________________
TRACE OF AN OLD PALATAL IN SANSKRIT
23 jayate. Obviously a yati or a rşi is intended as the subject and satya the object. The line therefore means" (He) wins for himself (hence perhaps the use of Atmanepada) only truth and not untruth (as means and as an end).” It would be interesting to cite here Sankara's comments on this passage, though his ultimate interpretation differs from the one suggested here as he does not take satyam and anytam as objects of jayate. He says, "na hi satyānrtayoh kevalayoh puruşānāśritayor jayaḥ parājayo vā sambhavati/ prasiddham loke satyavādinā 'nştavādy abhibhūyate na viparyayo 'taḥ siddham satyasya balavat sādhanatvam/".
One cannot object to this interpretation on the ground that in the preceding verse (Mundaka 3.1.5.) and in the present one (3.1.6) yatayah and Tşayah are plural forms while in satyam eva jayate we have supposed yati or rşi in the singular. For, in the present section of the Upanişad we find the use of singular in many other verses. But if the point is still stressed, it has to be pointed out that jayate lends itself being interpreted also as 3rd plural Atm. Vji in the 2nd conjugation attested in Vedic forms like jeşi.
It is thus clear that the Upanişadic line satyam eva jayate nānrtam gives good evidence to show that in the ancient tradition it was truth alone which was regarded as fit to be won and not untruth and that the use of Vji was suited for satya and not ansta. It would, therefore, be correct to take ujjayati 'wins' only with the Soma cups, and not the Sură cups in the Brāhmana passage; in the latter case ujjayati = *ujjhayati 'abandons'.
Madhu Vidya/343
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
