Riddles in Hinduism Vedas are made neither by Man nor by Gods

Riddles in Hinduism Vedas are made neither by Man nor by Gods

Riddles in Hinduism – Riddle No. 5
Why did the Brahmins go further and declare that Vedas are made neither by man nor by Gods

The Vedic Brahmins were not content with investing the Vedas with Infallibility.
They went further and asserted that the Vedas were Apaurusheya. By this they meant the Vedas were not made by man.
This doctrine no doubt leads to the doctrine of Infallibility. For not being made by man they are free from the failings, faults and frailties of man and are therefore infallible.
All the same it is necessary to examine the theory separately for it is an independent theory.

Is there really no human author of the Vedas? Are they really Apaurusheya?
The best evidence on the subject is the evidence of the Anukramanis— a special class of literature which forms part of the ancient Sanskrit literature.

What are called Anukramanis are nothing but systematic indices
To various portions of the ancient Vedic literature.
Every Veda has an Anukramani, sometimes have more than one Anukramani.

Seven Anukramanis for the Rig-Veda are known to be in
existence,  five  by  Shaunaka,  one by  Katya yana  and  one  by  an unknown author.

For the Yajur-Veda there exist three Anukramanis, one for each of the three Shakhas, Atre yi, Charayaniyas and Madhyandina.

For the Sama-Veda there are two Anukramanis, one is called Arsheya-Brahmana and the other is known by the name Parishistas.

As to the Atharva-Veda one Anukramani is known to exist. It is known as Brihat-Sarvanukramani.

The most perfect Anukramani according to Prof. Ma x Muller is Katyayana's Sarvanukramani to the Rig-Veda.

Its importance lies in the tact that it gives
(1) The first words of each hymn,
(2) The number of verses.
(3) The name and the family of the Rishi who composed it,
(4) The names of the deities and
(5) The metres of every verse.

What emerges from a reference to the Sarvanukramani is that the Rishis are the authors of the hymns which make up the Rig-Veda.
The  Rig-Veda  therefore  on  the  evidence  of  the Anukramani  cannot  but  be  regarded  as  a man-made  work.
The same must be the conclusion regarding the other Vedas.

That the Anukramanis are realistic is proved by many passages in the
Rig-Veda in which the Rishis describe themselves as the composers of the hymns.

Below are given a few of such passages:
"The Kanvas make a prayer to you, hear well their invocation'. Thus, O, Indra, yoker of steeds, have the Gotamas made hymns for these efficaciously"
  "This hymn has efficaciously been made to you, 0 opulent Asvins, by the Manas"

"These magnifying prayers, (this) hymn, 0 Asvins, the Gritsamadas have made for you”

  "Aspiring to heaven, the sage Kusikas have made a hymn with praises to thee, O Indra.”

  "Nodhas, descendant of Gotama, fashioned this new hymn for (thee).  Indra, who are of old, and who yokest thy steeds"

  "Thus  0,  hero,  have  the  Gritsamadas,  desiring  succour,  fashioned  for  thee  a  hymn  as  men make works. "

  "The sages generated an efficacious production and a prayer for Indra."
  "These hymns, Agni, generated for thee, celebrate thy bounty in cows and horses.”

"Our  father  hath  discovered  (or invented)  this  great, sevenheaded  hymn,  born  of sacred  truth; Ayasya, friend of all men celebrating Indra, has generated the fourth song of praise."

  "We,  the  Raghuanas,  have  uttered  to  Agni  honied  speech;  we  incessantly  laud  him  with eulogies. "

"Thus, all ye Adityas, Aditi, and ye ruling powers, has the wise son of Plati magnified you. The celestial race has been lauded by the immortal Gaya. "

"  He  it  is  whom  they  call  a  rishi,  a priest,  a pious sacrificer,  a  chanter  of  prayers,  a  reciter  of hymns, he it is who knows the three bodies of the brilliant (Agni), the man who is most prominent in bestowing gifts. "


Apart  from  the  evidence  of  the  Anukramanis  there  is another sort  of  evidence  which militates against  the  theory  of  the  Vedas  being  Apaurusheya.

The  Rishis  themselves  have  treated  the Vedas  as  a  human  and  as  a  historical  product.

The hymns of Rig-Veda distinguish between ancient and modern Rishis.
Here are a few of them:
  "Agni,  who  is worthy  to  be  celebrated by  former  as well as modern  rishis,  will  bring  the  gods hither. "

"The former rishis who invoked thee for succour.”
  "Hear the hymn of me this modern sage, of this modern (sage).”
“Indra, as thou hast been like a joy to former worshippers who praised thee, like waters to the thirsty, I in voke thee again and again with this hymn.” 
                                              
   "The  ancient  rishis,  resplendent  and  sage,  have  placed  in  front  of  them  (Brihaspati)  with gladdening tongue."

  "Neither  the  ancients  nor  later  men,  nor  any  modern  man,  has  attained  to  (conceived)  thy prowess, O, Madhavan."

"As (Indra's) former worshippers were, (may we be) blameless, irreproachable, and unharmed."

"For, now, 0 energetic god, men are thy worshippers as the ancients born of old and the men of the middle and later ages have been thy friends. And 0, much-invoked think of the most recent of all.

"To  Him  (Indra)  our  ancient  fathers,  the seven  Navagava  sages  desiring  food,  (resorted) with their hymns. "

"Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou bring to us wealth and food with progeny." 

A closer study of the Rig-Veda will show that the Rig-Veda itself makes a distinction between old hymns and new hymns. Some of them are given below:   "Glorified by our newest hymn, do thou bring to us wealth and food and progeny."

 "Agni  thou  hast  announced  (or  do  thou  announcest)  among  the  gods  this  our  offering,  our newest hymn."

"Through  our  new  hymns,  do  thou,  vigorous  in  action,  destroyer  of  cities,  sustain  us  with invigorating blessings. "


“I bring to Agni, the son of strength, a new and energetic hymn, a production of, thought uttered by the voice (vachah)."

“I present to the mighty protector a mental production, a new utterance (now) springing up"

"Ma y the new prayer impel thee, the heroic well-accourted, and the loud-thundering to succour us.”

“I seek like the ancients, to stimulate thee, the ancient, with a new hymn.”
"Ma y the new hymns made to praise you, may these prayers gratify you."
“Sing O, Sobhari, with a new hymn to these youthful, vigorous, and brilliant (gods)

"Indra,  slayer  of  Vritra,  thunderer,  invoked  of many,  we  (thy)  numerous  (worshippers)  bring  to thee, as thy hire, hymns which never before existed. "

  “I will address to this ancient (deity) my new praises which he desires: May he listen to us"

   “Desiring horses, cattle, and wealth we invoke thee to approach us.”

Given  this  abundance  of evidence  to prove  the human  origin of  the  Vedas  it is  a  riddle  to  find that the Brahmins should so strenuously propagate this extravagant view that  the Vedas are not man made.

What made the Brahmins propagate such a view?

Notwithstanding this there were eminent philosophers who were prepared to accept the authority of the Vedas although they were not prepared to admit that the Vedas were Sanatan or Apaurush.

The Gautama the founder of what is called the Nya ya system of Philosopy said:

"The authority of the Veda, like that of the formulas, and the
Ayur-Veda  (treatise  on medicine) follows  from  the  authority  of  the  competent  persons  from  whom  they  proceeded.

Since  the competent maker of the Veda possesses authority, inculcates truth, it results from the force of the terms that the Veda was uttered by a person of this character; and by this reasoning the authority of the Veda is to be inferred.

He illustrates this by the case of the formulas and the Ayur-Veda.
By formulas  (mantra)  are  meant  the  sentences  which  neutralize  poison  etc.,  and  the  section containing  the  Ayur-Veda  forms part  of  the  Veda.

Now as  the authority  of  these  two  classes of writings  is  admitted  by  general  consent,  the  authority  of  e verything  which  possess  the
characteristics  of  the  Veda  must  be  inferred  from  this  example.

Some,  however,  explain  the aphorism  thus;  a  Veda  is  that  in  which authority  is  found or  recognized.

From such Vedicity (or Possession of the character of a Veda) the authority of any work is to be inferred. "

The Vaishashika system admits that the Vedas are authoritative.

But the grounds on which it rests its conclusion are:

(1) That the Vedas are the product of an intelligent mind and

(2) That they had ve been uttered by God. Therefore they are authoritative.

The  Sankhya  system  founded  by  Kapila  held  the  view  that eternity  cannot  be  predicated  of the Vedas, since various texts in the Vedas themselves declare them to have been produced.

It expressly  denies  that  the  Vedas  originated  from  the  conscious  effort  of  any  divine  being.

According to the Sankhya, the Vedas like the Sun 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.

The system of Philosophy known as the Vedanta seems to support two distant views. It ascribes the origin of the Vedas to Brahma as its
Source or cause of source using the term Brahma as neuter denoting the supreme spirit and not as masculine designating the personal creator.

It also speaks of the eternity of the Vedas and makes mention of a self-dependent author.

The Brahmins did not remain content with the argument that the Vedas were not made by man.

They went much further and contended that the Vedas were not made even by God.

This theory is propounded by Jaimini the author of the Purva Mimansa. Jaimini's arguments in favour of the thesis are so strange that one has to know them in order to realize their strangeness.

It is in the Purva Mimansa— a book of Brahmanic philosophy— that this doctrine of the Vedas being Apaurusheya is propounded.
The following extracts from the book will reveal the nature of the argument.

Jaimini  the author  of  the  Purva  Mimamsa  first  deals  with  the argument  of  the  Naiyayikas  who assert  that  the  Vedas  are  made  by  Parameshwara  and  states  the  case  made  out  by  the Naiyayikas.
The argument of the Mimansakas is:

"The  Veda  could  not  have  been  uttered  by  the  incorporeal  Paramesvara  (God),  who  has  no palate  or  other  organs  of  speech,  and  therefore  cannot  be  conceived  to  have  pronounced  the letters (of which it is composed.).

This objection (answers the Naiyayika) is not happy, because, though Paramesvara is by nature incorporeal, he can yet, by way of sport assume a body, in order to show kindness to his devoted worshippers.  Consequently, the arguments in favour of the doctrine that the Veda had no personal author are inconclusive."

He then proceeds to state his arguments in favour of the Doctrine of the Mimansakas—

“I shall now clear up all these difficulties. What is meant by this paurusheyatva ('derivation from a personal author') which it is sought to prove?

Is it
(1) Mere procession (utpannatva) from a person (purusha) like the procession of the Veda from persons such as ourselves, when we daily utter it?

Or

(2)  is  it  the  arrangement—  with  a  view  to  its  manifestation—of  knowledge  acquired  by  other modes  of  proof,  in  the  sense  in  which  persons  like  ourselves  compose  a  treatise?  If the first meaning be intended, there will be no dispute.

If the second sense be meant, I ask whether the Veda is proved
(To be authoritative) in virtue

(a) Of its being founded on inference, or

(b) Of its being founded on supernatural information (agama-halat)?. .

The former alternative

(a)  i.e.,  that  the  Veda derives  its  authority  from being  founded on inference  cannot  be  correct, since this theory breaks down, if it be applied to the sentence of the Malati Madhava or any other secular poem (which may contain inferences destitute of authority). If, on the other hand, you say

(b) That the contents of the Veda are distinguished from those of other books of having authority, this explanation also will fail to satisfy a philosopher. For the word of the Veda is (defined to be) a
Word which proves things that are not provable by any other e vidence.

Now if it could be established that this Vedic word did nothing more than prove things that are provable by other evidence, we should be involved in the same sort of contradiction as if a man were to say that his mother was a barren woman.

And  even  if  we  conceded  that  Parameswara might  in  sport  assume  a  body,  it  would  not  be conceivable that in that case he should perceive things beyond the reach of the senses, from the want of any means of apprehending objects removed from him in place, in time, and in nature. Nor is it to be thought that his eyes and other sense alone would have the power of producing such knowledge,  since  men  can  only  attain  to  conceptions  corresponding  with  what  they  have  perceived.

This is  what  has  been said  by  the  Guru  (Prabhakara)  when  he  refutes  this supposition of  an omniscient  author;  'Wherever  any  object  is  perceived  (by  the  organ  of sight)  in its most  perfect
exercise, such perception can only have reference to the vision of something very distant or very minute, since no organ can go beyond its own proper objects, as e.g., the ear can never become cognizant  of  form  '.Hence  the  authority  of  the  Veda does  not arise  in  virtue  of  any supernatural information acquired by the Deity in a corporeal shape."

These  are  arguments  urged  by  Jaimini  to  destroy  the  case  of  the  Naiyayikas.  Jaimini  then proceeds  to  give  his  positive  arguments  to  show  why  the  Vedas  are  not  the  word  of  God  but something superior to that.

This is what he says:
“In the preceding aphorism it was declared that the connection of words and their meanings is eternal.
Desiring  now  to  prove  that  this  (eternity  of  connection)  is  dependent  on  the  eternity  of words (or sound), he begins by setting forth the first side of the question, viz., the doctrine of those who maintain that sound is not eternal."

"Some, i.e., the followers of the Nyaya philosophy, say that     sound is a product, because we see that it is the result of effort, which it would not be if it were eternal."

"That it is not eternal, on account of its transitoriness, i.e., because after a moment it ceases to be perceived."

"Because,  we  employ  in  reference  to  it  the  expression  'making'  i.e.,  we  speak  of  'making'  a sound."

" Because it is perceived by different persons at once, and is consequently in immediate contact with  the  organs  of  sense  of  those,  both  far  and  near,  which  it  could  not  be  if  it  were one  and eternal."

" Because sounds have both an original and a modified form; as e.g., in the case of dadhi atra, which  is  changed  into  dadhy  atra,  the  original  letter  'i  '  being  altered  into  '  y  '  by  the  rules  of permutation.

Now, no substance which undergoes a change is eternal."

“Because sound is augmented by the number of those who make it.

Consequently the opinion of the Mimansaka, who say that sound is merely manifested, and not created, by human effort, is wrong;
Since even a thousand manifesters do not increase the object which they manifest, as a jar is not made larger by a thousand lamps."

These objections against the Mimansaka theory that sound is manifested, and not created, by those who utter it, are now answered by Jaimini. Says Jaimini:

"But,  according  to  both  schools,  viz.,  that  which  holds  sound  to  be  created,  and  that  which regards it as merely manifested, the perception of it is alike momentary.

But of these two views, the theory of manifestation is shown in the next aphorism to be the correct one."

"The non-perception at any particular time, of sound, which, in reality, perpetually exists, arises from the fact that the utterer of sound has not come into contact with his object i.e., sound. Sound is eternal, because we recognize the letter ' k ', for instance, to be the same sound which we have  always  heard,  and  because  it  is  the  simplest  method  of  accounting  for  the  phenomenon  to suppose that it is the same.

The still atmosphere which interferes with the perception of sound is
removed  by  the  conjunctions  and  disjunctions  of  air  issuing  from  a  speaker's mouth,  and  thus sound  (which  always  exists,  though  unperceived)  becomes  perceptible.  This is the reply to the
Objection of its 'transitoriness'.

 "The word, 'making' sounds, merely means employing or uttering them."

"One  sound  is simultaneously  heard  by  different  persons,  just as  one  Sun  is seen  by  them  at one and the same time.

Sound like the Sun, is a vast, and not a minute object, and thus may be perceptible by different persons, though remote from one another."

"The  letter  'y',  which  is substituted  for  'i'  in  the  instance  referred  to  under  Sutra  10,  is  not a modification of 'i', but a distinct letter. Consequently, sound is not modified."

“It is an increase of 'noise ', not of sound, that is occasioned by a multitude of speakers.

The word ' noise ' refers to the 'conjunctions ' and 'disjunctions' of the air which enter simultaneously into the hearer's ear from different quarters; and it is of these that an increase takes place."

“Sound must be eternal, because its utterance is fitted to convey a meaning to other persons.

If it were not eternal (or abiding), it would not continue till the hearer had learned its sense, and thus he would not learn the sense, because the cause had ceased to exist."

"  Sound  is  eternal,  because  it  is  in  every  case  correctly  and  uniformly  recognized  by  many persons simultaneously; and it is inconceivable that they should all at once fall into a mistake."

" When the word 'go ' (cow) has been repeated ten times, the hearers will say that the word 'go" has been ten times pronounced, not that ten words having the sound of 'go'  have been uttered; and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the eternity of sound.

 “Sound is eternal, because we have no ground for anticipating its destruction.

    " But it may be urged that sound is a modification of air, since it arises from its conjunctions, and  because  the  Siksha  (or  Vedanga  treating  of  pronunciation)  says  that  'air  arrives  at  the condition  of  sound'  and  as  it  is  thus  produced  from  air,  it  cannot  be  eternal."

A reply to this difficulty is given in Sutra 22. "

Sound is not a modification of air, because if it were, the organ of
Hearing would have no appropriate object which it could perceive. No modification of air (help by the Naiyayikas to be tangible) could be perceived by the organ of hearing, which deals only with intangible sound."

"And the eternity of sound is established by the argument discoverable in the Vedic text, ' with an eternal voice, O Virupa ‘.  Now, though this sentence had another object in view, it, nevertheless, declares the eternity of language, and hence sound is eternal."

Such is the argument by Jaimini in favour of his thesis that the Vedas are eternal and not made by man, not even by God.

The bases on which his thesis rests are simple.

Firstly God has no body and no palate and therefore he could not utter the Vedas.

Secondly,  Assuming  God  had  a  body,  God  could  not  perceive  things  which  are  beyond  the reach of the senses while the Vedas contain things beyond the reach of human senses.

Thirdly, the connection between a word and its meaning is eternal.

 Fourthly, Sound is eternal.

Fifthly, because sound is eternal words which are made up of sounds are also eternal.

Sixthly because words are eternal therefore the Vedas are eternal and because the Vedas are eternal they are not made by man nor by God.

What can one say of these premises? Can there be anything more absurd?

Who can accept that the Vedas contain something not comprehensible by human senses?

Who can accept that there is an eternal connection between a word and its meaning?

Who can accept that sound is not created nor manifested but is eternal?

Having  regard  to  these  absurd premises  one  is led  to ask why  did  the  Brahmins make such a desparate attempt for establishing a desparate conclusion?

What did they want to gain thereby?

Was it because the Vedas had been made the exponent of the Chaturvarna with the Brahmins as the Lord of all?

Reality views by sm –

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Tags – Riddles in Hinduism Vedas God Man Made Who