Some points on Vedic interpretations
Some points on Vedic interpretations
(Based on dialogues in PoR community.. :D)
There is a great level of difference in the philosophy of Early Upanishads and later Upanishads. The later Upanishads are only namesake ones, created by Hindu interpolators of different sects. The true Upanishads support Vedas strictly, and quote Vedas everywhere.
The much later treatises like Uddhava Gita or Ashtavakra Gita are just interpolations of Buddhism into the religion, much like their contemporary puranas taking Buddha and Rishabhadeva (and even Kapila) as incarnations... This was paralleled in Sramanic religions by taking Rama and Vasudeva as "Jinas". (Yes!!!)
For the ones who do not know history or scriptures, they are free to tell anything; but an impartial reader should give respect to the knowledgeable ones.
The Vedic theism is different from Avestan Monotheism or Abrahamic monotheism.
The core of Rig Veda is monotheistic panentheism, a special mention for "monotheistic" because Rig Veda demands that. In Rig Veda, the single God assumes different names in Yajna (namam yajniyam)according to the poet (kavi) or sage (viprah) who calls them according to his mental perception of any of the quality of God.
Thus there are different "Gods" created out of mind, from the single God.
Rig Veda, in several instances affirms this openly :
"The Indra is Him, who is Agni, the Matarishvan;
He is the winged golden Suparna;
One exists; sages say that differently..."
(from 1.164)
"One is that; poets tell as different
according to their thoughts"
"Yet you all (the "Gods") abide in Indra.."
(a hymn to Vishvedevas)
"That One existed; there was no other.."
(Nasadiya hymn)
Yajur Veda 40 :
"By Lord is this all enveloped..."
"That pervades all internally;
Yea, also envelopes externally"
Moreover, in almost all hymns of rig Veda, one can find this supremacy of God, and Oneness. This clearly proves Rig Veda is panentheistic, with a monotheistic affinity.
(otherwise too, panentheists have an affinity to monotheism) But rig Veda clearly tells of omnipresence and all pervading God's self, esp. in Purusha hymn (10.90)
The Purusha hymn is again, not later, or pantheistic as some people rumoured, but it is panentheistic. The Purusha is God's Self, born of God (Viraj), in turn, the thought of God (Viraj) is born inside the Self (Purusha).
The Purusha only forms one fourth of the Creation, the rest lies in immortal mystic realm.
Purusha surpasses our praises and His greatness is much more. (etAvan asya mahima. ato jyAyA'mysca pUrusha)
That is a masterpiece hymn that can model any scientific theories of creation existing today.The God and Self can be compared to matter and energy.
This is Rig Veda.
By the time of Yajur Veda, yajnas had become popular among people; and poets lost their charm. This is shown by the prose passages of Yajur Veda often referring to Rig Vedic poets in the third person. (eg : Medhatithi's Mesha in Sub. formula, Taittiriya Yajur Veda)
Moreover, the panentheism shifts a little from earlier monotheistic aspect, but still retains the basic notion of panentheism.
The Yajur Vedic authors had the intention to oppose rituals, but like Rig Vedic poets, could not take risk. The Yajur Veda takes a more clever instance in which each sacrifice "As performed in days of yore" is discussed, and each sacrifice is symbolised and at last, indirectly mocks the materialists. One should certainly go through the last chapter of Ashva Medha in Yajur Veda, where the whole symbolism is discussed, and it tells how the horse "cannot be sacrificed" by us, but only "the ruler of all" in "Universal centre point", having "Universe as limits of sacrificial altar".
It really makes one think deep.
Fortunately, you cannot call this an interpolation, because the same thing is discussed in Brahmanas with opposite direction, "making" the king who performs this sacrifice as "Ruler of All", seated "in the centre of world", having "sacrificial altar as limits of world"... this absurdity itself proves beyond suspicion to a person with common sense that Vedic ideas and Brahmanic ideas are different. The Brahmanic ritualists were exploiting Vedas for their needs, much like Epics, Puranas, and the petty philosophers of middle ages.. All had to have Vedas as support for petty philosophies. That is easy to get when you know India's philosophical roots and pre history. Any non prejudiced mind can see for itself whatever I've said here.
(Based on dialogues in PoR community.. :D)
There is a great level of difference in the philosophy of Early Upanishads and later Upanishads. The later Upanishads are only namesake ones, created by Hindu interpolators of different sects. The true Upanishads support Vedas strictly, and quote Vedas everywhere.
The much later treatises like Uddhava Gita or Ashtavakra Gita are just interpolations of Buddhism into the religion, much like their contemporary puranas taking Buddha and Rishabhadeva (and even Kapila) as incarnations... This was paralleled in Sramanic religions by taking Rama and Vasudeva as "Jinas". (Yes!!!)
For the ones who do not know history or scriptures, they are free to tell anything; but an impartial reader should give respect to the knowledgeable ones.
The Vedic theism is different from Avestan Monotheism or Abrahamic monotheism.
The core of Rig Veda is monotheistic panentheism, a special mention for "monotheistic" because Rig Veda demands that. In Rig Veda, the single God assumes different names in Yajna (namam yajniyam)according to the poet (kavi) or sage (viprah) who calls them according to his mental perception of any of the quality of God.
Thus there are different "Gods" created out of mind, from the single God.
Rig Veda, in several instances affirms this openly :
"The Indra is Him, who is Agni, the Matarishvan;
He is the winged golden Suparna;
One exists; sages say that differently..."
(from 1.164)
"One is that; poets tell as different
according to their thoughts"
"Yet you all (the "Gods") abide in Indra.."
(a hymn to Vishvedevas)
"That One existed; there was no other.."
(Nasadiya hymn)
Yajur Veda 40 :
"By Lord is this all enveloped..."
"That pervades all internally;
Yea, also envelopes externally"
Moreover, in almost all hymns of rig Veda, one can find this supremacy of God, and Oneness. This clearly proves Rig Veda is panentheistic, with a monotheistic affinity.
(otherwise too, panentheists have an affinity to monotheism) But rig Veda clearly tells of omnipresence and all pervading God's self, esp. in Purusha hymn (10.90)
The Purusha hymn is again, not later, or pantheistic as some people rumoured, but it is panentheistic. The Purusha is God's Self, born of God (Viraj), in turn, the thought of God (Viraj) is born inside the Self (Purusha).
The Purusha only forms one fourth of the Creation, the rest lies in immortal mystic realm.
Purusha surpasses our praises and His greatness is much more. (etAvan asya mahima. ato jyAyA'mysca pUrusha)
That is a masterpiece hymn that can model any scientific theories of creation existing today.The God and Self can be compared to matter and energy.
This is Rig Veda.
By the time of Yajur Veda, yajnas had become popular among people; and poets lost their charm. This is shown by the prose passages of Yajur Veda often referring to Rig Vedic poets in the third person. (eg : Medhatithi's Mesha in Sub. formula, Taittiriya Yajur Veda)
Moreover, the panentheism shifts a little from earlier monotheistic aspect, but still retains the basic notion of panentheism.
The Yajur Vedic authors had the intention to oppose rituals, but like Rig Vedic poets, could not take risk. The Yajur Veda takes a more clever instance in which each sacrifice "As performed in days of yore" is discussed, and each sacrifice is symbolised and at last, indirectly mocks the materialists. One should certainly go through the last chapter of Ashva Medha in Yajur Veda, where the whole symbolism is discussed, and it tells how the horse "cannot be sacrificed" by us, but only "the ruler of all" in "Universal centre point", having "Universe as limits of sacrificial altar".
It really makes one think deep.
Fortunately, you cannot call this an interpolation, because the same thing is discussed in Brahmanas with opposite direction, "making" the king who performs this sacrifice as "Ruler of All", seated "in the centre of world", having "sacrificial altar as limits of world"... this absurdity itself proves beyond suspicion to a person with common sense that Vedic ideas and Brahmanic ideas are different. The Brahmanic ritualists were exploiting Vedas for their needs, much like Epics, Puranas, and the petty philosophers of middle ages.. All had to have Vedas as support for petty philosophies. That is easy to get when you know India's philosophical roots and pre history. Any non prejudiced mind can see for itself whatever I've said here.
Comments
Post a Comment