the "History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature," pp. 119-132 and 364388 and elsewhere.

SECT. VII.-Reasonings of the Commentators on the Vedas, in support of the authority of the Vedas.

I proceed now to adduce some extracts from the works of the more systematic authors who have treated of the origin and authority of the Vedas, I mean the commentators on these books themselves, and the Puthors and expositors of the aphorisms of several of the schools of Hindu philosophy." Whatever we may think of the premises from which these writers set out, or of the conclusions at which they arrive,

61 Although the authors of the different schools of Hindu philosophy (as we shall see) expressly defend (on grounds which vary according to the principles of the several systems) the authority of the Vedas, they do not consider themselves as at all bound to assert that the different portions of those works are all of equal value: nor do they treat their sacred scriptures as the exclusive sources out of which their own theology or philosophy are to be evolved. On the relation of Indian thinkers generally to the Vedas, I quote some remarks from an article of my own in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1862, pp. 310 f.: "It is evident from some of the hymns of the Veda (see Müller's Hist. of Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 556 ff.) that theological speculation has been practised in India from a very early period. As, therefore, the religious or mythological systems of India became developed, it was to be expected that they should exhibit numerous variations springing out of the particular genius of different writers; and more especially that, whenever the speculative element predominated in any author, he should give utterance to ideas on the origin of the world, and the nature and action of the Deity or deities, more or less opposed to those commonly received. In the stage here supposed, a fixed and authoritative system of belief or institutions had not yet been constructed, but was only in process of construction, and therefore considerable liberty of individual thought, expression, and action would be allowed; as is, indeed, also shown by the existence of different schools of Brahmans, not merely attached to one or other of the particular Vedas, but even restricting their allegiance to some particular recension of one of the Vedas. Even after the Brahmanical system had been more firmly established, and its details more minutely prescribed, it is clear that the same strictness was not extended to speculation, but that if a Brahman was only an observer of the established ceremonial, and an assertor of the privileges of his own order, he might entertain and even profess almost any philosophical opinion which he pleased (Colebrooke, Misc. Ess. i. 379; Müller, Anc. Sansk. Lit. 79). In this way the tradition of free thought was preserved, and speculative principles of every character continued to be maintained and taught without hindrance or scandal. Meanwhile the authority of the Vedas had come to be generally regarded as paramount and divine, but so long as this authority was nominally acknowledged, independent thinkers were permitted to propound a variety of speculative principles, at variance with their general tenor, though perhaps not inconsistent with some isolated

we cannot fail to be struck with the contrast which their speculations exhibit to the loose and mystical ideas of the Purānas and Upanishads, or to admire the acuteness of their reasoning, the logical precision with which their arguments are presented, and the occasional liveliness and ingenuity of their illustrations.

I.-The first passage which I shall adduce is from Sāyaṇa's introduction to his commentary on the Rig-veda, the Vedarthaprakāśa, pp. 3 ff. (Sāyaṇa, as we have seen in the Second Volume of this work, p. 172, lived in the 14th century, A.D.):

Nanu Vedaḥ eva tāvad nāsti | kutas tad-avāntara-viśeshaḥ rigvedaḥ | Tatha hi ko'yam vedo nāma | na hi tatra lakshanam pramānam vā 'sti | nacha tad-ubhaya-vyatirekena kinchid vastu prasidhyati | Lakshana-pramāṇābhyāṁ hi vastu-siddhir iti nyāya-vidām matam | “ Pratyakshānumānāgameshu pramāna-viśesheshv antimo Vedaḥ iti tallakshanam" iti chet | na | Manv-ādi-smṛitishv ativyāpteḥ | Samaya-balena samyak parokshānubhava-sādhanam ity etasya agama-lakshanasya tāsv api.sadbhāvāt | "apaurusheyatve sati iti viśeshaṇād adoshaḥ” iti chet | na | Vedasyāpi parameśvara-nirmitatvena paurusheyatvāt | “S'arīra-dhāri-jīva-nirmitatvābhāvād apaurusheyatvam" iti chet | [na]|" Sahasra-śīrshā purushaḥ" ityādi-śrutibhir īśvarasyāpi śarīritvāt | "Karma-phala-rūpa-śarīradhāri-jiva-nirmitatvābhāva-mātrena apaurusheyatvam vivakshitam" iti chetna | Jiva-viśeshair Agni-Vāyv-Adityair vedānām utpāditatvāt | Rigvedaḥ eva Agner ajāyata Yajurvedo Vāyoḥ Sāmavedaḥ Ādityād” iti śruter isvarasya agny - ādi - prerakatvena nirmātṛitvam drashṭavyam | "mantra-brāhmaṇātmakaḥ śabda-rāśir vedaḥ" iti chet | na | Idriso mantraḥ | idṛiśam brāhmaṇam ity anayor aḍyāpi anirṇītatvāt | Tasmād nūsti kinchid vedasya lakshanam | Nāpi tat-sadbhāve pramāṇam paśyāmaḥ "Rigvedam bhagaro 'dhyemi Yajurvedam Sāmavedam Ātharvanam | chaturtham' ityādi vākyam pramānam" iti chet | na | tasyāpi vākyasya vedūntaḥpātitvena ātmāśrayatva - prasangāt | Na khalu nipuno 'pi svaskandham aroḍhum prabhaved iti | "Vedaḥ eva dvijātīnām niḥśreyasakaraḥ paraḥ' iti ādi smṛiti-vākyam pramāṇam" iti chet | na | tasyāpy ukta-śruti-mūlatvena nirākṛitatvāt | pratyakshādikam śankitum apy ayo

portions of their contents. It was only when the authority of the sacred books was not merely tacitly set aside or undermined, but openly discarded and denied, and the institutions founded on them were abandoned and assailed by the Buddhists, that the orthodox party took the alarm."

gyam | Veda-vishaya loka-prasiddhiḥ sārvajanīnā 'pi "nīlam nabhaḥ" ityādi-vad bhrāntā | Tasmāl lakshana-pramāna-rahitasya vedasya sadbhāvo na angikarttum śakyate iti pūrva-pakshaḥ |

Atra uchyate mantra-brāhmaṇātmakam tāvad adushṭam lakshanam | ata eva Āpastambo yajna-paribhāshāyām evāha “mantra-brāhmaṇayor veda-nāmadheyam" iti | tayos tu rūpam uparishṭhād nirneshyate | apaurusheya-vakyatvam iti idam api yādriśam asmābhir vivakshitam tūdrisam uttaratra spashțibhavishyati | pramāṇāny api yathoktāni śruti-smṛitiloka-prasiddhi-rūpāṇi veda-sadbhāve drashṭavyāni | Yathā ghaṭa-paṭādidravyānām sva-prakāśatvābhāve 'pi sūrya-chandrādīnāṁ sva-prakāśatvam avirudham tathā manushyādīnām sva-skandhārohāsambhave 'py akunṭhitasakter vedasya itara-vastu-pratipüdakatva-vat sva-pratipādakatvam apy astu | Ata eva sampradaya-vido 'kunṭhitām saktim vedasya darśayanti "chodanā hi bhūtam bhavishyantam sūkshmaṁ vyavahitam viprakṛishtam ity evanjatiyam artham saknoty avagamayitum" iti | Tathā sati vedamūlāyāḥ smṛites tad-ubhaya-mūlāyāḥ loka-prasiddheś cha prāmāṇyam durvāram | Tasmāl lakshana-pramāṇa-siddho vedo na kenāpi chārvākādinā 'podhum sakyate iti sthitam |

Nanv astu nāma Vedäkhyaḥ kaśchit padarthaḥ | tathāpi nāsau vyākhyānam arhati apramānatvena anupayuktaṭvāt | Na hi Vedaḥ pramānaṁ tal-lakshanasya tatra duḥsampādatvāt | tathā hi "samyag anubhava-sādhanam pramāṇam" iti kechil lakshanam āhuḥ | apare tu "anadhigatārtha-gantṛi pramānam" ity āchakshate | na chaitad ubhayam vede sambhavati | mantra-brāhmaṇātmako hi vedaḥ | tatra mantrāḥ kechid abodhakāḥ| "amyak să te Indra rishțir" (R.V. i. 169, 3) ity eko mantraḥ | "Yādriśmin dhāyi tam apasyaya vidad" (R.V. v. 44, 8) ity anyaḥ | "Srinyā iva jarbhari turpharītū” (R.V. x. 106, 6) ity aparaḥ | “Āpānta-manyus tripala-prabharmā ” (R.V. x. 89, 5) ity-ādayaḥ udāhāryāḥ | na hy etair mantraiḥ kaśchid apy artho 'vabudhyate | eteshv anubhavo eva yadā nāsti tada tat-samyaktvam tadīya-sādhanatvam cha dūrāpetam | "Adhaḥ svid āsid" (R.V. x. 129, 5) iti mantrasya bodhakatve 'pi "sthāṇur vā purusho vā” ityādi-vākya-vat sandigdhārtha-bodhakatvād nāsti prāmānyam | "Oshadhe trāyasva enam (Taitt. Sanh. i. 2, 1, 1) iti mantro darbhavishayaḥ "Svadhite mā enam himsir" (Taitt. Sanh. i. 2, 1, 1) iti kshuravishayaḥ "Srinota grāvānaḥ" iti pāshāna-vishayaḥ | Eteshv achetanānām darbha-kshura-pāshāṇānāṁ chetana-vat sambodhanam̃ śrūyate | tato “dvau chandramasāv " iti vākya-vad viparītārtha-bodhakatvād aprāmāṇ

yam | "Ekaḥ eva Rudro na dvitiyo 'vatasthe "|"sahasrāni sahasraśo ye Rudrāḥ adhi bhūmyām" ity anayos tu mantrayor "yāvajjīvam aham maunī" ity vākya-vad vyāghāta-bodhakaṭvād aprāmāṇyam | “ Āpaḥ undantu" (Taitt. Sanh. i. 2, 1, 1) iti mantro yajamānasya kshaura-kāle jalena śiraśaḥ kledanam brūte | "Subhike śiraḥ āroha śobhayanti mukham " iti mantro vivāha-kāle mangalācharaṇārtham pushpa-nirmitāyāḥ subhikāyāḥ vara-badhvoḥ śirasy avasthanam brūte | tayoś cha mantrayor loka-prasiddharthānuvādiṭvād anadhigatārtha-gantṛitvam nāsti | tasmād mantra-bhāgo na pramāṇam |

mama

Atra uchyate | “Amyag”-ādi - mantrāṇām artho Yāskena niruktagranthe 'vabodhitaḥ | tat-parichaya-rahitānām anavabodho na mantrānāṁ dosham avahati | Ata eva atra loka-nyāyam udāharanti "na esha sthānor aparādho yad enam andho na paśyati | purushāparādho sambhavati” iti | "Adhaḥ svid äsid" iti mantraś cha na sandeha-prabodhanaya pravṛittaḥ kimtarhi jagat-kāraṇasya para-vastuno 'tigambhiratvam niśchetum eva pravṛittaḥ | tad-artham eva hi guru-śāstra-sampradāya-rahitair durbodhyatvam "adhaḥ svid" ity anayā vacho-bhangyā upanyasyati | Sa eva abhiprayaḥ uparitaneshu "ko addha veda" (R.V. x. 129, 6) ity ādimantreshu spashtikṛitaḥ | "Oshadhy"-ādi mantreshv api chetanāḥ eva tat-tād-abhimāni-devatās tena tena nāmnā sambodhyante | tāś cha devatāḥ bhagavatā Bādarāyaṇena “abhimāni-vyapadeśas tu" iti sūtre sūtritāḥ | Ekasyāpi Rudrasya sva-mahimnā sahasra-mūrtti-svīkārād nāsti parasparam vyāghātaḥ | Jalādi-dravyena siraḥ-kledanāder loka-siddhatve 'pi tad-abhimani-devatānugrahasya aprasiddhatvat tad-vishayatvena ajnātārtha-jnapakatvam | tato lakshana-sadbhāvād asti mantra-bhāgasya pramānyam

"But, some will say, there is no such thing as a Veda; how, then, can there be a Rig-veda, forming a particular part of it? For what is this Veda? It has no characteristic sign or evidence; and without these two conditions, nothing can be proved to exist. For logicians hold that 'a thing is established by characteristic signs and by proof.' If you answer that of the three kinds of proof, perception, inference, and scripture, the Veda is the last, and that this is its sign;' then the objectors rejoin that this is not true, for this sign extends too far, and includes also Manu's and the other Smritis; since there exists in them

62 The Vajasaneyi Sanhită, xvi. 53, has, asankhyātā sahasrāṇi yé Rudrāḥ adhi bhūmyām j

also this characteristic of Scripture, viz. that in virtue of common consent it is a perfect instrument for the discovery of what is invisible.' If you proceed, the Veda is faultless, in consequence of its characteristic that it has no person (purusha) for its author;'63 they again reply, 'Not so; for as the Veda likewise was formed by Parameśvara (God), it had a person (purusha) for its author.' If you rejoin, 'It had no person (purusha) for its author, for it was not made by any embodied living being;' [they refuse to admit this] on the ground that, according to such Vedic texts as 'Purusha has a thousand heads,' it is clear that Iśvara (God) also has a body. If you urge that apaurusheyatva ('the having had no personal author') means that it was not composed by a living being endowed with a body which was the result of works; -the opponent denies this also, inasmuch as the Vedas were created by particular living beings-Agni (fire), Vāyu (wind), and Aditya (the sun); for from the text 'the Rig-veda sprang from Agni, the Yajurveda from Vayu, and the Sama-veda from Surya,' etc., it will be seen that İsvara was the maker, by inciting Agni and the others. If you next say that the Veda is a collection of words in the form of Mantras and Brahmanas, the objectors rejoin, 'Not so, for it has never yet been defined that a Mantra is so and so, and a Brāhmaṇa so and so.' There exists, therefore, no characteristic mark of a Veda. Nor do we see any proof that a Veda exists. If you say that the text, 'I peruse, reverend sir, the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, and the Atharvana as the fourth,' is a proof, the antagonist answers, 'No, for as that text is part of the Veda, the latter would be open to the objection of depending upon itself; for no one, be he ever so clever, can mount upon his own shoulders.' If you again urge that such texts of the Smriti as this, 'It is the Veda alone which is the source of blessedness to twice-born men, and transcendent,' are proofs, the objector rejoins,' 'Not so; since these too must be rejected, as being founded on the same Veda.' The

Or, the meaning of this may be, "If you urge that, as the Veda has no personal author, there is-in consequence of this peculiar characteristic-no flaw (in the proposed definition), etc."

I have translated this, as if it there had been (which there is not) a negative particle na in the printed text, after the iti chet, as this seems to me to be necessary to the sense. I understand from Prof. Müller that the negative particle is found in some of the MSS. [I am, however, informed by Prof. Goldstücker that na is often omitted, though understood, after iti chet.]