12.08.15

<the khilas, long known and often published as an appendix to editions of the Ṛgveda, are almost all found incorporated in the hymns of the Āśvalāyana recension. They are apocrypha only for the Śākala recension. They are genuine Ṛgveda mantras, as shown by their presence within the Āśvalāyana-Saṃhitā.>

<Chaubey stated that the 212 additional mantras not found in Śākala recension are not given in Āśvalāyana pada-pāṭha manuscripts. He therefore, after learning its different method of showing the avagraha, supplied them himself>

<was the pada-pāṭha for this(10.121.10) verse prepared and added by Chaubey to his edition of the Āśvalāyana recension? And perhaps then copied by Amal Dhari Singh Gautam for his edition of the Śāṃkhāyana recension? Or is it in fact found in manuscripts of the pada-pāṭha of the Āśvalāyana and/or the Śāṃkhāyana recension? >

The first two paragraphs cited from the mail, I think, leaves the importance of the Āśvalāyana Saṁhitā  as to the recensional history of the RV to question. The khilas did not originally belong to the RV as represented by the Vulgate ie Śākala-Saṁhitā.  Unless we find any reason (violence, obnoxious practice) for their exclusion from an older version at a later date, the hymns have to be regarded as originally alien to the RV. Even the Śaunakīya Saṁhitā relegates them to its 20^th kāṇḍa, regarded as apocryphal by many. And the Paippalāda-Saṁhitā does not incorporate them with it.

The Āśvalāyana-Saṁhitā’s liberal inclusion shows its emergence in later slack times.

Added problems with the new recension could have been any liberty taken by the editor. There would not be any problem in such case if the exact readings and their difference, if any, from the manuscripts are furnished by the editor. Did late Professor Chaubey, a longtime friend and colleague of mine, give the MS readings for 10.121.10? Any decision has to be taken on that basis.

What we all are prone to do is leaving the answers to such questions equivocal. And exactly this point was raised by me sometime as a practice that must be avoided. I think it is imperative that someone took up the edition for study.  I paid only a cursory glance which did not lead to any noticeable defect.  I hope none will be discovered. Still, a study is called for.

Best
Dipak Bhattacharyaś

 

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:05 PM, David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle@gmail.com> wrote:

The first thing that was noticed by the editor of the the Āśvalāyana-Saṃhitā, B. B. Chaubey, is that the khilas, long known and often published as an appendix to editions of the Ṛgveda, are almost all found incorporated in the hymns of the Āśvalāyana recension. They are apocrypha only for the Śākala recension. They are genuine Ṛgveda mantras, as shown by their presence within the Āśvalāyana-Saṃhitā.

Both of the newly published recensions include their own pada-pāṭha. In his extensive introduction, Chaubey stated that the 212 additional mantras not found in Śākala recension are not given in Āśvalāyana pada-pāṭha manuscripts. He therefore, after learning its different method of showing the avagraha, supplied them himself (p. 57).

Here is my question, that perhaps someone in India with access either to the manuscripts or to the editors can answer. In hymn 10.121 addressed to hiraṇya-garbha, the last verse, verse 10, brings in Prajāpati. Vedic scholars such as Jan Gonda have questioned the authenticity of this verse because its words are not separated in the pada-pāṭha (WZKS 27, 1983, p. 31). In both of the newly published recensions, this verse has a full pada-pāṭha. So, was the pada-pāṭha for this verse prepared and added by Chaubey to his edition of the Āśvalāyana recension? And perhaps then copied by Amal Dhari Singh Gautam for his edition of the Śāṃkhāyana recension? Or is it in fact found in manuscripts of the pada-pāṭha of the Āśvalāyana and/or the Śāṃkhāyana recension?

Best regards,

David Reigle
Colorado, U.S.A.

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:07 PM, David and Nancy Reigle <dnreigle@gmail.com> wrote:

As most of you know, two recensions of the Ṛgveda in addition to the long standard Śākala/Śākalya recension have become available in the last several years. They are:

Āśvalāyana-Saṃhitā of the Ṛgveda, ed. B. B. Chaubey, 2 vols., New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, 2009.

The Ṛgveda Saṃhitā of Śāṃkhāyana-Śākhā, ed. Amal Dhari Singh Gautam, 4 vols., Ujjain: Maharshi Sandipani Rashtriya Veda Vidya Pratishthan, 2012-2013.

I would be very interested in comments from the Vedic scholars here about the significance of having two additional recensions of the Ṛgveda. In particular, I was earlier informed that an 1897 book in Danish by Hans Vodskov, Rig-veda og Edda, has a chapter attempting to demonstrate that the Ṛgveda we have shows a very late style. My informant noted that Vodskov's views about the late style of the Śākala recension have not been adopted by Vedic scholars. Now that we have two additional recensions, almost identical to the Śākala recension, I assume that this would be significant evidence for an early, unchanged style.

As for linguistic peculiarities, as opposed to stylistic ones, Madhav Deshpande had noted in his 1993 book, Sanskrit & Prakrit: Sociolinguistic Issues, p. 134: "In most recent discussions, a historical fact of utmost importance is often overlooked, namely that the text of the Ṛgveda that we have today is not necessarily the original Ṛgveda. What we have is only one recension (saṃhitā) of the Ṛgveda compiled several centuries after the hymns were composed by the Ṛgvedic sages."

Now we have three recensions, together presumably bringing us closer to the original Ṛgveda.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)