Commentary on the Rig Veda

PUBLISHER’S SPECIAL NOTE

THIS title Special Note is warranted by my doing the translator’s duty. Let me explain. Ever since the author’s Rig Veda Bhashya (First Ashtaka) was published, now two years ago, there has been a persistent demand for an English rendering of the work. Academic circles and others who are interested in this approach to the subject but are not sufficiently conversant with the Sanskrit language, have asked for at least the Bhumika – Introduction to the Commentary Siddhañjana – to be made available in English, since it comprises the main thesis of the Esoteric Interpretation of the Veda. However, due to preoccupations the author was not minded to consider the proposal. The nature of the Sanskrit work made it difficult for anyone else to undertake the task. The dexterity with which modern thought and ideas are woven into the texture of this ancient language, the harmonisation achieved between the present methods of research and the traditional mode of approach and what is more, the felicity of expression in the original prose and verse – these and other unique features of the work call for an equally singular proficiency in both the languages and mastery over the subject on the path of the translator. Only the author could do justice to the work.

In the meantime when he was conducting informal classes on the subject, before the publication of the Bhashya I used to note down the substance of the talks and it occurred to me that with the help of these notes I could myself break the ice. Besides, a dozen years of close study and life with him had sufficiently attuned my mind to his characteristic vibrations in more fields than one. Otherwise, I was of course, painfully conscious of the inadequacy of my equipment for the purpose; yet if I had the temerity to commence and persist in the undertaking, it was because I could see no other way for the work to appear in English; I was sure that however pitiful and bare the effort might turn out to be, Sastriji would not allow it to go waste. And so it happened. As he saw the translation when I had covered considerable portion, he, as usual with him, expressed satisfaction and encouraged me to proceed. When the draft was somehow completed, he applied himself to it and revised it thoroughly - some portions were revised by him as many as three times –, recast it in many places and after a labour far exceeding what he would have had to put in normally, he gave the present version. I am naturally gratified to find that my intrepid venture did not end in a blind alley; for, with all its restrictive handicaps the first draft provided the groundwork for the author’s edifice which the present translation assuredly is.

The translation keeps close to the original but without violence to the idiom of the language in which the rendering is made. Doubtless, it will enable the reader whose knowledge of Sanskrit is insufficient, to follow the text line by line; and it will be also of substantial help to those who have a working knowledge of Sanskrit, for deepening their knowledge of the language and broadening their acquaintance with the technique, Paribhasha, in works of this kind. The author has added Notes of explanation at the end of the book which would be helpful particularly to readers not familiar with the Indian background.

I should like to take this occasion to record our grateful appreciation of the warmth and generosity with which the elite of learning and culture, including Indian scholars specialised in Vedic studies as well as Pundits of the front rank renowned for Vedic learning, have welcomed and acclaimed the publication of the work. Their opinions (Sanskrit and English) have been collected and issued in a separate brochure. The striking unanimity of welcome has more than justified our faith in the intrinsic power of this core of the national heritage and in the living sense of responsibility on the part of the custodians thereof.

This is not to say that the Thesis of Esoteric Interpretation of the Rig Veda has been accepted in toto by the world of scholars and Pundits without exception all over the country and elsewhere. The author is under no delusion that such a thing is ever possible in these cases, especially when its acceptance involves the rejection of cherished notions that have dominated for centuries the indigenous Pundit on the one hand and on the other hand the modern scholar for over a century. All that is meant is when a front rank specialist, scholar or Pundit welcomes and accepts the proposition that the Rig Veda is a document of esoteric wisdom kept under the seal of symbolism of the Mystics, that is more than enough for the present to begin with; for it rings the death-knell of obscurantist obstruction to that extent among sections of Pundits, as well as a sort of superstitious pertinacity that is fashionable among certain circles of modern scholarship.

But the ungrudging tribute and response from the general reader as well as from the learned specialist to this work do not blind the author to the existence of some learned people who do not like to be disturbed in their walk along the trodden track. An instance may be cited here. A Pundit of recognised merit wrote to the author eulogising his critical acumen, versatility, distinct manner of his prose-writing etc., but he was aggrieved at the position accorded to the Brahmanas and laid bare his aversion for this work. Well, this is the position with Pundit at least in some quarters. No amount of authority, reasoning, internal evidence, no persuasive words of understanding leading to the path of light and free air can convince one who is determined not to move, to change, to be convinced.

Another matter of minor importance has to be mentioned here, necessarily because it pertains to the author’s way of raising objections and answering them in the thesis. An eminent linguist and scholar specialist in Vedic studies whose welcome and acclamation of this Vedic work has gone a long way to influence others of similar persuasion and in fact have made themselves felt by the learned in general, let slip a light remark, in the course of a long letter reviewing the first hundred pages of the Siddhanjana Bhashya, that the objections raised and answered by the author were largely imaginary. But this is not correct. Perhaps the author could have prevented room for such misapprehension if he had chosen to reveal the identity of the person whose book contains these objections’. The reason for not mentioning the name of the work is found at the end of this book (Vide Notes 18 & 19). Now it is necessary – and no harm will be done – that the source of the objections is mentioned in order to show that they are not fancied by the author.

In fact the author came across the following passage in the early twenties when the Indian Philosophy by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan first appeared and he made a note of it. A few years ago, when the Rig Veda Bhashya began to be written, the relevant passage was utilised. It is found, unchanged, in the latest (Indian) Edition of the book :

“Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, the great Indian scholar-mystic, is of opinion that the Vedas are replete with suggestions of secret doctrines and mystic philosophies. He looks upon the gods of the hymns as symbols of the psychological functions. Surya signifies intelligence, Agni will, and Soma feeling. The Veda to him is a mystery religion corresponding to the Orphic and Eleusinian creeds of ancient Greece. “The hypothesis I propose is that the Rig Veda is.... principles’ (Arya Vol. I. p. 60). When we find that this view is opposed not only to the modern views of European scholars but also to the traditional interpretations of Sayana and the systems of Purva-Mimamsa, the authority on Vedic interpretation, we must hesitate to follow the lead of Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, however ingenious his point of view may be. It is not likely that the whole progress of Indian thought has been a steady falling away from the highest spiritual paths of the Vedic hymns. It is more in accordance with what is known of the general nature of human development, and easier to concede that later religions and philosophies arose out of the crude suggestions and elementary moral ideas and spiritual aspirations of the early mind, than that they were a degradation of an original perfection” (Indian Philosophy by S. Radhakrishnan, Vol. I, pp. 69-70).

The publication of this small Volume of translation it is hoped, would stimulate interest in Vedic studies on the lines of the Esoteric Interpretation. Also, certainly it would enlighten, justify and strengthen the ancient faith in the Veda as the undying scripture of Mystic Wisdom and Divine Knowledge.
23-10-1952 M. P. PANDIT