[Advaita-l] Is it saMpradAya dOSha or pATha bhEda ????

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>  
> Your statement of above reminds of several pATha bhEdAs and mis-pronounce 
> of several riks and unfortunately are being handed down in the saMpradAya pravAha.  
>  
> Where exactly is the dOSha, nobody cares for.
>  
> For instance:
>  
> Srisukta:  jAtavEdo “ma” Avaha / “mama” Avaha ??????
>  

I'm surprised about the mamAvaha pATha. I've never heard it in recitation.
 
> In namaka pATha:
>  
> namastE astu bhagavan vishvEshwarAya mahAdEvAya ……
> trikAgni-kAlAya (trikAlAgnikAlAya) ?
>  

trikAla-agni-kAlAya and trika-agni-kAlAya are both heard, although in printed 
versions, I've seen mostly trikAgnikAlAya being used. I am not sure which is
older/more correct. My personal opinion is that the pATha used by those who
have learnt the veda carefully in the traditional way should be privileged. We
have to be guided by the advice given in the taittirIya upanishat - ye tatra
brAhmaNAs sammarSinaH. yuktA AyuktAH ... 
 
I wonder how much of this and the mamAvAha kind of pATha-bheda arises out
of reliance on written notation with possibility of typos, rather than careful oral
transmission. There is a very interesting paper by Patrick Olivelle on the adverse
influence of the printed copy on Vedic recitation that has happened within the
last century. If I can find a copy, I'll share details.
 
> In Durga Sukta:
>  
> vishvAni no durgahA jAtavedassindhu na nAvA duritAtiparshhi |
> agne atrivanmanasA gR^iNAno.asmAkaM bodhyavita tanUnAm.h 
> 
> 
> The mula patha of durga sukta alongwith sAyaNa bhAShya has "bhUtvavita tanUnAm" instead of "bodhyavita tanUnAm”.

There seems to be some confusion in the above. The mUla pATha HAS to be bodhy-
avitA tanUnAm only. That is the reading in both Rgveda and yajurveda transmissions.
Again, I have never heard this verse being recited with bhUtvA instead of bodhi. Are
you referring to some publication that gives the mUla as bhUtvavitA in print? If so,
it is doubly wrong, as sandhi should give bhUtvAvitA (bhUtvA + avitA), not bhUtvavitA.
 
In the sAyaNa bhAshya on this verse, the word bhUtvA is part of the commentator's
explanation, NOT part of the mUla. If not, there would be no occasion for sAyaNa to
refer to the word bodhi at all, immediately after the word bhUtvA in the commentary.
Only because the word bodhi is in the mUla does sAyaNa provide an explanation for it.
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar