365bet娱乐

The Vedic interpretation has engaged the attention of a number of scholars in ancient India. In the Nirukta, the oldest extant treatise on the etymology of Vedic words there are references to several old schools and individuals who differed from each other about Vedic interpretation. The schools are aitihasikas, yajnikas, nairuktas etc. The individuals are Sakatayana, Galava, Udumbara, Tittiri, Gargya, Sakapuni, Sthaulasthivi and others. These facts combined with another that Yaska himself offers alternative interpretation would convince even a cursory reader that there never was unanimity among the various schools and scholars about the interpretation of the Veda. In the sacrificial creed evolved by the Brahmanas, out of the heroic exploits of Aryan deities, the formal rituals became the accepted meaning of the Veda. In the sacrificial altar constructed for the purpose, the sacrificing priests would offer prayers and oblations to the deities, on behalf of their patrons, by chanting mantras in prescribed ways. But, in course of time, the deities and their deeds faded in memory' and instead, the sages and sacrifice grew in importance. We know, on the authority of Yaska that by the time he wrote the Nirukta the original sense of the mantras had become dim and that scholars had begun to doubt that even the Vedic mantras have sense at all.² The Naturalistic School Yaska was the foremost among the etymologists who extracted the Veda from the meshes of rituals. He had discovered CC -0. Prof. Satya Vrat Shastri Collection, New Delhi. Digitized by S 3 Foundation

Brhaddevata of Saunaka 143 some irregularities in the ritualistic procedures of the Brahmanas. In certain sacrifices, for instance, a number of mantras were employed when there was no indication in the mantras themselves about their employment. Certain mantras were chanted at a rite where they had no relevance. Yaska who observed all such defects made an attempt at secularizing the Veda. We know from Yaska that there were several schools of etymologists who carried out their special function of Vedic interpretation. They proceeded on precise and scientific lines. They observed that every Vedic word was the product of a root and should be explained in relation to the meaning of that root.³ They also held that if a word was not derivable from one root it should be derived from more than one root.4 Such derivations were allowed if they were accompanied by the connotations of a word. It was also ordained that whatever inner meaning or symbolic significance was there it should emerge from the text itself and should not be imported into it from outside. A Critical Review of the Naturalistic School The approach of the etymologists was very rigid, for it closed doors on other sources such as tradition and mythology. Words of historical significance were explained on naturalistic lines. Vitra, the son of Tvastr became a cloud; Indra, the enemy of Vitra became lightning. Indra, the lightning struck the clouds and released the waters. Thus, the actual event, recorded in tradition, was converted into a natural phenomenon and explained on naturalistic lines, in complete disregard of traditional authority, in spite of the fact that neither the mantras nor the Brahmanas supported the naturalistic explanation. Similarly, the word 'aditya' which simply meant 'the son of Aditi' (Aditeh putrah) and conveyed a historical significance was derived from a +鈭歞a 'to take' and identified with the sun because he takes liquids from the earth in the shape of vapour or appropriates light of other luminaries, stars, planets and constellations, for they become invisible in sunlight. These derivations were forced by the naturalistic tendency of the etymologists. The real explanation of 6

aditya as Aditeh putrah was relegated to the last place because it referred to a history which the naturalists must reject because it would not suit their interpretation. The etymologists' method of interpretation of words was highly defective. Words had descended from antiquity. They had suffered corruption or undergone change in meaning. Some were imported from other languages and could not be traced to any origin. The attempt to derive every word from a root was, therefore, quite unnatural. The Secular or Historical School The next stage in the matter of Vedic interpretation begins with the Brhaddevata. Although this work was meant to ascertain the deity of a mantra or a hymn, we find herein a number of Vedic words explained etymologically and a number of legends narrated with reference to certain hymns. The work is neither purely etymological nor purely historical. It combines both. There are references to etymologists and grammarians - Yaska, Sakapuni, Sakatayana, Gargya and others who placed emphasis on the linguistic interpretation of words. And also, by the side of it, we have a number of legends related to hymns, and embracing some phases and aspects of life of deities, sages and kings already referred to in the Brahmanas. Thus, the work constitutes a meeting-ground for the basically opposite schools - minus the rigidity of the one and the ritualism of the other. - Shaunaka's Criticism of the Naturalistic School In regard to etymologists we find, that the Brihad-devata is not always in agreement. Saunaka is critical of Yaska when he explains isate (RV.VIII.45.37) as palayate (N.IV.2), while in the Naighantuka (II.14) the root isa is enumerated among the verbs which mean 'to go'. Again, the Brhaddevata criticises Yaska when he explains himena (RV. I. 116.8) as udakena, for which there is no warrant. In the first instance, the term isate expressive of a general meaning (goes) is applied in a praticular sense palayate (flees), while in the second instance, the term himena

Brhaddevata of Saunaka 145 expressive of a particular meaning (by frost) is applied in a general sense udakena (by water). Again, Yaska while commenting on RV explains the word purusadah (man-eating) by dividing it into two (purusan adanaya) while in the Pada-text the word is not analysed but is treated as one. 10 Conversely, the expression ma/sakrt which is not one word in the Rgveda, Yaska has explained as one (masakrt-month-maker)¹¹. Yaska permits himself another one when he explains the two words garbham nidhanam as anomaly (N 3.6), even though the word sanituh intervenes them (RV. 3.31.2).12 Yaska (N.1.7,8) is not decided whether tva is a particle or an inflected word or both.13 Commenting on the word sitaman (N.4.3) Yaska cites the differing viewes of Sakatayana, Taitiki and Galava but does not give his own. 14 Commenting on RV. X.29.1 he reads vayo ni adhayi 27 (N.6.28) while the Padapatha reads va/yah/ni/adhayi and leaves the verb unaccented after the relative yah.15 Then there are words wherein a letter or two are dropped which are to be restored before the words become intelligible. Thus, we have to read attrani for atrani, vrsakapih for kapih, nabhau for nabha, dana-manasah for danah, yacami for yami and maghasu for aghasu.16 In the interpretation of words this device is not approved by Saunaka. For, as the Brhaddevata¹7 states, it is the sense, not the word, that is the starting-point in interpretation, and from the combined sense of words, the sense of the sentence is conveyed. Besides the sense of the word, there are some other factors too, viz., the subject matter, the gender, the appropriateness, considerations of place and time. All these factors contribute to the possibility of discriminating the whole sense of the Vedic mantras. As stated in the Brihad-devata, for the interpretation of the Veda this was the settled rule. Historical School: Methodology. From the foregoing critique, it is easy to conclude that in accepting the methodology of the naturalistic school Saunaka had certain reservations. We find him, therefore, suggesting

emendations and formulating rules to regularize the irregular words. For instance, interpreting RV. III.31.1 Yaska 18 had explained sam...dadhanve as sam...dadhati by substituting 鈭歞ha for dhav (dhavi gatau) though for the substitution of one root for another there was no rule in the Nirukta. To regularize the change Saunaka 33 formulated a rule that for the proper interpretation of Rks one should, if necessary, change the gender and substitute one root for another. Thus, Saunaka 19 formulated fresh rules. In regard to the structure of a sentence he held that words should be arranged in a regular sequence. Proper syntax alone would help understand the sense of a sentence. However, on the method of reconstructing a sentence Shaunaka was liberal. If there be a redundant word in a sentence it should be rejected; if a word was far removed from another it should be in juxtaposition. Anyhow, the regular sequence of words was to be restored. Gender, root, etc. were to be adapted to the sense. Whatever was Vedic in a mantra was to be turned into every day (laukika) speech.20 Such rules constituted an improvement on the methodology of the naturalistic school. Saunaka accepted the natural etymologies and discarded the unnatural ones. He declined to subscribe to the view that all nouns are derived from roots. He explained some words conventionally, others etymologically, still others by usage-cum-derivation. So far as the methodology of interpretation was concerned, there was a distinct departure from the naturalistic school. To illustrate: While explaining mitra Yaska 21 gave a threefold derivation but Saunaka did not follow any. Again interpreting RV. X.123.1 Yaska 22 derived Vena from ven 'to desire' but Saunaka, 23 ignoring Yaska, derived it from ven 'to go'. Similarly, on the explanation of certain words Yaska and Saunaka differed widely. Yaska 24 explained Visvamitra (sarvamitra) as the name of a sage, but Shaunaka 25 thought it designated the sun too. Further, commenting on sarasvat Yaska 26 quoted RV. VII.96.5 where contextually it meant 'a lake full of water'. The word occurs in the Rgveda consecutively in three verses (VII. 96.14- 16). The first three verses of hymn VII. 96 are ascribed to the CC-0. Prdeity, Sarasvati, while the last three are addressed to Sarasvat. But 鈥�

Brhaddevata of Saunaka 147 Sarasvat is noticed by Saunaka²7 as signifying Indra and placed in the list of twenty-six names of Indra. Saunaka's exposition of rival schools was unbiased and straightforward. His attempt was not to project his views upon the convictions of his rival. Therefore, there is no sarcasm or irony in his references to the differing views of different acaryas. Further, as the expounder of a historical school Saunaka is never rigid. On one point he would accept the views of one rival school against the other. On another point he would oppose the very school he had sided previously. There is a tendency not to side with any particular school. We have already noticed that in respect of etymology Saunaka followed the methodology of Yaska which he supplemented by his own, but on certain other matters, such as the identity of deities etc. his views were quite different. If tradition supported it he would readily invest a natural object with a human complex, though this was not warranted by the text. To illustrate: the word Sarasvati in the Rgveda means the river as well as the Goddess of speech. Yaska 28 quotes RV. VI.61.2. which contains expressions: sanu girinam tavisebhir urmibhih, paravataghnim avase suvrktibhih...dhitibhih which show that Sarasvati in this verse is a river and not a goddess. In the Maitrayani Samhita (2.5.4), on the contrary, Sarasvati is treated as a goddess to whom offerings of animal food are to be made by the recital of this verse and the five verses that follow. Now, Saunaka 29 states: Sarasvati is praised in all stanzas into two ways: as a river and as a deity. The passages in which she is praised as river are six and that there is not a seventh. The six passages 30 referred by him are: RV. II.41.6; VII.95.2; III.23.4; VIII.21.18; X.64.9 and VI.52.6. This excludes RV. VI.61.2. which Yaska regarded to be the seventh. But in regard to this verse Saunaka 31 has quoted Aitara in support of the view, already authenticated by the Maitrayani Samhita, that because of the oblation the goddess would be addressed, not the river. Historical School: Justification and Establishment For the historical content Saunaka drew upon the ritualistic tradition but for the rest he dropped it altogether. Already with

the spread of the Upanisadic teaching, the formal ritualism enunciated by the Yajnikas was being disregarded as inferior to the Upanisadic Vedanta, while at the hands of the naturalists it was being totally eliminated and virtually approaching extinction. As a result of it and later on with the rise of Buddhism in the post-Shaunaka period, it remained confined to the coteries of the priestly class, the Upadhyayas and the Agnihotrins. Thus Saunaka was placed between the two extremes. (i) There were ritualists, on the one hand, who accepted the divinity of the deities, offered them drink, oblation and prayers, aspiring for material gain. (ii) There were naturalists, on the other hand, with Yaska as the architect of their school, who denied divinity to the deities thinking that they were nothing but the personified powers of nature. The hordes of deities who entered the Veda were being identified with or merged into the triad Agni, Indra and Surya. The naturalists believed that each of the triad derived multiplicity of names from their different activities 32 and had his common source in Prajapati, the fountain-head of all creative activities. Among the naturalist Panditas Madhuka, Svetaketu and Galava 33 held that the names of the deities were derivable from nine factors while Yaska, Gargya and Rathitara³ derived them from four. Shaunaka thought they originated from a single factor, viz., action.35 A being who came into existence with some form of becoming was linked with a certain action. And as names had no other source than becoming they were all derived from one action or the other.36 Action became the distinguishing mark of a deity. Whatever characteristic qualities or traits a deity had, were reflected in his name and were the products of his multiplex activities. Thus the concept of divinity of the deities was founded on the granite rock of action. The naturalists interpreted this concept in terms of the powers of nature illustrated by their mighty deeds. CC-0. Prof. Satya Vrat Shastri Collection, New Delhi. Digitized by S 3 Foundation

Brhaddevata of Saunaka 149 The ritualists traced this concept to the sacrificial rites which could transform a human being into divine. A person could become Indra or Varuna or any other deity through certain ceremonial actions. Divinity, in this respect, was but a consequence and not the antecedent of an activity. In this perspective it is natural to assume that the deities were human beings at their base who became immortal by their glorious deeds.37 Most of the sages in the Rgveda refer to their common ancestry with the gods. For instance, Aucathya Dirghatamas 38 speaks of the immortal as the brother of the mortal. Gaya Plata 39 declares that all gods (visve devah) are in relation with men and that relationship implies the duties of protection and aid. The same sage 40 asks Maruts whether they do not recollect their relationship with him. When they next meet at the place of sacrifice, their mother Aditi will confirm their brotherhood. Maitravaruni Vasistha 41 and Pragatha Kanva 42 proclaim ancestral friendship and common kinship between Asvins and themselves. Again, Pragatha Kanva 43 speaks of his common ancestry with Indra. Kusidi Kanva 44 suggests Indra, Visnu and Maruts to regard him as their kith and kin. Rebha Kasyapa 45 seeks for Indra's protection which he is entitled to by virtue of his relationship. Virupa Angirasa 46 addresses Agni as friend and brother. Manu Vaivasvata 47 refers to his kinship and close alliance with Vasus. Irimbithi Kanva 48 asks Adityas to be kind to him for in the bond of kindred he is bound to them. Mention may also be made of Rbhu, Vibhvan and Vaja, sons of Sudhanvan, a descendant of Angiras who obtained divinity by their good works and became entitled to receive praise and adoration.49 There is also a reference in the Rgveda 50 that Man is the lord of immortality and has created divinity out of himself. There are hymns in the Rgveda" wherein the deity is addressed in the second person as if he stood in human form before the sage. The foundations of the historical school of Vedic interpretation were laid in the Rgveda itself. Rgveda is conscious of its own history. There are references to Maruts as sons of Bharata;52 to Visvamitra whose prayers protect men of Bharata³³;

and to Bharatas having suffered with the introductory remarks: some calamity and being again resuscitated by the leadership or Vasistha 54. Yaska, himself a naturalist, referred usually to some old events or with the concluding words: tatretihasam acaksatess In-ity aitihasikah56 interpreting a word with reference to a Vedic verse he added sometimes an anecdote in relation to that verse. For instance, the Rgveda 57 contains the legendary history of Devapi and Santanu, sons of King Rstisena or Isitasena. Yaska 58 explained the Rks historically, though, later on, his commentators 59 could not brook that explanation and imposed a forced and unnatural one in the manner of their School. Again, on the crucial problem whether the deities existed in human form or they were some aerial beings, Yaska 60 had his own opinion. While explaining the opposite views of the Panditas on this point he held that some of their activities could be interpreted symbolically, but not all and, accordingly, they could be recognized as personal or impersonal. But inasfar as the recorders of events, the sages, were concerned they derived their knowledge from existing oral tradition or from direct vision.61 That each recorder had his or her own style of recording an event was noticed by Yaska 62 himself. Turning to the Brhaddevata we find that on certain points of historical importance Saunaka cited the views of old recorders. While interpreting RV.I.129,6.7 he referred to Sakatayana to support that the couplet was a story of king Bhavayavya and Romasa his wife in connection with Indra.63 Commenting on RV. on VIII.80. 7 he 64 cited Yaska and Bhaguri to confirm that the story of Apala and Indra was a factual romance. He regarded RV.X.17.1, 2 as the Itihasa of Vivasvat and Tvastr and referred to Yaska in confirmation of his view.65 According to Sakatayana and Yaska 66 RV.X.102 was an Itihasa but whether it related to Drughna, Indra or Vaisvadeva there was difference of opinion. The story of Pururavas and Urvasi was an itihasa definitely, though according to Yaska it was a dialogue (samvada)67. Saunaka cited the authorities sometimes without mentioning their name to indicate that his views were shared by others.68

Brhaddevata of Saunaka 151 In the historical interpretation of certain rks Saunaka has a glorious role. His Brihaddevata contains about forty old legends on deities, sages and kings. Descended from old generations by oral transmission, they possess an authoritative validity. Shaunaka's interpretation of them has won him well-deserved recognition in having been quoted approvingly by such celebrated interpreters as Sadgurusisya, Venkata and Sayana. 1. Nirukta 1.6.20: REFERENCES saksatkrtadharmana rsayo babhuvuh te 'varebhyo saksatkrtadharamabhya upadesaya bilmagrahanayemam grantham samamnasisuh! 2. ibid., 1.15: glayanto yadi mantrarthapratyayaya, anarthakam bhavatiti kautsahi anarthaka hi mantrahi 3. ibid., I. 12 namany akhyatajaniti sakatayano nairuktasamayas cal 4. ibid. II.2: tad yatra svarad anantaransthantar dhatur bhavati tatra dviprakrtinam sthanam iti pradisantil 5. ibid., II.1: arthanityah pariksetai 6. ibid., II.16: tat ko vrtrah? megha iti nairuktah 1...ahivat tu mantravarna brahmanavadas ca, 7. ibid., II.13: adityah kasmat? adatte rasan, adatte bhasam jyotisam, adipto bhaseti va, aditeh putra iti val 8. B.D., II. 109. 9. ibid., II. 110. 10. ibid. II. 111. 11. ibid., II.112. .12. ibid., II. 113. 13. ibid., II. 114. 14. ibid. 15. ibid.

. ibid., II. 115, 116. 17. ibid., II. 117, 118. arthat padam svabhidheyam padad vakyarthanirnayahi padasanghatajam vakyam varnasanghatajam padami arthat prakaranal lingad aucityad desakalatahi mantresy arthavivekah syad itaresv iti na sthitihn 18. Nirukta, II. 1. 19. B.D., II. 101: lingam dhatum vibhaktim ca sannamet 20. B.D. II. 99-104. 21. Nirukta, X. 21: 1 1. pramiteh trayate 2. samminvanah dravati 3. medayater va 22. ibid., X. 38: veneh kantikarmanah, cf Naighantuka II. 6. 23. B.D., II. 53. cf. Naighantuka, II. 14. 24. Nirukta, II. 24. cf. ibid., X. 22. 25. B.D., II. 49: mitrikrtya jana visve yad imam paryupasate! mitra ity aha tenainam visvamitrah stuvan svayamil 26. Nirukta, X. 24. 27. B.D. II. 51. 28. Nirukta II. 23. athaitan nadivati 29. B.D. II. 135: sarasvatiti dvividham rksu sarvasu sa stutal nadivad devatavac ca tatracaryas tu saunakahi nadivan nigamah sat te saptamo nety uvaca hal 30. ibid., 11.137: 31. B.D., II. 138: pasoh sarasvatasyaitam yajyam maitrayaniyake! pradhanyad dhavisah pasyan vaca evaitaro 'braviti 32. cf. Nirukta, VII. 5 ff. Note the expressions used by Yaska: karmatmanah karmajanmanah itaretaraprakrtayah (devatah) 33. B.D., I.24 34. ibid., I. 26. 35. ibid., I. 27: sarvany etani namani karmatas tv aha saunakahi 36. B.D., I. 28-31 37. RV, X. 63.4.

38. ibid., I.164. 38. 39. ibid., X. 63.1. 40. RV., X. 64.13. 41. ibid., VII. 72.2 42. ibid., VIII. 10.3. 43. ibid., VIII. 52.10 44. ibid., VIII. 72.7. 45. ibid., VIII. 86.7. 46. ibid., VIII. 43, 14, 16 47. ibid., VIII. 27.10. 48. ibid., VIII. 18.19. 49. RV., III. 60.1. 50. ibid., X. 90.2 Brhad-devata of Saunaka 153 51. ibid., X. 152.4; 153.2 52. ibid., II. 36.2 bharatasya sunavah 53. III.53.12: visvamitrasya raksati brahmedam bharatam janam. 54. ibid., VII. 33.6 55. Nirukta, XII. 10; IX.23. 56. ibid., II. 16. 57. RV. X. 98. 5,7. 58. Nirukta, II.10. 59. e.g. Durga 60. Nirukta, VII. 6,7: athakaracintanam devanam... purusavidhah syur ity ekam, apurusavidhah syur ity aparami api va ubhayavidhah syuhi 61. ibid., 1.20: saksatkrtadharmana rsayo babhuvuhi 62. Nirukta, X. 42: abhyase bhuyamsam artham manyantel yatha-aho darsaniyah, aho darsaniya itil tat paruchepasya silami 63. B.D. III.156 64. ibid., VI.107 65. ibid., VII.7 66. ibid., VIII.11. 67. B.D., VIII. 153: samvadam manyate yaska itihasam tu saunakahi 68. ibid., IV. 46: itihasah puravrtta rsibhih parikirtyatell