Om Gurubhyo NamaH

In this lesson we discuss the adhyatmic thought during the Vedic and post Vedic periods,
analyze the specific misunderstandings that crept into the adhyatmic thought and arrive at
conclusions that can guide us for all times to come. For simplicity of discussion, we
present a break down of periods into various parts. However, in reality the events may
not have happened in that exact sequence, as the relationships and mechanisms involved
between these periods is quite complex. On the whole the trends are validated by the
facts, logic and experience.

Adhyatmic thought during the Mantra Period

From the evidence we gather studying the Vedas, we can conclude that during the highs
of Vedic civilization, also called Satya yug, there were three competing groups of people
who were inquiring into the unknown – the nature of Paramatma; they are householders
of all varnas (trades) who conduct their daily yajnas, Kings who rule countries and Rishis
who own nothing. The householders are closest to the reality of living in the society at
the lowest level, kings are the highest level of society and Rishis are outside of the
society and closer to nature. As a result the knowledge acquired by these three groups
tends to be most authentic and down to earth real.

During the Vedic times, every one had the freedom to explore on one’s own. At the same
time, as one moves closer to Paramatma, it gets crowded and there is not much space for
more than one person. Therefore any two people who reach such higher levels would
necessarily meet and sort out the differences if any, because only one of them could be
closer to reality or both of them may be equidistant from reality. The meeting of best
minds is also important because a wrong meditation is harmful to society in several ways:
1. Even a slightly wrong decision by a king can have an adverse effect on the whole
society, 2. Even a slightly ill-designed mantra by a Rishi can have adverse effect, and 3.
Even a slightly incorrect yajna by a householder can have an adverse effect on society; as
we see in modern society, if every family takes the same wrong financial decision the
whole society suffers together in the end.

In knowledge management, there is always a need to maintain the current level of

expertise, and also continue to explore new horizons of knowledge. Considering this, the
Vedic people adopted two distinct standards: For people who are still learning, practicing
and researching, all necessary freedom is given. For people who consider themselves
experts there was an inner ring of competence in which the standards were much stricter,
and tolerance for errors was much lower, to the extent that if a Rishi comes up with a
wrong concept other Rishis would say ‘Your head will fall’. Entire volumes of Vedic
literature were composed under such discipline, therefore it is not advisable for any one
to reject Vedas without valid evidence.

During the Mantra period, the Rishis were able to perceive and/or compose Veda
mantras. At this point purists of certain sampradayas might argue that according to them
and also according to most traditions of Hinduism, Veda mantras are not composed by
human rishis, but ‘revealed’ in meditation. To this we have a counter argument: That in
any case, these Rishis to whom the mantras were supposedly revealed, were always in the
highest meditative state, because a knower of highest reality does not cease to be unaware
of it at some other times, hence it does not make a practical difference whether the
mantras were revealed to the Rishis, or the Rishis composed the mantras all by
themselves. (brahma vid brahmaiva bhavati – One who knows Brahman is very much
Brahman.)

The Rk mantras, Yajus invocations and Sama vedic chants which are all part of the
Samhita portions of the Veda, being hardest to compose except during Vedic period, they
were very ancient. Also, as the mantras are most often used in yajnas, their form did not
change over thousands of years.

Adhyatmic thought during the Post-mantra (Brahmana) Period

As the Vedic period ended some time after Mahabharata war, the practice dwindled and
over a period of time the Vedic scholars lost the ability to compose new Veda mantras.
As a result, with no new mantras being authored, the mantras themselves were getting
scattered. At this time, Maharshi Veda Vyasa was known to have organized the mantras
into four groups namely Rk, Yajus, Sama and Atharva samhitas in such a way they can
be well preserved for eternity.

During this period, also called the Brahmana period, practice of yajnas and chanting
continued uninterrupted. The number of mantras were now limited to what was passed on
to them, but the Rishis knew that yajnas that employ these mantras are infinite. There
were yajnas conducted daily, fortnightly, monthly, seasonally, half yearly and yearly.
There were complex hierarchies of yajnas with various rules of inheritance somewhat like
the classes in Java computer language. The instruction manuals for conducting the yajnas,
called Brahmana & Arnyaka literature were being researched during the this period. This
however does not imply by any means that the knowledge of yajnas was ‘absent’ during
the mantra period! Even a cursory look at the Rgveda would reveal that it contains
extensive yajna terminology and mentions various types of priests (Rtviks) who conduct
yajnas such as hotr, adhvaryu, netr etc.

By the end of the Brahmana period, when it was apprehended that the knowledge of
yajnas may be lost; the yajna manuals were assembled and recorded. A notable point is
that this recording was done in a somewhat later version of Sanskrit than the Mantra
portions, which gives a false impression to an unsuspecting or non-serious linguist that
the Brahmanas were a later invention.

Adhyatmic thought during the Post-Brahmana (Upanishat) Period

Just as the knowledge of yajnas was not absent during the mantra period, in the same way
the knowledge of upanishats was not absent during the mantra and brahmana periods.
The knowledge of all the upanishats was existing at the time the very first Rk mantra was
conceived. However this knowledge of upanishats was so common during those times
that no one took any serious interest in recording it during the mantra and brahmana
periods; the same way in a mathematics book that concerns higher mathematics like
string theory or graph theory you would not find an explanation of symbols like division
or multiplication. In fact many of the older upanishats were part of Brahmana literature,
and they were placed closer to the end of the karma kanda portions, thereby acquiring the
name ‘Vedanta’. However it must be noted that these upanishats that were part of
Brahmana literature, themselves contain a lot of yajna terminology.

Considering that Vedic civilization declined for several thousands of years, it is only
logical to speculate that there must be an Upanishadic period that followed the Brahmana
period. During this period many new upanishats were being conceived. However as we
can expect, the upanishats composed during this period did not include any significant
traces of yajna terminology worth mentioning.

The Complexity Factor

Let us now discuss the issue of complexity of knowledge. In any subject the
fundamentals are always the simplest and the highest. E.g., a Rocket works on the simple
principle that it must exceed the earth’s gravitational pull to go beyond earth’s
atmosphere. However the actual technology that goes into building of the rocket is a kind
of “lower” level knowledge but most complex in terms of detail. To take another
example, the basic svaras of music are only 7, and the in-depth knowledge of the svaras is
known to be closer to the highest reality. However, the complex ragas consist of
innumerable combinations of svaras, wherein the individual sequences of notes in a raga
are “lower level” knowledge compared to the highest which is svara-sadhana. A business
manager always wants to have high level information whether the business is in profit or
loss, but knowing too many lower level details does not help. Continuing the same
analogy, the Upanishats are highest knowledge, but simpler to understand. The
Upanishats were composed by the Rishis when they were in the most compassionate
mood to explain their knowledge in a way easy to understand. The Brahmana literature
(Aitareya, kausitaki brahmanas etc) is a lot more complex than the Upanishats, as they
discuss the lower level ‘detailed’ knowledge. The conclusion is, simplicity always gives
better control. The greatest truths are simple, as Lilashuka explained beautifuly: ‘Oh,
rishis, why do you wander in the forests of nigamas (Vedas) endlessly? Don’t you see,
the meaning of upanishats is tied up to the grinding stone?’ (hinting at young Krishna tied
up by his mother to the millstone.)

So much we all know. However, as the grown up Krishna realized, there is beauty in
complexity. The whole story of Mahabharata is a lesson in complexity, how evil forces
can manipulate and exploit the loop holes in the laws of a society to capture power for
selfish ends, and force the best of talents into submission. Even an incompetent person
like Dhrtarashtra captures power through manipulation and extends his one-time chance
to occupy the throne into a permanent dynasty through every available means and
prevents dharma from taking roots and regaining its supremacy, in the end causing total
destruction. Under such circumstances, how can dharma be re-established by weaving
through the complexity? If a toddler opens up a reel of thread and tangles it up, is it
possible to untangle without cutting the thread? The current Afghan war is a proof of how
unpredictable and complex enemy can be. As ancient Rishis proved it for themselves, is it
really possible for an individual Atma in search of oneself to regain ones own real nature
and become a creator or destroyer of the universe? As the modern science in quest of
complexity theory asks: Is it possible for a butterfly elsewhere to flap its wings at such a
critical place and time in such a way it can cause a tidal wave or a hurricane? The mantra
portion of the Veda is the most complex in terms of chandas and placement syllables,
because it is the closest to the “hardware” that is human body and represents the minute
interactions between the faculties of the body & mind. The brahmana portion of Veda
explains the process of how simple models of non-duality entangle themselves into
complex yajnas involving 33,000 devas, Rtviks, asuras and all other players. In other
words Brahmana and Aranyaka literature is the “firmware” of creation. The simpler
upanishats are the “software” that can be easily understood. The complexity of Brahmana
literature can only be realized in their full blown form when they are translated into
neuron-fuzzy-linguistic rule sets. Ignoring the ritual portions (karma kanda) of Veda and
relegating it to a lower status is the single fatal mistake of our immediate ancestors during
the last 4000 years.

Adhyatmic thought during the Post-Upanishat Period (Pre-Sankara)

Somewhere during the post-upanishat period we had a split among Vedic scholars into
purva and uttara mimamsa groups. Before this time there was no differentiation between
mantra, brahmana and upanishat portions or between purva & uttara mimamsas; it was
just mimamsa alone, and scholars were able to converse across these artificial divisions.

During the post-Upanishat period, the logic that pertains to the conductance of the yajnas
was organized into purva mimamsa which is meant for householders, because this was
supposed to be meant for satisfying worldly desires or at best attaining a svargaloka. The
very qunitessence of logic contained in the upanishats is organized as uttara mimamsa, a
subject meant for mendicants who left worldly affairs. Purva mimamsakas argue that
through karma kanda one can attain immortality whereas the Uttara-mimamsaks argue
that one becomes immortal only trough knowledge. Somewhere during this post-
upanishat period the knowledge of Brahmana literature was completely lost to the extent
that the purva mimamsakas were clearly playing a losing battle with uttara mimamsakas.

At this point it may be relevant to point out that Some anti-Hindu local and foreign
interpreters cleverly ‘praise’ Rgveda as the oldest scripture imported by ‘Aryans’ from
Europe which was later ‘misused’ by Brahmins of India to perform yajnas and make
money from kings and common people, hence they trash the entire Brahmana literature.
They do admit between the four walls of their office rooms that the Upanishats and their
commentaries have evolved into modern philosophical thought and contain some logical
arguments ‘possibly due to’ closer interaction with the Greek culture. Thus, in one stroke
these people misrepresent the entire architecture of Vedic corpus and turn it upside down
for their convenience.
Those among Hindus who support uttara mimamsa at the expense of purva mimamsa
only play into the hands of these anti-Hindu interpreters when they overstate the
importance of Upanishats at the expense of karma kanda and the Brahmana literature. To
add insult of injury and in the process of copying the Abrahamic flavor of monotheism;
they also fall into the ‘monotheism trap’ when they mistakenly think the apparent
polytheism of Brahmana literature somehow contradicts the apparent monotheism of
upanishats. As we will establish beyond doubt, the apparent polytheism of Brahmana
literature is full of advaita and its complexity can only be understood by some one who
had reached the highs of advaita, and not some one who only knows advaita at superficial
level. There was a time in 19th century when such a stand was taken for valid reasons, to
resist the British promoting missionaries; and our thinkers affirmed that Vedas are also
“revealed” scriptures that are sacred and “unchangeable” that were revealed to Rishis the
same way some other Abrahamic scriptures were revealed to some chosen people. It is
time to take a departure from this viewpoint, and in the true spirit of Gaudapada who said
all beings are ever liberated and capable of knowing the highest reality and nothing is
ever born, we should expressly state that the highest of the Vedas can be seen and
expressed by the lowest of the creatures when they elevate themselves through yoga and
self knowledge.

Some time after the purva-uttara mimamsa split, the uttara mimamsaks had further split
into various other groups such as nyaya, samkhya, vaisheshika etc and these subjects
were being recorded in the form they are currently available. At this point it must be
mentioned that the subjects of nyaya, smkhya, vaisheshika etc were not invented or
discovered during this period only. These subjects were very much known in a much
rigorous form during the Mantra and Brahmana periods, as is evident from the much
archaic style of Samkhya that can be seen in Svetasvatara upanishat to which the
Samkhya practiced during the last 4000 years can be considered a ‘poor cousin’. This
latest version of Samkhya is what Adi Sankara rejected in favor of advaita, not the
Samkhya that is known and practiced by the Shrutikara (my innovative term for Rishi) of
Svetashvatara upanishat. There is really no confusion here. The concepts such as nyaya
were very much known to the earliest Vedic scholars even during the mantra period in a
more rigorous form; it is just that these subjects became popular in a much deteriorated
form as the older subjects that contain the technology to perceive new mantras and new
yajnas went into oblivion. In other words, the versions of subjects nyaya, samkhya,
vaisheshika etc that were being discussed during the post-upanishat times were
characteristically different from those versions known during the Vedic times. The most
striking and noticeable difference that can be found in the modern versions of these
subjects is the total lack of yajna terminology. The samkhya described in s’vetAsvatara
upanishat is soaked in yajna terminology whereas the samkhya of later periods is much
closer to uttara mimamsa. The Brahmana and Aranyaka literature is the key missing link
that needs to be mastered by the current practitioners of nyaya, samkhya and vaisheshika
theories to realize the original glory of these subjects.

Bouddha, Jaina and other Traditions

In addition to the most ancient Vedic corpus, Bharat also hosted a number of other very
ancient streams of thought as more and more Avatar Purushas are born at various times.
These streams of thought are detached from Vedic, and had their own independent roots.
These sampradayas & traditions may be more appropriately called Non-Vedic, rather
than anti-Vedic. They are clearly non-vedic in the sense they do not accept Vedas as
authority. However there was no animosity between the Vedic and non-vedic groups as
made out to be by some recent historians.

As per literary evidence we have today that Buddhists themselves accept, Buddha had
never studied Vedas, as his father was very protective of him. Some other commentaries
do say Buddha studied Vedas at a later stage, but there is no evidence of such study
anywhere in the teachings of Buddha. Even Buddha’s act of teaching his own father was
clearly not in line with the ancient Vedic traditions because as per the Vedic traditions
when some one attains mukti seven generations on either side (that of oneself and spouse)
attain mukti automatically; thereby Buddha teaching his own father is pretty much a
logically redundant activity. It is unfair to judge one tradition in terms of another,
therefore we should conclude that Bouddha dharma was a completely independent
tradition with is own legends and social structure and practices. Likewise we have no
choice but conclude the same about other traditions like Jain dharma. Boudha, Jaina and
others were the most successful traditions considering their popularity among kings as
well as general population.

As Bharat hosted all these traditions, a lot of symbolism, stories, and dharmic values
were all shared, imitated and copied over between the so called Vedic and non-Vedic
traditions. Sharing of traditions can be interpreted in two ways: One interpretation is that
the Buddhism adopted the local traditions including tantras. Another interpretation (given
by some Buddhists) is that the later practitioners of Buddhism practiced tantras “only to
get out of” those practices. The latter interpretation is a kind of weak argument, because
the local practices like tantras are not just “belief” systems but hard reality checks
recorded by yogis and tantrics, and Buddhism had no choice but to explain what they are
if it had to continue to establish its roots in Bharat.

(This later argument is also used in a divisive sense, where a new tradition adopts the
practices of an older tradition but gives it a new meaning, as evident from how Christians
in India do puja similar to Hindus, and call their highest God using local names such as
“Ishwar” (mentioned by King George Bible). The Abrahamic practitioners argue that
Buddhism likewise borrowed Hindu terminology, so why not us? However there are
major differences between Buddhism adopting Hindu practices and Christianity adopting
them. The Buddha dhamma is in theory very close cousin of dharma as described in
puranas, and Buddha himself approved the use of varna concept in organizing a society,
as varnas themselves are ever present in any society. Budhdists adopted local values as
their own; whereas Abrahamics only adopted the names like Ishwara and forms like
pujas, music, dance etc but devoid of content and meaning which are controlled by their
high priests.)
With the Buddhistic thought streams on the ascendance, the uttara mimamsa got into
prominence as a self defense mechanism among Vedic scholars to counter the new
challenge. Uttara mimamsa being closer to Buddhism served an effective counter,
whereas purva mimamsa would be relegated to history and completely lose any
significant influence it had on the Bharatiya adhyatmic thought thereafter.

Gaudapada, Sankara & the Advaitic stream of thought

In 8th century CE, Adi Sankaracharya had convincingly established that the highest reality
is Brahman, a material that has no properties whatsoever, and Brahman alone exists.
According to Sankara and his teacher’s teacher Gaudapada, everything else that appears
to exist is Brahman alone, and such appearance is due to an illusion that goes away when
truth about Brahman is known.

In the fourth chapter of his treatise on advaita called mandukya karikas, Gaudapada
relegated Buddihstic thought to a second position by stating it as the best approximation
after advaita. In the process of establishing advaita, Sankara had relied heavily on uttara
mimamsa, and rejected nyaya, vaisheshika, samkhya and other Vedic or non-Vedic
streams thought such as nihilists. In his times, Sankara’s priority was to refute these
scholars and re-establish advaita.

Sankara’s rigorous argumentation and proofs of advaita were well known and well
discussed in scholarly circles, but this knowledge has not trickled to general public in the
appropriate form as originally propounded by Sankara. Only an over-simplified version
of advaita that states “All you see is maya" has become prevalent among people.

Among the scholarly circles, the advaitic steam of thought was thoroughly discussed and
researched, thereby developing its own literature & jargon. One of the most brilliant
master pieces during the post-Sankara period was a small book named Advaita
Makarandam by Lakshmidhara. For a complete history & current state of thinking on this
subject of advaita as taught by Sankara and his followers, please visit www.advaita-
vedanta.org.

In spite of advaita being a subject that claims to be the greatest of all, some of the post-
Sankara advaitic scholars had developed several differences among themselves, and
many of these differences have continued to daunt scholars to this day for last 12
centuries, often on trivial matters whether the universe was born from 3 or 5 elements,
while the theory of advaita itself rejects any such notions as worth discussing. Even the
serious followers of Sankara had limited themselves to the Brahma Sutra bhasyas and
Gita Bhashyas, while ignoring Sankara’s commentaries on Upanishats thereby missing
several opportunities that not only demonstrate the brilliance of Sankara’s thought
stream, but open up avenues for future research.

In addition to all this, the continuous undercurrent of uttara mimamsa influence had tied
the hands of commentators whereby anything that sounds like karma kanda has to be
avoided. Considering that about 50% of upanishat literature contains material that looks
like karma kanda, that part of the literature simply became “out of bounds” for advaita
followers, thereby seriously limiting the scope for research. Not taking purva
mimamsakas along is like trying to fly in a rocket by neglecting the essential technologies
like cryogenics, jet propulsion, computing, communications and so on. A theory of
advaita, if it needs to be properly digested by a live human being, has to delve into the
complexity offered by the karma kanda.

Classical traditions in Post Sankara period: Vishishtadvaita & Dvaita

During the 11th century the Vaishnava philosopher Ramanuja propounded a theory that
slightly differs from Sankara’s advaita. Ramanuja propounded that the highest reality is
one material called Brahman (advaita) but it has some permanent properties. The
practical purpose of this deviation seems to be to help practitioners in achieving the
advaitic ideal.

During the 13th century the Vaishnava philosopher madhvacharya propounded the dvaita
philosophy which In this series of lessons we discuss the basics of advaita that are needed
to explore the knowledge of Vedas, and we will discuss what is “not actively” taught by
Sankara and his followers for above reasons along with topics that “were taught by
Sankara but not actively followed up”.

As we can see, Ramanuja & Madhva were taking one step after another that apparently
works “against” Advaita, the highest theory we have known so far and both of them had
defeated the advaita scholars they had met in their life times. The question arises how can
a higher theory be defeated by a lower theory? The answer is simple: it is not the theory
that is being tested here, it is the level of understanding of the scholars in dispute and the
initial assumptions in place before their debate. Ramanuja and Madhva were truly the
innovators who were suggesting that there is a need to go back to the real Vedic roots and
honor the multiplicity of devas “before” one can realize the advaitic reality. Neither
Ramanuja nor Madhva deny that the highest deva of their sampradaya (Vishnu) is a
purely advaitic reality, and that as a consequence advaita is the highest reality and there is
really no compulsive necessity for an individual jiva to exist. What Ramanuja & Madhva
deny in reality is the perception of post-Sankaran advaitists that makes them believe they
can achieve the highest by simply arguing about snake and rope without really practicing
their subject under the guidance of a paramatma.

Modern Commentators & Reformers since 19th century

While the classical commentators stayed within the respective traditional boundaries of
advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita, there have been three modern commentators namely
Bhagwan Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa and Sri Aurobindo who had
deeply influenced masses across all the traditions.

Bhagwan Ramana explained the essence of advaita mostly in silence or in simpler words.
Ramana Maharshi attracted the traditional as well as modern audiences. Many of his
followers like Nisargadatta Maharaj expanded the teachings of Ramana using their own
innovative styles.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa was the embodiment of sadhana in purest form who saw
divinity in every form. Sri Ramakrishna’s discipline Swami Vivekananda is a symbol of
young India even 100 years after his famous speech in Chicago. Ramakrishna mission
had done greatest service in publishing the adhyatmic commentaries of Sri
Sankaracharya. While Sri Ramakrishna gave respectability to tantra, Sri Vivekananda
promoted Rajayoga as a solution to reviving Hindu youth into spiritual awakening.

Swami Dayananda Saraswati was the first reformer who revived Vedic studies in recent
times. Dayananda brought in innovation into traditional scholarship and interpreted Vedic
devas like Indra in terms of electricity and other physical forces. Critics may object to
Dayananda’s interpretations as reading too much in Vedas, but it must be understood, he
lives in those times when the Abrahamic religions in the west were still rejecting science
and punishing any teacher who dared to teach Darwin or other scientists’ theories in
schools.

Sri Aurobindo was the last of the 19th century reformers and thinkers who had deeply
inquired into the adhyatma and made significant contributions to yogic phenomena
happening at cellular levels, which was also the life-time achievement of Trishanku. In
the recent times some of the findings of Sri Aurobindo’s followers were locked up in
copy right disputes, but followers of Sri Aurobindo worldwide have kept up his spiritual
quest living.

The future of adhyatmic thought: Back to Vedas

While it is too early to write a bibliography of 20th-21st century thinkers, several

individuals have taken up independent study of Vedas guided by tradition. The foremost
of them was Sri Kondamudi Hanumatchastry who had interpreted the prana sukta of
atharva veda in terms of sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. Sri Sastry
explained Vedic knowledge as a symbolic knowledge (shaastra) as against scientific
knowledge that is in currency in today’s society, west or east.

Symbolic knowledge (shaastra) of Indian/Hindu and Vedic traditions includes free form
speculations about the unknown in way that does not conflict with material knowledge
because the local traditions accept non-difference of body & mind.

On the other hand, the scientific knowledge tradition as handed down from the last few
centuries of western tradition under Abrahamic traditions does not actively deal with
inquiry into the unknown, and in fact accepts the separation of matter and spirit.

In this series of lessons we will take up the recent advances made in the interpretation of
vedic symbols along with theoretical foundations, practical aspects for yoga and
meditation, ritual/yajna related matters for advancement of research of karma kanda and
scientific observations that can be established as living proof of Vedic knowledge.
The inquiry into the original subject of Vedas not only includes every other adhyatmic
initiative taken up over the last 4000 years as a subset, it also integrated all the modern
subjects be they technical or humanities into one single subject – the study of yajna.