Commentary on the Rig Veda

SECTION ONE

VICTORY to the Sole Lord of the worlds that have come to light, to Him, the Self of all souls, to Him who is beyond Darkness.

Victory to the Person who is denoted by the word supreme, who wears the Sound-form for body and creates the universe by exhalation and who lives with tapas for his life-breath”.

Victory to the unmoving Ether Supernal, the abode of Riks, whence the creation is released with purpose by the Creator3. (1-6)

Fixing the thought again and again on that Splendour of great parts that is stationed in Sri Aurobindo, the most excellent among the eligibles who are the knowers of the secret sense of the Vedas, we explore the intricacies of the Veda for the understanding of the esoteric sense, in accordance with the Light (of Wisdom that is Sri Aurobindo) unaffected by the bonds of Ritual without under- standing4 (7-10)

Through the legends of the Puranas, men of old have enlarged upon and expounded in parts these Vedas, consisting of Riks, Yajus and Samans along with their limbs. (11-12)

That dharmas, even the socio-religious customs, are rooted in the Vedas is the view of a section of the ancient regulators of social conventions.

The Wise know that the Vedas are the treasures of divine knowledge and austere discipline and Faith, while some say they are the feeder-basin of the whole body of ceremonial rites?.

Hence did all the great Teachers of religion in this land of Bharata look upon the Vedas as two-sectioned and as the basis of Dharma.

It is declared that the support of the Works i.e. Rites, karma; is the earlier portion, that of jnāna, Knowledge, the latter section. The Brahmanas are the feeders of the Purva Tantra (called Purva Mimamsa of the ritualistic school) even as the Upanishads are of the higher Knowledge - jnāna. (called Uttara Mimamsa) 8 (13-21)

The Mantras - ?ṛks or yajus are intertwined with their application (or, the applications of the Mantras are inherent in them) and are meant for use in ritual; they are for purposes of sacrifice; this has been the verdict. Consequently the Mantras came to be treated definitely as limbs of the Vedic rites’. (22-24)

Even though for the propitiation of the Gods, for the purification of the inner being, for the attainment of the desired ends and the accomplishment of averting the undesirable, they (Mantras)

are used, sacred as they are, in japa and the like; yet Ritual is the main thing and Mantras its subsidiaries. 10

Hence, according to the Dharma Shastra, the designation Veda applies conjointly to the Mantra and the Brahmana, as proclaimed by Sutra-karas11 of yore to whom Karma, ritual was the main Dharma (religion or religious law) that mattered. (25-30)

Having before them conventional religion as traditionally handed down such as this, they commented upon the Mantras of the Vedas in parts:12

Uvvata and Mahidhara commented upon the Mantras of Yajus while others like Skandaswami and Venkata Madhava on the Riks. 13

And the erudite Sayana Madhava, prepared complete commentaries, with details, of all the four Samhitas along with their Brahmanas.

It is his Bhashya that has gained wide currency everywhere and is esteemed by the learned in the East as well as by scholars of the West. (31-38)

Some moderns of the Western world (lit. hemisphere) endowed with a new rising (and prosperous) vigour eager for knowledge from all sources, though themselves outside the pale of Vedic religion, searching for the ancient stories of Indians, out of curiosity, got admitted into the Vedas with the help of indigenous Pundits and in accordance with the cultural impressions of the West (they) determined the meaning of the Vedas. (39-41)

To these, Sayana was of very great help. Supporting his views wherever it suited them, they gave their verdict upon the character and substance of the Mantras and the Gods spoken of in the Veda as also on the thought of the seers of the Mantras. (42–47)

What the new investigators succeeded in getting by dint of their scholarship, that in a general way, we shall give in brief.

The supreme Veda is one only; that is the ancient Rig Veda. The Rishis are remembered as the poets who composed the Mantra-poetry.

They composed hymns for purposes of sacrificial rites. The Storm, the Rain, the Fire elemental, the Sun and other Gods are propitiated (lit. praised) by these primitive Rishis, usually out of awe and out of love as well. Other Gods there are some Gods evident in Nature, some even inanimate such as the elements, others who are created fancifully and praised as living ones.

The Gods are propitiated, by means of hymns, for the attainment of the many objects of desire by these primitive ancients, men with likes and dislikes. (48–59)

With the growth of the series of sacrificial rites in time, there came to be fabricated the Mantras of Yajus as also the Brahmanas; this fact can be inferred from their language of a later time as compared with that of the Riks. (60–61)

If there is found in these Hymns Knowledge of the Transcendent or Knowledge of the Self, that surely matters little.

If it be urged that eulogy of Knowledge is clearly noticeable in the tenth Mandala and also found elsewhere in the Veda, (they would say) that is but of recent origin.

But, all the same this must be understood: the Rishis are primeval folk; it is the Aranyakas and not the Samhitas that are resorts of jnāna; therefore in the Mantras there is neither jnāna nor any secret nor austerities.

Prayers are found, addressed by primitive men, the Rishis, to the Gods who are created by the exuberance of the Soma-intoxication, the Gods who are inanimate objects, the Gods of the elements in Nature or Gods dwelling in the skies, visible and invisible or non-existent as if they were really existent. (62–72)

Many among us intelligent as they are, were seized with such views as these, imported from the West and follow the new way of the votaries of modern learning -- the views that naturally receive no support even from the old uncritical learning14 in India). (73-76)

As this stood thus, the revered Sri Aurobindo, eminent among the learned, (while) occupied with severe austerities, came upon a new path quite unexpectedly.15

The secret that lay hidden in the Veda stood revealed to him though his mind was never given to the search of the meaning of the Mantras;

Yet certain well-known Deities of the Veda came to be seen by him when he was absorbed in Yoga with his eye turned within.

Since then, (he came to have) an abiding interest in the inquiry into the meaning of the Vedas. Having found the secret of the Veda and revealing at least some little of it, the great Sage spoke out truths, even though impenetrable, regarding the Riks, the Rishis and the Gods for the enlightenment of enquiring minds, in accordance with his vision.

And the indubitable knowledge born of direct perception, the high-minded one conveyed to others with appropriate reasonings to carry conviction.

With this his Perception for basis, having pondered over his words and considered the traditional knowledge and ancient usages and with the help of deep pursuits of the Shastras of yore we break the seal over the ages-old secret embedded in the language of the Vedas. (77-92)

In the Brahmanas, the Mantras and likewise in the Upanishads, in the passages of the Niruktas and in other ancient works, in the Puranas, the historical legends and in other Shastras as well —everywhere the idea is evident that there is a secret in the Veda.16 (93–96)

That secret is manifestly to be found in the Rik Samhita; and that (secret) through a speciality of language is (kept) in symbolic form. With the knowledge of the meaning of the symbol, what is hidden comes to light.

Have we but the eye, the means for unlocking (the hidden secret) is assuredly found in the Mantras, the perception of the Rishis.

Once the mystery of the Mantras and the seers of the Mantras is solved, the misconception (lit. evil delusion regarding the Gods also will melt away.

What is ancient and for long held to be the (position of the Rishis, that, indeed, is ours also. It is this that the Mantra is the root, the series of Brahmanas and Upanishads are its branches. (97–105)

The sages, Madhuchchhandas and others, are seers of the Mantra; the Gods were present to the

Not by superior scholarship, nor by artifice of speech did these lovers of poetic charm compose hymnal poems.

By the free opening up (lit. unhampered breaking forth) of the wondrous powers within, by audition as well as perception did the great sages come face to face with Brahman, called the Mantra.

These Rishis, with Tapas for wealth, obtained the Mantras by means of a subtle or divine audition and perception they were endowed with and a perfect devotion to the Gods.

Hence these hymns are acclaimed as Mantra-perceptions and the Rishis gifted with the inner vision known as the Poets.

The Gods are indeed many, bearing distinct names (of the One), objects of laudation. The highest God is One, the supreme Purusha as the Sun; it is his manifold function that is the state of the One as many Gods.

True, many are the names to the One Supreme; but they are not mere names; they are Gods, Powers and Personalities of the One. Therefore it is the One Supreme that wears different names and forms and personalities.

The Supreme Light is distinct and yet not separate from the Gods; the distinctness among the Gods obtains only in the front; behind each are All the Gods.

The Supreme who is All the Gods becomes distinctly formed and distinctly designated as each God by reason of the speciality of the function.

Like many limbs of one who is bodied, the Gods are different functionings of the Supreme Light.

Hence, these Gods are extolled separately in the hymns, they must be understood as Gods distinct not merely in name, but separate in personality and function as well of the One Supreme. (108-131)

In this universe of many planes (lit. steps within and without, many are the guardians of the world entrusted with authority.17

The world, inner and outer, is under the control of the Gods; this secret was known to the ancient seers of the Mantra. (132–135)

Therefore did the great sages perform their self-offering (sacrifice, worship to the Gods, with their life, with their mind and body, with all their being.

The mass of men (base or low) in their thousands unable to grasp the mysteries of these great few who were competent for the Inner Sacrifice, worshipped the Gods with the outer sacrifice with the Mantras; and the Mantra was applicable either way in a double manner) on account of the special turn of the Vedic speech.

The Mantra perceived by the Rishis, the God who was worshipped, the Sacrifice, the sacrificer, the priests and the Fruit (of the Sacrifice) the true character of these will become clear in the discussion (of the subject) that follows. (136-144)

Our thesis has been stated briefly, in concise verses, at the commencement of the work. We shall expound it in detail as much as necessary in due course. This is the line leading to the esoteric meaning of the Vedas, brought to light by the revered Sri Aurobindo. The same line is adopted in the ensuing Introduction to the Commentary by which investigation into the meaning of the Mantras would find clear passage free of sources of vexation. But first the opposition needs to be cleared. And what is this opposition that we propose to eliminate? Whence has it sprouted ? That is the question we shall presently consider.

Scholars from the West with the help of indigenous scholarship wherever necessary, have cast abroad certain notions regarding the Vedas. And chiefly depending on these scholars of the West), many students of modern learning from the educated classes in India trumpet learnedly; they say: eminent savants in the West, lifelong students of Vedic learning, have arrived at these conclusions on the Vedas: the childhood of the primitive Aryans is evident from the Hymns of the Rig Veda. Their hymnal prayers are like the profuse babblings of infants (lit. like children’s plain words of excessive amusement). Even though their socio-religious life is marked by this unsophisticated and unripe state, yet a primitive kind of monotheism is their faith. Even among Indians, leaders of the revivalist movements like Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Dayananda held monotheism to be the creed of the religion. And this view of theirs concurs with the conclusions of Western scholarship. Even though among the Western scholars themselves there is conflict of opinions, yet agreement is easy and hence, as we see, reconciliation possible. So, some among them say: the hymns were the compositions of the primitive poets of the Rig Veda for purposes of sacrifice; they were barbarians tied in faith to the supremacy of ceremonial rites. Others hold that the narratives of the Gods described in the Veda are accounts of cosmogony in metaphor, parable and allegory. Sayana, the famous commentator on the Vedas, in his commentary, in dealing with the killing of Vritra etc., shows them to be phenomena of Nature — the sunrise, the downpour of rains and so on. This concurs with the view acceptable to Western scholars. Sayana explains the Riks closely following the Brahmanas of a later age. Thus there is room for a variety of views in the Veda. The basis for these differing views apparent at first sight is not merely in the minds of the investigators, but it must be understood that it is there in the Veda itself. In the Rig Veda Samhita the hymnal composition looks pregnant with ideas that are uneven.

Thus an eminent Indian of renowned scholarship, 18prominent among moderns who have adopted the views of western scholarship in its researches into Vedic history, says: scholar and exponent of the esoteric theory of the Veda, Sri Aurobindo holds that there is a secret in the Veda; we cannot accept it. He says that the Vedic Rishis are similar to the mystics who are to be found even among the very ancient Greeks. But this is not true. Why? It is opposed to the findings of modern scholarship. It cannot be accepted by Western scholars whose lifelong labours in the field of research in Vedic history, the meaning of the Mantras, nature of deities etc. do not support it. How can the esoteric theory of Sri Aurobindo hope to look down upon and challenge such high authorities ? Even if this theory of the secret in the Veda were to be somehow accepted, it is not merely the verdict of these great authorities that would be set aside; it would also be opposed to the traditional interpretation of Sayana, accepted as our authority, Also, this theory is against the doctrine of the Mimamsakas which is the authority on Vedic interpretation. Hence this novel argument of Sri Aurobindo, though attractive and ingenious on the face of it, has to be discarded; it merits no consideration. If, however, any one, out of sentiment for the ancient Rishis, were to hold that these great Rishis of the Veda possessed mystic wisdom, it would be nothing but serving untruth. Of course one is free to luxuriate in fanciful imagination. If the Vedic Rishis had attained at all such a high spiritual summit and received the affluence of the grace of the Gods, how is it that no evidence of it whatever could be found in later works or traditions? Further, studies in the history of other primitive races inhabiting the earth point to this one conclusion: progress in general is gradual. It is not that the ancients attained to great heights in their primitive stage itself and this was followed by successive degradations. Therefore the great truth, all spiritual wisdom (lit. secret) is to be found only in the utterances of the Rishis of the Upanishads, men with more mature minds, well above the primitive Vedic stage. Possibly, some seeds of it may be seen in places in the Rig Veda Samhita; but that is trifle, and largely inconsequent, belongs to a later age and out of place. The esoteric theory of the Veda is thus wholly inappropriate and deserves to be rejected.

Such is the purport of the opposite viewpoint. Pronouncements of this view by Indian scholars propagating modern Western learning and culture cannot be lightly set aside. If these were the words of a simpleton or an uncultured mind, we could overlook them holding that they issue from an ignoramus and do not merit our notice. The personage in question is well-known, his challenging scholarship is famous among the western educated classes, his superb eloquence holds captive the attention of varied concourse of the lay and learned. Even though he speaks out (views on the Veda) in the manner stated above he is not a scholar of the Vedas, nor does he claim himself to be one; yet, his argument does not lack vigour or fall short of its target. After all every one does not know everything; and eager for knowledge of truth, probing into facts with interest, he follows the Western scholars and accepts their word as authoritative in the field of Vedic studies. And having accepted the verdict of these savants noted for their brilliance in the specialised field of Vedic research, there is nothing wrong if he makes others follow the same view. The fault is of another kind and it is this we set out to examine. To appraise the fault is both necessary and fruitful. For these views are generally shared by all those Indians who follow the modern way in their Vedic studies. To meet the champion wrestler 19 is tantamount to meeting the rest of his class, is the Sanskrit saying and on this analogy, we shall take his pronouncement as representative and deal with it accordingly. To submit all superficial scholarliness (in regard to the Vedas) to withering scrutiny and to promote interest in the secret knowledge of the Vedas on the part of the unbiased is the object of this examination of this faulty argument.

Indeed, these are in brief the three objections raised against the theory of the esoteric Wisdom of the Veda. First: the verdict of the Western scholarship is opposed to our conclusions on the secret meaning of the Veda. Second: it is contrary to the traditional interpretation of Sayana. Third: our position is directly against that of the Doctrine of the Mimamsakas. Let us meet each of these objections, shorn of verbiage, in the main.

First, it is said in objection: to say that there has been a steady falling away of Indian society from the Rig Vedic times is contrary to what is seen everywhere in historical studies of other societies on the globe, namely, as with the individual, so with the collectivity also, human progress is gradual. Here we have to point out: the learned exponent has misunderstood our words and proceeded to construct a clever argument. We have not said that all the Vedic Rishis and the common people of the time had attained an all-round prosperity — spiritual and material. What we have said is different and what the opponent attributes to us, due to misunderstanding, is quite another. We say: the Rishis, the seers of the Mantra, devoted to a life of the spirit, discovered certain lines of development beyond the range of sensory perception by means of their strength of discipline and achieved a many-sided inner progress; and in possession of these many secrets, they cast these truths in veiled language in the mantra-perceptions. This is not to say that all men originally reached great heights; we have not thought so, nor said so. Nor have we said that the Rishis of the Veda had obtained a complete knowledge of every kind.

It must be noted that the age of the Rig Veda is the original epoch of great sages who knew the technique of Yoga, who had grasped the truths of the character and activity of the Gods, in their macrocosmic and microcosmic functions, and had discovered the Mystic Path. This is not to say that all men in that age knew the inner secret path, that they were all disciplined votaries of the secret path and endowed in every way with a divine strength. It could not mean that all the populace of the time had the knowledge of truths seen by the seers, of the secrets of the paths of God-realisation and other verities attainable by austere discipline. Now, let us take an illustration from our own times. It is universally accepted that ours is an age of the empire of Physical Science. We see before our eyes how this Physical Nature, pregnant with myriad mysteries, brings out daily and hourly unimaginable wonders. In such an age of intellectual supremacy how many are eminently intellectual ? Certainly not many, they are a few, it must be admitted. And even among those few intellectuals how many are competent to follow the strides of Physical Science and understand intimately her mysteries ? Or again, how many of these competent are able to enter the secret world of the laws and processes of Physical Nature whence awakened, are released vast dimensions of energy lying asleep in the womb of the atom? Few, very few, we must say, they could be counted on fingers.

In any age, whatever the dominating principle of power be, whether it is spiritual wisdom or the sway of the Intellect culminating in scientific culture, or empire-building political skill and military strength, or economic prosperity in accordance with the science of production, distribution and regulation or deployment of labour for the organisation of collective life, undoubtedly always it works itself out through just a few human centres and through them rules the collectivity. It follows that whatever the guiding principle of Society, Knowledge, Power, Wealth or Labour (lit. cleverness in action) — any one or more of these — leaders of vigour and substance are always numerically the few.20

Thus it was that the spiritual wisdom and occult knowledge of the Rishis of the Veda was not common to the generality of men; to the common people the means of religious worship (worship of the Gods) was provided in the ceremonies of external sacrifices and similar rites. Therefore, to attribute to our statement the meaning that all the people of the Vedic times reached the high summits of the Spirit and treaded the mystic path is not correct, not true. Nor have we said at any time that the Systems of Philosophy were products in the downward course from the high levels of the Vedic Wisdom. The path of Vedic knowledge i.e. the way of obtaining knowledge in the Vedic age was different; the mode of thought used to get knowledge in the philosophical Systems is another. The former is intuition, rising direct from revelation and inspiration, untutored by external means; the other is the speculative conclusion on the strength of intellect in the form of certain sense of certainty obtained by deliberations with the help of reasoning based upon perception, inference etc. Between these two methods the difference is as great as between the two ages. Spiritual experience does not proceed from Reason based on metaphysical thought; nor does it depend upon material prosperity and opulence of riches needed for bodily life. Neither does proficiency in occult knowledge depend on high development of the outward intellect. We see that in the very stage which we call primitive, following the conclusions of the historians, many ancients had known profound truths of Nature which strike the moderns with wonder. Insight does not depend upon modernity.

Indeed, it may be asked: if the Vedic Rishis had really attained such a spiritual progress then how is it that no noticeable impress of it was left on the succeeding ages? We reply: we will come to this context further in the course of this study, to consider whether the marks of the splendour of the Vedic Rishis are seen or not seen on their posterity and if seen, in what way. But this much must be said here. It is clear from a perusal of the literature of the ages that followed that the language and mentality of the Vedic age under-went a great change. And it is indeed a miracle that, in spite of the great gulf between the period of the Vedas and that of the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads, something of the Vedic tradition and the secret of deities etc. was preserved or sought to be preserved in the Brahmanas and the Aranyakas. It may be urged: be that as it may, but how is it that such a holy ancient age as the Vedic is lost without issue (lit. without fulfilling its purpose) ? This is no valid objection. Like the age of the Mystics among the ancient Greeks, the age of the Vedic Rishis also came to an end. Whatever be the mode of the setting, it has to be stated that it is entirely the run of time. Historians hold that there was an age of the Mystics among the ancient Greeks and others. And because it is now no more, no one could say that there was no such age at all. In the same manner it cannot be said on the passing of the Vedic age that there never was an age of the Mystics, the Rishis. Or, let us suppose the present human civilisation or culture distinguished by the highly developed Science of Physical Nature, practically perishes as a consequence of some catastrophe in Nature or by a cataclysm brought about by an explosion in the womb of the atom releasing world-wrecking weapons of destruction. Would it be right for future generations to say that here was no age at all of culture of Physical Science?

It is a proposition teeming with vulnerable points that Western historians advance (when they hold) that human mind everywhere in the primitive ages, is silly and childish. Possibly in the early beginnings of human life in creation, the state of man was extremely rudimentary, young and unripe. But that does not apply to those like the ancient Greeks or the sages of the Vedas. So much is their maturity that the felicities of the mind along with the mystic riches of inner revelation, inspiration etc. are manifest in the mantra-perceptions of these great Rishis and this is clear to those who have eyes to see.

Let us here recall what Sri Aurobindo has said (in this connection): In India, as elsewhere on the continents of earth, the progress of the common humanity has been very slow; spiritual achievement and proficiency in occult knowledge, were confined to only a few. Thus first came the Age of the Vedas, essentially intuitive in character. The Age of the Intellect and Philosophy, proceedings on metaphysical thought, followed thereafter. In the Vedic age the main means of the Rishis was the inner sight; but in the age of philosophers the means was investigation based on the criteria of perception etc. What was achieved by the great Rishis through inner means got by direct discipline, was sought to be reached, by the disciplines (yogic paths) that followed, through the means of the reflective (or ratiocinative) intellect. Similarly in still later ages the same supreme Truth was sought to be realised through the emotional being, the life (prāņa), and even through the physical body at times, by later processes (later relative to the Vedic age).

The Sadhanas of the Tantriks, Raja Yoga, Hatha Yoga etc. are to be understood in this light. It is to be noted that these disciplines (processes) were not the products of the downward course away from the Mystic Path of the Vedas or of accident. They were processes that set out to achieve the supreme Purpose set by the Vedic tradition, independently, by means of the emotional and other purificatory means. This is the spiritual history of India; they (the Sadhanas) attempt, repeatedly, in different ages to uplift the emotional part, the life and the other lower parts of the being and raise each degree of consciousness already evolved to the high summit of the spirit originally attained in the age of the Veda.

But then, it may be asked, how is it that Western scholars, even though desirous of straightforward line (of approach) have come to decisions ascribing a primitive condition to the religious institution of Rig Vedic sages? Indeed, there is reason for it. They fixed the age of the Vedic Rishis based on the conjecture of certain Western historians that the advent of human society on earth dates back to a few thousands of years and not to many hundreds of ages. Hence they have finished their accounts of the rise and growth etc. of the Aryan peoples measured in terms of two or three thousand years or in limited hundreds of years. But this is their old story. Such was their belief at the time when researches into Earth’s history were in their beginnings and infancy. But today with the growth of knowledge of history, that kind of belief has generally undergone change. Again it was at the time when Physical Science was coming into its own and Materialism held sway over the intellectuals of the West that they desired to know of the social customs and ideas of ancient Indians through an eqnuiry into the meaning of the Vedas. And they constructed accounts of the history and society of Vedic India, through a consideration of the history of various human aggregates and their religious institutions and comparative philology and drawing upon their own conjectures to the necessary extent. Such being their innate culture and competence, it is not surprising that they should say: the Rishis of the Veda are generally common or primitive people, their poetry childish and their Gods products of imagination and wonder on seeing the operation of Nature. It is true, however, that the basis of materials available to them at the commencement of their study of the Vedas was not adequate. Their conclusions referred to earlier, regarding the rise, growth, social customs and laws of human society are now stale and for the most part without sub-stance (lit. sap). Therefore, suffice it to say, a fresh and exhaustive enquiry into the Vedas is called for and it, doubtless, demands every bit of labour of thought and active interest on the part of the seekers of knowledge.

Let us leave the effusions (lit. lustre or play) of Western scholar-ship at that. It would not be a mis-statement to say that the method of Vedic study of their Indian followers trained in the new tradition, is not yet materially different. There are certainly many amongst us, who are brilliant, endowed with genius, scholars who would walk in the straightforward path, engaged in various fields of knowledge, eastern and western, old and new; yet we cannot say there are such in the line of Vedic research. Even the few that are to be found, carry on their labours with firm belief in the aforesaid outmoded conclusions of Western scholars, with no striking results.

If there be any notable results they are in matters of detail and in the discovery of facts of subsidiary importance. Essentially it is the same Western outlook, the very path fashioned by them, the very same conjectural conclusions regarding the social custom and religion of the Vedic Rishis; and it is the same convention that has started from them that has won a place of honour (or respectability). Leaning on all this, our modern scholars undertake their study of the Vedic Mantras, the word, its meaning and the history of the Veda. And as decisively taught by them (scholars of the West), the Vedic Rishis are mostly barbaric, gross minds ascribing divinity to Nature, elements of Fire, Wind, Rain and others; their poetry is product of almost childish imagination. These Rishis are struck with wonder every day at the sight of the dawn, though the Sun rises everyday; at the very thought of the night these Rishis are overcome with fear. Such are the ideas generally associated with Vedic research even today. We shall illustrate by means of an example. It has now become a respectable convention with all scholars who adopt the modern method for investigation into the meaning of the Vedas to extol the beauty of Vedic poetry. And there too, the hymns to Ushas, though cited before by Western scholars, are again and again quoted by them with the idea that matters of felicity bear repetition. Though there are many hymns in the Veda of poetic excellence, the hymns to Ushas are specially so. We do not dispute the statement. But the sense of the pretty hymns thus described as given by these scholars, in consonance with Sayana’s commentary in places, is not commensurate with and does not add to that adulation. On the other hand it verily esta-blishes that these poets are immature minds, delighting fast in every day happenings and at times with their face adorned with the babblings of imbeciles.

When Rishi Rahugana Gotama lauds the deity in gratitude and joyous exultation, "We have crossed over to the other shore of darkness” (RV.1.92.6), according to the line of interpretation of the Vedic scholars, the meaning is to be taken literally; by the crossing of the shore of darkness, it is not the end of ignorance that is meant but only the daily awakening, at the passing of the night, that is sung. The all-pervasive dark night, peopled with ghosts, spirits and piśācas indeed struck terror into these tapasvins celebrated as Rishis. And there is another curiosity. Sitting down for the sacrifice, the Rishis pray for sunrise again when the sun has already arisen! Verily they believed that the sun rose and ascended the skies, by the strength of their prayers and the potency of the Vedic chanting. Such an ignorant belief, unthinkable even among the common folk, may perhaps be conceded; but could it be that they did not know that dawn follows the passing of the night, it grows into the day and with end of the day there follows the night? It is hardly possible to say they did not especially in the face of such Riks as: “The actions of the Gods undeviating”. “It (dawn) follows well the path of the Truth” (1.124.2,3). Such are the incoherent prattles that would be imputed to the seers of the Riks if we were to follow modern Indian Vedic scholars, trained in the Western traditions of scholarship, in their mode of understanding the Mantras.

However, if we look into the Vedas with discrimination and deliberative thought keeping in mind the ancient tradition, that has come down the ages, regarding the Mantras of the Veda and great Rishis, seers of the Riks, the mist (lit. delusion) would instantly clear; it would be manifest that the Vedic hymns are not babbling poetry of childish fancy and that the seers of the Mantras are poets who hear the truth, satyaśrutaḥ. If we follow the line shown by Sri Aurobindo, there is surely a double advantage. The incongruent prattle foisted on the Mantras vanishes. And difficulties and ambiguities in many of the Mantras are resolved. This is a negative gain. And positively it is this: we gain in knowledge of the spiritual eminence of the Seers, the mystic vision embedded in the hymns, the true character of the Gods. Certain unintelligible portions found in the Upanishads become clear. And lastly, we find justification for the authoritative statements made in the respective texts that the Vedas are the root of the Puranas, historical legends, Tantras and other scriptures and the elaboration of the substance of the Vedas their main function. Thus the conclusions regarding the Vedas, following from the viewpoint of Westernscholars, vitiated by false conjectures and without basis are to be rightly rejected. The argument that Sri Aurobindo’s mystic interpretation of the Vedas cannot be allowed to stand as it is opposed to the conclusions of lifelong scholars of Vedic study has now been met.

Then we shall consider and answer the second objection. It is held that the esoteric interpretation is to be rejected as it is against the traditional interpretation of Sayana. Is it that Sayana’s com-mentary on the Mantras starts on the basis of some tradition handed down from beginningless time? Or is it that Sayana himself, by means of his commentary on the Vedas, commenced a new or a renovated tradition for the study of the Mantras? The question arises from the mention of the term tradition. For this commentator maintains in his exegesis of the Mantras, mostly the tradition which proclaims the ritualistic purpose of the Vedas. At times he upholds the Puranic, Aitihäsik, Vedantic or other Sastraic tradition. It is not to be denied that Sayana girded up his loins to establish the ritualistic purpose of the Vedas, through his commentary on the Mantras. Hence wherever there is a total absence of ritualistic association and there is evident only the laudation of Jnāna, Know-ledge, Mokşa, Liberation, and the Akşara, Immutable, he sees its inutility to the ritualists and proceeds to explain accordingly. Wherever any hymn is quoted by Yaska and other earlier authors in praise of Jnāna, being unable to get over it, Sayana comments on such Mantras pointing to the absence of inherent flavour (for purposes of ritual) in such Mantras without plain and clear meaning; but where the meaning of words is plain (and clear) he explains, helplessly, in the spiritual context and escapes (from the situation) somehow discharging his obligation (as commentator). We shall illustrate this by taking up an example of the teacher Jaimini’s Sutras: “The purpose of the Veda being ritualistic, words which do not have that significance are useless.” This clearly lays down that the only purpose of the Vedas — known by the hallowed term Scripture — is that of Ritual; those that do not pertain to that (ritualistic action) are worthless. The Sutrakaras (authors of the aphorisms) prescribe application in rituals even for Mantras famous for their eulogy of Jnāna, Mokșa and the Akşara. This is laid down the application in ritual) of the famous hymn asya vāmasya of Diaghatamas (RV.I.164): "In the Mahavrata rite in the hymn of praise to the All-Gods, the recitation of nivid Mantras has two parts. There the 41 Riks beginning with asya vāmasya form the first part.” In the pre-eminently ritualistic commentary of Sayana on the first Rik of this hymn we find at the close the following lines: “Thus it is possible to interpret in the spiritual sense in other places also. Yet we do not write of it for want of inherent flavour and fear of swelling the volume. Wherever the spiritual meaning is clear e.g. in the Rik dvā suparņā, we shall mention it. This Mantra is commented upon by Yaska (Nirukta 4.26).” The spiritual import of the Rik asya vāmasya is, of course, not obviously clear, but Riks like dvā suparņā, are perforce explained in the spiritual sense, as there is no other way. That such a spiritual meaning does not add to the coherence (lit. innate essence) of Riks which are to be commented upon in the ritualistic sense alone, is clearly Sayana’s opinion. In such places he explains drawing upon the Vedantic tradition -- and that too of a section of the Adwaitins, -- at times upon the Puranic legends and on occasions historical incidents. Thus with all his labour, Sayana does not wholly hold himself to the position of the ritualistic Vedist. He comments from the view-point of the historical tradition, unmindful of the inconsistencies in his own statements, not showing or perhaps not mindful of its contradiction to the doctrine of the Purva Mimamsa. How is it possible — in the face of the Sutras of Jaimini purporting to establish the eternality of the letters of the Vedic Mantra — to lean on the support of historical occurrences (apparent in the Vedas) without resorting to the figurative or secondary sense ? But Sayana elucidates their purport accepting narratives of the royal sages (or kings and Rishis), battles and other historical happenings in the Mantras. The Riks of the well-known hymn of the curse and counter-curse of Vishwamitra-cum-Vasishtha are an instance to the point. Or from hundreds of instances we shall quote just one line of Sayana’s commentary following the sthālipulākanyāya 21 Commenting on the Rik, “We sons of Rahugana have uttered the word of sweetness to Agni: we offer to him our obeisances with radiant prayers” (1.78.5), Sayana says: “The Rishi concludes his laudation by means of this Rik; we Gotamas, sons of Rahugana etc.” Here the doctrine of the non-human origin of the Vedas is certainly struck at the roots. And this very commentator has given us a commentary expounding the meaning of the Veda accepting the position of the exponents of the Purva Mimamsa doctrine who hold fast to the eternality of the Vedas!

Let us then examine what is the tradition that Sayana stands upon. It is indeed a jumble of traditions. There is no doubt that the ritualistic tradition was there current for a long time before Sayana himself. But there is no shadow of doubt that there were other very ancient traditions regarding the interpretations of the Veda.

Yaska has referred to a number of viewpoints e.g. naturalistic interpreters, those that sought knowledge as related to the Gods, advocates of spiritual knowledge, historians, ritualists, etymologists and others. We learn from the Nirukta of Yaska that knowledge of three kinds is obtained from the Vedas viz. knowledge of sacrifice, of Gods and the spiritual knowledge. Yaska holds that the meaning of the Mantras is not ritualistic alone. We shall establish this (point) later on with due authority. This much is to be noted here. It cannot be gainsaid that the Veda Bhashya of Sayana has been written definitely after looking into works like the Nirukta and the Brihad Devata. Though this commentator refers to the Niruktakara (Yaska), he does not note, does not make mention of Yaska’s observation that the secret of the Mantra or that of the deities does not reveal itself to one who is devoid of spiritual austerities; acceptance (and mentioning) of such statement is not necessary for the ritualistic commentary — this is clear. Thus Sayana’s Veda Bhashya eclipsed the ancient tradition that the Veda is the treasure con-taining the secrets of the Gods and spiritual truths etc. Sayana Bhashya itself gave rise to the new tradition (that all the Riks pertain to sacrifice and ritual); and this has resulted in the universal belief that all Riks are meant for ritual action. Though the ritualistic theory regarding the Mantras arose from the Brahmanas, ancient scholars were well aware that there had been for long the spiritual and mystic interpretation of the Mantras. That is how the tradition of sanctity, potency, adoration etc. of the Mantra spoken of as a Person the Veda Puruşa came to be established among the cultured classes of ancient India, in the Puranas and histories, in the writings of great souls who had realised the higher Truth. None before Sayana has given a complete commentary on the Vedas. No such writing is heard of, at any rate none is found. Even if there was any written, it is found only in parts; or perhaps it was done only in part. Sayana justified (lit. supported) the ritualistic purpose (tradition) of the Vedas by laying out his commentary, with gigantic labour, on all the four Samhitas of the Vedas along with their Brahmanas and Aranyakas. No wonder, hence, his commentary on the four Vedas has a compelling influence over the entire world of scholars. But, for the exponent of the opposite view to say that this tradition of Sayana is the only ancient tradition for the inter-pretation of the Veda, is to belie facts. This is enough (for the second objection).

And last, we come to the third and puerile objection viz. the esoteric theory of the Veda is to be rejected as it is opposed to the doctrine of the Mimamsakas — the standard authority on the study of the Vedas. We have set out to study the purport of the hymns of the Rig Veda Samhita; hence our subject is enqniry into the meaning of the Mantras, not of the passages of Brahmanas where specialists in the Purva Mimamsa may well be the authority. It is because the explanations of the Mantras given in the Brahmanas are helpful for ritual that Sayana first commented upon the Brahmanas and then commenced to explain the Mantras accordingly. He observes at the beginning of the Bhashya: Because of its usefulness in commenting upon the Mantras, we have first commented upon the Brahmana along with the Aranyaka section; so that the Samhita consisting of the Mantras can be explained then and there with citations from the Brahmanas.” Now the statement is easily understandable that our conclusion is opposed to the Sayanic tradition. But nowhere do we hear that the Mimamsakas wrote commentaries on the Mantra Samhita, nor is there any need for it. Taking passages from the Brahmanas and the apposite ones from the Smritis, the Mimamsakas have hewn excellent path for determining the meaning of these passages. Their main object is study of Dharma, not enquiry into the meaning of the Mantras. That is why the Veda Samhita has not been commented upon or sought to be so done, by any of the teachers of the Purva Mimamsa. Jaimini, the author of the Mimamsa Sutras, has not made any study of the interpretation of the Mantras, nor has Shabaraswami his commentator nor Bhatta Kumarila, not to speak of later Mimamsakas who have not paid thought to it. We leave this at that here since we shall have occasion later to say something about the doctrine of Mimamsakas. Suffice it to say that the regard or competency of the Mimamsakas (whose field is to enquire into Dharma) for entry into the study of the Mantras is akin to hare’s horn22 (corresponding to mare’s nest). This answers to the last objection, ill-conceived, though attractive.

Before proceeding to present our thesis we would draw attention to the merits and demertis of Sayana’s Bhashya and to the fact that to students of the Vedas Sayana is not merely very useful but indispensable. Sayana commented upon the Vedas drawing upon the cream churned out from the scholarship of various groups of erudites from many countries of the Indian continent, for getting at the essence of the Vedic import. Undoubtedly this has been of great service to all students of the Vedic knowledge in subsequent times. Many are the invaluable topics dealt with in the course of this commentary on the Mantras of the Samhitas along with their Pada Pātha — citations from ancient texts of authority, various traditional accounts, lexicons, meaning of the words and Mantras of the hymns (severally and collectively), at times the possibility of other meaning, metre, grammar, accent, and etymological derivation of the words of the Mantras. It is because all these are happily there in the Bhashya of Sayana that any enquiry into its import, its merits and defects is at all possible. Sayana’s Bhashya itself could not have been there, were it not for the fact that the Samhitas along with the Pada Pāțha were committed to memory and thus preserved by votaries of the Vedic learning and chanting, even though they may have been ignorant of its import. Even so, but for the Bhashya of Sayana our entire Vedic literature would have been an impenetrable mass of darkness and even the scrutiny of the inner meaning of the Vedas hardly possible. Hence, suffice it to say that its superb usefulness deserves to be admired with gratitude for its general helpfulness in considering the Mantras, Pada Pāțha, derivations of word-forms, syntax of sentences. But the line adopted in this commentary set to establish firmly the supremacy of sacrificial rites, for explaining, from the ritualistic standpoint, Mantras whose secret sense is apparent, or veiled, is highly vulnerable, not straight, unnecessary even for its own purpose. This will be clear now and again in the course of our consideration of the meaning of the Mantras. Even this is a negligible blemish compared with the achievement of Sayana’s herculean labour23 (lit. Bhagiratha’s effort) in giving the import of the Veda Mantras. And what is the nature of that import? It is that all the Mantras are primarily meant to be used in ritual; that is to say, it is their sub-servience to ritual, therefore the supremacy of ritual that is established. And the result? The ancient tradition regarding the Vedas is false, the very basis of the sanctity of the Veda is uprooted, and the universal faith in the Vedas as the repository of many truths, spiritual austerities and mystical knowledge, about the character and realisation of Gods is rendered usless. All the message (lit. story or account) proclaimed by the Nigamas (Vedas), Agamas (Tantra), Puranas and legendary history that the most mystic and divine knowledge and occult disciplines are rooted in the Veda becomes a colossal myth (lit. fanciful song). What promotes spiritual welfare not to be looked for here; that is to be found in the Upanishads known as the Vedanta. In the Veda proper consisting of Mantras, it is the aid to ritual that is to be noted, by which is attained the fruit of various kinds of wealth, strength, progeny, animals, cows and horses and others, nourishment, contentment, gold, servants, victory, elimination of the enemy and capture of his treasure, destruction of rivals that cavil, and the like. And if modern scholars, on the strength of the commentary of Mantras by Sayana, hold that the sacrifice yielding such fruits is laid down in the Vedas and proceed to adjudge (lit. decide) the ancient Rishis to be primitive unrefined men, how can it be said to be unfair? Sayana concedes, to a limited extent, the presence of spiritual truth in the Mantras, he has reverence for the great sages, positive belief in the existence of deities and in the sacredness and potency of the Mantras. Even though this is a fact, yet, the Western scholars — themselves outside the pale of the Vedic creed — and their loyal disciples among modern Indians show magnanimity in forgiving Sayana, the commentator, for the grievous error that his intelli-gence was characteristically led by trust in (the ideas or words of) others aforesaid (Yaska etc.); for after all he shared the superstitious beliefs of his age. And this is no wonder. For Sayana in giving a complete commentary on the Vedas has rendered a great service. They have drawn from it as much material as they would for their own conjectural theories. However, some of the ancients maintain, without any embarrassment, thought or hesitation (fear) that the heart of the message (import of the Vedas contained in that vast collection of more than a thousand hymns and ten thousand Mantras is simply sacrificial ritual culminating in the fruit of happiness, enjoyment, and wealth, intense life of the senses (lit. animal life), egoistic and selfish propulsion and advancement (lit. desire and nourishment). Such being their view, the doctrine of the Purva Mimamsa, it is no wonder that its ignorant adherents are censured in the Bhagavad-Gita even though it proclaims the glory of the supremacy of the Veda:

It is I who am to be known by all the Vedas,

I who am the creator of the Vedanta and myself the knower of the Vedas.

Now we will state our position in brief. The subject of our enquiry here is the Rig Veda. The place of other Vedas is considered elsewhere. The Mantras have a secret meaning. And it is this alone that is the inner and supreme meaning of the Vedic hymns and the Vedic sacrifice. It follows that the meaning given by Sayana is accepted by us as the exoteric sense. It may be that his explanation of a term, or a line or Rik is not useful even for his own purpose nor necessary; it may also be that the meanings forced out in some places are incoherent. We shall point out such instances as occasion arises. But all this we would ignore. Even though, in details, there are inconsistencies in the meanings given, we accept his interpretation on the whole as giving the exoteric side of the Vedic worship and deities etc. in accordance with it. The inner meaning of the Mantras is hidden while the outer sense stands as its cloak. The age of the seers of the Mantras is far anterior to that of the Brahmanas along with the Aranyakas. The Rig Veda is a treasury that contains secrets of these knowers of mystic knowledge, concealed in veiled speech. And it is only the collection of these hymns of Riks that we term the Rig Veda Samhita. Again it must be noted that these hymns are not poetical compositions of the kind familiar to us. On the other hand, these Riks bear the ages-old designation mantra-perceptions vouchsafed in revelation and inspiration to the Rishis who had direct perception of Dharma. The Mantras are reputed to be fruitful, endowed with power because of the splendid source of their coming to light (lit. glory of their manifestation) as word and meaning and because of the characteristic vibration in (their) resonance. We accept what the teachers of old have held viz. that the Mantra is an uncommon means for the seer of the Mantra and for others, to attain the purposes of life. We said earlier that the meaning of these Mantras is twofold. The inner which is the psychological or spiritual, is in reality the true meaning. This secret was known to the Rishis and to their disciples who were initiated by the great Rishis and instructed in the inner sacrifice through disciplines of inner purification etc. Consecrating all of themselves to the Gods and receiving their gifts in return, by their progression into the summits of the spirit they obtained the riches (of knowledge) that pertain to the worlds and those that relate to the Gods.

The other meaning, gross and external, is for the sake of common men, useful in ceremonial sacrifices performed to propitiate the Gods. Thus the word used in the Mantras has a double meaning. And this device was a necessity for preserving the secret knowledge etc. in the Veda from the unfit. The secret meaning was guarded under veil in order to save the unripe, raw and common men from dangers of ignorance or misuse. How else, indeed, can the immature, weak and common people without spiritual endeavour be fit for the life of the soul and for the journey of bodily life dedicated to the Gods ?

It must be, however, noted that though the use of words with double meaning was deliberate it was effortless and natural. It is no contradiction to say that this deliberate arrangement of the use of words was achieved naturally and without effort. There need be no doubt in this regard. Here let us look into the form, origin and growth of language of primeval times. Even though according to Patanjali, the author of Mahabhashya, words are taken to have a fourfold currency and consequently the word is understood to refer to the jāti, class, kriyā, action, guna, quality and dravya, substance or only jāti, class, yet it should be noted that human speech in the ancient times was not arbitrarily conventional in driving home the meaning. Some hold that this convention of a particular fixed relation between the word and its meaning is the will of God. This view says in effect: of this word this alone is the fixed meaning. That the relation between word and meaning is fixed is a fact of everyday experience, universally accepted and hence to be admitted; still it cannot be said that the elders or their leaders together decided that such shall be the meaning of such a word and the convention thus made has come down the ages. Whether the ages-old convention is taken as the will of God or the decision of elders, the unreasonableness is obvious either way, as sanketa, relation between word and meaning cannot be a matter of unbridled and arbitrary choice. It is only by usage that the convention of fixed relation of word-meaning gets established. The word go, cow, signifies by convention, the object in the form of the lap, tail, hoof, hump and horn. Nobody has made any such rule that the word go must be used in this particular sense -- a rule according to which it would be possible to say, the convention is established. There could be no objection whatever to the statement that convention is established by usage. It is a legitimate question to ask; how did words come to be established by usage in particular senses? Rūdhi means constant and settled usage. When the trodden track comes to be known by sheer habit, a fixity of relation must be understood to be the same as abundance of usage.

How then does a fixed particular use get currency and what is the basis of this fixed use? The answer to this question depends on a knowledge of the original nature of human speech (lit. words). Human speech is the expression of nervous response to the experience of objects of outward senses as well as of subtle (inner) senses through the friction (lit. churning) generated by the contact of the fire-principle and vital air in the body; this speech is received by the auditory organ giving rise to an understanding of the meaning. In the beginning, in the olden times, human speech was not conventional. Originally human speech was simply the vibratory response of the nervous being, articulating itself in vocal sound, to the perceptual and objective experiences in the case of uncultivated men and to the inner, intimate vision, audition and other experiences in that of the great sages. Whenever any experience is undergone, be it internal or external, the receiving intelligence — in the heart, in the case of refined men, in the case of the unregenerate, of purely nervous being, induces a responsive manifestation which gets formulated in letters like a ă etc. constituting human speech. Unlike in the later ages, there was no intellectual convention in those early ages that such a word has such a meaning. Like the sixfold modification 24 of a creature in coming to birth, living etc. which is a fact of universal acceptance, the convention arising from a definite word-sense relation gets established in the course of the birth and growth etc. of language. Linguistic scholars would easily follow this subtle reasoning. We shall state here in brief relevant portions of what we have said elsewhere while expounding the doctrine of Sphota. In the Vedic age the word was full of vital vigour and in gaining currency conveyed its characteristic class, quality etc., yet all the while retaining its root meaning. The many words having the same meaning, and one word having several meanings depending on the context of the use of the word are accomplished facts because of the derivative significance of words. Hence they speak of the multi-significance of roots. Practical convenience is secured when the meaning of words is restricted by reference to ’conjunction, disjunction, association, opposition, context etc’.25 as laid down in the regulating laws of Rhetoric — a dictum whose origin is to be traced to the Veda. Even though a certain convention came to apply to Vedic words by reason of their usage, still their derivative significance was not only not suppressed, but itself has stood as life-principle of the word. Again, while there are hundreds of roots in the sense of movement, in fact each signifies its characteristic quality (of movement). For instance, in current Sanskrit usage we say: "Feed the Brahmin, graze the cow”, and do not say indiscriminately “Graze the Brahmin, feed the cow”, under the plea that both car and bhuj, graze and feed, have the same root-significance. There is thus a particularity in the use of words. It is true that the subtlety of difference among Vedic words having the ame root-significance is almost lost. We have to dis-cover such terms by a careful examination of many places (where they occur) i.e. by a diligent extensive enquiry, as much as we could get them. The element of secret lies in the fact that Vedic words are primarily derivative though they have acquired a certain conventional sense which makes (linguistic) transaction easy. Though terms like Agni, Indra indicate particular Gods by convention, they are used in many places as adjectives to denote their qualities. Expressions like angirastama, most Angiras, indratama most Indra, denote the derivative nature of words. Even those which are appellative by convention, indicate qualitative speciality. And it is such a state in the development) of Vedic language that led in later ages to the profusion of double-entendre in Sanskrit language. Generally words in the Veda carry, effortlessly, double or multifold meaning. But in Sanskrit language words in pun are used, as a rule, with deliberateness. Thus it must be understood that it was the original state of the language of the Rik Samhita that was favourable to the double interpretation of the Riks.

Such is the mode of the language of Riks used by the Rishis by which it was found possible to convey the inner as well as the outer meaning of the Mantras. As the gross and external sense denotes material objects (lit. objects in Nature), the inner and subtle meaning points to the inner objects, psychological, spiritual and those related to the secret elements in the higher Nature (i.e. Nature in her higher and sublime parts). We recall what we mentioned earlier that to the ancients the entire outer Existence was symbolic of the inner Existence. The outer universe was regarded with this symbolic mentality not by the Vedic Rishis alone, but elsewhere also on earth wherever human society was in its early beginnings. If we consider (this question) on the strength of researches into the antiquity (of human groups and the views of investigators into the prehistoric past) then that would make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt. Compared to the scientific civilisation of today, the state of these early peoples might well be immature and primitive; they may have been in a rudimentary state of development; they may or they may not have attained prosperity in dealings commercial or economic, but among them all there is one thing we note: in that early stage of human society the spiritual preoccupation is deep; there is a matchless strength of imagination in socio-religious convention or law; and in matters pertaining to Gods and their functionings there is seen an untutored innate awakening (an intuitive grasp) or an inner feeling companioned by a wide imagination. When, with the passage of time, the logical intellect, deliberation and the labouring of the intelligence come to the front in man, then begins the intellectual and individualistic age; then begins the retreat (lit. retirement) of the Symbolic age dominated by inner feeling and intuitive imagination. And this first or primitive age that withdrew is what we call the Symbolic age, where the entire external universe, individually and collectively, was regarded as symbolic of the inner universe. Here the term sanketa is not used in the usual śāstraic sense of vrti, the power of words, or in the sense of God’s will ordaining the actual relation of word and meaning. It is used in the common popular sense current in life, in the sense of the relation between indication and the indicated, a relation that is generally cognised by a secondary sense, gauņi vrtti. Just as when the ancients say ’life is ghee’, they mean that ghee is nourishing, similarly horses etc. indicate strength and the life. That will become clear in our elucidation of symbolic significance. Thus when it is said that to the ancients all objects, the whole of the world their customs, their social conduct and communal festivals) were symbols, what is meant is this: for every object that stands without in gross form there is a corresponding inner truth; and it is of this latter that the external gross form is called the sanketa, symbol. The symbolic significance, however, is largely arrived at by dint of the derivative significance of the Vedic words - at times through figurative speech and on occasions through the specific imagery got (lit. known from a close observation of the manner of the Deity’s vision by the Rishis (Mantra-poets) in the Mantras. We shall have occasion to deal with the system of symbolism in the forthcoming second section in more detail.

It has been stated that all that is external is symbolic of the internal. Therefore the outer sacrifice also becomes the symbol of the inner sacrifice. We shall first state the symbolic significance of the sacrifice and then enquire into the nature of the many worlds, the character and functions of the Gods etc. according to the established system of symbolism. The main features of the Sacrifice are four: the Yajamana, Sacrificer, Ritviks, the officiating priests, the offering of wealth and the fruits of the sacrifice. Of these, the Yajamana is the individual living soul with personality engaged in the sacrifice. The Ritviks carry out the sacrificial functions in the right place at the right time and help the Yajamana throughout from the beginning to the end of the sacrifice. The meaning of its component parts is apt signifying as it does the sacrificers (yaşțāraḥ means worshippers also) who worship, yaj, in due season, ṛtu. There are four orders or groups of these Ritviks in the Soma Yaga (wor-ship) viz. Hotr, Adhvaryu, Udgatr, and Brahma. Each of these groups has four Ritviks and hence they all total up sixteen. As there is no use here for this detail regarding them (the officiating priests) we shall proceed to elucidate the function of the main Ritviks, in the inner sense by mentioning the significance of the terms (lit. word-meaning) applied to them. The Hotr group is the first of the four. The Hota recites the Riks. The summoning of the Gods by means of the Riks is accomplished by him. Hence the Hota is the same as Summoner, āhvātā. By uttering the Riks which manifest the divine Word, he brings to proximity the presence of the Gods. The import is clear in the inner sacrifice. Such a Hota (summoner) is no human priest, but a Divine (priest). The Brahmanas consider the Divine Being himself to be the real priest, purohita, placed in front. The Yajnikas speak of the three worlds, Earth, Sky and Heaven, as the supporters in front, and of Agni, Vayu and Aditya as the Purohitas (priests) placed in front. So do the followers of Aitareya school hold: “He who knows the three Purohitas and three Purodhās (those who are placed and those who place in front), that Brahmana is the Purohita." (A.Br.8.27). The purport being that only he who realises that the function of the Purohita is really of the Gods, is fit to be a Purohita. Incidentally this serves also just to illustrate the fact that such profound truths are scattered here and there in ritualistic texts like the Brahmanas; that is why Agni is lauded as ’the divine Ritvik, Hota in the front’ in the first Rik of the Rig Veda of which Madhuchchhandas is the Seer. And it is this Agni who is sung hundreds of times in the Veda as the Messenger of the Gods, the Immortal in the mortals.

The second is the Adhvaryu, taking his stand on the Yajurveda. He sees to the performance of the Yajna by means of the Yajus, leads the other Ritviks in accordance with the Manual of Yajna and it is on him, the active and chief functionary, that the entire performance of sacrifice rests. He too is God, Matarishwan — Vayu who as the life-breath of the world makes all activities possible. The inner significance is easy to follow. It bears on the Life-God. Vayu, the Adhvaryu, executes in the inner sacrifice all action favourable to the activity of the Gods. Though the word adhvara has come to mean sacrifice, Yajna, yet in the Veda following the meaning of its component parts - adhvānam rāti, gives the path --- adhvara, is described as journey or pilgrimage. And the deligent Adhvaryu is he who desires or takes to such an adhvara, journey. Among all the Gods in the form of Ritviks, it is he who carries out all the action in the journey - signified by the term Adhvara.

The Udgata chants the Saman. He delights the Gods by chanting the Saman. In the inner sense, he is God Aditya who reverebrates with his chant of music by the Udgitha (lit. song lofty) pleasing to all the Gods, averts the many dangers, harms and lapses from the Yajamana, makes him self-restored and leads him on to Immortality, Truth, Ananda. The last is Brahma. He is the witness of the entire sacrificial ceremony, gives his sanction for the commencement of the ritual, gives the word of assent, OM (O yes) at the appropriate moment and place, moves not from his seat and always silent he guards the sacrifice, to the very end of its ceremony, against every sin of omission or commission, of deficiency or excess of Mantra and action in the ritual. Such in brief is the function of the Ritvik Brahma. The inner sense is obvious; the symbolic meaning is unveiled and clear. He is the God of the Mantras and in the Veda the Mantra is known as Brahma. Hence Brahmanaspati is the deity presiding over the Mantra. The causal material of all metrical Mantra is praṇava, known by the syllable OM, the word of assent.

That manifests the original Word which is the source of all Mantra. So it is Brahmanaspati, the deity presiding over the Mantras of all Deities which depend upon the aforesaid Pranava, that sanctions in supreme silence the inner Yajna of the Yajamana by a single syllable, at the beginning, at the end, all throughout.

Now the substances (of offerings) also are to be understood as symbolic. Just as the derivation of the names of Ritviks gives us their symbolic meaning of Gods etc. in the inner Yajna, so also substances that are offered to the Gods in the ritual, even things like ghee belonging to the Yajamana are symbolic and they are to be so grasped following the meaning of the component parts of the terms. The term go means both cow and ray. Hence gavya, yield of the cow, stands for brilliant light indicating knowledge. Gavya, ghṛta, clarified butter, havis, offering and the like are thus to be taken as offerings to the Gods which intimately belong to the Yajamana. Ghrta, clarified butter, gharma, heat, ghrni, ray - all these terms are derived from common roots meaning heat, brilliance. Ghịta is the brilliance of an inner grace. The verb juhoti signifies both giving and eating. What is given by the Yajamana to the Gods and eaten by Agni, the mouth of the Gods, the first-born, Immortal among the mortals, that is havis, offering, that is havaḥ, invocation. The other substances offered to the Gods are also outwardly sym-bolic of knowledge, action, happiness and enjoyment along with their means acquired by the Yajamana.

Similarly fruits (of the offering) also are to be known in their symbolic sense. Cows and horses are constantly hymned as fruits of sacrifice. The cow symbolises Illumination in the form of Light and the horse, a designation of Strength (symbolises) the capacity or power of active Force. There are other Vedic terms used in the symbolic sense. The illustrations we have given are enough to bring home that the entire Yajna, with all its limbs, is to be under-stood in the symbolic sense. And be it noted, this is supported by the derivative significance of words of the Vedic hymns. There are some other words which apparently are only psychological terms. The gross external meaning hardly fits in with the ritualistic interpretation of the Mantras in many places. But the words are consistently applicable throughout in their esoteric sense, as we shall show further on.

This in brief is the Vedic symbolism concerning the Yajna. We shall proceed to the system of the worlds in the symbolism. First there are the worlds denoted by the three vyāhịtis, Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ and Suvaḥ. Bhūḥ is the earth, Bhuvaḥ is the mid-region (antariksa) and Suvaḥ, otherwise called Svarga, is the heaven (dyauḥ). Beyond that is regarded the fourth vyāhrti -- the vast world of Light, Mahas. And still higher there are three vyährtis, Jana, Tapas, and Satya signifying the three uncreate worlds. Though the Veda refers to the seven-principles of Existence or whatever Substance exists, the seven principles of Cosmic order, the sevenfold Existence, Consciousness, Force or Consciousness-Force, worlds or guardians of the worlds, the seven hills, seven rivers, seven sisters, seven rays and seven Rishis, still it constantly speaks of the first three worlds denoted by the triple vyāhrti, Bhūḥ etc., and their Gods. And that is so because the three worlds, earth etc., are what concern us primarily, nearer to us relatively speaking, in view of the higher worlds. And this triple world is termed as the aparārdha, lower half. That is why more Riks are devoted to Agni who is the nearest and who presides over the Earth. And most Riks laud Indra the Lord of all the Gods of this triple world. Beyond these worlds and their Gods, effulgent in the supreme parardha, upper half, is the Surya, Sun - celebrated in the Vedas as the One God of all the Gods and of all the worlds; to attain him is all tapas (austerity) undertaken, all sacrifice offered. Yet Riks devoted to such a God, Lord Savitr, are but few in number. It is only the Gods of our triple world that are the main hosts in the Sacrifice.

This division of the triple world, the Earth, the Mid-region and the Heaven, comes down from the perception of the Rishis. And this outer triple world, it must be noted, is symbolic of its corresponding inner triple. This world — Bhūḥ earth, of the physical senses, is the symbol of the plane of the gross physical consciousness in the waking state known as annamaya. Dyauḥ, Heaven, is the symbol of the consciousness where is dominant the Pure Mind with an existence of its own independent of the outer world. In between the aforesaid) Heaven and Earth, the mid-region antarikșa called Bhuvaḥ symbolises Prāņa, the principle of Life-force pregnant with consciousness linking the physical with the mental Consciousness (i.e. Matter and Mind, Earth and Heaven). Thus the three worlds, denoted by the triple vyāhrti of Bhūḥ, Bhuvaḥ and Suvaḥ, are the manifestations of the principles of matter, life and mind in the macrocosm and the microcosm. Such in brief is the statement in essence of the symbolism of the world-order.

Now about the Gods. The many kinds of play of forces observed in Nature, whether within ourselves or without in the Cosmos executing the functions like creation etc. are all the workings of the Gods. In other words the Gods are special Powers in creation. On the exoteric side, Indra is the God of rain, his companions Maruts, the storm-gods of the Wind, Surya the solar orb, Ushas the Dawn and Agni the third element of heat and light among the five elements. So runs the common belief. There are other Gods also whose forms are spoken of though they are dubious, for instance, the identification of Mitra and Varuna as Day and Night. But on the esoteric side, the functions of these Gods which are spiritual in character e.g. special urge, nourishment, enlightenment etc. can be followed from the derivations of their appellations. Also when we examine the many legends narrated then and there in the Hymns in their figurative and allegorical and secondary meaning, their real nature and functions will become clear to us. That all the Gods are names of the one Supreme God, is not open to dispute. But they are not mere names, they are powers and personalities of the Supreme God. To the common ignorant mind Agni may mean simply the elemental fire, the physical substance of light and heat in nature. Or, he is the sacrificial fire, a superhuman personage, one of the benefactors of the Yajamana, in whose favour lie the objects of enjoyment like cows, horses, progeny, food, fame, women, gold and the rest. But to the initiate of the inner sacrifice, aware of the esoteric sense, the name Agni carries with it the derivative significance of brilliance and force. He is the first among the Gods to be awakened in us. His personality is known to us from the hymns. He is the purohita, who staying in front leads us ahead. He is the messenger of the Gods going ahead along the path, by him the esoteric sense, the name Agni carries with it the derivative significance of brilliance and force. He is the first among the Gods to be awakened in us. His personality is known to us from the hymns. He is the purohita, who staying in front leads us ahead. He is the messenger of the Gods going ahead along the path, by him we can arrive at the Gods in their respective stations. He is the face of the Gods; and it is the face that is seen first: the other deities, limbs of the supreme One, stand behind. Hence it is through Agni that the ’all-gods’ are reached. He is the mouth of the Gods and the Gods accept all our offerings through this mouth. He is the seeing Divine Will in the heart. He stands there as the Intelligence with resolute Will (characterised by certitude). Lodged in the cave of the heart, he is the direct delegate of all the Gods. When awakened from sleep, the Flame shoots upwards, he takes upon himself all the burden of whatever is to be done by the Yajamana and reaches to the Gods their respective shares of all that is offered to them. This is to be noted: all that is - macrocosmic or microcosmic - is under the control of the Gods, belongs to the Gods. All that exists in us, separately and intermingled — Mind, Life, Matter (body) including any combination of their elements with their causal material provided by the Cosmos and included in it, are under the control of the Gods who are the Cosmic Powers, the Functionaries. Hence all that is offered by the Yajamana — know-ledge, skill in works, means of enjoyment etc. — is really offered to the Gods, as belonging to them, for no part whatever belongs in fact to the Yajamana, the whole universe itself being the property of the Gods. Thus in the end the Yajamana offers his own self. The Brahmanas also speak of the Yajamana, at times, as the yūpa, sacrificial post. Even the animal to be sacrificed is referred to as substitute for the Yajamana. There are passages to be found in the Brahmanas which state the Yajamana redeems his own self by the sacrifice to all the Gods. Thus say the Aitareyins: "The Yajamana is the yūpa. He is the stone or rock. Agni is the womb of the Gods. Born of the offerings made through Agni, the womb of the Gods, the Yajamana with body of gold rises upwards to the world of Heaven.” (Ait.Br. 2.6.3) The Kaushitakins also say: "He who sacrifices attains the mouth of Agni and Soma; sacrificing, on the fasting day, the animal for Agni and Soma, he redeems his self. Thus redeeming himself, free from obligation, he carries on the sacrifice.” (10.3) Similarly reads the Aitareya Brahmana: “He who sacrifices, offers himself to all the Gods; Agni is all the Gods.” (2.6.3)

Such is Agni, the messenger of all the Gods, the mouth through which they partake of their shares in the offerings at the Sacrifice. At first, finding his birth in the Yajamana and placed in the van-guard of the sacrifice — the leader, the eternal Son (Kumara) of the supreme Lord, the Flame of aspiration that rises in the heart of all creatures, he the Agni flames upward and thither leads the Yajamana. So do Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Soma, Ashvins, Maruts, Ribhus and the other Gods duly carry out their respective functions in place according to the authority vested in them of the One supreme God, Savitr; of Him these Gods are many names and are like limbs distinct and clear, personalities of the Impersonal. We shall take up some of these by way of illustration. If Agni as the Divine Will in the heart, seven-tongued, having authority over the seven stations, Immortal among the mortals, ever-moving, the Guest, starting from our earth-plane ascends the Heaven, Indra the Lord of the heaven, mighty Power of the Gods, presiding over the divine Mind, descends with his lightnings, showers the sumptuously life-giving rains, destroys, as the Hero, the Asuras like Vritra that cover and obstruct all life and light, unveils and releases truths that are covered and imprisoned and causes the realisation (lit. direct perception) of the Sun, the Lord of the Supreme Truth.

Soma is the Deity presiding over Rasa, the essential delight, the Lord of Immortal Beatitude. The Gods betake themselves to the sap of delight that is the essential element of all beings in creation the nectar by which they attain immortality. That is why the Yajamana extracts the rasa and offers it to the Gods whose food is amýta, nectar, the essence, the rasa of all his knowledge, dynamism and vitality, indicated by the term Soma. And this immortal delight known as Soma becomes the food of the Gods. The eater of the food, be it noted, is of course the Agni, the mouth of all the Gods. Thus it is said, appropriately, in the Brahmanas: “Soma is the food, Agni is the eater of the food.” The kind of passages such as “Agni is all the Gods, Soma is all the Gods”, is clear in its import when read in the esoteric sense. Similarly the other Gods. Varuna as the all-pervading Lord is disposer of complete purity and removes all sin. Mitra is the God of Felicity who by his luminous power of love and companionship brings about harmony among all impulsions and activities and experiences, inner and outer. There are other Gods and we shall consider their characteristics in appropriate places. The Gods are not only male ones; there are female goddesses also celebrated in the Veda. The Shaktis, Powers of Agni, Indra, Varuna and others are the goddesses Agnayi, Indrani, Varunani etc. Besides there are lauded some who are Female deities in their own right. For instance there is Aditi the Infinite, Creatrix of all beings, Mother of the Gods, the Prime Goddess. Also to be noted are Goddesses, Ila, Mahi, Sarasvati, Sarama and others. The distinction between the Male and Female deities lies in this that the former actuate (cause to act), impel and get the work done while the latter execute the works.

We have so far dwelt in brief on the esoteric theme of the Vedas based on Symbolism, as applied to the sacrifice, the system of the worlds and the Gods. Even this too brief a sketch, hardly more than a pointer in the direction, cannot be complete without quoting even though in substance a few cardinal passages from Sri Aurobindo, the seer of the secret of the Veda. Here are the statements (in translation from Sanskrit):

What then is the substance of the Veda as yielded by the esoteric interpretation ?

This is the first, the central teaching: the central aim, with which accords all the rest in the Veda, is the seeking after the attainment of the Truth, Immortality, Light. There is a Truth higher and deeper than the truth of the outer existence, there is a Light greater and higher than the light of human understanding which comes by extraordinary and transhuman sight, hearing. There is an Immortality towards which the human soul has to rise. We have to find our way to that and get into touch with that Truth and Immortality. We have to be new-born into the truth, to grow in it, to ascend in spirit into the World of Truth and live in it. Such a realisation alone is to pass from mortality to Immortality, to unite with the supreme God-head.

Here is the second doctrine of the Mystics: there is an inferior truth of this world because it is mixed with much falsehood. There is another higher truth, the Home of Truth — "The Truth, the Right, the Vast” as described (taught) in the Mantras. True know-ledge there is termed ṛta-cit, Truth-Consciousness. And there are other worlds. But the highest is the World of Truth and Light. This is the World celebrated as the Svar, the Great Heaven. We have to find the path therefore to this Great Heaven.

And this is the substance of the third Doctrine:

In the world-journey our life is a battle-field of the Devas and the Asuras; the Gods are the powers of Truth, Light and Immortality and the Asuras, the powers of the opposing Darkness. These are Vritra, Vala, the Panis, the Dasyus and their kings. We have to call in the aid of the Gods to destroy these powers of Darkness who cover the Light. We have to invoke the Gods in the inner sacrifice by the Voice potent with the power of the Mantra. To them offering of whatever is ours is made; receiving all that is given by them in return, we shall be enabled and competent to ascend the path of the goal.

Finally, this is the supreme secret of the Vedic Rishis: at the summit of all the mystic teaching is “The One Reality’, ’That One’ which later became the central goal of the Rishis of the Upanishads, taught with explanation in detail.

This in essence is the central thought of the Veda in its esoteric sense, presented here for the benefit of those who choose to follow the line of interpretation of Mantras methodised by Sri Aurobindo. It is an invaluable guide to those who fail to find satisfaction in Sayana’s explanations and fixing of meaning of the Mantras or to those who are not satisfied with the fanciful theories regarding the import of the Vedic Mantras and the character of its Gods pro-pounded with a good deal of conjectural mixture by western scholarship. And again, for those who desire to get at the inner meaning of hymns with Sayana’s aid itself and seek the road that leads to the riches of occult and spiritual truths covered under symbolic imagery, it is hoped this summary will prove of utmost use as a signpost for direction.