Manava Dharmashastra 2.165.7

2.165.7

vedaśabdo mantrabrāhmaṇavākyasamudāyātmikāṃ śākhāmacaṣṭe | tadavayave'pi vākye vedaśabdasya prayogadarśanāt tadāśaṅkānivṛttyarthaḥ kṛtsnaśabdaḥ | yadyapyekasminvākye'dhīte vākyāntarasyāpi vedaśabdavācyatvādinivṛttamadhyayanaṃ saṃskārakarmatvādaṅgamahavattathāpi vispaṣṭārthaṃ kṛtsnagrahaṇam | anye tvaṅgaviṣayaṃ kṛtsnaśabdaṃ varṇayanti | vedaśabdo hyuktaparimāṇasya vākyasamudāyasya vācakaḥ | tatra śruṅgātreṇāpi nyūne na svādhyāyo'dhīto bhavati | tasmātkṛtsnaśabdo'ṅgādhyayanaprāptyarthaḥ | tathā ca smṛtyantaram "brāhmaṇena niṣkāraṇo dharmaḥ ṣaḍaṅgo vedo'dhyeya" iti | "nanu yo 'vedaḥ' sa kṛtsna ityetadatra pratīyate | na cāṅgāni vedaśabdavācyāni | tatra kuto'ṅgaiḥ sāhityam | yā tveṣā smṛtiḥ 'ṣaḍaṅgo vedo'dhyeya' iti tatra svaśabdenāṅgānyupāttāni | iha tu vedaviśeṣaṇatvātkṛtsnaśabdasya kathamivāṅgāni gṛhyeran " ucyate | svādhyāyo'dhyetavya iti mūlaivaiṣā smṛtiḥ | sā cāvabodhaparyantā vyavasthāpitā | avabodhaśca nāntareṇāṅgāni kalpata ityarthasiddhamaṅgānāmupādānam | ato nigamaviruddhavyā- karaṇamīmāṃsāvedanamapi vidhyākṣiptam | evamarthamaṅgānāmupādānamaṅgīkṛtya kṛtsnaśabdo dyotakatvena yukta upādātum | tatra yathā''rambhakāṇi puruṣasya hastapākṣādīnyaṅgānyukyante, naivaṃ vedasya niruktādīnyārambhakāṇi | atha ca bhaktyā'ṅgattvena vedasyocyante | na kila tairvinā vedaḥ svārthāya prabhavatyato'ṅgānīvādhyāse'tra | evamadhyāropitavedatvena kṛtsnaśabda upapadyate | sarahasya iti rahasyamupaniṣadaḥ | satyapi vedatve prādhānyātpṛthagupādānam |

The term ‘veda’ denotes that textual rescension which consists of the collection of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa passages. But in actual usage the term ‘veda’ is applied to portions of that collection also. Hence, in order to remove all doubts on the point, the text has added the qualification ‘entire.’ As a matter of fact, the learning of a single sentence cannot be regarded as fulfilling the ‘learning of the Veda,’ for the simple reason that the other sentences also are ‘Veda,’ and the said ‘learning of the Veda’ is a sanctificatory act; just as in the case of the ‘sacrificial cups’ [the ‘washing’ of a single cup is not regarded as fulfilling the ‘cup-washing,’ which h as been proscribed as a sanctificatory act]. Still, with a view to make this quite clear, the text has added the word ‘entire.’

Others explain the term ‘entire’ as meant to include the Subsidiary Sciences. The term ‘veḍa’ itself stands for the entire collection of sentences above referred to; so that if one were to learn a single verse less than that, he would not be regarded as having ‘learnt the Veda.’ Thus (the learning of the whole Veda being implied in the term ‘Veda’ itself), the addition of the epithet ‘entire’ could only be for the purpose of including the Subsidiary Sciences. This is what h as been declared in another Smṛti also—‘That the Veda along with its six subsidiaries shall be learnt is the duty of the Brāhmaṇa.’

“All that the present verse says is that what is called ‘Veda’ should be learnt entire; and certainly the Subsidiary Sciences are not called by the name ‘Veda’; what then is there which signifies that the Veda should be learnt along with the Sciences? As for the law—‘the Veda with its six subsidiaries should be learnt,’—here we find the Subsidiary Sciences mentioned by their own name; while in the present verse the adjective ‘entire’ qualifying the ‘Veda,’—how could the Subsidiaries be included?”

Our answer is as follows:—As a matter of fact, the present verse is based upon the Śruti—‘the Veda shall be learnt’; and it has been established that this ‘learning’ is meant to extend up to the full comprehension of the meaning; this comprehension is not possible without the help of the Subsidiary Sciences. It is thus that these sciences become included by implication; and thus the learning of Elucidations, Etymologies, Grammar and Exigetics also becomes implied by the same Injunction. For these reasons, the inclusion of the Subsidiary Sciences being admitted, it is only right that the term ‘entire be taken as indicating the same fact.

The Nirukta (Etymological Explanations) and the rest are ‘aṅgas,’ ‘parts,’ of the Veda, but not in the sense in which the hands and feet are ‘limbs’ of man’s body, being its component parts; the Subsidiary Sciences are not components of the Veda; in fact they are called ‘limbs,’ ‘aṅgas,’ of the Veda only figuratively; the sense being that without these the Veda is not able to accomplish its purposes; and hence they are as if they were ‘limbs’ of it. It is in view of this figurative signification of the term ‘Veda,’ that the adjective ‘entire’ should be explained.

‘Along with the Esoteric treatises.’—The Upanisads are the ‘esoteric treatises.’ Though these also are ‘Veda’ they have been mentioned separately, on account of their great importance.—(165)