The Nirukta—Its Recensions
Summary
The article examines the textual history of Yaska’s Nirukta, arguing that the extant text has undergone significant interpolation and that two distinct recensions—a longer and a shorter version—can be discerned. The shorter recension serves as the basis for Durga’s commentary. The author investigates whether the views attributed to Yaska in Saunaka’s Brhaddevata and the anonymous Vararucaniruktasamuccaya can be traced to the extant Nirukta text, finding that many of these attributed views are absent or at variance with the surviving text. The evidence primarily consists of a comparative analysis of specific Vedic verses and etymological explanations. The author examines several passages from the Brhaddevata where Saunaka cites Yaska’s opinions on the origin of names, the enumeration of Sarasvati hymns, the deities of specific Rigveda verses, and the interpretation of terms like *sunasira*. In most cases, the views ascribed to Yaska in the Brhaddevata are not found in the extant Nirukta, suggesting Saunaka had access to an earlier version of the text. The article also analyzes the Vararucaniruktasamuccaya, noting that several statements attributed to Yaska in this work, such as the derivation of *krishna* and *atman* and the meaning of *sinara*, are absent from the extant Nirukta. The author concludes that these discrepancies point to either a larger, now-lost recension of the Nirukta or the existence of other lost Niruktas, as proposed by Dr. C. Kunhan Raja. The sources discussed include the extant Nirukta, Durga’s commentary, Saunaka’s Brhaddevata, the Vararucaniruktasamuccaya, and the works of scholars such as Professor Skold, Professor Macdonell, and Dr. C. Kunhan Raja. The article relies on direct textual citations and comparative philology to support its argument regarding the complex recensional history of the Nirukta.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The analysis of the *Nirukta* reveals that its extant text has undergone significant interpolation, resulting in two distinct recensions: a longer version and a shorter one that forms the basis of Durga’s commentary. The article highlights a critical historical discrepancy, demonstrating that numerous views attributed to Yaska by Saunaka in the *Brhaddevata* and other texts cannot be traced within the surviving *Nirukta*. This divergence strongly suggests that the current text does not represent the genuine work of Yaska and that scholars like Saunaka likely consulted an earlier, now-lost version of the *Nirukta* or entirely different *Niruktas*. Consequently, the study underscores the necessity of re-evaluating the text's history and the authenticity of its traditional attributions to Yaska.