Vedarthaghatana and Sayanacharya
By Dinanath Sharma
Summary
This article examines the hermeneutical approach of Sayana Acharya (c. 1315–1387), the renowned Vedic commentator, through the lens of ‘Vedārthaghaṭanā’—the systematic construction of the meaning of the Vedas. Sayana, also known as Vidyaranya’s brother and the minister of the Vijayanagara Empire, produced comprehensive commentaries on the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Atharvaveda and other Vedanga texts. The author begins by outlining the significance of Vedic exegesis: the Vedas are composed in archaic Sanskrit with symbolic and ritualistic content, necessitating skilled interpretation to elucidate their purport. Sayana’s commentaries, compiled under royal patronage, aim to make the Vedas accessible by explaining grammatical forms, offering etymological insights and connecting mantras with ritual actions. The article analyses key features of Sayana’s method: his reliance on earlier authorities like Yaska, Nirukta, and Purana commentators; his systematic identification of devata (deity), chandas (metre) and rishi (seer) for each sukta; and his attention to ritual context. Sayana posits that the ultimate purpose of the Vedas is ritual performance (yajña) and social order, reflecting the Mīmāṃsā school’s influence. The author contrasts this with other hermeneutical traditions, such as the Vedantic view that the Vedas convey metaphysical truths. He points out that Sayana occasionally infers philosophical ideas but generally focuses on ritualistic meaning, describing the Veda as sabda‑brahman whose primary role is to guide sacrifices. The article critically evaluates accusations that Sayana is merely a compiler: while he synthesises earlier commentaries, he also introduces organisational clarity and resolves contradictions. The author illustrates this with examples: his commentary on Rigveda 10.90 (Purusha Sukta) relates the hymn to social origins, whereas later Vedantins read it as an exposition of Brahman; his gloss on Yajurvedic mantras emphasises the details of soma rituals. The paper also contextualises Sayana’s work within the socio‑political milieu of 14th‑century South India, noting that his commentaries aimed to legitimise Vedic ritual during a period of Islamic incursions and internal dissent. The article concludes that Sayana’s Vedārthaghaṭanā, though grounded in ritualism, is indispensable for understanding Vedic language and history, and remains a critical source for scholars across disciplines.
Conclusion
The study concludes that Sayana Acharya’s commentaries represent a monumental effort to preserve and systematise Vedic knowledge. His Vedārthaghaṭanā combines philological precision with ritual exegesis, reflecting the Mīmāṃsā emphasis on yajña while occasionally hinting at metaphysical insights. By organising complex material and synthesising earlier authorities, Sayana provided a foundation for later scholars, even those who diverged philosophically. The article suggests that appreciating Sayana’s context and methodology enriches our understanding of the Vedas’ multifaceted meanings and highlights the historical interplay between ritual practice, political power and hermeneutics.