Commentary on the Rig Veda

SECTION THREE

Our position regarding the secret of the Veda has been stated elaborately. The role of symbolic objects in unveiling the secret meaning has been substantiated with due support from authorities. It has been shown how Riks of seers like Vasishtha and Vamadeva are themselves the leading witnesses (lit. direct authority) for the secret sense of the Veda. Henceforth, we shall examine, in this connection, authorities other than the Mantras of the Veda, which point to or uphold the mystic doctrine of the Veda, covertly or overtly. First to be considered are some passages from Yaska conveying the views of the Nairuktas; some of these have been referred to in relevant places before. We will now state in brief his views generally on the Gods, Mantras, Rishis and the interpretation of the Mantras. It is well known that the Nirukta is a limb of primary importance for understanding the meaning of the Veda. The Nirukta gives the derivation of the Vedic words. What are the Vedic words whose derivation Yaska has set out to give? They are words drawn from the Vedic Mantra, useful for enquiring into the meaning of the Veda after it was learnt by heart, handed down by ages-old tradition for chanting and study — words to be under-stood by the designation of Nighantu words. That is why, in order to show that the Nirukta is a collection of words that are sacred samāmnāya - the work begins with the word samāmnāya; "The samāmnāya (Nighantu) has been cited and now it is to be explained.” The distinction between the Nighantu which is a collection of words and the Nirukta which gives their derivation is be noted. Thus Yaska is no lexicographer like Amarasimha of nāmalingānu-śāsana, but an etymologist. Even so, basing himself on the views of the many former etymologists and quoting their words, Yaska wrote his work according to his light. Even though it is doubtless that the etymological interpretation is generally gross and extrovert, yet there are in Yaska’s utterances certain elements which would repay attention to students of the secret sense of the Veda. Even though it is not possible to admit as correct and proper, derivations of words as given by Yaska, even though his derivations in many places, it must be admitted, are arbitrary and fantastic, yet the derivative significance of Vedic words expounded by him as the view of the Nirukta school is invaluable for investigators into the esoteric meaning and is the door that opens on the secret (of the Veda). That the Vedic words have derivative significance is a creed with the Niruktakaras and Swami Dayananda took his stand upon their position in his endeavour to revive the Vedic Dharma. The derivative significance of words in the Veda is the chief ground on which our enquiry into the esoteric interpretation proceeds. This is the first point to be noted; the other is that narratives, legends and accounts of relationships among deities etc. are not to be taken literally, in the primary sense of words; the Nairuktas hold these things are to be understood in their secondary figurative sense. This resort to the secondary or figurative significance of words by the Nairuktakaras is both necessary and acceptable for the presentation of our theme also. Only, be it noted, in arriving at the purport we take the subtler and inner sense, and not the outer gross one like the Nairuktas. Attention may be drawn to the fact that the Mimamsakas also interpret words in the figurative sense, in their own way this has been illustrated earlier in the course of our presentation. Commenting on the passage, “May the lover of his own sister listen to us” (RV. VI. 55.5), Yaska observes, "Dawn is said to be his sister on account of the invariable association or of his taking in the rasa water" (Nirukta III. 16). Elsewhere, speaking of Vritra as the enemy of Indra he says: “Who is the Vritra ? The Nairuktas say it is a cloud, the mythologists hold he is an Asura, son of Twashtri. Out of the collusion of waters and light results the rain. The battles there are in similes (i.e. allegorical).” (11.16) Though the meaning derived by Yaska is the outer gross sense, yet, the fact that the śrutarșis, 30 the Rishis who came after the Vedic seers knew very well to resort to the figurative use of words in considering the meaning of the Veda is a pointer of utmost value to us (in our study of the Vedas).

Though he gives, in this manner, the naturalistic interpretation of the Mantras, Yaska points out with illustrations from Riks how there is a mystery about the Gods, a mystery about the import of the Veda. “Shakapuni decided ’Let me come to know all the Gods’. Before him appeared a deity of both the signs. He could not know it. He spoke to it ‘May I know thee’. It revealed to him this Rik saying "This is the Rik of which I am the deity’". (Nir. II.8) In this context the Rik cited by Yaska is ya im cakāra (RV.I. 164.32) from Dirghatamas’s hymn asya vāmasya. Yaska observes: "The Parivrajakas say that the many peoples came to grief, the Nairuktas explain it as raining”, and goes on while stating the purport of the explanation of the Parivrajakas, to give the gross meaning of the Nairuktas. Even Sayana the teacher-commentator of ritualistic school states that this Sukta (I. 164) of Dirghatamas is to be ex-plained entirely in the spiritual sense and has commented upon this Rik from the spiritual standpoint. Whatever be the import of this Rik, we gather this much from Yaska’s statements: it is difficult to grasp the truth of the Gods; one can do it only by the favour of the devatā, the Deity. Even when the Deity presented itself before Shakapuni, it did not reveal its own form. Indeed it said to him: “You have desired to know all the deities. I am myself the all-deity; My true form is revealed there in the Rik ya im cakāra: You are proficient in finding the derivative meaning of the letters and words of Mantras; know me, then, from this Rik and be assured.” That the meaning of the Veda is difficult to follow has been stated (with proofs). From this also it is clear that there is a secret in the Veda.

Again, for arriving at the import of the Vedas, Yaska quotes, without refuting them, the views of the many authorities of the times, of other schools of interpreters. He speaks, now and again, of the Yajnikas, the ritualists, the purve yājnikāḥ, ancient ritualists, Nairuktas, the etymologists, Naidanas, the grammarians, Parivrajakas, wandering ascetics, Aitihasikas, mythologists and others. We understand from all this that the interpretation of the hymns was of diverse kinds and that at the time when Yaska’s Nirukta was prepared, the spiritual and occult interpretation was almost forgotten. In spite of it, speaking about the seerhood of the Rishis and the mode in which the Mantra came to be seen, the author of the Nirukta says: "Brahman (Mantra) the self-born appeared face to face to the Rishis who were active with their austere disciplines, tapas, askesis.” Elsewhere speaking of the mystery of the Mantras, he quotes two Riks: "Otherwise seeing he sees not, hearing he follows not. But to him (to the qualified) she (Vak in the form of speech) reveals her form even as a loving well-dressed wife disrobes herself to her husband.” (X. 71.4) “Even one man in friendship (with the Riks) they call drunk deep and steady (in the meaning of the speech, the Rik); others do not follow him in the valorous deeds (of plunging into the meaning). Another (unable to drink the milk of the word) moves with it (the Vedic cow) as with one that gives no milk; to him the Word is a tree without flower or fruit." (X.71.5). The earlier Rik purports to say: an effort is necessary to follow the meaning of the Mantra; one who repeats it without understanding its meaning—though seeing only its gross meaning—is as if blind; similarly one who is not so able to be awakened to the power of the Mantra, though he hears the word of the Mantra, is as if deaf. But to him (the knower) who is gifted with the sight and the hearing and is competent to seize directly the secret of the Mantra, the speech in the form of the Riks becomes self-luminous (reveals itself) like a wife — to use a simile – delivering the body to her lord. Thus the Rik points out that it is imperative to understand the true meaning; otherwise not knowing the meaning one is liable to be censured as but a post bearing a load of weight. What follows from the other Rik is this. We shall follow the commentary of Durgacharya in giving the word-meanings and then come to the purport of it. uta tvam, though alone, sakhye, for the friendship of the Gods i.e. for common status with the Gods. Yaska observes later, whichever the deity mentioned, he becomes one with that; this should be borne in mind here. What do they call such a one ? sthirapitam, one who falls not from the Law, one who knows the meaning. Who says thus? It is this Speech in the form of the Rik. enam, him who knows the meaning of the speech, vājineșu, api, even in the formidable things that can be known only by vāk speech, in things difficult to know and difficult to fathom like the gems covered in the ocean, in things like the knowledge of deities etc., na hinvanthi, others cannot follow. The other half of the Rik censures him who does not know the true meaning. (suśruvān, he who has heard from others, aphalāṁ, apuspāṁ vācań, speech that is fruitless and without blossom.) Such an ignorant one, adhenvā māyayā carati, walks in delusion of the cow of speech. The cow does not yield him the milk of his desire. He has heard the speech without flower and fruit from others and on hearing hears only the word, remains obstinately in the belief that there is nothing else to be sought after besides routine repetition of words. To such a one the speech naturally bears no bloom nor fruit.

Here Yaska observes: "pājnic is the flower and the daivic the fruit or the daivic the flower the adhyātmic the fruit." Commentators on this passage say: knowledge related to the yajna is the yājnika, that related to the Gods is the daivatam; knowledge related to the self is the adhyātmam. They are knowledge of the sacrifice, knowlege of the Gods and knowledge of the self. This is what is taught in all Veda. If the Dharma promoting material prosperity (i.e. the Yajna which achieves it) is resorted to, then the knowledge of the Gods is the fruit of it. The former becomes the flower, the latter the fruit. If on the other hand Dharma leading to the higher welfare is desired, then both the yājnic and the daivic become the flower; the daivic containing in itself the yājnic becomes the flower and the adhyātmic the fruit."

Yaska holds that the knowledge to be attained from the Mantra is threefold – knowledge of the yajna, knowledge of the Gods and knowledge of the self. If it be said that the Mantras are not clear in their meaning, he replies that it is no fault of the post if the blind does not see (i.e. if a blind man knocks against a post). He also keeps in mind the tradition of his times that the Rishis who had realised the Truth handed down the Mantras by way of initiation to the lesser men who had yet to reach the Truth. Initiation, upadeśa, is the term he uses. Here he clearly refers to some ancient mystic tradition pointing to some secret in the Veda. That is why he says, at the end of the work, that its shore is to be reached by means of tapas. From this again it is clear beyond doubt that there is a secret in the Veda.

From his utterances cited above it will be seen that Yaska believed in the mystery of the Gods even as he did in the mystery of the Mantras. Finally, it should be noted that his statements regarding the Gods strengthen the doctrine of the mystic character of the Gods. He observes: "The one Self of the Deity is praised variously due to its greatness: of this one Self the other Gods are several limbs. The Gods are characterised by a mutuality of birth and mutuality of nature; born of works, born of the Atman, their carriage is the Atman itself, Atman their horses, Atman their weapon, Atman their arrows, indeed the Atman is everything of the Gods.” Thus it is seen how Yaska, though faithfully presenting the different schools of interpretations affirms the threefold knowledge from the hymn and drives at the supremacy of the spiritual interpretation. This goes to strengthen the position of the Esoteric Interpretation.

It is to his credit that Yaska is very faithful in stating the views of the earlier Nairuktas or other schools; still he is not an indiscriminate believer (lit. one who eats the food with grass). Where he sees anything wrong in the views of the ancient authorities, however eminent they may be, he points out the flaw unhesitatingly. Here is an example: stating that it was wrong of Shakalya, the author of the Pada Patha of the Rik Samhita, to have split the word vayaḥ into two in the Rik (X. 29.1) vāne na vāyo nyadhāyi, Yaska observes: “Shakalya makes it read va and yaḥ. In that case the verb (nyadhāyi) would have been accented; and the meaning also would not be complete.” (Nirukta VI. 28) 31. As noted earlier, Shakalya is the author of the Pada Patha for the Rik Samhita. But though Yaska thus points out faults even in the author of the Pada Patha of the Veda, he is not unrestrained or reckless; he respects the supreme authority of the Mantras. But though he looks upon the Mantras as authoritative, he does not regard the Brahmanas, which he quotes, in the same manner. Thus in the section on Gods, while on the subject of Vaishvanara, he says: "The Brahmanas proceed on the assumption of many qualities or aspects” (Nirukta VII. 24). The commentators explain that Bhakti is an assumption of qualities by which the Brahmanas speak of everything in every way, and hence the truth therein is to be searched out. We have to remember, in the course of our study of the esoteric meaning of the Veda, such passages from Yaska pointing to the necessity of accepting statements of the ancients only after deliberation. We have shown how far Yaska is helpful to us (for our purpose). It is clear from this that there is a secret in the Veda which is to be sought out and brought to light.

The Brihad Devata of Shaunaka points out errors in Yaska even as the latter sees flaws in many of the passages in the Brahmanas on account of their preference for sweet speech. For instance: “He (Yaska) gives the derivation after splitting up a word into two. He speaks of the term puruşadā in this way in the Rik uṛkṣe vrkse." (Br. D. II. 111-16). Like Yaska, the Brihad Devata also speaks of the variety of views on the interpretation of the hymns and testifies to the existence of the spiritual interpretation. We may cite the topic of the five peoples, pañca janāḥ, for example:

“Some say the five peoples are the Five Fires - Shalamukhya, Pranita, son of Grihapati, the Northern and the Southern Agnis; others say they are Men, Fathers, Gods, Gandharvas, Uraga-Rakshasas, or following Yaska, they are Gandharvas, Fathers, Gods, Asuras, Yaksha-Rakshasas. Shakatayana thinks they are the four Varnas and the fifth the nişāda. Shakapuni says they are the Ritviks (officiating priests) five in number — Hota, Adhvaryu, Udgata, Brahma and the Sacrificer Yajamana. But the Atmavadins (who are for the inner meaning of the Vedas) hold that they are the Sight, the Audience, the Mind, the Voice and the Life. The Aitareya Brahmana speaks of Gandharva-apsaras, Gods, Men, Fathers and Serpents. Other Yajnikas refer to other creatures of the earth and the Gods” (Br. D. VII. 67-72).

Thus in six verses it speaks of the different views as to what is meant by the term pañca janāḥ. Hence we learn from works like the Nirukta and the Brihad Devata that there was current an interpretation of the spiritual and mystic school of thought as distinct from other modes of interpretation. We conclude thence that there is a secret in the Veda which can be arrived at by following the symbolic and the esoteric meaning.

It was stated earlier that the Brahmanas themselves substantiate the symbolic character of the yajna, sacrifice. Thus the Brahmanas bear clear testimony to the existence of a secret in the Veda. Otherwise symbols like: "The Yajamana is the sacrificial post" could not have come to be. Here the Brahmanas speak of the enriching or increasing of the Yajamana, sacrificer, who is to be consecrated by the anointment and his entry into the sacred chamber called prācina vaṁśa, in the sacrificial Hall (a hut where the supporting beams are turned eastwards) and proceed to declare that such a consecrated Yajamana obtains the opulence of new birth while living here in the body. To this effect passages are to be found in the Brahmanas. The Aitareya Brahmanas states: "The Ritviks make him an embryo whom they consecrate and sprinkle with water”, and proceeds to say thereon: "Him alone pure and purified (by the act of consecration) they consecrate (finally) and lead him to the hall of the consecrated. This, verily, is the source (or womb) of the consecrated, for, indeed they lead him to his own source (or womb) which is (symbolised by) the dikṣita-vimitam, the hall of the consecrated.” (1.3) Sayana explains dikșita-vimita etc. by stating that entry into the sacred hut in the sacrificial hall means entering into one’s own source. Elsewhere it is said: “Born of oblations, gold-bodied, he goes to heaven.” It is also said that Agni himself is the womb of the Gods. There is another matter that may be cited in this context. The Brahmanas which are the supreme basis of the ritualistic school themselves counsel that union with the Gods or attainment of heaven is not possible without spiritual knowledge. Thus the Shatapatha Brahmana declares: “This is the verse. By knowledge they ascend there where desires are left behind. There the gifts do not reach, nor those who are austere but have no knowledge; thus one does not attain to that world by means of gifts and austerities who does not know in the aforesaid manner; but that world is meant only for those who know in the aforesaid manner” (X. 5.4-16). Is it necessary to add that even when the avowedly ritualistic texts like the Brahmanas pro-claim in places about the spiritual and occult truths, scriptures like Aranyakas and Upanishads known as Jnana Kanda — Knowledge Section — explain the supreme meaning of the Vedic sacrifice only in terms of the inner sacrifice? Passages like: "To him who knows this, the Yajamana is the self of the Yajna, Faith the wife and the fuel the body” are to be found elsewhere in the Aranyakas.

Then this must be stated regarding the Texts of the Upanisahds. Even though we admit as fairly reasonable the idea that the Rishis of the Upanishads, men given to askesis, set out independently for the knowledge of Brahman, actuated by the spirit of enquiry into the Truth, yet, it must be noted they knew that the hymns were pregnant with the secrets of spiritual knowledge etc. That is why they repeatedly confirm their own perceptions, and conclusions based upon them, by reference to the Mantras of the ancient Rishis (by drawing upon the Mantras of the ancient Rishis for authority). This is the import of phrases like: "That has been said by the Rik”, “That is said by the Rishi" etc. At times it is clearly notable that certain instructions given in the Upanishads have their basis directly in a Rik. Sri Aurobindo, revealer of the Secret of the Veda, has cited an instance to the point, which we shall presently quote. He has shown how the passage from the Isha Upanishad, hiranmayena patreņa, ’By the golden lid..." and the Rik of the Seer Shrutavit of the Atri House, ¡tena apihitam, "The Truth is concealed by the Truth..." are identical in meaning. We shall first give the Rik in the order of the Pada Patha and explain; then we shall proceed to show that the meaning of the Rik fits in with that of the Upani-shadic passage. ṛtena ṛtam apihitam dhruvam vām süryasya yatra vimucanti aśvān daśa śatā saha tasthuḥ tadekam devānām śreştham vapușām apaśyam.

"There is a Truth covered by a Truth, where your place is secure, where they unyoke the horses of the Sun; the ten hundreds stood together, where was That one, I saw the greatest of the embodied gods” (Rv. V. 62.1)²

Word meaning with explanation: sūryasya, of the supreme God Savitr who activates all, ștam, the supreme Truth in its own Form, žtena, by the truth in the form of the universe standing as the three worlds denoted by the term lower half, apihitam, concealed, apaśyam, I have seen, yatra, in which Supreme Truth, vām, of you both, mitrā varuņayoḥ, Mitra and Varuna, the place is dhruwam, secure or eternal; where aśvān vimucanti, they mass the rays and marshall them. And where daśa-Satā, the ten hundred Rays, stood together in one place. devānām vapuşām Śrestham tad ekam, of those that had attained the form of the gods or of the embodied gods, the excellent, most auspicious Form, presiding over, yet above the Cosmos, known to the Rishis famously as That, without compeer, dazzling, brilliant, the Form of Truth, have I seen.

Here it is to be noted: Sayana explains vām in the third case as the subject of the impersonal voice; we read it as your place, seat, vām yuvayoḥ, sixth case. Either way there is ellipsis. That the seat of Mitra and Varuna is the World of the Sun is not disputed. Sayana says, rtena is "by water, and ștam is the solar orb. I, the Rishi, have seen the sun covered by the water.” On the other hand we say: it means the Rishi says he had beheld the Light celebrated in the Hymns as varenyam bhargaḥ the excellent Effulgence, tad vişņoḥ paramam padam, that highest step of Vishnu, sarvadhātamam Śrestham, the excellent all-sustainer, the One supreme Truth known by the : terms tat, That, shining in that High Ether, the pure, the intense and substantial Consciousness — known as akşara, the Immobile, the Truth whose symbol is the Sun.

To Sayana, aśvāh, means ten hundreds of rays. To us also this is acceptable. But Sayana goes on to explain the purport by drawing upon legends which speak of the horses of Surya imprisoned by Asuras called Mandeha and others, being released by the prayers of the invokers. We would suggest that the mention of release and dwelling together indicate the massing and marshalling of the brilliances of the Light of Truth denoted by the word Ray. We accept too the figurative (metaphorical) meaning ‘of the embodied gods’ given by Sayana to devānāṁ vapușmatāṁ. If it be asked what are two ſtams spoken of in ṛtena ṛtam, we would point out: the current use of the terms Rita and Satya to mean one and the same thing is also to be found at times in the Veda. But really there is a distinction between the two. The world Satya signifies that which is the eternal, the supreme, Existence in its own form Sat. Ritam signifies that which is evident or perceptible, manifested out of the Satya, what has come to be in accordance with Satya or that which re-presents the Satya. In this Rik the word Rita has been explained in terms of Satya. Both the Ritams are indeed Satya. One is the supreme Satya, Truth, the Eternal of the Upper Half known as the supreme Ether. That Truth is here said to be covered by an inferior truth of the lower half. Sayana explains the passage to mean that the cloud covers the Sun and the Rishi saw the Sun on the exit of the cloud. Now, one need not be a Rishi to be able to see the sun when the cloud has passed; anyone with ordinary eyes can do that! No wonder the moderns, on the strength of such explanations, speak lightly of the Rishis of the Veda as simpletons, idiots who see a great wonder even in the everyday sight of the sun and go into ecstasies over it!

The import is clear: the highest eternal Truth standing over, beyond, is covered by the inferior truth of this creation and when this cover is removed, one comes face to face with that higher Truth. Sayana’s gross interpretation has it that the dwelling place of Mitra and Varuna is the Sun. The hymns laud both of them as the guardians of the Truth, whose Law is the Truth and whose dwelling also is the paramam wyoma, the supreme ether. With the Truth as your Law, you stand in your carriage in the supreme. Ether, protecting the Truth” (Rv. V. 63.1). This and similar Riks convey the identity between (the two) Mitra and Varuna on the one hand and the Surya that is the Truth on the other. In explaining this Rik, we have indicated somewhat, the trend of thought in Sayana’s commentary as also our own. Grasping the import of this Rik the Rishi of the Upanishad says in plain uncovered language: “The face of Truth is covered with a brilliant golden lid; that do thou remove, O Fosterer, for the law of the Truth, for sight. O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O ordainer, O illumining Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is thy most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The purusha there and there, He am I.” (Tr. by Sri Aurobindo). These are the lines of the passage in the Isha Upanishad. We shall show how this Mantra of the Upanishad fits in with that of the Rig Veda.

In the Veda it is by the inferior truth: in the Upanishad, by the golden lid. Though, by reason of its inferiority, it acts as a covering, still it is essentially the Truth and hence the covering lid is described as brilliant gold, Truth (is) concealed in the Veda; the face of the truth is concealed in the Upanishad. In the Veda, it is the greatest of the embodied, in the Upanishad, the most blessed form. It refers to the eternal supreme Light beyond.

In the Veda, it is That one; in the Upanishad, He am I.

In the Veda, it is ten hundreds (of rays) — Sayana too explains it to be so; the Upanishad plainly says, rays. Released, in the Veda; marshal, in the Upanishad. In the Veda, they stood together; the Upanishad says draw together. Always in the Veda the Supreme Person of intense Consciousness, Truth and Light is symbolished by the Sun; so also generally in the Upanishads. This one illustration is enough to show the direct connection of the truths (we come across) in the Upanishads with the Mantras of the Rig Veda. It should be evident that the knowledge of the Rishi of the Upanishad is more subtle and more grand and true (self-justifying) than that as noticed in the commentary of the champion of the ritualists, Sayana. Needless to add that the knowledge of the Rishis of the Upanishad was especially superior to that of the modern scholars or their followers.

This again shows beyond doubt that there is a secret in the Veda.

The Puranas, also, it is stated, lauding the Vedas as they do, are really amplifications of the meaning of the Vedas. This is conveyed by passages from the Mahabharata, Puranas and narratives, some of which we may cite, e.g. “The Veda is to be amplified by means of legends and Puranas”. “The Puranas elaborate upon the lost branches of the Veda"; "This ancient story is told, O King, adapted from the Vedas (or conformable to the Vedas)” etc. The Mahabharata really gives in plain language what is concealed in the legends and happenings recorded in the Vedas. At times certain Vedic legends are seen to reveal their true meaning in the Mahabharata. Vyasa narrates to Yudhishthira the true significance of the legend of Vritra as he learnt it from the ancient sages. These lines are to be found in the Ashwamedha Parva (XI. 7-20): "Then did Indra, O monarch of the Bharatas, slay Vritra who dwells in the body, with his invincible thunderbolt, thus have we heard.” Also, “This issue of Dharma, a secret was declared to the great Rishis by Indra and by the Rishis it was told to me: hearken to it, O King.” The commentator Nilakantha explains vajra as viveka, knowledge born of discrimination, and Vritra as darkness itself. Or again in (verse 19): “Vasishtha awakened him with the sāman called rathantara”, Nilakantha explaining the meaning of the term rathantara, says, that which surmounts, tarati, the ratha, i.e. the body known as Maya. By means of rathantara sāman Vasishtha awakened him, it is stated. This is the purport. Whatever be the symbolic meaning of the word ratha — we do not enter into the question here — it is enough to note that the commentator holds it to be a symbol. The Mahabharata also says that the whole legend of Vritra is a secret; that too must be noted. Elsewhere in the Anushasana Parva the symbolic significance of ram etc. is found to be stated (Ch. 84.47–48): "The goat is the symbolic form of Agni, the ram that of Varuna, the horse that of the sun; elephants, deer, serpents, buffaloes are Asuras; cocks and pigs are Rakshasas, O Darling of the Bhrigus.” We need not add that passages like these that are cited are the results of attempts made by the author of the Maha-bharata to discover the hidden meaning and significance of symbols of the Veda.

We have dwelt with the recorded tradition that there is a secret, a spiritual wisdom, in the Veda. We have summoned re-presentative evidence from the Puranas, historic legends, Brah-manas along with the Aranyakas, Nirukta and other works and the hymns themselves to authenticate our findings. There remains one important question meriting scrutiny. Has there been none in the period that has elapsed between ourselves and the Rishis of the Veda — and the period was so long — who knew the secret in the Veda and wrote a commentary to bring out the secret? The answer is simple: there is no doubt that no such commentary, expanding the secret, is in evidence. But on that account it can hardly be argued that there is no secret at all and that if there be one, there would follow in the matter of course, its expression as well. Can it be sustained, for instance, that there was no tradition of Vedic ritualism for the simple reason that we do not see any complete commentary on the Vedas prior to Sayana ? In the same manner it does not follow that there was no tradition of the Vedic secret since there has been no commentary working out the spiritual interpretation. On the other hand, one has to recognise the dis-advantage suffered by the esoteric interpretation due to the fame of the ritualistic supremacy. Also, be it noted, for the enquiring mind to be solely guided by faith in the commentary of Sayana is a handicap for any investigation into the hidden meaning of the Veda. We have shown, earlier, with authentic evidence, how in spite of the ancient school of mystic interpretation being forgotten, there has been and continues to be a tradition - living and un-equivocal — pointing to its existence. It need not be repeated here. However, in the face of the works of Madhwacharya, no one can assert that there was no attempt at all to resuscitate the spiritual interpretation of the Vedas. For a little before Sayana, Acharya Ananda Tirtha wrote a commentary on the first forty Suktas of the First Mandala of the Rik Samhita to illustrate how the meaning of the Riks is to be grasped. He holds that in as much as performance of rituals is a necessary part of the practice of the Vedic Dharma, a ritualistic interpretation of the hymns is justifiable, but it is wrong to say that the fundamental message of the hymns is observance of ritual. He maintains, on the other hand, that the spiritual interpretation gives the central meaning of the Mantras and that all the Vedas point to the supreme object of life which is to attain the sublime status at the feet of Vishnu. Madhwacharya’s Bhashya is small in volume. Barring a few Pundits in the Madhwa tradition, most of the students of the Veda are hardly aware that there is such a Veda-Bhashya, though incomplete. His follower, the great Yogi of majestic lustre, Raghavendra Swami, wrote the work Manträrtha-Manjari, following the Bhashya of the teacher and amplifying the points therein. The Riks are indeed to be explained with reference to Agni etc. as deities and to Vishnu as the supreme Deity dwelling in them, and also in the spiritual sense. Though we do not propose to examine the bases of the three ways in which the Riks are to be understood, we shall state in brief how in this mode of interpretation the three meanings are derived from the Riks. Where necessary we shall quote passages taken from the Mantrārtha-Manjari itself.

“Of two kinds are the words Agni and others, like milk that is mixed with water (which is one kind) and on the other hand) like fire (heat) that pervasively occupies an iron ball. Some words denote the form of the Lord’s consciousness with corporeal frame, mingled with and qualified by the consciousness of Agni and other souls. Some words denote pure consciousness. Words denoting pure consciousness also are of two kinds viz. the consciousness of the Lord and the consciousness of the soul. Of these the first kind is to be seen in the Mantra agnim ile where Agni denotes the well-known God Agni by (direct) expressive power of the word as also Vishnu by the supremely expressive power of the same word. (These two meanings are simultaneously understood by the proficient); as in the case of ’in the Ganga there are fish and the hamlet of herdsmen,’ by the expressive and the not-expressive (indicative) powers of the word, Ganga, the two meanings, flood and bank, are conveyed at the same time; or, ’The moon rejoices in the blue lotus’, ’The king delights in the earth’32 - here the conventional usage and the derivative significance give the two meanings simultaneously". In this way, the purport of the Mantra of the Rig Vedic hymns must be grasped as referring to Agni expounded in the Mantra for application in the rites, as well as to the supreme God-head named Vishnu presiding over Agni etc. The reasonablenesss (of this line of grasping the purport) is shown with the support of the scriptural texts, Shruti, Smriti, Purana and Itihasa. Such being the case, it may be asked: the meaning as referring to Vishnu alone is enough; why should there be the meaning as referring to God Agni and others ? The answer is, No, it is necessary; because “the conventional meaning of words related to particular things has been established and accepted and the purpose is manifested and without contradiction (to the supreme meaning Vishnu) 33. And because of the support of instruction in the scriptures) the word has power to express Vishnu also. In this context (it must be noted) that the Deity meaning is necessary, because its use is great (plentiful) such as the realisation of the exact nature of the Devata. Agni, etc. And there is the statement of the necessity of the meaning as applied to Devata also because of the impropriety of abandoning Devata meaning of Agni etc. obtained from the Vedic texts, Vedic lexicon, Grammar, yielding the derivation and finished form (of the words Agni etc.)" In this manner, the Acharya establishes the expressive meaning as applied to the Deity, Agni, and the supremely expressive meaning as applied to the supreme God Vishnu. Further he says: “Nor need it be doubted that because the purport of the two being different, there must be difference in the sentence that proclaims it, because the supreme purport is only one (there is no difference in the sentence)”. “The supreme purport is the truth applied to Vishnu, the excellent among all, God of Gods, and not to anything or any one else. Whatever is subsidiary is different from that, but has also that (Vishnu) for its importance etc. Therefore the object of human life according to all the Scriptures is He (the Vishnu)”. Quoting this passage from the Paingi Shruti, he reinforces it with passages from the Puranas: "All authorities reveal the Knower of all, the Doer of all, the Best among all, Narayana, devoid of ill-health. Here indeed is the supreme purport. All the Vedas, the Itihasa, the Purana, all the criteria of knowledge, are all for him; for this purpose something else is stated.” Therefore by the division of the supreme purport and the subsidiary purport more than one meaning was propounded. It was also shown that the hymns of Agni, Vayu, etc., refer to Agni, Vayu etc., and to the supreme Vishnu, the highest Self presiding over the deities, as well as to the inner meaning which is the spiritual meaning. Thus in a threefold manner the Mantras are to be commented upon and with this idea the Acharya pointed out the method of expounding the meaning of the Mantras by commenting on the (first) forty hymns (of the Rig Veda). The worshippers of the Lord by means of the hymn to Agni etc. could worship, constantly meditate upon, manifest and attain the Lord in the centres (seats of Agni etc.) and by this triple instrumentation (lit. of meditation on the Lord, of His being manifested, of his being attainable), the arrangement of the hymns addressed to various deities such as "This is Agni hymn’, ’This is Vayu hymn’, is quite appropriate, it must be so understood. Then, for the purpose of showing the manner of commenting on the Riks, we shall use the words of Manträrtha-Mañjari and give the meaning of the agnim ile Rik in brief:-

Beginning with agnim ile is the hymn to Agni. Madhuchchandas is the Rishi. Its application is for the purpose of obtaining Moksha - release of the soul — through devotion to Vishnu, secondarily it is used in ritual. To gain space we shall here mostly refrain from giving the grammar and connected details and state the substantial meaning expounded by Sri Raghavendra Swami; agnim, he who is in front, agre bhavam, the first to be adored or the prime activiser, Vishnu under the name of Agni or the famous Agni who is the abode of Vishnu, ile I adore. Adjectives governing Agni are explained as follows: purohitam, he who is helpful to all creatures from beginning-less time; yajñasya ļtvijam (singular in the sense of class), he who being the doer of jyotişthoma and other sacrifices, ordains the high priest, the Ritviks known as adhvaryu, hot;, udgatetc. as the restrain-ing agent, and so known as Ritvik himself, following the principle “one becomes that which is under one’s control”; hotāram he who controls the hot;, is specially present in him and thus following the above-mentioned principle, known as hotr himself; there is no redundancy here in the mention of the Ritvik and then of Hotr. The analogy of Kurus and Pandavas, the general followed by the particular, is to be remembered in this connection. ratnadhātamañ root ram with unadi suffix kna of which k is dropped according to the Sutra of Panini laśakvataddhite (138) and ṁ in the root also is dropped by the rule of Panini (VI. 4.37). Thus we get the form ratna. ratna means felicity and ratnadhā is one who holds felicity in utmost abundance. devam, the root div signifies praise and hence devam means praiseworthy. These qualities mentioned are bound-less in Vishnu and in Agni as his abode they are there in appro-priate proportions. Similarly in regard to the rest.

In its spiritual sense this is the meaning: purohitam, helpful to all; yajnasya of the knowledge-sacrifice, įtvijam, staying as the controller (with self-regard for them) of the senses that are the Ritviks, he is named Ritwik. hotārań, he who delivers the oblation of sense-objects into the fire of the senses i.e. who gives sense-delight agnim, he who leads the anga, body, i.e. the activiser of the whole body; ile I adore, is the connection in the sentence. In this spiritual interpretation the Yajamana, sacrificer, is understood to be any one who is striving for liberation, Moksha. The rest is to be ex-plained as stated already.

This is what we arrive at following the exegesis of the hymns by Madhwacharya: the meaning of the Riks as related to the soul (spiritual) and the meaning as related to the Gods are to be brought together. The meaning relating to the soul is the inner import; the meaning relating to the Gods contains in itself the sacrificial meaning. Thus following the direct meaning, the Mantras do have a secondary application in rituals. However, in giving the most direct meaning as related to the Gods, the Mantras refer predominantly to the Supreme Lord Vishnu himself. Thus the three kinds of knowledge obtained from the Veda i.e. the know-ledge relating to the sacrifice, to the Gods and to the self, spoken of by Yaska, generally agree with the three meanings of Mantras as maintained by the teacher of Dualistic Vedanta. In any case, the use of the Mantras in ritual is only of secondary significance. The Riks of the Veda are to be explained accordingly. Endowed with a knowledge of word (vyākaraṇa) and sentence (mimāmsa) and criterion of knowledge, pramāņa i.e. nyāya, and gifted with the eye of the seer, the Acharya Anandatirtha established with skill and support from the Shrutis, Smritis, Puranas and legends that what-ever be the mode of interpretation, spiritual, sacrificial or what pertains to the Gods, their fundamental import points to Vishnu alone. This must be noted: it is the ancient tradition that the meaning of the hymns is preeminently spiritual and concerned with the Supreme God and that mere ritualistic meaning is of an inferior order and the tradition pointing to the secret in the Veda has been confirmed with due appropriateness in these works — Rg-Bhāsya of Madhwacharya and the Mantrārtha Mañjari. Suffice it to note that these too confirm there is a secret in the Veda which can be unsealed by having recourse to the esoteric interpretation.

It may be asked then whether the labours of modern scholars, who have followed the line of western learning in their study of the Vedas, are not all rendered in vain if the estoeric interpretation is accepted. We reply in the negative. If the conclusions of their study based on the outer meaning of the hymns are consistent and legiti-mate then they would prove useful in deciding upon the place, time, conditions, natural character of the Vedic Rishis; we would not treat them as opposed to our thesis of the esoteric interpretation based on the inner meaning of the hymns. For the line of symbolic and mystic interpretation proceeds on the recognition of the outer and gross meaning of the hymns. We take exception only to the claim that the outer is the only meaning of the hymns. We have dealt with this before and it is not necessary to repeat it here. So we are generally indifferent for our purpose) to the labours based on the external sense of the Riks. It is not to be denied that such an interpretation done in a straight manner, could be helpful for drawing conclusions on the environment, age and other conditions of the ancient society of the Rishis or to unearth their history and record. Similarly it may be possible to fix upon, following Mr. Tilak, the Arctic Home of the Vedic Rishis or their Age, or following Mr. Paramasiva Iyer, to fix upon the identity of Ahi and Vritra. The Western scholars differ among themselves regarding the nature and form of the Vedic deities and the social conditions and laws of the society of that age. Some say that the Rishis of the Veda are polytheists because they worshipped many Gods. Others point out that the Rishis regarded each deity, at the moment of its worship, as the supreme one and hence ascribed supremacy to the deity whom they were engaged in worshipping at the hour. Still others there are who state that the difference among the deities is only in name and that there is really only one supreme God to the Rishis who are monotheists. According to some, the Rishis regarded in the different objects in the material universe the presence of the respective presiding deities; that is why even creations, like Heaven, Earth, Fire, Wind, Sun, Rain are worshipped as Deities and hence the Rishis are nature-worshippers, pantheists. Such are the various bewilderments of modern scholars enquiring into the Vedas. We would state this much: it is not that basis is lacking for any of these theories. What is to be borne in the mind is that the original seers of the Veda were not conversant with such theories. Just as the Rishis of the Upanishads far removed from the later philosophies of Dwaita (Dualism), Adwaita (Monism) and Vishishtadwaita (Qualified Monism) simply stated their own realisations, the truths as they saw or heard directly, the seers of the Mantras, even farther removed from monistic and other philosophies of our day, gave the Mantras as perceived and heard by them and duly engaged in the invocation of the Gods, they waited in adoration upon the supreme Godhead. Hence there will be no end of theories if we were to begin examining the view or views of the Rishis of the Veda regarding the world, soul and God. Such arguments about the Vedas will be akin to the debates of the laterday Acharyas and their followers regarding the Doctrine of the Upanishads, akin to the dialectical debates among the Dwaita and other schools which to this day adorn the throne in the world of Pundits noted for debating skill. The reason for it is their Systems of philosophy Nyaya, Vaisheshika etc. are undoubtedly governed by the rule of definition, lakṣaṇa, criterion, pramāņa, examination, paţikṣā, in the ascertainment of Truth. The line of approach (to Truth) of the early Rishis and there too of the Vedic seers was different. Such standards as these had no place with seekers engaged in Tapas, like the Rishis. Their own realisation, perception and audition were obtained by the strength of the initiation received from the hierarchic line of the Guru. A straight reading of the Mantras would, without doubt, confirm all the facts that we shall presently state.

It is clear from the hymns that there is only one Supreme Godhead who is himself so many Gods and bears as many names. The manifold character of the Godhead is known from the hymns themselves; it is because the deities stand as so many distinct beings that by following their respective characteristics, particular hymns can be determined to be devoted to the particular deities. It is also possible to show from many of these hymns that to the Rishis each God is the Supreme Himself and none other. We also learn from the hymns that the mutuality of nature and mutuality of birth of the various Gods who are charged with Cosmic functions, whether in the microcosm or the macrocosm, are perceived and revealed by the Rishis. Passages from the Rig Veda point unmistakably, again and again, to the One Great Soul — signified by Surya, whose forms and personalities, parts and limbs are the many Gods assuming the appellations appropriate to their character and function the Gods mentioned in the Vedas. Hence if we are to achieve our supreme object with the help of the Veda, it is necessary that the Riks are accepted as the authentic speech and studied, both word and meaning, following the tradition of the Rishis, according to the context. Even though there is no mutual conflict among the many aforesaid theories drawn from the hymns, yet we do not think any effort is called for towards their reconciliation. What does it matter, indeed, if there be no elimination of difference or a reconciliation among them? This treasury of Mantras is to be approached with devotion, knowledge, tapas, and adored.

This is no work like a Sutra treatise with exegesis and similar writings which are a battlefield for pros and cons, argument and counter-argument. The Mantras of the Rig Veda are in fact a veritable treasure of the recorded) revelations vouchsafed to the most ancient Rishis. Here is a priceless trove of gems of truths of the Spirit, of the Gods and many of an occult character. The Veda is a literary record of uncommon realisations, of divine revelation and inspiration, of our forefathers, Vasishtha, Vamadeva and others who in the course of their inner discipline - Yoga - got at many truths in the mystic path, truths beyond the grasp of the sense but attainable by extraordinary means of self-discipline, truths of the vaster worlds of existence beyond the ken of the physical eye, truths of the Gods who are the functionaries in those worlds, their Powers Shaktis, as also those who are Shaktis in their own right. And who knows what other secrets lie embedded in this most ancient collection of Hymns — the Rig Veda! “By Tapas is its shore to be reached, indeed, by Tapas is its shore to be reached.”