Sāyaṇācārya: Part 2 -- The unfair criticism of his Vedic commentaries

Part 1 talked about the incredible contributions of the great Sāyaṇācārya in the realm of worldly affairs. Here we shall look at his contribution to religion and spirituality.

His greatest contribution to Hinduism is the publishing of the complete commentaries on all extant Vedic scriptures. One can grasp the immensity and scope of this undertaking only if one has knowledge of the vastness of the ocean that is the Vedic corpus.

The modern printed books of the entire Vedic corpus probably run into several tens of thousands of pages of fine print. Now add to this enormity the fact that all this literature was orally transmitted even in the time of Sāyaṇācārya, the 14th century CE. Even if we concede the fact that there were written manuscripts of all these texts, it is not an easy task by the longest stretch of imagination to organize, edit and publish authentic commentaries on every single text.

In fact, that is precisely what Sāyaṇācārya accomplished. We know from other writings that he had assembled under his editorship a team of the best Vedic scholars of his day. This is another example of the pioneering work done in the Vijayanagara empire. Never before in the history of India, had any scholars undertaken such a systematic project of such huge scale. Never before had there been such a collaboration among scholars towards a common goal. We do not know the names of the scholars who contributed, but such is the selflessness, magnanimity and commitment to a higher cause that is seen in this project.

Sāyaṇācārya's Vedic commentaries became the standard across all of India for centuries to come. Even the early European Indologists who came to India interested in studying Vedas (either genuinely or with an agenda) had to rely on Sāyaṇācārya's commentaries. It is a different matter that later European "scholars" abandoned Sāyaṇācārya and went off interpreting the Vedas based on their own sinister agendas. In any case, there is no other traditional, complete and authentic commentary on the Vedas today. It is no exaggeration to say that the Vedic texts have survived through the centuries to come down to us only because of Sāyaṇācārya's massive project.

Keeping all the above in mind, we should look at some criticisms of the interpretation of Sāyaṇa by some recent thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The foremost of these thinkers is Aurobindo.

There is no doubt that Aurobindo was a great thinker and activist who was influential in the arenas of social, political and cultural problems faced by India under British rule. There is much more that I agree with Aurobindo on, than disagree. However, I disagree with his interpretation of the Vedas. He has clearly departed from tradition in his unique and strange ideas such as 'Super Mind' and his very unnatural and ill-suited insertion of modern "new age" psychological symbolism in the Vedic deities. He says that Agni represents the "will" and so on. We find no support for such interpretations in tradition.

Furthermore, he accuses Sāyaṇācārya of ignoring, or even obfuscating, the spiritual interpretation and focusing entirely on the ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and especially of the Rig Veda. Several other such thinkers of modern India reject Sāyaṇācārya along the same lines. I come across many modern Hindus who would rather trust and believe Aurobindo over Sāyaṇācārya or other traditional scholars.

To all this, my reply is that present-day Hindus, or even Hindus of the 19th century (which include Aurobindo) are much further away from authentic Vedic tradition and understanding than Hindus of the 14th century. That was a time when Hinduism was still standing on its own feet, unsullied by foreign interventions into the Hindu mind. Obviously, the further back we go in history, the closer we get to authentic understanding and practice of Vedic traditions. Even in the 14th century, the system of traditional Vedic education was unbroken and very much alive. In comparison, in the 19th century that system had already suffered severely due to British intervention.

When we further ascertain the fact that resurgence thinkers such as Aurobindo, Gandhi, Tilak, Swami Vivekananda and others had had a strictly British education and no traditional Vedic education, it becomes harder and harder to trust these thinkers when it comes to authentic understanding of the deepest topics of Vedic knowledge. Sure, they were better-informed about Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta, than the average Hindu. However, "popular" Vedanta is still far away from "technical" Vedanta that is taught traditionally in a Vedic school.

We must further endeavor to understand what the Vedas meant to Hindus prior to the modern period. The Vedas were considered the fount of all knowledge, and they were the basis of Dharma. As the Manu Smṛti says, "वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलम् -- vedo'khilo dharmamūlam". Dharma was much more comprehensive than the modern understanding of "spirituality". Dharma defined society, it defined codes of conduct, it defined culture and civilization. The performance of the sacred ritual of yajña was an integral part of observance of Dharma and spiritual advancement. The ritual of yajña had a highly symbolic and spiritual original meaning which is evident in the study of the Brāhmaṇa texts of the Vedas. 

The Vedas embody a wholistic and integral view and observance of life, where there is no demarcation between mundane and what modern Hindus understand by "spirituality". Every aspect of life is important and has its place and significance in the spiritual advancement of an individual. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear why tradition does not fall into the narrow and shallow pit of lop-sided "spirituality" in complete rejection of, or apathy towards, this wholistic integral vision of life. 

The inherent pitfall of "spiritualizing" everything is that it is very easy to insert and force a "spiritual" symbolism into anything. Our speech is full of suggestive and interpretive nuances that can all be forced into "spiritual" meanings. However, spirituality does not exist in a vacuum. It needs the structure of society, culture, religion and rituals. Spirituality comes to life only within rituals. When enacting the physical aspects of a ritual, if one is cognizant of the inner meaning of the ritual, or the connecting link between the human world and the rest of the universe, that is the means of internalizing the equivalence or identity between our individual existence and the universal existence. In other words, "spirituality" is "sublimated ritual".

This above point is completely missed in the writings of Aurobindo or other such thinkers.

In this matter, I would trust the philosopher and art historian Ananda K. Coomaraswamy over others. He stays true to traditional interpretation while interlinking the various mantras brilliantly to bring out deep insights into Vedic metaphysics. 

The wholistic integral vision of the Vedas is kept alive in tradition, to which Sāyaṇācārya belongs. His Vedic commentaries are appropriate to the context of each mantra. As Yāskācārya the traditional author of the Niruktam says, "एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायै ऋषीणां मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति -- evam uccāvacair abhiprāyaih ṛṣīṇāṃ mantradṛṣṭayo bhavanti". The vision of the rishis is inspired by various aspects of the universe. Hence, every mantra is unique in its context and intent. 

To twist the evident meaning of the mantra in order to force a "spiritual" or psychological or some other interpretation into it, is tantamount to insulting the rishi who envisioned the mantra. It is as good as saying that we know better than the rishi himself what his own intent was.

There is no doubt that the Vedic mantras have a lot of intricate and esoteric symbolism. However, tradition that has been passed down through the millenia from the time of the rishis themselves, knows best the symbolism hidden in mantras. Tradition knows best whether a mantra's meaning is simple and straightforward or whether the rishi intended it to be a symbolism to express a deeper truth. Just because a mantra's meaning turns out to be simple, does not mean that the mantra has no significance. There is a reason why the mantra is in the Veda. 

To conclude, let me provide a solid example of a mantra where Sāyaṇācārya himself does not hold back from giving a fully "spiritual" interpretation. It is as though all of Vedanta is encapsulated in this one mantra. This is proof to show that Sāyaṇācārya was fully aware of the spiritual symbolism in the Vedic mantras, and he was not an ignorant "ritualist".

Rig Veda 3.26.7:

अग्निरस्मि जन्मना जातवेदा घृतं मे चक्षुरमृतं म आसन् ।
अर्कस्त्रिधातू रजसो विमानो अजस्रो घर्मो हविरस्मि नाम ॥

agnirasmi janmanā jātavedā ghṛtaṃ me cakṣuramṛtaṃ ma āsan
arkastridhātū rajaso vimāno ajasro gharmo havirasmi nāma

Every mantra is traditionally assigned a rishi, a deity and a meter. This mantra's rishi is Brahman! The mantra's deity is Agni Parabrahman!

Here's is Sāyaṇācārya's commentary:

साक्षात्कृतपरतत्त्वरूपः अग्निद्व्ृचेन स्वात्मनः सर्वात्मकत्वानुभवमाविष्करोति । हे कुशिकाः । भोक्तृभोग्यभावेन द्विविधं हीदं सर्वं जगत् । "एतावद्वा इदमन्नं चैवान्नादश्च सोमो एवान्नमग्निरन्नादः" (बृ उ १.४.६) इति श्रुतेः । तत्र सकलभोक्तृवर्गरूपेणान्नादोऽग्निः । स च अग्निवाय्वादित्यभेदेन त्रेधा भूत्वा पृथिव्यन्तरिक्षद्युलोकानधितिष्ठति । तदुक्तं वाजसनेयके -- "स त्रेधात्मानं व्यभजत । आदित्यं तृतीयं वायुं तृतीयम्" (बृ उ १.२.३) इति । तत्र सः अग्निः जन्मना एव जातवेदाः अस्मि । श्रवणमननादिसाधननिरपेक्षेण स्वभावत एव साक्षात्कृतपरतत्त्वस्वरूपोऽस्मि । घृतं मे चक्षुः । यदेतत् विश्वस्य विभासकं मम स्वभावभूतप्रकाशात्मकं चक्षुस्तद्घृतम् । इदानीमत्यन्तं दीप्तम् । यदेतत् अमृतं कर्मफलं दिव्यादिव्यविविधविषयोपभोगात्मकं तत् मे मम आसन् आस्ये वर्तते । सकलभोक्तृवर्गात्मना स्वयमेवावस्थानात् । एवं स्वात्मनः पृथिव्यधिष्ठातृरूपतामभिधाय वाय्वात्मनान्तरिक्षाधिष्ठातृतामाह । अर्कः जगत्स्रष्टा प्राणः । "सोऽर्चन्नचरत्तस्यार्चत आपोऽजायन्तार्चते वै मे कमभूदिति तदेवार्कस्यार्कत्वम्" (श ब्रा १०.६.५) इति श्रुतेः ।स प्राणोऽहं त्रिधातुः । त्रेधात्मानं विभज्य तत्र वाय्वात्मना रजसः अन्तरिक्षस्य विमानः विमाता अधिष्ठाता अस्मि । तथादित्यरूपेण द्युलोकाधिष्ठातृतामाह । अजस्रो घर्मः इति । अजस्रोऽनुपक्षीणो घर्मः प्रकाशात्मा द्युलोकाधिष्ठाता आदित्योऽहमस्मि । एवं भोक्तृरूपमात्मनोऽनुसंधाय भोग्यरूपतामप्यनुसंधत्ते । यत् हविः भोग्यं प्रसिद्धमस्ति तदप्यहमेव अस्मि । किंच जन्मना उत्पत्त्या जातवेदा जातप्रज्ञोऽस्मि । उत्पत्तिक्षणे एव सर्वज्ञोऽहमस्मि । अथवा जातं सर्वं स्वात्मरूपतया वेत्तीति जातवेदाः । सर्वात्मक इत्यर्थः । तदनेनाग्नेः सर्वात्मकत्वप्रतिपादनेन परब्रह्मत्वमुक्तं भवति ।

sākṣātkṛtaparatattvarūpaḥ agnidvṛcena svātmanaḥ sarvātmakatvānubhavamāviṣkaroti । he kuśikāḥ । bhoktṛbhogyabhāvena dvividhaṃ hīdaṃ sarvaṃ jagat । "etāvadvā idamannaṃ caivānnādaśca somo evānnamagnirannādaḥ" (bṛ u 1.4.6) iti śruteḥ । tatra sakalabhoktṛvargarūpeṇānnādo'gniḥ । sa ca agnivāyvādityabhedena tredhā bhūtvā pṛthivyantarikṣadyulokānadhitiṣṭhati । taduktaṃ vājasaneyake -- "sa tredhātmānaṃ vyabhajata । ādityaṃ tṛtīyaṃ vāyuṃ tṛtīyam" (bṛ u 1.2.3) iti । tatra saḥ agniḥ janmanā eva jātavedāḥ asmi । śravaṇamananādisādhananirapekṣeṇa svabhāvata eva sākṣātkṛtaparatattvasvarūpo'smi । ghṛtaṃ me cakṣuḥ । yadetat viśvasya vibhāsakaṃ mama svabhāvabhūtaprakāśātmakaṃ cakṣustadghṛtam । idānīmatyantaṃ dīptam । yadetat amṛtaṃ karmaphalaṃ divyādivyavividhaviṣayopabhogātmakaṃ tat me mama āsan āsye vartate । sakalabhoktṛvargātmanā svayamevāvasthānāt । evaṃ svātmanaḥ pṛthīvyadhiṣṭhātṛrūpatāmabhidhāya vāyvātmanāntarikṣādhiṣṭhātṛtāmāha । arkaḥ jagatsraṣṭā prāṇaḥ । "so'rcannacarattasyārcata āpo'jāyantārcate vai me kamabhūditi tadevārkasyārkatvam" (śa brā 10.6.5) iti śruteḥ ।sa prāṇo'haṃ tridhātuḥ । tredhātmānaṃ vibhajya tatra vāyvātmanā rajasaḥ antarikṣasya vimānaḥ vimātā adhiṣṭhātā asmi । tathādityarūpeṇa dyulokādhiṣṭhātṛtāmāha । ajasro gharmaḥ iti । ajasro'nupakṣīṇo gharmaḥ prakāśātmā dyulokādhiṣṭhātā ādityo'hamasmi । evaṃ bhoktṛrūpamātmano'nusaṃdhāya bhogyarūpatāmapyanusaṃdhatte । yat haviḥ bhogyaṃ prasiddhamasti tadapyahameva asmi । kiṃca janmanā utpattyā jātavedā jātaprajño'smi । utpattikṣaṇe eva sarvajño'hamasmi । athavā jātaṃ sarvaṃ svātmarūpatayā vettīti jātavedāḥ । sarvātmaka ityarthaḥ । tadanenāgneḥ sarvātmakatvapratipādanena parabrahmatvamuktaṃ bhavati ।

Having directly experienced the Ultimate Reality, the rishi declares through the medium of Agni that he is identical to the universal reality. This entire existence is of the two-fold nature of "consumer" and "consumed". As the Veda itself says (Br. Up. 1.4.6): "Only this much is all this-- food and eater. Soma is verily the food and Agni is the eater". There Agni is the form of the category of all consumers. He pervades the Earth, Atmosphere and Heaven in the form of Agni, Vāyu and Āditya. As the Vedic text (Br. Up. 1.2.3) says: "He divided himself three ways, one third as Āditya and one third as Vāyu." Now I am this Agni "Jātavedā" because by my own nature I have realized the Ultimate Reality without having to resort to methods such as study, meditation and others. "Ghṛtaṃ" is my eye -- this my self-illuminating light that shines on this universe, that is my eye. "Amṛtaṃ" is my mouth -- the result of deeds in the form of all kinds of intake (i.e. consumption through senses or mind or other ways) goes into my mouth. This is because I take the form of every consumer and enjoyer. Having thus expounded his nature as the foundation of the Earth, he now declares his nature as the foundation of the Atmosphere in the form of Vāyu. I am "Arka", the creator of the universe, Prāṇa. Then he declares his nature as the foundation of Heaven in the form of Āditya. I am "ajasro gharmaḥ" -- inexhaustible heat (sun) as Āditya. Having thus described his Self as the "consumer", he now declares his form as the "consumed". I am "Havis", the form of food. Now what is the meaning of "Jātavedā"? Omniscient by birth. Or else, he knows every existing thing as his own Self. In other words, the Universal Self. Thus by declaring Agni as the Universal Self, the state of Parabrahma is declared. 

Some musings on the Rig Veda

The Rig Veda is the oldest of the four Vedas, which are collections of hymns and prose written in Sanskrit and dating back to the late 3rd to the early 2nd millennium BC. They form the cornerstone of sacred literature of Hinduism. Although the Vedas are accorded much respect and sanctity by the Hindus, only a handful of people today are really well-versed with the actual text of the Vedas, much less a deep understanding of Vedic philosophy or metaphysics. Even worse, the current trend among specialists is to deny the presence of any consistent underlying philosophy in the Vedas, and specifically Rig Veda. Two main reasons for this state of affairs are:

1. Demarcation of the Vedic corpus into Karma-kāṇḍa and Jñāna-kāṇḍa by traditional scholars. The Karma-kāṇḍa, consisting of the Samhitā, Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka texts, is supposed to deal only with ritual, whereas the Jñāna-kāṇḍa consisting of Upanishads is the spiritual knowledge part. In addition, medieval commentators on the Vedas like Sāyaṇācārya gave a face-value explanation of the Samhitā mantras, neglecting to see an integral metaphysical doctrine.

2. Starting in the late 18th century, the Rig Veda in particular captured the attention of European linguists and scholars who found a linguistic commonality between Sanskrit and Latin & Greek. This spurred on further research into finding a common source of all 3 languages, and by extension, of all languages in the newly recognized Indo-European language family. Early Oriental scholars were convinced that the homeland must have been India due to the very archaic form of Sanskrit preserved in the Vedas. However, this opinion changed starting in the mid-19th century when the theory of a Southern European "Urheimat" (German: "original homeland") were put forth. According to this theory, the people speaking the "Proto-Indo-European" language inhabited the steppes of southern Europe and Central Asia in nomadic communities, and one day decided to disperse to the east, west and south. In India, this implied that the immediate ancestors of the Vedic or "Aryan" people were intruders from outside. This theory played well into the hands of the colonialist agenda of the British ruling India, who claimed as much a right to conquer and rule the country as their Aryan cousins from 3000 years ago. But the most damaging aspect of this theory was that texts like the Rig Veda were mistranslated to serve as evidence for the movement of the so-called Aryan race into India.Today, after more than 200 years of perpetuation of the "Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory" against an increasing heap of counter-evidence from texts, archeology, paleo-anthropology and astronomy, it is still being debated. Although the problem of the linguistic affinities between the various members of the Indo-European language family is genuine, its solution cannot be through this theory of  "grand dispersal from a central point". I will stop here, as this whole subject has been, and is being, dealt with by several competent scholars elsewhere.

          In effect, the contents of the Rig Veda were shown to be mere poems, artistic creations of spur-of-the-moment aesthetic inspirations, rather than expressions of a metaphysics of universal validity. The hymns were seen as nothing more than odes to personified forces of nature in a childish attempt to pacify and curry favor. 

         

Such early translations of the Rig Veda by Max Muller and other Orientalists were helped in no small measure by the Sanskrit pandits under whom the Europeans studied. Max Muller, for example, liberally uses Sāyaṇa's 14th century commentaries. No doubt, Sāyaṇa can be defended by saying that he was only being faithful to the tradition that was prevalent during his time. 

This only shows how Vedic religion had morphed through the millennia. In the beginning, there was no attempt at systematizing. Hence, a profusion of hymns that were representative of personal realizations (sākṣātkāra) or vision (darśana) of hundreds of ṛṣis (incidentally, the Nirukta gives this definition: ṛṣih darśanāt - the vision is what makes a seer). Every one of the hymns was independently profound in the context of the individual, while revealing a common symbolism and metaphysics. Some hymns are turned out differently, while many use popular phrases. This in fact reflected precisely the central Vedic doctrine of "viśvam ekam" - multiplicity in unity, and unity of the multiplicity. This is also evident from the refrain of RV 3.55, "महद् देवानाम् असुरत्वं एकम् - mahad devānām asuratvam ekam" - great is the common Asura source of the Devas. While not denying the common cause of unity, this does not deny the multiplicity of the individual manifestations. In another sense, we could say that the ṛṣis were too full of life and joy in their constant realization that they didn't want to write a textbook, but rather compose songs, each one different from the next, but each one linked to the rest behind the notes - like various flowers strung together by the single thread.

The next stage was that of collecting and collating. This was the work of the Vyāsa, the Divider, which is actually a title and not a personal name. Once this habit of collecting and collating started, I think the Vedic people slowly began to lose the original vision of the ancient seers. Now, even in the earliest hymns of the Rig Veda, there is mention of forefathers, the ṛṣis who came before - "naḥ pitaraḥ - our fathers, the Aṅgiras and Bhṛgus, Navagvas and Daśagvas). Aṅgirā and Bhṛgu are said to be the originators of the Vedic tradition and metaphysics - almost every seer in Rig Veda can be traced back to either of these two; however, not one hymn of either of them has survived. This does not imply that the younger sages didn't respect the older ones - their reference in the hymns proves otherwise - but they hadn't lapsed into the habit of idolizing persons and their creations. The idea, the metaphysics, the tattva was what mattered, not the fixed arrangement of words by their forefathers. They learned the tattva from their forefathers, and made the realization (sākṣātkāra) their own, and composed their own songs in joy of it. In any case, we must be grateful to the later sages who preserved the earlier hymns for posterity, otherwise, we would not have had this glorious and extensive storehouse of knowledge.

In the next stage, as is wont to happen, the inner vision is gradually replaced by outer ritual. As we know even today, it is harder to meditate than to worship; it is harder to philosophize than to pray. Similar transformation started taking place in Vedic society. The earlier simple outer ritual of yajña was only meant to symbolize the underlying theory and beliefs, for, the real yajña was only performed on our behalf by Agni mentally - RV 1.77.2 "स चा बोधाति मनसा यजाति - sa cā bodhāti manasā yajāti". The ritualistic school developed to such a complex level, that the entire theory of ritual needed a systematizing codification. Hence the Mīmāmsā Sūtras by Jaimini were born. 

In parallel to the development of the Pūrva Mīmāmsā school of ritualism, there were sages who were attempting to simplify the inner doctrine of the Vedas by introducing new terminology and getting rid of the intricate symbolism of the Samhitā hymns. Modern scholars tend to separate the Upaniṣads from the earlier hymns, and call them a "revolt" against the ritualism of the hymns. However, the earliest, and most authoritative, Upaniṣads - Aitareya, Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Taittirīya, Īśa - all take the ritual for granted, and express their theories through the language of yajña. What the Upaniṣads say that is differently worded than the hymns is their use of a single word - Ātman, Brahman - to denote the all-encompassing unity principle of the hymns. What was denoted by many different names in the hymns is all now a single word. The "Ekam sat" of RV 1.164 is now "Satyam jñānam anantam brahma" of Tait. Up. 2.1. The only difference is that the Rig Veda maintains the reality of two levels - multiplicity and unity. The Upaniṣad says, "yes, we know of the two levels of reality, but we don't want to distract our students with the multiplicity, lest they never reach the unity." So for all we can see, the hymns are the songs of joy of the Siddha, the Accomplished, whereas the Upaniṣad is the textbook for the Sādhaka, the Path-finder, the one who is striving to become accomplished. A final proof that the Upaniṣads are in agreement with the hymns is the fact that they quote from the hymns. I shall provide detailed references in a future post.

Once again, when the Upaniṣadic literature itself grew unwieldy, along comes Bādarāyaṇa to codify all the essential doctrines in a systematic treatise called the Vedānta Sūtras of the Uttara Mīmāmsā school of Aupaniṣada Darśana, or metaphysical insight.

Thus, from the Rig Veda to the Vedānta Sūtras, we see a condensation, compaction and simplification of the same basic metaphysics. The poetic-mystical symbolism is reduced, and a more formulaic pedagogy is used. Eventually, great Vedanta teachers like Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja, Madhva come along, and their emphasis on the Upaniṣads and Vedānta Sūtras distanced the folk more and more from studying the Rig Veda and other Vedas for their intrinsic and original insight. The Samhitās were now seen as the Karma-kāṇḍa, in fact, as something almost bad for the final fate of the soul. I do realize that these teachers were all working within the frame of their society, when only Brahmins were allowed to perform yajñas and, therefore, to reduce the social inequality, they preached the non-essentiality of rituals for mokṣa. 

In the modern era, several eminent persons have attempted to revive the Vedas by the Samhitā, Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka texts, with partial successes. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Aurobindo and Ananda K. Coomaraswamy are three that have influenced me. The first, Dayanand Saraswati, I felt went a little too extreme in cutting out the texts other than the Samhitās. In fact, for his purpose of commenting on the Samhitā, the Brāhmaṇa texts are the most ancient and more authoritative commentary. They have preserved the original spirit of the Vedic metaphysics. Aurobindo, on the other hand, although he brought much enlightenment on the general greatness of the Vedic literature, was fond of quirky psychological interpretations of the gods in the Rig Veda. Such interpretations are a far deviation from the traditional Vedic theory. In this regard, I have found Ananda K. Coomaraswamy to be the closest to the spirit of the Vedas. His highly scholarly synthesis of various sources from the Samhitā, Brāhmaṇa, Āraṇyaka and Upaniṣad  texts, all the while providing penetrating insight into the deepest symbolism is a treat to read in his works. I shall also write more about his conclusions in future posts.