Differences between oral and written Taittiriya Samhita

[Madhav Deshpande]

This is just to confirm my previous observation on the recitation of the
Rudra section of the Taittiriiya Samhitaa.  I have checked my copy of the
Kramapaa.tha of this section of the TS published from Madras in 1970 by
Giri Trading Agency, Religious Book Sellers/Publishers, pp. 4-5.  Consider
the oral version offered by Harry Spier:

> Oral version taittiriya samhita
> namo hiraNyabAhave senAnye dizAm ca pataye namo / 4.5.2.1
> namo vRkSebhyo harikezebhyaH pazUnAm pataye namo/ 4.5.2.2

As I suspected, the Kramapaa.tha for this section treats the subsections
of 4.5.2 as continuous segments and reads for example:  ca-pataye /
pataye-nama.h / namo-nama.h / namo-v.rk.sebhya.h /  etc.  Only at the very
end of the last subsection of 4.5.2 does one find nama-iti-nama.h
repetition marking the "avasaana" (end of passage).  This confirms the
textual assumptions of the oral tradition.  Best,

                                        Madhav Deshpande

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Madhav Deshpande wrote:

> This question points to one more dilemma, not just in western
> transcription of Vedic texts, but also in recognizing where the end of a
> metrical line occurs.  The end of a metrical line is obviously clear in
> metrical texts.  This allows a clear demarcation of the so called
> ardharca, where the sandhi-continuity ends in recitation.  This becomes
> particularly a problem in the prose texts.  There are traditional ways of
> marking the so called avasaanas even in prose texts, such as the
> repetition with -iti- in the middle, x-iti-x, in the recitation of
> Vikk.rtis like Ja.taapaa.tha.  For the particular example cited by Harry
> Spier, it looks like the divisions of the text into 4.5.2, 4.5.3 etc. mark
> the units which end in Avasaanas, but the sub-divisions of 4.5.2 into
> 4.5.2.1 etc. do not end in Avasaanas.  This seems to be indicated in the
> Satavalekar edition of the TS, where only at the end of 4.5.2 we find the
> word nama.h not subject to combination with the following.  The
> subsections like 4.4.2.1 are directly combined in sandhi with the next
> segments and hence we see namo at the end of one and namo at the beginning
> of the next, because for the reciters this is a continuous text.  Problems
> like that exist also in the prose parts of the Zaunakiiya AV (15th
> Kaa.n.da) and are resolved clearly only in the Ja.taapaa.tha.  I have
> prepared a critical edition of some of these Vik.rtipaa.thas of the
> Zaunakiiya AV, and marking the Avasaanas is one of the important feature
> seen there.  Best,
>                                         Madhav Deshpande
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Harry Spier wrote:
>
> > Dear list members,
> >
> > In comparing the audio tape (and the accompanying chanting book) I have of
> > the Rudram (satarudriya) i.e. Taittiriya Samhita 4.5 chanted by a
> > traditionally trained vedic priest of the Hiranyakesin school of the
> > Taittiriya Samhita from Satara Maharashtra with the TITUS on-line text (HTML
> > version)of Weber's edition of the Taittiriya Samhita I noticed the following
> > difference.
> >
> > In paragraphs 4.5.2 and 4.5.3 in the on-line Weber's edition all the padas
> > in these two paragraphs end in "namas".  But in the oral version I have all
> > the padas of theses two paragraphs end in "namo".
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Oral version taittiriya samhita
> > namo hiraNyabAhave senAnye dizAm ca pataye namo / 4.5.2.1
> > namo vRkSebhyo harikezebhyaH pazUnAm pataye namo/ 4.5.2.2
> > etc.
> >
> > TITUS Weber's on-line taittiriya samhita
> > namo hiraNyabAhave senAnye dizAm ca pataye namas / 4.5.2.1
> > namo vRkSebhyo harikezebhyaH pazUnAm pataye namas/ 4.5.2.2
> > etc.
> >
> > 1) Can someone explain the reason for the difference between the oral
> > version I have and Weber's edition. (I am assuming that the on-line version
> > is not a misprint but agrees with the printed edition).  I was under the
> > impression that there were no variations in the taittiriya samhita. (A.B.
> > Keith says in his introduction to his translation that there are no "real"
> > variations).
> >
> > 2)Also if what is being done in Weber's edition is treating each pada as a
> > sentence then shouldn't it be "namaH" not "namas", perhaps someone could
> > explain that also.
> >
> > 3) Do the differences between Weber's edition and the oral version I have
> > represent two different oral traditions or styles (or even minor
> > variations)of chanting the taittiriya samhita.
> >
> > As an aside the corresponding padas from the satarudriya of the TITUS
> > on-line version (HTML) of Weber's edition of the Vajasaneyi Samhita
> > (Madhyandina) agree with the oral version of the Taittiriya samhita I have
> > and use "namo" and not "namas" at the end of these padas.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> >
> > Harry Spier
> > 371 Brickman Rd.
> > Hurleyville, New York
> > USA 12747
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>