संस्कृतसाहित्ये परिहासाः

यदि भवन्तः मन्यन्ते संस्कृतभाषा केवलं अतिगम्भीरविषयानामेव व्यक्तकरणे उपयुक्ता इति, न साधु मतं भवद्भिः ।

हास्यकाव्यानि, हास्यनाटकानि बहूनि सन्ति । अपि चाटुपद्यानां तु महाभण्डार एवास्ति । हास्यसाहित्यं यावत्पर्यन्तं व्युत्पाद्यते भाषायां, तावत्कालं भाषा जनानां जिह्वासु संचरन्ती आसीदिति निश्चयेन ज्ञायते ।

अधः प्रस्तूयमानाः हास्यपङ्क्तयः महावेदाचार्य श्रीमत्सायणाचार्यस्य कस्मिंश्चद् ग्रन्थे आयान्ति —

गृध्री गृध्रं पृच्छति, “पते! कथमद्य नास्माकं श्मशाने धूम उदेति?”

गृध्रः प्रतिवदति, “प्रायः अद्यास्माकं वैद्यः पार्श्वग्रामं गतः !”

:-) lol

(Originally posted here: https://qr.ae/TWrj99 Aug 22, 2019)

हारो नारोपितः कण्ठे

“हारो नारोपितः कण्ठे मया विश्लेषभीरुणा ।

इदानीमावयोर्मध्ये सरित्सागरपर्वताः ॥”

अयं श्लोकः कस्मादुद्धृत इति स्पष्टतया न जाने । विद्वान् श्री शतावधानी गणेश महोदयस्य कस्मिंश्चित् प्रवचने श्रुतमिति स्मृतं यदयं श्लोकः हनूमन्नाटके आयाति इति ।

सन्दर्भः रामस्य सीतावियोगं प्रति दुःखप्रकटनम् । पूर्वं यदा सीता रामेण सहासीत्, तदा रामः कण्ठे कमपि हारमपि न धारयति स्म, किमर्थं, आलिङ्गने तिलमात्रमपि तयोर्मध्ये विश्लेषणं मा भूदिति । इदानीं रावणापहरणानन्तरं तु हारस्तत्र तिष्ठतु, सरितः, सागरः, पर्वता एव सन्त्यावयोर्मध्ये इत्यतिरमणीया ध्वनिरत्र सृष्टा ।

शास्त्रीयरीत्या अत्र “ध्वन्यालोक” प्रणेत्रा श्रीमदानन्दवर्धनाचार्येण ध्वनिसिद्धान्तः प्रयुज्यते । तत्पश्चात् सन्त्यनेका अलङ्काराः यथा - अनुप्रासः, श्लेषः, इत्यादि ।

(Originally posted here: https://qr.ae/TWyeCd Aug 29, 2019)

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. 

संस्कृत-प्राकृतयोर्मध्ये वस्तुतः कियदन्तरमस्ति?

प्रायः आङ्ग्लशासनकालादारभ्याधुनापर्यन्तं ये भारते पण्डितंमन्यमानाः बुद्धिजीवयः आसन् सन्ति च, तेषां पाश्चात्यदुःसिद्धान्तगतानुगतिकानां “अन्धेन नीयमाना यथान्धाः” इत्युपनिषद्वाङ्निदर्शनरूपाणामपसिद्धान्तानामनुसारेण, “संस्कृतभाषा” इति तु केवलं ब्राह्मणानां गुह्यभाषा एव, न तु सर्वैरुपयुक्ता सार्वजनिका व्यावहारिकी भाषा । अपि च एतैरेव भ्रान्तिमद्भिर्वामपन्थिभिर्बालैर्वराकैर्कुटिलाचारैः इदमपि कथितं — ब्राह्मणेतरैः सर्वजनैः काचित् संस्कृतभाषायाः अत्यन्तविरुद्धा चासम्बद्धा च “प्राकृतभाषा” इति भाषिताभवदिति ।
सुसंमूढैरेतैः बुद्धिजीविभिः— “ब्राह्मणाः उद्देश्यपूर्वकं परस्परं मिलित्वा कपटबुद्ध्या सर्वं ज्ञानं ब्राह्मणेतरेभ्यः गोप्तुं सर्वान् ग्रन्थान् कस्यांश्चित् कृत्रिमायां “संस्कृतभाषा” इत्येतस्यां निबबन्धुः”—इत्यपि निराधारं निर्लज्जया कथितम् । अन्यस्तु सुप्रसिद्धो वा कुप्रसिद्धो वा असत्सिद्धान्तः “आर्याणामाक्रमणम्” इति। अयं वदति यत् भारतस्य “मूलवासिनः” वैदिकेतरं कंचिद्धर्ममनुसरन्त आसन्, तेषां भाषा च “आदिद्रविड” इति काचिदासीदिति च। तर्हि आर्याणामाक्रमणात् एतेषामादिवासिनां संस्कृतिर्विनष्टा तदनन्तरं आर्याणां समाजे तान् आदिवासिनामवशेषान् शूद्रान्त्यजादिरूपेण व्यवस्थाप्य तेषामुपरि ब्राह्मणाद्युच्चजातीयाः बहवोऽत्याचाराः कृतवन्तः इत्यादि निराधाराश्चोपपत्तिरहिताश्च दुष्प्रचाराः कृताः । प्रथमस्तु “आर्याः” इति केऽपि जनविशेषाः नैवासन्निति तु सुसिद्धं । द्वितीयः, एतेषां मिथ्याजनानां याः ग्रन्थाः सन्ति “वेदाः” नाम, तेषु वेदेषु नैकमपि पदमस्ति यत् सन्देहमात्रमपि आर्याक्रमणविचारं प्रतिपादयति ।
एतादृशानामसत्यप्रचारैः बहुदशकेभ्यः भारतीयानां मनांसि परस्परं गरितानि भवन्त एव सन्ति बहुविधविघटनं चातिवेगेन भवन्नस्ति । अस्यैकमुदाहरणं — औत्तरदाक्षिणात्यानां मध्ये विघटनं यतः द्रविडदेशे उत्पन्नं “द्रविडीयत्व”आन्दोलनं त्वनुपपत्तीनामुपरि निर्मितमस्ति । अस्यानुसारेण, केवलं द्रविडदेशीया एव भारतस्य मूलवासिनः, औत्तरास्तु वैदेशिकाः यत एव ते कल्पितवैदेशिकभाषां संस्कृतं भाषन्ते । अन्यमुदाहरणं उच्चनीचजातीयानां कलहस्तु प्रसिद्ध एव । तत्रापि उच्चजातीयाः संस्कृतमवदन्, नीचजातीयाः प्राकृतमवदन्, तर्हि नीचजातीया “मूलवासिनः”, उच्चजातीयाः बाह्याः आगत्य शासितारः अभवन्नित्यादि बालिशाः वचः । परं अपरकालेषु व्युत्पन्नः जातिविभागः वेदेष्वनुपलब्धः । तर्हि न तु वैदिकव्यवस्था निन्द्या, वस्तुतः जना एव निन्द्याः ।
उपरिदीर्घप्रस्तावनानन्तरं, सद्यः एकं दुष्प्रचारं निवारयितुं प्रयतिष्ये — संस्कृतप्राकृतयोरन्तरं नास्तीति ।
वेदकालादारभ्य पाणिनिकालपूर्वं यावत् या भाषा भाषितासीत्, सा तु वेदस्यैव भाषा । अस्य प्रमाणं तु वेदे उपलब्धाः बहवः दैनन्दिनोपयुक्तानि पदानि —यदि वेदभाषा सार्वजनिका व्यावहारिकी भाषा न स्यात्, तानि पदानि न स्युः । तर्हि सा भाषा “प्राकृता” अर्थात् प्रकृतितः, नैसर्गिकरीत्या, अकृत्रिमा भूत्वा सर्वजनैः भाषिता एव इत्यत्र नास्ति संशयः । तदनन्तरं भगवतः पाणिनेर्काले वेदभाषा प्राचीना आसीत्, परं तस्या एव दुहिता तात्कालिका “भाषा” आसीत् । केवलं “भाषा” इत्येवाभिज्ञाता । इदं भगवतो पाणिनेरष्टाध्याय्यामेव निगदितं । तत्र भगवान् वेदभाषां “वेदे”, “छन्दसि” इति सूचयति, अपि च तात्कालिकां भाषां तु केवलं “भाषा” इत्येव सूचयति । ततो ज्ञातं यदभाषितवेदभाषायाः भाषितभाषायाश्च संबन्धः मातृदुहितृवदेवेति, अथवा नैक एव व्याकरणग्रन्थः द्वाभ्यामप्यनुसन्दधातुं शक्नोति । भगवतः पाणिनेर्महत्तपःप्रभावात् पूर्वं या वैविध्यमयी बहुशब्दधातुरूपसाध्या प्राकृता भाषा संस्कारापन्ना कतिपयनिर्धारितरूपमयी “संस्कृता” इति नामाङ्किता ।
यतो ह्येव वेदेऽपि बहूनि पदानि लभ्यन्ते यानि अपाणिनीयानीति कथितुं शक्नुवन्ति । उदाहरणानि—

• मूलरूपं — “कुटस्य”; संस्कृतनिरुक्तं — “कृतस्य”
• मूलरूपं — “कीकटाः”; संस्कृतनिरुक्तं — “किं कृताः”
• मूलरूपं — “वालः”; संस्कृतनिरुक्तं — “वारः”

अपि च, या पाणिनिसंस्कृता भाषा अधुना वयमुपयुज्मः, तस्यामपि बहूनि पदानि “प्राकृत”रूपेष्वेव सन्ति । यथा — “भट्टः” इत्यस्य पदस्य सुसंस्कृतं रूपं तु “भर्त्ता” इति । परं संस्कृते अपि तदसंस्कृतं रूपमेवोपयुक्तं भवति । तदेव वैचित्र्यं — न “संस्कृतप्राकृत” इति नामधेययोः भाषयोर्मध्ये तथ्यतः भेदोऽस्ति । पुनः, यदि प्रतिपादयामो एतयोर्मध्ये भेदः, प्राकृतपदानां निरुक्तं कथं क्रियते इति चिन्तितव्यं, यतः उदाहरणाय “धम्मः” इति पदस्य “धर्मः धारणात् धारयतीति वा” इति संस्कृतनिरुक्तमेव दातव्यं । तर्हि प्राकृतभाषायाः पृथक्त्वं कथं सम्पद्यते? नैव ।

The santṛpti and power of traditional Indian women

Just yesterday my mother was telling me a little snippet from old memories from more than 20 years ago.

Back then my parents lived in a joint family with my paternal grandparents and my two uncles (father’s brothers).

Apparently, one day there was some kind of an argument between grandmother and one of her sons. My mom witnessed my grandmother reportedly scolding her adult sons and saying, “You may be a big officer outside the house, but inside the house I’m your mother. Be careful what you say to me!”.

This is really remarkable to me. According to me mom, all of grandmother’s adult and financially independent sons and daughters were reverently afraid of their mother while being affectionate at the same time.

My grandmother was not a PhD, nor a top-level executive at a Fortune 500 company. She successfully raised 10 children who all become successful in their lives. Her contentment was in being the mother of her family and keeping everyone together. The spiritual power she wielded came only from her santṛpti and being a good mother and grandmother. Her power came from her sadācāra.

Of all her grandchildren, I was luckiest as I got to spend many years with her when my grandparents lived with us.

The only words that come to mind when I remember her is “divine majesty”. This word comes to mind even when I remember by maternal grandmother, my aunts and my own mother.

There is this indescribable majestic grace with which traditional Indian women conducted themselves. They knew how to be feminine but at the same time strong and courageous. Their mannerisms and their way of speaking is just something else altogether.

This was the real power of Indian women. This is the ancient tradition of strong courageous women like Damayanti, Savitri, Kausalya, Sumitra, Sita, Satyavati, Kunti and Draupadi.

Those who say that Indian society was oppressive to women only have an agenda, and have not lived in a truly cultured Indian family.

Asura in the Rig Veda

In the Puranic and Epic theology and mythology of Hinduism, there are different classes of beings (super-human, human, sub-human, non-human) born from the creator Brahma. The major of these classes are the Devas (gods of light) and Asuras (anti-gods, older cousins of the gods), who are depicted as always warring with one another for the dominion of the worlds. Typically the Devas are victorious by virtue of them adhering to the Vedic doctrines and righteous performance of Vedic rituals.  The Asuras are almost equal in power to the Devas and, on occasion, do manage to defeat their younger cousins. However, what makes Asuras mythical villains is the unorthodox and uncivilized methods they use in administration, governance, and religious observance. The explanation is that Asuras cause more chaos in the universe whereas Devas maintain order and prosperity. Apart from these two, there are Rakshasas, who are evil spirits originally tasked to protect and nurture other creatures (Sanskrit "raksh" meaning "to protect"). This above situation is primarily found in the Puranas (i.e. books containing history and mythology) and the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata). However, later parts of the Vedic literature (Yajur Veda Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas) at least have the core of the Deva-Asura conflict myth.

In contrast to the above-cited literature, in the oldest Vedic text, the Rig Veda, a very different situation is found. In the Rig Veda, there are no two feuding classes Devas vs. Asuras, but only the Devas who are also Asuras. The most common reference is of the singular 'Asura' in the sense of 'one supreme power'. Moreover, the Asura symbol is part of a great and profound metaphysical doctrine and mystical experience. For a modern-day practising Hindu, who has been educated in the myths of the religion, it is very hard to believe that in the oldest and most sacred book the terms mean the very opposite of what he/she may be used to. This is due to the fact that classical Hinduism draws more inspiration from the Puranas and Epics than the ancient Vedic literature.

The Vedas, Puranas and Epics form one single corpus of literature whose core objective is to expound the ultimate reality as the experience of pure existence-consciousness at the individual level being identical with the cosmic reality. However, the expanded purpose of each of these texts is different and meaningful. The Vedas (comprising Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanishad texts) are the very heart and cornerstone of the Hindu world. They are the most ancient, most arcane and most technical in language and expression. The highest and most subtle spiritual experiences of sages are poetically recorded in the Vedas, along with intricate symbolism and metaphysical myth. The sages expressed their experience in the esoteric language of symbol and myth, which became the basis for elaborate ritual to re-enact the mystical experiences. Internal evidence shows differences in language and terminology from the earliest to the latest parts of the Veda. This is a natural process of change that is universal in all human cultures. However, through and through the external changes, it is also equally evident that the essential message has remained the same.

The Epics and Puranas represent the more 'popular' side of the religion. These texts primarily use the medium of stories of heroes, heroines, sages, gods, demons, superhuman beings, animals and birds to convey to a wider audience the spiritual teachings of the Vedas. This concordance is made pretty clear in the Puranas and Epics. Hinduism, by its very nature, has always been evolving with the times while recasting ancient truths in contemporary modes of thought and expression. By virtue of this, the language and myth of the Epics and Puranas are vastly different from that of the Vedas. This might partly explain why the notion of 'Asura' is so different in the Rig Veda as compared to the Epics and Puranas. However, there might be other historical causes for this shift - we will see this later.

Below I attempt to list the most important references to 'Asura' in the Rig Veda and give the metaphysical meaning.

1. Viśvāmitra Gāthina (RV 3.55)

This hymn of 22 verses is a majestic and magnificent depiction of the concept of Asura in the Rig Veda. Each verse ends with the following phrase:

"महद् देवानाम् असुरत्वम् एकम्" - "mahad devānām asuratvam ekam"

"Great is the single Asura-hood or Asura-ness of the gods". 

In this hymn Asura is not a specific god or personality, but an abstract spiritual concept that encompasses all gods. It is an essential nature of every god. Moreover, the emphasis is on the unity or singular essence of all gods. Thus, Asura in the Rig Veda is equivalent to Brahman in the Upanishads.

2. Rig Veda 10.124

This hymn is a real hidden gem. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy has elegantly brought out the subtle meanings in this hymn that tie into the overall metaphysics expressed in the Rig Veda. I have already introduced this metaphysics in my series of articles on Agni. The hymn is a highly symbolic allegory describing the deepest ultimate truth as hiding in deep Darkness:

"ज्योगेव दीर्घम् तम आशयिष्ठा:" - "jyogeva dīrgham tama āśayiṣṭhāh" (1)

"You have been sleeping in the deep Darkness for far too long".

This Agni who is hidden in deep Darkness for long, is prayed to come out of the Darkness and activate the yajña. This is a symbolism for the manifestation of the first principle of the universe. Darkness is seen as the primeval, original state of existence, and hence the deepest absolute, ultimate truth. As I have already elaborated on this in my articles on Agni, I shall refrain from that here. The noteworthy part of this hymn in the present context is this:

"शंसामि पित्रे असुराय शेवम्" - "śamsāmi pitre asurāya śevam" (3)

"I invoke well-being for Father Asura".

This makes it very clear that Asura is a father figure, full of auspicious qualities. However, this Father Asura is the symbol of the primeval deep Darkness, which is the original ultimate truth experience. Hence, when Agni comes out of the Darkness, he is also rejecting his origin and home, and moving to a new state:

"अयज्ञियाद् यज्ञियं भागमेमि" - "ayajñiyād yajñiyam bhāgam emi" (3)

"I go from the non-yajña to the yajña".

"इन्द्रं वृणानः पितरं जहामि" - "indram vṛṇānah pitaram jahāmi" (4)

"I give up the Father and choose Indra".

Indra represents the manifested universe. He is the active, benevolent, protective "God" defined for the visible universe. So it becomes clear why Agni says that he quits the Father (i.e. the primeval unmanifest Darkness) and joins Indra in the manifest universe.

In consonance with the above, the previous forms of Agni, Soma and Varuna, who are the original old forms of divinity, fall away, and the new forms of gods Agni, Soma and Varuna are manifested:

"अग्निः सोमो वरुणस्ते च्यवन्ते पर्यावर्त् राष्ट्रम् ... निर्माया उ त्ये असुरा अभूवन्" - "agnih somo varuṇaste cyavante, paryāvart rāṣṭram ... nirmāyā u tye asurā abhūvan" (4)

"Agni, Soma and Varuna, they fall away ... those Asuras become powerless".

So Agni, Soma and Varuna are called "Asuras", whose old form is destroyed, and they are recast as "gods" in the universe.

3. Asura's sons (asurasya vīrāh)

In continuation of the theme of Asura described as the original primeval Father, I shall give examples here of the occurrence of the description of various revered personalities, including gods and sages, as the Asura's sons, i.e. "asurasya vīrāh".

.

• RV 3.53.7: "इमे भोजा अङ्गिरसो विरूपा दिवस्पुत्रासो असुरस्य वीराः । विश्वामित्राय ददतो मघानि सहस्रसावे प्र तिरन्त आयुः " - "ime bhojā aṅgiraso virūpā divasputrāso asurasya vīrāh, viśvāmitrāya dadato maghāni sahasrasāve pra tiranta āyuh" -- Here, the Aṅgiras sages are called Sons of Heaven, and Asura's Sons. 

•  RV 3.56.8: "त्रिरुत्तमा दूणशा रोचनानि त्रयो राजन्त्यसुरस्य वीराः । ऋतावान इषिरा दूळभासस्त्रिरा दिवो विदथे सन्तु देवाः " - "triruttamā dūṇaśā rocanāni trayo rājanti asurasya vīrāh, ṛtāvāna iṣirā dūḷabhāsah trirā divo vidathe santu devāh" -- Here, Agni, Indra and Surya are called Asura's Sons.

• RV 10.10.2: "न ते सखा सख्यं वष्ट्येतत्सलक्ष्मा यद्विषुरूपा भवाति । महस्पुत्रासो असुरस्य वीरा दिवो धर्तार उर्विया परि ख्यन्" - "na te sakhā sakhyam vaṣṭyetat salakṣmā yadviṣurūpā bhavāti, mahasputrāso asurasya vīrā, divo dhartāra urviyā pari khyan" -- Here, the gods in general are called Sons of the Great Asura.

• RV 10.67.2: "ऋतं शंसन्त ऋजु दीध्याना दिवस्पुत्रासो असुरस्य वीराः । विप्रं पदमङ्गिरसो दधाना यज्ञस्य धाम प्रथमं मनन्त" - "ṛtam śamsanta ṛju dīdhyānā divasputrāso asurasya vīrāh, vipram padam aṅgiraso dadhānā yajñasya dhāma prathamam mananta" -- Here, the Aṅgiras sages are called Sons of Heaven and Sons of Asura. Incidentally, Sāyaṇa's commentary on this verse explains "Asura" as "Agni".

4. Individual gods called as Asura

Agni

• RV 3.3.4: "पिता यज्ञानामसुरो विपश्चितां विमानमग्निर्वयुनं च वाघताम्" - "pitā yajñānām asuro vipaścitām vimānamagnir vayunam ca vāghatām"

• RV 4.2.5: "इळावाँ एषो असुर प्रजावान् दीर्घो रयिः पृथुबुध्नः सभावान्" - "iḷāvān eṣo asura prajāvān dīrgho rayih pṛthubudhnah sabhāvān"

• RV 5.12.1: "प्राग्नये बृहते यज्ञियाय ऋतस्य वृष्णे असुराय मन्म" - "prāgnaye bṛhate yajñiyāya ṛtasya vṛṣṇe asurāya manma"

• RV 5.15.1: "घृतप्रसत्तो असुरः सुशेवो रायो धर्ता धरुणो वस्वो अग्निः" - "ghṛtaprasatto asurah suśevo rāyo dhartā dharuṇo vasvo agnih"

Varuṇa

• RV 1.24.14: "क्षयन्नस्मभ्यमसुर प्रचेता" - "kṣayann asmabhyam asura pracetā"

• RV 2.27.10: "त्वं विश्वेषां वरुणासि राजा ये च देवा असुर ये च मर्ताः" - "tvam viśveṣām varuṇāsi rājā ye ca devā asura ye ca martāh"

Indra

• RV 1.174.1: "त्वं राजेन्द्र ये च देवा रक्षा नृृन् पाह्यसुर त्वमस्मान्" - "tvam rājendra ye ca devā rakṣā nṛṛn pāhyasura tvamasmān"

• RV 3.38.4: "महत्तद्वृष्णो असुरस्य नामा विश्वरूपो अमृतानि तस्थौ" - "mahattad vṛṣṇo asurasya nāmā viśvarūpo amṛtāni tasthau"

Sūrya

• RV 1.35.7: "वि सुपर्णो अन्तरिक्षाण्यख्यद् गभीरवेपा असुरः सुनीथः" - "vi suparṇo antarikṣāṇi akhyad gabhīravepā asurah sunīthah"

• RV 1.35.10: "हिरण्यहस्तो असुरः सुनीथः" - "hiraṇyahasto asurah sunīthah"

• RV 1.110.3: "तत्सविता वोऽमृतत्वमासुवदगोह्यं यच्छ्रवयन्त ऐतन । त्यं चिच्चमसमसुरस्य भक्षणमेकं सन्तमकृणुता चतुर्वयम्" - "tatsavitā vo'mṛtatvamāsuvadagohyam yacchravayanta aitana, tyam ciccamasam asurasya bhakṣaṇameko santamakṛṇutā caturvayam"

• RV 4.53.1: "तद्देवस्य सवितुर्वार्यं महद् वृणीमहे असुरस्य प्रचेतसः" - "tad devasya savitur vāryam mahad vṛṇīmahe asurasya pracetasah"

As we see from the few examples above, the concept of Asura is an all-encompassing, universal subtle reality. The gods are called both "Asura" and "Asura's Sons". This shows the highly metaphysical and esoteric content of the Rig Veda. This is also consistent with what the Niruktam says about the nature of the Vedic gods, that they are "born from one another (itaretarajanmānah)". 

This again confirms my earlier conviction regarding the idea of Agni in the Rig Veda. The Vedic gods, especially Agni, are fully equivalent to the idea of Brahman in the Upanishads. The only difference is that the Rig Veda is also poetry, so it is loaded with intricate symbolism which hides the deep subtle metaphysics. 

The meaning of 'Asura' is made clear by studying the traditional list of Vedic words, Nighaṇṭu. In chapter 3.9, the following list for the synonyms of knowledge or wisdom:

केतुः । केतः । चेतः । चित्तम् । क्रतुः । असुः । धीः । शची । माया । वयुनम् । अभिख्येति एकादश प्रज्ञानामानि ।

Note that "asuh" is in the list. The Niruktam derives the word "Asura" from this word, as "giver of wisdom, or the wise one". There are also other meanings such as "giver of life".

So far, we have seen that in the Rig Veda, the words 'Deva' and 'Asura' are synonyms. 

Now, coming to historical reasons why the word 'Asura' came to have negative meanings, and became the complete opposite of 'Deva' in post-Rigvedic times. 

A tectonic shift occurs in the later Vedic literature (Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda, Brahmanas, etc) where only 'Deva' is used for the Vedic gods, and 'Asura' is now used for the anti-gods. The derivation of 'Asura' now changes to 'A-sura' i.e. “not sura”, and “sura” now becomes a synonym of 'Deva'. This is totally unknown in Rig Veda, where “Asura” has absolutely no negative connotation.

In parallel with the later Vedic literature, in the lands neighboring west of India, the person called Zarathushtra begins preaching a new set of beliefs that are distantly related to the old Vedic religion. But there are some radical new beliefs. A central tenet is that the god is called 'Ahura', which is the Sanskrit 'Asura', and the anti-god is called “daeva”, which is the Sanskrit 'Deva'. It is from the Avestan “daeva” through Hebrew, then Latin that the European languages have the word “devil”, “diavolo” etc. So you see, in the Avesta, the words have the exact opposite meanings as the later Vedic texts.

Even in the earliest texts of the Zoroastrians, there is already an opposition between the positive 'Ahura' and negative 'Daeva'; between positive 'Vanguhi Daitya' and negative 'Angra Mainyu'. On the Vedic side, in Yajur Veda and later texts, the former set of characters is the negative one, and the latter set is the positive one. ('Angra Mainyu' is none other than our Angiras rishi).

But the Rig Veda sees no such dichotomy as there is no reason for it, as seen from the original meaning of the words.

So it can be concluded that in the later Vedic period there was a struggle between the Vedic people and their cultural cousins the Zoroastrians, which was so significant that the fundamental religious expression changed forever. Even now, most Hindus would not believe that “deva” and “asura” were once synonyms. And Zoroastrians would never consider the two words as synonyms either.