Chapter 14 - Jain criticism of vedic sacrifices

Apart from the criticism of popular Hinduism, Somadeva denounces the Vedic sacrificial system for sanctioning animal slaughter in the controversial dialogue between Yasodhara and his mother in Yasastilaka , Book IV. As examples of Vedic rites involving the killing of animals he mentions Rajasuya, Vajapeya, Gosava, Asvamedha, Kariri and Pundarika (in which an elephant is said to have been sacrificed), and condemns also the Sautramani sacrifice in which it was customary to drink wine. Vedic sacrifices are represented as sinful also in Buddhist texts, for example, in the Mahavastu (Vol. II, p. 237) wherein Mara instigates the Bodhisattva to perform certain sacrifices for the attainment of heaven and religious merit, viz. Asvamedha, Purusamedha, Somaprasa, Nirargada (?), Paduma and Pundarika.³ References like these are of a literary character and do not always point to In any case Somadeva's criticism of Vedic contemporary conditions. sacrifices and citations from sacrificial texts do not prove that Vedic rites were common in his time, as Vedic sacrifices seem to have gone out of vogue and become obsolete by the tenth century. The Smarta religion reigned supreme; and it has been pointed out, for instance, that there are only two Rastrakuta inscriptions which record grants made to enable Brahmanas to "In all perform Vedic sacrifices like Rajasuya, Vajapeya and Agnistoma. other cases the grants were made for discharging purely Smarta duties connected with bali, caru, vaisvadeva." Further, " Alberuni was informed that the Vedic sacrifices were rarely performed and practically abandoned It may be added that the because they presupposed a long life........."4 decline of Vedic sacrifices must have set in long before the tenth century or even the Rastrakuta period. Samkara in his Bhasya on the Vedanta Sutras 3. 1. 25, indeed, speaks of Vedic rites as if they were still being performed by cultured people in his time. But it is important to note that the Prasastapada Bhasya, which belongs to the early centuries of the Christian era, while laying down the religious duties of a householder in connection with 6 1 ' tatha vede'pyatmasreyorthamasesavighnopasamanartham ca rajasuyapundarikasvamedhagosavavajapeyadisu varsikamestikarirityadisu ca yajnesu pravrtto'yam pranivadhah sa ca vadho na bhavati | ' The object of the Kariri sacrifice was to bring rain. For references see Handiqui: Naishadhacarita , Vocabulary (sub voce). 2 See, for example, the first story of Book VII, summarized in Chap. XVI. 3 ' mahayajnani ca yajahi asvamedham purusamedham somaprasam niragada padumam pundarikam ca | etani yajnani yajitva pretya svargesu modisyasi bahu ca punyam prasavisyasi ' | 4 Altekar: The Rastrakutas and their times, p. 279. 5 'tasmadvisuddham karma vaidikam sistairanusthiyamanatvadanindyamanatvacca | ' 48

the Vaisesika scheme of spiritual discipline, prescribes in the first instance Smarta rites such as the five Mahayajnas and the Pakayajnas, and then mentions the Srauta sacrifices: the Haviryajnas (Agnyadheya, Darsapaurnamasa etc.) and the Somayajnas (Agnistoma, Ukthya etc.), to be undertaken if one has the capacity to do so. Udayana who wrote in the last quarter of the tenth century says in his Nyayakusumanjali, chap. 2, that Vedic rites such as Rajasuya and Asvamedha were dying out in his time, as they were no longer performed, and that in his age Dharma rested only on one foot, charity, owing to the decline of the Vedic sacrifices. The Nyaya theory of sakhoccheda, the dying out of the Vedic schools, was, in fact, more in conformity with the process of history than the Mimamsa view which refused to believe in any such decay. It may, however, be readily admitted that Vedic sacrifices continued to be sporadically perfomed till quite recent times; and contemporary evidence of the performance of such rites is not rare. The Asvamedha, in particular, attracted many kings of the ruling dynasties. For example, the Iksvaku king Vasisthiputra Camtamula I, who reigned in the Andhra country about the second quarter of the third century A. D., is said to have performed the Asvamedha and Vajapeya sacrifices.³ Several inscriptions of the Vakataka kings, who ruled in Central Provinces and Berar, state that Pravarasena I who reigned about the end of the third century A. D. performed four Asvamedhas besides several other Vedic sacrifices such as Agnistoma, Aptoryama, Ukthya, Sodasin, Atiratra, Vajapeya, Brhaspatisava and Sadyaskra. The inscriptions of the Vakatakas frequently mention their kinsmen, the Bharasivas, who seem to have established themselves on the banks of the Ganges, and are said to have celebrated as many as ten Asvamedhas. In Gupta records Samudragupta (circa 330-375 A. D.) is stated to have revived the Asvamedha which had long been in abeyance, evidently in North India; for it seems to have been quite popular in the South. The Pallava king Sivaskandavarman, who has been assigned to about the beginning of the fourth century A. D., is reported to have performed Dahrasena, the the Agnistoma, Vajapeya and Asvamedha sacrifices." Traikutaka king of Northern Deccan, who ruled in the second half of the 1 'pancanam mahayajnanam sayamprataranusthanam ekagnividhanena pakayajnasamsthanam ca nityanam, saktau vidyamanayamadhyadheyadinam ca haviryajnasamsthanamagnistomadinam somayajnasamsthanam ca | ' 2 ' vaidika apyacara rajasuyasvamedhadayah samucchidyamana drsyante | yata idanim nanusthiyante | ' 'purva catuspadudharma asit "samprati jiryati yajne danaikapat | ' 3 Sarkar: The Early Pallavas, p. 17. 4 'parakramadhigatabhagirathyamalajalamurdhabhisiktanam dasasvamedhavabhrthasnatanam ' 5 Sarkar (op. cit.), p. 38.

fifth century, and the Kadamba king Krsnavarman I, who ruled in West Mysore and Kanara about the end of the fifth century A. D., are also credited with the performance of the Asvamedha. In the sixth century A. D. the Calukya Pulakesi I is mentioned as having performed a great many A much later instance is that of sacrifices including the Asvamedha." the Cola king Rajadhiraja I, who is known to have performed the Asvamedha The Yadava king Krsna about the middle of the eleventh century.3 (1247-1260 A. D.) is said to have performed a great many sacrifices and 'brought fresh strength to the Vedic ceremonial religion which in the course of time had lost its hold over the people.' Candupandita , the author of a learned commentary on Sriharsa's Naisadhacarita, performed a large number of important sacrifices, showing that Vedic ritual was not extinct in Gujarat in the last quarter of the thirteenth century." The Vajapeya was performed in the sixteenth century for the Vijayanagara kings Nrsimha and Krsna-Raya. The Asvamedha was performed by Sevai Jayasing of Amber as late as the first half of the eighteenth century ." Somadeva while condemning animal slaughter for religious purposes combats the theory that killing in Vedic sacrifices is not, properly speaking, killing, as it ensures to the victim life in heaven . The subject is more systematically dealt with by Mallisena (1292 A. D.) in his Syadvadamanjari (under verse 11). He tries to show that the killing of animals even for the purpose of Vedic sacrifices is a grievous sin, and quotes in support of his thesis the views of certain Brahmanical thinkers , Samkhyas and Vedantins and Vyasa, who abhorred the practice of animal slaughter in Vedic ritual. tatha ca pathanti paramarsah | yupam chitva pasun hatva krtva rudhirakardamam | yadyevam gamyate svarge narake kena gamyate || vedantika apyahuh | andhe tamasi majjamah pasubhirye yajamahe | himsa nama bhaveddharmo na bhuto na bhavisyati || vyasenapyuktam | jnanapa lipariksipte brahmacaryadayambhasi | snatvativimale tirthe papapankapaharini || dhyanagnau jivakundasthe damamarutadipite | asatkarmasamitksepairagnihotram kuruttamam || kasayapasubhirdustairdharmakamarthanasakaih | samamantrahatairyajnam vidhehi vihitam budhaih || pranighatata yo dharmamihate mudhamanasah | sa vanchati sudhavrstim krsna hi mukhakotarat || 1 ABORI, Vol. XXVI, p. 28 and Sarkar (op. cit.), p. 20. 2 Bhandarkar: Early History of the Dekkan, 3 rd ed., p. 103. 3 Sastri: The Colas, Vol. I, pp. 293, 312. 4 Bhandarkar (op. cit.), p. 197. 5 See the English trans. of Naishadhacarita, Introduction, p. III. 6 Rice: Mysore and Coorg from the Inscriptions, p. 210. 7 See P. K. Gode's papers in Poona Orientalist, Vol. II, pp. 166-180 and Mimansa Prakash, Vol. II, pp. 43-46. 8 See Book IV and Chapter XII of this book. 9 Cited in the Matharavrtti.

The views of Vyasa are quoted also by Somadeva, and it is interesting to find Jaina writers drawing on Brahmanical sources to reinforce the doctrine of ahimsa (Yasastilaka, Book IV): homasnanatapojapyabrahmacaryadayo gunah | pumsi himsarate partha candalasarasisamah || iti ... vyasoktih | yavanti pasuromani pasugatresu bharata | tavadvarsasahasrani pacyante pasuvata kah || iti pauraniki srutih | Ibid. Somadeva's views on the killing of animals in Vedic sacrifices are recorded in the aforesaid dialogue between Yasodhara and his mother. Mallisena sums up by saying that just as a cruel man may try to obtain a kingdom by killing his own son, but cannot escape the ignominy and sin resulting therefrom, even if he attains his object, similarly, even though the gods may be gratified by the slaughter of animals sanctioned by the Veda, the sin caused by such killing can never be averted.¹ The attacks on the authority of the Veda and its religion which we come across in Yasastilaka belong to a class of recriminatory literature directed against Vedic rites by Jaina writers since long before the tenth century. Although the Vedic religion had been obsolete for centuries , it was considered worth while to attack the Veda, since it was the bed-rock on which the superstructure of Brahmanism was claimed to have been Among the many stories built up beyond the ravages of time. invented for the purpose of discrediting the Vedic religion, there are at least three which deserve notice as illustrating the Jaina attitude The earlier and mentality in regard to the Brahmanical Scriptures. version of the story of Sagara, Sulasa, Narada, Parvata and Vasu and 23) and related in Jinasena I's Harivam sapurana (cantos 17 Somadeva's Yasastilaka, Book VII, occurs in the comprehensive Jaina Prakrit romance Vasudevahindi, Chap. V (circa sixth century A. D.). This story is interesting as recording the Jaina allegation that the Veda and its religion were the work of a demon named Kalasura. The latter is also called Mahakala, e. g. in Vasudevahindi wherein he is described as a most reprobate god, the minister of Yama. Even a sober philosophical writer like Vidyanandi declares in his Tattvarthaslokavartika 1. 20. 36 that the followers of Kanada attribute the authorship of the attribute Kalasura. the Jainas it to Veda to Brahman, while Similarly, in an outrageous story preserved in Vasudevahindi (Chap. III), Pippalada, the reputed author of the Atharvaveda, is described as 1 'yatha kila kascidvipascit purusah parusasayataya nijamangajam vyapadya rajyasriyam praptumihate na ca tasya tatpraptavapi putra- ghatapatakakalankapankah kvacidapayati evam vedavihitahimsaya devatadipritisiddhavapi himsasamuttham duskrtam na khalu parahanyate | ' 2 'jamassa logapalassa amacco paramahammio mahakalo nama devo jao | '

being born of the 14. JAINA CRITICISM OF VEDIC SACRIFICES 381 illicit union of the nun Sulasa and the ascetic as soon as he is born, deserted by his parents In the course of time Jannavakka, He is but grows up to be an eminent Vedie scholar. he comes to know the circumstances of his birth, and invents the Atharvaveda and its black magic in order to take revenge upon his parents. He severs the tongue of his father with a knife , and after reminding him of the crime of desertion of his own child, hacks him to A similar pieces and offers the limbs as oblations in the sacrificial fire. This is the Jaina version of treatment is meted out to his mother. the origin of the magic rites of the Atharvaveda. Another interesting but far from disgusting story about Vedic rites occurs in the eleventh canto of Ravisena's Padmacarita (seventh century A. D.), which contains The story in also a slightly different version of the Parvata story. question describes the destruction of Marutta's sacrifice by Ravana, represented as a patron of Jainism in Ravisena's work, which contains a Jaina version of the story of the Ramayana. The Jaina sage Narada argues with the officiating priest about the authority of the Veda and the advisability of performing sacrifices, and tries to convince him of the sinful character of animal slaughter. Some of his sentiments are not unlike those expressed by Yasodhara in Yasastilaka; the following two verses, the first from Yasastilaka, Book IV and the second from Padmacarita 247, may be compared : sukrasonitasambhutamasucinam niketanam | mamsam cet prinayedevaneta vyaghranupasmahe || sukrasonitasambhutamamedhyakrmisambhavam | durgandhadarsanam mamsam bhaksayanti katham surah || The assembled Brahmanas are enraged at the interference of Narada, and attack him with kicks and blows. The news is brought to Ravana who hastens to the sacrificial site with his soldiers, and there follows a set tumultous scene in which the animals kept for the sacrifice are free and sacrificial posts broken, and the Brahmanas receive a good with hammering. The description of the Brahmanas as "huntsmen the sacred thread round their necks" sums up the Jaina attitude towards the Vedic religion. Considering the theological hatred of earlier times, it is not surprising to find Jaina writers inventing or giving currency to stories The Jainas had, calculated to discredit the Vedic religion and culture. however, no direct knowledge of Vedic literature, and their criticism of Vedic rites is often disfigured by gross exaggerations, misunderstanding and misstatements. A few examples may be given to show that even a deeply learned scholar like Somadeva is not wholly free from this charge.

382 BEYASASTILAKA AND INDIAN CULTURE In Yasastilaka, Book IV, Somadeva quotes a Vedic phrase "2 , and opines that the Veda sanctions the killing of a Brahmana in spite of the general injunction that a Brahmana should not be killed. We are not here concerned with the question of whether traces of human sacrifice are found in the Vedic age, but the phrase cited by Somadeva belongs to the ritual of the Purusamedha which is wrongly supposed by him to be a human sacrifice. The Purusamedha was a symbolic rite, and the human victims, men as well as women, who were actually tied to the sacrificial posts, were set free, one and all, after the paryagnikarana or carrying of a firebrand round the victims. These are enumerated in the Vajasaneyisamhita XXX. 5-22 and the Taittiriya Brahmana III. 4, while the S'atapatha Brahmana (XIII. 6. 2. 12, 13) says: ".........Now, the victims had the fire carried round them, but they were not yet slaughtered. Then a voice said to him, 'Purusha, do not consummate (these human victims): if thou wert to consummate them, man (purusha) would eat man! Accordingly, as soon as fire had been carried round them, he set them free, and offered oblations to the same divinities...... The Katyayana Srauta Sutra XXI. 1. 12 clearly says that the Brahmanas and the other victims are released, just as the Kapinjala birds and the other wild animals are set free in the Asvamedha after the paryagnikarana (XX. 6. 9). It is true that there are two Srauta Sutras, Vaitana (XXXVII. 10 ff.) and Sankhayana (XVI.10 ff.), which set forth form of Purusamedha in which a man is to be sacrificed, but these Sutras lack Brahmana authority for what they prescribe; and as Eggeling points out, the Purusamedha described therein "is nothing more than what Sankhayana appears to claim for it, viz. an adaptation, and that a comparatively modern adaptation, of the existing Asvamedha ritual." Further, "the very fact that, in both Sutra works, this sacrifice is represented as being undertaken, not for the great object of winning immortal life, but for the healing of the Sacrificer's bodily infirmities, might seem sufficient to stamp the ceremony as one partaking more of the nature of the superstitious rites of the Atharvan priests than of that of the great sacrifices of the traditional Srauta ritual."8 According to Keith, the ritual prescribed in the versions of Sankhayana and the Vaitana "is a mere priestly invention to fill up the apparent gap in 14 Hillebrandt the sacrificial system which provided no place for man. gives too much importance to the version of Sankhayana and remarks that the a 1 See Chap. XII. 2 Eggeling's Translation, Part V, p. 410. 3 Eggeling: Satapatha Brahmana, Trans., Part V, Introduction, p. xliv. 4 Taittiriya Samhita, Trans., Introduction, p. cxxxviii.

Purusamedha is a relic of a barbaric age, but the statement is vague, and there are no reliable data which might enable us to determine the limits of this 'barbaric age'. The evidence of the Satapatha Brahmana, a far more ancient text, is of greater value than that of the two Sutra texts, and the fact remains that as early as the age of the Satapatha Brahmana More generally no human victims were sacrificed in the Purusamedha. speaking, the legend of Sunahsepa "is enough to show that human sacrifice was for the Brahmana period a horror beyond words"." is also noteworthy that the Purusamedha is not mentioned at all in the Samhitas of the Black Yajurveda: the Taittiriya, the Maitrayani and the Kathaka nor in the comprehensive Baudhayana Srauta Sutra.³ It Another misleading statement made by Somadeva in Yasastilaka, Book IV, concerns the Gosava sacrifice. He opines that this rite was devised to sanction incest with one's mother and sister. The Gosava was an ekaha or one-day sacrifice and usually performed by a man of position of the Vaisya caste, who might be honoured by the king and the people. The man who performed the Gosava was therafter called Sthapati, an honorific term . According to some, this rite was exclusively meant for the Vaisya caste, and one of its important features was that fresh milk was poured over the Sacrificer while seated on the bare ground to the south of the Ahavaniya fire . This is roughly the account of the Gosava given in the Katyayana Srauta Sutra XXII. 11. 6-11. The prescribed sacrificial fee of a myriad oxen shows that the rite was performed by a wealthy man, and according to the Sankhayana Srauta Sutra XVI. 15. 1 it should be undertaken by one who desires cattle. The Taittiriya Brahmana II. 7. 6 and Tandya Brahmana XIX. 13. 1 connect the Gosava with Svarajya or supremacy as the promised goal, and in any case the rite was meant for a leading man of the community as marking the culminating point in his social rank and position. As pointed out by Hillebrandt, there were certain special sacrifices for particular classes of men, e. g. the Rajasuya for the Ksatriyas, the Brhaspatisava for the Brahmanas and the Suta-, Sthapati-, Gramani-, and Go-sava for the other orders of society. Now, the Gosava had a particular connection with the bovine species. The Taittiriya Brahmana (op. cit.) observes that the ox is Supremacy, and the Sacrificer acts like an ox. Sayana's interpretation 1 Ritual-Litteratur, p. 153. 5 2 Keith: Taittiriya Samhita (op. cit.), p. 3 Ibid., p. cxxxviii. cxl. 4 'tadaha - gosave brahmano gosavenestva samvatsarante mataramapyabhilasatiti upehi mataramupehi svasaramiti | Books IV and VII, and section 30. 5 Ritual-Litteratur, p. 143. 6 'svarajyam gaureva gauriva bhavati | ya etena yajate | '

of a "Just as an ox roams freely in the woods, so does the Sacrificer in the Brahmaloka" does not appear to be accurate in view of the detailed explanation of the rite given in the Jaiminiya Brahmana II. 113. The latter ways text describes the vrata of the Gosava and it consists in imitating the an ox. The Sacrificer is to lie with his mother, his sister, and a woman of his own gotra, drink water and eat grass with face downwards, and ease himself wherever he feels the necessity. It is said that Janaka of Videha wanted to perform the Gosava, but when he was told about the procedure, he declared that he was willing to pay the prescribed sacrificial fee, but not to undertake the vrata, and did not after all venture to set about the rite. Punyakesa, the king of the Sibis, once undertook the Gosava. He felt like easing himself in the royal assembly, and while uncovering himself for the purpose then and there, exclaimed that the rite was suitable only for old men, and only an old man should undertake it, for 'all this' is permissible to the old. The Brahmana therefore concludes that the Gosava was 3 It sthavirayajna, and should be undertaken only at an advanced age. " was thus an apparently innocent sacrifice primarily designed for old people, free from the repulsive significance attributed to it by Jaina writers. It may be noted that the vrata described in the Jaiminiya Brahmana is omitted in most of the texts dealing with the Gosava, e. g., in the Srauta Sutras of Katyayana (op. (op. cit.), Sankhayana 14. 15, Baudhayana 18. 7 and Asvalayana 9. 8, and the Tandya Brahmana 19. 13; while the Taittiriya Brahmana (op. cit.) seems to make only a passing reference to it: gauriva bhavati. Caland shows that there is good reason to believe that the Jaiminiya Brahmana is older than the Tandya or Pancavimsa Brahmana, and he thinks that the latter text omitted certain details, e. g. the of vrata the Gosava, perhaps because it found them too 'barbaric'.4 It is quite probable that the childish procedure of behaving like an ox became soon obsolete, and was excluded from the customary ritual of the Gosava. Somadeva is not the only Jaina author to make misleading statements regarding Vedic sacrifices. Ravisena asserts in Padmacarita 11. 85 that intercourse with forbidden women is required in the Gosava sacrifice. Devasena who wrote Darsanasara in 933 A. D.5 says in his Prakrit Bhavasamgraha (verses 52-3) that the cow is declared to be 1 Das Jaiminiya Brahmana in Auswahl, p. 157. 2 'upa mataramiyadupa svasaramupa sagotram ' 3 ' tena haitenottaravayasye yajeta | ' 4 Pancavimsa-Brahmana. Trans. Caland, Introduction, p. xxi. 5 See Introduction to a: (Manikacandra Jaina Granthamala), p. 12.

a 14. JAINA CRITICISM OF VEDIC SACRIFICES 385 goddess (by the Brahmanas) and all the gods are believed to reside in her body; yet they kill her in the Gosava sacrifice and eat the flesh; The Jainas had a do they not kill those gods by killing the cow?¹ tendency to believe that all sacrifices whose names began with the name of a living creature involved its slaughter in the accompanying ritual. Another example of erroneous statements made by Jaina writers about Vedic rites is found in Ravisena's Padmacarita 11. 87-89: asusuksanimadaya prsthe kurmasya tarpayet | havisyajuhvakakhyaya svahetyuktva prayatnatah || yada na prapnuyat kumam tada suddha dvijanmanah | khalateh pingalabhasya viklavasya sucau jale || asyadanne'vatirnasya mastake kurmasamnibhe | prajvalaya jvalanam diptamahutim niksiped dvijah || These verses containing details, corresponding more or less to particulars found in Vedic texts, might very well deceive an unwary reader not familiar with the Vedic sacrificial system. Among the terms used juhvaka is a misreading for jumbaka, and viklava for viklidha. Ravisena means to say that oblations are offered in the fire on the back of a tortoise, but if one is not available, the offerings are made in a fire kindled on the head of a Brahmana with certain characteristics, immersed in the water up to the mouth. This is an atrocious misrepresentation of a Vedic rite which took place on the third day of the Asvamedha towards the end of the sacrifice at the end of the purificatory bath (avabhrtha). What really happened was that an oblation of clarified butter was made on the head of a man of hideous appearance, standing in the water, with the mantra To Jumbaka hail !' The mantra occurs in the Vajasaneyisamhita 25. 9, Jumbaka being a name of Varuna as explained, for instance, in the Taittiriya Brahmana III. 9. 15. Among the epithets applied to the man the most frequent are pingala tawny-eyed', khalati bald-headed', viklidha, and sukla 'white' or rather 'pale'. As regards viklidha, it is variously explained as dantura with protruding teeth' by Karka on the Katyayana Srauta Sutra XX. 8. 16, Mahidhara on the Vajasaneyisamhita 25. 9, and Harisvamin on the S'atapatha Brahmana XIII. 3. 6. 5; as svedanasilasarira and viklinnadeha 'perspiring' 'clammy' by Sayana on the Taittiriya Brahmana (op. cit.); and as 'leprous' by Varadattasuta Anartiya in his commentary on the S'ankhayana S'rauta Sutra 16. 18. The latter text as well as the Baudhayana S'rauta Sutra 15. 37 uses some other epithets to make the man still more repulsive, and Sankhayana 1 surahi loyassagge vakkhanai esa devi paccakkha | savve deva amge imie nivasamti niyamena || punaravi gosavajanne mamsa bhakkhati sa vimaritta | tasseva vahena phudam na mariya homti te deva || 49

adds that he should be led to a river and immersed therein, and when the waters flow into his mouth the Adhvaryu priest should make an oblation of horse's blood on the man's head with the mantra bhrunahatyayai svaha'. After the oblation the man is brought out of the water (nihsedhanti explained in the commentary as nirgamayanti), and possibly driven away as a scapegoat. Just as there are no traces of remnants of human sacrifice in this rite, as Weber thought, similarly it did not involve any inhuman practice like lighting a fire on a man's head, as alleged by Ravisena. It is hardly necessary to cite other examples of Jaina misstatements regarding Vedic rites. Ravisena tells us also that in a sacrifice called Matrmedha one's mother was killed, while in the Pitrmedha one's father suffered the same fate (11. 86). Jinasena I states that kings were sacrificed by hundreds and thousands in the Rajasuya, which, according to him, was devised by the wicked god Mahakala, an enemy of kings. This amazing statement occurs in his Harivam sapurana written in 783 A. D.' Hemacandra mentions a Gomedha and a Naramedha along with the Asvamedha in a sweeping condemnation of Vedic sacrifices in a verse of his commentary on his Yogasastra 4. 102. In another amusing verse in the same work (2. 38) he declares that the poor Carvaka is rather preferable to Jaimini, because the former openly professes atheism, while the latter is a monster disguised as an ascetic citing Vedic texts. It is evident that much of the information of Jaina writers in regard to Vedic rites was based on hearsay, and the only thing they definitely knew about them was that they involved the sacrifice of living beings, men as well as animals. Their statements are no doubt mala fide, misleading and erroneous, but similar inaccuracies are found also in the Matharavrtti on the Samkhyakarika. It may be noted in this connection that the following sacrificial verse is quoted, perhaps inaccurately, in both the Matharavrtti and Somadeva's Yasastilaka VII. 30: satsatani niyujyante pasunam madhyame'hani | asvamedhasya vacanadunani pasubhistribhih || 1 suyante yatra rajanah sataso'pi sahasrasah | rajasuyakratustena darsito rajavairina || 23. 142. 2 gomedhanaramedhasvamedhadyadhvarakarinam | yasikanam kuto dharmah pranighatavidhayinam || 3 varam varakascarvako yo'sau prakatanastikah | vedoktitapasacchadmacchannam rakso na jaiminih || 4 The Matharavrtti misunderstands the significance of the Purusamedha and the Gosava. It says pasuvadho'gnistome manusavadhah gosavavyavastha sautramanyam surapanam kalpasutre'nyadapi akrtyam bhurikartavyatayopadisyate 'brahmane brahmanamalabheta ksatraya rajanyam marudbhyo vaisyam taskaram narakaya vorahanam ' ityadi sravanat |

The verse occurs in a different form in the commentaries of Uvata and Mahidhara on the Vajasaneyisamhita 24. 40: sadasatani niyujyante pasunam madhyame'hani | asvamedhasya yajnasya navabhiscadhikani ca || Among other sacrificial citations, all of which are anonymous, we have already reproduced the dubious statement on the Gosava sacrifice quoted in Yasastilaka, Books IV and VII. 30. The dictum suram pibati na tena sura pita bhavati quoted in the same context cannot be genuine, because although the reference to wine is correct, the name of the rite (sautramani) is incorrectly spelt. The word is, in fact, consistently misspelt by Somadeva who writes sautramani for sautramani. The following sacrificial verse is cited in VII. 30: gosave surabhi hanyadvajasuye tu bhubhujam | asvamedhe hayam hanyat paundarike ca dantinam || The verse is clearly spurious, and might even be an invention, as it contains the absurd statement that the king is sacrificed at the Rajasuya. The only reference to human sacrifice in the ritual of the Rajasuya is in the legend of Sunahsepa, which is recited by the Hotr priest after the anointing of the king, but the story in question is nothing less than Hillebrandt's view a condemnation of the offering of a human victim. that the recitation of the legend is a reminiscence of a possible early connection of the Rajasuya with human sacrifice is clearly far-fetched, and has been rejected by Keith.³ The following citation hearing on the Purusamedha in Yasastilaka VII. 30 is an example of haphazard quotation or misquotation from sacrificial texts. It reads as follows in Somadeva's work: brahmane brahmanamalabheta indraya ksatriyam marudbhyo vaisyam tamase sudramuttamase taskaram atmane klibam kamaya pumscalamatikustaya magadham gitaya sutamadityaya striyam garbhinim | The passage in question forms part of a longer one found with variations in the Vajasaneyisamhita XXX. 5 ff., the Taittiriya Brahmana III. 4, and the S'atapatha Brahmana XIII. 6. 2. The ancient text, e. g. that of the Taittiriya Brahmana, reads as follows: brahmane brahmanamalabhate | ksatraya rajanyam | marudbhyo vaisyam | tapase sudram | tamase taskaram | narakaya virahanam | papmane klibam | akrayayayogum | kamaya puscalum | atikrustaya magadham | gitaya sutam | nrttaya sailusam | The principles underlying Vedic injunctions are criticized by Somadeva in the aforesaid controversial dialogue in Yasastilaka, Book 1 e. g. nikhilamakhasikhamanau sautramanau in VII. 22. 2 Hillebrandt: Ritual-litteratur, p. 145, and Keith: Rigveda Brahmanas, p. 62.

IV.1 Similar objections to the authority of the Veda as a whole are recorded in various Jaina works, e. g. Akalanka's Nyayaviniscaya (chap. 8), Anantavirya's commentary on the Pariksamukha Sutra (chap. 3) etc. Akalanka attacks the apauruseya theory of the origin of the Veda, and says that if the Veda revealed its own truth, it would be unnecessary to study texts like the Ayurveda, which are an integral part of the Veda. Further, if the Veda was eternal, the generations of students who have been studying and explaining it would be like an endless succession of blind men following one another; and if the Veda had really no author, its statements would be like the utterances and customs of barbarians Anantavirya which could not be attributed to any competent authority.' goes further and opines that the Veda cannot be regarded as an authoritative source of knowledge, whether it is supposed to be apauruseya or pauruseya. In the former case, supposing there exists an endless sequence of Vedic interpretation current from times without a beginning, this interpretation is bound to go astray in the course of time owing to defects of memory, ineptitude of expression, and dishonest motives, thus destroying the authoritative character of the Veda. Even at the present time those who profess astrology, for instance, are seen to make misleading statements: there are some who know the hidden truth but explain it otherwise for some evil purpose; there are some who know the subject but misinterpret it for lack of the faculty of expression; while there are others who make incorrect statements, having missed a vital link in the sequence of facts. The same is the case with the Veda; hence the divergence of opinions regarding bhavana, vidhi, niyoga etc., and disagreement among Manu, Yajnavalkya and others in laying down Smrti rules in harmony with Thus the Veda would fail to conform the true import of the Vedas. to the truth even if it were based on a tradition without any beginning. The apauruseya theory therefore does not help to establish the Veda as a reliable and infallible guide, nor is the pauruseya theory more helpful. There are indeed good reasons for supposing the Veda to be the composition of a certain individual or individuals, e. g. the mention of the names of the sages, gotras and schools, subject to birth and decay, the arrangement of the sentences according to a hard and fast rule, and the dictum 1 See Chap. XII. 2 vedasya pauruseyasya svatastastvam vivrnvatah | ayurvedadi yadya yatnastatra nirarthakah || sastrajnanam tathaiva syat samagrigunadosatah | avirodhe'pi nityasya bhavedandhaparampara | tadarthadarsino'bhavan mlecchadivyavaharavat | anadisampradayascedayurvedadiragamah || Nyayaviniscaya, verses, 416-418.

that 'The Veda is the work of a certain person like the Sutras of Manu' etc. The fact of the Veda having an author does not, however, give it an authoritative character. Anantavirya declares: "We do not deny authority to the Veda on the ground that it has no author. The Veda lacks authority because it can never be free from defects owing to its expounders having The Jainas thus close the no knowledge of supersensuous things"." door, to their own satisfaction, upon all claims that may be put forward in behalf of the Veda being an authoritative source of human knowledge. were It is extremely doubtful if Jaina attacks on the Veda and the Vedic religion made any impression upon Brahmanical circles if they The regeneration of the Vedic at all acquainted with them. sacrificial system was out of the question, but renewed and vigorous attempts cotninued to be made to eastablish the authority of the Veda on a firmer and sounder basis. The first great effort towards this end in medieval times was made by Kumarila (seventh century A. D.) and the school of Mimamsa founded by him and thereafter by the distinguished writers of the Nyaya-Vaisesika school who flourished in the ninth and tenth centuries. It was the leaders of the latter school that exercised paramount influence in the intellectual sphere in Somadeva's age. The Naiyayikas rejected the Mimamsa view that the Veda was eternal, and not composed by any individual, and sought to replace the apauruseya theory by a more plausible doctrine. Jayanta says in his Nyayamanjari that the Mimammsakas are incapable of devising an adequate method for maintaining the authority of the Veda: words aided by convention can only have the power to signify; the determination of the shades of meaning must inevitably depend upon the judgment of some one; hence words can have any authoritative character only when they are uttered by a trustworthy person and not otherwise. The Naiyayikas the thus usher in the pauruseya theory and glorify the Veda as handiwork of God Himself. Jayanta, for instance, says that He who created the universe composed also the Vedas containing His teachings; and the people believe in the Vedas because they believe in Him, the Trustworthy Guide and the Supreme Lord without a beginning: no wise 1 'nasmabhirvaturabhave vedasya pramanyabhavah samudbhavyate kintu taduvyakhyatrnam atindriyartha darsanadigunabhave tato dosanamanapohitatvat na pramanyaniscaya iti | ' 2 'na ca mimamsakah samyag vedapramanyaraksanaksamam saranimavalokayitum kusalah ' etc. Nyayamanjari, Book I.

man would have thus believed in the Vedas, had they been without an author (as the Mimamsakas hold ).¹ are While emphasizing the fact the Veda is composed by God and accepted by the vast majority of the people, the leaders of the NyayaVaisesika school adopt a rather contemptuous attitude towards the Scriptures of the minorities like the Buddhists and Jainas. Vacaspati in Nyaya-vartika-tatparya-tika 2. 1. 68 contrasts 2. 1. 68 contrasts the Vedas with the Buddhist and Jaina Scriptures composed by mere mortals who neither Creators nor Omniscient Beings. Sridhara says in Nyayakandali (p. 217) that the Veda is known to be the work of a Superior Being (purusa-visesa), because its message is unquestioningly accepted by all who belong to the varnasrama order of society. If it were the work of an ordinary person, like the Scriptures composed by Buddha and others, not all discerning persons would unquestioningly act upon its teachings. That with regard to which there is a universal consensus of opinion (on the subject of its reliability) is bound to be an authoritative similar means of source of knowledge, like direct perception and cognition.³ Thus while the Vedic sacrificial religion was fast becoming a relic of the past, the authority of the Veda was constantly reaffirmed by Mimamsakas, Smartas, and Nyaya-Vaisesikas alike. It is noteworthy that even Samkara in his Bhasya on the Vedanta Sutras 3. 1. 25 supports in principle the slaughter of animals in Vedic sacrifices, and The voice of proclaims the purity of all rites prescribed by the Veda. Jaina criticism was not likely to be heard in an age characterized by a large-scale revival of Brahmanical thought, say, from about the seventh to the end of the tenth century. 1 kartta ya eva jagatamakhilatmavrttikarmaprapanca paripakavicitratasah | visvatmana tadupadesaparah pranitastenaiva vedaracana iti yuktametat || aptam tameva bhagavantamanadimisamasritya visvasiti · vedavacahsu lokah | tesamakartrkataya na hi kascideva visrambhameti matimaniti varnitam praku || Ibid., Book IV. 2 'na caite sauddhoda niprabhrtayah tanubhuvanadinam kartaro yena sarvasa iti nisciyeran | ' See also Chap. IX. 3 'purusavisesapranitah sarvairvarnasramibhih aviganena tadarthaparigrahat yatkincanapurusapranitatve tu vedasya buddhadivakyavat na sarvesam pariksakanamaviganena tadarthanusthanam syat yatra ca sarvesam samvadaniyamah tat pramanameva yatha pratyaksadikam | pramanam vedah sarvesamavisamvadijnanahetutvat pratyaksavat |