Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions v3: Volume 3

Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions v3

Language: English

v3.c22 Front matter — 82 parts
v3.c23 Errata et Corrigenda — 26 parts
v3.c24 Index to Principal Names and Matters — 64 parts

Volume 3

Front matter

v3.c22.4

https://archive.org/details/originalsanskrit03muir_0

v3.c22.13

THE VEDAS: OPINIONS OF THEIR AUTHORS AND OF LATER INDIAN WRITERS ON THEIR ORIGIN, INSPIRATION, AND AUTHORITY.

v3.c22.20

*Arthēpsavaḥ ṛishayo devatāś chhandobhir abhyadhāvan* |
Anukramaṇikā.

v3.c22.21

“Rishis, seeking to obtain the various objects of their desire, hastened to the deities with metrical compositions.”
(See p. 211 of this volume.)

The object which I have had in view in the series of treatises which this volume forms a part, has been to investigate critically the most important points in the civil and religious history of the Hindus. Having shown in the First Volume that the mythical and legendary accounts given in the Purāṇas, etc., regarding the origin of the caste system which has long prevailed in India, are mutually contradictory and insufficient to establish the early existence of the popular belief regarding the distinct creation of four separate tribes, as an original and essential article of the Brahmanical creed; and having endeavoured to prove, in the Second Volume, by a variety of arguments, drawn chiefly from comparative philology and from the contents of the Rigveda, that the Hindus are descended from a branch of the Indo-European stock, which dwelt originally along with the other cognate races in Central Asia, and subsequently migrated into Northern Hindustan, where the Brahmanical religion and institutions were developed and matured;—I now come, in this Third Volume, to consider more particularly the history of the Vedas, regarded as the sacred Scriptures of the Hindus, and the inspired source from which their religious and philosophical systems (though, to a great extent, founded also on reasoning and speculation) profess to be mainly derived; or with which, at least, they all claim to be in harmony.

v3.c22.23

When I speak, however, of the history of the Veda, I am reminded that I am employing a term which will suggest to the philosophical reader the idea of a minute and systematic account of the various opinions which the Indians have held in regard to their sacred books from the commencement, through all the successive stages of their theological development, down to the present time. To do anything like this, however, would be a task demanding an extent of research far exceeding any to which I can pretend. At some future time, indeed, we may hope that a history of the theological and speculative ideas of the Indians, which shall treat this branch also of the subject, may be written by some competent scholar. My own design is much more modest. I only attempt to show what are the opinions on the subject of the Veda, which have been entertained by certain distinct sets of writers whom I may broadly divide into three classes—(1) the mythological, (2) the scholastic, and (3) the Vedic.

v3.c22.24

The first, or mythological class, embraces the writers of the different Purāṇas and Itihāsas, and partially those of the Brāhmaṇas and Upanishads, who, like the compilers of the Purāṇas, frequently combine the mythological with the theosophic element.

v3.c22.25

The second, or scholastic class, includes the authors of the different philosophical schools, or Darśanas, with their scholiasts and expositors, and the commentators on the Vedas. The whole of these writers belong to the class of systematic or philosophical theologians; but as their speculative principles differ, it is the object of each particular school to explain and establish the origin and authority of the Vedas on grounds conformable to its own fundamental dogmas, as well as to expound the doctrines of the sacred books in such a way as to harmonize with its own special tenets.

v3.c22.26

The third class of writers, whose opinions in regard to the Vedas I have attempted to exhibit, is composed (1) of the rishis themselves, the authors of the Vedic hymns, and (2) of the authors of the Upanishads, which, though works of a much more recent date, and for the most part of a different character from the hymns, are yet regarded by later Indian writers as forming, equally with the latter, a part of the Veda. As the authors of the hymns, the earliest of them at least, lived in an age of simple conceptions and of spontaneous and childlike devotion, we shall find that, though some of them appear, in conformity with the spirit of their times, to have regarded their compositions as in a certain degree the result of divine inspiration, their primitive and elementary ideas on this subject form a strong contrast to the artificial and systematic definitions of the later scholastic writers. And even the authors of the Upanishads, though they, in a more distinct manner, claim a superhuman authority for their own productions, are very far from recognizing the rigid classification which, at a subsequent period, divided the Vedic writings from all other religious works, by a broad line of demarcation.

v3.c22.27

It may conduce to the convenience of the reader, if I furnish here a brief survey of the opinions of the three classes of writers above described, in regard to the Vedas, as these opinions are shown in the passages which are collected in the present volume.

v3.c22.28

The first chapter (pp. 1–217) contains texts exhibiting the opinions on the origin, division, inspiration, and authority of the Vedas, which have been held by Indian authors shortly before, or subsequent to, the collection of the Vedic hymns, and consequently embraces the views of the first two of the classes of writers above specified, viz. (1) the mythological and (2) the scholastic. In the first Section (pp. 3–10), I adduce texts from the Purusha Sūkta, the Atharva-veda, the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, the Chhāndogya Upanishad, the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, and the Institutes of Manu, which variously represent the Vedas (*a*) as springing from the mystical sacrifice of Purusha; (*b*) as resting on (or inhering in) Skambha; (*c*) as cut or scraped off from him, as being his hair, and his mouth; (*d*) as springing from Indra; (*e*) as produced from time; (*f*) as produced from Agni, Vāyu, and Sūrya; (*g*) as springing from Prajāpati, and the waters; (*h*) as being the breathing of the Great Being; (*i*) as being dug by the gods out of the mind-ocean; (*j*) as being the hair of Prajāpati's beard, and (*k*) as being the offspring of Vāch.

v3.c22.29

In page 287 of the Appendix a further verse of the Atharva-veda is cited, in which the Vedas are declared to have sprung from the leavings of the sacrifice (*uchchhishta*).

v3.c22.30

In the second Section (pp. 10–14) are quoted passages from the Vishṉu, Bhāgavata, and Mārkaṉḍeya Purāṉas, which represent the four Vedas as having issued from the mouth of Brahmā at the creation; several from the Harivaṁśa, which speak of the Vedas as created by Brahmā, or as produced from the Gāyatrī; another from the Mahābhārata, which describes them as created by Vishṉu, or as having Sarasvatī for their mother; with one from Manu, which declares the Vedas, along with certain other objects, to be the second manifestation of the Sattva-guṉa, or pure principle, while Brahmā is one of its first manifestations.

v3.c22.31

The third Section (pp. 14–18) contains passages from the Brāhmaṉas, the Vishṉu Purāṉa, and the Mahābhārata, in which the Vedas are celebrated as comprehending all beings, as being the soul of metres, hymns, breaths, and gods, as imperishable, as the source of form, motion, and heat, of the names, forms, and functions of all creatures, as infinite in extent, as infinite in their essence (*brahma*), though limited in their forms as Rich, Yajush, and Sāman verses, as eternal, and as forming the essence of Vishṉu.

v3.c22.32

The fourth Section (pp. 18–36) contains passages from the Śatapatha Brāhmaṉa and Manu, in which the great benefits resulting from the study of the Vedas, and the dignity, power, authority, and efficacy of these works are celebrated; together with two other texts from the latter author and the Vishṉu Purāṉa, in which a certain impurity is predicated of the Sāma-veda (compare the Mārkaṉḍeya Purāṉa, as quoted in p. 12, where the four Vedas are described as respectively partaking differently of the character of the three Guṇas, or Qualities); and some others from the Vāyu, Padma, Matsya, and Brahma-vaivartta Purāṇas, and the Mahābhārata, and Rāmāyaṇa, which derogate greatly from the consideration of the Vedas, by claiming for the Purāṇas and Itihāsas an equality with, if not a superiority to, the older scriptures. A passage is next quoted from the Muṇḍaka Upanishad, in which the Vedas and their appendages are designated as the "inferior science," in contrast to the "superior science," the knowledge of Soul; and is followed by others from the Bhagavad Gītā, the Chhāndogya Upanishad and the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, in which the ceremonial and polytheistic portions of the Veda are depreciated in comparison with the knowledge of the supreme Spirit.

v3.c22.33

The fifth Section (pp. 36–49) describes the division of the Vedas in the third or Dvāpara age, by Vedavyāsa and his four pupils, according to texts of the Vishṇu, Vāyu, and Bhāgavata Purāṇas; and then adduces a different account, asserting their division in the second or Tretā age, by the King Purūravas, according to another passage of the same Bhāgavata Purāṇa, and a text of the Mahābhārata (though the latter is silent regarding Purūravas).

v3.c22.34

Section vi. (pp. 49–57) contains passages from the Vishṇu and Vāyu Purāṇas and the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, regarding the schism between the adherents of the Yajur-veda, as represented by the different schools of Vaiśampāyana and Yājnavalkya, and quotes certain remarks of Prof. Weber on the same subject, and on the relation of the Rig and Sāma Vedas to each other, together with some other texts, adduced and illustrated by that scholar, on the hostility of the Ātharvaṉas towards the other Vedas, and of the Chandogas towards the Rig-veda.

v3.c22.35

Section vii. (pp. 57–70) contains extracts from the works of Sāyaṇa and Mādhava, the commentators on the Rig and Taittirīya Yajur Vedas, in which they both define the characteristics of the Veda, and state certain arguments in support of its authority. Sāyaṇa (pp. 58–66), after noticing the objections urged against his views by persons of a different school, and defining the Veda as a work consisting of Mantra and Brāhmaṇa, asserts that it is not derived from any personal, or at least not from any human, author (compare the further extract from him in p. 105); and rests its authority on its own declarations, on its self-proving power, on the Smṛiti (*i.e.* non-vedic writings of eminent saints), and on common notoriety. He then encounters some other objections raised against the Veda on the score of its containing passages which are unintelligible, dubious, absurd, contradictory, or superfluous. Mādhava (pp. 66–70) defines the Veda as the work which alone reveals the supernatural means of attaining future felicity; explains that males only, belonging to the three superior castes, are competent to study its contents; and asserts that, inasmuch as it is eternal, it is a primary and infallible authority. This eternity of the Veda, however, he appears to interpret as not being absolute, but as dating from the first creation, when it was produced from Brahmā, though, as he is free from defects, the Veda, as his work, is self-proved.

v3.c22.36.1

Section viii. (pp. 70–108) contains the views of Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa, the (alleged) authors of the Mīmānsā and Brahma (or Vedānta) Sūtras on the eternity of the Veda. Jaimini asserts that sound, or words, are eternal, that the connection between words and the objects they represent also, is not arbitrary or conventional, but eternal, and that consequently the Vedas convey unerring information in regard to unseen objects. This view he defends against the Naiyāyikas, answering their other objections, and insisting that the names, derived from those of certain sages, by which particular parts of the Vedas are designated, do not prove those sages to have been their authors, but merely the teachers who studied and handed them down; while none of the names occurring in the Veda are those of temporal beings, but all denote some objects which have existed eternally. Two quotations in support of the supernatural origin of the Veda are next introduced from the Nyāya-mālā-vistara (a condensed account of the Mīmānsā system) and from the Vedārtha-prakāśa (the commentary on the Taittirīya Yajur-veda). The arguments in both passages (pp. 86–89) are to the same effect, and contain nothing that has not been already in substance anticipated in preceding summaries of the Mīmānsā doctrine.

v3.c22.36.2

In reference to their argument that no author of the Veda is remembered, I have noticed here that the supposition which an objector might urge, that the rishis, the acknowledged utterers of the hymns, might also have been their authors, is guarded against by the tenet, elsewhere maintained by Indian writers, that the rishis were merely seers of the pre-existing sacred texts. Some of the opinions quoted from the Sūtras of Jaimini are further enforced in a passage from the summary of the Mīmānsā doctrine, which I have quoted from the Sarva-darśana-sangraha. The writer first notices the Naiyāyika objections to the Mīmānsaka tenet that the Veda had no personal author, viz. (1) that any tradition to this effect must have been interrupted at the past dissolution of the universe; (2) that it would be impossible to prove that no one had ever recollected any such author; (3) that the sentences of the Veda have the same character as all other sentences; (4) that the inference,—drawn from the present mode of transmitting the Vedas from teacher to pupil,—that the same mode of transmission must have gone on from eternity, breaks down by being equally applicable to any other book; (5) that the Veda is in fact ascribed to a personal author in a passage of the book itself;

v3.c22.36.3

(6) that sound is not eternal, and that when we recognize letters as the same we have heard before, this does not prove their identity or eternity, but is merely a recognition of them as belonging to the same species as other letters we have heard before; (7) that though Parameśvara (God) is naturally incorporeal, he may have assumed a body in order to reveal the Veda, etc. The writer then states the Mīmānsaka answers to these arguments thus: What does this alleged 'production by a personal author' (*paurusheyatva*) mean? The Veda, if supposed to be so produced, cannot derive its authority (*a*) from inference (or reasoning), as fallible books employ the same process. Nor will it suffice to say (*b*) that it derives its authority from its truth: for the Veda is defined to be a book which proves that which can be proved in no other way. And even if Parameśvara (God) were to assume a body, he would not, in that state of limitation, have any access to supernatural knowledge. Further, the fact that different śākhās or recensions of the Vedas are called after the names of particular sages, proves no more than that these recensions were studied by those sages, and affords no ground for questioning the eternity of the Vedas,—an eternity which is proved by the fact of our recognizing letters when we meet with them.

v3.c22.36.4

These letters are the very identical letters we had heard before, for there is no evidence to show either that letters of the same sort (G's, for instance,) are numerically different from each other, or that they are generic terms, denoting a species. The apparent differences which are observable in the same letter, result merely from the particular characteristics of the persons who utter it, and do not affect its identity. This is followed by further reasoning in support of the same general view; and the writer then arrives at the conclusion, which he seems to himself to have triumphantly established, that the Veda is underived and authoritative.

v3.c22.37

The question of the effect produced on the Vedas by the dissolutions of the world is noticed in some extracts from Patanjali's Mahābhāshya and its commentators, which have been adduced by Prof. Goldstücker in the Preface to his Mānava-kalpa Sūtra, and which I have partly reprinted in pp. 95 ff. It is admitted by Patanjali, that, though the sense of the Vedas is permanent, the order of their letters has not always remained the same, and that this difference is exhibited in the different recensions of the Kāṭhakas and other schools. Patanjali himself does not say what is the cause of this alteration in the order of the letters; but his commentator, Kaiyyaṭa, states that the order was disturbed during the great mundane dissolutions, etc., and had to be restored (though with variations) by the eminent science of the rishis. Kullūka, the commentator on Manu (see p. 6), maintains that the Veda was preserved in the memory of Brahmā during the period of dissolution; and promulgated again at the beginning of the Kalpa, but whether in an altered form, or not, he does not tell us. The latter point is also left unsolved in S'ankara's commentary on Brahma Sūtra i. 3, 30, which I quote in the Appendix, pp. 300 ff. Pages 93 ff. contain some remarks (by way of parenthesis) on the question whether or not the Pūrva Mīmā̃sā admits the existence of a Deity.

v3.c22.38

In the extract given in pp. 98–105 from his commentary on the Brahma Sūtras,¹ S'ankara, who follows the author of those Sūtras, and Jaimini, in basing the authority of the Vedas on the eternity of sound, finds it necessary to meet an objection that, as the gods mentioned in the Veda had confessedly an origin in time, the words which designate those gods cannot be eternal, but must have originated co-evally with the created objects which they denote, since eternal words could not have an eternal connection with non-eternal objects. This difficulty he tries to overcome (ignoring the ground taken by Jaimini, that the Veda contains no references to non-eternal objects) by asserting that the eternal connection of words is not with individual objects, but with the species to which these objects belong, and that Indra and the other gods are proved by the Veda to belong to species. Saṅkara then goes on to assert, on the authority of Brahma Sūtra, i. 3, 28, fortified by various texts from the Vedas and the Smṛitis, that the gods and the world generally are produced (though not in the sense of evolution out of a material cause) from the word of the Vedas (see pp. 6 and 16) in the form of *sphoṭa*. This last term will be explained below. This subject above referred to, of the eternal connection of the words of the Veda with the objects they represent, is further pursued in a passage which I have quoted in the Appendix, p. 300, where an answer is given to the objection that the objects denoted by the words of the Veda cannot be eternal, as a total destruction of everything takes place (not, indeed, at the intermediate, but) at the great mundane dissolutions. The solution given is that, by the favour of the supreme Lord, the inferior lords Brahmā, etc., retain a recollection of the previous mundane conditions; and that in each successive creation everything is produced exactly the same as it had previously been. I then proceed in p. 105 to adduce a passage from Sāyaṇa, the commentator on the Rig-veda, who refers to another of the Brahma Sūtras, i. 1, 3 (quoted in p. 106), declaring that Brahma was the source of the Veda, which S'ankara interprets as containing a proof of the omniscience of Brahma. Sāyaṇa understands this text as establishing the superhuman origin of the Veda, though not its eternity in the proper sense, it being only meant, according to him (as well as to Mādhava; see p. xi.), that the Veda is eternal in the same sense as the æther is eternal, *i.e.* during the period between each creation and dissolution of the universe.

v3.c22.39

¹ My attention was originally drawn to this passage by a treatise, then unpublished, by the Rev. Prof. Banerjea, formerly of Bishop's College, Calcutta.

v3.c22.40

In opposition to the tenets of the Mīmānsakas, who hold the eternity (or the eternal self-existence) of the Veda, and to the dogmas of the Vedānta, as just expounded, Gotama, the author of the Nyāya aphorisms, denies (Section ix. pp. 108–118) the eternity of sound; and after vindicating the Veda from the charges of falsehood, self-contradiction, and tautology, deduces its authority from the authority of the wise, or competent, person or persons who were its authors, as proved by the efficacy of such of the Vedic prescriptions as relate to mundane matters, and can be tested by experience. It does not distinctly result from Gotama's aphorism that God is the competent person whom he regards as the maker of the Veda. If he did not refer to God, he must have regarded the rishis as its authors. The authors of the Vais'eshika Sūtras, and of the Tarka Sangraha, as well as the writer of the Kusumāñjali, however, clearly refer the Veda to Īs'vara (God) as its framer (pp. 118–133). Udayana, the author of the latter work (pp. 128–133), controverts the opinion that the existence of the Veda from eternity can be proved by a continuous tradition, as such a tradition must, he says, have been interrupted at the dissolution of the world, which preceded the existing creation. He, therefore (as explained by his commentator), infers an eternal (and omniscient author of the Veda; asserting that the Veda is *paurusheya*, or derived from a personal author; that many of its own texts establish this; and that the appellations given to its particular śākhās or recensions, are derived from the names of those sages whose persons were assumed by Īśvara, when he uttered them at the creation. In pp. 125 ff. I have quoted one of the Vaiśeshika Sūtras, with some passages from the commentator, to show the conceptions the writers entertained of the nature of the supernatural knowledge, or intuition, of the rishis.

v3.c22.41

Kapila, the author of the Sānkhya Aphorisms (pp. 133–138), agrees with the Nyāya and Vaiśeshika aphorists in denying the eternity of the Veda, but, in conformity with his own principles, differs from Gotama and Kaṇāda in denying its derivation from a personal (*i.e.* here, a divine) author, because there was no person (*i.e.* as his commentator explains, no God) to make it. Vishṇu, the chief of the liberated beings, though omniscient, could not, he argues, have made the Veda, owing to his impassiveness, and no other person could have done so from want of omniscience. And even if the Veda have been uttered by the primeval Purusha, it cannot be called his work, as it was breathed forth by him unconsciously. Kapila agrees with Jaimini in ascribing a self-demonstrating power to the Veda, and differs from the Vaiśeshikas in not deriving its authority from correct knowledge possessed by a conscious utterer. He proceeds to controvert the existence of such a thing as *sphoṭa* (a modification of sound which is assumed by the Mīmānsakas, and described as single, indivisible, distinct from individual letters, existing in the form of words, and constituting a whole), and to deny the eternity of sound.

v3.c22.42

In the tenth Section (pp. 138–179) I shew (*a*) by quotations from the aphorisms of the Vedānta and their commentator (pp. 140–145), that the author and expounder of the Uttara Mīmā̃sā (the Vedānta) frequently differ from Jaimini the author of the Pūrva Mīmā̃sā in the interpretation of the same texts of the Upanishads. A similar diversity is next (*b*) proved at greater length (pp. 145–173), by quotations from the aphorisms and commentaries of the Vedānta and the Sānkhya, to characterize the expositions proposed by the adherents of those two systems respectively. One quotation is given in pp. 175 ff. to shew (*c*) that the same is true in regard to the followers of the Vaiśeshika philosophy, who distinctly reject the Vedāntic explanations; and last of all (*d*) I have made some extracts (pp. 177 ff.) from the Bhakti Sūtras of Sāṇḍilya to exhibit the wide divergence of that writer from the orthodox views of the Vedānta regarding the sense of the Vedas. In pp. 173–175 I quote some remarks of Dr. E. Roer, and Prof. Max Müller, regarding the doctrines of the Upanishads, and their relations to the different philosophical schools.

v3.c22.43

In the facts brought forward in this section we find another illustration (1) of the tendency common to all dogmatic theologians to interpret in strict conformity with their own opinions the unsystematic and not always consistent texts of an earlier age which have been handed down by tradition as sacred and infallible, and to represent them as containing, or as necessarily implying, fixed and consistent systems of doctrine; as well as (2) of the diversity of view which so generally prevails in regard to the sense of such texts among writers of different schools, who adduce them with equal positiveness of assertion as establishing tenets and principles which are mutually contradictory or inconsistent.

v3.c22.44.1

In the eleventh Section (pp. 179–207) some passages are adduced from the Nyāya-mālā-vistara, and from Kullūka’s commentary on Manu, to show that a distinct line of demarcation is drawn by the scholastic writers between the Vedas on the one hand, and all other classes of Indian scriptures, embraced under the designation of Smṛiti (including the Darśanas, the Institutes of Manu, the Purāṇas, and Itihāsas, etc.), on the other, the first being regarded as independent and infallible guides, while the others are (in theory) held to be authoritative only in so far as they are founded on, and coincide with, the Veda. The practical effect of this distinction is, however, much lessened by the fact that the ancient sages, the authors of the Smṛitis, such of them, I mean, as, like Manu, are recognized as orthodox, are looked upon by Mādhava and Śankara as having had access to Vedic texts now no longer extant, as having held communion with the gods, and as having enjoyed a clearness of intuition into divine mysteries which is denied to later mortals (pp. 181–185). Śaṅkara, however (as shewn in pp. 184–192), does not regard all the ancients as having possessed this infallible insight into truth, but exerts all his ingenuity to explain away the claims (though clearly sanctioned by an Upanishad) of Kapila, who was not orthodox according to his Vedāntic standard, to rank as an authority. In his depreciation of Kapila, however, Śaṅkara is opposed to the Bhāgavata Purāṇa (p. 192).

v3.c22.44.2

I then proceed to observe (pp. 194–196) that although in ancient times the authors of the different philosophical systems (*Darśanas*) no doubt put forward their respective opinions as true, in opposition to all the antagonistic systems, yet in modern times the superior orthodoxy of the Vedānta appears to be generally recognized; while the authors of the other systems are regarded, *e.g.* by Madhusūdana Sarasvatī, as, amid all their diversities, having in view, as their ultimate scope, the support of the Vedāntic theory. The same view, in substance, is taken by Vijnāna Bhikshu, the commentator on the Sāṅkhya Sūtras, who (pp. 196–203) maintains that Kapila's system, though atheistic, is not irreconcilable with the Vedānta and other theistic schools, as its denial of an Īśvara (God) is only practical, or regulative, and merely enforced in order to withdraw men from the too earnest contemplation of an eternal and perfect Deity, which would impede their study of the distinction between matter and spirit. To teach men this discrimination, as the great means of attaining final liberation, is one of the two main objects, and strong points, of the Sānkhya philosophy, and here it is authoritative; while its atheism is admitted to be its weak side, and on this subject it has no authority. Vijnāna Bhikshu goes on to say that it is even supposable that theistic systems, in order to prevent sinners from attaining knowledge, may lay down doctrines partially opposed to the Vedas;

v3.c22.44.3

and that though in these portions they are erroneous, they will still possess authority in the portions conformable to the S'ruti and Smṛiti. He then quotes a passage from the Padma Purāṇa, in which the god S'iva tells his consort Pārvatī that the Vais'eshika, the Nyāya, the Sānkhya, the Purva-mīmānsā Dars'anas, and the Vedāntic theory of illusion, are all systems infected by the dark (or *tāmasa*) principle, and consequently more or less unauthoritative. All orthodox (*āstika*) theories, however, are, as Vijnāna Bhikshu considers, authoritative, and free from error on their own special subject. And as respects the discrepancy between the Sānkhya and the Vedānta, regarding the unity of Soul, he concludes that the former is not devoid of authority, as the apparent diversity of souls is acknowledged by the Vedānta, and the discriminative knowledge which the Sānkhya teaches is an instrument of liberation to the embodied soul; and thus the two varying doctrines, if regarded as, the one practical (or regulative), and the other real (or transcendental), will not be contradictory. At the close of Section eleventh (pp. 204–207) it is shewn that the distinction drawn by the Indian commentators between the superhuman Veda and its human appendages, the Kalpa Sūtras, etc., as well as the Smṛitis, is not borne out by certain texts which I had previously cited. The Bṛihad Āraṇyaka and Muṇḍaka Upanishads (pp.

v3.c22.44.4

8, 31) seem to place all the different sorts of S'āstras or scriptures (including the four Vedas) in one and the same class, the former speaking of them all promiscuously as being the breathing of Brahma, while the latter describes them all (except the Upanishads) as being parts of the "inferior science," in opposition to the "superior science," or knowledge of Brahma. In the same spirit as the Muṇḍaka, the Chhāndogya Upanishad also (quoted in p. 32 f.) includes the four Vedas in the same list with a variety of miscellaneous S'āstras (which Nārada has studied without getting beyond the confines of exoteric knowledge), and never intimates (unless it be by placing them at the head of the list) that the former can claim any superiority over the other works with which they are associated. As, however, S'ankara could not, in consistency with the current scholastic theory regarding the wide difference between the Vedas and all other S'āstras, admit that the latter could have had a common origin with the former, he endeavours in his comment on the passage of the Bṛihad Āraṇyaka Upanishad to which I have adverted, to shew that the other works, which are there said to have been breathed out by the great Being along with the Vedas, were in reality portions of the Brāhmaṇas.

v3.c22.44.5

This explanation can scarcely apply to all the works enumerated, and its force is weakened by the tenor of the other passages from the Muṇḍaka and Chhāndogya Upanishads, while any such distinction is repudiated in the statements of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas quoted in pp. 27–30 and 105.

v3.c22.45

In the twelfth Section (pp. 207–217) the arguments in support of the Veda, adduced in the philosophical systems, and by the various commentators, as above summarised, are recapitulated, and some remarks are made on these reasonings. My observations are intended to shew that the arguments in question are inconclusive, or assume the points to be established; that the rishis are proved by the contents of the hymns to have been their real authors; and that numerous events which have occurred in time, are undoubtedly mentioned in the Vedas. This as we have seen (above, p. xvi.) is admitted by S'ankara.

v3.c22.46

The Second Chapter (pp. 217–286) exhibits the opinions of the rishis in regard to the origin of the Vedic hymns. Its object is to shew in detail that, though some at least of the rishis appear to have imagined themselves to be inspired by the gods in the expression of their religious emotions and ideas, they at the same time regarded the hymns as their own compositions, or as (presumably) the compositions of their forefathers, distinguishing between them as new and old, and describing their own authorship in terms which could only have been dictated by a consciousness of its reality. The first, second, and third Sections (pp. 218–244) contain a collection of passages from the Rig-veda in which a distinction is drawn (1) between the rishis as ancient and modern, and (2) between the hymns as older and more recent; and in which (3) the rishis describe themselves as the makers, fabricators, or generators of the hymns; with some additional texts in which such authorship appears to be implied, though it is not expressed. Section fourth (pp. 245–283) contains a variety of passages from the same Veda, in which (1) a superhuman character or supernatural faculties are ascribed to the earlier rishis; and (2) the idea is expressed that the praises and ceremonies of the rishis were suggested and directed by the gods in general, or, in particular, by the goddess of speech, or by some other or others of the different deities of the Vedic pantheon. To illustrate, and render more intelligible and probable, the opinions which I have ascribed to the old Indian rishis regarding their own inspiration, I have quoted in the same Section (pp. 267-273) a number of passages from Hesiod and Homer to shew that the early Greek bards entertained a similar belief. I then advert (pp. 273-274) to the remarkable divergence between the later religious histories of Greece and of India. I next enquire briefly (in pp. 274-275) in what way we can reconcile the apparently conflicting ideas of the rishis on the subject of the hymns, considered, on the one hand, as their own productions, and, on the other, as inspired by the gods. Then follow (pp. 275-279) some further texts from the Rig-veda, in which a mystical, magical, or supernatural efficacy is ascribed to the hymns. These are succeeded (pp. 279-283) by a few quotations from the same Veda, in which the authors complain of their own ignorance; and by a reference to the contrast between these humble confessions and the proud pretensions set up by later theologians in behalf of the Veda, and its capability of imparting universal knowledge. The ideas of the rishis regarding their own inspiration differ widely from the conceptions of later theorists; for while the former looked upon the gods, who were confessedly mere created beings, as the sources of supernal illumination, the latter either regard the Veda as eternal, or refer it to the eternal Brahma, or I's'vara, as its author. The fifth and last Section (pp. 283-286) adduces some texts from the S'vetās'vatara, Muṇḍaka and Chhāndogya Upanishads, which show the opinions of the writers regarding the inspiration, of their predecessors; and refers to the similar claims set up on their own behalf by the writers of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, as shewn in the passages quoted in pp. 27-30.

v3.c22.47

With all its imperfections this volume may perhaps possess a certain interest, not only for the student of Indian history, but also for the divine and the philosopher, as furnishing a few documents to illustrate the course of theological opinion in a sphere far removed from the ordinary observation of the European student,—a course which, quite independently of the merits of the different tenets involved in the enquiry, will, I think, be found to present a remarkable parallel in various respects to that which is traceable in the history of those religious systems with which we are most familiar. In both cases we find that a primitive age of ardent emotion, of simple faith, and of unarticulated beliefs, was succeeded by a period of criticism and speculation, when the floating materials handed down by preceding generations were compared, classified, reconciled, developed into their consequences, and elaborated into a variety of scholastic systems.

v3.c22.48

In the Preface to the first edition I stated as follows: "In regard to the texts quoted from the Rig-veda, I have derived the same sort of assistance from the French version of M. Langlois, which has been acknowledged in the Preface to the Second Volume, p. vi. I am also indebted for some of the Vedic texts to Boehtlingk and Roth's Lexicon."

v3.c22.49

A comparison of the former edition with the present will shew that considerable alterations and additions have been made in the latter. The texts which formerly stood in the Appendix have now been transferred to their proper places in the body of the work; and various other passages have been transposed. The principal additions will be found in the first four sections, in the ninth (pp. 115-127), tenth (which is altogether new), eleventh (pp. 185 ff.), and in the Appendix.

v3.c22.50

I am indebted to various learned friends for assistance in different parts of the work, which I have acknowledged in the notes. My thanks are especially due to Professors Goldstücker and Cowell for various important corrections which they have suggested in my translations of passages of a scholastic and philosophical character, quoted either in the body of the volume or in the Appendix,—corrections which are incorporated in the text,—as well as for some further remarks and suggestions which will be found in the notes or Appendix. I am also under obligations to Professor Aufrecht for some emendations of my renderings in the early part of the work, as well as for his explanations of many of the texts of the Rigveda cited in the Second Chapter.

v3.c22.51

1—217. CHAPTER I. OPINIONS REGARDING THE ORIGIN, DIVISION, INSPIRATION, AND AUTHORITY OF THE VEDAS, HELD BY INDIAN AUTHORS SHORTLY BEFORE, OR SUBSEQUENT TO, THE COLLECTION OF THE HYMNS OF THE RIG-VEDA.

v3.c22.52

3—10. SECT. I. Origin of the Vedas according to the Purusha-sūkta, the Atharva-veda, the Brāhmaṇas, Upanishads, and Institutes of Manu.

v3.c22.53

10—14. SECT. II. Origin of the Vedas according to the Vishṇu, Bhāgavata, and Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇas, the Harivaṁśa, the Mahābhārata; eternity of the Veda; miscellaneous statements regarding it.

v3.c22.54

14—18. SECT. III. Passages of the Brāhmaṇas and other works in which the Vedas are spoken of as being the sources of all things, and as infinite and eternal.

v3.c22.55

18—36. SECT. IV. Passages from the S'atapatha Brāhmaṇa and Manu eulogistic of the Veda, with some statements of a different tenor from Manu and other writers.

v3.c22.56

36—49. SECT. V. Division of the Vedas, according to the Vishṇu, Vāyu, and Bhāgavata Purāṇas, and the Mahābhārata.

v3.c22.57

49—57. SECT. VI. Accounts in the Vishṇu and Vāyu Purāṇas of the schisms between the adherents of the Yajur-veda, Vaiśampāyana, and Yājnavalkya; hostility of the Ātharvaṇas towards the other Vedas; and of the Chhandogas towards the Rig-veda.

v3.c22.58

57—70. Sect. VII. Reasonings of the Commentators on the Vedas, in support of the authority of the Vedas.

v3.c22.59

70—108. Sect. VIII. Arguments of the Mīmānsakas and Vedāntins in support of the eternity and authority of the Vedas.

v3.c22.60

108—138. Sect. IX. Arguments of the followers of the Nyāya, Vaiśeshika, and Sānkhya systems in support of the authority of the Vedas, but against eternity of sound, and of the Vedas; Vaiśeshika conception of the intuitive knowledge of the rishis.

v3.c22.61

138—179. Sect. X. Extracts from the Vedānta, Sānkhya, Vaiśeshika, and Bhakti aphorisms, and their commentators, illustrative of the use which the authors of the different Darśanas make of Vedic texts, and the different modes of interpretation which they adopt.

v3.c22.62

179—207. Sect. XI. Distinction in point of authority between the Veda and the Smṛitis or non-Vedic S'āstras, as stated in the Nyāya-mālā-vistara, and by the commentators on Manu, and the Vedānta; Vijnāna Bhikshu's view of the Sānkhya; opinion of S'ankara regarding the authority of the orthodox rishis; difference of view between him and Madhusūdana regarding the orthodoxy of Kapila and Kaṇāda, etc. : the distinction between the Vedas and other S'āstras, drawn by later writers, not borne out by the Upanishads.

v3.c22.63

207—217. Sect. XII. Recapitulation of the arguments urged in the Darśanas, and by commentators, in support of the authority of the Vedas, with some remarks on these reasonings.

v3.c22.64

217—286. CHAPTER II. The Rishis, and their Opinions in regard to the Origin of the Vedic Hymns.

v3.c22.65

218—224. Sect. I. Passages from the Hymns of the Veda which distinguish between the Rishis as Ancient and Modern.

v3.c22.66

224—232. Sect. II. Passages from the Veda in which a distinction is drawn between the older and the more recent hymns.

v3.c22.67

232—244. Sect. III. Passages of the Rig-veda in which the Rishis describe themselves as the composers of the Hymns, or intimate nothing to the contrary.

v3.c22.68

245—283. Sect. IV. Passages of the Rig-veda in which a supernatural character is ascribed to the Rishis or the Hymns; similar conceptions of inspiration entertained by the Greeks of the Homeric age; limitations of this opinion in the case of the Vedic Rishis.

v3.c22.69

283—286. Sect. V. Texts from the Upanishads, showing the opinions of the authors regarding the inspiration of their predecessors.

v3.c22.70

287—312. Appendix.

v3.c22.71

287. Quotation from the Atharva-veda xi. 7, 24.

v3.c22.72

287—288. Amended translations by Professor Aufrecht.

v3.c22.73

288—289. Quotations from Manu and the Mahābhārata on Vedic and other study.

v3.c22.74

289—290. Various illustrative quotations and references.

v3.c22.75

290. Amended translation by Professor Cowell.

v3.c22.76

290. Note by Professor Cowell on the phrase *Kālātyayāpadishṭa*.

v3.c22.77

291. Amended translation by Professor Cowell.

v3.c22.78

292—300. Quotation of Brahma Sūtras, i. 3, 34–38, with S'ankara's comments, shewing the incompetence of S'ūdras to acquire the highest divine knowledge, with a short passage of a contrary tenor from the Bhagavat Gītā.

v3.c22.79

300—308. Quotation from Brahma Sūtras, i. 3, 30, with S'ankara's comment, in continuation of the reasoning in pp. 101–105 in support of the eternity of the words of the Veda, and in refutation of the objections derived from the alleged non-eternity of creation; with Brahma Sūtra, ii. 1, 36, and part of S'ankara's comment.

v3.c22.80

308—309. Quotation from Manu, ii. 14 f.; and from Kullūka in explanation of the term *samayādhyushita*.

v3.c22.81

309—10. Corrections by Professors Cowell and Goldstücker.

v3.c22.82

310. Quotation from Commentary on Vishṉu Purāṉa, i. 17, 54.

v3.c22.83

310. Quotation from Vājasaneyi Sam̃hita, xiii. 45, and S'atapatha Brāhmaṉa, vii. 5, 2, 21.

v3.c22.84

311. Additional texts (i. 67, 4; i. 109, 1, 2; and x. 66, 5) from the Rig-veda, regarding the composition of the hymns.

v3.c22.85

312. Supplementary note by Prof. Goldstücker, on *Kālātyayāpadishṭa*.

Errata et Corrigenda

v3.c23.1

Page 24, line 11. For Brahmā read Brahmă. ,, 45, ,, 15. For *Yayush* read *Yajush*. ,, 53, ,, 8. For theologicans read theologians. ,, 62, ,, 2 from foot: For its author read their authors. ,, 85, ,, 4 ,, Before *Prajāpatir* insert xi. 243. ,, 95, ,, 2 ,, For *dhvanitvam* read *dhvanitam*. ,, 96, ,, 16. The same correction. ,, 101, ,, 22. For Vanap. read S'āntip. ,, 149, ,, 6. For *śabdādīkshiter* read *śabdād īkshiter* ,, 159, ,, 16. For *chaindri-* read *cha indri-*. ,, 159, ,, 31. For *paratvou-* read *paratvo-*. ,, 160, ,, 18. For *punar-utpattir* read *punar-anutpattir*. ,, 213, ,, 16. For p. 120 read p. 118. ,, 221, ,, 24. For vi. 21, 1 read vi. 21, ,, 224, ,, 7 from foot. Omit *dhishaṇā*. ,, 261, ,, 12. For vi. 62, 3 read vi. 26,

v3.c23.2

VOLUME THIRD.

v3.c23.3

OPINIONS REGARDING THE ORIGIN, DIVISION, INSPIRATION, AND AUTHORITY OF THE VEDAS, HELD BY INDIAN AUTHORS SHORTLY BEFORE, OR SUBSEQUENT TO, THE COLLECTION OF THE HYMNS OF THE RIG-VEDA.

v3.c23.4

In the preceding volumes of this work¹ I have furnished a general account of the ancient Indian writings, which are comprehended under the designation of Veda or S'ruti. These works, which, as we have seen, constitute the earliest literature of the Hindus, are broadly divisible into two classes: (1) The Mantras or hymns, in which the praises of the gods are celebrated and their blessing is invoked; (2) the Brāhmaṇas, which embrace (*a*) the liturgical institutes in which the ceremonial application of these hymns is declared, the various rites of sacrifice are prescribed, and the origin and hidden import of the different forms are explained, and (*b*) the Āraṇyakas,² and Upanishads (called also Vedāntas, *i.e.* concluding portions of the Vedas), which in part possess the same character as some of the earlier portions of the Brāhmaṇas, and are in part theological treatises in which the spiritual aspirations which were gradually developed in the minds of the more devout of the Indian sages are preserved. It is, therefore, clear that the hymns constitute the original and, in some respects, the most essential portion of the Veda; that the Brāhmaṇas arose out of the hymns, and are subservient to their employment for the purposes of worship; while the Upanishads give expression to ideas of a speculative and mystical character which, though to some extent discoverable in the hymns and in the older portion of the Brāhmaṇas, are much further matured, and assume a more exclusive importance, in these later treatises.

v3.c23.5

¹ See Vol. I. pp. 2 ff. and Vol. II. pp. 169 ff. See also Professor Max Müller's History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature.

v3.c23.6

² For more precise information see Müller's Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 313 ff. from which it will be perceived that only some of the Āraṇyakas form part of the Brāhmaṇas, and that two of the Upanishads are included in a Sanhitā.

v3.c23.7

I content myself here with referring the reader who desires to obtain a fuller idea of the nature of the hymns, and of the mythology which they embody, to the late Professor H. H. Wilson’s translation of the earlier portion of the Rig-veda, to his prefaces to the several volumes, to Professor Max Müller’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, and to two papers of my own in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, entitled Contributions to a knowledge of the Cosmogony and Mythology of the Rig-veda. In the fourth volume of this work I return to the latter branch of the subject, and compare the conceptions which the rishis entertained of the different objects of their worship, with those representations of the deities who bore the same names, which occur in Indian writings of a later date, whether mythological or theological.

v3.c23.8

The task to which I propose in the meantime to devote myself, is to supply some account of the opinions entertained by Hindu writers, ancient and modern, in regard to the origin and authority of the Vedas. With this view I have collected from some of the later hymns, from the Indian writings of the middle and later Vedic era (the Brāhmaṇas and Upanishads) as well as from the books, whether popular or scientific, of the post-vedic period (the Purāṇas, the Itihāsas, the Institutes of Manu, the aphorisms of the Darśanas, or systems of philosophy, and their commentators, and the commentaries on the Vedas) such passages as I have discovered which have reference to these subjects, and propose to compare the opinions there set forth with the ideas entertained on some of these points by the writers of the more ancient hymns, as deducible from numerous passages in their own compositions.

v3.c23.9

The mythical accounts which are given of the origin of the Vedas are mutually conflicting. In some passages they are said to have been created by Prajāpati from fire, air, and the sun, or by some other process. In other texts they are said to have been produced by Brahmā from his different mouths, or by the intervention of the Gāyatrī, or to have sprung from the goddess Sarasvatī, or to have otherwise arisen. I proceed to adduce these several passages.

Sect. I.—Origin of the Vedas according to the Purusha-sūkta, the Atharva-veda, the Brāhmanas, Upanishads, and Institutes of Manu

v3.c23.s1.1

*Purusha-sūkta.*—In the ninth verse of this hymn (Rig-veda, x. 90, already quoted in Vol. I. pp. 8 and 9) the three Vedas are said to have been produced from the mystical victim Purusha: *Tasmād yajnāt sarva-hutaḥ ṛichaḥ sāmāni jajnire | chhandāmsi jajnire tasmād yajus tasmād ajāyata* | "From that universal sacrifice sprang the ṛich and sāman verses: the metres sprang from it: from it the yajush arose."³

v3.c23.s1.2

³ The word *veda*, in whatever sense we are to understand it, occurs in R.V. viii. 19, 5: *Yaḥ samidhā yaḥ āhutī yo vedena dadāśa martyo agnaye | yo namasā svadhvaraḥ | 6. Tasya id arvanto raṁhayante āśavas tasya dyumnitamaṁ yaśaḥ | na tam aṁho deva-kṛitaṁ kutaś chana na martya-kṛitam naśat* | "The horses of that mortal who, devoted to sacrifice, does homage to Agni with fuel, with an oblation, with ritual knowledge (?), with reverence,—(6) speed forward impetuously; and his renown is most glorious. No calamity, caused either by god or by man, can assail him from any quarter."

v3.c23.s1.3

This is the only passage in the hymns of the Rig-veda in which the creation of the Vedas is described.

v3.c23.s1.4

In the Atharva-veda the following texts refer to that subject:

v3.c23.s1.5

x. 7, 14. *Yattra ṛishayaḥ prathamajāḥ ṛichaḥ sāma yajur mahī | ekarshir yasminn arpitaḥ Skambhaṁ tam brūhi katamaḥ svid eva saḥ | . . . . 20. Yasmād ṛicho apātakshan yajur yasmād apākashan | sāmāni yasya lomāni atharvāṅgiraso mukham | Skambham tam brūhi katamaḥ svid eva saḥ |*

v3.c23.s1.6

"Declare who that Skambha (supporting-principle) is in whom the primeval rishis, the ṛich, sāman, and yajush, the earth, and the one rishi, are sustained. . . . . 20. Declare who is that Skambha from whom they cut off the ṛich verses, from whom they scraped off the yajush, of whom the sāman verses are the hairs, and the verses of Atharvan and Angiras the mouth."

v3.c23.s1.7

xiii. 4, 38. *Sa vai ṛigbhyo ajāyata tasmād ṛicho ajāyanta* |

v3.c23.s1.8

"He (apparently Indra, see verse 44) sprang from the ṛich verses: the ṛich verses sprang from him."

v3.c23.s1.9

xix. 54, 3. *Kālād ṛichaḥ samabhavan yajuḥ kālād ajāyata* |

v3.c23.s1.10

"From Time the ṛich verses sprang: the yajush sprang from Time."⁴

v3.c23.s1.11

⁴ See my translation of the entire hymn in the Journal of the Roy. As. Soc. for 1865, p. 381. The Vishṇu Purāṇa, i. 2, 13, says: *Tad eva sarvam evaitad vyaktāvyakta-svarūpavat* | *tathā purusha-rūpeṇa kāla-rūpeṇa cha sthitam* | "This (Brahma) is all this universe, existing both as the perceptible and the imperceptible; existing also in the forms of Purusha and of Kāla (Time)."

v3.c23.s1.12

The following texts from the same Veda may also be introduced here:

v3.c23.s1.13

iv. 35, 6. *Yasmāt pakvād amṛitaṁ sambabhūva yo gāyatryāḥ adhipatir babhūva* | *yasmin vedāḥ nihitāḥ viśvarūpās tenaudanenāti tarāmi mṛityum* |

First 111 of 1,896 passages. Read on

Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India, their Religion and Institutions v3: Volume 3

Contents

Volume 3

Front matter

Errata et Corrigenda

Sect. I.—Origin of the Vedas according to the Purusha-sūkta, the Atharva-veda, the Brāhmanas, Upanishads, and Institutes of Manu