Context-based Vedic commentaries of Sāyaṇācārya

In several previous articles, I have elaborated on the deep intricate esoteric symbolism used in the Ṛgveda Samhitā to express very subtle and lofty spiritual knowledge and metaphysics, also known as brahmavidyā or adhyātmavidyā. In particular, the following articles describe in detail with direct quotations, the deep spiritual symbolism of Agni:

·  Essential nature of Agni 

· Agni – Part 2

·  Agni – Part 3

·  Bharadvāja’s enlightenment

The following article demonstrates another dimension of the esoteric symbolism of the Ṛgveda Samhitā:

• Asura in the Rig Veda

I have also written a couple of articles on the life and work of the great medieval Vedic scholar and commentator Sāyaṇācārya:

·   Sāyaṇācārya: Part 1 -- His life and work

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

In the second article above, I believe I have given a good response, in defence of Sāyaṇācārya, to the point of view prevalent in many circles of modernist scholars that Sāyaṇācārya’s commentaries on the Vedas are strictly from the ritualistic perspective in complete suppression of the spiritual content. In the same article, I have quoted the full commentary of Sāyaṇācārya on a particular mantra of Ṛṣi Viśvāmitra, which is a completely spiritual interpretation. 

There are dozens of examples where the commentary of Sāyaṇācārya does full justice to the spiritual expression of the mantras, as also seen in the above article on Bharadvāja’s enlightenment.

However, we must 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”.

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, “एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायैः 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. 

With the above vision in mind, tradition has assigned different contexts to different parts of the Veda, varying according to the viniyoga (application) of each part. As such, the Veda Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas are employed predominantly during the yajñas and other rituals, while the Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads are employed predominantly as pedagogical texts to elaborate the internal philosophy of the rituals. Even here, there is significant overlap and crisscrossing of subject matter, as is evidenced in the above-mentioned articles.

Fortunately for us, there is Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad, also known as Yājñikī Upaniṣad which is the tenth chapter of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka. This Upaniṣad consists of numerous entire sections that are verbatim quotes of mantras from the Ṛgveda Samhitā. This clearly shows that the ancient Ṛṣis who composed the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka knew the deep spiritual metaphysics hidden within the Samhitā mantras, so much so that they felt that these mantras can speak directly about the philosophy that Upaniṣads are meant to convey.

This makes me feel completely validated and justified in sincerely understanding the deep and intimate concordance between the Ṛgveda Samhitā and the Upaniṣads. It proves to me incontrovertibly that my understanding of Vedas is completely in agreement with the long and ancient tradition. I have demonstrated the concordance in this article:

 ·  Concordance of Ṛg Veda Samhitā with Upaniṣads

Furthermore, this deep intimate concordance is also demonstrated by the context-based commentary of Sāyaṇācārya. What I mean by “context-based” is that his commentary differs in focus depending on the part of the Veda where a mantra occurs. In particular, a mantra occurring in the Samhitā is given a more ritual-oriented explanation, while the same mantra occurring in the Āraṇyaka is given a more philosophical explanation. Again, this has been made possible by the existence of the tenth chapter of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, i.e. Yājñikī Upaniṣad, which quotes big chunks of Samhitā mantras in their original form.

---

Ṛṣi Bharadvāja’s enlightenment in the Ṛgveda

The Ṛgveda Samhitā is the fount of all religious, spiritual and philosophical systems that originated in India. It contains the seeds of all subsequent developments. And yet, it is misunderstood even by people who claim to be Vedic scholars or experts in Hinduism.

I have seen two categories of views on the Veda Samhitās. The first view is that of western Indologists and academics who, since the time of Max Muller, see the mantras as nothing but primitive and childish prayers to gods asking for material benefits, without any higher spiritual content. This category sees a gradual "development" or "progress" in maturity from the Samhitās to the Upaniṣads, which are the sole containers of philosophy, metaphysics and higher subtle thought. In fact, this category is of the opinion that the Upaniṣads represent a revolt against the prevalent Vedic religion represented by the so-called ritualistic Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas and the institution of yajña. Many, and probably the vast majority of, modern-day thinkers, scholars and laypeople are of the same view.

The second view is that of some Indian scholars such as Aurobindo, Dayanand Sarasvati, and their followers and admirers. According to this category, the Samhitās contain knowledge encrypted in symbols that has been ignored by tradition. And this category goes to extreme lengths trying to attribute strange new-age psychological interpretations to the deities. In effect, this category tries to force-fit their ideas into the Samhitā texts, and the result is a strange, highly concocted, artificial and unusable meaning of the mantras. According to this category, the Samhitās alone contain the original, uncorrupted philosophy of the Vedas, and the Upaniṣads are deviations and corruptions.

I find that both the above categories are equally incorrect, simplistic and inadequate explanations of the complex Vedic corpus. Even a cursory glance at the Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads shows the common thread running through all of them. That is why tradition has grouped these together under the term Veda. The above two categories of incorrect views result from the arrogance and presumption that they themselves have better knowledge of the Vedas than the tradition of thousands of years, whose adherents solely dedicated their entire lives to the study and analysis of the Vedas. I shall write a future article on the concordance between the Samhitās and Upaniṣads.

I had previously shown the deep spiritual and metaphysical meanings of Agni in the Ṛgveda (here, here and here). I had also shown (here) that the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya recognizes appropriately the spiritual symbolism present in the mantras. 

Here, I shall provide another example of the spiritual knowledge present in the Ṛgveda Samhitā, and its recognition in the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya.

The present sūktam is Ṛgveda 6.9, whose ṛṣi is Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya and devatā is Agni Vaiśvānara. 

To me, this hymn is quintessentially Vedāntic in its vocabulary and expression. It is surprisingly "modern" in its candid expression of the internal process of self-realization, and yet, it is undoubtedly one of the most ancient Vedic hymns, as also its author is a very ancient seer in the Vedic lineage. This again proves to me that the entire Vedic corpus contains the same metaphysics throughout. I shall present Sāyaṇa's commentary where the mantra appears to be cryptic or where it has multiple meanings, and hence his commentary shows the traditional understanding of the spiritual meaning of the mantra.

अहश्च कृष्णमहरर्जुनं च वि वर्तेते रजसी वेद्याभिः । 
वैश्वानरो जायमानो न राजावातिरज्ज्योतिषाग्निस्तमांसि ॥१॥

ahaśca kṛṣṇamahararjunaṃ ca vi vartete rajasī vedyābhiḥ |
vaiśvānaro jāyamāno na rājāvātirajjyotiṣāgnistamāṃsi ||

"The dark day (i.e. night) and the bright day (i.e. day) which enliven all creatures keep turning around by means of well-known signs. Vaiśvānara, being born like a king, dispells darkness with his light."

Sāyaṇa: "... रजसी स्वस्वभासा सर्वं जगद्रञ्जयन्तौ .... यद्वा रजसी द्यावापृथिव्यौ । ... एतच्च वैश्वानराग्नेराज्ञया ... । "  -- "rajasī means the pair which illuminate or enliven everything by their brilliance. The other meaning of rajasī is the earth and heaven. ... All this comes from the will of Agni Vaiśvānara."

---

नाहं तन्तुं न विजानाम्योतुं न यं वयन्ति समरेऽतमानाः ।
कस्य स्वित्पुत्र इह वक्त्वानि परो वदात्यवरेण पित्रा ॥२॥

nāhaṃ tantuṃ na vijānāmyotuṃ na yaṃ vayanti samare'tamānāḥ |
kasya svitputra iha vaktvāni paro vadātyavareṇa pitrā ||

"I do not know the warp (tantu) nor do I know the woof (otu) nor that which they weave in the gathering. Whose son shall here talk about the subject, through his father who was recent?"

Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरस्य महत्त्वमाख्यास्यन्नृषिस्तदर्थं यज्ञं वस्त्रात्मकतया रूपयन् तस्य दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीति यज्ञवादिनो मन्यन्ते । पटं यज्ञलक्षणं देवयजने सततं चेष्टमानाः ऋत्विजः तन्तूनोतूंश्च संतन्वन्ति । वस्त्ररूपेण निष्पादयन्तीत्यर्थः । इह अस्मिन् लोके कस्य स्वित् कस्य खलु पुत्रः मनुष्यः वक्तव्यानि परस्तादमुष्मिन् लोके वर्तमानो यः सुर्यः तस्य पित्रा अवस्तादस्मिन् लोके वर्तमानेन वैश्वानराग्निनानुशिष्टः सन् वदेत्? न कश्चिदपि प्रवदितुं शक्नोतीत्यर्थः । रूपकतया जगत्सृष्टेर्दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीत्यात्मविदो मन्यन्ते । तन्तून् तन्तुस्थानानि वियदादीन्यपञ्चीकृतानि भूतानि न विजानामि । ओतून् पञ्चीकृतानि स्थूलान्योतुस्थानीयान्यपि वियदादीनि न विजानामि । न च तत्कार्यं पटस्थानीयं प्रपञ्चं विजानामि यं प्रपञ्चं सततं चेष्टमानाः संसारिणो वयन्ति उत्पादयन्ति । तेषां भोगार्थमीश्वरः सृजतीति कर्तृत्वमुपचर्यते । इहास्मिन्विषये परस्ताद्बुद्धेरविषये वक्तव्यानीमान्यवरेण अर्वाचीनेन सृष्ट्युत्तरकालमुत्पन्नेन पित्रा स्वजनकेनानुशिष्टः सन् कस्य खलु पुत्रः वदेत् । स्वोत्पत्तेः प्राचीनं वृत्तान्तमजानानः कश्चिदपि न वदेदित्यर्थः ।"

"According to the school of ritualistic interpretation, the ṛṣi is trying to describe the greatness of Vaiśvānara through the symbolism of the yajña as a fabric, and expresses the difficulty of knowing it. The ever-active priests weave the warp and woof of this fabric. The ṛṣi is giving an analogy of the sun in heaven as the son, and Agni Vaiśvānara on earth as the father, and asks, which human can talk about these deep topics having been instructed by his father? The meaning is that nobody can. According to the school of metaphysics or spiritual interpretation, this is a symbolism for the universe whose creation is a mystery and cannot be known. The warp symbolizes the undifferentiated subtle elements, and the woof symbolizes the differentiated gross elements. The creatures living in the universe are constantly weaving this fabric by their activities. Or this fabric has been woven by the creator for the enjoyment of the creatures. So being here (in this universe), to talk about things that are beyond the intellect, nobody who has been instructed by their human father (whose birth is recent compared to the universe), can talk about these things. Having not understood the ancient source of their origin, nobody can talk about these mysteries."

---

स इत्तन्तुं स विजानात्योतुं स वक्त्वान्यृतुथा वदाति । 
य ईं चिकेतदमृतस्य गोपा अवश्चरन्परो अन्येन पश्यन् ॥३॥

sa ittantuṃ sa vijānātyotuṃ sa vaktvānyṛtuthā vadāti |
ya īṃ ciketadamṛtasya gopā avaścaranparo anyena paśyan ||

"He knows the warp and the woof, and he speaks the truths from time to time. He who sees all this, is the protector of immortality, and he roams below, while seeing through another above."

Sāyaṇa: "यद्यपि उक्तेन प्रकारेण दुर्ज्ञानानि तथाप्येतानि वैश्वानरोऽग्निः जानाति वदति चेत्यनया प्रतिपादयति । स एव वैश्वानरोऽग्निः तन्तुस्थानीयानि गायत्र्यादीनि छन्दांसि स्तुतशस्त्राणि तथा ओतुस्थानीयानि यजूंष्याध्वर्यवाणि च कर्माणि वि जानाति । ऋतुथा काले काले तत्तदनुष्ठानसमये वक्तव्यानि वदेत् । अवस्तात् भूलोके पार्थिवाग्निरूपेण संचरन् परस्ताद्दिवि सूर्यात्मना सर्वं जगत् प्रकाशयन् इमानि परिदृश्यमानानि सर्वाणि भूतानि जानाति । यद्वा । स एव तन्तुं तन्तुस्थानीयानि सूक्ष्मभूतानि विजानाति नान्यः कश्चित् । तथौतुमोतुस्थानीयानि स्थूलभूतानि च स एव विजानाति । स एव वक्तव्यान्युपदेष्टव्यानि काले काले यदा यदा विद्यासंप्रदायोच्छेदस्तदा तदा वदेत् । कोऽसौ यो विजानीयाद्वदेच्चेत्यत आह । यो वैश्वानरो विश्वनरात्मकः परमात्मामृतत्वस्य विमोक्षणस्य गोपा रक्षिता अवस्तात् संसारदशायां चरन् अन्तःकरणोपेतः जीवात्मभावेन संचरन् परस्तादविद्याया ऊर्ध्वं वर्तमानेनान्येनोक्तविलक्षणेन निरुपाधिकेन सच्चिदादिलक्षणेन रूपेण पश्यन् सर्वं जगत्प्रकाशयन् इमानि जानाति । तथा च परमात्मानं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते -- ’तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (श्वेउ ६।१४)"

"(Ritualistic interpretation): These mysteries are known to Agni Vaiśvānara. He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the various chandases and the woof symbolizing the ritualistic works of the Yajus. He speaks from time to time as in during the regular times of performance of the rituals. He moves on the earth in the form of the terrestrial fire while seeing all creatures in the form of the sun giving light to the entire universe. Or else:
(Spiritual/metaphysical interpretation): He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the subtle elements and the woof symbolizing the gross elements. He alone speaks the secret teaching from time to time when the lineage of knowledge is broken among humans. Who is this who knows and shall speak? He who is known as Vaiśvānara, who is present in all living creatures, the Paramātman, the protector of immortality, i.e. Mokṣa. He moves in the world as the Jīvātman conjoined with the mind, and sees the universe through the higher form, beyond Avidyā, and defined as Saccidānanda without attributes. This form illuminates the entire universe. Hence it is said in the Śruti: "Everything shines because He shines, by His light everything is lit up" (Śvet. Up. 6.14)"

---

अयं होता प्रथमः पश्यतेममिदं ज्योतिरमृतं मर्त्येषु ।
अयं स जज्ञे ध्रुव आ निषत्तोऽमर्त्यस्तन्वा३ वर्धमानः ॥४॥

ayaṃ hotā prathamaḥ paśyatemamidaṃ jyotiramṛtaṃ martyeṣu |
ayaṃ sa jajñe dhruva ā niṣatto'martyastanvā3 vardhamānaḥ ||

"He is the first invoker, see Him, this immortal light within mortals. He is born firm and he is omnipresent (i.e. present everywhere), and being immortal he grows through a body."

(This is pretty straightforward, and it is quite clear from Sāyaṇa's commentary).

---

ध्रुवं ज्योतिर्निहितं दृशये कं मनो जविष्ठं पतयत्स्वन्तः । 
विश्वे देवाः समनसः सकेताः एकं क्रतुमभि वि यन्ति साधु ॥५॥

dhruvaṃ jyotirnihitaṃ dṛśaye kaṃ mano javiṣṭhaṃ patayatsvantaḥ |
viśve devāḥ samanasaḥ saketāḥ ekaṃ kratumabhi vi yanti sādhu ||

"This firm light, that is bliss, that is subtler than the mind, is hidden within the senses (or creatures). All the deities, with one intention and one intelligence, surround Him, the doer of deeds."

Sāyaṇa: "ध्रुवं निश्चलं मनसः तस्मादपि जविष्ठं अतिशयेन वेगवत् ईदृशं वैश्वानराख्यं ज्योतिः पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु जङ्गमेषु प्राणिषु अन्तः मध्ये निहितं प्रजापतिना स्थापितम् । किमर्थम् । दर्शनार्थम् । किं च सर्वे देवाः समानमनस्काः समानप्रज्ञाश्च सन्तः एकं मुख्यं गन्तारं वा क्रतुं कर्मणां कर्तारं सम्यक् आभिमुख्येन विविधं प्राप्नुवन्ति सेवन्त इत्यर्थः । यद्वा । पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु प्राणिष्वन्तर्मध्ये हृदये मनो जविष्ठं मनसोऽप्यतिशयेन वेगयुक्तं ध्रुवं निश्चलं निर्विकल्पम् । तथा च वाजसनेयकं -- "अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयः" (वा सं ४०।४) इति । ज्योतिर्ब्रह्म चैतन्यं निहितम् । न केनचित् स्थापितम् । "यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्" (तै आ ८।१) इति हि श्रूयते । किमर्थम् । दृशये दर्शनार्थम् । ज्ञानेन हि सर्वं जानन्ति । दीव्यन्तीति देवा इन्द्रियाणि । विश्वे सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुराद्याः समनसो मनसा सह वर्तमानाः सकेताः सतेजस्काः सन्त एकमद्वितीयं क्रतुं सृष्ट्यादीनां कर्मणां कर्तारं विश्वनरात्मकं परमात्मानमभिलक्ष्य साधु सम्यक् वि यन्ति विविधं गच्छन्ति । देवा एव वेममभि वि यन्ति । आभिमुख्येन विविधमुपयन्ति । उपासत इत्यर्थः । तथा च श्रूयते -- "तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्" (बृ उ ४/४/१६) इति ।"

"(Adhibhūtam/adhidaivatam) The firm light called Vaiśvānara, which is subtler than the mind, is placed within the creatures by Prajāpati for the sake of the vision. And all the gods with common mind and common consciousness serve this one doer of actions. Or else:
(Adhyātmam) Within the creatures, i.e. in the heart, there is hidden a firm and independent light that is subtler than the mind. As the Vājasaneyi text says: "The unmoving one that is faster than the mind" (Iśa. Up. 4). The light is Brahman consciousness. It is not established by anyone, i.e. it is there by its own nature. As the Śruti says: "Whoever knows this that is hidden in the heart in the highest space" (Tai. Up. 2.1). The purpose of this light is to have the vision, because by this vision one knows everything. The senses are called Devas because they shine or because they go forth. So the senses along with the mind approach this One Doer from various directions. This Doer is the Vaiśvānara, the omnipresent Paramātman, who does various deeds such as creation, etc. Or the Devas worship Vaiśvānara. As it is said in the Śruti: "The Devas worship the Light of lights, the Immortal." (Br. Up. 4.4.16)."

---

वि मे कर्णा पतयतो वि चक्षुर्वी३दं ज्योतिर्हृदय आहितं यत् ।
वि मे मनश्चरति दूरआधीः किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये ॥६॥

vi me karṇā patayato vi cakṣurvī3daṃ jyotirhṛdaya āhitaṃ yat |
vi me manaścarati dūraādhīḥ kiṃ svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye ||

"My ears fly forth, and my eyes fly forth striving to see this Light hidden within the heart. My mind wanders far in search of it, what shall I speak of, and what shall I think?"

(This verse almost appears modern in its candid description of the internal processes when the sage is in rapture of his vision of the Light, when he has lost himself in the One Consciousness, such that he is beyond speech and thought. The last phrase "किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये - kim svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye" is an exact paraphrase of "यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह - yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha", "From which speech and mind turn back, not having reached" of Taittirīya Upaniṣad.)

Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरं श्रोतुकामस्य मम कर्णौ वि पतयतः विविधं गच्छतः । श्रोतव्यानां तदीयगुणानां बहुत्वात् । तथा वैश्वानरं दिदृक्षमाणस्य मम चक्षुः इन्द्रियं वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति । द्रष्टव्यानां तदीयरूपाणां बहुत्वात् । तथा ज्योतिः प्रकाशकं हृदये हृदयपुण्डरीके आहितं निहितं यत् बुद्ध्याख्यं तत्त्वं इदमपि वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति वैश्वानरात्मानं ज्ञातुम् । अपि च दूरआधीः । दूरे विप्रकृष्टे विषय आधीराध्यानं यस्य तादृशम् । मे मदीयं मनः च वि चरति विविधं प्रवर्तते । एवमहमहमिकया सर्वेष्विन्द्रियेषु प्रवृत्तेषु किं स्वित् अहं वैश्वानरस्य रूपमिति वक्ष्यामि । किमु नु किमु खलु संप्रति मनिष्ये मनसा प्रपत्स्ये । वैश्वानरस्य गुणानामनन्तत्वात् मन्दप्रज्ञेन मया ज्ञातुं न शक्यत इत्यर्थः ।"

"Desirous of hearing Vaiśvānara, my ears go forth in different directions due to His infinite qualities to be heard. Desirous of seeing Him, my sight goes forth due to the infinite forms to be seen. The light established in the heart also strives to know the Vaiśvānara Ātman. Thus with all the senses striving to know Him, and since they fail, what can I say and what can I think about it? (i.e. He is beyond the senses, but I have already found Him as the immortal light within my heart)."

---

विश्वे देवा अनमस्यन् भियानास्त्वामग्ने तमसि तस्थिवांसम् ।
वैश्वानरोऽवतूतये नोऽमर्त्योऽवतूतये नः ॥७॥

viśve devā anamasyan bhiyānāstvāmagne tamasi tasthivāṃsam |
vaiśvānaro'vatūtaye no'martyo'vatūtaye naḥ ||

"All the gods bowed down in fear in front of you, Agni, when you were hidden in the darkness. May Vaiśvānara protect us, may the Immortal One protect us."

This verse is quite clear and needs no explanation. However, there is a deep metaphysics associated with the "Agni hidden in the darkness", which I have discussed in detail in my Agni: Part 3 article. 

Sāyaṇācārya: Part 1 -- His life and work

Sāyaṇācārya is a unique personality in India's history, and as equally unique as his older brother Mādhavācārya, who was better known as Svāmī Vidyāraṇya of the famous Śṛṅgerī Maṭha. These brothers, who lived in the 14th century CE, together can very aptly be called India's Yuga Puruṣas (millenial men) of the last 1000 years - such is the significance and force of their life's work. 

The all-roundedness of their multifaceted contribution to India's cultural, religious, social, political, geographical and civilizational continuity is unmatched in the entire history of India considering the extremely adverse and hostile situation of their era. 

If we were to look back at India's long and ancient history, we would find probably one or two other such gigantic personalities who can lay claim to the title of Yuga Puruṣa. One is Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva from the 2nd millenium BCE, and the other is Kauṭilya Cāṇakya from the 1st millenium BCE. Both these men are well-known for their multifaceted contribution to India's civilization. However, I dare say that the difficulties and adversities faced by these two men are trivial in comparison to those faced by Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya. 

From ancient times down to the 1st millenium CE, India was at the peak of its civilizational glory. Its borders were secure, its economy prosperous, its culture vibrant and flourishing, its philosophical and spiritual traditions shining like a beacon of enlightenment for the whole world. Its ancient universities were thronged by foreign students from far and wide, just as students today throng to the American universities. 

The obstacles that Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva overcame in his time were largely internal and benign to India's civilization. The obstacles that Kauṭilya Cāṇakya overcame in his time were foreign, but they were so minor in comparison to the strength and solidarity still pervasive in the civilization of the time. 

The obstacles that Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya faced in their time were foreign and brutal, of monstrous and barbaric proportions never before seen in India's long civilization. These obstacles were of the character of ferocious and unrelenting attack by the armies of Muslim invaders who were having a field day, easily destroying Hindu kingdoms and decimating India's glorious civilization. 

At such a weakened, chaotic and calamitous time, Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya were pivotal in organizing and guiding a powerful resistance to the advance of Islam in southern India. The final form of this resistance is very well-known as the Vijayanagara empire, which flourished under the dharmarājya of kings Harihara and Bukkarāya at its inception, and then later by their equally capable brothers Kampaṇa, Muddappa and Mārappa, as well as the second generation king Kumāra Kampaṇa who freed the Tamil country from brutal Muslim rule (the contemporaneous account of the liberation of Madurai is the Sanskrit work Madhurāvijayam written by his queen Gaṅgādevī). I shall not dwell too much into the glories of the Vijayanagara empire, as it has already been admirably and famously described by foreign travelers of the era and by later historians and history buffs. In summary, the Vijayanagara empire brought back the ancient glory of Indian Hindu civilization and preserved Hinduism in south India in a time of ferocious and predatory Islamic invasions in the rest of India.

One important point to note is that the founding kings of Vijayanagara, Harihara and Bukkarāya, whom Svāmī Vidyāraṇya consulted with and chose to lead the new kingdom, were neither Brahmins nor Kshatriyas. They were from the caste of Kannada Vokkaligas, traditionally Kurubas, or shepherds. This is very significant for the present-day social justice warriors to remember when they incessantly and ignorantly rant about the oppression of the caste system. To Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya, who were Brahmins by birth, no other two people were more capable than Harihara and Bukkarāya to lead this new Hindu kingdom. This also has exact parallels with Kauṭilya Cāṇakya choosing the "low caste" Candragupta Maurya to be the king. So much for caste discrimination!

The achievements of the Vijayanagara empire are unmatched by any other medieval kingdom, be it the Maratha empire or the Sikh empire. The reason is that in the 14th century, the Hindu kingdoms were still shell-shocked by the brutality and ferocity of the Muslim invasions, and were utterly scattered and clueless as to how to re-organize themselves and stay alive, much less put up a fight. One after another, the Hindu kingdoms were falling like flies in the face of the Muslim invasions. At such a time, the Vijayanagara empire is truly a visionary and courageous idea that was never tried before in India's history. The crux of this idea was to unite all the fallen and weak kingdoms under the umbrella of the Vijayanagara rule so that a single combined effort would potentially be able to resist the invasions and sustain Hindu civilization. The founding team of the Vijayanagara empire were the first to recognize the threat of Islamic imperialism to Hindu civilization and respond in a systematic, strategic and intelligent manner. So the founders of the Vijayanagara empire were true pioneers of their time. 

It is highly regrettable that today's Indian leaders have forgotten the lessons from Vijayanagara, just as the kings of early centuries CE forgot the lessons from Kauṭilya Cāṇakya. It is also regrettable that the leaders of India's freedom movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not have the same wholistic integral Vedic vision of Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya.

After 350 years of glorious rule, when the Vijayanagara empire also collapsed due to several reasons, in the 17th century, its political, administrative and military organization was an inspiration for the great Shivaji in his establishment of the Maratha empire.  

Thus was the inimitable and unreplicable contribution of Sāyaṇa and Vidyāraṇya to the resurgence and revival of India's native civilization through pioneering work in the arena of politics, administration and statesmanship. 

Even more remarkable is the fact that after devoting their most energetic and youthful decades to the materialistic well-being of Hindu civilization, the two brothers went on to make seminal contributions to the spiritual well-being of Hindu civilization --

Svāmī Vidyāraṇya became the pontiff of the Śṛṅgerī Maṭha that was established by the Ādi Śaṅkarācārya in the 7th century CE. Under his leadership, the monastery started keeping accurate historical records that have been indispensable for understanding the history of not only the monastery but also the social and political climate through the centuries. Further, he authored several highly regarded and authoritative works on Advaita philosophy. The most famous work, the Pañcadaśī, is a very unique treatise that explains Advaita through the medium of worldly areas of interest such as painting, music, dance and drama. This is, again in his own style, inimitable because the typical saṃnyāsī is advised or is under the impression that monkhood means the complete renunciation of, and aversion to, worldly matters. Whereas the true saṃnyāsī is enlightened to see the whole world through Advaita.  

Sāyaṇācārya contributed in another crucial area of spirituality and religion, the Vedas. We shall take a deeper look into this in Part 2.  

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.