The other two recensions of the Ṛgveda saṃhitā that are now available in print have bearing on this question, the Āśvalāyana śākhā and the Śāṃkhāyana śākhā. Both of them give a padapāṭha for verse 7.59.12. What we do not know is whether the padapāṭha for this verse was actually found in the 16 manuscripts of the Āśvalāyana padapāṭha used by B. B. Chaubey for his edition, or in the 17 manuscripts of the Śāṃkhāyana padapāṭha used by Amal Dhari Singh Gautam for his edition.

B. B. Chaubey says (p. 57) that he himself supplied the padapāṭha for the 212 verses of the Āśvalāyana śākhā that are not found in the Śākala śākhā, since the Āśvalāyana padapāṭha manuscripts did not give them. He does not say whether he also supplied the padapāṭha for verse 7.59.12 that is found in the Śākala śākhā but there lacks a padapāṭha. As far as I could see, Amal Dhari Singh Gautam does not say whether he himself supplied the padapāṭha for any verses in his edition of the Śāṃkhāyana śākhā. We may recall that Vishva Bandhu's edition of the Ṛgveda quietly supplies the padapāṭha for the six verses of the Śākala śākhā that did not have it.

Best regards,

David Reigle

Colorado, U.S.A.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 7:34 AM Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Thanks, Johannes. Best.

Madhav

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus
Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan
[Residence: Campbell, California]

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 10:23 PM Johannes Bronkhorst <johannes.bronkhorst@unil.ch> wrote:

The following article mentions the six verses of the Ṛgveda that have no Padapāṭha (on p. 44):

Kashikar, C. G. (1951): "The problem of the gaḷantas in the Ṛgveda-Padapāṭha." Proceedings of the All-India Oriental Conference 13 (1946), 39-46.

Commenting on this, I wrote in 1981 (p. 87): "This is most easily explained by the assumption that these verses were not considered part of the Ṛgveda by Śākalya. It further shows that the final redactors did not hesitate to deviate from the composer of the Padapāṭha in deciding what did, and what did not, belong to the Ṛgveda. (It is interesting to note that at least one hymn of the Ṛgveda (10.95) is known to have had fewer verses than at present at as late a date as that of the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa. See Oldenberg, 1912: 303.)"

"The orthoepic diaskeuasis of the Ṛgveda and the date of Pāṇini." Indo-Iranian Journal 23 (1981), pp. 83-95.

http://my.unil.ch/serval/document/BIB_F9751BB34E62.pdf

with a reference to:

Oldenberg, Hermann (1912): Ṛgveda. Textkritische und exegetische Noten. Siebentes bis Zehntes Buch. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

Johannes Bronkhorst

On 23 Sep 2018, at 06:05, Madhav Deshpande via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

RV 7.59.12 त्र्यम्बकं यजामहे सुगन्धि पुष्टिवर्धनम्। उर्वारुकमिव बन्धनान्मृत्योर्मुक्षीय माऽमृतात्। does not have a Padapāṭha. This is not a repeated mantra in the RV Saṃhitā. What might be the reason why this mantra does not have a Padapāṭha? Is it likely that there were a few post-Padapāṭha additions to the RV Saṃhitā? Someone asked this question on another discussion group.

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus

Sanskrit and Linguistics

University of Michigan

[Residence: Campbell, California]

_______________________________________________
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)

_______________________________________________
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)