The Nirukta and the Aitareya Brahmana

Summary

This article studies the relationship between the Nirukta, the oldest surviving treatise on Vedic etymology, and the Aitareya Brahmana, one of the most discursive prose texts in the Vedic ritual corpus. It begins by describing the Brahmana literature as a product of the ritualistic mentality of the priestly class. The primary aim of these texts was to explain and justify the application of mantras in specific sacrificial contexts, so their authors tended to privilege religious and devotional interpretations over the scientific study of language. The Aitareya Brahmana exemplifies this tendency through its highly discursive explanations and anecdotal narratives. Classical Indian commentators such as Sabarasvamin characterised Brahmana texts as replete with detailed instructions, frequent formulas like ‘so they said’, and anecdotes. They also identified categories of discourse found in the Brahmanas, such as etymological explanation, censure, praise, expression of doubt, injunction, description of others’ deeds, ancient history, assumptions of transposition and similes. The article then argues that while etymology appears as one element within the Brahmana exposition, it eventually developed into an independent branch of study. The Nirukta represents this development, offering systematic explanations of obscure Vedic words based on their derivation. The author analyses how interpreters from various traditional schools of Vedic exegesis used etymology to make mantras convey intended meanings by focusing on the formation of rebellious words. The article illustrates the diversity of interpretations with the example of the Durohana mantra (Ṛgveda 1.142.5). Uvata and Mahidhara, commenting on the Vajasaneyi Samhita, independently explain the mantra and even provide alternative explanations involving a chariot. Mahidhara’s explanation often aligns with that of Sayana, though at times it diverges due to different ritual contexts. Bhattabhaskara interprets the same mantra from three scholastic viewpoints and offers an adhyatmika interpretation that refers the mantra to the Rathidhana ceremony. Through such examples, the article shows that the Nirukta’s etymological method allowed commentators to propose multiple, context‑dependent meanings for the same mantra. The analysis highlights the evolution of Vedic hermeneutics from ritual explanation to linguistic and philosophical inquiry. It emphasises that the Nirukta, while rooted in ritual exegesis, laid the foundation for later scholarly approaches to semantics and philology.