Madhuvidya

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

Page 604

56
REVIEWS
the PW, abhiruta and kujita are attested as nouns since Rāmāyaṇa. The verse is, therefore, to be translated as-"(where) in the happy house of the Ksatriyas there is the noise of peacocks and krauñea birds and the cries of cuckoos-what is happier than that?""
4. §17, pp. 21-22: LUEDERS very ingeneously points out that in the Sutta-Nipata 453 (Theragäthä 1229) atthe and dhamme occur as misunderstood loc. singulars. They should have been attho and dhammo (both nom. sg.) respectively. However, his reconstruction (p. 22) of the line from the parallel passage in the Udanavarga 8.14 as found in the old C, manuscript of Berlin is not quite convincing. Actually the line has been read as
[sa]tya........rm. ca sam...pra[t]is [th]i.. [m]/ LUEDERS suggests the reconstruction of the line assatyam arthe ca dharme ea santa ahuḥ pratisthitam/
where satyam and pratisthitam appear as fem. This makes it necessary to supply vācām (going with satyām) from vāca occurring in the first half of the verse (saccam ve amatā vācã esa dhammo sanantano). But would it not be more natural to reconstruct the line as satyam arthe ca dharme ca.... pratisthitam (neut.) since the first word, so far as it is legible, does not show the length of the vowel in the second syllable? The Tibetan translation noted by LUEDERS on p. 22, f.n. 2 also points to satyam....pratisthitam. Obviously LUEDERS suggested satyam (vācām) pratiṣṭhitām (fem.) because in the ms. F he found vacam, cf. satyam arthe ca dharme ca vacam ahuḥ pratisthitam as also in ms. x [ca] dharme ca vacam [a]-. But in these manuscripts väcam has nothing to do with satyam; it is to be construed, together with pratisthitam, with ahuḥ which follows it im mediately. Thus satyam arthe ca dharme ca (iti) pratisthitām vācan (santa) ahuḥ would give good sense. With vacam ahuḥ we may compare vacam bhäseyya and bhasati väcam, Sutta-Nipäta 451 and 454; or sisyam aha sthitam päráve Bharadvajam idam vacaḥ, Ramayana 1.2.20.
5. 21, pp. 24-27 Under cases of the misunderstood loc. sg. LUEDERS notes bhümivadḍhano (Jātaka 538.51), nom. sg., which in his opinion should have been bhumivaḍdhane, loc. sg. (The line runs asnihato nuna me putto pathavya bhumivaḍdhano). LUEDERS starts from Pāli vadḍheti which, as rightly pointed out by him, is used about 'Aufhaufen eines Breis in einer Schüssel'. Therefore, bhümivaḍdhana, according to him, means 'Erdanhäufung' or 'Grab'. This he connects with nihato which in his opinion is either a wrong translation of nighäde or a corruption of nikhato. LUEDERS therefore translates the line as-'sicherlich ist mein Sohn in der Erde in dem Grabe eingegraben'.
Madhu Vidya/579