Sāyaṇācārya: His life and work
Sāyaṇācārya is a unique personality in India’s history, and as equally unique as his older brother Mādhavācārya, who was better known as Svāmī Vidyāraṇya of the famous Śṛṅgerī Maṭha. These brothers, who lived in the 14th century CE, together can very aptly be called India’s Yuga Puruṣas (millenial men) of the last 1000 years – such is the significance and force of their life’s work.
The all-roundedness of their multifaceted contribution to India’s cultural, religious, social, political, geographical and civilizational continuity is unmatched in the entire history of India considering the extremely adverse and hostile situation of their era.
If we were to look back at India’s long and ancient history, we would find probably one or two other such gigantic personalities who can lay claim to the title of Yuga Puruṣa. One is Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva from the 2nd millenium BCE, and the other is Kauṭilya Cāṇakyafrom the 1st millenium BCE. Both these men are well-known for their multifaceted contribution to India’s civilization. However, I dare say that the difficulties and adversities faced by these two men are trivial in comparison to those faced by Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya.
From ancient times down to the 1st millenium CE, India was at the peak of its civilizational glory. Its borders were secure, its economy prosperous, its culture vibrant and flourishing, its philosophical and spiritual traditions shining like a beacon of enlightenment for the whole world. Its ancient universities were thronged by foreign students from far and wide, just as students today throng to the American universities.
The obstacles that Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva overcame in his time were largely internal and benign to India’s civilization. The obstacles that Kauṭilya Cāṇakya overcame in his time were foreign, but they were so minor in comparison to the strength and solidarity still pervasive in the civilization of the time.
The obstacles that Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya faced in their time were foreign and brutal, of monstrous and barbaric proportions never before seen in India’s long civilization. These obstacles were of the character of ferocious and unrelenting attack by the armies of Muslim invaders who were having a field day, easily destroying Hindu kingdoms and decimating India’s glorious civilization.
At such a weakened, chaotic and calamitous time, Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya were pivotal in organizing and guiding a powerful resistance to the advance of Islam in southern India. The final form of this resistance is very well-known as the Vijayanagara empire, which flourished under the dharmarājya of kings Harihara and Bukkarāya at its inception, and then later by their equally capable brothers Kampaṇa, Muddappa and Mārappa, as well as the second generation king Kumāra Kampaṇa who freed the Tamil country from brutal Muslim rule (the contemporaneous account of the liberation of Madurai is the Sanskrit work Madhurāvijayam written by his queen Gaṅgādevī). I shall not dwell too much into the glories of the Vijayanagara empire, as it has already been admirably and famously described by foreign travelers of the era and by later historians and history buffs. In summary, the Vijayanagara empire brought back the ancient glory of Indian Hindu civilization and preserved Hinduism in south India in a time of ferocious and predatory Islamic invasions in the rest of India.
One important point to note is that the founding kings of Vijayanagara, Harihara and Bukkarāya, whom Svāmī Vidyāraṇya consulted with and chose to lead the new kingdom, were neither Brahmins nor Kshatriyas. They were from the caste of Kannada Vokkaligas, traditionally Kurubas, or shepherds. This is very significant for the present-day social justice warriors to remember when they incessantly and ignorantly rant about the oppression of the caste system. To Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya, who were Brahmins by birth, no other two people were more capable than Harihara and Bukkarāya to lead this new Hindu kingdom. This also has exact parallels with Kauṭilya Cāṇakya choosing the “low caste” Candragupta Maurya to be the king. So much for caste discrimination!
The achievements of the Vijayanagara empire are unmatched by any other medieval kingdom, be it the Maratha empire or the Sikh empire. The reason is that in the 14th century, the Hindu kingdoms were still shell-shocked by the brutality and ferocity of the Muslim invasions, and were utterly scattered and clueless as to how to re-organize themselves and stay alive, much less put up a fight. One after another, the Hindu kingdoms were falling like flies in the face of the Muslim invasions. At such a time, the Vijayanagara empire is truly a visionary and courageous idea that was never tried before in India’s history. The crux of this idea was to unite all the fallen and weak kingdoms under the umbrella of the Vijayanagara rule so that a single combined effort would potentially be able to resist the invasions and sustain Hindu civilization. The founding team of the Vijayanagara empire were the first to recognize the threat of Islamic imperialism to Hindu civilization and respond in a systematic, strategic and intelligent manner. So the founders of the Vijayanagara empire were true pioneers of their time.
It is highly regrettable that today’s Indian leaders have forgotten the lessons from Vijayanagara, just as the kings of early centuries CE forgot the lessons from Kauṭilya Cāṇakya. It is also regrettable that the leaders of India’s freedom movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not have the same wholistic integral Vedic vision of Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya.
After 350 years of glorious rule, when the Vijayanagara empire also collapsed due to several reasons, in the 17th century, its political, administrative and military organization was an inspiration for the great Shivaji in his establishment of the Maratha empire.
Thus was the inimitable and unreplicable contribution of Sāyaṇaand Vidyāraṇya to the resurgence and revival of India’s native civilization through pioneering work in the arena of politics, administration and statesmanship.
Even more remarkable is the fact that after devoting their most energetic and youthful decades to the materialistic well-being of Hindu civilization, the two brothers went on to make seminal contributions to the spiritual well-being of Hindu civilization —
Svāmī Vidyāraṇya became the pontiff of the Śṛṅgerī Maṭha that was established by the Ādi Śaṅkarācārya in the 7th century CE. Under his leadership, the monastery started keeping accurate historical records that have been indispensable for understanding the history of not only the monastery but also the social and political climate through the centuries. Further, he authored several highly regarded and authoritative works on Advaita philosophy. The most famous work, the Pañcadaśī, is a very unique treatise that explains Advaita through the medium of worldly areas of interest such as painting, music, dance and drama. This is, again in his own style, inimitable because the typical saṃnyāsī is advised or is under the impression that monkhood means the complete renunciation of, and aversion to, worldly matters. Whereas the true saṃnyāsī is enlightened to see the whole world through Advaita.
Sāyaṇācārya contributed in another crucial area of spirituality and religion, the Vedas. We shall take a deeper look into this in Part 2.
Part 2 — The unfair criticism of his Vedic commentaries
Part 1 talked about the incredible contributions of the great Sāyaṇācārya in the realm of worldly affairs. Here we shall look at his contribution to religion and spirituality.
His greatest contribution to Hinduism is the publishing of the complete commentaries on all extant Vedic scriptures. One can grasp the immensity and scope of this undertaking only if one has knowledge of the vastness of the ocean that is the Vedic corpus.
The modern printed books of the entire Vedic corpus probably run into several tens of thousands of pages of fine print. Now add to this enormity the fact that all this literature was orally transmitted even in the time of Sāyaṇācārya, the 14th century CE. Even if we concede the fact that there were written manuscripts of all these texts, it is not an easy task by the longest stretch of imagination to organize, edit and publish authentic commentaries on every single text.
In fact, that is precisely what Sāyaṇācārya accomplished. We know from other writings that he had assembled under his editorship a team of the best Vedic scholars of his day. This is another example of the pioneering work done in the Vijayanagara empire. Never before in the history of India, had any scholars undertaken such a systematic project of such huge scale. Never before had there been such a collaboration among scholars towards a common goal. We do not know the names of the scholars who contributed, but such is the selflessness, magnanimity and commitment to a higher cause that is seen in this project.
Sāyaṇācārya’s Vedic commentaries became the standard across all of India for centuries to come. Even the early European Indologists who came to India interested in studying Vedas (either genuinely or with an agenda) had to rely on Sāyaṇācārya’s commentaries. It is a different matter that later European “scholars” abandoned Sāyaṇācārya and went off interpreting the Vedas based on their own sinister agendas. In any case, there is no other traditional, complete and authentic commentary on the Vedas today. It is no exaggeration to say that the Vedic texts have survived through the centuries to come down to us only because of Sāyaṇācārya’s massive project.
Keeping all the above in mind, we should look at some criticisms of the interpretation of Sāyaṇa by some recent thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The foremost of these thinkers is Aurobindo.
There is no doubt that Aurobindo was a great thinker and activist who was influential in the arenas of social, political and cultural problems faced by India under British rule. There is much more that I agree with Aurobindo on, than disagree. However, I disagree with his interpretation of the Vedas. He has clearly departed from tradition in his unique and strange ideas such as ‘Super Mind’ and his very unnatural and ill-suited insertion of modern “new age” psychological symbolism in the Vedic deities. He says that Agni represents the “will” and so on. We find no support for such interpretations in tradition.
Furthermore, he accuses Sāyaṇācārya of ignoring, or even obfuscating, the spiritual interpretation and focusing entirely on the ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and especially of the Rig Veda. Several other such thinkers of modern India reject Sāyaṇācārya along the same lines. I come across many modern Hindus who would rather trust and believe Aurobindo over Sāyaṇācārya or other traditional scholars.
To all this, my reply is that present-day Hindus, or even Hindus of the 19th century (which include Aurobindo) are much further away from authentic Vedic tradition and understanding than Hindus of the 14th century. That was a time when Hinduism was still standing on its own feet, unsullied by foreign interventions into the Hindu mind. Obviously, the further back we go in history, the closer we get to authentic understanding and practice of Vedic traditions. Even in the 14th century, the system of traditional Vedic education was unbroken and very much alive. In comparison, in the 19th century that system had already suffered severely due to British intervention.
When we further ascertain the fact that resurgence thinkers such as Aurobindo, Gandhi, Tilak, Swami Vivekananda and others had had a strictly British education and no traditional Vedic education, it becomes harder and harder to trust these thinkers when it comes to authentic understanding of the deepest topics of Vedic knowledge. Sure, they were better-informed about Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta, than the average Hindu. However, “popular” Vedanta is still far away from “technical” Vedanta that is taught traditionally in a Vedic school.
We must further endeavor to understand what the Vedas meant to Hindus prior to the modern period. The Vedas were considered the fount of all knowledge, and they were the basis of Dharma. As the Manu Smṛti says, “वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलम् — vedo’khilo dharmamūlam“. Dharma was much more comprehensive than the modern understanding of “spirituality”. Dharma defined society, it defined codes of conduct, it defined culture and civilization. The performance of the sacred ritual of yajña was an integral part of observance of Dharma and spiritual advancement. The ritual of yajña had a highly symbolic and spiritual original meaning which is evident in the study of the Brāhmaṇa texts of the Vedas.
The Vedas embody a wholistic and integral view and observance of life, where there is no demarcation between mundane and what modern Hindus understand by “spirituality”. Every aspect of life is important and has its place and significance in the spiritual advancement of an individual. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear why tradition does not fall into the narrow and shallow pit of lop-sided “spirituality” in complete rejection of, or apathy towards, this wholistic integral vision of life.
The inherent pitfall of “spiritualizing” everything is that it is very easy to insert and force a “spiritual” symbolism into anything. Our speech is full of suggestive and interpretive nuances that can all be forced into “spiritual” meanings. However, spirituality does not exist in a vacuum. It needs the structure of society, culture, religion and rituals. Spirituality comes to life only within rituals. When enacting the physical aspects of a ritual, if one is cognizant of the inner meaning of the ritual, or the connecting link between the human world and the rest of the universe, that is the means of internalizing the equivalence or identity between our individual existence and the universal existence. In other words, “spirituality” is “sublimated ritual”.
This above point is completely missed in the writings of Aurobindo or other such thinkers.
In this matter, I would trust the philosopher and art historian Ananda K. Coomaraswamy over others. He stays true to traditional interpretation while interlinking the various mantras brilliantly to bring out deep insights into Vedic metaphysics.
The wholistic integral vision of the Vedas is kept alive in tradition, to which Sāyaṇācārya belongs. His Vedic commentaries are appropriate to the context of each mantra. As Yāskācārya the traditional author of the Niruktam says, “एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायै ऋषीणां मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति — evam uccāvacair abhiprāyaihṛṣīṇāṃ mantradṛṣṭayo bhavanti“. The vision of the rishis is inspired by various aspects of the universe. Hence, every mantra is unique in its context and intent.
To twist the evident meaning of the mantra in order to force a “spiritual” or psychological or some other interpretation into it, is tantamount to insulting the rishi who envisioned the mantra. It is as good as saying that we know better than the rishi himself what his own intent was.
There is no doubt that the Vedic mantras have a lot of intricate and esoteric symbolism. However, tradition that has been passed down through the millenia from the time of the rishis themselves, knows best the symbolism hidden in mantras. Tradition knows best whether a mantra’s meaning is simple and straightforward or whether the rishi intended it to be a symbolism to express a deeper truth. Just because a mantra’s meaning turns out to be simple, does not mean that the mantra has no significance. There is a reason why the mantra is in the Veda.
To conclude, let me provide a solid example of a mantra where Sāyaṇācārya himself does not hold back from giving a fully “spiritual” interpretation. It is as though all of Vedanta is encapsulated in this one mantra. This is proof to show that Sāyaṇācārya was fully aware of the spiritual symbolism in the Vedic mantras, and he was not an ignorant “ritualist”.
Rig Veda 3.26.7:
अग्निरस्मि जन्मना जातवेदा घृतं मे चक्षुरमृतं म आसन् ।
अर्कस्त्रिधातू रजसो विमानो अजस्रो घर्मो हविरस्मि नाम ॥
agnirasmi janmanā jātavedā ghṛtaṃ me cakṣuramṛtaṃ ma āsan
arkastridhātū rajaso vimāno ajasro gharmo havirasmi nāma
Every mantra is traditionally assigned a rishi, a deity and a meter. This mantra’s rishi is Brahman! The mantra’s deity is Agni Parabrahman!
Here’s is Sāyaṇācārya’s commentary:
साक्षात्कृतपरतत्त्वरूपः अग्निद्व्ृचेन स्वात्मनः सर्वात्मकत्वानुभवमाविष्करोति । हे कुशिकाः । भोक्तृभोग्यभावेन द्विविधं हीदं सर्वं जगत् । “एतावद्वा इदमन्नं चैवान्नादश्च सोमो एवान्नमग्निरन्नादः” (बृ उ १.४.६) इति श्रुतेः । तत्र सकलभोक्तृवर्गरूपेणान्नादोऽग्निः । स च अग्निवाय्वादित्यभेदेन त्रेधा भूत्वा पृथिव्यन्तरिक्षद्युलोकानधितिष्ठति । तदुक्तं वाजसनेयके — “स त्रेधात्मानं व्यभजत । आदित्यं तृतीयं वायुं तृतीयम्” (बृ उ १.२.३) इति । तत्र सः अग्निः जन्मना एव जातवेदाः अस्मि । श्रवणमननादिसाधननिरपेक्षेण स्वभावत एव साक्षात्कृतपरतत्त्वस्वरूपोऽस्मि । घृतं मे चक्षुः । यदेतत् विश्वस्य विभासकं मम स्वभावभूतप्रकाशात्मकं चक्षुस्तद्घृतम् । इदानीमत्यन्तं दीप्तम् । यदेतत् अमृतं कर्मफलं दिव्यादिव्यविविधविषयोपभोगात्मकं तत् मे मम आसन् आस्ये वर्तते । सकलभोक्तृवर्गात्मना स्वयमेवावस्थानात् । एवं स्वात्मनः पृथिव्यधिष्ठातृरूपतामभिधाय वाय्वात्मनान्तरिक्षाधिष्ठातृतामाह । अर्कः जगत्स्रष्टा प्राणः । “सोऽर्चन्नचरत्तस्यार्चत आपोऽजायन्तार्चते वै मे कमभूदिति तदेवार्कस्यार्कत्वम्” (श ब्रा १०.६.५) इति श्रुतेः ।स प्राणोऽहं त्रिधातुः । त्रेधात्मानं विभज्य तत्र वाय्वात्मना रजसः अन्तरिक्षस्य विमानः विमाता अधिष्ठाता अस्मि । तथादित्यरूपेण द्युलोकाधिष्ठातृतामाह । अजस्रो घर्मः इति । अजस्रोऽनुपक्षीणो घर्मः प्रकाशात्मा द्युलोकाधिष्ठाता आदित्योऽहमस्मि । एवं भोक्तृरूपमात्मनोऽनुसंधाय भोग्यरूपतामप्यनुसंधत्ते । यत् हविः भोग्यं प्रसिद्धमस्ति तदप्यहमेव अस्मि । किंच जन्मना उत्पत्त्या जातवेदा जातप्रज्ञोऽस्मि । उत्पत्तिक्षणे एव सर्वज्ञोऽहमस्मि । अथवा जातं सर्वं स्वात्मरूपतया वेत्तीति जातवेदाः । सर्वात्मक इत्यर्थः । तदनेनाग्नेः सर्वात्मकत्वप्रतिपादनेन परब्रह्मत्वमुक्तं भवति ।
sākṣātkṛtaparatattvarūpaḥ agnidvṛcena svātmanaḥ sarvātmakatvānubhavamāviṣkaroti । he kuśikāḥ । bhoktṛbhogyabhāvena dvividhaṃ hīdaṃ sarvaṃ jagat । “etāvadvā idamannaṃ caivānnādaśca somo evānnamagnirannādaḥ” (bṛ u 1.4.6) iti śruteḥ । tatra sakalabhoktṛvargarūpeṇānnādo’gniḥ । sa ca agnivāyvādityabhedena tredhā bhūtvā pṛthivyantarikṣadyulokānadhitiṣṭhati । taduktaṃ vājasaneyake — “sa tredhātmānaṃ vyabhajata । ādityaṃ tṛtīyaṃ vāyuṃ tṛtīyam” (bṛ u 1.2.3) iti । tatra saḥ agniḥ janmanā eva jātavedāḥ asmi । śravaṇamananādisādhananirapekṣeṇa svabhāvata eva sākṣātkṛtaparatattvasvarūpo’smi । ghṛtaṃ me cakṣuḥ । yadetat viśvasya vibhāsakaṃ mama svabhāvabhūtaprakāśātmakaṃ cakṣustadghṛtam । idānīmatyantaṃ dīptam । yadetat amṛtaṃ karmaphalaṃ divyādivyavividhaviṣayopabhogātmakaṃ tat me mama āsan āsye vartate । sakalabhoktṛvargātmanā svayamevāvasthānāt । evaṃ svātmanaḥ pṛthīvyadhiṣṭhātṛrūpatāmabhidhāya vāyvātmanāntarikṣādhiṣṭhātṛtāmāha । arkaḥ jagatsraṣṭā prāṇaḥ । “so’rcannacarattasyārcata āpo’jāyantārcate vai me kamabhūditi tadevārkasyārkatvam” (śa brā 10.6.5) iti śruteḥ ।sa prāṇo’haṃ tridhātuḥ । tredhātmānaṃ vibhajya tatra vāyvātmanā rajasaḥ antarikṣasya vimānaḥ vimātā adhiṣṭhātā asmi । tathādityarūpeṇa dyulokādhiṣṭhātṛtāmāha । ajasro gharmaḥ iti । ajasro’nupakṣīṇo gharmaḥ prakāśātmā dyulokādhiṣṭhātā ādityo’hamasmi । evaṃ bhoktṛrūpamātmano’nusaṃdhāya bhogyarūpatāmapyanusaṃdhatte । yat haviḥ bhogyaṃ prasiddhamasti tadapyahameva asmi । kiṃca janmanā utpattyā jātavedā jātaprajño’smi । utpattikṣaṇe eva sarvajño’hamasmi । athavā jātaṃ sarvaṃ svātmarūpatayā vettīti jātavedāḥ । sarvātmaka ityarthaḥ । tadanenāgneḥ sarvātmakatvapratipādanena parabrahmatvamuktaṃ bhavati ।
Having directly experienced the Ultimate Reality, the rishi declares through the medium of Agni that he is identical to the universal reality. This entire existence is of the two-fold nature of “consumer” and “consumed”. As the Veda itself says (Br. Up. 1.4.6): “Only this much is all this– food and eater. Soma is verily the food and Agni is the eater”. There Agni is the form of the category of all consumers. He pervades the Earth, Atmosphere and Heaven in the form of Agni, Vāyu and Āditya. As the Vedic text (Br. Up. 1.2.3) says: “He divided himself three ways, one third as Āditya and one third as Vāyu.” Now I am this Agni “Jātavedā” because by my own nature I have realized the Ultimate Reality without having to resort to methods such as study, meditation and others. “Ghṛtaṃ” is my eye — this my self-illuminating light that shines on this universe, that is my eye. “Amṛtaṃ” is my mouth — the result of deeds in the form of all kinds of intake (i.e. consumption through senses or mind or other ways) goes into my mouth. This is because I take the form of every consumer and enjoyer. Having thus expounded his nature as the foundation of the Earth, he now declares his nature as the foundation of the Atmosphere in the form of Vāyu. I am “Arka“, the creator of the universe, Prāṇa. Then he declares his nature as the foundation of Heaven in the form of Āditya. I am “ajasro gharmaḥ” — inexhaustible heat (sun) as Āditya. Having thus described his Self as the “consumer”, he now declares his form as the “consumed”. I am “Havis“, the form of food. Now what is the meaning of “Jātavedā“? Omniscient by birth. Or else, he knows every existing thing as his own Self. In other words, the Universal Self. Thus by declaring Agni as the Universal Self, the state of Parabrahma is declared.
In the second article above, I believe I have given a good response, in defence of Sāyaṇācārya, to the point of view prevalent in many circles of modernist scholars that Sāyaṇācārya’s commentaries on the Vedas are strictly from the ritualistic perspective in complete suppression of the spiritual content. In the same article, I have quoted the full commentary of Sāyaṇācārya on a particular mantra of Ṛṣi Viśvāmitra, which is a completely spiritual interpretation.
There are dozens of examples where the commentary of Sāyaṇācārya does full justice to the spiritual expression of the mantras, as also seen in the above article on Bharadvāja’s enlightenment.
However, we must endeavor to understand what the Vedas meant to Hindus prior to the modern period. The Vedas were considered the fount of all knowledge, and they were the basis of Dharma. As the Manu Smṛti says, “वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलम् — vedo’khilo dharmamūlam”. Dharma was much more comprehensive than the modern understanding of “spirituality”. Dharma defined society, it defined codes of conduct, it defined culture and civilization. The performance of the sacred ritual of yajña was an integral part of observance of Dharma and spiritual advancement. The ritual of yajña had a highly symbolic and spiritual original meaning which is evident in the study of the Brāhmaṇa texts of the Vedas.
The Vedas embody a wholistic and integral view and observance of life, where there is no demarcation between mundane and what modern Hindus understand by “spirituality”. Every aspect of life is important and has its place and significance in the spiritual advancement of an individual. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear why tradition does not fall into the narrow and shallow pit of lop-sided “spirituality” in complete rejection of, or apathy towards, this wholistic integral vision of life.
The inherent pitfall of “spiritualizing” everything is that it is very easy to insert and force a “spiritual” symbolism into anything. Our speech is full of suggestive and interpretive nuances that can all be forced into “spiritual” meanings. However, spirituality does not exist in a vacuum. It needs the structure of society, culture, religion and rituals. Spirituality comes to life only within rituals. When enacting the physical aspects of a ritual, if one is cognizant of the inner meaning of the ritual, or the connecting link between the human world and the rest of the universe, that is the means of internalizing the equivalence or identity between our individual existence and the universal existence. In other words, “spirituality” is “sublimated ritual”.
The wholistic integral vision of the Vedas is kept alive in tradition, to which Sāyaṇācārya belongs. His Vedic commentaries are appropriate to the context of each mantra. As Yāskācārya the traditional author of the Niruktam says, “एवमुच्चावचैरभिप्रायैः ऋषीणां मन्त्रदृष्टयो भवन्ति — evam uccāvacair abhiprāyaih ṛṣīṇāṃ mantradṛṣṭayo bhavanti”. The vision of the rishis is inspired by various aspects of the universe. Hence, every mantra is unique in its context and intent.
With the above vision in mind, tradition has assigned different contexts to different parts of the Veda, varying according to the viniyoga (application) of each part. As such, the Veda Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas are employed predominantly during the yajñas and other rituals, while the Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads are employed predominantly as pedagogical texts to elaborate the internal philosophy of the rituals. Even here, there is significant overlap and crisscrossing of subject matter, as is evidenced in the above-mentioned articles.
Fortunately for us, there is Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad, also known as Yājñikī Upaniṣad which is the tenth chapter of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka. This Upaniṣad consists of numerous entire sections that are verbatim quotes of mantras from the Ṛgveda Samhitā. This clearly shows that the ancient Ṛṣis who composed the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka knew the deep spiritual metaphysics hidden within the Samhitā mantras, so much so that they felt that these mantras can speak directly about the philosophy that Upaniṣads are meant to convey.
This makes me feel completely validated and justified in sincerely understanding the deep and intimate concordance between the Ṛgveda Samhitā and the Upaniṣads. It proves to me incontrovertibly that my understanding of Vedas is completely in agreement with the long and ancient tradition. I have demonstrated the concordance in this article:
Furthermore, this deep intimate concordance is also demonstrated by the context-based commentary of Sāyaṇācārya. What I mean by “context-based” is that his commentary differs in focus depending on the part of the Veda where a mantra occurs. In particular, a mantra occurring in the Samhitā is given a more ritual-oriented explanation, while the same mantra occurring in the Āraṇyaka is given a more philosophical explanation. Again, this has been made possible by the existence of the tenth chapter of the Taittirīya Āraṇyaka, i.e. Yājñikī Upaniṣad, which quotes big chunks of Samhitā mantras in their original form.
Author: Ram Abloh
March 7th, 2020
Full profile of this Author can be viewed at : https://www.quora.com/profile/Ram-Abloh?ch=10&share=8afff2bd&srid=12MJJ
Sanatana Dhara 