VEDAS : ANADI AND APAURSEYA -- Part 1 (vedas apaurseya)

[Guest guest]

Pranaams to all

 

The following is an extract from the speeches of His Holiness the

Kanchi Paramachaarya as depicted in the books "Dheivathin Kural" in

Tamil

( copyright : Vanathi Pathippagam, Chennai) and in the "Hindu Dharma"

in English (copyright : Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai) .

 

For reading the entire treatise on Vedas and its fourteen angaas, (

running to more than 1000 printed pages) , it will be useful to refer

to the

online "Hindu Dharma" book at www.kamakoti.org or www.vrnt.org

 

For the sake of continuity of the subject, some portions of the

different chapters have been given together.

 

VEDAS : ANADI AND APAURSEYA -- Part 1

 

It is not possible to tell the age of the Vedas. If we say that an

object is "anadi" it means that nothing existed before it. Any book,

it is

reasonable to presume, must be the work of one or more people. The

Old Testament

contains the sayings of several Prophets. The New Testament contains

the story

of Jesus Christ as well as his sermons. The Qu'ran incorporates the

teachings

of the Prophet Mohammed. The founders of such religions are historical

personalities and their teachings did not exist before then. Are the

Vedas

similarly the work of one or more teachers? And may we take it that

these

preceptors lived in different periods of history? Ten thousand years

ago or a

hundred thousand or a million years ago? If the Vedas were created

during any

of these periods they can not be claimed to be "anadi". Even if they

were

created a million years ago, it obviously means that there was a time

when

they did not exist.

 

Questions like the above are justified if the Vedas are regarded as

the work of mortals. And, if they are, it is wrong to claim that they

are

"anadi". We think that the Vedas are the creation of the rsis, seers

who were

mortals.So it is said, at any rate, in the text book of history we

are taught.

 

Also consider the fact that the Vedas consists of many "Suktas".

Jnanasambandhar's Tevaram consists of number of patigams. And just as

each patigam has ten stanzas, each sukta consists of a number of

mantras. "Su+ukta"="sukta". The prefix "su" denotes "good" as in

"suguna" or "sulocana". "Ukta" means "spoken" or "what is spoken". "

Sukta"

means "well spoken", a"good word" or a "good utterence" (or well

uttered).

When we chant the Vedas in the manner prescribed by the Sastras, we

mention the name of the seer connected with each sukta, its metre and

the deity

invoked. Since there are many mantras associated with various seers

we think

that they were composed by them. We also refer to the ancestry of the

seer

concerned, his gotra, etc. For instance, "Agastyo Maithravarunih",

that is

Agastya, son of Maithravaruna. Here is another : "Madhucchanda

Vaisvamitrah",

the sage Madhucchanda descended from the Visvamitra gotra. Like this

there are

mantras in the names of many sages. If the mantras connected with the

name of

Agastya were composed by him it could not have existed during the

time of

Mitravaruna; similarly that in the name of Madhucchandana could not

have existed

during the time of Visvamitra. If this is true, how can you claim

that the

Vedas are "anadi"?

 

Since the Mantras are associated with the names of sages, we make the

wrong inference that they may have been composed by them. But it is

not so

as a matter of fact. "Apaurseya" means not the work of any man. Were

the

Vedas composed by one or more human beings, even if they were rsis,

they

would be called "pauruseya". But since they are called "Apauruseya"

it follows

that even the seers could not have created them. If they were

composed by the

seers they (the latter) would be called "Mantra-kartas" which means

"those who

'created' the Mantras". But as a matter of fact, the rsis are called

"Mantra-drastas", those who "saw " them.

 

When we say that Columbus discovered America, we do not mean that he

created the continent : we mean that he merely made the continent

known to

the world. In the same way the laws attributed to Newton, Einstein

and so on

were not created by them. If an object thrown up falls to earth it is

not

because Newton said so. Scientists like Newton perceived the laws of

Nature and

revealed them to the world. Similarly, the seers discovered the

Mantras and

made a

gift of

them to the world. These Mantras had existed before the time of their

fathers,

grand fathers, great grand fathers,. . . . . . . . . But they had

remained

unknown to the world. The seers now made them known to the mankind.

So it

became customary to mention their names at the time of intoning them.

The publisher of a book is not necessarily its author. The man who

releases a

film need not be its producer. The seers disclosed the mantras to the

world but

they did not create them. Though the mantras had existed before them

they

performed the noble service of revealing them to us. So it is

appropriate on

our part to pay them obeisance by mentioning their names while

chanting the

same.

 

Do we know anything about the existence of the mantras before they

were "seen"

by the rsis? If they are eternal does it mean that they manifested

themselves

at the time of creation? Were they present before man's appearance on

earth?

How did they come into being?

 

If we take it that the Vedas appeared with creation, it would mean

that the

Paramatman created them along with the world. Did he write them down

and leave

them somewhere to be discovered by the seers later? If so, they

cannot be

claimed to be anadi. We have an idea of when Brahma created the

present world.

 

There are fixed periods for the four yugas or eons, Krta, Treta,

Dvapara and

Kali. The four yugas together are called a caturuga. A thousand

caturugas make

one day time of Brahma and another equally long period is his night.

According

to this reckoning Bramha is now more than fifty years old. Any

religious

ceremony is to be commenced with a samkalpa("resolve") in which an

account is

given of the time and place of performance in such and such a year of

Brahma,

in such and such a month, in such and such a fortnight (waxing or

waning moon),

etc. From this account we know when the present Brahma came into

being. Even if

we concede that he made his appearance millions and millions of years

ago, he

can not be claimed to be anadi. How can then creation be said to have

no

beginning in time? When creation it self has an origin, how do we

justify to

the claim that the Vedas are anadi?

 

To be continued ...........

 

 

Kameshwaran

 

advaitin, slimaye@a... wrote:

> I had the fortune of listening few lectures by sriman Chari. I have

a

> question about

> vedas being apoushayaa.In every upanishad there is ateacher and a

> disciple,ex:yadnyavalkya teaching Maitreyi or shwetaketu addressing

his son

> etc.

> Since authership is already declared in the sutra,s why then it is

considerd

> apourushaya? can someone elaborate on this please?

> Suresh and Nirmala.