Orthoepic Diaskeuasis Of Rgveda And Date Of Panini

SR No.: 269708
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Johannes Bronkhorst
Publisher: Johannes Bronkhorst
Total Pages: 13
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 7

RGVEDA AND PĀŅINI
89
2.1.1. It must still be shown that the sūtras 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 Kāšikā 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 (pädagrahaṇenātra slokapādasyapi grahaṇam kecid icchanti; this would justify a verse subsequently quoted in the Kāšikā)). It seems that wherever in the Aṣṭadhyayi 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: ṛksu 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 (pāda) 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 Käsikä 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 Šakaṭāyana and Sakalya respectively (see p. 85, above). These two authorities are mentioned in the Ṛgveda-Prātisakhya, 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 Ṛgveda which is earlier than the versions described in the Rgveda-Prätiśäkhya. The only serious objection which one might raise, as far as I can see, is that Pāņini's version is not earlier, but quite simply different from the ones of the Prātisakhya. And indeed, we have no guarantee that the Rgveda-Prätiśākhya describes all the versions of the Ṛgveda which existed in its time. The fact that we obtain opinions of the authorities mentioned in the Prātisakhya from sources other than the Prätisakhya shows that the information provided by the Prätišäkhya 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 Šakalya 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 § 2.1, above) seem to be an earlier version of some rules of the RgvedaPrātiśākhya, 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-Prätisakhya 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.