II.6. The Spiritual Divide in Vedic Scholarship
Part II.6
The
Spiritual Divide in Vedic Scholarship
_____________
������ The Vedas are part
of a great spiritual-religious tradition that includes many great saints,
sages, yogis, rishis, swamis and sadhus from ancient to modern times.
Naturally, those who follow the Vedic tradition will interpret the Vedas very differently than those who
don�t. Vedic texts are mainly concerned with spiritual issues; the relationship
of human beings with the cosmic powers and the higher Self (Paramatman).
Historical, economic and cultural factors are incidental, as much as they would
be in any religious or poetic texts. The greater Vedic concerns are karma,
rebirth, liberation, ritual worship of the Gods and Goddesses,
self-purification, mantra, pranayama and Yoga practices of various types.
������ Most of the terms that came to characterize Indian
civilization and yogic spirituality can be found in the Rigveda itself. These include dharma (natural law), karma
(ritualistic or repeated action), dhyana (meditation), mantra, satyam (truth),
Yoga and even Atman (the Self). Special Vedic terms for higher principles also
exist like ritam (cosmic law) and brihat (the vast). Many spiritual and
psychological terms exist as manas (mind), dhi (intelligence or buddhi), chitta
(heart), kratu (will), daksha (skill), manisha (inspiration) and medha
(wisdom). Such terminology indicates more spiritually to the Vedas than nomads, rituals or primitive
poetry.
������ Most Western Indologists, not having a connection to the Vedic
spiritual tradition or its terminology, cannot appreciate the
spiritual-religious views of the Vedas.
They have a different view of the world, history and progress�that of western
civilization and its values�which colors their perception in another direction.
They do not practice the mantras and meditations of the Vedic tradition so that
they can know these at an intimate level. They are at best detached observers
from the outside, at worst hostile critics with an agenda to denigrate or
eliminate the Vedic tradition that they see as wrong or obsolete according to
their own values. The result is that Western Indologists look at the Rigveda on an outer level only, not as a
sophisticated system devised to develop a higher consciousness that transcends
time and space but as primitive poetry or crude philosophy of unsophisticated
tribes that should has little real value.
������ There are some exceptions to this rule. A few western scholars
do have a background in various yogic paths and the teachings of different Hindu
gurus. They have a deeper view, more sympathetic to the tradition.
Unfortunately, they remain a minority and often keep their views hidden in
order to protect their positions or because there is no real forum to air them.
Not
surprisingly, most current Indologists reject the scholarship of spiritual
Hindus on principle as being irrational, unscientific or politically incorrect.
They give little credence to the Vedic scholarship on a spiritual level like
that of Sri Aurobindo or Swami Dayananda of the Arya Samaj, even when such
figures had a high level of Sanskrit training.
������ Older western Indologists like Max Muller followed a western
view of religion evolving from primitive polytheism to monotheism, which was
applied to India, with Vedic polytheism giving rise to Vedantic monism.
However, this has little to do with the Vedic, Puranic and Tantric view in
which monism and pluralism exist together in harmony, which idea we find from
the Rigveda itself, with the One
manifesting itself through the Many. Similarly, Marxist scholars look at the
Vedic tradition in terms of a caste struggle that is simply a modification of
the class struggle of Marxist theories. The Marxist view of history as moving
towards a classless society and materialistic utopia is also quite foreign to
Vedic thought that is trying to take us beyond our human limitations,
organizing society toward the goal of Moksha or spiritual liberation.
������ Therefore, spiritual and religious Hindus must be careful in
accepting interpretations of the Vedic tradition put forth by those who do not
honor Hindu spirituality. Those who are not spiritual Hindus can perhaps offer
something of value about the outer dimension of Vedic texts through historical
studies or archaeology, but are likely to miss the main thing, the spiritual
dimension. Even when they comment on outer political or historical dimensions
of the Vedic tradition they are prone to misinterpretation, being unable to
perceive the sophistication of Vedic civilization through its spiritual roots.
������ There are many examples of this problem. The Vedic war between
the powers of light and darkness gets turned by modern scholars into a war
between light and dark-skinned people. Vedic rishis like Vasishta and Vamadeva,
regarded as Self-realized yogis, get turned into primitive shamans. The Vedic
view of the universe as a series of oceans gets turned into the imaginings of
nomads in Central Asia who never saw the sea! Soma, which is a symbol for
Ananda or bliss in the highest spiritual sense, gets reduced to some primitive
intoxicant.
The
Example of Ramakrishna in Western Indology
������ There is a very glaring example of the scholarly divide about
the Hindu tradition relative to modern teachers. Paramahansa Ramakrishna is
regarded in India as a God-realized yogi, who mastered all religions and all
Yoga paths, a saint and a bhakta almost without peer. Recently, a western
Indologist, Jeffrey Kripal, came out with a study of Ramakrishna called Kali�s Child. The book tries to expose
Ramakrishna as a repressed homosexual who indulged in child abuse, with all of
his spiritual experiences being little more than neurotic fantasies.
Ramakrishna�s entire practice of the many paths of Yoga and perhaps the entire
tradition itself are reduced to little more than a delusion! In one fell swoop
all the yogic knowledge and experience of Ramakrishna gets dismissed as
fraudulent. The Hindu view of a many levels of consciousness from the human ego
to the Absolute gets reduced to a sexual neurosis and compulsion. Ramakrishna�s
experience of all the seven chakras gets all kept below the belt!
Such a Freudian
interpretation of great personalities is, of course, nothing new or surprising,
since Freud himself, though a Jew, identified Oedipus with Moses and turned one
of the founders of his own religious tradition into a sexual neurotic! It is
almost embarrassing that western scholars have not gotten beyond such sexual
obsessions. This reduction of a person or a subject to a sexual deviation is
another form of negationism and stereotyping. It is a form of intellectual
weakness and character assassination for those who cannot debate the deeper
philosophical and spiritual issues that a figure like Ramakrishna evokes. The
magic of the Goddess Kali, the beauty of temple worship, and the vision of the
Atman are all effaced by a cynical pop psychology. Kundalini and the chakras,
samadhi and Self-realization, which Kripal probably thinks is all neurosis of
one form or another, is all forgotten.
Such sexual
charges are nothing new for westerners that compulsively read sexuality into
the Hindu tradition or any other native, indigenous or pagan groups. Anything
foreign, exotic or beyond ordinary western culture becomes sex, largely because
of the sexually saturated nature of western civilization. Islam similarly,
which is hardly an ascetic religion with its polygamy, also imagined eroticism
in Hindu temples and needed to destroy them accordingly. I recall recently
hearing a western Christian speak of the eroticism of the Bhagavad Gita. That the Gita
is an ascetic text with no eroticism was lost on the person, whose mind was
still working on the Hindu equals pagan equals erotic equation regardless of
the Hindu tradition of yogic detachment and withdrawal from the senses.
Hindu Avoidance of the Historical Debate
������ Some Hindu scholars have ignored the outer dimension of the Vedas and focused on the spiritual
meaning only. Some traditionalists have insisted that there is no historical
dimension to the Vedas at all. They
use the Vedas being eternal and
apaurusheya (impersonal) to reject any historical interpretation of Vedic
texts, though Itihasa-Purana (history) was one of the main traditional methods
of interpreting Vedic mantras. When spiritual or religious Hindus do make a
contribution on the historical side, it is often rejected out of hand because
of their religious background and so they are reluctant to continue in the
debate.
������ In this regard, we should recognize that spiritual and
religious Hindus can add much to the historical study of Vedic and Indic
traditions, whatever background we may have. There are obviously many
Christian, Jewish and Islamic scholars, who are quite staunch or even
conservative in their beliefs, active in the scholarship in their fields. To
reject spiritual and religious Hindus on any issues of history is a religious
prejudice. To quote their spiritual views of higher consciousness (or their
belief in astrology) as proof of their poor scholarship on historical matters
is also inappropriate.
Other Hindus have
ignored the historical debate and emphasize promoting spiritual Hinduism
through Yoga and Vedanta instead. They have found that the western mind is more
open to these spiritual teachings and will accept them, even when holding to
the western view of history or various anti-Hindu stereotypes. These teachers
may not call themselves Hindus and emphasis a universal path uniting all
religions. They consider that in the long term people will change their views
on outer cultural issues, once they have adopted a Hindu-based spiritual way of
life and values. For this reason many Hindu gurus shun social or political
issues, even if they may inwardly sympathize with Hindu causes.
While such an
approach can be helpful, we cannot ignore cultural and historical issues in the
long run. There are ways of dealing with these without abandoning a spiritual
view or without unnecessarily offending seekers in the West. In fact, such
Hindu cultural critiques may appeal to seekers in the West, affording the Yoga
tradition a greater intellectual sophistication and social relevance, and draw
in those who otherwise would not be attracted to it.
Two
Levels of Vedic Scholarship
������ We must recognize two levels of Vedic scholarship. The first
is a spiritual level, which will be honored more by those who practice the
Vedic teachings. The second is an historical level. This is what modern
academia honors�particularly when it follows a standard of political
correctness that it can agree with. We are faced with a contradiction between
these two views, a gulf that is wide, though not entirely irreconcilable.
Individuals
regarded as true Vedic scholars and pandits in India will not be accepted as
true scholars by western academics because they don�t follow the rational and
materialistic methodologies that the West honors. This is why figures like Sri
Aurobindo will not be read relative to ancient India. Similarly, those regarded
as important Vedic scholars by western academia will be not be honored by
spiritual Hindus because they are not inwardly connected to the Vedic
tradition. No Hindu will look up to western academicians since Max Muller as
spiritual gurus in the Vedic tradition! We should remember Upanishadic
injunctions about who can really learn the inner truth of the teachings and the
dangers of giving it to those who are not really qualified. �This Vedantic
teaching should not be given to one who is not peaceful, who is not a son or a
disciple. Who has the highest devotion to God and guru, these spoken truths
become clear to that great soul (Svetasvatara Upanishad VI.21-22).� Clearly no
good western academician would accept these values. Their path is not
discipleship in the tradition but a view from the outside that is often
misinformed.
������ However, it is possible to balance the spiritual and
historical interpretations of the Vedic tradition. Spiritual scholars can
acknowledge the historical dimension and seek to bring clarity to it.
Historical scholars can acknowledge the spiritual dimension as being there,
even if they are in no position to really comment on it. However, while
students of Hindu spirituality can acknowledge history, academics that deny
spirituality will be less likely to bring it into their discussions.
������ Certainly spiritual Hindus must address historical issues. To do
this they must create a new Vedic historical methodology. They need not ignore
Hindu historical sources but must combine these with a multidisciplinary
approach linking literature, astronomy, archaeology, geology and other factors.� They should also aim at a scientific
approach to communicate to a modern audience. On the other hand, scholars who
are not Hindus must recognize that much of the Vedic teaching will be lost on
them as they are unfamiliar with the religious and spiritual factors involved.
The key is for Hindus to take the lead in interpreting their tradition.
Indology must return to India and encounter the full force of the Bharatiya
tradition. This will occur when the Indian homeland of the Vedas is once more honored.
Devic
and Asuric Civilizations and Scholarship
������ All ancient mythologies speak of the war between the Devas and
the Asuras, the Gods and the anti-gods or titans, which is also the battle
between the forces of light and darkness. This is the dominant image of the Rigveda and the Zend Avesta, but has traces everywhere in ancient thought, whether
in the Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Babylonian or Native American traditions.
Following this model, we can postulate two types of civilization in the world
as the �Devic� or spiritual and the �Asuric� or materialistic. In the Upanishads (Chandogya VIII.7), the main
difference between the two groups is that the Asuras believe that the body is
the Self or the true reality, while the Devas look beyond the body to pure
consciousness.
������ Clearly, modern civilization, which is primarily western in
origin and leadership, whether of the political left or right, is Asuric or
bodily-based. Obviously modern commercialism is sensate and bodily-based and
modern communism projects an entirely materialistic utopia. The dominant view
of western religions is of heaven or paradise as a glorified physical realm,
which requires the resurrection of the physical body to achieve. This means
that both the religious and secular sides of western culture are bodily-based.
Western civilization reflects the outer values of the ego, with its emphasis on
famous personalities in all domains of life (including those of scientists and
scholars). It is assertive, militant and greedy, not only in the political and
economic spheres, but also in religion.
������ The western obsession with physical history as the real truth
is another bodily-based compulsion that is arguably Asuric in nature. Its
emphasis on physical remains for interpreting history, as with archaeological
ruins or skeletons, demonstrates a bias for physical reality. It has no
spiritual, dharmic or Devic view to balance this out. Western Indologists
believe that their physical/outward-based view has given them the real keys to
ancient India and Vedic civilization. They are like the Asura Virochana in the Upanishads who is content with the idea
that the body is the Self. Their main concern in Vedic texts is dissecting the
grammar, which is an emphasis on the outer aspect of language that misses the
spirit or meaning encased within it.
�Western linguistics has a similar physical
bias that ignores the spiritual basis of language. Their prime focus is
physical indicators in some proposed Proto-Indo-European language, which they
are constructing as if ancient languages were physically based forms of speech.
They forget the obvious fact that ancient languages and cultures were
ritualistic in nature, with a primary concern for the sacred, not our modern
obsession with physical reality! Following this materialistic line, linguists
have tried to determine common geographical and animal terms in Indo-European
languages in order to identify the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans,
oblivious to the spiritual focus of ancient Arya culture which was never
geographically limited. This reflects the same concern for form over content
that characterizes modern commercial culture. They glorify the husk and lose
the edible fruit within it!
However, there
have been Devic or spiritual elements hidden in western culture, whether in the
Celts, Greeks, Christian mystics, or New Age aspiration. Similarly, there are
Asuric forces in India that are quite powerful today, like its leftist
intelligentsia that has dominated the country since independence. Even in the
Devic or yogic field are gurus that are Asuric in nature, seeking to accumulate
wealth and power for themselves. Today the Asuric forces are on the ascendancy
all over the world, unleashing powerful technological and mechanical forces
threatening the very life on the planet. Therefore, Devic forces must unite and
cross over any geographical barriers in order to once more defeat the Asuras.
The Devas are
slowly awakening again. Reclaiming the Vedas�which
preserve better than any text the spiritual heritage of humanity�is the key to
bringing the Gods back. This means reclaiming the Vedas from Asuric (physical or body-based) scholarship back to a
spiritual and yogic view. The Asuras always try to destroy or capture the Vedas in order to keep humanity
spiritually in the dark. Just as the Asuras stole the Vedas in previous Yugas and the Gods had to win them back, Western
Indologists are the modern Asuras who have tried to capture the Vedas in the contemporary world. It is
time for a new group of Devas to win them back. This requires a spiritual and
intellectual battle, for which a new power of Vishnu or higher consciousness is
necessary. The Vedas contain the keys
of mastery for humanity and the essence of our global spiritual heritage. Like
the secrets of science they need to kept in good hands and used for our higher
evolution.
_______________
Back to
Back
to
Next
�