Verse 1.23 [Creation of the Vedas]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अग्निवायुरविभ्यस्तु त्रयं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ।
दुदोह यज्ञसिद्ध्यर्थं ऋच्।यजुस्।सामलक्षणम् ॥ २३ ॥

agnivāyuravibhyastu trayaṃ brahma sanātanam |
dudoha yajñasiddhyarthaṃ ṛc|yajus|sāmalakṣaṇam || 23 ||

From out of (the three deities) Agni, Vāyu and Ravi, he extracted, for the due fulfilment of sacrifices, the eternal Brahman, threefold, in the forms of ‘Ṛk,’ ‘Yajuṣ’ and ‘Sāman.’—(23)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

There are only three deities, Agni, Vāyu, and Ravi,—say the followers of the Nirukta; even though these three have several names; and in accordance with this theory the text would mean as follows:—‘For the due fulfilment of the sacrifices,’ to these three deities,—the Dative ending (in the term ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’) being due to the fact of these three deities being the recipients of the sacrificial offerings,—‘he milked the Brahman,’ called ‘Veda’, ‘in the forms of Ṛk, Yajuṣ and Sāman.’

But as a matter of fact, the root (in ‘dudoha’ ‘milked’) is one that should have two objects; it has its primary object in the form of ‘trayam’; and it should have a second, the secondary, object; but there is no such secondary object in the sentence. Hence we conclude that the term ‘ravibhyaḥ’ should be taken in the Ablative case; the meaning being—‘From out of the three deities, Agni &c, he extracted’—made to flow, produced—[the Veda].

Question:—“How could the words, the mantra-texts and the Brāhmaṇa-texts (of which the Veda consists)—which are made up of letters—come out of Agni and other deities?” Answer:—Why is this not possible? In regard to invisible forces, who can say that they do not exist?

[An objection is raised against the second interpretation preferred by the Bhāṣya]—“It is not right to alter the meaning of the verb (‘dundoha,’ ‘milked’); so that (if the root retains its own meaning) how could we havo the Ablative (in ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’)? It should take the Accusative ending, according to the grammatical rule under Pāṇini’s Sūtra 1.4.51, which lays down that the roots ‘duhi,’ ‘yāci’ &c., take two objects, and the source from which the ‘milking’ is done is the secondary object. Further, the mind of reasonable men is not satisfied when what is described as having happened in the past is something that is not compatible with the ordinary sources of knowledge.”

This incongruity becomes explained away when we take the statement as referring to the framework of the Vedas; the meaning being that the Ṛgveda came out of Agni, the Yajurveda out of Vāyu and the Sāmaveda out of Ravi. Then again, it has to be borne in mind that Agni and the rest are deities endowed with superior potencies, and Prajāpati is possessed of unexcelled powers; so that what can be impossible for these? Under this explanation full significance should attach to the Ablative; so that the case-relation being already expressed (by the Ablative), and the Ablative being duly significant, it is the Ablative that is used [and not the Accusative, which has been laid down in Pāṇini 1.4.51 as to be used only in cases where the case-relation is not otherwise expressed]; this has been fully justified in the Bhāṣya (of Patañjali).

Question:—“If the said theory be not accepted, what would be the explanation of the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ then?”

Answer:—In that case, we have already said that it could be taken as the Dative; and (as regards the necessity of the verb ‘dudoha,’ ‘milked,’ having a secondary object) it has to be borne in mind that all that is here stated is mere vāda. So that (physical impossibilities being not counted) ‘ātman’ may be taken as the required secondary object,—the meaning being that ‘Prajāpati milked himself (of the Veda)’ [‘for the sake of Agni, and Ravi’]. And further, ‘milking’ may be taken in the sense of teaching, which resembles the act of milking in consisting of transferring a thing from one receptacle into another. [So that the passage would mean that ‘he taught the Veda to Agni &c.’] Even when the word ‘agnivāyuravibhyaḥ’ is taken as Ablative, the statement can be justified on the ground that the opening verses of the Ṛgveda speak of Agni,—this fact being what is meant by the statement ‘the Ṛgveda came out of Agni.’ Similarly, the opening verse of the Yajurveda is ‘Iṣe tvorje’ &c., whore the term ‘iṭ’ (the base in ‘iṣe’) means food, and food is produced by Vāyu, which is present within the food, by the bestowing (upon it) of rain; ‘urk’ (the base in the second word ‘urje’) means life-breath, and this is Vāyu (Air) itself; thus since the Yajurveda opens with the description of the effects of Vāyu, we have the metaphorical expression that ‘it came out of Vāyu.’ Or, the duties of the Adhvaryu and the functions of the Ṛtviks (which form the subject-matter of the Yajurveda) all consist of so many forms of activity; and all activity proceeds from Vāyu; hence it is on the basis of this similarity that the Yajurveda is spoken of as coming out of Vāyu. Lastly, as regards the the singing of the Sāman cannot be done except by persons specially qualified for it; hence the Sāma verses are such as can be duly read by only the best among men, and Ravi (the Sun) occupies the highest point in space [and on this fact is based the statement that the Sāmaveda came out of Ravi ].—(23)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

There are two explanations of this verse, supplied by Medhātithi:—(1) ‘For the sake of the accomplishment of the sacrifice to Agni, Vāyu and Sūrya, He produced the Veda,’ and (2) ‘Out of Agni......He produced the Veda’;—the latter being preferred, for reasons adduced in the Bhāṣya.

Burnell has a curious note here to the effect that—‘This myth of the creation of the Vedas differs from the Sāṅkhya account, according to which they are eternal and issue from Brahmā’s mouth.’ It was necessary to supply references to the work on Sāṅkhya here referred to.

Medhātithi (p. 19, 1. 9) ‘Asmindarśane’—etc. This refers to the passage in the Mahāhhāṣya (Nirṇayasāgara edition, ‘Vol. II, p. 265, l. 18).

A similar use of the Ablative ending we find in 2. 77.

Do. (p. 19, l. 11) ‘Dohanañchādhyāpanam’—In this case ravibhyaḥ would be the Dative form.