Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Vada in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s4: Nirukta as a Documentation of Debates

Vāda in Theory and Practice: Studies in Debates, Dialogues and Discussions in Indian Intellectual Discourses c6.s4

Language
English

Nirukta as a Documentation of Debates

c6.s4.1

Yāska, who authored the first authentic text (*Nirukta*) on etymology and hermeneutics on Vedic texts around 700 BCE, has been referred as a legatee of an argumentative tradition earlier. He refers to a number of debates on issues related to interpretation of the Vedas in *Nirukta*. There have been two opposite schools with regard to reading any meaning in the *mantras* of Veda. Kautsa as cited by Yāska opined that there is no meaning in *mantras*: *anarthakā vai mantrāḥ*.⁷⁶ The justification for this theory lies in the belief that *mantras* are for application in rituals, their application is defined by the Brāhmaṇa texts. They have a fixed order of words and syllables (*niyatānupūrvī*) and a defined method for recitation or chanting which cannot be violated; and learning them for derivation of a meaning is a futile exercise. Any attempt to draw sense from the *mantras* would lead to impossible situations or contradictions. Drawing sharp difference with this view, Yāska refutes all the arguments of Kautsa one by one. He says that *mantras* are very much meaningful and they yield the meaning through well-defined principles of etymology and grammar. A person chanting a mantra without knowing its meaning may commit mistakes in correct application of *svaras*, because the capability of applying the correct *svara* requires an understanding of the meaning. The words used in *mantras* are used in the *laukika* language (Pāṇinian Sanskrit) also, if they yield meanings in the *laukika* language, how can they become meaningless when used in a *mantra*? The Brāhmaṇa texts do not describe their applications only, they also describe their meanings. *Mantras* cannot lead to the actions being performed in a *yajña* without yielding their meaning. What Kautsa understands as impossible situations or contradictions can be resolved by taking symbolic and figurative meanings.

c6.s4.2

Kautsa’s denial of a semantic status to Veda was met with a strong rebuttal not only from Yāska but from philosophers like Jaimini, Śabara and Sāyaṇa. In *Mīmāṁsāsūtra* I.1, Jaimini raises a question — does the study of Veda include only its memorization or learning it with the meanings of *mantras* also? He then argues in favour of the second option. Pāraskara in his *Gṛhyasūtram* has defined Veda having three functions: *vidhi* (injunction), *vidheya* (application) and *tarka* (argument).

Linked texts (3)