Indian Antiquary Vol 57

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 162

140
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(August, 1928
MEANING AND ETYMOLOGY OF POJA.
BY CHINTAHARAN CHAKRAVARTI, M.A. IN & very illuminating and informing paper with the above heading contributed to the Indian Antiquary (May 1927, pp. 93-97 and June 1927, pp. 130-36) Prof. Jarl Charpentier has sought to determine the exact and original meaning of the word půjd, which is so very important not only from the linguistic view.point but also from the standpoint of modern Hinduism, the most important observance of which-in contrast to Vedic sacrifices—is the půjd of one god or another.
First of all, he mentions the different etymologies of the word as given by various scho. lars, such as Prof. Bartholomea, Horn, Gundert and Kittel, and accepts the one suggested by Gundert and Kittel, vit, from a Dravidian verbal root, which occurs in Tamil as paçu-, and in Kanarese as púsu, meaning to smear, to put on sticky substances, to daub, to paint.' He next supports this derivation by a comparison of the different rites performed by various peoples of India, ancient and modern, in their worship of gods (pp. 130-133), and comes to the conclusion that the washing of the idol (or the sprinkling of the linga) with water or with honey, ourds, sugared water, etc., and the smearing or daubing it with certain ointments or oily substances' (p. 99) forms the characteristio feature of a půjd among the different rites and ceremonies gone through in the course of it, and hence this is the original sense in which the word was used.
But there seems to be ample room for doubt as to what should be considered the most important and characteristic function in a pujd. Is it the washing of the idol and the daubing of it with ointments, or is it the offering of flowers to it, that constitutes the essential thing in a paja ! The balance of evidence may lead one to incline either way. As a matter of fact, the offering of flowers to a god is certainly regarded to be of as much importance 28-if not more important than the washing of the idol with water or anointing it—which latter function is undoubtedly of minor importance.
These considerations are specially important in view of another possible derivation of the word suggested by M. Collins in the Dravidic Studies Nos. I-III (University of Madras1923), who connects the Sanskrit word with Tamil pú'flower.' In his opinion a slight modi. fication of a hypothetical Tamil form pú-cey possibly gave rise to the Sanskrit nominal base prijd, which again passed into Tamil in the verbal form pici, meaning to offer flowers'. This derivation, if established, will point to the offering of flowers as the original connotation of the word půjd, and hence the principal function in the observance.
Whatever be their value, those facts should be taken into consideration and given that Attention which they deserve before arriving at a final decision with regard to the origin of this very important word. So, I beg to draw the attention of Prof. Charpentier to themespecially to the derivation suggested by M. Collins (and referred to by Dr. S. K. Chatterji in another connection in an article in Modern Review, June 1924, p. 668, which article Prof. Charpentier mentions in his paper), as it seems to have escaped his notice.
1 No. JII, pp. 80-81, under remarlos by M. Collins on Sanabritic Elements in the Vocabularies of Dravidian Languages, by B. Anavaratavinayakam, M.A., L.T.