“Veda, Upanishad & Tantra,” A revolt against the establishment of Indology.
Colonialism has gained prominence as a buzzword in the field of Indology in recent years. It has become a fashionable term among some individuals on the Indian right who use it liberally whenever an interpretation of scripture contradicts their own beliefs.
Sri Aurobindo, also known as Aurobindo Ghose, was a significant figure in 20th-century India. He was not only a philosopher, yogi, and poet but, more importantly, an Indian nationalist. Aurobindo played a pioneering role in the Indian independence movement against British colonial rule. After his imprisonment for involvement in the Alipore conspiracy, he underwent a profound transformation. This transformation led him to renounce worldly life and become a Sanyasi (monk), dedicating his life to spiritual and philosophical exploration.
Leveraging his deep knowledge of Sanskrit and drawing from his personal experiences, Aurobindo authored the renowned work “The Secret of The Veda.” This groundbreaking commentary delves into the Samhita portion of the Rig-Veda, considered the oldest religious text ever produced by humanity
This text sharply contrasts with the works of oriental scholars like Max Müller and Ralph T. Griffith, who portrayed the Samhita portions as ritualistic with limited philosophical value. Griffith and Müller heavily relied on the commentary of Sayanacharya, a 14th-century Mimamsa scholar whose analysis aligned the Vedas with the Mimamsa school of thought, emphasizing rituals as the pinnacle of spiritual attainment.
Aurobindo’s work challenged this narrative foundation by presenting an alternative perspective. He argued that the Rishis of the Rig-Veda were not mere pastoral people mindlessly chanting hymns to nature gods. Instead, they were evolved sages who had attained higher planes of consciousness. They encapsulated their profound experiences in the hymns we now know as the Rig-Veda.
In ‘Veda, Upanishad, and Tantra,’ a book authored by R.L. Kashyap, a former computer scientist and the founder of the Ho-Kashyap algorithm, a new perspective on Vedic texts is developed, building upon the work of Aurobindo.
In contrast to my previous articles, this piece departs from offering personal opinions and conclusions. Instead, it will focus on presenting and critiquing the ideas presented in this concise yet informative book.”
In the introduction of Veda, Upanishad, and Tantra, Kashyap reminds us that Sanskrit is unlike any language on this planet. William Jones, the 18th-century Anglo-Welsh philologist, described Sanskrit as “more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either.” Sanskrit, as a definition, means “perfected,” and was coined by the great 5th century BCE grammarian Panini in his famous Ashtadhyayi, a text that marked the transition of Sanskrit from Vedic to what we now know as classical. The very basis of Kashyap’s thesis is that current interpretations of Samitha portions have been clouded by scholars taking a too “literal” view. This “literal” view that Kashyap refers to ignores the concept of “experience” in traditional Indian scholarship, whereby it was mandated that the disciple reach a certain level of consciousness to understand the scripture. This phenomenon is known as Anubhuva, a Sanskrit word that means direct experience or personal knowledge. In relation to the Vedas, Kashyap explains that the Rig Veda is not merely a text of hymns and prayers but rather deep philosophical poetry clouded by symbolism which, due to colonial scholarship, has not been unearthed yet.
The book starts off with the chapter “Who are the Gods.” The gods of the Rig-Veda (Indra, Vayu, Mitra etc.) have been of great interest to modern scholars due to the fact that they are significantly different to the common Hindu pantheon that includes gods such as Rama, Krishna and Vishnu. One such plausible explanation for this difference was the Aryan Invasion Theory, a theory that was first purported by Max Mueller in order to explain the vast similarities between Vedic Sanskrit and European languages.
In this chapter, however, Kashyap takes a different line of thinking that is built on the belief that these Rigvedic Gods are not actual “Gods” but rather representations of other planes of existence. Kashyap takes the example of Agni, the God of fire and the second most famous God in the Rig-Veda Samitha. Utilising his theory of God’s being symbolic representations of different planes of existence, Kashyap presents the idea that Agni’s symbolism stands “for the principle of higher aspiration in man to achieve higher things than his present state.” The first hymn of the first mandala of the Rig Veda states, “I praise Agni, the god of fire, the divine priest, the family priest.” According to Kashyap, Agni being invoked at the very start of the Rig-Veda is clear evidence that he represents aspiration as “progress is not possible without aspiration.” This aspiration symbolised by Agni then leads to other Gods, such as Indra (who in mainstream scholarship is seen as the leader of the Rigvedic Aryans), being presented as “God of the divine mind.” Whilst this conclusion may seem very far-fetched, Kashyap draws on the methodology of using Puranic stories to evidence his findings. In this example, Kashyap’s theory of Indra as “God of the divine mind” is evidenced through a story he provides from the famous Hindu epic, The Ramayana. In the 7th canto of the epic, Ayhala, the wife of the Rigvedic sage Gautama is seduced by the God Indra, and when her husband Gautama finds out, she is subsequently turned into stone, only to be freed after Lord Rama touches it. Imagining Indra as merely the Lord of Battle (a view that many Western scholars take) is illogical, Kashyap argues; however, if we position Indra as the representation of the “God of all thoughts,” the deeper meaning of this story comes to the surface. Thus, taking the meaning of Indra as the “God of all thoughts,” Kashyap views the “seduction” as not a not physical event that occurred, but rather “Ahyala allowing the presence of immoral thoughts in her mind.” The stone that she turned to is a symbolic representation of the principle of “tamas”, an Ayurvedic concept that denotes inertia. The concept of seeing God as various manifestations of different planes of consciousness would also allow us to understand the story of God Vayu in The Ramayana as well. From a literal interpretation, the story is presented as Vayu (who in a literal sense is considered as God of the wind) approaching a princess, and after rejection, she turns into a hunchback. However, if we see the story through Kashyap’s methodology of viewing the gods as manifestations of consciousness, the profound message of this story is unearthed. Vayu is the God of vital energy, and without vital energies a man cannot function. Due to the rejection of Vayu (the symbolism), the princess is deprived of her vital energies, and it is common scientific knowledge that without vital energy, a human becomes weak hence represented in the hunchback that she turns into.
“The Upanishads” is a chapter that takes the greatest divergence from any mainstream Indologist that has ever studied Vedic scriptures. The word “Upanishad ‘’ means to “sit near ‘’ or “sit down,” referencing the rich tradition of Guru-disciple dialogue in Ancient India. The wisdom contained in these texts has often been described as the peak of all Indian philosophy, with 18th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer best known for his work “The World as Will,” commenting that the Upanishads “has been the solace of my life and it will be the solace of my death.” Historically the Upanishads are seen as texts created after the initial Vedic period and into the Sramana movement of Jains and Buddhists, which allowed for the exchange of key concepts such as reincarnation. Theologically, the establishment has often viewed the Upanishads as texts that wholly rebelled against the ritualistic nature of the Samitha and Brahmana portions marking the transition to a more philosophical way of life in Ancient India. This view isn’t only held by mainstream scholars but also Koenraad Elst, a champion of the Indian right who views the Upanishads, not Buddhism, as the rebellion against the sacrificial way of life that preceded it. Kashyap takes a contrary view asserting that the “Upanishads did not reject the Samithas such; they only claim they have discovered truths that are compatible with the Samithas.” Evidently, the doctrine of Madhu Vidya (mystic honey), a parable presented in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad that describes the connection of all beings to the self, is something already expounded in the Samitha portion of the Rig-Veda. Kashyap substantiates his theory that the philosophy of the Upanishads is in direct harmony with the Samitha, evidencing the quotes of the Rig-Veda verses (1.116.12;1.117.22,6.47.18.) These verses state that this exposition was already known to the sages of the Rig-Veda, specifically Dhadrayan Atharvan, who was taught this exposition by the twin healers, the Ashvin. Through drawing key quotes and philosophical connections, Kashyap goes against the mainstream narrative that the Samitha portions were mere barbaric indictments, instead proposing that they were the guiding philosophy of what later became the Upanishads.
The relationship between Veda and Tantra has been one of the biggest mysteries that Oriental scholarship has tried to solve. Many proponents of the Aryan Invasion theory argue that Tantra was a Dravidian concept that existed in the Harappan civilisation and, after the arrival of the Aryans, infused with the Vedic stream to form what we currently know as Hinduism. They cite the fact that many of the rituals of Tantra, such as idol worship and the belief in the feminine, are opposed to the more masculine and fire-worshipping Vedic texts. In the last chapter of this brief book, Kashyap tackles the issue of why there is such a difference between the Vedic and Tantric sects. Rather than positioning them as diametrically opposed philosophies, Kashyap presents the point of view that the Tantric gods are identical to the Vedic gods. Agni in the Veda, who is considered a messenger of the Gods, becomes Kumara in Tantric text. Indra, the chief of the Gods throughout the Rig-Veda, becomes Rudra and Aditi, the “Mother of the Gods” in the Vedas, becomes Shakti, the feminine energy that governs the universe. However, Kashyap notes that whilst “it is true that new Gods in Tantra, the prominent Gods of the Veda’s retain their supremacy under different names.” Taking this theory a step further, Kashyap points out that the text “Prapancha Sara Tantra,” an essential modern-day Tantric text, has verses that are borrowed straight out from the Rig-Veda. The 99th, 12th and 59th Sukta of the 7th mandala of the Rig-Veda, which are devoted to Agni, Rudra and Savitri, respectively, are the exact same as highlighted in the Tantric text and have been adapted to revere Durga, Vishnu and Shiva, respectively.
Veda, Upanishad, and Tantra is a must-read for any serious student of Indian philosophy. Kashyap constructs an alternative viewpoint that challenges the very foundation of scholarship in the Vedas. Whilst it is impossible to ignore Kashyap’s own ideological motives (he subscribes heavily to the history of the Indian right,) the ability of him to contextualise translation makes this work revolutionary in the field of Indology. In a world where scholarship is continually divided along ideological lines, it is ever more important to remember the Rig-Vedic saying, “Truth is one; sages call it by many names.”
