Abstract
Recorded in Nirukta 1.15–16, the controversy between Kautsa and Yāska on whether the Vedic mantras are meaningful or not represents a turning point in the traditional interpretation of the Veda. While references to this controversy are often found in literature, a systematic discussion of the whole episode has not to our knowledge been undertaken. This paper offers a detailed analysis of this controversy. We first review previous scholarship and elucidate the structure and rationale of the controversy. Then, we provide an annotated translation in which we propose new solutions to several philological and interpretive issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This controversy is also recorded in Sāyaṇa’s introduction to his commentary on the R̥gveda. For a translation of the relevant part, see Peterson (1890, pp. 134–136) and Wakahara (2018, pp. 18–20).
Transl. Muir (1874, p. 170 note 201). Durga (130,11–12/99,20–22) says that Kautsa is a made-up adversary and that the controversy on the meaningfulness of the Vedas serves the purpose of fostering the students’ intellect, to prepare them to face possible challenges. (In citing Durga’s commentary on the Nirukta, we refer to page and line in the editions by Bhadkamkar 1985 [1919] and by Rajavade 1921.) This seems unlikely. Muir (1874, p. 174), who cites and translates the relevant passage in full, astutely suggests that Durga was perhaps led to say so because he did not ‘wish his contemporaries to believe that there had been in early times any old grammarian who either rejected the authority of the Vedas, or differed from the customary methods of treating and interpreting them’; cf. also Muir (1866, p. 323).
Cf. also Max Müller (1901 [1878], p. 142).
Durga’s brief gloss (117,9/86,9-20: na hi mantrāṇām artho ’sti vācyavācakatvena ‘for mantras have no meaning in terms of [the relation of] significand and signifier’ seems to suggest that he understood Kautsa’s view as we do, whereas Skandasvāmi-Maheśvara and Nīlakaṇṭha, the other two commentators of the Nirukta, tone down Kautsa’s position. In their interpretation, Kautsa claims that the meaning of the mantras is irrelevant to the success of the ritual, which depends on mere recitation (uccāraṇamātra) of the mantras (Skandasvāmi-Maheśvara: 93,12–17), or that mantras do not express any intended (vivakṣita) meaning (NirŚV 166 verses 19–21). Some aspects of these interpretation are reminiscent of that advanced in Śabara’s commentary on the Mīmāṃsā-sūtra version of the Kautsa controversy; cf. Taber (1989).
The simile of the termite is taken from Yaśodhara’s upodghāta to the Kāmasūtra (cited in Pollock 1985, p. 506), where it is used for a different purpose.
There are three English translations of the Kautsa controversy, yet none of them provides the kind of detailed analysis we aim to offer in this paper. The pioneering translations by Muir (1874, pp. 172–173) and Sarup (1920–1927) are necessarily outdated, and Bronkhorst’s (2019, pp. 68–69) insightful translation-paraphrase intentionally distances itself from a literal translation.
Note the difference between [v] and [vii]: the former points out a contradiction between distinct mantras, whereas the latter indicates a contradiction within one mantra. Both arguments are however conflated in the version of the Kautsa controversy recorded in the Mīmāṃsā tradition, for the citations illustrating [v] (untraced mantras on Rudra) and [vii] (R̥V 1.89.10) occur together in Śabara’s commentary on Mīmāṃsā-sūtra 1.2.36 (arthavipratiśedhāt).
Transl. Taber (1989, pp. 149–150) slightly modified.
This interpretation is given by Durga (117,12–13/86,13–15) as an alternative interpretation ascribed to some people (kecid). It is also adopted by Brahmamuni (1917, p. 48).
Durga (117,11/ 86,23) seems to read anena, instead of etena.
Cf. Kahrs (2005, pp. 76–78), who notes that upa√īkṣ usually means ‘to overlook, neglect’ in classical Sanskrit.
Although the evidence supplied by Nir 1.17 and Nir 2.6 is by no means probative, it is tempting to speculate whether in Nir 1.15, like in its other two occurrences, tad etena-upekṣitavyam may have originally been placed immediately after (a), i.e. after Yāska’s initial claim.
In one passage, Durga (117,17/87,5–6: niyatānupūrvyā niyataniṣṭhānupūrvī padaprayogasya) takes niyatānupūrvyā as the instrumental singular of ānupūrvī, rather than as a nominative plural bahuvrīhi formed on ānupūrvya n. (cf. Rajavade 1921, p. 33 [ṭippanī on 87,5]; cf. also Durga [152,1/119,9 (on Nir 1.20)] for a comparable use of the instrumental ānupūrvyā). In this parsing, [ii] may then be translated as follows: ‘[The mantras] have the fixed use of words [and] are characterized by the fixed [word] order’.
Unlike all the other commentators, Thieme (1931: 27/1984, p. 518 note 2) argues that anupūrvyā does not refer to the order of words, but to the sequence of the mantras employed in the ritual. This seems unlikely. In [ii] Kautsa adduces evidence for his claim that mantras are meaningless by contrasting two comparable features as they occur in the mantras and in ordinary language. The ritual use of mantras in a fixed sequence would not have a clear comparable counterpart in ordinary language. On the other hand, the fixed order of words in a mantra squarely contrasts with the free word-order in ordinary language (this is especially evident, of course, in a highly inflected language as Sanskrit).
Rajavade (1921, p. 34 [ṭippaṇī on 87,24–26]/1940, p. 269) opines that prohāṇi is a question (‘shall I push [the droṇakalaśa]?’) with which the Udgātar asks the Hotar for permission. Incidentally, note that Sarup (1920–1927, p. 16) translates prohāṇi iti prohati as ‘“Let me pour out” and so he pours out’. While pra√ūh also has this meaning, this is not applicable in this context, as we will see shortly.
Referring to VS 2.15, Brahmamuni (1917, p. 49) states that prohāṇi is an error for prohāmi.
See Kawamura (2019, p. 4, note 8).
For example, Durga (119,9–10/88,17–18) takes the first mantra to refer to the ritual of the felling of a tree from which the sacrificial stake is made (see main text below). This mantra is unreasonable because the grass used in this ritual cannot be expected to protect the tree from being cut, since it could not protect itself in the first place from being plucked. Sāyaṇa (Peterson 1890: [text]; 134 [translation]) says that both mantras are unreasonable because they address insentient things like grass and axe; cf. also Sarup (1920–1927, p. 218 [Exegetical and critical notes]).
Cf. also Rajavade (1940, p. 270).
This mantra is untraced; cf. TS 1.8.6.1: éka evá rudró ná dvitī́yāya tasthe, ‘Rudra alone yieldeth to no second’ transl. by Keith (1914, p. 118). Durga (120,1–2/89,9–10) cites and comments on the entire mantra, though he does not provide information as to its source: eka eva rudro ’vatasthe na dvitīyo raṇe nighan pr̥tanāsu śatrūn | saṃsr̥jya viśvā bhuvanāni goptā pratyaṅ janānt saṃcukocāntakāle ‘Rudra alone, without a second, has stayed for battle, striking down the enemies in fights; having created all beings, the protector, reabsorbed the creatures at the end of time’. Our translation of this verse follows Durga’s explanation. Rajavade (1940, p. 270) notes that the language of this verse is ‘modern’.
See ŚB 1.3.5.2 and Eggeling (1882, p. 95 note 1). ŚB 1.3.5.2: sá āha | agnáye samidhyámānāyā́nu brūhī́ty agnáye hy ètát samidhyámānāyānvā́ha | ‘He (the Adhvaryu) says (to the Hotri): ‘‘‘Recite to the fire as it is being kindled!’’ for it is to the fire, when it is being kindled, that he recites.’ Eggeling (1882, p. 95).
ĀGS 1.24.7: viṣṭaraḥ pādyam arghyam ācamanīyaṃ madhuparko gaur ity eteṣāṃ tris trir ekaikam vedayante. Oldenberg (1886, pp. 197–198): ‘A seat, the water for washing the feet, the Arghya water (i.e. perfumed water into which flowers have been thrown), the water for sipping, the honey-mixture, [198] a cow: every one of these things they announce three times (to the guest)’.
What is aditiḥ sarvaṃ? Bloomfield (see Franceschini 2008, p. 51) gives it as a possible mantra, but he adds ‘perhaps no quotation at all’. We agree: this is not a mantra, but it refers to the following R̥V 1.89.10. With Durga (122, 5/91,14: mantranigamaḥ), we take mantra to be the subject of āha.
R̥V 1.89.10: áditir dyáur áditir antárikṣam | áditir mātā́ sá pitā́ sá putráḥ | víśve devā́ áditiḥ páñca jánā | áditir jātám áditir jánitvam | ‘Aditi is heaven. Aditi is the midspace. Aditi is the mother; she is the father, she the son. Aditi is the All Gods, the five peoples. Aditi is what has been born, Aditi what is to be born.’ transl. Jamison and Brereton (2014, p. 222).
Both Durga and Skandasvāmi-Maheśvara seem to describe water as being epistemologically (rather than ontologically) the origin of the essences/flavors. Skandasvāmi-Maheśvara (102,6) seems to say that the perceiving of all flavors/essences is premised upon the perception (pratīti) of water (sarvarasajanyā yā pratītis tasyā anuprāpteḥ sarvarasā anuprāptā iti vyapadeśas tadvat). Durga (128,7/97,14–15) similarly says that water is the origin (prabhava) of these essences/flavors. Durga’s use of the word prabhava may be reminiscent of grammarians’ traditional interpretation of prabhava in A 1.4.31. This word is interpreted as designating the place where someone or something that had already existed due to some other cause comes into sight for the first time. So, water would be the place where essences/flavors can be cognized for the first time, which had already existed within foods etc. due to some other cause. For details on the traditional interpretation of prabhava, see Kawamura (2018, pp. 65–66).
Durga (126,4–8/97,8–16) says that statements such as R̥V 1.89.10 are metaphorical expressions (guṇī pravr̥tti; guṇavr̥tti). He gives the example of calling someone who has been extremely helpful one’s mother and father.
The meaning of these mantras is unclear, because the meaning of these words, which are hapax legomena, is obscure; cf. Roth (1852, p. 12 n 6 [Erläuterungen]).
Note that the order in which these words occur in [vii] does not fully correspond with their order in the Nighaṇṭu. This suggests that Kautsa is not citing from the Nighaṇṭu as known to Yāska, but possibly from another traditional list.
For the first interpretation, see e.g. Muir (1874, p. 173); cf. Roth (1852, p. 13[Erläuterungen]). For the latter, see Sarup (1920–1927, p. 17), who however renders jānapadīṣu as ‘among the country-folk’, seemingly confusing it with *jānapadeṣu. The word jānapadī refers to an implied feminine noun, which Durga (128, 17/98,1) gives as pravr̥tti.
References
When two years are given, e.g. (2016 [1930]), the first year refers to the year of publication of the edition used by us. The second year refers to the date of publication of the original edition.
A: Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī. See Appendix III (Aṣṭādhyāyīsūtrapāṭha) in Cardona (1997).
AB: Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa. See Aufrecht (1879).
Abhyankar, K. V. (1962–1972). The Vyākaraṇa-mahābhāṣya of Patañjali: Edited by F. Kielhorn. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series 18–22, 28–33. 3 vols. Bombay: Government Central Press, 1880–1885. Third edition, revised and furnished with additional readings, references and select critical notes by K. V. Abhyankar. 3 vols. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962–1972.
ĀGS: Āśvalāyana-Gr̥hyasūtra. See Stenzler (1864).
ĀpŚS: Āpastamba-Śrautasūtra. See Garbe (1882–1885).
Aufrecht, T. (1877). Die Hymnen des Ṛigveda (Vol. 2). Bonn: Adolph Marcus.
Aufrecht, T. (1879). Das Aitareya Brāhmaṇa: Mit Auszügen aus dem Commentare von Sāyaṇācārya und anderen Beilagen herausgegeben. Bonn: Adolph Marcus.
AV: Atharvaveda. See Roth and Whitney (1924).
Bakshi, M. J. (2016 [1930]). Niruktam of Yāska Muni (In the form of a Commentary on Nighaṇṭu of Kaśyapa Prajāpati) Edited with the ‘Niruktavivṛti’ Based on Durgācharya and Exhaustive Notes by M. M. Pandit Mukund Jha Bakshi, Rajpandi, Patiala. Delhi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthan.
Bhadkamkar, H. M. (1985 [1919]). The Nirukta of Yāska (with Nighaṇṭu) Edited with Durga’s commentary by H. M. Bhadkamkar Assisted by R. G. Bhadkamkar. Vol. I. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Brahmamuni. (1917). Niruktasammarśaḥ ācāryaśailyanusāri vivecanātmakaṃ niruktabhāṣyam racayitā prakāśaś ca svāmī brahmamuni parivrājako vidyāmārtaṇḍaḥ (gurukulakāṃgadīviśvavidyālayasthaḥ). Pustakaprāptisthānam ārya sāhitya maṇḍala li°: ajmer.
Bronkhorst, J. (2019). A Śabda Reader: Language in Classical Indian Thought. Columbia University Press.
Caland, W. (1931). Pañcaviṃśa-Brāhmaṇa: The Brāhmaṇa of Twenty Five Chapters. Bibliotheca Indica.
Caland, W., & Henry, V. (1906). L’Agniṣṭoma, Description Complète de la Form Normale du Sacrifice de Soma dans le Culte Védique. Ernest Leroux.
Cardona, G. 1997. Pāṇini: His Work and its Traditions. Volume one. Background and introduction. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988. Second edition, revised and enlarged, 1997.
Cardona, G. (2013). Theoretical Arguments Concerning Etymological Explanations in Yāska’s Nirukta. Indological Research Different Standpoints, editor P. C. Muraleemadhavan. Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation.
Deshpande, M. (1990). Changing Conceptions of the Veda: From Speech-Acts to Magical Sounds. The Adyar Library Bulletin, 54, 1–41.
Eggeling, J. (1882). The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa according to the Text of the Mādhyandina School. Part I, books I and II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Franceschini M. (2008). An Updated Vedic Concordance: Maurice Bloomfield’s A Vedic Concordance Enhanced with New Material Taken from Seven Vedic Texts. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University and Milan: Mimesis Edizioni.
Gaastra, D. (1919). Das Gopatha Brāhmaṇa. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Garbe, R. (1882–1885). The Śrauta Sútra of Ápastamba Belonging to the Taittiríya Sam̱hitá with the commentary of Rudradatta. Volumes I and II. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.
GB: Gopatha-Brāhmaṇa. See Gaastra (1919).
Harikai, Kunio 針貝邦生. (1990). Koten Indo seiten kaisyakugaku kenkyū: mīmānsā gakuha no syakugi mantora ron 古典インド聖典解釈学研究—ミーマーンサー学派の釈義・マント ラ論—. Hukuoka: Kyūshū Daigaku Syuppankai 福岡:九州大学出版会.
Jamison, S. W., & Brereton, J. P. (2014). The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. 3 vols. New York: Oxford University Press.
Joshi, S. D., & Roodbergen, J. A. F. (1974). Patañjali’s Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya: Bahuvrīhidvandvāhnika (P. 2.2.23-2.2.38), Text, Translation and Notes. Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit Class C; No. 9. Poona: University of Poona.
Kahrs, E. (1998). Indian Semantic Analysis: the Nirvacana Tradition. Cambridge University Press.
Kahrs, E. (2005). On the Study of Yāska’s Nirukta. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Kawamura, Y. (2018). The kāraka Theory Embodied in the Rāma Story: A Sanskrit Textbook in Medieval India. With a Foreword by George Cardona. D. K. Printworld.
Kawamura, Y. (2019). What Is the Purpose of Restating dā in Aṣṭādhyāyī 5.3.19: tado dā ca? In Proceedings of the 17th World Sanskrit Conference, Vancouver, Canada, July 9-13, 2018, Section 3: Vyākaraṇa. Published by the Department of Asian Studies, University of British Columbia, on behalf of the International Association for Sanskrit Studies, 1–12 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0379846, http://hdl.handle.net/2429/71001).
Keith A. B. (1914). The Veda of the Black Yajus School Entitled Taittirīya Saṃhitā (In two parts. Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 18–19). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
KS: Kaṭha-Saṃhitā. See Schroeder (1900–1910).
Limaye, Acharya V.P. (2012 [1982]). Commentary of Skandasvāmin & Maheśvara on the Nirukta [Chapters I-VI] critically edited by Dr. Lakshman Sarup, with Additions and Corrections by Acharya V. P. Limaye. Delhi: Meharchand Lachhmandas Publications.
MBh: Mahābhāṣya. See Abhyankar (1962–1972).
Mehendale, M. A. (1965). The Use of ḷ in the Speech of Yāska. In Nirukta Notes Series I. (pp. 8–16). Deccan College: Poona.
Minkowski, C. (2008) Why should we read the Maṅgala Verses?. In W. Slaje (Ed.), preface by Edwin Gerow Śāstrārambha, Inquiries into the Preamble in Sanskrit (pp. 1–24). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
MS: Maitrāyaṇī-Saṃhitā. See Schroeder (1881–1886 [1970–1972]).
Muir, J. (1866). On the Interpretation of the Veda Author(s). The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (new Series), 2–2, 303–402.
Muir, J. (1874). Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, Their Religion, and Institutions Collected, Translated, and Illustrated. (3rd Edn., Vol. 2). Trübner & Co.
Müller, M. (1901 [1878]). Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India. The Hibbert Lectures, delivered in the Chapter House, Westminster Abbey, in April, May, and June 1878. London and Bombay: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Nir: Nirukta. See Sarup (1920–1927)
NirŚV: Niruktaślokavārttika. See Vijayapāla (1982).
Oldenberg, H. (transl.) (1886). The Grihya Sūtras. Part 1. Sacred Books of the East. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Paliratna, C. V. (1924). Vedārtha-dīpika Niruktabhāṣya. Pūrvārdha. Lekhaka tathā prakāśaka pro° candramaṇi vidyālaṃkāra pāliratna. Lā° nandalāla gurukula kāṃgaṛī yantrālaya [edition of Nirukta and Hindi commentary].
Paṇśīkar, W. L., & Shāstrī. (1912). Śuklayajurveda-Samhitâ (Śrimad-Vâjasaneyi-Mâdhyandina) with the Mantra-Bhâshya of Mahâ-mahopâdhyâya Śrîmad-Uvatâchârya and the Veda-dîpa-Bhâshya of Śrîman-Mahîdhara (with Appendices & Mantra-Kośha). Nirṇaya Sāgara Press.
Pathak, J. (2018 [2010]). Nirukta of Yāskācārya: Edited with ‘Śaśiprabhā’ Hindi Commentary and Notes. Vanarasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
PB: Pañcaviṃśa-Brāhmaṇa. See Vedāntavāgīśa (1870).
Peterson, P. (1890). Handbook to the Study of the Rigveda. Part 1.—Introductory. Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt.
Pollock, S. (1985). The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History. Journal of American Oriental Society, 105–3, 499–519.
Rajavade, V. K. (1921). Durgācāryakṛtavṛttisametam Nirukta. Pūrvaṣaṭātmakaḥ prathamo bhāgaḥ. Ānandāśrama Sanskrit Series 88. Poona: Ānandāśramamudrāṇālaya.
Rajavade, V. K. (1940).Yāska's Nirukta; Volume 1: Introduction, Full Texts of Nighaṇṭu and Nirukta. Cursory examination of Nighaṇṭu. Notes on chapters I–III of Nitukta. 25 Indexes. Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Renou, L. (1960). Le Destin du Veda dans L’Inde: Études Védiques et Pāṇinéennes Tome VI. Paris: Éditions E. De Boccard (The Destiny of the Veda in India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965)
Roth, R. (1846). Zur Literatur und Geschichte des Weda. Drei Abhandlungen. A. Liesching & Comp.
Roth, R. (1852). Jāska’s Nirukta sammt den Nighaṇṭavas herausgegeben und erläutert. Verlag der Dieterischschen Buchhandlung.
Roth, R., & Whitney, W. D. (1924). Atharva Veda Sanhita. Zweite verbesserte Auflage besorgt von Dr. Max Lindenau. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung.
R̥V: R̥gveda. See Aufrecht (1877).
Sarup, L. (1920–1927). The Nighaṇṭu and the Nirukta, the Oldest Indian Treatise on Etymology, Philology, and Semantics. London; New York: Oxford University Press [Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984].
Sarup, L. (1938). The Problem of Textual Criticism of the Nitukta. In A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies: Presented to Professor F. W. Thomas on His 72nd Birth-day 21st. (March 1939). edited by S (pp. 304–307). Karnatak Publishing House.
ŚB: Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa. See Weber (1855 [1924]).
Scharfe, H. (1977). Grammatical Literature. A History of Indian Literature: Scientific and Technical Literature, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Sharma, U. S. (1966). The Nirukta of Yāska (Critically Edited with a Comprehensive Introduction, Hindi Translation, Explanatory notes etc.) Chapters 1,2,3,4 & 7 Only.
Varanasi: Chowkhamba Vidya Bhawan.
Sītārāma, Ś. (2017). Nirukta of Yāskamuni, edited with Hindi Commentary (7th ed.). Parimal.
Skandasvāmi-Maheśvara See Limaye (1982).
Staal, F. (1967) Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecth: D. Reidel.
Staal, F. (1996 [1989]). Ritual and Mantras: Rules without Meaning. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Staal, F. (2008). Discovering the Vedas: Origins, Mantras, Rituals, Insights. Penguin Books.
Stenzler, A. F. (1864). Indische Hausregeln. I. Âçvalâyana. Erstes Heft. Text. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
von Schroeder, L. (1881–1886). Maitrâyaṇî Saṁhitâ. 4 Bde. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1881–1886. Reprint, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag GmbH., 1970–1972.
von Schroeder, L. (1900–1910). Kâṭhakam. Die Saṁhitâ der Kaṭha-Ҫâkhâ. 3 Bde. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
Strauss, O. (1927). Altindische Speculationen über die Sprache und ihre Probleme. Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 81, 99–151.
Taber, J. (1989). Are mantras Speech-acts? The Mīmāṃsā Point of View. In H. P. Alper (Ed.), Mantra (pp. 144–164). State of University Press.
Thakur, A. (2016 [1955]) Yāska’s Nirukta with Bengali Translation and Notes [Three Parts]. University of Calcutta Press.
Thieme, P. (1931 [1984]). Grammatik und Sprache, ein Problem der altindischen Sprachwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 8: 23–32. (Reprinted in Thieme, P. (1984) Kleine Schriften, edited by Georg Buddruss. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 514–523).
TS: Taittirīya-Saṁhitā. See Weber (1871–1872).
Vedāntavāgīśa, Ā. (1870). Táṇḍya Mahábráhmaṇa with the Commentary of Sáyaṇa Áchárya (Vol. I). Asiatic Society of Begal.
Vijayapāla. (1982). Niruktaślokavārttikam. Calcutta: Śrīmatī Sāvitrīdevī Bāgaḍiyā Trust (upodghātaḥ pp. 1–52, text pp. 1–588).
Visigalli, P. (2017a). The Vedic Background of Yāska’s Nirukta. Indo-Iranian Journal, 60, 1–31.
Visigalli, P. (2017b). Words in and out of History: Indian Semantic Derivation (nircavana) and Modern Etymology in Dialogue. Philosophy East and West, 67, 1143–1190.
Visigalli, P., & Kawamura, Y. (2021). Classifying and Defining Deities in the Late Vedic Age: A Study and an Annotated Translation of Yas̄ka’s Nirukta Chapter Seven. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 31(2), 243–282.
VS: Vājasaneyi-Saṃhitā. See Paṇśīkar (1912).
Wakahara, Y., 若原雄昭. . (2018). Indo teki seitōsei no shozai: sāyana cho Rigu vēda chū jobun yori インド的正統性の所在-サーヤナ著『リグ・ヴェーダ註』序文より-. Ryūkoku Daigaku Ronsyū 龍谷大學論集, 421, 8–26.
Weber, A. (1871–1872). Die Taittirîya-Saṁhitâ. 2 Bde. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
Weber, A. (1855). The Çatapatha-Brâhmaṇa in the Mâdhyandina-Çâkhâ with Extracts from the Commentaries of Sâyaṇa, Harisvâmin and Dvivedagaṅga. The White Yajurveda, part II. Berlin: Dümmler; London: Williams and Norgate, 1855. Reprint, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1924.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Visigalli, P., Kawamura, Y. From Word Magic to Systematic Linguistic Inquiry: The Kautsa Controversy in Nirukta 1.15–16. J Indian Philos 49, 931–951 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09486-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-021-09486-x