Origin of the Veda - Pandit Gurudutt Vidyarthi vs Sir Monier-Williams

Pandit Gurudatta (1864–1890) was an influential scholar and devoted follower of Rishi Dayananda. Born in Multan, he excelled in Sanskrit and Persian, immersing himself in Vedic studies. Despite his skepticism, he became a staunch member of the Arya Samaj.

Sir Monier-Williams - a British scholar who was the second Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, England. 

Excerpt from the book - The works of the Pandit Guru Datta Vidyarthi .

Archive Link - https://archive.org/details/worksofthepandit00vidyuoft/page/n1/mode/2up. 

We now come to the 2nd part. This refers to the mode of revelation of the Veda or the origin of the Veda. He says :—

There are numerous inconsistencies in the accounts of the production of the Veda. . . ~  . 

1. One account makes it issue from the Self-existent like breath, by the power of adrishta, without. any deliberation or thought on His part ; 

2. another makes the four Vedas issue from Brahman lke smoke from burning fuel; 

3. another educes them from the elements ; 

4. another from Gayatri ; 

5. a hymn in the Atharva Veda educes them from kala or Time (XIX. 54); 

6. The Shatapatha Brahman asserts that 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 Rig, Yaju and Sam-Vedas. Manu (1.23) affirms the same. 

7. In the Purusha Sukta, the three Vedas are derived from the mystical victim Purusha. 

8: Lastly, by the Mimansakas the Veda is declared to be itself an eternal sound and to have existed absolutely from all eternity, quite independently of any utterer or revealer of its text. Hence it is often called Shruta, “ what is heard.” 

9. In opposition to all this, we have the rishis themselves frequently intimating that the mantras were composed by themselves.

In this little paragraph Professor Williams points out that there are nine different conflicting theories maintained with respect to production of the Vedas, and enumerates the nine theories and thinks that he has done enough to demolish the ground of Vedic revelation.

But he is sadly mistaken. He simply betrays the woeful depth of his ignorance of even the ordinary Sanskrit words, not to speak of the higher Sanskrit literature. The fact is that not only are there no nine conflicting hypotheses, but that these are one and the same hypothesis invariably maintained by each and all of the ancient Vedic writers. 

The one unitary conception concerning the production of the Vedas is that the Vedas are a spontaneous emanation from the Deity, an involuntary natural and original procession of God’s innate wisdom and knowledge principles into this world. 

It is this uniform idea which is maintained throughout. 

Let us take each of the theories enumerated by Professor Williams.

The Vedas issued from the Self-existent like breath. 

Says शतपथ ब्राह्मण 14.5.4.10 -स वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निःश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः । 

The meaning is that Yajnavalkya replies to Maitreyi in answer to her question, “O Maitreyi, the Vedas have proceeded from God, who is even more omnipresent than ether and more extensive than space, as naturally and spontaneously as the breath proceeds spontaneously and involuntarily from the human organism” and not deliberately and with thought as Professor Williams will have his own revelation, for the God of Truth and the God of the Universe, who is also the God of the Aryas need not trouble the cerebral substance of his brain with violent vibrations to produce the thought of imparting a revelation to mankind. 

Wisdom and knowledge flow from God as naturally and spontaneously as the breath flows in and out from the human organism. The power of adrihta to which Professor Williams refers in his note, is nothing different from the invisible, spiritual potency of the recipients of the revelation to receive the revelation of the Vedas.

This, then, is the first account.

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 Brahmar, 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.

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 Sanskrit for what he calls ,the elements is भूत. Now भूत  does not mean elements, but Godhead. 

भूतानि पदार्थानि विद्यन्ते ऽस्मिन्निति भूतः  — 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 . 

God who is the Universal Intelligent repository of all things past or old, 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 expresses the same sentiment.

The fourth account is that of the Vedas proceeding from Gayatri. There also Professor Williamis betrays his entire ignorance of Vedic literature by saying that this fourth account is a different one, inconsistent with the three foregoing ones. 

In 3rd Chapter, l4th Section Nighantu, which is the lexicon of Vedic terms, we have गायति अर्चति कर्म्मा तस्माद गायत्री भवति . The meaning of which is that the root गायति signifies अर्चति to worship. Hence, the, Being who deserves to be adored and worshipped by all, is called गायत्री. 

So also says Nirukta in its 7th Adhyaya, III Pad, and 6th Section, गायत्री गायतेः स्तुति कर्मणः त्रिगमना वा विपरीता |  गायतो मुखादुदपतत् इति च ब्राह्मणम्।   The Vedas, then, have proceeded from Gayatri i.e., God who is worshipped and adored by all.

Now comes the 5th account of the same in the Atharvaveda / 19 / 54 / 3 - का॒लादृचः॒ सम॑भव॒न्यजुः॑ का॒लाद॑जायत which Monier Williams translates as if meaning that Rig and Yajur

Vedas have been produced by time ( काल ). 

Here again, our learned Boden Professor of Sanskrit and world-renowned Oriental Scholar does not understand the meaning of the word काल. 

Says Nighantu, Chap. II, Kanda 14, कालयति गति कर्म्मा तस्मात् कालः   which means that the Spirit that is intelligent and pervades all is called kala 

or 

कालयति संख्याति सर्वान् पदार्थान्  स कालः  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.

We come now to the sixth. No mistake can be more serious on the part of Monier Williams than the one he has committed in rendering Shatpatha Brahmana’s account of the origin of the Vedas. According to this account, the Creator brooded over the three worlds and thence produced three ligkts, fire, the air, and the sun, from which respectively were extracted the Rig, Yajur and Sama Vedas.

Here also Williams’ mistake lies in substituting English worlds for Sanskrit ones. William’s own translation only with the modification of putting the original Sanskrit words for which he has put the English ones will be: God, the Creator, brooded over the three worlds and thence produced the three jyotis, अग्नि वायु and रवि 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 अग्नि वायु and रवि 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, अग्निः वायु and Ravi, men in the superior condition, God revealed the knowledge of Rig, Yaju ,and Sama respectively. Now, in what way does it contradict the other explanations? 

Nor does Manu prove what Williams says. Says Manu :अग्निवायुरविभ्यस्तु त्रयं ब्रह्म सनातनम् । दुदोह यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं ऋच्।यजुस्।सामलक्षणम् ॥ २३ ॥ 

This means that the three Vedas, Rig Yajur and Sama were revealed to the three rishis, Agni, Vayu and Ravi, to give a knowldege of how to accomplish the purpose of life in this world.

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 :—

तस्माद्यज्ञात्सर्वहुत ऋचः सामानि जज्ञिरे।

छन्दांसि जज्ञिरे तस्माद्यजुस्तस्मादजायत॥९॥

The plain meaning of which is that Rig, Yajuh, Sama, and Chhandas 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.

पुरुषः पुरिषादः पुरिशयः पूरयतेर्वा पूरयत्यंतरित्यंतरपुरुषमभिप्रेत्य। यस्मात्परं नापरमस्ति किंचिद्यस्मान्नाणीयो न ज्यायोऽस्ति किंचित्। वृक्ष इव स्तब्दो दिवि तिष्ठत्येकस्तेनेदं पूर्णं पुरुषेण सर्वमित्यपि निगमो भवति।  the meaning of which is that God is called Purusha, because he is पुरिषाद्य 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 :—

यज्ञः कस्मात् प्रख्यातं यजतिकर्मेति नैरुक्ता याज्ञ्यो भवतीति वा यजुरुन्नो भवतीति वा बहुकृष्णाजिन इत्यौपमन्यवो यजूंष्येनं नयन्तीति | 

The meaning is this. Why is Yajana 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, the Universal Spirit, and who is also called Yajna for reasons given above have proceeded the Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvan.

Eightly the Mimansakas declare the Vedas to be eternal and independently existent, a view which does not at all conflict with the former ones.

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 perverted. 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 the production of human beings. 

I will quote here Nirukta I, 6, 5:—

साक्षात्कृतधर्माण ऋषयो बभूवुस्तेऽवरेभ्योऽ साक्षात्कृतधर्मभ्य उपदेशेन मंत्रान्संप्रादुरुपदेशाय सम्पादः। 

Also, Nirukta II, 3. 2, as follows :--

होत्रमृषिर्निषीदन्नृषिर्दर्शनान् स्तोमान्ददर्शेत्यौपमन्यवस्तद्यदेनांस्तपस्यमानात्प्रह्मस्वयंभ्वभ्यानर्षत ऋषयोऽभवंस्तदृषीणामृषित्वमिति विज्ञायते॥

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. (Furtheron, 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 mantra of the Vedas gives four things, its Chhanda, Swara, Devata and Rishi. The name of the rishi only indicates the man who, for the first time, taught the meanings of that mantra to the world at large.