The Vedas

by Roshen Dalal

  In the Epics

  The two north Indian epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, mention the Vedic Samhitas. Some Vedic myths are also retold or recast in the Mahabharata. On the whole, the Mahabharata has a closer connection with the Vedas than the Ramayana. Names mentioned in the Vedic Samhitas are also found in the Mahabharata. Several deities known in the Vedas are referred to and some of the same myths occur, though in a different form. The Mahabharata contains references to sacrifices and to sacrificial material such as darbha grass. Some scholars also suggest that events such as the Mahabharata war represent a kind of ritual or purificatory sacrifice.

  In the Puranas

  The Puranas have numerous references to the Vedas and Vedic deities. There are elaborations of old stories and new legends on Vedic deities and personalities.

  VEDAS AND THE SIX SCHOOLS OF PHILOSOPHY

  The six orthodox systems of philosophy—Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa, and Vedanta—were developing around the same time that the early Upanishads were composed, or just a little later. All six systems uphold the sanctity of the Vedas. Though Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, and Yoga did not directly comment on them, they incorporated some aspects of the Vedic Samhitas.

  Nyaya literally means that by which the mind reaches a conclusion, and is based on logic and analysis. Nyaya’s methods of analysis have been used to understand the Vedas, and hence it has been called an upanga (auxiliary limb) of the Vedas.

  Vaisheshika deals with physics, metaphysics, logic, and methods of knowledge, and its central feature is considered its theory on the atomic structure of the universe. As with Nyaya, its methods of analysis can be used to understand the Vedas.

  Samkhya is said to have been founded by the sage Kapila. Elements of the Samkhya philosophy are found in the Upanishads and the Mahabharata and is also explained in the Bhagavad Gita. Samkhya sees the world as a result of two principles, Purusha and Prakriti. Prakriti is the active principle, the potentiality of all nature, through which the material and psychic world comes into being.

  Purusha can be translated as soul. In each living being, there is a Purusha yet, essentially, all purushas are the same. The empirical self is the union of the free spirit, Purusha, and of Prakriti. Purusha is the knower, and the known is Prakriti. The purpose of Samkhya is to free the knower from the known. The Samkhya concept of Purusha can also be compared with the concept of Purusha in the Rig Veda.

  However, Samkhya texts state that Vedic sacrifices do not lead anywhere and the path to liberation is only through knowledge and understanding. The later commentator Vijnanabhikshu attempted to reconcile Samkhya with theistic Vedanta, the philosophy contained in many Upanishads. He put forward the theory of a universal Purusha, which would be similar to Brahman.

  The basics of Samkhya philosophy were accepted by the system of Yoga, with the addition of the concept of ishvara or god. It differs from Samkhya in its method of reaching the goal. In Yoga, a systematic effort is required to detach Purusha from Prakriti. Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutra, describes this unified system that has eight successive steps incorporating ethical, meditative and other practices.

  Yoga is mentioned in some early Upanishads, and several later Upanishads deal with it too.

  Of the six classical systems of philosophy, Mimamsa is most closely connected with the Vedic Samhitas. Jaimini (dated between the 4th and 2nd centuries BCE) is said to have founded this school; his work, Mimamsa Sutra, explains its philosophy. This early form of Mimamsa, known as Purva Mimamsa or Karma Mimamsa (analysis of action), focused on the Vedas as the ultimate source of divine knowledge, and the correct performance of rituals and sacrifices. As there were many different texts describing rituals, some guidelines or rules (nyaya) were required, and Jaimini’s Sutra provided these. The interpretation of the Vedas was only possible through the understanding of each shabda or word, and thus the sutra focused on both sound and meaning. Other commentators elaborated on Jaimini’s Sutras.

  Later commentators began to deal with higher philosophical concepts; this philosophy became almost identical with Vedanta and was known as Uttara Mimamsa or later Mimamsa.

  Vedanta too is closely linked with the Vedas, as it includes all those schools of philosophy that use the early Upanishads as their basic source, particularly as summarized by Badarayana (5th to 3rd century BCE) in the Brahma Sutra, also known as the Vedanta Sutra, a text reinterpreted by later scholars in varying ways.

  The most notable school of Vedanta, Advaita, developed between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. Vaishnava Vedanta schools include Visishtadvaita, Dvaita, Dvaitadvaita, and Shuddhadvaita. A Shaiva school of Vedanta is Shivadvaita. These schools of thought agree on certain basic premises, for instance that Brahman, the Absolute, transcending time and space, is the ultimate cause of all creation, and that its true nature is concealed because of ignorance. However, they arrive at different understandings on the nature and relationship of Brahman, Ishvara or god, the Atman or Jiva (the individual soul), and the world.

  Many philosophers of these schools of Vedanta referred to the Vedas while some wrote commentaries on them. Among them, Shankara, the greatest exponent of Advaita, did not believe in Vedic sacrifices but accepted shruti, that is, all revealed texts like the Vedas, as a source of knowledge (jnana).

  Dvaita’s founder was Madhva who lived in the 13th century CE Among other works, he wrote a commentary on the first forty hymns of the Rig Veda. Dvaitadvaita’s major exponent was Nimbarka, who probably lived in the 12th century. Nimbarka believed the person seeking Brahman should first study the literature on Vedic duties, and should understand that the enjoyments and beneficial results provided by these were only temporary and that only the realization of Brahman could lead to eternal bliss.

  Other philosophers of these schools believed in the sanctity of the Vedic Samhitas but all saw the Upanishads as the highest aspect of Vedic literature. Vedanta literally means the ‘last or ultimate part of the Vedas’.

  Until the Europeans took an interest in the Vedas, the subject matter of the Vedic texts remained relatively unknown to the general public. Traditionally, the three upper castes could study the Vedas but, in practice, it remained a preserve of the brahmanas. Women were usually not allowed to listen to or chant the Vedas. Even among the brahmanas, many who used the texts in rituals did not understand the meaning. From the 19th century onwards, numerous Western scholars analysed and translated the Vedas. Notable among them were A.B. Keith, R.T.H. Griffith, A.A. Macdonell, and R. Roth. Indian scholars of the 19th and 20th centuries also began to study the Vedas along the same lines. Among them were Ram Mohan Roy, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, A.S. Altekar, F.E. Pargiter, and A.D. Pusalkar. While scholars were reading and interpreting the Vedas, they remained difficult for ordinary Indians to access. When the reformist Brahmo Samaj, founded by Ram Mohan Roy, attempted to introduce the Vedas to the general public, the brahmana pandits initially refused to allow non-brahmanas to listen to readings of the Vedic Samhitas, though they were allowed to attend readings of the Upanishads. In the late 19th century, Swami Dayananada Saraswati, founder of the Arya Samaj, attempted to make the Vedic Samhitas more easily available, and stated that they were meant for everyone. At the same time, he provided a new spiritual interpretation of the Vedas, which remains influential till today. In the early 20th century, Sri Aurobindo appreciated Swami Dayananda’s efforts and provided a different spiritual interpretation of the Rig Veda. For both Swami Dayananda and Sri Aurobindo, the historical context of the text either did not exist or was irrelevant. New translations and commentaries, as well as new interpretations of the historical context of the Vedas, continue to emerge.

  Today, the Vedas are accessible to everyone. New organizations such as the Gayatri Parivar, initiated in 1958 and now comprising over four thousand centres across the country, have made Vedic chanting and study available to all, including women.

  Chapter 3

  The Origins: the Indo-Europeans

  Who were the people
who wrote the Rig Veda? When was it written and where? There are innumerable controversies on these points, and no agreement.

  Linguistic analysis forms an important part of the theories of origin of the Vedic people, and of other groups in India at the time of the composition of the Rig Veda. The various theories and their implications will be looked at in more detail in subsequent chapters; the focus here is on the classification of Vedic Sanskrit as an Indo-Aryan language belonging to the larger group of Indo-European languages. This theory owes its origin to William Jones, one of the first to discover the similarities between Sanskrit and Greek and Latin. Jones, who came to India in 1783 and became a judge of the Calcutta High Court, knew several languages including English, Persian, Latin, Greek, Gothic (an old form of German), and Welsh. In India, he began to study Sanskrit, to better understand local and customary laws. In 1786, he put forward his views, laying the base for hundreds of years of further study. He said:

  The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure: more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which perhaps no longer exists.

  He stated that Persian, Celtic, and Gothic probably also belonged to the same family of languages.

  Jones provided the hints that later led to the theory of a group or family of Indo-European languages. This term was first used by an English scholar Thomas Young in 1813, and since then became the standard term for all these related languages. These languages are spread across Asia and Europe, and are today spoken by about 3 billion people, more than any other language group. In addition, they include some extinct languages.

  The Indo-European language pool is subdivided into twelve main branches, and also classified into the Centum and Satem groups based on the use of certain consonants. (Centum or kentum and satem are two different ways of pronouncing the word ‘hundred’.)

  Indo-European languages of the past and present, along with the areas where they are spoken, or were spoken in the past, are given below.

  CENTUM GROUP

  Celtic: British isles, Spain, across southern Europe to central Turkey; includes the extinct Gaulish and Manx, as well as Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic, Cornish, Breton, and Welsh.

  Germanic: England, throughout Scandinavia, and central Europe to Crimea; includes Gothic, Flemish, Dutch, German, Afrikaans, Frisian, Old English, English, Yiddish, Scots, Old Norse, Icelandic, Faroese, Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish.

  Italic: Italy, later throughout the Roman empire, including present Spain, Portugal, France, Romania; languages include the extinct Latin and Osco-Umbrian, and Catalan, French, Galician, Italian, Portuguese, Provencal, Romansch, Romanian, and Spanish.

  Hellenic: In Greece and the Aegean islands, later in other areas conquered by Alexander, but mostly around the Mediterranean; languages include ancient and modern Greek.

  Tocharian: In the Tarim basin of Xinjiang, in far-western China. 6. Anatolian: Languages in Anatolia or Asia Minor, modern Turkey; includes the ancient Hittite.

  SATEM GROUP

  Balto-Slavic: Baltic languages include Latvian, Lithuanian, and Old Prussian. Slavic can be divided into three groups of south, west and east Slavic. South Slavic includes Bosnian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, Slovenian and Old Church Slavonic; west Slavic includes the eastern European languages of Czech, Polish, Slovak, and Sorbian; east Slavic includes Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Russian. (Though these are classified as satem languages, they have some centum elements.)

  Armenian: In Armenia and nearby areas, including eastern Turkey.

  Indo-Iranian: In India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Kurdish areas of Iraq and Turkey; includes Sanskrit and all languages associated with or derived from it (Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Marathi, Nepali, Punjabi, Romany, Sindhi, Singalese, Urdu); Dardic and Kashmiri languages; the Iranian group of Avestan, Sogdian, Old Persian, Persian, Baluchi, Kurdish, Pashto, and others, as well as Nuristani languages.

  Albanian: Albanian, Gheg, and Tosk.

  Extinct languages: Phyrgian, Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian.

  Thus, most European languages and many in Asia belong to the Indo-European family. Among the European languages that are not Indo-European are Basque, Finnish, Estonian, and Magyar.

  PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN

  All the Indo-European languages are believed to have been derived from a common language called Proto-Indo-European (PIE), a hypothetical language, reconstructed on the basis of key and root words in the various Indo-European languages. Having struggled with the problem for over two hundred years, linguists have carefully and painstakingly reconstructed around 1500 PIE roots, based on a comparison of words in all the Indo-European languages, known changes within the languages, and probable changes over time.

  Thus, they have not only arrived at a probable initial language termed PIE but also, by calculating the rate of language change, have estimated the date around which such a language existed. They have also deduced an idea of the economy and society of the PIE people. When one examines or analyses all the words of a language, it presents a comprehensive picture of a people and their culture. For instance, food, clothes, relationships, the environment, economy, items available, and trade are all reflected in language. And yet, despite intensive analyses, archaeologists and linguists do not agree on the results.

  RATES OF LANGUAGE CHANGE

  Different methods have been used to calculate rates of change. It is thought that certain parts of a language, called a ‘basic’ or ‘core’ vocabulary, would change slower than others. This core vocabulary is believed to include kinship terms, aspects of nature, and terms for basic needs such as eating and sleeping.

  In the early 1950s, the linguist Morris Swadesh listed a 100-word and 200-word basic core vocabulary. He was one of the first to use statistical methods to estimate the speed of language change. Though some criticized his theory, his ideas were utilized by later linguists, and the rate of change analysed through computer programs. A rate of change of 10–20 per cent per 1000 years was estimated for the core vocabulary. The American mathematician Joseph Kruskal, along with the linguists Isidore Dyen and Paul Black, was involved in a ‘lexicostatistical’ study of the core vocabulary. After comparing ninety-five Indo-European languages, they felt that PIE began to transform or split around 3000 BCE. Estimating its life between 1000 and 2000 years, it was thought that PIE must have existed between 5000 and 3000 BCE.

  The British archaeologist Colin Renfrew put forward a different time frame. He suggested that Indo-Hittite was the source language, and that it predated PIE. This theory was in fact put forward in the 1920s by the American linguist Edgar Sturtevant. Renfrew believed that Indo-Hittite should be dated to around 7000 BCE. According to this theory, Indo-Hittite was spoken in Anatolia and, after reaching Greece around 6700–6500 BCE, it developed into PIE and spread across Europe and the Mediterranean basin with the expansion of agriculture. Renfrew also estimated the rate of change for various words differently, leading to this earlier date. He said that the various Indo-European languages of today already existed in their respective regions, possibly as earlier forms, by the Neolithic period. Several archaeologists support this theory.

  Recently, numerous mathematical and computational models of language change have been generated. One such model estimates language change at the rate of 16 per cent per 1000 years.

  PALAEOLITHIC CONTINUITY THEORY

  However, there are some linguists who have challenged the very basis of these theories. Notable among these is the Italian linguist Mario Alinei, who put forward the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory (PCT) in a two-volume work in Italian, published in 1996 and 2000. Alinei argues that linguists have unfortunately been influenced by D
arwinian theories, seeing ‘language as a living organism, and language change an organic law’. He supports Noam Chomsky’s theory of the innateness of language, holding that language is a social phenomenon, not some evolving organism governed by fixed rates of change. He divides language change into two broad categories of grammar and vocabulary, stating that language is basically conservative. Grammar changes occur in exceptional circumstances, usually through external influences, while vocabulary changes are responses to changes in the economy and society. Having said that, vocabulary changes are more evident in oral than in written language.

  Alinei believes that language development can be traced to prehuman times, and that language diffusion took place along with the earliest migrations of Homo sapiens from Africa or, at the latest, during the Late or Upper Palaeolithic period. After reaching Europe, there was initially a very slow rate of change but, by the end of the Ice Age, Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Slavic and Baltic languages had developed. During the Neolithic period, language began to change at a faster pace.

  This theory finds some support among linguists, though as Alinei pointed out, linguistics remained the one field that was trapped in Biblical chronology and failed to examine the distant past. In 1934, the German linguist Herbert Kuhn stated that the period of Indo-European unity must have been the Ice Age, specifically the Aurignacian period, estimated at circa 30,000 BCE include the American Homer L. Thomas, the Belgian Marcel Otte, and the German archaeologist Alexander Hausler. These studies have been confined to Europe. However the PCT theory also has several critics.