pArt 2 9724
We now proceed to explain the etymology of the word ‘Veda.’ The ‘Veda’ is
that from which people derive their knowledge of Dharma, which cannot be
known from any other source of knowledge*—[ vidanti asmāṭ iti vedaḥ ]**;* (
root definition of Veda) {KR Incidentally, the west which seeks the root
from Greek, for the term science as knowledge, forget that then scientists
have also used a word wrt meaning Knowledge only, unlike the names of
religions ,except the Buddha} and this knowledge of Dharma is derived from
each individual sentence; hence the name is not restricted to the entire
collection of Adhyāyas and Anuvākas that go under the name ‘Ṛgveda.’ It is
on this understanding that the penalty of having the tongue cut off is
inflicted (upon the Śūdra) when he pronounces a single sentence out of the
Veda. On the same principle also is the epithet ‘whole’ found in the
injunction that ‘the whole Veda should be studied,’ where it serves to
indicate the necessity of studying all the sentences contained in the Veda;
otherwise (if the epithet ‘whole’ were not there) the learner would be
satisfied with the reading of only a few sentences, and would not read the
whole Veda. All this we shall explain in detail in the present work.
This Veda is variously divided. The Sāma Veda is said to have a thousand
‘paths’ (i.e., Recensions), in the shape of ‘Sātya,’ ‘Mugri,’ ‘Rāṇāyanīya’
and so forth; there are a hundred Recensions of the Yajurveda, in the shape
of ‘Kāṭhaka,’ ‘Vājasaneyaka’ and the rest; there are twenty-one Recensions
of the Ṛgveda; and nine of the Atharva Veda in the shape of ‘Modaka’
‘Paippalādaka,’ and so forth.
[Objection]—(KR Adi Shankara collects or inserts HIS own negative aspects
of doubts and will answer, clarifying all the doubts is termed as
“Objections”}
“No one regards the Atharva as a Veda: (a) ‘The science is three-fold,
consisting of the Ṛk, the Yajuṣ and the Sāman,’ (b) ‘The Sun moves forward,
endowed with the three Vedas’ (Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa, 3.12.91), (c) ‘One
should keep up the observance of studying the three Vedas’; [all these
speak of only three Vedas]. In fact we also find a prohibition regarding
the Atharva—‘One should not recite the Atharvaṇas.’ It is in view of all
these that people regard the followers of the Atharvaṇa as heretics, beyond
the pale of the Vedic Triad.”
[Answer]—This is not right; all good men agree in regarding the Atharvaṇa
as a Veda. In this Smṛti itself (11.33) we find the expression ‘śrutīr
atharvāṅ girasīḥ,’ where the Atharva is spoken of as ‘śruti,’ and ‘śruti’
is the same as ‘Veda.’
Further [whether a certain Veda is called ‘Veda’ or not is of no import]; when
certain passages—those prescribing the Agnihotra and other sacrifices,
which all people call ‘Veda’—are regarded as authoritative in matters
regarding Dharma, they are so accepted, not because they are called by the
name of ‘Veda’;—because the name ‘Veda’ is sometimes applied to Itihāsa and
the Āyurveda also, when, for instance, it is said that ‘Itihāsa and Purāṇa
are the fifth Veda’ (Chandogya Upaniṣad, 7.1.2), [and yet these are not
regarded as authorities on Dharma];—but because they are independent of
human agency, and help to make known our duties, and because they are free
from mistakes; and all these conditions are fulfilled by the Atharva: such
acts as the Jyotiṣṭoma and the like are prescribed in the Atharva just as
they are in the Yajuṣ and the other Vedas. Some people have fallen into the
mistake that the Atharva cannot be Veda because it abounds in teachings of
acts dealing with malevolent magic (witchcraft). As a matter of fact,
malevolent magic, as leading to the death of living beings, is always
prohibited.
[It is described, because] it is employed by the priests of kings who are
well versed in magical spells; but it is deprecated.
It has been argued above that “the Atharva is not mentioned among Vedas, in
such passages as ‘the Sun moves, endowed with the three Vedas.’”—But the
passages quoted are merely declamatory (Arthavāda); it is therefore of no
consequence whether or not the Atharva is mentioned among them. Or, the
passages that speak of ‘three Vedas,’ ‘the triple science,’ and so forth
may be taken as referring to the three kinds of mantras; besides the three
kinds of mantras found in the Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāma Vedas, there is no fourth
kind,—the Exhortations, the Invocations, the lowly recited Prayers and the
Hymns to Indra, and such other Mantras being all included under these
three. In the Atharva Veda also, the mantras mentioned are all of the ‘Ṛk’
class; hence so far as the classification according to the kind of mantra
is concerned, it comes under the ‘Ṛgveda.’
As regards the interdict placed upon the study of the Atharva Veda, it
indicates a conclusion quite the reverse of that which it has been cited
(by the opponent) to prove: A prohibition is possible only of what is
otherwise possible [so that the very prohibition proves that the said study
was, and should be, prevalent, except under the circumstances referred to
in the interdict]. Or, the passage quoted may simply mean that ‘one should
not mix up the performance of acts enjoined in the other three Vedas with
that of those prescribed in the Atharva Veda; for instance, during the
performance of the Vācastoma sacrifices, the reciting of all Ṛk, Sāman and
Yajuṣ mantras is enjoined, and the said prohibition precludes the reciting,
at this sacrifice, of the mantras occurring in the Atharva Veda.
The above-described Veda—which is a particular kind of literary
compilation, not by any human author, which is divided into several
‘Recensions,’ and known under the name ‘Mantra-Brāhmaṇa’—is the
‘root’—i.e., the authority, the means of knowing—‘of Dharma.’ ‘Root,’ here
means cause. The Veda and Smṛti can be a ‘cause’ only in the sense that
they serve to make known,—not in that of producing, nor in that helping to
stand, which are the two senses in which the ‘root’ is the cause of the
Tree.
*The term ‘dharma’* we have already explained above; it is that which a man
should do, and which is conducive to his welfare, and of a character
different from such acts as are amenable to perception and the other
ordinary means of knowledge. Land-cultivation, service, &c., also are
conducive to man’s welfare; but this fact of their being so beneficial is
ascertained by means of positive and negative induction; and as regards the
sort of cultivation that brings a good harvest of grains, this is
ascertained by direct perception and other ordinary means of knowledge. On
the other hand, the fact of sacrifices being conducive to welfare, and the
manner in which they are beneficial, through the intervention of the
‘Apūrva,’—all this is not amenable to perception or other ordinary means of
knowledge. ‘Welfare ’is that which is, in its most general form, spoken of
as ‘pleasure,’ consisting of the attaining what is desirable, in the shape
of Heaven, landed property and so forth, and also (b) the avoiding of what
is generally spoken of as ‘pain,’ which consists of illness, poverty,
unhappiness, Hell and so forth. Others regard the attaining of Supreme
Bliss only as ‘welfare.’
This Dharma is learnt from such passages in the Brāhmaṇas as contain the
‘liṅ’ and other injunctive expressions. In some cases we learnt it also
from mantras; e.g., from such mantras as ‘Vasantāya kapiñjalān ālabhale,’
‘offers the Kapiñjala birds to Vasanta’ (Vājasaneyi Samhitā, 24. 20). Among
these such passages as contain the word ‘Kāma’ (‘desire’) indicate that the
act therein enjoined is to be performed for the purpose of obtaining a
definite result; e.g., ‘brahma varcasa kāmaḥ,’ (‘one desirous of acquiring
Brahmic glory should offer cooked rice to Sūrya’), ‘Vaiśvadevīm sāṅgrahiṇīṃ
nirvapet grāmakāmaḥ’ (‘one desirous of acquiring landed property should
offer the Śāṅgrahini to the Viśvedevas’); and the actions thus enjoined are
not done by one who is not desirous of obtaining the particular results
spoken of. There are other acts which are pointed out as compulsory, by
means of such words as ‘yāvajjīvam’ (‘throughout one’s life’) and so forth.
These are not performed with a view to any results,—there being no results
mentioned as following from them. Nor will it he right to assume, in this
case also, a definite result in the shape of Heaven, in accordance with the
‘Viśvajit’—principle (laid down in the Pūrva-Mimānsā Sūtra 4.3.15-16);
because the presence of such words as ‘throughout life’ and so forth
already indicates that these are to be performed without any reference to
results, and the omission of these acts simply involves the sin of
disobeying the scriptural injunction. So that it is with a view to avoid
this sin that the acts thus prescribed are performed. This same holds good
regarding prohibitions—such as ‘the Brāhmaṇa should not he killed,’ ‘wine
should not be drunk’; the avoiding of the prohibited act is not for the
purpose of any reward, but simply for the purpose of avoiding something
sinful;
‘Entire,’—whole. That is, there is not a single word, consonant or vowel
(of the Veda) that is not conducive to Dharma.
Some people raise the following objection against this:—
“It has been asserted that the Veda consists of injunctions, descriptions,
mantras and names, and Dharma is of the nature of what should be done. Now
it is only right that the Injunctive passages should be the means of
knowing Dharm a; as it is from these that we learn that sacrifice and other
acts should he done,—e.g., ‘the Agnihotra should be offered,’ ‘an offering
of curds should be made,’ ‘offerings should he made in the morning and in
the evening, to Agni and Prajāpati,’ ‘one desirous of attaining Heaven
should pour libations into the fire.’ The whole set of these passages
points to the particular action of ‘Agnihotra’ as one that should he done;
‘curds’ are the substance to be offered at the same sacrifice, Agni and
Prajāpati are the deities to whom the offerings are to be made,—and the
‘desire for heaven’ is the qualifying condition for he performer.
“But in the Veda there are many such passages as—(a) ‘Agni is all the
deities, Agni is the divine power of oblations, he invites the Gods and
makes offerings to them,’ &c., and again (b) ‘Prajāpati cut out his own
fat’ and so forth; and certainly such passages do not lay down anything to
be done; all that they do is either to relate some past event or to
describe some entirely irrelevant thing. If his own fat was cut out by
Prajāpati, let him cut it; what is that to us? Similarly the fact of Agni
being all deities does not help in the offerings to Agni; that Agni is the
deity to whom the offering should be made having been declared by the word
‘Agni’ itself; if Agni is some other deity, then the mere fact of his being
another deity would rule him out as a recipient of that offering. As for
inviting, that also is laid down by another passage ‘we invite Agni, O
Agni!’ Ac. And lastly, as for the mention of Agni inviting and making
offerings to the Gods, this is absolutely meaningless.
“As regards mantras again, there are some,—e.g., (a) ‘There was neither
death nor immortality, &.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.129.2), (b) ‘Sudeva might fall
to-day never to return, &c.,’ (Ṛgveda, 10.95.14) and so forth—which either
describe some past event or contain a wailing; and what Dharma could such
mantras expound? At that time there was neither death, nor immortality, nor
life—certainly no living being having been born before creation, there, was
no life or death of any one; during the universal dissolution also, there
may come about the death of all things, or it may not come about,—it does
not teach us anything as to anything to be done. Similarly, Sudeva, a
certain highly meritorious godlike man, might to-day fall, i.e.,—might
throw himself into a pit—never to return—i.e., after which fall he cannot
come back to life;—this is how Purūravas, separated from Urvaśī, bewailed.
Similarly as regards Names,—e.g, as ‘one should sacrifice with the Udbhid,’
‘one should sacrifice with the Balabhid,’ &c., &c.,—they do not enjoin any
act or substance; the enjoining of the action being done by the verb
(‘should sacrifice’), and the word ‘Balabhid’ and ‘Udbhid, &c., not being
expressive of any substance; specially as the substance for the sacrifice
iu question in the form of Soma—is got at from its archetype by virtue of
the direct injunction. [that ‘the ectypal sacrifices are to be performed in
the manner of their archetypes,’ and the archetype of the Udbhid sacrifice
is the Jyotiṣṭoma at which soma-juice is the substance offered]; and hence
there is no necessity for twisting the words ‘udbhid,’ &c., to yield the
name of some sacrificial material [such as tree or spade, which may be
indicated by the etymology of the word ‘udbhid,’ which means ‘that which
shoots out’ or ‘that with which digging is done’]. Thus it is clear that no
dharma is indicated by the names. How then can it be said that ‘the entire
Veda is the root of dharma?’”
Our answer to the above is as follows:—It is just in view of these doubts
that the Author has added the epithet ‘entire’; by which it is meant that
all these passages that have been cited by the objector help in providing
knowledge of Dharma.
----------------------------------------------------------------PART 2 END
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoq3zUqoNVaTSsE72D3GtGHtksc8jW61qbDqw2tGbFJ0yg%40mail.gmail.com.
