---

An Introduction to the Vedas

(I)

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 of such 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 vipra bahudha vadanti (The one Truth is expressed differently by the men of knowledge) or, tat Visno param padam...diviva cakuratatam (That is the supreme Status of Vishnu, as if an Eye wide open in the heavens) or, Brhaspatih prathamam jayama mano jyotisah parame 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,

Codayitri sunrtanam cetanti sumatinam

yajñam dadhe sarasvati.

Maho arnah sarasvati pra cetayati ketuna

dhiyo visva 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 ghrtacim sadhanta - 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: naisa tarkena matiraPaneya ("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 veda yatpadamamananti...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, dva suparna... ("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 how can 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 naya supatha... ("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, hdra manasa...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, Indraya manasa manisa pratnaya... 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.

5 Ibid. I. 61.2.

Page 78

already cited about Agni: vaisvanaram manasagnim nicayya... ("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. If we 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 devanamuparistacca gavah 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 Central Asia 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

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 a sukta, 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.

Page 94