________________
108
M. A. MEHENDALE
grammatically nothing wrong in having them syntactically related,99 whereas in the other case there was noun-adjective relationship between vacaḥ (neut.) and raksoha (mas.) and hence it would be a grammatical anomally if they were brought in syntactic relationship.
Reading this detective story one would come to the conclusion that the SK, as depicted by Fr. E, had very poor knowledge of Sanskrit. But the author of this detective story himself tells us again and again that grammar was the istadevata for the SK and that the SK moved in the circle ot the sistas. If this is true we cannot entertain for a moment the correctness of the reasons given by Fr. E. If the SK retained rakşohá, inspite of the apparent difficulty, he must have heard the text that way. We have to see if we can explain it.
In the RV 10.162.1 we read bráhmanāgnik samvidānó raksohá bādhatām itah. Here, Agni, when joined with brúhman, is called raksoha. It is therefore likely that in our passage also, in which a hymn is said to have come into being for Agni and for whom it is supposed to be doubly strong (?) (idám vácah...agnaye janişista dvibarhāh) the singer says "May Agni become raksoha" (lagnih vácasa) raksohá (bhavāti )]." Or, we may look upon this as an instance of a slight corruption in the handed down text. Perhaps, the original text contained raksoha (neut. sg.) which would agree with vácah and that in transmission it became raksoha.
Even the famous Gayatri mantra tát savitúr vårenyan bhdrgo devásya dhimahil dhiyo yo nah pracodáyāt // (RV 3.62.10 ) has not escaped the textual attack of Fr. E34 In his opinion since the stanza opens with tát we must have yat," and not yáh, in the relative clause. True, this is what we expect. But if it is not what we expect, there must be some reason for the kavi to use yah. Instead of trying to understand it, Fr. E. blames the oral tradition for altering yan nak to Jó naḥ in stages, first by haplology yannaḥ > yanaḥ and then by assimilation dhiyo ya naḥ > dhiyo yo nah.
32 Geldner mentions the possibility of looking upon raksohá as an adj. of mánma noting
that the former appears in mas, form instead of ncut. Oldenberg, though he prefers to treat rakşohd as mas, remarks “ "demon-slaying prayer” (Griffith) ist
denkbar..." 38 Geldner and Velankar take rak sohd as an adj. of vácah. 34 ABORI 50.31-32. 35 For the impossible and irrelevant supports sought for the tát...yát construction,
see JASB 41-42 (New Ser.) 37-38. In one case, RV 1.141.1, Fr. E. extracts yát out of yáto and in another text he reads yát where it does not exist (5.82.1). From
these he seeks support for his argument. 30 For the other impossible phonetic alterations in the oral transmission imagined
by Fr. E one may note na at pathiyah first giving by sandhi and Päli-like assimilation näppathiyah, and further by wrong analysis joining the initial na to the previous word jamā and miscorrection to jañāndh pathiyah of RV 10.14.2 (Cf. IL Bagchi Mcm. Vol. 62; also 70 for other fanciful observations). Again, Fr. E., on metrical grounds wants to read RV 6.40.2 which opens as ásya piba, as asya at piba. This, he says, first changed to asyäppiba, and then to asyā piba, and was finally edited as asya pibal
Madhu Vidyā/128
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
