[INDOLOGY] Metrically restored Rgveda and traditional recitation

Wed Jan 14 00:43:34 UTC 2015

This has been a stimulating discussion.  I can't say how happy I am to have
this discussion group.  Best wishes for Makara Sankranti from Pune.

Madhav

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 13 01 15
>
>
>
> I too have to apologise for *íḍyo*/*íḷiyo* instead of *ī́ḍyo*/*ī́ḷiyo*.
>
> Among others, there is no evidence that sandhi was compulsory in the Vedic
> verse at least till the composition of the Paippalāda-Saṁhitā. There is a
> saying quoted by Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita on SK 2232 (P 8.4.18) and ascribed to
> Bhartṛhari (not found in the Vākyapadīya) telling where sandhi is
> compulsory. The saying does not mention verse as calling for compulsory
> sandhi. It was the norm, that I admit, but not in the early Vedic days nor
> even in Pāṇini's time. By the time of the RP the Ṛgveda had started to be
> read as a Saṁhitā  that is as a sandhied text and the old metrical
> balance was lost. That compelled the RP to enunciate rules of disyllabic
> reading which had been the only norm at the time of composition.
>
> The above requires elaboration and that is possible. But this is no place
> for that. But I mention one classical verse that reads unsandhied
>
> *Yo dhruvāṇi parityajya adhruvāṇi niṣevate/ dhruvāṇi tasya naśyani
> adhruvaṃ naṣṭam eva ca/ * The 'queer' phenomenon raised many eyebrows.
> Some even emended *hy adhruvāṇi* and *hy adhruvaṃ* in violation of
> manuscript readings. That was unfair.
>
> Best
>
> DB
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:37 PM, George Cardona <cardonagj at verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> My apologies for the inadvertent typos: pādfas > pādas, elibible >
>> eligible. GC
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:52 AM, George Cardona <cardonagj at verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I have a suggestion, which I proposed some years ago in *Purāṇa Itihāsa
>> Vimarśa*, *Essays in Honour of Professor S. G. Kantawala, *Delhi/Varanasi,
>> 1998, pp. 313-335 (‘Ideal and performance in Sanskrit’): the accepted text
>> of the Ṛgveda included hypermetric (*bhurik*) and hypometric (*nicṛt*)
>> pādas, which the Ṛgvedaprātiśākhya acknowledges.  The same prātiśākhya also
>> provides that, for perfecting a pāda, one may break up the results of
>> sandhi, including the insertion of *i *and *v* to give *iy, uv* instead
>> of *y, v*.  The apparent inconsistencies are reconciled if one accepts
>> that the ideal pādas arrived at are intended not for recitation but for
>> theoretical purposes: to allow stating by rules the syllalbles of pādfas
>> that are elibible for metrical lengthening and the structures of cadences.
>> which Śaunaka also does in his prātiśākhya.  George
>>
>> On Jan 13, 2015, at 12:26 AM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Is there a misunderstanding? There is no doubt that metrical defects that
>> are incorrigible do exist. I came across cases of nine syllable
>> gāyatrīs/anuṣṭubhs that have not been classified by the Prātiśākhyas.
>> Whitney too noted some of them. These are defective metres and are meant
>> when it is asserted that one syllable too many or less does not matter.
>>
>>
>> But is not *íḍyo nū́tanair utá* to be read as *íliyo nū́tanair utá *covered
>> by Ṛk-Prātiśākhya 17.14(22-23) and 8.22(40)? Again, that one is still asked
>> to recite *váreṇiyaṃ *in RV 3.62.10a also points to the old tradition of
>> reading disyllabic for metrical consistency. Obviously the RP means such
>> cases as can be made regular by disyllabic reading. The tradition became
>> weak and slack through the ages.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> DB
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Tim,
>>>
>>>      I myself was surprised by the statement from the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa
>>> that I have cited.  How to bridge that statement and the treatment in the
>>> Prātiśākhyas that you refer to is an important question.  One possibility
>>> is that the analytical tradition of the Prātiśākhyas became consciously
>>> aware of the metrical deviations and tried to account for them, while the
>>> tradition represented by the AB did not much care for this issue.  This is
>>> perhaps analogous to the earliest oral traditions of the Veda did produce
>>> variant branch Samhitās with different readings, but with the later
>>> development of the rigorous methods of recitation like the various
>>> permutational Vikṛtipāṭhas, further splitting of the Saṃhitās was
>>> arrested.  With metrical deviations, there is a similar possibility.  That
>>> is just my guess.  Best,
>>>
>>> Madhav
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Lubin, Tim <LubinT at wlu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  But, Madhav, isn't it the case that the Prātiśākhyas (e.g., Ṛkpr.
>>>> 8.22 and 17.14) recognize that in Vedic hymns y and v must often be
>>>> pronounced i and u?  Isn't indeed the Taittirīya convention of writing,
>>>> e.g., suvar an explicit acknowledgement that it is dissyllabic, despite the
>>>> convention elsewhere (where, nevertheless, a dissyllabic pronunciation
>>>> might tacitly be acknowledged -- albeit this is a special case, a fixed
>>>> form in TS.
>>>>
>>>>  Tim
>>>>
>>>>  Timothy Lubin
>>>>  Professor of Religion and Adjunct Professor of Law
>>>> Washington and Lee University
>>>> Lexington, Virginia 24450
>>>>
>>>>   http://home.wlu.edu/~lubint
>>>>  http://wlu.academia.edu/TimothyLubin
>>>>  https://twitter.com/TimothyLubin
>>>>  ḷ
>>>>
>>>>   From: Madhav Deshpande <mmdesh at umich.edu>
>>>> Date: Monday, January 12, 2015 6:43 PM
>>>> To: Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak.d2004 at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Indology <indology at list.indology.info>
>>>> Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Metrically restored Rgveda and traditional
>>>> recitation
>>>>
>>>>   It is not clear how much the tradition was bothered by metrical
>>>> inconsistencies.  There is an interesting passage in the Aitareya Brāhmana
>>>> that says: na vā ekenākṣareṇa chandāṃsi viyanti na dvābhyām.  Even by a
>>>> deviation of up to  two syllables, the tradition did not consider the meter
>>>> to be violated.  The text titled Vedavicāra (19th century) that I am
>>>> editing and translating cites this passages and extends it further: ekena
>>>> dvābhyām ity upalakṣaṇam, tasmād akṣaranyūnādhikabhāvena chandāṃsi nānyathā
>>>> bhavanti.  Thus, it seems to be that "metrically restored RV" is a purely
>>>> modern creation.  If the Brāhmaṇa texts were not bothered by deviations of
>>>> meters up to two syllables, can we be so certain that the authors of the
>>>> Vedic hymns were so bothered.  There is a possibility that "metrically
>>>> restoring texts" could be something like a modern hyper-correction.  Modern
>>>> reciters of the Vedas that I am familiar with do not seem to worry about
>>>> reciting a metrically correct text.  While they seem to show interest in
>>>> reciting the various Pāṭhas and their permutations, I am not at all certain
>>>> that they are scanning the recited text for metrical deviations.
>>>>
>>>>  Madhav Deshpande
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <
>>>> dipak.d2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is the metrically restored text which the Ṛk-Prātiśākhya enjoins
>>>>> for recitation. I have heard the disyllabic recitation from at least two
>>>>> Vedic reciters and was myself advised to do so with the few verses that I
>>>>> had to learn to utter as a child. But I have not examined each and every
>>>>> case of recitation.  I hope Professor Deshpande has the same
>>>>> experience
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> DB
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Harry Spier <
>>>>> hspier.muktabodha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Dear list members,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Do any members know if when the Rg Veda is recited by Vaidikas if
>>>>>> that recitation agrees with the metrically restored Rg Veda or if they
>>>>>> recite it like the written text with the metrical anomalies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Thanks,
>>>>>> Harry Spier
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>>>> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
>>>> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
>>>> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
>>>> The University of Michigan
>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Madhav M. Deshpande
>>> Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
>>> Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
>>> 202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
>>> The University of Michigan
>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INDOLOGY mailing list
> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
> http://listinfo.indology.info
>

-- 
Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
202 South Thayer Street, Suite 6111
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1608, USA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20150114/89cfcee7/attachment.htm>