[This reproduces a post by me to the INDOLOGY list, earlier today]
I am trying to firm up the idea that vedh- means convert, transmute, or (for the philosophers among us, perhaps) transubstantiate.
The Rasaratnasamuccaya
is a kind of late-ish nibandha text that brings together, organizes and
medicalizes the earlier, more tantric alchemical literature.
Meulenbeld argued that it is datable to the sixteenth century (HIML IIA
670). Earliest dated MS: 1699 CE. This text is not bad as a
representative of the developed ("classical"?) rasaśāstra tradition; one
would expect less standardization of vocab. in earlier texts.
At Rasaratnasamuccaya 8.94-95 there is a definition of śabdavedha.
from
blowing of iron, with mercury in the mouth, there is the creation of
goldenness and silverness. That is known as Word-vedha.
... tat lauhakhaṇḍaṃ svarṇādirūpeṇa
pariṇatam//
that bit of iron is converted into the form of gold etc.
... yatra vedhe svarṇādirūpeṇa pariṇamet sa śabdavedha ity arthaḥ//
Word-vedha is where it converts with the form of gold etc. ...
The
operation being described here is not unclear. The alchemist puts a
piece of mercury in his mouth and blows on a piece of iron. It becomes
golden or silvery. This "becoming" is "vedha."
The Bodhinī authors were Āśubodha and Nityabodha (hence the witty title), the sons of Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara Bhaṭṭacārya, and the Bodhinī
was published in Calcutta in 1927. So it's arguable that their
interpretation was influenced by nineteenth-twentieth century thought. However,
their commentary is very śāstric and elaborate (note the Pāṇinian
grammatical parsing, "dhama dhāvane ity asmāt lyuḥ" (>P.1.3.134 and
pacādi ākṛtigaṇa). And as Meulenbeld points out, they cite an
exceptionally wide range of earlier rasaśāstra texts (HIML IIA 671-2).
Their interpretations are based on a close reading of classical
rasaśāstra literature. At the very least, one can say that their view
represents the understanding of learned panditas in turn of the century
Calcutta, that vedha meant pariṇāma, or transmutation.
What this leaves unexplained is whether this is a different IE root than vedh "split, pierce."
