Salutation to holy Ga eśa

[¤ 21]

अथ वेदविचारस्य प्रस्तुतत्वात्प्रसङ्गतया वेदादीनां लक्षणमप्युक्तम् । तत्र तावदृग्वेदप्राथम्यप्राशस्त्यबोधकानि कानिचिद्वाक्यान्युदाहृतानि । अन्यान्यप्युदाहरिष्यामः । पूर्वं पुरुषसूक्तवाक्यमुदाहृतम् । `तस्मा॑द्य॒॒ज्ञात् स॑र्व॒हुत॒'इति [RV 10.90.8] । तदर्थोऽपि सर्वैर्हूयमानात्¹⁶⁶ परमेश्वरादृगादीनि प्रादुर्भूतानीत्युक्तः । तत्र¹⁶⁷ सिंहावलोकनन्यायेन पुनः किंचिद् विचार्यते । ननु परमेश्वर एव कथं सर्वैर्हूयते¹⁶⁸ । अग्निहोत्रदर्शपूर्णमासादिषु¹⁶⁹ सर्वयज्ञक्रतुष्वग्न्यादयो हूयन्त इति चेत्। नैष दोषः। परमेश्वर एक एव मायया अग्न्यादिदेवतारूपेण वर्तत इत्यविरोधः । तथा च श्रुतिः

`इन्द्रं॑ मि॒त्रं वरु॑णम॒ग्निमा॑हु॒-

रथो॑ दि॒व्यः स सु॑प॒र्णो ग॒रुत्मा॑न् ।

एकं॒ सद्विप्रा॑ बहु॒धा व॑दन्त्य॒-

ग्निंय॒मं मा॑त॒रिश्वा॑नमाहुः' इति [RV 1.164.46] ।

`एक॑ः सुप॒र्णः स स॑मु॒द्रमा वि॑वेश॒' इति [RV 10.114.4] मन्त्रद्वयम् । `एक॑ ए॒वाग्निर्ब॑हु॒धा समि॑द्ध॒' इतीयमृक् [RV 8.58.2] । `रू॒पंरू॑पं॒ प्रति॑रूपो बभूव॒' [RV 6.47.18] इत्यादयश्च । यजुर्वेदेऽपि - `एको॑ दे॒वो ब॑हु॒धा निवि॑ष्टः'[TA 3.14.1], `एक॒ः सन्ब॑हु॒धा वि॑चारः' [TA 3.11.1], `अ॒न्तः प्रवि॑ष्टः शा॒स्ता जना॑नाम्' [TA 3.11.1] इत्यादयः । सामवेदेऽपि `एकमेवाद्वितीयम्'[CU 6.2.1-2],`आत्मैवेदसर्वम्' [CU 7.25.2], `ब्रह्म ह देवेभ्यो विजिग्य' [KnU 3.1] इत्यादयः<sup>170</sup>। अथर्वणवेदेऽपि - `स एव विष्णुः स प्राणः स कालोऽग्निः स चन्द्रमाः' [KvU verse 8] । `यो वै श्रीरामचन्द्रः स भगवानद्वैतपरमानन्दात्मा यो ब्रह्मा विष्णुरीश्वरो यः सर्ववेदात्मा' [RUTU, Upani_at-sa_graha, p. 403]¹⁷¹ इत्यादयः । एवं शतशः सहस्रशः श्रुतयोऽग्न्यादिसर्वदेवतात्वं सर्वान्तर्यामित्वं च परमेश्वरस्यैकस्यैव वर्णयन्ति। तस्मादुदाहृताभिः श्रुतिभिरेव¹⁷² ऋग्यजुःसामाद्युत्पत्तिश्रुतिविरोधोऽपि परि-हृत एवेति बोध्यम् । उत्पत्तिस्तु कल्पादौ परमेश्वरात्तत्प्रादुर्भाव एव । तेन नित्यत्वाविरोधः ।

Since a discussion of the Veda is the currently undertaken topic, [we have] detailed definitions of Veda etc. that are occasioned by the context. We have already offered a few [scriptural] statements indicating the primacy and the praiseworthiness of the _gveda. We shall also offer some additional statements. Previously we had offered a statement from the Puru_asūkta, i.e. ÒFrom that [sacrifice], to which all had made oblations, ...Ó [RV 10.90.8]. We have also explained the meaning of this passage: ÒThe verses of the _gveda etc. became manifest from the Highest Lord who was invoked by allÓ.

By way of reviewing that passage [lit. Òin the manner of a lion turning his neck and looking backÓ], we shall consider some points.
Someone may object by saying: ÒHow do you say that it is the Highest Lord alone who is invoked by all? In all the various sacrifices like Agnihotra, Darśapūr_amāsa, etc. different divinities like Agni are invoked [and not the Highest Lord]Ó.
[If such an objection is raised,] there is no problem. It is the One Highest Lord who appears in various different forms of divinities like Agni through his mysterious power. Hence there is no contradiction.
Such are the [confirming] Vedic passages. Here are two mantras [from the _gveda].
[RV 1.164.46]: ÒThey call him Indra, Mitra, Varu_a, Agni, and he is the heavenly fair-winged Celestial Bird. Being truly one, the sages call him with diverse names like Agni, Yama and MātariśvanÓ, and [RV 10.114.4]: ÒThe one fair-winged Bird, he has entered the ocean_. Then, there is the verse [RV 8.58.2]: ÒIt is one Agni which is kindled in diverse ways.Ó Also, [there are verses] like [RV 6.47.18]: ÒIn every form, he has become manifest.Ó
[We find similar statements] even in the Yajurveda: ÒOne divinity has lodged itself in many placesÓ [TA 3.14.1], ÒBeing one, he [still] moves around in manifold waysÓ [TA 3.11.1], and ÒThe ruler has entered into the peopleÓ [TA 3.11.1], etc.
[It is] also [said] in [the Upani_ads of] the Sāmaveda: ÒThere is only one [Brahman] without any secondÓ [CU 6.2.1-2], ÒThe Self is all this [that exists]Ó [CU 7.25.2], and ÒBrahman surpassed [all] godsÓ [KnU 3.1], etc.
[It is] also [said] in [the Upani_ads of] the Atharvaveda: ÒHe is himself Vi__u, he is also the Life-Breath, he too the Time, Fire and the MoonÓ [KvU, verse 8] and ÒHe who is the holy Rāmacandra, he is also the Lord, the Self consisting of the highest undifferentiated bliss, God, the essence of all the Vedas, who is also Brahmā and Vi__uÓ [RUTU, Upani_at-sa_graha, p. 403], etc.
In this way, hundreds of thousands of Vedic passages describe the Highest Lord alone as the inner soul of everything, assuming the forms of all the various divinities like Fire. Therefore, it should be understood that on the basis of Vedic passages cited above, the apparent contradiction involved in Vedic passages about the emergence of the _gveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda etc. (from different divinities) is removed. The emergence of the Vedas, however, is only its appearance from the Highest Lord at the beginning of the cycle of time [and not its creation or production in any sense]. Therefore, there is no conflict with the eternal presence [of the Veda].
[¤ 22]

प्रकृतमनुसरामः । ऋग्वेदगतानि `तस्मा॑द्य॒ज्ञात्स॑र्व॒हुत॒ः'[RV 10.90.8], `अग्ने॒र्गा॑य॒त्र्य॑भवत्स॒युग्वा॒'[RV 10.130.4], `ऋग्वेद एवाग्न्रोजायत'[AB 25.7]<sup>173</sup>इत्यादिवाक्यान्यृग्वेदप्राथम्य<sup>174</sup>पराण्युदाहृतानि । तथा यजुर्वेदेऽपि `ऋचो॒ यजू॑ ँ!88548षि॒ सामा॑नि । अ॒थ॒र्वा॒ङ्गि॒रस॑श्च॒ ये । सर्वा॒स्ता' [TB 3.12.8.1] इति । `तद॑स्मै॒ तत्प्राय॑च्छ॒दृच॒ः सामा॑नि॒ यजू॑ँ!88619षि'[TS 2.4.12.11] इत्यादयः । साम-वेदे च `ऋग्वेदं भगवोऽध्येमि यजुर्वेद ँ!88687 सामवेदमाथर्वणं चतुर्थम्' [CU 7.1] इति। अथर्वणवेदे च `तत्रापरा ऋग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्ववेदः शिक्षा कल्पो व्याकरणं निरुक्तं¹⁷⁵ छन्दो ज्योतिषम्' [MuU 1.1.5] इति । बृहदारण्यकवाक्यं [BU 2.4.10] मन्त्रविचारे उदाहृतमेव । एवं मन्वादि-स्मृतिषु रामायणभारतपुराणादिषु ऋग्वेदप्राथम्यबोधकवाक्यानि सहस्रशः सन्ति । तस्मात्प्राथम्यादेव ऋग्वेदस्यैव प्राशस्त्यं तदितरेषां यजुरादीना-मुपसर्जनत्वमिति वदन्तः केचिदपण्डिता वृथावादकुशला विवदन्त उप-लभ्यन्ते । ननु तत्र को विरोधः । तथैव प्रतिपत्तव्यमिति चेन्न । बहुश्रुति-वाक्यविरोधापत्तेः । एवं तर्हि कथं प्रतिपत्तव्यमित्युच्यते¹⁷⁶ ।
Now we return to our primary topic. We have cited passages from the _gved(ic tradition) that support the primacy of the _gveda such as Òfrom that sacrifice enkindled by all (_k verses etc. were born)Ó [RV 10.90.8], ÒGāyatrī closely joined with AgniÓ [RV 10.130.4], and Ò_gveda itself was born from AgniÓ [AB 25.7]. [It is said] also in the Yajurved(ic tradition): ÒThe _k verses, the Yajus, the Sāmans, and the (Veda of) the Atharvā_giras, all of those ...Ó [TB 3.12.8.1], and ÒHe gave it to him, i.e. the _k verses, Sāmans, and the YajusÓ [TS 2.4.12.11]. In [the Upani_ad of] the Sāmaveda, it is said: ÒSir, I study the _gveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, as well as the fourth (Veda, i.e.) AtharvavedaÓ [CU 7.1]. In [the Upani_ad of] the Atharvaveda, it says: ÒThere is the lower [form of wisdom], i.e. the _gveda, Yajurveda, Sāmaveda, Atharvaveda, Phonetics, Rules of Ritual, Grammar, Etymology, Metrics, and Astronomy/AstrologyÓ [MuU 1.1.5]. We have already cited the statement from the B_hadāra_yaka-Upani_ad [2.4.10] while discussing the term mantra. In the same way, there are thousands of statements in the Sm_tis like those of Manu and others, and in the Rāmāya_a, [Mahā]bhārata, and the Purā_as.
Now, some scholars who are ignorant and yet are skilled in useless debates are seen engaged in disputes claiming that just by the reason of primacy [in the listings cited above] the _gveda is the only worthy Veda, and that Vedas like the Yajur-veda are subordinate Vedas.
If one argues that there is no contradiction in such a view, and that indeed such a view should be accepted, then we reply that such is not the case, since this conflicts with many Vedic statements. Should one ask as to how one needs to understand the true situation, this is how we respond.
[¤ 23]

अस्य वेदविचारप्रकरणस्योपोद्घातप्रकरणे चत्वारः पक्षा उपन्यस्ताः । सर्वेषां वेदानां सर्वस्मिन्विषये समप्रधानत्वमित्येकः¹⁷⁷ पक्षः । एकस्य ऋग्वेदस्य¹⁷⁸ मुख्यत्वमितरेषां तदुपसर्जनत्वमिति द्वितीयः । ऋग्यजुषोः प्राधान्यं तदितरयोरप्राधान्यमिति तृतीयः¹⁷⁹ । विषयविशेषतया चतुर्णामपि प्रधानत्वमुपसर्जनत्वं चेति चतुर्थः । चतुर्णां पक्षाणां मध्येऽन्तिमपक्ष एव श्रेयान्।¹⁸⁰न तत्पूर्वमुदाहृतास्त्रयःपक्षाः ।[ते]¹⁸¹ऽन्योन्यश्रुति-विरोधादुपेक्ष्याः।अन्तिमपक्षस्य न क्वापि विरोधः, श्रुतियुक्तिमत्त्वा-द्वेदनिन्दाप्रयुक्तदोषाभावाच्च । एतत्सर्वं तत्तद्वेदप्राशस्त्यबोधकवाक्या-न्युदाहृत्य क्रमेण वक्ष्यामः ।
In the introduction to this work discussing the Veda, we had stated four alternative views.
1. All the Vedas have equally primacy in all contexts.
2. The _gveda alone is the primary Veda, and the other Vedas are subsidiary to it.
3. The _gveda and the Yajurveda are the primary Vedas, [the other two being subsidiary to them].
4. Contextually, all the four Vedas may be primary or subsidiary.
Among these alternatives, the last alternative is the best one. The previous three alternatives should be rejected because they conflict among themselves and with the Vedic statements. The last alternative does not conflict with anything, because it is supported by the Vedic statements, by reason, and particularly because it is free from the fault of denigrating [any of] the Vedas.
We shall elucidate all this in a proper order by citing statements that declare the praiseworthiness of each particular Veda.
[¤ 24]

ननु अन्तिमपक्षः श्रेयानित्युक्तं तथैवाग्रिमपक्षोऽपि । कुतः¹⁸² । उक्त-दोषाभावात् । तदपि कुतः¹⁸³ । सर्वेषां सर्वविषये समत्वादिति¹⁸⁴ । सत्यम्। तथापि स पक्षो दोषग्रस्त एव । को दोष इति चेच्छृणु । अव्यवस्थारूपो¹⁸⁵ दोषः । श्रुति¹⁸⁶शास्त्रयुक्त्यभावश्च । कथमव्यवस्थेति¹⁸⁷ चेदुच्यते। देशनगरग्रामारिष्टनिरसनरूपे जपहोमादिकर्मणि प्रवृत्ते समुदाय-द्रव्येणानुष्ठाने कर्तव्ये सर्वेषां समप्रधानत्वादनेनेदं कर्तव्यमिति विनिगमना-विरहादव्यवस्था¹⁸⁸ प्रसज्येत । सर्वैः संभूय कर्तव्यमिति चेन्न। अशक्य-त्वाच्छास्त्रविरोधाच्च। तदेवोच्यते। सर्वस्मिन्कर्मणि एक एवाचार्य इतरे ऋत्विजो य आचार्यः स मुख्यः । ऋत्विजस्तूपकारका इति शास्त्रमर्यादा। एकस्मिन्कर्मणि च¹⁸⁹ बह्वाचार्यत्वं विरुद्धं कर्तुमप्यशक्यम्¹⁹⁰। तस्मात् समप्रधानपक्षो¹⁹¹ बहुदोषग्रस्तत्वादुपेक्ष्यः ।
Now you say that the last of the four alternatives is the best alternative. Similarly, [we say that] the first alternative is also [superior].
How?
Because it does not have the problems that you have pointed out earlier.
How so?
Because, [in this alternative], all [the Vedas] are primary in all contexts.
It is true, and yet this alternative has a major problem.
What is this problem?
If [you ask this question], we reply that this is the problem of a lack of a clear resolution [of specific choices] and there is no support for this view in the Vedas, Śāstras, and reason.
Why do you say that there is a lack of clear resolution?
If [you ask this question], we reply as follows. When [a community] sets out to perform a Veda recitation or a sacrifice by using collective financial resources to rid the region, city, or village of some calamity, there will be no way to decide as to which priest should perform a certain rite, because of the [assumed] equal primacy [of all the Vedas in all the contexts], and this would result in chronic indecision.
One cannot say that a rite should be jointly performed by all [the priests representing the various Vedas]. Such a perfor-mance [jointly by all the priests representing the various Vedas] is impossible and is contrary to the [prescriptive ritual] tradition.
Let us explain this [further]. In all rites, there can be only one Ācārya (= the principal priest) and all others are merely [assisting] priests.¹⁹² The principal priest is the main guiding person. Other priests are merely helpers. This is the rule laid down by the tradition. Involving many principal priests in a single rite contradicts the above rule and hence is unworkable. Therefore, the alternative of treating all Vedas as being equally primary in all contexts is full of many problems and should be rejected.
[¤ 25]

अन्तिम एव ग्राह्यः । उक्तदोषाभावात् । तदेव प्रतिपाद्यते । यदे`नमृग्भिः शंसती'ति निरुक्तवाक्यात्, `ऋचा ह यो वेद स वेदवानि'-तीतिहासस्मृतिवाक्यात्¹⁹³,ऋग्वेदस्य देवताकाण्डत्वाच्छंसनप्रधानत्वाच्च, वेदपारायणसूक्ततृचऋङ्मन्त्रजपरूपेऽनुष्ठाने ऋग्वेदस्य प्राधान्यम् । अयमेव न्यायः स्मृतिपुराणाद्युक्तगीतासहस्रनामशिवकवचसप्तशत्यादिजपहोमाद्यनु-ष्ठाने योजनीयः । ¹⁹⁴जपाद्यनुष्ठाने बह्वृचो होमादौ याजुषो गायनादौ सामगोऽभिषेकादावाथर्वण इत्यर्थः¹⁹⁵ । यजुर्वेदस्य कर्मकाण्डत्वादाहुति-प्रधानत्वाच्च होमरूपे कर्मणि यजुर्वेदस्य प्राधान्यम् । सामवेदस्य गान-प्रधानत्वाद्यत्र सामविधानोक्तं बृहद्रथन्तरादि सामगानरूपमनुष्ठानं तत्र सामवेदस्य प्राधान्यम् । यत्र त्वथर्वणवेदोक्तैः शिवविष्ण्वाद्यथर्वशीर्षै¹⁹⁶- र्नृसिंहरामगोपालतापिन्युपनिषत्सु वा सगुणदेवताप्रसादार्थमभिषेकपूजादि-रूपमनुष्ठानं तत्राथर्वणवेदस्य प्राधान्यम् । `यजुर्भिर्यजन्ती'ति निरुक्त-वाक्यात्, `यजूँषि यो वेद स वेद यज्ञ'मिति स्मृते र्यस्मिन्कर्मणि यस्य च प्राधान्यं तत्र तदितरेषामर्थादुपसर्जनत्वं नान्तरीयकतया सिद्धम् । यद्वेद-प्रधानं यत्कर्म तत्र तद्वेदविद एवाचार्या अन्ये ऋत्विज इत्यपि सिद्धम् । इदं तु सर्वेषां समुच्चयद्रव्याद्यनुष्ठाने¹⁹⁷ बोध्यम् । यत्र त्वेकेन यजमानेन स्वकीयद्रव्यव्ययपूर्वकं कर्मानुष्ठीयते तदपि स्वसूत्रोक्तं चेत्तत्र तत्सूत्रा-नुष्ठायिन एवाचार्या अन्ये तदिच्छया स्युर्वा न वा तत्र न¹⁹⁸ कोऽपि श्रुति-स्मृतिन्यायविरोधः।
The only acceptable alternative is the last one, because it is free of the problems described earlier.
We shall elaborate this [alternative].
The Nirukta says Òhe praises him with verses (_k)Ó and there is statement in the Itihāsa and Sm_ti works: Òone who knows [how to perform] with a verse, knows the Veda.Ó
From such supportive statements, and since it is principally dedicated to the praise of divinities, the _gveda is of primary importance in the performance of the recitation of a hymn, triads of verses, or single verses, or more extensive sessions of Veda recitation.
The same reasoning applies to the performance of the rituals and recitation related to texts like the Bhagavad-Gītā, Sahasra-nāma, Śivakavaca, Saptaśatī etc., prescribed in the Sm_tis and Purā_as. [These should be carried out by a _gvedin priest.]
[To summarize, we state] that the _gvedin is the primary priest in the performance of recitation, and the like; the Yajurvedin is the primary priest in the performance of offerings [of oblations] into the fire, and the like; the singer of the Sāmaveda is the primary priest in the singing [of the Sāmaveda]; and the Atharvavedin is the primary priest in the performance of ritual bathing [of the images of divinities], and the like.
Since the Yajurveda is principally dedicated to Vedic ritual and to [the offering of] oblations, it has primary importance in rites involving oblations [into the sacrificial fire].
Since the Sāmaveda is principally dedicated to singing, it has primary importance in those ritual performances that involve the recitation of Sāmans like the B_hadrathantara as prescribed in the Sāmavidhāna.
The Atharvaveda has primary importance in those performances which involve worship and the ritual pouring of holy water [over the image of a divinity] in order to propitiate a divinity in image form using the mantras given in Atharvaved[ic tradition] such as the Atharvaśīr_a texts for Śiva and Vi__u, or in the Upani_ads such as the N_si_ha-Tāpinī-Upani_ad, Rāma-Tāpinī-Upani_ad, or the Gopāla-Tāpinī-Upani_ad.
It is said in the Nirukta that priests should perform sacrificial rites with yajus formulas, and a Sm_ti text says: Òhe who know the yajus, knows the sacrifice.Ó
Therefore, when in a ritual performance a priest [belonging to a certain Veda] is the main [priest], it naturally follows that priests belonging to other [Vedas] are subordinate priests. Whichever Veda is of primary importance in a given ritual performance, the main priest (Ācārya) must be an expert of that Veda, and priests [belonging to other Vedas] are mere [helpers]. This is the arrangement where the financial resources of a whole community are pooled for a ritual performance.
When a single host performs a rite with his own financial resources, and when it is in accordance with his own ritual Sūtra text, then the principal priest must be from the tradition of the same Sūtra text, while other priests, as desired by him [=the host], may or may not be from the same tradition. In such an arrangement, there is no conflict whatsoever with Vedic texts, Sm_tis, or the pattern of common practice.
[¤ 26]

सर्वमप्यनुष्ठानमिष्टापूर्तादिकं¹⁹⁹ स्वस्वशाखया कर्तुं न शक्यते किं तु स्वस्वसूत्रेणेति पूर्ववाक्ये सूत्रपदप्रक्षेपः । यद्वेदे यत्कर्म श्रौतं स्मार्तमन्यद्वा प्रोक्तं तत्तद्वेदसूत्रेणैव कर्तव्यमिति सर्वशास्त्रीयोऽयं नियमः । तथैव कुर्वन्ति शिष्टाः । तस्मादुक्तप्रकारेण चतुर्णामपि वेदानां व्यवस्थया प्रधानत्व-मुपसर्जनत्वं च सिद्धम् । अयमेव पक्षः सर्वसंमतः सर्वैरविरोधादिति सर्वं शिवम् । इति वेदविचारे वेदविचारतात्पर्यसंग्रहः । एतस्यैव विस्तर उत्तरो ग्रन्थः²⁰⁰ ।
Since not all the performances of sacrifices and good works can be carried out by exclusively following one’s own Vedic branch (śākhā), they must be carried out in accordance with one’s own text of ritual aphorisms (sūtra). Hence the word sūtra (Òritual aphorismÓ) is inserted in the previous statement. Whatever rituals or other religious rites are prescribed in a certain Vedic tradition, they should be carried out (strictly) in accordance with the text of ritual aphorisms (sūtra) associated with that particular Vedic tradition. Such is the rule in all traditions. Learned people in the community always act this way.
Thus, as described above, the primary and the subsidiary status of all the four Vedas is contextually established. This is the alternative accepted by all, since it is free from all conflicts. Thus, all arguments have been satisfactorily explained. Here ends the brief statement of the ultimate goals of the discussion of the Vedas in this text called Vedavicāra. The remaining part (of Vedavicāra) is only a detailed elaboration of this very topic.
[¤ 27]

एवमुक्तप्रकारेण श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायाविरोधेन²⁰¹ च चतुर्णामपि वेदानां व्यवस्थया प्रधानोपसर्जनत्वे सिद्धे शास्त्रोक्तमनादृत्यान्धपरम्परया द्रव्यसमु-दायादिबलेन वा²⁰² तत्तद्देशे तत्तच्छाखिनो ब्राह्मणाः परस्परमस्मच्छाखैव श्रेष्ठा न युष्मच्छाखेति वेदब्राह्मणनिन्दकास्तदनुसारिणो ये केचन पण्डित-म्मन्या मत्सरिणो ज्ञात्वापि वेदतात्पर्यं वृथा विवदमाना दृश्यन्ते ते सर्वेऽ-पीहैव पतिताः सन्तो मृत्वा नरकभाजो भवन्तु । तत्र विदुषां निर्मत्सराणां श्रुतितात्पर्याभिज्ञानां का क्षतिः ।
Thus, in the above manner, the primary and the subsidiary status of all the four Vedas is contextually settled in conformity with statements from the Vedas and Sm_tis, and common logic. Even so, in various different regions, Brāhma_as who belong to different Vedic branches, either following blind traditions or by the strength of accumulated wealth, denigrate the Vedas and (other) Brāhma_as by saying to each other that their own Vedic branch is superior and not the one to which others belong. Such (accusers of the Vedas and Brāhma_as) and their followers, a jealous lot who consider themselves to be too smart, are seen leading a futile dispute, even though they know the import of the Vedas. Reaching a fallen state in this very life let them go to hell after their death. What is the loss for the learned who are not jealous and who expertly know the ultimate import of the Vedas?
[¤ 28]

ननु पातित्यं तावन्महापातकोपपातकाद्याचरणेन भवति । केवलं वेदब्राह्मणनिन्दया कथमिति चेन्मैवम् । श्रुतौ स्मृतौ च तथा दृष्टत्वात् ।

`ये अ॒र्वाङु॒त वा॑ पुरा॒णे

वे॒दं वि॒द्वा सँ॑!98057म॒भितो॑ वदन्ति ।

आदि॒त्यमे॒व ते परि॑वदन्ति॒ सर्वे॑!98080

अ॒इग्निं द्वि॒तीयं॑ तृ॒तीयं॑ च ह॒ सँ!98131मि॒'ति²⁰³[TA 2.15.1]।

अस्यार्थो माधवाचार्यैरेवं व्याख्यातः । `अर्वाङ् अर्वाञ्चमिदानीन्तनं मनुष्यमध्येतृरूपमुत वा पुराणे अथवा पुरातनं व्यासवसिष्ठादिरूपं वेदं विद्वा सँ<sup>204</sup>ं!98408 पाठादर्थाच्च वेदतत्त्वाभिज्ञं महात्मानं ये मूर्खा अभितो वदन्ति तत्र तत्र निन्दन्ति ते मूर्खाः सर्वे आदित्यमेव निन्दन्ति ततो द्वितीयमग्निं निन्दन्ति ततस्तृतीयं ह सँं!98437 गमनशीलं वायुं निन्दन्ति । अस्य वेदविदोऽग्निवाय्वा<sup>205</sup>दित्यसायुज्ययोग्यत्वादेतन्निन्दैव<sup>206</sup> तेषां निन्देत्यनेन मन्त्रेणाग्न्यादिरूपलक्षणं वेदविन्माहात्म्यं दर्शितम् । अस्य मन्त्रस्य तात्पर्यं दर्शयति । `या॑वतीर्वै दे॒वता॒स्ताः [सर्वा॑ वेद॒विदि॑ ब्राह्म॒णे व॑सन्ति॒ तस्मा॑द्ब्राह्म॒णेभ्यो॑ वेद॒विद्भ्यो॑ दि॒वे दि॑वे॒ नम॑स्कुर्या॒न्नाश्ली॒लं कीर्त॑येदे॒ता ए॒व] दे॒वता॑ः प्रीणाती'ति²⁰⁷[TA 2.15.1]। अस्यार्थः स्पष्ट एव । अश्लीलं दोषम्। एतादृश्यः श्रुतयः सर्ववेदेषु बह्व्यः²⁰⁸ सन्ति वेदब्राह्मणनिन्दकानां प्रत्यवाय-बोधिकाः²⁰⁹ ।
One might argue that one becomes fallen by carrying out one of the great or small sinful acts [pātakas], but how can [one become fallen] merely by denigrating the Vedas and the Bāhma_as?
[We reply]. Do not argue like that. [Such is indeed the case], because we see [statements to that effect] in the Vedas and Sm_tis.
[Taittirīya-Āra_yaka 2.15.1 says:] ÒWhen they denigrate a modern or an ancient knower of the Veda, firstly they all in fact denigrate none other than the Sun, secondly the Fire (agni), and finally the [Wind who is swift like a] swan.Ó
Mādhavācārya has explained the meaning of this passage as follows: Ò‘Recent’ refers to a modern person in the form of a student of the Veda, and the word ‘ancient’ refers to an exhalted ancient person like Vyāsa and Vasi__ha who knew both the meaning and the text of the Veda. Those fools who denigrate such persons in different places or occasions, all such fools in fact denigrate first the Sun, then the Fire, and finally the Swan, i.e. the Wind that moves. Since the knower of the Veda is united with [divinities like] Fire, Wind, and the Sun. The denigration of this [knower of the Veda] is identical with their denigration. This mantra-passage shows the greatness of the knower of the Veda by being identified with divinities like Agni.
[Taittirīya-Āra_yaka 2.15.1 itself] shows the intention behind this mantra [cited above]: ÒAs many divinities there are [in the world], they all reside in a Brāhma_a who knows the Veda. Therefore, one should offer daily salutations to a Brāhma_a who knows the Veda. One should not speak of his faults. [Behaving in such a way], he propitiates the very divinities [that reside in the Brāhma_a].Ó The meaning of this [passage] is indeed very clear. The word ‘aślīla’ refers to faults. Many such Vedic passages are found in all the Vedas, that inform us about the demerit earned by those who denigrate the Vedas and Brāhma_as,.