June Topic: MAyA in the Vedas: Infinity and Authority

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

This is very much for those new to Vedic study but I hope that there is enough

in it for all to consider and for the more knowledgeable to correct the errors.

Many thanks

Ken Knight

 

 

The Vedas: Infinity and Authority

 

‘The Veda is the lark’s morning trill of humanity awakening to the consciousness

of its greatness.’ (RgVedic Aesthetics P.S.Shastri Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan

Delhi 1988. p.9 when he is quoting Brunahofer.)

‘When I sing all the sleep comes off my eyes.’

( Sinnah Kamara, a 10 years old, blind girl from Sierra Leone writing ‘A Life in

the Day’, a Sunday Times newspaper feature, November 16th. 2003)

 

In the Twentieth Century, considerable efforts were made in India to ensure that

the connection with traditional teachings was nourished and that correct forms

of the oral tradition of the Vedas had been maintained through the period of

British rule. A contribution to this process came from PUjyaShrI

ChandraShekharendra SarasvatI SvAmI who was the Shankaracharya of Kanchi

Peetham. While trying to explain the claims of the infinite nature of the Vedas

he wrote:

‘If the cosmos of sound (Shabda-prapaNcha) enfolds the whole creation and what

is beyond it, it must naturally be immensely vast….

Brahma, the Creator, alone knows the Vedas in their entirety…………..

Brahma could create the universe with the sound of the Vedas because of his

power of concentration…………….. Brahma had the power of concentration to the full

since he came into being as an ‘instrument’ of creation.’ (His lectures have

been collected and published, in 1995, as ‘Hindu Dharma’. The above quotes come

from pages 160-162, or go to http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma

 

It is important to note that he talks of the ‘sound of the Vedas’ for it is in

that sound that their meaning, traditionally, is to be realised and not in their

written forms.

The Vedas are said to be apaurusheya…...a-purusha. That is, they are ‘not

personal constructs’, not the product of anyone human or divine; they are

authorless. They are revealed to the rishis through sight and sound but the

rishis are not their composers. The Vedas are also said to be infinite, ‘anantaH

vai vedaH’ or without beginning, ‘anAdi’.

 

How are we to understand these terms? In order to answer that question we must

first attempt to do so within the tradition from which these statements arise.

If the Vedas are infinite they cannot be limited in time and space therefore any

attempt, as in the RgVeda Samhita (this means collection), to enclose them in

some form as a written collection, is certain to contain the potential for

error.

If they are infinite and eternal they are beyond the reach of expression through

enumerations such as the ‘three’ or ‘four’ Vedas. Ultimately their infinite and

eternal nature must be ineffable if it is to be truly beyond any limitation or

qualification. Therefore the traditional classification of the four collections

into Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva, or three if the Atharva is omitted as is a

common practice, is an error once we seek to progress to an understanding that

is beyond the limited practical uses for such a division, as in our present

study. (Please note, there is a later section on division….bhilma).

(Please Note also. There is a tradition that claims that they all emerge from

one Veda. Can someone please direct me to an authoritative source for this

tradition which I only have in memory from a long-past conversation.)

This too contains the potential error of division because the ‘One Veda’ implies

a limit that would not satisfy the terms apaurusheya and anantaH which point

beyond the limits of such naming. They are one only inasmuch as they are whole

and cannot be divided. That is the ‘sound’ of the Veda as described above. This

sound, having neither beginning nor end, cannot be grasped by the ‘hands’ of the

senses but it may be ‘experienced’ through listening. That skill or art is said

to be in the gift of a few with the necessary insight and spiritual practices in

their lives.

As written collections, the Vedas are readily available to us as objects of

knowledge, existing in the physical world, (as well as cyber-space, wherever

that is), while as the spoken word, chanted in ritual events, they exist at

another level of meaning, in that more transient condition of hearing, but even

when heard in that way they are still objects of knowledge. However, in non-dual

philosophy, they would need to transcend the state of being objects of knowledge

if they are to realise the substratum of knowledge, the eternal vibration or

sound, that is their ultimate meaning for the non-dualist. It is that meaning

which is I understand as being implied by the terms apaurusheya and anantaH.

Others among you may disagree.

Traditionally this teaching is explained by the tale of the sage BharadvAja who

kept chanting the Vedas over three lifetimes. ParameShvara appeared before him

and said to him: "I will grant you a fourth life. What will you do during it? "

The sage replied: "I will keep chanting the Vedas again."

However, as it is not possible to learn the Vedas in their entirety for the

reasons stated above, even if given many lifetimes, we conclude that the sage

had not understood the true nature of the Vedas. ParameShvara took pity on

BharadvAja for all his efforts to accomplish the impossible.

In order to explain to the sage and to enlighten him as to the nature of his

self-imposed task, ParameShvara caused three great mountains to appear, then

took a handful of earth and said to the sage: "The Vedas you have learned all

these years are like this handful of earth. What you have yet to learn is vast,

like these mountains."

Immediately BharadvAja understood and exclaimed, ‘anantaH vai veda’. This story

is to be found in the Kathaka Samhita of the Krishna Yajur Veda.

 

If the Vedas are without human authorship, how then are we to understand the

practice of mentioning the name of the seer connected with each hymn or sUkta?

(sUkta comes from su (well)+ukta (spoken) so its meaning can be ‘well uttered’.)

If this practice implied that the seers had composed the hymn then they would be

called the ‘mantra-kartAs’, those who created, but traditionally they are called

‘mantra-drasTAs’, those who ‘saw’ the mantras. (The rishis are also known as

satyadarshins, ‘those who see the truth’). This ‘seeing’ is best understood if

we consider the expression, ‘The old man has seen a great deal in his life.’

‘Seen’ in this context means ‘experienced’ and this is an aid to the

understanding of the ‘seeing’ of the mantras: They are directly experienced.

The practice of mentioning the seers’ names in the hymns accords with the

tradition of acknowledging the authority of the Apta, the trustworthy person,

who through their valid experiences can impart their knowledge effectively.

It is this search for immediate, direct experience of the mantras, while

maintaining the purity of the initial vision, which is at the very heart of the

exegesis that evolved through the descendants of the seers. The essence of that

clinging to purity, as demonstrated through the later development of the

Vedangas, is the basis of Sruti, the revealed Word realised in the power of

listening. This power is not an ability to ‘listen to’ something but of

‘listening in’ that power. This is a jump from an experience of form and name to

an ontological experience. May I respectfully suggest, as one who was not born

into the cultural heritage of this tradition, that this is the essence of the

Vedas as traditionally understood in its respect for their authorlessness and

authority.

 

 

 

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed forth.’

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger