I can't reproduce the arguments in Yaska, largely because I don't understand them. I'll quote a little of the commentary of the translator, Lakshman Sarup, and a bit of his translation of the Nirukta.KL Dubey wrote:I never knew there was a point of view in India that claimed "the words in the Veda have no meaning". I said, the "meanings" of the words in the Veda are yet unknown and are not the same as the meanings derived in the Sanskrit language. Yaska discusses Sanskrit, but the Veda is not in Sanskrit.A_Gupta wrote: Yaska has arguments against this point of view that the words in the Veda have no meaning.
Lakshman Sarup tells us:
The translation of the Nirukta, section 1.15 contains:In the fifteenth section of the first chapter of the Nirukta, a critic is introduced in the person of Kautsa, who not only questions the authority of the Vedas, but actually maintains that the Vedic stanzas are meaningless, adducing several arguments in support of his assertion. From the twentieth section of the same chapter it is evident that Yaska believes the Vedic hymns to be revealed, having been handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition, and requiring to be studied with great care; the purpose of his own work being to facilitate this study.
As the Nirukta is one of the six auxiliary treatises of the Veda, it is rather difficult to say with what object Yaska presented and tried to controvert the view of his opponents, for it is inconceivable that the learned theologians would reproduce, in their orthodox books, a controversy which would challenge the most fundamental beliefs of their religion. The reproduction of the Kautsa controversy indicates on the one hand that not only Yaska was endowed with a rationalistic spirit, and was free from bigoted fanaticism, but also that it was possible to carry on such discussions with tolerance at that period of remote antiquity; and implies on the other, that Kautsa was an eminent scholar, or some great personality, or the exponent of some philosophic system, whose thought could not be ignored.
Some however think that Yaska has invented Kautsa as a convenient method of giving expression to Vedic Sceptisism. This view is conjectural, and is not supported by any evidence.
The translation of the Nirukta, section 1.15 begins:`If (the object of the science {of etymology}) is to ascertain the meaning of Vedic stanzas, it is useless,' says Kautsa, 'for the Vedic stanzas have no meaning'; this is to be established by the following arguments...{stuff I don't understand}
The translation + a footnote further tells us that:Vedic stanzas are significant because (their) words are identical (with those of the spoken language).
"playing with their sons and grandsons" from RV X.85.42 is an example of the identity of the words of Vedic stanzas with those of classical Sanskrit.
RV X.85.42, Griffiths translation:
42 Be ye not parted; dwell ye here reach the full time of human life.
With sons and grandsons sport and play, rejoicing in your own abode.