Question

Arrange the following arguments of the 'Purva-paksha' (opponent's view) regarding the meaninglessness of mantras, as traditionally presented in Yaska's Nirukta (1.15):
A. vākyaniyamāt (Because of fixed word order)
B. tadarthaśāstrāt (Because of the Brahmana's instructions)
C. buddhiśāstrāt (Because of instructions on obvious things)
D. acetane'rthabandhanāt (Because of addressing inanimate things)
E. avidyamānavacanāt (Because of speaking of non-existent things)

• A. A, B, C, D, E
• B. E, A, B, C, D
• C. B, A, C, E, D
• D. D, A, C, E, B

Hint:

Memorize Kautsa's arguments as a chain: Fixed Order $\rightarrow$ Ritual Help $\rightarrow$ Obviousness $\rightarrow$ Inanimate Objects $\rightarrow$ Non-existent Things. This sequence moves from linguistic structure (A) to ontological reality (E).

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
One of the most important sections of Yaska's Nirukta is the debate on "Mantra-arthavattva" (the meaningfulness of mantras). Yaska introduces an earlier scholar named Kautsa, who represented the skeptical view that mantras are "Nirarthaka" (meaningless). Kautsa provided several logical arguments to support his claim. Yaska records these arguments in a specific order before systematically refuting them to establish the orthodox 'Siddhanta' that mantras are indeed meaningful.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The arguments of Kautsa in Nirukta (1.15) follow a rising sequence of skepticism:

1. A. Vākyaniyamāt: Kautsa argues that in ordinary language, changing the word order doesn't change the meaning, but in mantras, the word order is strictly fixed. Therefore, he claims, mantras are not 'speech' meant to convey meaning but are just 'acoustic formulas' like musical notes.
2. B. Tadarthaśāstrāt: He argues that if mantras had meaning, the Brahmanas wouldn't need to explain what they do. For example, when a Brahmana says, "with this mantra he takes the shovel," it implies the mantra itself didn't make that clear.
3. C. Buddhiśāstrāt: He points out that mantras often tell a priest to do something he is already doing (redundancy). This "instruction on the obvious" is a sign of meaninglessness.
4. D. Acetane'rthabandhanāt: Kautsa mocks mantras that address inanimate objects like stones ("Hear, O stones!") or plants. Since inanimate objects cannot hear, he claims the words are nonsensical.
5. E. Avidyamānavacanāt: Finally, he argues that mantras speak of impossible things, like creatures with "four horns" or "three feet" that do not exist in the physical world.

Yaska refutes these by saying that word order is for preservation, Brahmanas explain the 'application' (viniyoga) not just meaning, and the "inanimate" addresses are poetic personification. The sequence A-B-C-D-E is the exact order in which these arguments appear in the text. This section is a masterclass in ancient Indian dialectics. For the NTA exam, the name 'Kautsa' and his five arguments are essential facts. The logical arrangement of these arguments reflects the standard methodology of presenting an opponent's view (Purvapaksha) in Sanskrit Shastras.

Step 3: Final Answer:
The correct logical and textual sequence of Kautsa's arguments is A, B, C, D, E. Thus, option (1) is correct.