Vol. 4 · pages 156–160

145APPENDIX I Prasna 1, Adhyaya 1, Kandika 1. 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. Sishtas, 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) Sishtas who, in accordance with the sacred law, have studied the Veda together with its appendages, know how to draw references from that, (and) are above to adduce proofs perceptible by the senses from the revealed texts’. 7. On failure of them, an assembly consisting at least of ten members (shall decide disputed points of law). 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 brahamanas belonging to (three different) order, (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).’ 10. ‘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)’. 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”. I.1. “The authority (for these duties) is the agreement (samaya) of these who know the law”. I.2. “And (the authorities for the latter are) the Vedas alone”. I.3. A review of the Dharma Sutras show how this dogma of the infallibility of the Veda is a historical product. It shows that the (1) Veda, (2) Tradition (Smriti), (3) Practice of Sishta and (4) Agreement in an Assembly were the four different authorities about which the controversy as to which of these should be regarded as infallible. 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 Vasistha and Baudhayana. It is only in the time of Gautama

146 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 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. Lastly the review shows that there was a time when 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. That is the period when Apastamba 1 wrote his Dharma Sutras i.e. somewhere between 600 and 200 B.C. 2 It is thus obvious that there was a deliberate attempt to invest the Vedas with an infallible authority which they did not at one time possess and the question is what were the circumstances and the motives which led the Brahmins to propagate the sole and final authority of the Vedas. The second point connected with this subject of infallibility of the Vedas relates to the discrimination made by the Brahmins in limiting the virtue of infallibility to certain Vedic writings only and not extending it to the whole range of them. To understand this point it is necessary to know what is meant by the phrase Vedic literature. The phrase Vedic literature can be used in two senses. In its limited sense it includes (1) The Samhita, (2) The Brahmanas, (3) Aranyakas, (4) Upanishads and (5) Sutras. When used in an extended sense it includes two other heads (6) Itihasas and (7) Puranas. The first thing to note is that there was a time when all these writings were classed in the same category, and no distinction was made between them on the basis of revealed and profane or on the basis of supernatural and human or on the basis of authoritative and nonauthoritative. This is clear from the view expressed in the Satapatha Brahmana which says: “This Male, Prajapati, desired, ‘May I multiply, may I be propagated.’ He toiled in devotion; he practised austere-fervour. Having done so he first of all created sacred knowledge the triple Vedic science. This became a basis for him. Wherefore men say, sacred knowledge is the basis of this universe.’ Hence after studying the veda a man has a standing ground; for sacred knowledge is his foundation. Resting on this basis he (Prajapati) practised austere-fervour. (9) He created the waters from Vach (speech) as their world. Vach was his: She was created. She pervaded all this whatever exists. As she pervaded (apnot) waters were called “apah”. As she covered (avrinot) all, water was called ‘var’. (10) He desired, 1 The reference to the Vedas in the Apastamba Dharma Sutras must not be misunderstood. Apastamba 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. 2 This is the period assigned to the Sutras by Prof. Max-Muller. The Apastamba being the oldest.

147APPENDIX I May I be propagated from these waters. Along with this triple Vedic science he entered the waters. Thence sprang an egg. He gave it an impulse; and said, “Let there be, let there be, let there be again. Thence was first created sacred knowledge, the triple Vedic science. Wherefore men, say, ‘Sacred knowledge is the first-born thing in this universe. Moreover, it was sacred knowledge which was created from that Male in front, wherefore it was created as his mouth. Hence they say of a man learned in the Veda,’ ‘He is like Agni; for sacred knowledge is Agni’s Mouth’.” “As from a fire made of moist wood various modifications of smoke proceed, so is the breathing of this great being. The Rig-Veda, the Yajurveda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvan-girases, the Itihasas, Puranas, science, the Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorims, comments of different kinds—all these are his breathings.” But when the Brahmans sought to establish their dogma of infallibility they made a distinction and divided the Vedic writings in two classes (1) Shruti and (2) Non-Shruti. In the first division they placed only two of them (1) Sanhitas and (2) the Brahmanas and invested them with infallibility. The rest they declared as non-Shruti therefore of no authority. When this distinction, was first made it is not possible to say. One can well understand why the last two categories were excluded from the Shruti part division of the Vedic literature. They were too elementary and too undeveloped and in all probability included in the Brahmanas. One can well understand why the Aranyakas are not specifically mentioned as a part of the Shruti. They are part of the Shruti and must be for the simple reason that they are a part of the Brahmanas. The position of the Upanishads is not clear. But if they are not included in the Shruti one can well understand why they were excluded. But the case of the Sutras stands on a different footing. They are definitely excluded from the category of Shruti and for reasons, which it is not possible to comprehend. If there were good reasons for including the Brahmanas in the category of Shruti the same reasons could not fail to justify the inclusion of the Sutras. As Prof. Max Muller observes: “We can understand how a nation might be led to ascribe a superhuman origin to their ancient national poetry, particularly if that poetry consisted chiefly of prayers and hymns addressed to their gods. But it is different with the prose compositions of the Brahamanas. The reason why the Brahmanas, which are evidently so much more modern than the Mantras, were allowed to participate in

148 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the name of Sruti, could only have been because it was from these theological compositions, and not from the simple old poetry of the hymns, that a supposed divine authority could be derived for the greater ‘number of the ambitious claims of the Brahmans. But, although we need not ascribe any weight to the arguments by which the Brahmans endeavoured to establish the contemporaneous origin of the Mantras and Brahmanas there seems to be no reason why we should reject as equally worthless the general opinion with regard to the more ancient date of both the Brahmanas and Mantras, if contrasted with the Sutras and the profane literature of India. It may easily happen, where there is a cannon of sacred books, that later compositions become incorporated together with more ancient works, as was the case with the Brahmanas. But we can hardly imagine that old and genuine parts should ever have been excluded from a body of sacred writings, and a more modern date ascribed to them, unless it be in the interest of a party to deny the authority of certain doctrines contained in these rejected documents. There is nothing in the later literature of the Sutras to warrant a supposition of this kind. We can find no reason why the Sutras should not have been ranked as Sruti, except the lateness of their date, if compared with the Brahmanas, and still more with the Mantras. Whether the Brahmanas themselves were aware that ages must have elapsed between the period during which most of the poems of their rishis were composed, and the times which gave rise to the Brahmanas, is a question which we need hardly hesitate to answer in the affirmative. But the recklessness with which Indian theologians claim for these Brahmanas the same title and the same age as for the Mantras, shows that the reasons must have been peculiarly strong which deterred them from claiming the same divine authority for the Sutras.” The third point relates to the changes that took place in the scope of the term Shruti and in their infallibility. Manu excludes 1 the “Brahamanas” from the category of Shruti as may be seen from the following extract from his Smriti: “By Sruti is meant the Veda, and by Smriti the institutes of law; the contents of these are not to be questioned by reason, since from them (a knowledge of) duty has shown forth. The Brahman who, relying on rationalistic treatises, shall contemn these two primary 1 some may dispute this on the ground that the word Veda includes ‘Brahmana’ also. This of course is a fact. But it seems to me that Manu uses the term Shruti in a restricted sense so as to exclude the Brahmanas. This is supported by the fact that there is in the Manu Smriti no reference to the Brahmanas except in one place (iv. 100) where he says that only the Mantra portion need be studied.

149APPENDIX I sources of knowledge must be excommunicated by the virtuous as a sceptic and reviler of the Vedas …..13. To those who are seeking a knowledge of duty, the Sruti is the supreme authority.” The fourth point relates to the claim put forth in the Puranas for precedence over the Vedas in the order of creation. The Vayu Purana says 1: “First of all the Shastras, the Purana was uttered by Brahma. Subsequently the vedas issued from his mouth”. The Matsya Purana not only claims priority of creation for the Puranas as against the Vedas, but also the qualities of eternity and identity with sound, which was once predicated of the Vedas alone. It says 2: “Pitamaha (Brahma), first of all the immortals, took shape; then the Vedas with their Angas and Upangas (appendages and minor appendages), and the various modes of their textual arrangement, were manifested. (3) The Purana, eternal, formed of sound, pure, extending to the length of a hundred crores of verses, was the first of the Sastras which Brahma uttered; and afterwards the Vedas, issued from his mouth; and also the Mimansa and the Nyaya with its eightfold system of proofs. (5) From him (Brahma), who was devoted to the study of the Vedas, and desirous of offspring, sprang mindborn sons, so called because they were at first created by his mind.” The Bhagwat Purana claims equality of authority with the Vedas. It says: “(Bramharatra) declared the Purana called the Bhagavata, which stands on an equality with the Veda.” The Brahma-Vaivartta Purana has the audacity to claim superiority over the Vedas. It says: “That about which venerable sage, you have inquired, and which you desire, is all known to me, the essence of the Puranas, the preeminent Brahma-Vaivarta, which refutes the errors of the Puranas and Upapuranas, and the Vedas.” This survey discloses a number of riddles in regard to the Vedas. In addition to the three riddles namely why did the Brahmins insist that the Vedas were eternally pre-existing, that they were non-man, non-God made, that they were infallible. There are other riddles regarding the Vedas which are equally puzzling—The Vedas at one time did not have any precedence or infallibility. Why did the 1 Quoted in Muir Sanskrit Texts Vol. III p. 27. 2 Ibid., p. 28.