365bet娱乐

CHAPTER - II AUTHORSHIP OF THE NIGHANTU Prof. Skold is of the opinion that 'the term Nighantu was at first applied to the first three chapters of the existent compilation, as the very sectional title is named as Naighantuka-kanda; but later on it was extended to the last two sections viz, Naigama and Daivata-kandas by a sort of pars pro toto! Further he observes: 'An atha Nighantavah at the beginning mss, of the Nighantu may have been taken to refer to the whole work while the colophons at the end of the kandas preserved their old names. The fact, that in our days, not only the first kanda but also the whole vocabulary bears the name of Nighantu can hardly ,1 be accounted for in any other way. He explains the word Nighantu as nirgranth (a distangle knotty problems). Yaska at the very beginning of the Nirukta states: "A traditional list of words has been compiled. It is to be explained. This list is called Nighantavas. 2 1. Prof. Skold, 'The Nirukta, Its Place in old Indian Literature', pp. 111-12. 2. "HATEITY: AUTETO: IA DUTEUTA 64: 1. tamimam samamnayam nighantava ityacaksate | * - niru 1.1. ?

9 On this, Durgacarya, the only well-recognised commentator on Nirukta of Yaska, clearly states that the present collection of words had been compiled by various seers who culled words from the Vedas with the purpose of grouping in a single list divided into five chapters; in order to understand the Vedic stanzas. Durga further explains that the term is a conventional name and it applies equally to those words which have not been compiled at all, and also to other compilations other than the present Nighantu. 4 Thus on the basis of Durga's observation one can come to the conclusion that there were other Nighantus also, in which occurred vocables that were not to be met with in the extant Nighantu text. This deduction is confirmed by Durga's 30, durgacarya bhasyam - "gavadira devapatnyantah sabdasamudayah samamnaya ucyate | sam-adupurvasya snatar abhyasarthasya karmani karake samamnayah | samabhyasyate maryadaya yam iti samamnayah | sa ca rsibhira mantrarthaparijnanaya udaharanabhutah pamcadhyayi - sastra -sadgrahabhavena ekasminnamnaye granthikrtah ityarthah " | nighantubhasyarupam niruktam | pr . 45. 40 Ibid. "tam ca yo'samamnatah chandatyevavasthitah gavadira anyair va niruktaih samamnatah tam imam nighantava ityapracaksate anye' yacarya iti vakyasesah | a I

another statement that Yaska in his Nirukta explains not only those words which have been compiled in the present Nighantu, but also words which occurred in other Nighantu 5 text as well. Yaska cites a good many vocables which are not seen in the Nighantu on which his bhasya is based. For example, while citing the words of Nighantu in his commentary, Yaska 10 5. Op.cit., p.5. sa vyakhyatavyah | sa ca yo asamamnatah chandasyaiva avasthitah gavadir anyair va niruktair yah samamnatah ayam ca etasmin nirukte- sa eva ubhayalaksano'pi vyakhyatavyah | aha-katham etad gamyate asamamnata vyakhyatam apyatrabhimatam iti | samamnanarhanam va kimmartham asamasnanam ucyate - nirvacanalaksanopadesat nirvacanaprasaktanam ca mrga- karna-daksina - laksmi- bhadrayah sabdaprabhrtinam svamadyanam nirvacanopadesat jnayate asamamnatavyakhyanam apyatrabhimatam iti | yat punar etad uktam samamnanarhanam va kimartham asamasnanam iti | atra bumah | nahi samasnanarhanam anto'sti | atasya | atasca-adhyayana-sravana-jnana- sakti hanidosah prasajyate | sakyasca etavallaksanodaharanamata nighantusamudayena adhita- vedena medhavina | tapasvina 'laksanaviniyoga rsi - chando- daivata-vidanavida abhiyuktena agamavamta mantrarthobhyutim ityetavan eva pighantusu sabdasamudayah samamnatah | tasmadupayantam asamamnatavyakhyanam adhyatrabhimatam iti | asamamnanam ca sarvesam sastratigauravabhayaditi |

adds terms like naman or karman. But the vocables in sixteen places, which Yaska cites in his Nirukta cannot be traced in the Nighantu. 6 Also four vocables are not to be found in the present Nighantu in the sense which has been allotted to them by Uvata, the commentator of the Yajurveda. 7 Similarly Bhatta 6. CE. 1. matsara iti lobhanama 2. vir iti sakuninama niru 2.5 3. prathama iti mukhyanama 4. suh iti prananama 5. svati iti avinasanama 2.6 2.22 3.8 3.21 niru . 4.21 6. rapo ripram iti papanamani 7. svatram iti ksipranama - niru 5.3 8. samba iti vajanama 9. tura iti yamanama 5.24 12.14 10. daksateh samardhyatikarmanah 1.7 11. daksater utsahakarmanah 1.7 12. hradataih sabdakarmanah 1.9 13. ladateh sitibhavakarmanah 1.9 14. dadater dharayatikarmanah 2.22 15. ksiyater nivasakarmanah 2.6 16. braviteh sabdakarmanah 2.22 7. Cf. 1. eha iti aparadhanama 4.29 2. repa iti papanama 5.3 na 3. suka iti ayudhanama 16.61 4. ghrnir iti dittinama 10.10 11

1 3 12 Bhaskara in his Bhasya on the Taittirlya-Samhita records five new vocables that are not found in the extant Nighantu. 8 Yaska himself refers to the convention of the older 9 teachers or the Niruktakaras in his Nirukta. According to Durga there were fourteen different Nirukta texts. So if there was no Nighantu earlier before Yaska, how can there be the commentaries called Nirukta? Comming to the main problem of the topic, namely, the author of the present Nighantu, Durga explicitly states that Yaska is quite a different person from the author of the Nighantu. Commenting on the Nirukta IV. 18, Yaska explains the two words Davane and Akuparasya read in Nighantu (IV.1.32, 33), according to the sequence in which they occur in the mantra of the Roveda viz., akuparasya davane. " 8. CE 1. diva iti dhananama 鈥� Op.cit., Pt. II, pp.69-384. 2. om svaha svadha vasat nama iti pamca brahmano namani | I 3. matira iti stutinama | 4. gartam iti ratnanamah| 5. lekatira darsanakarma | '1. "vedanganam ekaikam anekaprabhedam | tadyata niruktam caturdasayabhedam | durgabhasya, pr . 150. Bishnupada Bhattacharya enlists in his book "Yaska's Nirukta' names of sixteen Niruktakaras. (pp.62-90).

{ Durga observes, "if the author of the Nighantu is Yaska himself, why should he change the sequence of these two words enlisted in the Nighantu, while commenting on it without any reason what-so-ever?" 10 1 1 And while explaining the two words Vajapastyam and Vajagandhyam which are enlisted in the Nighantu (4.2.49,50). Yaska in his Nirukta 5.15, followed the sequence of the Nighantu, not the sequence of the mantra of the Rgveda, where the two words are used as Vajagandhyam and Vajapastyam: (RV IX.98.12). Durga too, observes this change of sequence It is interesting to note that the author of the words. 11 13 - 10. etasmin mantre akuparasya davane ityayam anayoh padayor anukramah | samamnaye punah "davane akuparasya " iti mantrapathavyatikramena anukramah | tena jnayate anyaira evayam rsibhih samamnayah samamnatah anya eva cayam bhasyakara iti | eki hi samamnayam bhasyam ca kurvan prayojanasya abhavat | ekamantragatayoh pathanukramam namaiksyat | avivadhitarthasca ete mantre nigamah | tesu sampattya kakataliyanyayena kasmimscid ekasmin eva nigame dvaipade agacchatah, te yathopagate eva bhasyakari vyacaste -ityadosah | - durgacarya bhasya, pr . 307, niru . 4. 18. 11. "vajagandhyam ityetadapipadam ekasminneva nigame niruktam | kevalam samamnayanukrama viparyasah | vajapastyam, vajagandhyam ityesa samamnayanukramah | nigame punah "asyama vajagandhyam sanemam vajapastyam " iti | 鈥� Op.cit. p. 531.

of the Nighantu changed the sequence of the two pairs of words in the Raveda while enlisting them. But it is not proper to say that the author of the Nighantu is other than Yaska just because the sequence of the words enlisted in the Nighantu is not followed by Yaska in his Nirukta. For, Yaska cited the two mantras, (viz., RV V.39.2 and IX.98.12 to explain davane akuparasya and vajapastyam, vajagandhyam respectively) in view of the fact that these mantras would simultaneously serve as illustrations of the use of the two pairs of words. For, in the whole of the Raveda the word akuparasya occurs only in RV V.39.2; but the word Davane occurs thirty times. As well, vajapastyam and vajagandhyam occur only in RV IX.98.12, which Yaska has quoted. In But one has to answer why Yaska followed the sequence of the words in the Raveda while explaining davane and akuparasya and why he did not follow the sequence of the Raveda while explaining vajagandhyam and vajapastyam. conclusion the author of the Nighantu changed the sequence of the words in the Raveda in the other cases. Yaska the author of the Nirukta follows the sequence of the Raveda while explaining akuparasya davane and while explaining the words vajapastyam and vajagandhyam he follows the sequence of the Nighantu. 14 6

These considerations have led many scholars to hold that the authorship of the extant Nighantu has to be attributed to Yaska's predecessors. 15 Prof. R.D.Karmarkar, in addition to the points noticed by Durga and Roth, brings forward further evidence to prove that the author of the Nighantu is different from that of the Nirukta. He states, "Nor does the Nighantu seem to be the work of only one author. Thus for instance, the author of the second section of the fourth Adhyaya gives certain words, the meanings of which have already been given in the first three Adhyayas. Thus andhah IV.2.6, varahah IV.2.21, svasarani IV.2.22, Saryah IV.2.23, sinarm IV.2.28 and vayunam IV.2.48 are already explained in II.7.1, 1.10.13, I.9.5, II.5.5, II.7.8, III.9.10 respectively. It is clear therefore that the author of the second section of the fourth Adhyaya was not fraware aware of the first three Adhyayas." Further, he shows a lack of homogenity in the method of citation of words. As he says, "In the fourth Adhyaya of the Nighantu there are eight pairs of consecutive words occurring in some Ravedic passages, out of which 1) two occur in 4.2, 2; 3; viz. (vahisthah dutah) and kutasya, carsanih, in 4.2, 70; 71.2) two occur in 4.1.32,33 davane akuparasya and vidradhe drupade in 4.1.18;69, 3) four occur in the IV chapter anavayam kimidine 4.3.43,44; srusti purandhih 4.3.50,51, canah, pacata 4.3.64,65; sadanve sirimbithah 2

1 4.3.119-120. In the case of the first section, vahistho duto in the passage has been reduced to its original bahisthah dutah. But in the case of the third section, while anavayam, kimidine and canah and sadanve, sirimithah are substituted for purandhim and siribithasya of the original passage. If one can keep intract davane akuparasya in 4,1, one fails to understand why Sirimbithasya should lose its genitive or purandhim its accusative. clear, therefore, that the third section must not have been * It is produced by the author of the first section of the fourth 12 Adhyaya. 16 Durga too, was aware of this repetition in the Nighantu and in some cases tried to justify the recurrence of certain vocables with somewhat strained arguments. For example, in commenting on Nirukta 5.1, in which andhah (Nigh. 4.7) is w explained, Durga remarks, "though this word is read as a synonym of anna in the Nighantu 2.7, still it is read here (Nigh.4.2.6) on account of the variety of meanings it can yield. #13 A similar observation is made by him under 12. R. D. Karmarkar, Proceedings and translations of the First Oriental Conference. (Poona 1920), Vol.1, p. IX. "The Nighantu is not the work of the author of Nirukta. 13. evamatra danasambandhat anyah sabdo'nnartha upapadyate | pathitamapicannanamasu, anekarthatvat tu sandisyate ityesa nigama upapadyate |

17 Nirukta 5.5.14 Moreover, the words which have more than one meaning are enlisted in Aikapadika kanda. Their grammatical form is not known or obscure and one meaning is to be fixed. And not only of the above mentioned three chapters but also of the words of V chapter, which yield variety of meanings and whose grammatical form is obscure are enlisted in 15 Naicama kanda. Pandit Sivanarayana sastri refutes Karmarkar's observation, saying that even in the first section of the fourth chapter, the author has not taken the words unchanged from the Rgveda. And as in the first section of the fourth chapter, in the third chapter also the order is changed in the case of the two pairs of words; while other two pairs are taken unchanged. So if one follows Karmarkar's view further, he might say that the third section of the IV chapter 16 is also not the work of the single author. 14. vyabhicaritvada abhidhananam dhanva " "sinam " ityadini sve sve'bhidhanavarge pathitanyapi santi naighantuke prakarane, samamnatanyetasminnaikapadike prakarane'navagatasamskarabhi- prayena, kanicid anekarthabhiprayena | durgacarya bhasya p. 372. 15. Cf. Pandit Sivanarayana Sastri, Nirukta Mimamsa, p.26. 16. Op.cit., pp. 26-27.

1 In fact, the words in the Nighantu are not enlisted as they are in the recensions. The author has taken the words from recesions according to his own choice. So on this ground of disorderely occurence of words of Vedic recensions in the Nighantu one cannot say that Nighantu is not the product of a single author, t 18 Shri V.K.Rajwade also is of the opinion that Nighantu is not the work of a single author and is anterior to Yaska. His arguments are similar to those advanced by Prof. R.D. Karmarkar, Dr.Laxman Sarup also does not accept Yaska as the author of the Nighantu, nor does he accept single authorship. While commenting on Niru. 1.20 Durga states that the authors of the Nighantu were ancient scholars, To support their arguement, Dr. Sarup and Karmarkar quote the statement which runs as "Upadesaya glavanto-vare bilmagrahanaya imam grantham samamnasisur Vedam ca Vedangani ca" (Niru.1.20) 17 hmr si 18 Durga' and Sarup hold that 'imam grantham' refers to the extant Nighantu. 17. Niru.I.20. 'Seers had direct intuitive insight into duty. They by oral instruction handed down the hymns to later generations, declining in (power of) oral communication, compiled this work, the Veda, and the auxiliary Vedic treaties, in order to comprehend their meaning. Bilma = bhilma (division) or illustration, (Translation by Laxman Sarup. The Nighantu and Nirukta 1966, p.20.) 18. imam grantham gavadi-devapatnyantam (samana sisuh ) samamnatavantah |

1 This statement of Yaska, prima facie attributes the compilation of the Nighantu along with the other Vedangas to later generation of the sages, who had no direct perception of Dharma (Truth). This moulded the views of Durga and some other scholars. 19 t 1 1 But Yaska, by the expression imam grantham, only meant: "Works of this genre" refering in general to the Nighantu 19 works that preceded him. That there were a good many Nighantu works besides the present one is clear from Durga's own observations cited above. ! d Contrary to the opinion of Durga, Prof. Bhagavaddatta tries to establish Yaska as the author of the Nighantu and the Nirukta. He quotes the views of Madhusudana Sarasvati, the great Vedantic teacher (and Dayananda Sarasvati) who held, Yaska as the author of both the works. 20 19. Cf. Bishnupada Bhattacharya, Yaska's Nirukta, p. 31. 20. evam naighantavadayo'pi vaidika dravya-devatatmakapadartha paryayasabda- tmaka niruttantarabhuta eva | tatrapi nighantu samjnakah pamcadhyayatmako grantho bhagavata yastenaiva krtah | Madhusudana Sarasvati's gloss on the Mahimnastrotra, verse 7, Madhusudana's view is also corroborated by the statement of Venkatamadhava, a commentator of the Rk-Samhita, who, in his gloss on RV VII.87.4. observes: for catata kascit gaura bibhartiti prthivim aha | tasyahi yaska pathitani ekavimsatira namani | na

On the other hand Sayana in his Rgvedabhasya bhumika has given the title of Niruktam, to this list of words viz., 21 Nighantu. Madhusudanasvami, the author of the Prasthanabheda, also has given the title of Niruktam to the Nighantu. (Sarup, The Nighantu and the Nirukta, p.13). $ 20 Dr. Laxman Sarup, quoting all the above mentioned scholars says: "Sayana is evidently wrong in giving the title of Niruktam to the Samamnaya, for Yaska distinctly states that it is called Nighantu (Nir.1.1). This list of words can only be called Nighantu and it is wrong to call it Niruktam. term Nirukta can be applied only when some etymological explainations are given. Moreover all the manuscripts call it Nighantu. " (Ibid. p. 13). 22 The Dr. Siddhesvara Varma' says: "Ancient tradition ascribes the authorship of the Nighantu not to Yaska but to Kasyapa, 21. arthavabodhe nirapeksitaya padajatam yatroktam tanniruktam | gauh | gma | ksma | ksa | ksma ityarabhya vasavah vajinah | (devapatnyo ) devapatnya ityanto yah padanam samamnayah samamnataktasmin granye padarthavabodhaya parapeksaya navidyate | tadetanniruktam trikandam pamcadhyayarupe kandatrayatmaka etasmin granthe paranirapeksaya padarthasyoktatvat tasya granthasya niruktatvamiti | 22. The Nirukta and the Nighantu: their mutual relation, Proceedings of A. I.O.C. 1920, Vol. 1, p. 75. 1

as per the two verses in the Mahabharata. 23 Pandit Chandramani, observes on the same two verses of Mahabharata, that the author of the Nighantu is Vrsa or Vrsakapi and his preceptor is Prajapati-kasyapa. 24 Pandit Sitaram Sastry, the well-known scholar, in the bhumika of his work called 'Hindi Nirukta' has discussed the authorship of the Nighantu on the basis of Yaska's commentary. The gist of his argument is as follows: (1) It is evident from the very wording of the first sentence of the Nirukta, samamnayah samamnatah that the compiler and the commentator is one and the same. If the author of the Nighantu and the Nirukta are different, it would have been enough and proper to say: "samamnayah Vyakhyatavyah. When it is samamnaya then there must be a 23. Mahabharata, Shanti Parva, Adhyaya 342, Slokas 88 and 89: gat fe marrua: warnt atsg area i naighantuka padakhyanem viddhi mam vrsamuttamam || kapirvarahah sresthasca dharmasca vrsa ucyate | tasmad vrsakapim praha kasyapo mam prajapatih || 24. CE, vedartha dipaka niruktabhasya purvarddha bhumika bhasyakara sri candramani vidyalamkara paliratna arsa kanya gurukula narela dilli vikrama samvat 2033 P - 11 f 21

1 22 person who compiled it. It is futile to say 'this is compiled'. The propriety of the commentary comes after compilation. (2) The word samamnatah in the first part of the sentence is in the form of hetu (cause) to the word "yyakhyatavyah' in the last part of the sentence. The first part (samamnayah samahatah) of the sentence gives the idea of the compilation of the Nighantu and the last part of the sentence (sa vyakhyatavyah) gives the idea of starting the commentary on the extant Nighantu. 3 As regards the argument that Yaska's Nighantu was compiled after the model of other Nighanty works, Pandit Sitaram Shastry and Sri Bhisnupada Bhattacharya, both quote Yaska's own statement in Nir.7.13 which is as follows:25 Moreover one offers oblation to the gods, having announced (lit.joined together) them with their characteristic appellations, as to Indra the destroyer of Vitra (to Indra who excels Vrtra), to Indra the deliverer from distress, and so on. Some make a list of 25. athotabhidhanaih samyujya havipracodayati | indraya vrtradhne | [imndraya vrtrature | ] indrayamhomuca iti | tanyapyeke samamananti | bhuyamsi tu samamnanat | yattu samvijnanabhutam syatpradhanyastuti tatsamamane arthata karmabhisirdevatah stauti | vrtraha purandarah | iti | tanyapyeke samamananti | bhuyamsitu samamnanat | | t

23 these also, but they are too numerous to be collected together in a list. I enlist that appellation only which has become conventional epithet and with reference to which chief praise is addressed to the deity. Moreover, a seer praises deities with regard to their activities, as Indra, the Vitra-slayer, or the city-destroyer and so on. Some make a list of these also, but they are too numerous to be collected together in a list." (Dr.Laxman Sarup's translation). Thus as they observe, it is explicitly stated that some Niruktas read in the Daivatakanda the conventional names of the gods and also epithets, that are usually applied to them. But such a procedure is not approved by Yaska. It would only lengthen the list. So Yaska has approved the inclusion of the names of the deities and such appellations alone as are conventional, and by which they are addressed when an Ablation is offered to them. But the argument of the above mentioned scholars has a weak base. If we accept that Yaska is a re-compiler of the extant Nighantu, we will have to agree upon Yaska's inadiquacy, inefficasy and the unskilled nature of re-compiling the text of the Nighantu. Yaska is not of that nature. As an etymologist, his efficienty and profoundness of wisdom is proved by his work, called Nirukta, the commentary on the extant - }

Nighantu. His work is not only included as one of the Vedangas by the Indian tradition, but he is also honoured as the first writer on etymology by both the East and the West. It is a unique treatise by itself. Out of thousand three hundred and forty words of the Naighantuka kanda, (which are included in the first three chapters of the Nighantu) Yaska explains only one hundred and fifty words in his Nirukta. Suppose, somebody opines, (Cf. Durga's commentary supra to f.n.5) that fearing about the bulky size of the work, Yaska has not interpreted all the words of the Nighantu, which he re-compiled, then the recompiling of more than thousand words will not have any reason. 鈫� 24 N" ? At the same time it should be noted that Yaska explains each and every word of the IV and V chapters of the Nighantu. If he interpreted only a few words to show the method of interpretation then why has he interpreted all the words of those chapters apters/ The question may not be answered satisfactorily. ? Moreover he interpretes many words which are not listed in the extant Nighantu. He has selected them directly from the Samhitas or from other available Nighantus (Cf. f.n.6). And as quoted earlier traditional scholars like Durga and modern scholars like Prof. Karmarkar have rightly pointed out that

t tw if the author of the extant Nighantu and the Nirukta were one and the same the sequence in selecting the words from the Nighantu, while interpreting it in the Nirukta, would have not been disorderly. (Many other defects of the extant Nighantu are mentioned in chapter VII of this Thesis). But, instead of recompiling the Nighantu, he took up the available Nighantu and followed the traditional division instead of even improvising new titles for his work. As he himself speaks: "tam imam samamnayam nighantava ityacaksate, tad aikapadikam ityacaksate, daivatam ityacaksate". Niru.1.1; 4.1; 7.1). He also refers to the convention of the older teachers of the Nirukta schools. Thus, having critically examined the works of the above mentioned scholars and going to the originals, on which they have based their views, one can arrive at the conclusion that Yaska is neither the author nor the re-compiler of the Nighantu. tionally. The extant Nighantu had come down to him tradiNow, it is the duty of the modern scholars that they should rearrange the words of the Nighantu properly. 25 | ?