dravidian in sanskrit: kumArIla

Source: TW

Can someone kindly tell more about “Dravidian” words or hymns in Vedas?

Anyway, while kumArila-bhaTTa speaks of drAviDa words in veda & gives examples of non-Arya (drAviDa & others) words, he doesn’t specify which word is from where.

Here is an excerpt from his commentary; towards the end, you can read, “tatheha pikanematAmarasAdi coditam…”. The term ‘coditam’ indicates that those words (pika, nema, tAmarasa, etc) are found in the veda.

Now, tAmarasa is a word for lotus and the drAviDa word for lotus is tAmarai. I’m trying to locate this word in the veda but haven’t found it.

However, kumArila also mentions the word, “pika”, which is a kind of bird, & given in the ashvamedha portion of a few brAhmaNa texts. It is unclear if pika is drAviDa but kumArila-bhaTTa gives it as an example of a non-Arya word, whose meaning has to be figured out by considering the ordinary usage of the non-Arya persons using that word. What would they understand that word to be?

He continues to say that relying on mleccha usage to determine a word’s meaning in the veda is acceptable as it doesn’t contradict (avirodhAt) the idea that an eternal relationship between word & object (eternal meanings of words) can be determined from ordinary usage.

Context

What I quoted is the siddhAnta portion (kumArila bhaTTa’s reply to his imagined opponent; thereby showing his own opinion). Now, there is also a noteoworthy portion from the pUrvapakSa (the imagined opponent). See, both kumArila-bhaTTa & the opponent are agreed upon the existence of non-Arya words in the veda. No disagreements there. The question really is: How are we to understand and determine non-Arya/mleccha words in the veda? There are a few options:

  1. The veda itself (If the veda explains those words; no problem; but obviously, this discussion wouldn’t arise if it was so simple a case)
  2. mleccha usage (opponent says since mlecchas cannot even have access to veda, how can their ordinary usage be trusted to interpret the eternal veda? As seen in above screenshots, kumArila-bhaTTa rejects this proposition & upholds non-Arya usage as a valid interpretative tool.
  3. Commentaries based on nirukta (etymology) & vyAkriya (grammar) - The opponent goes for this as the interpretative guide & lastly
  4. Arya comprehension of non-Arya words through saMskRta.

Needless to say, since kumArila-bhaTTa’s siddhAnta supports option No.2, he would, without a doubt, reject No.4. However, kumArila-bhaTTa’s imagined opponent (the pUrvapakSa) also points out the absurdity of No.4. Using saMskRta to understand non-Arya words (option 4) was opposed by both kumArila bhaTTa & the pUrvapakSa. Option 1 was not actually available. pUrvapakSa wants option 3 while bhaTTa sees option 2 as best. Both disagreed with option 4.

Reading non-Arya words as saMskRta

In what I found to be one of the most amusing, striking & amazingly relevant passages I have ever read, the pUrvapakSa does a fine job of decimating the approach of reading non-Arya words as saMskRta words & accordingly understanding them. Some of the more hilarious examples the pUrvapakSa gives:

  • the drAviDa word, “vair”, meaning stomach (indeed this is the word in tamizh) is seen by the unthinking Arya as the saMskRta word, “vairi”, meaning “enemy” since stomach/hunger is the enemy of man! 😂.
  • Another Eg: The pUrvapakSa says that drAviDas call the snake, “pAp” (Tamizh word for that today is “pAmbu”). He points out that the Arya, nonsensically of course, understands this p-ending word (pAp) to be really an a-ending saMskRta “pApa”, as the snake is a sinful creature!

And he ends off by saying if when an Arya encounters drAviDa words, he has to resort to free-flowing imagination like this (tad yadA drAviDAdi-bhASAyAm-IdRshI-svacchanda-kalpanA), then what is the Arya going to derive from (distant languages) pArasi, barbara, yavana, raumaka & etc

If someone didn’t get it, here is a brief summary: https://t.co/qECPgxojV9

Admiration for the bhaTTa

Also, this remarkable aspect of the great bhaTTa keeps surfacing-freshness & boldness of thought-The willingness to encounter facts for what they are & yet managing to accommodate them in one’s system. How bhaTTa coolly accepted “non-Arya” words in the veda & discusses the most robust way to interpret their meaning–this is a lesson for both traditional teachers as well as the chest-beating online bunch. If you see references in academia about “dravidian substratum” in veda (there are many such papers), are you going to flip out & go on a rant about padre indology or analyze the data & come up with a robust account that is faithful to both truth & tradition?

I noted that the above is relevant because you see, even today, this habit of aimless & indiscriminate derivation of words of other languages from saMskRta is prominent. Hopefully, with all the available analytical tools & resources now, we can be as robust as bhaTTa was.