Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

which he enumerates, intended to speak of the Vedangas or appendages of the Vedas, and perhaps the Smritis also, as being the breathing of Brahma. The works which in the passage from the Mundaka are called Kalpa, are also commonly designated as the Kalpa Sutras.

This conclusion is in some degree confirmed by referring to the passage from the Mahābhārata, S'ānti-parvan, 7,660, which has been cited in p. 105, where it is said that the "great rishis, empowered by Svayambhu, obtained by devotion the Vedas, and the Itihasas, which had disappeared at the end of the preceding Yuga." Whatever may be the sense of the word Itihasa in a Vedic work, there can be no doubt that in the Mahābhārata, which is itself an Itihasa, the word refers to that class of metrical histories. And in this text we see these Itihāsas placed on a footing of equality with the Vedas, and regarded as having been, like them, pre-existent and supernatural. See also the passage from the Chhandogya Upanishad, vii. 1, 1 ff. (Bibl. Ind., vol. iii. pp. 473 ff.), quoted above (p. 33), where the Itihāsas and Purāņas are spoken of as "the fifth Veda of the Vedas." The same title of "fifth Veda" is applied to them in the Bhag. Pur. iii. 12, 39: Itihāsa-purāṇāni panchamam vedam Isvaraḥ | sarvebhyaḥ eva mukhebhyaḥ sasṛije sarva-darśanaḥ | “The omniscient Īśvara (God) created from all his mouths the Itihāsas and Purāņas, as a fifth Veda." See also the passages quoted above in pp. 27-30, from the Purāgas and Mahābhārata, where the Itihāsas and Purāṇas themselves are placed on an equality with, if not in a higher rank, than the Vedas. The claims put forward by these popular works on their own behalf are not, indeed, recognized as valid by more critical and scientific authors, who, as we have seen at the beginning of this section, draw a distinct line of demarcation between the Vedas and all other works; but it would appear from the passages I have quoted from the Upanishads that at one time the Vedas were, at least, not so strictly discriminated from the other S'astras as they afterwards were.

SECT. XII.-Recapitulation of the Arguments urged in the Darsanas, and by Commentators, in support of the Authority of the Vedas, with some remarks on these reasonings.

As in the preceding sections I have entered at some length into the arguments urged by the authors of the philosopical systems and their

commentators, in proof of the eternity and infallibility of the Vedas, it may be convenient to recapitulate the most important points in these reasonings; and I shall then add such observations as the consideration of them may suggest.

The grounds on which the apologists of the Vedas rest their authority are briefly these: First, it is urged that, like the sun, they shine by their own light, and evince an inherent power both of revealing their own perfection, and of elucidating all other things, past and future, great and small, near and remote (Sayana, as quoted above, p. 62; Sankara on Brahma Sūtras i. 1, 3, above, p. 190). This is the view taken by the author of the Sankhya Sūtras also, who, however, expressly denies that the Vedas originated from the conscious effort of any divine being (see p. 135). Second, it is asserted that the Veda could have had no (human) personal author, as no such composer is recollected (Madhava, above, pp. 83 ff), and cannot therefore be suspected of any such imperfection as would arise from the fallibility of such an author (pp. 69 f.; Sayana p. 106). Third, the Pūrva-mīmānsā adds to this that the words of which the Vedas are composed are eternal, and have an eternal connection (not an arbitrary relation depending upon the human will) with their meanings, and that therefore the Vedas are eternal, and consequently perfect and infallible 179 (Mīmānsā Sūtras and Commentary, above, pp.71 ff., and Sarva-darśana-sangraha, above, pp.91f.) Fourth, the preceding view is either explained or modified by the commentator on the Taittirīya Sanhitā (above, p. 69), as well as by Sayana in his Introduction to the Rig-veda (above, p. 106), who say that, like time, æther, etc., the Veda is only eternal in a qualified sense, i.e. during the continuance of the existing mundane system; and that in reality it sprang from Brahma at the beginning of the creation. But this origin cannot according to their view affect the perfection of the Veda, which in consequence of the faultlessness of its author possesses a self-demonstrating authority. Fifth, although the Vedānta, too, speaks of the eternity of the Veda (above, p. 105), it also in the same passage makes mention of its self-dependent author; while in another passage (p. 106) it distinctly ascribes the origin of the Indian Scripture to Brahma as its source or

179 In the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad (p. 688 of Dr. Röer's ed.) it is said: Vachaiva samraḍ Brahma jnāyate vāg vai samrāṭ paramam Brahma | "By speech, o monarch, Brahma is known. Speech is the supreme Brahma."

cause.

Brahma here must be taken as neuter, denoting the supreme Spirit, and not masculine, designating the personal creator, as under the fourth head. 180 Sixth, according to the Naiyayika doctrine the authority of the Veda is established by the fact of its having emanated from competent persons who had an intuitive perception of duty, and whose competence is proved by their injunctions being attended with the desired results in all cases which come within the cognizance of our senses and experience (Nyaya Sutras, above, pp. 116). Seventh, agreeably to the Vaiseshika doctrine, and that, of the Kusumanjali, the infallibility of the Veda results from the omniscience of its author, who is God (Vaiseshika Sutras, Tarka Sangraha, and Kusumānjali, pp. 119 ff., 127, and 129 ff., above).

These arguments, as the reader who has studied all their details will have noticed, are sometimes in direct opposition to each other in their leading principles; and they are not likely to seem convincing to any persons but the adherents of the schools from which they have severally emanated. The European student (unless he has some ulterior practical object in view) can only look upon these opinions as matters of historical interest, as illustrations of the course of religious thought among a highly acute and speculative people. But they may be expected to possess a greater importance in the eyes of any Indian readers into whose hands this book may fall; and as such readers may desire to learn in what light these arguments are regarded by Western scholars, I shall offer a few remarks on the subject.

In regard to the first ground in support of the infallibility of the Veda, viz. the evidence which radiates from itself, or its internal evidence, I may observe first, that this is a species of proof which can only be estimated by those who have made the Indian Scripture the object of careful study; and, second, that it must be judged by the reason and conscience of each individual student. This evidence may appear conclusive to men in a certain stage of their national and personal culture, and especially to those who have been accustomed from their infancy to regard the Vedas with a hereditary veneration; whilst to persons in a different state of mental progress, and living under different influences, it will appear perfectly futile. It is quite clear that, even in India itself, there existed in former ages multitudes of learned 180 See note in p. 205, above.

and virtuous men who were unable to see the force of this argument, and who consequently rejected the authority of the Vedas. I allude of course to Buddha and his followers. And we have even found that some of those writers who are admitted to have been orthodox, such as the authors of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Bhāgavata Purana, while they attach the highest value to the divine knowledge conveyed by the latest portions of the Veda, depreciate, if they do not actually despise, the hymns and the ceremonial worship connected with them.

In regard to the second argument, viz. that the Vedas must be of supernatural origin, and infallible authority, as they are not known to have had any human author, I observe as follows. The Greek historian, Herodotus, remarks (ii. 23) of a geographer of his own day who explained the annual inundations of the river Nile by supposing its stream to be derived from an imaginary ocean flowing round the earth, which no one had ever seen, that his opinion did not admit of confutation, because he carried the discussion back into the region of the unap parent (ἐς ἀφανὲς τὸν μῦθον ἀνενείκας οὐκ ἔχει ἔλεγχον). The same might be said of the Indian speculators, who argue that the Veda must have had a supernatural origin, because it was never observed to have had a human author like other books;-that by thus removing the negative grounds on which they rest their case into the unknown depths of antiquity, they do their utmost to place themselves beyond the reach of direct refutation. But it is to be observed (1) that, even if it were to be admitted that no human authors of the Vedas were remembered in later ages, this would prove nothing more than their antiquity, and that it would still be incumbent on their apologists to show that this circumstance necessarily involved their supernatural character; and (2) that, in point of fact, Indian tradition does point to certain rishis or bards as the authors of the Vedic hymns. It is true, indeed, as has been already noticed (p. 85), that these rishis are said to have only "seen" the hymns, which (it is alleged) were eternally preexistent, and that they were not their authors. But as tradition declares that the hymns were uttered by such and such rishis, how is it proved that the rishis to whom they are ascribed, or those, whoever they were, from whom they actually proceeded, were not uttering the mere productions of their own minds? The whole character of these compositions, and the circumstances under which, from internal evi

dence, they appear to have arisen, are in harmony with the supposition that they were nothing more than the natural expression of the personal hopes and feelings of those ancient bards by whom they were first recited. In these songs the Aryan sages celebrated the praises of their ancestral gods (while at the same time they sought to conciliate their goodwill by a variety of oblations supposed to be acceptable to them), and besought of them all the blessings which men in general desire-health, wealth, long life, cattle, offspring, victory over their enemies, forgiveness of sin, and in some cases also celestial felicity.

The scope of these hymns is well summed up in the passage which I have already quoted (from Colebrooke's Misc. Essays i. 26) in the Second Volume, p. 206: Arthepsavaḥ ṛishayo devatāś chhandobhir abhyadhāvan | “The rishis desiring [various] objects, hastened to the gods with metrical prayers." The Nirukta, vii. 1, quoted in the same place, says: Yat-kamaḥ rishir yasyām devatāyām arthapatyam ichhan stutim prayunkte tad-devataḥ sa mantro bhavati | "Each particular hymn has for its deity the god to whom the rishi, seeking to obtain any object of desire which he longs for, addresses his prayer." And in the sequel of the same passage from the Nirukta (vii. 3), the fact that the hymns express the different feelings or objects of the rishis is distinctly recognized:

Paroksha-kritāḥ pratyaksha-kritāś cha mantrāḥ bhūyishṭhāḥ alpaśaḥ · ādhyātmikāḥ | athāpi stutir eva bhavati na āśīrvādaḥ "Indrasya nu viryani pravocham" iti yatha etasmin sūkte | athāpi āśīr eva na stutiḥ “suchakshāḥ aham akshibhyām bhūyāsam suvarchāḥ mukhena suśrut karṇābhyām bhūyāsam" iti | tad etad bahulam ādhvaryave yājneshu cha mantreshu | athāpi śapathābhiśāpau | "adya muriya" ityādi... athāpi kasyachid bhāvasya āchikhyāsā | “na mṛityur āsīd” ityādi... | athāpi paridevanā kasmāchchid bhāvāt | “ sudevo adya prapated anāvṛid” ityādi | athāpi nindā-praśamse | "kevalūgho bhavati kevalādī" ityādi | evam aksha-sūkte dyūta-nindā cha kṛishi-praśam̃sā cha | evam uchchārachair abhiprāyair ṛishīnām mantra-dṛishṭayo bhavanti |

"[Of the four kinds of verses specified in the preceding section], (a) those which address a god as absent, (b) those which address him as present, and (c) those which address the worshippers as present and the god as absent, are the most numerous, while those (d) which refer to the speaker himself are rare. It happens also that a god is

« VorigeDoorgaan »