Gentoo studies

[Shrisha Rao]

On Sun, 23 May 1999, Michael Witzel wrote:

> The answer to the question below is the expected one. However, since a
> computer crash ate my detailed reply,

Switch to Linux!

> just a few lines now, topic-wise:

Much appreciated, and apologies for the delayed response; a minor injury
had me unable to operate a keyboard well until recently.

> At 5:28 -0500 5/22/99, Shrisha Rao wrote:
> >> >> elaborate rules of philology, linguistics, etc., in regard to the
> >>Vedas ...  conveniently
> >> >> ignored by people propounding "Western scholarship"....
>
> >> Which  "elaborate rules .... are you referring to ??
>
> >All the elaborate output of the nirukta-s, the pUrva-mImAMsA sUtra-s,
> >etc., which is conveniently ignored by "Western" scholarship.
>
> No, Vedic study started with it: the founder of modern Vedic  scholarship,
> Rudolf Roth, published his edition/transl./study of the Nirukta in 1848 :
> "Die Religion des Weda". However, much of the popular etymologizing of
> Yaaska is interesting  as such (and a valuable document of *his* time), not
> as a help to decipher a Rgvedic stanza.

If that be a consideration, then the same criticism could be made of any
work whatsoever, that it was only a document for its own time, rather than
an aid to understanding the RV.  The criticism you make of Yaska would
certainly apply with full force to all, including yourself.  Thus, no
honest understanding of the RV itself would be possible, and only
illegitimate positions relating to various times could be held by all.

> Mimamsa represents a more involved question. It is not ignored, but studied
> as a philosophical system (FYI: I did so, in Skt. only, with the Rajaguru
> at Kathmandu).

All well and good, I'm sure.

> Why? First, it is post-Vedic, second it deals mostly with prose sentences
> in the Brahmanas, third it is interested in ritual procedures.

There are several unwarranted assumptions made: that the Vedas can be
accurately dated to a certain time, that anything that comes after this
accurate date is of limited value, that the Brahmanas are not part of the
Vedas themselves, and that interest in ritual is a limitation.  I will
deal primarily with the second of these here.

> Close as it may come to indigenous philology (this discipline, like
> historiography, is missing in traditional S.Asia), it does not help much to
> 'decipher' the Rgveda.
> Later Mim., of course, has contributed important items, such as a
> discussion of the meaning of "the word". But, again, this discussion does
> not help to find out what 'Rta' or even 'graama'
>  mean in the RV.

The blame for that can be placed on the faulty paradigm that you are
attempting to use, under which, nothing indeed can ever be known about the
meaning of anything in the RV.  More on this below.

> > Why do you think the classical period of study of the Vedas is 12 years?
> Not to study Mim., but to learn one's Veda by heart and to study ritual.

A gross oversimplification, but we won't press it.

> > Also ...`itihAsapurANAbhyAM veda samupabR^iMhayet', etc.
> A post-Vedic statement and already biased by its very timeframe.

Why, doesn't

  itihAsapurANAdervedamUlatvakAraNAt.h  |
  prAmANyaM nAnyathA tasya prAmANyamupapadyate  ||

  (Sureshvara, bR^ihadvArtika II-4-319)

sound sensible?  Then one is obliged to note that should you choose to say
that the smR^iti is untenable in this context for reason of being
post-Vedic, then one needs must observe that *you*, being post-Vedic, can
say nothing about the Vedas either.  Your mode of reasoning therefore
violates your own locus standi in the matter -- apa-siddhAnta-doshha.

There thus has to be some better means of judging the worth -- or lack
thereof -- of statements, than their being "biased by timeframe" (which in
any event has not been established by you or agreed upon by us, and is
thus unavailable as an axiom of inference).

Furthermore, if it be the case that texts later than the Vedas are
suspect, then the Vedas must be completely opaque to us, since no possible
direct knowledge of them could exist now, given the efflux of time, and
since anything that came in between would be ruled out by your paradigm.
Hence, it is hardly a surprise that you find it difficult to interpret
their statements; that you have any knowledge of them at all could only be
because you have not adhered to the rigor of your own paradigm.

Before we go any further, let us also note in passing that difficulty with
the understanding of the RV has been noted in the RV itself; Sayana cites
`ko addhA veda ka iha pravochaddevAM achchhA patyA kA sameti' (somewhere
in maNDala X, I believe; I can get the exact reference if you're
interested) which is commented upon by him as `kaH vA addhA satyabhUtaM
tAdR^ishamarthaM veda vetti?  kaH vA iha asmin.h praj~nAtamarthaM pra
vochat.h pra bravIti?  kiM tattaduchyate?', etc.

Thus it is that:

  yadi vidyAt.h chaturvedAn.h sAN^gopanishhadAn.h dvijaH  |
  na chetpurANaM saMvidyAnnaiva sa syAdvichaxaNaH  ||

-- is no joke at all, and cannot simply be wished away as "post-Vedic."
It is manifestly accurate even from experience, and attempts to outlaw it
have serious logical deficiencies.

> > The argument that the itihAsa, etc., came later is not convincing because
> >there are references
> >to them in the Vedas themselves (in the Yajur Veda).
> Nobody knows what a Vedic itihaasa was and how it  has changd over time.
> Someone's  Mahabharata is not someone else's. --  Once I found (and lost)
> the beginning of  the Ved. itihaasa: "Manur vai raajasiid" ...
> Well? The primordial Manu as king of himself, his sons and their families?
> History?

Difficulties with the texts of the Mahabharata are very well documented
and have existed for centuries; however, this is quite obviously not
unique, and not pertinent here.  By the standard you have set for
yourself, no one could possibly know what a Vedic *anything* was, even if
the same anything exists with the same name now.  Any standard that makes
such a sweeping dismissal cannot be considered a serious barrier to the
Mahabharata.

> >The grammar of Panini, etc., is an aspect of the classical study of the
> >Vedas, not a
> >later canonization of grammar for post-Vedic works
> It has *incomplete* Vedic rules, yes. It does not explain, e.g., the RV
> grammatical category of the Injunctive ("chandasi bahulam" is neither
> explanation nor rule), -- without which one cannot understand very many
> sentences in the RV. Described (and understood) only in 1967 by K.
> Hoffmann, Der Injunktiv im Veda .

Good for Dr. Hoffman, and for you, too, but one wonders what crystal ball
he used to make his determination.

> >there are fruitless discussions on what some particular "epithet" in the
> >Rg Veda means,
> Without proper meaning of epithets and other difficult words, no
> understanding of the RV.

The keyword there is "fruitless."  Under your paradigm, there can be no
understanding of the RV.  Period.

> Language always changes, even Vedic, -- from Rgvedic to Upanisadic
> language, not to speak of Epic & Classical or modern Sanskrit.

If that be used as an assumption in dating the various texts involved,
then it cannot also be offered as a fact arising from said dating.  There
is a circularity involved in doing so.

> > I have yet to come across any "Western" scholar who understands the
> >notion of
> > apaurushheyatva ...
> Really? -- Unfortunately, the Rgvedic AUTHORS of the RV hymns clearly say
> that *they* composed them, with a lot of effort (even while often
> using/plagiarizing their relatives' or colleagues' work), and they are
> proud of their poems +  denigrate/disregard those of others.  To
> immortalize themselves, they put their names into their hyms, often in
> parokSa way.
> All of this sounds all too pauruSeya to me.

Does it?  Let's look at just one "epithet" of the RV, shall we?  What is
the RV's word for "author"?  That's the sixty-four dollar question here.
If you're translating `R^ishhi' as "author," then one cannot agree; the
Nirukta says `R^ishhadarshanAt.h', pointing to the R^ishhi being "one who
sees."  And obviously, `darshanaM cha pUrvasiddhasya bhavati; na hi yo
yat.h karoti sa tat.h pashyatIti uchyate!'  Also see Shankara's comment on
`ata eva cha nityatvam.h' in this regard.

Your argument about the RV's "authors" is thus without value.  Further,
said argument has been rebutted in the RV itself, as I pointed out on
March 5.  Last but not the least, one notes that my original point was
about the lack of understanding of the concept, whether one accepts it or
not; your criticism does not demonstrate understanding, but only
uninformed dismissal, which only strengthens what I was saying.

> > ...several classical scholars have pointed out that it originates
> >in the RV itself.
> By whom and where? (after Sayana) --

By Sayana, yes, but also by Shankara, Ramanuja, Anandagiri, and Madhva, to
name a few.

> And  I hope not in the puruSa hymn! --

There's been more gobbledygook written about the purushha-sUkta than
almost anything in the world, but that's a separate issue, which we don't
need to get into here.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> MW.