| |
|
|
|
Book: Hindu Dharma, Written by Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
It is not possible to tell the age of the Vedas. If we say that an
object is
"anadi" it means that nothing existed before it. Any book, it is
reasonable
to presume, must be the work of one or more people. The Old Testament
contains the sayings of several Prophets. The New Testament contains
the story of Jesus Christ as well as his sermons. The Qu'ran
incorporates
the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. The founders of such religions
are historical personalities and their teachings did not exist before
then.
Are the Vedas similarly the work of one or more teachers? And may we
take it that these preceptors lived in different periods of history? Ten
thousand years ago or a hundred thousand or a million years ago? If the
Vedas were created during any of these periods they can not be claimed
to be "anadi". Even if they were created a million years ago, it
obviously
means that there was a time when they did not exist.
Questions like the above are justified if the Vedas are regarded as the
work of mortals. And, if they are, it is wrong to claim that they are
"anadi". We think that the Vedas are the creation of the rsis, seers who
were mortals. So it is said, at any rate, in the text book of history we
are
taught.
Also consider the fact that the Vedas consists of many "Suktas".
Jnanasambandhar's Tevaram consists of number of patigams. And just as
each patigam has ten stanzas, each sukta consists of a number of
mantras. "Su +ukta"="sukta". The prefix "su" denotes "good" as in
"suguna" or "sulocana". "Ukta" means "spoken" or "what is spoken".
“Sukta" means "well spoken", a"good word" or a "good utterence" (or
well uttered).
When we chant the Vedas in the manner prescribed by the Sastras, we
mention the name of the seer connected with each sukta, its metre and
the deity invoked. Since there are many mantras associated with various
seers we think that they were composed by them. We also refer to the
ancestry of the seer concerned, his gotra, etc. For instance, "Agastyo
Maithravarunih", that is Agastya, son of Maithravaruna. Here is another
:
"Madhucchanda Vaisvamitrah", the sage Madhucchanda descended from
the Visvamitra gotra. Like this there are mantras in the names of many
sages. If the mantras connected with the name of Agastya were
composed by him it could not have existed during the time of
Mitravaruna; similarly that in the name of Madhucchandana could not
have existed during the time of Visvamitra. If this is true, how can you
claim that the Vedas are "anadi"?
Since the Mantras are associated with the names of sages, we make the
wrong inference that they may have been composed by them. But it is
not so as a matter of fact. "Apaurseya" means not the work of any man.
Were the Vedas composed by one or more human beings, even if they
were rsis, they would be called "pauruseya". But since they are called
"Apauruseya" it follows that even the seers could not have created them.
If they were composed by the seers they (the latter) would be called
"Mantra-kartas" which means "those who 'created' the Mantras". But as
a matter of fact, the rsis are called "Mantra-drastas", those who "saw”
them.
When we say that Columbus discovered America, we do not mean that
he created the continent: we mean that he merely made the continent
known to the world. In the same way the laws attributed to Newton,
Einstein and so on were not created by them. If an object thrown up
falls
to earth it is not because Newton said so. Scientists like Newton
perceived the laws of Nature and revealed them to the world. Similarly,
the seers discovered the Mantras and made a gift of them to the world.
These Mantras had existed before the time of their fathers, grand
fathers,
great grand fathers . . . . But they had remained unknown to the world.
The seers now made them known to the mankind. So it became
customory to mention their names at the time of intoning them.
The publisher of a book is not necessarily its author. The man who
releases a film need not be its producer. The seers disclosed the
mantras
to the world but they did not create them. Though the mantras had
existed before them they performed the noble service of revealing them
to us. So it is appropriate on our part to pay them obeisance by
mentioning their names while chanting the same.
Do we know anything about the existance of the mantras before they
were "seen" by the rsis? If they are eternal does it mean that they
manifested themselves at the time of creation? Were they present before
man's appearance on earth? How did they come into being?
If we take it that the Vedas appeared with creation, it would mean that
the Paramatman created them along with the world. Did he write them
down and leave them somewhere to be discovered by the seers later? If
so, they cannot be claimed to be anadi. We have an idea of when Brahma
created the present world.
There are fixed periods for the four yugas or eons, Krta, Treta, Dvapara
and Kali. The four yugas together are called a caturuga. A thousand
caturugas make one day time of Brahma and another equally long period
is his night. According to this reckoning Bramha is now more than fifty
years old. Any religious ceremony is to be commenced with a
samkalpa("resolve") in which an account is given of the time and place
of
performance in such and such a year of Brahma, in such and such a
month, in such and such a fortnight (waxing or waning moon), etc. From
this account we know when the present Brahma came into being. Even if
we concede that he made his appearence millions and millions of years
ago, he can not be claimed to be anadi. How can then creation be said to
have no begining in time? When creation it self has an origin, how do we
justify to the claim that the Vedas are anadi?
The Paramatman, being eternal, was present even before creation when
there was no Brahma. The Paramatman, the Brahman are the Supreme
Godhead, is eternal. The cosmos, all sentient beings and insentient
objects, emerge from him. The Paramatman did not create them himself:
he did so through the agency of Brahma. Through Visnu he sustains them
and through Rudra he destroys them. Later Brahma, Visnu, Rudra are
themselves destroyed by him. The present Brahma, when he became
hundred years old, will unite with the Paramatman. Another Brahma will
appear and he will start the work of creation all over again. The
question
arises: Does the Paramatman create the Vedas before he brings into
being another Brahma?
We learn from the Sastras that the Vedas has existed even before
creation. Infact, they say, Brahma performed his function of creation
with
the aid of Vedic mantras. I shall be speaking to you about this later,
how
he accomplished the creation with the mantras manifested as sound. In
the passage dealing with creation the Bagavatha also says that Brahma
created the world with the Vedas.
Is this the reason (that Brahma created the world with the Vedic
mantras)
why it is said that the Vedas are anadi? Is it right to take such a view
on
the basis that both the Vedas and Isvara are anadi? If we suggest that
isvara had made this scriptures even before he created the world, it
would mean that there was a time when the Vedas did not exist and that
would contradict the claim that they are anadi.
If we believe that both Isvara and the Vedas are anadi it would mean
that
Isvara could not have created them. But if you believe that Isvara
created
them, they cannot be said to be without the origin. Everything has its
origin in Isvara. It would be wrong to maintain [according to this
logic]
that both Isvara and the Vedas have no beginning in time. Well, it is
all so
confusing.
What is the basis of the belief that the Vedas are anadi and were not
created by Isvara? An answer is contained in the Vedas themselves. In
the
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) - the Upanishads are all part of the
Vedas - it is said that the Rg, Yajus and Sama Vedas are the very breath
of
Isarva. The word "nihsvasitam"is used here.
It goes without saying that we cannot live even a moment without
breathing. The Vedas are the life-breath of the Paramatman who is an
eternal living Reality. It follows that the Vedas exist together with
him as
his breath.
We must note here that it is not customory to say that the Vedas are the
creation of Iswara. Do we create our own breath? Our breath exists from
the very moment we are born. It is the same case with Iswara and the
Vedas. We can not say that he created them.
When Vidyaranyaswamin wrote his commentary on the Vedas he prayed
to his guru regarding him as Iswara. He used these words in his prayer:
"Yasya nihsvasitam Vedah" (whose --that is Isvara's -- breath
constitutes
the Vedas). The word "nihsvasitam" occurs in the Upanishads also. Here
too it is not stated that Iswara created the Vedas.
The Lord says in the Gita: "It is I who am known by all the Vedas
"(Vedaisca sarvair aham eva vedyah).” Instead of describing himself as
"Vedakrd" (creator of the Vedas), he calls himself "Vedantakrd" (creator
of philosophical system that is the crown of the Vedas). He also refers
to
himself as "Vedavid" (he who knows the Vedas). Before Vedanta that
enshrines great philosophical truths had been made know to mankind,
the Vedas had existed in the form of sound, as the very breath of Isvara
--
they were ( and are) indeed Isvara dwelling in Isvara.
The Bhagavata too, like the Gita, does not state that the Lord created
the
Vedas. It declares that they occured in a flash in his heart, that they
came
to him in a blaze of light. The word used on this context is
"Sphuranam",
occuring in the mind in a flash. Now we can not apply this word to any
thing that is created a new, any thing that did not exist before. Bramha
is
the premordial sage who saw all the mantras. But it was the Parmatman
who revealed them to him. Did he transmit them orally? No, says the
Bhagavatha. The paramatman imparted the Vedas to
Bramha through his heart: " Tene Bramha hrdaya Adikavaye" says the
very first verse of that Purana. The Vedas were not created by the
Parmatman. The truth is that they are always present in his heart. When
he mearly resolved to pass on the Vedas to Bramha the latter instantly
received them. And with their sound he began the work of creation.
The Tamil Tevaram describes Isvara as "Vediya Vedagita". It says that
the
Lord keeps singing the hymns of various sakas or recensions of the
Vedas.
How are we to understand the statement that the "Lord sees the Vedas"?
Breathing itself is music. Our out-breath is called "hamsa-gita". Thus,
the
Vedas are the music of the Lord's breath. The Thevaran goes on:
"Wearing the sacred thread and the holy ashes, and bathing all the time,
Isvara keeps singing the Vedas". The impression one has from this
description is that the Lord is a great "ghanapathin". Apparsvamigal
refers
to the ashes resembling milk applied to the body of Isvara which is like
coral. He says that the Lord "chants" the Vedas, “sings " them, not that
he
creates ( or created ) them. In the Vaisnava Divya Prabandham too there
are many references to Vedic sacrifices. But some how I donot remember
any reference in it to the Lord chanting the Vedas.
In the story of Gajendramoksa told by the Puhazhendi Pulavar ( a Tamil
Vaishnava saint - poet), the elephant whose leg is caught in the jaws of
the crocodile cries in anguish. "Adimulame" [vocative in Tamil of
Adimula,
the Primordial Lord]. The Lord thereupon appears, asking "What? " The
poet says that Mahavisnu "stood before the Vedas" ("Vedattin mum
ninran"). According to the poet the lord stood infront of the Vedas, not
that he appeared at a time earlier than the scriptures. The Tamil for "A
man stood at the door" is "Vittin mun ninran". So "Vedattin mun ninran"
should be understood as "he stood at the comencement of all the Vedas".
Another idea occurs to me. How is Perumal (Visnu or any other Vaisnava
deity ) taken in procession? Preceeding the utsava-murthy ( processional
deity) are the devotees reciting the Tiruvaymozhi. And behind the
processional deity is the group reciting the Vedas. Here too we may say
that the Lord stood before the Vedas ("Vedattin mun ninran").
In the visnava Agamas and puranas, Mahavisnu is refered to specially as
"Yajnaswaroopin" (one personifying the sacrifice) and as
"Vedaswaroopin" (one who personifies the Vedas). Garuda is also called
"Vedaswarupa". But none of these texts is known to refer to Visnu as the
creator of the Vedas.
It is only in the "Purusasukta", occuring in the Vedas themselves, that
the
Vedas are said to have been "born" "(ajayatha)". However, this hymn is
of
symbolical and allegorical signifcance and not to be understood in a
literal
sense. It states that the Parama-purusa (the Supreme Being) for
sacrifice
as an animal and that it was in this sacrifice that creation itself was
accomplished. It was at this time that the Vedas also made their
appearence. How are we to understand the statement that the Paramapurusa
was offered as a sacrificial animal? Not in a literal sense. In this
sacrifice the season of spring was offered as an oblation (ahuthi)
instead
of ghee: summer served the purpose of samidhs (fire sticks); autum havis
(oblation). Only those who meditate on the mantras and become
absorbed in them will know there meaning inwardly as a matter of
experience. So we can not construe the statement literally that the
Vedas
were "born".
To the modern mind the claim that the breath of Isvara is manifested in
the form of sound seems nonsensical, also that it was with this sound
that Bramha performed his function of creation. But on careful
reflection
you will realise that the belief is based on a great scientific truth.
I do not mean to say that we must accept the Vedas only if they conform
to present-day science. Nor do I think that our scripture, which
proclaims
the truth of the Paramatman and is beyond the reach of science and
scientist, ought to be brought within the ken of science. Many matters
pertaining to the Vedas may not seem to be in conformity with science
and for that reason they are not to be treated as wrong. But our present
subject -- how the breath of the Parmatman can become sound and how
the function of creation can be carried out withit -- is in keeping with
science. |
|
|
|
|
