The Multilock of the Vedas: Anukramani as a Triple-Key Metadata System for Oral Information Security

Lakshmi Mallayya Hiremat
MA. Vedic Studies
Sri Sathya Sai University for Human Excellence
Sathya Sai Grama, Muddenahalli, Chikkaballapura tq&Dist, Karnataka – 562101
Email ID – lakshmimh147@gmail.com

Abstract

The ability to retain Veda mantars through oral tradition for more than three thousand years is a remarkable achievement in terms of information security. Although accuracy of the pronunciation is often attributed to Vikriti Patthas, this paper highlights how it was the Anukramani literature that created the necessary infrastructure for such preservation. This paper uses the first ten Suktams (RV 1.1-10) as its case study in order to highlight how Katyayana’s SarvAnukramani works as a complex metadata structure. Through triple-key verification of Rshi, Devata, and Chandas, this paper shows that the concept of metadata existed before modern library science. If a text is stored and preserved as it is from millennia, then there has to be a strong data-controlling system in place. And our ancient Granthas, such as Vedas, have existed as they are for many years in all situations, traditions, and geographies without any changes. The master system that is behind this is Anukarmani, which is similar to our modern metadata. The Anukramani puts the multilock over the texts through protecting and providing information of Rishi, Devata, and Chandas. Due to which there are no changes in the mantras or intonations.

Keywords – Anukramani, Rigveda, Suktam, Katyayana, and metadata.

Introduction

The Vedas are the foundational and oldest scriptures, which were composed in the sacred Sanskrit language approximately 3000 years ago. The word “Veda” is derived from the Sanskrit root word “vid,” meaning “to know.” And the Vedas are divided into four types by Maharshi Veda Vyasa, which are Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda, and Atharvanaveda. These are called “Apaurusheya,” meaning “not human-originated.” The Rig Veda is often referred to as the ocean of spiritual wisdom. Structurally speaking, however, it can be seen as a huge data repository consisting of 10,552 mantras. For efficient handling of this data, the Vedic Ṛṣis came up with indices called the Anukramaṇīs. Among them, the Sarvānukramaṇī of Katyāyana can be considered the final “Master Index,” which assigns technical “headers” to each and every hymn, thus making sure that nothing gets lost, inserted, or altered in the process.

The Concept of Metadata in the Veda

In information technology terminology, “metadata is data about data.” In the same way, Katyāyana’s system of indexing gives every Sūkta its identity in terms of metadata. An Anukramaṇī (Anukramaṇikā) is an ancient Indian index or a list that has been used to describe different attributes about various sacred books. In relation to the Rig Veda, Anukramaṇī is an index that contains information regarding the author (ṛṣi), the deity invoked (devatā), and the meter (chandas) associated with each of the 10,552 verses in the book. The most popular one among these indexes is the Sarvānukramaṇī, which was composed by Kātyāyana and is noted to be very reliable. Although these indexes have been around for centuries in human languages, recent efforts by computer-based linguistics have managed to convert these into machine-readable data, to be used for benchmarking deep learning systems in the case of Vedic Sanskrit. What impressed Max Müller most about the statistical precision found in the Anukramanis was the following:

1) Number of verses (Riks).

2) Number of words (Pada).

3) Number of syllables (Akshara).

According to Muller, such accuracy of statistics resembles an ancient checksum. Indeed, since the above information had been included in the index, it was impossible to add any extra word to the text of the Rigveda without failing the check-up.

Max Müller’s Analysis of the Sarvānukramaṇī’s Authenticity

Max Muller referred to the Anukramanis when he developed his famous four chronological stages of the development of Sanskrit literature. According to Muller, the Anukramanis belonged to the Sutra Period (approximately 600–200 BC). He saw the Anukramanis as a link between the creation epoch of the poetic literature (i.e., the Vedas) and the epoch of the scholastic literature that followed (Hindu law, religion, and philosophy). It seems reasonable to think that brevity of wording is the main characteristic feature of the Anukramanis. The latter represents the extreme example of linguistic condensation. Another valuable contribution of Müller was the use of Anukramanis to prove the purity of the oral tradition. Until then, many scholars from the West doubted the possibility of a text as lengthy as the Rigveda remaining intact throughout millennia through oral transmission. He concludes by saying that comparing the 19th-century texts of the Rigveda with the ancient numerical references in the Sarvanukramani, Müller showed that they coincided to an astonishing extent. Indeed, the great scholar made the famous claim that Anukramanis constituted “complete check” on the text, proving that our Rigveda is exactly the same as it was 2,500 years ago.

Müller also used Anukramanis to reconstruct the family relations of the time. Knowing that each verse contained information about its author—the Rishi—he reconstructed the “Family Books” (the second through seventh Mandalas). This helped show how the knowledge remained the family heritage of some particular priestly lineage, such as Vasishthas and Vishvamitras.

Macdonell’s Perspective on Vedic Authenticity

Macdonell was captivated with the linguistic structure of the Anukramanis. They marked the highest point of development of the Sutras, which were an abbreviated writing style meant for memorization purposes. He explained that in such texts as the Sarvanukramani of Katyayana, there were no verbs or connecting words but simply “points of data” (Rishi, Devata, and Metre). In his opinion, the Sutras represented a special scientific shorthand of ancient grammarians.

Macdonell attributed enormous significance to the Anukramanis as the main tool for identifying the Rishis. The scholar said that without such indices, we wouldn’t know much about the inner history of Vedic tribes because they would be forgotten. Using the Anukramanis, Macdonell correlated the “family books” of the Rigveda, which helped him prove the historicity of the tradition of hymn attributing among certain families (Gutsamadas and Atris). Whereas Müller treated the Anukramanis as “a seal,” Macdonell thought of them as a link between the past and the present. They were composed during a time when the emphasis moved away from making hymns to cataloguing them. He highlighted that they tend to make references to the Brahmanas (texts on ritual practices) and function as a handy reference for priests, letting them know which hymn to chant during the sacrifice for which deity. The most important contribution by Macdonell to the study of the Anukramanis was his annotated version of Katyayana’s Sarvanukramani. Through this treatise. He pointed out that this “General Index” was one of the most complete works of this genre, discussing everything about the Rigveda. One area that especially caught his attention was the careful measurement of Chandas (metrical systems). In case there was a “defective” verse wherein a syllable was left out, the metrical structure would not be compromised due to the chanting in the future.

Whereas Max Müller appreciated the chronology of the Anukramanis, Macdonell admired their philological significance. They were used by Müller to establish the purity of the text. They were used by Macdonell to help explain the mechanisms of the organization and study of the text in ancient Indian “universities.” Key point in Macdonell’s analysis: For him, the Anukramanis constituted an absolutely essential technical reference guide for converting the huge poem that was the Rigveda into a mathematical and searchable database.

A.B. Keith’s Perspective on the Anukramanis as Canonizing Tools

The Anukramanis represented the last step in this canonization process for Keith. According to him, the Anukramanis were the official stamps on the Vedic texts that officially closed the canon. The Anukramanis were made at the point when the oral tradition grew so large that the priests required an “official table of contents” so that they could have complete control over it. While Müller thought of them as protection against corruption, Keith was inclined to look upon them as devices for creating uniformity so that each of its branches recited the same hymns. Keith was less kind when considering the seers in the Anukramanis. It is said that while some attributions were historically accurate, others were just guesses done systematically. According to Keith, in cases where the original composer of a hymn was lost in antiquity, the composers of the Anukramanis attributed them to some legendary ancestor or the head of the family. What is special about Keith’s approach is that he located the Anukramanis in their role in the Vedic Ritual (Shrauta). The main goal of counting syllables, according to him, was not only to preserve the material but also to make sure that the number of syllables in a chant is accurate with regard to the needs of the rite. The Anukramanis give the “technical data” required by these priests. They are to be seen as part of the Brahmanas, ritual expositions, rather than independent linguistic documents.

Comparing the views of Max Muller, Macdonell, and A.B. Keith

While Max Müller, A.A. Macdonell, and A.B. Keith had different goals in terms of academia, there was one thing on which all of them agreed with each other, namely, the incredible accuracy of the Anukramaṇī indices. They all understood that these were not secondary sources, but rather important safety measures that worked like a “mathematical lock” for the Vedic literature. In particular, by listing exactly how many verses were present in the Sūktams (Nava for Agni Sūktam), along with the meters (Chandas), the authors of the Anukramaṇīs came up with an impeccable way of preserving the integrity of the data and making any additions/deletions impossible without getting noticed. The Sarvānukramaṇī can be seen as a means of combining oral traditions of the past with scholarly analysis of the future since none of these commentaries would have been possible without the metadata provided by Anukramaṇīs (in the case of the commentaries of Sāyaṇācārya).

Finally, all three scholars were in unanimous agreement about the superiority of the writings of Kātyāyana over previous attempts at creating indexes. It was pointed out that the Sarvānukramaṇī was the best example of such an effort that managed to compile tribal and family records into one coherent document. Such common understanding of the nature of the document as “Master Index” allows us to provide the basic scholarly basis for analyzing the Anukramaṇīs in the context of information science.

Analysis of Metadata of the First 10 Suktas of Mandala 1 of the Rig Veda

Sukta	Pratika	Verse count	Rishi	Devatha	Chandas
1.1	Agnimīle	9	Madhuchandā	Agni	Gāyatrī
1.2	Vāyavāyāhi	9	Madhuchandā	Vāyu, Indra-Vāyu, Mitra-Varuṇa	Gāyatrī
1.3	Aśvinā yajvarīr iṣaḥ	12	Madhuchandā	Aśvins, Indra, Viśvedevas, Sarasvatī	Gāyatrī
1.4	Surūpakṛtnum	10	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī
1.5	Indrait	10	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī
1.6	Yuñjanti	10	Madhuchandā	Indra, Maruts	Gāyatrī
1.7	Indramid	10	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī
1.8	Endrasānasim	10	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī
1.9	Indrehi	10	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī
1.10	Gāyanti	12	Madhuchandā	Indra	Gāyatrī

Sukta1.1: Agni Sūktam (RV 1.1)

The information provided by Katyāyana on the Agni Sūktam –

Sūtra: Agnimīle nava Madhuchhandā Vaiśvamitro’gneyam gāyatram.

It is a single Sūtra that provides all the metadata of the hymn in the format of “File Information”:

• Agnimīle (The Pratīka): It is the “Primary Key” that uniquely identifies the hymn.

• Nava (The Extent): It states that the hymn comprises nine verses, which serves the purpose of fixed file size.

• Madhuchhandā Vaiśvamitra (The Ṛṣi): “Author Tag.”

• Agneya (The Devatā): “Subject Tag.”

• Gāyatram (The Chandas): “Structural Format.” It mandates the use of 24 syllables in a verse.

Information Security and “Checksum” Logic

Perhaps the best feature of this data structure was the concept of data integrity.

•Syllable Lock: The determination of the meter of the hymn as being Gāyatrī as well as determining the number of verses to be 9 forms an unchangeable mathematical equation where 9 mantras × 24 syllables = 216 syllables. Thus, if the total number of syllables recited by a student exceeded 216, it would not be accepted.

•Authentication: Later scholars such as Sāyaṇācārya have clearly pointed out that a person chanting a mantra without being aware of the Ṛṣi, Devatā, and Chandas does not earn any merit whatsoever. This was a “security protocol” ensuring the passage on to the next generation of only verified data.

Sūkta 1.2: The Vāyu-Indra-Mitra-Varuṇa Sūktam

• Sūtra: Vāyavāyāhi nava vāyavyādyās tisra indravāyavyā uttarās tisro maitrāvaruṇyaś ca

• Extent: 9 verses (216 syllables).

• Special Case (Multi-Tagging): It is a “Composite File.” The metadata divides up the file as follows:

o Verses 1-3: Vāyu

o Verses 4-6: Indra-Vāyu

o Verses 7-9: Mitra-Varuṇa

• Logic: The system utilizes “pointers” internally to attribute various authors/subjects to one common fixed-length data container.

Sūkta 1.3: The Viśvedevāḥ Sūktam

• Sūtra: Aśvināyajatvarī dvādaśa āśvinyādyās tisra indryā uttarās tisro vaiśvadevyas tisraḥ sārasvatyaś ca

• Extent: 12 verses (288 syllables).

• Subject Tag: Like the preceding sūktas, but includes the Aśvins and Sarasvatī.

• Logic: The “Fixed File Size” becomes 12, indicating the flexibility of the system even as it accommodates greater data volume but maintains the exact format of Gāyatrī.

Sūkta 1.4: The Indra Sūktam (A)

• Sūtra: Surūpakṛtnum daśa aindram