The Architectonic Unity of the Scriptures

One of the unique things about Madhva's interpretations is the architectonic unity of all the scriptures that he maintains.It is the general opinion that amongst the Indian Scriptures , the Vedas and the Upanishads come the first and afterwards the Puranas and the Shastra.The former is claimed as Sruti and the latter as Smirti , the former a divine revelation , the latter not so great as the former , and meant for the lesser folk who could not understand , and was something that was "remembered" , and merely a record of the customs and traditions.It is even held by most indians that in case of a contradiction between the Purana and the Veda , the latter overrides the former and the same school also holds the idea that the Vedas , especially the karmakanda contain rituals for the satisfaction of the lower impulses and it is in the Upanishads the highest of the spiritual ideas are found.We were even told once that Vedanta means the "end of the Vedas" and therefore refers to the Upanishads and the Upanishads are "Vedanta" or the conculsion fo the Vedas.It is held that the Upanishads are the conclusion of the Vedic teachings and represent the Highest Knowledge.

This view is mainly due to two people.Firstly it was Shankara who held the karmakanda as merely ritualistic and rejected that part as inferior.The second are the European Scholars who ahev held it to be the work of primitive nature worshipping tribes who were in later times superceded by the highly enlightened Rishis.

Madhva on the other hand makes no such difference of the karmakanda and the jnanakanda.He has shown both to contain the same spiritual truth and has given the adhyatmika interpretions of the KK rituals.He has held the latter as also dedicated to the worship of Sri Hari , and the Deity worshipped is none other Vishnu himself.The KK rituals are like the sugar coated pills given to a sick person to encourage him to take the medicine that will relieve him of suffering.Its of the same high spiritual sense as the jnanakanda rituals.

Madhva also sees no difference between the Vedas and the Puranas.He says both represent the same truth only teh language and symbolism is different.What is represented in high flown sanskrit in words pregnant with spiritual meanings , the same is represented in the fables and stories of the Puranas.Thus he places both on the same pedestal.

To give an example , when the Rishis of ancient India intoned "Indra" , it was at once known to the disciple that it refers not jsut to the chief of the Heavens Indra , but also to Vishnu the father of the Universe , and that the former was the energizer of the latter and its to him all worship is to be directed.

But in later times this knowledge was lost ,and people started worshiping Indra without realsing it also represents Vishnu.So an enlightened sage composed the fable of Krishna lifting the mountains.Thus when Krishna sees the people of Vrindavana worshipping Indra for rains , he asks them to worship him as it is He who sends forth rains.And when Indra reacts angrily by flooding Vrindavana , Krishna protects the people by lifting the mountains for seven days until Indra relents.This fable dileanates the taratamya and also the fact that Krishna is Supreme.

The contradictions between various Indian Scriptures and the Vedas and the Puranas vanishes once the adhyatmica interpretation of the Vedas given by Madhva is accepted.Then we see in the light of true divine knowledge that there is no difference between the Vedas and the Puranas and in fact they are one and the same , there is no question of one overriding the other , for it is the One that has Become the Many.

Infact Madhva says that the Mahabharata contains even greater truths than the Vedas.There are ten meanings for every verse of the Mahabharata whereas there are only 3 meanings for every vedic verse.And add to that Vishnu as Veda Vyasa added even more truths in the Mahabharata that are not found in the Vedas.For this reason Madhvas hold the Mahabharata superior to the Vedas.



Again, I certainly did not intend to express my own idea in the description of the Upanishads as a revolt of philosophic minds against the ritualistic materialismof the Vedas. If I held that view, I could not regard the earlier Sruti as an inspired scripture or the Upanishads as Vedanta and I would not have troubled myself about the secret of the Veda. It is a view held by European scholars and I accepted it as the logical consequence, if the ordinary interpretations of the hymns, whether Indian or European, are to be maintained. If the Vedic hymns are, as represented by Western scholarship, the ritualistic compositions of joyous and lusty barbarians the Upanishads “have then to be conceived as a revolt . . . against the ritualistic materialism of the Vedas.” From both premiss and conclusion I have dissented and I have finally described, not only the Upanishads, but all later forms, as a development from the Vedic religion and not a revolt against its tenets. Our Indian doctrine avoids the difficulty in another way, by interpreting the Veda as a book of ritual hymns and revering it as a book of knowledge. It puts together two ancient truths without reconciling them effectively. In my view, that reconciliation can only be effected by seeing even in the exterior aspect of the hymns not a ritualistic materialism, but a symbolic ritualism. No doubt the karmakanda was regarded as an indispensable stepping-stone to the knowledge of the Atman. That was an article of religious faith, and as an article of faith I do not dispute its soundness. But it becomes valid for the intellect—and in an intellectual inquiry I must proceed by intellectual means,—only if the karmakanda is so interpreted as to show how its performance assists, prepares or brings about the higher knowledge. Otherwise, however much the Veda may be revered in theory, it will be treated in practice as neither indispensable nor helpful and will come in the end to be practically set aside—as has actually happened.

Volume: 15 [CWSA] (The Secret of the Veda), Page: 594

I am aware that some hymns of the Veda are interpreted in a sense other than the ritualistic; even the European scholars admit higher religious and spiritual ideas in the “later hymns” of the Vedas. I am aware also that separate texts are quoted in support of philosophical doctrines. My point was that such exceptional passages do not alter the general tone and purport given to the hymns in the actual interpretations we possess. With those interpretations, we cannot use the Rig Veda as a whole, as the Upanishads can be used as a whole, as the basis of a high spiritual philosophy. Now, it is to the interpretation of the Veda as a whole and to its general character that I have addressed myself. I quite acknowledge that there has always been a side-stream of tendency making for the adhyatmic interpretation of the Veda even as a whole. It would be strange if in a nation so spiritually minded such attempts had been entirely lacking. But still these are side-currents and have not received general recognition. For the Indian intellect in general, there are only two interpretations, Sayana's and the European. Addressing myself to that general opinion, it is with these two that I am practically concerned.

Volume: 15 [CWSA] (The Secret of the Veda), Page: 595

I am still of the opinion that the method and results of the early Vedantins differed entirely from the method and results of Sayana, for reasons I shall give in the second and third numbers of “Arya”. Practically, not in theory, what is the result of Sayana's commentary? What is the general impression it leaves on the mind? Is it the impression of “Veda”, a great Revelation, a book of highest knowledge? Is it not rather that which the European scholars received and from which their theories started, a picture of primitive worshippers praying to friendly gods, friendly but of a doubtful temper, gods of fire, rain, wind, dawn, night, earth and sky, for wealth, food, oxen, horses, gold, the slaughter of their enemies, even of their critics, victory in battle, the plunder of the conquered? And if so, how can such hymns be an indispensable preparation for the Brahmavidya? Unless, indeed, it is a preparation by contraries, by exhaustion or dedication of the most materialistic and egoistic tendencies, somewhat as the grim old Hebrew Pentateuch may be described as a preparation for the mild evangel of Christ. My position is that they were indispensable not by a mechanical virtue in the sacrifice, but because the experiences to which they are the key and which were symbolised by the ritual, are necessary to an integral knowledge and realisation of Brahman in the universe and prepare the knowledge and realisation of the transcendent Brahman. They are, to paraphrase Shankara's description, mines of all knowledge, knowledge on all the planes of consciousness, and do fix the conditions and relations of the divine, the human and the animal element in the being.I do not claim that mine is the first attempt to give an adhyatmic interpretation of the Veda. It is an attempt—the first or the hundredth matters little—to give the esoteric and psychological sense of the Veda based throughout on the most modern method of critical research. Its interpretation of Vedic vocables is based on a re-examination of a large part of the field of comparative Philology and a reconstruction on a new basis which I have some hope will bring us nearer to a true science of Language. This I propose to develop in another work, the “Origins of Aryan Speech”. I hope also to lead up to a recovery of the sense of the ancient spiritual conceptions of which old symbol and myth give us the indications and which I believe to have been at one time a common culture covering a great part of the globe with India, perhaps, as a centre. In its relation to this methodical attempt lies the only originality of the “Secret of the Veda”.