Introduction
श्रुतिस्मृतिशिरोरत्ननीराजितपदाम्बुजम् ।
यशोदोत्सङ्गललितं वन्दे श्रीनन्दनन्दनम् ।
śrutismṛtiśiroratnanīrājitapadāmbujam ।
yaśodotsaṅgalalitaṃ vande śrīnandanandanam ।।
नमामि श्रीमदाचार्यान् प्रभून् श्रीविठ्ठलेश्वरान् ।
यद्दृशौ करुणापूर्णे मादृशां सर्वसिद्धिदे ।।
namāmi śrīmadācāryān prabhūn śrīviṭhṭhaleśvarān ।
yaddṛśau karuṇāpūrṇe mādṛśāṃ sarvasiddhide ।।
This article aims to deal with the major misconception created mostly by western diasporas and those who were influenced by them on the concept of Bhāratīya scriptures. At the outset, it is helpful to outline the structure of the discussion. Bhāratīya knowledge tradition has a unique method to discuss any topic in a systematic way, called adhikaraṇaṃ. This method can generally be found in sūtra. Mainly, there are two well known sutras called brahmasūtra and pūrvamīmāṃsāsūtra. These sūtras discuss some doubts found in Vedas. They are further divided into adhikaraṇaṃ to make a differentiation between the arguments. In the same way, it can be used to discuss any topic critically. A relevant shloka to that effect is:
विषयोविशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तदोत्तरम्।
संगतिश्चेति पञ्चाङ्गं शास्त्रे अधिकरणं स्मृतम्॥
viṣayoviśayaścaiva pūrvapakṣastadottaram ।
saṃgatiśceti pañcāṅgaṃ śāstre adhikaraṇaṃ smṛtam ।।
There are a total five limbs on the basis of which our subject matter will be discussed. 1) viṣaya:- viṣaya means subject matter. There should be a subject matter on the basis of which our topic of discussion is based. 2) viśaya:- viśaya means doubt. If there is a topic of discussion then doubt should always be there, without a doubt nothing can be discussed productively. 3) pūrvapakṣa:- pūrvapakṣa stands for a counter argument. Whenever there is a doubt, there should ideally always be a counter argument. 4) uttarapakṣa:- uttarapakṣa means a favoring argument. If someone is giving a counter argument then it should always be answered. For that we have uttarapakṣa. 5) saṃgati:- saṃgati means correlation. It means a correlation between whatever arguments and proofs are given; they must have a correlation. This method is used in the following text to discuss the topic.
1. Viṣaya
The subject matter to this topic is to establish a true format of our Bhāratīya scriptures, undeluded by western influence. Scriptures of Sanatan Dharma are mainly divided into five categories. These are śruti, smṛti, purāṇa, itihāsa, and āgama.
● Śruti:
Śruti means vedas. Basically, this word has been derived from the root verb śru śravaṇe. It means ‘to listen’. Śruti is something which is heard. Bhāratīya tradition has never had a written succession of studying; rather it was verbally spoken by the guru and remembered by the disciple. That succession is known as a śrauta paramparā. Many are harboring this misconception that Vedas are written by someone or spoken by god. Bhāratīya tradition has a crystal clear idea about Vedas. Vedas are the existential sound of this universe, neither spoken by anyone nor written by anyone. This is the reason why Vedas are the primordial scripture of Sanatan Dharma. Currently, Vedas are found in four parts but this was not the case earlier. They used to be in a unified format which was divided by Lord Vyāsa. It has been said in viṣṇupurāṇa like this,
वेदमेकं चतुष्पादं चतुर्धा व्यभजत्प्रभुः ।।२।।
vedamekaṃ catuṣpādaṃ caturdhā vyabhajatprabhuḥ ।।2।।[1]
It means that Brahman incarnated in the form of Lord Vyāsa and divided that unified Veda in four parts. These four parts are ṛgveda, yajurveda, sāmaveda, and atharvaveda. Again, they were divided into various branches to make it easy for everyone to remember them.
● Smṛti:
In the second hierarchy of scriptures, smṛti is counted. smṛti word derives from smṛ cintāyām. It means ‘to remember’. Keeping Vedas in mind whatever was written by ṛṣis is called smṛti. Many smṛtis can be found like manu smṛti, parāśara smṛti, yājñavalkya smṛti etc.
● Purāṇa:
The third one is purāṇa. Purāṇa means purābhavaṃ purāṇam. It says that whatever happened in the past is purāṇa, to be more precise, the simplest explanation given on the aphoristic Vedas with the help of historical references is purāṇa. Purāṇa has a different method of explanation than Vedas. They try to put their ideas in the form of past events where those doctrines are connected to the history to make them more concretely established. There are 18 purāṇas written by Lord Vyāsa. Their names are:
अष्टादश पुराणानि पुराणज्ञाः प्रचक्षते । ब्राह्मं पाद्मं वैष्णवञ्च शैवं भागवतं तथा ।
तथान्यन्नारदीयञ्च मार्कण्डेयञ्च सप्तमम् । आग्नेयमष्टमञ्चैव भविष्यं नवमं स्मृतम् ।
दशमं ब्रह्मवैवर्त्तं लैङ्गमेकादशं स्मृतम् । वाराहं द्वादशञ्चैव स्कान्दञ्चैव त्रयोदशम् ।
चतुर्दशं वामनञ्च कौर्मं पञ्चदशं स्मृतम् । मात्स्यञ्च गारुडञ्चैव ब्रह्माण्डञ्च ततः परम् ।
aṣṭādaśa purāṇāni purāṇajñāḥ pracakṣate ।
brāhmaṃ pādmaṃ vaiṣṇavañca śaivaṃ bhāgavataṃ tathā ।
tathānyannāradīyañca mārkaṇḍeyañca saptamam ।
āgneyamaṣṭamañcaiva bhaviṣyaṃ navamaṃ smṛtam ।
daśamaṃ brahmavaivarttaṃ laiṅgamekādaśaṃ smṛtam ।
vārāhaṃ dvādaśañcaiva skāndañcaiva trayodaśam ।
caturdaśaṃ vāmanañca kaurmaṃ pañcadaśaṃ smṛtam ।
mātsyañca gāruḍañcaiva brahmāṇḍañca tataḥ param ।[2]
● Itihāsa:
Fourth category would be itihāsa. Itihāsa means:
धर्मार्थकाममोक्षाणामुपदेशसमन्वितम् । पूर्ववृत्तकथा उक्तमितिहासं प्रचक्षते।।
dharmārthakāmamokṣāṇāmupadeśasamanvitam ।
pūrvavṛttakathā uktamitihāsaṃ pracakṣate।।
Where there is a discourse on dharma, artha, kāma, and mokṣā with the reference of past happenings is called itihāsa. Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata can be counted as itihāsa granthas.
● Āgama:
The last one is āgama. There are many āgamas like śaivāgama, vaiṣṇavāgama, śāktāgama etc. They deal with the deity worship of the respective gods.
This is the format of Sanatan Dharma’s scriptures. Many western scholars questioned this format which will be dealt with in the further section of this paper.
2. Viśaya
For the concerned paper, the doubt emerges from the subject matter is that why would this only be the possible format of Bhāratīya scriptures? Variegated theories can be contemplated on this. Like, it could be thought on the basis of the timeline; it could also be proposed in corollary to the theory of evolution etc.
3. Pūrvapakṣa and Uttarapakṣa
In order to understand the counter questions from western scholars, the very mindset should be understood first. This started when Europeans started colonization. The prime mindset was based on their Christian belief. They think that only Christians are civilized people. It is their responsibility to civilize the whole world. In the name of civilization, they started looting other countries. World knows that they civilized countries by robbery natural resources, violating human rights by slave trade, creating drought like situations (Bengal genocide) etc. Situated in this mindset, they used to believe themselves superior to others. With this biased nature, they destroyed the local tribal culture of Europe and Africa, the whole American and Australian red-Indian race and many more. There was one civilization which cannot be wiped out and that was the Bhāratīya civilization. They had been working on it for many years.
With this background; one can see how Europeans attempted to distort the concept of Bhāratīya scriptures. This attempt was made individually as well as institutionally. The very first attempt was made by a so-called British philologist, William Jones. He had founded an organization named The Asiatic Society in Kolkata on 15 January 1784. Formally, the main motive to open this society was to study Bhāratīya scriptures but behind the doors, it was propaganda to distort the meanings of these scriptures in the name of study.
Another English Orientalist, Charles Wilkins had translated śrīmadbhagavadgītā in 1785 under the title of ‘Bhagvat-geeta’, ‘Dialogues of Krishna and Arjun’. In the preface of it, he says that:
‘It seems as if the principal design of these dialogues was to unite all the prevailing modes of worship of those days; and, by setting up the doctrine of the unity of the Godhead, in opposition to idolatrous sacrifices, and the worship of images, to undermine the tenets inculcated by the Vedas; for although the author dared not make a direct attack, either upon the prevailing prejudices of the people, or the divine authority of those ancient books; yet, by offering eternal happiness to such as worship Brahm, the Almighty, whilst he declares the reward of such as follow other Gods shall be but a temporary enjoyment of an inferior heaven, for a period measured by the extent of their virtues, his design was to bring about the downfall of Polytheism; or, at least, to induce men to believe God present in every image before which they bent, and the object of all their ceremonies and sacrifices’.[3]
It should be understood from the above-mentioned text that he is trying to create a difference between Vedas and śrīmadbhagavadgītā. Sanatana Dharma does not have an idea of independent scriptures. All the scriptures like śruti, smṛti, purāṇa, itihāsa, and āgama as a whole is considered a mean to the knowledge. Even if we try to interpret śruti independently, it is not accepted without its coordination with the rest of the scriptures. It has a unified version of scriptures as a whole. That is why there has always been clarity in terms of worship in Bhāratīya scriptures.
In 1835, Macaulay wrote a letter to the British parliament. There he mentioned that:
“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, -a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.
I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit College at Bonares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do enough and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages.”[4]
His dream became true by implementing a new education policy in Bhārata. Many such British minded people were produced by it. One such example was Raja Ram Mohan Roy. He tried to undermine the existing practices in the name of modernism. He says that:
‘The Superstitious Practices Which Deform the Hindu Religion Have Nothing to Do With the Pure Spirit of Its Dictates.’[5]
Additionally, Max Mueller quotes this for him:
A man who in his youth could write a book Against the Idolatry of all Religions, and who afterwards expressed in so many exact words his ‘belief in the divine authority of Christ,’ was not likely to retain anything of the sacred literature of his own religion, unless he had perceived in it the same divine authority which he recognized in the teaching of Christ. He rejected the Puranas, he would not have been swayed in his convictions by the authority of the Laws of Manu, or even by the sacredness of the Vedas. He was above all that. But he discovered in the Upanishads and in the so-called Vedanta something different from all the rest, something that ought not to be thrown away, something that, if rightly understood, might supply the right native soil in which alone the seeds of true religion, aye, of true Christianity, might spring up again and prosper in India, as they had once sprung up and prospered from the philosophies of Origen or Synesius. European scholars have often wondered that Rammohun Roy, in his defence of the Veda, should have put aside the Samhitas and the Brahmanas, and laid his finger on the Upanishads only, as the true kernel of the whole Veda.[6]
From this, it is evident that he either did not fully understand the Bhāratīya scriptural system or chose not to present it fairly.
Following Max Mueller’s Aryan invasion theory and dating of Vedas, many Bhāratīya scholars have also tried to propose the dates of Vedas and Upanishads. There can be a long list of such people like Rajendralal Mitra, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, James Prinsep, Romila Thapar etc. who could not understand the true concept of Bhāratīya scriptures and made some illogical statements.
If all of these opinions are compiled together then they can be divided into three major counter questions.
1) Pūrvapakṣa:
Most commonly, their focus is on Upanishads and śrīmadbhagavadgītā, as it was mentioned earlier. Keeping this in mind, the question would be everything else other than Upanishads and śrīmadbhagavadgītā is something which is not rational in their opinion. Others like saṃhitā, brāhmaṇa, smṛti, purāṇa, itihāsa, āgama etc. are not important.
- Uttarapakṣa:-
As said earlier that all these things are in the corollary and considered as one scripture. Even if it is believed that only Upanishads and śrīmadbhagavadgītā are rational, it clearly means that whatever will be there is considered the truth. Upanishads say that:
स यथाऽऽर्द्रैधाग्नेरभ्याहितात्पृथग्धूमा विनिश्चरन्त्येव वा अरेऽस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्वसितमेतद्यदृग्वेदो यजुर्वेदः सामवेदोऽथर्वाङ्गिरस इतिहासः पुराणं विद्या उपनिषदः श्लोकाः सूत्राण्यनुव्याख्यानानि व्याख्यानन्यस्यैवैतानि सर्वाणि निश्वसितानि॥
sa yathā”rdraidhāgnerabhyāhitātpṛthagdhūmā viniścarantyeva vā are’sya mahato bhūtasya niśvasitametadyadṛgvedo yajurvedaḥ sāmavedo’tharvāṅgirasa itihāsaḥ purāṇaṃ vidyā upaniṣadaḥ ślokāḥ sūtrāṇyanuvyākhyānāni vyākhyānanyasyaivaitāni sarvāṇi niśvasitāni॥[7]
(A fire whose fuel is wet emits smoke different from such a widespread fire, O Maitreya! Similarly, ṛgveda, yajurveda, sāmaveda, atharvāṅgirasa (atharvaveda), itihāsa, purāṇa, vidyā, upaniṣada, śloka, sūtra, anuvyākhyāna, and vyākhyāna are the breath of this great being. )
इतिहासपुराणं पञ्चमं
itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ[8]
(Itihāsa and purāṇa are the fifth Veda.)
If these Upanishads state this about itihāsa and purāṇa, orientalists’ argument will be baseless as it contradicts their own statement about Upanishads.
In śrīmadbhagavadgītā, Bhagavan says that,
वेदैश्च सर्वैरहमेव वेद्यो वेदान्तकृद्वेदविदेव चाहम् ॥ १५ . १५ ॥
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham ॥[9]
(By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.)
If Lord Krishna says in śrīmadbhagavadgītā that by Vedas I can be known, then question arises for those people as to how would they justify this if śrīmadbhagavadgītā goes against your statement?
Additionally for manusmṛti, Vedas say that:
मानवी ऋचौ धाय्ये कुर्याद् यद् वै किं च मनुरवदत् तद् भेषजम्।
mānavī ṛcau dhāyye kuryād yad vai kiṃ ca manuravadat tad bheṣajam।[10]
(He should insert the verses of Manu’s; whatever Manu said is medicine.)
This statement slams the idea of those who oppose manu smṛti.
2) Pūrvapakṣa:
Another argument could be about the dating of Bhāratīya scriptures and their evolution. Many claim that Aryan people were born in Central Asia. Later on, the very same people attacked Indus Valley Civilization. Their argument was that these people were dwellers. They recited the Vedas subconsciously. After destroying the Indus Valley Civilization, they settled and started contemplating on metaphorical questions. That is how they came up with the new idea of Upanishads. Furthermore, they developed sūtras as an advancement. This is how they developed their knowledge systems.
- Uttarapakṣa:
The prime reason for dating was to colonize Bhārata. In Bhārata, we have an oral tradition of knowledge transmission so none can truly come to the conclusion about their genesis. It can thus be boldly stated that they are eternal in nature as they are considered to be the very existential sound of Brahman. This is the reason why the question of dating lacks logic. This question comes because of the inherent biases of those people who have never seen any knowledge being transmitted orally and eternal in nature since the Old Testament, New Testament and Quran were given to them in the form of a book at a certain point of time. It does not necessarily mean that everyone has the same tradition. There can be exceptions too.
If the Aryan invasion was a true phenomenon then how can there be many counterparts to stand against it? Recently, archeologists have found a similar civilization in Tamilnadu as the Indus Valley. The time of their destruction is also the same. If they were attracted by the so-called Aryans then how can a massive army travel from current day Pakistan and Gujarat to Tamilnadu by conquering them? If they had trains and planes to travel then it could have been possible but this was not the case as these things were ‘gifted’ by Britishers to Bhārata. So this Aryan Invasion Theory seems little more than a pastime created by these thinkers for debate in their leisure hours.
4. Saṃgati
Saṃgati is a relation between whatever is being justified with their respective references and logical arguments. It has already been given in the paper.
Conclusion
There is a very famous shloka from yājñavalkya smṛti which describes the format of Bhāratīya scriptures. It is:
पुराणन्यायमीमांसाधर्मशास्त्राङ्गमिश्रिताः।
वेदाः स्थानानि विद्यानां धर्मस्य च चतुर्दशः।।1.3।।
purāṇanyāyamīmāṃsādharmaśāstrāṅgamiśritāḥ।
vedāḥ sthānāni vidyānāṃ dharmasya ca caturdaśaḥ।।[11]
From the larger perspective,Bhāratīya scriptures are divided in fourteen parts.
- ṛgveda
- yajurveda
- sāmaveda
- atharvaveda
- dharmaśāstra (smṛti)
- purāṇa and itihāsa
- nyāya (logic system)
- mīmāṃsā (hermeneutics)
- jyotiṣa (astrology)
- vyākaraṇa (grammar)
- kalpa (the process of ritual describing scripture)
- nirukta (etymology)
- chanda (Vedic meter)
- śikṣā (Phonetics)
From macro perspective, they are divided in five parts whereas broadly they can stand in fourteen parts. There is also a possibility see them from micro level but it does not seem necessary here.
[1] vedavyāsa, viṣṇumahāpurāṇam, Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2003, 178
[2] vedavyāsa, viṣṇumahāpurāṇam, Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2003, 183-184
[3] Charles Wilkins, ‘Bhagvat-geeta’, ‘Dialogues of Krishna and Arjun’, London, 1785, 24
[4] Macaulay’s Minute on Education, February 2, 1835
[5] Ram Mohan Roy, Translation of Several Principal Book, Passages, and Text of the Vedas and of Some Controversial works on Brahmunical Theology, London: Parbury, Allen & Company, 1823, 4
[6] Max Muller, Upanishads: The holy Spirit of Vedas, Vijay Goel, Delhi, 2018, 13-14
[7] apauruṣeya, bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2079, 555
[8] apauruṣeya, chāndogyopaniṣad, gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2079, 672
[9] bhagavāna vyāsa, śrīmadbhagavadgītā , gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2075, 233
[10] apauruṣeya, taittirīya saṃhitā, Vaidika Samashodhana Mandala, Pune, 1981, 141
[11] maharṣi yājñavalkya, yājñavalkya smṛti, Brapmavadin Press, Georgetown, Madras, 1912, 6
References
vedavyāsa, viṣṇumahāpurāṇam, Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2003
vedavyāsa, viṣṇumahāpurāṇam, Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2003
Charles Wilkins, ‘Bhagvat-geeta’, ‘Dialogues of Krishna and Arjun’, London, 1785
Macaulay’s Minute on Education, February 2, 1835
Ram Mohan Roy, Translation of Several Principal Book, Passages, and Text of the Vedas and of Some Controversial works on Brahmunical Theology, London: Parbury, Allen & Company, 1823
Max Muller, Upanishads: The holy Spirit of Vedas, Vijay Goel, Delhi, 2018
apauruṣeya, bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad, gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2079
apauruṣeya, chāndogyopaniṣad, gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2079
bhagavāna vyāsa, śrīmadbhagavadgītā , gītāpresa, gorakhapura, vi. saṃvata 2075
apauruṣeya, taittirīya saṃhitā, Vaidika Samashodhana Mandala, Pune, 1981
maharṣi yājñavalkya, yājñavalkya smṛti, Brapmavadin Press, Georgetown, Madras, 1912
Feature Image credit: istockphoto.com
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
