nalupu or telupu? vEdamula prasakti
mturumella@memrb.com.cy
Fri, 18 Jul 1997 21:04:22 +0200
Dear Veluriraogaru,
namaskAraM!
I start with saying that vedas are "apourushEyas". veda means "that which is
known". In order to know, it has to be explained by someone. That means there
should be a teacher and a taught. Here, they say that the teacher is God
himself! Let me quote from "satapatha brAhmana" it says that "rudra has got his
name because he gave vedas to brahma, in the beginning."
"rutiM vEdAtmAnaM.. sabdaM brahmaNE dadAti iti rudraH" - means "he is called as
rudra because he gave the vedas in the form of sound to brahma. Again the same
brahmana says that "rutyA vEdaroopayA dharmAdeenavalOkayati prApayateetivA
rudraH" means - "he makes us understand the truth (that is hidden behind the
cosmic universe) and makes us apply it to the daily life, hence called as
rudra".
Scientists make discoveries, does that mean they have created/found, altogether,
something that is not at all exists in this universe? No! they just
"dis-cover". They unveil something that is vailed. For example, Newton
discovered the gravitational force. That does not mean that gravity was not
existing before... he came to know that it is there. Now the question, who told
Newton that gravity is there? NO ONE! So he came to know by himself. The same
concept is called as "apourusheya" in sanskrit. Vedas are truth... the truth is
discovered and they named that as "apourusheya".
It is better, not to understand vedas by reading the translations of the western
scholars. One has to read "vidyAraNyeeM" the vidranyas (called as sayana)
commentary on Vedas. I heard that western scholars made to many mistakes,
unfortunately, while translating sayana into english, It is obvious, though.
Vedas never talk about the fair skin or the dark skin. Your saying that " vedic
preference or bias was to the fair (light) skin!" is completely wrong.
I agree that there is a "Krishna yajurveda" and a "Sukla yajurvEda" . People
usually misunderstand that one is dark and one is white... In fact, the sukla
yajurvEda's seer "yAjnyavalkya" is described as having a very dark skin. The
same with his two wives and seers "maitrEyi and gArgi". If yAjnavalkya wanted
to name his veda after the skin type, he would, definitely, not have named it as
Suklayajurveda. And Krishna wouldn't have mentioned that "suklakrishna
gateehyEtE jagataH SASatEmatE" in his vibhooti yOga. Perhaps, one can easily
interpret (according to now a days trend) this statement saying that - "blacks
and whites are going to fight for ever"!!
There is a meaning behind using the names "krishna and sukla" in order to
segregate them.
They used the name "Krishna" because it speaks of all the worldly things!
Krishna means "attraction". I mean, it speaks of praising the gods and getting
boons. "How to do well in this loka" is taught by KrishnayajurvEda, where as
SuklayajurvEda basically speaks about attaining mukti (liberation). Sukla
yajurvEda is also having a name of vAjasanEya samhita, because it is told to
Sage yajnyavalkya, by surya in the form of a horse (vAjasravamu). In order to
understand vedas we have to understand "nirukta". It is one of the vedaMgas
(auxiliary veda). That is why in "taittareeyOpanishad" the teacher insists his
students "niruktaMcA niruktaMca"... it is necessary to have through knowledge of
Nirukta before attempting to understand vedas. Nirukta says that "sukla" means
"light" "light of wisdom". Dark is a natural concept, there is no bias about
the color, at least definitely those days. The famous "eeSAvASyOpanishad" is
from the SuklayajurvEda.
"eesAvAsyamidaM sarvaM, yatkiMca jagatyAM jagat
tEna tyaktEna bhuMgeedhA, mAgRUdhaH kaSyaswiddanaM" eesaupanishad 1-18
The whole universe is pervaded by him, in all animated and inanimate objects.
Since, it is provided by him, enjoy, don't steal, whose wealth is this anyway".
The first act of socialism is taught in Sukla yajurvEda. He provided us air to
breath, water to drink, food to eat. We are getting nothing from outer space.
Everything is recycled, again and again (by whom) here itself. We try to
pollute the atmosphere. We try to pollute our water. We try to loot. Sukla
yajurvEda advises us that "one shouldn't surpass the cosmic law". We are
depending on the Sun. The whole universe is depending on him. Hence it is
sukla path. When the veda is speaking of cosmic truth, it is sad to
misinterpret it as biased about skin types.
Regarding the slokas you mentioned (from marriage ceremonies):
We in Andrapradesh mostly are "ApastaMbeeyas". We follow the rituals that are
set-up by Sage Apastamba. He is a follower of Krishnayajurveda. There are
"mAdhyaMdinas" who follow suklayajurvEda. In my opinion, vedas have got nothing
to do with the system that we apply them. There are "madhyaMdinas" and
"prAtisAkyas" and the recent ones "bhaTTiyas". bhaTTeeyas do not chant the
sloka you have mentioned.
According to nirukta, surya came from the root meaning "aadattE rasAn". He
takes away the rasa (interpreted as desire) from everywhere". Satapadha
comments on the saying "mayi mEdhAM mayi prajAM mayyagnistEjO dadhAtu". The
tEjas that is visible in Agni is the varcassu from Surya. You can not directly
look at the sun because you loose your eyes. varcas means adoration. Sun god
is adored by our Vedic seers. They thought that the wife has to be adored by
her husband. Otherwise there will be many clashes in saMsAra. That is why
they said that "let her have respect from her husband". Let me elaborate the
"aphala's" story.
"aphala" is Sage Atri's daughter suddenly has got an ugly skin disease. Her
husband left her because of that. Hapless women, being deserted by her husband,
tries to kill herself and her father rescues her. Having come to know the
story, he advises his daughter to prey sun god by keeping soma leaves in her
mouth. The sun god heals her ailment and her husband accepts her again.
Actually, "apastaMba" mentions about the main idea behind keeping the sloka in
marriage. He did not wanted the bride to be deserted by her husband, like it
happened to aphala. Everyone is praying the sun god so that the same ill fate
will not befall on to the new bride.
Tell me onething, a bride who is having a very dark skin, could ever become
white by praying the sungod? Priests are no such people to imagine that way!
Coming to Dr. Kosambi's quote, for some definite reasons, I do not believe in
Aryan and draviDiyan concept itself! So where is the question of accepting his
theory of darkskin and fairskin and the enimity between the people who got those
skin types!
To conclude: "Vedas are not speaking of Caste, nor the color, nor the creed.
They are not biased. They are the compilations of truth, truth and nothing but
truth." - "satyamEkaM viprAH bahudhA vadaMti.".
I remain, sincerely yours
Madhava
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: nalupu or telupu? my turn!
Author: PC:rveluri@smtpgate.anl.gov at INTERNET
Date: 7/18/97 2:17 AM
As a bonus here is a quote from D D Kosambi: " The priestly
function was not as yet specialised to any one caste in Rigveda,
and in fact the only caste difference in the earliest Veda was of
colour between light-skinned Aryans and their darker enemies."
(The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical
Outline, page 82, 1989 Edition, Vikas Publishing House, Bombay)
Regards.
V R "always willing to try to get back at the root cause" Veluri