Commentary on the Rig Veda

SECTION TWO

In the foregoing Section we have stated in brief the thesis of the Esoteric Interpretation of the Veda while considering and meeting the objections of the other side represented by (and under the influence of modern thought and new schools of research and scholarship. We will see how far the thesis of the secret in the Veda is strengthened by scriptures of Sruti (revealed authority) beginning with the Rig Veda, and covering the Brahmanas and Upanishads, the Nirukta, Brihad Devata and other standard works and the pronouncements of the Dharma Mimamsakas. Some questions arise forthwith: and in answering them with due deliberation we shall examine and buttress the thesis of the esoteric import of the Mantras based on the symbolic significance of words in the Rig Veda.

How is it that the Rig Veda alone of the four Vedas is taken up for enquiry? Does it imply that for you also it is the only true Veda as it is indeed so esteemed by western scholars? If not, how not? Is the whole basis of Dharma Mimamsa wrong? Then how are we to account for the longstanding stronghold of the Doctrine of the Mimamsakas? Is the understanding that the Mantras are holy and command reverence due to their hoary antiquity alone ? And what is the main subject-matter that is arrived at by scrutinising the meanings of the Riks? Surely there are many kinds of Mantras according to the ancients like Niruktakaras (etymologists); if so, how can it be said that the whole body of the hymnal texts is a store of mystic knowledge including knowledge of the Gods, spiritual and occult? If it is maintained that by grasping the symbolic meaning of words, the heterogeneous character of the Mantras apparent on the surface is dissolved with the unveiling of their real secret, then what are those symbols? How are they not mere conjectures? Is there basis for such a line of esoteric interpretation in the Veda itself? Rig Vedic hymns apart, is there elsewhere in Vedic literature any authority for attaching the symbolic sense to the Vedic conventional religion, Vedic sacrifice and the Vedic hymns? And what is the real character of Gods ? What is the religion and philosophy of the Vedic Rishis in modern terms with which we are familiar? Are we to condemn as futile all the labours of modern Indian scholars of note (worthy of praise) engaged in the study and research of the Vedas along modern western lines? Again, in the long period between the Vedic Rishis and ourselves has there been no attempt at all to probe into the secret of the Vedic hymns? We shall discuss these questions in full and answer them, for by so doing the thesis of the esoteric interpretation will be confirmed. To this purpose we shall devote the second and the third Sections.

THE RIG VEDA

It is a fact that there are four Samhitas (collections) of the Vedas. How is it then that the Triad of the Vedas is spoken? The triple classification relates to the Mantras while the fourfold to the Samhitas, the collections of the Mantras. What are the Mantras ? There must be some distinguishing characteristic which determines what is a Mantra and what is not (or, which decides the point definitely, ’this is Mantra, this is not’). Though some have generally defined the Mantra, it is quite general (not absolute and strict definition). That is a Mantra “which the Rishis, knowers of the Triad, know to be Riks, Samans and Yajus.” Shabaraswami holds that those that are not pronounced to be Mantras by acknowledged authority are no Mantras. The purport is that the word of those of recognised merit alone is the deciding authority in the appraisal of the Mantras. The character of the Mantras — Riks, Yajus, Samans — as stated in Jaimini’s aphorisms is: "That is a Rik where the line (a foot in the metrical verse) is regulated by the sense; that set to music is Saman, the rest are Yajus.” (II.1.35, 36, 37.) This is the substance. The Mantras in metrical forms are Riks, Riks chan-ted are Samans and the rest of the Mantras in prose are Yajus. This is the threefold classification following which the Vedas are spoken of as trayi, triad. It is common knowledge that the collection of Riks is the Rig Veda Samhita, that of Yajus the Yajus Samhita that of the Saman the Sama Veda Samhita. There is another, the fourth the Atharva Veda Samhita which contains Riks and Yajus. Many of the Riks of the Rik Samhita are to be found in the Atharva Veda Samhita. Similarly some of the Yajus also are found in the fourth Samhita. The Mantras that are hallowed by inclusion in the Vedic triad are admittedly applicable in the Sacrifice. But those Mantras which are to be found only in the Atharva Veda are reputed to promote the ends of man and to be meant for other purposes. But on that account they do not lose the character of the Veda, as the Fourth Samhita also is a Veda Samhita. We said that most of the Riks therein are from the Rig Veda and a few from the Yajur Veda. Hence if the Rik Samhita is commented upon, the substance of the Riks in the Atharva Veda also is given out. And there is no purpose in explaining the remaining Riks in the Atharva Samhita in as much as they are of no utility in sacrifice, the sacrifice according to our exposition being a Symbol. We are here concerned only with the Trayi (triad) that is connected with the Sacrifice. The mystic symbolism of the Rig Veda may apply to the Mantras of the Atharva, but we do not need to consider it here. The Sama Veda is not considered separately for the reason that almost all the Riks in the collection are of the Rik Samhita. The Yajus alone remains. And if we do not take it up for consideration there is good reason for it. An enquiry into the Yajurveda has an uncertain value for our purpose. Our purpose is to unveil the symbolism employed by the Rishis and thereby to elucidate the inner meaning of the Mantras, the real character of the Gods and the goal of man as envisaged by the forefathers of the race. All this is easier to grasp from a scrutiny of the language of the Rik Mantras. The symbolism and language of the Yajurveda are not always uniform or easy of understanding. There is another difficulty in taking up the Yajus. The Black Yajurveda of the Taittiriya school consists of both the Mantras and Brahmanas whereas our enquiry relates to Mantras alone and not to the Brahmanas with or without the Upanishads. In the Yajurveda the Mantras are read along with the Brahmanas that are useful (for application) in rituals. This Samhita of the Taittiriyas is not a collection of Mantras alone, unlike the Rik Samhita etc. Even a collection of Mantras and Brahmanas goes under the name of Samhita.

It is a matter of no dispute whatever that the Brahmanas set out to explain the Mantras with their ritualistic slant. Even though their mode of interpretation brings out clearly the symbolic meaning of the Mantras, it will be evident to thinking minds that the Brahmanas hold the Mantras to be solely for purposes of ritual in the Sacrifice. That is why Sayana wrote his commentary on the Mantras taking the Brahmanas for his basis. Hence our enquiry for ascertaining the meaning of the Mantras has no place for enquiry into that of the Black Yajurveda which consists of Mantras and Brahmanas. The Brahmanas show only the ritualistic use of the Mantras and not the meaning hidden in them. There is another interesting fact if we but recall the story of Yajnavalkya. This we shall state in brief. He returned to his Guru Vaishampayana the Yajurveda that he had learnt from him. While being returned the Veda came out of him in the shape of tittiri birds. Then he undertook penance, and pleased with ii, God Aditya appeared in the form of a Horse (vāji) and revealed to him the Shukla (white) Yajurveda consisting purely of Mantras, without the Brahmanas. Hence it is known as the Vajasaneyi Samhita. The (full) story is not given here for want of space; it is be found in the Vishnu Purana in detail (3.5). We presume that it was Yajnavalkya’s view that the Brahmanas which support (or invigorate the ritualistic side shall not be included in the body of the Veda Samhita. The Brahmanas may remain separate even as the Brahmanas of other branches stay separate from their corresponding Mantra Samhitas. If the Krishna Yajus Samhita includes in it the Brahmana which is avowedly for ritual acts, karma, the Shukla Yajus Samhita, as if in rivalry, incorporates in it the Ishavasya Upanishad, the only Upanishad of a Veda Samhita which avowedly treats of Brahman. Thus the surmise is reasonable that some of the ancients did not consider it proper to include Brahmanas in the Mantra Samhitas. The inclusion of the Brahmana in the Taittiriya Samhita had far-reaching consequences: it led to confirm and establish in the socio-religious system of later-day India, the doctrine of the Sutra literature, that the Veda consists of both the Mantras and the Brahmanas. Herein is to be found the seeds of the later doctrine of the supremacy of the ritual, according to which the Veda consists of both the Karma and Jnana Kandas, the Karma Kanda comprising the Brahmanas and the Mantra Samhita and the Jnana Kanda being the Upanishad - a position which was accepted by all the Sutrakaras (authors of Dharma Sutras) and the Acharyas of later times.

It is not that we subscribe to the views of the western scholars who do not recognise the scriptural authority of the Yajurveda. The Yajus too are Mantras; we do not disregard the Veda, be it Rik or Yajus or Atharva. The reason why our enquiry does not extend to the Mantras of the Yajus branch is that it is of no avail for our purpose. But on that account we do not consider the Yajur Mantras as no Veda at all. On the other hand we do recognise — our view is firm and unshaky - the purifying and sacred character of the Mantra portions as did the Agamikas before us (Vaidic, Shaivic etc.), who incorporated in their system of Japa, Parayana etc. Mantras of Rudra Adhyaya and other sections, witness for instance the famous Panchakshara (five-syllabled) and the Ashtakshara (eight-syllabled) Mantras which are from the Yajus.

Now the field of our enquiry is the Samhita of the Riks. To say this is not to deprecate the scriptural value of other branches of the Veda. All the material needed for us is obtained only from the Rig Veda. Here the language is antique; the systematic symbolism of the Rishis is not difficult to grasp; their spiritual knowledge and strength are easy of access; and the true character of the Gods is within the reach of discriminating knowledge. There is another important reason. Yajus is the Veda for the act of sacrifice, that is why it is called adhvaryu-sakhả (the vedic branch of the adhvaryu priests). The adherents of the Yajus themselves admit the primacy of the Riks in the case of sacrifice and say: "Whatever is achieved, in the Sacrifice, by Yajus and Saman is loose; what is done by the Rik is firm, strong” (Taitt. Sam. 6.5.10). Again, this is to be noted. Along with Riks, there are the Yajus and Samans for the sacrifice. The modern view of the historian that the Yajurveda came later than the Rig Veda is not correct. In the Rik Samhita itself there is mention of the Yajus and the Samans. There is no Yajna without the trayi, triad of Rik, Yajus and Saman. It is not possible to per-form the Sacrifice leaving any one of the three; they are inseparable in the sacrifice. In the outer sacrifice the triad has its use and the users have their place. The triad has its place in the inner sacrifice as well. We shall presently make it clear. It must be borne in mind that the pre-eminence of the Riks (Rig Veda) in considering the province of sacrifice, the sacrificial act, the Gods, the fruit and other secrets, is proclaimed not only by the Taittiriya Samhita but by all the Brahmanas of the Adhvaryu Shakha when they declare a hundred times: "It is so affirmed by the Rik.” It need hardly be added that the Upanishads with their sole object of knowledge laud the pre-eminence of the Riks in matters relating to knowledge. Phrases such as "so it is said by the Rishi”, “this is the verse", “there are the Mantras in this connection", "thus said the Rishi about this", "so it is laid down", directly underline the supremacy of the Riks of the seers of the Mantras.

The triad of the Rik, Yajus and Sama Vedas has a symbolic meaning in the inner sacrifice and this is explained now. We hear of the Vedas as the "exhalation of this great Being, Brahman". We learn from Brahmanas like the Aitareya and the Shatapatha that the Rik, Yajus and Saman are the respective manifestations of the Gods Agni, Vayu and Aditya presiding over the three worlds denoted by the triple vyāhrti of bhūḥ, bhuvaḥ and svar. What is the intention ? We said in the first Section while dealing with the symbolic significance of the Yajna, that Ritviks like Hota and others are Gods; here the functionings of the Gods of the three Vedas are affirmed. Agni is the vicar who invokes the Gods; he is the lord of vāk, speech; all Riks are included in that vāk, by that vāk the glory of the Gods is sung and their truths are brought to light; by that vāk flaming forth the abode of the Gods, Heaven, svar, is reached. Aditya presides over the Saman, he chants loud and leads the Yajamana triumphantly among the Gods by means of sweet harmonies of the music lulling him into the rhythmic ecstasy of the bliss of Truth. In between the Earth with its presiding Agni and the Heaven with its Aditya, is Vayu presiding over the mid-region, the Master of all activity who executes the work of sacrifice by means of the Yajus. He is himself the Adhvaryu, Priest of the Gods. That accounts for the importance of Yajus in the sacrificial rite. By the Riks, the words of Conscious Voice, the worship is effected; by Saman the Yajamana is lifted up to the delightful, ecstatic higher melodies, to the lofty note known as Udgitha; and by the Yajus the Yajna, worship by action, is carried out. All this is done by the Gods as the respective Ritviks, Priests. These are the three Gods, Agni, Vayu and Aditya who as Hota, Adhvaryu and Udgata respectively use the Rik, Yajus and Saman in the inner sacrifice. And it must be understood that this is the true sacrifice which is established symbolically in the exoteric worship by the ancient Rishis for the practice of those who are not competent for the mystic knowledge.

DHARMA MIMAMSA

The Purva Mimamsakas, holding as they do that the name Veda applies to both the Mantras and the Brahmanas and not to the Mantras alone, would not subscribe to our thesis of the estoeric interpretation of the Veda. Their position and ours are poles apart. Their conclusions are diametrically opposed to the basic principles that govern our approach to the symbolic and secret meaning of the Veda. We rely on the primary importance of the Mantras, but we concede to the Brahmanas their role of the ritualistic purpose. Thus the word Veda primarily signifies the Mantra Samhita. It is our aim to arrive at the secret of the Veda by enquiring into the meaning of the Riks. The enquiry of the Mimamsakas however is made into the meaning of the Brahmana passages. And though we are not concerned with any detailed examination of the doctrine, still there is something to be considered about the fundamental principle with which they start viz. enquiry into the knowledge of Dharma. Desiring to acquire this knowledge they proceed to enquire into the Vedas on the principle — legitimate in itself — that all Veda is the basis of Dharma. There is no dispute about the Veda being the basis of Dharma. It is the connotation of the word Dharma that is to be considered. They identify it with the socio-religious convention of their times and hold Vedic ritualism to be the supreme Vedic doctrine. This is their argument: the knowledge of Dharma is obtained from the Veda and this Supreme Dharma is enshrined in the Veda as the Sacrifice. The Yajamana offers to the Gods his wealth, and even all that he has as is done in the Vishvajit Yaga. By this Karma the Yajamana reaps the fruit of Heaven. The donor of the fruit is an unseen power, apūrva, something that gives the fruits generated by the work. We need not further discuss this subject of Dharma nor concern ourselves with some of the most fantastic doctrines of the Mimamsakas. Their views on the Heaven, the Gods, the character of the Mantra, eternality of the Veda, the unavoidable necessity of assuming a soul in the body but different from it, the absence of any necessity of God to the world and to the beings, the downright and absolute realism of the world as a matter-of-fact etc. are testimony to the unbridled nature of their doctrines.

What precisely is this Dharma whose knowledge is got from the Veda alone? If it is the ceremonial sacrifice that is really the truth of the supreme Dharma revealed by the Vedas, then it was never applied and is never applicable to all peoples in all ages but was confined to a corner of the globe peopled necessarily by a portion of mankind. Such a Dharma of sacrificial ritual, then, applies obviously to a particular period; it is not universal or eternal. It is this character of Dharma that has been determined by the Dharma-Shastrakaras. Drawing upon the Brahmanas for their support, for their congregational sessions and community of reli-gious worship, they systematised the ways and means of establishing this Dharma and called them the command of the Veda, vidhi, injunction, codanā26. From this Shrauta Dharma rose many Dharmas like smārta and grhya, which served the purpose of a standing consti-tution for social polity, religion, and statecraft. And in this sense the Veda can indeed be the basis of all Dharma. It is certainly edifying that in the old society there was a universal understanding in regard to Dharma, both individually and collectively. But there is no doubt whatever that the original arrangement based on the inclusion of both the Mantra and Brahmana in the signification of the Veda, led to much difficulty in later times. The original error of the Sutrakaras was neither recognised nor rectified. All the same it is an error by which the belief gained ground among the enquirers into the meaning of the Veda that the Mantras are for the sole purpose of application in the ritual, and they are to be interpreted in the ritualistic and no other sense. We could now see how the inclusion of the Brahmans in the Taittiriya Samhita alone, in spite of the fact that there are other Samhitas (without the Brahmanas) like the Rig Veda, led to unfortunate consequences. The true and inner meaning of the Yajna which is the real great Dharma gradually came to be eclipsed inevitably by the outer sacrifice of the Shrauta Dharma. That is how all the Acharyas (leaders of spiritual and philosophical thought) that came in the course of ages, had to reckon with the conception of Veda as having two Kandas (Sections), and the Mantra Samhitas being incorporated in the Karma Kanda, they came to recognise only the Upanishads as the Jnana Kanda.

But once we look into the inner meaning of Yajna, keeping separately the outer sacrifice as symbolic, then its universal character becomes plain; the fact becomes quite apparent that, that is the truth of the Eternal creative Spirit, the Yajna Dharma, the Law of Sacrifice, by which the Purusha offered the substance of his own being for the world-creation. For what else is the meaning of the Mantras of the Purusha Sukta ? Though the language of the Purusha Sukta is, relatively to other hymns, generally easier and clearer in meaning, still it is not a solitary instance in the Rik Samhita (the Book of ten divisions of more than a thousand hymns, which gives us the idea of creation by the supreme Law (Truth) of Sacrifice. We see it a hundred times in the hymnal text of the Rig Veda: when the Rishi offers to the Gods something of himself, he knows that he is leaving behind the human, the mortal in him to that extent and assumes (receives) the immortal element correspondingly. By accepting his offering the Gods accept the Yajamana himself to that extent and manifest themselves in him. If by the sacrifice the mortal becomes the immortal, the Gods who are first born in creation as cosmic Powers, also take their second birth in man (dvijanmānaḥ). This mutual exchange is the secret of Yajna, by which creation everywhere subsists (lit. is maintained). The secret of Yajna lies in this Law of Interchange, of give - and take, which upholds the mutual relation of spiritual commerce between the individual and the collectivity, the macrocosm and the microcosm, the soul and the Gods or the here and the hereafter, keeps all activity going and sustains all existence. When the Deity is addressed by the Rishis in comradeship, “We invoke thee our friend”, there is commenced, we must note, a direct intimate relation of mutual entry between both. This ancient truth of Yajna, encrusted with the passage of time, got laid low under the doctrines of the ritualists. And the Gita sets out to recover it from this miserable state and make of it a luminuous truth no longer under veil. It proclaims:

“Together with Yajna, the Lord of creatures created creatures and spoke of old, ‘by this shall you bring forth (fruits of offspring), let this be the cow of plenty, the milker of your desires. By this foster the Gods and let the Gods foster you; fostering each other you shall attain to the supreme good,’’ (III. 10–11)

Such being the case, it might be urged; the significance of the Yajna as expounded in the Gita does not really apply to the Vedic sacrifice; such a subtle meaning came to be read into the Yajna in later times with the development (lit. rise) of spiritual and philosophical thought. But this is not to be thought of so. It is true that the Bhagavad Gita, the epitome of the Vedanta, effects a reconciliation of many philosophical systems with Vedanta. And in so doing, it undoubtedly reveals all the deep wisdom, happy discrimination, firm grasp of the truth and straightforward adherence to it, required to reconcile and harmonise so many kinds of philosophy. To say that the character of Yajna as stated in the Gita is not in fact the Vedic meaning of Yajna is tantamount to attributing to the scripture (Gita) falsehood or wrong understand-ing — an utterly unjust and reckless position that no right thinking mind would take up. Though the teaching of the Gita is directed towards a reconciliation (or harmonisation) throughout, yet it is not neutral in matters that are blameworthy; it condemns what deserves to be condemned and supports what is to be supported. It censures the Vedists who are unwise and simply repeat the flowery speech that there is nothing else besides sacrifice, ritual (11. 42). It says that people who believe only in Karma, work, who are not qualified to enter into the mystery of the Veda, men who are ignorant, are not to be disturbed in their ignorance (III. 26). It holds the Mantras in reverence and maintains that the central message of all the Vedas is the attainment of the supreme Lord (XV. 15). Besides, it is not to be supposed that only a text like the Gita aiming at liberation, Moksha, explains the truth of the Yajna in this way. We find that even in later Dharma Shastras devoted to works and rituals, socio-religious conventions, the idea of a secret knowledge embedded in the Vedic rituals is expounded. A passage in Manu Smriti beginning with "Study of the Veda" says: "All these (rites) are included and totally implied in the Vedic Karma Yoga - each in its corresponding ritual” (12. 83–87). That this refers to the character of rituals as symbols of yogic discipline, is clear beyond a shadow of doubt. The text uses the term Karma Yoga (for Vedic rituals) exactly in the manner of the Gita. We need not go here into the question whether the Gita is earlier than the Smriti text or vice versa. What is doubtless clear and unequivocal is this much that both point to the fact that the outer rituals stand as cloaks of the inner discipline — Sadhana.

Is there any doubt that the inner meaning of the Vedic works of sacrifice is brought to light in ancient works, the Brahmanas, Puranas and the Mahabharata ? It is only when the ritualists established for the Brahmanas a supreme place in the Veda and believed them to be the main Veda that the doctrine of works in the form of the Vedic sacrifice as the supreme Dharma laid down in the Veda began to take root. This brought about the thorough screening of the secret of the Vedic sacrifice; the Mantras, in the hands of the unthinking priestcraft, remained solely for purposes of ritual. With the establishment, after great labours, of the ritualistic character of the Mantras and Brahmanas by the Purva Mimamsakas, the Acharyas of later ages — even the comparatively recent ones came to hold that the authority of knowledge was to be found in the Upanishads alone. We have examined and stated this before. Though for purposes of dialectical professions Vedic sacrifice is said to be the sole Vedic creed, fortunately no Mimamsaka contents himself with believing that the supreme purpose of life could be achieved by ritual. So, these exponents of the ritualistic creed were Mimamsakas for dialectical professions, but Vedantins in faith, believers in God. And they reconcile this contradiction resulting from the bisection (of creed) by resort to the doctrine (philosophy) of action without attachment, enunciated in the Gita. Still, the orthodox Mimamsakas will only maintain that there is nothing higher than Dharma, and that Dharma lies in Yajna; the know-ledge of Yajna is obtained from the Veda and from its performance results the attainment of Heaven; the question of God or the Supreme Soul does not arise at all and the Upanishads do but extol the Vedic Rite and are only vidhi-seșa, subsidiary to Brah-manas (Vedic commands).

Then, it is no exaggeration to say that all groups of Pundits look upon with esteem the skill in debate with subtle reasonings of the Mimamsakas. They are ingenious in explaining inconvenient difficult texts for maintaining the position - this is not disputed. That the Vedas are eternal, every sentence and every word and every syllable, is their well-known doctrine. In establishing the eternality of the Veda they maintain that even letters beginning with a are all eternal. If that be so there could be in the Veda no mention of historical happenings and proper names as also narratives of incidents. If it be asked how the uncreated character of the Veda could be maintained in such contexts, the Mimamsakas reply that it can be, since the meaning is grasped through its secondary (figurative) sense. In a passage like "Babara Pravahani (son of Pravahana) desired”, if it be pointed out that this work could not be anterior to the birth of Babara, and hence the Veda is not eternal, Shabaraswami replies that the word Babara is not a proper name at all. He says: "He who makes (something) flow, yaḥ pravāhayati, is prāvāhani; Babara is an onomatopoeic word. Therefore both these words denote an eternal object.” (Shabara Bhashya I.I.31). He comments that the onomatopoeic word has been mistaken to be a proper name. To turn to the ingenuity of the commentator in explaining occurrences: there is a passage in the Taittiriya Samhita which states: Prajapati the Creator drew out his omentum (II.1.1.). The commentary reads: Prajapati must be some eternal object, wind; sky or sun. He drew out his own ome-ntum which is the rains, wind or the rays. He threw it in fire which is lightning or earthly fire. Out of it arose the goat, that is the food, seed or creeper. Obtaining it and using it men get possession of cattle. All these are figurative words (11.1.10). This is an instance of skill in subtle reasoning of the Mimamsaka; this is how when confronted with difficulty in justifying the eternality of the Veda, they resort to the argument of secondary (figurative meaning and cleverly explain an occurrence, historical or fanciful, in such a way as would fit in with their position that the Vedas are eternal — thus they discharge their task. But here is an astonishing fact. By means of this figurative sense, resorting to metaphor and allegory, they establish but the symbolic nature of occurrences. In the thesis of the esoteric meaning of the Vedas also, the secondary sense, based mainly on the derivative significance of the Vedic words, is resorted to for establishing the symbolic meaning. But there is this difference between the two; the former is the gross external symbolic meaning leading to the establishment of ritualism; the later is the inner, subtler, symbolic sense leading to the achievement of occult knowledge. Suffice it to say that after all their enormous labours of cosmic magnitude the Mimamsakas have only brought out the proverbial mouse of the mountain’s labour as the fruit devoid of juice.

We have had to say this much regarding the Purva Mimamsaka doctrine as even scholars of modern education believe in the authority of the Mimamsakas for explaining the Mantras. Not knowing the very basis of the Mimamsaka Doctrine, they not merely themselves believe that there is no esoteric or symbolic meaning in the Veda, but make others also share the view and lead them astray. Therefore this must be borne in mind. If the Veda means pre-eminently the Brahmanas, Brahmanas along with the Mantras, then the Purva Mimamsa which lives, so to say, on the Shrauta Sutras and Dharma Sastras (themselves offshoots of 9 130 Rig-Bhashya Bhumika--Section Two the Brahmanas) is the authority for enquiry into the Vedas. If on the other hand the Veda means, primarily, the Mantra-perceptions, Riks or Yajus, whose glory is reflected in the Brahmanas along with the Aranyakas — treatises dealing with Ritual and Knowledge, then surely the Purva Mimamsa is no authority on the interpretation of the Veda consisting mainly of Mantras. Such being the system of enquiry into the meaning of the Brahmanas, a system far from the spirit of enquiry into matters of spiritual concern, devoid of cultivation for the practical means and realisation of God, remotest from the very thought of the universally accepted supreme object of life — how can it be competent to assume the voice of authority in any examination of the import that is the secret of the Veda?

THE MANTRA

The Riks then are the Mantra-perceptions of the Rishis cast in metrical mould. The object (or meaning) on which the Rishis meditated, the purpose for which they led the bodily life. the goal they fixed (and established) as the aim for the well-being (Beatitude) of their followers and posterity, that object (meaning), that purpose, that aim can be understood from the text of the Rig Vedic hymns. They may be what are called poetical compositions but they are certainly not the kind of literary compositions we are familiar with. Nor is it right to look upon these poets as composers such as are quite common everywhere in all ages and countries, even in our own day. This is no mere tradition. The Riks themselves proclaim that the Hymns are packed with truths perceivable only by the subtle intellect, related to subtler worlds (not visible to the outer eye), the presiding Gods and their subtle laws. It is a mystic tradition that if one acquires competence for entry into the occult path, he could have direct access even while living in the body, to these subtler worlds organised in a hierarchic order and their Gods. These Mantras are renowned as the seeings — mantra-drști, and the Rishi is the seer of the Mantra. The Rishi not merely sees; he also hears. He finds too the right word to express the truth he has perceived. Therefore the Rishi in the Veda is known as the Kavi, the seer of what transcends the senses (understanding). This seer of the beyond is also the hearer of the truth; therefore that the Poet-seers are truth-hearers, kavayaḥ satya-śrutaḥ is famous in the Veda. This seeing and hearing of the Rishis is not of the ordinary kind. The eye and ear of the Rishi are of an uncommon kind and so is the poetry manifested through them. The hymnal poetry is unusual, different from other poetry - even from the most superb specimen full of power, of delectable sense and delightful phrase and aesthetic appeal. It is not permissible, for this reason, to class Vedic hymns with poetry of a literary and aesthetic kind. There is reason for the special excellence of the hymnal poetry which lies in its Mantra character. The power of the Mantra is special. The meaning of the Mantra may not be very high to our ordinary view the language of the Mantra may not be of a very high splendour, the idea suggested may not be very deep and its metrical diction may not be strikingly rhythmic27. Still the power of the Mantra does not suffer. That this faith in the power of the Mantra) has taken deep roots in the Indian peoples, God-believing and orthodox, from the Vedic times to our own days, is a fact that admits of no doubt whatever. This tradition of the Mantras was guarded by later teachers and their followers. Such is the established faith in the greatness of the Mantra-power that some even consider that there is no necessity of enquiring into the meaning of the Mantra since the manifestation of its potency is not dependent on the understanding of its import. It is an ancient belief that the Mantra is an extra-ordinary means of achieving all the ends of life. It is said that the “Veda is an uncommon means of realising what is desired and warding off what is undesirable”. Here the word Veda signifies primarily the Mantra. Why is the greatness of the Mantra described thus ? The Vedic Rishis, though mainly devoted to spiritual discipline, were also well versed in the practice of occult knowledge and secret sciences. They believed that outer results could be produced by inner means and that thought and word could be so used as to bring about realisations of every kind. That is why while most of the Mantras are used for sacrificial purposes, there are many that are used, for the attainment of (other) results not connected with Yajna (lit. outside Yajna). Thus it is that the Mantras are sacred not because of their mere antiquity but of their intrinsic power and also of their being the seeings of the Rishi. Again some hold that the sacredness and power of the Mantras is due to their sound-substance being the body of the Gods. This too is possible. But the real greatness of the Mantra lies, as we learn from the Mantras themselves, in the mode of its coming to expression. There is a Rik of Dirghatamas declaring that the abode of the Mantra is the supreme Ether known as Akshara, unmoving, where dwell all the Gods; and for him who knows this not, the Riks have no use. Here is the Rik: "The Riks abide in the Immutable, supreme Ether where are seated all the Gods; what can he do with the Rik who knows not that? Those who know that are indeed here assembled.” (1.164.39) There is this another Rik in the same hymn: "The voice, vāk: is measured out in four steps; the Brahmanas that are wise know them. Three of them concealed in the profound secrecy cause no movement; the fourth step is what men call the human speech." (1.164.45) The import of this Rik is profound. The Kavi, the seer of the Mantra, delves deep into the inner ocean of the heart, has direct perception of the Home of the Gods, the Fourth Plane and expresses the truths he sees in the words of inspiration that are heard, on the acquisition of the primal Word. Thus there are four stations or steps of the vāk, Speech, that sets out from the supreme station of the Unmoving. Of these, three stations are concealed in the secrecies, secret, not audible to the human ear and the fourth one, in its descent, is the human speech. All the four stages of Speech are known to the Rishi, one who has control of mind, who is consecreated in the secret and inmost parts of his being, not to any other. Thus is it famous that Mantras were not made but were seen by the Kavi, the Seer, the satyaśrut. And because the paramam vyoma, supreme ether, the abode of the Gods and the original source of the Speech of the Riks, is not a creation of any-one, the Veda Mantras manifested out of it are also by courtesy identified with it, said to be eternal. The paramam vyoma has been there before the appearance and after the disappearance of the Rishi, the seer of the Mantra. It does not depend (for its existence) on the seer; on the other hand, the perception of the Mantra is possible because of it. The Mantra-word and its inalienable meaning are there in the sublime spaces of Ether, self-existent but their manifestation depends upon the achievement and competence of the Rishi. That is how we see frequent mention made in the Rik Samhita of the Rishi as the author of the Mantra e.g. “O Seer, by the lauds of the hymn-composers.” (IX. 114.2) “They chanted the Mantras carved out of the heart” (1. 67.2). When such Riks clearly bring out the nature of Mantras as being created, how, it may be asked, can the Veda be said to be eternal, uncreated ? The Rik quoted above refers to the original, basic vāk, word, of the Mantra abiding in the paramam vyoma, when it speaks of it as eternal. The entire Veda came to be understood as eternal on account of its origin in the paramam vyoma. Even Sayana’s commentary on the Rik (VIII. 64.6) is thus intelligible. For he says: “By Vak, is meant speech in the form of Mantra, which is eternal that is to say, not produced.” In this view, as explained by us, there is no contradic-tion (inconsistency) between the eternality of the Veda and the authorship of the Rishi. That is why Patanjali, author of the Mahabhashya, while explaining the Sutra (IV. 3.101) of Panini begins by saying: “The word prokta (uttered) (in the sutra) is pur-poseless” and says in the end: “Then for the Chhandas (Veda) this is to be stated. Chhandamsi, Vedic passages, are not made, eternal are they. If it is said for the sake of Chhandas, it will be proper. .But it was argued that Chhandamsi are not created, they are eternal. (If it is argued thus, the reply is:) Though the meaning is eternal, the order of the letters is not eternal. This then is the mean-ing of the Mantra. The Mantras are not created, they are eternal. Because of that difference, this question arises.” On this Kaiyata’s note: "That difference means difference in the due order of letters”, ’Vac with preposition pra means bringing to light or publishing, or teaching.’ Here Patanjali accepted the eternality of the word and idea contained in the Veda but not of the arrangement and order of syllables, words and sentences. That arrangement of words (to manifest the Mantra) is of the Rishi’s making 28 for the purposes of making the Veda known. Thus that the Vedas are both created and uncreated is compatible. That the Riks are poetry of an extra-ordinary kind wherein lies their Mantra-character, is evidenced by the hymns of Dirghatamas and Virupa above referred to. There are hundreds of such instances in the Rik Samhita which describe the glory of Speech but they are not mentioned here for fear of swelling the subject with details.

Now the outer meaning of the Riks can be understood from Sayana’s commentary. But the secret sense, as stated earlier, is dependent on the meaning of the symbols. Yaska, the author of the Nirukta, also says the meaning of the Mantra is difficult to grasp. According to him the Mantra called ’Brahman’ revealed itself to the Rishis in Tapas, not in any other way. He states: “It (Mantra) Brahman the self-born came to the Rishis who were doing Tapas, therefore they became the Rishis, in that lies the Rishihood of the Rishis." (II. 11) Elsewhere he observes that the purport of the Mantra is difficult to know. "The shore (of Knowledge) of the Mantras has to be reached by Tapas” (XIII.13). It is clear that in the view of Yaska there is no other means except Tapas to understand the meaning of the Veda and that Mantra reveals itself to the Rishi stationed in Tapas. What we have said regarding the manifestation of the Mantras, its eternality and its being a creation — all these are decisively substantiated not only by the Mantras themselves, but justified by Yaska also. The Brihad Devata support-ing Yaska, says: "The Mantra is not perceptible to one who is not a Rishi” (VIII. 129). The treatment in the Brihad Devata of topics like the Rishi’s capacity for seeing, the purpose of the triad, the efficacy of the rituals properly performed, goes without doubt to reinforce the position of the esoteric significance of the Veda. These are the dicta:

"He knows the Gods who knows the Riks. They are to be approached through Yoga with self-control and skill, under-standing, general knowledge and above all tapasyā,” (VII. 130)

“The Gods accept the offering of the sacrificer who knows the Deity of the Mantra but not of him who knows not the Deity." (131)

"The Deity does not accept (lit. long for) the libation offered in ignorance. Therefore the libation is to be offered to the Deity with self-control in the mind." (132)

“He is like a God worthy of praise in heaven even by the Gods, who is pure and studies the Veda with knowledge of the Gods and the Mantra." (133)

It is to be noted that though the sacredness and power of the Vedic Mantra lies in its inner and spiritual meaning of the revealed word, it lends itself — even in the outer sense to uses other than sacrificial. This is the basis of the traditional belief that common objects in life also can be achieved by uncommon means. This is also the basis of works like Rig Vidhāna of Shaunaka that deal with the use of the hymns for the fulfilment of varied objects in life. Yaska refers to this truth when he says: "The Mantras of the Rishis are uneven, high and low, in their ideas." The Brihad Devata also says as much: "Desiring the attainment of objects the Rishis of yore hied towards the deities with the Mantras, so say the great seers themselves in the Veda” (VIII. 137). If thus there are also Mantras which aim at the achievement of worldly objects, it may be asked, how could the Veda be described as the highly sacred store of spiritual disciplines and secrets ? There is no inconsistency whatever. We have made it clear heretofore that the inner meaning alone is the supreme truth of the Vedas and that the external, gross sense is of use for purposes of sacrifice or fulfilment of objects in life. Looked at on the surface there is a manifest unevenness in the ideas of the Rishis. Yet on scrutiny of the inner meaning, it will become clear that the swearing, curse, censure, praise and the rest are related to the history of spiritual discipline in the inner life). It is no wonder that to those who look only at the outer garb or who follow the western scholars the Rishis present a picture of simple idiocy. We do not say that all the seers lived at the same time, led the same identical inner life and perceived the Mantras. But this is the truth we maintain: the same symbolic sense of the words, the sacrifice - both inner and outer, — the cosmology of the worlds, the truth of the Gods, the supreme object in life — all these formed one common knowledge which the Rishis drew upon for worship-ping (communing with) the Gods and to achieve the end by means needed for and suited to the particular state of inner development (individually). This should be clear to all diligent students of the symbolic and esoteric meaning of the Veda.

THE SECRET OF THE VEDA INTERNAL EVIDENCE

Now begins our enquiry regarding the secret speech (of the Rishi) in which is concealed the meaning of the Mantra. That secret is so veiled by a symbol or image that to a superficial mind the truth (or idea) that is symbolised does not arouse the suspicion of its very presence, while the symbolic words in their outer significance appear quite in their place. The symbols refer to the sacrifice, objects of the world or the play of natural forces in the Cosmos. Or to an ignorant mind, deities like Agni mentioned in the Mantras may appear to be some superhuman persons perceptible to the eye in the guise of Fire, Wind, Sun, Storm, Rain, etc. Let us first see if the Veda speaks at all of a secret speech. For if we are certain that there is mention of secret speech in the Veda itself then we can turn to examine the system of symbolism and see how the secret was guarded.

If there be authority to hold that there is a secret speech systematised and used in the inner transaction of the Rishis, engaged in Tapasya, with the Gods and for the expression of the same, it should be in the Mantras themselves, it should be looked for in the words of the Rishis. When we consider words of the Rig Veda which are used to denote whatever is hidden or secret and enquire what these words point at, we find that to signify an asura or a god, a place or a world, as being concealed, invisible, the word ninya, synonymous with what is concealed, inwardly kept, secret and invisible, is used. At times, the name, the voice of appeal invoking the presence of a God is spoken of as a secret, concealed or inwardly kept, guarded in the cave, in the heart, hrt. Knowledge that is to be acquired and words of praise are referred to by the word ninya, secret. Ninyam is one of the half-a-dozen words given by Yaska as synonymous to what is concealed. We have to note how according to contexts this word is used to denote what is guarded, inwardly kept, concealed, invisible, secret. We shall examine the use of this word and proceed to show that the Vedic Rishis laid some secret in the speech used by them and guarded it from the outward minds and the unregenerate. Fortunately for us, Sayana who usually explains words arbitrarily with or without elaboration according to the context, is consistent in giving the word ninyam the same meaning "lost to appearance” or “gone out of sight”. We shall first show how though he gives the word ninyam its correct meaning and though the purport of the passage in question is not needed for his purpose, he makes out quite a different sense of it just as he likes. In a place he has commented upon the word ninyam differently, without giving any authority therefor or utility thereof. If authority is given then it has been wrongly interpreted. For instance, he says, ninyam is nirņāmadheyam, nameless. The following is a Rik from Hiranyastupa’s hymn to Indra: “With his body passed over by the ceaseless and flowing waters and lost to sight, Vritra, the enemy of Indra passed into long Darkness, tamas.’ (I. 32.10) Its gross meaning following Sayana’s word-explanations is as follows: the body of Vritra without name (i.e. without any mark) thrown amidst waters that are ceaselessly (not stationary) moving and ever aflow (without resting place), is submerged under the coursing waters. Thus thrown into the waters, Vritra, the enemy of Indra fell down and lay there for the long sleep which is death. Here due to his being submerged in water and being thus concealed, his name is not known by anybody. Hence, Sayana explains, ninyam is nameless. Let us see what is the drift. Indra struck down Vritra and in falling down his body of Tamas (darkness) sunk into long sleep. It ceased to be visible. Fallen deep below and with the cease-less flowing of waters above, his body was lost to sight. Does it detract in any way from the legendary or naturalistic interpretation if Sayana were to say ’disappeared’? When the clouds are struck by the weapon of Indra, the waters held captive within, are released. The body of Vritra covering them falls dead, goes deep below while the waters flow over it; thus the body is really concealed or lost to sight. Why then does Sayana interpret it as ’nameless’? Why this roundabout interpretation: ’His name is not known by any-body by reason of his concealment, especially when a consistent meaning is obtained by a straight approach? The Nighantu does not mention ’namelessness as a sense of the term ninyam. Yaska cited this Rik, there he says ninyam is nirņāmam. The meaning of this word nirņāmam is given by Durgacharya the commentator as ’the place where one bends low’ — they move in such a place, says Durga. The low place where one has to go bending low is ninyam; this meaning fits in with the word nirņāmam ending in anusvāra. If it were to mean a name, nāmadheya, then it should have been a neuter ending in nakāra, nirņāma, and not ending in anusvāra, nirņāmam. Thus Sayana quotes from Yaska under a misapprehension. Following his explanation, if it is asked how did Vritra become nameless, Sayana replies: Vritra was so thoroughly dead that his very name was forgotten totally. Instances of such complicated explanations, unnecessary even for his purpose, are to be found in hundreds in his commentary.

Ninyam is without doubt antarhitam, concealed, not visible, secret. Everywhere Sayana accepts the meaning given in the Nighantu and usually quotes from Yaska. The word antarhita is synonymous with what is concealed, secret etc. Commenting on Kutsa’s Hymn to Agni, “Who among you knows this secret one? The child by the law of his own being brought forth the Mothers" (1.95.4). Sayana explains the word ninyam correctly as secret, concealed. The Rishi asks: Who among you knows the secret Agni, that child who generated the Mothers by the truths of the Law of his own being (for that is what is meant by the term svadhā). Thus ninyam is used not merely in the case of Vritra Asura’s disappearance but also to denote Agni hidden in waters or the forest. At times, ninyam is used to refer to a place or world that is hidden, secret. Kashyapa addresses God Soma: "All the Gods, O flowing Soma, the thrice-eleven are lodged in thy secret abode.” (IX. 92.4). This is the secret place where, states the latter half of the Rik, thirty-three Gods cleanse him (Soma) by the laws of their being. The soul, jiva, is also des-cribed as secret. Thus, says Dirghatamas: "I know not if I am this: a mystery, ninyam, am I, and bound, I move about with the mind.” (I. 164.37). In the hyms of the Vasishthas, the intuitions of the heart or direct perceptions are mentioned as the means by which one walks towards the Secret, ninyam, which spreads in thousand branches. "They alone by the heart’s intuitions walk towards the Secret that spreads in thousand branches”. (VII. 33.9). In his hymns to the Maruts, Vasishtha, seeing with wonder the forms, vehicles etc. of the Maruts, exclaims that only a seer knows these secrets, niņyāni : “These secrets the sage knows — what the dappled cow, Prishni, in her mighty udder bore” (VII. 56.4). Again, in addressing Mitra and Varuna, he says, "Our secret words of praise are known to you”. “The secret words ninyani cannot be concealed from your knowledge” (VII. 61.5). "Even secret words of praise" says Sayana explaining ninyāni. These instances should suffice to show that in the Veda, the term ninyam is used in the sense of what is not apparent or visible, anything mysterious, knowingly con-cealed or secret. When we look into the Rik of Vasishtha just quoted, its purport is clear: the secret words of praise, the Mantras, are known to the Gods since nothing can be concealed from their sight; and this secret is veiled for guarding it from the generality of men who are outward-minded. Sri Aurobindo has shown how Vamadeva’s phrase ninyāvacāmsi establishes beyond doubt the secret character of the language of the Veda. Here is the said Rik of Vamadeva: “Oh Agni, Disposer, to thee who knowest these secret words, fructuous, I have uttered, I have sung, enlightened, with thoughts and prayers" (IV. 3.16). We shall give the meaning here following Sayana’s commentary. vedhah disposer, agne O Agni, viduşe kavaye, to thee who knowest, nithāni, fructuous or well intonated (inspired), ninyā secret, nivacanāni, to be uttered fully, kāvyāni, words, kavibhiḥ, by seers that are wise kytāni are made. etā visvā vacāmsi all these words, matibhiḥ ukthaiḥ, along with enlightened prayers and thoughts, viprah, the wise ones, avocam have sung, tāni sevasva accept them. Another Rik of Vamadeva may be here instanced. Here the fact that Indra’s drinking of Soma is accomplished in secret is cited by an illustrative instance: Indra drinks the Soma in secret, without others knowing it just as the Rishi dis-covers in secret the truths or things to be known. “Like the seer discovering truths in secret (ninyam), Indra drinks the Soma.....” (IV. 16.3).

From this enquiry into the word ninyam, signifying secret, with relevant illustrations, it is quite clear beyond a shadow of doubt that the Rishis laid some secret in the language of the Veda. It must not be forgotten that this secret may pertain at times to a God, at times to a hostile power, elsewhere to knowledge, truth or some object. There are other words, in the Rik Samhita, which are also used to convey the sense of secret. We shall give two or three illustrations which would also show that there is a secret cast in the Mantras of the Veda. They are the words, guhā, guhya, apicya and in some cases praticya. We know that the Riks bear different appellations signifying their particular quality and form of activity, and depending upon their own use, like uktha, sastra, stoma, gir, vāk vāņi, brahman, mantra, etc. But there are Mantras where the word nāma is used to denote words of praise couched in secret speech. Nāma undoubtedly means name. But the name of a deity in the Veda is not merely a means to distinguish it from other deities and indicate the particular one. On the other hand, the Name carries with it the necessary power to convey the special character of the deity-personality in question or to invoke its presence. It is called nāma because it is the means by which one bows down (namanāya sādhanam) to the Gods. namana-sādhanam, even according to Sayana, is nāma. nāma therefore, denotes the word of praise in the form of Mantra which is a means for invoking the Gods, and for expressing one’s entire submission in person. "We would dispose the speech of submission”: in such places also what is to be noted is humility before the Deity in every way and freedom from egoism on the part of the Rishi, the devotee aspiring to acquire the state of identity with the Deity.

Thus we see from the Riks themselves how nāma, the means of bowing, is used in the sense of prayer, words of praise. There also the nāma is described at times as lodged in the cave, concealed, secret. At times it is used in association with the qualifying word apicya, which also like ninyam means secret, covered. There are not a few Riks in which the secret name or secret word of praise is denoted by apicyam nama. Gritsamada hymns: “They increase the charming face and the secret name (nama apicyam) of him, the Child of Waters" (II. 35.11). The purport of the Rik is that the pleasing face of the Child of Waters and his secret name i.e. words of his praise which are concealed, are increasing. But in the gross sense, whatever be the meaning of nāma, its being qualified by apicya is a fact that leaves no room for doubt. Nābhāka, the seer, praises Varuna: "He who is the supporter of the worlds, who knows the names of the Rays, mysterious, (apicya nāmāni) hidden in the cave, he is the seer poet, he nourishes the poet-wisdoms as Heaven does the mani-fold form” (VIII. 41.5). The following terms are to be noted: apicyā nāmāni, guhyā kaviḥ kavyā; so also its purport. Varuna who sustains all the worlds and knows the secret Names (or words of praise) concealed in the cave of the lights of Knowledge indicated by the pen or rays, the seat of the Gods, he is the seer-poet nourishing the poet-wisdoms in the manner of the Heaven nourishing the multifold form. This in sum is the meaning. In the same hymn there is the Rik, "He is the concealed, mysterious (apicyā) ocean, mounts the heaven swift....." (VIII. 41.8). Thus it is stated that Varuna is the inwardly placed secret Ocean. Here Bhargava Kavi, the Rishi says that the Son upholds the secret name of the Father and the Mother. “The flame of Truth pours forth. ...the Son upholds the secret name (apicyam näma) of the Parents” (IX. 75.2). Com-menting on Vasistha’s Rik, “Thy name, I ever chant” (VII. 22.5), Sayana says: "Your name, words of praise, I ever utter". Again explaining the Rik, "The wide Name of thee the Immortal Jatavedas (knower of all births) we mortals, illumined know" (VIII. 11.5), Sayana interprets bhūri nāma manāmahe (we know the wide name) to mean "We know the wide stotra, words of praise".

There are numerous Riks in the Samhita where nāma is a word of appeal to the particular personality of the Godhead and also used to denoce the Mantra, the word of adoration. In both the senses it is spoken of as secret, concealed or mysterious. Occasionally we find the word pratici used in the sense of veiled, secret, hidden. But in the Veda, as in current usage, pratici is frequently used to mean ’confronting’, ’turned inwards’. This word in the sense of ’turned inwards’ is used even today, as in the case pratyag-ātmā, the inner self. pratyan-mukha and parān-mukha, are common terms meaning ’face turned inward and outward’. What has been shown is enough to convince inquiring minds with a spirit of refined deliberation, with proof from the Samhita, that there is a secret in the Vedic speech.

Let us examine this secret. What is the nature of the secret and by what veil is it covered and kept concealed ? The veil lies in the symbolic meaning, stated earlier. We said the inner meaning is the true sense which is known and made use of by those on the occult and spiritual Path; the outer, symbolic and gross is useful to the ritualists. Still, it is not a restrictive rule that in all places the outer meaning is obtained in the symbolic form. There are many Riks where the double sense — outer and inner is conveyed without resort to any symbolism. The chief device for this is the well-known use of certain words, in the Veda, in their double or multiple sense. Here are some instances to the point: the word dhiḥ commonly means ’thought both in the Veda and in usage. But in the Veda it is used also in the sense of ’work’. Hence in the context of the inner meaning, it is always understood to mean ‘thought’ mode of knowledge; in the outer, dhiyaḥ is taken as ’works’, not always as an invariable rule. The word ketu means a play of inner knowledge that illumines, in the esoteric context; but in the outer sense, though it can mean illumination, following the root significance, still ketu is ray in as much as the rays give light in a most palpable manner and makes known (perceptible) the objective world.

Here also there is no rule as such, the term does not have only one meaning for the ritualistic commentators. śravas is one of the terms deriving from the root śru meaning ’to hear’e.g. Śtuti, audition, śrotra, ear, Śravana hearing etc. In the system of esoteric sense it means an inner audience or one of divine character, or an inspired hearing in the wake of divine grace or strength of knowledge following a strenuous discipline. In the grosser sense it is taken to mean fame and legitimately; for fame is heard everywhere. Sayana explains it, at times, as food; but here also there is no definite rule, kratu, in the inner sense always stands for wisdom in action or will with wisdom; but there is no such restraint in the outer meaning. Sayana interprets it at times as wisdom, at others as sacrificial ritual and elsewhere as something else as he pleases. ștam is a most important word in grasping the esoteric sense of the Riks, it is the first door of entry into the inner significance of the Veda. In the mystic interpretation, ṛtam is consistently Truth, manifested Truth, or Right, the Law of Truth; it has no other meaning. But in the external sense ṛtam is at times water, at times sacrifice, something else else-where; indeed in Sayana’s Bhashya there is no knowing what it may not mean to his unbridled ardour for interpreting everything ritual-wise. Since there are many other terms which make meaning in the outer and the inner sense without being symbolic, there is no need to dwell upon them here. They will come by in course of explaining the Riks. But this much must be noted. The strength of the esoteric interpretation lies in this: by giving the same meaning consistently to words like ṛtam, the Riks are found to yield coherent meaning in the inner sense. But in the gross interpretation -- as we shall show later in the commentary — there is not merely poverty of sense but even an incoherence in meaning.

Then, the Symbols: we have shown how words like ṛtam, even though they are not symbolic, lead to the inner meaning. There are other terms like go, cow, aśva, horse, ghṛta, clarified butter etc. which are symbols. Each of these is the perceptible outer image or symbol of a truth, an idea or an object of the inner world. Here are examples. To take up first the celebrated term go, cow. Though go, in the Veda as in ordinary usage, means variously ray, speech, the particular quadruped etc., in the esoteric sense it is used to denote the inner illumination signified by rays. The quadruped cow is its outer symbol. Though the two meanings can be arrived at from the double-meaning of the term go, still it is to be taken as a symbol in as much as cow and its synonyms dhenu etc. and the products of cow, milk, clarified butter and others are all frequently mentioned in the Riks in the symbolic sense. To ignore the symbolic character in following the sense in such places lands one into false and un-enviable positions. The seers, the Rishis, would appear to be intoxicated and incoherent babblers. aśva, horse, is the symbol of strength, life-force; even today we moderns speak of horse-power in quanti-tative measurement of power. It must be borne in mind that this signification of power by the symbol horse is of ancient origin. āpaḥ, waters, symbolise the sap of life, the powers of life and the energies of Cosmic principles active in creation. The rivers, nadyaḥ, sindhavaḥ, stand for creative and nourishing forces, the ocean, samudra, for the infinite substance out of which emerges the Sun of Truth. The Hill, parvata, with its plateaus and its summit is the image of the manifested existence (of the earth and other worlds of creation with its several tiers, one above the other like so many plateaus. The cave, guhā, is the symbol of the secret spot, of the heart which is the basic centre of all beings. When we look, with sufficient deliberation, it would be clear how naturally these external forms of objects are used by the Vedic Seer-poets to convey the meanings intended by them. It is not to be wondered at that the being of these original poets of unartificial minds was impressed by the infinite substance and form of the ocean etc. So also the immensity, grandeur or the exuberance of infinite substance of the ocean, the ceaseless flowing and spreading of the rivers, the life-sustaining principle of water and similar particularities of quality and function of other objects around — moving and unmoving — corresponded to and imaged29 the personal realisation of the Rishis who delving into the subtle and profound depths were occupied with exploring the workings of the Godhead in the inner nature. Physical objects like the river, ocean, cow, horse and the like came to be spontaneous and natural images, to the Vedic poet, for giving expression to the truths, the subtle and uncommon ideas that greeted him in the course of his journey to the supreme God-head. It is thus that the expression given by the Rishis to secret truths, in the words of the Mantra, came to be of practical value to the Rishi himself as well as to his followers or to those that trod the same Path. This is the supreme use of the symbols that they convey the intended sense with a naturalness and leave the impress (of the truths that are contained in them on the onlooker without the aid of elaboration. Even in later ages of the Intellect and the classical literature — for that matter even today — a full expression of ideas is not generally possible without the aid of images. The poets con-vey their ideas by means of the figure, by resort to metaphor following the superimposition of qualities and functions of one over the other. In the Veda, however, due to the grasp of symbols there is no necessity to attribute the nature of the imposing object to that which is imposed upon. The very sight of the image of hill evokes in the being spontaneously a sense of immobility, of the base of all flowing (waters of) life, of the many rising plateaus of the hill of existence and its towering height. And then it is to be noted that unlike in our age of the Reason, feeling or experience was not separate from understanding in the age of the Veda; there feeling and understanding, heart and mind, went together in happy communion. The truths that are sought after by the intellect are there in concrete form capable of being seized by direct feeling, experience; they are not grasped only in their abstractness. Hence there the concrete truth clothed in its own form is always palpable to experience as well as knowable by the cognising intellect. In fact every truth has a form, it is substantial whether it be concrete to our experience or abstract to our understanding. What we call concrete is only its surface exterior (superficial presentation) and its abstractness is nothing but a distant shadow of the mind. With those ancient seers the movements of the heart and the mind converged on the truth in a happy communion and hence there was no effective duality of feeling and experience on the one hand and thought on the other. To put it in brief, the symbols used by the Rishis were concrete at once to their experience and to their understanding.

Now the symbols are not of one kind. The use of symbols of the mountain and the like, found in the physical universe, has been already described. They are all of one class. And mostly it is this order of symbols, described by us earlier, that is used in the Riks and an understanding of which makes it easy to follow the line of esoteric interpretation. There are other kinds of images which do not belong to the external world. They are images from a different order of existence seen with the eye of knowledge by the Rishis; these images take the place of language and are used to express the truths attained in the course of their walk in the mystic path. Subtle truths of the planes of the larger consciousness overtopping this gross world of our waking state manifest themselves through these images seen by the Rishi. Therefore such images speak for them-selves. Such mysteries come to be directly perceived by the Rishi. To this group of symbols belong some of the colours, vehicles, forms and movements of particular Gods, mentioned in the Mantras.

It is certain that in the early human societies of the bygone ages, the religious rites and worship were profusely rich in symbols. Even today certain Tantric symbols like the point, triangle, sex-angle, circle and others, known as yantras - diagrams with mystical meaning, are worshipped. Again there are the trident, conch, disc, eagle, bull etc. famous in the Puranas and the Agamas, which are used and well known even now; these symbols are at times explained in the Puranas. The symbolic meaning of the Tantric figures is suggested here and there covertly or overtly. It must be noted that there is a distinction between symbols of this kind and the symbols in the Veda, mentioned earlier, by reason of their different basis and purpose. We do not go into the subject further for reasons of space and also want of relevance to our purpose. Suffice it to say that for an enquiry into the meaning of the Vedas a grasp of the symbolism employed is proper and legitimately called for.