Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A Concise History of Science in India c5.s3: The Vedāṅgas, the Sūtras and the Origin of Sanskrit Scientific Literature

A Concise History of Science in India c5.s3

Language
English

Contents

The Vedāṅgas, the Sūtras and the Origin of Sanskrit Scientific Literature

c5.s3.1

We now come to another important group of literature, the *Vedāṅgas*, which deal separately with six special branches of knowledge, viz. phonetics (*śikṣā*), ritual (*kalpa*), grammar (*vyākaraṇa*), etymology (*nirukta*), metrics (*chandaḥ*) and astronomy (*jyotiṣa*).f These branches of study arose within the Vedic schools themselves as a necessary condition for mastering the *Vedas*. Being works of human specialists, these are called *Vedāṅgas* or auxiliary sciences of the *Veda*.

The Sūtra Style

c5.s3.t1.1

Their authors adopted in general the *sūtra* or the highly condensed aphoristic style intended to sum up only the pith of the learning in short sentences generally using nouns often compounded at great length and avoiding the use of verbs as far as possible. The main purpose was to facilitate easy memorization of a vast body of ritualistic and other materials. From the point of precision and brevity, Winternitz thinks that 'there is probably nothing like these *sūtras* of the Indians in the entire literature of the world'.g The style became so dominant a feature that this was adopted without question by the various philosophical schools, the grammarians, phoneticians, specialists on metrics and by the writers of the *arthaśāstra*, the *kāmaśāstra*, the *nāṭyaśāstra* and so on.

c5.s3.t1.2

On account of great economy of words and the avoidance of verbs, the *sūtras* always remained enigmatic except to the initiated. For this reason another literary style, the *bhāṣya*, had to be developed, which aimed at elucidating the *sūtras*, sometimes in the form of a dialogue between the teacher and the student. In this style, often the opposite views are first brought in, their insufficiencies explained and the true solutions given at the end. The service rendered to the development of this form of writing by the great *bhāṣyakāras* like Patañjali, Vātsyāyana and Śaṅkara, to mention a few, need hardly be overestimated.

c5.s3.t1.3

a Schroeder, pp. 291 ff.

c5.s3.t1.4

b Jacobi (1), p. 158.

c5.s3.t1.5

c Tilak, pp. 40 ff.

c5.s3.t1.6

d Giles, pp. 64–66.

c5.s3.t1.7

e Winternitz, I, pt. I, p. 271.

c5.s3.t1.8

f *Muṇḍ. Up.*, I, 1.5.

c5.s3.t1.9

g Winternitz, II, p. 235.

c5.s3.t1.10

If the *sūtras* necessitated the *bhāṣyas*, they also no doubt paved the way for the development of the *śloka* form of composition adopted in the *Dharmaśāstras*, medical texts, mathematical and astronomical works, encyclopaedic treatises like the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā* and in arts and sciences in general. The main advantage of this form is that it is easy to write and memorize and therefore readily appeals to the scholar. One comparatively simple meter commonly followed in scientific compositions is the *Āryā*, although more complex meters are also used.a After the development of these different styles of composition, several authors tended to use one or more of them simultaneously in their works, of which the medical *saṃhitās* are convenient examples.

c5.s3.t1.11

Of the various *vedāṅgas* mentioned, we may leave aside the phonetics largely concerned with the rules of pronunciation, but others contain matters of scientific importance.

c5.s3.t1.12

*The Kalpasūtras*

c5.s3.t1.13

The *Kalpasūtras* are available in four different classes, e.g. the *Śrauta*, the *Gṛhya*, the *Dharma* and the *Śulba*. As the materials of the *Saṃhitās* and the *Brāhmaṇas* constitute the basis of these *sūtras*, passages in them of scientific import have received fresh treatment and sometimes further elaboration at the hands of the *sūtrakāras*. Such is particularly the case with regard to the Vedic calendars which have received lengthy treatment in the *Lāṭyāyana Śrautasūtra* and the *Nidānasūtra* of the *Sāmaveda*. The fourth class of the *Kalpasūtras*, the *Śulbasūtras*, are often attached to the *Śrautasūtras* and are important as the oldest Indian works on geometry, irrational numbers and other mathematical topics.

c5.s3.t1.14

The *Mānava Dharmaśāstra* or the *Manu Smṛti* and later *smṛtis* originated from the *Dharmaśāstras*, one of the four great divisions of the *Kalpasūtras*. The mythical Manu is mentioned in the *Taittirīya Saṃhitā* and by Yāska; Aśvaghoṣa's references agree in part with some of the teachings of the *Manu Smṛti*; and finally the epic *Mahābhārata* preserves a considerable portion of it. Obviously, the form in which we now have it developed over a long period of time, and it may be placed anywhere between 200 b.c. and a.d. 200.b As a law book dealing with all aspects of human life, it occasionally furnishes information of scientific value relating to botany, zoology, agriculture and the like. This work expressing as it does the soul and the philosophy of life of a large section of the ancient Indian people is comparable to Lucratius' great poetical work.a Mention may also be made of the *Yājñavalkya Smṛti* (*c.* A.D. 300) which, although a treatise on law, deals at length on embryology and the development of the human body.b

c5.s3.t1.15

a Keith (3), p. 409.

c5.s3.t1.16

b Keith (3), p. 441.

c5.s3.t1.17

The Yajurvedins were the most active and prolific producers of this kind of literature. Among them again the Taittirīya school had an overwhelming leadership. Baudhāyana, Āpastamba and Hiraṇyakeśin of the Taittirīya school composed works on all the four departments of the *Kalpasūtras*, whereas Vādhūla, Bharadvāja and Vaikhānasa covered between two and three such departments. Similar services on a much reduced scale were rendered by Mānava and Vārāha for the Maitrāyaṇī school and by Kātyāyana for the Vājasaneyī school.

c5.s3.t1.18

Although it is certain that the *sūtras* were composed after the period of the main literary activity in preparing the *Saṃhitās*, the *Brāhmaṇas* and the *Upaniṣads* was over, that is after 700 or 600 B.C., serious difficulties arise as soon as the dating of the *sūtra* literature is attempted. From a consideration of the tradition of the Vedic schools as well as from internal evidence, Baudhāyana and Mānava are older than Āpastamba, and Āpastamba must have flourished before Pāṇini, Kātyāyana and Patañjali. Pāṇini's date is itself debatable and is no better datable than most of the ancient texts of this kind. Nevertheless, scholars are generally agreed that Pāṇini lived in the fourth century B.C. (*c.* 350 B.C. according to Keith), that Kātyāyana may be placed around *c.* 250–200 B.C. and that Patañjali who refers to a sacrifice for Puṣyamitra (reigned from *c.* 185 or 178 B.C.) most probably wrote his *Mahābhāṣya* about 150 B.C.c On the basis of Pāṇini's date, George Bühler was inclined to place Āpastamba 150 to 200 years earlier, which gives his date as *c.* 500 to 550 B.C. Keith is not, however, prepared to place Āpastamba beyond *c.* 350 B.C.d For Baudhāyana's date Keith's estimate is fifth century B.C. If Bühler's estimate for Āpastamba is correct Baudhāyana may be dated as *c.* 600 B.C.

c5.s3.t1.19

*Grammar, Lexicography and Metrics*

c5.s3.t1.20

The *Prātiśakhyas* which are works on phonetics attached to the different *Vedas* bear testimony to the beginnings of grammatical studies in India. Yāska (*c.* 500 B.C.), the celebrated author of the *Nirukta*, refers to schools of grammarians. Unlike the lexicographers, the grammarians were more concerned with the language, both written as well as spoken. Although a long line of grammarians must have existed before Pāṇini (*c.* 350 B.C.), his *Aṣṭādhyāyī* possibly rendered obsolete the efforts of his predecessors. Written in 4,000 short *sūtras*, the work deals with technical terms, nouns in composition and case relations, rules for adding suffixes to the roots and so on, always from the point of view of the language and using it correctly in composition.

c5.s3.t1.21

a Keith (3), p. 443.

c5.s3.t1.22

b Choudhury, pp. 52–60.

c5.s3.t1.23

c Renou and Filliozat, pp. 86–91; Keith (3), pp. 426–28.

c5.s3.t1.24

d Keith (2), Preface, clxxi, xlv, clxxii.

c5.s3.t1.25

Kātyāyana (c. 250–200 B.C.) wrote the *Vārttika*, an independent work in which Pāṇini is often criticized for inaccuracies. Patañjali’s *Mahābhāṣya* (c. 150 B.C.) is not only a grand commentary on the *Aṣṭādhyāyī*, but contains refutations of Kātyāyana’s views and additional matters based on the works of other grammarians to which no doubt he had access. These grammatical works and expositions are a veritable source of information of many scientific and technical subjects as will be seen in the various chapters of the book.

c5.s3.t1.26

Yāska’s *Nirukta* is derived from the ancient *nighaṇṭavas*, that is lexicographical works containing Vedic terms. Other well-known lexicons from which citations have come down to us include Kātyāyana’s *Nāmamālā* and Vyāḍi’s *Utpalinī*. The most important and exhaustive lexicographic work that we now possess is the *Nāmaliṅgānuśāsana* of Amarasiṃha, better known as *Amarakośa*. Amara was a Buddhist and a poet who probably lived in the sixth century A.D.,a although Keith would place him after the eighth century.b The scientific importance of the work will be apparent from the fact that the first section gives names for sky, celestial space (atmosphere, planets and stars), regions, divisions of time, phases of the moon, eclipses, denizens of the underworld (serpents, poison). The second section deals with terrestrial matters—oceans, fishes, animals, human beings, their anatomical peculiarities, diseases, plants and forests, agriculture and commerce, geographical information, including stone quarries and mines and diverse matters. The third section which contains about 13,000 terms gives epithets, different names, homonyms, invariant words, in a semantic arrangement which served as a model for later lexicographers. It is noteworthy that several botanical terms and names of medicinal plants further enrich this great lexicon. Renou and Filliozat observe that the *Agnipurāṇa* is more or less an abridged form of the *Amarakośa*.

c5.s3.t1.27

The Vedic interest in meters is reflected in certain sections of the *Ṛk-Prātiśākhya*, Kātyāyana’s *Anukramaṇī*, the *Nidānasūtra* and other works. But a treatise dealing exclusively with the science of meters as used in the Vedic texts is the *Chandaḥsūtra* of Piṅgala (c. 200 B.C.) which has come down to us with the commentary of Halāyudha (the tenth century A.D.). Piṅgala uses algebraic symbols, say *l* and *g*, to denote short and long syllables respectively as well as groups of three syllables to serve as the basis of metrical ending, e.g. *m* = — — —, *y* = ∪ — —.c The text shows acquaintance with about 160 different types of meters. The text is also important mathematically as it deals with Pascal’s triangle (*meru-prastāra*) and reveals knowledge of binomial theorem.

c5.s3.t1.28

Discussions on meters are also found in the *Nāṭyaśāstra*, the *Agnipurāṇa*, and the *Bṛhatsaṃhitā*. Of works on metrics of later periods, mention may be made of Janāśraya’s *Chandoviciti*, Gaṅgādāsa’s *Chandomañjarī* and Kṣemendra’s *Suvṛttatilaka* (the eleventh century A.D.).

c5.s3.t1.29

a Renou and Filliozat, pp. 100–1.

c5.s3.t1.30

b Keith (3), p. 413.

c5.s3.t1.31

c Renou and Filliozat, p. 104; *see also* Keith (3), pp. 415–16.

Jyotiṣa

c5.s3.t2.1

As a *Vedāṅga*, the science of astronomy (*jyotiṣa*) is available in the recensions of the *Ṛgveda* and the *Yajurveda*, but containing the same materials. As an astronomical text, this will receive further treatment in the chapter on astronomy. The text is dated *c.* 400 b.c.,a but the astronomical elements taught therein, the positions of the equinoxes that can be deduced from clear statements, belong to the period of the *Saṃhitās* and the *Brāhmaṇas*.

Cites (15)