Does the Vedas contain profound philosophy?
“Do you expect to find profound philosophy in the Rigveda? Do you wish to have a cut and dry system of thought providing answers to such questions as,- “who am I”? “what is the relation between the individual soul and the highest soul”? “what becomes of me after death”?. In Rigveda you cannot meet with the solutions of such and other problems of life. These were the words of Dr.V.S.Ghate, a leading Sanskritists of that day, in his address to the students of post-graduate studies at the Bombay University in 1914.1 The philosophy of the Veda is rather a loose term, in-as much as there is no philosophy proper in the Veda, was the view of Ghate.2
According to Mimamsa, any utterance which is not a pure injunction, that is either a command or a prohibition is not to be considered as Veda. Hence according to this view, the Veda have no philosophical content whatsoever. Being pure injunctions, they have nothing to do with epistemological or metaphysical speculations or even with ethical reflection.3
Is the Veda a revealed scripture?
The Veda is considered as a revealed scripture, self-evident and self authoritative not composed by any human authors.4 According to Jaimini, the Veda consists of the Mantras (or Samhitas) and the Brahmanas.5 According to Daya Krishna, if the Brahmanas are accepted as essential parts of the Vedas or as identical with them, it would be difficult to argue for the so called apaurusheyatva of the Vedas, for none would seriously maintain that all the ritualistic instructions along with the stories that are meant to emphasize their importance are not of human origin.6
Also for the sacrificial ritual, it is not even the Brahmanas which alone is sufficient, one needs the Kalpasutras also and not just them but the whole of what is usually called the Vedanga literature with them. Thus along with the Brahmanas and the Kalpasutras we have to have the knowledge that is embodied in the texts known as the Shiksa, Vyakarna, Nirukta, Chandas and Jyotishya in order to perform the sacrificial rituals as they are supposed to be ordained by the Samhitas and the Brahmanas. But no one has ever maintained that the Vedangas are not of human origin. In fact they have always been treated as smrti and not sruti. But if this is so and if it is also true that without their knowledge on cannot perform the prescribed sacrifices correctly and if the injunction for performing these sacrifices is the essence of the Vedas, it follows necessarily that the Vedas cannot in principle be apaurusheya in character.7
The hymns of the Rigveda were composed by different generations of sages and the composition extended over several centuries.8 Does it not appear strange that while prophets of other religions had a one time revelation or revelations during their life time, here we have God revealing Mantras to different sages for several centuries?
A logical explanation of how this view gained ground is given by Ghate. According to him, oral tradition was the only means in early days of communicating learning. A teacher who learnt his lessons from his preceptor, taught the same orally to his pupil and this practice continued from time immemorial, naturally led to the belief that the Vedas were handed down in the same manner; it was difficult to believe how they could have been composed by some particular persons.9
Does the Veda convey any meaning?
Two stanzas quoted in the Nirukta composed by Yaksa censures those persons who have learnt Vedic texts by rote without understanding their meaning. It shows that by the time of Yaska (7th century B.C.), the Vedic texts had become so obscure that it entailed special training and efforts on part of learners to understand their meaning. This is why Yaska declares that it is not possible to understand the sense of Vedic mantras without a study of the Nirukta.10
The very fact of the existence of the original Nigantu on which the Nirukta is a commentary points to the conclusion that the sense of many of the Vedic words had been commonly forgotten. For what occasion was there for compiling vocabularies of Vedic words if the sense of these words was well known, asks Ghate.11
Not less than eight or nine schools of older expounders of Veda, such as the Yajnikas, the Vyakarnas, the Naidanas, the Parivrajakas, the Nairuktas, and so on are mentioned by Yaska besides more than one and a half dozen of teachers holding different views with regard to particular points in the Vedic texts. There is no reason to think that the interpretations offered by them are always without authority. “Are all of them true explanations, simply because they are traditional, questions Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya and opines that the true explanation that intended by the author or the rishi himself can only be one.12 According to P.V.Kane, since very ancient times the Veda was only committed to memory and most men learned in the Veda never cared to know its meaning. Further there was always an undercurrent of the belief that the mere memorizing of the Vedic texts conferred great sanctity on the memorizer and removed all sins. As times went on these ideas became supreme and the neglect of the meaning of the Veda has gone so far that among most modern orthodox Brahmanas there is a belief that the meaning of the Veda cannot be known and it is futile to try to find its meaning.13
Was there any logic behind Vedic sacrifices?
After the inclusion of certain Rigvedic verses in the Yajurveda, the Brahmana texts which were concerned exclusively with the exposition of Vedic sacrifices made further advance in the ritual application of Vedic mantras and attempted ritualistic interpretation of such mantras which had originally nothing to do with the ritual. The tendency to employ Vedic mantras at the performance of all sorts of rituals unconnected with them reached its culmination in the times of Kalpasutra. The authors of these ritualistic treatises invariably prescribe the recitation of a mantra at the performance of each ritual described in their works irrespective of the fact whether the mantra in question is actually concerned with that ritual or not. It is hardly necessary to point out that a large number of rituals described in the Kalpasutras are a later development and have no connection whatsoever with the Vedic mantras.14
It is a well known fact that all the sacrifices and rituals described in the later Vedic texts did not exist at the time of the composition of the Rigveda. With the gradual development of sacrifices several new rituals were evolved in later times. It was therefore a difficult task to find appropriate mantras which could be recited at the performance of such later rituals. In order to meet this exigency the ritualists arbitrarily employed the Vedic mantras with caring for their sense or context. As a consequence of the indiscriminate employment of the mantras at the performance of rituals one and the same mantra was sometimes prescribed for various opposite rituals. For instance the Rigvedic verse x.53.8 is on the one hand prescribed for the performance of a funeral rite and on the other hand the recitation of the same mantra is enjoined at the performance of a rite connected with wedding.15
Does the Veda offer a universal message?
The Veda as we know consists of the Mantras and the Brahmanas.
The word mantra may be regarded as equivalent to a ‘hymn’ or ‘religious song’. These hymns or prayers were addressed to defied powers of nature, regarded as responsible for the governance of the world.16 The purpose of invoking the gods of nature was at first mostly to gain their favour for success in life here as well as hereafter. The prayers were then naturally accompanied by simple gifts like grain and ghee.17 In the words of Ghate, ‘Give and take’ is the law applicable to the dealings between men and god in the Vedic religion.18
Later this childlike worship gave way to an organized sacrificial cult and rituals became highly elaborate.19 The Brahmana texts (which according to Ghate are the most disappointing literary productions containing pedantry and sometimes downright absurdity)20 in which this elaborate ritualism is taught altogether subordinate the early mantras to it. They do indeed utilize them, but often sundering them from their original context and sometimes even severing them from their original significance. More noteworthy than this elaboration was the change that came over the spirit with which offerings were made to the gods in this period. What prompted the performance of sacrifices was no longer the thought of prevailing upon the gods to bestow some favour or to ward off some danger; it was rather to compel or coerce them to do what the sacrificer wanted to be done.21
Thus the early Vedic religion based on ‘Give and take’ principle and ‘childlike worship’ over a period of time became highly ritualistic and was essentially a religion of priests and well to classes and hence the commoners had no role in this religion.
The study of Vedas was not allowed for the Shudras and many smrtikaras and writers of digests quote several Vedic passages on this point. Not only was the Shudra not to study the Veda, but Veda study was not to be carried on in his presence and he was not allowed to perform Vedic sacrifices.22
If the Shudras forming 85% of the Hindu population were denied the right to study, hear and perform Vedic sacrifices, what sort of message can the Vedas convey to humanity at large is the question one has to ponder.
Even in the 19th century A.D. the notion of exclusiveness followed by the followers of Vedic sect went to ridiculous extent as the below incident shows- A German scholar, Dr. Buehler (1832-1898) wanted to see a copy of the Paippalada recension of the Atharva Veda in the library of Jammu and Kashmir State. He was denied the permission as he was a mleccha and his touch would pollute the holy book. The scholar approached the Viceroy and under political pressure his wish was granted. Later the Kashmir durbar and its religious advisers, the pundits came to the conclusion that as the book had been touched by impure hands it had become impure and lost its sanctity. Therefor it was sent to another scholar, Dr.Roth in Germany who later got it published.23
State of affairs of Vedic Studies
Aditya Darshana, an ancient commentator alludes to such a lamentable state of Vedic studies and to the ritualist total apathy towards the meaning of the Vedas. He says that the priests learn the Veda, but never understand a word of it. Being contented with mere cramming of the Vedas, the priests thunder at home in vain like an autumnal cloud. They talk among themselves – what do we gain by those meanings of the Vedas and deride those scholars who are devoted to the pursuit of knowing the meaning of the Veda. Having somehow acquired a smattering of a Brahmana text, give themselves the airs of a scholar and engage themselves in performance of sacrifice.24 Paraskara takes a note of a practice prevalent in his times, according to which a student who intended to adopt the profession of a priest could be allowed to discontinue his studies after studying only the ritual texts without completing the study of the Vedas along with its six auxiliary treatises. It clearly shows that in the times of the Sutras also the ritualists knowledge of the Vedas was as shallow as in later times.25 Writing in The Viswa Bharati Quarterly in 1930, Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya regretted the condition of Vedic studies in India when compared to that of Europe. He writes – Vedic Sanskrit is taught to some extent in our universities, but real interest in it among students is rare. In most cases it is due to the fact that the teachers themselves are not serious or have no love for the subject. In regard to Sanskrit Patashalas, the condition is no better and even a really profound Pandit is often unable to understand a passage in Vedic Sanskrit. Nor does he possess the least information about Vedic literature. Thought in some Patashalas there are arrangements for the study of the Veda, they are mainly for chanting purposes, the interpretations being not properly made.26
Are Upanishads related to Vedas?
The Upanishads primarily represent a spirit different from and even hostile to ritual and embody a theory of the universe quite distinct from the one that underlies the sacrificial teachings of the Brahmanas. All the earlier Upanishads in some form of other indicate this antagonism while in a few it becomes quite explicit.27
When all the ancient lore of the Hindus was brought together and arranged, the Upanishads were appended to the Brahmanas.28 Probably this arrangement gave an impression that Upanishads were a continuation of the Brahmanas. Also as the Vedic age was followed by the Upanishads, it was given the name Vedanta, i.e., the end of the Vedas. If Upanishads were a continuation of the principles and spirit embodied in the Vedas, why would the Upanishads criticize the rituals as useless and term the Veda as lower knowledge.
As we know yajnas were the most important religious practice in the early Vedic period, but the Mundaka Upanishad (I.2.7) condemns yajnas as leaky boats. Similarly Mundaka Upanishad (I.1, 4-5) refer to the four Vedas as inferior knowledge (apara vidya) and the knowledge of the immutable Brahman as the higher vidya. In the Chandhogya Upanishad (VII.1,1-5), the four Vedas and several other branches of knowledge are called by Sanat Kumar, whom Narada approached for instructions, as mere name (nama).29
Foot Notes:
V.S.Sukthankar – Ghate’s Lectures on Rigveda, 2nd edition, Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1926, p.4
V.S.Ghate – The Vedanta, Edited by V.G.Paranjpe, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1926, p.4
Daya Krishna – Indian Philosophy - A Counter Perspective, Oxford University Press, 1991, p.9
V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.23
Ibid, p.22
Daya Krishna – Op.Cit, pp:90,91
Ibid
V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.65
Ibid, p.23
Ram Gopal – The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1983, pp:11,12
V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, p.87
Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya – Vedic Interpretation and Tradition in The Visva Bharati Quarterly, vol -8, 1930-31, part III, 1931, pp: 251,252
P.V.Kane – History of Dharmashastra, vol-2, part I, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1941, p.358
Ram Gopal, Op.Cit, p.24
Ibid, p.26
M.Hiriyanna – The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1949, pp:10,11
Ibid, pp:16,17
V.S.Ghate, Op.Cit, p.4
M.Hiriyanna – Outlines of Indian Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1949, p.35
V.S.Sukthankar – Op.Cit, pp:36,37
M.Hiriyanna – The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, pp:16,17
P.V.Kane – Op.Cit, pp: 154,156
Sampurnanand – An Introduction to Vedic Studies, (Lectures), Academy of Comparative Philosophy and Religion, Belgaum, 1969, pp:60,61
Ram Gopal, Op.Cit, p.28
Ibid, p.29
Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya – Op.Cit, p.265
M.Hiriyanna – Outlines of Indian Philosophy, p.48
Ibid, p.51
P.V.Kane – History of Dharmashastra, vol-5, part II, The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1962, p.1471