MĪMĀṂSA

T h e S tu d y o f H in d u E x e g e s is — th e
In te rp re ta tio n o f S a c re d T e x ts

By
Ub. Ve. Sri Rama Ramanuja Achari
srimatham.com
25:06:2013
2

CONTENTS
Preface …………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………… 4
Origin of Mimāmsa …………………………………………………………………….. 5
The Scope of Mīmāṃsa ………………………………………………………………… 6
The Two Divisions of Mīmāṃsa ……………………………………………..………… 7
The Vedas (Nigamas) …………………………………………………………..…….… 7
The Purpose of Mīmāṃsa ……………………………………………………..……….. 9
Mīmāṃsa Methodology ……………………………………….……………………….. 9
Mīmāṃsa Principles …………………………………………………………………… 10
Acquisition of Knowledge.……………………………………………………………… 10
Śabda — Reliable Testimony…………………………………………………………… 11
Learning of Language………………………………………………………….…...…… 12
The Contents of Sacred Texts ………………………………….……………….……… 14
1. Vidhi — Precepts or Injunctions ……………………………………………….…… 15
2. Mantra — Ritual Formulae …………………………………………………….…… 17
3. Nāmadheya — Categorisation…………………………………………………….…. 18
4. Niṣedha — Prohibition ………………………………………………………….…… 18
5. Arthavāda — Corroborative Statements ……………………………………….…… 19
Sanskrit Literature …………………………………………………………………….… 23
INTERPRETATION OF THE VEDA………………………………….……………… 28
Purport — Tātparya………………………………………………………………..…… 30
Levels of Meaning……………………………………………………………………… 33
Contradiction vs Paradox…………………………………………………..…………… 33
Hyperbole………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Degree of Authority of Injunctions (Vidhi), Mantra & Corroborative Statements
(Arthavāda). …………………………………………………………………………….. 35
Degree of Authority of the Law (Smṛtis), Tradition (Purāṇas) and Epics (Itihāsas)…... 36
Sages & Direct Realisation …………………………………………………..………… 38
Conclusion …………………………………………………..…………………..……… 38
Summary …………………………………………………..………………….………… 39
ATTITUDES TO THE VEDA ……………………………...……………………..…… 40
Nyaya …………………………………………………………………..…..…………… 40
Vyakaraṇa ………………………………………………………...………..…………… 41
Saṅkhya …………………………………………………………………….…………… 41
Yoga ………………………………………………………………………..…………… 41
Vaiśeṣika …………………………………………………………………..…………… 41
Manu ……………………………………………………………...………..…………… 42
Mahābhārata………………………………………………………………..…………… 42
Ramayana …………………………………………………………………..…………… 45
Srimad Bhagavata …………………………………..……………………...…………… 46
The Gita …………………………………………….……………………...…………… 47
Epitome ……………………………..……………………………………..…………… 51
3

Preface

or Hindus there is no clear distinction between philosophy and theology as in the

F west. In the west theology is based upon the revelations of the Bible and the
teaching of the doctors of the Church whereas philosophy is investigation into
life and the pursuit of happiness based upon pure reason — both approaches being
more in conflict than in harmony.
The Vedānta which is the major school of Hindu philosophy is based primarily upon
revealed texts — the Upaṇiṣads, which are the revelations of enlightened sages or
mystics called Rishis, but the teachings derived from them and the theological and
philosophical systems grounded on these ‘revelations’ are subjected to rigorous
semantic analysis and reasoned debate. So the Hindu approach is one in which
revelation is subjected to rigorous logical analysis to produce the doctrines upon
which practice is then based.
Thus all Hindu philosophers/theologians are required to study logic (nyāya) and
exegesis (mīmāṃsa) prior to their excursion into the Vedānta.
The 3 major schools of Vedānta differ in their interpretation of teachings of the Vedic
Rishis, and all of them argue and debate with one another and among themselves over
the subtleties of exegesis and interpretation of the texts and arrive at nuanced
understandings and insight into the nature of the Ultimate Reality. The theological
differences are sometimes quite radical but they almost all agree in the
implementation of the teaching and it’s application in daily life.
It is important to remember that in Hinduism there is no thought crime. Freedom of
thought and expression are paramount and are vigorously encouraged. It is not
adherence to dogma or subscription to a particular theory or membership of an elect
group which is the cause of Liberation but rather one’s personal practice and conduct.
According to Rāmānujācārya the study of exegesis is an essential pre-requisite to the
study of Vedānta. In their commentaries on the Brahma-sūtras both Rāmānujācārya
and Śaṅkarācārya engage in vigorous and witty polemics with the opposing schools of
thought. All their reasoning is based upon the principles of Mīmāṃsa and for modern
readers it is for the most part extremely confusing and recondite.
This book is written with a view to helping readers to make sense of Scripture and to
provide an insight into the commentaries of the great ācāryas.
4

Introduction
In the complexity of our daily lives here are two paths of possible pursuit:— Preyas
—that which is ‘pleasant’, or Śreyas — that which is ‘good’.

Preyas is our default biological instinct Śreyas is the universal good. Dharma. It
of personal survival and self-propagation is the spiritual path which leads to
which we share with all lower life forms. liberation — mokṣa and non-rebirth —
It is the materialistic path of self-referent nirvāṇa. It is sometimes pleasant but
action. We are naturally inclined to that usually not. It is that which ultimately
which affords us maximum pleasure in benefits the many, sometimes at the
the fulfillment of our basic appetites for expense of a few individuals. It is that
food, sex, security and comfort. It is a which is good for all people collectively
seeking of happiness which is primarily and includes the welfare of all other
personal, and only incidentally concerns sentient beings and the environment in
the others of our extended sphere of care which we are sustained. It is that which
— spouse, children, relatives, family etc. is termed loka-sangraha in the Gita.
It is the path that leads to samsāra —
rebirth and suffering.

loka saṅgraham-evāpi saṃpaśyan kartum arhasi || Gītā 3:20 ||

“You should act with the welfare of the entire universe in view”.
We often find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. What is good? What should I do
now? How should I act? What would be the right course of action in this particular
circumstance? These questions are called Dharma Saṅkaṭa — Dilemmas of Dharma.
According to Manu there are four sources of Dharma:—
vedaḥ smṛtiḥ sadācāraḥ svasya ca priyamātmanaḥ |
etaccaturvidhaṃ prāhuḥ sākṣād dharmasya lakṣaṇam ||
The Veda (śruti), tradition (smṛti), the conduct of virtuous people and
one's own conscience, these are declared to be the distinct four-fold
sources of Dharma. (Manu 2:12)

The primary source of Dharma is the Veda and when we seek spiritual guidance from
the Veda we are totally confused by the immensity, obscurity and complexity of the
teachings!! How do we deal this vast resource of material? What is significant and
what is not? What do I accept and what do I reject? It is in this context that one has
recourse to the study of Mīmāṃsa or hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is the study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts,
particularly Sacred texts.
A hermeneutic is defined as a specific system or methodology for
interpretation of texts.
Exegesis is the application, it involves an extensive and critical interpretation of a
sacred text using an hermeneutic.
The word exegesis means "to draw the meaning out of" a given text. Exegesis may be
contrasted with eisegesis which means to read one's own interpretation into a given
text. In general, exegesis presumes an attempt to view the text objectively, while
eisegesis implies more subjectivity.
5

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutic used interchangeably;
however, there remains a distinction. Exegesis is the practical application of
hermeneutics, which is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of
the text itself.

Traditional exegesis requires the following: —

• analysis of significant words in the text in regard to translation 1
• examination of the general historical and cultural context of the passage,
• confirmation of the limits of the passage,
• examination of the context within the text itself.

Hindu hermeneutics is based on the methodology propounded by Mīmāmsa.

The term Mīmāṃsa is derived from the Sanskrit root "man" — "to think, consider,
examine, or investigate." Here the term, etymologically means:— "desire to cogitate"
and is used to signify a thorough consideration, examination, or investigation of the
meaning of Vedic Texts.
Mīmāṃsa is “rational enquiry” which “attempts at rational conclusions”.
Kumarila called it “a conglomeration of arguments” (yukti-kalāpa), very closely
connected to the Veda.

Origin of Mimāmsa
In the Vedic period 3000- 6000 years ago, the yajña or sacrifice was the central motif
of the Vedic religious experience, this being so, two major issues arose:—

 The Vedas are considered to be the utterances of individual perfected

sages (Rishis), they are not at all narrative or systematic, so there are
many apparently conflicting statements in them. In relation to the
sacrificial injunctions many controversies arose amongst the
theologians as to the correct method of celebrating the sacrifices.

 The need arose for the systematic arrangement of the entire

sacrificial paradigm and the allocation of specific functions to the
various priests and other individuals involved.
These two forces gave rise to the creation of the body of literature known as the
'Brāhmaṇas' which aimed at systematizing the ritual and interpreting it in a cogent
manner.
When the sacrificial paradigm had degenerated and the circumstances of time and
place had changed further — people had become more urban and societies had
become more complex, the need arose for a clearer and more comprehensive
explanation of the Vedic texts and the ritual and also the need to contemporize it in

1
It is important to note that every attempt at translation also involves an interpretation. The translator
tries to understand the text and then to make it intelligible to others using metaphors and images the
readers can understand.
6

order to give it relevance. The focus shifted from Yajña to Dharma. This gave rise to
the compilation of the 'Smṛti' literature — with all its rules and regulations regarding
the daily life of the people — including social and criminal laws. This brought about
the necessity also of regular study of these matters as bearing upon 'Dharma' or the
duty of the people. It was at this junction that the Mīmāṃsa literature appeared with
it's 1000 odd rules of Hermeneutics for the interpretation and correct understanding of
what is stated in the Vedas as regards Dharma.
These rules were first formulated in a systematic manner by the sage Jaimini in what
is known as the Jaimini Sūtras (Mimāṃsa Sūtras). Jaimini did not invent the
teachings, but for the first time reduced to writing the traditional interpretations that
had for centuries been handed down orally through disciplic successions. Very little is
known of his life aside from the tradition that he was a pupil of Bādarāyaṇa, founder
of the Vedanta System. His actual date is quite unknown; however, the style of his
writings assigns him to the Sūtra period which extended from 600-200 CE.
Once the Vedic yajñas had fallen into disuse and had become increasingly irrelevant
in the lives of the people, the Vedas gave way to the study of the Tantras. But the
principles of exegesis evolved by the Mīmāṃsa continued to influence all of the vast
body of Tantric literature. Whenever any dispute arose regarding the interpretation of
a certain text, the Mīmāṃsa principles were always applied.

The Scope of Mīmāṃsa

Mīmāṃsa simply takes for granted the philosophical concepts of the other 5 systems;
it does not enter into any analysis or debate on the nature of the Ultimate Reality, the
Self, and the Universe, or their mutual relationship. Its entire methodology is
dependent upon their acknowledged existence. Its basic premise of Right Action
(Dharma) can be established and validated by the means of knowledge taught by the
Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school. And, on the other hand all the declared effects of Dharma
would be meaningless without the analysis of the evolution of consciousness taught
by the Sāṃkhya-Yoga school.
However, Mīmāṃsa makes specific use only of those factors that are needed for its
own special problems. For example, it affirms that Verbal testimony (śabda) is the
only means of Right Knowledge that can be used to know the nature of the invisible
effects of action, and that all other means of Right Knowledge are necessary only to
refute opponents.
Mīmāṃsa suggests that Liberation (mokṣa) cannot be achieved by Right Knowledge
alone, for the Self must first exhaust its negative and positive potentialities gained
through action (Karma), as a seed fulfils itself through growth. No amount of
contemplation (dhyāna) will enable one to arrive at the ultimate goal of human
destiny; therefore, the emphasis is on the ethical aspect of life rather than on the
rational. All arguments to support this thesis are based on the premise that the Self by
definition is eternal. The actions to be done (karma) and the rewards (phala) that
follow are enjoined in the Veda and interpreted by Mīmāṃsa.
The importance of Mīmāṃsa is testified by its present-day effect, for no part of the
daily life of the Hindu is without the influence of the teachings of Mīmāṃsa. All
rituals and ceremonies depend upon it; all moral conduct is guided by it; all Canon
Law is interpreted by it. Mīmāṃsa is the life of the super-structure of Indian
Civilisation.
7

The Two Divisions of Mīmāṃsa

Mīmāṃsa is divided into two systems based on the twofold division of the Vedas
(karma-khāṇḍa dealing with sacrifices and jñāna-khāṇḍa dealing with spiritual
knowledge); both use the same logical method of handling their problems; both use
the same literary form; but each has its own limited sphere of interpretation.
The Pūrva-Mīmāṃsa The Uttara- Mīmāṃsa.
(Karma Mīmāṃsa) — pūrva means (Jñāna Mīmāṃsa) — uttara means
"earlier"; because it deals with "latter"; because it deals with the
the earlier part of the Vedas. Its latter part of the Vedas. Its scope
scope is to interpret the actions is to interpret the knowledge
enjoined in the Vedas, leading to revealed in the Vedas, leading to
Liberation. Liberation.
These two systems are generally referred to as simply Mīmāṃsa and Vedānta
respectively.

The Vedas (Nigama)

Vedic literature is divided into four sections Saṃhita, Brāhmaṇa, Araṇyaka and
Upaniṣads. The Samhitas are the core texts which consist of the revelations of the
great sages (Rishis). They are presented in the form of hymns and poems (su-uktas =
well said).
The Brāhmaṇas and Araṇyakas are ritual texts based upon the practical application
and usage of the Samhita portion in rituals (yajñas) and the Upaniṣads are the
philosophical texts which concern us the most.

Definition of what constitutes Veda

The is a variety of opinions among preceptors as to what exactly constitute Veda;
(i) That by which the means of obtaining the transcendental goal of life is
known.
(ii) The Veda is that which makes known the transcendental means of
obtaining the desirable and avoiding the undesirable.
(iii) The Vedas are the truly authoritative and valid texts which have no author
and which propound Dharma and Brahman.

Dharma

Jaimini defines Dharma as:

codaṇā-lakṣaṇaḥ arthaḥ dharmaḥ
Dharma is that which leads to the highest common good (śreyas) [and is distinguished
by Vedic injunctions].
8

Dharma is “right living” defined by the practice of universal ethics and personal
morals.
“Dharma” cannot be known through empirical means such as cognition. It can be
known only either through intuition or through a impersonal source of knowledge.
The problem with relying on reason or intuition is that individuals will come to
differing conclusions about what the ultimate nature of the “Good” is.
There are endless controversies on most if not all ethical issues by “experts” who take
one side or the other.
The best and most universal source of Dharma therefore, would be an “impersonal”
source such as the Vedas.

Brahman
Brahman, derived from bṛḥ “ the expansive” (bṛhatvam = greatness) can be defined
as the Absolute, whence all existence arises, by which everything is sustained and into
which everything ultimately dissolves.
Brahman or the Absolute is by definition super-sensuous, it is beyond comprehension
or cognition. It cannot even be understood inferentially, for every inferential dynamic
depends upon a repeatedly perceived concomitance (connection) between that which
is to be proved and its characteristic (eg., between fire and smoke).
But we do not have any such knowledge in the case of Brahman. So, the Vedantin
maintains that the Upanishad portion of the Veda — which is also eternal and
infallible — is the unique source of knowledge regarding Brahman.
In fact Brahman also means “sacred wisdom” — it is both the knowledge, the knower
and the thing to be known.
The Veda does not necessarily contain history or science.
The Veda is claimed to be ‘eternal’ in that the truths propounded in it have a perennial
validity for all time.
The Veda can thus, by definition neither deal with temporal evanescent events, nor
can they provide empirical facts or scientific generalizations based on those events.
The ethics taught in the Veda are the factors by which we advance spiritually, they are
injunctions only, which can neither be proved nor disproved by logic.
If one finds passages in the Veda which appear to deal with history or any aspect of
empirical science, they are not intrinsic to its purpose.
Likewise if there appear to be passages in it, which clearly contradict experience or
science, they too are irrelevant.

As Shankaracarya said:—
‘even a hundred Vedic texts cannot establish that fire is cold or does
not give light; for no one can cognise what is opposed to what is seen.’

The Veda on itself:—

We find at least three sorts of statements in the Vedas referring to its own origin:—
• It is the eternal sound heard by sages in deep meditation. (R.V.8:75-6)
9

• It was knowledge born out of sacrifices. (R.V.10:90-9)

• The self-existent God manifested it for the welfare of all. (AV.10:7:70)
• The Vedas are the breath of the Great Being. (Br.Up2:4:10)

The Purpose of Mīmāṃsa

The primary purpose of Mīmāṃsa is to establish the nature of Right Action
(Dharma).
The basic premise of Mīmāṃsa is that action is fundamental to the human condition.
Without application, knowledge is vain; without action, happiness is impossible;
without action human destiny cannot be fulfilled; therefore, Right Action (Dharma) is
the sine-qua-non of a meaningful life on earth.
The primary focus of Mīmāṃsa pragmatism, and the essence of Vedic prescription, is
the vidhi or “injunction” defined as follows:—
Vidhis are those (Vedic) texts containing verbs or expressions that communicate
[ritual] instructions.
In the Vedic context the only vidhis of importance were ritual directions.
In the Vedānta the vidhi are also those statements regarding the Ultimate Reality —
Brahman, the Ātman and purpose of life (puruṣārtha) —all matters which cannot be
comprehended by the either perception or reason. According to Vedānta knowledge
must have a practical application, so therefore Brahman, jīva etc are always
mentioned in the context of “doing” something i.e. meditation.
In the Smṛti context these vidhis related to Dharma in any given situation as well as
all aspects of jurisprudence and interpretation of laws.
In the Tantric context the vidhis relate to Dharma, Absolute Truth as well as methods
of sādhana (spiritual practice).

Mīmāṃsa Methodology
The exegetical format is called an Adhikaraṇa which comprises of a fivefold
process.
• viṣaya vākya — noting the Scriptural sentence under discussion
• samśaya — formulating the doubt as to the correct and relevant meaning
of the sentence.
• pūrva-pakṣa — presentation of the unsound interpretation (the objector
or the opposing school)
• uttara-pakṣa — the refutation of the former position and presentation of
the reasoned interpretation
• nirṇaya — arguments for the conclusion reached
All commentaries on the Brahma-sūtras etc. are presented in this format.
10

Mīmāṃsa Principles
The central theme of Mīmāṃsa is stated in the opening verse of the sutras:—

athāto dharma-jijñāsā — "Now the investigation of duty [dharma]"

All rituals, ceremonies and meditations enjoined in the Veda, no matter how
meaningless they appear on the surface are said to lead ultimately to spiritual
evolution and enlightenment.
Mīmāṃsa endeavours to show how they are all based on Dharma and lead to the
spiritual welfare of all beings.
Mīmāṃsa interprets the Veda on the basis that eternal beatitude is attainable by the
correct performance of rituals founded on Dharma (i.e. practice), thereby storing up
merit which will fructify in the next life.

Acquisition of Knowledge.
There are 3 principle ways in which knowledge and information are acquired:—
• Direct perception (pratyakṣa) — tangible evidence.
• Inference/reason (anumāna) — evidence based upon reason.
• Valid testimony/teaching (śabda) — trustworthy witness.

According to Jaimini, Knowledge of Dharma can be obtained only by Verbal

Testimony (śabda /āgama = Veda) in other words through the medium of language.
The other means of knowing are fallible when dealing with the unseen effects of
action. In support of his position he lays down five propositions:—

 Every Word (Śabda) has an inherent and eternal power to convey its
meaning. (Jaimini holds that the meaning of Sanskrit words is
independent of human agency and belong to the words by their very
nature.)
 Śabda [the teaching of the Vedas] is substantive and does not depend
upon any other source for its meaning; otherwise, it would become
involved in the fallacy of regressus ad infinitum.
 In matters dealing with the invisible realm (niṣkala), Śabda — teaching
of the Veda — is the only infallible guide.
 The knowledge derived from Śabda is called Upadeśa (teachings).
 In the opinion of Bādarayana2 also, Śabda is authoritative.

2
The celebrated author of the Brahma-sūtras.
11

Śabda — Reliable Testimony

Śabda as the valid teaching or trustworthy testimony (āpta vākya) is based upon
language.
Here it is important to understand some of the concepts regarding language and its
use.
Semantics (giving signs, significant, symptomatic, from sema = sign) refers to the
aspects of meaning that are expressed in a language. Semantics is contrasted with two
other aspects of meaningful expression, namely,
syntax — the construction of complex sentences from simple words, and
pragmatics — the practical use of words by agents or communities of interpretation
in particular circumstances and contexts.

Questions about how words and other symbols mean anything, and what it means for
something to be meaningful, are pivotal to an understanding of language. Since
humans are in part characterized by their sophisticated ability to use language to
convey ideas, it is an essential subject to explore in order to understand the human
experience.
“Meaning” (artha) is the content carried by the words exchanged by people when
communicating through language. In other words the communication of meaning is
the purpose and function of language.
A sentence therefore should convey an idea from one person to another. Meanings
may take many forms, such as evoking a certain abstract idea, conveying an emotion,
or denoting a certain real-world entity.
According to Mīmāṃsa the meaning of Sanskrit words is intrinsic to them by their
very nature and not dependant upon human agency — i.e. The meaning is not
dependant upon the collective decision of people. If this were not so, we would have
an “Alice in wonderland” situation where words mean whatever the speaker wants
then to mean — in which case communication becomes impossible. Even if we accept
this as given — there is still the compounding problem of interpretation in translation
— every translator also acts wittingly or unwittingly as an interpreter of the message,
and because every Sanskrit word has at least 10 different meanings every translator
has interpreted the text according to their own agenda based upon:—
1. svabhāva — nature
2. bhūmika — level of attainment or expertise
3. adhikāra — authority to interpret or to explain the subject matter.

For example the Upaṇiṣads declare the Ultimate Reality to be:— raso vai saḥ
Saḥ — “he” refers to the subject being described.
Rasa — is the variable term in this sentence with many different meanings. So we
could translate the sentence as:_
1. The Ultimate truth is indeed enjoyment.
2. The Ultimate truth is indeed interest.
3. The Ultimate truth is indeed juice.
12

4. The Ultimate truth is indeed essence.

Now which definition a translator would choose depends upon his/her intention and
conditioning.
• A Christian translator who wanted to show how childish the Hindu
Scriptures were would prefer number 3.
• An hedonist who wanted to justify pleasure-seeking would prefer
number 1.
• A psychologist who wanted to introduce a psychological aspect
would prefer number 2.
• A spiritual practitioner would prefer number 4.

Learning of Language
According to Mīmāṃsa we learn the meaning of words only by watching the usage
and activity of the speakers. When a string of words are spoken without reference to
action an observer understands nothing. But when one person speaks to another, the
latter acts in a certain way, the observer, by watching the action can infer the meaning
of the words uttered. So even when teaching foreigners to speak English we would
say “I” and then point to ourselves, then “you” and point to the other — through the
gesture the foreigner would infer the meaning.
Learning of words thus takes place primarily through the means of commands. Other
words used in the sentence denote things related to the central command such as time,
place, person, name, activity etc. This leads to the assumption that the whole directive
meaning of the Veda must lie in the enjoining of something to be done.
This attitude contradicts the view of the theologians that all the important Vedic Texts
describe self-evident realities such as the Godhead (Brahman) or Self (ātman). The
Mīmāṃsa denies the self-validity of either God or the Self, but teaches that those texts
which mention Brahman or Ātman must be associated with some practical purpose —
such as something to be “known” or to be “meditated upon” in order to gain self-
realisation and be liberated from the cycle of rebirth.
13

For Reflection
The Nature of Scripture
Today, with our knowledge of the structure and development of language and of the
origin and nature of the universe and species, it would be impossible for any
intelligent person to accept that any text — whether it be the Veda, Tantra, Torah,
Bible or the Quran— is either eternal or was composed and delivered by “God”.
We can accept that there are certain values and concepts which are eternal truths and
have perennial meaning, and which have been realized by sages and prophets
throughout the ages, and which are embodied in different Scriptures belonging to
different peoples. Some may argue that these have been revealed by God, and others
may claim that they have been discovered by enlightened and empowered men &
women. Whatever one’s attitude, a Scripture is valuable only insofar as it reveals
truths unknowable through an empirical source of knowledge (ajñāta-jñāpanam
śāstram) and which remain un-contradicted by evidence, personal experience and
science.
There are profound truths found in all the world’s Scriptures; Hindu, Buddhist,
Jewish, Christian and Muslim as well as in secular poems, the works of Shakespeare
and in Moby Dick. No Scripture therefore is either unique or complete, because
whether it is declared to be a revelation from God or a discovery by Sages, it is
formulated by the human intellect and expressed in a particular language conditioned
by a specific socio-political milieu. The said “Scripture” therefore is confined and
constrained by the finiteness of the human mind and accepted knowledge of the age,
as well as informed by the particular culture and time in which the “author” functions.
All Scriptures contain some elements of history and science mixed up with myth and
legends, alongside empirical observations as well as valid generalizations based on
them, spiced with superstitions and a fair amount of erroneous generalizations. But
these do not form the core of Scriptures.
The historical and scientific facts they contain provide useful material for
reconstructing the socio-political systems in which the people functioned. The
insights they reveal regarding human nature, the mind and the universe may serve as
useful hypotheses in scientific investigations. However, it is the ethical teachings,
metaphysical truths and spiritual techniques in them which constitute the core, the
essence of Scriptures.
14

THE CONTENTS OF SACRED TEXTS

hatever the source of knowledge, something can only be articulated using
W words that have a commonly understood meaning. Once written down, a
“revelation” therefore takes the form of descriptions and propositions that can
be assessed rationally. On the other hand that assessment is likely to reveal more about
the limitations of concepts and logic than about the original “knowledge” that they seek
to articulate.
The fact that something is known through revelation does not logically preclude it from
being known by reason alone, unless what is “revealed” goes against reason — and this
we do not accept. Revelation must accord with reason as far as possible. Once you
reflect upon religion you are involved with concepts and use your reason to sort them
out and relate them one to another.
You can remember something without concepts, but you cannot think about it without
concepts. You can draw a picture without concepts but you cannot describe it without
concepts.
As soon as religion gets beyond the area of personal religious experience it encounters
human reason, and the result is language.

The Purpose of Narrative

When an author composes a narrative the general intent is to communicate a message.
The specific reasons could be:—
(1) To convey some information or knowledge.
(2) To issue some instructions or directions
(3) To describe an event or thing.
(4) To entertain and delight
(5) To register or record something.
(6) To praise or glorify someone or something.
All these categories are found in the Vedic, Puranic and Tantric literature.

Mimāmsa classifies all the subject matter of this vast body of literature under five
different headings: —
 injunctions (vidhi)
 hymns or sonic formulae (mantra),
 categories or descriptions (nāmadheya),
 prohibitions (niṣedha)
 corroborative passages (arthavāda).

It then explains the method of interpreting every grammatical rule and literary device
employed and of analyzing all Vedic ritual and ceremonies into their two fundamental
types, principle and subordinate.
15

This same classification and methodology can be applied to all the Tantric/ Āgamic
texts as well.

1. Vidhi — Precepts or Injunctions

A vidhi is a statement that induces one to act.
All actions (karma), according to Mīmāṃsa are said to have two effects:
1. one external, manifest and gross; (dṛṣṭārtha)
2. the other internal, potential and subtle (adṛṣṭārtha).
The internal aspect is regarded as being long-lasting, while the external effect is
transitory.
Actions create samskāras (mental impressions or “subliminal activators”) through
their positive and negative results, they are, therefore the seeds, planted in the mind,
of future activity and resulting effects both good and bad — Karma.

How a Vidhi operates

The inducement to act consists of three parts — What? Through what? & How?
Example:—
“One who desires a meal of curry & rice should cook!”
"What?" — the meal of curry and rice is the thing to be realized
“Through what?” — "Through the process of acquiring the ingredients and then
cooking them.
"How?" — By going to the supermarket – purchasing the ingredients, preparing them
and then cooking them. Once prepared, the meal would be served.
The What constitutes the primary injunction.
The How constitutes the subsidiaries.
Through what constitutes the link between them.

So the comprehensive understanding of the sentence is:—

"One should prepare a meal of curry & rice by going shopping, buying the
ingredients, preparing, cooking and serving.”
Sometimes there is no need to supply the “Through what” and the “how” they’re
implied because either they are common knowledge or have been mentioned
elsewhere in the instructions.
These three aspects of the Vidhi are technically known as:—
(1) Utpatti — Primary Injunction to perform a action. A precept with a certain
objective, which creates a desire to act.
eg. "One desirous of attaining heaven should perform the agnihotra".
(a fire sacrifice)
(2) Viniyogaḥ — Injunction of Application — establishes a particular relation
between the principle activity and the subsidiary actions.
16

(3) Prayogaḥ — Injunction of Employment — the injunction(s) that describe the

order of performance of all the subsidiary or minor parts of the central
activity, it determines the process and order of all the actions which
constitute the process.

The variable is the:—

(4) Adhikāra-vidhi — Injunction of Qualification — an injunction which determines
which person has a right to undertake the activity or be involved in
some stage of the process.

There are another 3 sub-vidhis:—

Apūrva-vidhi — Original injunction — enjoins something not otherwise known;
eg. "the grains should be washed"
Niyama-vidhi — Restrictive injunction — the text lays down one mode of doing
a thing that could be done in several ways.
eg. " pound the corn to remove the husk"
Parisaṅkhya-vidhi — Preclusive injunction — an implied prohibition.
eg. “Only five animals with five toes may be eaten”. Implies that
humans may not be eaten.

In both Vedānta (Jñāna-khāṇḍa) and Tantra; Vidhi has been broadened to include
statements about the Supreme Truth and the nature of the Self and not just those that
refer to action.

Precepts regarding Dharma

All these positive ethical precepts are authoritative and binding, though not equally so
and they are conditioned by six factors:—

3 objective factors 3 subjective factors

Deśa — the place Svabhāva — one’s disposition
Kāla — the time Bhūmika — one’s level of development
Pātra — the circumstance Adhikāra — one’s suitability

The discerning student is required to distinguish between grades of vidhi or to

compare their levels of authority or applicability.
The primary distinction is derived from their motivation and goals, thus producing the
concepts of puruṣārtha and kratvārtha.

Puruṣārtha — a primary ethical precept (Dharma) which is conducive to

personal as well as universal welfare.
e.g. “Non-aggression (ahiṃsa) is the highest form of Dharma”
17

Kratvārtha — a secondary precept concerned with aiding or facilitating the

primary puruṣārtha.

e.g. “Take refuge in wisdom”. (Gita)

So in other words, the ideal of non-aggression (ahiṃsa) is not a fixed absolute but
rather a guiding principal which needs to be modified according to time place and
circumstance.

Precepts regarding Brahman & Ātman

These appear in the form of declaring the characteristics of Brahman. eg. —Satyam
jñānam anantam brahmā — Brahman is Being, Wisdom and Infinity. (Taittiriya
Upaniṣad)
These declarations on Brahman and Ātman are of three types; —
 Abheda śruti — those affirming identity between Atman and Brahman.
 Bheda śruti — those affirming difference between them
 Ghaṭaka śruti — those which reconcile the two extremes

Another way of categorising them would be according to: —

 Affirmation — sarvam khalvidam brahmā — all this is Brahman

 Denial — nāsti kiñcana — nothing exists.

2. Mantra — Ritual Formulae

These usually take the form of prayers or hymns of praise to various deities. Some of
them, in Tantra, are sonic formulae with no grammatical meaning but generate a
certain spiritual vibration in the consciousness.

Classification Examples
Benedictory āyurasi tat te prayacchāmi — long life I bestow upon you (V.S. 3-
7)

Eulogistic None is there, Indra, god or human, to hinder your

munificence, The wealth which, when praised, you wilt give. (Rik
Veda 8:14:4)

Incoherent Om aiṃ hrīṃ klīṃ cāmuṇḍāya vicche

Plaintive ambe ambike — O mother! (V.S. 23;18)

Injunctive Come to us, Indra, come you who highly lauded to the devotions
of the singer Mana. (R.V.1.177.5)
18

Didactic If all speech could be divided into four equal parts, the wise will
replace three parts with silence. (R.V.1.164:45)

Inquisitive Who are you? How many are you? (V.S. 7;290

Interrogatory I ask thee of the earth's furtherest limit, where is the centre of the
world, I ask thee. (R.V. 1;164;34)

Descriptive This altar is the earth's furtherest limit; this sacrifice of ours is the
world's centre. (R.V. 1;164;35)

Cryptic What thing I truly am I know not clearly: mysterious, fettered in

my mind I wander. (R.V.1.164.37)

Indicative devasya tvā ... nirvapāmi — which is indicative of putting corn

into the winnowing basket.

3. Nāmadheya — Categorisation
This includes the lists of names given to the various sacrifices as well as naming ritual
activities, the giving of lists of various things, itemizing paraphernalia etc.
Know, Dearest One! that the first element is fire, the second is air, the third is
water, the fourth is the earth, and, O Beauteous Face! as to the fifth element,
know it to be ether, the support of the Universe. (MNT 7:109—110).

Manu Smrti 8:4-7. Of those (titles) the first is the non-payment of debts, (then
follow), (2) deposit and pledge, (3) sale without ownership, (4) concerns among
partners, and (5) resumption of gifts, (6) Non-payment of wages, (7) non-
performance of agreements, (8) rescission of sale and purchase, (9) disputes
between the owner (of cattle) and his servants, (10) Disputes regarding
boundaries, (11) assault and (12) defamation, (13) theft, (14) robbery and
violence, (15) adultery, (16) Duties of man and wife, (17) partition (of
inheritance), (18) gambling and betting; these are in this world the eighteen
topics which give rise to lawsuits.

4. Niṣedha — Prohibition
The opposite of an injunction or Vidhi. A prohibition or negative precept which
proscribes doing a thing which is either injurious or disadvantageous. These are of
two types:—

 Paryudāsa — a prohibition that applies to the person who is undertaking

to perform a yajña.
(eg. “The yajamāna must refrain from sexual activity and not eat any
cooked food”.)
19

 Pratiṣedha— a prohibition of general applicability.

(eg. “During the Agama temple festival any form of untouchability

must not be practised”.)

5. Arthavāda — Corroborative Statements

Arthavāda is passage which extols and encourages the performance of a positive
injunction (Vidhi) or censures and discourages the performance of a prohibition
(Niṣedha).
Arthavādas are classified differently by various authorities but generally fall under the
following 13 general categories:—

Classification Example
1. Anecdotal Varuṇam pitaram upasasāra (Varuna approached his father Tait. Up.)
2. Ratiocinative It moves and It moves not; It is far and It is near; It is within all this
and It is also outside all this. Isa Up.5
3. Deprecatory Therefore, O Devi! the worship of one who heeds not My precepts is
fruitless, and, moreover, such an one goes to hell MNT 2:12.
4. Eulogistic Then first listen, O Devi! to the Mantroddhāra of the Mantra, the mere
hearing of which liberates one from future births while yet living. 5:9
5. Descriptive He, the Lord, also created the class of the gods, who are endowed with
of deeds done life, and whose nature is action; and the subtle class of the Sadhyas,
and the eternal sacrifice. Manu 1:22
7. Indicative of Over the lines from West to East worship Mukunda, Isha, and
a deity Purandara: over the lines from South to North, Brahma, Vaivasvata,
and Indu. MNT 6:123.
8. Indicative of Then, drawing a figure (in front of the Yantra), according to the rules
material of ordinary worship, place the plate with food thereon. MNT 6:89.
9. Indicative of The most excellent practitioner should for the attainment of wealth and
action all his desires make Japa of each or all of the first three Bijas MNT
5:14.
10. Indicative of Then, reciting the Mula-Mantra, let the practitioner offer five handfuls
agent of flowers to the head, heart, Muladhara Lotus, the feet, and all parts of
the body of the Devi. MNT 6:95
11. Indicative of In the second half of the last quarter of the night the disciple should
time rise from sleep. MNT 5:26
12. Indicative of The wise practitioner should place the articles necessary for worship
place on his right, and scented water and other Kula articles on his left .
MNT 5:89.
13. Figurative - The massaging of the feet of a weary wayfarer, nursing a sick person,
indicative of worship of god, washing the feet of brahmins, and scrubbing the place
similarity where brahmins have taken food — all these are on a par with the gift
of a cow. (Yajnavalkya 6:11.)
20

These broad categories can be summarized as being of five kinds:—

 condemnation
 eulogy
 heroic performance
 past incident.
 explanatory

a. Condemnatory Arthavādas
“He who bestows silver, which is produced from tears, in the sacrifice called Barhis, has
lamentation in his home before the lapse of a year” (Tai. 5. L V.i.2).

(The story is this: Once the gods went out to fight the jealous gods — asuras,
depositing their valuables with the Agni. Agni took a fancy to the treasures and fled
with them. The victorious gods, on their return, saw his treachery, hunted him down
and forced him to return their deposits. Agni thereupon burst into tears, and these
became silver.)
Condemnatory corroborative statement devotes itself to praising the thing enjoined by
condemning things other than that. Since the condemnation of giving away silver in
the passage, "He who bestows silver," etc. is intended to praise what is enjoined, viz.,
not making a gift of silver, there is no contradiction.

One who purchases a girl, becomes a demon in the forest; who steals a gem,
becomes a base-born; who steals vegetables, becomes a peacock; thief of pearl-
necklace becomes a shrew; of grains, a rat; of fruit, a monkey; of animals, a goat;
of water, a crow; of meat, an eagle; of cloth, a leper; and of salt, a ragged one.
(Yajnavalkya 12: 5-6)

O Kuleshani (Uma), a wife should not be burnt with her dead husband. Every
woman is your image – you reside concealed in the forms of all women in this
world. That woman who, in delusion ascends her husband’s funeral pyre shall go
to hell. M.N.T. 10:79-80

b. Eulogistic Arthavādas
“The Wind is indeed a very swift deity; if a person approaches (i.e., worships) him
only with the special offering of the deity, the latter certainly makes him attain
prosperity"

The corroborative statement, “The Wind is indeed,” etc. suggests that the Wind, being
swift in movement, is an exceedingly laudable deity, and therefore a rite with that as
its deity is praiseworthy. It thus forms a unitary passage with the injunction by
demonstrating the praiseworthiness of the deity that is enjoined.
[It will be of no good to anybody merely to know, for instance, that the Wind is a
very swift deity; for this will not impel him either to do anything or to desist from any
action. This quotation is preceded by the injunction, "One who desires prosperity
should touch the white animal (a goat) relating to the deity Wind."] (Tai. S.II.1.i.I).'
21

Let him never eat any dainty food which he does not offer to the guest; the hospitable
reception of guests procures wealth, fame, long-life, and heavenly bliss. (Manu 3;106)

O Adya! the person who builds a bridge or causeway shall not see the region of
Yama, but will happily reach the abode of the Gods, and will there have enjoyment
in their company. One who dedicates trees and gardens goes to the region of the
Devas, and lives in celestial houses surrounded by Kalpa trees in the enjoyment of
all desired and agreeable enjoyments. Those who give away ponds and the like for
the comfort of all beings are absolved of all sins, and, having attained the blissful
region of Brahma, reside there a hundred years for each drop of water which they
contain. (MNT 13:26 – 28)

c. Heroic performance Arthavādas

That corroborative statement which demonstrates that a particular work was done by a
great personage or persons in order to act as an incentive;
"Fire desired, 'Let me be a voracious eater among the gods.' He offered this cake
baked on eight thin tiles to the deity Agni and the Pleiades. As a result, verily, he
became a voracious eater among the gods."

(The commentator Sayana explains the first word “Fire” as a man who in the next
cycle became the deity Fire by performing the requisite rite." (Tai. By. III. I. iv)
The passage, "Fire desired," etc. suggests that the sacrifice of which the deity is Fire
was performed in ancient times by Fire and is therefore praiseworthy, and because of
its superiority should certainly be performed by other sacrificers, even to-day. So it
forms a unitary passage with the injunction through its praise of the rite that is
enjoined. The same is to be understood in the other cases also.

Manu 2:151 -153. Young Kavi, the son of Angiras, taught his (relatives who were
old enough to be) fathers, and, as he excelled them in (sacred) knowledge, he
called them 'Little sons.' They, moved with resentment, asked the gods concerning
that matter, and the gods, having assembled, answered, 'The child has addressed
you properly.' 'For (a man) destitute of (sacred) knowledge is indeed a child, and
he who teaches him the Veda is his father; for (the sages) have always said "child"
to an ignorant man, and "father" to a teacher of the Veda.'

Manu 5:22 - 23. Beasts and birds recommended (for consumption) may be slain by
Brahmanas for sacrifices, and in order to feed those whom they are bound to
maintain; for Agastya did this of old. For in ancient (times) the sacrificial cakes
were (made of the flesh) of edible beasts and birds at the sacrifices offered by
Brahmanas and Kshatriyas.

Manu 10: 106. -108 Vamadeva, who well knew right and wrong, did not sully
himself when, tormented (by hunger), he desired to eat the flesh of a dog in order
to save his life. Bharadvaja, a performer of great austerities, accepted many cows
from the carpenter Bribu, when he was starving together with his sons in a lonely
forest. Visvamitra, who well knew what is right or wrong, approached, when he
was tormented by hunger, (to eat) the haunch of a dog, receiving it the hands of a
Chandala.

Krishna Yajur Veda II:ii.1.4 Yonder sun did not shine; the gods desired an
atonement for him; for him they offered this offering of ten bulls; verily thereby
they restored his brilliance. For him who desires splendour he should offer this
offering of ten bulls; verily he has recourse to yonder sun with his own share;
verily he bestows on him splendour; he becomes resplendent.
22

d. Past incident corroborative statement Arthavādas

— that which demonstrates something that has been narrated by another;
Manu 5:1-2. The sages, having heard the duties of a Snātaka thus declared, spoke
to great-minded Bhrigu, who sprang from fire: 'How can Death have power over
Brahmanas who know the sacred science, the Veda, (and) who fulfil their duties
as they have been explained (by thee), O Lord? '

"He cursed it, saying, 'May people kill you whenever they have a mind to (or, by
various devices) (Tai. S. II. vi. vi. I) -

Agni decided not to carry any more offerings to the gods, lest he, too, should die
of exhaustion like his three elder brothers. He fled and hid himself in water. The
gods started in search of him, and when they happened to come to that water, a
fish betrayed the deity. Agni thereupon cursed the whole species. Then he agreed
to resume his service to the gods on their acceptance of his term that whatever
offerings fell outside the boundary of the sacred fire would go to his departed
brothers. This explains the injunction, “One should put a boundary” (round the
fire with three sticks — paridhis), [which follows the Arthavāda.]

Sometimes Arthavādas do other functions, too. For example, in the injunction, "One
should spread soaked gravel (on the altar)," the word “soaked” suggests the use of a
liquid substance in general. When a doubt arises as to what that substance may be
whether it be water, or milk, oil, or ghee, we conclude from the corroborative
statement — "Ghee verily is light" (Tai. S. II. ix. 4), that it is ghee. So this
corroborative statement is authoritative as deciding a doubtful meaning as well.

d. Explanatory Arthavādas
“Indra opened the hole of Vrtra; the topmost cattle he grasped by the back and pulled out;
a thousand cattle followed it, it became hump backed.” KYV II:11.1.5

This arthavāda explains how cattle became hump-backed.

Indra having killed the son of Tvaṣṭra was guilty of the sin of killing a Brahmin
He ran to women and asked then: “take upon yourselves a 3rd of my sin!” They
said: “what will we gain by doing that?” Indra said: “choose a boon.” They said:
“May we obtain children during our season and may we live at pleasure with our
husbands till the time of giving birth to our children.” Having obtained the boon
they took upon themselves a 3rd of the sin of Indra. Therefore they become guilty
of the sin of killing a brahmin every month with their discharge. (Vasishtha
Dharma śāstra 6)

This arthavāda rationalizes why women are socially isolated for 3 days during their
periods.
23

Sanskrit Literature
1. Styles used in Sanskrit Literature
There are 3 principle styles found in Sanskrit literature.
1. Sūtra — is a very terse form of writing in which there is no embellishment. The
sentence consists of few words and no narrative, explanation or dilation. They were
meant for easy memorization by students and depended upon the commentary given
by learned scholars.
Example:—
yogaś citta vṛtti nirodhaḥ (Yoga Sūtras 1:2)
“Yoga (is defined) as the restraint of the fluctuations of the consciousness.”

The sūtras require extensive commentaries and because of their ambivalence can be
interpreted in a number of different ways. To this category belong all the texts of the
various schools of philosophy, Mīmāṃsa sūtras, Yoga sūtras, Vaiśeṣika sutras,
Dharma sūtras, Gṛhya sūtras etc.

2. Sūkta — sūktas are the hymns of the Vedas, these are poetic compositions set to
various different metres, some are comprehensible while others are cryptic and need
interpretation.
Example:—
nāsad āsīnno sadāsīttadānīm | nāsīd rajo no vyomā paro yat |
kim āvarīvaḥ kuha kasya śarman | aṃbhaḥ kim āsīd gahanaṃ gabhīram ||
There was not the Non-existent nor the Existent then; there was not the air nor
the heaven which is beyond. What did it contain? Was there water, unfathomable
and profound ? (R.V. 10:129:1)

3. Śāstra — these are the Dharma śāstras which although in different metres usually
the one known as anuṣṭup, they are in the form of narratives in which the subject
matter is discussed at great length. To this group also belong the Itihāsas and the
Pūrāṇas with their prolix and often tediously long descriptions.

Example:—
etāvāneva puruṣo yajjāyā'tmā prajeti ha |
viprāḥ prāhustathā caitadyo bhartā sā smṛtāṅganā ||
A man alone is nothing — he is incomplete. The perfect man is one who is
completely united in harmony with his wife and children. These three are ONE.
(Manu 9;45)

2. The Four Required Criteria

Every Tantric or Yogic text must include four criteria:—
24

Prayojanam — A statement of its purpose or objective.

Adhikāri — the qualifications of the individuals to whom the text is addressed
Abhidheya — the subject matter of the text
Sambandha— the connection between the title (abhidhānam) and the subject
matter.

3. Literary Tools
It should be remembered that writing is an art-form and that authors use various tools
in displaying their skill.
Prayojanam — Purpose. Whenever an author composes a work he/she has a purpose
in mind. A particular message which the author wants to convey to others.
Sometimes it is a well thought out concept and sometimes vague. When reading a
passage try to discover what the general purpose of the author is and do not be
distracted by the rhetoric which may be used in it’s articulation.
Alaṅkāra — Rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art or technique of persuasion through speech
or writing. Rhetoric in literature is called alaṅkāra or “decoration” because of the
use of many symbolic and colorful forms of speech, none of which need to be
taken literally but understood terms of the theme under discussion.
Nirvacanam — Explanation. A detailed account wherein one may use any literary
device to explain or elucidate a vidhi or prescription, or an incident etc.

Ākhyānam — Narrative. A description of a happening – a simple statement of facts

which is devoid of any rhetoric.
Dṛṣṭānta — Allegory. A story, poem, or word picture that can be interpreted to reveal
a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Though it is similar to other
rhetorical comparisons, an allegory is sustained longer and more fully in its details
than a metaphor and appeals to imagination. The Rāmāyana is an allegory of the
search for spiritual enlightenment.
Nirdaśanam — Metaphor. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied
to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable: “I had fallen through a
trapdoor of depression,”. To grab the bull by the horns.
Sādṛśyam — Analogy. Comparison or simile which appeals to reason or logic. A
comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for
the purpose of explanation or clarification: an analogy between the workings of
nature and those of human societies | he interprets logical functions by analogy
with machines.
Upakrama-upasamhāra; — the opening and concluding passage of a particular text
introduce and summarise the subject matter — they provide the context in which
the rest of the text is to be understood.
In terms of the general theme under discussion the introduction and the
conclusion should be in harmony. It is a fallacy to begin with an assertion and
then complete the argument with a different conclusion.
Prakaraṇam — Context. When the validity of an injunction or teaching is dependant
upon a specific time (kāla) place (deśa) and circumstance (pātra). Not all
injunctions are perpetually valid and they need to be applied according to the
25

context given within the passage. If the context is not explicitly stated then one
should apply reason.
Abhyāsa — Repetition. Often the same theme or point being made is repeated in a
different way in order to impress it upon the mind of the reader. There are several
ways in which repetition is used in literature,
1. the repetition of a single word, with no other words in between.
oṃ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ śāntiḥ ||

2. the repetition of a word or phrase in various places throughout a

section.
śaṃ no mitraḥ śaṃ varuṇaḥ | śaṃ no bhavatvaryamā | śaṃ na indro
bṛhaspatiḥ | śaṃ no viṣṇur-uru-kramaḥ |
3. the repetition of the last word of a preceding clause.
| yaḥ potā̱ sa punātu mā | (V.S.19;42) pu̱nantu mā deva-ja̱nāḥ |

4. the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of every clause.

pu̱nantu mā deva-ja̱nāḥ | pu̱nantu̱ manavo dhī̱yā | pu̱nantu̱ viśva āya̱vaḥ ||
5. the repetition of a word or phrase at the end of every clause.
lomaśāṃ paśubhiḥ saha svāhā | āmāyantu brahmacāriṇaḥ svāhā |
vimāyantu brahmacāriṇaḥ svāhā | pramāyantu brahmacāriṇaḥ svāhā |
damāyantu brahmacāriṇaḥ svāhā | śamāyantu brahmacāriṇaḥ svāhā ||

6. the repetition of a word or phrase at the middle of every clause.

apūrvata — Novelty of meaning. Often a text may introduce a new explanation of a
term or a new and expanded development upon a previous theme.
upapatti — Congruity. In order for a text to have any validity it must be in harmony
and agreement with all the relevant factors within the bounds of logic and
pragmatism.
arthavāda — Corroborative statement. It must be born in mind that many of the
allegories and descriptions given in the text are merely for praising or encouraging
a prescribed action or form of Dharma and discouraging a forbidden one. They are
not to be taken literally.
anuvāda — Paraphrase (translation). Paraphrasing is the act in which a statement or
remark is explained in other words or another way — as to clarify the meaning, or
when a direct quotation is unavailable. Often, a paraphrase might substitute a
euphemism for an actual statement, in order to avoid offense, but the paraphrase
should not change the original meaning.
phala — Outcomes. Often at the end of a hymn (stotra) or story various exaggerated
results from the recitation or hearing of the passage are mentioned. These are
arthavādas and are not to be taken literally — they are included merely to
encourage the neophytes. In addition all activities such as chanting hymns or
reciting stories of sages and gods have the potential of planting seeds in the mind
26

which hopefully will yield reward at some later stage when the conditions are
right.
Narayana Upanisad 3.
“Whoever studies this mantra and chants it constantly, attains full life and
supremacy over others. He enjoys royal pleasures and becomes the master
of the senses. He attains Liberation, yea Final Liberation”.
27

The problem of Interpolation

An interpolation is an entry or passage in a text that was not written by the original
author. As there are often several generations of copies of Sanskrit texts spanning
thousands of years, between an extant copy of an ancient text and the original, each
handwritten on palm leaves by different scribes, there is a natural tendency for
extraneous material to be inserted into such documents over time.
Interpolations may be inserted as an authentic explanatory note, but may also be
included for fraudulent purposes. However, most interpolations result from the errors
and inaccuracies which tend to arise during hand-copying, especially over long
periods of time.
Conscientious scribes tended to copy everything which appeared in a manuscript, but
in all cases scribes needed to exercise personal judgment. Explanatory notes would
tend to find their way into the body of a text as a natural result of this subjective
process.

Al Biruni who visited India in 1017 after testing the caliber of the Indian scribes
complained bitterly about their shoddy and incorrect transcriptions. Indian scribes
when compared to their middle-eastern and Chinese counterparts were far below
standard.
The emphasis in Brahmanism was on the oral transmission of a text and for thousands
of years texts were never written down but passed down through an oral transmission
and memorization. The written word was also held in disrepute by the Brahmins.
In ancient India this was complicated by the fact that often one would not sign a work
but out of humility attribute it to one’s teacher or a former teacher. So for example, all
the Purāṇas and the Mahābhārata are attributed to “Vyāsa” which simply means “The
Compiler”.
In Manu for example there are many passages which are contradictory and unsuitable
for an ethical law-giver to have written.
Sanskrit literature is notorious for the amount of interpolation there is. The only text
which is considered to be totally free from interpolations is the Veda. The reason
being that it was handed down orally from teacher to disciple in closed communities
and never written down until the last few hundred years.

Therefore whenever a discrepancy arises between the Veda (śruti) and the Traditional
law (Smṛti) the Veda prevails.
28

INTERPRETATION OF THE VEDA

From ancient times the Veda has been interpreted in four particular ways.

(1) Ritualistic (adhiyajñika)

The ritualists (Yajñikas) consider the Veda as a source book for the
performance of rituals for obtaining material prosperity in this life and heaven
after death. They considered that the efficacy was in the ritual itself, the gods
being incidental to the process. A person who knows and repeats the mantras
properly, and performs the prescribed ritual acts punctiliously will be able to
control the gods and direct events.

(2) Polytheistic (aitihāsika)

Some scholars accepted the Vedic gods (devas) as realities, as administrative
cosmic forces, their battles with the anti-gods (asuras) as real incidents, and the
rituals taught in the Vedas as effective acts of propitiation and worship. The
various gods are worshipped in different ways to gain specific desirable
material ends and some gods such as Rudra are propitiated in order to avert
harm, sickness and untimely death. Most of the early Western scholars viewed
the Vedas and the Vedic religion from this angle.

(3) Monotheistic (adhidaivika),

According to this view, the various gods who are glorified in the Veda are but
functions and facets of the One Godhead. If the words are interpreted in the
etymological sense, every hymn in the Veda can be understood as directly
referring to the One God. Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Jayatirtha,
Raghavendra, Atmananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo.4 T.V.
Kapali Sastry were all of this view.

(4) Metaphorical (adhyātmika).

Symbolic explanations of the sacrifices are already found in the Brahmanas,
Aranyakas and Bhagavad-Gita. The Mahabharata 14.11;7-20 also indicates that
the legend of Indra killing Vrtra and sacrificial acts can be understood in a
symbolic way. For example; if Vrtra represents tamas, ignorance, then Indra
represents the mind (manas) and his thunderbolt (vajra) represents
discrimination (viveka).
In another example, the phrase “pañca-janāḥ” (the five nations) can be
interpreted as: —
(1) The four Vedic social groups and the tribals (Nisadas)
(2) The five sacrificial fires,
(3) The four Vedic priests and the patron
(4) The eye, ear, mind, speech and breath.
It can only be argued that the entire Veda is uniformly either monotheistic, mystical
or spiritual through tortuous and convoluted interpretations. The Vedas and the allied
Scriptures like the Tantras and Puranas are in fact encyclopaedic in nature, containing
profound and eternal metaphysical and psychological truths, ethical teachings of
unsurpassed and perennial value as well as myths, legends, folklore, superstitions and
baseless generalisations. The Sacred Literature of India caters for all tastes and
inclinations, and the rituals prescribed range from extremely sophisticated spiritual
29

techniques for self-transformation on the one hand to silly rituals that could only
apply to credulous, indiscriminating fools on the other!

Please see appendix for the article “Attitudes to the Veda”

1. Eligibility for Veda Study
It has been traditionally believed that Veda study is open only to men of the upper
three castes. This denial of universal access in fact has been one of the greatest
obstacles to the preservation and propagation of the Veda. This prerogative for Veda
study in latter centuries became the exclusive privilege of male Brahmins only. Even
today most Brahmin Veda scholars and teachers generally do not teach any non-
brahmins, women and certainly not foreigners. But the Veda itself, on the contrary
declares that it is meant for all.
yathemām vācam kalyāṇīṃ āvadāni janebhyaḥ |
brahma rājanyābhyāṃ śūdrayā cāryāya ca svāya cāraṇāya ca ||

"Just as I have revealed this beneficial [Vedic] truth to all people, Brahmins,
Kshatriyas, Sudras, Vaishyas (aryas), our own kin (svaya) and to the foreigners
(aranāya) also". Sukla Yajur Veda 26:2

satyam aham gabhīraḥ kāvyena satyaṃ jātenāsmi jātavedaḥ |

na me dāso nāryo mahitvā vratam mīmāya yad ahaṃ dhariṣye ||

“O Man, I, being of the nature of truth and being unfathomable, have revealed the true
Vedic knowledge; so I am he who gave birth to the Veda. I cannot be partial either to
a Dāsa (sudra) or an Arya; I save all those who behave like myself (i.e., impartially)
and follow my truthful commands”. (Atharva Veda 5.11.3)

Although there are some passages in the Brahmanas which discuss the Sudras
eligibility to perform sacrifices (yajñas) nowhere in Samhita or the Upanisadic
portions is any mention made of eligibility based on gender, social differences or
ethnic origins.
The oft quoted passages limiting Veda study to male Brahmins only occur from the
Smrti period onwards. Most of what the Smrtis have to say is redundant in modern
times. And if there is a conflict between Smṛti and Śruti the Śruti is the final
authority.
Everyone has the right to the highest wisdom from the best source available, and
everyone should be encouraged to study the Veda and the allied Sacred texts.

The golden rule of Hindu Exegesis is that if the literal or primary meaning of a
sentence is logical, non-contradictory, internally consistent and practical, then it can
be accepted as such without any further interpretation.
If, on the other hand the meaning appears to be illogical, contradictory, inconsistent
and unpractical one may then interpret it in a figurative way.
30

Purport — Tātparya
The fundamental or basic meaning (mukhya artha) of a sentence, passage, chapter or
an entire book is what may be called its purport (tātparya).
In a sentence the words all have literal semantic meaning. When these words are
compiled into a sentence they then produce a combined meaning based on the
interrelationship of the individual words in the sentence (syntax) this is called the
purport.
When two or more sentences form a unitary passage, several sentences a chapter, and
a number of chapters a book, while each sentence has its own meaning in itself, by
correlating the sentences correctly, the purport of the passage is understood. Then by
correctly correlating the passages of a chapter the purport of the chapter is
understood, and then through correlation of the chapters the purport of the book as a
whole may be obtained.

Purport is the meaning of words leading to valid knowledge.

The purport of a sentence may be an activity or a fact.

The literal or direct meaning of a particular sentence may be an activity or a fact.
The literal or direct meaning of a sentence may sometimes not reveal a purport; in
which case its implied meaning or figurative meaning would be its purport.

For a scriptural statement or purport to carry any validity it must fulfill the following
5 conditions:–
 It should tell us something novel (apūrva) that we cannot obtain from any
other source of information such as perception and reason.
 It must be logical.
 It mustn’t contradict perception and reason.
 The content of the text must be internally consistent.
 The knowledge presented in the text must have a practical application leading
to empirical outcomes.

A Śāstra (sacred text) is a vast conglomeration of sentences, and unless selective

judgment is applied in developing a coherent co-ordination of them, one cannot work
out a proper perspective regarding its teaching on Dharma in context.
The selection of appropriate sentences & paragraphs has to be made based on a
vision of their general importance and relevance to time, place and circumstance.
One needs to juxtapose and correlate sentences and paragraphs to discover the
recurrent, coherent theme which must be in harmony with the concept of Loka-
saṅgraha — the welfare of all sentient beings — the common and universal good.

The following sentences should be ignored:—

• Irrelevant statements — those which have nothing to do with the real and
meaningful aims of human life, (puruṣārtha) in the present context.
• Useless statements — those sections which give descriptions and information
31

which cannot be successfully utilized.

• Incongruous meanings — those which are not in harmony with the general
purport or theme of the passage or text.

All this can be done only if the recurrent dominant theme, in other words purport, is
discovered; for once this is done, all statements can be harmonised with the general
purport and a consistent teaching formulated.
Purport, therefore, provides the clue to scriptural understanding.

Determining the Purport:—

There are six criteria (ṣad-liṅga) which must be born in mind when looking for the
purport of a text:—

1. Unity of the initial and concluding passages

2. Recurrence of the theme
3. Any new conclusion discovered
4. The general consistency throughout
5. The commendation or criticism of specific matters
6. Alleged results

1. Upakrama-upasaṃhāra; — the opening and concluding passage of a particular

text introduce and summarise the subject matter — they provide the context in which
the rest of the text is to be understood. They must be in context and in harmony with
each other and thus determine the purport of the body of the text. It is a fallacy to
begin with an assertion and then complete the argument with a different conclusion.
E.g. Nārāyaṇa Upaṇiṣad.
Upakrama — Then Narayana, the Supreme Being desired ' I shall produce
offspring .'From Narayana emanates the Life Breath, mind and the sense
organs, ether, air, fire, water, and the earth that supports all this.
Upasaṃhāra — Whoever knows this attains Union with Narayana. He
attains union with Narayana. This is the Upanisad. 5.
E.g. Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras
Upakrama — Now begins the instruction in Yoga (1). Yoga is the control of the
fluctuations of the mind (2). The seer then abides in his true nature (3)
Upasaṃhāra — Since the constituents of Nature (The Gunas) no longer have any
purpose to serve for the Self, they resolve themselves into Nature. This [freedom
from the Gunas] is liberation. The Self shines forth in its pristine nature as pure
consciousness. (33)

2. Abhyāsa — the recurrence of the theme. Often the same theme is repeated in a
different way in order to impress it upon the mind or to clarify a particular point. The
figure of speech in which the theme is re-presented should not be taken as a new
32

teaching or precept but must be taken in context with the original injunction — these
two passages must both be understood as conveying the same meaning.
3. Apūrvata — novelty of meaning. Often a text may introduce a new explanation of
a Dharma concept or a new and expanded development upon a previous Dharma
theme. Or perhaps a different way of conceptualising the Absolute Brahman.
4. Upapatti — Congruity or consistency of the conclusion and the argument
throughout. In order for a text to have any validity it must be in harmony and
agreement with all the relevant factors within the bounds of logic and pragmatism.

5. Arthavāda — Corroborative statement; commendation or criticism. It must be

born in mind that many of the allegories and descriptions given in the text are merely
for praising or encouraging a prescribed action or Dharma teaching and discouraging
a forbidden one. These statements are not to be taken literally.
6. Phala — alleged results. Often at the end of a hymn (stotra) or story, various
exaggerated results from the recitation or hearing of the passage are mentioned. These
are also not to be taken literally — they are included merely to encourage the
neophytes. In addition, all activities such as chanting hymns or reciting stories of
sages and gods have the potential of planting seeds in the mind which hopefully will
yield reward at some later stage when the conditions are right.
Narayana Upanisad 3.
“Whoever studies this mantra and chants it constantly, attains full life and
supremacy over others. He enjoys royal pleasures and becomes the master
of the senses. He attains Liberation yea Final Liberation”.

Considerations
1. Among these criteria the first one of thematic harmony (prakaraṇa) between the
initial and concluding passages is the most important. When a contradiction or lack
or harmony is found between them, then the opening passage carries more weight
and the concluding passage is to be interpreted in conformity with the opening one.
2. If this reconciliation does not work then the subsequent passage should be
regarded as introducing a new topic. This is the principle of the ‘domination of the
initial passage’. (upakrama-parākrama)
3. If the concluding passage contradicts the initial passage and if its sense is not
intelligible unless what is said earlier is overruled, then this should be done.
(apaccheda nyāya) This, of course, does not mean that every secondary cognition or
statement should be taken to disprove the previous one.
An erroneous understanding may follow a correct one, but sooner or later a mistaken
understanding is bound to be nullified by the correct view, while the right view
endures.
Similarly, sometimes a right view may be stated first to refute a wrong view stated
later; but still it should be understood that the statement of the erroneous view is
meant to precede that of the right one; for then only there will be a meaningful
sequence.
In polemics the opponent’s view is always stated first — this is called the pūrva pakṣa
the polemicist then refutes this view using logic (tarka) and presents his own
considered and reasoned conclusion known as the siddhānta.
33

Subjectivity verses Objectivity

While these six criteria may help in trying to reach an objective textual interpretation,
selective judgment based on one’s own agenda and sense of importance is
unavoidable, therefore all interpretation is by nature more or less subjective.
Even in the scientific model of objective observation of facts, every conclusion has its
objectors based on each individual scientist’s sense of importance.
The great masters of Mīmāṃsa and Vedānta (Kumarila and Prabhakara, Sankara and
Ramanuja) knew and applied these criteria and principles rigorously, and yet still
arrived at different interpretations.
We need to approach the subject matter with great humility and sincerity. But it also
does not mean that we accept the conclusions of the masters’ blindly! We need to
arrive at our own conclusions using theirs as markers.

Levels of Meaning
With these guidelines we can then proceed to examine the different levels of meaning
of the Sacred Texts.
a. Śabdārtha — the literal sense
For example all the Gods and Goddesses mentioned in the Veda can be accepted as
they are — as polytheistic deities living in heaven and accepting the sacrifices offered
to them.

b. Bhāvartha — the allegorical sense

Based upon the statement within the Veda itself that there is only One Truth and the
gods are manifestations of that Truth, we can then form a figurative explanation of the
gods and goddesses as emanations or aspects of that One Truth.

c. Lakṣyārtha — the esoteric meaning.

Or we could also interpret the deities as beings subtle energies of the universe and
aspects of our own consciousness, subtle forces that operate within the depths of the
unconscious mind. Indra is not just a god but is a symbol of the enlightened mind
which uses the vajra (thunderbolt) representing discrimination to slay the demon
Vrtra symbolising ignorance, which has stolen and hidden the cows representing the
streams of wisdom.

Contradiction vs Paradox.
Contradiction is a logical error and applies to literal readings of a text or statement.
A contradiction needs to be resolved by applying hermeneutics. There may be
contradiction in one single text; —
34

Example:
Manu 5:35. But a person who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at
a sacred rite — yajña), refuses to eat meat, becomes after death an animal
during twenty-one existences.

Manu 5:48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures,
and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly
bliss; let one therefore shun (the use of) meat.

or between 2 or more different texts;

Example
Manu 9:65. In the sacred texts which refer to marriage the appointment (of
widows) is nowhere mentioned, nor is the re-marriage of widows prescribed in
the rules concerning marriage.

Paraśara 4:30 When the husband disappears, dies, goes forth to a mendicant
life, becomes impotent, or falls from social status, then in all these five
cases remarriage is ordained for women.

Paradox is a tool that is used to explain the inexplicable or to introduce an extremely

abstract concept by using the tension between 2 opposites.

tad ejati tan naijati tad dūre tadvantike |

tad antarasya sarvasya tad u sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ || 5 ||

It moves and It moves not; It is far and It is near; It is within all this and It is also
outside all this. (Iśāvāsya Upaṇiṣad 5.)

These apparently contradictory statements are not suggestive of the mental unbalance
of the writer. He is struggling to describe what he experiences through the limitations
of human thought and language. The Supreme is beyond the categories of thought.
Thought is symbolic and so cannot conceive of the Absolute except through negations;
yet the Absolute is not a void. It is all that is in time and yet is beyond time.
It is far because it is not capable of attainment by the ignorant and it is very near to the
wise because It is their very Self.

Hyperbole
Hyperbole are exaggerated claims or outrageous statements that are forms of
arthavāda and not to be taken literally. Hyperbole is common in many cultures, and is
all too frequent in Hindu literature.
The numerous phala-śrutis or declared benefits of reciting certain stotras is one such
device.
raṅganātha aṣṭakaṃ puṇyaṃ prātar utthāya yaḥ paṭhet |
sarvān kāmān avāpnoti raṅgi sāyujyam āpnuyāt || 10 ||
35

Those who recite this hymn on Sriranganatha upon waking in the morning attain
the fulfillment of all their goals and are completely unified with Sri Ranganatha.

Another is the benefits of taking a bath in a holy river or even just mentioning he
name of the river:—
gaṅgā gaṅgeti yo bruyād yojanānāṃ śatairapi |
mucyate sarva pāpebhyo viṣṇu-lokā sa gacchati ||

The person who simply recites the name Ganga, Ganga, even though thousands of
kilometers away, will be absolved of all sinful reactions and will attain the realm of
Vishnu.

A particularly nasty prescription is allegedly by Gautama who says:

Now, if a Sudra listens intentionally to the recitation of the Veda, his ears shall be
filled with molten tin or lac. (Gautama 12:4)

It is extremely doubtful whether this was ever taken seriously or any such punishment
was ever metered out. Certainly neither Manu nor Apastamba mention it. It has been
the custom in South Indian temples for centuries to recite the Vedas during services and
the majority of people attending the ceremonies would have been Sudras. During the
daily, monthly and annual processions of the deities the Brahmins walk around the town
with the palanquin of the deity loudly reciting the Vedas in the hearing of everyone
standing within range.

Degree of Authority of
Injunctions (Vidhi), Mantra & Corroborative Statements
(Arthavāda).
“Authority” is defined as “the ability to influence somebody to do something that
(s)he would not have, or could not have done”.
The Injunctions (vidhi) constitute Dharma and are therefore the essence of the śabda
[Revelation].
Dharma is that act which is enjoined by the Veda through its injunctive passages and
which is conducive to the happiness of all beings.

Arthavādas as such are authoritative only in so far as they serve the distinctly useful
purpose of helping the injunction or prohibition.
Mantras convey a distinct meaning indicative in most cases of the deity connected
with the sacrifice enjoined elsewhere and therefore in themselves have no authority
whatsoever.
36

Degree of Authority of the

Law (Smṛtis), Tradition (Purāṇas) and Epics (Itihāsas).
Veda-Vyāsa
All the 18 Purāṇas and Upapurāṇas, the
Mahābhārata and the Brahma-sutras are
claimed to have been authored by a sage
named Sri Vedavyāsa (visit
http://srivedavyasa.org/.) — also known as
Kṛṣṇa-dvaipāyana.
He is also said to have edited the four Vedas
and divided them among his disciples with a
view to preserve and perpetuate them for
future generations. In fact the name Vyāsa
simply means the ‘compiler’ or ‘editor’.
The Rig-veda was assigned to Pail, the
Yajur-veda to Jaimini, the Sama-veda to
Vaiśampāyana and the Atharva-veda to
Sumanta.
Vedavyāsa as the source of all the Hindu
Scriptures is also said to be an incarnation
of the Supreme Lord who instantly upon his
birth to Satyavati grew into a youth.

Vyāsāya viṣṇurūpāya vyāsa rūpāya viṣṇave |

Namo vai brahma-nidhaye vāsiṣṭhāya namo namaḥ ||
Salutations to Vyāsa who is in the form of Viṣṇu and to Viṣṇu in the
form of Vyāsa. The one who’s the treasure house of the Vedas.
Salutations to the one born in the noble family of Vasiṣṭha.

Objections
If we accept this account literally then there are a number of problems that need to be
resolved.
1. How could one individual in a pre-computer age compose and transmit so
many millions of verses without ever writing them down — writing came much
later — the Puranas were transmitted orally for thousands of years before they
were written down.
2. Since they were transmitted orally from teacher to disciple for thousands of
years how can we be certain that nothing in them has been changed since Vyāsa
originally composed them?
3. If Vyāsa was in fact an incarnation of God and therefore omniscient, how
come there is so much confusion and so many conflicting statements in the
Puranas? There are biological errors, scientific errors, geneological errors,
historical errors, geographical errors, legendary errors etc.
4. If Vyāsa was God then why did he compose scriptures praising Śiva and
saying that Vishnu is his podiatrist, then praising Vishnu saying that Siva is his
37

cleaner, then praising Devi saying that both Siva and Vishnu are her gate-keepers
etc.?? How come God himself doesn't know who the Supreme Being really is and
communicate that to us in clear and uncompromising terms?
5. Surely God being omniscient could have forseen this theological confusion and
not created it in the beginning? If he did it on purpose then the only reason would
be to prove that Brahma, Viṣṇu, Śiva and the Devi are all ONE Divine Godhead
playing different but equal roles.
6. Vyāsa did not compose all the Purāṇas — the oldest and the most authentic of
the Puranas — the Vishnu Purāṇa was narrated by Parāśara — the alleged father
of Vyāsa. (It is claimed that Vyāsa later redacted and rearranged it).
7. The Brahma-sūtras which were written to clarify the teachings of the Vedānta
(Upaṇiṣads) are extremely abstruse, unclear and subject to many interpretations.
Surely an omniscient being could have provided explicit clarification rather
than cause further confusion and sectarian fission.
8. Most of the Purāṇas mention the Buddha who was an historical character but
are confused about his actual parentage and biographical details as well as his
teachings. Buddhist monks — śramanas — are also mentioned. Any mention of
the Buddha and his sangha would prove that the texts must have been
composed after 500 B.C.E. The apologists claim that the Buddha mentioned in
the Purāṇas is not the historical Gautama Buddha.

Conclusion
If a text exists it must have had a author. We in fact do not know who the authors of
the Purāṇas were, so we simply say it was “Vyāsa” — the compiler. In the books on
Law (Smṛti) written by various sages, in the 18 Traditional Texts (Purāṇas) and the
two great epics (Itihāsas) Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata the direct injunctions are
buried in a mass of verbiage of a purely descriptive character. These descriptive
passages are relegated to the category of arthavāda as such need not be taken as
absolutely correct with regard to biological, geographical or historical fact.
These works were intended for the general public, who are of varying degrees of
intelligence and thus Vyāsa and the others inserted every kind of material in their
works from pure injunctions to apparently useless and banal stories. The sole purpose
was to make these works attractive to all people.
Another element was aesthetics and pleasure in an age in which the main form of
entertainment was story-telling, to delight people with beautiful descriptions and
entertaining fables.
There were and are some teachers of the Madhva and Gauḍiya sampradāyas who
emphasize Purāṇa as the highest Scriptural authority but this is not accepted by the
two major schools of Vedānta. The highest authority is the Veda only, because the
transmission of the Vedas over 1000’s of years has been perfect and there has been no
interpolation.
Itihāsa purāṇābhyām vedam sam-upabṛmhayet |
Bibhetyalpa śrutād vedo mām ayam prahariṣyati ||
The Veda is to be interpreted through means of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas. The
Veda dreads a person of little learning fearing — “he will misunderstand me!”
(Vasiṣṭha Dharma sūtra 27:6)
The primary sources of knowledge are the Vedas/Upaṇiṣads, the Purāṇas and Itihāsas
are authoritative only in so far as they confirm and elucidate the Vedic teachings.
38

They are not accepted as independent sources of knowledge by Śankara and

Rāmanuja as Mādhava claims they are.

Sages & Direct Realisation

The Rishis (sages) through Yoga had a direct “Poets don’t invent poems
realisation (sākṣātkāra) of the Ultimate Truth The poem is somewhere behind
(Brahman) and the way to attain that experience It’s been there for a long time
(Dharma) and through personal instruction (upadeśa) The poet merely discovers it”.
they taught it to others. Direct realisation may occur Jan Skacel
to an ordinary person, a contemplative or a god.

One who has directly realised the Truth and desires to communicate that experience
without some ulterior motive, is considered to be a “reliable person” (āpta) whose
testimony is acceptable.
There is an interesting text which says:—
“When the Rishis were flying up, human beings asked the gods, ‘who among us
will now become a Rishi?’ The gods bequeathed this tarka-Rishi (logic/reason) to
humankind. The tarka so given was that which was drawn out by inference from
reflection on the meaning of mantras. Therefore, whatever a learned person
infers (arrives at through reflection) becomes ‘sageness’ (arsam).” (Kumarila -
Tantra-vārttika 1.2.49)

This is an important text which permits one versed in the Veda to ponder over its
meaning and deduce from it something new as the need arises, and that will be just as
good as the teaching of a Rishi.
In yore there were sages to guide you; now in their place reason shall do so — this is
what the gods ordained.

Conclusion
There is a passage in the Bṛhadaraṛyaka Upaṇiṣad— “Meditate on Speech as a cow....
Her calf is mind”,
Sankaracharya interprets it as follows:—
The word ‘Speech’ means the Vedas .... It is mind (the calf) which makes
(stimulates) the Veda (the cow) to reveal its meaning (its milk), for the
Vedas proceed forward only in a subject thought of by the mind”. Unless
the calf approaches the cow, takes its teats into its mouth one after another,
sucks, and gently butts its mother’s udder with its head now and then,
milk does not flow. Similarly, only a mind which has become active and
reflected deeply and long over a relevant matter (eg., Dharma and /or the
Brahman), can study the Veda and absorb and digest its meaning. To the
unprepared inactive mind the Veda would mean nothing, just as a cow
cannot give its milk to its calf which does not approach it and become pro-
active in the right manner.
39

In Vedānta, reason (tarka) is employed —

(i) to ascertain the true purport of Scripture which is our only source of
knowledge concerning Dharma and Brahman,
(ii) to remove doubts and contrary beliefs and
(iii) to convince us of the probability of the existence of what is to be known,
i.e., Brahman.

The dialectic used by Vedanta must be —

(1) based on Scripture;
(2) must elucidate the content of Scripture, and
(3) must not be opposed to it.

Both Mīmāmsa and Vedānta are hermeneutic philosophies, in which exegesis,

apologetics, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics are synthesised.
According to both the great teachers, Gauḍapāda and Śankara, the true meaning of
the Veda must be ascertained with methodical reasoning, and nothing else.
niścitam yukti-yuktam yat tat bhavati netarat

Summary
 The entire ocean of sacred texts; the Veda, Tantra, Purāṇa and epics
(Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata) etc. are meant to reveal only what cannot be
known through cognition and reason. There is no need for scriptural validation
in empirical matters which can be known through science.
 Scripture cannot contradict knowledge gained from the two other sources;
but its authority is infallible in matters pertaining to Dharma and Brahman.
 Scripture neither produces anything new nor alters what is. There are
some modern scholars who attempt to demonstrate that subatomic physics and
neuro-physiology are hidden in certain Vedic texts. But the Veda is neither
validated by these findings if proved to be correct nor invalidated it they are
proved to be wrong. The purport of the Veda is not science, physiology,
biology, history etc. The essence of the Veda has to be assiduously
contemplated upon for years in a sustained way with faith, by one who has
refined the mind through ethical living; one may then eventually ‘realise’ it.

Itihāsa purāṇābhyām vedam sam-upabṛmhayet |

Bibhetyalpa śrutād vedo mām ayam prahariṣyati ||
One should interpret the Veda through means of the Itihāsas3 and Purāṇas. The
Veda dreads a person of little learning fearing “he will misunderstand me!”
(Vasiṣṭha Dharma sūtra 27:6)

3
Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata
40

ATTITUDES TO THE VEDA:—

SOME ANCIENT VIEWS
(Author — unknown)
araskara in his grhya-sutras informs us that in his time those who planned to

P become priests just learnt the mantras by heart, while Adityasena, a commentator
on Laugakshi grhya-sutra mentions that many celebrants at rituals knew only
how to recite the mantras without knowing their meaning and that they even
insisted it was useless to know it.
Venkata Madhava thought that even the authors of some kalpa-sūtras did not fully
understand the mantras. Some Smrtis like Daksa, Ausanasa and Yajnavalkya had to
exhort that one should not limit oneself to learn how to recite the Veda but also learn its
meaning.
All this means from very ancient times usually most learnt the Veda by rote without
caring to know what it meant. Naturally, such reciters known as 'chandasas' or
srotriyas were looked upon somewhat contemptuously, as is evident from literature.
They were dubbed as "ignorant of the Veda" and as its "sellers". For instance, the
Bhojacaritra narrates that when some srotriyas came to seek an audience with king
Bhoja, himself a scholar-poet and a great patron of poetry, literature and scholarship,
his chamberlains "laughing in fun at them" (kautukat hasanto) went to the king and
reported that "at the gate were standing chandasas, enemies of poetry, with ugly
discoloured teeth and their hands placed on their hips"4. This image of mere Veda-
pathakas as lacking in commonsense, refinement, scholarship and proficiency in
anything useful or productive, still by and large continues.

Nyāya — the school of logicians

Early Nyāya maintained that the Veda is the work of reliable persons; while later
Nyāya mentioned God as its author. The latter argued that the omniscient and
compassionate creator of the world, who can be known through inference, could not
have left beings without teaching them the means of attaining the good. The teaching of
this Being, who is like a father of all, must have been preserved with great respect by
the earliest beings. The Veda embodies that Divine teaching. None else except an
infinite omniscient being could have authored a work like the Veda as its contents are
so unique, profound, all-embracing and consistent.
The Veda, for Nyāya, is inerrant and free from contradictions. If it were not the
authentic Scripture, it could have neither established the institution of four castes and
four stages of life, nor would it have been acceptable to generations of good men from
immemorial times till now. Reasoning cannot give the entire truth; it cannot establish
what is 'good' or 'bad'. Any inference opposed to perception or the Scripture is only an
apparent inference. In the realm of Dharma, Nyāya holds, reason is useful only in
protecting the truth revealed by Scripture from heresies, and has no positive role.

4
The Sahitya Darpana (1.2.) declares poetry superior to the Veda, for, its commentary explains, it is
insipid, troublesome to learn and fit for aging intellects.
41

Vyākaraṇa — the school of Grammarians

The Vaiyakaraṇas claim that the purpose of grammar is
1. to protect (raksa) Vedic forms which must remain changeless;
2. to provide appropriate words through conjecture (uha);
3. to make available an easy method of grasping the language; and
4. and to clear doubts.

Saṅkhya
According to Kapila,
 the Veda is neither eternal, nor a product.
 No one could have produced it: for a person in bondage, lacking omniscience,
could not have authored it, while a 'liberated’ person would not have a motive
to do anything.
 The Veda itself says it is a product; so it cannot be eternal.
 The Veda came into existence spontaneously, like the grass and trees in a forest.
 Its validity is intrinsic and self-proved.

The Saṅkhya-kārika, considered the oldest available work of this system, says for the
complete eradication of suffering there is neither an empirical, nor an 'anuśravika'
means. 'Anuśravika' is what is transmitted orally from person to person, generation to
generation, continuously; and that is known through Scripture, viz., the Veda.
"Anuśravika" means are defective, says the Karika, because
 they are impure as in sacrifices, etc., they involve injury to beings,
 their effects (heavenly happiness, etc.), are impermanent, and
 they may create jealousy, etc., due to inequality of their fruits.
So, freedom from suffering, Samkhya teaches, will be possible only through non-
empirical and non-scriptural means.

Yoga
According to Yoga, God is the perfect Guru untouched by any defect whatsoever.
Scriptures are the proof for this; and Scriptures have their proof in the perfect quality of
God's 'sattva' (principle of light and harmony). Both Scriptures and perfection are
present in God's sattva, and there is an eternal relation between the two. God having
resolved to instruct all beings in right knowledge and Dharma composed the Scriptures,
which are the expressions of God's perfect thought.

Vaiśeṣika
Sacred tradition, it says, is authoritative, because it is 'their teaching' (tadvacana). The
author’s reliability guarantees its authority. The Veda is not eternal; it is the work of
some persons or person. Nevertheless, it is authoritative, because it deals with Dharma.
42

Verbal testimony is not an independent means of knowledge, but really an inference

from the reliability of its giver to the truth of what he says.

Manu — the Law Giver

The Manu-Smrti has lavished the highest praise on the Veda, considering it to be the
Scripture par excellence and its authority and validity paramount. In its second chapter
occur these remarkable verses:—
"It is not good to have desire 5 (kāma); yet there is no desirelessness. But
acceptance and study of the Veda as well as 'Vedic Karma yoga' is dependent on
desire (or, arises from desire). The will is the root of desire, and sacrifices are
generated by the will. All vows, religious observances, restraints and Dharmas are
considered to be products of the will. In this world no action whatsoever of a
desireless one is seen; whatsoever one does is the doing of desire. One who is well-
engaged in actions goes to the immortal world, and, also, here he has all his desires
fulfilled as willed by him".

In its last chapter after saying all that has to be said on the rise of results of actions, the
Manu-Smrti continues as follows:
"Now hear about the action which, for a brahmin, produces the supreme good (naih-
sreyasa). Regular study of the Veda, askesis (tapas), knowledge, control of the
senses, non-injury (ahimsa) and service of guru: this constellation is the highest in
producing the supreme good. Now, here of all these auspicious actions, one is said
to be the most productive of the supreme good for a human being. It is the
knowledge of the Self which is considered the best among them; it is the foremost of
all branches of knowledge (vidyas); and by that immortality is attained. Among
these six actions Vedic action is to be cognised as action most conducive of good in
life and after death. In the different components of 'Vedic karmayoga' all these are
included one after another. Vedic action is twofold, involved (pravrtta) and
uninvolved (nivrtta); from the former happiness and prosperity, and from the latter
the supreme good are attained. Involved action is motivated by desire here and in
the other world; while desireless action done with knowledge is taught to be
uninvolved action. One who performs involved action becomes like gods, while one
who performs uninvolved transcends the five elements (pañcabhūtas). Seeing the
Self in all beings and all beings in the Self, thus seeing the Same (samam paśyan)
the sacrificer of the self attains self-rule (svarājya). A superior brahmin, even
neglecting all the prescribed actions, ought to be diligently engaged in the
knowledge of the self, tranquillity and regular study of the Veda" .

In this Smṛti-exposition may be found as good an exposition of the essence of Vedic

religion as anywhere else, and the closeness of this 'Vedic karma yoga' to the karma-
yoga of the Bhagavad Gita. It succeeds in showing a way of understanding from a
higher standpoint the apparent ritualistic religion of the earlier part of the Veda and
relating it to the obvious spiritual teaching of the later part. This is what is important in
this Smrti, and not its many verses about social organisation, the "do's" and "don'ts",
the tabus, etc., which are irrelevant.

Mahabharata
From the 'Pati-vratopakhyāna' (the Story of the Chaste Married Lady) in the Araṇyaka-
parva:—

5
Another way to translate this is: It is not laudable to be desireful (desireful = in a state of having
desires).
43

"It is very difficult to know the eternal Dharma, which is established in truth. The
elders laid it down that Sruti is the authority for Dharma. Dharma is subtle and
appears in diverse ways. [It cannot be said that the actual nature of Dharma becomes
manifest just from a study of the Veda.] Although you are pure, a knower of
Dharma and engaged in study of the Veda, I think you do not know Dharmas in it’s
true nature".
So admonishing, a chaste married lady advised a brahmin to go to a righteous butcher
to learn Dharmas. In the teaching imparted by the butcher, the following appears to be
a part of what is striking: "The essence of the Veda is truth, of truth sense-control
(dama) and of the latter relinquishment (tyaga)" 6. "Non-injury is the supreme Dharma,
and that is established in truth. Having basis in truth, the inclinations of a good, man
proceed (or take from)". "The unsurpassed behaviour of the good has only three steps:
do not harm, give and speak truth".
From the 'Sanatsujata-parva' (the Teaching of Sanatsujata) in the 'Udyoga-parva':
(1) A question was raised, “will one who has studied the three Vedas be defiled by the
sins one has committed, because there are texts like “one who is purified by the three
Vedas becomes glorified in brahmaloka'?" The reply given was, "Neither singly nor
together can the three Vedas save one from the result of one's actions; I am not telling
anything false. The Vedas cannot save a sinner or a deceitful person continuing to
deceive. For the attainment of the Supreme Self the Veda has propounded tapas,
sacrifice, etc., through which sin is destroyed and merit gained; then through the light
of knowledge will come sakṣātkāra of the Supreme Self. Thus from knowledge only is
the Self attained"
(2) There is no one who knows the Vedas; or there may be some rare one who knows
their essence. He who knows only the Vedic sentences does not know what ought to be
knowable through them. But he who firmly abides in truth knows what ought to be
known through Vedic sentences.
(3) A question was asked, "who should be supposed to be a brahmin, the one who
knows the 5 Vedas, including itihāsas and purāṇas, or the one who knows 4 Vedas, 3,
2, 1 only, or not even 1? " The reply was: "As the One Veda was not known, many
were made. In the essence of the One Veda of the nature of Truth rarely is someone
found to be rooted. Without knowing at all the true nature of the Veda some suppose
themselves to be great wise men.... The brahmin who has read much is merely a well
read man; do not consider anyone who can just talk a lot a brahmin. Only he who does
not swerve from Truth is to be known as a brahmin. Those who know the mantras but
do not know what ought to be known from the Vedas, are not really knowers of them".
From the 'Kapila-go-samvada' in the Santi-parva, which is actually a dialogue between
Kapila and Syumarashmi. In order to know the truth, as the latter himself states, he
submits for the former's consideration the thesis that the Vedic ideal is the married
householder (grhastha) who
(i) fulfils the duties pertaining to his caste and station in life,
(ii) carries out the ritual and actions necessary for discharging the three debts which
everyone owes7, and
(iii) performs sacrifices8, the obligatory ones and also those which will take him
to heaven; for (according to him) except through sacrifice heaven is

6
Elsewhere between dama & tyaga, tapas (askesis) is placed, and the final result of tyaga is said to be
sama (tranquillity). (Sukanuprasna', p. 2318).
7
to gods, sages and manes.
8
including those which may involve killing of animals.
44

impossible, and men, animals, plants, etc., all, desire heaven. Along with the
sacrificed animals, etc., continues, the sacrificer goes up to heaven.
According to him, it is certain
(i) that for the non-sacrificer there is neither this world nor the other, and
(ii) that liberation is impossible without discharging the three debts.
Only the grhastha, he thinks, does productive work (śrama), performs sacrifices
and askesis and sustains the continuity of the human race as well as supports those
who have become renunciates abandoning all productive work and rituals, because
of their disbelief, foolishness, hopelessness, idleness or tiredness. Thus the position
of the grhastha being the root of all Dharma, how can it be true, Syumarasmi asks,
that 'from the house liberation is impossible'? He further argues that according to
sruti anything other than Vedic utterances cannot be Shastra. A man with family
accomplishes something very difficult, for he is engaged in scriptural study,
sacrifices, begetting and bringing up of children and cultivating straightforwardness
(honesty, ārjava), while pursuing some occupation for the maintenance of himself and
his family; and if, in spite of doing all this, he has not done all that ought to be done
and, consequently, there is no liberation for him, Syumarasmi exclaims, then fie
(dhik) upon such a doer, what is done and such profitless labour ! He concludes:
liberation or whatever is the ultimate good must be attainable by relying on Vedic
utterances; not to admit this leads to nihilism (nāstikya) and violation of the Veda.
Finally, he begs Kapila to comment on his thesis and enlighten him as to what
really is welfare (nirāmaya) and eternity (anantya).
'Nima kimye niramayam?" "Anantyarniccluimi'
Kapila, in response to the above, sets forth what he deems to be the correct Vedic
position, which may be summarised as follows:—
"The strivers (yatis) after the supreme state (para gati) following the path of knowledge,
sure in their mind, determined to relinquish and be liberated and having relinquished, are
freed from all desires, impurities, sin and grief, and devoted to Brahman, become It and
are established in It. There is no purpose in their becoming grhasthas. While there are
various and several types of rituals performed by the devout, the pure, steadfast and
contented who have given up all action and have taken recourse to Brahman satisfy the
gods by their knowledge of Brahman only. If one 'safeguards' one's hands and feet, speech,
belly and sex organ 9, one is a true brahmin; if one has not done so, what can one do with
askesis, sacrifice or oneself? He, who with minimum necessary worldly possessions, lives
in peace and contentment, knowing the nature of reality, and the causes and conditions of
all that is happening and the destiny of beings, who is fearless of all and of whom all are
fearless, and who has become the self of all beings, is a true brahmin. Such a person's
conduct and behaviour is what truly reflects the Vedic norm; it is what interpenetrates all
Dharmas. Those who cannot conform to it consider actions conducive for treading the path
of knowledge useless. As for other actions and rituals, first, it is difficult to understand
their nature and procedure; secondly, even after understanding them it is very difficult to
perform them; and, lastly, even after performing them one finds their fruits to be transient.
To the questions at the end of the last paragraph, Kapila's answers are: Whatever is
performed according to Shastra results in welfare. Whoever follows the path of knowledge
is purified, whoever goes astray from it is destroyed. Those who, not understanding

9
'Safeguarding hands and feet' = not to play dice, not to take another's money, not to accept food of an
inferior, and not to harm anyone in anger. 'Safeguarding speech' = not to abuse or curse anyone, not to
lie, not to speak unnecessarily, not to spread rumours, to be devoted to truth and to be alert 'Safeguarding
belly' = neither to fast nor to eat too much, not to be greedy about food, and to eat only as much as is
necessary to live. 'Safeguarding sex organ' = fidelity to one's own spouse and to have intercourse even
with her only during the days suitable for conception, and chastity.
45

Shastra and supported by argumentation and impelled by desire and aversion, become
subject to egoism cannot achieve Shastraic knowledge, but cite Shastra to justify their
position. They are, indeed, unbelievers in Shastra who 'rob the Veda'-83 they enter into
darkness only. But the others who rightly understand Shastra see that involvement in the
gunas of prakrti (basic stuff of the universe) results in being affected by aversion, desire,
anger, falsehood and pride. So, strivers engaged in self-control, aiming at the supreme
state, relinquish good and evil.

Kapila continues and concludes thus:— For all people the Vedas are the authority;
they cannot and should not be violated. Both the Brahmans, i.e., Brahman in its verbal
form and in its absolute nature (Sabda- and para-brahman) are to be known; one who
knows the former well would be able to know the latter. Actions done in the following
manner indirectly lead to eternity. Those who perform sacrifices and other rituals
without expecting anything, just because it is Dharma to perform them, are freed from
all passions, egoism and sins, obtain certain knowledge and hold fast to it, and work for
the good of all beings. They are always content, happy, peaceful, sincere and honest,
and conduct themselves according to the Vedas. There have been many like that,
Kshatriyas, Brahmanas and others, who remained as grhasthas and never abandoned
actions. They do attain everlastingness (anantya), says the eternal Veda. Actions purify
and knowledge liberates. The eternal Dharma of the strivers which culminates in
liberation may be practised independently by the renunciates, or conjointly with their
duties by others in any station of life (as celibate-students, householders, or forest-
dwellers). Persons belonging to any caste or station in life can practise this safe and
faultless Dharma and attain Moksha. The one and same Dharma is, indeed, fourfold (as
the four ashramas), and everyone in any situation may follow it. Thus in the path of
knowledge all ashramas are unified, and all castes are eligible for it. The paths to
Brahman, the Supreme, are sincerity, patience, peace, non-injury, truth,
straightforwardness, non-malice, non-arrogance, modesty, tolerance and tranquillity.
No human being is precluded from cultivating them. That which the happy and
contented who possess these and have certain knowledge attain is the ultimate good,
the supreme end. According to Kapila while the Veda-knower is one who knows the
Vedas and what is to be known through them, anyone else only emits 'gas'. A Veda-
knower knows everything, as everything is established in the Veda. Whatever is and is
not, has its basis in the Veda. What is known from and knowable in the Veda (Kapila
finishes) is righteousness and truth, the Self of all, Brahman, which is the good
established in total relinquishment (samasta-tyāga), tranquillity (sama) and
contentment (santoṣa).

Ramayana
The second great Indian epic, Valmiki's Ramayana, is considered to contain the essence
of Vedanta. Vaishnavas of the school of Ramanuja-acharya believe it to be
(i) an interpretation of the dvaya-mantra which teaches about both what is to be
attained and what leads one to it, the means and the end, the choosing of the
means and self-dedication to the Divine and
(ii) an explanation of the Gayatri-mantra, which is believed to be the essence of the
Veda.
Acharyas of that school as well as a commentator of the Ramayana, Govindaraja,
have endeavoured to show this in their writings. For the Vaishnavas it is a long
Scripture on the doctrine and practice of surrender to the Supreme Person (dirgha-
saranagati-grantha). Without going into all that, I will refer only to what this epic
says about the Veda in two places.
In the Ayodhya-kāṇḍa in the course of rebutting a materialistic position which also
denied scriptural authority, Rama is described as having said the following: "The
46

universe is established in Truth. The highest Dharma is Truth. Truth is the lord of
the Universe.10 All have their roots in Truth. There is no position or abode higher
than Truth. The Vedas have their foundation in Truth (or, they have their glory due
to it). 'Vedaḥ satya-pratiṣṭhanaḥ'. Therefore, one should be devoted to Truth."11
This implies the Veda teaches truth and hence its authority.
In the Yuddha-kāṇḍa occurs (four-faced) Brahma's laudation of Rama in the
course of which we find, among others, these utterances: "You are Nārāyaṇa, the
immutable Brahman, the eternal Truth, the ultimate Dharma, the Supreme Person,
the Creator. You are of the nature of (or the very self of) the thousand-branched
[Sama] Veda, the teacher in various ways of the Dharma of diverse types and the
best among the best. 'Sahasra sṛṅgo Vedātma śata-jihvo mahārśabhaḥ’ The Vedas
are your breath. There is nothing that can be without you. It may be concluded
that, according to the Ramayana, the source of the Veda is the immortal divine
Person and it teaches the saving truth.

Srīmad Bhāgavata
Among the Purāṇas, one of the most, if not the most, profound and spiritual is the
Srīmad Bhāgavata. What it says about the Veda is most interesting. In the chapters of
its middle skandha dealing with the Ajāmila story, this Purāṇa contrasts the Dharma of
the three Vedas dependent on the Gunas12 with the pure "Bhāgavata Dharma"
(Dharma of loving devotion to God, or bhakti-yoga); and comments thus:
"Alas, most of these great men, deluded by, divine Māyā, do not know that bhakti-
yoga consisting of utterance of divine names, etc., is the highest Dharma; and that
the glorification through recitation of God's qualities, actions and names, is entirely
sufficient for the removal of sin. So, with their intellect dulled by the flowery
honeyed language of the three Vedas they get involved in huge empty rituals.”

This is a devaluation of Vedic ritualism.

A chapter in the tenth skandha of the Bhāgavata is concerned with the problem, how
can the Srutis conditioned by guṇas (guṇa-vṛttayaḥ) deal with Brahman, indescribable
and devoid of guṇas, which is beyond existence and non-existence? The problem is
sought to be resolved by narrating a legend of personified Vedas lauding God to wake
him up at the end of the dissolution of the world (pralaya)! Known as "Veda-stuti"
(Vedic Laud), it consists of 28 verses expounding a number of mostly Upanisadic
sentences in a quite original way. They are supposed to show how the Vedas deal with
Brahman. But here, to illustrate the attitude of this Purāṇa to the Veda, I would only
provide the translation of an introductory verse before the beginning of the gātha and
of the very last verse of this chapter, which comes after the gātha is finished and
extolled. First, the former:
(1) "This Upanishad related to Brahman was borne (dhṛta) in mind by the primordial
ancestors; whoever bears it likewise with faith reaches 'kṣema' (Iit. security, felicity;
ie., highest state), having nothing (ie., freed from conditions, upādhis)". Here we find
the real Srutis are impliedly taken to be the Upanishads only and it is attempted to show
how they are able to talk about the Absolute. In another sloka the portion of the Veda

10
The passage could justifiably be also translated as "God is Truth".
11
From this can be seen the antiquity of the idea of the identification of Truth-Supreme Reality-God,
often expressed by Mahatma Gandhi.
12
fundamental qualities/constitutive elements of all things, sattva, rajas and tamas.
47

which praises rituals, though accepted as God's word, is dismissed as confusing the
obtuse. Now the last Sloka:
"One should constantly meditate on Hari, the absolutely free and fearless, devoid of
Maya (the world-cause). The origination, sustenance and dissolution of this universe
are His projective imaginative willing. He is the lord of the unmanifest (avyakta,
prakrti) and Selves (jivas). Having projected all this, He entered into it along with
the jiva as its Self and made different kinds of bodies and governs them. Just as one
in deep sleep does not attend to one's body, a jiva who attains Him becomes free
from Maya."
Here the ultimate goal is propounded as the Free and the Fearless 13 conceived as the
Supreme Person, the creator and lord through His illusory power which is the material
cause of the universe, by meditating on whom one attains Him and transcends the
effect of His illusory power. This is presented as the essence of "Veda-stuti".
Finally, in its last but one skandha, in a chapter dealing with forest-dwellers and
renunciates, the Bhagavata lays down that "one should neither be an addict to 'Veda-
vāda' (Vedic disputation or discussion), a heretic, or a mere logician, nor adopt any
position in 'dry' controversies and argumentation". It is surprising 'Veda-vāda' is put on
a par with heresy, sophistry and fruitless argumentation, although in the context of
prohibitions for those in the last two stages of life. Apparently, this prohibited 'Veda-
vāda' is not discussion and meditation on the meaning of Upanisadic sentences, but is
about the contents of the portion of the Veda dealing with 'vaitanika mahat karma'
(huge empty ritual), which dulls and confuses (jaḍi-karoti) one's intellect. 'Veda-vāda'
like 'Brahma-vāda' cannot be at all taken as pejorative when it is not endless
argumentation about how different rituals are to be performed and what the specific
'intention' (abhiprāya, saṅkalpa) of each is. In such cases it is legitimate reasoning with
a view to ascertain truth and assimilate it.

The Gita
I have reserved to the last consideration of the attitude of the Gita to the Veda, as it
may be taken to be the conclusive Hindu position, because although the Gita forms part
of the Mahabharata it has been more or less treated as an independent Shastra, and its
authority is held to be next only to the Sruti and superior to all other works by almost
all the acharyas. In the introductory portion of his commentary to it Sankara has
declared that the Gita-Shastra being the summary of the substance of the meaning of
the entire Veda is difficult to be comprehended'. 100 In his Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣya he
quoted the Gita 42 times, and Ramanujacarya in his quotes it 104 times.
In 6 of its 18 chapters something or other is said about the Veda. In the 11 chapter 8
Slokas are devoted to it; in XI and XV in each 3; in VIII, IX and XIII in each 2; and
only 1 in 17. The two last Slokas in 16 virtually refer to it. All these will be considered
now.
The Veda is brought into the discourse for the first time in the following manner. In a
certain context the Gita starts by asserting that purposeful and decisive thinking is one-
pointed, while purposeless and indecisive thinking is many branched and endless. Then
it goes on thus (freely translated): Addicted to Vedic disputation (Veda-vāda), the
unwise utter flowery language arguing that there is nothing more. Covetous, intent on
heaven, involved in seeking pleasures and power, they are robbed of their intelligence

13
cp. What Yajnavalkya made known to Janaka was the Fearless. After receiving the upadesa (teaching)
the king told the sage, "You have made the Fearless known to us. Salutations to you". "Yo no
bhagavannabhayarh vedayase; namaste'stu". Brhadarapyaka Upani.~ad, IV.2.4.
48

by the flowery language which yields only rebirth and the fruit of actions and is full of
various rituals aiming at pleasures and power. For such people establishment of one-
pointed thinking in enstasis (samādhi) is impossible. It continues: The sphere of the
Vedas is that of the three gunas;14 become free from the latter, as well as from the pairs
of opposites and from acquisition and possession, and, always abiding in purity, be
self-possessed. All the Vedas, the passage concludes, are of as much use to an
enlightened brahmin as a tank is to anyone in a place flooded with water on all sides.
(2:41-46)
The last sentence is explained by Sankara thus: Vedic works have endless fruits.
Whatever profit is in them is included in the profit which a renunciate knower of the
absolute reality gains through his knowledge. Sankara takes the metaphor in the verse
to mean: small containers of water like wells, tanks, etc., have only limited uses
(bathing, drinking, etc.), but a huge full reservoir of water is of unlimited use. For
example, it can in addition to catering to the needs of bathing, drinking, etc., provide
for the irrigation of huge tracts of land. The bliss of Brahma-jñana (Brahman-
knowledge) includes the fruits of all possible good actions/ rituals. In support of this
interpretation Sankara quotes a Sruti text, "Whoever knows That obtains the fruits of
all the good works that people may perform", and a Gita text, "All action without
remainder culminates in knowledge".(2:46) The latter text significantly follows these
statements: (i) knowing that all kinds of sacrifices spring from action, one becomes
free, and (ii) the sacrifice of knowledge (jñana-yajña) is superior to that of things
(dravya-yajña).
Different but no less enlightening is Ramanujacarya's explanation of the same
sentence:—
"A thirsty man should drink from a tank only as much water as he needs and not all
that is in it. Like that, to a follower of the Vedas who seeks liberation, in all the
Vedas only that which is the means to liberation must be acceptable, not anything
else in them."(gita 2:46)
This implies that although all the Vedas contain besides the means to liberation what is
not so, a believer in Vedic authority desiring liberation should accept only what is
conducive to it.
Chapter 11 of the Gita contains two more important verses on scriptural authority:
"When your thinking becomes free from the pollution of delusion (indiscrimination), 15
then you will become indifferent 16 to "What is to be heard and what has been heard in the
Veda (srotavyasya srutasya ca).
" When your thinking distracted by the Sruti becomes immovable and steadfast in enstasis,
then you will attain yoga (discriminative insight)." 17 (2:52-53)

For one free from 'pollution' mentioned in the former verse, Sankara explains, the yet
to be heard and the already heard from the Veda become infructuous.
"Tadā śrotavyārh śrutaḥ ca niṣphalaḥ pratipadyate iti abhiprāyaḥ."

14
"Trai-gunya-visayi Vedah" is explained by Sankara — the subject-matter of the Vedas is what is
constituted by the three gunas, the phenomenal world, on which they shed light. To be free from gunas,
he wrote, is to be free from desire (niskama).
15
Indiscrimination is of the self from the not-self.
16
nirvedam vairagyam (unattachment), Sankara.
17
yogam viveka-prajnam, Sankara.
49

He further adds: The Srutis throw light on the relations between many ends and means.
By hearing them thinking becomes distracted; but the wavering of the mind due to this
must be stopped in order to steady it.
"Aneka-sādhya-sādhana-saiḥbandhaprakāśana śrutibhiḥ śravanaiḥ vipratipanna nānā-
pratipanna vikṣiptai ca saha . . .
All this does not mean that the Gita does not accept the authority and validity of the
Veda. It does so very much. In chapter XVI after distinguishing between the divine and
demonic types among men, in the last two verses of it, according to Sankara, the Gita
teaches that — "only by relying on the authority of Shastra. it is possible to abandon
the demonic lot and adopt good conduct (sreyācaraṇa); so for both Shastra is the
cause". These two verses are:
"whoever disregards the injunctions of Shastras and lives wantonly, will not attain
perfection, happiness or the ultimate goal".
"Therefore, let the Shastras be your authority in determining what is duty and What
is not. It is appropriate for you to act with a knowledge of the dictates of Shastras".
(16:23-24)

As Shastras can be only those which are the sources of the knowledge of what is duty
and what is not,18 and as only they can properly prescribe or prohibit any actions,
obviously the Vedas are Shastras par excellence. They certainly are meant in the two
verses. To the extent the Smrtis and Itihasa-Puranas supplement and amplify what is in
the Vedas, the former too are Shastras. The Gita claims its own teaching to be Shastra;
(15:20) as already said, Sankara refers to the Gita as a Shastra. The Brahma-sutra
refers to it as a Smrti; 1;2;6 in his sutra-bhasya Sankara quotes from the Kurma Purana
stating the citation is from a Smrti. 4;3;11 I do not propose to discuss here the problem
of "Sruti-dvaidha" (conflict of Vedic precepts), apparent or actual, and contradictions
(seeming or otherwise) between Srutis and other Shastras or among the latter. But the
Gita has itself provided a solution for that: "One ought to take refuge in one's own
reason". (2:49) After completing his teaching, the divine teacher of the Gita advised:
"Reflecting19 on this fully, do as you wish to do.” These principles as well as What the
Gita has said about the Veda in its several chapters, provide a useful guide to determine
which is a Shastra and which is not and to what extent a Shastra is to be followed.
Detailed discussions of this occur in the Mahabharata and other works.
The justification for the critique of the Veda in chapter 11 of the Gita has been given
there itself, as already explained. In two verses of chapter IX some of this is reiterated
more clearly. The first verse affirms that the performers of Vedic 'soma' sacrifices
worship the One God through them, and being purified from sin do go to heaven and
enjoy celestial delights. But, the next verse after pointing out that through such
enjoyment when their merit is exhausted, they come back to the mortal world,
concludes that devotees of the Dharma of the three Vedas who crave for the objects of
desires and pursue them manage only to get to heaven and then return to earth, but do
not obtain any kind of Liberation. Here and at other places too the Gita affirms that
like charity and askesis, sacrifices do purify, but its considered and definite opinion is
that they ought to be performed without attachment and abandoning fruits. It also
broadens the concept of sacrifice (yajna) and teaches that the best sacrifice is. that of
knowledge, because as already referred to, all other, sacrifices arise from action and
cannot lead to freedom. Real sacrificial action is well-performed action without

18
kartavyakartavya, what ought to be done and what ought not to be, Sankara.
19
'Vimrshya', the text reads. Sankara explains: 'Vimarsanam alocanam krtva'. Vimarsa = examination;
consideration; reflection, discussion. (Macdonell's Dictionary)
50

attachment, and that liberates20; all other action binds. 'So, in the Gita whenever the
Sruti, Vedas or the Dharma of the three Vedas, appears to be disvalued or disparaged,
the reference is only to Vedic ritualism performed in a mechanical way solely for
fulfilling desires here or in heaven. The teaching in the portions of the Veda other than
those which deal with this is not different from that of the Gita. This becomes clear
from the following Gita citations:—
1. The supreme Imperishable (aksara, Brahman) which the Veda-knower proclaim,
which the men of self-control freed from passion attain, desiring which brahmacarya
(life of chastity, truth and study) is practised-that is what Bhagavan Krsna21 briefly
declared to Arjuna. The yogi who knows well Brahman, the individual soul, etc.,
transcending the fruits of the merit mentioned in the Vedas, sacrifices, askesis and
charity, goes to the highest state.'
2. The highest form of God, described in chapter XI, was shown to Arjuna by God
being pleased (prasannena), but no one else in the mortal world can behold it by the
Vedas, sacrifices, study, charity, rituals or intense askesis. Only by exclusive devotion
(bhaktya ananyaya) God in that form can be known and seen in truth, and entered into.
3. The true nature of the body and self has been chanted by the Rishis in various ways;
in several Rig and other Vedic metres in a discriminative way; and in the reasoned
decisive sentences indicating Brahman found in the Upanisads.
4. The peepal tree (the transmigratory world, 'samsara') has an upward root22
(Brahman) and downward branches (cosmic intellect, egoism, subtle elements, etc.) It
is called imperishable (because though it23 is undergoing destruction every moment, it
has been in existence from beginningless time and sustains the beginningless and
endless series of bodies, etc.). The Vedas are its leaves (for, like leaves which protect a
tree, they protect the world by revealing Dharma and Adharma, as well as their causes
and results). He who knows this tree (of samsara along with its root, Brahman) is a
knower of the Veda (he knows the meaning of the Veda).
5. Only God is to be known through all Vedas; He is the maker of the Upanishads and
the knower of the Veda. Since He transcends the changing and is superior to the
changeless, He is well-known in the world and the Veda as the Supreme Person.
6. Aum Tat Sat is the threefold designation of Brahman24. With it, in ancient times
Brahmins, Vedas and sacrifices were ordained. The theologians25 after pronouncing
OM undertake, as prescribed, acts of sacrifice, charity and askesis. The seekers of
liberation pronounce Tat (That) and then undertake the same acts without coveting their
fruits. Sat means the real, the good as well as any praiseworthy action. Action meant
for, as well as steadfastness in, sacrifice, askesis and charity is also called Sat, but if
these are without faith they are Asat (not-sat).122

20
yajna-artha karma' is 'karma' of 'muktasanga', which must be 'samacarita'.
21
Hereafter I use the term 'God' for Him.
22
Its root (Brahman) is Called 'upward' (urdhvam) because of its causality, eternity and greatness —
Sankara).
23
Its name in Sanskrit 'asvattha' actually means what will not last even till tomorrow (na svah api sthata).
(Sankara)
24
According to Ramanuja Brahman here means the Veda. The Veda is Sabda-brahman, the Absolute in
verbal form. But Upanisadic sentences like "Om iti brahma (Om is Brahman), Tat-tvam-asi (That Thou
art) and Sadeva-idam-agra asit (Sat alone was this in the beginning)", show these words are designations
of Brahman. (Tai. 1.8.1. Cha .6.8.7; 6.2.1).
25
Brahma-vadinah = those who study and expound the Veda — Sankara.
51

These citations and the preceding discussion of the critique of the Vedas, Sruti and
trayi-Dharma found in the Gita show its assessment of the Veda, which may be taken
to represent the most authoritative traditional Hindu attitude to the latter. Considering
that not only the Vedantic acaryas, but also great Mahesvaras like Abhinava Gupta,
Yogis like Jnanesvara and others from Kashmir to Daksinapatha, and from the
followers of Ramananda in the middle of India to those of Chaitanya in the east of
India, have venerated and expounded the Gita, it is justified to hold this opinion.

Epitome
The previous section has provided a diversity of views regarding the Veda. Starting
with what later parts of the Veda have said about its earlier parts and mere recitation of
it, and after referring to the views of some sutras, Smrtis and literary works, as well as
of Kautsa and Bhartrmitra, it has briefly outlined the views of four darśanas
(philosophical systems) and Vyākaraṇa. The positions of the two Mimāṃsas, (purva,
prior, and uttara, later) are passim in the first chapter and earlier sections of this
chapter. These are followed by presenting the perspectives offered by the Manusmrti,
the Brhad-devata, the Ramayana, Srimad Bhagavatam and the Bhagavad Gita.
The various views may be classified as follows. There were
# 1. Those who thought the Veda contained only gibberish, but potent when uttered
— a ridiculous theory; it would make the Veda a collection of incantations and
would make morality meaningless.
# 2. Those who held that its injunctions and prohibitions have no moral effects, a
theory which would be correct only if all action has no moral effect;
# 3. Those who rejected its authority on the ground that only sense perception and
inference can be the sources of truth; that would be the position of the Lokāyatas or
Cārvākas.
# 4. Those who would admit the teachings of the omniscient too to be sources of
valid knowledge, but deny omniscient authorship to the Veda. Of these, the Jainas
and Buddhists

# 3 is an intelligible viable position if transcendence (the trans-empirical, param) is

denied; for the irreligious and the atheistic can be congruent (of course, not necessarily)
with the moral, while the religious and the theistic are also not necessarily so26. But,
according to Gaudapada and Udayana or Jabali27 and Carvi28, on logical or scientific
grounds transcendence can be neither proved nor disproved; while its denial can be
demolished, and argumentative affirmation of it can be destroyed. Curiously, all the
adharmic (non-moral) men indulging in evil actions (duskrta) whom Rāma and Kṛṣṇa
fought and destroyed were neither atheistic, nor avaidic. They were worshippers of
(four-faced) Brahma or Siva, performers of Vedic rites and askesis. Hanuman found
fire-sacrifices and Vedic chanting in the houses of all the demons (rākṣasas) in Lanka.
26
What is spoken of here is logical necessity.
27
Jabali was one of the 'best brahminas' who denied transcendence: "Sa nasti paramityeva kuru
buddhim", he taught. (Ramayana, U.108.17)
28
Carvi was a teacher of Lokayata (Kashika vrtti, 1.3.36)
52

Moreover, the atheistic need not be necessarily irreligious (eg., some Mimāṃsakas,
Jainas, etc.).
Regarding # 4 it has been ably argued (but not demonstrated) that there cannot be an
omniscient being and as such the teachings of 'tīrthaṅkaras' and 'tathāgatas' have no
validity; while, per contra, it has been ably argued (but not demonstrated) that an
eternal impersonal collection of sentences (as the Veda is claimed to be by some) is an
impossibility and, on the other hand, that God being a myth there can be no Scripture
with divine authorship. Both these positions have been logically assaulted in forcible
ways, but not knocked to pieces; they both thrive!
Of the four philosophical systems considered in this chapter, the Nyāya is the one
which sought to defend logically Vedic authority and knowledge. Warding off possible
criticism that the Veda suffers from the defects of falsity, contradiction, and repetition,
it developed ingenious apologetic argumentation to refute it. Knowledge of truth,
generated by enstasis (samādhi) preceded by ethico-psychological discipline, has to be
fully developed through apprehension, constant study and meditation of it and through
dialogues with the adepts in it, and this steady development and application of
knowledge of truth has to be protected against the arguments of opponents not only by
reasoning (tarka) such as reductio ad absurdum and discussions (vāda) using
syllogisms, but, if necessary, even by wrangling (jalpa) and cavilling (vitaṇḍa). The
process of constant study, meditation and dialogues, Nyāya explains, is for removing
doubts, and the use of argumentation, including extreme types of it, is for protecting the
growing knowledge which has to attain unshakeable assured certainty. The use of jalpa
and vitaṇḍa is like putting a fence of thorny branches around seedlings, says Gotama.
Tattva-jñāna (knowledge of truth) has to be fostered, Nyāya contends, by sustained
thinking and logic. The place of tarka in understanding Vedic truth according to
Nirukta and both the Mimāṃsas has been elucidated in earlier sections of this chapter.
Vacaspati's dictum "Vedānta Mimāṃsa is verily tarka" has also been quoted there.
Vyākaraṇa, which claims to have protection of the Veda as its aim, gives an important
role to conjecture and analysis of sentences for understanding them and removing
doubts.
Sankhya grants the Veda validity, but restricts its authority by asserting it to be a source
of knowledge of defective means which give us temporary relief from suffering.
For Vaiśeṣika all verbal knowledge being virtually inferential knowledge, the Veda is
not really an independent source of knowledge. Purva Mimamsa, Sankhya and
Vaiśeṣika systems do not seem to have given a place for God during much of their
histories; while Nyāya asserted that God's existence may be logically proved.
Even for tattva-jñāna necessary for liberation, according to Samkhya, Yoga, Nyāya and
Vaiśeṣika systems, it is viveka (discrimination), samādhi (enstasis), or nishkama karma
(desireless action) respectively which are necessary, not the Veda. But all these
accepted the Veda as the source of Dharma. Consequently, as an impure mind is unfit
for discrimination, etc., and as for purifying it Dharmic life has to be led, the
importance of the Veda for the followers of all these systems is obvious.
According to Mimamsa, due performance of all daily and occasional duties prescribed
by the Veda for their own sake, without any "desire", leads one to liberation. So arises
its total reliance on the Veda. Depending upon different schools of Vedanta, either pure
knowledge of the Supreme Self, or knowledge of it which has assumed the form of
loving devotion of Him (bhakti-rūpapannam jñānam), is the cause of liberation. As
such knowledge arises either directly from the sentences of the last part of the Veda, or
from sentences such as those of the Smrti-Purana-itihasas dependent upon them, the
Veda is for the Vedantic systems the ultimate source of saving knowledge. That
knowledge again is the fruit of a good life and pure mind; and only from the Veda can
53

be learnt how to lead a good life. Thus the classical Vedantic schools totally relied on
Sruti. So, as far as the classical philosophical systems are concerned, it is not correct to
think, as Renou, did, that only external homage or substanceless adoration to the Veda
became more usual in due course.
It is not so much the darshanas, but the Smrti-Itihasa-Puranas which influenced the
life and thought of the people; and as the Vedāntic systems accepted the authority of
the latter they were able to acquire gradually more power to affect people than the other
systems. But, as already made clear in this section and what preceded it, none of these
philosophical systems or Nirukta underrate reason, logic and argument. In this they
follow the Veda itself.
The Rigveda Itself enjoined that "one should conform to one's own wisdom and attain
with one's own mind even more excellent capacity29." There are a number of
Upanisadic texts which emphasise that the Supreme has to be after all apprehended
/known by reason/mind, purified by leading an ethical life and made sharp and fit by
deep thinking, argument, discussion, dialogue and debate, with the motive of
ascertaining truth. Cintana. (reflection) on the meaning of Upanisadic sentences ought
to be a life-long activity for any Brahman-seeker, according to Vedanta. Naturally, the
great classical Vedantic systems, which rely on the Upanishads, are rational systems, in
the sense they cannot and do not accept as truth anything that contradicts empirical
experience, science and history. Such is the case with Mimamsa and Nyaya also;
Samkhya and Vaishesika give even more scope to reason and Yoga to individual inner
experience. The absurd cannot be true according to any classical Indian Philosophy. 30
If we take a look at the Manusmrti, the bete noir for some Hindu social reformers and
revolutionaries, which in its present form does contain much that outrages civilised
modern sensitive persons (some of which appears to have been incorporated in it by the
unscrupulous later at different periods), its emphasis on good sense and logic is clear;
and in the light of that, the principles it itself sets forth and the universal values it
upholds, all that is revolting in it can and should be discarded.
This has to be done even in the case of bloody sacrifices31 and such other things which
are to be found in the Veda itself, which have been condemned outright in many
contexts in the Mahabharata, Srimad Bhagavatam32, etc. As said in the first chapter,
Scriptures of all religions and great classics of other cultures also contain obsolete,
reprehensible and revolting material33, but the pure gold in them has to be separated
from the dross with which it is mixed.
The enlightened portion of the Manusmrti, which I like to take as authentic and original
and the only one of relevance at present, does not advocate Vedic fundamentalism, but
declares: "One who wishes purification of Dharma (Dharma-suddhi) must very well
know perception, inference and many branches of knowledge. Only he who is able to

29
Uta svena kratunŸ saºvadeta ÀreyŸÄsam dakŒam manasŸ jagrubhyŸt. Rig Veda, X. 20).
30
Whatever is said in this Paragraph about Vedanta, Yoga, etc., is only about those darshanas as
presented in the satras, bhasyas, and writings of thinkers like Kumarila and Vacaspati, and not about
what is expounded as Vedanta or Yoga in later medieval or modem works.
31
Traditional authorities assert that the Veda does not countenance human sacrifice at all.' Purusa-medha'
and 'Sarva-medha', according to them, do not at all involve any injury to human beings. (Mm.
Chinnaswami Sastri, Yajña-tattva-prakasa, reprinted in his Janma-gatibdasmaraka-grantha, ed. Mandana
Mishra and others, Varanasi, 1990, pp. 105-06). But some modern scholars think those are human
sacrifices.
32
What has been just said about the Manusmrti is applicable to all Smrti-itihisa-puranas,
33
eg., Ideas like all non-Greeks are barbarians and slavery is justifiable in some Greek classics; thinking
of African blacks as subhuman beings by Hume, Kant and others; glorification of the West and
denigration of the East by many European thinkers, of the Prussian military State as the ideal by Hegel,
of the superman by Nietzsche; and anti-Jewish tendencies in some communist works.
54

apply reasoning (tarka) not opposed to the Veda Shastra to the Veda as well as to the
teaching of Dharma by the Rishis, will be able to know Dharma, not anyone else". It
also contains this principle:
"Any (so-called) Dharma which will not later result in happiness and
which is (generally) condemned in the world (lokavikrusta) must be
abandoned". (Manu 12;105-106)
Another great Smrti, that of Yajnavalkya, confirms this, "A (so-called) Dharma hated
by the world (lokavidvista) must not be practised".(6:156) According to the
Mahabharata, actions opposed by the people (lokaviruddha) are as sinful as those
condemned by the Veda (Veda-viruddha).
It is significant that in reply to the question, how should one behave when the world is
in total Dharmic confusion and ethical pollution? The Mahabharata advises: A wise
man with controlled mind should rely on reason to decide what is Dharma and what is
not. (visvamitra-svapaca samvade) The Bhagavad Gita expressly enjoins: "Take refuge
in reason". (Gita 2:49)
The Manu-smrti does not also promote Vedic exclusiveness. Even the entire Veda is
not the sole source of Dharma, it says, but a source along with: —
(a) the Smrtis and
(b) conduct of its knowers, as well as
(c) the conduct of the good and
(d) the glad satisfaction of oneself (atmana-samtusti).
It is important to note that in addition to the first two, it mentions two more factors,
implying that the good may not be the Veda-knowers only and that what is taken to be
Vedic teaching must also appeal to and satisfy an individual. The good in the world or
a country constitute a much larger number than that of the Veda-knowers; the first
includes the second. This Smrti goes on to say that the character of Dharma is fourfold:
the Veda, Smrti, the conduct of the good and what is pleasing to oneself (priyam-
ātmanaḥ). It goes without saying that 'the glad satisfaction of oneself' or 'what is
pleasing to oneself' cannot be also the exclusive source or character of Dharma. Of
course, for those inquiring into Dharma, it ordains, the ultimate authority is Sruti. But,
another significant thing in this connection is the chapter in which these verses occur
begins with a definition of Dharma which does not refer to the Veda!
"Dharma is that which the wise and the good, without attachment and
aversion, always practised, and which they acknowledged heartily
(hrdayenabhayanujnata) as Dharma". (Manu 2:1)
It is difficult to think of a more enlightening and progressive definition of Dharma. As
this is followed by the other verses already cited, one may venture to conclude that
what is cumulatively defined by all these verses put together is the Vaidika Dharma.
I will now refer to a problematic issue which the Mahabharata raises in connection with
Vedic authority, and solves it. The issue is posed as follows: The knowers of Shastras
have determined the Veda as the pramana (the right means of knowledge) of Dharma.
But there is a decrease (hrasa) of Vedic utterances from aeon to aeon. 34 Dharmas differ

34
This may mean one of these: (i) The decisions of the Veda regarding Dharma change from aeon to
aeon. Or (ii) the corpus of the Veda is infinite, but from aeon to aeon starting after the Krta what is
available of it to mortals becomes more and more limited, thus resulting in a virtual shrinking of it.
55

from aeon to aeon"35. The system of Dharmas in each aeon seems to depend on the
capacities of human beings, which change from aeon to aeon. "What amnayas
(traditions/sacred texts) say is true", seems to be a platitude for the propitiation of
mankind. The Vedas are superior to amnayas and are projected universally. If all of
them are pramana, then there is no pramana. If pramana and apramana are mutually
contradictory, then from where is the Scriptural authority of which? — Such is the
problematic put forward, which expressed in a simpler form would be: If Dharmas are
not the same from age to age and the pramana for all of them, the one Veda, is also
changing, can it still be the source of eternal truth? How can mutually-contradictory
traditions, some of which also contain what is opposed to the Veda, together with the
Veda, or each of them be pramana? The Mahabharata answers this through a
declaration of the principal character of a Story it narrates:
"I know the Dharma eternal with its secret, ancient, good and friendly
for all beings. To live without malice, or at least with minimum malice,
towards beings is the supreme Dharma"36.
Adroheṇaiva bhūtānāṁ alpa droheṇa vā punaḥ yā vṛttiḥ sa paro dharmaḥ
Thus the fifth Veda in one sentence enunciates an admirable principle by conforming
to which Dharmic life would be possible. It can and should be followed in all ages and
situations, and is thus an eternal law. It is as ridiculous to consider patterns of social
order and mores like varnashrama (caste and station in life), and untouchability as
eternal Dharma as it is to consider slavery, apartheid or colonialism as ordained
according to eternal law.
Another problematic issue raised in the Mahabharata is this: "Perform actions",
"Relinquish them", if both these are Vedic statements, what is the destiny of those who
resort to rituals and those who take to knowledge? To this a reply, which has become
famous, is given: "A man is bound by action and is liberated by knowledge; so, the far-
seeing strivers do not perform action". A little later in the same dialogue this question
is asked in a slightly different way: The two sorts of Vedic sentences, viz., "perform"
and "relinquish", appear to be contradictory from the empirical standpoint. Are they
both valid, or is one of them only valid? The former is not possible, and if the latter,
how can a Shastra contain conflicting statements, one valid and another invalid?
Without opposing actions, how is liberation possible? To this the answer is: In any life
station all those who act as prescribed will reach the supreme stage. One should fulfil
one's duties according to the life stations he passes through; whoever is without desire
and malice will be glorified in the beyond.
The bewildering varieties of actions, sacraments and rituals prescribed in the Vedas,
sutras and Smrtis and the conflicting statements in each of them and the mutual
contradictions among them, gave rise to the first problematic issue mentioned above.
The Mahabharata solved it in its various dialogues and, of course, in the Gita too. The
second problematic issue arose out of the seeming conflict, especially between the
earlier portions of the Veda and its last portion, and it was settled in the Manu-Smrti
and in the different philosophical discourses of the Mahabharata including the Gita.
"Which is better, renunciation of actions or yoga of action"? "Both lead to the highest
good, but yoga excels". "Indeed, the perpetual renunciate is one who neither hates nor

35
The Manu Smrti says exactly the same: The first three padas of its 1. 85., and the first three of the
Mahabharata, X11. 252.8., are identical except for one word. In the Smrti the last word in the third pada
is "nrnam", but in the other it is "Dharma".
36
Adrohenaiva bh›™Ÿ≤Ÿº alpa-drohe®a vŸ punaÅ yŸ v‡™™⁄Å sa paro DharmaÅ
56

desires; one without the pairs of opposites (nir-dvandva) is easily freed from bondage."
So run the first three verses of chapter V of the Gita. "I want to know the essence of
renunciation (samnyasa) and of relinquishment (tyaga) separately". "Renouncing
actions motivated by desire is samnyasa, and relinquishing the fruit of all actions is
tyaga". So run the first two verses of the last chapter of the same work. Of course, this
kind of answer is suggested in the earlier portions of the Veda also, and quite clearly of
all in the first verse of the Isa Upanishad, which is the last chapter of the Sukla Yajur-
veda-samhita. But the karma-kanda — jnana-kanda harmonisation was probably done
clearly and in some detail for the first time by the Mahabharata and the Manu-Smrti,
the nuclei of which were formed not long after the Buddha's age and the earlier
versions of which were crystallised by or certainly in the Sunga period. Later the
Vedantic systems and the Puranas made use of this and developed it further.
This is how the Smrti-itihasa-puranas did amplification and supplementation (sam-
upabrmhana) of the Veda. The attitude of this literature as well as of the darshanas and
the Nirukta towards the Veda is certainly neither one of "sceptical scrutiny",
commended by Whitney, nor like "that of an ancient Greek at the oracle of a crazed
priestess, or a red Indian at the door of a medicine-lodge", which "amused" or
"nauseated" that American Indologist . It is on the whole that of a reasonable37 faith.

37
reasonable = "in accordance with reason; not absurd". (COD 1990)