WHAT is it that we call Veda? It is already known to us
that the Vedas are the perennial fount of Indian culture and education, the
foundation of Hinduism and the basis of the Aryan civilisation. He who defies
Veda is an atheist, a non-Hindu, an untouchable and a non-Aryan. All the various
religious systems and scriptures of the Hindus look upon the Veda as the sole
authority. What is inconsistent with the Vedas is false and unacceptable. It is
no hyperbole to say that all our scriptures are but elaborate commentaries on
the Veda. Even men of revolutionary ideas who want to preach some new doctrines
have not the courage to stand against the Vedas face to face. They try to find
out passages in support of their views or interpret the Vedas in their own
light or at least declare that the Vedas neither refute nor confirm their
views.
Hinduism is the most catholic of all the religions. It is the most
complex and diverse. It has housed peacefully a good many different creeds. And
for all these esoteric mysteries the Vedas are solely to be credited. The
message of the Vedic Rishi Dirghatamas has inspired the Hindus and the heart of
India through aeons. That message is still as familiar and
living as ever. Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti (The one Truth has been expressed
differently by different seers.) The Gayatri
Mantra which has become as natural as the air we breathe in and breathe out
was first sung by the immortal sage Viswamitra of the Veda. Even in the
Page-63
20th century we follow the
injunctions of the Vedic seers in conducting the ten principal functions of our
social life right from our birth to death.
Therefore,
according to us, the Veda is as immutable and sempiternal as the supreme
Brahman. The root meaning of the term "Brahman" is the Word, the Word
inspired. Hence the Veda is eternally true from the birth of the creation to
the present age. Nobody has created the Vedas, nor could anybody do it, not
even the Rishis. The seers simply heard them with a supernatural faculty of
hearing and saw them written before their mental vision; whereafter they
arranged them in a systematic manner. That is why the Veda is no human
creation. The staunch Hindus subscribe to this view.
Can
we look upon the Vedas as the Christians look upon the Bible and the
Mohammedans the Koran? All the epithets that we apply to the Vedas are equally
applied by the Christians and the Mohammedans to their respective holy
scriptures. And it is no wonder that every nation should extol its -own
scripture to the skies. But it behoves us to ascertain the value of the Vedas
impartially. We must discover whether it is true that they deserve to be called
an infallible and supernatural creation.
It
is a need of the hour to investigate the contents of the Vedas. The Europeans
are to be credited with having started this bold enquiry. Such enquiry has been
termed 'Higher Criticism' in Europe. It applies not only
to the Vedas, but to their own scriptures as well. It is the inherent characteristic
of the Europeans not to accept anything without putting it to a severe test at
every step. They are not prepared to accept anything on the ground that it has
been handed down from generation to generation. Needless to
say that the value ofsuch a habit is
incalculable. And to our misfortune we lost this habit long ago. In the
present age we take pride in the mere mention of the Vedas without caring to
know about their contents. We should remain
Page-64
beholden
to the Europeans that a new wave from the West has awakened us to a true spirit
of enquiry.
It
is quite surprising that very few people in India
have any acquaintance with the Vedas. Most have not been fortunate enough even
to have a glimpse of this mighty work. But the fate of the Bible has been
otherwise in Europe. The common run of
people in India were satisfied with the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the
Puranas. And the learned few concerned themselves with the Upanishads and the
six systems of philosophy. Even Rammohan Roy who infused the Hindus with a new
spirit and light could not go beyond the domain of the Upanishads. Besides, the
few who engaged themselves in a discussion of the Vedas confined themselves
more to the commentaries on the Vedas than the Vedas proper. The grammar of
Panini, Nirukta, the science of derivation of meanings from the roots, Mimamsa, the commentaries on
the Vedas and, above all, the commentaries made by Sayana Acharya made it so
difficult to understand the text of the Vedas that it looked like the peak of a
mountain that could hardly be reached through deep and intricate forests.
Whenever we heard the name of the Veda, we used to give wide berth to it with
reverential awe. Our object here is not to discuss who or what is responsible
for such a pass but simply to make a plain statement of the bare fact.
Europe
made bold to launch an assault on this inaccessible fortress. There is no
reason why the Europeans should have the same feeling of reverence as is
aroused in our hearts at the mere mention of the Vedas. To them the Veda is but
an ancient human product. They did not approach it to derive any cultural
benefit from it. All that they wanted was to make themselves
acquainted with the Aryan Hindus. The nebulous veil that existed round the
Vedas was rent and set aside by them and they replaced it with the daylight of
modern thought. We shall later on deal with what followed their rash attempt,
but it must be admitted at the very
Page-65
outset
that, inspired by their example, the Hindus mustered courage to delve into the
Vedas. And what did the European scholars, freed from bias, discover? They
found that the unusual reverence of the Hindus for these scriptures was simply
due to the traditional superstition devoid of any rational cause. According to
them, the Vedas are the first attempt of man at literature. They are a mere
collection of pastoral songs comparable to the lispings of a baby. Man in his
uncultured and innocent state used to feel every object infused with life and
imagined spirits behind the forces Nature. Therefore he prayed to Indra and
Varuna for rain, to the Sun for its rays of light. Frightened by the hurricane
and storm he would implore the Maruts for safety, and
harmed by the soothing beauty of Dawn he would sing her eulogy.
The
gods and demons imagined by the naive and simple mind possessed miraculous
powers — prompted by such notions men used to convey their salutations to those
mighty Beings, ask them for their daily necessities, material prosperity, and
welfare in the other world after death. Cow and horses were the chief means of
their livelihood. So they prayed for cows yielding abundant milk and horses
possessing dynamic strength and energy. They used to fight among themselves —
one clan against another — and specially against the
robbers who were the Dravidians of ancient; India,
while they were the Aryans who had come from abroad. Hence they needed arms and
weapons and they naturally wanted to defeat the enemy. And that is why they
sought the help of the gods for victory.
They
used to perform some special rites known as a sacrifice, in which they would
arrange on an altar some dried sticks of holy trees in a particular formation
and kindle a fire in which to pour oblations of clarified butter and many other
good things. They offered wine (the juice of soma) to the gods and partook of
it themselves. It seems, fire was to them a new
discovery. That is why they appreciated
Page-66
its
value so much. Moreover, they lived in a frigid snowy region. Hence they looked
upon the fire as the chief Deity of their worship.
So
far we have dealt with the Western approach to the Veda. Now let us turn our
attention to the Indian view of the Veda. Acharya Sayana is the foremost
scholar to whom the current Indian view owes its origin. He made a commentary
on the whole of the Rigveda. But for his commentary it is doubtful if the
European scholars would have succeeded in deriving any meaning from the
abstruse, old and unfamiliar language of this scripture. As a matter of fact,
the commentaries made by the Western scholars are principally based on his
commentary. However, he did not consider the Vedic seers to be mere children or
men at their primitive stage. Nor did he lay any
stress on the explanation based on the sights and scenes of physical Nature. He
observed and understood the Veda from the standpoint of sacrificial rites. He
endeavoured to discover from the Veda the nature of sacrifice and a full
account of the ceremonies to be performed in a sacrifice. The performance of
sacrifice is a part of the spiritual life and its aim is to bring about soul progress
and welfare here and hereafter. The gods dwell in a world known as Heaven. The
forces of Nature are backed by their powers. A particular god presides over a
particular force of Nature. All the gods are combined in the Universal God, and
all the gods are only the different manifestations of the same Universal God.
It is the power of the gods which endows men with power, and men too on their
part propitiate the gods through their sacrifices offered to them. The gods are
satisfied with and nourished by men's humble obeisance and their offering of
Soma Rasa, while men in their turn attain to prosperity in this world and
secure a better status in the other world.
Indians,
who have received modern education, have been trying to synthesise the
commentaries of the Western and Eastern scholars on the Veda. Their object is
to portray
Page-67
the
picture of a society not quite primitive but somewhat primary, by uniting the
interpretations based on natural phenomena and sacrificial rites.
If
this view was considered as giving the real nature of the Veda, the question
would arise: how could the Veda be regarded as the
foundation of the Aryan genius and the fount of the civilisation and culture of
Hindu India? If the Veda were nothing save nursery rhymes and the like, then
how could it exert a lasting influence on our minds and life through centuries?
The Bible and the Koran contain some eternal truths beneficial to the life and
conduct of men for all time. But according to the naturalistic interpretation
of the Western scholars and the sacrificial explanation offered by our orthodox
scholars, there is no such elevating or lasting truth in the Veda. Are we then
to suppose that our reverence for the Veda owes its origin merely to a blind
acceptance of a tradition down the sweep of centuries? Our present culture and
civilisation differs widely from that of our forefathers. How is it that we
have still a profound admiration for the Veda? Is it precisely because the Veda
serves as the root of our cultural tree adorned with a myriad
branches, with foliage, flowers and fruits? No, the supreme authority of
the Veda has not been recognised out of mere courtesy. The Shruti has been the
sheet-anchor of our guidance at every step and in every activity of our day-to-day
life.
Here
arises the second question. The Western and modern scholars are prone to make
a difference between the Veda and the Shruti. According to them, the term
Shruti is synonymous with the Upanishad and not with the Veda proper. But what
is it that we actually find in the Upanishad that is considered by all
scholars, oriental and occidental, as the repository of knowledge of the
highest order? The Upanishad has been studied much more than the Veda in India
and abroad. The reason is this that the ideas and language of the Upanishad are
simpler than
Page-68
those
of the Veda, and also more familiar to modern thought. The Upanishad is free
from all the intricacies of sacrificial rites, ceremonies and obscure mantras,
etc. It deals precisely with the clear realised truths that form the basis of
the philosophical doctrines. That is why the Europeans hold that the Upanishad
comes in as a reaction and protest against the Veda. Towards the end of the
Vedic era the Aryan Hindus bade farewell to their cult of Nature-worship and
sacrifices and turned towards the quest of God and metaphysical truths and thus
a new era was ushered in. Now, on what ground do the European scholars make
such an assertion as regards the historical development of Indian thought? As a
matter of fact, we do notice that every teacher of Philosophy whenever he has
cited anything from the Upanishad has also tried to corroborate it with a
similar quotation from the Veda for its justification. There is no iota of
proof that the Upanishad held any view contrary to that of the Veda or ever
contradicted it. The Upanishad is the culmination of or a complement to the
Veda. Since the advent of the dialectic philosopher Hegel it has become a
fashion among Western scholars to find an antithesis in every field of historical
truth. From their own history they come to learn that Christianity arose as a
revolt against the idolatry of the Romans, again Martin Luther and
Protestantism stood out against the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise they are,
as it were, eager to discover a revolt in the religious history of India.
It is not that such a spirit of antithesis is altogether absent in the history
of Indian religions, but it is utterly meaningless to say that this antithesis
exists as between the Veda and the Upanishad as well. In fact, the Upanishad
has always approached the Veda most reverentially and hardly failed to mention:
"This we heard from the ancient sages who had explained it to us."
Besides,
in the current commentaries on the Veda we come across explanations which are
at places self-contradictory, inconsistent, lacking in clarity, fanciful and
arbitrary. The
Page-69
same
word has been used at different places to convey different meanings without any
justification, and also at times the commentators have been constrained to keep
silent or to confess that they could make neither head nor tail of a passage, a
sentence or a word. For instance, the word ghrta
(clarified butter) has been explained as jala (water) and the word
water has been used for antariksa (ether)
and the word vyoman (ether) has been interpreted as prthivi
(earth). That is why in the interpretations of Sayana or Ramesh Dutta, in
spite of their supplying synonyms of words, a passage taken as a whole appears
to be quite odd, confusing and utterly meaningless. One is at a loss to know
whether one should indulge in laughter or shed tears over such a performance.
It may be argued that the Veda was written in a remote antiquity,
hence much of its archaic language is not likely to be understood by men of the
present age. It is enough on our part to be able to form a general idea of it.
But when one has to resort to a makeshift hocus-pocus even for gathering this
general idea, then it becomes quite clear that there must have been some serious
blunder somewhere. If it were possible to get the general idea of the Veda
quite easily, then all the interpreters would necessarily have pursued it. But
unfortunately in the present age we find that besides the sacrificial and
naturalistic interpretations there are historical (by Abinash Chandra Das),
geographical (by Umesh Chandra Vidyaratna), astronomical (by Tilak),
scientific (by Paramasiva Aiyar) and even an
interpretation based on Chemistry (by Narayan Gaur) and so on and so forth.
Many minds, many ways: nowhere else may this oft-quoted adage be so aptly
applied as in the case of the multifarious interpretations of the Veda. A few
portions of the Veda that had appealed to an interpreter most in accordance
with his own bent of mind gave him the impetus to endeavour to interpret the
whole of the Veda in that light. The result has been that the same sloka has
been interpreted in ever so many ways. But none of these
Page-70
interpreters has even attempted interpreting the whole or the
major portion of the Veda. From this we can dare conclude that the key to the
proper interpretation of the Vedic mysteries has not hitherto been found. All
are but groping in the dark.
(2)
What is then the proper way to be followed for the
right understanding of the Vedas? We have, in this respect, to adopt the same
principle which forms the key to all ancient literatures. We needs must be
acquainted with the texts of the Vedas proper with an unbiased mind empty of
all preconceived notions. The commentators, the annotators, the grammarians,
the rhetoricians join, as it were, to create a world of confusion. Far from
getting an access to the sanctum we get lost in wandering mazes. That is why
we have been deprived of getting a first-hand
knowledge of the Vedas. The commentators may be at most helpers. But if we
attach too much importance to their commentaries, it will inevitably turn them
into an obstacle. First, it is of paramount importance to know the central idea
of the Vedas, the viewpoint of the, Rishis. The help of the commentators and
the annotators may be necessary later on when we go into details. Needless to
say that if we get into the bitter controversies of commentators, we are sure
to be deadly confused. So at the very outset we have to be acquainted with the
bare texts of the Vedas. This method is applicable to all literatures. We must
read poetry in the original in order to appreciate its true spirit, leaving
aside all criticisms on it. For, men endowed with the power of true appreciation
of poetry are rarely found in the present generation. We are more familiar with
the commentaries on the works of Shakespeare and Kalidasa than with their
originals.
However, to be at home in the central theme of the Vedas, the method
that we should follow is: to proceed from the
Page-71
known
to the unknown. In the Vedic texts we often come across some important words
that admit of no ambiguity. With the help of the obvious meanings of these
words we have to find out the implications of the words partly obscure or
totally obscure. In the Vedas there are such mantras (incantations), sentences
and words in abundance which reflect modern ideas and appear quite familiar to
the present-day intellect. It is at once advisable and reasonable to accept
such self-evident meanings. It is of no avail to leave aside such clear
meanings and seek out roundabout abstruse meanings on the ground that what we
are dealing with are the Vedas, the writings of hoary antiquity. Ekam sad viprabahudha vadanti (The
one Truth is expressed differently by the men of knowledge) or, tat Visno
param padam...divivacakuratatam
(That is the supreme Status of Vishnu, as if an Eye wide open in the
heavens) or, Brhaspatih prathamam jayama
mano jyotisahparame
Vyoman (Brihaspati being born first as a great Light in the supreme
Heaven)-the meanings of these words are by no means obscure or ambiguous. The
meanings as well as the ideas with which these words are infused are quite
plain and clear enough. These expressions convey no indication of the lisping
of the babe or an aborigine or an uncultured mind or even a ritualistic mind.
Here we find expressions of a mature mind enlightened with knowledge flowing
from a profound realisation of Truth. Neither the befitting rhythm nor rhyme is
missing. Further,
Codayitrisunrtanamcetantisumatinam
yajñam dadhe sarasvati.
Maho
arnah sarasvati pra cetayati ketuna
dhiyovisva vi
rajati. (1.3.11,12)
"She, the impeller
to happy truths, the awakener in consciousness to right mentalisings,
Saraswati, upholds the sacrifice.
Page-72
"Saraswati,
by the perception awakens in consciousness the great flood (the vast movement
of the rtam) and illumines
entirely all the thoughts." (Translated by Sri Aurobindo).
In
this instance too the fundamental idea is not something very abstruse. It is
commonsense that the theme is related to the experience of Truth, the spiritual
realisation and psychological concept. Acharya Sayana was at sea to interpret
these few slokas in the light of natural phenomena and sacrificial ceremonies,
so much so that he provokes our laughter as well as a sense of pity. We know
Saraswati as the Deity of knowledge. So it is natural that the words dhiyavasuh (one whose wealth consists of
pure intellect), dhiyo visvah (universal
intellect), or words like sumati (right movements of thought) should be
applicable to Saraswati. The word dhi (pure
intellect) is well-known. But such an obvious meaning does not serve Sayana's
purpose. So he used karma (action), i.e. the action of showering
as a synonym for dhi. In another
place concerning Mitra and Varuna it has been said that these two gods made up
such dhi, as is ghrtacim, literally "besmeared
with ghrta" (dhiyam ghrtacimsadhanta - 1.2.7). But according to the
interpreter Sayana, the phrase dhiyarh ghrtacim
means the rain that pours water! In some other context (1.14.6) Sayana
himself says that the root ghr may also
mean "to make something shine"; so the plain meaning of dhiyarh ghrtacim is the “enlightened intellect.” But
Sayana preferred to interpret the word ghrta (lit. clarified butter) as
water and rains. If we refer to the context where Sayana explains ghrta as
“effulgence” it will be clearer to us that this effulgence is not even the
physical external light; it refers to the inner illumination. There (1.14.6)
Agni (fire) has been called (one with a blazing front; along with this
adjective another adjective, namely manoyujah has also been used; it
means that Agni has to be brought under control with the help of the mind. This
very truth has been expressed elsewhere by the sage Vishwamitra:
Page-73
"Kindling the Vaishwanara fire with the aid of the mind." Agni is kavi-kratu.
Sayana himself has explained the word kratu as making or action. We
would like to call it the power of action – the Greek kratos. So kavi-kratu
would mean one endowed with the power of action, the creative genius. It is
well known that the Kavi, the poet, is a creator. The Veda has applied the
epithet kavi to all the gods as well as to a man who has, attained or realised
the divine knowledge. Agni kavikratuh means the dynamic power of vision.
But this plain meaning amounts to a profound spiritual concept and ceases to be
the fire with which we are familiar; that is why Sayana explains 'Kavi' as 'Kranta' – and 'Kavi-kratu'
as the one who performs the action of sacrifice. We cite another instance. It
is known to us all – I speak of the Gayatri Mantra: Tat saviturvarenyam Bhargo
devasya dhimahi, dhiyo yo nah prachodayat (Let our intelligence dwell on the
beloved light of that. creative godhead, the Sun who is the Creator, so that he
may endow us with the right intelligence.)¹ It is clearly stated in the
Upanishad: "Savitre satyaprasavaya (the
Sun is the origin of truth). Further, the sun of knowledge and the light of knowledge
are not expressions unfamiliar to us. We always make use of such comparisons
and allegories. If ever the Vedic sages made use of such a comparison, then has
it to be regarded as something describing mere natural phenomena? Finally we
cannot resist the temptation of quoting another instance. This will serve as a
typical example as to what extent quite a simple idea can be twisted. And it
will enable us to appreciate what a terrible injustice the Veda has to suffer
at the hands of the commentators. The phrase amrtasya vani
that is found in the Veda should convey to all the essence of the Veda. But
do you know what meaning Sayana has ascribed to it? He has translated amrtasya vani (the message of immortality) as
the current of water. Can we be at one with him? In fact, what we want to say
is that the Veda is the expression of
¹ Rigveda 111.62.10.
Page-74
Yogic realisations,
spiritual experiences, the knowledge of the ultimate Truth; It is thus that we
can discover the fundamental concept and the esoteric mystery of the Veda. If
we follow this course we shall find how easily and consistently the meaning of
the whole Veda unfolds itself and becomes crystal-clear. No doubt, at places if
we want to delve into the minutest detail, there will be occasions for
uncertainty and confusion. But it will not prove an obstacle to the apprehension
of the fundamental truths of the Veda provided we can rightly focus the
attention of our intelligence on it. Can we not have any access to the
Mahabharata because of Vyasakutas¹ (the knotty expressions devised by Vyasa)?
Besides, if we admit the esoteric basis of the Veda, we will get a reasonable
clue to the fact as to why the Veda is held in such high esteem in the culture
and education of the Hindus.
The
moment we enter into the Vedas we are confronted with a medley of confusions.
Spirituality, philosophical ideas, mystic words, magic sentences, colourful
phrases, physical images are scattered all around. Expressions of what appears
to us as spiritual truths are housed there side by side with ceremonial,
natural, historical, geographical, social, even chemical and other ideas. Now
the question may arise as to which ideas are fundamental and which secondary,
which are the roots, which the branches. The Western scholars are not at all
prepared to countenance spiritual and philosophical implications in the Vedas,
for they are afraid lest thereby their pet theories should be reduced to dust.
They say that it is no wonder if in the course of Nature-worship when the
Rishis were making prayers to the presiding Deities of Nature some expressions
of philosophical
¹When the sage Vyasa made a request to Ganesh to record
his version of the Mahabharata, the latter agreed to do so on condition that he
must not be made to stop his writing. The sage agreed provided Ganesh would not
only write but understand his words. It is said that in order to gain time for
composition the sage would use some knotty expressions so that Ganesh might
take time to understand them.
Page-75
ideas sprang from their lips. These scholars are of the opinion that the Rishis
did not mean what they said. If we with our modern mind try to discover
abstract and philosophical truths therein, then it will amount to an imposition
of modern ideas on those of the Rishis of yore. However, they have not
succeeded in giving a connected, systematic and plausible interpretation of the
whole of the Veda. The great Max Müller is a striking example of the failure of
this method. He had translated the word 'Paramahansa,' by "the great
goose"! It is quite inevitable that such a word-for-word literal translation
of the Veda would bring about no solution.
Sayana
has given a ceremonial interpretation of the Veda. Nevertheless, he has not
forbidden any other different interpretation. He has clearly admitted that a
spiritual interpretation is quite possible. Not only that; at good many places
he has appended alternative spiritual interpretations. Even at places where
any other interpretation did not appear at all plausible, he has resorted
solely to the spiritual interpretation¹. Be that as it may, Sayana was
committed to the ceremonial interpretation. He made it a rule to bring in this
interpretation in order to show how a particular sacrifice was to be performed;
he has recourse to the Veda only to establish sacrificial ceremonies in
society. In fact, he had a particular end in view in accordance with which he
went along his way. Not only in Sayana, but also in the ancient book on
Grammar, Nirukta, we come across traces of spiritual interpretation. Let
us cite here only one instance: sarira-madhyavarti... (Indra designated
as the Knower of the field (nature), as Life that resides in the body). This is
one of the interpretations of the word 'Indra' given by the author of Nirukta.
But
as a matter of fact, the Vedas are not merely literary works; they are aphorisms
for spiritual practice. And he who is devoid of spiritual experiences has no
right to meddle
¹E.g., 1.16.4.
Page-76
with
the Vedas. What is imperatively necessary is the purification of .the heart.
We want to determine the meaning of the Vedic language through discussion and
hair-splitting arguments, but we do not know, nor do we try to get at, the
esoteric meaning of which the language is but the outer expression. We have long
lost the spiritual practice on which the secrets of the Vedas are founded. So
it is no wonder that this faculty of argument should lead us astray. This truth
has already been declared by the Upanishad: naisatarkenamatiraPaneya
("This wisdom cannot be gained by reasoning".)
In
fact, first we must have an access to the Upanishads, then
only can we hope to understand the esoteric truths of the Vedas. It is the
Upanishads that can claim to be the first exposition of and commentary on the
living ideas of the Vedas. The Upanishad is spiritual realisation, supraphysical
experience, mystic perception and inner vision. The Katha Upanishad has clearly
indicated: sarve vedayatpadamamananti...¹
("The seat or goal that all the Vedas glorify and which austerities declare,
for the desire of which men practise holy living, of That will I tell thee in
brief compass. OM is that goal, OM Nachiketas."²)
We
have already said that the seers of the Upanishads have time and again cited
the Vedic mantras while expounding their own philosophical truths. So it is
quite reasonable if we place the Veda on the same footing with their spiritual
philosophy and do not consider the former as something exclusively dealing with
Nature and ceremonies. For example, dvasuparna... ("Two birds,
beautiful of wing, close companions, cling to one common tree: of the two one
eats the sweet fruit of the tree, the other eats not but
¹ Shankara has explained the words sarve vedah as "a portion of the Vedas", that
is to say, the Upanishads. But howcan sarve ("the whole")
become a portion? Shankara considered the Vedas as something ceremonial, ritual
and sacrificial. Hence he had to give a distorted explanation.
²
Translated by Sri Aurobindo.
Page-77
watches
his fellow."¹) This sloka of the Mundaka Upanishad
is bodily taken out of the mantras (1.164.20) of Dirghatamas, the Rishi of the
Rigveda. Or take agne nayasupatha...("O
god Agni, knowing all things that are manifested,
lead us by the good path to the felicity; remove from us the devious attraction
of sin. To thee completest speech of submission we would dispose."²) This last utterance of the Isha Upanishad derives from a
mantra in the Rigveda. Rishi Agastya begins his Agni Sukta (Hymns to the Mystic
Fire) (1.189) with this mantra. Thus the Upanishads have made liberal use of
innumerable Vedic mantras. No doubt, the Upanishads do not always exactly
repeat the Vedic mantras. But even there the words and ideas are so similar
that we find no difficulty in saying that they possess the same vision of-the
inner Self.
Vedaham etam purusam...
("I know this Purusha, Supreme, of the Light of the Sun, beyond the
darkness.") We all know that this is a famous utterance of the Upanishad.
But do we know that it is a mere ocho of the Vedic mantra udvayam
tamasaspari... (1.50.10) ("We have seen the supreme Light beyond the darkness, we have attained the God amongst the gods, the
Sun, the Supreme Light.")? Or, hdramanasa...3 "in the heart and the mind
and the supermind He is seated"). A similar truth we find in the Veda
also: hrdi pratisya 4... ("The seers discerning Him in the heart by the, supramental
Intelligence"). Or, Indrayamanasamanisapratnaya... 5 ("The thinkers purify their
intellect by the mind for their Lord, the ancient Indra"). Have not the
Vedas expounded the psychological personality of Indra in these few words?
Further,
the few words of Vishwamitra that we have
¹
Translated by Sri Aurobindo.
² ibid.
³Katha Upanishad.
4 Rigveda X.
129.4.
5Ibid. I. 61.2.
Page-78
already
cited about Agni: vaisvanarammanasagnimnicayya... ("discerning'
Fire, the universal Godhead, by the mind") have been explained by the
Upanishad: svargyamagnim naciketah prajanan...
("Hearken to me and understand, O Nachiketas; I declare to thee that
heavenly Flame, for I know it. Know this to be the possession of infinite
existence and the foundation and the thing hidden in the secret cave of ourbeing."¹)
There
are innumerable words common to the Vedas and the Upanishads that convey
implications of such recondite profound ideas: satyam (Truth), ream (Right),
amrtam (Immortality), brhat (Vastness), dhi
(Knowledge) and jyoti {Light). The spiritual meanings of such, words
that the Upanishads have discovered are not likely to have been degraded in
their application in the Vedas. To hold that the Vedas have used these in an
ordinary sense must be a wrong view. To say that the Upanishads have taken only
the words from the Vedas and not their significance and have used materialistic
words with spiritual meanings is in our view nothing but prejudice. The
Upanishads are packed with the words of the Vedas, and they have repeatedly
made use of them so aptly that it is doubtful if the Upanishads could have used
them in that way had there been no such meaning already attached to them. The
vibration of truth-realisation with which every word, every mantra of the Vedas
is resonant could not be caught by the ears of the grammarians of our country
or those of the European scholars.
Not
to speak of the Upanishads, even in the Puranas, the Mahabharata and such other
scriptures we come across many peculiarities worth noticing. Ifwe just
carefully study these religious books of ours, we do learn that there are many
names, places, stories and legends which are but outer garments or
transfigurations of some truth-principles. One or two instances will serve our
purpose. According
¹ Translated by Sri Aurobindo.
Page-79
to
the Puranas the name of Surya's wife samjña
– "consciousness". If we accept the Vedic meaning of Surra as
the source of truth, then it does not become difficult for us to understand the
significance of this word. Again, let us take the word "Goloka".
Goloka is the dwelling-place of Vishnu. If we take the word "go" for
light, the light of supernal knowledge, then devanamuparistaccagavah prativasanti vai ("The Ray-Cows
dwell even above the gods") of the Mahabharata can no longer remain
abstruse or ambiguous to us.
Now
the legend of Savitri-Satyavan arrests our attention. The very names Savitri
and Satyavan are immediately inspiring truths. In the Vedas the Truth-Sun is
synonymous with Savitr. As Purusha he is Satyavan, and Savitri is his
Shakti. Every aspirant is aware of the fact that it is the Truth's own faith
and power that can free the Truth from the grip of Matter, Ignorance and Death.
However, one may not believe that whatsoever the Puranas say must be based on
some truth or other. Nevertheless, we do not hesitate to assert that at the
core of the teaching of the Puranas there lies a truth-secret - a Vedic or
Upanishadic realisation. The Puranas too have an esoteric meaning based on the
truth of the Vedic and Upanishadic realizations which have been colourfully
related in the form of stories and legends for the easy comprehension of the
masses.
To be sure,
the Puranas cannot be accepted as commentaries on the Vedas. No, not even the
Upanishads can dare claim to be so. The Vedas alone are the proper commentaries
on the Vedas. And to understand the Vedas no other book can be our guide save
the Vedas. No doubt, the Upanishads stand quite close to them, and they
abundantly possess the Vedic ideas. But at the same time we must know that the
dissimilarities too are not negligible. The concept of Matter in the Vedas and
the concept of Spirit in the Upanishads - even if we fail to find a connecting
link between the two, still we can be sure that the Vedas and the Upanishads
Page-80
are
the two principles of one spirituality. To repeat it once again, we should
first endeavour to understand the easy and clear portions of the Vedas and then
try to discover their more abstruse and obscure truths. And we have sought to
explain to our readers that the interpretation attempted here, the spiritual
interpretation, means an interpretation of the basic principle of the Veda.¹
But for that there is the need of the right attitude for
looking at things and their right understanding. Those who will approach
the Vedas with an ordinary intellect for the mere satisfaction of an
intellectual curiosity will hardly be able to grasp the true significance of
the Vedas. What does the Veda itself say about the Rishis? rtasapa
asantsakam...² (Guardians of
the Truth, they are with the gods, speaking the Truths with them.) They were knowers
of the true nature of truth and they used to commune with the gods through the
interchange of truth-principles. Therefore the study of the Vedas on the part
of those who have no seeking or aspiration for the attainment of the truth is
bound to prove futile – a casting of seeds in the desert.
(3)
The angle of vision from
which the Europeans look at the Vedas has to be traced to its starting-point in
the modern theory of evolution. Europe has been a victim
to this theory. It has coloured the entire outlook of
Europe. Evolution
¹ Our interpretation of the Vedas, strictly speaking, is
not to be called a spiritual interpretation. It is rather the interpretation of
the essential principles of creation. The spiritual naturally implies the
doctrine of Brahman expounded in the Upanishads. The Vedas do not exactly deal
with the doctrine of Brahman. They speak of the essential principles ranging
from gross to subtle and subtler ones, present in the macrocosm and microcosm
(somewhat like the 24 principles of the Sankhya
Philosophy). The Vedas describe the nature, function and mutual relation of
these basic principles and initiate us into a discipline whereby the lesser
principles can be transmuted into the higher ones.
² Rigveda 1.179.2.
Page-81
means
gradual progression. Man and human society are undergoing a change for the
better. In antiquity man was just a little remote from the animal. His
intelligence gradually developed. His conduct has become polished. Thus he has
grown into what he is today. The more we cast our glance into the past, the
more shall we come across man's original, primitive and immature nature. As the Vedas owe their origin to a hoary past, it is
a axiomatic that there can be no solid philosophical
truth and spiritual experience in them. It is vain to seek for something in the
Vedas that can satisfy the modern scientific mind. Hence any such attempt will
end in utter failure.
In
modern times those very scientists are confronted with an anomalous phenomenon
supported by irrefutable evidence. Many scientific theories are going to be
upset by the new discoveries. Archaeological excavation has been furnishing
more and more evidence of ancient culture and education. These discoveries go
to prove that the ancients were not immature in the least in their mental
faculties, education and culture. On the contrary, we find in them signs of
superior qualities and endeavours. Strangely enough, these archaeological finds
are found in the places which were so long considered by us to be inhabited by
barbarians. The wonderful artistic works and remnants of scientific
achievements that we meet with among the discoveries made in the dense forests
of America, in
the archipelago of the Pacific, beneath the desert
of CentralAsia
have hardly any parallel in this much vaunted scientific age. The Egyptians and
the Babylonians have created a tradition. But the hoary past of their source is
just being revealed. Greece
was considered to be the mainspring of European culture and civilisation. But
that a still more civilised race had inhabited the neighbouring island
of Crete can by no means be denied
now. The older civilisations of Atlantis, Sumeria, Akad, Aztec, Maya and Toltec
no longer appear to be mere poetical imaginations. We are wonder-struck by such
amazing
Page-82
prehistoric achievements. We can hardly assert
that we possess a culture and civilisation superior to theirs. According to the
Biblical statement the world came into existence only four thousand years ago.
This statement had left its stamp unawares on the mind of the European savants.
At present, not to speak of the age of the world or of the advent of man, the
age of civilised man can itself be put at about a lakh of years.
As
there is evolution in Nature, it is quite natural that there should be
evolution in man as well. But the notion of the scientists that evolution
proceeds in a straight line and is discernible within a short period has
crumbled .to dust. We have now begun to understand that evolution proceeds in a
zigzag spiral movement, through rises and falls, in progressions and
retrogressions. And the extent of that slow movement can, hardly be conceived.
We are going to recognise in effect the Indian conception of time, namely,
ages, cycles presided over by some great creators (Manus). As a result, we have
been discovering things not commensurate with the undeveloped, immature and
ancient minds of our conception. So some scientists and philosophers are of the
opinion that the ancients we know of were on the downward curve of a higher
civilisation of the past unknown to us,
If we consider man to be a sufficiently old creature
on earth and that his evolution runs in a spiral movement, then the statement
that the Aryans of the Vedic age were not highly advanced cannot be regarded as
an axiomatic truth. Of course, there is no hard and fast rule that the education,
culture and realisation of the Vedic age should have been similar to those of
modern times. But their widely differing outlook and activities need not be
inferior to ours. True, Valmiki and Rabindranath are not peers of the same
grain. On that account we cannot definitely assign a higher status to
Rabindranath. To consider the Vedic seers inferior to the modern scientists
simply because they do not resemble there is nothing but a stark superstition.
Page-83
As
a matter of fact, here lies the greatest folly of the moderns. We fail to
arrive at the angle of vision of the ancients. We fail to comprehend that there
was a time when this ancient culture was as living as that of today. As the
Europeans used to take us for rustics because of our bare body and eating with
hands and. such other habits, even so we conclude from the words go (cow),
asva (horse), somarasa (wine)
and devas (gods) etc., that the Vedic seers were no better than
primitives. For in our conception the men of knowledge speak of no such
material subjects. They would rather deal with metaphysical discourses and
scientific researches. We want to measure the ferment in the brain of the
ancients by that of our own. We forget the very fact that they had a culture of
their own which need not tally with ours. In fact, the truth attained by the
ancients was not the outcome of an intellect given to mundane things. Rather
the criticism may be applied to our present-day intellect.
The
process of syllogistic reasoning with which we usually try to get to the truth
was not their method. They had a direct perception of truth. They used to live
the truth they realised. Besides this rational faculty, man has other faculties
which are at once subtler, deeper and wider. To develop these superior
faculties so that one may realise and live the ultimate Truth was the sole
ideal of the Vedic Rishis. The principal instrument, of their knowledge was
neither the senses nor even the mind or intellect but the subtle concentrated
insight and perception of the inner Being. In its introspection for discovering
this fundamental power of knowledge the Kena Upanishad says, "By
whom missioned falls the mind shot to its mark?.. That
which is hearing behind the hearing, mind of the mind, the word behind the speech, that too is life of the life-breath, sight behind
the sight."¹
The faculty of knowledge of the Rishis was
based on this
¹ Translated by Sri Aurobindo.
Page-84
subtle realisation. And this subtle
realisation has its different levels, classifications and variations which the
Vedic seers have termed Ila, Saraswati, Sarama and
Dakshina. These four names have been plausibly interpreted as sruti (Revelation), smrti (Inspiration),
bodhi (Intuition) and viveka (Discrimination). We are not going
to probe further into themystery. We just want to point out the difference between the
outlook of the ancients and that of the moderns.
The ancient seers dealt with supraphysical
truths. Modern science and philosophy deal with abstract concepts. But these
concepts are born of the rational intellect. We may call them theories,
well-arranged and systematised; hence nothing extraordinary. But the ancient
seers realised and tried to express the transcendental Truth and its Power.
There is a play of Power behind the world of phenomena which at once resolves itself
into more and more subtle forms and evolves from the deepest level to the
grosser manifestations. The seers of yore were wont to study the origin and
nature of all the different stages. of subtle forms
knitting them into a system. By virtue of their spiritual insight they
discovered that the world consists of different levels of existence — sphere
after sphere ranging from the gross to the subtle, peak after peak in an
ascending order. One existence runs through them all. The supreme
Being is there in each part. The Power of the self-same Being works in each and
every part, differing in form and function in different levels of
manifestation. Nevertheless there is a symmetry due to
the fact that all becomings and their dynamis proceed from one fundamental
Being. Again, the truth in one level is reflected on other levels, for it is
the same Power of the Supreme Being that travels from the most subtle to the most gross manifestation. So there is a parallelism in the
nature of all the levels of existence.
As for instance, when the Vedic seers speak
of fire, they mean something of which the gross form is fire and which itself
is tejas (luminous energy) in its subtle form. In the spiritual
Page-85
world, in its subtler form it is called energising consciousness.
Likewise the sun is, serially and simultaneously, light, the power of
revelation and knowledge. When the Vedic seers say, idam sresthamjyotisam... (This is the Light, the highest
of all lights; it has come; the Supreme knowledge, beautiful and diverse, vast
and all-pervading, has taken birth), they make use of the gross dawn to hint at
some subtle dawn. They could visualise the entire
creation in its wholeness. That is why their realisations had the stamp of
wholeness which can be applied to all the levels and phases of creation. We,
the modernists, look upon truth as something entirely comprehensible by the
intellect. We put it syllogistically and understand it part by part separately.
The ancients used to grasp the truth through the fullness of their heart, the
inner being. So it could manifest as an indivisible embodiment of mundane forms
and supraphysical concepts. To us the truth has three distinct forms: in the
material, vital and mental worlds. Each is different from the other, having a
definition of its own. But the angle of vision of the ancient seers was not of
such an analytical type. Their synthetic realisation revealed such mantras as
comprised the essence of all the levels.
In the process of Nature, in the material
world and in its activities they did not see something mundane and material,
but found in them a reflection of the supernatural. It may be asked: if, the
gross forms were mere symbols, then why is the Veda so replete with them and
why has so much importance been given to them? Then we have to enquire into
the symbolism of the ancients. Here in this connection we want only to mention
that the language of the ancients used to flow from their heart. It was not
subject to any intellectual reasoning and was not analytical as that of t day.
The language was simplysymbol of their
direct realisation. All languages originate from the perceptions of the senses
and the emotions of the heart. The inner urge was kept intact in the language
of the ancients. The language
Page-86
and their direct perception were
not intercepted by the syllogistic reasoning. So the subtle experiences when
expressed in language used to entail the corresponding gross perceptions as
well. The ceremonials and the sacrifices are but symbols of inner experiences. According
to the Chhandogya Upanishad, yavanvaayamakasastavanesontarhrdayaakash ... (The sky that we see in
the outer space is also in our inner heart. Both the Heaven and the earth, Agni
as well as Vayu — all are concentrated in our inner
heart).
In the Katha Upanishad too we come across the same
utterance: yadeveha tadamutra¹ (Whatever is there in the inner world is
to be found here as well). In ancient times, not only in India,
but in all countries of the world, symbolism was in vogue. We cannot read
through those symbols. That is why we consider them black magic or rustic
customs of the uncivilised. We can partly appreciate the political and artistic
genius of Egypt.
So at times we consider it equal or superior to ours. But we are unable to
grasp her spiritual genius. Hence we do not hesitate to relegate it to the
level of barbarism. We have hardly any spiritual realisation. What we
understand is at best morality. We highly admire the art and literature of Greece.
But in respect of Greek spirituality our knowledge is confined to Socrates. In
the earlier period of Greek civilisation there was a current of deep spiritual
culture, and what they used to call the Mysteries were only mysteries of
spiritual yogic discipline. We fail to understand that the water-worship of
Thales and the fire-worship of Heraclitus were not merely different aspects of
Nature-worship. We do not like to believe that these terms "water"
and "fire" can ever be the symbols of spiritual truths. We study the
philosophies of Pythagoras and Plato. But we do not delve into the spiritual
culture or esoteric aspect of which their philosophies are but outer expressions.
Behind the mythologies of China,
Japan,
old-world America
and Australia
there lies a science of spiritual discipline which may not
¹ Katha, 11.1.10.
Page-87
be recognised by the scientists, but those practising spirituality will not find it difficult to
discover it.
We find more objectivity than mere
abstraction in the language and thoughts of the ancients. So they seem to be
prone to materialism. But as a matter of fact, their abstract ideas were not
merely based on syllogistic reasoning. Those ideas were to them as living,
true, clear and manifest as a material object. They did not consider the subtle
world visionary, rather they took the subtle world for the raison d'ître of the material world. So they found no
difficulty in expressing the subtle concepts of their experiences through gross
symbols. Even we, the moderns, at times do the same. For instance, in poetry
the poet has to resort to images and allegories in order to express the deep
and intense inspiration of his own heart. Has not the Vaishnava literature tried to give expressions to supra physical
realisations through the symbols of earthly experiences?
"A
bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my
breasts." – Solomon
The
Christians do not hesitate in the least to give some abstract meaning to those
words of Solomon. What mystery of Transubstantiation do they now ascribe to the
ceremony of the Eucharist! Then why should ritual expressions in the Veda be looked upon as signs of gross practices of rustics?
Anecdotes, stories, and analogies have been used in all times and climes
for the expression of subtle truths. In modern times we have managed to banish
this practice from the spiritual field, but have not as yet completely
succeeded in the realm of poetry.
The Vedas
have a spiritual mystery of their own. We do not say that it is we who have
discovered that spiritual mystery for the first time. As regards this we have
already referred to Sayana and the Nirukta. Even in this modern age
there are some who have endeavoured to present a spiritual interpretation of
the Vedas. Perhaps Dayananda Saraswati is the
pioneer among them. Pundit Durgadas Lahiri
Page-88
andDwijadas Dutt have paid much
attention to this aspect of the Vedas. But our spiritual interpretation widely
differs from theirs. In fact, we would rather call our interpretation
metaphysical and not spiritual. Dayananda's spiritual
interpretation was based on the ctrine of Ishwara, Dwijadas's on that of
the Brahman, and Durgadas's on the devotional
religious feeling. No doubt, the Vedas have all these. But these scholars have
shown only in brief the general form of spirituality in the Vedas. The
mysteries of the Vedas are far more deep and subtle. The Veda is a Yogic
science, a system of science and kowledgeacquired
through Yoga.
The very name Veda is self-explanatory.
The Veda signifies knowledge. It is derived from the root "vid" (to know). The Veda particularly refers to
the embodiment of that knowledge which is the soul and basis of the culture,
education and civilisation of the Hindus, the Indians, the
whole Aryan race. This knowledge was realised by a body of aspirants called
Rishis - where and when it is difficult to trace with certainty. And it is the
succession of the Rishis, the realised ones, that has
kept up, multiplied and systematised this knowledge. The Veda is otherwise
called Shruti, for it is said that from generation to generation the disciples
used to receive the Vedic mantras from their preceptors by hearing and store
them up in their memory. But this is only a secondary human interpretation. The
real reason why the Veda is called Shruti is that the Seers received, by an
occult hearing, these mantras pregnant with knowledge. At times they could see
the mantras during their meditation. Hence they are called the Seers of mantras
and the knowledge acquired by them goes by the name Shruti (things heard). And
this gives us the clue to the reason why the Veda is supposed to have no human
origin, neither a beginning nor an end. The Divine Knowledge is not a human
creation. It comprises the principles of truth inherent in creation. And it
will endure for all time, The Seers are merely the
instruments for its manifestation.
Page-89
The Veda as we see it today is not in its original
form. A whole book entitled Veda was not composed at any definite time
or at any particular place. The mantras of the Veda were revealed to the
different Seers at different times and places. They were scattered all around
without being systematised. It was later that they were collected and systematised.
Some, nay, the major part of the mantras failed to see the light of day. And it
happened also that mantras of later origin got mixed up with the earlier ones.
The
systematic collection, no doubt, could not be achieved all at once. A great speciality of the spiritual discipline of the ancient Seers
is this that they carried on their spiritual discipline in a body. It was
their practice to use the plural terms like we, you all, friends, etc.
In this way different groups of spiritual seekers
followed different types of discipline. These collectivities consisted of the
Masters and their disciples or an ancestor and his descendants. Thus the Veda
grew up into innumerable branches, sub-branches and their offshoots. The
present Veda comprises only a limited portion of those branches. The major
portion of the Veda is buried in oblivion. So it is no wonder that the Veda got
automatically divided into branches according to the lineage and succession of
the Masters and their disciples.
However,
later on, all the available Vedic mantras were principally divided into three
groups, known as trayi (a group of
three) - Rik, Sama
and Yajur. Rik consists of verses or poems; Sama of
songs; Yajur of prose works. Miscellaneous things
were collected in the Atharva. Thus the Veda
developed into four parts.
According
to the Puranas the Seers who collected these Vedic mantras are named Vedavyasas. They are as many as twenty-eight successive Vedavyasas whose successive efforts gave the Veda its
present form. The last Vedavyasa who divided the Veda
into four parts is Krishnadwaipayana Vedavyasa, the author of the Mahabharata. And it is
said that in future there will come up another Vyasa of the
Page-90
name of Draunivyasa to rearrange
the Veda once more.
There are indications to
suppose that the mantras of the Rigveda were meant for the fire-worshippers,
and the mantras of the Samaveda for the worshippers of the Sun, and those of
Yajurveda for the worshippers of Vayu, the life-principle.
However, we refrain at present from going into the details of the
matter. In the concluding paragraphs we shall observe whether or not the
classification of the Vedas has been in any way regulated by the different
methods of spiritual discipline.
There are four Vedas and each Veda consists of several
parts. The principal parts of each Veda are known as the Samhitas
and the Brahmanas. The Samhitas
are the collection of the mantras, the Veda proper. The Brahmanas
are the commentaries, interpretations or new suggestions. Again the Brahmanas are divided into the Brahmanas
proper, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads. The Samhitas comprise the general Vedic experiences and the
mantras necessary for the propitiation and manifestation of the gods. And the Brahmanas provide all the details connected with the
ceremonies, sacrificial rites, etc. The Upanishads are the repository of the
knowledge of the supreme Being divested of ceremonies
and allegories. The Samhitas have laid stress on the
forms of religious culture, while the Upanishads on the spirit of it. In a way,
the Aranyakas combined in themselves both the Brahmanas and the Upanishads. To sum up, the first and
foremost part of the Vedas are the Samhitas
which are immediately followed by the Brahmanas culminating
in the Aranyakas which in their turn terminate in the
Upanishads. But there are exceptions. For example, the Aitareya
Aranyaka introduces the Rigveda Samhita, while the
Brihadaranyaka itself is an Upanishad.
These four divisions of the Veda are said to correspond to
the four stages of human life. In the first stage, the foremost duty of a Brahmachari (a student practising
celibacy) is to recite the mantras of the Samhitas
which contain the quintessence
Page-91
of
the ideal of life. In the next stage, on entering upon household life one has
to practise ceremonies and sacrificial rites and thus the stress is laid on the Brahmanas. In the third stage of life, when one
renounces the household life and retires into the forest one has to practise
all those sacrificial rites and ceremonies symbolically as a part of one's
spiritual discipline following the teachings of the Aranyakas.
In the fourth and final stage, one gives up all one's earlier practices and in
conformity with the guidance of the Upanishads one takes to the contemplation
of the supreme Truth which cannot be attained by reasonings
and discussions (naisa tarkena matiraPaneya). ow we may say that the Samhitas,
the Brahmanas and the Upanishads indicate changes in
the practice of the Vedic truth undergone with the march of time. The spiritual
discipline of the Samhitas has for its aim the
attainment of Godhood which is an aspect of the cosmic manifestation of the
transcendental triune principle, Existence-Consciousness. Bliss.
The discipline of the Brahmanas tries to manifest the
spirit of the former through external practice. And the spiritual discipline
of the Upanishads does not concern itself so much with the manifestation of the
gods as it does with getting absorbed in the ultimate Source from whence the
gods originated. In other words, the aim of the Upanishadic truth is to
indicate how the light of consciousness dwelling in the heart of everyone like
a steady flame of the size of the thumb can be merged into the boundless ocean
of the transcendental consciousness.
Strictly speaking, the stages of the Samhitas,
the Brahmanas and the Upanishads cannot be
regardedsuccessive stages. For there are many Upanishads which appeared earlier than many Brahmanas and some portions of the Samhitas.
As we understand it, first there were the earlier mantras of the Samhitas from which there arose the two branches, Brahmanas and the Upanishads. The Brahmanas
laid stress on the exoteric portions of the Samhitas,
and the
Page-92
Upanishads on the esoteric
side related to the knowledge of the ultimate Truth.
In the subsequent ages people were attracted more to
the exoteric side dealing with ceremonies and sacrificial rites as a means of
temporal happiness, and it is the Brahmanas that
professed to explain the Vedas. On the other hand, the Upanishads tried to maintain
the spirit of the ultimate realisation suggested in the Vedas. That is why the
Upanishads have been looked upon as the system of knowledge, while the Brahmanas as that of work.
The Rigveda is the oldest of all the parts of the
Vedas, and its Samhita part marks the hoariest
antiquity. The tenth chapter may be, as the European scholars have concluded,
of a later origin. Besides, many of the mantras of the Rigveda with slight
alterations are to be found in other parts of the Vedas. In this respect the
Samaveda owes the greatest debt to the Rigveda. It will be no exaggeration to
hold that the Samaveda is only a novel brand of the Rigveda. On that strength,
curiously enough, attempts have been made to prove the Samaveda to be the
oldest of all the Vedas.
The Rigveda Samhita also
has been suitably divided and arranged in different chapters. Two different
methods have been adopted in this arrangement. Firstly, the whole of the Samhita has been divided into ten books, and each book is
called a mandala and each Mandala is composed of different series of mantras; each
series is called asukta,
each mantra is called a rk. Each Mandala or book is generally attributed to a Rishi. For
instance, the second Mandala has been the
contribution of the Rishi Gritsamada and his
descendants. The authorship of the third Mandala goes
to the Rishi Vishwamitra. The fourth Mandala is
attributed to Vamadeva, while the fifth, the sixth,
the seventh are respectively attributed to Atri, Bharadwaja and Vasishtha. The
whole of the ninth Mandala has been exclusively
devoted to the god Soma. The first and the tenth have been the contributions of
many Rishis. Each sukta of these two
Page-93
books
contains mantras offered to a particular god or several gods related to that
very god. Besides, there is another method by which the whole of the Samhita has been divided into eight parts and each part is
called an astaka (a group of eight).
Again each astaka is divided into adhyayas (chapters), sub-chapters and a
series of cognate mantras. But the principle followed in this kind of division
is hard to determine.
Be
that as it may, we are not so much concerned with the external forms of the
Veda as with its inner significance. For long the Veda has been solely the
subject of archaeological researches. To be sure, the Veda has a living spirit.
The true significance of the Veda lies in the fact that it points out to man
the true goal and the means to the attainment of a higher and nobler life. In
spite of his ignorance, lack of power and want of bliss, the dream that man has
dreamt, the ideal that he has pursued through all the vicissitudes of his life
has been: "What shall I do with that which can not bring me
Immortality?" This quest for Immortality of the human soul finds its
absolute fulfilment in the Veda which is truly a vast ocean of boundless
delight. The true purpose of one's studying the Veda is served only when its
mantras arouse in oneself the aspiration for the divine Delight.
