9058009431

228 RAM KARAN SHARMA

“The steps of a word are limited to four (in number); those who are intelligent and proficient in the Vedas, know them ali (i.e., all the four steps of a word). Three of these steps (of a word) are hidden in a cave (and as such) do not manifest lhemselves (for all); it is only the Fourth (step of a word) that human beings (both the ignorant and the wise) speak."

But SSyana himself refers to the eighl different schools of inlerpretations in conncclion with the term “catvśń“ viz., Vedavfidins, Vaiyakaranas, YSjftikas, Nairuktas, Aitihfisikas, Atmavfldins, “apare m&trk&h", and YSska. It is surprising that the intcrpretations of Nairuktas and those as quoted by SSyana from Yfiska*s Nirukta (13.9) are altogether different. In fact, Sdyana quotes almost verbatim from the Nirukta except that the Tantrika view as represented by “apare matrk&h“ is added here (Cf. N2ge£a*s Uddyota on Kaiyata’s PradTpa on the Mahabh&sya on this mantra in the Paspaśźhnik# (p.32).

It is not elear whieh of the eight schools of interpretalion is acceptable to SSyana himself. He respectfully spclls out and also explains all the lines of interpretations of all the eight schools. Should we or should we not make an effort to arrive at one single conclusion with regard to the interpretation of this term ?

The situation in which an inquisitive mind finds itself today is still morę complex. The community of intcllectuals all over the world wants to know morę and morę about the knowledge-contcnt of the Vedic Tradition. On the other hand_f all the oriental and Occidental schools of Vedic interpretation claim their respcctive superiority over the other.

It is perhaps wise to assumc that Vedic knowlcdge is like a Sun, around which the plancts of interpretation can only revolve, without physically touching it. It is only this catholicity of spirit that can come to our rescue in a situation like this. Let not the traditional views be dismissed as outmoded ones. Let not the divcrgent modern interpretations be disregardcd as cxolic ones. Let there be a critical but modest balance, bringing about an appropriate synthesis and a meaningful common core of interpretation based on a serious study of the Primary, Secondary and even Tertiary sources.

Interpretations vary according to the tastes of individual scholars as well. Some interpret the entire Vedic corpus historically. Olhers do so from the ritualistic angle, some others from a philosophical or scientific or poetic angle.

It is perhaps due to this enormily of traditional and modem lines of interpretations that many sincere and devoted Sanskrit scholars prefer to leave aside Vedic sludics altogether. The linguistic and stylistic archaism of the Vedas is equally ba fil i ng to them.

But this luminary of Vedic scholarship had an exceplional inner urge for the pursuit of Vedic knowledge in all its aspeets. He was thoroughly