Vol. 4 · pages 161–165

150 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Brahmins feel it necessary to give the Vedas this infallibility, why did the Brahmins exclude the Sutras from the term Sruti and why did the Brahmins give up the infallibility of the Vedas and sought to give infallibility to the Puranas? zz

APPENDIX II THE RIDDLE OF THE VEDANTA Of the six schools of philosophy which were expounded by the ancient philosophers of India the most famous is of course the Vedanta philosophy. Not only has it the name but it has also a hold on the Hindus which none of its rivals has ever had. Every follower of the Vedas is proud of the Vedanta. He not only owns it but regards it as the most valuable contribution which India has made to the philosophic thought of the world. He regards Vedanta philosophy as embodying the end or aim of the teachings of the Vedas, a sort of culmination or flowering of the teachings of the Veda. He never suspects that there was any time in the history of India when the Vedanta Philosophy was regarded as repugnant and hostile to the Vedas. He would never believe that there was a time when the word Vedanta had a totally different meaning than the meaning which is now current and according to which the word Vedanta far from being used in the sense of culmination of Vedic thought was used to designate a body of thought contained in a body which was outside the range of the cannonical part of the Vedic literature. Yet that was in fact the case. It is true that this repugnance between the Vedas and the Vedanta does not become manifest from the word Upanishad which is the generic name of the literature on which the Vedanta philosophy came to be built up and about the etymology of which there is a considerable difference of opinion. Most European scholars are agreed in deriving Upanishad from the root sad, to sit down, preceded by the two prepositions ni, down, and upa, near, so that it would express the idea of session, or assembly of public sitting down near a person. As Prof. Max Muller points out there are two objections to the acceptance of this derivation. Firstly such a word, it would seem, would have been applicable to any other This is a 21-page typed first copy entitled ‘The Riddle of the Vedanta’. The chapter seems complete and does not contain any modifications by the author.—Ed.

152 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES portion of the Veda as well as to the chapters called Upanishad, and it has never been explained how its meaning came thus to be restricted. Secondly the word Upanishad, in the sense of session or assembly has never been met with. Whenever the word occurs, it has the meaning of doctrine, secret doctrine, or is simply used as the title of the philosophic treatises which contains the secret doctrine. There is a third explanation noted by Prof. Max Muller proposed by Sankara in his commentary on the Taittiriya-Upanishad II, 9, is that the highest bliss is contained in the Upanishad ( param sreyo’syam nishannam). Regarding this Prof. Max Muller says: “The Aranyakas abound in such etymologies, which probably were never intended as real as plays on words, helping to account somehow for their meaning.” Prof. Max Muller however favours a derivation of the word Upanishad from the root sad to destroy and meant knowledge which destroys ignorance, the cause of Samsara, by revealing the knowledge of Brahma as a means of salvation. Prof. Max Muller points out that this is the meaning which the native scholars have unanimously given to the word Upanishad. If it be granted that this is the true derivation of the word Upanishad it would be one piece of evidence in support of the thesis that there was a time in the history of India when Vedanta was regarded as a system of thought which was repugnant to the Vedas. But it is not necessary to depend upon the help of etymology to support the thesis. There are other evidences better and more direct. In the first place the word Vedanta was never used to denote “the last books of the Vedas” which they are. As observed by Prof. Max Muller 1: “Vedanta as a technical term, did not mean originally the last portions of the Veda, or chapters placed, as it were, at the end of a volume of Vedic literature, but the end, i.e. the object, the highest purpose of the Veda. There are, of course, passages, like the one in the Taittirya-Aranyaka (ed. Rajendra Mitra p. 820), which have been misunderstood both by native and European scholars, and where Vedanta means simply the end of the Veda : yo vedadu svarah prokto vedante ka pratishthitah, ‘the Om which is pronounced at the beginning of the Veda, and has its place also at the end of the Veda”. Here Vedanta stands simply in opposition to Vadadu, it is impossible to translate it, as Sayana does, by Vedanta or Upanishad. Vedanta, in the sense of philosophy, occurs in the Taittiriya-Aranyaka (p. 817), in a verse of the Narayania-Upanishad, repeated in the Mundak-Upanishad III, 2, 6 and 1 The Upanishads (S.B.E.) Vol. I, Introduction p. Ixxxvi.

153APPENDIX II elsewhere Vedantavignansuniskitarhah, ‘those who have well understood the object of the knowledge arising from the Vedanta,’ not ‘from the last books of the Veda’, and Svetasvatara-up. VI, 22, vedante paramam guhyam, ‘the highest mystery in the Vedanta’. Afterwards it is used in the plural also, e.g. Kshurikopanishad, 10 (bibl. Ind. p. 210) pundariketi vedantesfau nigadyate, ‘it is called pundarika in the Vedantas’, i.e. in the Khandogya and other Upanishads, as the commentator says, but not in the last books of each Veda.” More direct evidence on the point is that which is contained in the Gautama Dharma Sutras. In Chapter XIX verse 12 speaks of purification and says1: “The purificatory (texts are), the Upanishads, the Vedantas, the Samhita text of all the Vedas” and so on. From this it is clear that at the date of Gautama the Upanishads were distinguished from Vedantas and were not acknowledged as a part of the Vedic literature. Hardatta in his commentaries says “those parts of the Aranyakas which are not (Upanishads) are called Vedantas”. This is unimpeachable proof that the Upanishads did not come within the range of the Vedic literature and were outside the cannon. This view is also supported by the use of the Veda in the Bhagwat Gita. The word Veda is used in the Bhagwat Gita at several places. And according to Mr. Bhat 2 the word is used in a sense which shows that the author did not include the Upanishads in the term. That the Upanishads were excluded from the cannonical literature of the Vedas is provided by the opposition of the Upanishads to the views preached in the Vedas that the religious observances and sacrifices were the only means of salvation. A few citation from some of the Upanishads will suffice to show their opposition to the Vedas. The Mundaka Upanishad says: “Brahma was produced the first among the gods, maker of the universe, the preserver of the world. He revealed to his eldest son Atharva, the science of Brahma, the basis of all knowledge. (2) Atharvan of old declared to Angis this science, which Brahma had unfolded to him; and Angis, in turn, explained it to Satyavaha, descendent of Bharadvaja, who delivered this traditional lore, in succession, to Angiras. (3) Mahasala Saunaka, approaching Angiras with the proper formalities, inquired, ‘What is that, O venerable sage, through the knowledge of which all this (universe) becomes known?’ (4) (Angiras) answered, ‘Two sciences are to be known— this is what the sages versed in sacred knowledge declared— the superior and the inferior. (5) The inferior (consists of) the Rig-veda, 1 Sacred Books of the East Vol. II. p. 275.

154 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharva-veda, accentuation, ritual, grammar, commentary, prosody, and astronomy. The superior science is that by which the imperishable is apprehended.” The Chhandoyaga Upanishad says: “(1) Narada approached Sanatkumara, saying, ‘Instruct me, venerable sage’. He received for answer, ‘Approach me with (tell me) that which thou knowest; and I will declare to thee whatever more is to be learnt.’ (2) Narada replied, ‘I am instructed, venerable sage, in the Rig-veda, the Sama-Veda, the Yajur-veda, the Atharva-veda (which is) the fourth, the Itihasas and Puranas (which are) the fifth Veda of the Vedas, the rites of the pitris, arithmetic, the knowledge of portents, and of great periods, the art of reasoning, ethics, the science of the gods, the knowledge of scripture, demonology, the science of war, the knowledge of the stars, the science of serpents and deities; this is what I have studied. (3) I, venerable man, know only the hymns (mantras), while I am ignorant of soul. But I have heard from reverend sages like thyself that ‘the man who is acquainted with soul overpasses grief ’. Now, I venerable man, am afflicted; but do thou transport me over my grief. Sanatkumara answered, ‘That which thou hast studied is nothing but name. (4) The Rig-veda is name; and so are the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, the Atharvana, which is the fourth and the Itihasas and Puranas, the fifth Veda of the Vedas, etc. (all the other branches of knowledge are here enumerated just as above), all these are but names; worship name. (5) He who worships name (with the persuasion that it is) Brahma, ranges as it were at will over all which that name comprehends;—such is the prerogative of him who worships name (with the persuation that it is) Brahma. ‘Is there anything venerable man’ asked Narada, ‘Which is more than name?’, ‘There is,’ replied (Sanatkumara), ‘something which is more than name’. ‘Tell it to me’, rejoined Narada.” The Brahadarnyaka Upanishad says: “In that (condition of profound slumber) a father is no father, a mother is no mother, the words are no words, the gods are no gods, and the Vedas are no Vedas, sacrifices are no sacrifices. In that condition a thief is no thief, a murderer of embryos is no murderer of embryos, a Paulakasa no Paulakasa, a Chandala no Chandala, a Sramana no Sramana, a devotee no devotee; the saint has then no relation, either of advantage or disadvantage, to merit or to sin; for he then crosses over all griefs of the heart.” This is what the Katha Upanishad has to say: “This soul is not to be attained by instruction, nor by understanding, nor by much scripture. He is attainable by him