Vol. 4 · pages 76–80

65RIDDLE NO. 8 superior and the inferior. (5) The inferior (consists of) the Rig Veda, 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” by which of course he means the Upanishads. The Chhandogya 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 Atharvana (which is) the fourth, the Itihasas and Purana (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 sciences 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 persuasion that it is) Brahma, ‘Is there anything, venerable man’ asked Narada, ‘which is more than name ?’ ‘There is,’ replied, ‘something which is more than name’. ‘Tell it to me’, rejoined Narada.” The Brahadaranyaka Upanishad says : “In that (condition of profound slumber) a father is no father, a mother is no mother, the worlds are no worlds, 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 Pulkasa 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.”

66 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 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 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. 1.5) and Kausitaki Br. Up. IV. 8. 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. This is an additional piece of evidence which shows that there was a time when the relation between the Vedas and the Upanishads was of antagonism. Another illustration of the attitude of the Vedic Brahmins towards Brahmins who had studied the Upanishads may be given. It is to be found in the texts of the Dharma Sutras of Baudhayana. Baudhayana in his Dharma Sutras (ii. 8.3) says that at a Shradha ceremony a Rahasyavid is to be invited only if other Brahmins are not available. A Rahasyavid of course means a Brahmin versed in the Upanishads. The belief that the Vedas and the Upanishads are complimentary came into being is really a riddle. zz 1 History of Dharma Sastra Vol. II, Part-I, p. 52.

RIDDLE NO. 9 HOW THE UPANISHADS CAME TO BE MADE SUBORDINATE TO THE VEDAS ? In the preceding chapter it was shown that originally the Upanishads were not a part of the Vedas and that the two in the matter of doctrine were opposed to each other. It is instructive to compare the later relations between the Vedas and the Upanishads. The later relations between them are best illustrated by the controversy between two philosophers, Jaimini and Badarayana. Jaimini is the author of a work called the Mimamsa Sutras while Badarayana is the author of Brahma Sutras. Jaimini is an upholder of the Vedas and Badarayana is an upholder of the Upanishads. The point of dispute was—Is it necessary to perform sacrifices ? The Vedas say ‘yes’ and the Upanishads say ‘no’. The position of Jaimini is stated by Badarayana in his Sutras 2-7, and explained by Shankaracharya in his commentary. Jaimini contends that 1 : “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 result 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 outlive 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 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 2 : 1 See Badarayana Sutra 2 and Shankara’s comment on it. 2 See Badarayana Sutra 3 and Shankara’s comment. ‘Jaimini versus Badarayana’ was the title given to this chapter which was later scored out. This is a 9-page typed MS with modifications in the first two pages by the author.—Ed.

68 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES “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 (Chh. 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 declare1 “that knowledge of the Self stands in a subordinate relation to sacrificial acts”. Jaimini justifies it because he says 2 “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 Jnanakanda. He takes his stand on two grounds. First3 : “Knowledge of the Self does not independently produce any result.” Second4 : According to the authority of the Vedas “Knowledge (of Self) stands in a subordinate relation to work.” This is the position of Jaimini towards Badarayana’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 5 taken up by Badarayana is that the Self spoken of by Jaimini is the limited self i.e., the soul is to be distinguished from the Supreme soul and that the Supreme soul is recognized by the Scriptures. The second6 position taken up by Badarayana is that the Vedas support both knowledge of Self as well as sacrifices. The third 7 position taken up by Badarayana is that only those who believe in the Vedas are required to perform sacrifices. But those who follow the Upanishads 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 (sacrifices). No work (sacrifice) is prescribed for those who have knowledge of the Self from the Upanishads. Such a knowledge is incompatible with work.” 1 See Badarayana Sutra 4. 2 See Badarayana Sutra 5. 3 See Badarayana Sutra 6 and Shankara’s commentory. 4 See Badarayana Sutra 7. 5 See Badarayana Sutra 8. 6 See Badarayana Sutra 9. 7 See Badarayana Sutra 12.

69RIDDLE NO. 9 The fourth1 position taken up by Badarayana is that Karmakanda is optional to those who have attained Bramhanand. 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 2 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 3 on the scriptures which recognizes Sannyas as the fourth Ashram and relieves the Sannyasi from performing sacrifices prescribed by the Karmakanda. Many such Sutras can be found in Badarayana indicating the attitude of the two scholars 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 unsubstantial as the Upanishads themselves did ? 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 courage. On the contrary he is very apologetic. He concedes that Jaimini’s Karmakanda is based on the scriptures and the scriptures have authority and sanctity which cannot be repudiated. All that he insists on is that his Vedanta doctrine is also true because it has also the support of the scriptures. This is not all. What Badarayana does is to use the term Vedanta to cover two senses. He uses it so as to emphasize that the Upanishads do form a part of the Vedic literature. He uses it also to emphasize that Vedanta or the Jnyanakanda of the Upanishads is not opposed to the Karmakanda of the Vedas that the two are complimentary. Indeed this is the foundation on which Badarayana has raised the whole structure of his Vedanta Sutras. This thesis of Badarayana—which underlies his Vedanta Sutras and according to which the Upanishads are a part of the Veda and there is 1 See Badarayana Sutra 15. 2 See Badarayana Sutra 16. 3 See Badarayana Sutra 17.