________________
more crucial problem involved in Schlerath's derivation and interpretation is posed by the fact that the underlying noun derived from "to exist," such as "existence," which has to be presupposed and also specifically figures in this etymological interpretation, cannot simply be equated with "unspecified) life" as claimed in the present context. We rather refer to the specific mode or circumstances of an individual human existence or to an individual course of life when we use the word "existence interchangeably with "life," as in phrases like "Hers was a miserable existence," meaning "She led a miserable life," or "He believes in existence after death" (cf. Schlerath's specification of existence") meaning "He believes in life after death." Moreover, such a specified "life" or "existence can certainly not be led away or robbed after the death of an individual, to point out just one incoherence resulting from the equation of existence" with "life," not to mention the problems arising from the - unjustified - equation of existence" with "unspecified life." Similar insurmountable problems would arise in many of the relevant contexts if one assumed an alternative meaning of "existence" in the sense of "continuance of being or life," "livelihood," "subsistence," as in sentences like "The existence of many farmers was at stake."
A further, very recent and challenging hypothesis on asu by another IndoEuropeanist, Heiner Eichner, postulates a connection with a verbal root meaning "to produce/procreate/beget," which has otherwise been lost in the Vedic language. According to Eichner's historical reconstruction based on ancient Hittite source materials, the term ash should refer in an active, transitive sense to "the one who procreates," that is, the head of a family clan, and at the same time in a passive sense to that which is procreated," namely, life, specifically in the form of descendants. From the passive meaning of procreated in the sense of "procreated [life)" Eichner moves on to derive the meaning of "procreative power which has been transmitted through the process of procreation, and postulates the concept of what he calls a "sexual soul" expressed with the word asu. This "sexual soul," which he assumes to be a notion common not only among the ancient Indians, but also among other ancient Indo-European people such as the Romans, is passed on from father to son, guarantees the continued existence of a family clan, and after death unites with the ancestors in the other world, thus
forming a thread of life while it is living or alive (java)." Some aspects of Eichner's interesting hypothesis would undeniably fit with certain components of the ancient Indian cult of the dead, inasmuch as the assumed "sexual soul" would be found as a manifestation of the power of life, to again use Hasenfratz's brief characterization of "soul," only in males who alone are entitled and required to perform funeral rites and other rituals concerning the ancestors. At the same time, however, this would imply that the references to ash, more of which will be presented below, would have to be understood as applying only to such contexts in which male persons are involved, which would result in a surprisingly strong manifestation - amounting to almost absurd exclusiveness of the generally patriarchal character of ancient Indian society even in contexts of human life and daily experience, such as disease, imminent death and death itself, which one would expect to be addressed without gender specification. Apart from this problematic consequence relating to the early history of Indian culture or its proto-history, it is difficult to understand how a passive word-formation with the basic meaning "procreated, engendered could assume the active meaning of procreative power. Such a development of meaning could only be explained by the assumption that the word "procreated" was metaphorically applied to one or even the foremost object of procreation, namely, life, to be understood in the already addressed extended sense of concrete vital force; as a next step, this usage would have had to have been restricted conventionally to this single special meaning and the latter further narrowed down to refer to the specifically male vital force only.
In view of the problems involved with these two etymological understandings of the term ass which have been suggested in recent historical linguistics as alternatives to the conservative connection of this "power of life with breathing I would like to disregard etymology here and rather concentrate on the refer
*Cf. also the criticism of Schlerath's hypothesis by Bodewitz, even though it is based on dif
ferent considerations and a different interpretation of as than the one given by me below
(cf. Bodewitz 1991: 43-45). 19 The root is reconstructed as V ens. 30 Although this is not explicated as such by Eichner, he seems to presuppose that the pro
creative power of a man is constantly being renewed so that it can be passed on repeatedly to his several sons; this would imply a multitude of A-s for a single male individual, all belonging to the same kind, but created at different times and passed on to different receptacles. Or does Eichner imagine the passing on" of procreative power in an abstract, non-physical way which would imply that it is possible without diminution or loss, just as, e.g., knowledge or a skill can be passed on to another person without any diminution or loss for the one who gives? However, at the end of life, as is claimed by Eichner to pass
on to the other world to unite with the forefathers, which seems to point at a more con crete physical concept. Further, does the first type of passing on" mean that the son(s) will not have to create his/their own sexual soul(s) for further transmission to his/their own son(s), but pass on the procreative power received from his/their father, now being conceived of as his/theirs in the same way as before? One wishes that Eichner would have
gone into more details in presenting his hypothesis. 31 Cf. Eichner 2002: 136-139.
It may be assumed that the supposedly original concept of ass as "procreated (life)" in the sense of a sexual soul" in Indo-Iranian culture was not current any longer in the Vedic period and that the term as documented in the Indian sources had obtained a different mean
ing » This would be especially problematic if according to Eichner's hypothesis this reproductive
power is not really engendered or produced, but passed on from father to son(s) in the
process of procreation just like an abstract potency (cf. n. 30 above). 34 CE also the critical remarks on the main or exclusive reliance on etymology in determining
the meaning of terms in the context of religious beliefs, specifically that of the term psyche, in Arbman 1926: 194
128
129
