For some decades now we have seen diminished interest in study of Vedic literature. In contrast there is also increased interest in Vedic learning percolating down through various interpretations by neo-yogic and so called philosophical gurus.
The study of Veda through Sanskrit (or texts transliterated) is seen as mere religious rituals. The logic given is that we should look at only the gyaan or knowledge and leave out the rituals. There is another very opposite tendency which has been there for some centuries now. This tendency is to learn Veda / Vedangas and then leave the world and go to forest. However, these tendencies are based on various false assumptions originating from half knowledge or no knowledge of Vedic literature. While people with lot of knowledge (like B G Tilak) have followed rituals too, proponents of "Sanyasa" have done some great work for Society (like Adi Shankeracharya).
With whatever little knowledge I could gather I feel the following -
1. For people who think Vedic literature is full of funny rituals -
If we want to eat fruits we have two options, one nurture a garden and grow trees. Another option is just buy fruit from the market. The fruits from market may not be as fresh or may even be spoilt. Extending this analogy to knowledge (specially the spiritual kind of knowledge), most philosophical or spiritual writings, books on yoga etc., have their roots to Veda and other Vedangas. These interpretations may not be correct or even be misleading. Moreover it will never give anyone the first hand spiritual experience.
Veda had three bodies, Samhita, Brahamana and Aranyakas. Samhita dealt with Mantras related to Yajnas, Brahamanas contain manuals of how to perform these Yajnas and Aranyakas are more advance knowledge on metaphysics and philosophy. Upanishadas are then extracts of all these three bodies of Vedas. Making an analogy to tree, if Vedas can be said to be the trunk, Upanishadas are the leaves and Geeta / Brahmasutra are the fruits. The neo spiritual writing may at best be juice of the fruits!
If we merely keep eating fruits and drinking juice, we may not get the right spiritual experience or may even be misled. Further, if we don't grow new trees the knowledge will slowly die down and we might only have distorted learning.
2. For people who think learning Veda requires one to go to Forest leaving everything behind-
If all people who have attained supreme knowledge of Ataman (or Brahma) abandon the world and go and live in forest how will the world survive? However transient this may be, world is needed as only here the man or Atman realizes himself. If the world is not running properly, there will be misery and busy fighting against that misery the man will never be able to focus his energy to higher knowledge. Therefore it is important that Karma / actions are performed even if a person has attained the knowledge. Such person performs the Karma or action for the benefit of the world and not towards his own selfish end.
The study of Veda through Sanskrit (or texts transliterated) is seen as mere religious rituals. The logic given is that we should look at only the gyaan or knowledge and leave out the rituals. There is another very opposite tendency which has been there for some centuries now. This tendency is to learn Veda / Vedangas and then leave the world and go to forest. However, these tendencies are based on various false assumptions originating from half knowledge or no knowledge of Vedic literature. While people with lot of knowledge (like B G Tilak) have followed rituals too, proponents of "Sanyasa" have done some great work for Society (like Adi Shankeracharya).
With whatever little knowledge I could gather I feel the following -
1. For people who think Vedic literature is full of funny rituals -
If we want to eat fruits we have two options, one nurture a garden and grow trees. Another option is just buy fruit from the market. The fruits from market may not be as fresh or may even be spoilt. Extending this analogy to knowledge (specially the spiritual kind of knowledge), most philosophical or spiritual writings, books on yoga etc., have their roots to Veda and other Vedangas. These interpretations may not be correct or even be misleading. Moreover it will never give anyone the first hand spiritual experience.
Veda had three bodies, Samhita, Brahamana and Aranyakas. Samhita dealt with Mantras related to Yajnas, Brahamanas contain manuals of how to perform these Yajnas and Aranyakas are more advance knowledge on metaphysics and philosophy. Upanishadas are then extracts of all these three bodies of Vedas. Making an analogy to tree, if Vedas can be said to be the trunk, Upanishadas are the leaves and Geeta / Brahmasutra are the fruits. The neo spiritual writing may at best be juice of the fruits!
If we merely keep eating fruits and drinking juice, we may not get the right spiritual experience or may even be misled. Further, if we don't grow new trees the knowledge will slowly die down and we might only have distorted learning.
2. For people who think learning Veda requires one to go to Forest leaving everything behind-
If all people who have attained supreme knowledge of Ataman (or Brahma) abandon the world and go and live in forest how will the world survive? However transient this may be, world is needed as only here the man or Atman realizes himself. If the world is not running properly, there will be misery and busy fighting against that misery the man will never be able to focus his energy to higher knowledge. Therefore it is important that Karma / actions are performed even if a person has attained the knowledge. Such person performs the Karma or action for the benefit of the world and not towards his own selfish end.
No comments:
Post a Comment