Interpretation of vedas

Interpretation of vedas

It may be useful and necessary to learn something about ‘vedic interpretation’. (In the following, the reference is mainly to ṛgveda even though the plural form is used; in regard to interpreting the other vedas also there are difficulties to more or less the same extent.)

Learned people who specialize in studying and interpretation of the vedas, opine that it is a task beset with many difficulties. Even yāska, the author of nirukta, refers to differing interpretations of words and passages in the vedas. This goes to show that right from such ancient times, eliciting the correct meaning which was intended to be conveyed by the composers of the veda, had become a difficult job. yāska also criticizes people who learn the vedas merely by rote without any understanding of their meaning. Thus, while on the one hand we, today, can take credit for the efforts of the Brahmins for preserving the vedas with even their intonations intact for millennia, through the system of oral transmission, on the other, we have to accept gross failure on the part of brahmins because this ‘intact transmission’ was mostly through the creation of ‘memorizing robots’ and hardly any emphasis or effort was put into passing on the correct interpretation of the vedas. It is relevant to note, in this connection, that even today we give more importance to “pārāyaṇa” (reading) than to “adhyayana” (learning), be it veda, bhāgavata, rāmāyaṇa, or anything else. Mostly the ‘learning’ efforts today are also confined to cultivating the ability to read aloud uninterrupted, from the book.

yāska’s nirukta is the oldest available ‘guide’ to understand the meaning of veda, though he mentions an earlier grammarian Śākaṭāyana; the work of this Śākaṭāyana is lost to us. The nirukta lists hundreds of words as those with obscure meaning. Hence even as early as yāska’s time, the continuity in transmission of the correct meaning of the vedas had been lost, it would appear.

ṛgveda VII.103, which is known as the "maṇḍūka sūktam" (frog hymn) makes an interesting, satirical observation between the croaking of frogs with the advent of the rainy season, and the brāhmaṇas; it says that "When one of these repeats the other's language, as he who learns the lesson of the teacher...". We may infer from this that even during the period of composing of this hymn, the situation regarding teaching/learning of the veda had already degenerated into one of learning by rote the mere repetition of the words and the sounds.

In this context it may be relevant to note the probable antiquity in my view (not accepted by the scholarly world):

In any discussion of the hoary past of the vedic people or avestans, we should also take into account the excavations at Nemrut Dag, Goebekli tepe, Nevali Cori, etc., in Turkey and the find of a statue of a (priest's) head with a śikhā, in the remains from those excavations. This shows, in my opinion, that some culture or civilization very similar to the brahmanic one, flourished in Anatolia even much before (c.7500 BCE) the generally assumed date of the vedas viz., 2000 BCE. Also, it is interesting to note that, as per experts, the Nevali Cori people seem to have deliberately covered their complex with soil, perhaps to preserve it for posterity! It was not destroyed or abandoned as in IVC.

It looks to me, therefore, that the seeds of the vedic tradition must have begun in very early periods around Anatolia regions and spread to the Mitanni and Hittite kingdoms, as evidenced by the Kikkuli documents on horse training. From there it could have spread eastwards to the present day Iran/Afghanistan where, most probably, one set of people started giving more attention to image or totem worship while the orthodox group probably stuck to their old fire worship steadfastly. This became a point of conflict and the totem-worshippers spread further east to the Punjab, may be by osmosis and not by invasion as was held by the ninteenth century indologists. One reason for our ancestors holding the view that the vedas are "anādi" and "apauruṣeya" might be the fact that they had only some hazy ideas about the dim past of their culture but were not able to have any clear picture about those times or areas, IMO. So, just as children's stories start with the phrase, "Once long ago, in a certain country...", they said this was beginningless (we don't know when it started) and not man-made (we don't know who composed these and when or how these were composed).

This totem worship hypothesis can be found in the book, "The Hymns of Atharvan Zarathustra" by Shri Jatindra Mohan Chatterji, M.A. and published by the Parsi Zoroastrian Association, Calcutta, 1967.”

In ṛgveda itself there is evidence for idol worship, though indirect. In RV 4. 24. 10 the bard asks who will purchse his (the bard's) "indra" in exchange for ten cows and adds that as soon as the purchaser is able to destroy his enemies (with the help of the said "indra") it should be returned to the bard himself. This can only be a reference to an idol or aome such item which was considered to represent "indra".

From ancient times, people have been trying to interpret the vedas according to their point of view, thus creating different branches/systems/schools of vedic interpretation:

1. yājñika – This school gives the ritualistic interpretation,
2. aitihāsika – Gives the traditional or historical implications.
3. nairukta – The etymological aspects are the main focus of this school.
4. parivrājaka – The mystic interpretation of Vedas.
5. vaiyākaraṇa – Grammatical aspects.
6. naidāna – Juridical aspects.

yāska refers to one kautsa whose opinions, as gleaned from yāska’s work, seems to have been that the vedas contain no meaning at all and are, therefore, worthless. From this, one can see that the doubt about the importance or even relevance of the vedas is as old as the vedas themselves, perhaps! It is also quite likely, though there is no evidence to prove it, that such doubts, which must have been held by a limited few in the beginning, came to be expressed by increasing numbers, from which the ājīvikā sect arose - a sect of naked, wandering ascetics, who decried the vedas and rituals – founded by makkhali gosala, who was a rival to both mahāvīra and buddha in their lifetime. (gosala is also mentioned as one of the teachers of buddha.) The lokāyata of cārvāka might owe its origin to such earlier opinions.

In addition to the dimensions given above, there are also vedic verses which are like riddles. A good example is the undernoted one:

चत्वारि शृङ्गात्रयो अस्यपादा
द्वेशीर्षे सप्तहस्तासो अस्य
त्रिधा बद्धो वृषभोरोरवीति
महो देवो मर्त्यँ आविवॆश--ऋग्वेद ४. ५८. ०३

catvāri śṛṅgātrayo asyapādā
dveśīrṣe saptahastāso asya
tridhā baddho vṛṣabhororavīti
maho devo martyam̐ āviveśa --ṛgveda 4. 58. 03

The ritualistic meaning of this verse, following sāyaṇa’s commentary is as follows:

agni, the great power pervading yajña, who has the four Vedas as heads, three legs in the form of the three ‘savanas’ (libations in yajñas in the morning, noon and evening), two heads, viz., the havis (food) & prāvargya (a ceremony introductory to the soma sacrifice - at which fresh milk is poured into a heated vessel called mahāvīra or gharma, or into boiling ghee – or the large earthenware pot used in the prāvargya ceremony), the seven chandases beginning with gāyatrī, and who is ‘bound’ thrice, by mantras, brāhmaṇas and kalpas, has entered into the humans.

(This interpretation suffers from a serious logical error, IMO, because the ṝṣi could not have visualized the division of the entire vedic corpus into four distinct vedas.)

Other schools (of vedic interpretation) have also made their own deductions but the verse still remains a riddle!