by Wikipedia
Accessed: 10/8/23
After five years spent in the collection of materials for an Edition of the Rig-veda and its Sanskrit Commentary by Sayanacharya, the first volume is now completed, comprising the first Ashtaka (Ogdoad), and about the fourth part of the whole....
There were many difficulties to be overcome in carrying out this work. In the public libraries of Germany no MSS. of the Rig-veda and its commentary were to be found, except some old copies of the text and a small and worm-eaten fragment of Sayana’s commentary in the Royal Library at Berlin. It was necessary, therefore, to spend several years in the libraries of Paris, London, and Oxford, in order to copy and collate all the necessary Vaidik MSS. A complete apparatus criticus having been brought together in this manner, it became possible to commence a philological study of the Rig-veda, and to prepare upon a safe basis a critical edition of both its text and commentary....The final success, however, of this undertaking is owing to the well-known liberality of the-Honourable the Court of Directors of the East-India Company, whose enlightened views on this subject cannot be better expressed than in their own words: ‘The Court consider that the publication of so important and interesting a work as that to which your proposals refer, is in a peculiar manner deserving of the patronage of the East-India Company, connected as it is with the early religion, history, and language of the great body of their Indian subjects....
we may now look forward to a more complete study of Vaidik literature than it is in the power of any single individual to bestow upon so comprehensive a subject, and to a better understanding of Vaidik language, religion, and mythology, than can be expected from a scholastic Indian commentator of the fourteenth century after Christ.
I determined therefore on publishing first a complete text of the Rig-veda-samhita, (the Sanhita and the Pada-text,) together with the only complete commentary on the Rig-veda now existing, the Madhaviya-vedartha-Prakasa by Sayanakarya. As the limits of this publication were fixed ... I had to exclude, and to reserve for a separate work, all critical and explanatory notes of my own, together with the various readings of the MSS.
My principal object in this present edition is therefore to give a correct text of the Rig-veda, and to restore from the MSS. a readable and authentic text of Sayana’s commentary. The former was by far the easier task....
I have now to state the principles which I have followed in editing the Commentary of Sayana. If the MSS. of the Rig-veda are generally the best, the MSS. of the Commentaries are nearly the worst to be met with in Sanskrit libraries: they have generally been copied by men who did not understand what they were writing, and the number of mistakes is at first sight quite discouraging. No class of writings would have needed more to be copied by men who were masters of their subject than commentaries such as these, which abound in short extracts, taken, without any further reference, from other books on grammatical, etymological, ceremonial, theological, and philosophical subjects. Most of these quotations are only detached fragments, full of technical expressions, and often quite unintelligible by themselves. In order to understand, nay frequently in order to read these passages, it was necessary to have recourse to the works from which they were taken. Some of these works were already published, but others existed only in MS., and had first to be analysed, and furnished with alphabetical indices, before any use could be made of them. By this process, however, a double advantage was gained. In most cases a comparison with the work from which passages were quoted served to correct the mistakes of the Commentary; while in other cases a frequent recurrence of the same quotation in the Commentary furnished also the means of correcting false readings in the original works, or supplied, at all events, a well-authenticated varietas lectionis. Sometimes, however, the same passage is quoted differently in different places of the Commentary. This may be accounted for by the fact that Indian authors trust so much to their memory as to quote generally by heart. Such slight differences, therefore, I have left unaltered whenever they were supported by the testimony of the best MSS.
As to the other part of the Commentary, which contains the original explanations of Madhava, as edited by Sayana, a similar advantage for a critical restoration of corrupt passages was derived from the frequent repetition of the same explanations in different hymns, which also made it easier to become familiar with the style of the Commentator, and his whole way of thinking and interpreting the Veda. It was a further advantage that the MSS. were most numerous for the first book of the Commentary, and, as Sayana says with regard to the first Adhyaya of his Commentary, [x] "he who has got through this, can understand the rest," it might, at all events, be said with some truth, that after having worked through the first Ashtaka, an editor may go on to the rest with a smaller number of MSS.
For the first Ashtaka I had twelve MSS. However, we have learnt from Greek and Latin philology that a great number of MSS. is not at all desirable for critical purposes. In most cases those numerous MSS. which have been collated for classical authors have only served to spoil the text; to make the reading of doubtful passages still more doubtful; and to give rise to a mass of conjectural readings, based either upon the authority of the transcriber of a MS., or upon that of an ingenious editor. In this manner an immense deal of labour has been wasted in classical philology; so that now, after the simple rules for using MSS. have been laid down by a new school of critical philologers, such as Bekker, Dindorf, Lachmann, and others, almost all the old editions of classical authors have become useless for critical purposes, with the exception of some of the editiones principes, which, as they simply reproduced one MS., though generally a very bad one, can claim for themselves at least a certain degree of authenticity. Before MSS. can be used for critical purposes, it is necessary that they should themselves be examined critically, in order to determine their origin, their age, and their genealogical ramifications, and thus to fix their relative value. If it were possible to recover the original MS. of a work, as written by the author himself, there would be no need of criticism; we might dispense with all later MSS., and we should merely have to reproduce the original text, pointing out at the same time such mistakes the author himself might have committed. But generally our MSS. are much later than the composition of the works which they contain, and, if compared with one another, they are found to differ from each other, partly in mistakes and omissions, partly in corrections and additions, arising, in the course of centuries, from the hands or heads of ignorant or learned transcribers. For the most part these various readings are not peculiar to one or the other MS. only, but the same mistakes occur generally in several MSS. at the same time. Now, if there are, for instance, certain MSS. which omit a certain number of passages that have been preserved in others, we may safely conclude that the MSS. which coincide in omitting these passages flow from the same original source. But out of the number of MSS. which thus coincide in omitting certain sentences, some may again differ in other characteristic passages, and thus form new classes and subdivisions. By carefully collecting a large number of such characteristic passages, all the MSS. of an author arrange themselves spontaneously, and form at last a kind of genealogical series, where each has its proper place, and commands, according to its position, but not according to its age, its proper share of authority. For a MS. may be of modern date, yet if by a comparison of certain classical passages it can be shown to have been copied immediately from an old MS., it inherits, so to say, a greater share of authority than MSS. which, though of greater age, are of more distant relationship. Here, however, a distinction must be made between the authenticity and the correctness of a certain reading. As the date of the oldest MS. reaches but seldom to the age of' the author of the work, we can only expect by a critical, and, so to say, genealogical arrangement of MSS., to arrive at the best authenticated, not at the original and correct text of an author. It sometimes happens, indeed, that all the MSS. of a work can be shown to have originated from one MS. which is still in existence, as is the case, for instance, with Sophocles. But most frequently there remain in the end two or more different groups of MSS., each with its own peculiar readings, and each group entirely independent of the other. In the former case the best that can be done in a merely critical edition is to reproduce the oldest and best authenticated MS. But it frequently happens, that even in the oldest MS., upon which all the others depend, mistakes occur, which have been corrected in more modern MSS., sometimes by mere conjecture, sometimes by using quotations from an author occurring in other works which have preserved a more ancient and more correct reading. Such passages are open to philological discussions, and have to be treated in notes. In the latter case, if there remain several independent branches of MSS., the task becomes more difficult; and as each class of MSS. may claim for itself the same degree of authenticity, it becomes the duty of an editor to choose in each particular case the reading of that class of MSS. which may seem to him most correct, and best in accordance with the general style of the author. Frequently, however, even in this case one class of MSS. will be discovered, which by its general character of correctness acquires a right to overrule the testimony of the other classes in doubtful passages. All this must be finally settled before a critical edition of any author can be commenced; and it is necessary, therefore, for an editor to collate most carefully even those passages where the various readings of MSS. bear the evident character of mere mistakes, but where, notwithstanding, the omission of a single letter may often serve to point out the connection of a certain class of MSS. Grave errors and long omissions are generally much less characteristic as marking a family likeness between certain MSS. than small and insignificant mistakes, because the former have often struck those who copied a MS., and have induced them to correct erroneous readings on their own authority, or to supply important omissions from other MSS., in case they could be procured. The more insignificant mistakes, on the contrary, were more likely to be overlooked and to remain unaltered.
With regard to the twelve MSS. of the Commentary to the first Ashtaka of the Riv-veda, I have only succeeded in reducing them to three independent classes. It is not very likely that MSS. should still be found in India contemporaneous with Sayana, though, if we could trust native authorities, copies of Sayana's works have been buried in the ground near Vidyanagara [Vijayanagara]. Excluding these MSS. the existence of which is extremely problematical, I am convinced that there are no Mss. at present which have any claim to be considered as exhibiting the Commentary exactly such as it came from the hands of Sayana.
I shall proceed to give a list of those MSS. which I have made use of for this edition. I shall call the three classes, to which all the MSS. belong, A, B, and C, marking at the same time each particular MS. by its own number....
A. 1. An old MS. of the National Library at Paris, containing the first Ashtaka only. It is well written, and indeed gave me the first hope that a critical edition of Sayana might still be possible. It is dated Samvat 1625 [1568]...
The second. class, B, is represented by two MSS., both of them complete copies of the Commentary. I owe my first acquaintance with this class of MSS. to the kindness and liberality of Professor E. Burnouf, who allowed me, during my stay at Paris, to copy and collate the MS. of Sayana in his possession. Besides several passages which are corrected or supplied by this MS. in places where mistakes or omissions occur in A. or C., it contains also a number of passages which evidently bear the character of later additions: they stand frequently without any connection with the rest of the Commentary, and I had no doubt that they owed their origin to marginal notes which had been added by Brahmans while studying the Veda, and which in later copies had been incorporated into the text, though inserted in a wrong place. This supposition I found fully proved by another MS., which has lately been added to the library of the East-India-House,and which is evidently the very MS. from which Professor Burnouf's copy was taken. In this MS. all those spurious passages, which occur neither in A. nor C., have not yet been incorporated into the text, but appear still as marginal notes. Nay, it is even easy to see how, by mistaking the signs of reference, the transcriber was led to misplace some of these additions. I call the MS. of the East-India-House B. 1., and that of Professor Burnouf B. 2.; though the latter is on the whole so carefully copied, that both may be considered as one MS....
The third class of MSS. is much more numerously represented, but consists almost entirely of modern copies, executed, with more or less care, for the use of European scholars. Yet this class of MSS. also was indispensable for restoring a complete and correct text of Sayana: for though omissions and mistakes are very frequent, yet some difficult passages are given more correctly in this class of MSS. than in either A. or B.; while others, which are partly omitted in A. or B., receive occasionally great help from a comparison of C. Modern additions occur, but very seldom, and their late origin is so evident that they cannot be mistaken. The following is a list of this last class of MSS....
C. 4. A complete copy of Sayana's Commentary, forming Nos. 78-86. in Professor Wilson's collection of Sanskrit MSS. in the Bodleian Library. It is dated Samvat 1890 = 1833 A.D....
That all these MSS. must be considered as separated from the MSS. of Sayana himself by at least one degree, I conclude from the existence of such mistakes as are common to all the three classes of our MSS. I do not mean to say that Sayana may not himself have committed mistakes in writing his commentary. On the contrary, there are mistakes in all the MSS. which most probably rest upon Sayana's own responsibility....
The [Panini] laws of Sandhi and other euphonic laws I have endeavoured to observe in the same way as they have been practically carried out in the best Sanskrit MSS., considering it necessary, in a work like that of Sayana, to avoid the innovations of European, as well as the antiquated subtleties of Indian grammarians. I have also followed the custom of the MSS., which sometimes suspend very properly the laws of Sandhi in order to avoid certain combinations of words, by which either single words or the structure of whole sentences might become obscure and doubtful. In this manner the Sandhi becomes for the Sanscrit what punctuation is for other languages, only it is as difficult to lay down general laws for the one as for the other.
I have now only to mention those works which I made use of for verifying the quotations in Sayana's Commentary. There is first of all Panini, whose grammatical rules are most frequently quoted by Sayana, sometimes at full length, sometimes only with a few words by way of reference[s]...
Two other collections of grammatical Sutras which are quoted by Sayana are the Unadi-sutras and the Phit-sutras of Santanacharya [?]. Both of them form part of the Siddhanta-kaumudi, as published at Calcutta, 1811, but they have been edited with much less care than Panini's Sutras. They have been reprinted in the Memoires de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, 1843 and 1844, by Professor Bohtlingk, but require, particularly the Unadi-sutras, a careful collation of MSS. and the help of commentaries. I have quoted the Sutras after Professor Bohtlingk's text, as being more accessible than the edition of the Siddhanta-kaumudi; but I have been continually obliged to have recourse to the MSS. and Commentaries of the Unadi-sutras.
The MS. from which I have derived the greatest use is the Unadivritti, by Uijvaladatta, a work which has been composed after a careful collation of old MSS. and Commentaries. It frequently points out words and sutras as being of later origin, and as not occurring in old Commentaries. In our printed editions some Sutras are left out, others mixed with the Commentary; some are incomplete, others incorrect; and the meaning and formation of words are frequently mistaken. I merely mention this here to point out how unsafe it would be to make use of our present editions for lexicographic purposes; but I shall soon have an opportunity of returning to this subject, when examining the historical value of this and other works previous to Panini.
A fourth grammatical work quoted by Sayana is the Dhatupatha. Of this work we have a most excellent edition by Professor Westergaard of Copenhagen, at the end of his Radices Linguae Sanscritae. I have quoted it only a few times, as it is very easy to find Sayana's quotations with the help of Prof. Westergaard's Radices. Sayana has himself written a Commentary on the Dhatupatha, before he wrote his Commentary on the Veda, and has frequently readings peculiar to himself, which he has defended in his Commentary....
Another work frequently used by Sayana for explaining the Veda is Yaska's Nirukta. This work existed only in manuscript when I began to print Sayana's Commentary, and as the greater part of the Nirukta is contained in Sayana's works, I was obliged to copy and analyse it, in order to verify Sayana's quotations. For though, with the help of the Sarvanukrama, all the passages from the Veda which are explained by Yaska may be traced back to their places in the text by referring to the Commentary on the Nirukta, where the Devata and Rishi of each passage are given, yet it is very difficult, vice versa, to find always the place in the Nirukta where a passage of the Veda has been explained by Yaska; still more so when only a few words out of Yaska's explanations are quoted by Sayana. In the course of carrying this first volume through the press, a very correct edition of the Nirukta has been published by my learned friend Profesor Roth in Germany. Prof. Roth had kindly informed me beforehand which of the two recensions of the Nirukta he would follow in his edition, and I am glad to find that consequently the references which I have always given, when the Nirukta is quoted by Sayana, coincide with his edition. In some few places Sayana quotations from Yaska do not exactly correspond with the text of the Nirukta; but this is probably owing to Sayana's manner of quoting, which, as I have mentioned before, is generally done from memory. Although these differences were very slight, yet I could not, in accordance with the principles of my edition, take it upon myself to correct them. I have not added references to Sayana's quotations from the Nighantus, because these lists of Vaidik words are already arranged systematically under different heads, and thus require no further reference....
Another author whom Sayana quotes most frequently with regard to the Vaidik ceremonial is Asvalayana [Ashvalayana 400 BCE? [????!!!]]. There are twelve books of Srauta-sutras, and four books of Grihya-sutras, none of them as yet published. Sayana quotes these Sutras continually, whenever a hymn or part of a hymn of the Rig-veda occurs which is to be employed by the Hotri-priests at a certain act of a sacrifice. Now if, like the Sutras to the Yajur-veda, the Sutras of Asvahlayana followed the same order as the hymns, it would not have been difficult to find Sayana's quotations in the MSS. of Asvalayana's Sutras, and it would scarcely have been necessary to give a reference to each of Sayana's quotations from Asvalayana. But the Rig-veda has preserved its old arrangement and its genuine form, and has not been supplanted by a Hotri-veda, or a prayer-book for the Hotri-priests; such as the Yajur-veda is for the Adhvaryu-priests, and the Sama-veda for the Udgatri-priests. If, like these two so-called ceremonial Vedas, the Rig-veda also consisted only of such passages as are requisite for the Brahmanic sacrifices, arranged in the same order as they have to be recited by the Hotri-priests at different ceremonies, the order of the hymns and of the Sutras, and probably also of the Brahmanas, would be the same. But, as it is, the Rig-veda represents to us the old collection of sacred poetry, as it has been handed down by tradition in different Vaidik families, each of which claimed a certain number of ancient poets (Rishis) as their own. The poems therefore which have been incorporated in the Rig-veda-samhita are arranged according to the old families to which the poets of certain songs are said to have belonged, and consequently those passages which in later times were selected as most appropriate to be employed at the grand sacrifices by the Hotri-priests, are found scattered about in different parts of this old collection. Sayana, who of course knew Asvalayana's Sutras by heart, quotes these Sutras whenever one of those verses occurs which Asvalayana has prescribed for any one of the different sacrifices. But all that Sayana adds, to enable one who has not learnt by heart these sixteen books of ceremonial Sutras, to find their place in Asvalayana, consists in mentioning the name of the particular part of the ceremonial, and sometimes in giving the beginning of the chapter where a certain Sutra occurs.
By the help of Indices, however, I have succeeded in verifying these passages also, and I have always added the book and chapter where Sayana's quotations are to be found in Asvalayana's work. If, in the passages which Sayana quotes from the Brahmanas, he had restricted himself to the Brahmanas of the Rig-veda, I should have added references to these quotations also. But as Sayana takes his quotations promiscuously from all the Brahmanas, whether connected with the Rig-veda or the Sama-veda, Yajur-veda, and Atharva-veda, I determined rather to give no references whatever for these Brahmana passages than to do it incompletely[x].
It is not only on account of the vastness of the Brahmana literature that I found it impossible to verify every quotation, but there are many Brahmanas of which there are not even MSS. to be procured in any of the European libraries. Some seem lost even in India, and are only known by name. With regard to the Brahmanas of the Sama-veda, I had stated, in a letter to my friend Professor Benfey at Gottingen, that there are eight....
Besides there was the difficulty that these Brahmanas and Aranyakas, which as yet exist only in manuscript, are not always divided in the same manner; so that if I had adapted my references to the MSS., they might perhaps not have been found in accordance with the editions of several of the Brahmanas which are now preparing for publication. In many instances I have derived great help from the original MSS. of the Brahmanas, particularly as Sayana's quotations from these works are generally full of mistakes, arising from old Vaidik forms, which the transcribers did not know and understand. Frequently, however, I found also that real differences existed between a passage as quoted by Sayana and the text as exhibited in the Brahmanas, which can only be accounted for by the supposition that Sayana used some Brahmanas in a Sakha different from that which as accessible to me in manuscript.
[To be cont'd.]
-- Rig-Veda-Sanhita: The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, Together with the Commentary of Sayanacharya, edited by Dr. Max Muller, Volume I, Published under the Patronage of the Honourable the East-India-Company, 1849
The text which has served for the following translation [RigVeda Sanhita. A Collection of Ancient Hindu Hymns, Constituting the First Ashtaka, or Book of the Rig-Veda: The Oldest Authority for the Religious and Social Institutions of the Hindus.] comprises the Suktas of the Rig-Veda and the commentary of Sayana Acharya, printed, by Dr. Muller, from a collation of manuscripts, of which he has given an account in his Introduction.
Sayana Acharya was the brother of Madhava Acharya, the prime minister of Vira Bukka Raya, Raja of Vijayanagara in the fourteenth century, a munificent patron of Hindu literature. Both the brothers are celebrated as scholars; and many important works are attributed to them, — not only scholia on the Sanhitas and Brahmanas of the Vedas, but original works on grammar and law; the fact, no doubt, being, that they availed themselves of those means which their situation and influence secured them, and employed the most learned Brahmans they could attract to Vijayanagara upon the works which bear their name, and to which they, also, contributed their own labour and learning. Their works were, therefore, compiled under peculiar advantages, and are deservedly held in the highest estimation.
The scholia of Sayana on the text of the Rig-Veda comprise three distinct portions. The first interprets the original text, or, rather, translates it into more modern Sanskrit, fills up any ellipse, and, if any legend is briefly alluded to, narrates it in detail; the next portion of the commentary is a grammatical analysis of the text, agreeably to the system of Panini, whose aphorisms, or Sutras, are quoted; and the third portion is an explanation of the accentuation of the several words. These two last portions are purely technical, and are untranslateable. The first portion constitutes the basis of the English translation; for, although the interpretation of SAYANA may be, occasionally, questioned, he undoubtedly had a knowledge of his text far beyond the pretensions of any European scholar, and must have been in possession, either through his own learning, or that of his assistants, of all the interpretations which had been perpetuated, by traditional teaching, from the earliest times.
In addition to these divisions of his commentary, Sayana prefaces each Sukta by a specification of its author, or Rishi; of the deity, or deities, to whom it is addressed; of the rhythmical structure of the several Richas, or stanzas; and of the Vini-yoga, the application of the hymn, or of portions of it, to the religious rites at which they are to be repeated. I have been unable to make use of this latter part of the description; as the ceremonies are, chiefly, indicated by their titles alone, and their peculiar details are not to be determined without a more laborious investigation than the importance or interest of the subject appeared to me to demand.
-- RigVeda Sanhita. A Collection of Ancient Hindu Hymns, Constituting the First Ashtaka, or Book of the Rig-Veda: The Oldest Authority for the Religious and Social Institutions of the Hindus. Translated from the Original Sanskrita, by H.H. Wilson, M.A., F.R.S., Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, of the Asiatic Societies of Calcutta and Paris, and of the Oriental Society of Germany; Foreign Member of the National Institute of France; Member of the Imperial Academies of Petersburgh and Vienna, and of the Royal Academies of Munich and Berlin; Ph.D., Breslau; M.D. Marburg, &c., and Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the University of Oxford.
Sayana (IAST: Sāyaṇa, also called Sāyaṇācārya; died 1387) was a 14th-century Sanskrit Mimamsa scholar[1][2][3] from the Vijayanagara Empire of South India, near modern day Bellary, Karnataka. An influential commentator on the Vedas,[4] he flourished under King Bukka Raya I and his successor Harihara II.[5] More than a hundred works are attributed to him, among which are commentaries on nearly all parts of the Vedas. He also wrote on a number of subjects like medicine, morality, music and grammar.
Early life
Sāyaṇācārya was born to Mayana (IAST: Māyaṇa) and Shrimati in a Brahmin family that lived in Hampi. He had an elder brother named Madhava (sometimes identified as Vidyaranya) and a younger brother named Bhoganatha (or Somanatha). The family belonged to Bharadvaja gotra, and followed the Taittiriya Shakha (school) of the Krishna Yajurveda.[6]
He was the pupil of Vishnu Sarvajna and of Shankarananda. Both Mādhavāchārya and Sāyaṇāchārya were said to have studied under Vidyatirtha of Sringeri, and held offices in the Vijayanagara Empire.[7] Sāyaṇāchārya was a minister, and subsequently prime minister in Bukka Raya's court, and wrote much of his commentary, with his brother and other Brahmins during his ministership.[8]
Works
Sāyaṇa was a Sanskrit-language writer and commentator,[9] and more than a hundred works are attributed to him, among which are commentaries on nearly all parts of the Vedas.[note 1] Some of these works were actually written by his pupils, and some were written in conjunction with his brother, Vidyāraṇya or Mādhavacārya.
His major work is his commentary on the Vedas, Vedartha Prakasha, literally "the meaning of the Vedas made manifest,"[11][note 2] written at the request of King Bukka[13][14] of the Vijayanagara empire "to invest the young kingdom with the prestige it needed."[14] He was probably aided by other scholars,[15][note 3][16] using the interpretations of several authors.[17][note 4] The core portion of the commentary was likely written by Sāyaṇāchārya himself, but it also includes contributions of his brother Mādhavāchārya, and additions by his students and later authors who wrote under Sāyaṇāchārya's name. "Sāyaṇa" (or also Sāyaṇamādhava) by convention refers to the collective authorship of the commentary as a whole without separating such layers.
Galewicz states that Sayana, a Mimamsa scholar,[1][2][3] "thinks of the Veda as something to be trained and mastered to be put into practical ritual use," noticing that "it is not the meaning of the mantras that is most essential [...] but rather the perfect mastering of their sound form."[18] According to Galewicz, Sayana saw the purpose (artha) of the Veda as the "artha of carrying out sacrifice," giving precedence to the Yajurveda.[1] For Sayana, whether the mantras had meaning depended on the context of their practical usage.[18] This conception of the Veda, as a repertoire to be mastered and performed, takes precedence over the internal meaning or "autonomous message of the hymns."[19]
His commentary on the Rigveda was translated from Sanskrit to English by Max Müller, 1823-1900. A new edition, prepared by the Vaidik Samshodhan Mandala (Vedic Research Institute) Pune, under the general editor V. K. Rajwade, was published in 1933 in 4 volumes.[20]
He has also written many lesser manuals called Sudhanidhis treating Prayaschitta (expiation), Yajnatantra (ritual), Purushartha (aims of human endeavour), Subhashita (Collection of moral sayings), Ayurveda (Indian traditional medicine), Sangita Sara (The essence of music), Prayaschitra, Alankara, and Dhatuvrddhi (grammar)[21][22]
Influence
According to Dalal, "his work influenced all later scholars, including many European commentators and translators."[23] Sayana's commentary preserved traditional Indian understandings and explanations of the Rigveda,[24] though it also contains mistakes and contradictions.[17][25][note 5] While some 19th century Indologists were quite dismissive of Sayana's commentary, others were more appreciative.[26] His commentary was used as a reference-guide by Ralph T. H. Griffith (1826-1906), John Muir (1810-1882), Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860) and other 19th century European Indologists.[27] According to Wilson, Sayana's interpretation was sometimes questionable, but had "a knowledge of his text far beyond the pretension of any European scholar," reflecting the possession "of all the interpretations which had been perpetuated by traditional teaching from the earliest times."[10][note 3] Macdonnell (1854-1930) was critical of Sayana's commentary, noting that many difficult words weren't properly understood by Sayana.[25] While Rudolf Roth (1821-1895) aimed at reading the Vedas as "lyrics" without the "theological" background of the interpretations of Yaska and Sayana, Max Müller (1823-1900) published a translation of the Rigvedic Samhitas together with Sayana's commentary.[28] His contemporaries Pischel and Geldner were outspoken about the value of Sayana's commentary:
German scholars Pischel and Geldner have expressed in unequivocal terms their opinion that in the matter of Vedic exegesis greater reliance ought to be placed on the orthodox Indian tradition represented by Yaska and Sayana than on modern philological methods. Linguistics may help one to understand the bare meaning of a Vedic word, but the spirit behind that word will not be adequately realised without due appreciation of the indigenous tradition.[10]
Modern scholarship is ambivalent. According to Jan Gonda, the translations of the Rigveda published by Griffith and Wilson were "defective," suffering from their reliance on Sayana.[29][note 6] Ram Gopal notes that Sayana's commentary contains irreconcilable contradictions and "half-baked" tentative interpretations which are not further investigated,[17] but also states that Sayana's commentary is the "most exhaustive and comprehensive" of all available commentaries, embodying "the gist of a substantial portion of the Vedic interpretations of his predecessors."[30] Swami Dayananda, the founder of Arya Samaj, did not give much significance to his vedic commentaries.[31]
See also
• Vijayanagara literature
Notes
1. Complete list of works by written by Sayana:[10]
Subhashita-sudhanidhi
Prayasuchitta-sudhanidhi
Ayurveda-sudhanidhi
Alamkara-sudhanidhi
Purushartha-sudhanidhi
Yajnatantra-sudhanidhi
Madaviya-dhatuvritti
Taitriyya-samhita-bhashya
Taittriya-brahmnana-bhashya
Taittriya-aranyaka-bhashya
Aitareya-aranyaka-bhashya
Samaveda-bhashya
Tandya-brahmana-bhashya
Samavidhana-brahmana-bhashya
Arsheya-brahmana-bhashya
Devatadhyaya-brahmana-bhashya
Samhitopanishad-brahmana-bhashya
Vamshya-brahmana-bhashya
Aitareya-brahmana-bhashya
Kanva-samhita-bhashya
Atharvaveda-bhashya
2. Sardesai: "Of all the commentaries on the Vedas, the most comprehensive and arguably the highest regarded is the one by Sayana from Karnataka in South India in the fourteenth century C.E."[12]
3. Modak 1995, pp. 34, 40, quoting H.H. Wilson who translated the whole of Rigveda following the commentary of Sayana: "Although the interpretation of Sayana may be occasionally questioned, he undoubtedly had a knowledge of his text far beyond the pretension of any European scholar and must have been in possession, either through his own learning or that of his assistants, of all the interpretations which had been perpetuated by traditional teaching from the earliest times."
4. Gopal 1983, p. 170: "There is no doubt that Sayana's Rgveda-Bhasya which represents a synthesis of different exegetical traditions of ancient India is not the work of a single author. This is why it is marred by several contradictions which cannot be easily reconciled."
5. Jackson 2017, p. 51: "The meanings of the Rigveda barely survived the loss of Hindu autonomy. If Sayana, Vidyaranya's brother, had not written a voluminous commentary explaining or paraphrasing every word of the Rig Veda, many traditional meanings would be unknown today. This alone was a remarkable revival of Hindu knowledge, even if only on the textual level. As Sayana's commentary constantly referred to ancient authorities, it was thought to have preserved the true meanings of Rig Veda in a traditional interpretation going back to the most ancient times [...] Sayana has been of the greatest service in facilitating and accelerating the comprehension of the Vedas even though, with much labour and time-consuming searching, much could have been retrieved from various other sources in India and pieced together by others if Sayana had not done it. His work was an accumulated data bank on the Rig Veda referred to by all modern Vedic scholars."
Jackson refers to Macdonell 1968, p. 62, who is quite critical of Sayana, noting that many of Sayana's explanations could not have been based on "either tradition or etymology." According to Macdonell 1968, p. 62, "a close examination of his explanations, as well as those of Yaska, has shown that there is in the Rigveda a large number of the most difficult words, about the proper sense of which neither scholar had any certain information from either tradition or etymology." Macdonell 1968, p. 62 further states that "no translation of the Rigveda based exclusively on Sayana's commentary can possibly be satisfactory." It is Macdonell who states that most of the useful information provided by Yasana could also have been found out by the western philologists.
6. Klostermaier cites Jan Gonda (1975), Vedic Literature.
References
1. Galewicz 2004, p. 40.
2. Galewicz 2011, p. 338.
3. Collins 2009, "237 Sayana".
4. "Sound and meaning of Veda".
5. Griffith, Ralph (1 October 1896). Rig Veda Bhashyam (2 ed.). Nilgiri: Evinity Publishing. pp. Introduction.
6. Modak 1995, p. 4.
7. Modak 1995, pp. 4–5.
8. Purushasukta - Sayana's commentary. Melkote: Academy of Sanskrit research.
9. Lal Khera 2002, p. 388.
10. Modak 1995, pp. 34, 40.
11. Modak 1995, p. 31.
12. Sardesai 2019, p. 33.
13. Modak 1995, p. 16.
14. Galewicz 2004, pp. 38–39.
15. Modak 1995, p. 34.
16. Dalal 2014, "Sayana was probably assisted".
17. Gopal 1983, p. 170.
18. Galewicz 2004, p. 41.
19. Galewicz 2004, pp. 41–42.
20. Internet Archive search - 'Sayana's commentary'
21. Vijayanagara Literature from book History of Andhras Archived 2007-03-13 at the Wayback Machine, p. 268f.
22. Mohan Lal, ed. (1992). Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature. Vol. 5: Sasay to Zorgot. Sahitya Akademi. p. 3885. ISBN 978-81-260-1221-3.
23. Dalal 2014.
24. Jackson 2017, p. 51.
25. Macdonell 1968, p. 62.
26. Gopal 1983, pp. 172–175.
27. Muller 1869.
28. Klostermaier 2007, p. 54.
29. Klostermaier 2007, p. 54, n.50.
30. Gopal 1983, p. 169.
31. सायण और दयानन्द.
Sources
• Collins, Randall (2009), The Sociology of Philosophies, Harvard University Press
• Dalal, Rosen (2014), The Vedas: An Introduction to Hinduism's Sacred Texts, Penguin UK
• Galewicz, Cezary (2004), "Changing Canons: What did Sayana think he commented upon", in Balcerowicz, Piotr; Mejor, Marek (eds.), Essays in Indian Philosophy, Religion and Literature, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
• Galewicz, Cezary (2011), "Why Should the Flower of Dharma be Invisible? Sayana's Vision of the Unity of the Veda", in Squarcini, Federico (ed.), Boundaries, Dynamics and Construction of Traditions in South Asia, Anthem Press
• Gopal, Ram (1983), The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation, Concept Publishing Company
• Jackson, W.J. (2017). Vijayanagara Voices : Exploring south indian history and hindu literature. Routeledge. ISBN 978-0754639503.
• Klostermaier, Klaus (2007), A Survey of Hinduism (third ed.), State University of New York Press, ISBN 978-0-7914-7082-4
• Lal Khera, Krishan (2002). Directory of Personal Names in the Indian History from the Earliest to 1947. Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN 978-81-215-1059-2.
• Macdonell, Arthur A. (1968) [1900], A History of Sanskrit Literature, Haskell House Publishers
• Modak, B. R. (1995). Sayana. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 978-81-7201-940-2.
• Muller, Max F (1869). Rig Veda Sanhita: the sacred hymns of the Brahmans. London: Trubner & Co.
• Sardesai, Damodar Ramaji (2019). India: the definitive history. Routledge.
Further reading
• Max Müller, Rig-Veda Sanskrit-Ausgabe mit Kommentar des Sayana (aus dem 14. Jh. n. Chr.), 6 vols., London 1849-75, 2nd ed. in 4 vols. London 1890 ff.
• Rgveda-Samhitā Srimat-sāyanāchārya virachita-bhāṣya-sametā, Vaidika Samśodhana Mandala, Pune-9 (2nd ed. 1972)
• Siddhanatha Sukla The Rgveda Mandala III: A critical study of the Sayana Bhasya and other interpretations of the Rgveda (3.1.1 to 3.7.3) (2001), ISBN 81-85616-73-6.
External links
• Sayana's commentary to the Rigveda
• http://rigveda.sanatana.in/
