2. The four Vedas issue from Brahman like smoke from burning fuel.
We come now to the second. According to this, the Vedas issue from Brahman like smoke from burning fuel.
• The meaning is very clear. It is that the Vedas proceed from Brahman, God as spontaneously as the smoke proceeds from burning fuel silently, noiselessly, naturally and without any exertion. The central idea is yet the same, but to the jaundiced eye of Monier Williams this is a second account inconsistent with the first.
3. another educes them from the elements;
The third hypothesis accounts for the origin of the Vedas from the elements. Here Professor Williams is wrong in his translation.
• The original word in Sanskrita for what he calls the elements is 'bhUta'. Now 'bhUta' does not mean elements but Godhead. bhavanti vidyante padArtho asminniti bhUtaH.
• God is called BhUta, as all things that have ever existed exist in him. To convey the idea that, the Vedas have existed for ever in the womb of the Divine Wisdom, the Vedas are spoken of as issuing from BhUta, i.e, God who is the Universal Intelligent repository of all things past or old, i.e; all eternal essences and principles. This account does not in the least conflict with the first two, but the poetical use of the word 'bhuta' for God rather more sublimely exexpresses the same sentiment.
4. another from Gayatri;
The fourth account is that of the Vedas proceeding from GAyatrI. There also Professor Williams betrays his entire ignorance of Vedic literature by saying that this fourth account is a differ ent one, inconsistent with the three foregoing ones.
• In 3rd Chapter, 14th section NighaNTu, which is the lexicon of Vedic terms, we have gAyati archati karma, tasmAd gAtatrI bhavati | the meaning of which is that the root gAyati signifies archati--to worship. Hence, the Being who deserves to be adored and worshipped by all, is called gAyatrI.
• So also says Nirukta in its 7th Adhyaya, III Pada, and 6th Section: gAyatrI gAyateH stuti karmaNa strigamana vA, viparItA, gAyato mukhAdudapataditi cha brAhmaNam |. The Vedas, then, have proceeded from GAyatrI i.e., God who is worshipped and adored by all.
5. a hymn in the Atharva Veda educes them from kala or Time (XIX, 54);
Now comes the fifth account of the same in the 3rd Mantra of 5th Kanda of 19th Chapter.
• kAlAdRuchaH samabhavan yajuH kAlAdajAyata which Monier Williams translates as if meaning that Rig and Yajur Vedas have been produced by time (kAla). Here again, our learned Boden Professor of Samskrita and world-renowned Oriental Scholar does not understand the meaning of the word 'kAla'.
• Says NighaNTu, Chap.II, Kanda 14, kAlayati gatikarmA tasmAt kAlaH which means that the Spirit that is intelligent and pervades all is called 'kAla' or kAlayati saMkhyAti sarvAn padArthAn sa kAlaH--that Infinite Being, in whose comparison all that exists is measurable, is called 'kAla'.
Kala, therefore, is the name of the same Infinite Being, the same god GAyatrI or Brahma or Swayambhu from whom the Vedas have been described to proceed in the first four accounts given above.
6. Vedas from the three lights, the fire, the air, and the sun
No mistake can be more serious on the part of Moiiier Williams than the one he has committed in rendering Shatapatha BrahmaNa's account of the origin of the Vedas.
According to this account, the Creator brooded over the three worlds and thence produced three lights, the fire, the air, and the sun, from which respectively were extracted the Big, Yajur and Sama Vedas.
• Here also Williams' mistake lies in substituting English words for Samskrita ones. Williams' own translation with the only modification of putting the original Samskrita words for which he has put the English ones will be:
God, the Creator, brooded over the three worlds and thence produced the three jyoties Agni, VAyu, and Ravi and thence extracted the three Vedas.
Now 'jyoti' does not mean light but illuminated being, man in the spiritual state, i.e., in the superior condition, and Agni, VAyu, and Ravi are no names for fire, air and sun, but are names of three men.
• The meaning of the passage then is, that God in the beginning, created the organizations which received the spirits of three men known by the names of Agni, VAyu and Ravi. To these three rishis, Agni, VAyu and Ravi, men in the superior condition, God revealed the knowledge of Rig, Yajur and SAma respectively. Now, in what way does it contradict the other explanations?
• Nor does Manu prove what Williams says. Says Manu 1.23:
agni-vAyu-ravibhyas tu trayaM brahma sanAtanam |
dudoha yaj~jasiddhyartham Rug-yajur-sAma lakSaNam ||
This means, that the three Vedas, Rig, Yajur and Sama were revealed to the three rishis, Agni, VAyu and Ravi, to give a knowledge of how to accomplish the purpose of life in this world.
7. In the Purusha Sukta, the three Vedas are derived from the mystical victim Purusha.
We come now to the 7th account in Purusha Sukta, where according to Monier Williams, the Vedas are derived from the mystical victim, Purusha.
• I here quote the Mantra of the Purusha Sukta:
tasmAdyaj~jAtsarvahuta RuchaH sAmAni jaj~jire |
ChandAMsi jaj~jire tasmAdyajustasmAdajAyata ||10.090.09||
The plain meaning of which is that Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Chandas or Atharva Vedas have proceeded from that Purusha who is Yajna and Sarvahuta.
• Williams renders it into the mystical victim, Purusha. But he is in the wrong. Purusha is the universal spirit that pervades all nature. Says Nirukta II 1-5.
puruShaH puriShAdaH purishayaH pUrayatervA
pUrayatyantarityantara puruShamabhipretya
yasmAtparaM nAparamasti kiMchidyasmAnnANIyo na jyAyo&sti kiMchit
vRukSha ivastabdho divi tiShThatye kastena idaM pUrNaM puruSheNa sarvam...
iti nigamo bhavati
the meaning of which is, that God is called Purusha, because he is puriShAda that is, he pervades the universe and even lives in the interior of the human soul. It is in this sense that the mantra of the Veda is revealed, saying there is nothing superior to God, nothing separate from him, nothing more refined, nothing more extended. He holds all but is himself unmoved. He is the only one. Yes, He, even He, is the spirit that pervades all. It is clear then that Purusha means the universal spirit of God.
• We come now to the second word Yajna. Says Nirukta, III.4.2:
yajnaH kasmAt prakhyaataM yajatirkarma iti nairuktA yAch~jyo bhavati iti vA yajurunnas bhavati iti vA bahukRuShNAjina ity aupamanyavo yajU~MShyenam nayati iti vA (3,19)[319]
The meaning is this. Why is Yajna the name of God; because He is prime mover of all the forces of nature; because He is the only being to be worshipped; and because to Him the Yajur mantras point out.
• The meaning, then, of the passage of Purusha Sukta quoted by Williams is this: From that God who is called Purusha, i.e., the Universal Spirit, and who is also called Yajna for reasons given above, have proceeded the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvan.
8. Eighthly, the Mimamsakas declare the Vedas to be eternal and independently existent, a view which does not at all conflict with the former ones.
9. In opposition to all this, we have the rishis themselves frequently intimating that the mantras were com posed by themselves.
And lastly, says Williams, "We have the rishis themselves frequently intimating that mantras were composed by themselves."
In these days of spiritualism, no wonder if the spirits of the rishis appeared before Monier Williams and mystically whispered into his ears the composition of the Vedas by themselves. But in so far as the writings of the rishis themselves go, not only is the assertion of Williams merely false and baseless but positively injurious and very pererted.
• For the rishis themselves declare themselves to be not at all the authors of the Vedas. The Vedas are regarded by all of them as apaurusheya, i.e., not production of human beings.
• I will quote here Nirukta I,6,5:
1,20. sAkShAt kRuta dharmANa RuShayo babhUvuh
1,20. te avarebhyo asAkShAt kRuta dharmabhya upadeshena mantrAn samprAduH
Also, Nirukta II,3,2, as follows:
RuShirdarshanAt stomAn dadarsha ity aupamanyavas tad yad enAmstapasyamAnAn brahma svayambhu abhyAnarShat ta RuShayo abhavamstad RuShInAm RuShitvam iti vij~jAyate
The meaning of these is that rishis were those people who had realised the truths in the Mantras and having done so began to enlighten those of their fellow-brethren who were ignorant of the truths in the same. Further on, says Aupamanyava, the rishis are only the seers of the Mantras, but not the composers.
We have now shortly dismissed with the first proposition of Williams and partly with the second. The assertion of Williams that the mantras of the Vedas were composed by a whole class of men called rishis is entirely baseless.
• Not only were they not composed by the whole class, but not even by one individual of that class. The reason why Williams regards this to be so, is that every mantras of the Vedas gives four things, its Chanda, Svara, Devata, and Rishi. The name of the rishi only indicates the man who, for the first time, taught the meaning of that mantra to the world at large.
**********
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by yajvan
Bookmarks