. He says: The three roots gam-, han-, and har- compete with one another and tell (the etymologist) 'derive this word following me, derive it from me'. It is important to note that each root speaks for itself. All of them do not say together: "derive this word from us". Durga continues: The root gam- feels that the sound gha in the word nighantu is a modification of its ga sound, while the roots han- and harfeel that it is the modification of their ha sound. In such a case if one is true, the other, at the same time, cannot be. If the gh sound has arisen from ga, then it cannot at the same time arise from ha. Earlier also Durga says ahananad eva, na nigamanad ity abhiprayaḥ...evam eṣa nighantuiabdo gamer vaikopasargād dhantiharatibhyam vd dvyupasargābhyam niruktah. This should leave no doubt about Durga's view. He considers only one root at a time valid for the derivation of nighantu. If there is a competition (ahampūrvikā) between the three roots, only one of them has a chance to succeed, and not all of them together.
Madhu Vidya/158