are composed in all the cases of nouns but the verb of the third person. Follow illustrations. Now the pratyakṣakṛtāḥ are composed with the second person and with the pronoun 'thou'. Follow illustrations. Now here also the worshippers are known in time, the objects of worship are out of sight.' Instances follow. 'Then the adhyātmikyaḥ are used with the first person and also with the pronoun 'I'. Instances follow.1 He sums up by saying that paroksakṛtāḥ and pratyakṣakṛtāḥ hymns are most numerous, adhyātmikyaḥ are limited. The above description is neither complete nor accurate. The illustrations overlap. Even Yaska saw its shortcoming. He sought to amplify it with athāpi, etc. But its real and undoubted value consists in, however imperfectly, recording history with an insight into the tradition behind, tāḥ rchaḥ, -emphasises Yaska. He is fully alive to the inconsistencies in the way of harmonising traditional data. But he pleads for a scrutiny into the beginnings of things before rejecting them as incongruous-Sa na manyeṭāgantünivārthan devaiānām pratyakṣadṛsyametadbhavati. The parokṣakṛta of the Vedio Aryan period might thus conceivably become the pratyakṣakṛta of the pre-Vedic Asura period, just as the ādhyātmikyāḥ of the Vedic period were handed on to posterity as part and parcel of the sacred Vedic tradition.8 This traditional historical basis of Yaska, Daiv. 1-3, is made clear by the explanation of parokṣa—, and pratyakṣa in the Bṛhaddevată posterior to the Nirukta and Brhaddevata on paroksa and prat. yaksa. anterior to the Sarvānukramaņī, i.e. about 400 B.C. Relevant 1 Yaska, Daiv.,, I. 1. • Ibid. • Cf. indrāya sāma gāyata and Kaṇ vā abhi pra gāyata. • Yāska, op. cit. To be connected in sense with the preceding achakşate. Yaska, Daiv., 1. 4. 1 Ibid. • Cf. itihasas cited in Sarvanu., op. cit., p. 210. Macdonell, Bṛhad., p. xxiii, passages are paroksa iii. 141; v. 2; vii. i. 9; viii. 52: parokṣokta, iv. 32.1 Cf. the last, i.e., Bṛhaddevatā, iv. 32— pravādā vividhāstatra derānāṁ chātra kīrtanam sūkte syarchi parokṣoktā vakṣyāmi bhrātarastrayaḥ || a "In it" translates Macdonell," "are various sayings (pravādāḥ) and here (too) mention of the gods. In the stanza 'of this' (asya:i:164,1) in the hymn, three brothers are spoken of in the third person (parokṣa)—I will explain (them) ". Three terms at once seem striking and each has been overlooked by Macdonell: pravāda, kirtanam and parokṣokta. They really refer to the same thing. Pravāda means hearsay history or tradition, which embodies the records kirtana of olden deities and an instance is given of three brothers known from the composition of unknown seers (paroksokta). Macdonell's 'in the third person' (parokṣa) is a paraphrase of Yaska's description- * prathamapuruṣaischākhyātasya." The Bṛhaddevatā no doubt borrows from the Nirukta and is borrowed from by the Sarvanukramaņi. Yet it should not be forgotten that Yāska is only one among a number of authorities cited in the Bṛhaddevata, notably Galava, Saunaka and Sākaṭāyana. In some cases the Pṛhaddevatā might be carrying on the traditional meaning in a purer form than Yaska.10 Even a late commentator like Skandasoami 11 does not hesitate to add 50 more words 12. to 1 Other passages—parokşavat, vii. 31; Sarvānu. Indrasya onuşā, etc. 'Macdonell, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 81. • Ibid., vol. 6, p. 133. * • In connection with pravāda, kīrtana seems to have a distinct meaning referring to the past. Cf. Yaska's, Naighaṇṭuka kāṇḍa. And it is well known that Sāyaṇa (Rgvedabhāṣya, Preface) regards the Nirukta as only the 4th among 6 Vedāngas. It is thus not necessary to import the rough description of Yaska to a possibly better interpretation of paroksa and pratyakṣa in the Bṛhaddevatā. This historical significance is brought out more clearly by the word pratyakṣa. Bṛhaddevatā viii. 129 anukrāntā devatāḥ sūktabhōjo havirbhājaschobhayatha nipālasḥ 1 apyevam syādubhayathānyathā vā na pratyakṣamanṛṣerasti mantram 11 Macdonell translates." The deities which own hymns and own oblations have (thus) been stated in succession, in both cases together with (those which occur in) incidental mention. Whether this be so in both ways or in the other way, no formula is directly known (pratyakṣa) to any one who is not a seer." The translation is wide of the mark. Once more Macdonell paraphrases Yaska Daiv. 1. 1.pratyakṣakṛtāḥ stotāro bhavanti parokṣakṛtāni stotavyāni.” The context is 'remarks about deities and knowledge of them'.8 The deities are then divided into two categories: nipataiḥ 'ancient deities of whom nothing direct is known;' and anukrānta9 devatāḥ 'deities noted in suocession, hence directly known.' The latter are next classified as sūktabhajaḥ 'enjoying bymns' and havirbhajaḥ enjoying oblation.' The interesting 1 Yaska himself knew other Vedängas, along with the Veda and the Nighantu. ? Daiv., 1. 1. Cf. Sarvanukramaņi, below. • Other references-Bṛhad, i.ii. ef. the word pradṛsyate. › Bṛhad., op. cit., H.O.S., Vol. 6, p. 331. Nirukta, vii. 2. ↑ Ibid. B Cf. in this connection the remarkable explanations of pañcha janāh' the five tribes' given in the Nirukta. Yaska quotes one view describing the five tribes' as the gandharvas, manes, gods, evil spirits, and demons. It clearly retains an earlier reminiscence when gods and the so-called demons used to participate in the same ceremonies. • The participle and suggests near knowledge. word is pratyakṣa as throwing into relief nipataiḥ almost equivalent to paroksa emphasising that every deity or historical substratum started as pratyakṣa to the then seers and therefore their subsequent authority must always rest on sacred tradition.1 This reference to tradition and history by parokṣa, and pratyaksa is further borne out by the references to those expressions and their interpretations in the Sarvānukramaņi,' the Anuvākānukramaņi and in Sadgurusisya. Sarvanukramani on paroksa and pratyaksa. Thus Sarvānukramaṇī, x. 28 Indrasya snuşă Sadgurusisya wrote his Vedarthadipika commentary of the Sarvānukramaņi about 1187 A. C. He succeeded Kumarila and preceded Sāyaṇa. He bases his Vedic knowledge on Adya Sarvānukramaṇī dvitīyā mahāvratam chopaniṣaddvayamcha Mahāvratom Sūtramāsām 1ṛtīyā chatvārimsadbrāhmaṇam vai chaturthii Sūtram pamchamyatra Sasthi tu grhyam sakalyasya Samhitā Saptamīti.9 Thus equipped he was in a position to scrutinise Vedio traditional history.10 He is singularly free from any obsession about Yāskall which seems to dodge every step of Macdonell.1 1 Macdonell, Brhad., op. cit., p. 331. 1 Parokşa, x. 28. • Belonging to the Saisiriya branch of the Sakala Säkhā of the Ṛgveda, found in Mss. containing Sadgurusisya's Com. ♦ Vedārthadïpikā; Wezer, Ind. Stud., Vol. viii, p. 160. Macdonell, Sarvānukramanī, p. 37. Ibid. p. xix; also, Weber, Ind. Stnd. vol. viii, p. 60 n. 10 cf. uktam, Sarvān., op. cit. §1.2; 2, 2; 2, 13; x. 33, 90. Suyate, iii 36 Sadguru. ii, 14; vi. 45. 75. Smaryate, Sadguru. § 1. 2;. . 65. 11 Nirukta, vii. 2. 19 Bṛhad., op. cit., vol. 6, p. 381. Sadgurusisya1 thus offers a straightforward and intelligible meaning of parokṣavut— Parokṣavadasamnihilavat 2, 'not near, i.e., distant (either in time or space). From this the special sense of the ṛchaḥ, as paroksa and pratyaksa denoting tradition and history must have been at the back of the mind of every stude nt of Vedic India from Yaska3 to Sāyaṇa.1 The task of a present-day student of ancient Iudia would be to re-examine each passage bearing on the historical characteristics of Asuras, Aryas and Dāsas, and to scrutinise traditionparoksa, pratyakṣa and ādhyātmika. It would lead to a more accurate conception of early India. It might, in tracing the evolution of a composite culture by assimilating originally hostile and apparently exclusive civilisations, indicate the direction of current problems. But is it wise to attempt an analysis at this stage, when Kautsya' despaired and Yāska blundered? Yes, the recent discoveries at Mahenjo-Daro" has brought about a rapprochement between the present and the past, much nearer in time than the gulf separating the Vedas from Kautsya and Yāska.' Literary traditions have never before been confronted with greater insistence by archæological finds.10 8 And literary tradition in India dies hard. 11 The power of memory 12 of people in India is overwhelming; it might almost Vedartha., Macdonell, Sarvān., op. cit., p. 150. • Ibid. • Immediate successor of the Prätisäkhyakāras, c. 6 th. cen. B.C. Macdonely H. 8. L. • Fourteenth century A. C., Rgbhāṣya. Nirukta, I. 15. • Macdonell, H.8.L. 'Marshall, op. cit. • Yaska's Nirukta, I. 15. • Macdonell, H. S. L. 10 Contrast Codrington, Ancient India, p. 20. 11 Cf. Samāmnāya, Muir, Sansk. Texts, vol. ii. p. 165. 19 Śruti and Smṛti have been often confused by undiscerning critics as syno nymous expressions: cf. Pargiter. 4.I, H. T.. p. 18. its nah Srutam., iti Srutam See next page. |