History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c90.129

v7.c90.129

In connection with Vyāsa's legendary role as an arranger of the Veda, Pargiter has a theory of his own which must be briefly noticed and examined. He develops that theory on pp. 9-10 of A. I. H T. He refers to the Ṛgveda as the greatest brahmanical book, says that it is a compilation of hymns composed by many authors and is arranged according to certain principles. His words are 'It (Ṛgveda) must manifestly have been compiled and arranged by some one or more persons, yet Vedic Literature says absolutely nothing about this. The brāhmaṇas cannot have been ignorant about it, for they preserved it and its text with unparalleled care. ... Vedic Literature professes to know and declares the names of the authors of nearly all the hymns and even of single verses, yet it ignores all knowledge of the person or persons who afterwards compiled and arranged these hymns To suppose that when it preserved the earlier information it was ignorant of the later work in so vital a matter is ridiculous.' From this silence in the Vedic Literature about the persons that compiled and arranged the Ṛgveda, Pargiter at once jumps to the positive and emphatic conclusion, as is usual with many western writers on Sanskrit Literature and Indology to argue from silence, that 'Vedic Literature has deliberately suppressed all information on these matters' (AIHT p. 9). He refers to the fact that the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas are full of Vyāsa and repeatedly declare that the Veda was arranged by Vyāsa and points out that Vedic Literature is remarkably reticent about Vyāsa Pārāśarya (who is mentioned as a pupil of Visvaksena in the Vaṁśa list at the end of the Sāmavidhāna Brāhmaṇa and in the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka) and then he reiterates his charge of the conspiracy of silence about Vyāsa (AIHT. p. 10). Pargiter is ready with a reason for the supposed conspiracy of silence viz. 'the brāhmaṇas put forward the doctrine that the Veda existed from everlasting; hence to admit that any one had compiled or even arranged it struck at the root of their doctrine and was in common parlance to give their whole case away' (*ibid.* p. 10).