Thread by @shrikanth_krish

One of the things that distinguishes Hinduism and the Vedic religion from other traditions is the importance ascribed to the shabda

Reciting texts in the original with correct pronunciation (ucchAraNa) and the right tonal modulations (svara-pATha)

The meaning takes a backseat

But does this have traditional sanction?

Is it OK to equate vedic study with mere chanting "pArAyaNa") as opposed to understanding the import of the works?

What's fascinating is that the tradition itself appears divided on this.

First of all learning through the oral tradition is clearly one of the obligatory duties of a brAhmaNa. There are no two ways about it.

Even Manu himself is explicit about this in his smRti -

Verse 1.88

अध्यापनमध्ययनं यजनं याजनं तथा
दानं प्रतिग्रहं चैव ब्राह्मणानामकल्पयत्

Translation :

For the Brāhmaṇas he ordained teaching, studying, sacrificing and officiating at sacrifices, as also the giving and accepting of gifts

Here the terms used for teaching and studying are adhyApanam and adhyayanam respectively

This isn't any generic study

The term "adhyayanam" here specificially refers to Vedic study through the oral tradition from a teacher.

But the question arises - what does this study entail?
Is it just chanting, with the right ucchArana?

Or is it textual analysis?

Now in the great mahAbhASya of the grammarian Patanjali there is a statement that suggests the study of Vedas is independent of realizing its true meaning

brAhmaNEna nishkAraNo dharmah:
shadango vEdOdhyEyo gnEyascha

Translation -

"the Brahmin dedicates himself to sincere and
relentless study of the Vedas, together with its 6
great branches and to the realization of its meaning and true purpose"

Now my Sanskrit is v patchy. But I think a distinction is drawn here between "Veda adhyayana" (VedOdhyeyo) and investigating its true meaning (gnEya)

@RangaTheDude - can chip in with your thoughts!

So a case is made here that veda adhyayana need not entail investigating the meaning of the words

pArAyaNa (chanting) itself is the outcome of adhyayana. It need not extend to mastering the import of the Vedas

But in a different text (say yAska's nirUkta), a different line is taken -

"Studying the Vedic texts without understanding the meaning is like a wooden post on which burdens are kept. It will serve no purpose beyond that"
(from SK Ramachandra Rao)

The study of a text without understanding its meaning is clearly questioned in nirUkta

But elsewhere adhyayana appears to entail just chanting in the oral tradition

So the tradition is divided on this.

Perhaps this is the reason the oral tradition survives in Hinduism, and mere chanting without investigation of meaning does not invite derision.

And more philosophically this can be interpreted as a certain disdain Indians have towards the interpretative abilities of human beings.

There are limits to reason. Humans can be dangerous in the way they ascribe meaning (particularly ancient texts written in archaic language)

So the emphasis on chanting and the shabda and the scepticism towards translation / interpretation can be seen as a deep conservative impulse

A certain fear of analytical conceit