Page 1 of 1

Sāyaṇa's commentary on "Ṛgveda", III, 33

Posted: 2018-08-22, 19:35
by Kobzar
Hello everybody, I am trying to translate Sāyaṇa's commentary on "Ṛgveda", III, 33, and I have found a sequence (for I think there are several words written together, according to the "devanāgarī" rules), which I cannot figure out. I have tried to separate its elements in all the ways that have come to my mind, without any success so far. Perhaps the problem lies in the proper reading of the "devanāgarī" signs in the editions that I have consulted so far, in which the printing, the scans, or both do not seem to have the best quality:

MÜLLER, F. M. (ed.), 1890 (2nd ed.): Rig-veda Samhitâ. The Sacred Hymns of the Brâhmans, Together with the Commentary of Sâyanâkârya, vol. II, London, Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, p. 242 = 317 of the PDF, first line: अंतर्णीतसनर्थो लिहिः (aṃtarṇītasanartho lihiḥ). The word लिहिः does not seem to be the problem; it seems an action noun derived through the suffix –i from the verb root lih- (“to lick”). The problem lies in अंतर्णीतसनर्थो (if that reading is correct, it seems a sandhi form equivalent to अंतर्णीतसनर्थस् before voiced consonant at the beginning of the following word). Since the printing, the scan, or both are not very clear, perhaps one should read अंतर्णोतसनर्थो (aṃtarṇotasanartho), अंतर्णोतसनर्थी (aṃtarṇotasanarthī), अंतर्णीतसनर्थी (aṃtarṇītasanarthī) or any of those hypothetical sequences, but with म instead of स, that is, अंतर्णीतमनर्थो (aṃtarṇītamanartho), etc.
Müller edition.jpg


SONTAKKE, N. S.; Kashikar, C. G.; Varadaraj Sharma, T. S., & Umranikar, B. V. (eds.), 1936: Ṛgveda-Saṃhitā with the Commentary of Sāyaṇāchārya, vol. II, Poona, Vedic Research Institute, p. 347 = 402 of the PDF
Sontakke edition.jpg
: अन्तर्णीतसन्नर्थो लिहिः The correspondence between अन्तर् (Sontakke) and अंतर् (Müller) leads us to suspect that perhaps one should read अंतर्णीतसंनर्थो in Müller’s text as well, although in the scan we are using we do not see any anusvāra mark on the स (or म) in Müller’s edition.
Anyway, it seems to me that we should separate अर्थो or अर्थी, but for the rest I have not found any convincing segmentation or interpretation yet. Any help will be appreciated.
Thank you very much in advance.