Talk:Veda and Vedanta:Are They Opposed to One Another
By Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swami
The rituals mentioned in the ‘‘karmakāṇḍa’’ of the ‘‘Veda’’‑s are sought to be negated in the ‘‘jñānakāṇḍa’’ which is also part of the same scripture. While the ‘‘karmakāṇḍa’’ enjoins upon you the worship of various deities and lays down rules for the same, the ‘‘jñānakāṇḍa’’ constituted by the ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s ridicules the worshipper of deities as a dim‑witted person no better than a beast.
This seems strange, the latter part of the ‘‘Veda’’‑s contradicting the former part. The first part deals throughout with ‘‘karma’’, while the second or concluding part is all about ‘‘jñāna’’. Owing to this difference, people have gone so far as to divide our scripture into two sections: the ‘‘Veda’’‑s (that is, the first part) to mean the ‘‘karmakāṇḍa’’ and the ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s (‘‘Vedānta’’) to mean the ‘‘jñānakāṇḍa’’.
‘‘Vedānta’’ it is that the Lord teaches us in the ‘‘Gītā’’ and in it he lashes out against the ‘‘karmakāṇḍa’’. It is generally believed that the ‘‘Buddha’’ and ‘‘Mahāvīra’’ were the first to attack the ‘‘Veda’’‑s. It is not so. ‘‘Śrī Kṛṣṇa Paramātman’’ himself spoke against them long before these two religious leaders. At one place in the ‘‘Gītā’’ he says to ‘‘Arjuna’’:
‘‘Trayaguṇya‑viṣayā vedāḥ; nistrayaguṇyo bhavārjuna…’’ ‘‘Kāmātmānaḥ svargaparā janmakarma‑phalapradām Kriyā‑viśeṣa‑bahulāṃ bhoga‑aiśvarya‑gatim prati’’
Full of desire, these practitioners of Vedic rituals long for paradise and keep thinking of pleasures and material prosperity; they are born again and again and their minds are never fixed in ‘‘samādhi’’. In another passage ‘‘Kṛṣṇa’’ declares: ‘‘Na vedaiḥ sampravacanena yajñair māṃ labhyas…’’ “Not by the ‘‘Veda’’‑s am I to be realised, nor by sacrifices nor by much study …”
Does not such talk contradict all that has been spoken so far about the ‘‘Veda’’‑s, that they are the source of all our ‘‘dharma’’?
With some thinking we will realise that there is in fact no contradiction. Would it be possible for us, in our present condition, to go beyond the three ‘‘guṇa’’‑s even to the slightest extent and realise the true state of the Self spoken of in the ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s? The purpose of the Vedic rituals is to take us, by degrees, to this state.
So long as we believe that the world is real we worship the deities so as to be vouchsafed happiness. Thinking the deities to be real, we help them and in return we are helped by them. Living happily on this earth we long to go to the world of the celestials and enjoy the pleasures of paradise. So far so good. But if we stopped at this stage would it not mean losing sight of our supreme objective? Is not this objective, this goal, our becoming one with the ‘‘Paramātman’’? Would it not be foolish to ignore this great ideal of ours and still cling to mundane happiness?
In our present state of immaturity it is not possible to think of the world being unreal. Recognising this, the ‘‘Veda’’‑s provide us the rituals to be performed for happiness in this world. Because of our inadequacies we are unable to devote ourselves to a formless ‘‘Paramātman’’ from whom we are not different. So the ‘‘Veda’’‑s have devised a system in which a number of deities are worshipped. But, in course of time, as we perform the rituals and worship the deities, we must make efforts to advance to the state of wisdom and enlightenment in which the world will be seen to be unreal and the rites will become unnecessary. Instead of worshipping many deities, we must reach the state in which we will recognise that we have no existence other than that of our being dissolved in the ‘‘Paramātman’’. We must perform Vedic sacraments with the knowledge that they prepare us to go to this state by making our mind pure and one‑pointed.
If we perform rituals with the sole idea of worldly happiness and carry on trade with the celestials by conducting sacrifices (offering them oblations and receiving benefits from them in return), we will never come face to face with the Truth. Even if we go to the world of the celestials, we will not be blessed with Self‑realisation. Our residence in paradise is commensurate with the merit we earn here and is not permanent; sooner or later we will have to return to this world and be in the womb of a mother. The ritual worship and other sacraments of the ’’Veda’’‑s are, to some extent, an adjustment to our present immature state of mind, but their real purpose is to take us forward gradually from this very immaturity and illumine us within. It would be wrong to refuse to go beyond the stage of ritual worship.
If, to begin with, it is not right to refuse all at once to perform Vedic rites, it is equally not right, later, to refuse to give them up. Nowadays people are averse to ritual from the start. “What?” they exclaim. “Who wants to perform sacrifices? Why should we chant the ’’Veda’’‑s? Let us go directly to the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s!” Some of them can speak eloquently about the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s from a mere intellectual grasp, yet none has the inward experience of the truths they propound, and we do not see them emerging as men of detachment with true awareness of the Self. The reason is that they have not prepared themselves for this higher perception through the performance of rituals. If this is wrong in one sense, refusal to take the path of ’’jñāna’’ from that of ’’karma’’ is equally unjustifiable.
If one has to qualify for the B.A. degree one must begin at the beginning progress from the first standard all the way to the degree course. One cannot naturally join the B.A. class without qualifying for it. At the same time, is it not absurd to remain a failure forever in the first standard itself?
In olden days there were many people of the latter sort (those who refused the path of knowledge and wished to remain wedded to ’’karma’’). Now the former type predominates those who want ’’jñāna’’ without being prepared for it through ’’karma’’. During the time of ’’Śrī Kṛṣṇa’’ also the majority clung to rituals. His criticism is directed against them against those who perform Vedic sacraments without understanding their purpose and who fail to go beyond them. Unfortunately, this is mistaken for criticism of the ’’Veda’’‑s themselves. The Lord could never have attacked the ’’Veda’’‑s per se; after all, it was to save them that he descended to earth again and again.
Keeping with his times, ’’Kṛṣṇa Paramātman’’ spoke against people who confined themselves to the narrow path of ’’karma’’. If he were to descend again, he would turn against those who plunge into the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s while spurning Vedic rites indeed, he might be more severe on them than he was on those obsessed with ’’karma’’.
Graduating to the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s without preparation through Vedic rites is a greater offence than failing to advance from ’’karma’’ to ’’jñāna’’. One must pass the lower classes before college; the man who insists on B.A. admission without qualification is beyond advice, whereas the one stuck in first standard still learns something. The ’’Veda’’‑s and ’’Vedānta’’ are not at variance. The ’’karmakāṇḍa’’ prepares us for ’’Vedānta’’ (the ’’jñānakāṇḍa’’). The former deals with this world, many deities and the three ’’guṇa’’‑s; but it is the first step to transcend the ’’guṇa’’‑s and sever worldly bonds. If we perform the rites laid down in the ’’karmakāṇḍa’’ with their true purpose in mind, we are naturally qualifying for the ’’jñānakāṇḍa’’.
Some questions arise. The sound of the ’’Veda’’‑s and the sacrifices benefit not only the chanter and performer but all creatures. If such a man one who learns the ’’Veda’’‑s and conducts sacrifices renounces the world as unreal and becomes a ’’jñānin’’, what of the world’s welfare? Even if you claim the world is unreal, it is real in the sense that it causes much suffering. The ’’jñānin’’ performs no rites to rid the world of its troubles; who will then labour for its good?
The answer: the ’’jñānin’’ is an exalted state of awareness, and while in it he need perform no sacrifices for the world’s good. His very life is a sacrifice, a ’’yajña’’; through him the world receives the Lord’s blessings even if he regards it as unreal or mere ’’līlā’’ of the Supreme. Why do people flock to a ’’jñānin’’, fall at his feet even if he keeps aloof? Because they receive his grace. Whether or not he wills it, the Lord’s grace flows through him. In his presence people feel tranquil and often even worldly desires are satisfied. A ’’jñānin’’ who realises there is no deity apart from himself can bestow blessings greater than the gods themselves. So it is wrong to think that, since he performs no sacrifices, he does nothing for the world’s good.
Followers of other faiths mistake Hinduism. They separate the ’’Vedāntic’’ system from the Vedic sacraments and say: “Hindus care only for individual salvation, ignoring world welfare. Meditation, yoga, ’’samādhi’’ are selfish. Unlike Christians or Muslims they preach neither love nor social consciousness.”
One properly versed in our religion knows it is wrong to split Hinduism into Vedic and Vedāntic compartments. As a ’’sannyāsin’’ in his final stage a man becomes a ’’Vedāntin’’ and ’’jñānin’’ and gains liberation. But he leaves behind an earlier stage in which he worked for the world’s welfare by chanting the ’’Veda’’‑s and performing rituals. Indeed, it is because of that work that he became mentally pure and qualified for ’’Vedānta’’ and his own release.
Even after achieving perfection in ’’Vedānta’’ and becoming a ’’jñānin’’, he keeps blessing the world without rites by the mere power of his presence. I am not herein weighing which goal is greater individual liberation or collective welfare. Let that be set aside. The question now is: if a follower of a religion never attains inward realisation of Supreme Truth, what does it matter whether that religion exists?
All rituals and worship aim to awaken man to Reality. ’’Varṇāśrama’’ with its myriad distinctions is only a preliminary arrangement toward a final oneness where all differences vanish. If we cling to ’’karma’’ and its ’’varṇāśrama’’ differences without moving beyond, we commit a wrong. ’’Kṛṣṇa Paramātman’’ criticises those who claim that only the ’’karmakāṇḍa’’ matters and that the ’’jñānakāṇḍa’’ is useless. He appears to attack the ’’Veda’’‑s, but in truth he reproves the ’’Veda‑vādarataḥ’’ those beguiled by the flowery portions without grasping their inner meaning and who never strive for experiential ’’jñāna’’.
To start with, we must perform the Vedic rites but with the awareness that they are steps leading to the higher state where we find bliss in the Self, a state with neither rites nor duties. Likewise, at first the deities must be worshipped but with the conviction that such worship ultimately reveals the oneness of worshipper and worshipped. Thus, to begin with, all differences in functions must be recognised and life lived according to them. Different divisions of people have different duties, and the customs and rites assigned to each are such as to help them in the proper discharge of those duties. But in the very process of maintaining such differences there must be the conviction within that ultimately there are no differences, that all are one.
If the ‘‘Veda’’‑s are to be learned and chanted and if the Vedic rituals are to be practised and the ‘‘Veda’’‑s must be learned and chanted even as the Vedic rituals must be practised it is because in this way we shall be led to that supreme experience of the Reality in which there will be no need for these very ‘‘Veda’’‑s. First the flowers, and from them the fruit. Though the flower looks beautiful, the fruit emerges only when it wilts or falls to earth. A tree does not fruit before it flowers. In the same way, to plunge into ‘‘Vedānta’’ without first going through a life of Vedic discipline is neither wise nor in keeping with reality…
There is a passage in the ‘‘Bṛhadāraṇyaka‑upaniṣad’’ similar to that in the ‘‘Gītā’’: ‘‘Yaḥ ātmavit saṃvijānīte; tasya vedā na vedāḥ, devā na devāḥ, brāhmaṇā na brāhmaṇāḥ …’’
As we have already seen, the ’’Gītā’’ (which is a ’’Smṛti’’) says that sacraments performed in a spirit of dedication to ’’Īśvara’’ are a means of obtaining ’’jñāna’’. The same idea is found expressed in a ’’Śruti’’ text, the ’’Īśāvāsya‑upaniṣad’’. The first of the ten major ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s, it commences with the statement: ‘‘’’Śataṃ samāḥ … karmaṇi’’’’ “Live a hundred years performing Vedic rites. But do so in a spirit of dedication to ’’Īśvara’’. Then it will not keep you bound.” So it would be wrong to believe that the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s teach inaction.
’’Karma’’, however, is not the goal of the ’’Veda’’‑s. You must go beyond the stage of performing Vedic rituals even if they be for such a noble purpose as that of creating welfare in the world, cleansing your consciousness and propitiating the deities. You must rise higher to the plane where you will realise that nothing other than the ’’Paramātman’’ exists, that the phenomenal world is unreal, that there are no entities called deities (’’devatā’’‑s) with an independent existence of their own and that there is no “I”. When you come to this state there will be no need for the ’’Veda’’‑s either for you: this is stated in the ’’Veda’’‑s themselves.
The ’’Veda’’‑s are the laws laid down by ’’Parameśvara’’. All people, all his subjects, must obey them. But there is no need for the man who is always steeped inwardly as well as outwardly in the Reality that is the ’’Paramātman’’ to refer to this law with respect to all his actions. That is why it is said that for such men the ’’Veda’’‑s cease to be ’’Veda’’‑s. (We too do not respect the ’’Veda’’‑s as the law. For us also the ’’Veda’’‑s are not ’’Veda’’‑s. But we do not have even a whiff of ’’jñāna’’!).
If you do not realise that the ’’karmakāṇḍa’’ is a means to take you to the ’’parā‑vidyā’’ that is constituted by the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s, then the ’’Veda’’‑s (that is, their ’’karmakāṇḍa’’) are an ’’aparā‑vidyā’’ like any other subject such as history or geography learned at school. It is for this reason that the ’’Muṇḍaka‑upaniṣad’’ includes the ’’Veda’’‑s in the category of ’’aparā‑vidyā’’. This Upaniṣad describes a person who performs Vedic rites for ephemeral enjoyments and mundane benefits as a mere beast (’’paśu’’).
To the ’’jñānin’’ who is united with the ’’Paramātman’’ the deities are not entities outside himself for they too have emanated from the same ’’Paramātman’’. Indeed, these deities inhere in him since he is dissolved in the ’’Paramātman’’ to become the ’’Paramātman’’. If he does not yet have such inward experience, when he worships a deity as an entity separate from himself, he must do so regarding it as integral to the ’’Ātman’’. Even if it be necessary to carry out all our outward functions according to a system based on differences, we must always be conscious of the truth that in the end we will be united with that fundamental Reality in which all these differences will cease to exist. The ’’Bṛhadāraṇyaka‑upaniṣad’’ declares: ‘‘’’Yaḥ devān pṛthak paśyati, sa paśur eva’’’’ “He who worships the deities as entities entirely separate from him does not know the truth; for the gods he is like a ’’paśu’’ (beast).” (1 | 4 | 10).
The word ’’paśu’’ is very meaningful here. In a superficial sense it means one who does not possess the sixth sense of a human and lives on an animal level. Let me tell you the inner meaning. Why do we keep a cow? Because it gives us milk; that is why we feed it grass, oil‑cake, cottonseed and so on. We offer oblations in the fire to please the gods; in return they grant us blessings in the form of rain, crops, etc. These celestials, as we have seen, are superior to us but they do not know the bliss that is boundless, indeed they are unaware of even a fraction of the bliss that a ’’jñānin’’ who is but a mortal experiences.
The ’’Taittirīya‑upaniṣad’’ (2 | 8 | 1) and the ’’Bṛhadāraṇyaka‑upaniṣad’’ (4 | 3 | 33) give an arithmetical ladder of ’’ānanda’’ (bliss) experienced by humans, ancestors, and the various ’’deva’’‑s. Each level of bliss is said to be a hundred times greater than the previous. Among the celestials, different degrees of bliss known to ’’Indra’’, ’’Bṛhaspati’’ and ’’Prajāpati’’ are specified. The highest bliss is experienced by the ’’jñānin’’ ’’brahmānanda’’, the bliss of knowing the ’’Brahman’’. Thus the ’’deva’’‑s are in fact deficient in bliss, and they do not strive to reach that supreme state. They therefore look forward to the gains that come from us through the sacrifices we perform. For this reason they do not like us humans to become ’’jñānin’’‑s. The ’’Bṛhadāraṇyaka’’ explicitly says: “’’Na devā ātmavidam manyante priyam’’” “The celestials do not like humans who realise the Self” (1 | 4 | 10). Why? Because when a man realises himself he no longer performs sacrifices to please them.
Take the case of our domestic servant: we might secretly prefer that he not pass an examination that would allow him a better job, lest we lose cheap help. Similarly, the ’’deva’’‑s do not like us to become ’’jñānin’’‑s, for then we stop their worship.
If a ’’jñānin’’ is not dear to the ’’deva’’‑s, it follows that one who is ’’ajñānin’’ is dear to them. Hence, in grammar an idiot (’’mūrkha’’) is nicknamed ’’devānām‑priyaḥ’’ (“dear to the gods”). This term comes from the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s themselves. In his ’’Brahmasūtra‑bhāṣya’’ ’’Śaṅkara‑bhagavatpāda’’ addresses a dualist: ‘‘’’Idam tāvad devānām‑apriyaḥ praṣṭavyaḥ.’’’’ “This is what you, O idiot, should be asked.”
In the Aśokan edicts the emperor styles himself ’’Devānām‑priya’’. But long before Aśoka, ’’Pāṇini’’ records the word as meaning an ignoramus. So it is a mistake to think the Vaidika tradition later slandered Aśoka; the term already carried that sense.
One who follows the Vedic tradition, studies the ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s, and becomes a ’’jñānin’’ no longer performs sacrifices and thus is no longer “profitable” to the ’’deva’’‑s. Buddhists too refrain from Vedic rites; hence the celestials do not “like” them. Why then is Aśoka a champion of Buddhism called ’’Devānām‑priya’’? Because he still lacked Vedāntic realisation; he remained “dear” to the gods in the sense of being ’’ajñānin’’. (Possibly a scribe, unaware of the technical meaning, thought the epithet flattering.)
When a man hitherto dear to the ’’deva’’‑s turns to ’’jñāna‑mārga’’ and stops sacrifices, they place obstacles in his way. The Purāṇa‑s tell of ’’apsaras’’ sent to disturb sages in austerity.
Until a man becomes a ’’jñānin’’ he keeps performing rites for the ’’deva’’‑s and must allot their ’’havirbhāga’’ (share of oblations). A sacrificer is thus like a milch‑cow to the celestials. When the cow runs dry, its owner loses interest. So too the gods cease to protect one who abandons rites. Man is “cow‑like” to the ‘’deva’’‑s both because he is ignorant and because, once “dry,” he is discarded.
True wisdom lies in realising that the gods are not separate from us. ’’Vedānta’’ shows how to transcend works and even god‑worship, reaching the non‑dual state where no differences remain. Let me add a note on the esteem for ’’Vedānta’’ in our land.
Though the ’’Veda’’‑s are infinite, the seers collected only a fraction. Even these were divided because of Kali Yuga limitations into 1 180 ’’śākhā’’‑s, each with ’’Saṃhitā’’, ’’Brāhmaṇa’’, ’’Āraṇyaka’’ and ’’Upaniṣad’’. Many have since vanished; the rest are endangered. Yet certain ’’Upaniṣad’’‑s survive even where their parent ’’Saṃhitā’’ or ’’Brāhmaṇa’’ is lost e.g., ’’Kauṣītaki’’ (of the ’’Śāṅkhāyana’’ recension), ’’Bāṣkala‑mantropaniṣad’’ (of the ’’Bāṣkala’’‑śākhā), ’’Kaṭha‑upaniṣad’’ (though its ’’Āraṇyaka’’ is gone), and ’’Praśna’’, ’’Muṇḍaka’’, ’’Māṇḍūkya’’ (of the ’’Atharva‑veda’’). All this shows how the ’’Upaniṣad’’ the pathway to ’’jñāna’’ have been preserved with special care.
All this points to the fact that, while parts of many Vedic recensions that pertain to ‘‘karma’’ or works have become extinct or have been forgotten, many of the ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s which are the means of ‘‘jñāna’’ have been preserved. Great care has been taken to protect that part of our heritage which shows us the way to wisdom and light.
The ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s are believed to have been large in number. Two hundred years ago, an ascetic belonging to ‘‘Kāñcipuram’’ wrote a commentary on 108 ‘‘Upaniṣad’’‑s. He earned the name of ‘‘Upaniṣad‑brahmendra’’. His monastic institution is still to be seen in ‘‘Kāñci’’.