Salutation to holy Ga eśa
On the other hand, the verse as cited in the Bhā_ya of Mahīdāsa (p. 40) exactly matches our reading
Yüklə 3,53 Mb.
|
| On the other hand, the verse as cited in the Bhā_ya of Mahīdāsa (p. 40) exactly matches our reading.
279 It is not clear as to which Vyākhyā is being cited here. There is no exact passage like this in Mahīdāsa’s commentary. The closest statement of Mahīdāsa (p. 41) says: tathā ca sati mantro nāma sa_hitāmantras tād__mantrarūpasa_hitāyās tanmadhye eva tadagre brāhma_atvena pa_hanam ity ubhayathāpi sa_hitātvena padatvena kramatvena ca pa_hana_ trigu_a_ pa_hanam iti sa ‘mantrabrāhma_ayor vedas trigu_a_ yatra pa_hyate’ ity artha_ / etād_śapa_hana_ śākhāyā adhyayana_ sa yajurvedas tac ca taittirīyaśākhāyām evāsti / 281 A, C: ...vyepyeva_śabrāhma_e; B: ...pyeva_ śatapathabrāhma_e 282 A, B, C: vājasanepi...; B corrects to vājasaneyi. 283 B: k___atvamuktam. There is no exact passage like this in Sāya_a’s commentary on the VS. However, the introductory verses 10 and 11 contain the same explanation, VS(K), vol. I, p. 2: ādhvaryava_ kvacid dhautra_ kvacid ity avyavasthayā / buddhimālinyahetutvād tad yaju_ k___am īryate //10// yāj–avalkyas tata_ sūryam ārādhyāsmād adhītavān / vyavasthita-prakara_a_ yaju_ śukla_ tad īryate //11// 284 No exact parallel passage in Śa_kara’s commentary on the BU. A: ...tvamitipi..., corrected to ...tvamapi...; B, C: ...tvamapi; L: ...tvamiti. I have adopted the reading of L, because it is very uncommon to have two api-s in a sentence. 285 A, C: vyākhyāta_ 286 A, C: tasmātrigu_atvāttaitiriya... 287 This is an important comment. This suggests that at least by the time of the author of Vedavicāra, approximately around 1800 A.D., the Maitrāya_ī Sa_hitā was recited along with its Padapā_ha and Kramapā_ha. There are several manuscripts of these recitational varieties of the Maitrāya_ī Sa_hitā at the Vaidika Samshodhana Mandala in Pune. Bhagyashree Bhagwat (1995) demonstrates that different manuscripts of the Maitrāya_ī Padapā_ha show varient patterns, some following the Taittirīya tradition and others following the Mādhyandina tradition, and hence the Padapā_ha may be a late development in the Maitrāya_ī tradition, under the influence of other local traditions. Our text suggests that such ÒlateÓ developments may be several hundred years old. The argument also suggests the presence of the Maitrāya_īyas in the Nasik region, and hence the dispute. 288 Missing in L. 289 Contrast the use of devata in the GB passage with the use of daivata by our author. The continued use of daivata in Marathi might suggest the linguistic localization of the Sanskrit of our author. 290 A, C: krame_aiva pa_ha_ti tāni // 291 A, C: agnimī_e ० ratnadhātamam ity upakra_mya ...; B adds the missing portion in margin. 292 L: ...madhīyīteti / GB (Vijayapal edn., p. 16): i_e tvorje tvā vāyava stha devo va_ savitā prārpayatu śr__hatamāya karma_a ity evam ādi_ k_tvā yajurvedam adhīyate // 293 A, C: tadanantaram agna āyāih ० barhi_ī ...; B adds the missing portion in margin. 294 L: ...madhīyīteti / 295 This refers to the common practice of citing the Sa_hitā verses in ritual texts. Passages from one’s own Sa_hitā are cited only by the few initial words of a verse (pratīka), while passages from other Sa_hitās are cited in full. This gives us some understanding of the nature of the recitational training of the Vaidika brahmins. They were supposed to memorize completely their own Sa_hitā, and hence with the first few words of a quotation from one’s own Sa_hitā one could immediately recall the entire verse. This could not be expected of verses from some other Sa_hitā. 296 Sentence missing in L. 297 As pointed out in the footnote above, the actual reading of the GB does not agree with the reading of the TS, but it agrees more closely with the reading of the VS. Vijayapal, editor of the GB, p. 16, refers to Mādhyandina Sa_hitā 1.1.1. This vitiates the whole argument presented here by our learned Pandit. A, C: śrutvā; B, L: śrutyā 298 L adds atharvaśākhino, not supported by any mss. The omission of atharvaśākhin in the original text may indicate that the author did not consider them as being participants in the local tensions. 299 A, B, C: agnepi; B corrects first to agrepi and later to anyepi. L: anyepi 300 B: ...hotrānuś_hānārtha_ 301 This statement implies a rejection of the claim of the Maitrāya_īya to being included among the Pa–ca Drāvi_a group. As we know from other sources, this was a major contentious issue, see: Maitrāya_ī-Śākhā-Prakara_a. 302 A, B, C: tadapi na samyak schi(?); B crosses out schi; L: tadapi samyak. I have adopted the L reading. The phrase na samyak makes no sense, and it is likely that L has corrected an error in the mss. 303 A, B, C: anyāpyatvāt; L: anyāyyatvāt 304 This is indeed a self-serving argument. The Śukla Yajurvedins among the Deśastha brahmins of Maharashtra are often referred to simply as the Yajurvedins. So to say that the Taittirīya śākhā represents the main Yajurveda, while other Sa_hitās of the Yajurveda are mere śākhās is an illogical, but an understandable, argument coming from a Taittirīya author. 305 A, C: sa_k_ipyagre 306 A, B, C: siddhepi; L: siddhe 307 A, C: anaika... 308 A, C: ...rar_a... 310 A, B, C: sajyeran; B corrects to prasajyeran; L: prasajyeran 311 A, C: trigu_atvamukhyatva_ ukta_ // 312 L: trigu_atvasya yajurveda...; A, B, C: trigu_atvayajurveda... 313 A, C: ...kalpayā_ 314 The term Sārasvata Pā_ha referring to the TS alludes to the puranic legends which claim that at some point in time, the text of the TS was transmitted by a brahmin named Sārasvata, a son to the goddess Sarasvatī, when she was cursed by the sage Durvāsa to a human birth. Sārasvata’s received version of the TS contained a mixture of mantra and brāhma_a portions. This mixture led other sages to doubt the authenticity of Sārasvata’s text. However, the legends say that god Brahmā finally confirmed the authenticity of Sārasvata’s text. These legends are cited from the Sa_skāraratnamālā in the Sanskrit introduction by Anant Shastri Dhupkar to the Satavalekar edition of the TS, pp. 24-28. According to Dhupkar (p. 25), this Sārasvata Pā_ha contains the Sa_hitā, the Brāhma_a, and the Āra_yaka. Bha__abhāskara’s commentary on the TS (VSM edn., Vol. I., Pt. I., p. 10) says: atra ca kā__ānā_ sa_kīr_atve ‘pi yathāmnāyam evādhyeya_, sārasvatatvād asya pā_hasya / sarasvatī hi svasutāya sārasvatāyema_ pā_ham upadideśa / sa ca sarvavidyānidhir amum eva pā_ham adhyai__a / tasmād anatikrama_īya iti / 315 B: kā__e ‘kā__āntara... 316 A, C: ...ma_ikāyā 317 A, B, C: kā__ātarāvyāmiśratva_; L: kā__āntaravyāmiśratva_ 318 A, C: tittira_; B, L: tittiri_ 319 A, B, C: ...brāhma_ama__amitya_ta_; L: brāhma_ama__amamityanta_ 320 Beginning with puro_āśīyamadhvaragraha... upto svādhyāyabrāhma_am a__amam, the text refers to the first Adhyāya of the Kā__ānukrama or Kā__ānukrama_ikā. The remaining sections indicated by athaite ślokā_ refers to the second and the third Adhyāyas. A detailed description of the contents of the TS in accordance with the Kā__ānukrama is given by A.B. Keith (The Veda of the Black Yajus School, Pt. 1, Introduction, pp. xxvii-xxviii). 321 A, B, C: cha_dasā_; L: chandasā 322 A, C: nodāh_tyāni // 323 A, B, C: yajamāna_; B corrects to yājamāna_; L: yājamāna_ 324 A, C: agni 325 A, B, C: savitrādi; L: sāvitrādi 326 A, B, C: tadi_i...; L: tadi__i... 327 A, C: sārasvatapā_he 328 L: ...prakara_a iti; A, B, C: prakāre_eti 329 B: ...bhāgās...; A, C, L: ...bhāgas... 330 A, B, C: ...bhāgā; L: ...bhāga 331 It is difficult to comprehend the argument based on traigu_ya offered by Śāmaśāstrī. According to Mahidāsa’s commentary on the Cara_avyūha, the term traigu_ya simply refers to the threefold recitation in the form of Sa_hitā, Pada, and Krama. It has nothing to do with whether there is mixture of mantra and Brāhma_a portions in the Sa_hitā. It is not clear how traigu_ya uniquely applies to the Taittirīya tradition, unless the claim is that such triple recitation is found only in the Taittirīya tradition. Such a claim is not quite justifiable. 332 A, C: tittira_; B, L: tittiri_ 333 A, C: asyānukrama_ikāyā_ 334 Our author attributes the authorship of the Kā__ānukrama_ikā to the teacher Tittiri citing the statement etāvat tittiri_ provāca. This may not be quite correct. Keith (The Veda of the Black Yajus School, Pt. 1, p. xxvii) informs us that the Kā__ānukrama “claims to be a product of the Ātreyī Śākhā.Ó 335 A, B: pai_gave; C, L: pai_gaye 336 A, B, C: mahokhāya; L: ukhāya 337 A: svabhośceti sā_bhyatāmiti; B: svabhoścābhyeti sāmyatāmiti; C: svapnośceti sā_bhyatāmiti; L: svaya_bhoścaiti sāmyatāmiti 338 B: pai_gave 339 A, C: ...śākhā mukhyo...; B, L: ...śākhākhyo mukhyo... 340 L: g_hītvā 341 A, C: tittira...; B, L: tittiri... 342 A, C: nāmatpūrva_ 343 L: vi__vādi_u purā_e_u 344 L: parāśara_ 345 A, C: śākhābhedasahasraśa_ A, C: vistaradvaktu_ 346 A, B, C: ...vedastva_; B corrects to ...vedasta_; L: ...vedasta_ 347 A, C: ...madhākarot 348 A, C: ādhvaryavair yajurbhi... 349 A: nāpyatharvabhi_ 350 A, C: mahānati_ 351 A, C: jag_haste... 352 A, B, C: ...guruv_ttirata_ sadā; L: guruv_ttiratastathā 353 A, B, C: __iryodya; L: __ayodya 354 A, C, L: samayo ya_; B: samayoya_ 355 A, B, C: dvija_; L: dvija 356 A, C: svasriya_ 357 A, C: yāj–avalkyamahāmati_ 358 A, B, C: ucyatā_; L: mucyatā_ 359 A, B, C: matte; L: matto 360 A, B, C: v_dasye...; L: vadasye... 361 A, C: ...vāt 362 A, B, C: prayodita_; B corrects to mayodita_; L: mayodita_ 363 A, B, C: yatprayātadida_; L: g_hā_aitadida_ 365 A, B, C: rudhirā_gāni; L: khadirā_gāni 366 A, B, C: svarūpā_i; L: sarūpā_i 367 A, C: tapta 368 A, C: taittirīyācca śākhāyā_ 369 A, C: ...svāminā eva 370 A, C: ...viśe_o 371 L: adadus; A, B, C: ādadus 372 A, C: peśaladvo ra_bhya... 373 A, C: yāj–avalkyasmato 374 A, C: vājīrūpa... 375 The italicized text is missing in B. 376 A corrects original hari_ to ravi_. 377 A, B, C: vairadhītāni; B corrects to tairadhītāni; L: yairadhītāni 378 A, B, C: viprairdvijottamai_; L: viprairdvijottama 379 C: ka_vādyāstu 380 A, C: subhagavān 381 A, C: vājīrūpa... 382 A, B, C: daśapa–caśatairvibhu_; B corrects to ... ca tair vibhu_; L: ...sa tair vibhu_ 383 A, C: madhya_dinādaya_ 384 A, B, C: ...tātparyameva; L: ...tātparyameva_ 385 A, C: yāj–avalkye A, B, C: brahmotstatsurā...; L: brahmojjha_ surā... 386 A, C: mahāpāpātaka... 387 A, C: tiryadrūpa_ 388 L: itaramunyapamānaguruparityāga... 389 A, C: vedadattamapivāniti 390 A, C: tyaktavedasyanadhikārāt; L, B: tyaktavedasya tapasyanadhikārāt 391 A, B, C: ...munubhya_; L: ...munibhya_ 392 A, C: ...sanepi...; L, B: ...saneyi... 393 A: iti vājasanepi 394 C: ...bhavat 395 A: yaccerubrahma...; C: vaccerubrahma... 396 C: gurū_ā_ 397 Missing in B. 398 L: vājasaneyinā_ 399 A, C: tata; B, L: tatra 400 A and C drop the visarga. 401 A, B, C: tapobhimānatayā; L: tapobhimānena 402 A, B, C: madhyāhneśvarūpe_a; L: madhyāhne śuklāśvarūpe_a 403 L drops vā. 404 A, B, C: tata_ paramaya_ śloka_; L: tata_ paramete ślokā_ 405 A, C: ...ke2tana_ /. ‘2’ looks like a misplaced verse number. 406 A, B, C: śloka_ 407 The entire text marked in italics is found here in B and L, but is missing in the A and C at this point. It is found misplaced in the subsequent lines indicating the error of the copyist. 408 A, C: prāthamyamuktatva...; B: prāthamyoktatva...; L: prāthamyamukhyatva... 409 The misplaced passage mentioned in the footnote above is found inserted at this point in A and C. 410 B: pratij–ātanmūlocchedanaprasa_ge prāpte brūma_ 411 A, B, C: deva...; L: deśa... 412 A, B, C: p_thivyā; L: p_thivyā_. The reading p_thivyā agrees with the citation in the Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33). The Ayachit edn. (p. 47) reads: p_thivyā_ 413 Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33): śākhā vedāś ca ucyate. Also Ayachit edn. p. 47. 414 A, C: narmadādak_ibhāge tvāpasta_vyāśanāyinī 415 A, B, C: rā_āya_ī paippalādi; L: rā_āyanī paippalādī. Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33): pippalā ca 416 Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33): śā_khāyanī; Ayachit edn. (p. 47): sā_khyāyanī 417 Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33): ca for tu. 418 A, B, C: āndhradeśācca; L: āndhradeśā–ca; Cara_avyūhabhā_ya (Chaukhambha edn., p. 33): Yüklə 3,53 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|