RugbhAshyabhumika

Introduction to Rugbhashyabhumika of Mahamahopadhyaya Srimushnam Vyakarana Setumadhavacharya by Prof.K.T.Pandurangi

Prof. K.T. Pandurangi

Bangalore

Rigbhasyabhumika

I consider it an honour to associate myself with the work, i.e., Rigbhashyabhumika written by late Mahamahopadhyaya Srimushnam Vyakarana Setumadhavacharya, son of late Mahamahopadhyaya Srimushnam Subbarayacharya, by way of this brief in English highlighting the points made by him in his Rigbhashyabhumika.

These two scholars were eminent scholars both in Vyakarana and Vedanta and have written very learned works. Rigbhashyabhumika is one such learned work. Scholars of Veda are familiar with Sayana's Rigbhashyabhumika and the topics discussed in that work.

Sayana discusses six topics :

1. Relative position of Rigveda and Yajurveda.

2. Whether Vedas are revealed or composed (apaurusheyatva of Veda).

3. Nature and authoritativeness of Vedas (Veda laksana and Veda Pramanya).

4. Nature of Mantra and BrAhmana.

5. Necessity of the study ofVedas and the understanding of their meaning.

6. A brief account of Vedangas.

Sayana discusses these topics quoting the relevant Jaimini Sutras of Purvamimamsa. His presentation of these problems and the solutions given are contained in the relevant adhikaranas of Jaimini -sutras.

Sayana's approach to the interpretation of Vedas is ritualistic (Yajnika). Therefore, he discusses these issues from that point of view.

Yaska mentions three approaches to the study of Vedas, viz., Yajnika, Aitihasika and Adhyatmika. Ritualistic, mythological, and spiritual. Sayana's approach is first one, i.e., ritualistic (Yajnika). This is clear from the first question he has raised, viz., whether Rigveda is important or Yajurveda. He concludes that since his study of Veda is undertaken in connection with the performance of sacrifices Yajurveda is more important and therefore, he has commented upon Yajurveda first.

The present Rigbhashyabhumika written by Sri Setumadhavacharya has philosophical approach. Sri Madhavacharya has written a BhAshya on first forty hymns of Rigveda giving the philosophical meaning of the same. The Rigbhashyabhumika written by Sri Setumadhavacharya is an introduction (bhumika) to this BhAshya. Therefore, he has to handle the problems that are more relevant to this approach. The basic questions like apaurusheyatva and svatah pramanya of Vedas, of course, have also to be handled. Therefore, in this bhumika these basic problems as well as the special problems relevant to the philosophical interpretation of Veda are discussed.

II

It is agreed by all that there are some hymns in Rigveda that are clearly philosophical. Hymns like NAsadIya Sukta', 'AsyA VAmiya Sukta', 'Purusha Sukta', etc., are clearly philosophical. One may add to these, the hymns that delineate the process of creation, the concept of one God, the problems of death and immortality, etc., also as philosophical hymns. The hymns like Visvakarma Sukta, Hiranyagarbha Sukta, Ambhrani Sukta, Manyu Sukta, Pavamana Sukta, etc., come under this category. In the Upanishads, frequent reference is made to Rigvedic hymns as the source of their philosophical thought. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Rigvedic hymns contain philosophical matter. But, the Atharvana Upanishad goes much further and states that the entire Rigveda has philosophical import. It admits two interpretations :

1 . Ritualistic

2. Philosophical.

These two are designated as Apara-Vidya and Para- Vidya. It is the latter that is brought out by Sri Madhavacharya in his Bhashya on the first forty hymns of Rigveda. This raises two questions :

1.Rigvedic hymns clearly refer to many deities and many rituals. These are glorified in different ways. Therefore, how can we get the meaning referring to one supreme entity or one Supreme God which is the foundation of philosophical interpretation.

2. How do we satisfy the requirements of grammar, etymology, etc., if these hymns that refer to many deities and many rituals are to be taken as referring to one supreme entity or one Supreme God and connected philosophical issues.

Sri Madhvacharya has evolved the necessary methodology to overcome these difficulties. Firstly, he draws the attention to the doctrine of SarvashabdavAchyatva. The supreme entity, i.e., the Supreme God is conveyed by all words. The words that convey different deities, different seers, different rituals, different metres, all these convey the Supreme God as their principal meaning. This is clearly stated in the passages like tA vA etAh richah "yo devAnAm nAmAdha, etc. Thus the entire Veda conveys him, his qualities, activities, powers, and all other glories. These are sung in the Vedas. Secondly, he draws the attention to the doctrine of antaryAmitva. The Supreme God is present in all and directs all. Therefore, even when other deities are referred and their activities and powers are described in Vedas, ultimately these have a reference to the Supreme God who is antaryamin. This is clear in the passages like "Aham Manuh abhavam* etc. These two doctrines remove the first difficulty, viz., how can the hymns refer to many deities and many rituals be interpreted as referring to tne Supreme entity or one Supreme God. The solution is simple. The principal meaning of all Vedic words is the Supreme God; but these also refer to the various deities, rituals, etc., in the context of the performance of rituals. The first meaning is obtained by paramamukhyavritti while the second is by mukhyavritti. This method of obtaining two meanings is clearly suggested in the Atharvana Upanishad wherein the same body of literature, viz., Rigveda, Yajurveda, etc., is declared as both Paravidya and Aparavidya depending upon the meaning obtained.

This question is discussed threadbare by Sri Setumadhavacharya in this Rigbhashyabhumika profusely quoting the relevant source passages. In his discussion he first raises the very basic question whether it is necessary to know the meaning of Vedas or is it sufficient if one merely learns to recite them. He elaborates the scope of the injunction "SvAdhyAyo adhyetavyah" and points out that its scope extends to the understanding of the meaning. In this connection he quotes two famous references 'SthANurayam bhArahArah' and 'Uta tvah pashyan' , etc. He explains as many as four meanings of the first and three of the second. These points are generally discussed in PurvamimAmsa works and in the RigbhSshyabhumika of Sayana. But the intention of summarising all this discussion about the importance of the understanding the meaning of Vedas here is to extend its scope further. It is given as a preliminary to point out that it is not sufficient if only the ritualistic meaning of the Vedas is understood but its philosophical meaning also has to be understood. Therefore, the scope of 'SvAdhyAyo adhyetavyah' not only extends to DharmajijnAsas but also extends to BrahmajijnAsA. To extend the scope of this injunction so as to include the study of philosophical meaning also, he makes use of the reference 'AdhenvA charati mAya yaisha vAcham shuShruvam aphalAm apushpAm' (R.V.VIII. 2- 23-5). Here pushpa refers to the results of ritualistic Benefits while phala refers to the spiritual results. The ritualistic benefits are not final and firm. Therefore, these have to be surrendered at the feet of the God and the spiritual benefits be obtained through His grace. Though the hymn 'Utatva', etc., is frequently quoted by all, this latter part of that hymn is not noticed by many. It is this, that clearly indicates that even the understanding of the philosophical meaning is to be included in the scope of 'SvAdhyAyo adhyetavyah' .

Another point made in this connection is, the results of rituals are also bestowed by the Supreme God on the sacrificer. In this connection the Brahma Sutra 'Phalam atah upapatteh' and the Brihadaranya passage RAteh dAtuh pArayaNam' are quoted. Both these clearly indicate that neither mere rituals nor the deities invoked in the rituals bestow the results. It is the Supreme God who bestows the results. Therefore, it is natural that He is conveyed by the hymns employed in the rituals and it is His glory that is sung in these hymns. Therefore, He is the meaning of all expressions in the Vedas.

IV

The second question of grammar and etymology supporting or not supporting the philosophical meaning is also interestingly handled by Sri Setumadhavacharya. In this connection he takes up the question of the scope of Vyakarana and Nirukta. Firstly, he raised the question which are Vedanga Vyakarana and Vedanga Nirukta ? It is not Panini's VyAkarana that is Vedanga Vyakarana, nor it is Yaska's Nirukta that is Vedanga Nirukta. Vedanga Vyakarana and Nirukta were the very part of the body of Vedic literature. Indra is stated to be the earliest propounder of Vyakarana. This Indra is different from the latter indra who is latter than PAnini. Hanuman is also a propounder of Vyakarana. This Vyakarana is known as Mahavyakarana or Hanumad Vyakarana. Sri Setumadhavacharya quotes from Ramayana and other sources to show that there were Vyakaranas before Panini. This is not to under rate the authority or importance of Panini, but only to show that sometimes, one has to go beyond Panini to get the philosophical meaning of Vedic expressions. This is what Sri Madhvacharya has done in his Bhashya on Rigveda. Sri Setumadhavacharya himself being a great scholar of Panini's Vyakarana has great respect for Panini. Therefore, he repeatedly states that Sri Madhvacharya and his commentators normally go by Panini's grammar, but when special philosophical meanings are to be brought out they go beyond. In respect of Nirukta also, Yaska himself refers to early Niruktas. Brahmanas and Upanishads give nirvachanas of many Vedic words. Passages like 'so arodit yadarodit tad Rudrasya Rudratvam' atti cha bhUtAni tasmad annam prakirtyate' explain the etymology of the expressions concerned. These are mythological and cultural etymologies. These do not strictly conform to the rules of grammatical etymology.

The etymologies given in Nirukta concern more with the mythology and culture behind these expressions rather than the grammatical structure of the expression. It is this that makes the areas of Vyakarana and Nirukta different. Otherwise Nirukta would have been a part of Vyakarana. Aitareya Upanishad is full of mythological and cultural etymologies in respect of the names of seers. Chandogya also gives similar etymologies. There seem to have existed some Nirukta works in which such etymologies were compiled. Vyasa Nirukta was one such. Sri Madhvacharya fully utilises these Niruktas for giving his philosophical interpretation. Sri SetumSdhavacharya elaborates this point fully. He also raises the question whether Vyakarana is pradhana or Nirukta is pradhana. He quotes the views of the protagonists of both the views. He himself is inclined to say that Vyakarana is more important. However, since the two have distinct roles to play in understanding the meaning of Vedas, the question of relative importance loses its ground. What is important to notice is that the Niruktakaras are not bound by the rules of grammar.

In respect of apaurushEyatva and svatah pramanya of Vedas, after quoting the normal arguments given in Purvamlmamsa works and Rigbhashyabhumika of Sayana, Sri Setumadhavacharya gives some additional points that are more relevant to the philosophical interpretaion. There are certain items like Dharma, adharma, etc., that are ethical tenets. These cannot be ascertained by Pratyaksha or Anumana. The existence of these cannot be denied either. Therefore, revealed literature is the only means by which these can be ascertained. This applies to similar other entities that are beyond other perception or inference. Therefore, Vedas have to be considered as apaurusheya and nitya not merely because their authors are not known and the seers are not the authors, but because the acceptance of revealed literature is a necessity to ascertain dharma, adharma, etc., ethical and spiritual entities that are beyond perception and inference. This much is common to mImasakas and vEdAntins. But the Mimamsakas have erred in not accepting Isvara in whose mind the Vedas are ever-present and everrevealed. It is He who taught them to Chaturmukha Brahma. Thus, the principal deity of the entire Veda, is the Supreme God himself while the first seer is Chaturmukha Brahma himself. The other deities and the seers come into picture only secondarily.

Sri Setumadhavacharya quotes the views of Manjusha, etc., certain Vyakarana works suggesting that Vedas are not eternal and rejects their views. The question whether tAtparyajnAna is necessary for VakyarthajnAna is also raised and it is stated that tAtparyajnAna is not necessary. It is SAbdibhAvana or prEraNA that leads to pravritti.

From the above brief summary of the points made by Sri SetumdhavScharya in this Rigbhashyabhumika it will be clear that he has laid a good foundation for the study of Rigbhashya of Sri MadhvAcharya.

Sri Madhvacharyadeclares in his Rigbhashya that the entire Rigveda conveys the Supreme God. He explains the meanings of Agni, Indra, Vayu, etc., suitably. He gives the line of the teachers of Vedas starting from the Supreme God in the Hayagriva form. Indra, Surya, Soma and Agni are stated as the seers of the four Vedas. Goddess Lakshmi and Bharati are the seers of all Vedas and Vedangas. Vedas admit three meanings. However, their main import is the glory of the Supreme God himself. Keeping this central point in mind the first forty hymns of Rigveda are commented upon,

Sri Jayatirtha has written a detailed commentary on Rigbhashya of Sri Madhvacharya. On this Sri Satyanatha, Pandurangi Kesavabhattaraka known as Gururaja, Bidarahalli Srinivasa Tirtha, Chalari Acharya and a few others have written subcommentaries. Sri Raghavendra Tirtha has written Mantrarthamanjari on these forty hymns. These works on Rigbhashya have considerably enriched the understanding of the philosophical meaning of Rig Veda.