Riddle No. 4: Why suddenly the Brahmans declare the Vedas to be infallible
and not to be questioned?
Ambedkar states that the Brahmins describe the Vedas as apaurusheya (not
man-made) and infallible texts, whose authority cannot be questioned. He
then quotes various Dharma Sutras to illustrate that the Vedas were not
always considered the sole infallible authorities. In the surviving text,
Ambedkar intends to present a quote from the Shatapatha Brahmana, but the
quote and the subsequent discussion is missing.
Extract: From AMBEDKAR BOOK
RIDDLE NO. 4 WHY SUDDENLY THE BRAHMINS DECLARE THE VEDAS TO BE INFALLIBLE
AND NOT TO BE QUESTIONED? To say that the Vedas occupy a very high position
in the Religious literature of the Hindus is to make an understatement. To
say that the Vedas form the sacred literature of the Hindus will also be an
inadequate statement. For the Vedas besides being a sacred literature of
the Hindus is a book whose authority cannot be questioned. The Vedas are
infallible. Any argument based on the Vedas is final and conclusive. There
is no appeal against it. This is the theory of the Vedic Brahmins and is
accepted by the generality of the Hindus. I On what does this theory rest?
The theory rests on the view that the Vedas are Apaurusheya. When the Vedic
Brahmins say that the Vedas are Apaurusheya what they mean is that they
were not made by man. Not being made by man, they are free from the
failings, faults and frailties to which every man is subject and are
therefore infallible. II It is difficult to understand how such a theory
came to be propounded by the Vedic Brahmins. For there was a time when the
Vedic Brahmins themselves thought quite differently on the question of the
authority of the Vedas as being final and conclusive. These Vaidik Brahmins
are no other than the authors of the various Dharma Sutras. The following
are the views expressed by the Dharma Sutras on question of the authority
of the Vedas:
1 To begin with the Gautama Dharma Sutra. It lays down the following
rule on the question of the infallibility of the Vedas.
“The Veda is the source of the sacred law” I-
“And the tradition and practice of those who know the Veda” I-2.
“If authorities of equal force are conflicting, (either may be followed
at) pleasure”
2 I-4. The Vasishtha Dharma Sutra propounds the following view: “The
sacred law has been settled by the revealed texts i.e., Vedas and by the
tradition of the sages” I-4. “On the failure of (rules given in) these (two
sources) the practice of Shishtas (has) authority”.
3 I-5. The views of Baudhayana are given below: Prasna I, Adhyaya I,
Kandika I.
(1) The sacred law is taught in each Veda. (2) We will explain (it) in
accordance with that. (3) (The sacred law), taught in the tradition
(Smriti) stands second. (4) The practice of the Sishtas (stands) third. (5)
On failure of them an Assembly consisting at least of ten members (shall
decide disputed points of law).
3 The view taken by the Apastamba Dharma Sutra is clear from the
following extract from that Sutra: “Now, therefore, we will declare the
acts productive of merit which form part of the customs of daily life”
4 I-1. “The authority (for these duties) is the agreement (samaya) of
those who know the law”. I-2. “And (the authorities for the latter are) the
Vedas alone” I-3. With regard to the Shishtas both the Vasishtha Dharma
Sutra and also the Baudhayana Dharma Sutra have taken particular care to
define who can be regarded as Shishtas. The Vashishta Dharma Sutra says:
“He whose heart is free from desire (is called) a Shishta”. I-6. Baudhayana
goes into much greater details about the qualification of the Shishtas.
This is what he says: “5. Shishtas, forsooth, (are those) who are free from
envy, free from pride, contented with a store of grain sufficient for ten
days, free from covetousness, and free from hypocrisy, arrogance, greed,
perplexity and anger.” “6. Those are called Shishtas who, in accordance
with the sacred law, have studied the Veda together with its appendages,
know how to draw inferences from that (and) are able to adduce proofs
perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts.” Baudhayana has also
something very interesting to say about the assembly whom he authorizes to
decide.
The following are his views on the matter
“8. Now they quote also (the following verses): ‘Four men, who each
know one of the four Vedas, a Mimansaka, one who knows the Angas, one who
recites (the works on) the sacred law, and three Brahmanas belonging to
(three different) orders, constitute an assembly consisting at least of ten
members.”
“9. There may be five, or there may be three, or there may be one
blameless man, who decides (questions regarding) the sacred law. But a
thousand fools (can) not do it).” “As an elephant made of wood, as an
antelope made of leather, such an unlearned Brahmana; those three having
nothing but the name (of their kind)”. This review of Dharma Sutras shows
that the (1) Veda, (2) Tradition (Smriti), (3) Practice of Shishta and (4)
Agreement in an assembly were the four different authorities which were
required to be referred to in the decision of an issue which was in
controversy. It also shows that there was a time when the Vedas were not
the sole infallible authorities. That was the time represented by the
Dharma Sutras of Vashishta and Baudhayana. Apastambha does not invest the
Vedas with any authority at all. Knowledge of Vedas is made by him as an
electoral qualification for membership of the Assembly whose agreed
decision is the law and the only law. The Veda was not at all regarded as a
book of authority and when the only recognized source of authority was an
agreement arrived at in an Assembly of the learned. It is only in the time
of Gautama that the Vedas came to be regarded as the only authority. There
was a time when an agreed decision of the Assembly was admitted as one
source of authority. That is the period represented by Baudhayana. This
conclusion is reinforced by the following quotation from the Satapatha
Brahmana. It says: [Left incomplete. Quotation and further discussion not
given.]
KR: Ambedkar did not quote the Shatapatha Brahamana and also he is
trying to pick a needle from the hay stack. Vedas determine the way of life
theoretically; they do not say the applications of the mind and the body.
Rig vedam speaks about the Yagna; but Yajur vedam alone defined the yagna
Kundams of various shapes wrt the various yagnas. So too the Vedas recite
the mantras. However, how those mantras were to be performed is the Grhya
sutrams. Hence, procedures might vary from place to place while executing
the Vedas. Hence, stated that where there are differences of opinions, who
is the authority to solve the issues are said in all the above sutras. LAWS
DO DIFFER FROM THE ORDERS OF THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAW. DOES NOT
AMBEDKAR THE LAW MAKER KNEW THESE DISTINCTIONS?
Riddle No. 5: Why did the Brahmans go further and declare that the Vedas
are neither made by man nor by god?
Ambedkar states that the Vedas cannot be apaurusheya (not man-made), since
the Anukramanis provide a list of sages who composed the various Vedic
hymns. He also quotes some hymns from the Rig Veda, in which various sages
describe themselves as composers of the hymns. He quotes ancient
philosophers who considered the Vedas as authoritative because they were a
product of competent and intelligent humans, thus confirming their
non-divine origin. Ambedkar then discusses Jaimini's "absurd" explanations
for the claim that the "Vedas are eternal and not made by man, not even by
God." He questions why did the Brahmins like Jaimini make such "desperate"
attempts to establish "a desperate conclusion".
Extract: from Ambedkar book
RIDDLE NO. 5 WHY DID THE BRAHMINS GO FURTHER AND DECLARE THAT THE VEDAS ARE
NEITHER MADE BY MAN NOR BY GOD?
The Vedic Brahmins were not content with investing the Vedas with
Infallibility. They went further and asserted that the Vedas were
Apaurusheya. By this they meant the Vedas were not made by man. This
doctrine no doubt leads to the doctrine of Infallibility. For not being
made by man they are free from the failings, faults and frailties of man
and are therefore infallible. All the same it is necessary to examine the
theory separately for it is an independent theory. Is there really no human
author of the Vedas? Are they really Apaurusheya? The best evidence on the
subject is the evidence of the Anukramanis— a special class of literature
which forms part of the ancient Sanskrit literature. What are called
Anukramanis are nothing but systematic indices to various portions of the
ancient Vedic literature.
{{{Anukramani (अनुक्रमणी): —[=*Anukramani*] [from *anu-kram*] f. a table or
chapter of contents, index to a collection of Vedic hymns (giving the first
word of each hymn, the number of verses, name and family of poets, names of
deities and meters).}}}
{{{1 Rig Vedic Anukramani There are a total of 10,552 verses in the Rig
Veda. Each verse is assigned with a devata label. Although most hymns are
associated with a single devata, for example, Agni, there are many hymns
where a verse has more than one devata labels. Some have two devatas
addressed in dual tense, for example, Indragni, i.e., Indra and Agni.
Similarly, a verse generally has only a single rsi, but can have multiple r
.s .is rarely. There is always a unique chandas of a hymn by definition of
a meter. An example line from Anukramani from first Mandala and its
annotation is demonstrated as follows: (27) saptavim samsuktam (1-13)
trayoda´sarcasy¯asyasuktasy¯ajigartih . ´sunah . ´sepa r .s .ih . | (1-12)
pratham¯adidvada´sarcam agnih . (13) trayoda´sy¯a´sca dev¯a devat¯ah . |
(1-12) prathamadidvadasarcamgayatr¯ i (13) trayoda´sy¯a´ sca tris .t .up
chandas¯ i The annotation for the above is: 27.13.¯ajigartih . ´ sunahsepah
. .(1-12)agnih . ,(13)devah . .(1-12)gayatri,(13)tristup The fields of
hymn, verse, r .s .i, devat¯a and chandas are separated by a period,
whereas muliple entries within a field are seperated by a comma. This
yields a format that can be easily processed in an automated fashion. It
can be seen that the original anukraman . ¯ i, even if made available in a
machine-readable format, requires manual annotation since the sentences are
in a natural language, whose processing would, in turn, require a gold
standard. For example, Raksoghna Agni is labeled as only Agni. However,
although the classes labeled Soma and Pavamana Soma may look like one one,
we leave them unmerged since there is a subtle difference between the two
classes. The hymns of Pavamana Soma almost always invoke the purifying
nature of Soma like Somahpavate which is not the case with the class
labeled just Soma. Additionally, the several Danastutis or the praises of
patrons are labeled as just Danastuti without the names of the patrons like
Paijavana Sudas. This produces an overall list of 216 labels. From this
data, we consider the labels with at least 30 instances or verses for the
classification task. This brings the label count down to 28. The number of
instances corresponding to these 28 labels is 909,496, which is still a
fairly large size. We keep aside 15% of the data consisting of 1,424 hymns
as the test set. The rest of the data is split using a 90:10 ratio into
training (7,265 hymns) and validation (807 hymns) sets. The splits are done
in a stratified manner.}}}
Every Veda has an Anukramani, sometimes have more than one Anukramani.
Seven Anukramanis for the Rig-Veda are known to be in existence, five by
Shaunaka, one by Katyayana and one by an unknown author. For the Yajur-Veda
there exist three Anukramanis, one for each of the three Shakhas, Atreyi,
Charayaniyas and Madhyandina. For the Sama-Veda there are two Anukramanis,
one is called Arsheya-Brahmana and the other is known by the name
Parishistas. As to the Atharva-Veda one Anukramani is known to exist. It is
known as Brihat-Sarvanukramani. The most perfect Anukramani according to
Prof. Max Muller is Katyayana’s Sarvanukramani to the Rig-Veda. Its
importance lies in the fact that it gives (1) the first words of each hymn,
(2) the number of verses, (3) the name and the family of the Rishi who
composed it, (4) the names of the deities and (5) the metres of every
verse. What emerges from a reference to the Sarvanukramani is that the
Rishis are the authors of the hymns which make up the Rig-Veda. The
Rig-Veda therefore on the evidence of the Anukramani cannot but be regarded
as a man-made work. The same must be the conclusion regarding the other
Vedas. That the Anukramanis are realistic is proved by many passages in the
Rig-Veda in which the Rishis describe themselves as the composers of the
hymns. Below are given a few of such passages: “The Kanvas make a prayer to
you, hear well their invocation’. Thus, O, Indra, yoker of steeds, have the
Gotamas made hymns for these efficaciously” “This hymn has efficaciously
been made to you, O opulent Asvins, by the Manas” “These magnifying
prayers, (this) hymn, O Asvins, the Gritsamadas have made for you”
“Aspiring to heaven, the sage Kusikas have made a hymn with praises to
thee, O Indra.” “Nodhas, descendant of Gotama, fashioned this new hymn for
(thee), Indra, who are of old, and who yokest thy steeds” “Thus O, hero,
have the Gritsamadas, desiring succour, fashioned for thee a hymn as men
make works.” “The sages generated an efficacious production and a prayer
for Indra.” “These hymns, Agni, generated for thee, celebrate thy bounty in
cows and horses.” “Our father hath discovered (or invented) this great,
sevenheaded hymn, born of sacred truth; Ayasya, friend of all men
celebrating Indra, has generated the fourth song of praise.” “We, the
Raghuanas, have uttered to Agni honied speech; we incessantly laud him with
eulogies.” “Thus, all ye Adityas, Aditi, and ye ruling powers, has the wise
son of Plati magnified you. The celestial race has been lauded by the
immortal Gaya.” “He it is whom they call a rishi, a priest, a pious
sacrificer, a chanter of prayers, a reciter of hymns, he it is who knows
the three bodies of the brilliant (Agni), the man who is most prominent in
bestowing gifts.” Apart from the evidence of the Anukramanis there is
another sort of evidence which militates against the theory of the Vedas
being Apaurusheya. The Rishis themselves have treated the Vedas as a human
and as a historical product. The hymns of Rig-Veda distinguish between
ancient and modern Rishis. Here are a few of them: “Agni, who is worthy to
be celebrated by former as well as modern rishis, will bring the gods
hither.” “The former rishis who invoked thee for succour. “Hear the hymn of
me this modern sage, of this modern (sage).” “Indra, as thou hast been like
a joy to former worshippers who praised thee, like waters to the thirsty, I
invoke thee again and again with this hymn.” “The ancient rishis,
resplendent and sage, have placed in front of them (Brihaspati) with
gladdening tongue.” “Neither the ancients nor later men, nor any modern
man, has attained to (conceived) thy prowess, O, Madhavan.” “As (Indra’s)
former worshippers were, (may we be) blameless, irreproachable, and
unharmed.” “For, now, O energetic god, men are thy worshippers as the
ancients born of old and the men of the middle and later ages have been thy
friends, And O, much-invoked think of the most recent of all. “To Him
(Indra) our ancient fathers, the seven Navagava sages desiring food,
(resorted) with their hymns.” “Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou bring
to us wealth and food with progeny.” A closer study of the Rig-Veda will
show that the Rig-Veda itself makes a distinction between old hymns and new
hymns. Some of them are given below: “Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou
bring to us wealth and food and progeny.” “Agni thou hast announced (or do
thou announcest) among the gods this our offering, our newest hymn.”
“Through our new hymns, do thou, vigorous in action, destroyer of cities,
sustain us with invigorating blessings.” “I bring to Agni, the son of
strength, a new and energetic hymn, a production of thought uttered by the
voice (vachah).” “I present to the mighty protector a mental production, a
new utterance (now) springing up” “May the new prayer impel thee, the
heroic well-accourted, the loudthundering to succour us.” “I seek like the
ancients, to stimulate thee, the ancient, with a new hymn.” “May the new
hymns made to praise you, may these prayers gratify you.” “ Sing O,
Sobhari, with a new hymn to these youthful, vigorous, and brilliant (gods)
“Indra, slayer of Vritra, thunderer, invoked of many, we (thy) numerous
(worshippers) bring to thee, as thy hire, hymns which never before
existed.” “I will address to this ancient (deity) my new praises which he
desires; May he listen to us” “Desiring horses, cattle, and wealth we
invoke thee to approach us.” 31 Given this abundance of evidence to prove
the human origin of the Vedas it is a riddle to find that the Brahmins
should so strenuously propagate this extravagant view that the Vedas are
not man made. What made the Brahmins propagate such a view? Notwithstanding
this there were eminent philosophers who were prepared to accept the
authority of the Vedas although they were not prepared to admit that the
Vedas were Sanatan or Apaurush. The Gautama the founder of what is called
the Nyaya system of Philosopy said: “The authority of the Veda, like that
of the formulas, and the Ayur-Veda (treatise on medicine) follows from the
authority of the competent persons from whom they proceeded. Since the
competent maker of the Veda possesses authority, inculcates truth, it
results from the force of the terms that the Veda was uttered by a person
of this character; and by this reasoning the authority of the Veda is to be
inferred. He illustrates this by the case of the formulas and the
Ayur-Veda. By formulas (mantra) are meant the sentences which neutralize
poison etc., and the section containing the Ayur-Veda forms part of the
Veda. Now as the authority of these two classes of writings is admitted by
general consent, the authority of everything which possess the
characteristics of the Veda must be inferred from this example. Some,
however, explain the aphorism thus; a Veda is that in which authority is
found or recognized. From such Vedicity (or Possession of the character of
a Veda) the authority of any work is to be inferred.” The Vaishashika
system admits that the Vedas are authoritative. But the grounds on which it
rests its conclusion are: (1) That the Vedas are the product of an
intelligent mind and (2) That they have been uttered by God. Therefore they
are authoritative. The Sankhya system founded by Kapila held the view that
eternity cannot be predicated of the Vedas, since various texts in the
Vedas themselves declare them to have been produced. It expressly denies
that the Vedas originated from the conscious effort of any divine being.
According to the Sankhya, the Vedas like the Sun shine by their own light,
and evince an inherent power both of revealing their own perfection and of
elucidating all other things, past and future, great and small, near and
remote. The system of Philosophy known as Vedanta seems to support two
distant views. It ascribes the origin of the Vedas to Brahma as its source
or cause of source using the term Brahma as neuter denoting the supreme
spirit and not as masculine designating the personal creator. It also
speaks of the eternity of the Vedas and makes mention of a self-dependent
author. The Brahmins did not remain content with the argument that the
Vedas were not made by man. They went much further and contended that the
Vedas were not made even by God. This theory is propounded by Jaimini the
author of the Purva Mimansa. Jaimini’s arguments in favour of the thesis
are so strange that one has to know them in order to realize their
strangeness. It is in the Purva Mimansa— a book of Brahmanic philosophy—
that this doctrine of the Vedas being Apaurusheya is propounded. The
following extracts from the book will reveal the nature of the argument.
Jaimini the author of the Purva Mimamsa first deals with the argument of
the Naiyayikas who assert that the Vedas are made by Parameshwara and
states the case made out by the Naiyayikas. The argument of the Mimansakas
is: “The Veda could not have been uttered by the incorporeal Paramesvara
(God), who has no palate or other organs of speech, and therefore cannot be
conceived to have pronounced the letters (of which it is composed.). This
objection (answers the Naiyayika) is not happy, because, though Paramesvara
is by nature incorporeal, he can yet, by way of sport assume a body, in
order to show kindness to his devoted worshippers. Consequently, the
arguments in favour of the doctrine that the Veda had no personal author
are inconclusive.” He then proceeds to state his arguments in favour of the
Doctrine of the Mimansakas— “I shall now clear up all these difficulties.
What is meant by this paurusheyatva (‘derivation from a personal author’)
which it is sought to prove? Is it (1) mere procession (utpannatva) from a
person (purusha) like the procession of the Veda from persons such as
ourselves, when we daily utter it? or (2) is it the arrangement— with a
view to its manifestation—of knowledge acquired by other modes of proof, in
the sense in which persons like ourselves compose a treatise? If the first
meaning be intended, there will be no dispute. If the second sense be
meant, I ask whether the Veda is proved (to be authoritative) in virtue (a)
of its being founded on inference, or (b) of its being founded on
supernatural information (agama-balat)? The former alternative (a) i.e.,
that the Veda derives its authority from being founded on inference cannot
be correct, since this theory breaks down, if it be applied to the sentence
of the Malati Madhava or any other secular poem (which may contain
inferences destitute of authority). If, on the other hand, you say (b) that
the contents of the Veda are distinguished from those of other books of
having authority, this explanation also will fail to satisfy a philosopher.
For the word of the Veda is (defined to be) a word which proves things that
are not provable by any other evidence. Now if it could be established that
this Vedic word did nothing more than prove things that are provable by
other evidence, we should be involved in the same sort of contradiction as
if a man were to say that his mother was a barren woman. And even if we
conceded that Parameswara might in sport assume a body, it would not be
conceivable that in that case he should perceive things beyond the reach of
the senses, from the want of any means of apprehending objects removed from
him in place, in time, and in nature. Nor is it to be thought that his eyes
and other sense alone would have the power of producing such knowledge,
since men can only attain to conceptions corresponding with what they have
perceived. This is what has been said by the Guru (Prabhakara) when he
refutes this supposition of an omniscient author; ‘Wherever any object is
perceived (by the organ of sight) in its most perfect exercise, such
perception can only have reference to the vision of something very distant
or very minute, since no organ can go beyond its own proper objects, as
e.g., the ear can never become cognizant of form’. Hence the authority of
the Veda does not arise in virtue of any supernatural information acquired
by the Deity in a corporeal shape.” 33 These are arguments urged by Jaimini
to destroy the case of the Naiyayikas. Jaimini then proceeds to give his
positive arguments to show why the Vedas are not the word of God but
something superior to that. This is what he says: “In the preceding
aphorism it was declared that the connection of words and their meanings is
eternal. Desiring now to prove that this (eternity of connection) is
dependent on the eternity of words (or sound), he begins by setting forth
the first side of the question, viz., the doctrine of those who maintain
that sound is not eternal.” “Some, i.e., the followers of the Nyaya
philosophy, say that sound is a product, because we see that it is the
result of effort, which it would not be if it were eternal.” “That it is
not eternal, on account of its transitoriness, i.e., because after a moment
it ceases to be perceived.” “Because, we employ in reference to it the
expression ‘making’ i.e., we speak of ‘making’ a sound.” “Because it is
perceived by different persons at once, and is consequently in immediate
contact with the organs of sense of those, both far and near, which it
could not be if it were one and eternal.” “Because sounds have both an
original and a modified form; as e.g., in the case of dadhi atra, which is
changed into dadhy atra, the original letter ‘ i ’ being altered into ‘ y ’
by the rules of permutation. Now, no substance which undergoes a change is
eternal.” “Because sound is augmented by the number of those who make it.
Consequently the opinion of the Mimansaka, who say that sound is merely
manifested, and not created, by human effort, is wrong; since even a
thousand manifesters do not increase the object which they manifest, as a
jar is not made larger by a thousand lamps.” These objections against the
Mimansaka theory that sound is manifested, and not created, by those who
utter it, are now answered by Jaimini. Says Jaimini: “But, according to
both schools, viz., that which holds sound to be created, and that which
regards it as merely manifested, the perception of it is alike momentary.
But of these two views, the theory of manifestation is shown in the next
aphorism to be the correct one.” “The non-perception at any particular
time, of sound, which, in reality, perpetually exists, arises from the fact
that the utterer of sound has not come into contact with his object i.e.,
sound. Sound is eternal, because we recognize the letter ‘k’, for instance,
to be the same sound which we have always heard, and because it is the
simplest method of accounting for the phenomenon to suppose that it is the
same. The still atmosphere which interferes with the perception of sound,
is removed by the conjunctions and disjunctions of air issuing from a
speaker’s mouth, and thus sound (which always exists, though unperceived)
becomes perceptible. This is the reply to the objection of its
‘transitoriness’. “The word, ‘making’ sounds; merely means employing or
uttering them.” “One sound is simultaneously heard by different persons,
just as one Sun is seen by them at one and the same time, Sound like the
Sun is a vast, and not a minute object, and thus may be perceptible by
different persons, though remote from one another.” “The letter ‘y’, which
is substituted for ‘i’ in the instance referred to under Sutra 10, is not a
modification of ‘i’, but a distinct letter. Consequently, sound is not
modified.” “It is an increase of ‘noise’, not of sound, that is occasioned
by a multitude of speakers. The word ‘noise’ refers to the ‘conjunctions’
and ‘disjunctions’ of the air which enter simultaneously into the hearer’s
ear from different quarters; and it is of these that an increase takes
place.” “Sound must be eternal, because its utterance is fitted to convey a
meaning to other persons. If it were not eternal (or abiding), it would not
continue till the hearer had learned its sense, and thus he would not learn
the sense, because the cause had ceased to exist.” “Sound is eternal,
because it is in every case correctly and uniformly recognized by many
persons simultaneously; and it is inconceivable that they should all at
once fall into a mistake.” “When the word ‘go’ (cow) has been repeated ten
times, the hearers will say that the word ‘go’ has been ten times
pronounced, not that ten words having the sound of ‘go’ have been uttered;
and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the eternity of sound. “Sound
is eternal, because we have no ground for anticipating its destruction.
“But it may be urged that sound is a modification of air, since it arises
from its conjunctions, and because the Siksha (or Vedanga treating of
pronunciation) says that ‘air arrives at the condition of sound’ and as it
is thus produced from air, it cannot be eternal.” A reply to this
difficulty is given in Sutra 22. “Sound is not a modification of air,
because if it were, the organ of hearing would have no appropriate object
which it could perceive. No modification of air (help by the Naiyayikas to
be tangible) could be perceived by the organ of hearing, which deals only
with intangible sound.” “And the eternity of sound is established by the
argument discoverable in the Vedic text, ‘with an eternal voice, O Virupa’.
Now, though this sentence had another object in view, it, nevertheless,
declares the eternity of language, and hence sound is eternal.” 35 Such is
the argument by Jaimini in favour of his thesis that the Vedas are eternal
and not made by man, not even by God. The bases on which his thesis rests
are simple. Firstly God has no body and no palate and therefore he could
not utter the Vedas. Secondly, Assuming God had a body, God could not
perceive things which are beyond the reach of the senses while the Vedas
contain things beyond the reach of human senses. Thirdly, The connection
between a word and its meaning is eternal. Fourthly, Sound is eternal.
Fifthly, Because sound is eternal words which are made up of sounds are
also eternal. Sixthly Because words are eternal therefore the Vedas are
eternal and because the Vedas are eternal they are not made by man nor by
God. What can one say of these premises? Can there be anything more absurd?
Who can accept that the Vedas contain something not comprehensible by human
senses ? Who can accept that there is an eternal connection between a word
and its meaning ? Who can accept that sound is not created nor manifested
but is eternal ? Having regard to these absurd premises one is led to ask
why did the Brahmins make such a desperate attempt for establishing a
desperate conclusion? What did they want to gain thereby? Was it because
the Vedas had been made the exponent of the Chaturvarna with the Brahmins
as the Lord of all?
K RAJARAM IRS 31525
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZopTn6ty-Wn8h5QUWSfFsjscRUUSNx0Rt2F%2BHnPV-%3DciWA%40mail.gmail.com.
