Vol. 4 · pages 61–65

50 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES B. Prayer to secure the return of calves that have strayed to a distance. vii, 50. Prayer for success at dice. vi, 56. Exorcism of serpents from the premises. x, 4. Charm against serpents invoking the horse of Pedu that slays serpents. xi, 2. Prayer to Bhava and Sarva for protection from dangers. iv, 28. Prayer to Bhava and Sarva for protection from dangers. vii, 9. Charm for finding lost property. vi, 128. Propitiation of the weather-prophet. xi, 6. Prayer for deliverance from calamity, addressed to the entire pantheon. VIII. Charms in expiation of sin and defilement. vi, 45. Prayer against mental delinquency. vi, 26. Charm to avert evil. vi, 114. Expiatory formula for imperfections in the sacrifice. vi, 115. Expiatory formulas for sins. vi, 112. Expiation for the precedence of a younger brother over an elder. vi, 113. Expiation for certain heinous crimes. vi, 120. Prayer for heaven after remission of sins. vi, 27. Charm against pigeons regarded as ominous birds. vi, 29. Charm against pigeons regarded as ominous birds. vi, 29. Charm against ominous pigeons and owls. vii, 64. Expiation when one is defiled by a black bird of omen. vi, 46. Exorcism of evil dreams. vii, 115. Charm for the removal of evil characteristics, and the acquisition of auspicious. III It will thus be seen that the Atharva-Veda is nothing but a collection of sorcery, black-magic and medicine. Three-fourths of it is full of sorcery and black magic. It must not however be assumed that it is only the Atharva-Veda which contains black-magic and sorcery. The Rig-Veda is not altogether free from it. There are in it Mantras relating to black magic and sorcery. I give below three Suktas which deal with this matter: SUKTA XVII (CXLV) The deity or rather the aim of the hymn is the getting rid of a rival wife; the Rishi is Indrani, the metre of the last verse is Pankati, of the rest Anushtubh.

51RIDDLE NO. 6 1. I dig up this most potent medicinal creeper, by which (a wife) destroys a rival wife, by which she secures to herself her husband. 2. O (plant) with up-turned, leaves, auspicious, sent by the Gods, powerful, remove my rival and make my husband mine alone. 3. Excellent (plant) may I too be excellent amongst the excellent, and may she who is my rival be vile amongst the vile. 4. I will not even utter her name, no (woman) takes pleasure in that person; may we remove the other rival wife to a distance. 5. I am triumphing, thou art triumphant; we two being powerful will triumph over my rival. 6. I make thee the triumphant (herb) my pillow, I support thee with that more triumphant (pillow); let thy mind hasten to me as a cow to her calf, let it speed on its way like water. SUKTA IV (CLV) The deity of verses 1 and 4 is the averting of misfortune (Alakshmighna), of verses 2 and 3 Brahmanaspati, and of verse 5 the Viswadevas; the Rishi is Sirimbitha, the son of Bharadwaja, the metre is Anushtubh. 1. Miserable, ill-favoured, deformed ever-railing (goddess), go to thy mountain; with these exploits of Sirimbitha we scare thee away. 2. May she be scared away from this (world), scared away from the next (world), the destructress of all embryos; sharp-horned Brihaspati approach, driving away Distress. 3. The wood which floats by the seashore far off, remote from man, seize that, (O, goddess) hard to destroy, and therewith go to a distant shore. 4. Utterers of discordant sounds, when swiftly moving you departed, all the enemies of Indra were slain, disappearing like bubbles. 5. These (Viswadevas) have brought back the (stolen) cattle, they have built up the fire; they have provided food for the Gods. Who will overcome them? SUKTA XII (CLXIII) The deity is the cure of phthisis; the Rishi is Vivrihan, the son of Kasyapa; the metre is Anushtubh. 1. I banish disease from thine eyes, from thy head, from thy nose, from thy ears, from thy chin, from thy brain, from thy tongue. 2. I banish disease from thy neck, from thy sinews, from thy bones, from thy joints, from thy upper arms, from thy shoulders, and from thy fore-arms.

52 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 3. I banish disease from thine entrails, from thy anus, from thine abdomen, and from thy heart, from thy kidneys, from thy liver, from thy (other) viscera. 4. I banish disease from thy thighs, from thy knees, from thy heels, from thy toes, from thy loins, from thy buttocks, from thy private parts. 5. I banish disease from thy urethra, from thy bladder, from thy hair, from thy nails, from thy whole person. 6. I banish disease from each limb, from each hair, from each joint where it is generated, from thy whole person. Enough has been extracted from the Vedas to show that they contain nothing that can be said to be spiritually or morally elevating. Neither the subject matter nor contents of the Vedas justify the infallibility with which they have been invested. Why then did the Brahmins struggle so hard to clothe them with sanctity and infallibility ? zz

RIDDLE NO. 7 THE TURN OF THE TIDE OR HOW DID THE BRAHMINS DECLARE THE VEDAS TO BE LOWER THAN THE LOWEST OF THEIR SHASTRAS ? I The religious literature of the Hindus includes (1) The Vedas, (2) The Brahmanas, (3) The Aranyakas, (4) Upanishads, (5) Sutras, (6) Itihas, (7) Smritis and (8) Puranas. As has been pointed out there was a time when they occupied the same status. There was no distinction of superior or inferior, sacred or profane, fallible or infallible. Later on as we have shown the Vedic Brahmins felt that they must make a distinction between the Vedas and other classes of their religious literature. They made the Vedas not only superior to other classes of literature but they made them sacred and infallible. In evolving their dogma of the infallibility of the Vedas they made a distinction and divided their sacred writings in two classes (1) Shruti and (2) Non-Shruti. In the first division they placed only two of the eight classes of literature spoken of above namely—(1) Samhitas and (2) the Brahmanas. The rest they declared as Non-Shruti. II When this distinction was first made it is not possible to say. The more important question, however, is on what basis was this division made ? Why were Itihas and Puranas excluded ? Why were Aranyakas and Upanishads excluded ? Why were the Sutras excluded ? One can well understand why Itihas and Puranas were excluded from Shruti. At the time when the division took place they were too elementary and too undeveloped and in all probability included in the Brahmanas. Similarly one can well understand why the Aranyakas are not This is a 21-page typed MS originally entitled ‘The Supersession of the Vedas’, with several corrections and modifications by the author himself. This chapter seems complete as the last para of this chapter is concluded in the handwriting of the author.—Ed.

54 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES specifically mentioned as a part of the Shruti. They are a part of the Brahmanas and for that reason it was probably unnecessary to say expressly that they are part of the Shruti. The question of the Upanishads and the Sutras remains a puzzle. Why were they excluded from the Shruti ? The question regarding the Upanishads is the subject matter of another chapter. Here it is proposed to deal with the question of the Sutras. Because the reasons for the exclusion of the Sutras 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 Brahmans. The reasons why the Brahmanas which are evidently so much more modern than the Mantras, were allowed to participate in 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 Brahmanas. But, although we need not ascribe any weight to the arguments by which the Brahmanas 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 canon 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 Brahamanas, is a question which we need hardly hesitate to