Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 148

THE RGVEDA-SAMHITÄKÄRA AND FATHER ESTELLER
103
The possibility of misunderstanding on the part of the SK has first to be set aside. The conclusion forces itself on us that the SK has remained faithful to the text that was received by him. Oldenberg tries to justify the text as it is by suggesting that it is the result of perhaps mixing up of two constructions pra yác cákramanta and prá ca cakramanta. Geldner feels that ca has been put at the improper place. He supplies some verb like 'machte', to be coordinated with vi vrścat"... und machte, dass die Labsale der Flüsse (dem Meere) zueilten.'90 Renou wants to supply some word meaning 'strengths' before práyansi (...en sorte que ( les forces ) et les récomforts des rivièrs pussent marche (vers la mer )." Prof. Velankar takes a clue from arnovytam in b and supplies árnāmsi before ca" when the Soma offerings and (the floods ) of the rivers flowed forth (to their respective goals i. e. Indra and the ocean)." It is possible to accept the suggestion to add árnāmsi but interpret it as referring to waters in the heaven. The last quarter (árnāmsi) práyāṁsi ca nadinām cákramanta would mean the heavenly waters) and the waters of the rivers flowed forth; or, it may be suggested to add ádrayah 'pieces of the rock'," before práyāmsi, which are alsodescribed as rushing forward together with the waters freed by Indra in RV 4.19.5 ratha iva prá yayuk sākám ádra yak; or, we have to think that the avi has already begun to think of the cows which Indra frees from the cave of Vala and therefore supply gãvah. We may note that in the very next stanza (2.19.3) the kavi combines both the Vộtra and the Vala myth."
I shall now give an example where Fr. E has charged the SK for having done word-substitutions due to his misunderstanding of the received text.798 In RV 10.39.14 we read etán vām stómam aśvināv akarmátakşama bhígavo nd Tátham. At first glance the line seems to convey the sense :" this your praisesong, oh Aśvinā, we have done, we have fashioned it as Bhrgus (fashion ) the chariot." But since the Bhrgus are not famous for the art of chariot fashioning, but the æbhus are, Fr. E is quick to see here the handiwork of the SK. He asserts that the original line of the rşi must have read as átaksāma yhávo na rátham. He admonishes the SK in the following terms: "The flabbergasting connexion with chariot making for the Bhrgus is a pure invention of the SK's over-cleverness." The question that stares us in the face is - if the SK heard the text with Ybhávah, why should he have changed it to bhigavah? The metre, the sandhi, nothing seems to be wrong. Fr. E attempts an answer to this question
20 Fr. E. ridicules these honest attempts of Oldenberg and Geldner by saying "The
tortured efforts of GELDNER and OLDENBERG are misspent on the SK's disfigured
palimpsest." 21 Lüders, Varuna 171, f.n. 9. 22 sá máhina indro árno apám práirayad ahiháccha samudrám/
ájanayat süryam vidád så aktúnáhnăm vayúnai sādhat //
Also cf. Lüders Varuna, 193. 32a IA (3rd Series) 2.4.9-10.
Madhu Vidya/123