The Nīlarudropaniṣad and the Paippalādasaṃhitā: A Critical Edition with Translation of the Upaniṣad and Nārāyaṇa's Dīpikā

¯ . hita¯ The N¯ılarudropanis.ad and the Paippaladasam A Critical Edition with Translation of the Upanis.ad and N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpika¯ ∗ Timothy Lubin Introduction The N¯ılarudropanis.ad (NU) is a hymn praising Rudra, a divinity associated in the Veda with the thunderstorm and regarded as both causing and curing ill- ness. He is a figure of awe who receives apotropaic and propitiatory offerings in the Vedic cult.1 His eventual rise to a position of greater importance begins with his being identified with the fire altar in the Agnicayana ritual, a doctrine ´ developed particularly in the Yajurveda.2 The Satarudriya, a Yajurveda litany to Rudra (MS 2.9.2, KS 17.11, TS 4.5.1, VS 16.1–14), is recited during that rite; the NU constitutes its Atharvan equivalent (and, in its first two khan.d.as, a partial parallel). The hymn consists of twenty-six stanzas culled from the Paippal¯adasam . hit¯a (PS), in many manuscripts grouped into three sections (khan.d.as). These extracts include a continuous run of seventeen stanzas, viz., the third and fourth hymns of PS book fourteen, followed by a group of three stanzas from book nineteen, and (as the final khan.d.a) six individual stanzas (including four from the twen- tieth book). The khan.d.a divisions are reflected in the commentary of N¯ar¯ayan.a Bhat.t.a (between ca. 1500 and 1700), who includes the NU as the sixteenth in the collection of fifty-two Upanis.ads of the Atharvaveda.3 The arrangement of the PS stanzas in the NU khan.d.as is as follows: Khan.d.a 1 = PS 14.3.1–9; Khan.d.a 2 = PS 14.3.10–14.4.7 and 19.22.1–3; Khan.d.a 3 = PS 8.7.9, 19.5.8, 20.55.10, 20.60.7, 20.62.6, 20.62.7 (the final stanza found only in Orissa manuscripts of the PS). ∗ The materials for the edition contained herein were mostly collected during 1998 thanks to funding from the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities, in the form of a senior fel- lowship of the American Institute of Indian Studies. An initial collation was carried out with summer funds from Washington and Lee University. Other manuscripts were procured during my tenure of a Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad fellowship and an N.E.H. fellowship in 2003–2005, when, as an affiliated researcher of the Institut franc¸ais de Pondich´ery, I completed most of the edition and translation. I gratefully acknowledge the kind cooperation of the sev- eral institutions that allowed me to photograph, or provided copies of, the manuscripts used for the edition. I thank Arlo Griffiths for his advice and suggestions at many points, and for providing his provisional edition of all the stanzas from PS 19 and 20 that are cited here. 1 On Rudra in the Veda, see A RBMAN 1922. 2 On this, see O BERLIES 1988. 3 On N¯ar¯ayan.a and his date, see G ODE 1938. 82 TIMOTHY LUBIN NU manuscripts generally number either the khan.d.as only or the individual stanzas (sequentially, without taking account of the khan.d.a divisions). To re- flect both systems, the stanza numbers used here include the khan.d.a number followed by the sequential stanza number (1–26), so that khan.d.a 2 begins with stanza 10, and khan.d.a 3 begins with stanza 21. The manuscripts’ divisions of the last four stanzas are spurious (as shall be explained, p. 116) and have been revised to reflect the sense as well as the stanza divisions of the corresponding PS stanzas. For the present purposes, the name NU will be used to designate this particular collection of the stanzas per se, as distinct from their form and distribution in the PS. Name and Subject The name N¯ılarudra applied to this group of stanzas derives from the repeated use of compounds beginning with the adjective n´¯ıla (‘blue’), two of which are epithets applied to Rudra. Thus the word n´¯ılagr¯ıva (‘blue-necked’) occurs in the first two stanzas of the first khan.d.a (1.1 and 1.2), and in the opening stanza of both the second and third khan.d.as (2.10 and 3.21). The epithet n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a (‘blue-crested’) occurs in the second stanza of the second khan.d.a and all the last four stanzas of the third. The inclusion of 3.22 seems to have been based mainly on the occurrence there of the obscure term n¯ıl¯agalasa´¯ l¯a ‘the one with the bluish ineffectual poison (?)’ (or n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯a [PS]). The compound n¯ılarudra itself does not occur. The six stanzas of khan.d.a 3 seem to have been added simply because the term n¯ıla occurs in each of them. The first seventeen stanzas, corresponding to PS 14.3 and 14.4, are the core of the Upanis.ad, and are probably the earliest referent of the title N¯ılarudra.4 The division between the first two khan.d.as does not correspond to the division be- tween the two Paippal¯ada hymns, but it is more natural and elegant insofar as NU 1.1a and 2.10a are parallel in structure, differing only in the tense (and per- son) of the verb: a´ pa´syam versus a´ drs´an. These verbs evoke a vision of Rudra’s ˚ self-manifestation in the lightning-flash: the first is a personal testimonial of the poet; the second invokes as witnesses all those others who have beheld this epiphany. Together, they capture the moment in which Rudra descends from heaven to stand upon the earth, glowing red, and with a blue neck or crest, attributes that probably allude to the flashing bolt of lightning itself.5 At the same time, Rudra is associated with the mountain, the place on earth nearest to heaven and often indistinguishable from the approaching storm clouds. If the lightning in the sky is Rudra’s form, it is simultaneously his weapon: 4 This sequence is nearly the part shared in common by the NU and a ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ in- cluded in a ritualistic ms. of the Paippal¯ada school found in Orissa; see below (p. 86). 5 Later accounts in the Mah¯ ´ abh¯arata and the Pur¯an.as attribute Siva’s blue neck to his having swallowed the poison produced during the churning of the milk ocean: e.g., MBh 1.18.42; AgniP 3.8cd–9ab.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 83 the lightning-bolts that strike at man and beast are the arrows that he shoots from his bow. In a tone of awe and reverence, the poet seeks to ward off Rudra’s harmful fury (manyu) ´ and anger (bha´¯ ma) (1.4), urging him to approach with his bow unstrung, putting away his arrows (2.12–14). This is his ‘benign form’ (´siva´¯ ´¯ . , 1.7–8), which is (in euphemistic terms) not merely harmless but positively tanuh beneficial. He is summoned to bring medicines, and especially to heal whoever has been struck by an affliction called v¯at¯ık¯ar´a.6 The last three stanzas of khan.d.a 2 and all of khan.d.a 3 are of quite a different cast. 2.18–20 is a trca addressed to the Sarpas, supernatural serpent spirits said to dwell in various˚ realms: on the ground, in the air, and in the sky (18), in the rays of the sun and in the water (19), and in trees and in holes (20). Those in the earthly locations surely include actual snakes, although some invisible snake- deities may also be envisioned. In the Yajurveda, this group of stanzas is recited over the place where a lotus leaf, a gold plate, and a golden figure of a man have been placed over the hoofprint of a horse in a rite called rukm¯adyupadh¯ana, near the start of the Agnicayana procedures. In the grhya sphere, the ApMP ¯ 2.17.5–7 ˚ allots them for recitation with an a¯ jy¯ahuti. Given the theme of the NU, the serpents in the atmosphere (ant´ariks.e) might perhaps be identified with the lightning, an idea supported by the reference in 2.20 to the arrows (´ıs.u) of the Y¯atudh¯anas (‘sorcerers’), a class of beings as- sociated with the Sarpas. This, then, provides a point of contact between these stanzas and those that precede: the Y¯atudh¯anas (and, perhaps, the Sarpas of the atmosphere) shoot arrows; their inclusion in the NU suggests that the redactor may have considered them to be, like the Maruts, under the command of Rudra or a manifestation of his dangerous power. The final khan.d.a gathers together a diverse group of stanzas without paral- lels outside the Atharvaveda. The first of these (3.21), although it actually is addressed to a medicinal plant, may continue to refer to snakes: svaj´as (vipers? pythons?) of different colors.7 One of these is a ‘blue-necked’ (n´¯ılagr¯ıva) viper. The next stanza, corresponding to PS 19.5.8, continues to name colors, though the identity of the bearers of these colors is not clear. The NU closes with four stanzas drawn from the end of PS 20. Again, the presence of the epithet n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a may have sufficed to justify their inclusion here. They include: an invocation to Sarva ´ N¯ıla´sikhan.d.a, the Blue-Crested Bow- man, that he might have mercy on one whom he has afflicted with disease (3.23, which is obscure and perhaps corrupt); an appeal for his aid in defeating a ri- val (3.24); and a pair of stanzas revering him as sabh¯apr´ap¯adin ‘he who is on his way, or who habitually goes, to the assembly’, drawn by a pair of yellow mules (3.25–26). 6 See the discussion of this term on pp. 90–92, below. 7 N¯ . reads the word svaja´¯ n¯am ar¯ayana . as svajan¯an, taking it as an accusative plural of the stem svajana, while only one manuscript (Z) gives the original reading svaj¯an¯am . (see the note on this stanza below, p. 114). 84 TIMOTHY LUBIN The N¯ılarudra and the Paippal¯adasam . hit¯a The NU’s special position in the development of the Atharvavedic canon is il- lustrated in a set of three stanzas appended at the end of some codices of the fifty-two Upanis.ads from western India: pancada´ ˜ sopanis.ado bhavanti s´aunak¯ıy¯an¯am . | mun.d.ak¯ad¯ıs8 tv al¯at¯ant¯a vijney¯ ˜ a brahmavedasya k 1 k saptatrim . s´at tath¯any¯as´ ca paippal¯adiprabhedatah. | evam ˜ as´addvyadhik¯a brahmavedasya n¯anyatah. k 2 k . panc¯ n¯ılarudraprabhrtaya a¯ s´ram¯ant¯ah. prak¯ırtit¯ah. | ˚ et¯ah. sarv¯ah. prthagv¯aky¯a j¯ıvabrahmaikyabodhik¯ah. k 3 k ˚ ´ 1. Fifteen Upanis.ads of the Brahmaveda belong to the Saunak¯ ıyas: they are recognized as beginning with the Mun.d.aka and ending with the Al¯ata[´sa¯ nti]. 2. And the thirty-seven others [are classed] according to the division of the Paippal¯adins; thus [there are] fifty-two [Upanis.ads] of the Brahmaveda, and not otherwise. ¯ srama, [though] containing 3. All these, from the N¯ılarudra to the A´ separate statements, are known to disclose the oneness of the soul and Brahman.9 ´ This collection was most likely made by a Saunak¯ ıya, since the fifteen ‘´saunak¯ı- ya’ Upanis.ads are given precedence. These are precisely the fifteen enu- merated in AVPari´s 49.4.10, viz. the Mun.d.ak¯a, Pra´snak¯a, Brahmavidy¯a, Ks.urik¯a, Culik¯ ¯ a, Atharva´siras, Atharva´sikh¯a, Garbhopanis.ad, Mahopanis.ad, Brahmopanis.ad, Pr¯an.a¯ gnihotra, M¯an.d.ukya, ¯ Vaitathya, Advaita, and Al¯ata´santi. The rest of the Upanis.ads in the collection are classed as Paippal¯adin, perhaps solely on ac- count of their following the NU, an authentic extract from the PS, in the se- quence. The pivotal position of the NU — it almost always is the sixteenth in the collections of fifty-two, and thus the first of the ‘paippal¯adin’ Upanis.ads10 — may have come about because of the Upanis.ads added later it was the one with the best Paippal¯ada credentials. As an Atharvan eulogy of Rudra, the NU is one of the loci cited to show ´ that Siva is extolled as God in the Veda. The first two khan.d.as, excepting the first three stanzas and the last three, closely parallel fourteen stanzas from the 8 em.; the manuscripts (e.g., ISTU, and BORI 1/A1883–84, p. 83) show the singular form mun.d.ak¯adis. 9 It is not clear to me why the first fifteen are not included as teaching the same basic doctrine. 10 An exception is the list of 28 Upanisads in AVPari´s 49.4.4 (which is an extension of the . shorter one at 49.4.10): here, the NU is wedged between seven ‘Yoga Upanis.ads’ and seven ‘Sam . ny¯asa Upanis.ads’, all of which are inserted after the M¯an.d.ukya,¯ with the Advaita and Al¯ata´santi omitted at the end.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 85 ´ first part of the Satarudriya in the Yajurveda,11 and the NU is often treated as the Atharvan equivalent of that hymn. The Agnipur¯an.a, for instance, in lay- ´ ing out the rites for consecrating a Siva-li nga, ˙ prescribes that adherents of the four Vedas, one on each side of the fire, should make s´a¯ nti recitations consist- ing of groups of mantras from their respective collections. While the ‘Rudra’ ´ (i.e., the Satarudriya) and the Purus.asukta ¯ are mentioned for the Yajurveda, the Atharvavedin should recite the ‘N¯ılarudra’, the ‘Suks ¯ . m¯asuks ¯ . ma’, and the ‘Atharva´s¯ırs.a’.12 We also find a ‘N¯ılarudra’ listed in the Lingapuran ˙ . a among the mantras to be recited during the bathing of the linga ˙ (LP 1.27); this ‘N¯ılarudra’ is mentioned along with a variety of mantra texts, as well as an ‘Atharva´siras’ (whether the Upanis.ad of that name or another text is unclear).13 The application of these Vedic texts for use in linga ˙ cult reflects a desire to ground Saiva ´ worship in the tradition of Vedic recitation-based piety. Indeed, these Vedic texts are described as ‘mantras by means of which a man, having bathed the linga ˙ even just once [while reciting them], may be liberated’. 14 It must be noted that many other references to the N¯ılarudra understand it to be a hymn (sukta),¯ rather than an Upanis.ad, of the Atharvaveda. This is confirmed by the fact that, besides the rather numerous manuscripts of the ‘N¯ılarudropanis.ad’, four Devan¯agar¯ı copies of a ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ are included in collections described as “Atharvaveda Suktas” ¯ belonging to the National Archives, Kathmandu, and filmed by the Nepal-German Manuscript Preserva- tion Project (NGMPP).15 The most striking feature of these collections, in which the suktas ¯ are identified individually by name, is that they contain hymns of the ´ Saunaka recension exclusively, with the sole exception of the ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’, ¯ which is identical with our Upanis.ad and is thus composed entirely of stan- zas drawn from the PS.16 These N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ manuscripts are treated here as 11 These parallels and the variants therein are noted after each edited stanza in the edition, below. 12 japeyur j¯ apinah. sam . khyam . mantram anye tu sam . hit¯am. | pat.heyur br¯ahman.a¯ h. s´a¯ ntim. sva´sa¯ kh¯a- vedap¯arag¯ah. k s´r¯ısuktam¯ . p¯avam¯an¯ıs´ ca maitrakam . ca vr˚ s.a¯ kapim. | r˚ gved¯ı sarvadigbh¯age sarvam etat samuccaret k devavratam . tu bh¯arun.d.am . jyes..thas¯ama rathantaram . | purus.am . g¯ıtim et¯ani s¯amaved¯ı tu daks.in.e k rudram . purus.asuktam ¯ . ca s´lok¯adhy¯ayam . vi´ses.atah. | br¯ahman.am . ca yajurved¯ı pa´scim¯ay¯am. sam- uccaret k n¯ılarudram . tath¯atharv¯ı suks ¯ . m¯asuks ¯ . mam . tathaiva ca | uttare ’tharvas¯ırs.am . ca tatparas tu sam- uddharet k (AgP 96.37–41). 13 sampujya tryambakena s´ubhena ca | japtv¯a tvaritarudram . ¯ s´ivasuktena ¯ . ca s´ivasam. kalpam eva ca k n¯ılarudram . ca s´ a ¯ kteyas tath¯ a rudram . ca s ´ obhanam | v¯ a m¯ ı yam. pavam¯ a nam . ca pa ncabrahma ˜ tathaiva ca k hot¯aram . li ngas ˙ uktam ¯ . ca atharva´ s ira eva ca | ast .. a ¯ ngam ˙ arghyam . rudr¯ a ya dattv¯a bhyarcya avidhi k yath¯ (LP 1.27.76–78; cf. 1.27.41, 164.77, 2.24.27). 14 mantr¯ an.i . . . yair lingam ˙ . sakrd apy evam . sn¯apya mucyeta m¯anavah. | (LP 1.27.39c–40b). 15 In this article and edition, ˚the abbreviation ‘NU’ is intended to indicate both the text here edited, and the manuscripts used to constitute the text, including those of the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ from Nepal. 16 The text of this ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ shares several distinctive features with that of the NU trans- mitted in the S¯ ´ arad¯a manuscripts (X and Y, see p. 97). 86 TIMOTHY LUBIN testimony for the NU. Whether as an Upanis.ad or as a sukta,¯ the NU has come down to us al- most exclusively in Devan¯agar¯ı manuscripts. Two S¯ ´ arad¯a manuscripts were also available to me, as well as one Telugu palm leaf, the sole example (known to me) of a manuscript in a south Indian script. Given the fact that it contains Paippal¯ada stanzas (including one attested only in the Orissa manuscripts of the PS), it is noteworthy that the NU is not included in Atharvaveda Upanis.ad collections from Orissa, and that no Orissa manuscripts containing the NU ver- sion of the text are known. However, a ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ is not entirely absent from Paippal¯ada ritual 17 compendia. The one example known to me from Orissa occurs in a collection of hymns, circulated in the Paippal¯ada communities, that is similar in form and function to the Devan¯agar¯ı collections from Nepal. Such collections were likely compiled to serve as treasuries of mantras used frequently in ritual practice.18 However the ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ included in this collection19 it is not the same as our NU. Rather, it contains PS 14.3.3–4 (no doubt the original kernel), preceded by PS 2.16.4 and 8.7.9 (which latter occurs also in the NU as 3.21). NU 2.18–20 and 3.22–26 are not found in this version, and this Orissa ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ shows none of the small variations from the PS text that are distinctive of the NU. Since all the N¯ılarudra stanzas (in all versions) are present in the sam. hit¯a of the Atharvaveda as it was known in Orissa, there was no reason to transmit them separately as an Upanis.ad.20 17 The Orissa manuscript connected with the A¯ ngirasakalpa, ˙ that has been listed with siglum Ni in §2D of Arlo Griffiths’ contribution to this volume, and whose transcription has been made available to me by Griffiths, prescribes the recitation of a ‘N¯ılarudra’ (atharva´sira-´sikh¯adi- n¯ılarudram . japati, ff. 21r1–2). These three works are mentioned together also in f. 6r2: adyahety¯a evam . purvoktavidhin¯ ¯ a atharva´sira´sikh¯arudrasukta(+ ¯ n¯ılasukta)m ¯ adhy¯apakatvena tv¯am aham . vr˚ n.e. The ambiguous name n¯ılasukta ¯ has been added interlinearly after rudrasukta. ¯ In light of the other passage, it seems possible that the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ was meant, perhaps even that the writer meant simply to add n¯ıla to the name rudrasukta ¯ (although the name ‘Rudrasukta’ ¯ is known from other sources as well, including the four collections of Atharvan suktas ¯ from Nepal used in this edi- tion). These and similar passages will be discussed in my edition of the Atharva´siras, to appear in the Groningen Oriental Studies. 18 The hymns are frequently preceded by a statement of their ritual application (viniyoga). For the N¯ılarudra, this ms. states: s´a¯ ntikarman.i ek¯ada´sarudr¯adhy¯aye viniyogah. (f. 37r1). The hymn is referred to in this codex either as the N¯ılarudragan.a (f. 37r1) or simply as the N¯ılarudra (thrice in f. 35r1–3, and at the end of the hymn, f. 38r2). 19 This is a small ms. containing various ritual texts, among which a Graha´sa ¯ nti, found in the collection of the late Vaidyan¯atha Pan.d.a¯ and his son Mr.tyunjaya ˜ Pan.d.a¯ (village Sankh¯amari, Orissa), and photographed by Arlo Griffiths in June 2005. See his paper in this volume, §2E. 20 This explanation of the absence of the NU in Upanisad collections from Orissa was sug- . gested by Arlo Griffiths.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 87 Date and Provenance While the stanzas themselves are of course as ancient as the PS itself, the ex- istence of more than one version of the N¯ılarudrasukta, ¯ with differing configu- rations of stanzas, and the fact that one of these was adopted as an Upanis.ad ´ by Saunakas, raises the question of where and when they took shape. In 1985, W ITZEL proposed that the 15th or 16th c. Kashmir S¯ ´ arad¯a manuscript (K) of the PS descended ultimately from a Devan¯agar¯ı source (*D) produced in west- ern India (ca. 1250); meanwhile, all the Orissa manuscripts would go back to a manuscript in proto-Bengali script (ca. 1400). The archetype of both of those, he postulated, was a lost manuscript (*G) from Gujarat in late Gupta script, tenta- tively dated to 800 CE.21 If this picture of the transmission of the PS is correct, the NU, which in- cludes a stanza (3.26 = PS 20.62.7) found only in the Orissa manuscripts, may have taken its current form in western India prior to the loss of the stanza in the transmission that produced K; otherwise, it might have originated in Bengal or Orissa after the split of the Paippal¯ada communities. Secondly, the NU must have taken shape as an independent text in a situation in which both Saunakas ´ and Paippal¯adas were present, so that there would have been occasion for it to be accepted as an Atharvan hymnal by Saunaka ´ Brahmins. These circumstances suggest that it came into existence in western India, where Saunakas ´ and Paip- 22 pal¯adas were both present, and where in any case the greatest concentration of NU manuscripts is found. One circumstance that adds further support for a provenance in western India is that many manuscripts, even some coming from other regions (e.g., Z), preserve an important marker of having earlier been transmitted there: the conjunct aks.ara tnyo of the already corrupt form a¯ tnyor (for a¯ rtnyor) in 2.13b has been written jno, ˜ an error that would only be expected in a region (viz., Maharashtra) where the conjunct letter jna ˜ is pronounced [dnya], which closely resembles [tnya].23 After the Paippal¯ada Atharvavedins shifted out of the region, the Athar- van affiliation continued to be recognized, but since the stanzas were lacking in ´ the Saunakasam . hit¯a, the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ was transmitted independently (as in the Nepali collections: see DE).24 It was ultimately ‘recatalogued’ by the Saunakas ´ in western India as an Upanis.ad rather than as a sukta, ¯ and thus it found its way into their Pari´sis..ta (49.4.4) as an ‘Upanis.ad of the Brahmaveda’. It is also possible that devotees of Rudra-Siva ´ who were Atharvavedins — especially in Gujarat, 21 G RIFFITHS (2002: 40–44) discusses W ITZEL’s model. 22 Cf. Annette Schmiedchen’s contribution to this volume. 23 See C HATTERJI 1960: 78. 24 It is quite possible that these ‘Nepali’ mss. actually belong to the group of (mostly Taittir¯ıya) mss. from the Konkan or Karnataka from around 1730, when King Jagajjaya Malla brought the Bhat.t.as of Pa´supatin¯ath to Nepal (W ITZEL 2000: 285, 293). 88 TIMOTHY LUBIN where the P¯as´ upata sect and the Atharvaveda were both strong — adopted the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ for cultic use, which could have favored its promotion to the sta- tus of an Upanis.ad.25 The date when the NU first circulated as an Upanis.ad can also perhaps be defined in broad terms. The mention of the NU as the twentieth Upanis.ad in the longer and later of the lists in Atharvavedapari´sis..ta 49, and it absence in the shorter, might be taken to imply that the NU (along with the Yoga and Sam . ny¯asa Upanis.ads mentioned there) entered the Saunaka ´ canon of the Athar- vaveda literature as an Upanis.ad during the interval between the making of these lists, i.e., the 11th –13th c.26 The N¯ılarudra likewise is included in the group of fifty-two Atharvan Upanis.ads commented upon by N¯ar¯ayan.a, but it never appears in the collections of 108 Upanis.ads, which were compiled in South In- dia.27 ´ ıkum¯ara, the author of the T¯atparyad¯ıpik¯a on the Tattvaprak¯as´a, cites a Sr¯ ‘N¯ılarudra’ alongside other Upanis.ads including the Atharva´siras, to show that ´ Siva’s advit¯ıyatva is taught in Vedic sources as well as Saiva ´ ones (ad TaPra 1). However, the words that he quotes (sarvo rudras tasmai rudr¯aya namo ’stu) belong rather to a Yajurvedic source (TA ¯ 10.16 = MNU 291–292).28 Fur- ther on (ad TaPra 5) he mentions a ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’ ¯ ´ alongside the Satarudriya and other suktas¯ in a list of Vedic texts that broach subjects explained in the ´Saiva scriptures: evam . s´atarudriya-n¯ılarudrasukta-´ ¯ svet¯as´vatare´sa¯ v¯asy¯atharva´siras- tac-chikh¯a-raudrasukt¯ ¯ aran.a¯ dis.v (sic) a¯ gama-pratip¯adyam¯an¯an¯am arth¯an¯am . sadbh¯avo dras..tavya iti. But even if we treat the latter as testimony for our text, it does not help us much in dating it. Nothing is known about Sr¯ ´ ıkum¯ara except what is said about him in a colophon: that he had offered a soma sacrifice and that he was ´ a ‘Siva-bhakta’. However, G ENGNAGEL has noticed that he quotes long pas- ¯ sages from the I´sa¯ nagurudevapaddhati, and judges him to be “ein relativ sp¨ater Vertreter eines von Sm¯arta-Einflussen ¨ ´ gepr¨agten Sivaismus”. The Tattvaprak¯as´a itself is a post-Saiddh¯antika work unknown to the Kashmiris, and so post-10th c. at least.29 25 Recent scholarship increasingly points to evidence that the P¯as´ upata religion was rooted early in its history in Gujarat; see B AKKER 2000; B ISSCHOP & G RIFFITHS 2003. It seems that at least a segment of these P¯as´ upatas were Atharvavedins. On the other hand, there is no explicit evidence for P¯as´ upata use of the N¯ılarudra. 26 B OUY (1994: 65–67) proposes the 9th –11th c. for the shorter list (AVPari´s 49.4.10) because R¯am¯anuja knows several of the works in it. He deems the longer list (49.4.4) of “twenty- eight Upanis.ads of the Brahmaveda” to belong to the 12th or 13th c. (“probably” posterior to R¯am¯anuja, but certainly no later than Sa ´ nkar¯ ˙ ananda, who commented on many of the works mentioned only in this list, although not on the N¯ılarudra). 27 The single manuscript in a southern script (Zin Telugu characters) is most likely a transcript descended from a N¯ayaka-era Devan¯agar¯ı exemplar. 28 TA¯ 10 is known also as the Y¯ajnik¯ ˜ ı Upanis.ad. The commentator Bhat.t.a Bh¯askara Mi´sra names this brief section the ‘Tvaritarudr¯anuv¯aka’. 29 See G ENGNAGEL ’s remarks (1996: 18–21) on the date of Bhojadeva, the compiler of the  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 89 To summarize, the expansion of PS 14.3–4 with other PS stanzas to consti- tute different versions of a N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ likely took place in western India at some time before the 13 c., and probably even before the 10th c., since the th N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ was already well established as a distinct Vedic text in the LP. We can also tentatively conclude that one of these versions attained its status as an Atharvan Upanis.ad (presumably in its current form as the NU) sometime dur- ing the 11th –13th c. However this gets us no closer to discovering at which time before then a N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ — one with this particular assortment of stanzas (or the somewhat different set transmitted in Orissa with more fidelity to the text of the PS) — came to be compiled and circulated independently of the PS. We can only suppose that its form was still not set when Paippal¯adins were still present in western India. Relevance for Establishing the Text of the Paippal¯adasam . hit¯a Aside from its historical significance as an extension of Atharvavedic mantras ´ into post-Vedic Saivism and Sm¯arta eclecticism, the NU also provides valuable testimony for the text of the corresponding stanzas of the PS.30 L OPEZ, in his 2000 edition of PS 13–14, took account of the NU’s readings, but without any reference to manuscripts, and relying on a mechanical reprint (in S HASTRI 1970) of the inferior Adyar edition (K UNHAN R AJA 1933). The NU manuscripts would seem to be important (a) because they are rela- tively numerous (as compared to extant Paippal¯ada manuscripts), (b) because they largely derive directly from western India and thus from a region that was important in the development of the Atharvaveda tradition but that is not di- rectly represented in the body of known PS manuscripts, and (c) because three of the manuscripts of the Upanis.ad as well as four manuscripts identifying the same text as the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ give an accented text. The last of these factors turns out not to be very significant, since the accenting in the manuscripts (espe- cially those from Nepal) appears quite faulty and at certain points (e.g., 3.23a) shows signs of having been added to a previously unaccented transmission, rather than representing a continuous tradition. On the other hand, in the annotations to the text I find occasion to note a number of cases in which the NU readings do throw light on uncertain readings in the text of the Sam . hit¯a. These cases include 1.1b, 1.2ab, 1.5ac, 1.6d, 1.8d, 2.10a, 2.13b, 2.15c, 2.16bd, 2.17a, 2.20b. It should also be recalled that the NU manuscript tradition offers the only support external to the Orissa sources for PS 20.62.7, which is not found in the Kashmir manuscript of the PS. Tattvaprak¯as´a. 30 PS 14.3–4 has now twice been edited with the use of Orissa manuscripts, but neither edition can be regarded as fully satisfactory. While B HATTACHARYA 1997 offers us a first edition of books 1–15 using Orissa manuscripts, G RIFFITHS (2002: 40–51, 2004: xiv–xvi) has called atten- tion to methodological inconsistencies in that edition. L OPEZ 2000 is quite unreliable as well (cf. my notes to the edition below, and G RIFFITHS 2004: xvii). 90 TIMOTHY LUBIN A Note on v¯at¯ık¯ar´a The second half of 1.3 (≈ PS 14.3.3) has remained obscure, partly because of a change in the wording in the NU, and partly because of uncertainty about the meaning of v¯at¯ık¯ar´a. The replacement of the PS reading ks.epam by [’]ks.e´mam in the NU tradition, a case of a more common word replacing a less common one, has only complicated matters.31 By connecting v¯at¯ık¯ar´a ingeniously with the root van ‘win’, N¯ar¯ayan.a is able to take this word as an epithet for Rudra meaning ‘he who brings about acquisition (v¯ati = pr¯apti, yoga)’. This then com- plements the idea that he has removed aks.ema ‘the absence of security’, and in so doing ensures the ideal of yoga-ks.ema ‘getting and keeping’.32 The older meaning of this stanza was quite different, although the clue to recovering it likewise depends on the relationship between the same two words. The verb ks.ip in the Veda sometimes has the sense of ‘strike or hit (with a weapon)’ (e.g. RV 1.182.1–3); accordingly ks.ipt´am: ‘a wound caused by shooting or throwing’ ˚(SS ´ 6.109.3), ks.ipan.u:´ (masc.) ‘an archer’ or (neut.) ‘a missile weapon’ (RV 4.58.6) and the later word ks.ipaka: ‘an archer’ (M ONIER - W ILLIAMS, s.v.). ˚PS 15.16.6, in which the collocation v¯at¯ık¯aren.a . . . ks.iptasya occurs (see below), comes in a series of stanzas referring to puncture injuries. Hence, also in our context we can understand ks.e´pa as ‘wound caused by a pro- jectile’. Although some authorities have been content to identify v¯at¯ık¯ar´a (= v¯at´¯ıkrta ´ 6.44.3, 6.109.3]) simply as ‘a particular disease’ (e.g., B OHTLINGK ¨ ˚ [SS & R OTH , s.v.), it occurs always in connection with puncture wounds, esp. ks.ipt´a (see SS ´ 6.109.1). In his note on SS ´ 6.44.3, W HITNEY observes that “v¯at´¯ıkrta, like v¯at¯ık¯ar´a, ˚ is too doubtful to render; its derivation from v¯ata ‘wind’ is extremely unsatis- factory . . . ”. Nevertheless, Z YSK (1993) considers v¯at¯ık¯ar´a a sort of gastric com- plaint, perhaps prefiguring the later tri-dos.a humoral theory.33 It is healed by vis.a¯ n.a¯ 34 (or vis.a¯ n.aka´¯ ),35 a plant (= pippal´¯ı/arundhat´¯ı?),36 and by j¯al¯as.a´ , a liquid remedy consisting of rainwater conceived of as ‘Rudra’s urine’ (SS ´ 6.44.3; cf. 37 ´ 6.57.1–2) or maybe of actual urine. In SS 6.109 Z YSK sees the ailment as in- volving a discharge of blood (¯asr¯av´a, SS ´ 6.44.2) in addition to v¯at´¯ıkr.ta (p. 213). 31 The distinctive reading of the NU tradition, ks.emam, had been established in the tradition at least by N¯ar¯ayan.a’s time (if he did not introduce it himself). He reads it as ’ks.emam, i.e., aks.emam: ‘He has utterly removed your lack of security. By this is meant [Rudra’s] agency in safe-guarding [what one possesses]’ (tav¯aks.emam an¯ına´sad anena ks.emak¯aritvam uktam). 32 See p. 129, below. 33 He suggests that v¯at´¯ıkrta “may be a symptom manifested by a victim of a wound” and “a ˚ ´ 9.8.20. form of dyspepsia” (Z YSK 1985: 212–213, cf. p. 32 n. 9); SS 34 PS 19.31.12cd: prthivy¯ am nist hitam asi vis a ¯ n a ¯ n¯ a ma v¯ at¯ıkr.tabhes.aj¯ı (as quoted in Z YSK 1985: ˚ . .. . . 211). ´ 6.44.2. 35 SS 36 On the pepper plant pippal´¯ı in its role as a remedy for v¯ ´ 6.109.3. at´¯ıkrta and ks.ipt´a, see SS 37 B LOOMFIELD (1891: 425–429), relying on Kau´sS 31.11–15 and ˚ the commentaries thereon.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 91 L OPEZ (2000: 352) cites PS 15.16.6 as showing a connection between this dis- ease and shooting, but he mistranslates: “And with the v¯atikara-disease (sic) of thrown (arrows) and the dangerous poison of evil (?) . . . ”. In fact, this stanza is third in a sequence in which the first p¯ada of each stanza contains an instrumen- tal and a genitive, and the other three p¯adas are a refrain: ‘. . . and of the ill which is the ill-poisonous [arrow]: o Arundhat¯ı, you are the poison-spoiler of its/his poison’ (. . . -aghasy¯aghavis.a¯ ca y¯a | arundhati tvam ¯ . a¯ n.¯ı).38 If . tasy¯asi vis.asya vis.adus we consider the parallel construction of the first p¯ada of each stanza in 15.16.4– 6, the meaning is clearer: digdhena ca viddhasya-aghasy¯aghavis.a¯ ca y¯a | arundhati tvam ¯ . an.¯ı k . tasy¯asi vis.asya vis.adus a¯ heyena ca das..tasya-[aghasy¯aghavis.a¯ ca y¯a | arundhati tvam ¯ . an.¯ı] k . tasy¯asi vis.asya vis.adus v¯at¯ık¯aren.a ca ks.iptasya-[aghasy¯aghavis.a¯ ca y¯a | arundhati tvam ¯ . an.¯ı] k . tasy¯asi vis.asya vis.adus Of one pierced with a poisoned arrow, and of the ill which is the ill- poisonous [arrow]: O Arundhat¯ı, you are the poison-spoiler of its/his poi- son. And of one bitten by snake[-venom] . . . And of one struck by v¯at¯ık¯ar´a . . . (digdhena ca viddhasya- . . . a¯ heyena ca das..tasya- . . . v¯at¯ık¯aren.a ca ks.iptasya-).39 In the first two cases, the afflicted is struck by something sharp which intro- duces a poison with the capacity to stun, paralyze, and render him unconscious. The third instance should be similar. There is another factor to consider, too. In these three stanzas, the word in the instrumental case designates the proximate cause of the malady. But in what looks like a secondary extension of the pattern, several stanzas (PS 15.16.7–15.17.3) follow which repeat 15.16.6 verbatim, changing only the first ´ word, v¯at¯ık¯aren.a, to Bhavena, Sarven . a, Rudren.a, Pa´supatin¯a, Ugren.a ca Devena, Mah¯adevena, I´ ¯sa¯ nena, respectively. These of course are all names of Rudra (though treated as distinct deities in some contexts). Stanza 6, then, marks a transition: whereas the instrumentals in the preceding stanzas designate the in- strument of the injury, those in the following stanzas name a personal divine agent. How is it that this transition came about? Considering the nature of the injury and its effects, the word’s seeming con- nection with wind, and the fact that it was considered an apt epithet for Rudra, I propose that v¯at¯ık¯ar´a may mean ‘lightning-bolt’ or ‘lightning-strike’ (from its association with wind and storm, the concomitants of Rudra’s approach). Be- ing struck by lightning might well be considered analogous to an attack with a 38 G RIFFITHS ’ translation (2004–05: @@). 39 It is also possible to see here genitives of the neuter nouns viddh´am (‘puncture wound’), das..ta´ m (‘bite wound’), and ks.ipt´am (‘shooting wound’), but these are more awkwardly construed with the preceding instrumentals; hence my preference to interpret them as masculine terms referring to the injured party. 92 TIMOTHY LUBIN sharp weapon. Rudra’s arrows are the standard poetic metaphor for lightning in the hymns. What we call the electrical current acts like a poison, leaving the victim paralyzed or unconscious. The dual meaning — ‘lightning-strike’ and ‘[God of the] Lightning-Strike’ — would permit the semantic shift from ‘shot or struck down by something’ to ‘shot or struck down by someone’. In NU 1.3, v¯at¯ık¯ar´a, the lightning-strike or its effects, are banished by an appeal to Rudra, V¯at¯ık¯ar´a personified. On the other hand, this explanation of the term is by no means the only plau- sible one, and it is worth noting two other possibilities: that v¯at¯ık¯ar´a is either (a) a condition (such as infection) associated with a wound caused by an arrow or bite; or, in accordance with traditional interpretations, (b) an outbreak of un- open sores, boils, or pustules described metaphorically as Rudra’s ‘arrow with a single shaft and a hundred points’ (´ıs.um e´katejan¯am ´ 6.57.1cd).40 . s´at´as´aly¯am, SS In either case, infection or sores, the flow (¯asr¯av´a) mentioned in SS ´ 6.44.2 might be of pus rather than of blood. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯a N¯ar¯ayan.a commented upon a corpus of fifty-two Atharvan Upanis.ads. His D¯ıpik¯a on the NU comes down to us in two forms, a shorter one and a longer one. The first (recorded in one manuscript, H, and the Bibliotheca Indica edi- tion, Ed1 ) restricts itself mainly to decomposing sandhi in potentially ambigu- ous cases, glossing terms (often citing a definition from the Vi´svaprak¯as´a), and justifying grammatical forms by reference to P¯an.inian rules. This commentary is often, but not always, correct in its explanations, and it must be admitted that it is not much help in establishing the text. It is interesting, though, to see how the author resolves some of the problems posed by corrupt and otherwise ob- scure passages, especially in the last khan.d.a, where he proposes an emendation of the second p¯ada of 3.22. Moreover, the D¯ıpik¯a is a good illustration of the reception and theological assimilation of a Vedic hymn in Sm¯arta Hinduism. In the older stratum of the text, this concern is less prominent, but N¯ar¯ayan.a manages to discern in 1.3cd a ´ reference to Siva’s beneficent role in conferring yoga and ks.ema upon his devo- tees. Similarly, in his view, 3.24 celebrates Rudra as a hero in removing doubts about what is right or wrong, so that men can know which actions will lead to desirable fruits. He interprets 2.10 as demonstrating that bhakti confers (thanks to divine grace) a vision of Rudra inaccessible even to yogis (see note 81 below). The adjective kalm¯as.apuccha in 3.21 he sees as alluding to ‘the Lord of Ked¯ara in the form of Mahis.a’ (another instance of Siva´ being identified with a figure whom elsewhere he subdues). 40 This is the understanding of S¯ayan.a (mukharahitavran.abhais.ajy¯artham . ‘for the healing of wounds without opening’), and of Ke´sava ad Kau´sS 31.11 (aks.atavran.abhais.ajyam ‘a remedy for intact sores’).  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 93 The interpolated passages in the expanded version (preserved in the other ¯ manuscripts and the Anand¯ as´ rama edition, Ed2 ) reveal a much more vigorous effort to elucidate the religious significance of the hymn, making numerous con- nections between the Vedic revelation and the Pur¯an.ic mythology. Thus, a short itih¯asa, inserted ad 1.1, takes the word avarohantam . to refer to Rudra’s descent as avatar in the form of Kum¯ara(s), Brahman’s mind-born offspring, during the creation of the world. Based on the reading jal¯asabhes.aj¯ıh., this anonymous redac- ´ tor also offers an alternative explanation of 1.3: Siva again took avatar form to swallow the poison produced by the ‘herbs thrown into the water’ during the churning of the ocean. An interpolation ad 3.21 sees the mention of Hari beside N¯ılagr¯ıva as a reference to ’the oneness of Hari and Hara’, and the two mules of 3.26 are explained as the parallel forms in which Vis.n.u and Siva ´ preside over two particular earthly realms. In this manner, warrant is found in a piece of s´ruti for a number of later ideas. The Manuscripts This edition of the text is based on twenty-six manuscripts, five of them ac- cented. All but three (XYZ) are written in the Devan¯agar¯ı script, and are on Indian paper unless otherwise noted. The accented manuscripts are: A: Vaidika Sam . s´ odhana Man.d.ala, no. 4138. The NU is on ff. 18r–20v, six- teenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. B: Vaidika Sam . s´ odhana Man.d.ala, no. 4139. The NU is on ff. 54v–56r, six- teenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. C: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, no. 1/1907–15. The NU is on ff. 37v–39r, thirteenth in an incomplete collection of Atharvan Upanis.ads. The manuscript shows some prs..tham¯atr¯as. ˚ D: National Archives, Kathmandu (NAK), no. 5.1567 = Nepal-German Manuscript Preservation Project (NGMPP) A 588/16, labeled “Atharvasuktam” ¯ on the NAK label, and “Atharvavedasam . hit¯ a ” in the NGMPP catalog CD. The N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ is on ff. 4v–6r, third in a collection of ‘hymns of the Atharvaveda’. The codex of 12 folios contains: the Atharvasukta ¯ ´ 6.1–10) (listed by the (SS NGMPP as the Dv¯arap¯alasukta), ¯ A¯ ngirasas ˙ ¯ ukta ´ 19.21–23), N¯ılarudrasukta, (SS ¯ ¯ Apar¯ajit¯asukta ´ 6.67–72), [Rodhasasukta] (SS ¯ ´ 6.40 (not so named in the text), SS ´ antisukta S¯ ¯ ´ 19.9–12), Rudrasukta (SS ¯ ´ 3.26–27), Audumbarasukta (SS ¯ ´ 19.31). (SS The independent svarita is marked by the use of a horizontal bar below the svarita syllable as well as below the syllable that precedes. The accentuation of the text is very faulty at points, but in general it agrees closely with that of E. E: National Archives, Kathmandu, no. 4.2226 = NGMPP A 588/17, la- beled “Atharvasuktam”¯ on the NAK label, and “Atharvavedasam . hit¯a” in the NGMPP catalog CD; the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ is on ff. 7r–10r, third in a collection of ‘hymns of the Atharvaveda’. The codex of 83 folios contains: the Atharvasukta, ¯ ¯ ˙ Angirasas ¯ ukta, ¯ N¯ılarudrasukta, ´ SS 11.2 (wrongly labelled ‘N¯ılarudrasuktam’, ¯ 94 TIMOTHY LUBIN which is cancelled), Dev¯ısukta ¯ ´ 4.30), Apar¯ajit¯asukta, (SS ¯ Madhusukta ¯ ´ 1.34), (SS ¯ Rodhasasukta, ´ ¯ S¯antisukta, Purus.asukta ¯ ´ (SS 19.6), Rudrasukta, ¯ Saurasukta ¯ ´ (SS 17.1; see also below), Paus.t.ikasukta ¯ ´ 19.31), Sakunas (SS ´ ¯ ukta ´ 7.64–70 [inc.]); (SS with new folio numbering: Suryas ¯ ¯ ukta ´ 17.1), Somasukta (SS ¯ ´ 6.128), Bhau- (SS ¯ masukta ´ (SS 4.31), Yudhasukta ¯ ´ (SS 7.81 [86]), Brhaspatisukta ¯ ´ 7.8 [9]), (SS ´ ´ 17.1.20), Sanis ´ ˚ ´ 11.6[4].1–3), R¯ahusukta Sukras ¯ ukta (SS ¯ ukta (SS ¯ (one stanza, ´ not traced in the SS or PS), Ketusukta ¯ ´ (SS 7.11.1–7.12.2), the Adhidevat¯ah. ¯ adhidevo Rudrah., SS (Sury¯ ´ 1.19; Som¯adhideva Um¯a, SS ´ 1.5; Bhaum¯adhidevah. ´ ´ Skandhah., SS 4.31.2; Budh¯adhidevo Vis.n.uh., SS 7.24[25].1–7.26[27].2; Brhas- ´ 4.1; Sukr¯´ ´ 6.98; Sanyadhidevo ´ ˚ patyadhidevo Brahm¯a, SS adhideva Indrah., SS Yamah., SS´ 6.93; R¯ahvadhidevah. K¯alah., SS ´ 13.2.39–40; Ketvadhideva Indrah., ´ 13.2.31–34), the Pratyadhidevat¯ah. (Suryapratyadhidevo SS ¯ ’gnih., SS ´ 4.23.1–3; ¯ ´ Somapratyadhideva Apah., SS 1.6; Bhaumapratyadhidevah. Bhuh ´ 12.1.1; ¯ . , SS Budhapratyadhidevo Vis.n.uh., SS ´ 7.24[25].1–7.26[27].2; Brhaspatipratyadhideva ´ 2.5.1; Sukrapratyadhideva ´ ˚ ´ ´ 1.27.4; Indrah., SS Indr¯an.¯ı, SS Sanipratyadhidevah. ´ Praj¯apatih., SS 7.80[85].3–4; R¯ahupratyadhidevah. Sarpah., SS ´ 2.24; Ketupra- tyadhidevo Brahm¯a, SS ´ 4.1), the Pancalokap¯ ˜ al¯ah. (Vin¯ayakah., SS ´ 1.18; Durg¯a, ´ 7.63[65]; V¯ayuh., SS SS ´ 4.25; Ak¯ ¯ as´ ah., SS ´ 10.2.28cd–33; A´svinau, SS ´ 5.26.12), the Da´sadikp¯al¯ah. (Indrah., SS ´ 6.98; Agnih., SS ´ 4.23.1–3a, 11.4.3b–26; Yamah., SS ´ 6.93; ´ ´ ´ Nirrtih., SS 6.84; Varun.ah., SS 18.4.69; V¯ayuh., SS 4.25; Kuberah., SS 6.128; I´ ´ ¯sa¯ nah., ˚ ´ 1.19; Anantah., SS ´ 2.24; Brahm¯a, SS ´ 4.1), and the As.t.av¯asavah. (Adityah ¯ SS . [stan- zas omitted], Ek¯ada´sarudrah., SS ´ 2.27.6; Naks.atrah., 4.27; Brahm¯a, 4.1; Vis.n.uh., ´ 7.24[25].1–7.26[27].2; Rudrah., 1.19; Arkah., 17.1; Brhaspatih., 6.125). The read- SS ˚ ings generally match those of D, including the idiosyncrasies of the accentua- tion. Yet there are some real differences, as in 1.8d. 41 The unaccented manuscripts are: F: Oriental Institute, Baroda, acc. no. 7332. The NU is on ff. 37r–38r, sixteenth in a collection of 49 Atharvan Upanis.ads. Stanzas are numbered consecutively, with no division into khan.d.as. The colophon (ff. 115v–116r) records a date of sam ¯ svina bright 15 Friday (i.e., Sunday, 29 September 1613 CE?).42 . vat 1670 A´ 41 Two other Nepalese manuscripts exist, but could not be collated for this edition. They are: NAK 4.1405 = NGMPP A 588/18, labeled “Atharvasuktam” ¯ on the NAK label, and “Atharvavedasam . hit¯ a ” in the NGMPP catalog CD. 44 unnumbered folios. The codex contains some rules for the performance of the upanayana and the harit¯alik¯avrata (1r–23r), followed by a group of unaccented Atharvan hymns written in a different hand (according to the NGMPP CD, they are the Atharvan.asukta, ¯ A¯ ngirasas ˙ ¯ ukta, ¯ N¯ılarudrasukta, ¯ Apar¯ajit¯asukta, Audumbara- ¯ sukta, Adalambukamekasukta ¯ (?), and Rudrasukta).¯ Unfortunately, the photographs of the hymns supplied by the NGMPP were mostly illegible. NGMPP E 1601/16, “Atharvavedasam . hit¯a”. According to the NGMPP CD, the codex con- ¯ ˙ tains: Angirasas ¯ ukta, ¯ N¯ılarudrasukta, ¯ Apar¯ajit¯asukta, ¯ Madhusukta, ¯ Rudrasukta. Photographs of this manuscript were not made available to me. 42 Here and below, my attempts to convert the dates were made with the use of Michio Yano’s “Pancanga” program (<http://www.kyoto-su.ac.jp/~yanom/pancanga/>). In several cases, I was not able to find a matching weekday, so all conversions are to be taken cum grano salis —  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 95 Place of origin: adya s´r¯ıpattanamadhye n¯agarajn¯ ˜ at¯ıyapam. col¯ı [effaced run of per- haps 18 aks.aras follows] madam . k¯anaj¯ısutavilla (?) j¯ıyena l¯ıs.a¯ vitam . k lekhakap¯a.ta**- lis.a¯ dikajayosu k. Orthography: doubles dental and retroflex stops after r; in- consistently uses prs..tham¯atr¯as, probably retained from the exemplar; v, b, and c ˚ often indistinguishable; ch for cch, including that resulting from external sandhi of t + s´. G: Oriental Institute, Baroda, acc. no. 5888(m). The NU is on ff. 49v–51r, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The post-colophon (f. 210v) reads: sam . vat 1697 vars.e m¯arga´s¯ırs.a´suddhapratipad¯a budhadine [14 November 1640 CE ] likhitam idam . pustakam . . This manuscript preserves many apparently old and authentic readings, despite the fact that it seems to have been written by some- one ignorant of Sanskrit: although the hand is clear, n and t are very frequently confused; likewise, c and v, preconsonantal r and anusv¯ara, th and py — errors which have not been reported. Stanzas are not numbered, and are not always marked off by single or double dan.d.as, which often crop up in the middle of a line. H: Oriental Institute, Baroda, acc. no. 11529. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpika¯ is on ff. 69v– 27v, thirteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads dated sam . vat 1784 (1727 CE ). The mula ¯ text of the NU is written in the margins around the commentary as an afterthought, but seemingly by the same hand, beginning on f. 70r. H and M descend from a common ancestor. The stanzas are numbered 1–27, omitting the number 21; khan.d.a divisions are noted secunda manu. ks.a is sometimes writ- ten for kr. Though it shows many patent mistakes, this manuscript provides valuable˚ testimony especially for the D¯ıpik¯a in that it omits several passages also omitted in the Bibliotheca Indica edition, and it also preserves some cor- rect readings not found in other sources. It has been corrected to agree with readings found in the S¯ ´ arad¯a transmission, especially as it is preserved in X. I: Oriental Institute, Baroda, acc. no. 4856. The NU is on ff. 52r– 53v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads dated sam . vat 1842. The codex concludes with some stanzas classifying the Upanis.ads by s´a¯ kh¯a: pam . cada´sopanis.ado bhavam . ti s´aunak¯ıy¯an¯am . mum . d.ak¯adis tv al¯at¯am . t¯am . vijney¯ ˜ a bra- hmavedasya 1 saptatrim . s´as tath¯any¯as´ ca pais.paly¯adiprabhedatah. evam . pam . c¯as´adhy a- dhik¯a brahmavedasya n¯anyatah. 2 n¯ılarudraprabhrtayo a¯ s´ram¯am . t¯ah. prak¯ırttit¯ah. | et¯ah. 43 ˚ sarv¯ah. prthagv¯aky¯a j¯ıvabrahmaikabodhik¯ah. 3. The post-colophon reads (f. 165v): ˚ sam . vat 1842 jes..thavadi navam¯ı 9 bhaumav¯asare (Tuesday [i.e., Wednesday?], 1 June 1785 CE). J: Vaidika Sam . s´ odhana Man.d.ala, no. 4816. The NU is on ff. 54v–56r, also numbered 1v–3r, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. K: Bh¯arat¯ıya Itih¯asa Sam . s´ odhaka Man.d.al.a, no. 7/66 f. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpi- the precise size of the necessary grain I am not competent to estimate. 43 According to the BORI catalog (vol. 1, part 3, pp. 103–104), these stanzas are also found at the end of BORI no. 134/1880–81, which unfortunately was inaccessable to me. See my discussion of the stanzas on p. 84–84, with n. 8. 96 TIMOTHY LUBIN ka¯ of the NU, with the mula ¯ stanzas, is on ff. 1r–3v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Upanis.ads, separately foliated. In the mula, ¯ hemistichs are marked off with double dan.d.as, but only the khan.d.as are numbered. ¯ L: Anand¯ as´ rama, no. 58/944. The NU is on ff. 57r–58v, sixteenth in a collec- tion of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. Orthography: doubles v after r. ¯ M: Anand¯ as´ rama, no. 252/4019. The NU is on ff. 44r–45v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The stanzas are numbered 1–27, omitting the number 21, without noting khan.d.a divisions. Cf. H. ¯ N: Anand¯ as´ rama, no. 304/5048. The NU is on ff. 58r–60r, sixteenth in a col- lection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. Hemistichs are marked off with dan.d.as; only the khan.d.as are numbered. There is one prs..tham¯atr¯a in the first word of 1.9e. Two independent svaritas are marked with ˚the numeral 3. ¯ O: Anand¯ as´ rama, no. 97/1235(-). European paper bearing the watermark “Lumsden & Son 1853”. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpika, ¯ with the mula ¯ stanzas, is on ff. 1r– 2v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Upanis.ads, separately foliated. Hemistichs are marked off with dan.d.as; only the khan.d.as are numbered. P: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, no. 133/1880–81. The NU on ff. 50r–51v (60r–61v in renumbering), seventeenth in a collection of 59 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The post-colophon reads (quoting from the cata- log, vol. 1, part 3, p. 124): sam . vat 1757 varas.e galitaposam¯aghavada 10 bu- dhe s´r¯ı amad¯ab¯adar¯ajanagaramadhye las.itam . s´r¯ın¯ar¯ayan.aj¯ın¯ı kriy¯av¯am. chan¯ı . . . ra- de r¯amakaly¯an.aj¯ı n¯agarapat.an.¯ı nav¯aba s´r¯ı s´uj¯ayatap¯ana n¯ı c¯akar¯ıv¯ıra bhaj¯aman¯ı v¯a- k¯anav¯ıs¯ın¯ı ji . . . matat.al¯ıtav¯are navar¯ahut¯ ¯ a avak¯as´ap¯am¯ılas.yu¯ chete 123 s´a¯ j¯anasana 1112 hijar¯ı m¯apu . . . 44 . . . alamag¯ır¯ı (written in the auspicious royal city of Ahmadabad, Wednesday [i.e., Thursday?], 3 February 1701 CE, by N¯ar¯ayan.a- J¯ı Kriy¯av¯am . cha, . . . Nawab R¯amakaly¯an.a-J¯ı N¯agarapat.a, Sr¯ ´ ı-Suj¯ ´ ayatap¯ana, C¯akar¯ıv¯ıra Bhaj¯ama, V¯ak¯anav¯ıs¯ı, . . . in the year 123 in the era of Sh¯ah Jah¯an, AH 1112, . . . the year 44 in the era of Alamg¯ır). The NU is introduced with: s´r¯ıbrahmaved¯aya namah.. Hemistichs are marked off with dan.d.as; only the khan.d.as are numbered. Orthography: shows one instance of a Gujarati k in 2.11d. Q: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, no. 31(1)/A1881–82. N¯ar¯aya- n.a’s D¯ıpika, ¯ with the stanzas, on ff. 1r–3r, first in a collection of 8 Upanis.ads (comprising the Brahmabindu, Dhy¯anabindu, Yoga´sikh¯a, Ham . sa, N¯adabindu, Amr.tabindu, Tejobindu, and Yogatattva Upanis.ads), separately foliated. R: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, no. 29/1884–86. The NU is on f. 14r–v, fifteenth in an incomplete collection of 17 Upanis.ads. Orthography: occasionally writes s. for kh (e.g., nila´sis.an.d.a¯ ya in last stanza); one prs..tham¯atr¯a ˚ occurs in the last syllable of 1.9e. S: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, no. 1/A1883–84. The NU is on ff. 27v–28v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The codex con- cludes with the stanzas classifying the Upanis.adsby s´a¯ kh¯a.44 44 The following BORI manuscripts, all in collections of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads, were ex-  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 97 T: Adyar Library, no. PM 484 = 9 F 130. The NU is on ff. 54r–55v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The text shows two sets of corrections: cancellations using yellow paste and some overwriting, seemingly performed by the original writer and usually improving the text; and other changes in lighter black ink and in another hand which almost always corrupt the text, and which have not been recorded in the critical apparatus. The codex concludes with the stanzas classifying the Upanis.adsby s´a¯ kh¯a. U: Adyar Library, no. PM 486 = 9 G 52. The NU is on ff. 28v–29v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. The postcolophon (f. 94v) gives the date: sam . vat k18 k 74 k k¯arttika´suklanavamy¯am . | 9 k cam . drav¯asare (Monday [i.e. Tues- day?], 18 November 1817 CE). The codex concludes with the stanzas classifying the Upanis.adsby s´a¯ kh¯a. V: Adyar Library, no. PM 513 = 11 D 54. The NU in two folios. Wrongly identified by S CHRADER as “N¯ılagr¯ıvopanis.at”.45 W: National Archives, Kathmandu, ms. 2.181 (filmed on NGMPP reel no. A 896/3): Caturvedabrahmasiddh¯ante catus.pam . c¯as´adupanis.adah.. The NU is no. 13, ff. 26r–26v, in the 82-folio codex. Devan¯agar¯ı script; not dated. Contains many patent errors in the copying (mostly not reported), including confusion of ta and na, sa and s´a; there is one likely case of vestigial prs..tham¯atr¯a in 2.3d (f. 26r, l. 10). ˚ Probably copied from an original showing the inverted bha resembling ta, since in a few corrupt passages ta is written for bha. Divided into khan.d.as. amined but not included in the collation: 2/1891–95 (ff. 52r–53v), 10/1882–83 (ff. 29v–30v), 27/1895–98 (ff. 29r–30v), 42/1892–95 (ff. 43v–44v), 134/1880–81 (ff. 50r–51v [renumbered in Arabic numbers as ff. 60r–61v]), 233/1882-83 (ff. 236r–239r), and 328/1883–84 (ff. 48r–49v). 45 The following Adyar Library manuscripts were examined but not included in the collation: PM 169 = 9 B 166. The NU is on the last leaf (f. 51r–v). Damaged and illegible in many places. PM 485 = 9 F 99. The NU is on ff. 39v–40v of a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads copied in 1751 in Gujarat. The postcolophon (f. 116r) gives the date sam . vat 1807 [= 1751 CE]: ity atharvan.¯ıyopanis.adah. sam¯apt¯ah. k cha k sam . purn . sam¯apta k sam ¯ . am . vat 1807 vars.e m¯arga´s¯ırs.am¯ase sap- tamy¯am . raviv¯asare k n¯agarajn¯ ˜ atiyam et¯as¯am aj¯ısujacatrabhujena likhyate k k s´r¯ıkrs.n.a¯ rpan.am astuh. k ˚ . daranevis.e k k s´ubham s´r¯ıkachade´se m¯ad.av¯ıvam . bhavatuh. k k kaly¯an.am astuh. k. This manuscript is very carelessly written, with a very high number of errors; since it does not, on the other hand, help in doubtful passages, its readings have not been included. The Library seems at one point to have possessed three other manuscripts of the NU that are no longer traceable. They are listed here by the numbers used in S CHRADER 1908, followed by the numbers used in A Catalogue of the Samskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Library, by the Pandits of the Library, part I (1926), an alphabetical title index. A number according to the new system used by the library is lacking for all three. 9 B 171. S CHRADER describes a collection of Atharvan Upanis.ads on paper in S¯ ´ arad¯a script, written c. 1700. This manuscript does not appear in the new list. The 1926 catalog does not have a listing for this manuscript under the heading N¯ılarudropanis.ad. The library itself lists it as “not found”. 34 J 6 = 77446. S CHRADER does not list this manuscript. The 1926 catalog identifies it as N¯ılarudropanis.ad, but the number is now attached to a copy of the R¯am¯ayan.a. 34 J 31 = 77471. S CHRADER does not list this manuscript. The 1926 catalog identi- fies it as N¯ılarudropanis.ad with N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯a, but the number is now attached to an ¯ Apastamba´ srautaprayoga. 98 TIMOTHY LUBIN X: Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Janert Collection, running no. 49. Bound paper manuscript in S¯ ´ arad¯a script. The NU is on ff. 46v–47v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. Shows affinities with H as corrected by another hand. Y: Staatsbibliothek Berlin, Janert Collection, running no. 50. Paper ´ manuscript in S¯arad¯a script. The NU is on ff. 6v–8v, sixteenth in a collection of 52 Atharvan Upanis.ads. Z: Staats- und Universit¨atsbibliothek Hamburg, Cod. Palmbl. I 10 (VOHD II, 4 no. 1168). Palm-leaf in Telugu script. The NU is on ff. 130v–131r (33v–34r, as renumbered in Arabic numbers), forty-fourth in a collection of 45 works, mostly Upanis.ads. The aks.aras pa and va seem in many cases to be indistinguishable: e.g. 1.3d, py etu (as all other NU mss. read) or vy etu (the PS reading). The D¯ıpika¯ is represented in manuscripts H, K, O, and Q, described above, as well as in: D¯ı1 : Vaidika Sam . s´ odhana Man.d.ala, no. 4163. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯a is on ff. 195r–197v. This manuscript and the next, D¯ı2 , must derive from a common archetype, since they share several obvious scribal errors (not included in the apparatus): e.g., pratyas.n.a¯ t | pratis.n.a¯ m . ad 1.2, prak¯as´ayastv iti ad 1.8, and pim . gal¯ah. ad 1.9, as well as the unique use of the archaic graph +IÁ for ¯ı in the word ¯ımahe ad 1.9. ¯ as´ rama, no. 288/4612 . In eight numbered folios.46 D¯ı2 : Anand¯ The accented manuscripts ABC broadly agree in their readings, which de- viate more widely from those of the PS than those of some of the unaccented manuscripts (e.g., FJ). One gets the impression that the accentuation was added at some point to an unaccented text, rather than that it records a continuously preserved oral tradition. For instance, in 3.23 and 3.24, s´arva, correctly accented, is recorded instead of the older reading s´arv´a (which, however, is written cor- rectly in 3.25). If the accentuation had been orally preserved, one might have expected sarva with s´arva’s accent.47 The accentuation of the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ manuscripts (DE) is very faulty in general. 46 One ¯ further copy of the D¯ıpik¯a was consulted: Anand¯ as´ rama, no. 985/11920. Eighteenth in a collection of Atharvan Upanis.ads with N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯a written on modern lined note paper, ¯ with the initials of the Anand¯ as´ ramagranth¯alaya A;a.(ra.g{Ma. printed on the upper left margin, and the word nMa;ba:= on the right. These are the final hand-written copy sheets used in printing the 1895 edition. The stanzas (written in red) alternate with blocks of commentary. Numerous corrections have been made to the text. This manuscript has not been used in constituting the text because it appears quite contaminated, and is replete with canceled readings that cannot be read. In any case, in its corrected form, it gives exactly the text of the edition. 47 But for a possible case of original accentuation continuously preserved in the manuscripts, see the annotation to 1.3a.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 99 Editorial Policy The edition presented here is of the N¯ılarudra litany as recorded in all manuscripts recording the text as ‘N¯ılarudropanis.ad’ and in the Nepal manuscripts calling it the ‘N¯ılarudrasukta’, ¯ as distinct from the parallel stanzas in the PS. That is to say, the aim is to determine as far as possible the form of the archetype *N from which all the manuscripts used here are assumed ultimately to be derived. As a consequence, there are a few instances in which the adopted reading diverges from what appears to be the correct text of the PS. I have chosen to preserve deviations from the older form of stanzas (whether accidental or in- tentional) to the extent that they belonged to *N and were found meaningful by the commentator. In such cases, discussion of the NU’s divergence from the PS stanzas on which it was based is reserved for the notes. At the same time, it is undeniable that the PS provides an invaluable frame of reference both for editing and for interpreting the text, and it allows us to set in relief some of the ´ ways in which later Saiva tradition made sense of the Rudra of the Veda. Unfortunately, the manuscripts do not represent a closed tradition. Con- tamination is evident in cases where manuscripts have been corrected to show variant readings attested in other manuscripts (many cases are noted in the apparatus). That said, on occasion it seems possible to formulate a ‘stemma variantium’48 in the case of a particularly distinctive shared reading that is unlikely to be attributable to (1) a common pronunciation or scribal error, such as incorrect vowel length, presence or absence of visarga or anusv¯ara, or confusion of similar characters or forms; or (2) a deliberate change to the text, whether ‘correction’ to an ‘easier’ reading49 or to one found in a well-known parallel. After screening out likely coincidences and solecisms of this sort — admittedly, a rather subjective process — the following tentative groupings emerge. An important variation at 1.6c exhibits a major branching: *Ψ = sarvam ij CFGHac IKLMOPQTUVWZ *Ω = three subgroups: sarvam idam DE sarva ij ABJNR sarva imej SXY (and secunda manu in a *Ψ ms., H pc ) In the three manuscripts derived from an exemplar reading sarva imej, we find that an inserted word [’]gnau in 1.2a, when miscopied, leads progressively to further corruption ending in utter nonsense: 48 See W EST 1973: 52–53. 49 E.g., the doubling of the first n in the Vedic form ane´sann (2.15c) as if it somehow contained the compound anna-¯ıs´a-. 100 TIMOTHY LUBIN ugro [’]gnau X → ugro gro S → grogrogro Y The *Ψ group splits along the following variation in 1.5d: ac him . s¯ıt FH LMOPQTUW him . s¯ıh. CGIKVZ Within the former of these groups, O and Q share the reading s´aravy¯an in 1.7c. Within the latter, I and K stand apart in sharing a couple of features: asya s´es.avah. for asyes.avah. in 2.15c, and the omission of tava in 1.7c.50 I hasten to add that the distribution of several other significant variations in the text cannot be reconciled with these groupings: e.g., asman JQRSUZ : asmin (or yasmin) elsewhere (2.16d); and divo ABCFJPW : divi elsewhere (except T) (2.19a). These may represent scribal corrections or, because the differences are so small, some of the incorrect readings may result from independent errors. Only manuscripts have been used to constitute the text of both the stanzas and the commentary, although four earlier editions have been consulted: those ¯ of R AMAMAYA TARKARATNA (1872), J IBANANDA V IDYASAGARA (1891), A ¯ PAT. E (1895), and K UNHAN R AJA (1933). The second of these was found simply to reproduce the text of the first, agreeing even in such details as punctuation, and it was therefore left out of further consideration. The text of the fourth is incomplete, erroneous, and full of readings adopted tacitly and uncritically from the commentary or from Yajurvedic parallels; its text of the D¯ıpik¯a closely ¯ follows that of R AMAMAYA TARKARATNA.51 For the stanzas, it has not been deemed necessary to record the readings of any of the printed editions. In the case of the D¯ıpik¯a, however, all instances in which the editions of 1872 (Ed1 ) and 1895 (Ed2 ) diverge from the text as accepted here (on the basis of the six manuscripts available to me) are recorded in the lower register of the apparatus. The sources of N¯ar¯ayan.a’s quotations from other works are identified in the upper register. The following conventions are employed in the critical apparatus: Sigla are shown in bold type. A sigma (Σ) stands for all manuscripts of the unaccented text of the mula ¯ (i.e., all except A, B, C, D, and E). The lemma and 50 The major branching *Ψ–*Ω is generally supported by a variation at 2.10a, with *Ψ read- ing adrs´yam . and *Ω (more nearly correctly) reading adr˚ s´am . ; at 2.10c, more than half of the *Ψ ˚ manuscripts have preserved the original adrs´ann (with U anticipating this form also in 2.10a). ˚ The three *Ω manuscripts (ABR) break ranks by reading adrs´yam . in both places (likewise J in ˚ p¯ada c). Some others of the *Ψ group join the entire *Ω group in preserving the original adrs´ann ˚ there. However, given the closeness of the forms, the widespread confusion evident from the oddities of orthography here, and the possibility of contamination, these forms have not been deemed a secure basis for use in a stemma. 51 In his edition of PS 13–14, L OPEZ cites a mechanical reprint of this edition, included in S HASTRI 1970.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 101 lemma sign ( ] ) are followed first by the sigla of those manuscripts giving the adopted reading. In the case of an accented word, accented sources as well as other manuscripts showing the same form without accent will be listed as sup- porting the reading in the lemma, unless the unaccented form is found also as a variant in an accented manuscript. Variant readings follow, separated by semi- colons. Variants in accentuation have been reported, even if they are clearly spurious, so that the reader may form an accurate idea of the fidelity of the ac- cented texts, and also to illustrate the close agreement of the Nepalese sources. Occasionally, a manuscript will be shown as giving a reading that was clearly intended by the writer but which was miswritten. In such cases, the exact reading found in the manuscript is given in parentheses after the siglum. A raised dot ( · ) stands in place of an illegible aks.ara (or part thereof). A square cup (t) represents a space left blank by the writer to indicate a missing or illegible aks.ara in the manuscript that he was recopying. A pair of question marks (? ?) encloses aks.aras (or portions thereof) whose reading is uncertain. Parentheses with a plus sign (+) enclose aks.aras (or parts thereof) inserted marginally or interlinearly, whether by the same or a different hand. Curly braces ( { } ) enclose cancelled aks.aras (or parts thereof). An arrow (→) indicates a correction; alternatively, where both forms are elsewhere attested, the readings before and after correction may be entered sep- arately, with superscript ac added to the siglum to indicate the reading ante correctionem and superscript pc to indicate the reading post correctionem. Under ‘Parallels’, an identical parallel (if one exists) is listed first, preceded by an equal sign (=); all other parallels (or groups of identical parallels) cited are variants of the NU stanza. The variations are mentioned in the annotations. Text and Translation of the N¯ılarudra Stanzas 1.1 ≈ PS 14.3.1 om . a´ pa´syam ´ . tv¯avarohantam . div´ıtah. prthiv´¯ım av´ah. | ˚ a´ pa´syam a´ syantam . n´¯ılagr¯ıvam . rudr´am . s´ ikhan.d.´ınam k I saw you descending from the sky, down to earth; I saw Rudra shooting [his arrows], blue-necked, crested. om. ] ABCGHIJKLMNPSTWXYZ; hari om . E; om. DFWOQRUV prthiv´¯ım av´ah.] ˚ GHZ; prthiv´¯ım a´ va B CDEJ L OQRTUVW; prthiv´¯ım ´ıva AB ; prthiv¯ımayah. SXY; ac ac pc pc ˚ ˚ ˚ prthiv¯ımatah. M; prthiv¯ımima ILac ; prthiv¯ımama FJ pc KP; prthiv¯ıtava N a´ syantam.] ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ . → pa´syam . )T (→ asrtam ac CFGHJLNOPQR S(a´syam . tam . tam . )UVWZ; asy´am . tam. AB; ˚ 102 TIMOTHY LUBIN asya tam . IKM; a´ p´as´ yantam ˜ . DEY; muncantam . X rudr´am . ] ABDE; rudram . CΣ s´ ikhan.d.´ınam] ABCΣ; s´´ıkhan.d.inam D; s´´ıkhan.d.´ınam E b. B HATTACHARYA prints iva; L OPEZ hesitantly accepts ava. The NU manu- scripts provide support for both these readings (and others), but N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading is probably the best (cf. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 8.2.70: amna udas ¯ ’va ity ubhayath¯a chandasi). The accented manuscripts read a´ va; av´ah. is accented however on the ultimate. The form div´ıtah. is hapax legomenon; PS 14.3.1b reads divatah., a more natural form. 1.2 = PS 14.3.2 ´¯ div´a ugro´ ’v¯aruks.at pr´aty as.t.h¯ad bhumy¯ am a´ dhi | . n´¯ılagr¯ıvam j´an¯asah. p´as´ yatem´am . vilohit´am k From the sky the mighty one has descended; he has taken his stand upon the earth. O people, look at him: the blue-necked, the red one. div´a] ABDEΣ; d´ıva C ´ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVWZ; ugro gnau ugro] X; ugro gro S; grogrogro Y ’v¯aruks.at] ABDEFGI(◦ ks.am . tat) JKLMNOP QRSTUVWXYZ; v¯aruks ´ . att C; v¯arun.a¯ khyat H ´¯ bhumy¯ am] AB; bhumy` ¯ am → ` ¯ ?bhumy¯ ¯ am? C; bhumy¯ am DEΣ a´ dhi] ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ; a- pi M j´an¯asah.] ACDEΣ(j¯an¯a?sya? → j¯an¯asa T); jana´¯ sah. B p´as´ yatem´am .] ACFIJKLNOPQRTUVWZ; p´as´ yatemam . B; pa´syatem´am . v´ai DE; pa´syatemaham . pc HMSXY; pa´syatepra G vilohit´am] ACFGH IJKLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ; viloh´ıtam ac B; v´ılohitam DE; sulohitam . H M ab. The Orissa PS manuscripts show second-person verb forms, and L OPEZ accepts these as correct. The Kashmir manuscript has v¯aruks.at and the corrupt form us..tamad (for as..th¯ad?). The NU manuscripts are unequivocal in giving third- person forms, and these are more natural in the context of the second hemistich, which refers to Rudra as ‘him’ rather than ‘you’. Hence the NU supports (and corrects) the Kashmir manuscript on this point. 1.3 ≈ PS 14.3.3 es.a´ ety av¯ırah¯a rudro´ jal¯as.abhes.aj´¯ı | v´ı te ’ks.e´ mam an¯ına´sad v¯at¯ık¯aro´ ’py etu te k Here he comes, not striking men, Rudra whose medicine is urine. He has re- moved your insecurity; let your v¯at¯ık¯ar´a also go. ety] Σ; e´ ty ABCDE jal¯as.abhes.aj´¯ı] G; jal¯as.ay¯a bhes.aj¯ı Z; jal¯as.abhes.aj´¯ıh. ABCF H IJKLNO PQRS(→ j¯ah.)TUVW(◦ s.¯ıj¯ah.)XY; j´al¯as.abhes.aj´¯ıh. DE; jal¯asabhes.ajah. Hac M pc ◦  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 103 v´ı te] ACD(p´ı) E(p´ı)FGIJKL(cite)NO PQRTUWZ; v¯ı t´e → vi t´e B; vitte HSV; citte X; datte M ks.e´ mam] DEΣ (ks.em Z); ks.em´am ABC a. The accented manuscripts’ e´ty should not be accented; if the preverb a´¯ is understood to be present, it should by sandhi rather produce a´ iti, which is in fact the reading of the PS. Might this unanimity suggest that the original accent has in this case been faithfully preserved, despite the change of vowel? b. Although the usual form of Rudra’s epithet is j´al¯as.abhes.aja (RV 1.43.4b, ´ 2.27.6a; PS 2.16.4a, 5.22.9c), most manuscripts here read jal¯˚as.abhes.aj´¯ıh.. 8.29.5; SS Even if this could be accepted as a rare masculine form (cf. M ACDONELL 1910: § 375B), the accent on the ultimate prevents us from reading it as a bahuvr¯ıhi and requires that we accept jal¯as.abhes.aj´¯ı, based on the stem jal¯as.abhes.aj´ın-, which is the form shown by G and printed by B HATTACHARYA (1997) and L OPEZ ´ 6.57.2), see E MENEAU 1988: 195, (2000). For the meaning of jal¯as.a´ (j¯al¯as.a´ in SS who defends the etymology and definition proposed originally by B LOOMFIELD 1891: 425–429. cd. On v¯at¯ık¯ar´a and [’]ks.e´ma, see the remarks in the introduction (pp. 90– 92). All the manuscripts record ks.emam, and this reading probably was present in *N. Reluctantly, in spite of the poor sense it yields, I have refrained from emending to ks.e´pam because this reading has been accepted by tradition as au- thentic and (thanks to some exegetical gymnastics) meaningful: by N¯ar¯ayan.a’s interpretation this line means: ‘He has removed your lack of security [reading ’ks.ema]; Likewise, let him come who causes you to acquire’. The unanimous reading [’]py etu is possibly original (with the implied sense of preverb v´ı car- ried forward from p¯ada c), but it may well have arisen as a misreading for the PS’s vy etu (in which case the error can be compared with the reading p´ıte in p¯ada c in D and E). The PS reading of this line means: ‘He has caused your wound to disappear; let your v¯at¯ık¯ar´a go away’. 1.4 = PS 14.3.4 n´amas te bhava bha´¯ m¯aya n´amas te bhava many´ave | ´ n´amas te astu b¯ahubhy¯ am uto´ ta ´ıs.ave n´amah. k Homage, O Bhava, to your anger! Homage, O Bhava, to your wrath! Homage be to your arms, and to your arrow, homage! bha´¯ m¯aya] ABCDEFIJKNOPRUVW; bh¯as¯aya Q; bh¯ım¯aya GT; bh¯av¯aya HLMX; bha- v¯aya S; · · · Y ´ıs.ave] ABCΣ; is.av´e DE Parallels: MS 2.9.2:120.16–17 = TS 4.5.1.1(a); KS 17.11:254.1–2; VS 16.1. a. All the Yajurveda versions omit this p¯ada. bcd. KS reads: n´amas te rudra many´ave b¯ahubhy¯ ´ am ut´a te n´amah. | ut´o ta ´ıs.ave n´amah. k; VS inverts the latter two p¯adas. MS and TS have the VS order, plus the 104 TIMOTHY LUBIN insertion of n´amas te astu dh´anvane as p¯ada c. 1.5 ≈ PS 14.3.5 ya´¯ m ´ıs.um . giri´santa h´aste b´ıbhars.y a´ stave | ´ s´ iva¯ m . krn.u ma´¯ him . giritra ta´¯ m ´ . a¯ n m´ama k . s¯ıt purus ˚ The arrow, O Mountain-Dweller, that you carry in your hand to shoot — make that benign, O Mountain-Protector. Let it not harm my men. W omits p¯adas ab. giri´santa] ABIGKMOQTVZ; gir´ıs´ anta E; giri´sa´ m . tam. C; giri´sam . tam . DFHJLNPR(giri- s.am . tam. )U; giri´sante XY b´ıbhars.y] AB; bibhars.y CDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRTUVXYZ giritra ta´¯ m . ] ABCDFGHJLMNOPQRTVW(girim . nna t¯a)Z; gir´ıtra ta´¯ m . E; giritra tam. Y; giritrit¯am . IKX; giritra t¯an U krn.u] ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS pc U ac ˚ ◦ V(krn.a)WYZ; kuru S TX him . s¯ıt] ABDE(h´ım . )FHJLMNOPQRSTUWXY; him . s¯ıh. ˚ CG(rhis¯ıh.)I(him . s¯ı(+h.))KVZ ´ Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.1–2; KS 17.11:5–6 = TS 4.5.1.1–2(d) = VS 16.3 = SvU 3.6. a. There is no PS manuscript support for ´ıs.um . . B HATTACHARYA hesitantly prints is.am . ; L OPEZ emends to *is.um . on the basis of a NU edition. The NU manu- scripts unanimously support is.um .. c. giritra, which is read by N¯ar¯ayan.a and glossed giriraks.aka, is a vocative found elsewhere. Though it might possibly have originated as a misreading of giri´sa, it appears to belong to the archetype of the NU. giritra is found in paral- lels in the KS, TS, VS, and SvU, ´ with only the MS showing giri´sa. Despite noting the parallel texts, L OPEZ (2000: 269, 319) combines this word with the follow- ing t¯am . and emends, on the basis of a single corrupt reading from an Orissa manuscript (M¯a1c : giri´srrtam . [perhaps misreported; should be giri´srt¯am . ?]), to ˚ ˚ giri´srit¯am. : ‘make that mountain-leaning (arrow) friendly’. However the com- pound giri´srita is not attested elsewhere, and does not make sense describing an arrow. It is perhaps noteworthy that the NU and the PS read krn.u instead of the ‘younger’ form kuru,52 which is found in all of the Yajurveda˚versions. d. Although the PS and all Yajurveda parallels read him . s¯ıh., I have accepted him. s¯ıt here for two reasons. First, him . s¯ıt represents a shift of subject (with the new subject not explicitly stated): it is thus the lectio difficilior. Secondly, accord- ing to my tentative stemma, those manuscripts which read him . s¯ıh. (CGIKVZ) descend from a version that may have been influenced in this place by the read- ´ ing of the widely known Satarudriya. The Yajurveda versions have purus ´ . am . j´agat instead of purus ´ . a¯ n m´ama. 52 Only three NU manuscripts show kuru.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 105 1.6 ≈ PS 14.3.6 s´ iv´ena v´acas¯a tv¯a g´ıri´sa´¯ ch¯a vad¯amasi | y´ath¯a nah. s´arvam ´ıj j´agad ayaks.m´am . sum´an¯a a´ sat k With a benign word we invite you, O Mountain-Dweller, so that the whole world shall be disease-free, and [Rudra] favorable to us. g´ıri´sa´¯ ch¯a] ABCDFHIJKLMNOPQRSUV(girich¯a)WXYZ; giri´sa´¯ ch¯a E; giri´sam . nam . G ◦ vad¯amasi] ABDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY(v¯a )Z; v´ad¯amasi C; hastesmi G s´arvam ´ıj] CFGHac IKLMOPQTUVWZ; s´arvam ´ıd´am . DE; s´arva ´ıj AB; sarva pc ij JNR; sarva imej H SX (ime)Y j´agad] ABCΣ; jag´ad DE ayaks.m´am .] ACGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ; a´ yaks.mam . DE; ayaks . my´ a m . B; ayaks . my´ a m. F ´ sum´an¯a] AB; suman¯ a C; suman¯a DEΣ a´ sat] ABC; asat DEΣ Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.3–4; KS 17.11:254.7–8 = TS 4.5.1.2(e) = VS 16.4. cd. As with the previous stanza, the MS here stands apart from its peers: y´ath¯a nah. s´arv¯a ´ıj j´anah. sam . gam´e sum´an¯a a´ sat ‘so that every person shall be well- disposed toward us when we meet’. All other parallels agree with the NU/PS here. It is interesting to note that those manuscripts giving the hybrid reading s´arva ´ıj j´agad appear to reflect a familiarity with a version of this p¯ada that has the MS’s wording, but without the MS’s distinctive vowel sandhi (a → a¯ before an accented word-initial vowel). The manuscripts uniformly give the masculine form sum´an¯a[h.] (which could refer to Rudra) in place of the PS neuter form sum´ano, which can be understood as attribute to j´agat. yaks.ma, though denoting a wasting illness such as tubercu- losis in particular, probably means disease in general in this form compounded with alpha privative, ayaks.m´am . . One comes away with the impression that the MS has the most natural construction, with the other Yajurveda versions intro- ducing changes that make the line clumsy, a clumsiness that the PS removes by completing the transition from masculine to neuter subject. On this basis, the difficult reading sum´an¯a may be more original in the PS than the reading sumano actually attested in its mss. 1.7 = PS 14.3.7 ya´¯ ta ´ıs.uh. s´ iv´atam¯a s´ iv´am ´¯ te dh´anuh. | . babhuva s´ iva´¯ s´ aravya`¯ ya´¯ t´ava t´ay¯a no mrd.a j¯ıv´ase k ˚ That arrow of yours is most benign; your bow has become benign. Benign is that shot of yours. Show us kindness with it, for the sake of life. ´ıs.uh.] ABC; is.uh. DEΣ ´¯ babhuva] ¯ a DE ABCΣ; babhuv´ s´ aravya`¯ ] ABCDEF(´sara- vya`¯ 1)GHIJ(´saravy¯a1 → s´ aravy¯a3)KLMN(´saravy¯a3) PRSTUVW(´saray¯a)XYZ; s´ aravy¯an OQ ya´¯ ] BCDE; y¯a AΣ t´ava] DE; tava ABCFGHJLMOPQRSTUVWXYZ; tay¯a N; om. IK 106 TIMOTHY LUBIN Parallels: = KS 17.11:255.7–8; TS 4.5.1.1(b). c. Four otherwise unaccented manuscripts insert the numeral 1 or 3 to mark the independent svarita in the word s´aravya`¯ : F(1, the only such instance in this ms.) J(1 → 3) N(3) T(3, cancelled). d. TS reads: t´ay¯a no rudra mrd.aya. ˚ 1.8 = PS 14.3.8 ya´¯ te rudra s´ iva´¯ tanur´¯ a´ ghora´¯ p¯apak¯as´ in¯ı | ` t´ay¯a nas tanva¯ s´ a´ m. tamay¯a g´ıri´sant¯abh´ı c¯aka´sa k That benign form of yours, O Rudra, which is not frightful, not evil-looking — with that most benevolent form, O Mountain-Dweller, look at us. a´ ghora´¯ p¯apak¯as´ in¯ı] ABCΣ; a´ ghora´¯ p¯apak¯as´´ın¯ı DE g´ıri´sant¯abh´ı] J(◦ t¯at¯abhi)OQRT UV; gir´ıs´ a´ nt¯abh´ı E; g´ıri´sam . tv¯abh´ı ABFGHIKLMNPSWXYZ; giri´sa´ m . tv¯abh´ı CD c¯aka´sa] em.; c¯aka´sat ABCDEF(v¯a )GHIJ(v¯a )KLM NOPQRS( s´ {¯ıhi}t)UV(◦ s´¯ıat)WXY; ◦ ◦ pc ◦ c¯aka´savat Z; c¯aka´s?¯ıhi? Mac ; c¯aka´sam → c¯aka´s¯ım T Parallels: MS 2.9.2:120.18–19; KS 17.11:254.3–4; TS 4.5.1.1(c); VS 16.2; SvU ´ 3.5. c. Four otherwise unaccented manuscripts insert the numeral 1 or 3 to mark the independent svarita in the word tanva`¯ : J(1 → 3) N(1 → 3) R(3) T(3, can- celled). d. The last word of the stanza, a form of the intensive stem c¯aka´s, is problem- atic. The almost unanimously attested NU reading, c¯aka´sat, may be the widely attested participial form; if it were interpreted as a third-person singular sub- junctive, it might have arisen from mistaking the nominative string in p¯adas ab as the subject, to yield a syntactically disjunct sentence: ‘That benign form of yours, O Rudra, which is not frightful, not evil-looking — with that most benevolent form — O Mountain-Dweller, it (your benign form) shall shine upon us’. Alternatively, N¯ar¯ayan.a explains: ‘[It is] the prayer, “He shall manifest [that form] exceedingly” (ati´sayena prak¯as´ayatv iti pr¯arthan¯a)’. L OPEZ emends to c¯aka´sah., a second-person form, stating: “Though not attested, the manuscripts converge on this form with little variation” (p. 214). Given that the Kashmir manuscript reads c¯akas.a¯ and the Orissa manuscripts he used all read c¯akas.a, this convergence remains elusive, although it is true that visarga is easily lost. How- ever, B HATTACHARYA prints c¯aka´sa, which can be understood as an imperative form based on a thematized stem c¯aka´sa-. The Yajurveda-based variant c¯aka´s¯ıhi, a proper intensive imperative, seems to confirm this choice. *N may well have read c¯aka´sat; this form may have been introduced by a scribe who did not rec- ognize the nonce form c¯aka´sa and presumed that a final letter had been omitted. On this basis, the emended form is accepted here. The hypermetric form c¯aka´s¯ıhi found in all Yajurveda versions might even have been introduced as a normal- ization, giving a more common form while preserving the sense.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 107 1.9 = PS 14.3.9 as´au y´as t¯amro´ arun.a´ ut´a babhrur ´ vilohit´ah. | y´e cem´e abh´ıto rudra´¯ diks.u´ s´ rita´¯ h. sahasra´so´ . h´ed.a ¯ımahe k 1 k ’vais.a¯ m That coppery one, the ruddy, the brown, and the red one, and these Rudras all about, lying in [all] directions by the thousands — we appease their wrath. as´au] ABCΣ; a´ sau DE ´ ABC; t¯amro DEΣ t¯amro] arun.a´ ] ABCΣ; a´ run.a´ DE ut´a] ABDEΣ(uta uta X); uta ´ C vilohit´ah.] ABCFGHJLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ; v´ılohit´ah. DE; vilohitam . IK cem´e] ABC; ceme DEΣ abh´ıto rudra´¯ ] ABCDEF GIJKLMOPQRS pc TUVWYZ; abhito rudro HNSac X; rudr¯a abhito Y ´ diks.u] B(diks.uh ´ . )CDE; diks.u AΣ(ciks.u X) s´ rita´¯ h.] ABCDEFGHIKMOPTUVWXYZ; s´ rt¯ah. ˚ JLNR; s´ rut¯ah. QS(sru◦ ) sahasra´so]´ BC; sah´asra´so A; sahasra´so DEΣ(sahasro Z) . h´ed.a] ABCΣ(· · · d.a Z); vais.a´¯ m ’vais.a¯ m . hed.a DE(? svarita mark omitted) ¯ımahe] ABCDEFGIJKLMNOPQRTUVWZ; ¯ınmahe HS(◦ ye → ◦ he); inmahe Y; inmame X Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.8–10 = KS 17.11:254.11–12; TS 4.5.1.2–3(g); VS 16.6. ´ bc. Variants in the Satarudriya: ut´a babhruh ˙ alah. (KS, MS, TS); y´e cema´¯ m ´ . sumang´ ˙˘ ˙˘ (VS). (TS), y´e cainam 2.10 = PS 14.3.10 a´ drs´ an tv¯avarohantam ´ . n´¯ılagr¯ıvam. vilohit´am | ˚ ´ ut´a tv¯a gopa¯ adrs´ ann ut´a tvodah¯ary`ah. | uto´ tv¯a v´ıs´ v¯a bh˚ut ¯ a´¯ ni t´asmai drs.t.a´¯ ya te n´amah. k ˚ They have seen you descending, blue-necked, red: both the herdsmen have seen you, and the women fetching water [have seen] you, and all beings [have seen] you: Homage to you who are seen! H inserts p¯adas cd interlinearly; D and E duplicate 9ab (E omitting the word arun.a´ ) at the head of this stanza, and insert the stanza number 10 after 2.10ab. a´ drs´ an] em.; a´ drs´ am ◦ . DEJNSUXY( s´ a¯ m . ); a´ drs´ yam . ABCFHIKLMOPQRTVWZ; om . ˚ ˚ ◦ ˚ ´ ´ adrs´ yam . G tv¯a ] ABCΣ; u tv¯ a E; ´ s u tv¯a D n¯ı lagr¯ı vam. ] ABCΣ; n¯ ı lagr¯ı vam . ˚ DE vilohit´am . ] ACΣ; viloh´ıtam . B; v´ılohit´am . DE ut´a tv¯a] ABCDΣ; up´a tv¯a E adrs´ ann] CGHIJKM NSTUXYZ; adrs´ a´ m . n DE; adrs´ yann BFLOPQRVW; a´ drs´ yann A ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ ut´a tvo ] ABFGHIJKL NOPQRSTUVWXYZ; uta tvo` ◦ C; uta ◦ ´ tvo◦ DE; adrs´ ann u◦ M ◦ dah¯ ˚ ary`ah.] ABCΣ; ◦ d´ah¯ary`ah. DE uto´ tv¯a] ABCFGIJKLNOPQRSTUVWYZ; uta tvo X; ut´a tv¯a DEHM drs.t.a´¯ ya] ABCFGHIJKLMNOPQRUVWZ; dras.t.a´¯ ya DEST ˚ Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.11–13 = KS 17.11:254.13–15; TS 4.5.1.3(h); VS 16.7. a. a´ drs´am. could hardly be a first-person singular aorist form, and B HATTA - ˚ CHARYA therefore prints adrs´am . ; L OPEZ emends to adar´sam . (with gun.a). The ˚ variant adrs´yam . , which is also N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading, likely results from persever- ˚ ation from the parallel form apa´syam . in 1.1a, a p¯ada which is otherwise identical. 108 TIMOTHY LUBIN The same may be true of the om . added here in G (though this may simply be meant to indicate the start of a new chapter). I have preferred the smallest emendation necessary to give a good form, reading m . as n, and reading adrs´an, a third-person plural aorist form. This has the virtue of agreeing with the˚ same form in p¯ada c, and with all the other plural subjects in the stanza. Moreover, in Devan¯agar¯ı manuscripts, anusv¯ara before dentals is almost as a norm treated as an acceptable equivalent of n. It is a distinctive feature of the Paippal¯ada tradition that word-final n + t frequently does not result in m 53 . st as required by P¯an.inian sandhi. This reading must also be restored in PS 14.3.10. bcdef. A parallel for the rest of this stanza is found in the Satarudriya: ´ as´au ´ y`o ’vas´arpati n¯ılagr¯ıvo v´ılohitah. | ut´ainam ´ . gopa¯ adrs´ann ut´ainam [TS, VS: a´ drs´ann] ´ ˚ ˚ udah¯ary`ah. | ut´ainam. v´ ı s ´ v¯ a bh ut ¯ a ¯ ni s´ a dr . .to´ mrd.ay¯ati nah. k (the VS omitting p¯ada s ˚ e). The redactor of the NU/PS version has ˚deliberately changed the first p¯ada of the stanza to recall the opening words of the Atharvan hymn. 2.11 = PS 14.4.1 n´amo ’stu n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya sahasr¯aks.a´¯ ya v¯aj´ıne | a´ tho y´e asya s´atv¯anas t´ebhyo ’h´am akaram . n´amah. k Homage be to the Blue-Crested One, the Thousand-Eyed, the impetuous. And I have done homage to those who are his warriors. asya] ABCΣ; asy´a DE s´atv¯anas] BCFGH(satv¯a(+na)s)IJKLMNOOQRSTUVWXYZ; s´atva´¯ nas A; s´atv¯anam´as DEP ’h´am] ABC; ham DEΣ Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.14–15; KS 17.11:254.16–17; TS 4.5.1.3(i); VS 16.8. ab. Variants for n¯´ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya: n´¯ılakapard¯aya (MS); n´¯ılagr¯ıv¯aya (KS, TS, VS). For v¯aj´ıne: m¯ıd.hus ´ . e (MS, KS, TS, VS). ´ d. The Satarudriya reads: ’h´am . [MS: id´am . ] t´ebhyo ’karam . n´amah.. 2.12 = PS 14.4.2 n´am¯am. si ta a´¯ yudh¯aya´¯ n¯atat¯aya dhrs.n.a´ ve | ´ ubha¯ bhy¯am akaram ´ ˚ am . n´amo b¯ahubhy¯ . t´ava dh´anvane k Homages to your bold weapon, which is unstrung! I have done homage to both (your) arms, to your bow. 53 Even in other Vedic texts, the insertion of s is not consistently applied in this context; see AiGr I: §280 and W HITNEY 1905: cxxiv–cxxv; also 1862: 417 [rep. p. 87], cited by G RIFFITHS 2004: lvii.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 109 n´am¯am . si ta] ABCΣ; n´amo si t´a DE a´¯ yudh¯aya´¯ n¯atat¯aya] ABCFGHIJKLMOPQR ´ STUVWXY; a¯ yudh¯ay¯an¯at´at¯aya DE; a¯ yudh¯an¯am . tat¯aya Z; a´¯ yudh¯ay¯acat¯aya N dhrs.- ˚ n.a´ ve] ABCΣ; dh´rs.n.ave DE akaram . ] ACDEFGH pc IJKLNOPQRSTUVWXY; ak´a · ˚ → ak´aram ac . B; uta te H M Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.16–17 = VS 16.14; KS 17.11:254.16–17; TS 4.5.1.4(o). a. Yajurveda variants: n´amas ta (MS, VS); n´amas te astv (TS). c. For akaram ´ . the Satarudriya reads ut´a te. 2.13 = PS 14.4.3 pr´a munca ˜ dh´anvanas p´ary ubh´ayor a´¯ rtnyor jya´¯ m | ya¯ s´ ca te h´asta ´ıs.avah. p´ar¯a ta´¯ bhagavo vapa k ´ Unfasten the string from both ends of (your) bow, and lay aside, O Lord, the arrows that are in your hand. G omits ta´¯ bhagavo vapa (and the entire following stanza, ending in bhara) through eye- skip. ˜ pr´a munca] ABCFGHIJLMNOPQRTUVWXYZ; pra munc´ ˜ a DE; pramuncya ˜ K dh´anvanas p´ary] F(dhanvanaspary → dhanvanas ·· )JPT UV; dh´anvanasyury pc ´ ABC Tac Z; dhanvanasyurth G; dhanvanasyur IKL pc OQW; dhanvanasyam NR; dh´anvanas tvam DEHac MXY; dhanvane(+na)sya?m? S; dhanvanos tayor H pc ; dhanvanas · Lac ubh´ayor a´¯ rtnyor jya´¯ m] em.; ubhayor a¯ tnyor jy¯am pc . FM ; ubhayor a¯ tnyor jyam . XY; u- ˜ bhayor¯arjnyor jy¯am. O(¯arjn¯ ´ ˜ ar)P; ubh´ayo ra¯ jnor ´ ˜ jya¯ m ´ . ABC(ubhayo) ac DEGH LZ; ubha- ˜ yo r¯ajnor y¯am . JNRS(urbhayo raj ˜ ner)T(r¯ a j ˜ no{r})U V(saj ˜ nory¯ a ); ubhayo ˜ jy¯am r¯ajno . IKW; ubhayo r¯ajno ˜ y(+¯a)h. Q; ubhayo r¯a · or jy¯am ac . M ; ubhayo r¯ajn?ey¯ ˜ am . ?rjy¯a H pc h´asta] ABCΣ; hast´a DE p´ar¯a] BDEΣ; par¯a AC ta´¯ bhagavo vapa] ABCFHIJKLMNOPQRSUV(t¯a {is.avo}bhaga vapa)WXYZ; t¯a bh´agavo v´apah. DET Parallels: MS 2.9.2:121.18–19 = KS.17.11:254.18–19 = TS 4.5.1.3–4(k) = VS 16.9. a. Several of the corrupt readings for dhanvanas pary arose through antici- pation of the vowel u and confusion of p and y in conjuntion with s: ◦ .~å.pa;yRua◦ > ◦ .~å.pua;yRua◦ or ◦ .~yua;yRua◦ . Several other manuscripts, including the N¯ılarudrasukta ¯ collec- tions from Nepal, give the Yajurveda reading tv´am in place of p´ari. b. All PS manuscripts read a¯ tnyor,54 which B HATTACHARYA hesitantly ac- cepts. L OPEZ adopts a´¯ rtni yor on the strength of the NU. This (¯artniyor) is the reading of the Adyar edition (K UNHAN R AJA 1933), which it has adopted from the TS parallel; L OPEZ refers to a reprint of this (S HASTRI 1970). This correct, original form a´¯ rtnyor has left traces in the extant readings: FM pc show the cor- rect consonantal conjunct tny, while OP preserve the immediately preceding r. Considered together, these readings may indeed point to an original conjunct rtny. Alternatively, the appearance of this r in FM pc may have been influenced by the following conjunct rjy. 54 L OPEZ (2000: 237) mistakenly reports the Kashmir reading as a´¯ lnyor. 110 TIMOTHY LUBIN d. L OPEZ adopts the Orissa reading vapah. (a variant found also in the Nepalese N¯ılarudrasuktas ¯ and in T), despite the poor sense it yields. However, B HATTACHARYA is right to accept the Kashmir text’s vapa. 2.14 ≈ PS 14.4.4 (d = 3.10.5d) avat´atya dh´anus tv´am . s´ahasr¯aks.a s´ a´ tes.udhe | ni´s´¯ırya s´ alya´¯ n¯am . m ´ ukh¯ a s´ ivo´ nah. s´ ambhur ´ a´¯ bhava k Having unstrung (your) bow, O Thousand-Eyed, O Hundred-Quivered, (and) having cut off the tips of (your) arrows, be benign and benevolent toward us. G omits this stanza through eyeskip (see apparatus under 2.13). Almost every word of this stanza is incorrectly accented in D and E, which however are unanimous in every case. avat´atya] ABDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ; a´ vat´atya C s´ahasr¯aks.a] BF; sa- hasr¯aks.a ACHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ(◦ ks.am . ); sahasr¯ a ks. ´ a DE s´ a´ tes.udhe] H IJKL MNOQ RTUVYZ; s´ at´es.udhe DE; s´ ates.udh¯ı H X; s´ a´ tes.u te ABCFHac pc pc pc Lac PS(´sato◦ )W ni´s´¯ırya] FH (n¯ıs´ aryya → ni´saryya)LO(ni´s¯ıyam . )PQRVWXZ; n´ıs´¯ırya D E; vi´s´¯ırya ABCIJKMNSTUY s´ ambhur ´ a´¯ ] AFHIJKLMNOPQRTUVXYZ; s´ a´ mbhur a´¯ CD(´sam◦ )E(´sam◦ ); (+´sam . )bhu{ks . ya}r a`¯ B; s´ am . bhuv¯a W bhava] ABCIJK L OPQRSTUVXY; bhavat Z; bhara DEFL MNW; bhura → bhuva H pc ac Parallels: MS 2.9.2:122.1–2; KS 17.11:255.5–6; TS 4.5.1.4(l); VS 16.13. b. Like several of the NU manuscripts (though not those in S¯ ´ arad¯a script, X and Y), the Kashmir PS manuscript also reads s´ates.ute. ´ c. In the Satarudriya we find the variants pra´s´¯ırya (MS), mukham ´ . (KS, MS). ´ ´ ´ d. The PS reads a¯ cara instead of a¯ bhava (or a¯ bhara). The Satarudriya has: s´iv´o nah. sum´an¯a bhava [MS: na edhi sum´an¯a]. The NU reading as it stands appears to ´ be a conflation of the PS reading with that of the Satarudriya. 2.15 = PS 14.4.5 v´ıjyam . dh´anuh. s´ ikhan.d.´ıno v´ıs´ alyo ba´¯ n.av¯am ˘˙ ut´a | ˙ atih. k a´ ne´sann asy´es.avah. s´ ivo´ asya nis.ang´ Stringless (is) the bow of the Crested One, and tipless (his) shaft; his arrows have disappeared; his quiver (is) benign. s´ ikhan.d.´ıno v´ıs´ alyo ba´¯ n.av¯am ˘˙ ut´a] ABCΣ; s´´ıkhan.d.ino vi´salyo´ va´¯ n.ava´¯ n uta DE a´ ne´sann] ABCD(´ane´sa´ m ◦ ◦ pc . n) GLMOQRV( s´ am . n)Z( s´ am . n); anne´sann FHJNPST (◦ s´ am ◦ . n)U( s´ am . n); annen IK; an¯ıs´ ann XY; a´ nen´as´ a´ nn E; anye´sam .nW asy´es.avah.] ABCDEFGHJLMNOPQSTU VWXYZ; asya s´ es.avah. IK; a´ses.ava R s´ ivo´ asya] ABCΣ; s´ ivo a´ sya DE ˙ atih.] ABΣ; nis.am nis.ang´ . gat´ıh. C; ?v´ı?s.am . gatih. DE Parallels: MS 2.9.2:122.3–4; KS 17.11:254.20–21; TS 4.5.1.4(m); VS 16.10.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 111 ´ a. The Satarudriya reads kapard´ınah. instead of s´ikhan.d.´ınah.. b. v´ıs´alyo ba´¯ n.av¯an could also mean ‘arrowless (his) quiver’, which is how N¯ar¯ayan.a understands it; he also reads astu instead of ut´a. c. B HATTACHARYA and L OPEZ both print + ane´sann. This reading is well- attested in the NU manuscripts. Note the exceptional divergence of D and E here. For asy´es.avah., MS and VS read asya ya´¯ ´ıs.ava[h.]. ´ d. The Satarudriya ´¯ (or a¯ bhur has a¯ bhur ´ [TS, VS]) instead of s´iv´o. For nis.ang´ ˙ ati, compare nis.ang´˙ athi (MS, KS, TS) and nis.angadh´ ˙ ı ‘sheath’ (m.) (VS), and nis.ang´ ˙ ın ‘one with a sheath’ (SS). ´ 2.16 = PS 14.4.6 p´ari te dh´anvano het´ır asma´¯ n vrn.aktu vi´sv´atah. | a´ tho y´a is.udh´ıs t´av¯ar´e asm´an n´ı˚ dhehi t´am k Let the missile of your bow avoid us on every side. And put this quiver of yours far away from us. Y omits p¯adas bcd by eyeskip (from hetir in this stanza to the same word in the first p¯ada of the next stanza). p´ari te] ABCD(t´e)E(t´e)FGHIJLMNOPQRSTUVW(par¯ıte)XYZ; parito K is.udh´ıs t´av¯ar´e] ABCΣ; ´ıs.udhis tav¯ar´e DE asm´an] JQRSUZ(asmav¯are asman); asm´ın ACFGHIKLMNOP TVWX; a´ smin DE; y´asmin B Parallels: = KS 17.11:255.1–2 = TS 4.5.1.4(p) = VS 16.12; MS 2.9.2:122.3–4. b. B HATTACHARYA emends to vrn.aktu, while L OPEZ adopts this reading ˚ from the NU edition he used. This form is unanimously supported by the NU manuscripts. cd. N¯ar¯ayan.a, reading asmin, takes t´am to refer back to het´ır; accepting this reading would require emending to ta´¯ m. (Although heti is sometimes mascu- line in later Sanskrit, it is feminine in the Veda, as in the next stanza.) All manuscripts of the PS also support this reading as well. To make sense of this, asm´ın must be correlated with y´a is.udh´ıs t´ava, yielding an awkward construc- tion: ‘And put that [arrow] in this, [which is] your quiver, far away’. It is much preferable to accept the readings of NU manuscripts JQRSUZ (even though these may in some cases be corrections of the written tradition, whether based on oral tradition of the PS or contamination from the Yajurveda oral tradition). The MS, which also reads asm´ın in VON S CHROEDER’s edition, should likewise ¨ be corrected, in accord with Buhler’s manuscript cited therein. The error can be explained as a case either of the writer expecting a locative next to n´ı dhehi, or of anticipation of the i of n´ı. 112 TIMOTHY LUBIN 2.17 = PS 14.4.7 ´¯ te dh´anuh. | ya´¯ te het´ır m¯ıd.hus.t.ama h´aste babhuva t´ay¯a tv´am. vi´sv´ato asma´¯ n ayaks.m´ay¯a p´ari bhuja k (With) that missile of yours, O Most Bountiful One — your bow is in (your) hand! — with that, which is free of disease, embrace us on every side! Y omits y¯a te hetir by eyeskip (see 2.16). ya´¯ ] ABDEGHIJKLNOQRSUVWXZ; ya´¯ s CF(→ y¯at)Hac MP; yo T m¯ıd.hus.t.ama] ◦ ◦ BD(m´ı ) HIJKMOPQTUVXYZ; m¯ıdus.t.ama FGLR; m¯ıd.us.t.ama A(mi )S; medus.t.ama CEN; tts.t.ama W ´¯ babhuva] ABC; babhuva¯ DEΣ vi´sv´ato] ACDEΣ(◦ tor S); v´ıs´ vato B ayaks.m´ay¯a] CΣ; a´ yaks.m´ay¯a ABDE(double accent resulting from the loss in transmission of a vertical stroke over the first aks.ara?) Parallels: MS 2.9.2:122.7–8; KS 17.11:254.22–23; TS 4.5.1.4(n) = VS 16.11. a. The NU manuscripts provide ample testimony for the form m¯ıd.hus..tama, which is not transmitted in the PS tradition (Orissa mss.: mitus..tama; Kashmir ms.: madhus..thama). Since L OPEZ records the NU reading as m¯ıd.hus.t¯ama (two misprints?), it is not clear whether he emends to m¯ıd.hus..tama or adopts it from the NU. B HATTACHARYA prints mid.hus..tama. b. MS has s´iv´am ´¯ . babhuva; cf. 1.7b above. cd. t´ay¯a . . . ayaks.m´ay¯a, i.e., ‘with that [missile] which confers freedom from ´ disease’. The Satarudriya reads t´ay¯asma´¯ n vi´sv´atas tv´am in p¯ada c (and KS has ayaks.m´en.a in d). 2.18 = PS 19.22.1 n´amo ’stu sarp´ebhyo y´e k´e ca prthiv´¯ım a´ nu | ˚ y´e ant´ariks.e y´e div´ı t´ebhyah. sarp´ebhyo n´amah. k Homage be to the serpents, whichever ones [move] along the ground, those in the midspace, [and] those in the sky: to those serpents, homage! G omits p¯ada d (and p¯ada a of 2.19) due to eyeskip. y´e div´ı] ABCFGHIJKMNOQRSTUVWXZ; div´ı D(d´ıvi)E; ye devi LPY ¯ Parallels: = MS 2.7.15:97.1–2 = TS 4.2.8.3(g) = VS 13.6 = ApMP 2.17.5 = RVKh 2.14.10; ˚ KS 16.15:238.12–13. b. KS reads prthivya´¯ m a´ dhi. See my introduction (p. 83) on stanzas 2.18–20. ˚ 2.19 = PS 19.22.2 y´e c¯am´¯ı rocan´e divo´ y´e ca suryasya ´¯ ra´sm´ıs.u | y´es.a¯ m apsu´ s´adas krt´am. t´ebhyah. sarp´ebhyo n´amah. k ˚  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 113 And those in the bright vault of the sky, and those in the rays of the sun, those whose seat is made in the water: to those serpents, homage! G omits p¯ada a (along with p¯ada d of 2.18) due to eyeskip; T inserts this stanza marginally. c¯am´¯ı] D(c¯am¯ı)E(c¯am¯ı)FHIJKLac (→ s.a¯ m¯ı)MNOPQRSUWXY; v¯am´¯ı ABCT(◦ mi)VZ rocan´e] BCDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWZ; rocane ´ A; rocano Y; rocate X ´ divo] ABCFJPW; div´ı DEHIKLMNOQRSUVXYZ; sma T ¯ Parallels: MS 2.7.15:97.5–6; KS 16.15:238.16–17; TS 4.2.8.3(h) = ApMP 2.17.6 = RVKh ˚ 2.14.92 ; VS 13.8. a. MS reads: y´e am¯´ı; KS: y´e v¯ad´o; TS, RVKh: y`e ’d´o; VS: y´e v¯am´¯ı. ´¯ ˚ b. MS, KS, TS, RVKh read: y´e v¯a suryasya. ˚ ˙˘ cakrir´e (phonetic differences aside). c. MS, KS read: y´e apsu´ s´ad¯amsi 2.20 ≈ PS 19.22.3 ya´¯ ´ıs.avo y¯atudha´¯ n¯an¯am . y´e v¯a v´anasp´at¯ın¯am | y´e v¯avat.e´ s.u s´ e´ rate t´ebhyah. sarp´ebhyo n´amah. k 2 k To those that are the arrows of the sorcerers, or to those of the trees, or to those which lie in holes in the ground, to those serpents, homage! ya´¯ ] ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW; ya XYZ y¯atudha´¯ n¯an¯am . ] BCDEΣ; ya´¯ tu- dha´¯ n¯an¯am . A y´e v¯a] ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWZ; ye Y; yo v¯a X y´e v¯ava.tes.u] ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ; yo v¯apavat.es.u X ¯ Parallels: MS 2.7.15:97.3–4; KS 16.15:238.14–15; TS 4.2.8.3(i) = VS 13.7 = ApMP 2.17.7. a. MS begins with y´a; KS reads: y´es.u v¯a y¯atudha´¯ n¯a. b. MS: ya´¯ v´anasp´at¯ın¯am; KS, TS, VS: y´e v¯a v´anasp´at¯ımr ˙˘ a´ nu. All manuscripts of the PS show the same reading as Y, but Arlo Griffiths’ provisional edition of this stanza emends to include v¯a. The NU evidence provides almost unanimous support for this emendation to PS 19.22.3b. c. Although it appears to belong to the archetype of the NU, the reading ye v¯avat´es.u instead of y´e [a]vat´es.u (PS, MS, KS) may be a borrowing from the TS (= ¯ VS, ApMP), which moreover offers the closest parallel to this group of stanzas, and is alone in having them in the same order as in the PS and the NU. 3.21 = PS 8.7.9 y´ah. svaja´¯ n¯am . n´¯ılagr¯ıvo y´ah. svaja´¯ n¯am . h´arir ut´a | kalma´¯ s.apucham os.adhe jambh´ay¯asy arundhati k The blue-necked of the vipers, and the green one of the vipers, [and] the spotted-tailed, O plant, you shall devour [them], O Arundhat¯ı. 114 TIMOTHY LUBIN (a) svaja´¯ n¯am . ] Z; svaj´an¯am . ABC(svaj´an¯an)DFI(svajan¯a(+m . ))KNPRSTUXY; sva- j´an¯an EGHM OQVW(stva ); svajan¯an¯am◦ (b) svaja´¯ n¯am . JL . ] Z; svaj´an¯am . AB CDEFGJ( n¯am)NO(◦ ˘˙ ◦ ˘˙ n¯am) ◦ ˘˙ PQ( nam)RST( ◦ ˘˙ n¯am)U( ◦ ˘˙ n¯am)VW(stva ◦ )XY; sva- jan¯an HIKM; svajan¯an¯am . L h´arir ut´a] ABC(h´ırir)G(ah¯arir)IKLZ; har¯ır uta FJNOPQRTUVW; h´ar¯ırutah. DE; harer uta SXY; hari{·}tam . M; harita → harer uta H ◦ kalma´¯ s.apucham] BDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUW( putsam) XYZ; kalma´¯ s.apuch´am AC; kalp¯as.apuchan G os.adhe] BCFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX Y; os ´ . adhe ADE; os.adh¯ı Z jambh´ay¯asy arundhati] em.; jam . bh´ a y¯ a ´ s carum . dhati ABCFG(◦ ru- dhati)H(◦ rum . dhat¯ı)IJKLNOPQSTUVWX( rudhati)YZ; ◦ jam. bh´aya´¯ s´ carundhati ´ ◦ D(jambhy´aya¯ ) E; jam . bhayasv¯as´ urum . dhati M; jabhay¯aradhati R ab. Only a single manuscript (Z) retains the correct form svaja¯´ n¯am . , instead of svaj´an¯am . or other attested readings. In both instances of the word, N¯ar¯ayan.a understands it as a masculine plural (svajan¯an), glossing with bhakt¯an prati, ‘to- wards (his) devotees’. The original sense is clarified by a comparison with TS 5.5.10.1, which contains a sequence of expiatory mantras directed to the gods that govern, and serpent powers that protect, the cardinal points, and that pro- tect the piled Agni: sam´¯ıc¯ı na´¯ m¯asi pra´¯ c¯ı d´ık | t´asy¯as te ’gn´ır a´ dhipatir asit´o raks.ita´¯ | y´as´ ca´¯ dhipatir y´as´ ca gopta´¯ ta´¯ bhy¯am. n´amas t´au no mrd.ayat¯am | t´e y´am . dvis.m´o y´as´ ca no ˚ dv´es..ti t´am . j´ambhe dadh¯ami | ‘You are the eastern direction, Aligned by name; . v¯am your governing lord [is] Agni, the black snake [is your] protector. Homage to them both, the governing lord and the protector! Let them two show us kind- ness! I place him whom we hate and who hates us in your jaws’. In the suc- ceeding series of vikrtis, the word asit´a (black snake) is changed to the names ˚ of various other snakes, p´rd¯aku (Russell’s viper),55 svaj´a (python?), t´ıra´scir¯aji (banded krait), s´vitr´a (white˚ snake?), kalma´¯ s.agr¯ıva (spotted-necked snake) (corre- lated with governing lords [´adhipati] Indra, Soma, Varun.a, Brhaspati, and Yama, respectively). This passage seems to be an adaptation of SS ´ ˚3.27, which has bet- ter readings.56 The Kau´sS 14.25 refers to two stanzas (rcau) which it calls digyukte; D¯arila identifies these as the first stanzas of SS ´ 3.26 ˚and 3.27. These hymns are together given the title ‘Rudragan.a’ in AVPari´s 32.16;57 in 32.17 they are also included in the ‘Raudragan.a’, a larger grouping. 55 For the specific identifications noted here, see L UBOTSKY 2004. I have retained the transla- tion ‘viper’ for svaj´a because a harmful snake seems to be meant. ´ agrees better with the preceding first-person plurals 56 For instance, plural dadhmah in the SS . than TS dad¯ami. The pronoun t´e in the TS phrasing of the formula ‘whom we hate and who hates us’ (occurring thus also in numerous places in the MS and KS) is dismissed by K EITH (1914: 342) as “hardly more than an anacoluthon”. But I take this as a case of ‘sa-fig´e’, despite its not conforming to the older, Rgvedic pattern of occurring mainly with imperative or subjunctive ˚ verb forms, or as predicate of a first person subject in a copular phrase, a constraint that was greatly relaxed in later Vedic prose (see J AMISON 1992, esp. pp. 235–237). In other words, t´e here anticipates and ‘doubles’ the unexpressed vay´am, perhaps for deictic or emphatic effect. 57 This also explains why they are transmitted together under the name ‘Rudrasukta’ ¯ in the Nepalese manuscripts D and E.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 115 If the similarities noted here were not enough to show a close connection between the Rudragan.a (SS ´ 3.26–27) and the NU, there is also the fact that they are both prescribed by AVPari´s 19b.3.5 for use in the performance of the Brah- may¯aga: hutv¯abhy¯at¯anamantr¯am . s´ ca tato rudragan.ena ca | n¯ılarudrai´s carum . vidv¯an vidhin¯a s´rapayed budhah.. The name Rudra does not appear in this hymn; its title must therefore derive from association with a rite for Agni in his fierce guise as Rudra, as we find it used in the Agnicayana liturgy of the Yajurveda. The affinity between these mantras and NU 3.21 can be seen even in the similarity of wording: svaj´a mentioned alongside kalma´¯ s.apuccha here, alongside kalma´¯ s.agr¯ıva in TS; jambh´ay¯asi here, j´ambhe [dadh¯ami] in TS — despite the nearly opposite implication. d. N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading of p¯ada d as jambhay¯as´v arundhati represents an inter- mediate stage in the corruption of the underlying form .ja;}Ba;ya;a;~ya◦ > .ja;}Ba;ya;a;~va◦ > .ja;}Ba;ya;a:(õ;a◦ > .ja;}Ba;ya;a;(ãÉa◦ . Most manuscripts have the last reading, while one (M) has seemingly retained two versions of the ambiguous aks.ara: .ja;}Ba;ya;~va;a;Zua◦ . It is likely that the archetype had the correct reading. 3.22 ≈ PS 19.5.8 babhru´ ´ . a´s ca n¯ıl¯agalasa´¯ l¯a s´ iv´ah. pa´sya | ´ s ca babhrukarn The brown and the brown-eared, the one (f.) with the bluish ineffectual poison, the benign (m.): Look! G omits this stanza and half of the next, beginning with the second aks.ara of 3.22, up to and including the first syllable of 3.23c. G actually reads: Á Á ba:+.pa;a;[ea;Na va;Brua;Na;a. Hence, the scribe’s eye skipped from | ba to vi, an eyeskip encouraged perhaps by the fact that in both positions, the word babhru occurs shortly afterwards. ´ babhrukarn . a´s] ABCDEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWY; babhruvarn.a´s XZ n¯ıl¯agala- ´ ac ´ ◦ ◦ ◦ sa¯ l¯a] T ; n¯ıl¯agalasa¯ l¯ah. AFIJKL( s´ a¯ )NPR( s¯ah.)U; n¯ıl¯agalasa¯ l¯ah. B; (+n¯ı)l¯agalasa´¯ l¯ah. ´ ´ C; n¯ıl¯agalam¯al¯a(+h.) H; n´¯ıl¯ag´alam¯alah. DE; n¯ılagalam¯alah. S(→ ◦ s¯alah.)Y; n¯ılagajamalah. X; n¯ıl¯agala´s¯ıl¯ah. OQ; n¯ıl¯agagalasyal¯ah. Z; n¯ıl¯agalag?r?¯al¯ah. W; pc n¯ılagr¯ıvam . s´ a¯ l¯a T ; n¯ıl{¯a}agr¯ıva´s ca yah. M; n¯ılas¯al¯a V s´ iv´ah.] ABC; s´ ivah. DEFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ pa´sya] ABCFHIJKLMNOPQRS UVWYZ; pa´sy¯a X; pa · sya → yasya T; pa´sy´eta DE PS 19.5.8: †babhru´s ca babhrukarn.a´s ca n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯as´avah.pa´sya† |58 Cf. SS ´ 6.16.3cd–4: babhru´ ´ . a´s ca´¯ pehi n´ır a¯ la k ´ s ca babhrukarn alasa´¯ l¯asi purv¯ ´¯ a sila´¯ nj¯ a | n¯ıl¯agalasa´¯ l¯a k ˜ al¯asy uttar¯ ´ 58 The Orissa PS readings for p¯ada b are: n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯a | savah.pa´sya k Pa Ji4; n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯a | {tau}´sava´sa´sya k V/122; n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯ah. | savah. pa´sya k JM. The Kashmir ms. reads: n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ s´a- vas.pa´sc¯a. 116 TIMOTHY LUBIN ´ 6.16.3cd–4: “3cd. Both the brown and the brown- ab. Partially parallel is SS eared one: go away, O poisonless one [reading, with the commentator, nir¯ala]. 4. You have an inocuous poison before; you have a mineral-salve [poison?] after; [you have?] a bluish ineffective poison [. . . ?]”. SS ´ 6.16.4 mentions also alasa´¯ l¯a and sila´¯ nj¯ ˜ al¯a, which confirms that the visarga often read at the end of n¯ıl¯agalasa´¯ l¯a is spurious and that the accent is probably correct.59 The visarga added to this word probably anticipates the visarga of the following word, s´ivah. (or s´avah., according to the PS). The variant readings for n¯ıl¯agalas¯al¯a in several of the manuscripts reflect N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading (OQ) or the emendation proposed by him (M) (see the translation of the commentary on this stanza below, p. 132). Reading m for s — easy enough in Devan¯agar¯ı; easier still in S¯ ´ arad¯a — has given rise to the readings of the Kashmiri and Nepalese manuscripts XYDE (W is corrupt here) and H; hence, the reading of the 1872 Bibliotheca Indica edition (followed by the 1891 edition): n¯ılagalam¯alah.. The hypermetric word pa´sya is a source of some uncertainty. The manuscripts of the NU deal with this word by setting it off with a dan.d.a or space on both sides (H pc JL), by including it with the preceding hemistich (ABCDEFKNPRSUY), by including it with the following hemistich (Hac IMOQ T pc X), or by making no division at all (Tac WZ). The three Orissa manuscripts used by Arlo Griffiths to edit this stanza insert a dan.d.a after n¯ıl¯akala´sa¯ l¯a. Many manuscripts (and earlier editions) treat the first hemistich of the next stanza as the continuation of this stanza, thus throwing off the numbering. The sense of the stanzas requires that they be divided as in the PS, so I have corrected the numbering accordingly. 3.23 = PS 20.55.10 s´ a´ rven.a n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.ena bhav´ena marut¯ ´ am. pitra´¯ | v´ırup¯¯ aks.e´ n.a babhrun ´ . a¯ va´¯ cam . vadis.y´ato hat´am k ´ By blue-crested Sarva, by Bhava, by the father of the Maruts, by the brown one, whose eyes are distorted, [the thought] of him who is about to raise his voice is struck down. G omits p¯adas ab and the first aks.ara of p¯ada c (see apparatus under 3.22). s´ a´ rven.a] em.; s´ arven.a Hac MZ; s´arven.a ABCFH pc IJKLNOPQRSTUVWXY; sarv´en.a DE bhav´ena] ABCFHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ; bh´avena DE pitra´¯ ] em.; pita´¯ ABCΣ − G ¯ aks.en.a] em.; v´ırup¯ v´ırup¯ ¯ a´¯ ks.en.a D(? ; a;v!a- ¯ aks.e´ n.a ABCΣ; virup :! +:pa;!a;[ea;Na)E babhrun´ . a¯ ] ABCD EFGIJKNOPQTUVWYZ; babhrun.a¯ m . LX; babhrun ¯ . a¯ m . HSM ◦ vadis.y´ato] vadis.yato ABFG HIJKMNOPQR( tah.)STUVWXY; v´adis.yato´ DE; 59 On the interpretation of the words in this stanza, see H OFFMANN 1956: 9–13 = 1975–76: 390–94; also M AYRHOFER 1992: 126; 1996: 51, 640.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 117 vadis.y´et´e → vadis.yeto C; vidis.yato Z; vy¯adis.yato L hat´am] em.; hat´ah. ABC; hatah. pc ac DEFGHIJ KMN OPQRSTUVWXYZ; hitah. LN ; om. R a. Assuming that the reading s´arven.a is correct, the accentuation of this word in ABC seems not to preserve the ancient pattern: the accent on the antepenult of the first word is correct for s´arven.a but not for s´arv´en.a, the PS reading found also in two of the NU manuscripts. (It is also possible that the accent s´a´ rven.a may anticipate the correct form s´a´ rva at the beginning of 3.24.) Also wrong is the double accenting of v´ırup¯ ¯ aks.e´n.a. ´ b. The reading pita¯ in the manuscripts, obviously an error for PS pitr¯a, cannot be construed, and the NU tradition, as exemplified in N¯ar¯ayan.a’s explanation of it,60 is to treat it as if it did indeed read pitr¯a. d. In PS 20.55.9–10 this stanza is paired with another: yad veda r¯aj¯a varun.o veda devo brhaspatih. | ˚ indro yad vrtrah¯a veda tat satyam . cittamohan.am k ˚ s´arven.a n¯ıla´sikhan.d.ena bhavena marut¯am . pitr¯a | virup¯ ¯ aks.en.a babhrun.a¯ v¯acam vadis yato + hatam k . . The emendation of hat´ah. (found in all PS and NU manuscripts) to hat´am, under- standing the subject to be cittam from the prior stanza, was suggested to me by Alexander Lubotsky. N¯ar¯ayan.a, who reads hatah., attempts to make sense of the stanza as follows: “The construction is: Now, you who are ‘struck down’ (hatah.) by the Lord (who is) ‘the father of him who will raise his voice’ = Brahman, the begetter of the soul alone, ‘look’ at him [i.e., the Lord]” (atha v¯acam. vadis.yatah. pit¯a deham¯atrasya janako brahm¯a yena ¯ıs´varen.a hatah. tam . tvam . pa´syety anvayah.). This explanation assumes, of course, the integral connection of the preceding word pa´sya, which, as noted above, was not part of the earlier context of this stanza. 3.24 ≈ PS 20.60.7 s´ a´ rva n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a v´¯ıra k´arman.ikarman.i | ima´¯ m asya pra´¯ s´ am . jahi y´ened´am . vibh´aj¯amahe k ´ O Sarva the Blue-Crested, O hero in deed after deed, strike down that petition (? pra´¯ s´) of him with whom we share in this. Y omits most of this stanza and half of the next due to eyeskip (from n¯ıla´sikha◦ in p¯ada a to the same in 3.25c). s´ a´ rva] em.; s´arva ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSUVXYZ; sarvar¯aja → sa(+va)rpar¯aja L; trva W n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a] ABCFIJKLNOPQUVW; n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.en´a DEGHMSXZ; n¯ıla´si R v´¯ıra] D(v´ıra)E; v¯ıra ABCFGHIJKLMNOPQRSUVWXZ 60 See pp. 127, 132. 118 TIMOTHY LUBIN k´arman.ikarman.i] CDEFGHIJKLMN O(karman.i)PQRST(◦ n.i{karman.i})UVWXZ; k´arman.ik´arman.i AB ima´¯ m] CDEFGHIJKL MNOPQRSTUV(i(+m¯a)m)WXZ; y´a ima´¯ m A; (+ya) ima´¯ m B asya pra´¯ s´ am . ] ABCFGHIJKL MNOPQRSUVWXZ a´ sya ´ . DE; asy¯a pr¯as´ i → asya pr¯as´ e T pra¯ r´as´ am ´ vibhaja¯ mahe] em.; v´ıbhaj¯amahe DE; vi- bhaj¯amahe GHIJKLMOPQSTUVWX(vibhra◦ )Z; vibhaja´¯ mahai ABCN; vibh¯aj¯amahai → vibh¯aj¯amahe F; vibhaj¯amahi R PS 20.60.7: s´arva n¯ıla´sikhan.d.a v¯ıra karman.ikarman.i | im¯am asya pr¯as´am . jahi yenedam . vivad¯amahe k ´ 2.27.6 (p¯ada cd is the refrain of 2.27.1–5 as well): Cf. SS rudra ´ j´al¯as.abhes.aja n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a k´armakrt | ˚ ´ . pr´atipra´¯ s´o jahy arasa´¯ n krn.v os.adhe k pra¯ s´am ˚ a. Like 1.5, the stanza opens with a catalectic p¯ada containing a vocative in- vocation of the god. The unaccented p¯ada-initial v¯ıra found in the manuscripts is incorrect, as is the double accenting of k´arman.ik´arman.i in AB. However, the vocative s´a´ rva, not found in this form in any of the manuscripts, would in fact be accented on the first syllable at the beginning of the p¯ada, so that the ac- cent would also be appropriate for sarva (the form actually appearing in the manuscripts). d. The PS reading vivad¯amahe (yielding the sense ‘with whom we quarrel over this’) is much better than vibh´aj¯amahe. Nevertheless, the latter reading seems to have belonged to the NU from the beginning of its circulation as an independent text. 3.25 = PS 20.62.6 n´amo bhava´¯ ya n´amah. s´ arva´¯ ya n´amah. kum¯ara´satr´ave | n´amo n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya n´amah. sabh¯apr´ap¯adine k Homage to Bhava, homage to Sarva, ´ homage to Kum¯ara’s foe, homage to the Blue-crested, homage to him who goes to the assembly! Y omits p¯adas ab and the first word of c due to eyeskip (see 3.24, above). n´amah. s´ arva´¯ ya] ABCD(´sarv¯aya)E(´sarv¯aya)FHIJKMNOPQRSTUVXZ; namah. sarv¯aya L; sarv¯aya G; om. W kum¯ara´satr´ave] AB(◦ s´ atr´aye)JLOQTUV; krum¯ara´sa´ trave C; kum¯ar¯aya s´ atrave FGHIKMNPRSWXZ; kum¯ar¯aya s´ a´ mbhave DE sabh¯apr´ap¯adine] ◦ ´ ABΣ(tbh¯a W); sabha¯ pr´ap¯adine C; sabh¯aprap¯ad´ıne DE a. The scansion of the overlong first p¯ada could be rectified by omitting the second n´amah.. However, the PS version of this stanza includes it as well. b. The epithet Kum¯ara´satru, ´ evidently applied to Rudra, has, not sur- prisingly, worried later audiences familiar with the Pur¯an.ic mythology which ´ makes Kum¯ara (alias Skanda) Siva’s son rather than his rival.61 It was probably 61 One early example of this is the passage in the Mah¯abh¯arata (7.57.49–59) in which Arjuna  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 119 this doubt which inspired N¯ar¯ayan.a to read two datives, kum¯ar¯aya s´atrave, in place of the compound kum¯ara´satrave. This leaves the question of what the epithet refers to. The name Kum¯ara does occur in the Vedic literature. For example, MS 2.9.1:119.11 reads: t´at kum¯ara´¯ ya vidmahe k¯arttikeya´¯ ya dh¯ımahi | t´an nah. skand´ah. pracod´ay¯at (cf. TA¯ 10.1.6 = MNU 75). This comes in a series of variants of the formula t´at purus ´ . a¯ ya vidmahe 62 mah¯adeva´¯ ya dh¯ımahi | t´an no rudr´ah. pracod´ay¯at, which in turn is a loose adap- tation to Rudra-veneration of the famous S¯avitr¯ı mantra (RV 3.62.10). The im- pression that this stanza is a later interpolated extension ˚of the pattern is re- inforced by its absence in the corresponding passage KS 17.11:253.20–21.63 In both Sam ´ . hit¯as, the Satarudriya immediately follows. What was the relation of Rudra and Skanda in the earliest references to them? Skanda’s early character was that of a demon that attacked children with illness. Acknowledging that Rudra’s own character was ambivalent in the same way, we may still suppose that one might, while invoking him for his healing powers, address him as the defeater of another being seen as a threat. Skanda’s subordination to Siva ´ in later mythology can be seen as consonant with his defeat by the latter, as implied in the epithet kum¯ara´satru. No Vedic narrative concerning such a defeat is known to me, but G RIFFITHS (2006, esp. n. 6) has identified in Tumburu a perhaps similar instance of a deity hostile to Rudra in the Atharvaveda who becomes associated with him in later Saiva ´ texts.64 Rudra prays for the P¯as´ upata weapon. Several of the names of Mah¯adeva in the first part of this invocation seem to have been drawn from the NU: namo bhavaya ¯ s´ arvaya ¯ rudraya ¯ varad¯aya ca | pa´sun¯¯ am . pataye nityam ugr ¯ aya ca kapardine k 7.57.49 mah¯adev¯aya bh¯ımaya ¯ tryambak¯aya ca s´ ambhave | ¯ıs´a¯ n¯aya bhagaghn¯aya namo ’stv andhakagh¯atine k 7.57.50 ¯ kumaragurave nityam ¯ vedhase | . n¯ılagr¯ıvaya vilohitaya ¯ dhumr¯ ¯ aya vy¯adh¯ay¯anapar¯ajite k 7.57.51 nityam ¯ s´uline . n¯ıla´sikhan.d.aya ¯ divyacaks.us.e | 7.57.52ab The change of the NU’s kum¯ara´satrave to kum¯aragurave looks like a deliberate ‘repair’ performed on the older source text. 62 The syntax of this stanza is awkward, due to the insertion of datives and the verb vidmahe into a sentence that was not intended to accommodate them. The first two words, construed as a compound, were taken over as Tatpurus.a, the fourth of the Pancabrahma-Mantras, ˜ names of aspects of Rudra-Siva´ (TA ¯ 10.17–21 = MNU 277–286) which become important in the later ´ development of the Saiva religion. 63 The K¯a.thaka includes only the first mantra in the series (to Rudra Mah¯adeva); VON S CHROEDER (in his note 8 on this stanza) deems it “verd¨achtig”, on account of its omission in one manuscript and other irregularities in other manuscripts. 64 The word s´ i´suma ´¯ ra or s´im . s´uma´¯ ra denotes the Gangetic dolphin or the crocodile. Its ety- mology is disputed; the alternate form s´im . s´um¯ara seems to suggest that it is a loanword rather than a compound containing the word s´isu (see M AYRHOFER 1996: 641–642). At the end of TA ¯ ´ 2.19, Si´sum¯ara, identified with a constellation, and named ‘supreme lord of ghosts’ (bhut¯ ¯ an¯am adhipatir asi), and ‘best of ghosts’ (bhut¯ ¯ an¯am. s ´ rest .. ho ’si), is invoked also as ´ Si´ s ukum¯ a ra (or even 120 TIMOTHY LUBIN as healer might then be invoked as the opponent of this child-killer. So far, no other evidence is known to confirm or disprove this speculation. On the other hand, we might simply understand kum¯ara´satru´ to mean ‘enemy of children’, alluding to Rudra’s reputation of bringing disease. 3.26 = PS 20.62.7 [found only in Orissa manuscripts of the PS] y´asya h´ar¯ı a´svatar´au gardabha´¯ v abh´ıtah.sarau | t´asmai n´¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya n´amah. sabh¯apr´ap¯adine k n´amah. sabh¯apr´ap¯adina ´ıti k 3 k To him who has two yellow mules, two donkeys running on either side, to that Blue-Crested one, homage to him who goes to the assembly! a´svatar´au] ABΣ(¯as´ va◦ SXY); a´ s´ vatarau DE; a´svat´aro´ C gardabha¯´ v] BCDEΣ; g´arddabha´¯ v A abh´ıtah.sarau] em.; abhitah.sarau FG(abhivatah.sarau)O(abhitassa- rau); abh´ıtaskarau BC DEJNQRSTUV(ani◦ )WX(itaskarau)YZ; abh´ıtah.skarau AHIKP; abhitah.svarau M; abhitasrarau L t´asmai] ABCΣ; k om . t´asmai DE ab. The ‘two yellow mules, two donkeys running on either side’ may refer to the moon and sun, which are closely associated with Bhava and Sarva ´ in the PS hymn in which this stanza occurs (cf. PS 20.62.5: naktam . har¯ı mrgayete div¯a ˚ suparn.arohitau | bhav¯aya ca s´arv¯aya cobh¯abhy¯am akaram . namah. k ‘By night, the two yellow [mules] pursue [their course?], by day, the two red ones that are birds. To both Bhava and Sarva ´ I have paid homage’). It might even be that the sun and moon are identified with, or at least correlated with Bhava and Sarva. ´ cd. The mules convey N¯ıla´sikhan.d.a to the assembly, perhaps the one where the pra´¯ s´ (3.24) is contested.65 Could this be a reference to a cultic observance? The D¯ıpik¯a of N¯ar¯ayan.a: Edited Text and Translation In the text of the commentary, words cited from the stanzas appear in boldface; quotations from other works appear in italics, and their sources are identified. The text of the stanzas as read by N¯ar¯ayan.a is included for the convenience of the reader. Readings that differ from those accepted in the edition of the stanzas themselves appear in bold italics. Since the use of punctuation is highly variable in the manuscripts, I have punctuated the text according to its sense. The most frequent, and perhaps even most consistent, form of ‘punctuation’ in the manuscripts is the practice ´ sum¯arakum¯ara, according to a variant reading). Whether this is the result of a scribal error or Si´ a deliberate word-play, it might point to a notion of Kum¯ara as ‘killer of children’, seemingly the literal meaning of s´i´sum¯ara. 65 This was suggested to me by Arlo Griffiths.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 121 of writing words in pausa form (as if sentence-final) — even in mid-sentence — for clarity. At times (e.g., ad 1.9), the D¯ıpik¯a acts virtually as a padap¯a.tha. Except cases of the latter type, I have been reluctant to clutter the text with dan.d.as, but I also felt it would misrepresent the text to apply sandhi even in places where the sandhi-less reading seems to have been a deliberate measure to ensure clarity. In this edition, I have made use of a comma to serve as a half-dan.d.a, that is, both to mark a break within a sentence and (in a few cases) to indicate a place where, for reasons of clarity, the scribes avoided applying external sandhi. On the whole, however, normal sandhi has been applied. Much of the D¯ıpik¯a consists of simple glosses: a word from the text is cited (usually in the same form as it has in the mula), ¯ followed by a synonym or para- phrase with the same inflection. Sometimes these are strung together to recreate the syntax of the original in double form. To make a readable translation, I have inserted an equal sign (=) between the paired elements of these glosses. There are a number of passages, ranging in length from a single word to a few lines, that I suspect of being additions to an earlier, shorter state of the text. These are lacking in H (and in Ed1 ), but found in the group of Pune manuscripts (and in Ed2 ). Rather than relegate them to the notes, I have included them in the text and translation, where they are identifiable by the use of a smaller typeface. H and Ed1 show other corruptions of their own, however, and are not to be deferred to as giving superior readings overall. Both editions seem to have silently incorporated a number of conjectural emendations, besides the simple errors that are found in them.66 In the translation, words quoted from the stanzas — whether the English equivalent or the original Sanskrit (if translating it would duplicate the trans- lation of N¯ar¯ayan.a’s gloss, or if the very form of the word is at issue) — are enclosed in double quotation marks. The glosses follow an equal sign, and are enclosed within single quotation marks, as are quotations from other works (which are duly identified). Text apa´syam . tv¯avarohantam. divitah. prthiv¯ım avah. | ˚ apa´syam asyantam . rudram . s´ikhan.d.inam k 1.1 . n¯ılagr¯ıvam s´ r¯ıgan.e´sa¯ ya namah. k 1 . khan.d.akatrayam | n¯ılarudropanis.adi s.od.a´sy¯am 66 Evidence ¯ as´ rama edi- of such emendation is to be found in the galley-sheets for the Anand¯ tion (see note 46 above), in which an editor has made a number of substantial changes uncon- nected with the variants recorded at the bottom of the page. 1 s´ r¯ıgan.e´sa¯ ya namah.] KOQ; s´ r¯ıgan.e´sa¯ ya namah. s´ r¯ıkrs.n.a¯ ya namah. D¯ı2 ; s´ r¯ıkrs.n.a¯ ya namah. D¯ı1 ; ˚ ˚ om. Ed1 ; om. HEd2  122 TIMOTHY LUBIN 3 s´ rutirupen ¯ . a tam. devam . stauty apa´syam iti kram¯at k aspar´sayogam uktv¯a tatsam . prad¯ayapravartakam . paramagurum . yoga- 5 siddhipradam . n¯ılarudram. stauti k apa´syam iti | divito divah. pr.thiv¯ım ¯ . bhumim avah. avast¯ad avarohantam . tv¯ a m aham apa´ s yam iti mantradras t .. ur . | vacah 7 asyantam. asu ks.epan.e ks.ipantam . dus.t.a¯ n | anen¯avat¯araprayojanam uktam | ayam. brahman.ah. putrah. sanak¯adis.u srs.t.im akurvatsu brahman.ah. krodh¯ad utpannah. kum¯aro ruroda ˚ 9 ten¯as´ v¯asya rudra iti n¯ama dattam . tata ek¯ada´sa sth¯an¯any ek¯ada´sa n¯am¯any ek¯ada´sa patn¯ıs´ ca dadau | tatsrs.t.a¯ n¯am . rudr¯ a na¯ . . m asam . khy¯atat¯am . bhay¯at tamase nyayojayat | sa bhuvi . dr˚ s.t.v¯a tam ˚ 11 tapa´s cac¯aret¯ıtih¯asah. | s´ ikhan . d.inam . s´ikhan.d.o barhacud ¯ . ayor iti vi´svah. | tayor anya- . | tarad asy¯ast¯ıti s´ ikhan.d.¯ı tam ¯ am adhi | diva ugro ’v¯aruks.at praty as..th¯ad bhumy¯ jan¯asah. pa´syatemam. n¯ılagr¯ıvam . vilohitam k 1.2 13 divah. sak¯as´ a¯ d ugro rudrah. | av¯aruks.ad avat¯ırn.av¯an | pratyas.t.h¯at prati- s.t.h¯am . sthitim. krtav¯an | bhumy¯ ¯ am adhi | adhir ¯ıs´vara ity adhih. karmapra- ˚ 15 vacan¯ıyah. | yasm¯ ad adhikam. yasya ce´svaravacanam iti saptam¯ı | bhumer ¯ ¯ıs´ vara ity arthah. | jan¯asah. | a¯ jjaserasuk sam. bodhane ceti pratham¯a | ¯ es.a ety av¯ırah¯a rudro jalasabhes . aj¯ıh. | vi te ’ks.emam an¯ına´sad v¯at¯ık¯aro ’py etu te k 1.3 17 ety a¯ gacchati | na v¯ırah¯a, av¯ırah¯a saumyah. | yad v¯a, av¯ır¯an.i p¯ap¯ani hanty av¯ırah¯a | ety¯agatya v¯ır¯an daity¯an hant¯ıti v¯a | jale a¯ sah. ks.epo y¯as¯am . t¯a jal¯as¯as´ ca 19 t¯a bhes.ajya´s ca t¯a et¯ıty anvayah. | jalaks.ipt¯an¯am os.adh¯ın¯am amangalan¯ ˙ as´ aka- tvam . rudrasam . nidh¯an¯ad eva | yad v¯a samudramathan¯avasare samudre ks.ipt¯an¯am os.a- 11 s´ikhan.d.o barhacud ¯ . ayor] s´ ikhan.d.o barhacud¯ . ayoh. Vi´sva-Prak¯as´a d.a¯ ntavarga 28 14 adhir ¯ıs´vara] adhir ¯ıs´ vare As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 1.4.97 16 a¯ jjaserasuk] a¯ jjaserasuk As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 7.1.50 16 sam . bodhane ceti] sam . bodhane ca As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 2.3.47 3 devam . ] HOD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; deva KQ 4 aspar´sayogam] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; aspar´syayogam H 4–5 yogasiddhipradam . ] HKOEdΣ ; yogasiddhim . pradam . QD¯ı1 D¯ı2 6 avast¯ad] ΣEd2 ; adhas- t¯at Ed1 6 tv¯am] ΣEd2 ; ‘tv¯a ’ tv¯am Ed1 7 asu ks.epan.e ks.ipantam . ] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; asu ks.eyam . tam . H 7–11 anen¯avat¯araprayojanam uktam | ayam . brahman.ah. putrah. sanak¯adis.u srs.t.im akurvatsu brahman.ah. krodh¯ad utpannah. kum¯aro ruroda ten¯as´ v¯asya rudra iti n¯ama ˚ dattam . tata ek¯ada´sa sth¯an¯any ek¯ada´sa n¯am¯any ek¯ada´sa patn¯ıs´ ca dadau | tatsr˚ s.t.a¯ n¯am . rudr¯a- n.a¯ m . asam . khy¯a tat¯ a m dr s . ˚ ..t v¯ a tam . bhay¯ a t tamase nyayojayat | sa bhuvi tapa´ s cac¯ a ret¯ ı tih¯ a . ] om. sah HEd1 8 ruroda] K(rudroda) OD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; ruda Q 9 ten¯as´ v¯asya] OQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; ten¯asya K 10 tamase] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; tapase Ed2 12 asy¯ast¯ıti] KOEdΣ ; asy¯asti HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; asy¯ast¯ı Q 13 divah. sak¯as´ a¯ d] ΣEdΣ ; em. diva a¯ k¯as´ a¯ d? 15 iti] KOEd2 ; iti sv¯at HQ(? itit)D¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; iti ◦ tatra Ed1 16 sam . bodhane ceti] HOQEdΣ ; sam . nodhane ceti KD¯ı2 (sano )D¯ı1 17 hanty] ΣEd2 ; hant¯ıty Ed1 18 ety¯agatya v¯ır¯an daity¯an hant¯ıti v¯a] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 18 jal¯as¯as´ ] ΣEd2 ; jal¯as¯ah., t¯as´ Ed1 19 bhes.ajya´s] OEd2 ; bhes.aj¯as´ HEd1 ; bhais.ajya´s Q; bhovajya´s D¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; bobhajya´s K ˙ 19–20 amangalan¯ as´ akatvam . ] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; aks.emanirn.odakatvam . H; aks.ema-nirn.ejakatvam ◦ . (v.l. nirn.odakatvam . ) Ed1 20–21 v¯a samudramathan¯avasare samudre ks.ipt¯an¯am os.adh¯ın¯am udbhutam ¯ . vis.am . p¯atum avat¯ırn.atv¯ad evam uktam] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 123 ¯ . vis.am dh¯ın¯am udbhutam . p¯atum avat¯ırn.atv¯ad evam uktam | te tava lokasya¯ ks.emam . vy 21 an¯ına´sat | anena ks.emak¯aritvam uktam | alabdhal¯abho yogas tatk¯aritvam apy a¯ ha v¯at¯ık¯ara iti | v¯atih. pr¯aptih. | apr¯aptam . karot¯ıti v¯at¯ık¯arah. | so ’pi te . pr¯aptam 23 ¯ tav¯apurval¯ abhakaro ’py etv a¯ gacchatu yogaks.emakaro ’bhis.ekajale sam . nihito bhavatv ity arthah. | mantraling¯ ˙ ad abhis.eke viniyogah. | 25 namas te bhava bh¯am¯aya namas te bhava manyave | namas te astu b¯ahubhy¯am uto ta is.ave namah. k 1.4 ¯ avasth¯a | ut¯api | u ta is.ave b¯an.arup¯ bh¯amah. krodho manyus tatpurv¯ ¯ aya | y¯am is.um. giri´santam . haste bibhars.y astave | s´iv¯am . giritra t¯ a m . . u m¯a him krn . s¯ıt purus.a¯ n mama k 1.5 ˚ astave | asu ks.epan.e | tavenpratyayas tumarthe | astum . ks.eptum ity arthah. | 27 kam . ks.eptum? giri´santam . s´ yati s´ yan gireh. s´ yan giri´syan | sam . bandhas¯am¯a- nye s.as.t.hy¯a sam¯asah. | tam . giri´ s antam | ch¯ a ndaso yalopah . | yad v¯a kam. s´am. bhy¯am . 29 babhayustitutayasah. | s´ am asy¯asti s´ am tah . . | girito s´ am tah . . sukh¯ ı parvatotpannatv¯ a d is oh . . | he giritra giriraks.aka | t¯am . s ´ iv¯a m . kaly¯a n¯ ı . .m kuru | 31 s´ivena vacas¯a tv¯a giri´sa¯ ch¯a vad¯amasi | yath¯a nah. sarvam ij jagad ayaks.mam . suman¯a asat k 1.6 acch¯a vad¯amasi | accha nirmalam . vad¯amah. | accha´sabdasya nip¯atasyeti d¯ırghah. | idanto masi | id anarthako nip¯ata´s ca | ayaks.mam . n¯ırogam | suma- 33 n¯ah. sumanaskam | asad bhavet | linarthe ˙ let. | tip | ita´s ca lopah. parasmaipades.u | let.o ’d.a¯ d.a¯ v ity at. | 35 27 asu ks.epan.e] asu ks.epan.e Dh¯atup¯a.tha 4.100 29–30 kam . s´am . bhy¯am. babhayustitutayasah.] kam .- s´ am . bhy¯ a m. babhayustitutayasah As . .. t a ¯ dhy¯ a y¯ ı 5.2.138 32 nip¯ a tasyeti] nip¯a tasya ca As..t a ¯ dhy¯ a y¯ı 6.3.136 33 idanto masi] idanto masi As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 7.1.46 34 linarthe ˙ let.] linarthe ˙ let. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.7 34 ita´s ca lopah. parasmaipades.u] ita´s ca lopah. parasmaipades.u As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.97 35 let.o ’d.a¯ d.a¯ v] let.o ’d.a¯ d.a¯ v As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.94 21–23 tava lokasy¯aks.emam . vy an¯ına´sat | anena ks.emak¯aritvam uktam | alabdhal¯abho yogas tatk¯aritvam apy a¯ ha v¯at¯ık¯ara iti | v¯atih. pr¯aptih. | apr¯aptam . pr¯aptam . karot¯ıti v¯at¯ık¯arah. | so ’pi te] om. D¯ı2 (eyeskip) 21 tava lokasy¯aks.emam . ] KOQD¯ı1 EdΣ ; tav¯aks.emam . H 21 vy] ΣEd2 ; om. Ed1 22–23 apy a¯ ha] EdΣ ; ath¯aha HKOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 24 ’py] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 26 bh¯amah.] HOD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; bh¯asah. KQ 26 ut¯api | u ta is.ave] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; uta k u te is.ave HEd1 (‘utah.’); ut¯api | utes.ave Ed2 29 s.as.t.hy¯a sam¯asah.] ΣEd2 ; s.as.t.h¯ısam¯asah. Ed1 29 yalopah.] Ed1 ; palopah. H(paloyah.)KQ; palos.ah. O; yevalopah. D¯ı2 ; pam . valopah. D¯ı1 ; yamalopah. Ed2 29–30 yad v¯a kam . .s ´ ambhy¯ a m . babhayustitutayasah . | ´ s am asy¯a sti s´ am. tah. | girito s´ am tah . . sukh¯ ı parvatotpannatv¯ a d is oh . . ] om. HEd 1 30 babhayustitutayasah . ] OQEd 2; vabhayustirutayasah. D¯ı1 ; babhayustirupasah. K; vabhuyustrirutayasah ¯ . D¯ ı2 30 ´ s am asy¯ a sti] OQEd2 ; samasy¯asti KD¯ı1 D¯ı2 30 girito] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; girin.a¯ Ed2 31 giritra] H(giretra)OQ D¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; om. K 31 kuru] ΣEd2 ; ‘krn.u’ kuru Ed1 32 accha nirmalam . ] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; ˚ anirmalam . H 32 nip¯atasyeti] ΣEd1 ; nip¯atasya ca Ed2 33 id anarthako] HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; idam arthako KOQEd1 (v.l. idam anarthako) 33 nip¯ata´s ca] HEd1 ; nip¯atah. KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 34 bhavet] HOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; om. K 34 let.] OD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; lit. HQ; lat. K 35 let.o ’d.a¯ d.a¯ v] Ed2 ; let.o d.a¯ t.a¯ v KO; let.oprad.y¯av H; le{d.a}t.ot.a¯ n D¯ı1 ; led.at.ot.a¯ n D¯ı2 ; led.ad.a¯ t.ot.a¯ v Q; let.o ’d.a¯ d¯av Ed1 35 at.] HKQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; ac O  124 TIMOTHY LUBIN y¯a ta is.uh. s´ivatam¯a s´ivam ¯ te dhanuh. | . babhuva s´iv¯a s´aravy¯a y¯a tava tay¯a no mrd.a j¯ıvase k 1.7 ˚ . dh¯atr¯ı jy¯a | s´aro dadhyagrab¯an.ayor iti vi´svah. | s´ aram arhati | s´ aravy¯a s´ arasam 37 yat | ava s´arasya cety av¯ade´sah. | s´ aruvrtt¯ad v¯a siddham | s´arur a¯ yudhakopayoh. | ˚ ugav¯adibhyo yat | j¯ıvase j¯ıvitum . mrd.a modaya | yad v¯a he mrd.a tay¯a tanv¯a no ˚ ˚ 39 ’sm¯an j¯ıvase j¯ıvayasi | y¯a te rudra s´iv¯a tanur¯ aghor¯ap¯apak¯as´in¯ı | tay¯a nas tanv¯a s´am . tamay¯a giri´sam ¯ sat k 1.8 . t¯abhi caka´ . tamay¯a ati´sayena s´ am s´ am . tam¯a tay¯a | abhic¯aka´sat | ka´ser yanlugant¯ . s´ am ˙ al 41 let. | tip | at. | ati´sayena prak¯as´ ayatv iti pr¯arthan¯a | asau yas t¯amro arun.a uta babhrur vilohitah. | ye ceme abhito rudr¯a diks.u s´rit¯ah. sahasra´so . hed.a ¯ımahe k 1.9 ’vais.a¯ m ˙ . | v¯a | es.a¯ m | ha | ¯ıd.e stutaye | ¯ımahe k¯amay¯amahe k 1 k babhruh. pingalah adrs´ yam . tv¯avarohantam . n¯ılagr¯ıvam . vilohitam | uta˚ tv¯a gop¯a adrs´ann uta tvodah¯aryah. | uto tv¯a vi´sv¯a bh˚ut¯ ¯ ani tasmai drs..ta¯ ya te namah. k 2.10 ˚ 43 gop¯a gop¯al¯ah. | adrs´ ann apa´syan | udah¯aryah. vis.n.upaks.e a¯ bh¯ır¯ah. | ¯ ani adrs´ an˚ | yogin¯am apy adrs´ yam p¯an¯ıyah¯arin.yah. | vi´sv¯a vi´sv¯ani bhut¯ . tv¯am . ˚ ˚ 45 ¯ krpay¯avirbhavantam adityavat prak¯asam¯anam´ . p¯amar¯a api dadrsur ity arthah. | ´ ˚ ˚ namo ’stu n¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya sahasr¯aks.a¯ ya v¯ajine | atho ye asya satv¯anas tebhyo ’ham akaram . namah. k 2.11 ¯ aya v¯a | s¯ıdanti satv¯ano gan.a¯ h. | v¯ajine ’nnavate b¯an.arup¯ 36 s´aro dadhyagrab¯an.ayor] s´ aro dadhyagrab¯an.ayoh. Vi´sva-Prak¯as´a r¯antavarga 8 37 ava s´arasya cety] Source not identified. 37 s´arur a¯ yudhakopayoh.] Source not identified; cf. s´ aruh. pum . sy a¯ yudhe kope Aun.a¯ dikapad¯arn.ava of Perubhat.t.a 1.120 38 ugav¯adibhyo yat] ugav¯adibhyo yat As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 5.1.2 36 s´ arasam . dh¯atr¯ı] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; s´ arasam . dh¯adh¯ı H; s´ arasandh¯ayin¯ı Ed1 37 ava s´arasya cety] Σ; ‘ava s´ arasya’ ity Ed1 ; av s´ arasya cety Ed2 37 s´ aruvrtt¯ad] Σ; yad v¯a s´ aruh.vrt¯ad ˚ ˚ (v.l. s´ aruvrttad) v¯a Ed1 ; s´ aru´sabd¯ad Ed2 37 s´arur a¯ yudhakopayoh.] ΣEd2 ; ‘´sarur a¯ yudha- ˚ kopayoh.’ iti vi´svah. Ed1 38 j¯ıvase] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 ˙ 40 yanlugant¯ al] EdΣ ; ˙ nam yanlu ˙ . t¯al O; yanlud ˙ . am . t¯al QD¯ı1 ; yan˙ nam ˙ . t¯al D¯ı2 ; yanlut¯ ˙ al K; yadvud.am . d.a¯ t¯al H 41 let.] KOQEd2 ; lot. HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed1 41 tip] HKOD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; atip QEd1 42 k 1 k] HEdΣ ; k KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 43 vis.n.upaks.e a¯ bh¯ır¯ah.] K(◦ pahe abh¯ı◦ )OQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 43 adrs´ ann] HOQ ˚ D¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; adrs´ yan K 44 bhut¯¯ ani] HOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; om. K 44 adrs´ an] HEdΣ ; adrs´ yan ˚ ˚ ˚ KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 46 ’nnavate] ΣEd2 ; netravate Ed1 46 satv¯ano] ΣEd1 ; sattv¯ano Ed2  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 125 nam¯am. si ta a¯ yudh¯ay¯an¯atat¯aya dhrs.n.ave | ˚ ubh¯abhy¯am akaram . namo b¯ahubhy¯am . tava dhanvane k 2.12 . si namask¯ar¯ah. | n¯atat¯ay¯an¯atat¯aya | dhr˚ s.n.ave pragalbh¯aya | nam¯am 47 b¯ahubhy¯am. krtv¯a dhanvane namo ’karavam ity arthah. | ˚ pra munca ˜ dhanvanas pary ubhayo raj ˜ jy¯am | ¯ nor y¯as´ ca te hasta is.avah. par¯a t¯a bhagavo vapa k 2.13 ¯ ubhayor aripratyaribhutayo r¯ajnor ˜ dhanvano jy¯am . paripramunca, ˜ 49 an¯atat¯am. kuru | r¯ajnor ˜ vigrahe lok¯an¯am . kle´so bhavati | tatas tam . s´ amayeti bh¯avah. | he bhagavah. | y¯as te hasta is.avo b¯an.a¯ s t¯ah. par¯avapa par¯anmukh¯ ˙ an 51 ˜ munca | tvam api kopam . lokes.u m¯a krth¯a iti bh¯avah. | indrarupen ¯ . a jagad ˚ raks.eti pr¯arthayate | 53 avatatya dhanus tvam . sahasr¯aks.a s´ates.udhe | ni´s¯ırya s´aly¯an¯am . mukh¯a s´ivo nah. s´ambhur a¯ bhava k 2.14 avatatyeti adhijyam . krtv¯a | sahasr¯aks.a s´ akrarupa ¯ | s´ atam is.udhayas tun ¯ . a¯ ˚ yajnar ¯ a yasya tat sambodhanam | ni´s¯ırya t¯ıks.n.¯ıkrtya mukh¯a mukh¯ani no ˜ up¯ 55 ˚ ¯ . s´ ambhuh. sukhahetuh. sann ’sm¯an s´ ivah. kaly¯an.arupah a¯ bhava dh¯araya pos.aya v¯a | 57 vijyam ˙˘ astu | . dhanuh. s´ikhan.d.ino vi´salyo b¯an.av¯am ane´sann asyes.avah. s´ivo asya nis.angatih ˙ . k 2.15 b¯an.av¯am ¯ . ¯ırah. | vi´salyo ’stu bhallarahito bhavatu vairis.u hates.u tatpra- . s tun yojan¯abh¯av¯at | ane´sann adrs´ y¯a abhuvan ¯ | na´simanyor alit.y etvam iti v¯arttikena 59 ˚ luni ˙ etvam | nis.angatir ˙ pus.a¯ dy any ˙ ˙ . | nis.angah pari te dhanvano hetir asm¯an vrn.aktu vi´svatah. | atho ya is.udhis tav¯are asmin ni˚ dhehi tam k 2.16 59 na´simanyor alit.y etvam] Source not identified. 60 luni ˙ pus.a¯ dy any ˙ etvam] Cf. pus.a¯ didyud¯a- dyl.ditah. parasmaipades.u As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.1.55 48 ’karavam] HKD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; karatnn Q; karann O ¯ 49 aripratyaribhutayo] HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; api pratyaribhutayo ¯ KOQ 49 dhanvano] ΣEd1 ; dhanvanor Ed2 49 paripramunca] ˜ HOQ D¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; parimunca ˜ ˜ K; ‘pramunca’ Ed1 53 pr¯arthayate] KOQEdΣ ; pr¯arthyate D¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; pr¯arthate H 54 adhijyam . ] ΣEd2 ; dhanus tvam adhijya (v.l. svadhijyam . ) Ed1 56 a¯ bhava] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; a¯ bhara HEdΣ 57 v¯a] HEd1 ; om. KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 (eyeskip) 58 bhallarahito] em.; bhall¯ahito H; bhaktarahito KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; s´ alyarahito Ed2 ; tomararahito (v.l. matvararahito) Ed1 ¯ 59 abhuvan] HEdΣ ; abruvan KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 59 na´simanyor alit.y etvam] HOQ(alitdy etvam . )D¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; na´simanyor alighetvam . K; na´sis.amumo valikhyetvam . (?) Ed1 60 pus.a¯ dy any] ˙ KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; om. H(eyeskip)  126 TIMOTHY LUBIN 61 vi´svatah. sarvatah. | asm¯an parivrn.aktu parivrtya raks.atu | are sam . bodhane | ˚ ˚ atho pa´sc¯ad raks.an.a¯ nantaram . yas taves.udhir asminn is.udhau tam . hetim . 63 b¯an.am. nidhehi sth¯apaya | ¯ te dhanuh. | y¯a te hetir m¯ıd.hus..tama haste babhuva tay¯a tvam. vi´svato asm¯an ayaks.may¯a pari bhuja k 2.17 he m¯ıd.hus.t.ama m¯ıd.hvas.t.amety (!) arthah. secakatama | ayaks.may¯a sajjay¯a 65 tay¯a hety¯a paribhuja parip¯alaya | namo ’stu sarpebhyo ye ke ca prthiv¯ım anu | ˚ ye antariks.e ye divi tebhyah. sarpebhyo namah. k 2.18 ye c¯am¯ı rocane divo ye ca suryasya ¯ ra´smis.u | yes.a¯ m apsu sadas krtam . tebhyah. sarpebhyo namah. k 2.19 ˚ y¯a is.avo y¯atudh¯an¯an¯am. ye v¯a vanaspat¯ın¯am | ye v¯avat.es.u s´erate tebhyah. sarpebhyo namah. k 2.20 sadas krtam . gr˚ ham . krtam . | y¯atudh¯an¯an¯am . raks.as¯am . vanaspat¯ın¯am . ˚ ˚ 67 ces.avah. sarp¯ah. | te hi jan¯an da´santi | avat.es.u gartes.u k 2 k ¯ . harir uta | ¯ . n¯ılagr¯ıvo yah. svajanam yah. svajanam kalm¯as.apucham os.adhe jambhaya´ ¯ sv arundhati k 3.21 ked¯ar¯adh¯ıs´ am . mahis.arupam¯ . stauti | ya iti yah. s´ ivah. svajan¯an bhakt¯an 69 prati n¯ılagr¯ıvah. | ya´s ca svajan¯an bhakt¯an prati harir haritavarn.o bhakta- v¯atsalyena bhavati | mahis.asya hi t¯adrg rupam ¯ . sam . bhavati | yad v¯a n¯ılagr¯ıvo ˚ 71 rudrah., harir vis.n.u´s ca, bhavati | anena hariharayor ekarupatokt¯ ¯ a | he os.adhe arundha- ti rodharahite | tam . kalm¯ a s . apuccham krs . ˚. . n ap¯ a n ..d urapuccham . | a¯ s´ u s´¯ıghram . | 73 jambhaya svav¯ıryen.a v¯ıryavantam . kuru | os.adh¯ın¯am . pa´subhyo balapradatv¯at | kalm¯as.o r¯aks.ase krs.n.e kalm¯as.ah. krs.n.ap¯an.d.ura iti vi´svah. | ked¯are´svarasya mahis.a- ˚ ˚ 75 ¯ rupatv¯ at pucchavatt¯ a sam. bhavati | 74 kalm¯as.o r¯aks.ase krs.n.e kalm¯as.ah. krs.n.ap¯an.d.ura] kalm¯as.o r¯aks.ase krs.n.e kalm¯as.ah. krs.n.ap¯am . d.ure ˚ ˚ ˚ ˚ Vi´sva-Prak¯as´a s.a¯ ntavarga 19 (p. 313) in U TVALA V E NKAT ˙ . ARA ˙ NG ¯ AC ¯ ARYULU 1930; R ATNA ˆ G OP ALA B HATTA 1911, s.a¯ ntavarga 18 (p. 172): kalm¯as.o r¯aks.ase krs.n.e kalm¯as.am . kr sn .. ap¯a n. d.ure ˚ ˚ 61 parivrtya raks.atu] ΣEd2 ; pariraks.atu Ed1 62 is.udhau] ΣEd2 ; om. Ed1 ˚ 64 m¯ıd.hvas.t.amety] H(m¯ıdras.t.a◦ )O (m¯ıdvas.t.a◦ )QD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; m¯ıd.hus.t.amety K; m¯ıd.havattamety Ed2 ; om. Ed1 64 secakatama] HEd2 ; sevakatama KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; sevakatamam . Ed1 64 ayaks.may¯a sajjay¯a] ΣEd2 ; ‘apaks.may¯a’ asajjay¯a Ed1 66 sadas krtam . HEdΣ ; ] ˚ sadavaskrtam ˚ . OQ; sadavastutam . D¯ ı1 D¯ ı2 ; sadasadvastutam . K 66 gr ˚ ham. ˚ . ] ΣEd2 ; kr tam grham . Ed 1 67 sarp¯ a h . ] HD¯ ı1 D¯ ı2 Ed Σ ; sarpatir K(sapatir)OQ 67 te hi] Ed Σ ; te hi te H; ˚ ter hi te D¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; hi te KOQ 67 k 2 k] OD¯ı1 EdΣ ; k 2 k cha k Q; k cha k K; om. HD¯ı2 68 ked¯ar¯adh¯ıs´ am . ] OEd1 ; ked¯ar¯adh¯ıs´ a KQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; ked¯ar¯adh¯ıs´ e H ¯ 68 mahis.arupam .] HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed1 ; mahis.asvarupam ¯ . KOQEd2 69–70 bhaktav¯atsalyena] HEd1 ; bhaktavatsalo na KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 70–71 yad v¯a n¯ılagr¯ıvo rudrah., harir vis.n.u´s ca, bhavati | anena hariharayor ¯ ekarupatokt¯ ¯ a] OQEd2 ; ekarupabhokt¯ a KD¯ı1 D¯ı2 ; om. HEd1 71 he] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; hi H 73 jambhaya] HEdΣ ; bhajaya KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 73 kuru] HEd1 ; kurus.e KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 73 os.adh¯ın¯am . ] ΣEd1 ; aus.adh¯ın¯am . Ed2  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 127 ¯ babhru´s ca babhrukarn.a´s ca n¯ılagala´ sı¯la¯ s´ivah. | pa´sya | 3.22 s´arven.a n¯ıla´sikhan.d.ena bhavena marut¯am . pita¯ | virup¯ ¯ aks.en.a babhrun.a¯ v¯acam. vadis.yato hatah. k 3.23 babhruh. kvacid avayave pingalavarn ˙ . ah. | babhrukarn.ah. pingala- ˙ varn.akarn.ah. | n¯ıl¯agala´s¯ıl¯a s´ iva ity atra n¯ılagr¯ıva´s ca yah. s´ iva iti p¯at.ho 77 yuktah. | piteti trt¯ıy¯arthe pratham¯a pitrety arthah. | atha v¯acam . vadis.yatah. pit¯a ˚ dehim¯atrasya janako brahm¯a yene´svaren.a hatas tam . tvam. pa´syety anvayah. | 79 s´arva n¯ıla´sikhan.d.a v¯ıra karman.ikarman.i | im¯am asya pr¯as´am . jahi yenedam . vibhaj¯amahe k 3.24 he v¯ıra karman.ikarman.i vihitanis.iddharupe ¯ | im¯am asya janasya pr¯as´ am . | prcchat¯ıti pr¯at. | t¯am . pr¯ a ´ s am . pr cchik¯ a m . v¯ a cam . jahi | vedavihitanis . iddhakarma- 81 ˚ ˚ vis. ayam. sam. ´ s ayam . nir¯ a kurv ity arthah . | yena karman . ¯ a | idam . jagat | vibhaj¯a- ¯ mahe karmabhumibhogabh ¯ umir ¯ . a vibhaktam upen . kurmahe | 83 namo bhav¯aya namah. s´arv¯aya namah. kumar ¯ s´ atrave | ¯ aya namo n¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya namah. sabh¯aprap¯adine k 3.25 yasya har¯ı a´svatarau gardabh¯av abhitah.sarau | tasmai n¯ıla´sikhan.d.a¯ ya namah. sabh¯aprap¯adine k 3.26 namah. sabh¯aprap¯adine k kum¯ar¯aya k¯al¯anabhibhut¯ ¯ aya v¯a | s´ atrave sam ¯ aya skandarup¯ . hartre | sabh¯a- prap¯adine sabh¯am . prapadyate tacch¯ılah. sabh¯aprapr¯ad¯ı tasmai sabhy¯ayety 85 arthah. | a´svatarau | ¯ıs.adunam ¯ a´svatvam . yayos t¯av a´svatarau gardabh¯ad . j¯atau | dvisarau | abhitah. sarata iti abhitah.sarau gardabhau vartete | a´sv¯ay¯am 87 . ked¯araks.etrasya n¯ılarudrah. | yath¯a purus.ottamaks.etrasya n¯ılam¯adhavo ’dhis.t.h¯at¯a, evam dviruktih. sam¯aptyarth¯a | 89 n¯ar¯ayan.ena racit¯a s´ rutim¯atropaj¯ıvin¯a | aspas.t.apadav¯aky¯an¯am . n¯ılarudrasya d¯ıpik¯a k 91 76 babhrukarn.ah.] OD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; babhruh. karn.ah. KQ; om. HEd1 76–77 pingalavarn ˙ . akarn.ah.] ˙ Ed2 ; pingalavarn ah . . karn ah . . KOQ; am tah . . . pimgalavarn . avarn ah . . HD¯ ı1 D¯ı2 ; atah. pi ˙ ngalavarn . a- karn.ah. Ed1 77 n¯ıl¯agala´s¯ıl¯a s´ iva] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 (´s¯ıva); n¯ıl¯agalasyal¯asyal¯a s´ iva H; n¯ıl¯agala´s¯ıl¯ah. s´ iva Ed2 ; n¯ıl¯a gale m¯al¯a yasya sah., s´ iva; Ed1 ; cf. mula: ¯ n¯ıl{¯a}galam¯al¯a(+h.) s´ ivah. H; n¯ıl¯agalam¯alah. s´ ivah. D 79 dehim¯atrasya] ΣEd2 ; deham¯atrasya Ed1 80 he] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; hi H 80 karman.ikarman.i] HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; karman.i KOQ 80 vihitanis.iddharupe] ¯ ΣEd2 ; vihitapratis.iddharupe ¯ Ed1 81 prcchik¯am. ] Ed1 ; prachik¯am . HKOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ˚ 81–82 vedavihitanis.iddhakarmavis.ayam . ] ΣEd2 ; vedavihitapratis.iddhakarmavis.ayam . Ed1 ◦ 83 vibhaktam . ] HD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; a¯ vibhaktam . KOQ 84 skandarup¯ ¯ aya v¯a] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 87 dvisarau] HKQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed1 ; abhitah.sarau OEd2 87 abhitah. sarata iti] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 EdΣ ; om. H 88 yath¯a purus.ottamaks.etrasya n¯ılam¯adhavo ’dhis.t.h¯at¯a, evam . ked¯araks.etrasya n¯ılarudrah.] KOQD¯ı1 D¯ı2 Ed2 ; om. HEd1 128 TIMOTHY LUBIN Translation E LUCIDATION OF THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD Homage to Gan.e´sa! [There are] three sections in the N¯ılarudropanis.ad, the sixteenth [of the Upanis.ads of the Atharvaveda]. It praises that god [viz., N¯ılarudra] with [a hymn] that has the form of Revelation (´sruti, i.e., mantra): “I saw. . . ” and so forth. 1.1. Having spoken of yoga without sense-contact (aspar´sayoga),67 [this Upanis.ad] praises N¯ılarudra, instigator of the tradition of that [yoga], the supreme teacher, the giver of the powers (siddhi) of yoga. [Beginning from] the word “I saw” (apa´syam): “divitah.” = ‘from the sky’, “prthiv¯ım” = ‘to earth’, “avah.” = ‘downwards’, “I saw” you “descending” — these˚are the words of the seer of the mantra. “asyantam” is the verb as in the sense of ‘striking’ = striking the wicked. By this, it refers to [God’s] practice of descending [into worldly form]. Having come about as the son of Brahman, because of Brahman’s anger when Sanaka and the other [mind-born sons of Brahman] were not performing the Emission [of the universe], this youth (Kum¯ara) howled (ruroda). Comforting [him], he [i.e., Brahman] gave [the youth] the name Rudra. After that, he gave him eleven places, eleven names, and eleven wives. Having seen that the Rudras emitted from him were innumerable, out of fear he consigned him to darkness. ´ He performed Tapas on the earth. Thus runs a legend.68 Sikhan . d.inam: the Vi´sva says (ViPra d.a¯ ntavarga 28): ‘´sikhan.d.a means “(peacock-)feather” or “tuft of hair [left after tonsure]”’. This [god] has one or the other of those; hence, [´sikhan.d.inam =] ‘him [who is] crested’. 1.2. From the presence “of the sky” (divah.),69 “the fierce one” (ugrah.) = ‘Rudra’ “av¯aruks.at” = ‘descended’,70 “pratyas..th¯at” = ‘established [himself]’ “upon the earth” (bhumy¯ ¯ am adhi). According to [the rule] ‘[The term karmaprava- can¯ıya (cf. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 1.4.83) denotes the particle] adhi when it means “master”’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 1.4.97), a´ dhi is a karmapravacan¯ıya [i.e., a preverb governing a noun, used without a verb]. The locative case [used with it] expresses ‘higher than 67 N¯ ar¯ayana. alludes here to the yoga mentioned in v. 39 of the Advaitaprakaran.a of the Gaud.ap¯adak¯arik¯a (GK), the four chapters of which (together with the M¯an.d.ukyopanis ¯ . ad) are in- cluded as the four Upanis.ads immediately preceding the N¯ılarudra in the collection. The rele- vant line (GK 3.39ab) is: aspar´sayogo vai n¯ama durdar´sah. sarvayogibhih.. 68 The short ‘itih¯ asa’ interpolated here recalls the Pur¯an.ic account (e.g., LP 1.20.82–94; cf. 1.5.13–33) of the ascetical youths (kum¯aras) born from the thought of Brahman as he contem- plated the void before creation. The explicit identification here of N¯ılarudra with Kum¯ara is also seen in N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading kum¯ar¯aya s´atrave in 3.25b (instead of kum¯ara´satrave), which he understands as two separate epithets of the deity. 69 The tentatively proposed emended reading diva a ¯ k¯as´a¯ t would be translated: “divah.” = ‘from the sky’. The only attested reading, divah. sak¯as´a¯ t is inelegant, not least because, although it includes the form divah. from the mula,¯ it must be construed in the gloss as a genitive while the gloss itself prescribes an ablative sense for the word in the stanza. In Devan¯agar¯ı initial a¯ might in some hands be confused with sa (or s¯a). 70 The gloss avat¯ırnav¯ . an could also be understood as meaning that he took earthly form as an avatar.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 129 which’ and ‘master over which’. The meaning is: ‘[as] master of the earth’. [As regards] “jan¯asah.”: the nominative case [follows the rules that] ‘[in the Veda (chandas)] the augment -as (asuk) is added after the nominative plural suffix (jas) after a stem ending in -a’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 7.1.50) [and that the nominative form is used] ‘also in the vocative sense’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 2.3.[46–]47). 1.3. [Rudra] “eti” = ‘comes’, ‘not striking down heroes’ = “a-v¯ırah¯a” = ‘kind’; or if [we read] av¯ıra-h¯a, [it means that] he strikes down unmanly deeds (av¯ır¯an.i) = sins. Or [it could be construed etya v¯ırah¯a]: “etya” = ‘having come’, he strikes down heroes (v¯ır¯an) = ‘demons’. Those [remedies] in which [there is] “casting” (¯asa) = ‘throwing’ (ks.epa) [of herbs] into water (jala) are jal¯as¯as and bhes.aj¯ıs. He goes to those: this is the connection.71 Herbs (os.adhi) thrown into water have the capacity to destroy inauspiciousness, just because they become near to Rudra.72 Or else it says: because he descended (avat¯ırn.a, i.e., as an avatar) to drink the poison that had arisen from the plants cast into the ocean at the time of the churning of the ocean. “He has utterly removed your (“te” = ‘tava’) world’s lack of security (aks.ema)”. By this is meant [Rudra’s] agency in ‘safeguarding’ (ks.ema) [what one possesses]. The obtaining of what has not been obtained is ‘getting’ (yoga). His (i.e., Rudra’s) agency in that is also men- tioned by the word v¯at¯ık¯arah..73 v¯ati is ‘acquisition’. v¯at¯ık¯ara means: he causes what is unobtained to be obtained. Let him “also” come (“etu” = ‘¯agacchatu’), i.e., also him who brings about your new acquisitions. This means: Let him who causes us ‘to get’ and ‘to keep’ become near in the water of Abhis.eka. On account of this trait of the mantra, its ritual application (viniyoga) is in an Abhis.eka. 1.4. “bh¯ama” = ‘anger’; “manyu” (rage) is the state prior to that. [Homage to these,] “and (u) also (“uta” = ‘api’) to your arrow (ta is.ave)” = ‘to that which has the form of a shaft’. 1.5. “astave” (to hurl) is the verb as in the sense of ‘throwing’; the [dative infinitive] suffix ◦ tave has the sense of [the accusative infinitive suffix] ◦ tum: [hence,] astum means ‘to throw’. To throw what? [To throw the] “giri´santam”. [The second member of this compound contains the present participle belong- ing to the verb] s´yati (he sharpens);74 [hence,] s´yan, [i.e.,] giri´syan = ‘sharpening (´syan) of the mountain (gireh.)’. It is a genitive compound expressing general- 71 N¯ ar¯ayana . reads jal¯asa-bhes.aj¯ıh. as an accusative plural feminine dvandva compound naming two types of remedy: jal¯as¯a, made by putting herbs into water, and bhes.aj¯ı, a well-known word for remedy, taken here to be the same sort of preparation. 72 That is, because Rudra is present in the waters of the Abhiseka rite (see below)? . 73 This refers to the ancient pair of ideals, yoga-ksema (or ksema-yoga), usually translated ‘get- . . ting and keeping’ or ‘exertion and rest’. These glosses reflect differing understandings of the words. yoga is either ‘yoking’ — standing by synecdoche for such activities as plowing, military campaign (in a chariot), or trade (with a cart or wagon) — or, more abstractly, ‘conjunction’ in the sense of acquisition. ks.ema means ‘rest, ease’ or ‘security’. See O ERTEL 1926: 226–227 for a discussion of the phrase’s usage in the Vedic literature; cf. also O BERLIES 1998: 333–362, who sees this compound as crystallizing the entire Vedic cycle by which lineages were established. 74 Dh¯ atup¯a.tha 26.36 specifies that the verbal root s´o- can be conjugated thus, in the fourth gan.a. 130 TIMOTHY LUBIN 75 ity of relation (sam . bandha-s¯am¯anya). That “mountain-sharpening (giri´santam)”. The omission of the syllable ya [from the expected form giri´syantam] is Vedic us- age (cf. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 1.1.58). Or [it follows the rule] that ‘kam and s´am take [the suffixes] ◦ ba, ◦ bha, ◦ yu, ◦ ti, ◦ tu, ◦ ta, and ◦ ya’ (Asta . . ¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 5.2.138; cf. Siddh¯antakaumud¯ı 1944). He has happiness; [he is] auspicious (´sam. tah.), [i.e.] ‘auspicious because of the mountain’ (giritah. . tah.), happy, because of the arrow’s origin on the mountain. O “giritra” = ‘mountain- s´am protector’. Make “that” (t¯am) [arrow] “benign” (´siv¯am) = ‘auspicious’. 1.6. “We invite” (acch¯a vad¯amasi) = ‘we speak clearly (accha)76 = stainlessly’. The long vowel of the word accha follows the rule that [there is lengthening] ‘also of a particle’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 6.3.136). [The Vedic first person plural suffix] ◦ masi ends in i (Asta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 7.1.46), and the word “it” is a particle without mean- .. ing. “ayaks.mam” = ‘disease-free’; “suman¯ah.” = ‘having good thoughts’. “Asat” = ‘(he) should be’: ‘the subjunctive is used with the optative meaning’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.7). [The verb form ends with] the personal ending tip (i.e., ◦ ti); ‘the short i is omitted in personal endings of the active voice [of the subjunctive]’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.97); the insertion of the vowel a before the suffix is explained by the rule ‘[the ending] of the subjunctive form is augmented with ◦ a◦ or ◦ a¯ ◦ ’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 3.4.94). 1.7. “´saravy¯a” = ‘the bowstring that puts the arrow together [with its tar- get?]’. According to the Vi´sva (ViPra r¯antavarga 8), ‘´sara means “the top of the cream” and “arrow”’. [The s´aravy¯a] merits an arrow (´sara): [hence, the inser- tion of the taddhita affix] ◦ ya (yat) [with this meaning] (cf. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 5.1.63–65). ‘And s´ara [takes the suffix] ◦ ava [in place of ◦ a]’ according to [the principle of] substitution by ava.77 Or else [´saravy¯a] is derived from a transformation of the word s´aru. ‘´saru means “weapon” and “anger”’.78 ‘[The taddhita affix] yat is introduced after [nominal stems ending in] the phoneme-class u and [the class of nominal stems] beginning with go [to mean ‘suitable for that’ (tasmai hitam, As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 5.1.5)]’ (As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 5.1.2). [The last p¯ada says:] “Treat [us] kindly” (mrd.a) = ‘gladden [us]’ (modaya) “for living” (j¯ıvase) = ‘to live’ (j¯ıvitum). Or else: ˚ “With that” (tay¯a) form, O “Merciful One” (mrd.a), “j¯ıvase” = ‘you make us (“nah.” ˚ = ‘asm¯an’) live’ (j¯ıvayasi). 1.8. “´sam . tamay¯a” = ‘by that [form] which is exceedingly auspicious, most auspicious’. “abhic¯aka´sat”: From the intensive stem of the verb ka´s, a subjunctive (let.)79 form [is made, with] the personal ending tip augmented with at. [hence: 75 It is not clear how N¯ ar¯ayana construes this compound in the stanza; if it is meant to describe . the arrow, the gender is wrong. 76 N¯ar¯ayan.a treats accha as a particle, even though he gives it the meaning of the homonymous adjective, i.e., ‘not darkened’. Hence, I have translated it (and its gloss) adverbially. 77 I have not been able to identify the source of this rule. It is invoked here, in conjunction with the affixing of yat, to produce the form s´aravy¯a from s´ara; a alternative derivation from s´aru is also considered. 78 This appears to be a quotation, but it has not been traced. 79 HD¯ı D¯ı read here lot ‘imperative’. This would be consonant with reading c¯ aka´s¯ıhi (Mac TS 1 2 . 4.5.1.1.c) or indeed the emended form c¯aka´sa. However, the mula ¯ written marginally around the  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 131 c¯aka´s-a-t]. It expresses the prayer ‘let it shine forth fully’. 1.9. “babhru” = ‘brown’. [The separate words here are:] “v¯a”, “es.a¯ m”, “ha”, “¯ıd.e” = ‘for praise’; “¯ımahe” = ‘we desire’.80 ¯ ıras (herdsmen) among the partisans of Vis.n.u = “gop¯a” = ‘cowherds’, 2.10. The Abh¯ “adrs´an” = ‘(they) saw’, “udah¯aryah.” = ‘water-bearing women’, “vi´sv¯a” = ‘all’ (vi´s˚v¯ani) “beings” (bhut¯ ¯ ani) saw. The meaning of this is: Even the lowliest have seen “you, who are invisible” (adrs´yam . tv¯am) even to yogis, when you make ˚ yourself manifest out of grace, shining forth like the sun.81 2.11. “To the impetuous one” (v¯ajine) = ‘to him who possesses food’ or ‘to him who is like an arrow’. [His] “warriors” (satv¯anah.) = ‘hosts’ sit down (s¯ıdanti).82 2.12. Having made “acts of homage” (nam¯am . si) = ‘expressions of homage’ [to your weapon] which is ‘not strung’ = “unstrung” (an¯atat¯aya) [but] “bold” (dhrs.n.ave) = ‘willful’, [and] “to your arms” (b¯ahubhy¯am). The meaning is: I made ˚ homage to [your] “bow” (dhanvane). 2.13. “Unfasten the string of the bow of both kings” (ubhayor . . . r¯ajnoh ˜ .) = ‘those who have become foe and counterfoe [to each other]’, [i.e.] unstretch [the string]. When kings clash, the people suffer. Therefore, quell that [dispute]: this is the sentiment. O “Lord” (bhagavah.)! “Lay those aside” (t¯ah. par¯avapa) = ‘release them in another direction’, “the arrows” (is.avah.) = ‘the shafts’ “which are in your hand” (y¯as te haste). May you too not get angry at the people: this is the sentiment. Protect the world by means of [your] Indra-form: this is what he prays for. 2.14. “Having unstrung” (avatatya) means ‘having strung up [the bow]’ (!). “O Thousand-Eyed” (sahasr¯aks.a) = ‘O [you] who have the form of Indra’! This is a vocative address (sam . bodhana) of him who has a hundred arrow-holders = quivers in the form of sacrifices. “Having cut” (ni´s¯ırya) = ‘having sharp- D¯ıpik¯a in H has c¯aka´sat, and all manuscripts of the D¯ıpik¯a cite the word under discussion in this form. 80 N¯ ar¯ayan.a’s padap¯a.tha shows that he has misunderstood the last p¯ada: only the word es.a¯ m is recognized. The verb is ava . . . ¯ımahe ‘we appease’; hed.as ‘wrath’ is the object. 81 The words adrs´ yam tv¯ am (“you who are invisible”) are cited from p¯ada a, showing that ˚ . N¯ar¯ayan.a had before him (or perhaps introduced) the corrupt form adrs´yam . (discussed in the ˚ annotations to the text of the stanza). The Bibliotheca Indica edition (Ed1 , pp. 275–276) prints the correct form adrs´an in p¯ada a, perhaps under the impression that one of the two occurrences ˚ of the word adrs´an in the commentary indicated that this was N¯ar¯ayan.a’s reading of the first ˚ word of the stanza. However, the context shows that the first adrs´an in the commentary goes ˚ with the subject gop¯ah. and is cited from p¯ada b, while the second is supplied for the other plural subjects udah¯aryah. and vi´sv¯a bhut¯ ¯ ani, whereas the wording of the first p¯ada is elucidated in the last sentence, which gives the purport of the stanza as a whole: that Rudra, who remains imperceptible even to those with the supernatural siddhis obtained from the practice of yoga, manifests himself out of grace to his devotees, however humble they may be. This is a typical statement of the superiority of bhakti to the path of asceticism. 82 The word satv¯ anah. is explained here by making it the subject of the ostensibly cognate verb s¯ıdanti, from the verbal root sad. 132 TIMOTHY LUBIN ened’ the “mukh¯a” = ‘tips’ (mukh¯ani), [being] “benign” (´sivah.) = ‘taking an auspi- cious form’, “benevolent” (´sambhuh.) = ‘being the cause of happiness’, “become present toward us” (no . . . a¯ bhava) = ‘support us’ or ‘make us prosper’. 2.15. “Let his arrow-holder” (b¯an.av¯an) = ‘quiver’ “be arrowless” (vi´salyo ’stu) = ‘let it become devoid of arrows’ because, when the enemies have been killed, it has no use. “[Your arrows] have disappeared” (ane´san) = ‘they have ceased to be seen’. According to a V¯arttika,83 ‘[The root vowel] is substituted by e [also] in tenses other than the reduplicated perfect forms of the verbs na´s and man’. ‘In the case of the a-aorist of verbs of the class beginning with pus.,84 [the root vowel becomes] e with the aorist endings’.85 “Nis.angatih ˙ . ” = ‘quiver’ (nis.angah ˙ . ). 2.16. “On every side” (vi´svatah.) = ‘on all sides’ “let [your missile] avoid us” = ‘let [it] enclose and protect us’. “O” (are) signifies the vocative.86 “Then” (atho) = ‘afterward, after protecting (us)’, “put” (nidhehi) = ‘place’ “that missile” (tam . hetim) = ‘arrow’ “in this” (asmin) quiver, which is “your quiver” (taves.udhih.). 2.17. O “Most Bountiful One” (m¯ıd.hus..tama), which means: ‘bountiful-est’, ‘who rains down most [blessings]’! With diseaselessness, with armor, [i.e.] “with that” (tay¯a) missile, “embrace us” (paribhuja) = ‘protect us round about’. 2.18–20. [Whose] “seat is made” (sadas krtam) = [whose] ‘home is made’. ˚ “The arrows” “of the sorcerers” = ‘of the demons’ and “of the trees” (vanas- pat¯ın¯am) are ‘serpents’ (sarp¯ah.), for they bite people. “In holes in the ground” (avat.es.u) = ‘in hollows’. 3.21. [The sage] praises the Lord of Ked¯ara in the form of a buffalo (Mahis.a). “He who” (yah.) = ‘Siva´ who’ appears (?) with affection as “the Blue-Necked” before “his people” (svajan¯an) = ‘devotees’, and as “Hari” = ‘the Green-Colored’ before “his people” (svajan¯an) = ‘devotees’. For Mahis.a takes such a form. Or else, “N¯ılagr¯ıva” is Rudra and “Hari” is Vis.n.u. In this way the oneness in form of Hari and Hara is expressed. O “plant Arundhat¯ı” = ‘O [plant] devoid of obstruction’. “Quickly” (¯as´u) = ‘speedily’ “devour” (jambhaya) = ‘empower with [your] own power’ that “speckled-tailed” (kalm¯as.apuccham) = ‘black-and-white-tailed’ [buffalo], on ac- count of the capacity of plants to give strength to cattle. According to the Vi´sva (ViPra s.a¯ ntavarga 19): ‘kalm¯as.ah. means “demonic” [or] “black”; kalm¯as.ah. means “black and white”’.87 Because the Lord of Ked¯ara has the form of a buffalo, he comes to have a tail. 3.22–23. “Brown” (babhruh.) = ‘having the color reddish-brown on some part of the body’. “Brown-eared” (babhrukarn.ah.) = ‘having reddish-brown-colored ears’. The proper reading of the words “n¯ıl¯agala´s¯ıl¯a s´ivah.” in this stanza is: ‘And ´ N¯ılagr¯ıva, who is Siva’ (n¯ılagr¯ıva´s ca yah. s´ivah.).88 The form “pit¯a” is a nominative 83 Not traced. 84 See Dh¯atup¯a.tha 4.73–137; na´s is listed at 4.85: na´sa´ a´ dar´sane. 85 I have not been able to identify the source or sources of these rules. 86 N¯ar¯ayan.a does not recognize here the vedic adverb a¯ r´e ‘afar, to a distant place’. 87 R ATNA G OP ALAˆ B HATTA (1911: 172) reads the neuter form kalm¯as.am here, which makes better sense. 88 N¯ar¯ayan.a proposes here to emend the text, which he does not find satisfactory (yukta) as it  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 133 used in the sense of an instrumental; the meaning is ‘by the father’ (pitr¯a). The construction is: Now, you who are “struck down” (hatah.) by the Lord (who is) “the father of him who will raise his voice” = ‘Brahman’, the begetter of the soul alone, “look” at him [i.e., the Lord].89 3.24. O “hero in deed upon deed”, whether [that deed be] ordained or for- bidden! [Strike down] “this question (pr¯as´am) of this” man; “pr¯as´” means ‘he asks’. “Strike down” (jahi) that “question” = ‘words of query’. That means: Re- move doubt about what acts are ordained and what acts are forbidden by the Veda. “By means of which” act “we have a share in” (vibhaj¯amahe) “this” (idam) world — [that is], we create our share [in the world] in the form of realms of action and realms of enjoying [the fruits of that action]. 3.25–26. “To Kum¯ara (the Youth)”, = ‘to him who is not overcome by time’, ´ or ‘to Skanda’; “to Satru (the Foe)”, who contracts [the universe at the end of the eon]. “To him who goes to the council-hall”: the council-goer goes to the coun- cil, having the habit of doing so; this means ‘to him who belongs to the council’. “Two mules”: mules, which are slightly deficient in horse-nature, are begot- ten by a donkey on a mare. “Running on either side”: “the (two) donkeys” are moving on either side, meaning, they run on two sides [of the council-goer]. Just as the N¯ılam¯adhava (Blue Vis.n.u) presides over Purus.ottama-Ks.etra (‘Domain of the Highest of Men’ = Puri in Orissa), so N¯ılarudra (Blue Rudra) presides over Ked¯ara-Ks.etra (the Ked¯ara domain in the Him¯alaya). The repetition [of the last p¯ada] signifies completion. [This] D¯ıpik¯a (‘elucidation’) of unclear words and sentences in the N¯ılarudra was composed by N¯ar¯ayan.a, who lives on the Veda alone. stands. 89 This convoluted paraphrase has the defect of requiring the form pit¯ a to be construed simul- taneously as an instrumental and as a nominative. The subject of the imperative verb pa´sya is identified with the referent of the corrupt form hatah., which we have emended to hatam (above, p. 117). 134 TIMOTHY LUBIN Abbreviations and Editions of Sanskrit Works AgP Agnipur¯an.a; M ITRA 1870–79. AiGr WACKERNAGEL & D EBRUNNER 1957. ¯ ApMP ¯ Apastamb¯ ıyamantrap¯a.tha; S RˆI NIV AS ˆ ACH ˆ ˆ ARYA 1902. As.t. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı; K ATRE 1987. AVPari´s Atharvavedapari´sis..ta; B OLLING & N EGELEIN 1909–10. Dh¯aP¯a Dh¯atup¯a.tha; K ATRE 1987. GK Gaud.ap¯adak¯arik¯a; A ¯ PAT. E 1921. Kau´sS Kau´sikasutra; ¯ B LOOMFIELD 1890. KS Kat.hasam . hit¯a; VON S CHROEDER 1900–10. LP Lingapur¯ ˙ an.a; G A NG ˙ AVIS ¯ . N. U 1924. MBh Mah¯abh¯arata; S UKTHANKAR , ET AL . 1927–59. MNU Mah¯an¯ar¯ayan.opanis.ad; VARENNE 1960; cf. TA ¯ 10. MS Maitr¯ayan.¯ısam . hit¯a; VON S CHROEDER 1881–86. NU N¯ılarudropanis.ad; editions: Bibliotheca Indica (Ed1 ): R AMAMAYA ¯ TARKARATNA 1872: 272–280; J IBANANDA V IDYASAGARA 1891: 206–213; ¯ Anand¯ as´ rama (Ed2 ): A ¯ PAT. E 1895: 275–279; ¯ Adyar Library: K UNHAN R AJA 1933: 296–302. PS Paippal¯adasam . hit¯a; editions cited: PS 1–15: B HATTACHARYA 1997; PS 6–7: G RIFFITHS 2004; PS 13–14: L OPEZ 2000; PS 19–20: provisional edition of Arlo Griffiths. RV Rgvedasam . hit¯a; A UFRECHT 1877. ˚ ˚ RVKh Rgvedakhil¯ani; S CHEFTELOWITZ 1906. ´˚ SS ´˚ Saunakasam . hit¯a; R OTH & W HITNEY 1924. ´ SvU ´Svet¯as´vataropanis.ad; O BERLIES 1996. TaPra Tattvaprak¯as´ad¯ıpik¯a; D VIVED¯I 1988: 1–114. TA ¯ Taittir¯ıy¯aran.yaka; with S¯ayan.a’s cty.: P HAD. AKE 1897–98; with Bhat.t.a Bh¯askara Mi´sra’s cty.: M AHADEVA S ASTRI & R ANGACARYA 1985. TS Taittir¯ıyasam . hit¯a; W EBER 1871–72. V¯aP V¯ayupur¯an.a; A ¯ PAT. E 1905. ViPra Vi´svaprak¯as´a; U TVALA V E NKAT ˙ ˙ AC . ARA NG ¯ ARYULU ¯ 1931; R ATNA G OP ALA ˆ B HATTA 1911. VS V¯ajasaneyisam . hit¯a (M¯adhyam . dina); W EBER 1852. References ¯ . e, Hari N¯ar¯ayan.a Apat 1895 Sr¯´ ı-N¯ar¯ayan.a-Sam ´ . kar¯anandaviracitad¯ıpik¯asamet¯an¯am Atharva´sikh¯a- dy¯an¯a[m . ] Ham . sopanis.adant¯an¯am . dv¯atrim . s´anmit¯an¯am upanis.ad¯am . samuccayah.: etat pustakam Anand¯¯ as´ramasthapan.d.itaih. sap¯a.th¯antara- nirde´sam. sam ¯ . s´odhitam, Anand¯ as´ ramasam . skr.tagranth¯avali, 29. ¯ Poona [Pun.y¯akhyapattana]: Anand¯as´ ramamudran.a¯ laya.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 135 1905 Mah¯amuni´sr¯ımad-Vy¯asapran.¯ıtam ¯ . V¯ayupur¯an.am: etat pustakam Anan- d¯as´ramasthapan.d.itaih. sam ¯ . s´odhitam, Anand¯as´ ramasam . skr.tagranth¯a- ¯ vali, 49. Poona [Pun.y¯akhyapattana]: Anand¯as´ ramamudran.a¯ laya. Rep. 1983. ¯ . e, Vin¯ayaka Gan.e´sa Apat 1921 Gaud.ap¯adak¯arik¯a. Anand¯¯ as´ ramasam . skr.tagranth¯avali, 10. Poona ¯ [Pun.y¯akhyapattana]: Anand¯as´ ramamudran.a¯ laya. Arbman, Ernst 1922 Rudra: Untersuchungen zum altindischen Glauben und Kultus. Upp- sala: Appelbergs Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Aufrecht, Theodor 1877 Rgveda-Sam . hit¯a. Bonn. ˚ Bakker, Hans 2000 ‘Soma´sarman, Somavam . s´ a and Somasiddh¯anta: A P¯as´ upata Tra- dition in Seventh-Century Daks.in.a Kosala. Studies in the Skan- dapur¯an.a III’. In: Har¯anandalahar¯ı: Volume in Honour of Professor Minoru Hara on his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Ryutaro Tsuchida and Albrecht Wezler, pp. 1–19. Reinbek: Wezler Verlag. Bhattacharya, Dipak 1997 The Paippal¯ada-Sam . hit¯a of the Atharvaveda: Volume One, Consisting of the First Fifteen K¯an.d.as. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Bisschop, Peter, and Arlo Griffiths 2003 ‘The P¯as´ upata Observance (Atharvavedapari´sis..ta 40)’. Indo-Iranian Journal 46(4), 315–348. Bloomfield, Maurice 1890 The K¯au¸cika-Sutra¯ of the Atharva Veda. With Extracts from the Com- mentaries of D¯arila and Ke¸cava. New Haven: AOS [= Journal of the American Oriental Society 14 (1889)]. 1891 ‘Contributions to the Interpretation of the Atharva-Veda. Fourth Series’. American Journal of Philology 12, 414–443. ¨ Bohtlingk, Otto, and Rudolph Roth 1855–75 Sanskrit-W¨orterbuch. 7 vols. St. Petersburg. Bolling, G. M., and J. v. Negelein 1909–10 The Pari´sis..tas of the Atharvaveda. 2 vols. Leipzig: Otto Harras- sowitz. Bouy, Christian ´ 1994 Les N¯atha-Yogin et les upanis.ads: Etude d’histoire de la litt´erature hin- doue, Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, fasc. 62. ´ Paris: Edition-Diffusion de Boccard. Caland, Willem 1904 ‘Zur Atharvavedalitteratur’. Wiener Zeitschrift fur ¨ die Kunde des Morgenlandes 18, 185–207. Reprinted in Willem Caland, Kleine 136 TIMOTHY LUBIN Schriften, edited by Michael Witzel (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Ver- lag, 1990), pp. 146–172. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar 1960 ‘The Pronunciation of Sanskrit’. Indian Linguistics 21, 61–82. Chintamani, T. R. 1939 The Unadisutras in Various Recensions. Madras University Sanskrit Series, no. 7. Madras: Madras University. Deussen, Paul 1897 Sechzig Upanishad’s des Veda. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Dvived¯ı, Vrajavallabha 1988 As..taprakaran.am. Yogatantra-Grantham¯al¯a 12. Varanasi: Sampur- nananda Sanskrit University. Emeneau, Murray 1988 Sanskrit Studies of M.B. Emeneau: Selected Papers, edited by B.A. van Nooten. Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies, University of California. ˙ avis.n.u Gang¯ [1924] Sr¯ ´ ıvy¯asamahars.iproktam . s´ri-Lingamah¯ ˙ apur¯an.am . , with the Sanskrit ´ Commentary Sivatos in . . ¯ ı by Gan . e´ s a N¯ a tu. Bombay: Venkatesvara Steam Press, V.S. 1981. ´ Rep., with a Slok¯anukraman.¯ı by N¯aga´saran.a Sim . ha, Delhi: Nag Publishers, 1989, 1996, 2004. ¨ Gengnagel, Jorg 1996 M¯ay¯a, Purus.a und Siva: ´ ´ Die dualistische Tradition des Sivaismus nach Aghora´siv¯ac¯aryas Tattvaprak¯as´ avr.tti. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Gode, P. K. 1938 ‘Date of N¯ar¯ayan.a, the Commentator of the Upanis.ads’. Journal of the University of Bombay 7(2), 128–132. Gonda, Jan ´ 1979 ‘The Satarudriya’. In: Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honour of Daniel H. H. Ingalls, pp. 75–91. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Griffiths, Arlo 2002 ‘Aspects of the Study of the Paippal¯ada AtharvaVedic Tradition’. ¯ In: A. Ghosh (ed.): Atharvan . a´ (A Collection of Essays on the Athar- vaVeda with Special Reference to Its Paippal¯ada Tradition). Kolkata: Sanskrit Book Depot, pp. 35–54. 2003 ‘The Orissa Manuscripts of the Paippal¯ada Sam . hit¯a’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenl¨andischen Gesellschaft 153, 333–370. 2004 The Paippal¯adasam . hit¯a of the Atharvaveda, K¯an.d.as 6 and 7: A New Edition with Translation and Commentary. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden Uni- versity. 2004–05 ‘Tumburu: A Deified Tree’. Bulletin d’Etudes Indiennes 22–23 [ap- peared 2007], 249–264.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 137 Hoffmann, Karl 1956 ‘Notizen zu Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik II,2’. Munchener ¨ Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 8, 5–24. 1975–76 Aufs¨atze zur Indoiranistik, edited by Johanna Narten. 2 vols. Wies- baden: Ludwig Reichert. Jamison, Stephanie 1992 ‘Vedic “s´a fig´e”: An inherited sentence connective?’. Historische Sprachforschung 105, 213–239. Jibananda Vidyasagara 1891 Atharvanopanishat with the Commentary of Narayana Bhatta / Athar- ¯ van.opanis.adah. s´r¯ın¯ar¯ayan.abhat..takr.tad¯ıpik¯akhyat.¯ık¯asahit¯ah.. Calcutta: Narayana Press, 2nd edition. Date on Sanskrit t.p.: 1892. Katre, Sumitra M. 1987 The As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı of P¯an.ini. Austin: University of Texas Press. Keith, Arthur Berriedale 1914 The Veda of the Black Yajus School, Entitled Taittiriya Sanhita. Har- vard Oriental Series, 18–19. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Kunhan Raja, C. 1933 Un-published Upanis.ads. Madras: Adyar Library. Lopez, Carlos A. 2000 The Paippal¯ada Sam . hit¯a of the Atharvaveda: A Critical Edition, Transla- tion, and Study of Books 13 and 14. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Lubotsky, Alexander M. 2004 ‘pr.d¯akus¯anu’. Indo-Iranian Journal 47(1), 1–6. Mahadeva Sastri, A., and K. Rangacarya ¯ . yaka with the Commentary of Bhat..ta Bh¯askara Mi´sra 1985 The Taittir¯ıya Aran and an English Introduction by T. N. Dharm¯adhik¯ari. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Reprint of Government Oriental Library Series, Bib- liotheca Sanskritica 26, 27, 29 (1900–02). Macdonell, A. A. 1910 Vedic Grammar. Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Al- tertumskunde 1.4. Strassburg: Trubner. ¨ Mayrhofer, Manfred 1992, 1996 Etymologisches W¨orterbuch des Altindoarischen, 2 vols. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Mitra, Rajendralal 1870–79 Agnipur¯an.am. 3 vols. Bibliotheca Indica 65(1-3). Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Monier-Williams, Monier 1899 A Sanskrit–English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 138 TIMOTHY LUBIN Oberlies, Thomas 1988 ‘Die Svet¯ ´ as´ vatara-Upanis.ad: Eine Studie ihrer Gotteslehre (Stu- dien zu den ‘mittleren’ Upanis.ads I)’. Wiener Zeitschrift fur ¨ die Kunde Sudasiens ¨ 32, 35–62. 1996 ‘Die Svet¯ ´ as´ vatara-Upanis.ad: Einleitung—Edition und Ubersetz- ¨ ung von Adhy¯aya II–III (Studien zu den ‘mittleren’ Upanis.ads II—2. Teil)’. Wiener Zeitschrift fur ¨ die Kunde Sudasiens ¨ 40, 123–160. 1998 Die Religion des Rgveda. Erster Teil: Das religi¨ose System des Rgveda. ˚ ˚ Publications of the de Nobili Research Library, 26. Vienna: Samm- lung de Nobili. Oertel, Hanns 1926 The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Br¯ahman.as. I. The Disjunct Use of Cases. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universit¨atsbuchhandlung. ´ Phad.ake, V. S. R. R. B¯ab¯as´ a¯ str¯ı 1897–98 Taittir¯ıy¯aran.yakam. 2 vols. Poona: Anand¯ ¯ as´ rama. Ratna Gopˆala Bhatta 1911 Vi´svaprak¯as´ah., n¯ama´sabdakos.ah., vidvadvara´sr¯ı-Mahe´svarasudh¯ı- viracitah. s´r¯ımad¯ac¯arya´sr¯ı-Vallabh¯adh¯ıs´varasam . prad¯ayavidus.a¯ Rat- nagop¯alabhat..tena sam . s ´ odhitah . [English title: Vishvaprakˆasha]. Chowkhambˆa Sanskrit Series, 160. Benares: Chowkhambˆa Sanskrit Book-Depot. ˆ R¯amamaya Tarkaratna ´ 1872 The Atharvan . a Upanis.ads with the Commentary of N´ar´ayan.a. Cal- cutta: Gane´sa Press. Roth, Rudolph, and William Dwight Whitney 1924 Atharva Veda Sanhita, 2nd rev. ed. by Max Lindenau. Berlin: F. ¨ Dummler. Scheftelowitz, J. 1906 Die Apokryphen des Rgveda (Khil¯ani). Breslau: M. & H. Marcus. ˚ Schrader, F. Otto 1908 A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Li- brary, vol. 1.—Upanis.ads. Madras: Adyar Library. von Schroeder, Leopold 1881–86 Maitr¯ayan.¯ı Sam . hit¯a: Die Sam . hit¯a der Maitr¯ayan.¯ıya-S¯´ akh¯a. 4 vols. Leipzig: E. A. Brockhaus. Rep. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970. 1900–10 K¯a.thaka: Die Sam . hit¯a der Kat.ha-S¯´ akh¯a. 3 vols. Leipzig: E. A. Brock- haus. Rep. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1970. Shastri, J. L. 1970 Upanis.at-sam . grahah.. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.  THE N¯I LARUDROPANIS. AD AND THE PAIPPAL ADASAM ¯ . HIT A¯ 139 Srˆınivˆasˆachˆarya, L. 1902 The Ek´agnik´an.da of the Krishna-Yajur-Veda with the Commentary of Haradattami´sra. Mysore: Government Branch Press. Sukthankar, V. S., et al. 1927–59 The Mah¯abh¯arata. For the First Time Critically Edited by V. S. Suk- thankar and Others. 19 vols. Poona: BORI. Utvala Venkat˙ . arang¯ ˙ ac¯aryulu 1931 Mahe´svarasuri ¯ viracita Vi´svako´samu sat.¯ıkamu. Cennapuri [Chennai]: V¯avilla R¯amasv¯ami´sa¯ strulu. [In Telugu script.] Varenne, Jean 1960 La Mah¯a N¯ar¯ayan.a Upanis.ad. 2 vols. Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne, fasc. 11 and 13. Paris: Editions de Boccard. Wackernagel, Jacob, and Albert Debrunner 1957 [1896] Altindische Grammatik, vol. 1. Gottingen: ¨ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weber, Albrecht 1852 The Vˆajasaneyi-Sanhitˆa in the Mˆadhyandina- and the Kˆan.va-C ¸ aˆ khˆa with the Commentary of Mahˆıdhara. Berlin & London: F. Dummler. ¨ 1871–72 Die Taittirˆıya-Sam . hitˆa. 2 vols. Indische Studien 11–12. West, Martin L. 1973 Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique. Stuttgart: Teubner. Whitney, William Dwight 1862 The Atharva-Veda Pr¯ati´sa¯ kya or Saunak¯ ´ ıya Catur¯adhy¯ayik¯a: Text, translation and notes. Journal of the American Oriental Society 7. Rep. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies XX, 1962. 1905 Atharva-Veda Sam . hit¯a, translated with a critical and exegetical com- mentary. Revised and brought nearer to completion and edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman, Harvard Oriental Series 7–8. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Witzel, Michael 1974 ‘On Some Unknown Systems of Marking the Vedic Accent’. Vishveshvarand Indological Journal 12 [Vishva Bandhu Commemo- ration Volume], 472–502. 1985 ‘Die Atharvaveda-Tradition und die Paippal¯ada-Samhit¯ ˙ a’. Zeit- schrift der Deutschen Morgenl¨andischen Gesellschaft Supplement- band 6, 256–271. 2000 ‘Medieval Veda Tradition as Reflected in Nepalese Manuscripts’. Journal of the Nepal Research Centre 12, 255–300. Zysk, Kenneth 1985 Religious Healing in the Veda. Philadelphia: American Philosophi- cal Society.  Contents Arlo Griffiths Prefatory Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III Philipp Kubisch The Metrical and Prosodical Structures of Books I–VII of the Vulgate Atharvavedasam . hit¯a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Alexander Lubotsky PS 8.15. Offense against a Brahmin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Werner Knobl Zwei Studien zum Wortschatz der Paippal¯ada-Sam . hit¯a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Yasuhiro Tsuchiyama On the meaning of the word r¯as..tr´a: PS 10.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Timothy Lubin The N¯ılarudropanis.ad and the Paippal¯adasam. hit¯a: A Critical Edition with Trans- lation of the Upanis.ad and N¯ar¯ayan.a’s D¯ıpik¯a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Arlo Griffiths The Ancillary Literature of the Paippal¯ada School: A Preliminary Survey with an Edition of the Caran.avyuhopanis ¯ . ad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Alexis Sanderson Atharvavedins in Tantric Territory: The A¯ ngirasakalpa ˙ Texts of the Oriya Paip- pal¯adins and their Connection with the Trika and the K¯al¯ıkula. With critical editions of the Par¯ajapavidhi, the Par¯amantravidhi, and the *Bhadrak¯al¯ımantra- vidhiprakaran.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Kei Kataoka Was Bhat.t.a Jayanta a Paippal¯adin? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 Walter Slaje Three Bhat.t.as, Two Sult.a¯ ns, and the Kashmirian Atharvaveda . . . . . . . . . . 329 Annette Schmiedchen Epigraphical Evidence for the History of Atharvavedic Brahmins . . . . . . . 355 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387