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 239

These difficulties are easily set aside if we take hyxšaora to refer to Ahura Mazdā and interpret nā vā nāiri vā as a parenthetical explantion of the immediately preceding word nõ. Also tū as in Y. 41.3 and 4 may be interpreted as 'thou’. The translation would then run as follows : "May you, whose rule is good, rule over us (all) -- whether (he be) man or woman -- in both the existences."
The only difficulty in this interpretation is that the verbal form in the sentence is not, as expected, xšaēšā (2nd per. sg. agreeing with tū 'thou'), but xšaētā (3 rd per. sg.). This is in all probability so because of attraction of the immediately preceding nā vā nāiri vā or due to the extended force of huršaOras.
Two more translations of the Yasna Haptan hāiti are now available. Humbach's English translation of our passage substantially agrees with that of Narten. The only difference is that he translates hudāstamā as 'the most munificent one' and not as 'the best worker'.
The French translation of Kellens-Pirart is very different. They treat vohū-xšafra as a Bahuvrihi compound qualifying paq'path'supplied. Their translation runs as: "May we attain the (path) which ensures divine control over you, O Lord Mazdā, forever! May a man or a woman having good (ritual) control rule over us in both the existences, O the most generous among those who exist".
This translation completely changes the tenor of the passage. Instead of the worshippers attaining the good rule of Ahura Mazdă, this translation enables the worshippers to get control of him. The translation depends on the supply of the. word for 'path' which is not easily available from the context, and it introduces the notion of 'ritual' control in the interpretation of xša@ra'. They take recourse to Y. 33.5 for the word for 'path'. In that case why do they neglect the very word xšara occurring there as object of apānō in the expression apānā.... xša@ram vanhuš mananho which comes very close to our passage vohū xša Orəm .... apaemā, and choose pado? Kellens-Pirart interpret tū of huxšarastū as a particle and not as a form of the 2nd personal pronoun because they say that, as pointed out by Renou (EGS P. 68 § 13), the Vedić idiom does not permit the occurrence of two enclitic pronouns (in our case tū and nā) following each other. What Renou, however, in fact says is that such a case is not frequent (Le cas de deux pronoms personnels atones n'est pas fréquent). There is therefore nothing wrong in interpreting tū occasionally as a personal pronoun when the context requires it.
Madhu Vidyā/214