Bha.t.ta Bhaaskara Mi;sra's Bhaa.sya on the Taittiriiya

Arlo Griffiths A.Griffiths at LET.LEIDENUNIV.NL
Fri Aug 22 17:40:03 UTC 2003

Dear Ashok,

And yes, a second glance at the text confirms that you are absolutely right:
the error was on my side, and Jan's attempt at explanation of this small
portion, as well as my own misguided original one, can be discarded. (By the
way, the three passages were all consecutive.)

But the basic part of my query remains open. I guess not too many
Indologists are ever fishing in this neck of the woods... Or are they?


> From: Ashok Aklujkar <aklujkar at INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA>
> Reply-To: Indology <INDOLOGY at>
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 09:41:33 -0700
> Subject: Bha.t.ta Bhaaskara Mi;sra's Bhaa.sya on the Taittiriiya
> I am reposting this because it has so far not appeared on the list. I do not
> know why. My server and computer did not give any indication of delivery
> failure. -- a.a.
> From: Ashok Aklujkar <aklujkar at>
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:03:38 -0700
> To: Indology <INDOLOGY at>
> Subject: Re: Bha.t.ta Bhaaskara Mi;sra's Bhaa.sya on the Taittiriiya
> Arlo,
> Given my resources here, I cannot help you with your main query, but perhaps
> my attempt at a different translation will serve to guide your query
> properly.
> The common word is va;sa.mvada 'under control, in possession, existing under
> the direction of,' not va.m;savada (in fact, I cannot recall coming across
> the latter anywhere). Misplacement of the anusvaara is not uncommon in
> Naagarii printing.
> The first passage you cite is:
>> godaavariitiirasthasya kasyacana pa.n.ditasya va.m;savada.m
>> taittiriiyabraahma.nasya dvitiiyaa.s.takasyaantimaanaa.m catur.naam
>> anuvaakaanaa.m bha.t.tabhaaskarabhaa.sya.m duraasadam aasiit |
> To me, its natural meaning would be: 'It was difficult/impossible to obtain
> Bha.t.ta Bhaaskara's commentary on the four last anuvaakas of the second
> a.s.taka of the which is/was, under the control of a
> certain pandit living on the bank of the Godaavarii.'
> Such statements about not getting access to a precious or particularly
> valuable ms are (unfortunately) found in the introductions of the editions
> of several Indic texts.
> More importantly, my translation, implying that at a certain time the latter
> part of B-B's work was at least thought to exist, would make the use of
> ko;saantaraabhavaat 'because other mss did not exist (because I/we did not
> have access to other mss)' and lupta.m du.spaa.tham ca 'lost and having
> bad/corrupt readings' in your third passage understandable (I am assuming
> that nothing else of relevance has been written between the passages; I do
> not have the original in front of me).
> Second passage:
>> Hence this edition supplies's comm. (the `Maadhaviiyabhaa.sya') for
>> those anuvaakas:
>> ata;s ca tatra saaya.nabhaa.syam eva nive;sitam |
> Third passage:
>> ko;saantaraalaabhaac ca taittiriiyasa.mhitaayaa.m ca ara.nyake ca
>> lupta.m ca bha.t.tabhaaskarabhaa.syam apahaaya
>> saaya.nabhaa.syam eva nyave;si |
> ashok aklujkar

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list