________________
34
Neelima Mone
which does not help us, as it makes no sense. Whitney, thinks this to be grammaticalıy impossible. So he suggests the emendation of imām to imăn (to g> gram nitically in apposition with pätyn), and yet he thinks 'imam
patrim' as a preferable reading. In the first instance, the Pp represents the tradition. Therefore, it will require strong ground to doubt the sa and apparently, Whitney does not offer any convincirg argument. Perhaps ho did not consider imām pătrñ to be correct ! Yet pâty with its object in
a suzative is not ukonat vidc Ser3, eg. bosides somasya pätā, we have somam pätà as well. cf. Rv. 4 44.15 påia' sutam indro astu somam
may Indra be the drinker of pressed Sona'. As such imám patrñ should not be discarded for fear that it is incorrect. Already it is obvious from
the translation that i näin pätặn yields a good sense. And 'imam pătrim, on the contrary, does not yield a good sense, if we see Sā's como ent : 'imam påtrim' kalasın, “amstena' sudhārūpeņa udakena 'samindhi'sam yag. iddhan sand iptar knru-enkindle this vessel with amsta like water ! If the original text conveys a sensible meaning, we have no right to emend or change the text. 3.6. Let us now, consider the reading sam indhi for samangdhi Samindhi means 'enkindle in a good way', from sam vidh (cf. Sā's comment mentioned above). However, the epkindling of any vessel by water (1) makes no Senso like agninā siñcati. Again, we find no srauta or gļhya ritual which prescribes enkindling any flow ! 4. Then the question is , 'how to account for these readings of Sā ?' This hymn speaks of the construction of a house and reveals the ideas about the house in the poet's mind. This house is of ample roof, at ple grain, full of cattle and horses. It is protection and comfort for the housebolder. The post wishes to live in it happily with his hero-sops, a long life; his enemies and diseases destroyed. The idea of completeness and ampleness is in his mind. As we have seen above, this tenor of the whole hymn is broken by Sa's readings (except by 'kumbhaḥ' and 'kalasih!). Therefore we cannot make case for them. It can be said that parhaps Sā might have bad before him a corrupt ms of the Samhitā. But what is striking is that Să completely disregards the Pp. Sá belongs to the 14th Century A.D. and, by that time, the Pp and the tradition of the recitation must have been well settled. Therefore, if Sā goes against these two traditions, wbat should have led him to it ? It is perhaps because of thepl comete disregard of tradition for the AV through maoy centureis !
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
