Thoughts on BORI lectures on Rigveda

My thoughts on:

INTRODUCTION TO VEDAS

A Course by Bhadarkar Oriental Research Institute

September 14, 2020

I just had the opportunity of completing the final lecture on Rigveda by Dr. Ganesh Thite. He provides a broad introduction, scope, and a very scholarly overview of the history of the study of the Vedas. Dr. Thite spends considerable time discussing various translations and commentaries done by Europeans (orientalists) and their views. He also mentions Sayana’s bhasya on Rigveda very briefly. As a student of Sanskrit (and of Telugu mother tongue who is fluent in Hindi and Marathi), I particularly found his explanation of the differences in classical Sanskrit and vedic Sanskrit very interesting. I know now why the bahuvachanam of Deva can be DevAh or DevAsah. 

Dr. Thite explains the overall structure of the 10 mandalas of the Rigveda. He provides a brief overview of mandalas 2-8 which are Rishi-based,  expounds a bit on the Deity-based 9th mandala where are the hymns on Soma occur, and suggests a probable reason for the equal lengths of the "miscellaneous" mandalas 1 and 10. He also talks about the very intriguing Ashtaka as a concept of organization as a tool for teaching.  He touches upon who is a Rishi, a Deity, the rigvedic meters, and the intricacies of viniyoga (application of mantra in ritual). By the end of the last lecture, he introduces the Rigveda with a broad brush.

Early on in his lectures, Dr. Thite makes a very clear distinction between “Scholarly” vs “Proponents” view points and underlines that these lectures are from a scholarly view point only. Scholarly largely implies an “etic” perspective as against the practitioner’s “emic” perspective. In that sense if anyone is interested in learning the essence of the Vedas from the stand point of the practitioners, this may not be for them. Although the announcement mentions "how Vedas have played an important role in the socio-religious traditions of India and how they have influenced the ways of thinking of India people" I felt that the lectures did not cover much in terms of  how our culture sees them and has kept them alive for several millennia through an oral tradition.  I must mention  Dr. Maitreyee Deshpande's anecdotal comment during the Q&A that whenever there is a discrepancy in the written version, they seek clarification from the oral tradition which is generally considered more authentic. While the subject may be too vast to cover in a few hours, my own mind was left wondering why must the term "Scholarly" exclude the "Proponents"? Is it not the classic Orientlists' fallacy?

Dr. Thite does mention “emic” scholars such as Aurobindo & Dayanand Saraswati but does not discuss them. I would have loved see a dialogue between the two positions. In our quest to know more about our own traditions, I, in my very humble view, feel that such a dialogue by scholars would enlighten common people like me. In his translation, Hymns of the Mystic Fire, Aurobindo asks:

"Is this all legend and moonshine, or a groundless and even nonsensical tradition? Or is it the fact that there is only a scanty element of higher ideas in some later hymns which started this 4 Hymns to the Mystic Fire theory? Did the writers of the Upanishads foist upon the Riks a meaning which was not there but read into it by their imagination or a fanciful interpretation? Modern European scholarship insists on having it so. And it has persuaded the mind of modern India."

When Dr. Thite was explaining why Sayana's Bhasya was not given importance by orientalists, I could not help think of Aurobindo's comment on this very issue almost 75 years ago:

"The European scholars took up the ritualistic tradition, but for the rest they dropped Sayana overboard and went on to make their own etymological explanation of the words, or build up their own conjectural meanings of the Vedic verses and give a new presentation often arbitrary and imaginative. What they sought for in the Veda was the early history of India, its society, institutions, customs, a civilisation-picture of the times. They invented the theory based on the difference of languages of an Aryan invasion from the north, an invasion of a Dravidian India of which the Indians themselves had no memory or tradition and of which there is no record in their epic or classical literature. The Vedic religion was in this account only a worship of Nature Gods full of solar myths and consecrated by sacrifices and a sacrificial liturgy primitive enough in its ideas and contents, and it is these barbaric prayers that are the much vaunted, haloed and apotheosized Veda"

I am merely a student of this ocean of Vedic knowledge. However, the principles and framework in which we see our own existence in relation to the cosmos, the deep insights into the nature of divine, and the traditions that can make us experience this beautiful symphony of creation that our Rishis captured in the Vedic literature must primarily be seen from within the tradition. As Sonal Mansinghji once said, we are perhaps the only surviving tradition that eats, drinks, wears, prays, dances, sings, constructs, and lives its philosophy.  If we trace each thread of life that we lead/experience today, it is likely to lead us back to the Vedas. If we are to truly rediscover ourselves, our gaze must focus both from within and without.

I would request BORI to consider this humble suggestion, and in the future, invite scholars from both sides to discuss/debate.