Vol. 4 · pages 46–50

35RIDDLE NO. 5 “The letter ‘y’, which is substituted for ‘i’ in the instance referred to under Sutra 10, is not a modification of ‘ i’, but a distinct letter. Consequently, sound is not modified.” “It is an increase of ‘noise’, not of sound, that is occasioned by a multitude of speakers. The word ‘noise’ refers to the ‘conjunctions’ and ‘disjunctions’ of the air which enter simultaneously into the hearer’s ear from different quarters; and it is of these that an increase takes place.” “Sound must be eternal, because its utterance is fitted to convey a meaning to other persons. If it were not eternal (or abiding), it would not continue till the hearer had learned its sense, and thus he would not learn the sense, because the cause had ceased to exist.” “Sound is eternal, because it is in every case correctly and uniformly recognised by many persons simultaneously; and it is inconceivable that they should all at once fall into a mistake.” “When the word ‘ go’ (cow) has been repeated ten times, the hearers will say that the word ‘ go’ has been ten times pronounced, not that ten words having the sound of ‘ go’ have been uttered ; and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the eternity of sound. “Sound is eternal, because we have no ground for anticipating its destruction. “But it may be urged that sound is a modification of air, since it arises from its conjunctions, and because the Siksha (or Vedanga treating of pronunciation) says that ‘air arrives at the condition of sound’ and as it is thus produced from air, it cannot be eternal.” A reply to this difficulty is given in Sutra 22. “Sound is not a modification of air, because if it were, the organ of hearing would have no appropriate object which it could perceive. No modification of air (help by the Naiyayikas to be tangible) could be perceived by the organ of hearing, which deals only with intangible sound.” “And the eternity of sound is established by the argument discoverable in the Vedic text, ‘with an eternal voice, O Virupa’. Now, though this sentence had another object in view, it, nevertheless, declares the eternity of language, and hence sound is eternal.” Such is the argument by Jaimini in favour of his thesis that the Vedas are eternal and not made by man, not even by God. The bases on which his thesis rests are simple. Firstly God has no body and no palate and therefore he could not utter the Vedas.

36 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Secondly, Assuming God had a body, God could not perceive things which are beyond the reach of the senses while the Vedas contain things beyond the reach of human senses. Thirdly, The connection between a word and its meaning is eternal. Fourthly, Sound is eternal. Fifthly, Because sound is eternal words which are made up of sounds are also eternal. Sixthly Because words are eternal therefore the Vedas are eternal and because the Vedas are eternal they are not made by man nor by God. What can one say of these premises? Can there be anything more absurd? Who can accept that the Vedas contain something not comprehensible by human senses ? Who can accept that there is an eternal connection between a word and its meaning ? Who can accept that sound is not created nor manifested but is eternal ? Having regard to these absurd premises one is led to ask why did the Brahmins make such a desparate attempt for establishing a desparate conclusion? What did they want to gain thereby? Was it because the Vedas had been made the exponent of the Chaturvarna with the Brahmins as the Lord of all? zz

RIDDLE NO. 6 THE CONTENTS OF THE VEDAS: HAVE THEY ANY MORAL OR SPIRITUAL VALUE? I If the Vedas are to be accepted as binding and Infallible then what they teach must have ethical and spiritual value. Nobody can regard a rag to be binding and infallible because a Philosopher like Jaimini came forward to lend his authority to such a proposal. Have the Vedas any ethical or spiritual value? Every Hindu who regards the Vedas are infallible is bound to consider this question. Modern writers have expressed views which deny any spiritual value to the Vedas. As an illustration one may refer to the views of Prof. Muir. According to Prof. Muir 1: “The whole character of these compositions and the circumstances under which, from internal evidence, they appear to have arisen, are in harmony with the supposition that they were nothing more than the natural expression of the personal hopes and feelings of those ancient bards of whom they were first recited. In these songs the Aryan sages celebrated the praises of their ancestral gods (while at the same time they sought to conciliate their goodwill by a variety of oblations supposed to be acceptable to them), and besought of them all the blessings which men in general desired—health, wealth, long life, cattle, offspring, victory over their enemies, foregiveness of sin, and in some cases also celestial felicity.” It would no doubt be objected that all foreign scholars are prejudiced and that their views cannot therefore be accepted. Fortunately we are not altogether dependent upon the views of foreigners. There are leaders of indegeneous schools of thought which have taken the same view. The most notorious example is that of the Charvakas. 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 Muir. Sanskrit Texts. Vol. III (Page not mentioned). 2 Sarva Darshan Sangraha p. 10.

38 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, etc., are only useful as means of livelihood; for the Veda is tainted by three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology; then again the impostors who call themselves Vaidic pundits are mutually destructive, as the authority of the Jnan-Kanda is overthrown by those who maintain the authority of the Karma-Kanda and those who maintain the authority of the Jnan-Kanda reject that of the Karma-Kanda; and lastly, the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent rhapsodies of knaves and to this effect runs the popular saying: “The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic, three staves, and smearing oneself with ashes,” Brihaspati says, “these are but means of livelihood for those who have no manliness nor sense.” Brahaspati is another example of the same school of thought. Brahaspati was far more bold and militant in his opposition to the Vedas than the Charvakas. As reported by Madhava Acharya, Brahaspati argued 1:— “There is no heaven, no final liberation, nor any soul in another world; Nor do the actions of the four castes, orders etc., produce any real effect. The Agnihotra, the three Vedas, the ascetic’s three stages and smearing one’s self 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. If beings in heaven are gratified by our offering the Sraddha here, then why not give the food down below to those who are standing on the housetop ? 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 a means of livelihood that Brahmans have established here. All these ceremonies are for the dead, there is no other fruit anywhere. The three authors of the Vedas were buffoons, knaves and demons. 1 Sarva Darshan Sangraha (Page not mentioned).

39RIDDLE NO. 6 All the well-known formulas of the pundits 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.” If the opinions of the Charvaka and Brahaspati are not accepted there is plenty of other evidence. That evidence is recorded in the books of the various schools of philosophy such as the Nyaya, Vaishashikha, Purva and Uttar Mimamsa. It must be said to the credit of the authors of the text-books of these philosophies that before proceeding to defend the authority of the Vedas they have been very careful to set out the case of their opponents who were opposed to the authority of the Vedas. This fact enables us to prove two things: (1) That there was a school of thought which was opposed to recognize the Vedas as books of authority; (2) That they were a respectable group of people whose opinions the defenders of the authority of the Vedas were bound to consider. I reproduce below the case of the opponents as set out in the Nyaya and the Purva Mimamsa. Gotama the author of the Nyaya system of Philosophy was an upholder of the doctrine of the authority of the Vedas. He has summarized the arguments of his opponents in Sutra 57 which reads as follows 1: “The Veda has no authority, since it has the defects of falsehood, selfcontradiction, and tautology. That verbal evidence, which is distinct from such as relates to visible objects, i.e., the Veda, has no authority. Why? Because it has the defects of falsehood etc.” “Of these defects, that of falsehood is established by the fact that we sometimes observe that no fruit results from performing the sacrifice for a son, or the like. ‘Self-contradiction’ is a discrepancy between a former and a later declaration. Thus the Veda says ‘he sacrifices when the Sun is risen; he sacrifices when the Sun is not yet risen. He sacrifices, (I cannot explain the next words says Muir,) A tawny (dog?) carries away the oblation of him who sacrifices before the Sun has risen: and both of these two carry off the oblation of him who sacrifices. Now here there is a contradiction between the words which enjoin sacrifices and the words which intimate by censure that those sacrifices will occasion disastrous results. Again, the Veda has no authority, owing to its ‘tautology’, as where it is said, he repeats the first thrice, he repeats the last thrice. For as the 1 Muir III. p. 113.