VAC.

,~RAMBHANAM (II)
by
F. B. J. KUIPER

Leiden In the preceding important study which Professor van Buitenen has devoted to the philosophical implications of Uddalaka Arun. i's doctrine as exposed in Chfind. Upan. VI reference is made to a brief note on the word vdcdrambha.nam from a linguistic point of view, which was published in vol. I, p. 155 ft. of this journal. Since that note was the result of an unsuccessful attempt to compress the whole argumentation within the compass of a "Brief Communication", some details were only briefly indicated. Thus the reasons for rejecting the interpretation of vdcd- as the instrumental case of vdc- were not clearly stated. As an exact morphological analysis of the key-word vdcdrambhan, am may be expected to provide a solid basis for the philosophical interpretation of this fundamentally important passage, and as van Buitenen declares himself unconvinced by the interpretation suggested in H J, I, p. 159, I take the opportunity to elaborate some points in greater detail, and to correct others} Taken in itself, vdcdrambhan, am allows three different interpretations. It may be either a word-group vdcd drambhan, am, or a compound vdcddrambhan, am, in which case we have the choice between taking the prior member as the instrumental case of vdc-, or as the stern of vdcd-, f. Against the first possibility it must be argued that in the older Vedic prose there is no evidence for the use of an instrumental in connection with substantives except those denoting community, e.g. sakhyd- "friendship"; see Delbrtick, Altindische Syntax, p. 136 f. N o r is any instance to be found in the older Upani.sads according to the detailed account of Otto Wecker, Der Gebrauch der Kasus in der dlteren Upani.sad-Literatur . . . . pp. 33-48. Therefore the occasional use in the prose of the later Sfitra texts of an instrumental denoting the agent (kart!') in connection with a verbal substantives, e.g. purd'nyair dlambhdt "before (the boy) has been touched by others" ~ v . GS. 1.15.1 (Speyer, Ved. u. Skt. Syntax, p. 11) is z To the references quoted in the former article add the recent discussion by Debrunher, Altind. Grarnrn., Nachtriige zu II, 1, p. 249 1.41.

vdcdrambhan, am (n)

307

hardly sufficient to prove that in one of the oldest Upani.sads an instrumental denoting the karan,a could be connected with a verbal noun. The special character of the sQtra style, which allows no direct inferences with regard to texts of a different character should also be taken into account. Since the Vedic idiom seems to exclude the interpretation as a wordgroup, the only possible analysis that remains is accordingly to take vdcdrambhan.a- as a compound (as it is apparently also taken by Wecker, p. 46). Now forms of the instrumental do occur as prior members of compounds, but this use is confined to the following categories: a) before root words or derivatives denoting an agent, e.g. gird-v~dh-, manast~j~dyin-; b) before palticiples in -ta-, e.g. yuvd-datta-; c) before adjectives, e.g. dhiyd-vasu-; see in general Wackernagel, Altind. Grammatik II, 1, pp. 212 f., 234. The case of Rigvedic vdcd-stena- is quite isolated (op.cit., p. 249). In the usage of the Vedic language, accordingly, no justification can be found for the assumption that in vdcdrambhan, a- the instrumental of vdc- is contained. The circumstance that vdcdrambhan, a- has probably been created as a technical term of the philosophical speculation would seem irrelevant in this respect, as most ddegas, such as tad vanam, ddityo brahma, neti neti are normal idiomatic phrases. We have no reason to suspect that the case of vdcdrambhan.a- may have been different. If so, an attempt to determine its original meaning would seem justified. From the fact that on such a term, as an object of meditation, many new connotations may have been "projected" it does not necessarily follow that the term has intentionally been made as ambiguous as possible from the very outset. For the reasons stated the sole remaining possibility to account for vdcdrambha~.za- is apparently to take it as a compound of vdcd-, f. Debrunner's statement that vaed- is "late classical" (Altind. Gramm., II, 2, p. 262) requires some modification on account of v6edviruddhdg ca manoviruddh&h, which the Mahabh~rata quotes among the names of gan.a dev~ndm. The modern Indian editions, it is true, read vacd viruddh6~ ca (el. XIII. 1372 Calc. ed., XIII.18.75 Bomb. ed., XIII.49.75 Kumbakonam ed., vdco XIII.24.51 Southern rec., ed. P. S. S. Sastri) but this may be due to the uncommon character of vded- for vde- in Sanskrit. B6htlingk was no doubt right in taking it (like Nilaka.nt.ha) as a compound, parallel to manoviruddhd.h. A similar compound is vdcdv.rddhCh Vi.sn.upur. 3.2.41 (pw.), also the name of a class of gods. (As it occurs in a different context we need not consider the possibility that it is merely a South-Indian hypersanskritism for the former name, viruddha- and ,,rddha- both becoming viruttan in Tamil pronunciation). Also in the later classical

308

v.g.J.

KUIPER

language the few quotations of the PW showit in contrast with manas-, viz. vdcddaucarh ca manasa.h Aaucam V.rddha C~.nakya 7.20 and manasd vdcayd ca Schol. ad K~tySS. In the Prakrits, where vdcd- generally supplants vdc- the former word is of course quite normal in composition, e.g. Pali vdcd-vikkhepa-, m. "confusion of speech". The pre-eminently Prakritic character of these new formations in -d-, and the fact that e.g. died- was not recognized as literary Sanskrit (IIJ, I, p. 155) point to the conclusion that didd- and vdcd- must originate in a colloquial form of speech. Debrunner, op. cit., II, 2, p. 262, rightly observes: "Diese Entwicklung geht ira Mi. welter; wir diirfen bestimmt annehmen, dass schon manche der hierher geh6rigen ai. Bildungen aus der Volkssprache s t a m m e n . . . " . Now it has long been observed that in lexical matters, as well as in details of phonology and morphology, the Ch~nd. Upani.sad deviates from the normal Vedic, and even from the grammatically correct, usage. Among the lexical particularities, it is true, we cannot reckon bhalldk.saIV. 1.2, which Przyluski, BSOS, 5, p. 303 ft., explained as a Prakrit form of bhadrdk.sa-. See Liiders' discussion of this word in Philologica Indica, p. 366. A Prakritic word of rather rare occurrence in Vedic texts is however dahara- VIII.I.1-2 (dahra- Taitt~r. TaittUp., daharaka- Kaus.Br. dahara- K~ty~S.) of which there is only one more occurrence in KenaUp. Of the two Dravidian loanwords mat.ac?- 1.10.1 is a hapax, whereas kut.umba- VIII. 15.1 is the sole Vedic occurrence of this word, which is not commonly used before the epics (of. kut.umbin- S~mavidh~nabr. 2.5.5). The origin of the hapax lindu- VIII. 14.1 is unknown, but attention may be drawn to ekala- III.11.1 which is practically unknown in Sanskrit (N.rsinhhottarat~panyupani.sad, Bh~g. Pur.) though obviously being the prototype of Pkt. ekkalla- "eminent", Hi. akeld (Turner, Nep. Dict., 57b). Traces of Prakritic phonetical developments have been pointed out by Oertel, Studia Indo-Iranica (Ehrengabef. 14I. Geiger, 1931), p. 134 IT., viz. abhydtta.h III. 14.2 for abhydpta.h, and probably pradhdk~?r IV. 1.2 for pradhdk.sfd. As for the morphology attention may be drawn to the list of incorrect verbal forms which occurs in V. Papesso, Chdndogya-Upani.sad (Teste e Documenti per la storia delle religioni VII, Bologna 1937), p. 83. Thematic new formations (bhuj~dma.h, manvdni) and active instead of middle forms (vyabhetsyat, vyaj~dpayi.syat, manvdni) reflect a similar linguistic development as is found in the epic language and the Prakrits. Therefore the two unaugmented preteritsjdyata and apahdrs.~t, which both occur in the sixth prap~.thaka (VI.2.1, resp. 16.1) are no doubt to be paralleled with analogous forms of the epic idiom (see Holtzmann, Grammatisches aus dem Mahabharata, p. 20 f.). Now it is particularly interest-

vdcdrambha.nam (n)

309

ing that in this very sixth prapfit.haka Karl Hoffmann has detected several traces of a late Vedic colloquial idiom (see Miinch. Stud. z. Sprachw., 22, 1957, pp. 135, 137). While upas~dathd.h VI.13.1-2 and pradhmdyita 14.1 are morphologically abnormal, aprt~k.sya.h 1.3 and bhavi$yati 8.3 are syntactically particular as they show the first traces of a modal employment of the future that is characteristic of the epic and the classical language. Thus nedam amfdag7 bhavi.syati "nicht wird ( = diirfte) dies ohne Wurzel sein" is obviously analogous to the frequent use ofbhavi$yati in the Mah~bh~rata to express probability, e.g. vyaktmi~ hato m.rto vdpi kacas t~ta bhavi.syati 1.76.32 "I am sure, father, Kaca will have been injured or has died" (cf. Speyer, Sanskrit Syntax, p. 267). A Prakritic phonetic development is perhaps also reflected by nibhdlayase VI.12.2, 13.2, if this stands for nismdrayase (Tedesco, Lg., 19, p. 13). In view of the similarities between the linguistic usage of the sixth prap~.thaka and that of the Mah~bh~rata nothing, it seems, prevents us from comparing vdc~-drambhan,a- in the colloquial idiom of Uddfilaka's discourse with vdc~-viruddha- in the Mhbh., the less so since the earliest instances of nouns in -d- as substitutes for consonant stems are attested as early as the Rigveda (Altind. Gramm., II, 2, p. 259 f.). As for the second member of vt~cdrambhan,a-, however, my former conclusion requires some modification. On the one hand I cannot accept van Buitenen's suggestion that dr6mbha.nam in RS. X.81.2b may have still other connotations besides that of "basis". It seems to me that we are here confronted with a general methodological problem which Thieme has recently discussed in JAOS, 77 (1957), p. 54 IT. It cannot be denied that the "basis" in this Rigvedic passage is also a "beginning" (above, p. 304), but this does not involve in my opinion that the word drdmbhan.aalso means "beginning". I think, the chronology of the use of rambh- as a secondary root-form of d-rabh- "take hold o f " entitles us to deny this peremptorily as far as the Rigvedic idiom is concerned. Nor does the role of the odana- in K~.thS. 7.15, GopBr. 1.2.15 prove that drambhaga- has still other meanings here besides that which the author himself states expressis verbis, viz. dkraman,am. On the other hand, however, this certainty does not exist for the Ch~ndogya Upani.sad. Even if Udd~laka Aruni (or whoever else may have created the formula vaedrambhan.am vikara.h) has drawn his inspiration from the Rigvedic passage, as indeed van Buitenen has made probable, he may have interpreted the word drdmbhan,am in his own way, e.g. as "beginning" (of. AitBr. 3.29.1) or even as "a hold" (el. AitBr. 2.35.5). This possibility I have overlooked in my former paper. In the absence of clear criteria the precise meaning

310

r . B . J . KUIPER

cannot accordingly be definitively determined by a linguistic analysis. I f van Buitenen is right in taking (like BShtlingk) the words vdcdrambha.nam vikdra.h as a separate ddega (and for VI.4.1, at any rate, his argumentation is impressive enough, despite the absence of iti after satyam, cf. B,~Up. 2.1.20), it seems probable that vdcdrambha.nam, as the predicate, must be taken as a tatpuru.sa. As an alternative we might consider the possibility that we here have an instance of the construction known as "triste lupus stabulis", which would allow us to maintain the interpretation as a bahuvrihi-compound. This construction, though rare, is not entirely unknown in Vedic prose texts, of. k.rpa.narhha duhitd AitBr. 7.13.8, madhyath hy e.sdm a~gdndm dtmd, madhyath chandasdJh b.rhaff AitAr. 2.3.5 (Keith, Aitareya Aran.yaka, p. 240 n. 2). Analogous constructions are also found in Old Iranian, see Reichelt, Awestisches Elementarbuch w 603, Kent, Old Persian, p. 84 n. 1, and in general O. Lagercrantz, "Indogermanisches Pfiidikativ" (Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift 1933: program 3), p. 18 IT. However, whether we should translate "The vikdra is something which is based on V~c", or "which starts from V~c", or (as van Buitenen proposes) "Creation is the taking hold of V~c" cannot be decided by linguistic means. In this matter the last word rests with the philosopher - as, indeed, it should be. 1

x After this was written van Buitenen kindly drew my attention to the beginning of oh. IV of the Guhyasamftja, where the sarvatathdgataguhyakaya-vak-citta-vajrddhipatimentioned in the prose text is praised in a stanza as samantabhadra-vdcagrya-(parallel to -kayagrya- and -cittdgrya-). Here the use of vdca- must primarily be due to the need of prosodic,ally parallel formations.