Vol. 3 · pages 261–265

248 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Who is this Badarayana? Why did he compose these Sutras and when did he compose them? Beyond the name nothing is known about Badarayana.1 It is not even certain that it is the real name of the author. There is a considerable uncertainty regarding the authorship of these Sutras even among his chief commentators. Some say that the author is Badarayana. Others say that the author of the Sutra is Vyas. The rest say that Badarayana and Vyas are one and the same person. Such is the bewildering conflict of opinion regarding the author of the Sutras. Why did he compose these Sutras ? That the Brahmins should undertake to systematize the Karmakand portion of the Vedic literature one can quite understand. The Brahmins were deeply concerned with the Karmakand. Their very existence, their livelihood depended upon the systematization of the Karmakand portion of the Vedic literature. The Brahmins on the other hand had no interest in the ‘Gnankand’ portion of the Vedic literature. Why should they have made an attempt to systematize it? The question has not even been raised. But it is an important question and the answer to that must also be very important. Why the question is important and what the answer is I shall discuss later on. There are two other questions with regard to the Vedanta Sutras. First is this. Is this work theological in character or is it purely philosophical in its nature? Or is it an attempt to tie down pure philosophy to the apron strings of established theology and thereby to make it innocuous and harmless. The other question relates to the commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras. There have been altogether five commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras by five eminent men all of whom are called Acharyas (doctors of learning) by reason of their intellectual eminence. They are (1) Shankaracharya (788 A.D. to 820 A.D.), (2) Ramanujacharya (1017 A.D. to 1137 A.D.), (3) Nimbarkacharya (died about 1162 A.D.), (4) Madhavacharya (1197-1276 A.D.) and (5) Vallabhacharya (born 1417 A.D.). The commentaries of these Acharyas on the Vedanta Sutras have become far more important than the Vedanta Sutras. The point of some significance is that on the text of one and the same collection of the Vedanta Sutras, an attempt has been made by those five Acharyas to found five different systems of thought. According to Shankara, the Vedanta Sutras teach absolute monism. According to Ramanuja, qualified monism. According to 1 The same is true of Jaimini. As Kane says “Hardly anything is known about Jaimini. There is a Brahmana, a Srauta Sutra and a Grihyasutra ascribed to Jaimini. But it is hardly likely that they are the works of the founder of the Purvamimansa. In the tarpana in the Asvalayan Grihya Sutra Jaimini occurs along with Sumantu, Vaishyampayana. In the Bhagwat Purana Jaimini is said to be the teacher of Sumantu and a promulgator of Samaveda. The Panchatantra tells us that an elephant crushed to death Jaimini—the author of the Mimansa. “A brief sketch of the Purva Mimansa System”, p. 12.

249 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM Nimbarka, monodualism. According to Madhava, dualism and according to Vallabha, pure monism. I will not discuss here what these terms mean. All I want to say is why should five different schools should have arisen as a result of five different interpretation of the same collection of Sutras. Is it a mere matter of grammar ? Or is there any other purpose behind these several interpretations. There is also another question which arises out of the plurality of commentaries. While there are Five different commentaries each propounding five different ways of looking at God and the individual soul really speaking there are only two, the view taken by Shankaracharya and the view taken by the other four. For though the four differ among themselves, they are all united in their opposition to Shankaracharya on two points (1) The complete oneness between God and individual soul and (2) the world is an illusion. Here comes the third question. Why did Shankaracharya propound so unique a view of the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana ? Is it the result of a critical study of the Sutras ? Or is it a wishful interpretation designed to support a preconceived purpose ? I am only raising this question, I don’t propose to deal with them here. Here I am concerned with the age of this literature, is it Pre-Buddhist or Post-Buddhist. As to the date of the composition of the Vedanta Sutras the initial difficulty is that like the Bhagwat Gita it has also gone through several recensions. According to some 1 there have been three recensions of the Vedanta Sutras. That being so nothing definite can be said regarding the date of its composition. 2 The views expressed are only approximations. There can be no doubt that the Vedanta Sutras are composed after the rise of Buddhism for the Sutras do allude to Buddhism. They must not be after Manu for Manu refers to them in his Smriti. Prof. Keith holds that they must have been written about 200 A.D. and Prof. Jacobi believes that the Sutras must have been composed between 200 A.D. and 450 A.D. (3) MAHABHARATA The question of determining the date of the composition of the Mahabharata is next to impossible. Only an attempt to fix the period of its composition can be made. The Mahabharata has undergone three editions and with each editor the title and subject matter has changed. In its original form it was known as ‘Jaya’ Triumph. This 1 See Belvalkar, Basu Mallick Lectures on Vedanta Lecture IV. 2 See Radhakrishnan—Indian Philosophy Vol. II p. 430 where the relevant evidence is collected together.

250 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES original name occurs even in the third edition, both in the beginning as well as in the end. The original edition of the book known as ‘ Jaya’ was composed by one Vyas. In its second edition it was known as Bharat. The editor of this second edition was one Vaishampayana. Vaishampayana’s Edition was not the only second edition of the Bharata. Vyas had many pupils besides Vaishampayana; Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and Shuka were his other four pupils. They all had learned at the feet of Vyas. Each one of them produced his own edition. Thus there were four other editions of Bharata. Vaishampayana recast the whole and brought out his own version. The third Editor is Sauti. He recast Vaishampayana’s version of Bharata. Sauti’s version ultimately came to have the name of Mahabharata. The book has grown both in size and in the subject matter as well. The ‘Jaya’ of Vyas was a small work having not more than 8,800 Shlokas. In the hands of Vaishampayana it grew into 24,000 verses. Sauti expanded it to contain 96,836 Shlokas. As to subject matter, the original as composed by Vyas was only a story of the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. In the hands of Vaishampayana the subject became two-fold. To the original story there was added the sermon. From a purely historical work it became a diadactic work aiming to teach a right code of social, moral and religious duties. Sauti the last Editor made it an all embracing repository of legendary lore. All the smaller floating legends and historical stories which existed independently of the Bharata were brought together by Sauti so that they might not be lost or that they may be found together. Sauti had another ambition, that was to make the Bharata a storehouse of learning and knowledge. This is the reason why he added sections on all branches of knowledge, such as politics, geography, archary etc. Taking into account Sauti’s habit of repetition it is no wonder that the Bharata in his hand became Mahabharata. Now as to the date of its composition. There is no doubt that the war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas is a very ancient event. But that does not mean that the composition of Vyas is as old as the event or contempraneous with the event. It is difficult to assign specific dates to the different editions. Taking it as a whole Prof. Hopkins says:1 “The time of the whole Mahabharata generally speaking may then be from 200-400 A.D. This, however, takes into account neither subsequent additions, such as we know, to have been made in later times, nor the various recasting in verbal form, which may safely be assumed to have occurred at the hands of successive copyists.” 1 Prof. Hopkins, “The Great Epic of India”, p. 389.

251 LITERATURE OF BRAHMINISM But there are other circumstances which definitely point to a later date. The Mahabharata contains a reference to the Huns. It was Skandagupta who fought the Huns and defeated them in or about the year 455. Notwithstanding this, the invasions of the Huns continued till 528 A.D. It is obvious that the Mahabharata was being written about this time or thereafter. There are other indications pointed out by Mr. Kausambi’ which suggest a much later date. The Mahabharata refers to the Mlenchhas or the Muslims. In the 190th Adhyaya of the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, there is a verse 29 wherein the author says that “the whole world will be Islamic. All Aryan rites and ceremonies and religious celebrations will cease”. This is a direct reference to the Muslims and although the verse speaks of what is to happen in the future, the Mahabharata being a Purana must as in the case of the Purana be taken to speak of the event has happened. This verse so interpreted show that the Mahabharata was being written after the date of the Muslim invasions of India. There are other references which point to the same conclusion. In the same Adhyaya verse 59 it is said that “Oppressed by the Vrashalas, the Brahmins struck with fear, and finding no one to protect them will roam all over the world-groaning and crying in agony”. The Vrashalas referred to in this verse cannot be the Buddhists. There is no particle of evidence that the Brahmins were ever oppressed. On the contrary the evidence is that the Brahmins during the Buddhist regimes were treated with the same liberality as the Buddhist Bhikshus. The reference to the Vrashalas which means the uncultured must be to the Islamic invaders. If that is so, then part of the Mahabharata was certainly composed after the Muslim invasions of India began. There occur other verses in the same Adhyaya of the Vanaparva which points to the same conclusion. They are 65, 66 and 67. In these verses it is said that “Society will become disarranged. People will worship Yedukas. They will boycott Gods. The Shudras will not serve the twice born. The whole world will be covered with Yedukas. The Yug will come to an end”. Great significance attaches to the term ‘ Yedukas’. By some it has been taken to mean a Buddhist Chaitya, on the ground that Yeduka means bone and particularly the bones of Buddha and subsequently Chaitya because a Chaitya contains the bones of the Buddha. But according to Mr. Kausambi 2 this is wrong. Nowhere either in the 1 Hindi Sanskriti Ani Ahimsa (Marathi).

252 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Buddhist literature or in the Vedic literature is the word Yeduka used in the sense of ‘Chaitya’. On the contrary, according to Amarkosh as commented upon by Maheshwar Bhatt, the word Yeduka means a wall which contains a wooden structure to give it strength. So understood Kausambi contends that the word Yeduka must mean ‘Idgaha’ of the Musalmans before which they say their prayers. If this is a correct interpretation then it is obvious that part of the Mahabharata was written after the Muslim invasions, particularly after those of It Mohammad Ghori. The first Muslim invasion took place in 721 A.D. under Ibne Kassim. He captured some of the towns in Northern India but did not cause much destruction of Temples and Viharas and massacred priests of both the religions. But he did not engage himself in building Mosques or Idgahas. That was done by Mahammad Ghori. So that, it can well be said, that the writing of the Mahabharata was going on till 1200 A.D. RAMAYANA It is a fact that like Mahabharata, the Ramayana has also gone through three editions. There are two sorts of references to the Ramayana in the Mahabharata. In one case the reference is to Ramayana without any mention of the author. The other reference is to the Ramayana of Valmiki. But the present Ramayana is not the Ramayana of Valmiki. 1 In the opinion of Mr. C. V. Vaidya 2: “That the present Ramayana, even as it is approved and adopted by the searching and all-respected commentator Kataka, is not the Ramayana originally written by Valmiki, not even the most orthodox thinker will be disposed to doubt. Whoever even cursorily reads the poem, cannot but be struck with the inconsistencies, the severances of connections, juxtapositions of new and old ideas which abound so greatly in the present Ramayana, whether we take the Bengal or the Bombay text of it. And one cannot but come to the conclusion that the Ramayana of Valmiki was substantially reconstructed at some subsequent date.” As in the case of the Mahabharata, there has been an accretion to the subject matter of the Ramayana. Originally it was just a story of the war between Rama and Ravana over the abduction of Rama’s wife Sita by Ravana. In the second edition it became a story with a sermon. From a purely historical work, it also became a didactic work aiming to teach a right code of Social, Moral and religious duties. When it 1 Hopkins “The Great Epic of India”. p. 62. 2 The Riddle of the Ramayana Chap. II. p. 6.