Review article. Ācārya Joindu, Paramātmaprakāśa (Paramappapayāsu) Jérôme Petit To cite this version: Jérôme Petit. Review article. Ācārya Joindu, Paramātmaprakāśa (Paramappapayāsu). Orientalistis- che Literaturzeitung, Ed. Neumann, Hans, 2013, 108 (4-5), pp.327-329. hal-01113258 HAL Id: hal-01113258 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01113258 Submitted on 4 Feb 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. © Akademie Verlag. This document is protected by German copyright law. You may copy and distribute this document for your personal use only. Other use is only allowed with written permission by the copyright holder. use only. may copy and distribute this document for your personal You This document is protected by German copyright law. © Akademie Verlag. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 108 (2013) 4–5 327 Frašgird-kardārīh’, G. Lazard ‘Qu’est devenue la préposi- feeding of horses, including horses of a deity, with Vedic tion ō?’) are less substantial. M. Janda suggests OP a-p-d- passages, and suggests the similarities may be attributed to a-n should be explained as ā-pad-āna- ‘place of approach, the presence of Indo-Aryans in the second millennium place of falling (in obeisance)’, observing that Greek Near East. R.-P. Ritter briefly discusses the two outcomes προσπίπτειν may be a calque on the OP verb ā-pad-. In my of IE *r in Armenian. E. Tichy provides a stimulating ac- opinion, he dismisses too lightly some difficulties on the count of the evidence provided by Homeric formulae such Iranian side, firstly that pad- ‘fall’ is not attested with pre- as (εὐρὺ) κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων and ζείδωρος ἄρουρα for the verb ā, and secondly that if original *āpadana- (cf. OP pre-Greek origins of the Greek hexameter. āyadana-‘place of worship’) was remodelled to āpadāna- It is a pity that this handsome volume is marred by a on the analogy of compounds in -dāna-, this would imply rather high number of misprints, including a garbled final that the root pad- and the noun’s literal meaning was not sentence in the contribution by Andrés-Toledo, two differ- recognized even by native Iranian speakers. ent titles for Eichner’s article and an incorrect reference in Among the studies of mythology, M. A. Andrés-Toledo the running header of Skjærvø’s article. Some of the pa- ‘the Indo-Iranian noose of death’ seeks to establish the pers written in English would have benefitted from check- transference of a hunting term to eschatology, but, in my ing by a native speaker. However, such complaints are view, he does not succeed in delineating the image and its minor in comparison with the achievement of the editors in linguistic expression sharply enough: for instance, in early assembling such a valuable collection of articles and in Vedic Varuṇa’s pā´śa- represent a different conception as bringing the volume out on time for the birthday of Jean the deity fetters humans during their lifetime in punish- Kellens. ment for oath-breaking or falsehood. B. Lincoln ‘Implica- tions of Grammatical Number in Iranian Mythology of Vegetation’ traces a shift from a plural conception (which it might be added is clearly inherited from Indo-Iranian in SÜDASIEN the case of āp- ‘water’) towards “an assertion of primordial unity” indicated by an increasing tendency to refer to ele- DOI 10.1524/olzg.2013.0042 ments of vegetation in the singular in the Younger Avesta, Joindu, Ācārya: Paramātmaprakāśa. (Paramappapa- and above all in the Pahlavi texts. N. Oettinger ‘Zum v yāsu). Hindi transl. by Jaykumar Jalaj. Mumbai: Hindi Verhältnis von Apąm Napāt und x arənah im Avesta’ pro- Granth Karyalay 2007. 72 S. 8° = Pandit Nathuram Premi poses that an original Indo-Iranian god representing ‘the Research Series, 9. Brosch. Rs 60,00. ISBN 978-81- fire in the water’ has split into the minor Avestan yazata 88769-09-4. Apąm Napāt (found only in Yašt 19) on the one hand v Bspr. von Jérôme Petit, Paris. and the x arənah ‘Fortune, Kingly Glory’ on the other. P. Swennen ‘Indra entre Inde et Iran’ follows up a discus- Paramātmaprakāśa “Light on the Supreme Self” (hence- sion about Indo-Iranian onomastics from his previous pub- forth PP), is a very popular text of Jain mysticism, com- lications and emphasizes that Indra must have been a god posed by Joindu/Yogīndu probably during the sixth cen- of the Indo-Iranian pantheon. tury AD. It expounds the different aspects of the self as Finally, we note some fine papers dealing with Old seen by Jain doctrine, and the way to realise it. The popu- Indo-Aryan and other branches of Indo-European. T. Gotō larity of the text has been assured by the author’s use of discusses the Yajurvedic (MS, KS) optative form Apabhraṃśa, which was more accessible than Sanskrit or bhṛjyéyur, and argues that it represents the oldest known Prakrit at that time. Diachronically, Apabhraṃśa found a example of a -yet- optative and must be based on the pre- place between Prakrit and pre-modern Indo-Aryan lan- sent stem bhṛjjá- from bhrajj-/bhṛjj- ‘to roast, bake’. guages like old Hindi, old Gujarati, etc.1 The Apabhraṃśa A. Griffiths and A. Lubotsky reedit and translate Paippal- title of the book is Paramappapayāsu with the characteris- āda Saṃhitā 19.19.9–11 in order to confirm the early tic final -u of this multi-faceted language under which we meaning ‘husband’s brother’s wife’ for yātar-; but they have to consider many languages used to compose popular reject the sense ‘sister-in-law’ for giri- because in its poetry between the fifth and fifteenth centuries. Instead of Gṛhya Sūtra context it cannot mean ‘husband’s sister’ and they think a shift in meaning to ‘wife’s sister’ or ‘brother’s wife’ is unlikely under the social conditions of Vedic In- 1 dia. J. Sakamoto-Gotō traces the employment of optatives It has been described by Hemacandra (1088–1172) in the eighth section, devoted to Prakrit languages, of his Siddhahemacandra, a grammar writ- with a preterite value in late Vedic, Epic, Buddhist Hybrid ten for the Gujarati king Siddharāja. See Richard Pischel: Comparative Sanskrit, Pāli, Ardhamāgadhī and Jaina-Mahārāṣṭrī. Indo- Grammar of the Prakrit Languages. Translated from the German [of Aryan and Iranian have innovated independently but this 1900] by Subhadra Jha. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidass 1957; and, P. L. careful study supplies interesting typological comparisons Vaidya (ed.): Prakrit Grammar. The Eighth Adhyāya of Siddha-hema- for the better known Old Iranian developments. H. Eichner śabdānuśāsana (Hemacandra’s Prakrit Grammar) with his Own Com- mentary, Prakāśkā. Revised edition …. (Bombay Sanskrit Series 60.) compares some Hittite rituals and prayers involving the Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 1956. © Akademie Verlag. This document is protected by German copyright law. You may copy and distribute this document for your personal use only. Other use is only allowed with written permission by the copyright holder. use only. may copy and distribute this document for your personal You This document is protected by German copyright law. © Akademie Verlag. 328 Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 108 (2013) 4–5 gāthā metres used in Prakrit works, Apabhraṃśa intro- and his teacher Yogīndu, the former questioning the latter duced metrical forms that have been appreciated in pre- on the real nature of the self (ātman-). Yogīndu starts to modern poetry, like dohā, caupaī, soraṭha etc., in which explain that the self is of three kinds: external (bahis-), the PP is mostly composed. The second reason of its popu- internal (antara-), and supreme (parama-). These aspects larity is a Braj Bhāṣā rendering by Daulatarāma Kāsalīvāla give an idea of the path to liberation: one should renounce (1692–1772) of a Sanskrit commentary written by Brah- the external self to realise the supreme self by knowing the madeva (approx. 13th century). This kind of vernacular internal self. The main exercise consists in separating the translation, fashionable in the Jain milieu, had assured the sphere of the body from the sphere of the soul, which is an popularity of many philosophical texts composed in Prakrit embodiment of knowledge, free from karman. The diffi- or Sanskrit by making accessible to a large audience a culty is that the soul is a substance, and as such it was born concise work written in a scholarly language. In the case of with qualities (guṇa-) and undergoes modifications (pary- the PP, we can add a third reason to explain its popularity: āya-). It has only two qualities: vision (darśana-) and the text is written in a quite easy and vivid style, with a knowledge (jñāna-). The modifications are caused by kar- successive number of repetitions in the verses themselves, mic associations, so they are real from a conventional or between verses, with the syntax system of concatenation point of view (vyavahāranaya-) only. From an absolute assuring helpful mnemonic tools. point of view (niścayanaya-) “the Ātman simply sees and The PP was edited along with the Yogasāra, another knows: Ātman does not bring about bondage and liberation small text of Joindu on the same topics, by A. N. Upadhye which are caused by Karman for him” (Upadhye: 34). (1906–1975) in 1937, together with Brahmadeva’s com- These two points of view are developed to a large extent in mentary, a modern Hindi translation of Daulatarāma’s Kundakunda’s Samayasāra, an important work which rendering, and a critical introduction of a hundred pages.