2001b Water and Salt I (IIJ 44)

WALTER SLAJE

WATER AND SALT (I): YAJÑAVALKYA’S SAINDHAVA D˚RS. T. ANTA

(BAU II 4,12)

Die Lehre von Saltzen muß wohl verstanden werden,weil sie der Grund der gantzen Natur ist:Denn alles, was sich in der Welt befindet, hat Saltz in sich.

Johann Heinrich Zedler (1742: 1300)Modern wird als Salz üblich Natriumchlorid (NaCl) verstandenund diese Vorstellung auch in einem geschichtlichen Rückblick genutzt,obwohl das nicht unbedenklich ist.

Reinhold F. G. Müller (1965: 61)

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

The famous dialogue between Yajñavalkya and his wife Maitreyı aspreserved in two slightly different versions of the B

˚rhadaran.yaka-

Upanis.ad (BAU II 4 ∼ BAU IV 5), contains several similes, some ofwhich can – in my estimation – not be considered as being entirely clear tous. Among them, an outstanding example is the simile drawing upon thedissolution of salt.1 Hardly anybody would, I think, disagree that the simileis indeed unclear in at least a few respects. I have my doubts, however, ifthe degree to which our misinterpretation might actually extend has reallyever been realized. The partial quote2 of only two recent translations,3

which can be considered representative and reliable in that they fully takeinto account the results of recent research, will suffice for the purpose ofbriefly pointing out the problem. According to the present state of knowl-edge as reflected in these works, the illustration (d

˚rs. t.anta) as given by

Yajñavalkya could roughly be represented as follows: a salt chunk, whenthrown in water, dissolves completely into that water. One cannot pick itup any more. The water, however, is salty. In other words, the salt muststill be there:

sa yatha saindhavakhilyaudake prasta udakam ev¯anuvilıyeta4 na hasyodgrahan. ayevasyat | yato yatas tv ¯adadıta lavan. am eva. . . | (BAU(K) II 4,12)

Indo-Iranian Journal 44: 25–57, 2001.© 2001Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

26 WALTER SLAJE

Und wie ein Salzstück, das man ins Wasser geworfen hat,sich im Wasser ganz auflöst–nicht fürwahr dürfte es möglich sein, es herauszunehmen, von wo aber auch immer man[Wasser] entnähme,wäreessalzig. . . (Hanefeld 1976: 79)

It is like this. Whena chunk of saltis thrown in water, itdissolves into that very water, andit cannot be picked up in any way. Yet, from whichever place one may take a sip, the saltis there! (Olivelle 1998: 69)

It is obvious that both the authors tacitly assume two substances neces-sarily involved in the example, namely, fresh, non-salty drinking water anda quantum of salt which, when added, gives this water a new, characteristictaste of saltiness. They assign to this statement the implicit function of aproof for an actual, though invisible, presence of the added substance ‘salt’– in thed

˚rs. t.anta. The element common to this illustration (d

˚rs. t.anta) and

to its subject (dars. t.antika),

. . . evam. va are idam. mahad bhutam anantam aparam. vijñanaghana eva| etebhyah.5

bhutebhyah. samutthaya tany evanu vinasyati | na pretya sam. jñastıty are bravımi ||(BAU(K) II 4,12)

remains a matter of dispute. The inherent problems having been givencloser consideration are the following: according to Hanefeld’s detaileddiscussion (pp. 100–115), no really meaningfultertium comparationisisdiscernible.6 It seemed, to him, as if the Upanis.atkara had erroneouslydrawn upon twodifferent substancesin his d

˚rs. t.anta, namely on salt

(saindhava) and on water (udaka), when actually aiming at an illustra-tion of substantial identity.7 In any case, it remains equally unclear anddisputable as to just whose identity he could have actually referred. Alimited agreement in terms of interpretation seems to exist only to theextent that the true object of the example is the attempt at explaining therelationship between themahad bhuta and thebhutas, in my opinion withparticular reference to problems connected with ‘disappearance’ (yatha . . .vi√

lı / evam. . . . vi√

nas). However, regarding the real meaning covered bythese two notions, in particular that covered by ‘bhuta’ (pl.), the correctsyntactical splitting of the sentence, as well as the correct interpretationof the grammatical case-ending ofbhutebhyah. (dative or ablative), theopinions held by scholars can by no means be said to coincide. Thetranslations of the subject of comparison (dars. t.antika) accordingly deviateconsiderably from each other:

. . . ist es mit diesem großen Wesen, dem endlosen, uferlosen, – nachdemes diesen Wesenals Erkenntnisklumpenentstanden ist,löst es sich mit diesen (bzw. in diese) auf. Nicht gibtes nach dem TodeObjektsbewußtsein, so sage ich. (Hanefeld 1976: 79)

In a footnote (no. 6) to the same page, Hanefeld offers as an alternativetranslation:

WATER AND SALT (I) 27

Genau soist es mit diesem großen Wesen, dem endlosen, uferlosen,das ganz und gar ausErkenntnis besteht: nachdem es diesen Wesen entstanden ist, löst es sich mit ihnen / indiese auf.

Olivelle (1998: 69), allegedly following Hanefeld’s alternative explana-tion,8 offers nevertheless a markedly different translation:

In the same waythis Immense Beinghas no limit or boundaryand is a single mass ofperception. It arises out of and together with these beings and disappears after them– so Isay, after death there is no awareness.

on which he himself comments in the following way:

The meaning is that the Immense Being, here identified with the self, comes into view inthis world through the medium ofvital functions(which I take to be the meaning of ‘thesebeings’)9 and disappears with them at death.. . . In fact, thesimile10 in this version, withthe piece of saltwhich isvisible at one time and invisible at another, is more to the pointthan the one given at BU 4.5.13. (Olivelle 1998: 504)

These statements have been quoted in extenso not with a view to makingthem the target of philological criticism, but simply to bringing out theproblematic point in question, which in my view lies above all in thehitherto inadequate understanding of thesaindhava-d

˚rs. t.anta. As long as an

illustration (d˚rs. t.anta) is not properly understood, any attempt at setting out

its subject, thedars. t.antika, is virtually putting the cart before the horse – atleast theoretically.11 As reflected and explicitly stated in the Nyayasutras,unclear facts are illustrated by examples which are intelligible to, andagreed upon by, not only specialists, but also the common man.12 We arecertainly entitled to presuppose that thed

˚rs. t.anta as such must have been

entirely plain to an Indian contemporary of Yajñavalkya in the first halfof the first millenium B.C., otherwise its use would not have made sense.And we may equally assume at leastonecommon property being inherentin both the subject and the object of the present comparison. This, as ageneral principle, was also formulated by later traditions.13

Although it may not have been noticed as that problematic as yet, thesimile neverthelessis. This assumption can be substantiated by yet anotherfamous Upanis.adic passage (ChU VI 13) which also draws upon water andsalt for a particular illustration, and regarding the true meaning of which aconsensus omniumhas not been reached until today.

Even Bodewitz, to whom we owe a decisive step forward with regard toits interpretation, could not free himself from the notion that “theinvisiblepresence of the particles of saltillustrates the presence of theatman”.14

Similarly Falk,15 according to whom salt “verschmilzt mit Wasser zueinerneuen Einheit, ohne äußerlichdarin erkennbar zu sein. In den Upanis.adenwird das Salz deshalb mit demAtman verglichen, weil es überall im

28 WALTER SLAJE

Wasser gleich präsent (BAU 2.4,12) und unvergänglich ist (ChU 6.13,2tac chasvat sam. vartate)”. With this Thieme’s (1966: 75) explanation maybe compared, where he says: “Wie das Salzstückim Wasseralsunangreif-baresSalz. . . weiterexistiert.” In fact, all scholars considered the elementaldifference between the two substances ‘water’ and ‘salt’ the most naturalthing in the world. The mere possibility that it might be otherwise, wasthusnever, not even in theory, given a thought at all.

In what follows, I have to confine myself to dealing with thesaindhava-d˚rs. t.anta alone, deliberately excluding thedars. t.antika from my consider-

ations. For, if my interpretation holds good, thedars. t.antika itself wouldalso need a fresh and thorough investigation which, in the light of newaspects for possible applications, would have to pay full attention to theexisting testimonia to proto-Sankhya and proto-Advaitavedanta currentsof thought, which is clearly outside the scope of the present paper.

2. HYPOTHESIS

An attempt at solving the problem basically has to take two possibilitiesinto account:

1) the simile itself is indeed unsuitable (= failure of its author), or2) the simile is suitable, but was entirely misunderstood (= failure of the

Indologists).

I have become mistrustful, I must say, of too quickly identifying Indianand Western concepts without previous examination. It is known thatthere is always the danger ofreadingWestern ‘intra-cultural’ notionsintonon-European cultures without becoming aware at all of the indigenouspreconditions for particular cultural phenomena. Let me clarify my point:we do indeed ‘know’ that salt is not water and vice versa, but how canwe be sure that people in ancient India shared our present ‘knowledge’of this difference? Do we actuallyknow what they thought they ‘knew’about the nature of salt and water? However, without a proper knowledgeof the notions that were prevailing among people at given times, howcan we expect to find the clue to their world-views as expressed by theirillustrations?

It is of course not the ‘chemically true’ nature of salt which reallymatters in this regard, but the actualnotion people of ancient India hadin their minds16 when they were thinking of, or talking about, salt. Foreven our so-called scientific ‘truths’ are always only provisional ones, sothe history of natural science teaches us at least, and hence they can at bestbe taken as relative truths, according to their respective comprehension by


a certain cultural community at a given time. I need not recall that until the17th century (R. Boyle) Europe was still thinking along the lines of ‘fiveelements’ as shaped by Aristotle.17 The currently accepted categorizationof about 100 elements arranged according to a ‘periodical system’ resides– though it is only a comparatively recent (19th century) development –nevertheless as a conviction in our minds, as imposed upon us by educationand common consent.

However, without proper knowledge of the notions that prevailed atthat time, how can we expect to find the clue to the simile? Basicallytherefore, this, as indeed are many other problems, is a problem pertainingto the intellectual history of India. The considerable gap in our under-standing of the world of ancient Indian notions and knowledge revealsitself immediately by putting the simple question to any Indologist:Whatis salt?

Before actually presenting the evidence, the following methodicalremark deserves to be made. I am fully aware of the problematic natureinherent in textual exegeses when they are to be based upon differentsorts and layers of texts, both historically and systematically, as will bethe case here. Since sources contemporary with the BAU are to the bestof my knowledge tacit with regard to explicit statements of, or topical-isations focusing on, thenatureof salt and water, I had also to seek helpfrom other texts and authors not belonging to the late Vedic, but to theclassical period of Indian thought. It is striking, however, that they seemto have unanimously shared a more or less common view about the natureof ‘salt’ as such. The true nature of salt was certainly no major concernfor philosophers. Some of them nevertheless touched on it, though mostlyonly in passing. There is no reason to insinuate to them any biased philo-sophical position in such limited contexts. What they were trying to dowas to explain a view apparently prevailing among common people alsoby reasoning from the point of view of the philosophy of nature. In thisrespect their explanations, which are in any case an important mine ofinformation, appear fairly inconspicuous. Bearing in mind the tendency ofancient India to preserve older concepts, I think it can also be legitimateto transpose such generally shared views on nature and natural phenomenaupon the more remote times and culture as preserved in the BAU. Afterall, the result will in any event have to stand the test of its applicability asa simile in the context under consideration.

30 WALTER SLAJE

3. THE EVIDENCE

3.1. Salt (saindhava)

3.1.1. Salt in Vedic and Brahman. a times18

In short, I think there is no need for an elaborate digression on the generalmeaning ofsaindhava19 in the present context. This meaning must be somesort of ‘salt’, and salt must have been conceived as somehow related towater, which alone would render the simile meaningful. The namesaindh-ava is above all connected with the area the river Indus (síndhu) flowsthrough.20 i.e. rocksalt or any other salt from such an area21 as obtainedfrom salt pans, salt springs, brines, or salt from the river itself.22 Saltwas either “found in fissured earth, in cracks and salt pans (irin. a), whichdevelop from quick evaporation of shallow ponds, or by capillary evapora-tion of underground water”,23 or wasartificially obtainedfrom water byevaporation. Brine is evaporated by means of hot stones or bricks, or inwood fire.24

In general, it needs the influence of heat toproducesalt from water.The process is similar in the case of sea salt, which in ancient times wasmost probably obtained as it is now, namely “by solar evaporation in longshallow beds along the shore, fed by the incoming tide; the crystallised saltwas simply raked off”.25 Here again, it is contact with heat which makesthe salt appear. On the other hand, the salts in the soil of Sind rapidlycrystallize under the influence of atmospheric humidity, as described bySir J. Marshall in a lively way: “With the slightest moisture in the air,these salts crystallize on any exposed surface. . . within a few hoursafter asingle shower of rainnewly excavated buildings take ona mantle of whiterime like freshly fallen snow[emphasis mine]”.26

Though there are apparently no explicit statements in the Vedic textsas to how the exact nature of salt might have been conceived in the epochthey belong to, we may certainly draw the following conclusion at least:the contemporaries of Yajñavalkya must have shared the common experi-ence of the phenomenon that salt was somehow related to water and thatheat in particular made salt appear from water which itself at the sametime seemed to disappear. They need not have known about the processof evaporation. The observation, however, that the disappearance of theliquid form of water was accompanied by, or resulted in, the appearance ofa solid form, namely crystals or lumps of salt, must have favoured certainconclusions regarding the nature of these substances. We know from theChandogya Upanis.ad (VI 13) that Uddalaka Arun. i carried the conclu-sions from the mere observation of the natural phenomenon further toexperimentally established proofs: he made experiments with salt27 under


repeatable artificial conditions. He was thus not only able to verify in amethodically scientific manner that water could change to salt and viceversa, but also to make use of this experiment as a proof illustrating thedoctrine he was teaching to his sonSvetaketu.28

3.1.2. Saindhava in the view of Advaitavedanta (Sankara)About perhaps a millennium and a half later,Sankara would explain theword saindhavaas

. . . a derivative of [the word] (/ product of)sindhu. The wordsindhudenotes ‘water’.Sindhu[means] water because [it is derived] from the verbal action ‘to flow’ (syandana).[The taddhita derivation]saindhava [means therefore either a] ‘modification of that[water]’ or ‘location / existence inthat [water]’.29

According toSankara’s explanation, which is based on Pan. inian taddhitaderivation rules,saindhavawas understood to mean either the substanceof salt as amodification / transformation of wateror the substance of salthaving itsexistence in water. In any case, it issalt from waterhe had inmind.

The way in which salt was substantially related to water according toSankara’s knowledge, becomes clear from his digression on those naturalcauses which make salt appear out of water:

khilyah. . . . udakesindhau svayonauprastah. praks. iptah. | udakam evavilıyamanamanuvilıyateyat, tad bhaumatejasah. sam. parkat30 kat.hinyapraptih. khilyasya svayonisam. parkadapagacchati| tad udakasya vilayanam| tad anu saindhavakhilyo vil¯ıyata ity ucyate| tadetadaha: udakam ev¯anu vilıyeteti | (BAUBh 314, 10–15adBAU II 4, 12)

When (yat) a [saindhava]-lump, thrown into water, [i.e.] intosindhuas its own source,disappears (/ dissolves)according to(/ exactly like) (anu) disappearing (/ dissolving) wateritself, then (tat) the hardness [of thesaindhava-lump,31 which] has resulted from contact ofthe fiery element in earth (bhaumatejas), disappears caused by a contact of the lump withits own source (=sindhu/ water).32 Such is the ‘disappearance (/ dissolution) of water’.“ In accordance with” (/ exactly like) this [process of an alternating disappearance of liquidand solidsindhu(/ water)] “thesaindhava-lump dissolves (/ disappears)”, thus it is taught.[It is] exactly this [what Yajñavalkya] says: “it would dissolve (/ disappear)in [exactly] theway water itself disappears.

The nature and function ofanuas a Karmapravacanıya with the meaning‘according to’ 33 can be justified by the context (Sankara tries to explain inwhich way the process of the disappearance of water has to be understood)and by the positionanu is assigned to bySankara’s splitting (tad anusaindhavakhilyo vilıyate) and by Suresvara in his Varttika.34 However, inthe absence of the background of a transformation of water explained sofar, and in the absence of the particular context,anu could of course alsobe taken in the sense of ‘dissolvingin (/ in the direction of) [water]’, as

32 WALTER SLAJE

many, if not all, translators of the BAU in fact did, or, presumably morecorrect, as ‘becominga liquid again’.

Quite obviously, there are two notions inherent inSankara’s usageof (vi)layana: firstly, ‘dissolution’ or ‘melting‘, insofar as the ‘liquefac-tion’ of a substance is part of the simile. In this case, we are concernedwith a statement referring to the ‘transformational’processa substanceundergoes. Secondly, however, it simply means the ‘disappearance’of therespective formof one substance, which, caused by the reverse process, can‘reappear’. Then the statement is one about perception or non-perceptionof the respectiveform only. This notion seems to correspond largely towhat we have in mind when thinking or speaking of a ‘change of states’(‘Wechsel des Aggregatzustands’): water changes its original liquid mani-festation into a solidified state (‘salt’), whereas the reverse is the case byliquefaction of its solidification. WhatSankara had in mind was a processof an alternating change of states: from liquid to solid and vice versa.

There are three points I should like to raise in this regard: firstly, onlyone single substanceis concerned. This iswater (sindhu). Unlesssindhuwas silently understood to bear the meaning of salty Indus water, a clearindication regarding the exact kind of water (fresh or salty), is missing.Secondly,Sankara refers to elemental categories (bhauma-tejas) whichare clearly related to conceptions prevailing in the philosophy of nature(Vaises.ika).35 And thirdly, his explanation of the nature of salt only asthe result of a change of states must have been conceivable. Otherwise,without plausibility and without general consent,Sankara’s explanationwould have appeared ridiculous to his contemporaries.

A closer look at Suresvara’s commentary onSankara’s Bhas.ya indeedshows that his view was considered not at all implausible. Suresvara’s(BAUBhV II 4) main points supportingSankara’s view are the following:

1) He specifies the original source ofsaindhavaas the ocean (udadhi) oras sea-water (samudra), the transformation of which into a solid state iscaused by the influence of heat:36

. . . saindhavakhilyo ’stah. svayonav udadhav iha|| 400d||The lump of ‘transformed water’ (saindhava), thrown into its own source here, [namely]theocean. . .

samudram ambhah. khilyatvam. yati bhanuvipakatah. |sindhorayatah. sa yatas tasm¯at saindhava ucyate|| 404 ||Sea- (/ salty) water37 transformes into38 a lump by influence of the heat of the sun.Therefore, because this [lump] has arisenfrom (salty) water (sindhu), it is called a‘ transformation of(salty) water’ (saindhava).


2) The disappearance of solid water in the form of a salt lump is comparedto the dissolution of frozen water in the form of hailstones (kat.hinodaka).39

ThoughSankara does not explicitly refer to frozen water as an exampleof another solid state, Suresvara creates such a reference by supplying‘hardened water’ as the direct object ofanu:

kat.hinodakavilayam anu khilyo vil¯ıyate|401a|The lump dissolves (/ disappears) in accordance with (/ exactly like) (anu) the dissolution(/ disappearance) of ‘hardened’ (/ frozen) water (/ hailstones).

3) The reverse process can be caused by obstructing the cause havingeffected its solid form. Put back into its ultimate, liquid source, the soliditytransforms into liquidity again:

. . . saindhavakhilyo ’sto. . . mahodadhau||405d||tejovirodhinım. prapya prak

˚rtim. , vijahaty atha|

tejoviyogat kat.hinyam. , dhvast¯ıbhavati tadghanam||406||kat.hinyakaran. adhvastau khilyasyeha mahodadhau|kat.hinodakavidhvam. sam anu khilyo vil¯ıyate||407||yad evak

˚rtrimam. rupam. , tad evavasis.yate|408 ab|

Thrown into the ocean, the lump of ‘transformed water’ attains [its] original, heat-opposingcondition. And thereupon, in consequence of the absence of heat, it loses [its] hardness. Itssolidification is destroyed. Upon the destruction of the cause40 for the hardness of thelump in the ocean here, the lump dissolves (/ disappears), in accordance with (/ like) thedestruction of [the form of] frozen water. [Its] natural, [liquid] form alone remains.

Suresvara’s explanation is entirely plain and needs no further comments. Ittestifies, however, to a particular view that in all probability also prevailed,according to which salt is nothing but a certain state of water changed tosolid form, hardly different from a state of water having changed into afrozen form. Compared toSankara, who remained tacit about it, Suresvarais entirely explicit with reference tosalty or sea-wateras theultimatesource of salt. Suresvara also introduces the example of frozen water asthe object referred to by the postpositionanu(“dissolves like. . .”).

This view does not seem to have undergone major changes, since rightto the end of the 14th century, Vidyaran.ya adheres to the explanation givenby Suresvara as a most natural one.41 There are moreover somewhat oldertestimonia to the particular water-and-salt notion under consideration, andfor which important support can be obtained from texts of a school ofphilosophy of nature.

34 WALTER SLAJE

3.1.3. Salt in the view of classical Vai´ses. ikaWith the Vaises.ikas, we now turn to external, i.e. non-Vedantic, evidence.Both Sankara and Suresvara were using concepts (contact with earthlyheat, etc.) which are closely related to Vaises.ika thought. Therefore, acloser investigation of the Vaises.ika tradition suggests itself.

There, liquidity (dravatva) as a quality (gun. a)42 of elementalsubstances is distinguished as being twofold: natural (sam. siddhika) andartificial (naimittika).43 Natural liquidity is inherent in water only, arti-ficial liquidity is common to the elements earth and fire.44 Instances ofartificial liquidity of the ‘earthly’ substances are clarified butter,jatu (lac?/ gum as a hardening tree secretion?), bees-wax, etc., of ‘fiery’ substances,however, liquid metal (e.g. tin, lead, copper, silver, gold). Their liquefac-tion needs – in contrast to the ‘naturally liquid’ water – a cause whichis the contact with fire (agnisam. yoga).45 The natural liquidity of water,however, is independent of contact with fire.46 The differentiation drawnby the Vaises.ikas between artificial and natural liquidity of course marks anadvanced development of inquiries into nature, since it displays attempts atrationally explaining what seem to have been common views only, such ashave come down to us via the mediation of e.g. the Maitrayan. ıyasam. hitaand theSatapathabrahman. a. There,honeyandclarified butterare – besidesdew and hail – still considered different forms ofwater.47 The assumptionof a close and causal relationship between (heavenly) water and fire48 goesback at least to Brahman.a times: the sun glows amidst the (heavenly)waters which are its origin (yoni).49

What is remarkable with regard to our present problem is that theVaises.ika texts introduce objections to, or discussions of, thenaturalliquidity of water stated by them. These objections draw upon the fact thatwater may also appear in solid form (sam. ghata)50 and that its liquiditycan therefore by no means be regarded as natural.51 Only in rejectingthis objection,52 does Prasastapada make an explicit reference as to what‘solid water’ was actually taken to mean in this discussion, namely “snow,hail-stones and else” (hima-karakadi).53

Let it be noted on this occasion that solid manifestations of water wereexplained as caused by the influence of heat through an obstruction of itsnatural liquidity. The argument covering hail-stones etc. is based upon thecausal factor ‘heavenly fire’ (divya tejas). Heavenly fire is what comesfrom the sun or appears as lightning.54 Lightning and hail-stones quiteoften occur simultaneously, as is well known.55 The inference based uponan observation of nature and immediately suggesting itself was, therefore,that this heavenly fire through contact effects a solid form of the wateratoms, in that it obstructs their liquidity already in heaven.56 Water, the


natural liquidity of which had thus been obstructed, would fall down fromheaven in its hardened form of hail-stones. Again it must have been adirectly perceivable fact which allowed for drawing such conclusions. Forit is a matter of everyday experience that here on earth heat causes alsoa change of the natural liquidity of water in that it ‘transforms’ water to‘solid salt’: fire as an earthly manifestation (bhauma tejas), which meansfire the fuel of which is wood,57 can cause the artificial liquefaction ofnaturally non-liquid substances, and, asSankara has it explicitly,58 causesa change of the natural liquidity of (salty) water to solid lumps of salt.Therefore, heavenly fire causes the solidification of water in the form ofhail, earthly fire in the form of salt.

Now, in treating the elemental substance ‘water’ (jalanirupan. a, PDhS34–40),59 Prasastapada gives a fuller account of all the perceivable mani-festations (vis.aya) of water. This account also includes “rivers (sarit) andthe ocean (samudra)”, which allows us to add both these manifestations tothe aforementioned ‘snow’ and ‘hail-stones’.60

The distinction drawn between rivers and the ocean is striking. Thoughthey are both considered varieties of water, something particular must havecaused their separate enumeration. The only major difference, however,seems to be theform in which they appear – such was the case withthe distinction made between snow and hailstones: they were probablyconsidered differentformsonly of water.

We have, however, also to take into account as a possibility that it wasrather their respective taste (sweet or salty) which induced Prasastapadato enumerate the rivers and the ocean separately, albeit he remains silentabout his motives. Even if taste were indeed the true reason, it would notreally change the facts. According to the Vaises.ikasutra, taste (rasa) isonly a quality (gun. a) of the elemental substance (dravya) water.61 Thusin Sutra times no particular taste had as yet been exclusively ascribedto water. Later, the classical tradition of Vaises.ika, which enumerates sixdifferent kinds of taste,62 would ascribe ‘sweet’ (madhura) to water as its‘only’ ( eva) taste.63 The clue to this problem of sweetness comprising saltytaste, which cannot be followed up further here, might be found in Jainasources where ‘saltiness’ has been treated as a variety of ‘sweetness’ sincecanonical times. Thus Jaina enumerations present only five different kindsof taste.64 In this connection it is also worthy of note that in scientificSanskrit literature (Arthasastra, medicine, Kosas) the termks.ara can coverboth the meanings of (sweet) sugar and salt, obviously with reference to theliquefying faculty of these substances through an etymological derivationfrom

√ks.ar (to dissolve, to melt away).65 Interestingly enough in terms

of comparative cultural history, Meyn (1857: 22f) pointed out a similar

36 WALTER SLAJE

conviction about a fundamental relationship between sugar and salt asprevailing among European scientists before his own times:

Unter Salzenverstand der Chemiker zuerst solche Gegenstände der Natur und Kunst, diemit dem Kochsalz einen gewissen Grad von Durchsichtigkeit, Auflöslichkeit in Wasser,Geschmack auf der Zunge,. . . gemeinsam hatten, wie. z. B. der Salpeter, das Salmiak,der Bleizucker undselbst der Zucker. . . . Als sich die Kenntnisse der Chemiker über dieZusammensetzung der Körperwelt. . . mehrten,. . . zeigte sich, daß die große Mehrzahlder bis dahin sogenannten Salze auch auf gleichartige Weise. . . aus den Grundstoffengebildet seien, und man gewahrte, daß durch Beachtung der obengenannten Eigenschaftenzwar viele Salze als solche richtig bestimmt seien, daß [man] aber. . . durch einige dieserEigenschaften verleitet, ungehörige Stoffe, wie z. B.den Zucker, hineingezogenhabe.

Returning now to Vaises.ika, samudramust have been regarded as aparticular, objective manifestation of the elemental substance ‘water’ (ap),otherwise its enumeration among various manifestations (vis.aya) of watersuch as ‘river’ (sarit), snow and hail would not have been justified:althoughsalty tasting, the ocean (samudra) was consideredwater in itsvery essence. On this point, I could not make out any disagreement amongthe classical Vaises.ika commentators. As regards statements concerningthe very nature of ‘salt’ itself,Srıdhara66 is perhaps the most explicitVaises.ika author to state unambiguously that salt (lavan. a) is essentiallyidentical with water (apyatva) and that as such it can change its state(-bhava)67 from liquid to solid and vice versa:

tejah. sam. yogena param¯an. unam. dravatvam. pratibaddham ity anyatrapyadravyasyalavan. asyavahnisam. yogena dravatvapratibandhadar´sanad anumitam| lavan. asyapyatvamapi himakarakadivat kalantaren. a dravıbhavadarsanad avagatam| (NK 645, 19ff)

That the [natural] liquidity of [water]-atoms is obstructed by contact with fire [in heaven]68

is inferred [also] in another case from the observation thatthe liquidity of salt, [which is]an aqueous substance, is obstructed by contact with fire [on earth]. [The fact that]salt iswater is also recognized by the observation of [its] liquefactionat another time, [just] as isthe case with [the liquefaction of] snow and hail-stones, etc.

Srıdhara’s remarks69 probably go back to a statement in the Vaises.ika-Sutra (V 2, 9), where the solidification (sam. ghata) and dissolution(vilayana) of water is dealt with:70

apam. sanghato vilayanam. ca tejasah. sam. yogat ||VSu V 2, 9||Solidification and dissolution of water [are] caused by contact of fire

Candrananda comments on this71 by explaining that the

solidification of water [means] hardness [of water], caused by contact with fire in heaven.Dissolution [of hardened water], however, [can be] caused by heavenly and earthly[manifestations of fire].


The solidifying effect exercised by ‘heavenly fire’ on ‘heavenly water’,the result of which appears as snow or hail, was inferred from theirsimultaneous occurrence72 with lightning.

All this points to a comparatively early belief in a possible change ofthe state73 of water, from liquid to solid and vice versa, for which a rationalexplanation74 was sought by philosophers of nature. Already at the times ofthe Vaises.ikasutra the explanation for the ‘hardening of waters in heaven’(hail-stones and snow) was assigned to the influence of fire, and the samecause was also put forward for their dissolution. It was this very argumentwhich was applied to salt as well. I should also like to refer once moreto the observation made and reported by Sir John Marshall himself andquoted above, that in Sind after rainfalls the salts in the soil crystallize soquickly and to such a degree that they can give the impression ofwhitesnow. Similar observations could very well have induced the inhabitantsof ancient India to draw conclusions with regard to an aqueous nature ofsalt.

In summary, a change of the state of water must have been recognized inprinciple already by the authors responsible for the Vaises.ikasutra (∼ 200A. D.). By the time of the classical tradition (∼ 6th to 11th century)specification takes place in thatexplicit mention is made of what was mostprobably implicitly already inherent in the respective doctrines, namelyhail and salt as particular, solidified states of water. Taking also the testi-mony of Advaitavedanta philosophers into consideration, the notion ofsalt being substantially nothing but water is therefore fairly well attestedat least75 from the beginning of the first up to the middle of the secondmillennium A.D.

3.2. Water

Accordingly, there is reason to assume that thesaindhava-d˚rs. t.antaunder

consideration here also worked on a similar basis, namely on a presup-posed identity of water and salt, which indeed seems to have been a notioncommonly shared in those times. Therefore it is not really necessary todecide which variety of salt Yajñavalkya might exactly have had in mind –or whichSvetaketu even held in his hands –, though the similes themselvessuggest salty water or brine.76

This most natural assumption notwithstanding, there is cosmographicevidence that necessitates a short and limited digression, restricted tothe results of others’ research, on the nature of water as conceived inBrahman.a times. The Brahman.as contain ample evidence of a prevailingbelief in the waters as the primordial substance of the world.77 The saltyocean (samudra) was considered the very origin and receptacle of all the

38 WALTER SLAJE

waters flowing on earth. The idea of a permanent circulation of water,of a continuous exchange between heaven and earth is Vedic in origin78

and also remained alive in ‘classical’ times.79 Water exists in heaven orrather, heaven itself consistsof water.80 The earth floats on the waters likea lotus leaf.81 Therefore, the earth is located between two floods of water:one below it on which the earth is floating and one above the same, asthe heavenly floods of water. This means that the earth was conceivedof as being completely surrounded by oceanic waters (samudrá)82 outof which it originated.83 Such views apparently go back to, or were atleast objectively based on, observations of nature: by digging the earthone finds water, and water – in the form of rain – comes from heavenabove.84 Cognate ideas were certainly prevalent in most contemporarypeople’s minds. This would also help to explain the relationship of rainand salt ground,85 which is explicitly mentioned in the Brahman.a period.86

According to Bodewitz,87 “the earth evaporates water, which becomescondensed as rain in the moon. Heaven (= the moon) pours outrain88

which on the earth becomes saltthrough evaporation”. And therefore, “saltgroundhas been explained to bea product of the moon”.89 Bodewitz foundthis equation “hardly acceptable”. He refers to another equation to explainthe connection between moon and salt from another point of view, namelyon account of their similarity in whiteness (lavan. ya). From the angle ofthe identity viewpoint raised here, I think their ‘true’ relationship in termsof Brahman.a ways of thinking becomes more easily explicable. I wouldsuggest that the moon shines white because itconsists entirely of saltywaterwhich it pours down in liquid form. Earthly salt and moon share theshining beauty of saltiness (lavan. ya).

Since the primordial, oceanic waters were considered salty or rather:salty tasting in their very essence, the nature of drinking water lacking thecharacteristic salty taste, such as e.g. the rivers, deserves consideration.What was their relationship to their ultimate salty source?Onepossibleexplanation suggesting itself is that the rivers were at that time consideredremains of the ocean having become parted by a crystallization of itssalt content in the form of the earth. Such a view, probably representingnothing but an early and unreflected belief, is attested to in the Athar-vaveda. According to an interpretation of Paul Thieme,90 which supportsour results obtained so far, the solid earth arose out of the primordial (salty)sea caused by a crystallizing process of the salt contained in the ocean.91

In this way the earth was seen as the solidified, salty part of the primordialwaters.On the earth, however, the non-salty rivers containing drinkingwater are flowing.92


If we try to apply Thieme’s argument to the problem under consider-ation here, a basic idea of a primordial substance ‘sea’ already becomesvisible in the times of the Atharvaveda, systematic reflections on thesubject, however, are still missing. This primeval substance ‘water’ tastessalty by nature. It can also partly crystallize. In such a solidified form italso constitutes the earth. The earth floats on the primordial waters as thesolid part of sea water. On the surface of the earth, however, waters areflowing. They are not salty because the salty component of the primordialwaters has become the earth. The remaining liquid substance has thus lostits salty taste and now flows on the solidified component of the sea. Therivers are thus flowing on their salty crust, as it were. Viewed from thisangle, there is no need to draw a substantial borderline between rivers andthe salty ocean. They are non-salty only insofar as and as long as theirtemporary partition from the saltiness of the primordial waters lasts.

In this connection I should like to draw attention to another simileintroduced immediately before thesaindhava-d

˚rs. t.anta, our main concern:

. . . sarvasam apam. samudra ek¯ayanam. . . (BAU II 4,10)

Considering the wider context of this statement, the (salty) ocean(samudra) appears here as the universal form and substance of all theparticularities and diversifications of water.93 The Prasna-Upanis.ad has itthat

. . . ima nadyah. syandam¯anah. samudrayan. ah. samudram. prapyastam. gacchanti94 |bhidyete tasam. namarupe| samudra ity eva95 procyate| (PU VI, 5)

. . . these rivers. . . flow toward the ocean and, upon reaching it, they disappear: their nameand form are lost, one speaks about ‘the ocean’ only.

The Chandogya-Upanis.ad may be compared to this:

imah. somya nadyah. purastat pracyah. syandantepascat pratıcyah. | tah. samudrat samu-dram evapiyanti | sa samudra eva bhavati| (ChU VI 10,1)

The rivers here, [my] son, flowfrom the east[ern ocean to the western ocean] as ‘easterly’ones,from the west[ern ocean to the eastern ocean] as ‘westerly’ ones.From ocean to oceanindeed do they merge, nothing but ocean itself they become.

Contextually, there is indeed reason to deviate from the standard inter-pretation of the adverbspurastat andpascat as expressing a meaning likein the east orin the west of the respective easterly and westerly flowingrivers.96 Olivelle remarks on this passage he believes that “the two oceansare the heavenly one and the earthly (Indian) ocean”.97 Klaus, however,took this statement as based on concrete geographical knowledge refer-ring to the Arabian Sea and to the Gulf of Bengal respectively.98 TheSatapathabrahman. a makes several references to the western (ápara) and

40 WALTER SLAJE

to the eastern (púrva) oceans.99 Irrespective of the interpretation preferred,the ablativesamudrat suggests a sense of rivers flowingfrom the direc-tion of their origin to another, most probably the opposite, direction,a suggestion which is supported by the immediately following, parallelconstruction of ‘samudrat samudram(apiyanti)’. In my opinion therefore,the ‘easterly rivers’ should be taken to flow westwards and the ‘westerlyrivers’ to flow eastwards,from one oceanto the respective other one.100

This, however, strikingly fits one cosmogonic idea as preserved in theAtharvaveda and referred to above, namely that the earth floats on theprimordial sea as the latter’s solidified, ‘salty’ part. The rivers, as theremaining non-salty component, would slosh from both sides over the solidpart ‘earth’, finally merging into the boundless ocean again.

To us, all this means that we seem indeed to be entitled to assume aprevailing notion of substantial identity of, but not of a variety of essen-tially different, waters. This assumption can also be supported by a state-ment of Vyomasiva, who emphasizes that a propounder of Advaita wouldnever accept that one water (udaka) differs from another:advaitavadıcodakasyodakantarad bhedam. na pratyeti.101

After their ‘reunification’, all the various waters would lose their indi-viduality and would forthwith share only one and the same common name‘samudra’. A statement like this clearly points to the notion of fundamentalidentity.102 Such notions as expressed by “nothing but ocean” (samudraeva) come indeed very close to the respective statements in the BAU (IV2,12) and in the ChU (VI 13,2), where after the ‘dissolution’ of salt inwater ‘lavan. am eva’ is likewise said to remain: all temporarily manifesteddiversity has entirely disappeared. In this regard an unambigious statementof Vyomasiva’s, the Vaises.ika author (ca. 9th century), deserves anothercitation. He maintains that there isno substantial(dravya) difference inwater. However, if there is some difference, then the difference isonlyone of the relative predominance of taste (rasa), which is a quality (gun. a)only. By ‘taste’, the taste of saltiness is included:103 apyatvavises. e ’pirasasyaivotkars. o, na rupader iti. Water as such should accordingly betaken as a substance the potentially salty taste of which manifests itself assensually perceptible only if it abounds in this quality. Therefore I wouldsuggest thinking henceforth of ‘salty tasting water’ when something likesea-water or the ocean is under consideration.

3.2.1. Experiments with brine?Viewed from the angle of such a background, there is reason to assumethat ‘udaka’ in the simile under consideration was not necessarily under-stood as drinking water, forudaka can indeed mean ‘brine’ (= water


tasting extremely salty) as well.104 With the salt-d˚rs. t.anta in the ChU, a

comparatively high degree of probability for the assumption thatudakawas ‘brine’ can be reached. According to recent research resultssam. -√

v˚rt in the present context may connote the meaning of a “densification

or coagulationof the salty water produced by evaporation of water. Thesalt becomes visible again”. This statement of Bodewitz105 is based on aplausible assumption, namely that in a second experiment the salty waterwas poured out (pra-

√as) again on (abhi-) the ground or on a flat stone

so as to expose it to the heat of the sun and that it might evaporate.106 Forthis would also perfectly fit the Vaises.ika- and Advaita Vedanta-usage ofsanghata andkat.hinyawhen referring to salt as solidified water.107 I think,there is clear evidencethat such experiments were carried out. Do we,however, definitely need to assume that theudaka into which Svetaketuthrew the salt was ‘fresh’ water at all? This was at least the tacit assump-tion of scholars dealing with thisd

˚rs. t.anta, who were all presupposing a

mixture of two different substances.108 The whole evidence investigatedand presented so far points, however, to the opposite fact, namely thatwe arenot at all concerned withtwo different substances. As regardsexperiments, it is of course their repeatability which renders their resultsreliable. Therefore, as was also the case with the simile in the BAU, weshould rather assume that a demonstration was carried out in order to showhow the primordial substance changes in form onlyand thusmanifestsitself individually, limited in space and time. By repetition, Uddalaka mayhave proved toSvetaketu how individuality (= the salt crystall) appearsand disappears, and how substantial identity, perceptible by the identical(= salty) taste, nevertheless remains the same: limited individuality mayrepeatedly appear out of one and the same single substance. To me, all thispoints toudakaas a salty-tasting substance (brine) alreadybeforesalt waseven added. And therefore I should like to introduce the following as anew, admittedly hypothetical, translation:

lavan. am etad udake ’vadhayatha ma pratar upas¯ıdatha iti | sa ha tatha cakara | tamhovaca | yad dos. a lavan. am udake ’v¯adha anga tadahareti | tad dhavam

˚rsya na viveda

||1|| yatha vilınam eva| angasyantad acameti| katham iti| lavan. am iti |madhyad acameti| katham iti| lavan. am iti | antad acameti| katham iti| lavan. am iti | abhiprasyaitad athamopas¯ıdatha iti | tad dha tatha cakara | tac chasvat sam. vartate | . . . ||2|| [ChU VI 13,1–2]

‘Put this [lump of] salt into [this] brine and return to me tomorrow.’ So [Svetaketu] did.[The next day, Uddalaka] said to him: ‘The [lump of] salt which you put into the brine inthe evening, my dear, take it out [now].’ [Though] he groped for it he could not find [thelump]: entirely disappeared, as it were. ‘Take a sip from the surface (/ one corner), my dear:how [is it]?’ – ‘Salty’. ‘Take [one] from the middle (/ the center): how?’ – ‘Salty’. ‘[Nowone] from the bottom (/ another corner): how?’ – ‘Salty’. ‘Pour it out [again] on [a hot

42 WALTER SLAJE

surface (?)] and then return to me [later]’. Thus he did accordingly:the [brine] coagulatesregularly.

I am inclined to assume a similar situation also for thesaindhava-d˚rs. t.anta,

though no concrete experiments were carried out. A comparable mentalrepresentation must, however, have been there in the minds of the dialoguepartners when Yajñavalkya was speaking about the ‘dissolution’ of ‘saltcrystalls’ in ‘salty-tasting water’ (udaka). In such a case the fact that thetaste of changing appearances remained unchanged itself could have beenconceived as a characteristic pointing to their substantial identity. Thoughit cannot be definitely demonstrated, ‘salty-tasting water’ is more likelyas a starting-point than any ‘fresh water’ that had to be salted before itactually became salty-tasting.

4. PRELIMINARY SUMMARY

Salt was conceived as being indeedsubstantially the same as water, albeitin a particularcrystallized state of water, similar to, e.g., ice or hailstonesas frozen states of water. Therefore, a merechange of states(‘manifesta-tion’) of one and the same identical substrateis alluded to: given particularpreconditions such as the influence of heat, the original liquid manifesta-tion of water changes into crystalline form, i.e. it takes the shape of salt. Itwould, however, regain its original state by liquefaction which is causedby contact with (liquid) water. No change of substance is involved inthese repeated processes of alternatively crystallizing and liquefying. Thecrystalline manifestation (= salt) of water loses its limited individuality inthat it ‘disappears’in form only. ‘Water’, on the other hand, is in principlecharacterized by (a salty) taste, which may or may not predominate todifferent degrees.

Provided that my interpretation of thed˚rs. t.antaholds good, the applica-

tion to thedars. t.antika would have some consequences for the history ofIndian philosophy. ‘Yajñavalkya’ had something like agradual processofreabsorption or dissolution of the ‘diversified’, ‘materialized’ forms of theatmaninto the one and universal form in mind.109 If the original ‘substrate’thus remains an unchanging one, the primordial ‘substance’atmanmustbe seen as a material, self-transforming cause (∼ upadanakaran. a) in theemanation process of the world. Taking the particular terminology (mahadbhuta, bhuta [pl.]) in use there also into appropriate consideration, a strandof thought may reveal itself from which – in a process of bifurcation – themonism (∼ parin. ama / bhedabheda) of the Brahmasutra as well as thedualism of the Sankhya system may each have originally developed. In


this connection the fact deserves to be underlined that the lasting impactof early observations on the development and on the determination of alllater thought in India must in no way be underestimated.110

What we are concerned with here seems important also in terms of ahistory of ideas in a broader, universal sense. Isn’t it the mereoccurrenceof a particular idea that really counts, regardless of the actualnumberofminds to share it? Wouldn’t a brilliant idea be sufficient in itself? It wouldlose nothing of its brilliance when thought byonethinker only, and wouldgain nothing when shared by many. Our attempt at exploring the ideas offoreign or even died out cultures may be compared to archaeology, and assuch becomes in a way an ‘archaeology of the human mind’: the ancienttexts are our findspots, the ideas hidden in their contents are the potsherds,and philology111 is the instrument we are digging with.

As regards methods, a Copernican ‘turn’ seems, however, to berequired. Unless we change our own view-point, we will remain confinedto the intellectual framework of notions as coined in Europe and willkeep on looking at a non-European culture with the eyes of a European.Before Copernicus, people watching the sun interpreted it as revolvingaroundtheir own location, the earth, as their intellectual horizon. Coper-nicus changed his position intellectually and thereby obtained an objectiveview of the true relationship between the sunandwhere he was standing.Looking up words in, e.g., a Sanskrit dictionary will yield printedEuropean equivalents. Of course, that is exactly what we are expecting:a foreign word for anotion as alreadyknown to us. On closer inspection,however, the equivalent in our present case would only be: ‘salt’. Wouldanyone now deem this any longer sufficient to provide us with an adequatenotion about the original meaning of ‘solidified water’?

Unless we change our own intellectual position by entering theminds112 of those people who were using words to express notions ascoined in cultural contexts of their own, in contexts as much different fromours as the respective cultures are distant from us in space and time, howwill we ever approach their understanding? How will we ever recognizewhat they really hadin their minds when saying, e.g., ‘salt’? How, then,will we ever come to understand the way they were looking at the worldin its entirety? How will we ever succeed in classifyingour own positionin universal cultural history unless we establishrelational coordinatesbymapping out human thought elsewhere?

44 WALTER SLAJE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For their various and valuable comments, suggestions, corrections anduseful additional bibliographical references with regard to an earlier circu-lation of the present paper I feel indebted to the following colleaguesand friends: Prof. Dr. Ashok Aklujkar (Vancouver), Prof. Dr. Harry Falk(Berlin), Arlo Griffiths (Leiden), Werner Hohl (Graz), Dr. Jürgen Hanneder(Halle), Andreas Pohlus (Halle), Prof. Dr. Ghlodwig Werba (Wien), Prof.Dr. Albrecht Wezler (Hamburg).

NOTES

1 BAU(K) II 4,12 ∼ BAU(K) IV 5,13. For a synoptical presentation of the text of bothversions including that of the Madhyandina recension cp. Hanefeld 1976: 78. On thehistory of the preserved redaction of the text cp. Witzel (1997: 314ff.), who assumesthe first century B.C. as a likely date for the final redaction of theSatapatha Brahman.a(Kan.va). On Videha and Yajñavalkya as the one who finally established the prominenceof the Vajasaneyins there, cp. Witzel 1997: 319f, 330.2 All italics mine.3 Hanefeld 1976 (German) and Olivelle 1998 (English).4 Since in the parallel version (BAU IV 5,13) the problematic statement facing us,namely . . . “saindhavakhilyah. . . . anuvilıyeta” is missing, there is no need to treat ithere. The parallel text there replaces our sentence by:sa yatha saindhavaghano ’nantaro’bahyah. k

˚rtsno rasaghana eva. . .

5 The text printed here follows Limaye/Vadekar (BAU), Hanefeld 1976 and Olivelle1998. The striking absence of Sandhi could reflect a conservative text-transmission.It is not entirely unlikely that ‘bhutebhyah. ’ (II 4,12) is an explication or a gloss onlysecondarily added after ‘etebhyah. ’. In the parallel version (IV 5,13), on the other hand,Sandhi has been observed. Since the latter is a revised version of the former [cp. Hanefeld1976: 88; Olivelle 1998: 502], it could have undergone also a revision according to Sandhirules.6 “Zunächst einmal ist nicht eindeutig, was überhaupt womit verglichen wird – eineZusammenstellung von Bild und Verglichenem ist schwierig:. . .” (Hanefeld 1976: 101).7 Hanefeld (1976: 101ff.) comments on this as follows: “Eine besondere Schwierigkeitdes Gleichnisses ergibt sich daraus, daßzwei verschiedene Substanzen (Wasser undSalz)auftauchen.. . . Sind nun aber das ‘große Wesen’ und das individuelle Erkennenverschiedener Substanz oder fehlte dem Autor nur ein adäquateres Bild,. . .?” . . . “ . . . dasBild . . . vom Ansatz her verfehlt. . . (dualistisches Bild für monistischen Sachverhalt). . . .ist der Vergleich mit dem sich auflösenden Salzstück nicht besonders glücklich. . .: dievollständige Durchdringung einer Substanz (Wasser) mit einer anderen (Salz),. . .” . . . “Inunserem Text geht eseigentlichum zwei Substanzen, . . .”.8 “I have followed Hanefeld’s (1976, 79–81, n. 6) explanation” (1998: 504).9 Note that Hanefeld – in contrast to the ‘elements’ of Deussen, Edgerton and Frauwallner– took bhuta-s to mean the ‘living beings’, thus following Hertel’s and Thieme’s views:“Ich glaube, daß im Zusammenhang dieses Textes. . . nur die Lebewesen gemeint seinkönnen” (Hanefeld 1976: 81, n. 6).


10 “ . . . this simile, . . . must have already caused some problems to the editor of theversion at BU 4.5.13 for him to amend the reading. It has caused problems also to modernscholars, especially with regard to how the Immense Being could arise out of ‘thesebeings’ and be destroyed. . . with them” (1998: 503f).11 In (Indological) practice and historical perspective, however, quite often the reverse isalso the case, as we are not sufficiently acquainted with the general views that may haveprevailed in Vedic society among common people: “Die semantischen Probleme spezielldes vedischen Sanskrit und die mangelhafte Kenntnis der Lebenswirklichkeit bzw. dermateriellen Kultur der vedischen Inder bringen uns ja nicht selten in die unerquicklicheLage, daß ein im Text gegebener Vergleich im Gegensatz zu seiner eigentlichen Funktionschwerer zu verstehen ist als das, was er den zeitgenössischen Hörern zu veranschaulichenbestimmt war. In solchen Fällen bleibt gar nichts anderes übrig, als zumindest auch denVersuch zu unternehmen, das Fell gegen den Strich zu bürsten, d. h. die weniger klareAussage des Vergleichs von dem verständlichen Sachverhalt her, der veranschaulichtwerden soll, zu deuten” (Wezler 1982/83: 164).12 laukikaparıks.akan. am. yasminn arthe buddhis¯amyam. , sa d

˚rs. t.antah. (NSu I 1,25).

13 Cp. the Moks.opaya (composed prior to the 10th century A.D.), a Moks.a-Sastrawhere d

˚rs. t.antas are deliberately employed as an effective method of teaching

[MT. II 18,33: sastram. . . . idam. d˚rs. t.antaih. pratipadakam]: upameyasyopam¯anad

ekam. sena sadharmat¯a | (MT. II 18,64ab); ekadesasadharmatv¯ad upamey¯avabodhanam| upamanam. karoty . . . || (18,66a–c); visis. t.am. sasadharmatvam upam¯anes.u g

˚rhyate

| ko bhedah. sarvasad˚rsye tupamanopameyayoh. || (19,1). A similar statement has

also been made bySankara (ca. 8th century):na hi d˚rs. t.antadars. t.antikayoh. kvacit

kim. cidvivaks. itam. sam. muktva sarvasarupyam. kenacid darsayitum. sakyate, sarvas¯arupyehi d

˚rs. t.antadars. t.antikabhavoccheda eva sy¯at (BSuBh 645,9ff. ad BSu III 2,20). In his

Kavyaprakasa, which can be dated between 1050 and 1135 (Gerow 1977: 272), Mammat.adefines comparison as:sadharmyam upam¯a bhede[KPr 10, su 125; p. 540,3].14 Bodewitz 1991/92: 423. Cp. also below fn. 108.15 Falk 1986: 84. Cp. also below fn. 108.16 Cp. Witzel 1996.17 It is perhaps worthy of a short quote from a comprehensive encyclopedia of the 18thcentury to demonstrate the comparatively limited knowledge regarding ‘salt’ Europe hadgained at that time: “Salz, Saltz, . . . sey ein fester Cörper, der aus Wasser und Erdenbestehet [cp. Udayana, below n. 101], und im Wasser aufgelöset und flüßig wird.. . . daglaubet einer, [die Theilgen, woraus die Saltze bestehen sollen], wären selbst beständigeCörper; der andere, sie hätten vier/sechs/achteckigte Spitzgen; der dritte vergleichet siemit Degen und Degenscheiden, und was dergleichen mehr ist. Genug ist es, wenn manweiß, daß alle Saltze schmackbar, im Wasser sich auflösen lassen, und. . . nur in dieseroder jener subtilen Vermischung in etwas verändert seyn, und zur Erde werden.. . . Wasaber das sey, so hier die Erde verdünnet, ist zur Zeit unausgemacht; desgleichen. . ., wasdas sey, so die Bewegung verursachet, wodurch eines mit dem anderen aufgelöset undzusammen gesetzet wird;. . . Die Saltze lassen sich, in Ansehung ihrer Flüßickeit, imWasser auflösen. . . Daß die Saltze Wasser halten, wird ein jeder leicht begreifen können,indem solches macht, daß sie durchsichtig sind” (Zedler 1742: 1298–1300). About 100years later, a major progress must have been achieved, for another famous encyclopedia(1838) has it that “. . . Kochsalz. . . besteht aus Chlor und Natrum [sic!], löst sich imWasser leicht auf, und ist entweder farblos oder grau, durchsichtig und krystallisiert sichin Würfeln” (NCL: 83f). The lasting problems connected with a clear determinationof the true nature of salt as still facing European scientists become visible by a short

46 WALTER SLAJE

historical account of Ludewig Meyn, who – once again by the middle of the 19th century– thus concludes his overview: “Die siegreiche Wissenschaft erkannte als das Resultatder mühevollsten und glücklichsten Reihe von Arbeiten, daß das [W. S.: als salzsauresNatron angesehene Koch-]Salz kein Salz sei, sah sich bei einem streng bewiesenenSchlußsatze angekommen. . . als wäre er das hirnverbrannte Produkt der aberwitzigstenScheinphilosophie und Wortklauberei,. . . da sich das Kochsalz und seines Gleichenimmer noch. . . den wirklichen Salzen in allen Eigenschaften und in allen Wirkungen aufandere Stoffe vollkommen ähnlich verhielt.. . . Das Kochsalz,. . . in wässeriger Lösung. . . mit den Bestandtheilen des Wassers innig vereinigt,. . . kann vollkommen als Salzbehandelt und auch beurtheilt werden,. . . und heißt dann nach wie vor salzsaures Natron,muß aber. . . in fester Gestalt und frei von Wassergehalt. . . immerdar als eine binäre. . .Verbindung gelten, und den systematischen Namen Chlornatrium tragen” (Meyn 1857:24f).18 Cp. also Falk 1986: 81–84.19 According to Witzel (1986), “There are various words for ‘salt’ already in Vedic:the general term seems to belavan. a . . . Another word issaindhava. . . us.a- and us.aramean ‘saline soil’ (found, for example inirin. as [on írin. a = ‘Senke mit Salzerde’, cp. Falk1986: 78ff.]) . . . [214, n. 22]. . . rock-salt is calledlavan. a as well: in Epic, classical andVedic Sanskrit is sometimes specified assindhulavan. a, saindhava. . . saindhavaghana,. . . saindhavakhilya. . . lavan. a . . . to be taken as rock-salt as well. . . in the sense of ‘hillswith salt deposits’, perhaps ‘Salt Range’. . . In any case, the salt freely developing fromquick drying up and capillary evaporation. . . could be intended” [209]. Apart from rock-and sea-salt various other types of salt are found distinguished in classical Indian texts.For an overview cp. above all Meulenbeld 1974: 495f; cp. also Müller 1965 (medicine)and HCH p. 56 (Arthasastra); 62 (Caraka); 148 (Rasah

˚rdaya); 192 (Rasaratnasamuccaya)

as well as 204f.20 There are, to be sure, several other rivers also calledsindhu(Pinnow 1951: 498ff.).Witzel (1986) remarks on their appellations that “it is well know[n] from settlement historythat emigrants usually give names they were used to at home to their new settlements andto the rivers and mountains of that area.. . . The same applies to the many rivers calledSindhu. Some of them are located in the J[aiminıya] B[rahman.a] homeland. . .” [200].21 “Areas in (Northern) India where salt is found as salty soil, subterranean brine, includethe Indus area, places in Gwalior state, in Rajputana near Delhi (Sultanpur Mahal), theriver Luni in Gujarat, etc.” (Witzel 1986: 215, n. 32). Cp. also Falk (1986: 78f) “Wennnun ein Fluß mit vergleichsweise stark salzhaltigem Wasser, wie etwa der Indus, dasLand überschwemmt, dann bleibt bei seinem Rückzug Wasser in den natürlichen Senkenstehen. Dieses verdunstet später, das Salz bleibt im Boden zurück. Wiederholt sich diesüber einige Jahre, dann wird die Erde zu Salzerde,us.ara, die sich vor allem zur Hitzezeitweiß färbt.. . . Häufig finden sich auch Salzquellen, die entweder ganzjährig oder nur zurRegenzeit ihre Lauge [=udaka] abgeben. . .”.22 Falk 1986: 78, 82 (“hoher Salzgehalt des Indus”). Cp. Witzel’s (1986: 204)interpretation of the tale in JB III 238f: “Thepalpulanı, made of a salty substance, hasbeen cut off and thus diluted by the Sindhu: therefore this stream is salty”. Cp. also Witzelp. 211 and 215, n. 30: “The Sindhu is a comparatively salty stream”. According to recentresearch, the salts in the region of Sind are sodium sulphates, cp. Jansen (1987: 231): “. . .

Natriumsulfat. . ., ein Salz, das ebenfalls im Meer oder in Mineralquellen vorkommt.. . .

hohe Konzentration im Boden. . .”.23 According to the testimony of Vedic texts, cp. Witzel 1986: 198.24 Cp. Dreyer 1986: 127.


25 HTI: 471. Cp. also below fn. 38.26 Marshall 1931: 1. Similar observations were also made by Marshall’s successor ErnestMackay and confirmed by Jansen (1987: 230f) himself. In like manner, the scientist Meyn(1857: 33) compares the consistency of salt obtained from evaporation to that of snow,when he says: “. . . wie ein Schneeball bei Frostwetter. . .” (like a snowball in freezingweather).27 Bodewitz 1991/92.28 On whose representation in Indian literature reference can now be made to Olivelle1999.29 sindhor vikarah. saindhavah. | sindhusabdenodakam abhidh¯ıyate | syandan¯at sindhuh.[cp. Un. I 11] udakam| tadvikarah. [cp. Pan. IV 3,134], tatra bhavo [cp. Pan. IV 3,53]va, saindhavah. | (BAUBh 314, 7ff). On the correct interpretation of both Sutras ofPan. ini’s alluded to here bySankara cp. Wezler 1975: 116f; Cardona 1997: §344; §865.Notwithstanding the fact thatSankara certainly did not stand in an unbroken tradition ofUpanis.adic learning and exegesis, which renders at least his philosophical interpretationsunreliable in terms of historical faithfulness [details in Rau 1959/61; cp. also Wezler’smethodological demand for a “strict de-Sankaraization” (1982/83: 165f;168); Olivelle(1999: 69) admits a sound understanding of literary intentions toSankara], his generalstatements on, e.g., natural phenomena and his attempts at explaining them display thequite different character of views more or less universally accepted by his contemporaries.30 I have adopted the more convincing reading of the Bibliotheca Indica edition (ed. Röer,Calcutta 1849: 463,8f), a reading which is also well testified to by four mss (in the criticalapparatus) of theAnandasrama edition (ed. V. G. Apte, Poona 1927: 355,2), in contrast tothe text as accepted by the editors of all other editions:tadbhaumataijasasam. parkat.31 This goes together with the ‘disappearance’ of water in its liquid manifestation. In thepresent context therefore, what is meant bysaindhava-khilyamust basically be understoodas a ‘lump of transformed water’ (sindhu).32 This, then, goes together with the ‘disappearance’ of ‘salt’, namely water in its solid,crystallized manifestation.33 Cp. also, however, the karmapravacanıya usage in ChU VIII 9,1:asyaivasarırasyanasam anv es.a nasyati (“After / according to the death of this body here the [self] is[bound] to die”). Delbrück 1888: 444f (“nach, entsprechend, gemäß;. . . nachfolgend, sichanschließend”); Speijer 1886: §164 [c] (“after” = “according to”).34 BAUBhV II 4,401a; 407d; cp. below p. 9.35 In Vaises.ika thought, bhauma-tejasmeans ‘fire in earth’ [Vyom. 258,1:tatrabhumau bhavam. bhaumam], in contrast todivya-tejas(‘fire in heaven’), cp. PDhS 47(tejonirupan. a): bhaumam. divyam. . . Cp. also belowsub3.1.3 and fn. 54; 56f.36 Cp. Suresvara elsewhere:tejaadyabhisam. bandhah. karan. am. khilyarupin. ah. | . . . tasya. . . ||409|| and: tejah. sam. bandham ¯asadya yath¯ambhah. khilyatam agat |417a|. Cp. alsoVidyaran.ya: samudrasy¯ambhasas t¯apat khilyata . . . || (AP XV 67ab).37 In the light of his derivation fromsindhu that follows immediately, it cannot beexcluded that bysamudra Suresvara indeed refers to the water of the river Indus, inparticular perhaps to its estuary containing salt. There is a slight possibility that inSuresvara’s times (∼ 8th/9th century)samudracould still have also denoted the Indusriver. Klaus (1989: 365) states “. . . daßsamudráauch in der späteren Literatur gelegentlichnoch den Indus und, wie wir weiter vermuten dürfen, auch den Ganges bezeichnet”. Cp.also Falk (1997: 83f.), who – with reference to a supposed proto Indo-Aryan period inwestern Afghanistan – applies the term also to inland seas. In my opinion, however, it ismore likely thatsamudrarefers here to seawater in general. For in the present context,

48 WALTER SLAJE

Suresvara usesmahodadhiseveral times (e.g. 405d, 407b, 416d). In such a case,sindhumust be assigned the general meaning of a ‘stretch of salty water’, cp. abovesub3.1.1.Plenty of references to the ocean as containing salty water can be gained from the Mbh(CE), e.g.:gangayah. . . . svadubhutam. yathodakam| mahodadhigun. abhyasal lavan. atvam.nigacchati||VI 79,5||; lavan. ajalasamuddhatasvanam|VIII 21,8c|; samudre lavan. odakam|XIII 34,25b|.38 Anandagiri (SP ad 405): udakam. khilyarupen. a parin. atam. |. Cp. also Vidyaran.ya:samudram ambho lavan. aks.etre bhanuvipakatah. | lavan. opalatam. prapya saindhavah.khilya ucyate|| (AP XV 64).39 Though the meaning of ‘hailstone’ forkat.hinodakahas not been recorded by anyof the Sanskrit dictionaries, I am confident that the meaning here is hard, frozen water,because of the trustworthy evidence of Vaises.ika texts, wherekaraka/-ka (‘hailstone’)appears in similar contexts. Note, however, that the meaning of ‘crystallizedsugar’ hasbeen recorded forkat.hina.40 That is heat, or ‘fire’ as an element.41 AP XV 64–67. Cp. also: pin. d. ıbhutam. yad antarjalanidhisalilam. yati, tatsaindhyav¯akhyam. ; bhuyah. praks. iptam asmin, vilayam upagatam. namarupe jahati(SS 47ab)|, and: . . .aham. saindhavaghanavan m¯urtibhavamapadya. . . (SAP 166,20).42 Cp. GiPh I: 233f. On the concept ofgun. a in the Vaises.ika system of thought cp.Halbfass 1992: 113–137.43 dravatvam. . . . dvividham. sam. siddhikam. naimittikam. ca (PDhS 298).44 sam. siddhikam ap¯am. vises.agun. ah. . naimittikam. p

˚rthivıtejasoh. samanyagun. ah. (PDhS

298). Cp. also VSu II 1,2 on which (. . . apo dravah. . . .) Candrananda comments:drava itisam. siddhikam. dravatvam.45 sarpirjatumadhucchis. t.anam. parthivanam agnisam. yogad dravatadbhih. samanyam||VSu II 1,6|| (cp. PDhS 300);trapusısaloharajatasuvarn. anam. taijasanam agnisam. yogaddravatadbhih. samanyam||VSu II 1,7||. For ‘lac’ (laks. a) cp. Thieme 1953: 41f.46 sam. siddhikam ity agnisam. yoganapeks.am(Vyom 244, 10).47 Klaus 1986: 58.48 These views could possibly shed some light on the enigmatic ‘poetical convention’ ofthe (liquid) ocean containing (solid, fiery) gems. The principle of liquidity was applied togems – with the exception of diamonds – in later texts also. When strongly heated theywould undergo liquefaction [cp. HCH p. 204]. In this connection reference must be madeto the termmukta(-phala) for perl, which, according to Lüders (1940), etymologicallyderives from

√murch (to coagulate) [cp. also Hara 2000], as well as to the belief in the

existence of a submarine fire (vad. avanala).49 Klaus 1986: 60ff. The sun causes rain (p. 102f), as does lightning (p. 100), which isitself also a form of fire (p. 114) or of water (116).50 sam. ghata is explained by Candrananda (ad VSu V 2,9) askat.hinya, which correspondsto the usage preferred by the Advaita-Vedantins:apam. sam. ghatah. [=] kat.hinyam.51 sam. ghatadarsanat sam. siddhikam ayuktam iti. . . (PDhS 299).52 sam. ghatadarsanat sam. siddhikam ayuktam iti cen, na(PDhS 299). sarvatrasvabhavasiddhasya dravatvasyopalambh¯ad apam. svabhavasiddham eva dravatvam. tavanniscitam(NK 644, 22f).53 For karakah. [=] ghanopalah. (‘cloud-stone’) cp. NK 97, 12f.54 PDhS 47:divyam abindhanam. sauravidyud¯adi [GiPh II: 202f].55 Cp. also below, n. 72.56 divyena tejas¯a sam. yuktanam apyanam. paraman. unam. parasparam. sam. yogodravyarambhakah. sam. ghatakhyas, tena param¯an. udravatvapratibandh¯at karye


himakarakadau dravatv¯anutpattih. (PDhS 299 [GiPh II: 233]). Cp. Vyomasiva (Vyom631,22–632,24), who seems to infer the actual existence of fire in hail and snow fromthe effect of a ‘burning sensation’ [?] / ‘crackling’ [?] (sphot.a, visphot.a) they exerciseon the body: [himakarakadau . . .] tejah. sadbhavas tu sphot.adikaryanumeyah. | tathaca himakarakasambandh¯ad upalabhyate sphot.adilaks.an. am. karyam. sarıre, v

˚rks.adau

ca, daha iti | (Vyom 631,27ff). Cp. with thisSrıdhara: . . . visphot.adijananalaks.an. am.dahanam. . . . (NK 101,10f).57 PDhS 47:bhaumam. kas. t.hendhanaprabhavam. . . [GiPh II: 202f].58 Cp. abovesub3.1.2.59 Cp. GiPh II: 201f.60 vis.ayas tu sarit-samudra-hima-karak¯adih. (PDhS 40).61 ruparasaspar´savatyaapo dravah. snigdhas ca(VSu II 1,2).62 Cp. PDhS 119.63 PDhS 36; Candranandaad VSu II 1,2; cp., however,Srıdhara’s remarks concerningthe stated ‘sweetness’ of water, NK 92,12ff. Irrespective of its particular taste, waterwould always remain water:apyatvavises.e ’pi rasasyaivotkars.o, na rupader iti (Vyom247,1f).64 Schubring 1935: 85; Jacobi 1906: 515; GiPh II: 36;260; cp. also Akalanka (p. 485,1)and Bhaskaranandin (p. 121,29) on TAS 5.23.65 Cp. Müller 1965 and the above mentioned (fn. 39) meaning ofkat.hina as ‘crystallizedsugar’.66 It should be pointed out thatSrıdhara was influenced by Advaita-Vedanta notions, cp.Mesquita 1995, in particular p. 241, n. 103.67 Despite Frauwallners statement that the Vaises.ikas did not develop the notion of achange of states (“Und statt daher die Flüssigkeit als einen Aggregatzustand zu erkennen,schrieb man sie vielmehr als Eigenschaft den Atomen der betreffenden Substanzen zu.Nur den einen Unterschied machte man, daß man nämlich beim Wasser die Flüssigkeitals natürliche. . . Eigenschaft erklärte, bei den andern Elementen dagegen als künstliche. . .” [GiPh II: 138]), their taddhita-formations withcvi(-bhava) [Pan. V 4,50] point quite tothe opposite.Srıdhara speaks about the process of liquefaction asdravı-bhava, Udayanasimilarly usessilı-bhava to describe the process of solidification, cp. Kir 49,4f:apyatvehimakarakayoh. silıbhavopapattim. . . . vaks.yatıti [= PDhS 299; cp. Kir 256,4–8].68 Cp. above, fn. 56. The contact with fire is not a material, but an efficient and thereforenon-inherent cause, which would never change the nature of thesubstanceinvolved,cp. Vyom 632,15f:agnisam. yogo ’samav¯ayikaran. am us.n. asparso nimittakaran. am iti. Anexception to this doctrine are earthly substances. Fire can cause a change (pakaja) of theirqualities, cp. GiPh II: 84; 218f.69 He explains the dissolution (vilayana) of snow and hail-stones as the result of contactwith earthly fire (bhaumagnisam. yoga) and as an efficient cause (nimitta) [NK 645,21–24].70 This is perhaps the earliest (∼ 200 A.D.) testimony to reasoning supporting such aview. Prasastapada treated the subject only with reference to the solidification of water(PDhS 299).71 apam. sanghatah. [=] kat.hinyam. , divyena tejas¯a sam. yogat | divyabhaum¯abhyam. tuvilayanam|| (CandranandaadVSu V 2, 9).72 Cp. VSuU (137,26–138,1ad V 2, 9): atyantikavidyutprak¯asas tavat pratyaks.a eva,tadanupadam. ca sphurjathuh. , so ’pi pratyaks.a eva | tenanum¯ıyate: yasm¯an megh¯atkarakah. pradurbhavanti, tatra divyam. tejo vidyudrupam anupravis. t.am. . . . ||. Thunderwas explained by the conjunction and disconnection of the ‘waters’ in heaven, cp. VSu

50 WALTER SLAJE

V 2,10–12. On the causal relationship between ‘heavenly waters’, lightning and thunderaccording to the Brahman.as cp. Klaus 1986: 114ff; 117f.73 Cp. above, fn. 67.74 Recourses to myths, e.g. to Indra’s thunderbolt, etc., are entirely missing.75 Noteworthy Atharvaveda VII 80,1lavan. ád víkled¯ıyasıh. [quoted from Falk (1986: 84,n. 261), who translates “löslicher als Salz”]. EWA (I: 418): “mehr feuchtend”. In the lightof the foregoing, a meaning like “softening” in the sense of “becoming liquid” deserves, inmy opinion, at least consideration. Cp. also above, onks.ara.76 In his paper on palpulanı (“washing lye” as a salty substance in theJaiminıyabrahman.a) Witzel (1986) assumes rock salt as a likely possibility and adds thatthis “even today is still imported (from the Salt Range) and calledlun, nun, etc. (On theother hand, dessert, steppe, and sea salt also islavan. a in Vedic [196].. . . (rock) salt is notonly a constituent part of thepalpulanı, but . . . is characteristic for it: one has to reckonwith the possibility that it indicated a licking stone for cattle” [210].77 Klaus 1986: 60.78 Rain comes from heaven (or from the moon) and the earth ‘evaporates’ water, whichis converted into rain. cp. Bodewitz 1987: 309.79 Cp. Sankaraad ChU VI 10,1 (p. 389,9–11): tah. samudrad ambhonidheh. jaladharairaks. iptah. punar v

˚rs. t.ir upen. a patitah. gangadinadırupin. yah. punah. samudramambhonidhim

eva apiyanti. cp. below, fn. 97.80 Klaus 1986: 62; 65. Oberlies 1999: 18–29 (“Das Himmelsmeer”). Witzel (1984: 227f.)identified them as the branches of the Milky Way; cp. on this again Oberlies, p. 28f., n.131.81 This is cognate to a view in the Atharvaveda [cp. below fn. 90–92] and has a parallelin the opinion of the Greek philosopher Thales according to whom “the earth is floatingon the water”, as rightly noted down by Oberlies 1999: 36, n. 173. According to Klausit could be a development from the myth of the origin of the world from the primordialwaters (Klaus 1986: 62ff, 67, 70).82 Klaus 1986: 32, 57, 76. Cp. also Klaus 1989.83 Klaus 1986: 67.84 Cp. JB I 237f andSB XI 1,6,11 [quoted and translated in Klaus 1986: 67; cp. alsop. 187].85 Falk 1986: 80f. Bodewitz 1987: 311f.: “. . . salt ground was considered theresult ofrain. Also in ritual, when preparing the fire altar, the priest scatters downus. a (salt ground),thinking of the moon” [emphases mine].86 In his study of 1987, Bodewitz has investigated the relation between the place of sacri-fice (devayajana) and (the black spot in) the moon, which is treated first in the Aitareya-and in the Jaiminıyabrahman.a.87 Bodewitz 1987: 313. All emphases mine.88 On the moon as giver of rain and on the black spot in the moon cp. also Klaus 1986:99f, 112, 147.89 Cp. also Falk (1986: 84): “Es kam vom Himmel. . .”. Falk adds in a footnote (n. 262):“Genauer gesagt: Vom Mond. So erklärt sich die Taddhita-Formlavan. ya . . .”90 “Daß die Erde aus dem ‘Salz’ der Urflut entstanden sei, ist für uns gewiß ein phant-astischer Gedanke.. . . Wenn ‘im Anfang’ nur ‘Flut, Wasser’ vorhanden war, dann mußsich die feste Erde aus dem kristallisiert haben, was eben das Einzige ist, was im Wasser anKristallisierbarem vorhanden ist, nämlich dem Salz, das jeder im Meerwasser schmeckenkann.. . . Weil sie ihrem Ursprung nach weißglitzerndes, der Speise Kraft gebendes Salz


war, soll die Erde ‘Glitzern, Schimmern’ (tvis. i- f.) und ‘Kraft’ (bala- n.) schaffen. . .”[Thieme 1961: 103f =Kl. Schr.179f].91 AV XII 1,8a: yarn. avé ’dhi salilám ágraasıt [“(Die Erde), die im Anfang das Salzige inder (Ur-)flut war.” (Thieme 1961: 103 =Kl. Schr.179)]. Falk (1994: 14, n. 38) put forwardobjections against Thieme’s interpretation, in particular with reference to the translation ofádhi.92 AV XII 1,9: yásyam ápah. paricarah. . . . | sa no bhumir bhuridhara páyo duh¯am . . .

|| [“Diese Erde mit ihren vielen Strömen,. . . die [als Flüsse]. . . auf [ihr] rinnen, soll uns(Trink)wasser milchen. . .” (Thieme 1961: 104 =Kl. Schr.180)]. There is only one passagein the Taittirıyabrahman.a (II 2,9,3) according to which the water of the ocean is not beingdrunk:samudrásya ná pibanti[Klaus 1986: 79, n. 18].93 No difference in taste is taken into consideration in the present case.94 In the present context,astam.

√gam conveys exactly the same meaning asvi-

√l ı

andvi-√

nas in thesaindhava-d˚rs. t.anta, namely the disappearance of an individual mani-

festation in its original substance. Cp. also Mun.d.aka-Upanis.ad III 2,8ab:yatha nadyah.syandam¯anah. samudre astam. gacchanti namarupe vihaya | . . . [Olivelle 1998: 452f].95 In contrast to the generally accepted readingevam. I prefer Boehtlingk’s conjecture [cp.Olivelle 1998: 641].96 Among representative samples may be quoted “Die Flüsse hier, mein Lieber, fließenim Osten nach Osten, im Westen nach Westen. Sie gehen aus dem Meer ins Meer ein. Siewerden eben zum Meer” [Klaus 1986: 78], and “Now, take these rivers, son.The easterlyones flow toward the east, and the westerly ones flow toward the west. From the ocean,they merge into the very ocean; they become just the ocean” [Olivelle 1998].97 Olivelle (1998: 561) relies on Witzel (1984, 262), according to whom we have toreckon with the idea of a “movement of the celestial rivers located in the Milky Way, fromthe east to the north and from the west toward the south”. According to Witzel, the easternand western waters/oceans of

˚Rgvedic and Avestan times refer to these two branches of the

Milky way, turning around the Northern Pole (Witzel 1984: 228). The basic idea of a kindof exchange between the earthly ocean and the waters from heaven can also be found withSankara, cp. above, fn. 79.98 Klaus 1986: 78. To Falk (1997: 83f.) the twosamudrasmentioned in

˚RV X 136,5 rather

seem to refer to two inland seas (with a high salt-content such as the Hamum-i Seistan).However, as regards the period of the early Upanis.ads, their “geographical horizon. . .stretches from Gandhara to Anga” (Witzel 1997: 330).99 Klaus 1986: 78, n. 8.100 The flow of rivers to various directions, in particular to the west and to the east, isfairly well attested in several Brahman.as (Klaus 1986: 78, n. 10). However, one cannotexclude that the passage intends to expressing the waters – irrespective of their actualdirection – necessarily must flow into one (/ of the) ocean(s) again.101 Vyom 244,13f. The Vaises.ika authors themselves, however, did not share a commonopinion with regard to a possible slight admixture (ıs.atsam. p

˚rkta) of other elements to

water, which would render it sensually perceptible [cp. Vyom. 244,6–247,3, in particular246,16f (rasana): anye tv any¯avayavanabhibhutair asam. p

˚rktaih. suddhair jalavayavair

arabdham iti bruvate]. The problem was created by Prasastapada’s definitory use ofthe particleeva, by which he deviated from the general definition in the Vaises.ikasutra[VSu II 1,2: rupa-rasa-spar´savatyaapo dravah. snigdhas ca || Isaacson 1995: 195] andthus restricted the taste of water (ap) to ‘sweet’ (madhura) only (eva) [PDhS 36:sukla-madhura-sıta evarupa-rasa-spar´sah. , referred to by CandranandaadVSu II 1,2]. It seemsthat by this restriction of thequalitiesof water to ‘white, sweet and cool only’ the natural

52 WALTER SLAJE

state of the qualities of water was pointed at. This state, however, is always subject totemporary change through the influence of various causal factors, such as, e.g., the influ-ence of heat by which ‘naturally cool’ water becomes boiling hot. The influence of thesefactors is not permanent, so that the natural qualities of water would manifest themselvesagain. Udayana [Kir 46,2–12.] explains the difference intasteof sweet (ambu) and salty(sindhu) water by an admixture of earthly substances [yat punar ambu-sindhu-bhedenaks. aradir api rasah. pathasy upalabhyate, sa da´samulakas. ayasyeva(against ed.: -yasyaiva)parthivadravyopadhikah. (Kir 46,9f)], cp. also Zedler, above fn. 17. With regard to thehardness of hail, he did not accept admixture of earthly substances [na ca karakayah.ka[recte: ka-]t.hinyat parthivatvamasankanıyam (Laks. 17, p. 278,2f)]. In any case, hisobservations and his explanation of a difference in the qualities of taste would not changeour picture of salt as a crystallized state of the substance water, since here the element earthis not considered a causal factor forcrystallization, but for the perception of the salty tasteof water. On Udayana cp. also Preisendanz 1994: 678f, n. 235.102 Cp. above,bhidyete tasam. namarupe | samudra ity eva procyate| (PU VI, 5); imah.. . . nadyah. . . . tah. . . . | sa samudra eva bhavati| (ChU VI 10,1).103 For the objects of taste are enumerated with reference to PDhS 40 as follows:sa tusaritsamudrahimakarak¯adir iti (Vyom 247,5); cp. also above, fn. 63.104 Witzel (1986: 191 and 213, n. 16): “Lye is made from various substances containingsalt, such as saline soil, ashes, urine, by watering them several times. Such brine is alsocalledudaka.” Cp. also Falk (1986: 79): “udaka, Lauge”. In the Milindapañha,udakaisused for the salty tasting water of the ocean and for the drinking water of rivers:. . . purisonavaya mahasamuddam ajjhogahitva hatthaput.ena udakam gahetva jivhaya sayitva –janeyya nu kho. . . so puriso: idam. Gangaya udakam, idam. Yamunaya udakam . . . (Mil87,10ff.).105 Bodewitz 1991/92: 429.106 Bodewitz 1991/92: 425ff., 434f.107 Cp. above fn. 39, 50, 65, 71.108 “The invisible presence of the particles of salt[in the water, W. S.] illustrates thepresence of theatman” [Bodewitz 1991/92: 423]. It is certainly no suitabled

˚rs. t.anta to

compare particles (pl.) substantially different from water to one undividedatman. Thewhole experiment could hardly have aimed at making adifferent substanceappear anddisappear. If according to such an understanding the salt takes the position of theatman,it is the atmanwhich will have toappearand todisappearbefore our eyes! Similarlyalso Falk [1986: 84], according to whom salt “verschmilzt mit Wasserzu einerneuenEinheit, ohne äußerlichdarin erkennbar zu sein. In den Upanis.aden wird das Salz deshalbmit demAtman verglichen, weil esüberall im Wassergleich präsent (BAU 2.4,12) undunvergänglich ist (ChU 6.13,2tac chasvat sam. vartate)”. Cp. also above, p. 3f.109 The intermediate stage of an ‘ahankara’ is – not unexpectedly – missing in these earlystrata. However, also in later texts the absence of theahankara can be taken as an indicatorfor a comparatively high antiquity of emanation doctrines related to Sankhya thought [cp.Oberlies 1998: 499].110 Stated by Liebenthal and confirmed by Frauwallner and Wezler (on their respectivestatements cp. Wezler 1985: 15, n. 18).111 Lüders’ “Grundsatz, daß indische Wörter, die erst im Sonderleben des Indischenentstanden sind, aus indischen Anschauungen heraus erklärt werden müssen” (1940: 179),deserves in the present context no less a citation than Wezler’s timeless valid state-ment “Ein jeder Versuch, die innere Erschließung der Upanischaden voranzutreiben, hatbeim Wortlaut der Texte einzusetzen. Seine Ermittlung und sein richtiges Verständnis


bilden die unerläßliche Voraussetzung dafür, daß weitergehende Fragen, etwa zu einzelnenLehren oder gar den “philosophischen Hauptlehren”, sinnvoll gestellt werden können.. . . eine Neuübersetzung ganzer Texte oder längerer Textpartien bringt doch nur danneine wesentliche Mehrung der Erkenntnisse, wenn sie auf solchen Untersuchungen vonEinzelproblemen aufbaut, und die Erfahrung scheint eher zu lehren, daß viele, wenn auchkeineswegs alle, “Übersetzer” dazu neigen, Probleme nicht als solche zu erkennen oderüber sie hinwegzugehen. Es besteht deshalb einiger Grund dazu, den mikrophilologischenUntersuchungen eine taktisch bedeutsame Rolle bei der Lösung der strategischen Aufgabeder inneren Erschließung der Upanischaden zuzuerkennen” (1982/83: 147).112 Cp. Witzel 1996.

REFERENCES

Akalanka: (Tattvarthavarttika), s.TAS.AP: (Vidyaran.ya) The Anubhutiprakasa of Vidyaran.ya. Crit. ed. by Godabarisha Mishra.

Madras, 1992.BAU: (B

˚rhadaran. yaka-Upanis.ad). In: Eighteen Principal Upanis.ads. Ed. by V.P. Limaye,

R.D. Vadekar. Vol. 1. Poona, 1958.– in: Olivelle 1998.

BAU(M ): (Madhyandina-Rec.) cf. Böhtlingk, 1889.BAUBh: (Sankara:) B

˚rhadaran.yakopanis.adbhas.ya. In: Complete Works of Sri

Sankaracharya in the original Sanskrit. Vol. 10. Samata rev. edn. Madras, 1983.BAUBhV : (Suresvara) B

˚rhadaran.yakopanis.adbhas.yavarttika. Shri Sureshvaracharya’s

Brihadaran.yakopanishad-Bhashyavartikam. With the comm. Shastraprakashika ofAcharya ShriAnandagiri. Ed. by S. Subrahmanya Shastri. Vol. 2. [Advaita GranthaRatna Manjusha Ratna. 30]. Varanasi, 1990.

Bhaskaranandin: (Sukhabodha), s.TAS.Bodewitz, H.W.: 1982, The Waters in Vedic Cosmic Classifications.IT 10: 45–54.Bodewitz, H.W.: 1987, The Black Spot in the Moon, Salt, Seed and the Devayajana. In:

Kaviraj Commemoration Vol. IV. Benares: 307–313.Bodewitz, H.W.: 1991/92, Uddalaka’s Experiments with Salt (ChU 6,13).ABORI72/73:

423–436.Boehtlingk, Otto: 1889, B

˚rhadaran. jakopanishad in der Madhjam. dina-Recension. Hrsg. u.

übers. St. Petersburg.Brereton, Joel P.: 1996, Yajñavalkya’s Curse.StII 20: 47–57.BSu Brahmasutra. In:BSuBh.BSuBh: (Sankara) Brahmasutrabhas.ya. Brahmasutra-Sankarabhas.yam. With the comm.:

Bhas.yaratnaprabha of Govindananda, Bhamatı of Vacaspatimisra, Nyaya-Nirn.aya ofAnandagiri. Ed. by J. L. Shastri. Delhi, 1980.

Cardona, George: 1997, Pan. ini. His Work and Its Traditions. Vol. 1. 2nd edn., rev. and enl.Delhi.

ChU: (Chandogya-Upanis. ad). In: Olivelle, 1998.Delbrück, B.: 1888, Altindische Syntax. [Syntaktische Forschungen. 5]. Halle.Dreyer, Caren: 1986, Das Kat.haka-G

˚rhya-Sutra. Krit. Ed. mit Anm. T.1. [ANISt. 30].

Stuttgart.Deussen, Paul: 1938, Sechzig Upanishad’s des Veda. Aus dem Sanskrit übers. u. m. Einl.

u. Anm. vers. 3.Aufl. Leipzig.

54 WALTER SLAJE

Ewa: Mayrhofer, Manfred: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Bd. 1.Heidelberg, 1992.

Falk, Harry: 1986, Bruderschaft und Würfelspiel. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklungs-geschichte des vedischen Opfers. Freiburg.

Falk, Harry: 1994, Die Kosmogonie von RV X 72.WZKS38: 1–22.Falk, Harry: 1997, The Purpose of

˚Rgvedic Ritual. In:Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts.

New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas. Ed. by Michael Witzel [HOS. Opera minora.2]. Cambridge: 69–88.

Formichi, Carlo: 1929, On the Real Meaning of the Dialogue between Yajñavalkya andMaitreyı. In: Indian Studies in Honor of Charles Rockwell Lanman. Cambridge, MA:75–77.

Frauwallner, Erich: 1925a, Untersuchungen zum Moks.adharma. Die nicht-sam. khyistischen Texte.JAOS45: 51–67. (= Kleine Schriften. Hrsg. v. G. Oberhammeru. E. Steinkellner. Wiesbaden, 1982. S.: 38–54.)

Frauwallner, Erich: 1925b, Untersuchungen zum Moks.adharma. Die sam. khyistischenTexte. WZKM 32: 179–206. (= Kleine Schriften. Hrsg. v. G. Oberhammer u. E.Steinkellner. Wiesbaden, 1982. S.: 55–82.)

Frauwallner, Erich: 1926, Untersuchungen zu den älteren Upanis.aden.ZII 4: 1–45 (=Kleine Schriften. Hrsg. v. G. Oberhammer u. E. Steinkellner. Wiesbaden, 1982. S.:95–139.)

Frauwallner, Erich: 1968, Materialien zur ältesten Erkenntnislehre der Karmamımam. sa[SB ÖAW. 259,2. = VKSKS.6]. Wien.

Gerow, Edwin: 1977, Indian Poetics [HIL. 5,3]. Wiesbaden.GiPh I-II: Frauwallner, Erich: Geschichte der indischen Philosophie. Band 1.2. Salzburg,

1953–1956.Hacker, Paul: 1961, The Sankhyization of the Emanation Doctrine. Shown in a Critical

Analysis of Texts.WZKSO5: 75–112. [=Kl. Schr., hrsg. v. Lambert Schmithausen:167–204.]

Hacker, Paul: 1995, Philology and Confrontation. Ed. by W. Halbfass. Albany.Hanefeld, Erhardt: 1976, Philosophische Haupttexte der älteren Upanis.aden [Freiburger

Beiträge zur Indologie. 9]. Wiesbaden.Hara, Minoru: 1995, A Note on the Whiteness of Laughter. In: Sauh

˚rdyamangalam. Studies

in Honour of Siegfried Lienhard on his 70th Birthday. Ed. by Mirja Juntunen et al.Stockholm: 141–159.

Hara, Minoru: 2000, A Note on the Compoundkrodha-murchita. In:Vividharatnakaran.d.aka. Festgabe für Adelheid Mette. Hrsg. v. Christine Chojnacki etal. [IT.37.] Swisttal-Odendorf: 343–357.

HCH: History of Chemistry in Ancient and Medieval India. Ed. by P. Ray. Calcutta, 1956.HTI: History of Technology in India. Vol. I. From Antiquity to c. 1200 A.D. Ed. by A. K.

Bag. New Delhi, 1997.Isaacson, Harunaga: 1995, Materials for the Study of the Vaises.ika System. Ph.D. thesis,

Leiden.Jacobi, Hermann: 1906, Eine Jaina-Dogmatik. Umasvatis Tattvarthadhigama-Sutra über-

setzt und erläutertZDMG60: 287–325; 512–551.Jansen, Michael: 1987, Rettet Mohenjo-Daro! In: Vergessene Städte am Indus. Frühe

Kulturen in Pakistan vom 8.-2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Mainz: 228–242.Kir : (Udayana: Kiran. avalı) Prasastapadabhas.yam with the comm. Kiran.avalı of

Udayanacarya. Ed. by Jitendra S. Jetly [GOS. 154]. Baroda, 1971.


Klaus, Konrad: 1986, Die altindische Kosmologie nach den Brahman.as dargestellt [Indicaet Tibetica. 9]. Bonn.

Klaus, Konrad: 1989,Samudráim Veda. XXIII. DOT vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 inWürzburg. Ausgewählte Vorträge. Hrsg. v. Einar von Schuler. Stuttgart: 364–371.

KPr : Kavyaprakasa of Mammat.a. With the Sanskrit comm. Balabodhinı by V. R.Jhalakikar. Rev. from the 6th edn. Ed. by R. D. Karmakar, 7th edn. Poona, 1965.

Laks.: (Udayana: Laks.an.avalı). In: Kir : 276–283.Lüders, Heinrich: 1940, Sanskritmukta, muktaphala, phala. In: Philologica Indica.

Ausgewählte kleine Schriften von Heinrich Lüders. Festgabe zum siebzigstenGeburtstage am 25. Juni 1939. . . Göttingen: 179–190.

Marshall, Sir John: 1931, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus Civilization. Vol. I: Text. London.Mesquita, Roque: 1995, DerApavarga-Begriff bei Srıdhara. Eine vedantische

Erlösungslehre? In: Sauh˚rdyamangalam. Studies in Honour of Siegfried Lienhard on

his 70th Birthday. Ed. by Mirja Juntunen et al. Stockholm: 215–258.Meulenbeld, G. J.: 1974, The Madhavanidana and its Chief Commentary. Chapters 1-10.

Introd., transl. and notes [Orientalia Rheno-Traiectina. 19.]. Leiden.Meyn, Ludewig: 1857, Das Salz im Haushalte der Natur und des Menschen. Leipzig.Mil : The Milindapañho.. . . The Pali text, ed. by V. Trenckner.. . . Reprint. [PTS]. London,

1986.Morgenroth, Wolfgang: 1958, Chandogya-Upanis.ad. Versuch einer kritischen Ausgabe mit

einer Übersetzung und einer Übersicht über ihre Lehren. Jena, phil. Diss.MT. (II ): Bhaskarakan. t.has Moks.opaya-T. ıka. Ein Kommentar in der Tradition der

kaschmirischen Yogavasis.t.ha-Überlieferung. 2. Prakaran. a (Mumuks.uvyavahara).[Materialien für eine kritische Ausgabe des Moks.opaya. 1. = Arbeiten aus der Abteilung‘Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft’ Graz. 7.] Graz 1993.

Müller, Reinhold F. G.: 1965, Einige Bemerkungen über Salz in Bewertung der Inder undihrer Ärzte.Clio medica1: 61–64.

NCL: Neuestes Conversationslexikon für alle Stände. Von einer Gesellschaft deutscherGelehrten bearbeitet. Bd 7: S-T. Leipzig, 1838.

NGW II: Frauwallner, Erich: Philosophische Texte des Hinduismus [NachgelasseneWerke. II]. Hrsg. v. G. Oberhammer und Ch. H. Werba [SB ÖAW.588 = VKSK.26].Wien.

NK : (Nyayakandalı). Prasastapadabhas.ya (Padarthadharmasangraha). With comm.Nyayakandalı by Srıdhara Bhat.t.a. Ed. by Durgadhara Jha [Ganganatha Jha-Granthamala.1]. Varanasi, 1977.

NSu: Nyayasutra. In: Ruben, 1928.Oberlies, Thomas: 1999, Die Religion des

˚Rgveda. T. 2 [Publications of the De Nobili

Research Library. 27]. Wien.Olivelle, Patrick: 1996, Upanis.ads. Translated from the Original Sanskrit [The World’s

Classics]. Oxford.Olivelle, Patrick: 1998, The Early Upanis.ads. Annotated Text and Translation [South Asia

Research]. New York, Oxford.Olivelle, Patrick: 1999, YoungSvetaketu: A Literary Study of an Upanis.adic Story.JAOS

119(1): 46–70.PDhS: (Prasastapadabhas.ya). Word Index to the Prasastapadabhas.ya. Johannes Bronkhorst

and Yves Ramseier. Delhi, 1994.Pinnow, Heinz-Jürgen: 1951, Untersuchungen zu den altindischen Gewässernamen. Philos.

Diss. FU Berlin.

56 WALTER SLAJE

Preisendanz, Karin: 1994, Studien zu Nyayasutra III.1 mit dem NyayatattvalokaVacaspatimisras II. Teil 2 [ANISt 46,2]. Stuttgart.

Rau, Wilhelm: 1959/61, Bemerkungen zuSankaras B˚rhadaran.yakopanis.adbhas.ya.

Paideuma7: 293–299.Ruben, Walter: 1928, Die Nyayasutra’s. Text, Übersetzung, Erläuterung und Glossar

[AKM XVIII/2]. Leipzig 1928 (repr. Nendeln 1966).SAP: Svatmayogapradıpaprabodhinı. Ed. P. Chithambaran. Thiruvananthapuram 1998.SBh: (Sabarasvamin) Mımam. sabhas.ya. In: Frauwallner, 1968.Schubring, Walther: 1935, Die Lehre der Jainas. Nach den alten Quellen dargestellt

[Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie und Altertumskunde. 3,7]. Berlin.Speijer, J. S.: 1886, Sanskrit Syntax. With an introduction by H. Kern. Reprint. Delhi,

1980.SP: (Anandagiri:)Sastraprakasika. In:BAUBhV .SS: (Pseudo-Sankara)Sataslokı. In: Complete Works of Sri Sankaracharya in the original

Sanskrit. Vol. 2. Samata rev. ed. Madras 1983: 279–306.SV: (Kumarila) Slokavarttika of Srı Kumarila Bhat.t.a. With the comm. Nyayaratnakara

of Srı Parthasarathi Misra. Ed. and rev. by Swamı DvarikadasaSstrı [RS.1.]. Varanasi,1978.

TAS: (Tattvarthadhigamasutra).– Bhat.t.akalam. kadevaviracitam tattvarthavarttikam [rajavartikam] hindısarasahitam [2.bhagah. ]. 2. sam. sk [Jñanapıt.ha murtidevı jaina granthamala. sam. sk

˚rta grantham. ka 20].

Benares, 1990.– The Tattvartha Sutra of Sri Umaswami with the Sukhabodha of Sri Bhaskaranandi.Ed. by A. Shantiraja Sastri [Univ. of Mysore. Oriental Library Publications. Sanskrit ser.84]. Mysore, 1944.

Thieme, Paul: 1953, Die Heimat der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache [AWL. Abhand-lungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Kl. Jg. 1953, 11]. Mainz.

Thieme, Paul: 1961, Idg. *sal- ‘Salz’ im Sanskrit?ZDMG: 94–117 [= Kl. Schr. 170–193].Thieme, Paul: 1966, Upanischaden. Ausgewählte Stücke. Aus dem Sanskrit übertragen u.

erläutert [Reclam Universal-Bibliothek. 8723]. Stuttgart.VSu: (Vaises.ikasutra) Vaises.ikasutra of Kan.ada, with the comm. of Candrananda. Crit. ed.

by Muni Srı Jambuvijayaji, 2nd edn. [GOS. 136]. Baroda, 1982.VSuU: (Vaises.ikasutropaskara) Vaises.ikadarsane . . . Prasastapadabhas.yam. vidvaccu-

d.aman. i SrıSankaramisravinirmitah. Upaskaras ca. ubhayatra. . . pam. D. hun.d.hiraja-Sastrik

˚rtam. Vivaran.am [Haridas Sanskrit Granthamala. 3]. Kası, 1923.

Wezler, Albrecht: 1975, Bestimmung und Angabe der Funktion von Sekundär-Suffixendurch Pan. ini. Wiesbaden.

Wezler, Albrecht: 1982/83, Zum Verständnis von Chandogya-Upanis.ad 5.1.12.StII 8/9:147–168.

Wezler, Albrecht: 1985, A Note on Vars.agan.ya and the Yogacarabhumi. Journal of theAsiatic Society27(2): 1–17.

Witzel, Michael: 1984, Sur le chemin du ciel.BEI 2: 213–279.Witzel, Michael: 1986, JB Pulpulanı [sic!]. The Structure of a Brahman.a Tale. In: Dr.

B. R. Sharma Felicitation Volume. [Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan, New Delhi. KendriyaSanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati Ser. 46]. Tirupati: 189–216.

Witzel, Michael: 1989, Tracing the Vedic Dialects. In: Dialectes dans les Littératures Indo-Aryennes. Éd. par Colette Caillat [Publications de l’Institut de Civilisation Indienne. 55].Paris: 97–265.


Witzel, Michael: 1996, How to Enter the Vedic Mind? Strategies in Translating a Brahman.aText. In: Translating, Translations, Translators from India to the West. Ed. by EnricaGarzilli [HOS. Opera Minora. 1]. Cambridge, MA: 163–176.

Witzel, Michael: 1997, The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Socialand Political Milieu. In:Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts. New Approaches to the Studyof the Vedas. Ed. by Michael Witzel [HOS. Opera minora. 2]. Cambridge: 257–345.

YD: Yuktidıpika. The Most Significant Commentary on the Sankhyakarika. Crit. ed. byAlbrecht Wezler and Shujun Motegi. Vol. I [ANISt. 44]. Stuttgart, 1998.

Zedler, Johann Heinrich: 1742, Grosses Vollständiges Universal-Lexikon allerWissenschaften und Künste, welche bishero durch menschlichen Verstand undWitz erfunden und verbessert worden. Bd. 33 (S-San). Leipzig und Halle 1742. Nachdr.Graz 1961.

Martin-Luther UniversityInstitut für Indologie und SüdasienwissenschaftenHalle (Saale) D-06099GermanyE-mail: [email protected]

2001b Water and Salt I (IIJ 44)

Documents