nidhi

[R.Mayer at ukc.ac.uk]

Jan Gonda, in his volume "The Savajajn~as" (Gonda 1965:183-193) discusses
the concepts of nidhi and nidhipaa, as cited in the Kaus'ika Suutra and
the Gr.hyasuutras. He describes nidhi as something of spiritual value 
deposited in a spiritual realm. This was guarded by protectors called
nidhipaa, whose function was to ensure that only those who had deposited
the nidhi in the first place, or those for whom it was intended, could
eventually reclaim it, when they arrived in the spiritual realm in person.
Agni, Prajaapati, or Br.haspati would often act as nidhipaa. What I can
not understand from Gonda is the *context* of these categories.
Can any learned list members help me?
Also, can anyone give me any more information or references to nidhi
and nidhipaa?
I am particularly interested if these categories of nidhi and nidhipaa
ever had a role in scriptural transmission, as they eventually came
to do in some Buddhist texts. In a Buddhist context, they seem to
be as much to do with scriptural revelation as with transmission.
Regards to all,
Rob
 

Original-Sender: goodall at vax.oxford.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 15:42:35 +0100
From: goodall at vax.oxford.ac.uk
To: indology at liverpool.ac.uk
Message-ID: <00985F02.AD1DC401.23 at vax.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: a nirvacana of pums

I wonder if someone might be able to suggest an interpretation of (and possibly
also an emendation to) what seems to
be an understated nirvacana that I have come across in Bha.t.ta
Raamaka.n.tha's commentary on the Kira.nav.rtti, which I am attempting to edit.
Commenting on the half-verse
CIDDHARME PU.MSI NO DHARMO, YADI SYAAT PARI.NAAMAVAAN
Raamaka.n.tha offers the following:

cid jnaanam eva dharma.h svabhaavo yasya sa tathaabhuuta.h pum ity anubhavati
sarvam iti pumaan.

Raamaka.n.tha is rejecting the view that ajnaana is a natural property of the 
soul and so he is reinforcing his arguments with a nirukti of
pumaan that demonstrates its omniscience; but it is not clear to me how the
word is broken down to yield anubhavati sarvam.

For this portion of the commentary I have only one Ms, and it is 
possible that the text here is corrupt.
I would be grateful for any suggestions.

Dominic Goodall.