Sunday, 24 November 2013

Vedas are indigenous to India


"And what your European pundits say about the Aryans swooping down from some foreign land, snatching away the lands of the aborigines and settling in India by exterminating them, is all pure nonsense, foolish talk! In what Veda, in what Sukta do you find that the Aryans came into India from a foreign country? Where do you get the idea that they slaughtered the wild aborigines? What do you gain by talking such nonsense? Strange that our Indian scholars, too, say amen to them; and all these monstrous lies are being taught to our boys!... Whenever the Europeans find an opportunity, they exterminate the aborigines and settle down with ease and comfort on their lands; and therefore they think the Aryans must have done the same!... But where is your proof? Guess work? Then keep your fanciful ideas to yourself. I strongly protested against these ideas at the Paris Congress. I have been talking with the Indian and European savants on the subject, and hope to raise many objections to this theory in detail, when time permits. And this I say to you–to our pundits–also, ‘You are learned men, hunt up your old books and scriptures, please, and draw your own conclusions.’"

- Swami Vivekananda

Professor Nicholas Kazanas statements are correct even though his understanding of the Vedic texts are not up to the mark with the more esoteric genuine interpretations of the traditional Indian Scholars. He is absolutely right when he said that I got interested in the Upanishads but later I found out that what was there in the Upanishads existed in the Vedas too. What most people fail to understand is that Upanishads are not the end of the Vedas and the start of a new period where they somehow throw away the rituals and gods in the Vedas and turn towards a more rational philosophical approach to the divine instead Upanishads are the ending message of the Vedas. Both the Vedas(rituals and gods) and the Upanishads should be taken together in a full context only then you will really understand the true doctrine of our ancients.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

III-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. ‘How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), ‘As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas – three hundred and three, and three thousand and three’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Thirty-three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘six’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Three’. ‘Very well’, said the other, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘Two’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One and a half’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya ?’ ‘One’. ‘Very well’, said Sakalya, ‘which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three ?’

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, ‘these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.’ ‘Which are those thirty-three ?’ ‘The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas – these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three’.

III-ix-3: ‘Which are the Vasus /’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars – these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.’

III-ix-4: ‘Which are the Rudras ?’ ‘The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one’s relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.’

III-ix-5: ‘Which are the Adityas ?’ ‘The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.’

III-ix-6: ‘Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati ?’ ‘The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati’. ‘Which is the cloud ?’ ‘Thunder (strength).’ ‘Which is the sacrifice ?’ ‘Animals’.

III-ix-7: ‘Which are the six (gods) ?’ ‘Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven – these are the six. Because all those (gods) are (comprised in) these six.’

III-ix-8: ‘Which are the three gods ?’ ‘These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.’ ‘Which are the two gods ?’ ‘Matter and the vital force.’ ‘Which are the one and a half ?’ ‘This (air) that blows.’

III-ix-9: ‘Regarding this some say, ‘Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half ?’ ‘ It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory’. ‘Which is the one god ?’ ‘The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).’

These gods should not be confused with the forces of nature instead they are anthropomorphic beings who exist in the Pleroma and this world is just a shadow image of the real things, the thing in itself that exists in the Pleroma or the Agnisoma Mandala. There are two ways to percieve this universe one is Bahirmukh and the other one is Antharmukh. Bahirmukh is the normal perception, this is the world as it appears to us, the world of phenomena, the world of science and Antharmukh is the world as it really exists independent of us, the thing in itself, the world of noumena. Let's keep science and religion separate, science is one thing and religion is another do not get confused with both of them.

The first thing that is taught in the Upanishads is this to understand the difference between Bahirmukh and Anthurmukh and only after you have attained the ability to perceive the world by being Antharmukh you will have the authority to study the next stage of philosophical scriptures. Only such persons are true philosophers because they know the things as it exists and not how it appears to us and when we ask what is this world made of they will not quarrel among themselves as the world is made of this or that, they will firmly assert that the world is made of 'That' which is beyond reason and sight but accessible only through experiential knowledge.

No comments :

Post a Comment