Vol. 4 · pages 41–45

30 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “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.”

31RIDDLE NO. 5 “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.” 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 the

32 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 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)?

33RIDDLE NO. 5 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.” 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.”

34 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “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.”