1. Why focus on Ṛgveda? A dispassionate understanding of how the Veda is structured will tell you that what you call Ṛgveda (you really mean just the Sam̐hitā part) is literally a collection (“Sam̐hitā”) of mantras. It is not a text that addresses you or has a “message”.
1. Cont’d
The Brāhmaṇa texts, the Gītā, the Purāṇas, etc are examples of texts that address the reader & has a descriptive message or prescriptive call to action. The Ṛk-Sam̐hitā is an inventory of mantras & thus, you shouldn’t have expectations of it that it can’t fulfil.
The Brāhmaṇa texts, the Gītā, the Purāṇas, etc are examples of texts that address the reader & has a descriptive message or prescriptive call to action. The Ṛk-Sam̐hitā is an inventory of mantras & thus, you shouldn’t have expectations of it that it can’t fulfil.
2. The link between being a Brāhmaṇa & a Ṛṣi lineage is actually well-established as early as in the Kṛṣṇayajurveda Sam̐hitā texts, which are interspersed with Brāhmaṇa passages that address the reader & explains things.
3. The concept of Ārṣeyatvam:
4. To go back to point 1 above, because it is important: Yes, the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā is a collection of metrical mantras, with the title or “directions for use” not being part of the actual contents. So, we have always had to resort to ancillary texts to construe the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā. +++
4. Cont’d: An interesting example: See the Nirukta with Durgācārya’s commentary. The Nirukta is a work by Yāskācārya, which explains the etymology of words in the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā. Durgācārya refuses to deal with a part of Nirukta explaining 4 mantras in the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā. Why?
4. Cont’d: As a Vāsiṣṭha, Durgācārya could not comment on those 4 mantras, unleashed by Viśvāmitra upon Vasiṣṭha’s clan, as it was the received tradition & consensus of the Vāsiṣṭhas that those verses are harmful for their welfare.
The Veda is intimately related to certain clans & lineages. You cannot take this away from the Veda.
5. Leave the nirukta; even if you look at the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā, although it is a collection of mantras as I stated above & lacks actual directives or injunctive statements, the mantras are intelligible. So, we can still get some information. And what is it that we get?
5. Cont’d If you look at the Ṛk-Sam̐hitā, you will find references to the ritual & liturgical mastery of specific groups: Āṅgirasas, Bhṛgus, Vaiśvāmitras, Vāsiṣṭhas, Agastīs, Kāśyapas, Ātreyas, etc.
5. Cont’d: The beauty of this is that there is hardly a textual collection on earth like this whose chief contributors are still survived by those who call themselves their descendants with the weight of an unbroken memory behind it.
5. Cont’d: Empires have fallen & great dynasties have perished but there still remain the Bhāradvājas, Gautamas, Vāsiṣṭhas, etc, who can still relate to the hoary vedic texts & say, “I am a Bhāradvāja” or “I am a Vāsiṣṭha”. This should be an object of wonder, not resentment.
5. Cont’d: The Yahudas had their Levite-Kohanim priesthood & texts codifying their rituals. But those institutions & ancestral legacies are destroyed. The priestly legacies of Egyptian, Greco-Roman & Norse polytheisms have perished.
5. Cont’d: The lineages of Brāhmaṇas, who preserve the hymns of their Ṛṣi forbears are not to be vilified.
Sometimes, I can’t help but wonder if the idea is: “Oh I do not have this for myself, so others too should not have. I want it to be undermined.”
Sometimes, I can’t help but wonder if the idea is: “Oh I do not have this for myself, so others too should not have. I want it to be undermined.”
Loading suggestions...