Indian Antiquary Vol 59

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

Page 194

178
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
( SEPTEMBER, 1930
plus body, mind, etc. Though the Atman is common in the l's' of both A and B, yet the body, mind, etc., are different ; so that the one universal Alman, as identified with different bodies, etc., does no longer remain Atman, but turns into Atman, Atman, Atmans, and so on, or, in other words, so many individuals or Jivas. Though the Jiva is at bottom one with the universal Atman, yet, as Sankara says, owing to limiting adjuncts, the Atman is treated as if it were two, just as we make a distinction between the ghatakåsa and the mahdkdía."!? The Jivas though they are one at bottom in so far as they are one with the universal Atman, yet so far as they are Jivas, they are different, or, as Sankara says, "the self is indeed found to be many, but (in reality) it is one only."18 The experiences of an individual are controlled by his body, mind, etc., and if the body, mind, etc., are different, the experiences of different Jivas also must be different. So, Samkara by declaring the oneness of the Alman in every individual does not expose his theory to such absurdities as the simultaneous experience by all individuals of the experience of one of them. The principle of individuation is found in the 'I'ness, or self-consciousness or ahamkara. The experiences of each individual are different, because of the self-consciousness, the ahan kara, because they feel themselves as '1.'
TAMIL ARISI (RICE) AND GREEK ORUZON.
By L. V. RAMASWAMI ATYAR, M.A., B.L. THE remarkable correspondence in form and meaning between the Tamil word arisi (husked rice) and the Greek word oruzon led Caldwell to state that "it cannot be doubted that we have here (in the Greek form) the Tamil word arifi, rice deprived of the husk, this being the condition in which rice was then, as now, brought [sic] up in India for exportation to Europe."1
Doubts were expressed about Caldwell's view by a few subsequent scholars, who, not being students of linguistics, could not pursue the question in all its scientific aspects. A few years ago Prof. Jules Bloch, the celebrated French philologer, took up the problem and discussed it with his characteristic thoroughness and erudition in a paper contributed by him to the volume of Études Asiatiques published on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Ecole Française d'Extrême-Orient. In this paper which, we may observe, is characterized by a great depth and sweep of linguistic observation and comparison, Prof. Bloch seeks to demolish what appears as the dogmatic asseveration of Caldwell referred to above, and to show that the Greek word had no connection with Dravidian and that it was derived presumably from an Iranian form on which Sanskrit vrihi (rice) is based. In this connection he has also discussed cursorily the various Dravidian forms for rice, paddy, etc., and sought to show on the basis of external and internal evidence that there could be no connection between the Greek and Sanskrit words on the one hand and the Dravidian forms on the other.
The game topic had been handled by Mr. Edwin H. Tuttle of the U.S.A., from a different standpoint, in a paper contributed to vol. 47 of the Journal of the American Oriental Society. Mr. Tuttle's view is that the Sanskrit and the Greek forms, as well as a few analogical forms occurring in Iranian and Shina, were derived from what he considers to be the Dravidian proto-form urighia. Mr. Tuttle's view is thus not only directly opposed to Prof. Blooh's opinion, but Mr. Tuttle proceeds right ahead and explains a number of forms occurring in widely different languages as being derived from Dravidian. Mr. Tuttle's arguments, so far as his construction of the Dravidian proto-form is concerned, are weakened fundamentally by his indifference to the bearing of the semantic contents of Dravidian roots on the deve lopment of Dravidian forms and by his strong conviction that the character and speed of linguistic evolution are alike in all languages.
The question for determination in this paper of mine is purely whether the main Dravi. dian forms are related to one another, and if so what relationship they in their tum may 17 Brahmanitra-bhasya, 1. 2. 21.
18 Ibid., 1. 4. 23. 1 Caldwell's Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languager, 3rd edn., p. 89. ? I published a brief summary of Prof. Bloch's paper in the Educational Review of Madras in 1924.