by Roshen Dalal
Dayananda did not believe in idol worship but said that sixteen samskaras (rituals related to family life) should be performed as well as yajnas, particularly the agnihotra, which purifies air and water and promotes the well-being of all sentient creatures. He was absolutely against animal sacrifices. He stated that the passages in the Vedas describing these sacrifices were inserted by Vama Margis (Tantrics). Quoting passages from some Brahmanas, he added that the actual ashvamedha was the king who governed his people righteously, a learned man who offered knowledge or the burning of clarified butter (ghi) and similar substances in the fire.
Dayananda also proffered advice on the best ways to bring up children and discussed the duties of man in the four stages of life, the role of women, and the specifics and repercussion of the caste system.
In his commentaries on the Vedas, Swami Dayananda said that the supreme god, Parabrahman, produced the four Vedas. At the beginning of creation, there was no system of teaching and learning, nor were there any books—hence no person could acquire knowledge without the intervention of god. He also stated that there is nothing that can be called ‘innate knowledge’ and no man can accomplish anything without divine knowledge and the learning of learned men. He said:
God, in his great mercy, revealed the Vedas for the benefit of all men. If he had not done so, gross ignorance would have been perpetuated and men could not have achieved righteousness, worldly prosperity, enjoyment and emancipation, and would have been deprived of the highest bliss. When the most merciful God created bulbous roots, fruits and herbs etc., for the good of His creatures, why should he not have revealed the Vedic knowledge that brings to light all kinds of happiness and contains all sciences? The pleasure one experiences in enjoying the best things of the world does not equal the one-thousandth part of the pleasure one feels after acquiring knowledge. It is, therefore, certain that the Vedas were revealed by God.
He believed that the gods and rishis mentioned in the Vedas had different meanings depending on the context in which the words were used. At times, the words referred to the One God, at other times to people, or to certain physical forces. Thus, in one context Agni, Vayu, Aditya, and Angirasa were people of ancient times to whom the Vedas were revealed. To support this theory, he quoted a statement in the Shatapatha Brahmana (11.2.8.3), which says that when Agni, Vayu, and Surya (Aditya) meditated, they produced respectively the Rig, Yajur, and Sama Vedas. This meant that God conveyed it to them—not that they were the composers. Similarly the god Brahma, Vyasa, or the rishis mentioned in the Puranas were not composers of the Vedas.
Based on the theory of the vast cosmic ages of kalpas, manvantaras, and yugas, he calculated that 1,960,852,976 years had elapsed from the beginning of creation and the year in which he was writing (1876) was the 1,960,852,977th. Six manvantaras were over and this was the seventh, in which 4796 years of the Kali Yuga had been completed. The year 1876 was the 4797th.
To Dayananda, the Vedas contain eternal words. These words have always existed—and always will exist. Eternal words, according to him, are pre-existent and initially unmanifested. Hence even when they are not known through writing or speech, they still exist in their unmanifest forms.
Dayananda reinterpreted the Vedas in what he believed was their original intent. He said that all words in the Vedas were in the yaugika (derivative) sense and could not be interpreted as proper names. There were no historical references. Words had to be interpreted in the context in which they were used and thus had different meanings. According to him, a correct interpretation revealed that the Vedas contained the germs of all the sciences—of the past, the present, and the future. All physical laws, mathematics, inventions, and other aspects of the material universe, in essence, were contained in the Vedas. This concept again has to be understood in a metaphysical sense, in that all aspects of creation had an eternal existence in the unmanifested Supreme principle, and this was reflected in the eternal words of the Vedas.
Swami Dayananda completed his commentary on the Yajur Veda, and three-quarters of that on the Rig Veda before his death. To him, the eternal Vedas revealed the only true religion in the world.
SRI AUROBINDO
Sri Aurobindo (1872–1950) was a multifaceted personality whose work was not limited to the Vedas. In fact, he evolved a new and distinctive philosophical system, which he called Integral Yoga. Born at Kolkata (Calcutta) in India on 15 August 1872, as Aurobindo Ghose, at the age of seven, he was sent to England to study. Returning to India as a young man in 1893, he worked for some time in the state of Baroda but gradually got involved in the freedom movement against the British, who ruled most of India at the time. He had already begun certain yoga practices and, when in prison for his actions in the struggle for freedom (1908), he received a divine revelation. He left British India and entered the small territory of Puducherry (Pondicherry) in south India, which was then under the French. Here he could not be pursued by British authorities, and giving up politics he founded an ashram, and developed his own philosophy.
His philosophical works include The Life Divine, The Synthesis of Yoga, The Integral Yoga, the epic Savitri (a poem with 24,000 lines) and several other works, as well as commentaries on all major ancient texts.
In developing his philosophy, Sri Aurobindo undertook an in-depth study of Hindu texts, including the Vedas. His work on these texts culminated in a book, The Secret of the Veda. In this book, he wrote:
In the fixed tradition of thousands of years, they have been revered as the origin and standard of all that can be held as authoritative and true in Brahmana and Upanishad, in Tantra and Purana, in the doctrines of great philosophical schools and in the teachings of famous saints and sages. The name borne by them was Veda, the knowledge—the received name for the highest spiritual truth of which the human is capable. But if we accept the current interpretations, whether Sayana’s or the modern theory, the whole of this sublime and sacred reputation is a colossal fiction.
He felt that the great philosophy of the Upanishads must have had its origin in the Rig Veda, where the profound ideas were concealed by ‘a veil of concrete and material figures and symbols which protected the sense from the profane and revealed it to the initiated’. But even by the time of the Brahmanas and Upanishads, the great truths had been obscured, and ‘the material aspects of Vedic worship had grown like a thick crust over the inner knowledge and were stifling what they had once served to protect’.
He traced three main attempts to understand the Vedas. The first was the fragments preserved in the Brahmanas and Upanishads. The second was the interpretation of Sayana, and the third of European scholarship. According to him, the latter two ‘present one characteristic in common, the extraordinary incoherence and poverty of sense which their results stamp upon the ancient hymns’.
He felt that the Vedic Samhitas should be understood at two levels—the outer and the inner. The outer rituals and ceremonies were for the common people whereas, for the initiate, there were hidden, inner mysteries in the same words. Later, the Brahmanas [texts] preserved the form, while the Upanishads revealed the secrets.
Sayana focused on the material and ritualistic aspects. According to Sri Aurobindo, ‘It is the final and authoritative binding of the Veda to this lowest of all its possible senses that has been the most unfortunate result of Sayana’s commentary.’ And Sayana ‘became in the European mind the parent of fresh errors’.
Sri Aurobindo’s comments on European scholarship are worth quoting. He says:
Vedic scholarship of Europe has really founded itself throughout on the traditional elements preserved in Sayana’s commentary and has not attempted an entirely independent handling of the problem. What it found in Sayana and in the Brahmanas it has developed in the light of modern theories and modern knowledge; by ingenious deductions from the comparative method applied to philology, mythology and history, by large amplifications of the existing data with the aid of ingenious speculation, by unification of the scattered indication
s available it has built up a complete theory of Vedic mythology, Vedic history, Vedic civilisation which fascinates by its detail and thoroughness and conceals by its apparent sureness of method the fact that this imposing edifice has been founded, for the most part, on the sands of conjecture.
Sri Aurobindo commends Swami Dayananda’s efforts at reinterpretation but does not agree with them. He states:
Dayananda’s interpretation of the hymns is governed by the idea that the Vedas are a plenary revelation of religious, ethical and scientific truth. Its religious teaching is monotheistic and the Vedic gods are different descriptive names of the one Deity; they are at the same time indications of His powers as we see them working in Nature and by a true understanding of the sense of the Vedas we could arrive at all the scientific truths which have been discovered by modern research. Such a theory is, obviously, difficult to establish.
Sri Aurobindo goes on to examine the symbolism of terms in the Vedas. Quoting various passages on the cow (go), he observes: ‘The Vedic cow was an exceedingly enigmatic animal that came from no earthly herd.’ Ashva, or horse, was also symbolic. Go and ashva, to him, were symbolic of light and energy, consciousness and force. Thus wealth in terms of cows and horses, signified mental illumination and energy. Every word in Sanskrit had numerous possible interpretations and, in this, Sri Aurobindo retranslates several hymns according to his own interpretation. One such hymn to Soma is given below. According to him, ‘The wine of Soma is the intoxication of the Ananda, the divine delight of being.’
A hymn to Soma
l. Wide spread out for thee is the sieve of thy purifying, O
Master of the soul; becoming in the creature thou pervadest
his members all through. He tastes not that delight who is
unripe and whose body has not suffered in the heat of the
fire; they alone are able to bear that and enjoy it who have
been prepared by the flame.
The strainer through which the heat of him is purified is
spread out in the seat of Heaven; its threads shine out and
stand extended. His swift ecstasies foster the soul that purifies
him; he ascends to the high level of Heaven by the
conscious heart.
This is the supreme dappled Bull that makes the Dawns to
shine out, the Male that bears the worlds of the becoming
and seeks the plenitude; the Fathers who had the forming
knowledge made a form of him by that power of knowledge
which is his; strong in vision they set him within as a child
to be born.
As the Gandharva he guards his true seat; as the supreme
and wonderful One he keeps the births of the gods; Lord
of the inner setting, by the inner setting he seizes the enemy.
Those who are utterly perfected in works taste the
enjoyment of his honey-sweetness.
O Thou in whom is the food, thou art that divine food,
thou art the vast, the divine home; wearing heaven as a robe
thou encompassest the march of the sacrifice. King with
the sieve of thy purifying for thy chariot thou ascendest to
the plenitude; with thy thousand burning brilliances thou
conquerest the vast knowledge.
(Rig Veda 9.83)
It is obvious to any translator that all the references in the Vedas to material items—cows, horses, wealth—are not always literal. It has often been pointed out that cows represent clouds at times, and ashva has different meanings, including knowledge. Soma, as indicated in Chapter 6, probably also had two different meanings: of divine amrita and an intoxicating drink.
But, at the same time, it does not seem possible to deny all material and historical references, or to presume an inner meaning that could be understood only by initiates.
In his later works, Sri Aurobindo did not focus on texts. Instead, he stated that no religion revealed the whole Truth. He said, ‘The Divine Truth is greater than any religion or creed or scripture or idea or philosophy.’ He ceased to identify with Hinduism, and wrote:
The Ashram has nothing to do with Hindu religion or culture or any religion or nationality. The Truth of the Divine which is the spiritual reality behind all religions and the descent of the supramental which is not known to any religion are the sole things which will be the foundation of the work of the future.
Conclusion
In this book, we have steered a path through the innumerable theories on the Vedas to arrive at some pointers on their possible date, the origin and nature of the people who composed the texts, and the region in which these people lived.
Linguistic analyses indicate that the Rig Veda is the earliest of the four Vedic Samhitas, and that it forms the basis for the other texts. One theory is that though the other three Vedas may be later than the Rig in their present form, they could have had earlier origins.
Among the various theories regarding the date of the Rig Veda is that it was composed millions of years ago—at the beginning of creation. This theory has to be understood in a spiritual and not a historical sense. It implies that the first sound, the first aspect of creation, is the eternal word.
In a historical context, the Rig has been dated on the basis of its relationship with other languages, astronomical references, references in later texts, and socio-economic references.
To begin with, one should reiterate that the Rig Veda is a single text and, that too primarily a religious one. It cannot be expected to provide a complete picture of a culture.
In addition, the Rig Veda was a text in which hymns were put together and carefully arranged. The version that we have today, though carefully preserved over centuries, is not the original version. Another aspect to be kept in mind is that the time period, to which the Rig Veda refers, was not necessarily the period in which it was composed; in fact, it is unlikely to have been the same. The time period could also have been quite vast, and there could be some references to very ancient times.
The language of the Rig Veda was certainly connected with Avestan and Indo-European languages. There are also some similarities in religion, myths, and legends. There is, however, no agreement on either the date or origin of Indo-European languages or their method of diffusion. One can identify three main theories about the homeland of Indo-European languages:
An Anatolian homeland, dating perhaps to before 6500 BCE, from where the spread was through the migration of farmers
A homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppes, dating to between 5000 BCE and 3000 BCE, with the spread through migration
A homeland either in Europe or Central Asia within the same broad timeframe (5000–3000 BCE), with the spread through migration again
Another major theory is the Palaeolithic Continuity Theory, which states that language development can be traced back to pre-human 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.
All the homeland theories presume that there was once a common language, either Indo-Hittite or Proto-Indo-European, which gradually modified as the languages diffused through migration. After looking at the main theories, it is clear that there is no consensus on the date of PIE or on how and when it spread. Some, in fact, even doubt whether it ever existed.
Language did not originate in 6000 BCE, 5000 BCE, or even 10,000 BCE. By Neolithic times, most of Asia and Europe were occupied, and languages must have been spoken throughout the region. The single homeland theory presumes that groups of nomads replaced almost the entire population, or were dominant enough to replace existing languages, particularly in Europe, where there are very few surviving non-Indo-European languages. Is it logical to look for a small pocket for the origin of each language group? Originally, it was thought that conquest led to the spread of languages but this theory was later discarded. The theory of language spread thro
ugh migrating farmers or farm techniques is equally uncertain, as recent theories indicate that farming was an independent and simultaneous development in different areas. Hock points out that apart from some Avestan theories, and the Roman legend of migration from Troy, other Indo-European groups do not have migration legends or myths. Frits Staal, in the context of India, suggests that very few people (representing the Rig Veda) crossed the high mountains and passes and entered India, but became a dominant group through ‘the power of mantra’. Even supposing that this suggestion has some validity, it can hardly be applied to other Indo-European groups.
For Indo-Iranian, the most prominent theory is of its origin in the Andronovo culture. From here, migration routes have been traced into Iran and India. But it has been doubted that the Andronovo culture represented Indo-Iranian speakers, or even any form of Indo-European. There are several other Indo-Iranian homeland theories, including its origin in west Turkmenistan, Iran or in India. Another theory is that the entire region of Afghanistan, Iranian Seistan, west Baluchistan, north-west India–Pakistan and Central Asia was involved in bidirectional exchanges. According to this, there were no great migrations but trade and cultural exchanges, including marriage, and this led to similarities in language.
It is a long-held assumption that Indo-Iranian people once formed a single group, which later separated. What really is the evidence for this? There are certainly close similarities between Rig Vedic Sanskrit and Gathic Avestan. There is also some similarity between deities of the Younger Avestan texts and the Rig Veda though, at the same time, there are many differences. The homeland for Gathic and Younger Avestan speaking people is considered to be somewhere between Central Asia and Eastern Iran. The homeland of the Rig Vedic people, or rather the region referred to in the Rig Veda, is clearly between Afghanistan and the river Yamuna within India. Why presume that either group migrated to these regions? All the noted similarities could be due to their long coexistence in contiguous regions, where they spoke a similar but slightly different language. There is really no need to look for an original homeland somewhere in the steppes of South Russia, or in Anatolia, or elsewhere.