The Authorship of Nighantu
By Chamupati
Summary
The debate over the authorship of the *Nighantu*, a Vedic lexicon organizing words by synonyms or regional associations, centers on whether Yaska compiled it or built upon an earlier work. Madhusudana attributes the *Nighantu* to Yaska, but Satyavrata Simhadrami disputes this, arguing that Yaska’s inconsistent exegesis—such as oscillating between interpreting the word *bhilma* as ‘breaking’ or ‘illuminating’ in *Nirukta* 1.19—suggests he was quoting a pre-existing text rather than authoring the *Nighantu* himself. Satyavrata further critiques Yaska’s use of speculative language, implying uncertainty about the word’s true meaning. Yaska’s *Nirukta* references the *Nighantu* as already compiled (*samamnaya*), using past-tense verbs like *samakhyata* (has been compiled), which could imply the *Nighantu* predates him. However, the verb *samamneya* (I will compile) in *Nirukta* VII.13 suggests Yaska might have organized names of deities in the *Nighantu*, following an established framework. Durgacarya interprets *anukramigydmah* (arranged in order) as “following” rather than “evolving” an order, reinforcing the idea that the *Nighantu*’s structure was inherited. Satyavrata’s argument hinges on the *Nighantu*’s apparent pre-Yaskan origins, citing its advanced lexicographical rules and Yaska’s reliance on it as evidence. While Yaska
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The debate over Nighantu's authorship reveals a complex interplay between textual evidence and scholarly interpretation. While Madhusudana attributes its compilation to Yaska, Satyavrata Simadrami's critique highlights inconsistencies in Yaska's exegesis, suggesting the work predates him. The analysis of key passages in the Nirukta, particularly the use of verbal forms and contextual references to "bilma grantham," supports the argument for Nighantu's earlier origins. This conclusion underscores the significance of rigorous textual scrutiny in resolving historical questions of authorship, emphasizing that Nighantu likely emerged from a tradition older than Yaska, reflecting a layered evolution of Sanskrit scholarly discourse. The findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of Vedic textual history and the intellectual dynamics of early exegesis.