Madhuvidya

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

Page 154

THE RGVEDA-SAMHITAKARA AND FATHER ESTELLER
109
If Fr. E is correct in his guess that in the original text we had ydi in c then the verb pracodayāt will have to be connected with bhargah through it. But this result is undesirable. In almost all the uses of the verb cud, or of its derivatives like códa, codity or codayitri, one notices that it is looked upon as an activity of some deity like Agni, Indra, Asvinā, Soma, Uşas and some others. Only in a few cases (3.42.8, 8.68.7, 10.120.5, 2.13.9?) does it occur in connection with a priest or a singer. But in not a single case does the verb cud have an abstract notion like bhárgah as subject. It is therefore proper to judge that in the Gayatri mantra the seer wanted to relate the activity of stirring up the minds of the poets, to the deity Savits and not to his bhargas and hence he used yák. This conclusion receives support when we find that in the parallel passages it is the deity who is requested to stir (or sharpen) the minds of the poets. In 6.47.10 we read indra milá mahyam jivátum iccha coda ya dhiyam á yaso no dhāram,37 Indra is called codayanmali in 8.46.19 and Agni in 5.8.6. Pusan and Vãyu are called codilārā matinám 5.43.9, and there are many other passages.
In addition to the change of yát to yah, Fr. E also wants savitúh to be changed to savitúh for the sake of rhythm.38 But why should the SK change the long vowel to the short one? For, as noted by Fr. E himself, has he not retained the long i in prasavitá in two places 4.53.6 and 7.63.23? The SK had certainly an ear for rhythm, as much as we do, and if in spite of that he has passed on savitúh to the posterity, he must have certainly heard the text that way.
Dative Singular in -ai
Fr. E looks upon his discovery of the archaic dat. sg. in -di in the RV as one of his most significant contributions to the study of this text. As is wellknown the available Samhitā knows only the -āya ending. But Fr. E is convinced that that is the result of the SK's changing the archaic -ai to the later - ya ending in the received text. Let us consider a few examples cited by Fr. E. to prove his case, and, to begin with, the one discussed by him as “one of our key-problem texts"").
RV 7.88.6 reads as yaäpirnityo varuna priyah san tvám ágāmsi krndvat sákhā te, má ta enasvanto yaksin bhujema yandhi sma viprah stuvaté váratham// I shall not say here anything regarding the drastic changes proposed by Fr. E in the third påda but restrict myself only to the consideration of his suggestion to change viprah (nom.) to viprăi (dat.) in the last pāda. Fr. E gives two reasons for effecting this change. (1) In the first instance he points to the other passages
3? Also cf. codah kuvit tutujyát sätáye dhiyah 1.143.6. 38 ABORI 50.31. 39 Only the Padapatha in both places has pra-savita. 10 Proc. Trans. 22nd AIOC Vol. II. 10-14; JASB 41-42 (New Scr.) 35-36.
Madhu Vidyā/129