Sri Sadhguro Pahimam Parama Dayalu Rakshamam

[Guest guest]

Dear Members

" Hindu Dharma " is a book published by Bharatiya Vidya

Bhavan which contains English translation of two volumes of the Tamil

Book " Deivatthin Kural " ; which is a collection of invaluable and

engrossing speeches of Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi

MahaSwamiji.

 

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap32.htm

 

Veda and Vedanta : Are They Opposed to One Another?

 

The

rituals mentioned in the karmakanda of the Vedas are sought to be

negated in the jnanakanda which is also part of the same

scripture. While the karmakanda enjoins upon you the worship of

various deities and lays down rules for the same, the jnanakanda

constituted by the Upanisads ridicules the worshipper of deities

as a dim-witted person no better than a beast.

 

This

seems strange, the latter part of the Vedas contradicting the

former part. The first part deals throughout with karma, while

the second or concluding part is all about jnana. Owing to this

difference, people have gone so far as to divide our scripture

into two sections: the Vedas (that is the first part) to mean the

karmakanda and the Upanisads (Vedanta) to mean the jnanakanda.

 

Vedanta

it is that Lord teaches us in the Gita and in it he lashes out

against the karmakanda. It is generally believed that the Buddha

and Mahavira were the first to attack the Vedas. It is not so.

Sir Krsna Paramatman himself spoke against them long before these

two religious leaders. At one place in the Gita he says to Arjuna

: " The Vedas are associated with the three qualities of

sattva, rajas and tamas. You must transcend these three

qualities. Full of desire, they (the practitioners of Vedic

rituals) long for paradise and keep thinking of pleasures and

material prosperity. They are born again and again and their

minds are never fixed in samadhi, these men clinging to Vedic

rituals. " In another passage Krsna declares :

" Not by the Vedas am I to be realised, nor by sacrifices nor

by much study. . . . "

 

Does

not such talk contradict all that I have spoken so far about the

Vedas, that they are the source of all our dharma?

 

With

some thinking we will realise that there is in fact no

contradiction. Would it be possible for us, in our present

condition, to go beyond the three gunas even to the slightest

extent and realise the true state of the Self spoken of in the

Upanisads? The purpose of the Vedic rituals is to take us, by

degrees, to this state. So long as we believe that the world is

real we worship the deities so as to be vouchsafed happiness. And

this world, which we think is real, is also benefited by such

worship. Thinking the deities to be real, we help them and in

return we are helped by them. Living happily on this earth we

long to go to the world of the celestials and enjoy the pleasures

of paradise. So far so good. But if we stopped at this stage

would it not mean losing sight of our supreme objective? Is not

this objective, this goal, our becoming one with the Paramatman?

Would it not be foolish to ignore this great ideal of ours and

still cling to mundane happiness?

 

In

our present state of immaturity it is not possible to think of

the world being unreal. Recognising this, the Vedas provide us

the rituals to be performed for happiness in this world. Because

of our inadequacies we are unable to devote ourselves to a

formless Paramatman from whom we are not different. So the Vedas

have devised a system in which a number of deities are

worshipped. But, in course of time, as we perform the rituals and

worship the deities, we must make efforts to advance to the state

of wisdom and enlightenment in which the world will be seen to be

unreal and the rites will become unnecessary. Instead of

worshipping many deities, we must reach the state in which we

will recognise that we have no existence other than that of our

being dissolved in the Paramatman. We must perform Vedic

sacraments with the knowledge that they prepare us to go to this

state by making our mind pure and one-pointed.

 

If

we perform rituals with the sole idea of worldly happiness and

carry on trade with the celestials by conducting sacrifices

(offering them oblations and receiving benefits from them in

return), we will never come face to face with the Truth. Even if

we go to the world of the celestials, we will not be blessed with

Self-realisation. Our residence in paradise is commensurate with

the merit we earn here and is not permanent. Sooner or later we

will have to return to this world and be in the womb of a mother.

The ritual worship and other sacraments of the Vedas are to some

extent the result of making an adjustment to our present immature

state of mind. But their real purpose is to take us forward

gradually from this very immature state and illumine us within.

It would be wrong to refuse to go beyond the stage of ritual

worship.

 

If,

to begin with, it is not right to refuse all at once to perform

Vedic rites, it would be equally not right, subsequently, to

refuse to give them up. Nowadays, people are averse to ritual to

start with itself. " What? " they exclaim. " Who

wants to perform sacrifices? Why should we chant the Vedas? Let

us go directly to the Upanisads. " Some of them can speak

eloquently about the Upanisads from a mere intellectual

understanding of them. But none has the inward experience of the

truths propounded in them and we do not see them emerging as men

of detachment with a true awareness of the Self. The reason for

this is that they have not prepared themselves for this higher

state of perception through the performance of rituals. If this

is wrong in one sense, refusal to take the path of jnana from

that of karma is equally not justifiable.

 

If

one has to qualify for the B. A. degree one has to begin at the

beginning - one has to progress from the first standard all the

way to the degree course. One cannot naturally join the B. A.

class without qualifying for it. At the same time, is it not

absurd to remain all the time as a failure in the first standard

itself?

 

In

the old days there were many people belonging to the latter

category (that is people who refused to take the path of

knowledge and wished to remain wedded to the path of karma). Now

people belonging to the former category predominate (that is

those who want to take the path of jnana, without being prepared

for it through karma). During the time of Sri Krsna also the

majority clung to rituals. His criticism is directed against

them, against those who perform Vedic sacraments without

understanding their purpose and who fail to go beyond them.

Unfortunately, this is mistaken for criticism of the Vedas

themselves. The Lord could never have attacked the Vedas per

se. After all, it was to save them that he descended to

earth again and again.

 

In

keeping with his times, Krsna Paramatman spoke against people who

confined themselves to the narrow path of karma. If he were to

descend to earth again to teach us, he would turn against those

who plunge into a study of the Upanisads, spurning Vedic rites.

It seems to me that he would be more severe in his criticism of

these people that he was against those who were obsessed with

karma.

 

Graduating

to the Upanisads without being prepared for them through the

performance of Vedic rites is a greater offence than failure to

go along the path of jnana from that of karma. After all, to

repeat what I said before, on has to go through the primary and

secondary stages of education before qualifying for admission to

college. The man who insists on being admitted to the B. A. class

without qualifying for it is not amenable to any suggestion. The

one who wants to remain in the first standard learns at least

something; the other type is incapable of learning anything.

 

The

Vedas and Vedanta are not at variance with one another. The

karmakanda prepares us for Vedanta or the jananakanda. The former

has to do with this world and with many deities and its adherents

are subject to the three gunas. But it is the first step to go

beyond the three gunas and the sever oneself from worldly

existence. If we perform the rites laid down in the karmakanda,

keeping in mind their true purpose, we shall naturally be

qualifying for the jnanakanda.

 

Some

questions arise here. The sound of the Vedas and the sacrifices

benefit not only the person who chants the Vedas and performs the

sacrifices but all creatures. If such a man (that is like the one

who learns the Vedas and conducts sacrifices) renounces the world

thinking it to be unreal and becomes a jnanin, what will happen

to the world, to its welfare? Even if you think that the world is

unreal, it is real in the sense that it is the cause of so much

suffering. The jnanin does not perform any rites like sacrifices

so as to rid the world of its troubles. Who will then work for

the welfare of the world?

 

The

answer: the jnanin is an exalted state of awareness and while

being in it he does not have to perform any sacrifices or other

rites to ensure the good of the world. His life itself is a

sacrifice, a yagna, and through him the world will receive the

Lord's blessings even if he looks upon it as unreal or a

" sport " of the Supreme Being. Whey do people flock to a

jnanin? Why do they fall at his feet even if he keeps himself

aloof from them? It is because they receive his grace. Whether or

not he wants to give any blessings, the Lord's grace flows into

this world through him. In his very presence people feel tranquil

and, sometimes, even their worldly desires are satisfied. A

jnanin who realises within that there is no deity apart from

himself can give his blessings in greater measure than the

deities themselves. So it is wrong to think that, since he does

not perform sacrifices, he does not do anything for the good of

the world.

 

Followers

of other faiths are mistaken in their view of Hinduism. they

separate the Vedantic system from the Vedic system of sacraments

and observe: " To the Hindus what matters is individual

salvation. They ignore the wellbeing of the world. Meditation,

yoga, samadhi are a means of individual

liberation. Hindus are unlike the followers of Jesus Christ and

the Prophet Mohammed because they do not preach love and

brotherhood nor do they promote the growth of social

consciousness among themselves. "

 

One

who has a proper understanding of our religion will recognise

that it is wrong to divide Hinduism into two compartments, the

Vedic religion and the Vedantic. As a sannyasin in the final

stage of his life a man becomes a Vedantin and jnanin and merits

liberation for himself. But we must remember that he leaves

behind him another stage of life in which he has worked for the

welfare of the world by chanting the Vedas and by performing

rituals. Indeed it was because of this work that he became

mentally pure and qualified for the Vedantic path and for his own

release from worldly existence.

 

Also

to be noted is that even after achieving perfection in Vedanta

and becoming a jnanin, he keeps blessing the world without

performing any rites and, indeed, by virtue of his mere presence.

I am not examining here the big question of which of the two

goals of a religion is greater, individual liberation or

collective welfare. That is a separate subject. Let us leave

aside for the present the question of social welfare. The

question to be answered now is this: If an individual owing

allegiance to a religion does not become a jnanin with inward

experience of the Truth of the Supreme Being, what does it matter

whether or not that religion exists?

 

All

rituals, all worship, are meant to make a man aware of the

Reality. Varnasrama with its one hundred thousand differences and

with its countless stipulations as to who can do what is a

preliminary arrangement to arrive at the stage in which there is

a oneing of all, with all the differences banished. If we fail to

go beyond the stage of karma, observing all the differences of

varnasrama, we shall be committing a wrong. Krsna Paramatman

directs his criticism against those who claim that the karmakanda

of the Vedas alone matters, that the jnanakanda does not serve

any purpose. In doing so he seems to attack the Vedas themselves.

In reality he faults those who are, in his words,

" Veda-vada-ratah " , those who are deceived by flowery

accounts of the Vedas without realising their true meaning and

those who do not exert themselves to rise to the level of

experiential jnana.

 

To

start with, we must perform the rites prescribed by the Vedas.

But in this there must be the realisation that they are but steps

leading us to the higher state in which we will ultimately find

bliss in our Self, a state in which there will be neither rites

nor duties to perform. Similarly, to start with, the deities must

be worshipped but again with the conviction that such worship

serves the ultimate purpose of arriving at the point where we

will recognise that the worshipper and the worshipped are one.

Thus, to begin with, all differences in functions must be

recognised and life lived according to them. Different divisions

of people have different duties, and the customs and rites

assigned to each are such as to help them in the proper discharge

of those duties. But in the very process of maintaining such

differences there must be the conviction within that ultimately

there are no differences, that all are one.

 

If

the Vedas are to be learned and chanted and if the Vedic rituals

are to be practiced - and the Vedas must be learned and chanted

even as the Vedic rituals must be practiced - it is because in

this way we shall be led to that supreme experience of the

Reality in which there will be no need for these very Vedas.

First the flowers, and from them the fruit. Though the flower

looks beautiful, the fruit emerges only when it wilts or falls to

earth. A tree does not fruit before it flowers. In the same way,

to plunge into Vedanta without first going through a life of

Vedic discipline is neither wise nor in keeping with reality. It

is equally wrong to remain confined to the karmakanda and refuse

to make an effort to acquire Vedantic knowledge: it is like

wishing that we must have only flowers and no fruits. There must

be a sense of balance, a sense of proportion, in everything we

do.

 

There

is a passage in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad similar to

that in the Gita: " He who becomes aware of the nature of the

Atman - for him the Vedas will no longer be Vedas, the gods will

cease to be gods, Brahmins will no longer be, Brahmins. . . . . . . " .

 

As

we have already seen, " Sruti " by which we mean the

Vedas, contains not only the Samhitas but also the Brahmanas,

Aranyakas and the Upanisads. The Gita is not Sruti and it is

customary to regard it as belonging to the category of Smrti. I

shall speak to you later about Smrti when I deal with

Dharmasastra, one of the fourteen branches of learning

(caturdasa-vidya). The Smrti that is the Gita observes:

" Vedic rites and worship are futile if they do not take you

to the path of jnana. " The Puranas too are among the three

categories of authoritative texts of our religion - the other two

being Sruti and Smriti - and they have the same view about a life

confined to rituals. The sages in the Daruka forest were proud

about their sacrificial worship, but Paramesvara curbed their

pride - how he did so is narrated in the Saiva Puranas. The Bhagavata

tells us how the yajnapatnis, the simple and unpretentious wives

of the sages, were able to see Mahavisnu as he appeared in the

form of the Yajnapurusa. But their husbands who were wedded to

ritual could not see the Lord and very much regretted it.

 

Sruti

is higher as an authority than Smriti or the Puranas. I referred

to a passage from the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad to show

that we have the testimony of the Sruti itself to prove that

rituals are not enough for Atmic advancement. However, it might

be argued that Sruti itself is divided into the karmakanda and

the jnanakanda and that, after all, it is natural that in the

jnanakanda the quest for jnana should be spoken of highly. So

there is nothing remarkable about it declaring that rituals

cannot be the final goal of the seeker.

 

However,

in the karmakanda itself there is criticism of the view that

rituals are all and they are the ultimate goal. Sri Krsna

declares in the Gita that it is

laudable to perform the many sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas

realising their true purpose ( " Evam bahuvidha yajna vitata

Brahmano mukhe " ). However, all these sacraments have their

culmination in jnana ( " Sarvam karm'akhilam Partha jnana

parisamapyate " ).

 

The

same idea is expressed forcefully through an illustration in the

Vedic karmakanda itself: " He who performs only rituals,

without wakening to Isvara feeds the fire to raise the smoke and

nothing else " (Taittiriya Kathakam, first prasna,

last anuvaka, fourth vakya). If you feed the fire with firewood

you must keep the pot over it to cook rice. Once who does not

exert oneself to be " cooked " in jnana is like the man

who lights the kitchen fire without keeping the cooking pot on

it. This is what the Vedas say. What purpose is served by

building a big sacrificial fire if you do not offer the oblations

in it? The result will be only smoke and more smoke. A sacrifice

must be performed with the consciousness that you are offering

the fruit of your karma itself as an oblation. Otherwise there

will be nothing but smoke.

 

" The

Self must be offered as an oblation in the fire of the Brahman.

All sensual pleasures must be offered in the fire of

self-control. The five vital breaths must be given over in sacrifice in

one another " , says the Gita.

Vedic sacrifices involving materials and works have this goal. A

man may perform any number of sacrifices but he would be a fool

to perform them without realising this truth. The Vedas too say

that such a man in unintelligent. What do you expect his buddhi

(intuitive intelligence) to become> It would also be like the

smoke of the sacrificial fire that darkens everything in its

course and ends up in nothing.

 

When

Vedic rites are performed in a spirit of dedication to Isvara

they will loosen your ties little by little, instead of keeping

you bound to this world. If you perform rites to please the Lord,

without expecting any reward, your mind will be cleansed and you

will transcend the three gunas. This is the meaning and purpose

of " yajna " . Is not the word understood in English as

" sacrifice " ? " Yaga " also means sacrifice,

" tyaga " . When an offering is placed in the fire we say

" na mama " ( " not mine " ): it is this attitude

of self-denial that is the life and soul of a sacrificial rite.

Is it possible to retrieve what has been offered in the fire?

Even if it were, it would soon disintegrate. In this way you must

reduce your ego-sense to ashes, also your possessiveness

( " ahamkara-mamakara " ). One who performs a sacrifice

without being conscious of such high ideals but with the purpose

of petty gains like ascending to paradise - is he not a fool?

 

There

is no contradiction between the karmakanda and the jnanakanda. In

the karmakanda itself jnana is given an elevated place and the

limitations of karma mentioned. There are hymns

incorporating high philosophical truths in the Samhita part

itself of the Vedas like, for instance, the

" Nasadiyasukta " , the " Purusasukta " and the

" Tryambaka mantra " . Also to be noted is the fact

that the Upanisads themselves mention rites (karma) like the

" Naciketagni " . How would you explain this if the

karmakanda and the jnanakanda were opposed to one another? The

underlying idea is that we must graduate from the one to the

other [from karma to jnana].

 

As

we have already seen, the Gita (which is a Smrti) says that

sacraments performed in a spirit of dedication to Isvara are a

means of obtaining jnana. The same idea is found expressed in a

Sruti text, the Isavasya Upanisad. The first of the ten

major Upanisads, it

commences with the statement :

" Live a hundred years performing Vedic rites. But do so in a

spirit of dedication to Isvara. Then it will not keep you bound.

" So it would be wrong to believe that the Upanisads teach

inaction.

 

Karma,

however, is not the goal of the Vedas. You must go beyond the

stage of performing Vedic rituals even if they be for such a

noble purpose as that of creating welfare in the world, cleansing

your consciousness and propitiating the deities. Your must rise

higher to the plane where you will realise that nothing other

than the Paramatman exists, that the phenomenal world is unreal,

that there are no entities called deities (devatas) with an

independent existence of their own and that there is no

" I " . When you come to this state there will be no need

for the Vedas too for you: this is stated in the Vedas

themselves.

 

The

Vedas are the laws laid down by Paramesvara. All people, all his

subjects, must obey them. But there is no need for the man who is

always steeped inwardly as well as outwardly in the Reality that

is the Paramatman to refer to this law with respect to all his

actions. That is why it is said that for such men the Vedas cease

to be Vedas. (We too do not respect the Vedas as the law. For us

also the Vedas are not Vedas. But we do not have even a whiff of

jnana!).

 

If

you do not realise that the karmakanda is a means to take you to

the " paravidya " that is constituted by the Upanisads, then

the Vedas (that is their karmakanda) is an

apara vidya like any other

subject such as history or geography that is learned at school.

It is for this reason that the Mundaka Upanisad includes

the Vedas in the category of apara-vidya. This

Upanisad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for

ephemeral enjoyments, mundane benefits, as a mere beast (pasu).

 

To

the jnanin who is united with the Paramatman the deities are not

entities outside of himself for they too have emanated from the

same Parmatman. Indeed, these deities inhere in him since he is

dissolved in the Paramatman to become the Paramatman. If he does

not have such inward experience of being dissolved in the Supreme

Godhead, when he worships a deity as an entity separate from him,

he must do so regarding it as integral to the Atman. Even if it

be necessary to carry out all our outward functions according a

system based on differences, we must always be conscious of the

truth that in the end we will be united with that fundamental

Reality in which all these differences wil cease to exist. The Brhadaranyaka

Upanisad declares: " He who worships the deities as

entities entirely separate from him does not know the truth. For

the gods he is like a pasu (beast) " . (1. 4. 10).

 

The

word " pasu " is very meaningful here. In a superficial

sense it means one who does not possess the sixth sense of a

human and lives on an animal level. Let me tell you the inner

meaning. Why do we keep a cow? Because it gives us milk. That is

why we feed it grass, oil cake, cottonseed and so on. We offer

oblations in the fire to please the gods. In return they grant us

blessings in the form of rain, crops, etc. These celestials, as

we have seen, are superior to us but they do not know the bliss

that is boundless. Indeed they are unaware of even a fraction of

the bliss that a jnanin who is but a mortal experiences.

 

The

Taittiriya Upanisad (2. 8. 1) and the Brhadaranyaka

Upanisad (4. 3. 33)deal with the ananda, bliss, experienced by various

orders like bumans, the fathers, the celestials. We have here

something of an arithmetical table on bliss. The bliss

experienced by each order is a hundred times greater than that

experienced by the preceding one - it is all in the ascending

order. Among the celestials the degrees of bliss known to Indra,

Brhaspati and Prajapati are given separately. The highest bliss

is experienced by the jnanin, the bliss of knowing the Brahman

(Brahmananda). Thus the devas (celestials) are deficient in the

matter of bliss. Also, they do not make any effort to attain to

the highest state of blessedness. they look forward to the gains

to be made from us, from the sacrifices we perform from our

worship. For this reason they do not like us humans to become

jnanins. This is clearly stated in the Brhadranyaka Upanisad:

" The celestials do not like humans who realise the

Self " (1. 4. 10). Why? When a man realises himself he will not

perform any sacrifices and other rites to please the deities.

 

Take

the case of our domestic servant. We pay him a small wage and we

know that we will have to pay more if we appoint a new man in his

place. He wants to go to school, pass some examination or other

so that, eventually, he will be able to take some better job and

do well in life. If he really appeared for an examination, would

we honestly like him to pass? No. We would like him to fail. If

he passes he will find a better job for himself and have a better

" status " than now. We may not find it easy to hire a

new servant on the same small wages. We are similarly situated in

our relationship to the celestials. They will not like us to

become jnanins because we will then cease to worship them.

 

If

a jnanin is not dear to the devas, it follows that one who is not

jnanin is dear to them. In other words he who is dear to the gods

is an ajnanin. That is why in grammar an idiot

( " murkha " ) has the name of " devanampriya: "

( " dear to the gods or celestials " ). This term has its

source in the Upanisads. In his commentary on the Brahmasutra,

Sankara Bhagavatpada says to one who maintains that the

Paramatman and the jivatman (individual self) are different:

" Idam tavad devanamapriyah prastavyah " (This is what

you idiot should be asked). You had probably thought that

" devanampriya " to be a big title of honour.

 

In

the Asokan edicts the emperor is referred to as

" devanampriya " . Even before the time of Asoka, Panini

had said that the term meant an idiot. For this reason it would

be wrong to believe that the followers of the Vedic religion in

later times took the word to mean an idiot with the deliberate

intent of denigrating the Buddhist Asoka. Our Acarya, as I have

said earlier, refers in his commentary on the Brahmasutra to

one who does not know the true purpose of the Vedas as a

" devanampriya " , meaning by the term an

" idiot " . But now in the Asokan edicts the same

appellation in given to one opposed to the Vedas, one who belongs

to the non-vedic Buddhist religion.

 

One

who follows the Vedic tradition and becomes a jnanin by learning

the truths propounded in the Upanisads no longer performs

sacrifices to please the gods. No more will he be dear to them

now. Since sacrifinces are prohibited in Buddhism obviously the

celestials do not like followers of that religion. Then why is

Asoka, who was a great supporter of Buddhism, called

" devanamapriya " ? As a Buddhist he would not have

performed Vedic rituals, but at the same time he would not have

come under the influence of Vedanta to become a jnanin. Asoka

must have earned the appellation of " devanamapriya " in

the sense that anyone who did not follow the teachings of Vedanta

does not become a jnanin.

 

(It

is also likely that someone not acquainted with such matters, a

sculptor or a government official, must have inscribed the title

" devanampriya " thinking it to be highly complimentary

to the emperor. )

 

When

a man, dear to the celestials, ceases to perform sacrifices on

turning to the path of jnana, they place obstacles before him. We

read in the Puranas stories of the apsarases who disturb the

sages in meditation and austerities.

 

Until

a man becomes a jnanin he keeps performing the rites intended for

the celestials. In return they bring him various benefits. They

have to be given their share of the oblations. If a man helps us

we have to help him in return. Is that not so? We have to help

the celestials who bring us rain and other benefits. That is why

we perform sacrifices. Some Brahmin or other gives the

" havirbhaga " (a share in the oblations) to the devas,

doing so as a representative of us all. It is like one man paying

taxes on behalf of all.

 

To

the celestials a person who performs Vedic rituals is like a

milch cow. When the cow goes dry what use is it to man (its

owner)? The celestials will be pleased with a person so long as

he remains a milch cow (performing sacrifices and other rites).

If he ceases to be a milch cow they will dislike him, cause him

suffering. That means man is like a cow to the devas in more that

one sense: in the sense that he is ignorant (not a jnanin); and

in the sense that they do not protect him when he stops

performing rites (do we take care of a cow that has gone dry? ).

 

It

is part of wisdom and enlightenment to realise that the gods are

not separate from us. Vedanta points a way to realise this truth,

and shows us how we may free ourselves from works and even

worship of the gods and reach the stage where there is no

difference between us and all the rest. Let me tell you about the

great esteem in which Vedanta has been held in this country.

 

Though

the Vedas are infinite, the seers have brought us only a few of

them. But since, in this age of Kali, even these are difficult to

master, they divided them into 1, 180 sakhas or recensions, each

with Samhita, Brahmana, Aranyaka and Upanisad. Later, out of

these many passed into oblivion. Now the remaining too are

threatened with extinction because people belonging to this

generation have brought Vedic studies to such a sad state and

earned merit thereby!

 

We

have some Upanisads belonging to recensions of which neither the

Samhitas nor the Brahmanas are studied. Even their texts are not

available. The Samhita of the Sankhayana Sakha of the

Rgveda is no longer chanted now; the fact is we have lost it. But

the Kausitaki Upanisad which is a part of this recension

is still extant. The Baskala Mantropanisad, also from

the Rgveda, is still available: I am told a palm-leaf manuscipt

of the same is in the Adyar Library, Madras. But neither the

Samhita nor the Brahmana of the Baskala Sakha is known

to us. The Katha Upanisad belongs to the Katha Sakha

of the Krsna-Yajurveda. Did I not tell you that the Upanisad

comes at the end of the Aranyaka? The Kathopanisad is

very famous and is one of the major Upanisads; but its Aranyaka

is not available. The Atharvaveda is totally forgotten in the

South and is studied but in one or two parts of the country. But

still extant are Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya

which belong to this Veda and which form part of the Dasopanisad.

 

 

All

this points to the fact that, while parts of many Vedic

recensions that pertain to karma or works have become extinct or

have been forgotten, many of the Upanisads which are the means of

jnana have been preserved. Great care has been taken to protect

that part of our heritage which shows us the way to wisdom and

light.

 

The

Upanisads are believed to have been large in number. Two hundred

years ago, an ascetic belonging to Kancipuram wrote a commentary

on 108 Upanisads. He earned the name of " Upanisad

Brahmendra " . His monastic institution is still to be seen in

Kanci.

JAYA JAYA SANKARA HARA HARA SANKARA

 

Thwameva Maathaa Cha Pithaa Thwameva Thwameva Bhandhuscha Sakhaa Thwameva

Thwameva Vidhyaa Dhravinam Thwameva Thwameva Sarvam Mama Dheva Dheva.