Vol. 4 · pages 166–170

155APPENDIX II whom he chooses. The soul chooses that man’s body as his own abode”. “Although this soul is difficult to know, still it may easily be known by the use of proper means. This is what (the author) proceeds to say. This soul is not to be attained, known by instruction, by the acknowledgement of many Vedas; nor by understanding, by the power of recollecting the contents of books; nor by much scripture alone. By what, then, is it to be attained? This he declares”. How great was the repugnance to the Upanishads and the philosophy contained in them will be realized if one takes note of the origin of the words Anuloma and Pratiloma which are usually applied to the marriage tie among the Hindus. Speaking of their origin Mr. Kane points out that1: “These two words Anuloma and Pratiloma (as applied to marriage or progeny) hardly ever occur in the Vedic literature. In the Br. Up. (II. 1.15) and Kausitaki Br. Up. IV. 18 the word ‘Pratiloma’ is applied to the procedure adopted by a Brahmana of going to a Kshatriya for knowledge about “Brahman”. Anuloma means according to the heir that is in the natural order of things. Pratiloma means against the heir that is contrary to the natural order. Reading the observations of Mr. Kane in the light of the definition of the word Pratiloma it is obvious that the Upanishads far from being acknowledged as part of the Vedic literature were if not despised, held in low esteem by the Vedic Brahmins. It is a riddle to find that the Brahmins who were opponents of the Vedanta should become subsequently the supporters and upholders of the Vedanta. II This is one riddle of the Vedanta. There is another. The Vedantists were not the only opponents of the Vedas and its doctrine of ritualism as a means of salvations. Madhava Acharya the author of the Sarva Darshana Sangraha mentions two other opponents of the Vaidikas, Charvaka and Brahaspati. Their attack on the Vaidikas was quite formidable in its logic and its ….. The opposition of Charvaka can be seen from the following quotation which reproduces his line of argument against the Vaidikas 2: “If you object that, if there be no such thing as happiness in a future world, then how should men of experienced wisdom engage 1 History of Dharmasastra Vol. II. Part I p. 52. 2 Sarva Darshan Sangraha (Translated by Cowell) p. 64.

156 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of money and bodily fatigue. Your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary, since the agnihotra, &c, are only useful as means of livelihood, for the Veda is tainted by three faults of un-truth, self-contradiction, and tautology; then again the impostors who call themselves Vedic pundits are mutually destructive as the authority of the Jnan-kanda is overthrown by those who maintain authority of the Jnan-kanda reject that of the Karmakanda; and lastly, the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent rhapsodes of knaves, and to this effect runs the popular saying: ‘The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes, Brihaspati says, these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense’. rahaspati was far more bold and militant in his opposition to Vaidism. As reported by Madhava Acharya Brihaspati argued 1: “There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world, Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders &c, produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three staves and smearing oneself with ashes, Were made by Nature as the livelihood of those destitute of knowledge and manliness. If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven, Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? If the Sraddha produces gratification to beings who are dead, Then here, too, in the case of travellers when they start, it is needless to give provisions for the journey. While life remains let a man live happily, let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debt. When once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again? If he who departs from the body goes to another world, How is that he comes not back again, restless for love of his kindred ? Hence it is only as a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here. All these ceremonies for the dead,—there is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons. 1 Sarva Darshan Sangraha p. 10.

157APPENDIX II All the well-known formulas of the Pandits, jarphari, turphari, And all the obscene rites for the queen commanded in the Aswamedha, These were invented by buffoons, and so all the various kinds of presents to the priests, While the eating of flesh was similarly commended by night prowling demons.” Why did the Vedic Brahmans compromise with the Vedantists but did not compromise with Charvak and Brihaspati. It is a riddle that awaits explanation. III A third riddle remains to be mentioned. This is its most appropriate place for it has reference to the Vedas and Vedantas, not in their crude form but in the philosophical garb which was given to them by two masters of the art of systematization whose names are quite well known in the history of Sanskrit Literature namely Jaimini and Badarayana, the former as the author of Mimansa and the latter as the author of Brahma Sutras. To them and to their work a reference has already been made in the earlier pages and some idea has been given of their place in the formulation of the Vedik beliefs and Vedantik speculations. What remains to be done is to compare and contrast the attitude which one has towards the philosophy of the other. Starting on this inquiry one is struck by the parallelism between Jaimini and Badarayana in the presentation of the subject matter. As Prof. Belvalkar points out the Vedant Sutras are very closely modelled upon the Karma Sutras. In the matter of methodology and terminology Badarayana very carefully follows Jaimini. He accepts Jaimini rules of interpreting the text of the Shruti. He uses Jaimini’s technical terms in the sense in which they have been used by Jaimini. He uses the very illustrations which are employed by Jaimini. The parallelism shows that Badarayana must have felt that he was the exponent of a rival philosophy which was being attacked by Jaimini and that in replying to the attack he must follow Jaimini’s technique. Question is did Badarayana take the stand of an opponent of Jaimini ? That Jaimini was his opponent Badarayana himself admits, the attitude of Jaimini towards Vedanta. It is stated by Badarayana in his Sutras 2-7 and explained by Shankaracharya in his commentary. Jaimini contends that:

158 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “No one undertakes a sacrificial act unless he is conscious of the fact that he is different from the body and that after death he will go to heaven, where he will enjoy the results of his sacrifices. The Texts dealing with self-knowledge serve merely to enlighten the agent and so are subordinate to sacrificial acts.” In short Jaimini says that all that Vedanta teaches is that self is different from the body and outlives the body. Such a knowledge is not enough. The Self must have the aspiration to go to Heaven. But it can’t go to heaven unless it performs Vedic sacrifices which is what his Karmakand teaches. Therefore his Karmakand is the only way of Salvation and that the Jnankand from that point of view is quite useless. For this Jaimini relies on the conduct of men who have believed in Vedanta 1: “Janaka, emperor of Videha performed a sacrifice in which gifts were freely distributed” (Brih. 3.1.1); “I am going to perform a sacrifice, sirs” (Ch. 5.11.5). Now both Janaka and Asvapati were knowers of the Self. If by this knowledge of the Self they had attained Liberation, there was no need for them to perform sacrifices. But the two texts quoted show that they did perform sacrifices. This proves that it is through sacrificial acts alone that one attains Liberation, and not through the knowledge of the Self as the Vedantins hold.” Jaimini makes a positive assertion that the scriptures unmistakably declare2 “that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts.” Jaimini justifies it because he says 3: “the two (knowledge and work) go together (with the departing soul to produce the results.)” Jaimini refuses to give an independent position to Badarayana’s Jnana kanda. He takes his stands on two grounds. First4 “Knowledge of the Self does not independently produce any result.” Second5 according to the authority of the Vedas “Knowledge (of Self) stands in a subordinate relation to work.” This is the position of Jaimini towards Badaryana’s Jnanakanda. What is the position of Badarayana towards Jaimini and his Karma Kanda? This is explained by Badarayana in Sutras 8 to 17. The first position 6 taken up by Badarayana is that the Self spoken of by Jaimini is the limited self i.e. the soul and is to be distinguished 1. See Badarayana Sutra 3 and Sankara’s comment. 2. Badarayana Sutra 4. 3. See Badarayana Sutra 5. 4. Badarayana Sutra 6. Shankar’s commentary. 5. See Badarayana Sutra 7. Shankar’s commentary. 6. See Badarayana Sutra 8. Shankar’s commentary.

159APPENDIX II from the supreme soul and that the supreme soul is recognized by the Scriptures. The second1 position taken by Badarayana is that the Vedas support both knowledge of Self as well as Sacrifices. The third 2 position taken up by Badarayana is that only those who believe in the Vedas are required to perform Sacrifices. But those who follow the Upanishadas are not bound by that injunction. As Shankaracharya explains: “Those who have read the Vedas and known about the sacrifices are entitled to perform work (sacrifice). No work (sacrifice) is prescribed for those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishads. Such a knowledge is incompatible with work.” The fourth3 position taken up by Badarayana is that Karmakanda is optional to those who have attained Bramhadnan. As Shankaracharya explains: “That some have of their own accord given up all work. The point is that after knowledge some may choose to work to set an example to others, while others may give up all work. There is no binding on the knowers of the Self as regards work”. His last and final 4 position is that: “Knowledge of the Self is antagonistic to all work and so cannot possibly be subsidiary to work.” And as evidence in support of it he relies 5 on the scriptures which recognizes Sannyasa the fourth Ashram and relieves the Sannyasi from performing sacrifices prescribed by the Karma Kand. Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the attitude of the two schools of thought towards each other. But the one given above is enough as it is so very typical. If one stops to consider the matter the position wears a strange appearance. Jaimini denounces Vedanta as a false Shastra, a snare and a delusion, something superficial, unnecessary and unsubstantial. What does Badarayana do in the face of this attack? Does he denounce the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false Shastra, a snare and a delusion, something superficial unnecessary and insubstantial? No. He only defends his own Vedanta Shastra. But one would expect him to do more. One would expect from Badarayana a denunciation of the Karmakanda of Jaimini as a false religion. Badarayana shows no such courage. On the contrary he is very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini’s Karmakanda 1. See Badarayana Sutra 9. 2. See Badarayana Sutra 12. 3. See Badarayana Sutra 15. 4. See Badarayana Sutra 16. 5. See Badarayana Sutra 17.