Dear Ashok,

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is likely. Nāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṃ na bhinnam, :-) and there are many elements that may go into an emendation. To me, the verse in question does indeed seem rather cliché-like, making  the formulaic yāvac candraprabhākarau appear more likely than it does to you. But of course I may be wrong.

Martin


Ashok Aklujkar wrote:
Dear Martin,

Thanks for the additional observations you bring to the consideration of the verse. 

I should have expressed myself differently. The verb asti or ‘exists’ is definitely implicit in clauses one and three. It is possible that its change to the dual form (a vacana-vipariṇāma) staḥ was presumed in the second clause, but how far is such a presumption justified? It would come across as probable only if we further presume that the author did not wish to deviate from the common (cliché-like) yāvaccandrārkau or yāvaccandra-divākarau way of thinking or did not care about the consistency that the implicit presence of a verb in the singular would have given to his composition (i.e., did not care about symmetry). The first form of the presumption seems unnecessary (leading to gaurava), and the second unlikely. 

Appealing to the (undoubtedly true but) very general observation that worse transcription/transmission errors are seen in the way texts come down to us will leave us with no control on emendations (and we need that control). A consideration of ‘whether emendation x is probable or emendation y’ is unavoidable if the goal is to restore texts to a justified or acceptable (if not *the* original) form. My experience so far indicates that in a written as well as oral handing down of a text a रौ -> र: error (even in its generalized form ‘au mark > visarga’) is not common. Hence, in my opinion, it should not be viewed as likely. 

(The following does not pertain to what you have written but to what may be implicit in the statements of other contributors to the discussion:)  

Almost all Sanskrit authors come across as not losing the awareness of the literal, grammar-derived meaning of a word even when that word acquires a strong technical, śāstra-specific sense. That is the only way words such a prakṛti could have come to mean one thing in Sāṃkhya, another thing in Artha-śāstra and a third thing in grammar (not an exhaustive list). Even mokṣa that plays a great role in making Indian dhārmic traditions distinctive from religions and is known to practically every educated person in India remains available for such meanings as ‘releasing a cow from its tether’ or ‘release from an obligation.’  Therefore, it should not surprise us that prabhākara, while strongly associated with the Sun, had not ceased to mean ‘maker of lustre/light.’ 

(When the same word is used as a personal name, as is common, it could involve a metaphorical transfer of meaning, ‘X is/should be a virtual Sun in life or a particular field of activity’ or a retracing to the literal, derivational meaning, as in English “illustrious”.)

I saw Adheesh’s mail just as I was about to post the above text. divi in the place of divo will not fit the metre. The sixth syllable needs to be heavy. 

Taking deva in the (well-established) sense of ‘king, master, lord’ should remove any discomfort that might be felt with the genitive (divaḥ —>) divo. 

a.a.