7/27/2019 03(049-052)Mummcomment

1/4

Volume 37, Number 1 & 2, Spring/Summer 2009

Comment on A still undeciphered text

Peter-Arnold Mumm

University of Munich

1. Objective. The paper aims at a new approach to the study ofthe Rigveda (RV) in a very fundamental way. It alleges not lessthan that a small research team, working withoutpreconception as to meaning, would be able to makeconsiderable progress with the decipherment of this importantancient text in just a few years. This presupposes that thescientific approach to the RV up to now has not been trulyscientific. And several times the author criticizes without clearcounter-argument other scholars for being too confident intheir results. The value of the authors claim depends on the

proposed method and the given pieces of evidence.2. Programmatic character. The author largely refers to olderpublications of herself. A thorough comment would have toconsider these, too. And in fact it would have to be a detailedmonograph. So I confine myself here to an examination ofthe proposed method and some selected pieces of evidence.3. Method. The author correctly points out that there is a gapbetween the language and the world of the RV on the onehand and the language and the world of the later ritualisticBrhmana prose on the other hand. And she nicely shows thedifference between the autochthonous Indian access to theRV relying mainly on the later ritualistic citations andinterpretations of the RV and the European access which sinceMax Mller has seen the difference and has tried tounderstand the RV on its very own. The author clearly decidesin favor of the European way of the 19th century and insistson the idea that only study of the use of a word candetermine its meaning. This is correct - but nevertheless notexhaustive. Besides the study of the words use also etymologyhas, often successfully, been exploited for determining themeaning. And, in fact, without the autochthonous IndiantraditionEuropean scholars would never have managed to getan understanding of the RV at all. We have not to choosebetween a right and a wrong method on the whole, we

7/27/2019 03(049-052)Mummcomment

2/4

50 Peter-Arnold Mumm

The Journal of Indo-European Studies

rather have to combine these methods. And in each singlecase we have to decide which of these methods leads us howfar. And if we decide against the later Indian reading of a

word, we have to demonstrate that it misses the originalRigvedic meaning. If such a demonstration is not possible, wehave to leave the question open.4. The case of svadh. Etymologically (literally) self-placing,later sacrificial drink. According to the author the traditional(i.e. later) interpretation can be dispensed with for allRigvedic occurrences (note 5). Well - it can be dispensed

with, for all contexts allow the literal meaning withoutremarkable clash. But has it to be dispensed with? If the laterreading is also possible, why is it to be excluded? Look at1.144.02: apm upsthe vbh to yd vasad / dha svadhadhayad ybhir yate (Text taken fromhttp://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/ RV/RV01.html) Alser (Agni) verteilt im Schoe der Wasser wohnte, da saugte erdie Eigenkrfte ein, mit denen er sich bewegt (Geldner),

Selbstbestimmungs-krfte (Rig-Veda. Das heilige Wissen. Ersterund zweiter Liederkreis. Hg. von Michael Witzel und ToshifumiGot. Frankfurt am Main und Leipzig 2007: 270 - by the way apublication the author should quote). Here Geldner and thenewest translation decide for the abstract, literal meaning. Butit stands in collocation with adhayadsucked. Couldnt this bea bridge between the earlier and the later meaning? Isnt itpossible that the ritual meaning of the sacrificial drink isexactly this Eigenkraft or life-force (for the latter note theoccurrence ofsvadh in funeral hymns!) and that the creationof this sacrificial drink has developed exactly from the wish ofgiving a ritualistic pendant to the abstract life-force? Is thelater reading really just a misunderstanding of a word whose

meaning had become totally obscure to Brahmana poets? - It isvery simplistic to believe that the RV can be securelydeciphered by looking at the context of the words - thismethod has already been extensively employed by earlierscholars! Its true, there may be further progress by a thoroughemployment of the context method. But definitely not by aharsh and insurmountable opposition between original literaland later ritualistic meaning. The author does not waste a wordon the ritualistic identifications between physical and spiritualthings in the Brhmanas. Isnt it possible that these ritualisticidentifications have a predecessor in the RV, especially in the

7/27/2019 03(049-052)Mummcomment

3/4

7/27/2019 03(049-052)Mummcomment

4/4

52 Peter-Arnold Mumm

The Journal of Indo-European Studies

grvan(see JIES 29): If, as proposed, from the underlying rootGAR1 sing, praise, why notgrvanwith normal zero grade ofthe root (see Altindische Grammatik II, 2, p. 894ff.)?tirahnyam: The explanation as adverb like nktam seemsconvincing.

Vedic ruins: The Rigvedic evidence is indeed scarce. But what

is to be deduced from this scarceness?samudr: It is correctly observed that the ablative samudrt in7,95,2 denotes the origin, not the goal of rivers. But it remainsunclear again what is to be deduced from this observation forthe meaning ofsamudrand for Vedic archeology.7. Conclusion. The paper suffers from a severe shortcoming: itignores - or at least doesnt like to accept - the metaphoricaland often enigmatic nature of the Rigvedic text. It simplypresupposes that there is a plain reading which just has to befound. This radical position is not corroborated by anyconsiderations about the general character of the Rigvedichymns and their social and religious environment. The RV isseen only in a negative way: it is not like the later ritualistictexts. The arguments against the traditional and for the newreadings of the single words are often too weak and too one-sided.But nevertheless the paper is interesting. It shows quite clearlyand convincingly the conflict between the ritualistic and theimmanent interpretation, and its basic approach to separateboth wherever it is possible is basically correct and fruitful. Theauthor should dismiss the futile polemics against Witzel,

Jamison, Brereton et al. and should concentrate on thepositive results strived for. These results (or hypotheses,respectively) should be better elaborated, with full discussionof the etymology and morphology, of the context meaning

and the possible meaning developments from an old andperhaps metaphorical meaning to a new and rituallyidentifying meaning. Only a careful and cautious discussion ofeach single detail will lead to a better understanding of theRigveda.