Madhuvidya

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

Page 95

NOTES AND COMMUNICATIONS
379
dha tat (parāñ eva) 'that (ārtvijya), indeed, (is) that (which simply goes away,11 i.e. is futile, does not help the sacrificer)', Ait. Br., 15.2 (pañcikā 3.46). The repetition of the pronoun tat does not amount to tautology,
If sahasah is not to be taken as one word but as two, as suggested by Bhattabhāskara, or three, as suggested in this paper, then we should not get the visarga after the second sa. This latter sa has been interpreted as the demonstrative pronoun and hence it should lose the visarga before any consonant.12 We expect the text in that case to read as sa ha (or saha) sa svajah. Now among the published editions of Ait. Br., that of Aufrecht, the Anandāśram edition, and the Trivandrum edition, all read the text with the visarga as sahasah svajaḥ. But Haug's edition of Bombay and the Bibliotheca Indica edition of Calcutta read the text without the visarga as sahasa svajah or sahasasvajah. This, then, seems to have been the original text. A corruption of sa ha sa svajaḥ to sahasaḥ svajah in the oral tradition, especially when the text has been handed down in an unaccented form, is easy to understand. In a continuous recitation sahasasvajah and sahasaḥ svajaḥ are heard alike.13
M. A. MEHENDALE 11 remoto 'Keith, nikrstam Sāyana, asubham Şadgurusinya. 11 Pån., 6.1.132.
13 A Sanskrit rendering of this paper will appear in the Pandit Rajeshvar Shastri Dravid felicitation volume.
Madhu Vidyā/70