Reading section 30

Sm/ri/ti also contains similar statements to be quoted here; so, for instance, 'Whatever were the names of the /ri/shis and their powers to see the Vedas, the same the Unborn one again gives to them when they are produced afresh at the end of the night (the mahâpralaya). As the various signs of the seasons return in succession in their due time, thus the same beings again appear in the different yugas. And of whatever individuality the gods of the past ages were, equal to them are the present gods in name and form.'

31. On account of the impossibility of (the gods being qualified) for the madhu-vidyâ, &c., Jaimini (maintains) the non-qualification (of the gods for the Brahma-vidyâ).

A new objection is raised against the averment that the gods, &c. also are entitled to the knowledge of Brahman. The teacher, Jaimini, considers the gods and similar beings not to have any claim.--Why?--On account of the impossibility, in the case of the so-called Madhu-vidyâ, &c. If their claim to the knowledge of Brahman were admitted, we should have to admit their claim to the madhu-vidyâ ('the knowledge of the honey') also, because that also is a kind of knowledge not different (from the knowledge of Brahman). But to admit this latter claim is not possible; for, according to the passage, 'The Sun is indeed the honey of the devas' (Ch. Up. III, 1, 1), men are to meditate on the sun (the god Âditya) under the form of honey, and how, if the gods themselves are admitted as meditating worshippers, can Âditya meditate upon another Âditya?--Again, the text, after having enumerated five kinds of nectar, the red one, &c. residing in the sun, and after having stated that the five classes of gods, viz. the Vasus, Rudras, Âdityas, Maruts, and Sâdhyas, live on one of these nectars each, declares that 'he who thus knows this nectar becomes one of the Vasus, with Agni at their head, he sees the nectar and rejoices, &c., and indicates thereby that those who know the nectars enjoyed by the Vasus, &c., attain the greatness of the Vasus, &c.' But how should the Vasus themselves know other Vasus enjoying the nectar, and what other Vasu-greatness should they desire to attain?--We have also to compare the passages 'Agni is one foot, Âditya is one foot, the quarters are one foot' (Ch. Up. III, 18, 2); 'Air is indeed the absorber' (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 1); 'Âditya is Brahman, this is the doctrine.' All these passages treat of the meditation on the Self of certain divinities, for which meditation these divinities themselves are not qualified.--So it is likewise impossible that the /ri/shis themselves should be qualified for meditations connected with /ri/shis, such as expressed in passages like B/ri/. Up. II, 2, 4, 'These two are the /ri/shis Gautama and Bharadvâja; the right Gautama, the left Bharadvâja.'--Another reason for the non-qualification of the gods is stated in the following Sûtra.

32. And (the devas, &c. are not qualified) on account of (the words denoting the devas, &c.) being (used) in the sense of (sphere of) light.

To that sphere of light, the pûrvapakshin resumes, which is stationed in the sky, and during its diurnal revolutions illumines the world, terms such as Âditya, i.e. the names of devas, are applied, as we know from the use of ordinary language, and from Vedic complementary passages[207]. But of a mere sphere of light we cannot understand how it should be endowed with either a bodily form, consisting of the heart and the like, or intelligence, or the capability of forming wishes[208]. For mere light we know to be, like earth, entirely devoid of intelligence. The same observation applies to Agni (fire), and so on. It will perhaps be said that our objection is not valid, because the personality of the devas is known from the mantras, arthavâdas, itihâsas, purâ/n/as, and from the conceptions of ordinary life[209]; but we contest the relevancy of this remark. For the conceptions of ordinary life do not constitute an independent means of knowledge; we rather say that a thing is known from ordinary life if it is known by the (acknowledged) means of knowledge, perception, &c. But none of the recognised means of knowledge, such as perception and the like, apply to the matter under discussion. Itihâsas and purâ/n/as again being of human origin, stand themselves in need of other means of knowledge on which to base. The arthavâda passages also, which, as forming syntactical wholes with the injunctory passages, have merely the purpose of glorifying (what is enjoined in the latter), cannot be considered to constitute by themselves reasons for the existence of the personality, &c. of the devas. The mantras again, which, on the ground of direct enunciation, &c., are to be employed (at the different stages of the sacrificial action), have merely the purpose of denoting things connected with the sacrificial performance, and do not constitute an independent means of authoritative knowledge for anything[210].--For these reasons the devas, and similar beings, are not qualified for the knowledge of Brahman.

33. Bâdarâya/n/a, on the other hand, (maintains) the existence (of qualification for Brahma-vidyâ on the part of the gods); for there are (passages indicatory of that).

The expression 'on the other hand' is meant to rebut the pûrvapaksha. The teacher, Bâdarâya/n/a, maintains the existence of the qualification on the part of the gods, &c. For, although the qualification of the gods cannot be admitted with reference to the madhu-vidyâ, and similar topics of knowledge, in which the gods themselves are implicated, still they may be qualified for the pure knowledge of Brahman, qualification in general depending on the presence of desire, capability, &c.[211] Nor does the impossibility of qualification in certain cases interfere with the presence of qualification in those other cases where it is not impossible. To the case of the gods the same reasoning applies as to the case of men; for among men also, all are not qualified for everything, Brâhma/n/as, for instance, not for the râjasûya-sacrifice[212].

And, with reference to the knowledge of Brahman, Scripture, moreover, contains express hints notifying that the devas are qualified; compare, for instance, /Br/i. Up. I, 4, 10, 'Whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman) he indeed became that; and the same with /ri/shis;' Ch. Up. VIII, 7, 2, 'They said: Well, let us search for that Self by which, if one has searched it out, all worlds and all desires are obtained. Thus saying, Indra went forth from the Devas, Viro/k/ana from the Asuras.' Similar statements are met with in Sm/ri/ti, so, for instance, in the colloquy of the Gandharva and Yâj/ñ/avalkya[213].--Against the objection raised in the preceding Sûtra (32) we argue as follows. Words like âditya, and so on, which denote devas, although having reference to light and the like, yet convey the idea of certain divine Selfs (persons) endowed with intelligence and pre-eminent power; for they are used in that sense in mantras and arthavâda passages. For the devas possess, in consequence of their pre-eminent power, the capability of residing within the light, and so on, and to assume any form they like. Thus we read in Scripture, in the arthavâda passage explaining the words 'ram of Medhâtithi,' which form part of the Subrahma/n/ya-formula, that 'Indra, having assumed the shape of a ram, carried off Medhâtithi, the descendant of Ka/n/va' (Sha/d/v. Br. I, 1). And thus Sm/ri/ti says that 'Âditya, having assumed the shape of a man, came to Kuntî.' Moreover, even in such substances as earth, intelligent ruling beings must be admitted to reside, for that appears from such scriptural passages as 'the earth spoke,' 'the waters spoke,' &c. The non-intelligence of light and the like, in so far as they are mere material elements, is admitted in the case of the sun (âditya), &c. also; but--as already remarked--from the use of the words in mantras and arthavâdas it appears that there are intelligent beings of divine nature (which animate those material elements).

We now turn to the objection (raised above by the pûrvapakshin) that mantras and arthavâdas, as merely subserving other purposes, have no power of setting forth the personality of the devas, and remark that not the circumstance of subordination or non-subordination to some other purpose, but rather the presence or absence of a certain idea furnishes a reason for (our assuming) the existence of something. This is exemplified by the case of a person who, having set out for some other purpose, (nevertheless) forms the conviction of the existence of leaves, grass, and the like, which he sees lying on the road.--But, the pûrvapakshin may here object, the instance quoted by you is not strictly analogous. In the case of the wanderer, perception, whose objects the grass and leaves are, is active, and through it he forms the conception of their existence. In the case of an arthavâda, on the other hand, which, as forming a syntactical unity with the corresponding injunctory passage, merely subserves the purpose of glorifying (the latter), it is impossible to determine any energy having a special object of its own. For in general any minor syntactical unity, which is included in a more comprehensive syntactical unity conveying a certain meaning, does not possess the power of expressing a separate meaning of its own. Thus, for instance, we derive, from the combination of the three words constituting the negative sentence, '(Do) not drink wine,' one meaning only, i.e. a prohibition of drinking wine, and do not derive an additional meaning, viz. an order to drink wine, from the combination of the last two words, 'drink wine.'--To this objection we reply, that the instance last quoted is not analogous (to the matter under discussion). The words of the sentence prohibiting the drinking of wine form only one whole, and on that account the separate sense which any minor syntactical unity included in the bigger sentence may possess cannot be accepted. In the case of injunction and arthavâda, on the other hand, the words constituting the arthavâda form a separate group of their own which refers to some accomplished thing[214], and only subsequently to that, when it comes to be considered what purpose they subserve, they enter on the function of glorifying the injunction. Let us examine, as an illustrative example, the injunctive passage, 'He who is desirous of prosperity is to offer to Vâyu a white animal.' All the words contained in this passage are directly connected with the injunction. This is, however, not the case with the words constituting the corresponding arthavâda passage, 'For Vâyu is the swiftest deity; Vâyu he approaches with his own share; he leads him to prosperity.' The single words of this arthavâda are not grammatically connected with the single words of the injunction, but form a subordinate unity of their own, which contains the praise of Vâyu, and glorify the injunction, only in so far as they give us to understand that the action enjoined is connected with a distinguished divinity. If the matter conveyed by the subordinate (arthavâda) passage can be known by some other means of knowledge, the arthavâda acts as a mere anuvâda, i.e. a statement referring to something (already known)[215]. When its contents are contradicted by other means of knowledge it acts as a so-called gu/n/avâda, i.e. a statement of a quality[216]. Where, again, neither of the two mentioned conditions is found, a doubt may arise whether the arthavâda is to

be taken as a gu/n/avâda on account of the absence of other means of knowledge, or as an arthavâda referring to something known (i.e. an anuvâda) on account of the absence of contradiction by other means of proof. The latter alternative is, however, to be embraced by reflecting people.--The same reasoning applies to mantras also.

There is a further reason for assuming the personality of the gods. The Vedic injunctions, as enjoining sacrificial offerings to Indra and the other gods, presuppose certain characteristic shapes of the individual divinities, because without such the sacrificer could not represent Indra and the other gods to his mind. And if the divinity were not represented to the mind it would not be possible to make an offering to it. So Scripture also says, 'Of that divinity for which the offering is taken he is to think when about to say vausha/t/' (Ai. Br. III, 8, 1). Nor is it possible to consider the essential form (or character) of a thing to consist in the word only[217]; for word (denoting) and thing (denoted) are different. He therefore who admits the authoritativeness of the scriptural word has no right to deny that the shape of Indra, and the other gods, is such as we understand it to be from the mantras and arthavâdas.--Moreover, itihâsas and purâ/n/as also--because based on mantra and arthavâda which possess authoritative power in the manner described--are capable of setting forth the personality, &c. of the devas. Itihâsa and purâ/n/a can, besides, be considered as based on perception also. For what is not accessible to our perception may have been within the sphere of perception of people in ancient times. Sm/ri/ti also declares that Vyâsa and others conversed with the gods face to face. A person maintaining that the people of ancient times were no more able to converse with the gods than people are at present, would thereby deny the (incontestable) variety of the world. He might as well maintain that because there is at present no prince ruling over the whole earth, there were no such princes in former times; a position by which the scriptural injunction of the râjasûya-sacrifice[218] would be stultified. Or he might maintain that in former times the spheres of duty of the different castes and â/s/ramas were as generally unsettled as they are now, and, on that account, declare those parts of Scripture which define those different duties to be purposeless. It is therefore altogether unobjectionable to assume that the men of ancient times, in consequence of their eminent religious merit, conversed with the gods face to face. Sm/ri/ti also declares that 'from the reading of the Veda there results intercourse with the favourite divinity' (Yoga Sûtra II, 44). And that Yoga does, as Sm/ri/ti declares, lead to the acquirement of extraordinary powers, such as subtlety of body, and so on, is a fact which cannot be set aside by a mere arbitrary denial. Scripture also proclaims the greatness of Yoga, 'When, as earth, water, light, heat, and ether arise, the fivefold quality of Yoga takes place, then there is no longer illness, old age, or pain for him who has obtained a body produced by the fire of Yoga' (/S/vet. Up. II, 12). Nor have we the right to measure by our capabilities the capability of the /ri/shis who see the mantras and brâhma/n/a passages (i.e. the Veda).--From all this it appears that the itihâsas and purâ/n/as have an adequate basis.--And the conceptions of ordinary life also must not be declared to be unfounded, if it is at all possible to accept them.

The general result is that we have the right to conceive the gods as possessing personal existence, on the ground of mantras, arthavâdas, itihâsas, purâ/n/as, and ordinarily prevailing ideas. And as the gods may thus be in the condition of having desires and so on, they must be considered as qualified for the knowledge of Brahman. Moreover, the declarations which Scripture makes concerning gradual emancipation[219] agree with this latter supposition only.

34. Grief of him (i.e. of Jâna/s/ruti) (arose) on account of his hearing a disrespectful speech about himself; on account of the rushing on of that (grief) (Raikva called him /S/ûdra); for it (the grief) is pointed at (by Raikva).

(In the preceding adhikara/n/a) the exclusiveness of the claim of men to knowledge has been refuted, and it has been declared that the gods, &c. also possess such a claim. The present adhikara/n/a is entered on for the purpose of removing the doubt whether, as the exclusiveness of the claim of twice-born men is capable of refutation, the /S/ûdras also possess such a claim.

The pûrvapakshin maintains that the /S/ûdras also have such a claim, because they may be in the position of desiring that knowledge, and because they are capable of it; and because there is no scriptural prohibition (excluding them from knowledge) analogous to the text, 'Therefore[220] the /S/ûdra is unfit for sacrificing' (Taitt. Sa/m/h. VII, 1, 1, 6). The reason, moreover, which disqualifies the /S/ûdras for sacrificial works, viz. their being without the sacred fires, does not invalidate their qualification for knowledge, as knowledge can be apprehended by those also who are without the fires. There is besides an inferential mark supporting the claim of the /S/ûdras; for in the so-called sa/m/varga-knowledge he (Raikva) refers to Jâna/s/ruti Pautrâya/n/a, who wishes to learn from him, by the name of /S/ûdra 'Fie, necklace and carnage be thine, O /S/ûdra, together with the cows' (Ch. Up. IV, 2, 3). Sm/ri/ti moreover speaks of Vidûra and others who were born from /S/ûdra mothers as possessing eminent knowledge.--Hence the /S/ûdra has a claim to the knowledge of Brahman.

To this we reply that the /S/ûdras have no such claim, on account of their not studying the Veda. A person who has studied the Veda and understood its sense is indeed qualified for Vedic matters; but a /S/ûdra does not study the Veda, for such study demands as its antecedent the upanayana-ceremony, and that ceremony belongs to the three (higher) castes only. The mere circumstance of being in a condition of desire does not furnish a reason for qualification, if capability is absent. Mere temporal capability again does not constitute a reason for qualification, spiritual capability being required in spiritual matters. And spiritual capability is (in the case of the /S/ûdras) excluded by their being excluded from the study of the Veda.--The Vedic statement, moreover, that the /S/ûdra is unfit for sacrifices intimates, because founded on reasoning, that he is unfit for knowledge also; for the argumentation is the same in both cases[221].--With reference to the pûrvapakshin's opinion that the fact of the word '/S/ûdra' being enounced in the sa/m/varga-knowledge constitutes an inferential mark (of the /S/ûdra's qualification for knowledge), we remark that that inferential mark has no force, on account of the absence of arguments. For the statement of an inferential mark possesses the power of intimation only in consequence of arguments being adduced; but no such arguments are brought forward in the passage quoted.[222] Besides, the word '/S/ûdra' which occurs in the sa/m/varga-vidyâ would establish a claim on the part of the /S/ûdras to that one vidyâ only, not to all vidyâs. In reality, however, it is powerless, because occurring in an arthavâda, to establish the /S/ûdras' claim to anything.--The word '/S/ûdra' can moreover be made to agree with the context in which it occurs in the following manner. When Jâna/s/ruti Pautrâya/n/a heard himself spoken of with disrespect by the flamingo ('How can you speak of him, being what he is, as if he were like Raikva with the car?' IV, 1, 3), grief (su/k/) arose in his mind, and to that grief the /ri/shi Raikva alludes with the word /S/ûdra, in order to show thereby his knowledge of what is remote. This explanation must be accepted because a (real) born /S/ûdra is not qualified (for the sa/m/varga-vidyâ). If it be asked how the grief (su/k/) which had arisen in Jânasruti's mind can be referred to by means of the word /S/ûdra, we reply: On account of the rushing on (âdrava/n/a) of the grief. For we may etymologise the word /S/ûdra by dividing it into its parts, either as 'he rushed into grief (/S/u/k/am abhidudrâva) or as 'grief rushed on him,' or as 'he in his grief rushed to Raikva;' while on the other hand it is impossible to accept the word in its ordinary conventional sense. The circumstance (of the king actually being grieved) is moreover expressly touched upon in the legend[223].

35. And because the kshattriyahood (of Jâna/s/ruti) is understood from the inferential mark (supplied by his being mentioned) later on with /K/aitraratha (who was a kshattriya himself).

Jâna/s/ruti cannot have been a /S/ûdra by birth for that reason also that his being a kshattriya is understood from an inferential sign, viz. his being mentioned together (in one chapter) with the kshattriya /K/aitraratha Abhipratârin. For, later on, i.e. in the passage complementary to the sa/m/varga-vidyâ, a kshattriya /K/aitrarathi Abhipratârin is glorified, 'Once while /S/aunaka Kâpeya and Abhipratârin Kâkshaseni were being waited on at their meal a religious student begged of them' (Ch. Up. IV, 3, 5). That this Abhipratârin was a /K/aitrarathi (i.e. a descendant of /K/itraratha) we have to infer from his connexion with a Kâpeya. For we know (from /S/ruti) about the connexion of /K/itraratha himself with the Kâpeyas ('the Kâpeyas made /K/itraratha perform that sacrifice;' Tâ/nd/ya. Br. XX, 12, 5), and as a rule sacrificers of one and the same family employ officiating priests of one and the same family. Moreover, as we understand from Scripture ('from him a /K/aitrarathi descended who was a prince[224]') that he (/K/aitraratha) was a prince, we must understand him to have been a kshattriya. The fact now of Jâna/s/ruti being praised in the same vidyâ with the kshattriya Abhipratârin intimates that the former also was a kshattriya. For as a rule equals are mentioned together with equals. That Jâna/s/ruti was a kshattriya we moreover conclude from his sending his door-keeper and from other similar signs of power (mentioned in the text).--Hence the /S/ûdras are not qualified (for the knowledge of Brahman).

36. On account of the reference to ceremonial purifications (in the case of the higher castes) and on account of their absence being declared (in the case of the /S/ûdras).

That the /S/ûdras are not qualified, follows from that circumstance also that in different places of the vidyâs such ceremonies as the upanayana and the like are referred to. Compare, for instance, /S/at. Br. XI, 5, 3, 13, 'He initiated him as a pupil;' Ch. Up. VII, 1, 1, 'Teach me, Sir! thus he approached him;' Pra. Up. I, 1, 'Devoted to Brahman, firm in Brahman, seeking for the highest Brahman they, carrying fuel in their hands, approached the venerable Pippalâda, thinking that he would teach them all that.'--Thus the following passage also, 'He without having made them undergo the upanayana (said) to them' (Ch. Up. V, 11, 7), shows that the upanayana is a well-established ceremony[225].--With reference to the /S/ûdras, on the other hand, the absence of ceremonies is frequently mentioned; so, for instance, Manu X, 4, where they are spoken of as 'once born' only ('the /S/ûdra is the fourth caste, once-born'), and Manu X, 126, 'In the /S/ûdra there is not any sin, and he is not fit for any ceremony.'

37. And on account of (Gautama) proceeding (to initiate Jâbâla) on the ascertainment of (his) not being that (i.e. a /S/ûdra).

The /S/ûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Gautama, having ascertained Jâbâla not to be a /S/ûdra from his speaking the truth, proceeded to initiate and instruct him. 'None who is not a Brâhma/n/a would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth' (Ch. Up. IV, 4, 5); which scriptural passage furnishes an inferential sign (of the /S/ûdras not being capable of initiation).

38. And on account of the prohibition, in Sm/ri/ti, of (the /S/ûdras') hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.

The /S/ûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Sm/ri/ti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: 'The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,' and 'For a /S/ûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a /S/ûdra.' From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the /S/ûdras studying the Veda). 'His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.' The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as 'he is not to impart knowledge to the /S/ûdra,' and 'to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.'--From those /S/ûdras, however, who, like Vidura and 'the religious hunter,' acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Sm/ri/ti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purâ/n/as; compare the passage, 'He is to teach the four castes' (Mahâbh.).--It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.