z:\ ambedkar\vol 04\vol4 02.indd MK SJ YS 24 9 2013/YS 8 11 2013 35
RIDDLE NO. 5 35
“The letter ‘ y ’, which is substituted for ‘ i ’ in the instance referred to under Sutra 10, is not a modification of ‘ i ’, but a distinct letter. Consequently, sound is not modified.”
“It is an increase of ‘noise’, not of sound, that is occasioned by a multitude of speakers. The word ‘noise’ refers to the ‘conjunctions’ and ‘disjunctions’ of the air which enter simultaneously into the hearer’s ear from different quarters; and it is of these that an increase takes place.”
“Sound must be eternal, because its utterance is fitted to convey a meaning to other persons. If it were not eternal (or abiding), it would not continue till the hearer had learned its sense, and thus he would not learn the sense, because the cause had ceased to exist.”
“Sound is eternal, because it is in every case correctly and uniformly recognised by many persons simultaneously; and it is inconceivable that they should all at once fall into a mistake.”
“When the word ‘ go ’ (cow) has been repeated ten times, the hearers will say that the word ‘ go ’ has been ten times pronounced, not that ten words having the sound of ‘ go ’ have been uttered ; and this fact also is adduced as a proof of the eternity of sound.
“Sound is eternal, because we have no ground for anticipating its destruction.
“But it may be urged that sound is a modification of air, since it arises from its conjunctions, and because the Siksha (or Vedanga treating of pronunciation) says that ‘air arrives at the condition of sound’ and as it is thus produced from air, it cannot be eternal.”
A reply to this difficulty is given in Sutra 22.
“Sound is not a modification of air, because if it were, the organ of hearing would have no appropriate object which it could perceive. No modification of air (help by the Naiyayikas to be tangible) could be perceived by the organ of hearing, which deals only with intangible sound.”
“And the eternity of sound is established by the argument discoverable in the Vedic text, ‘with an eternal voice, O Virupa’. Now, though this sentence had another object in view, it, nevertheless, declares the eternity of language, and hence sound is eternal.”
Such is the argument by Jaimini in favour of his thesis that the Vedas are eternal and not made by man, not even by God.
The bases on which his thesis rests are simple.
Firstly God has no body and no palate and therefore he could not utter the Vedas.