Madhuvidya

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

Page 735

organization of the Rgveda was "forgotten very early as there is no explicit mention of it even in the earliest indexes" (p. 109). He therefore feels safe to assume that if a text is organized according to the numbers of the code then that constitutis evidence supporting a date that is pre-Buddhistic" (p. 19). He then proceeds to demonstrate (chapter 7) that the organization of the texts of the Atharvaveda and the Bhagavadgitā reflects the code numbers. But it should be quite cicar that the Bhagavadgltā in its present form cao impossibly be a part of the origiaal' Mahābhārata.
There are some inaccurate and misleading statements in the book. On p. 14 the author says: "Rasabha which literally means the twin asses are defi. ned in the Nigha otu 1. 15 as Aśvinau ..." But what the Nighantu here does is simply list the different animals that are yoked to the vehicles of different deities, c. g. hari of Indra, rohitah of Agni, etc. In this list are mentioned rāsabhau, i.e. two asses which serve as draught-animals for Asvinau. One may therefore say that the asses are characteristic animals of Asvina. Similarly the Nighanļu at the same place does not define Aja (goat) as sun. It only -mentions goats (ajah pl., oot sg.) as the characteristic draught-animals of Paşan. The identification of Pūşan with sun and of the Asvind with Gemini cannot be taken for granted for the Rgveda.
M. A. Mebendale
: Cf. H. Oldenberg : Prolegomena, p. 198; for a complete discussion sec pp. 191-202. 3 One should read Räsabbá or Rasabbau. The dual number does not convey twin
asses, but two asses. This, however, is not correct. The characteristic animals of Asvină are winged horses (Cr. Lüders, Varuna. p. 86 and his footnote 3 on p. 89. Although Lüders does not say it here, it is likely that rüsabha, in this context, means screaming, and not ass (cf. Lüders. Philologica indica, p. 754).
Madhu Vidyā/710