Before we proceed to note briefly the special features of Sri Aurobindo’s exposition of the hymns of the Rig Veda and point out how he unveils the true and inner sense of the Mys-tics and refer also to the authentic evidence he shows as emerging from the Vedic texts them-selves, we shall first dispose of the other objection mentioned earlier that his views on the Vedic hymns could not be accepted because they are opposed to the ‘traditional interpretations of Sayana and the system of Purva Mimamsa, the authority on Vedic interpretation’. Here again is a misconception or an ambiguity concerning what is called the traditional inter-pretation of Sayana. What is the tradition that was handed down to Sayana which he maintains in his interpretation of the Rig Vedic hymns? Or, is it meant by the term the tradition that he himself started and that has been handed down to us through his commentary on the Riks? Such a question arises because when we go through his Rig-bhashya we find him maintaining a variety of traditions coming down from different schools of learning. He maintains mostly the ritualistic tradition that the Mantras are meant for sacrificial purposes, with great zeal, very often at the cost of a straight rendering of the text. But the Brahma-nas, the original ritualistic scriptures themselves do not claim to be treated as the Vedas in the main of which the Mantras are a part having their place in the rituals. In scores of places Sayana in his commentary maintains the Vedantic tradition, the Puranic tradition and other Shastraic traditions without making any serious attempt to take notice of the discrepancies in his writings, much less to reconcile them at all. An instance may be cited to show that Sayana while endeavouring to expound the Riks in consonance with the tenets of the ritualist clean forgets that according to the latter there can be no mention of any actual historic occurrence in any portion of the Vedas, since they are eternal every sentence, every word, every syllable. Again, when Sayana finds certain hymns clearly symbolic or containing allegorical allusions, he explains them in a quite simple way making references to the minutiae of certain rites that are meant and ought to be so understood and avoids to mention any other possible significances of the Riks in question. He was quite aware of the fact that the ritualists were just one of the three main interpreters of the Vedas and this is clear when he occasionally quotes Yaska making references to a threefold interpretation of the hymns of the Rig Veda. When he gives us alternative meanings of words or verses, which he quite often does, it is obvious he does so as a scholar, with a certain indifference to the acceptance of the alternative meaning if it does not fit in with a sacrificial context. What then is the tradition he himself received or he has left behind? It is a jumble of traditions that we find registered in his commentary, as has been stated already, though of course he started his work with the avowed object of demonstrating that the Riks are ancillary and indispensable to the ceremonial rites of Vedic sacrifice. Certainly he did not follow a particular tradition in interpreting the Riks; for there has been no tradition as such recorded and available in the shape of a commentary on the whole of the Samhita. Sayana himself does not make mention of any commentary on the Rik Samhita as having existed before him. Had there been one or had he even heard of one as having existed and lost, he would certainly have stated it. Does latter explains the Riks? But he made his choice he not refer to Yaska frequently whenever the and sided with the ritualist supporting not fully, but to some extent, the Mimamsakas and wrote the commentary. The ritualistic tradition of Vedic religion was there long before him and he imbibed its spirit. That is not the same as to say-and it will be a travesty of truth-that that was also the tradition in regard to the interpretation of the Riks. If there was any tradition, it was the threefold interpretation of the Riks to which Yaska” draws our attention. But Sayana’s work has left us a new tradition that the Riks are to be interpreted only in one way and that is the way of the ritualist. The ancient tradition of a threefold interpretation has been thoroughly eclipsed, if not wiped out of the memory of the Indian Vedist for the last time and for good. This is the position. No one can seriously think of the so-called interpretation of Sayana as proving a bar to the acceptance of one of the three traditionally hand-ed down interpretations of the Riks. We may in passing note that the tradition of the spiritual interpretation was revived by Madhwacharya before Sayana, a century earlier, to which we will turn in the proper place. In regard to the tradition of the Mimamsaka there is nothing more to say than that they openly and avowedly confined themselves to ritualistic texts and devised rules to interpret the passages of the Brahmanas and none of them has ever felt the need or taken pains to enquire into the meanings of the Mantras. Their enquiry is directed towards what they call Dharma which means duty as enjoined in the Brahmanas or Dharma-mini the author of Mimamsa Sutras shastras. Jaimini has not made any attempt to study the question of the interpretation of the Riks, nor has Shabaraswami, his commentator nor the veteran Kumarila, not to talk of the lesser lights. Their field of enquiry is different. We may have occa-sion to refer to some of their views that have bearings on our subject. So much for the present.
It is not necessary here to make mention of the helpfulness of Sayana, the merits are great, but we can state this much that his com-mentary represents one phase of the Vedic worship, the external religion, namely, the Vedic sacrifice. Ages intervened between him and the Vedic Rishis. We may draw the reader’s attention to the intelligent guess, to the sensible remarks of Prof. Benfey. Every one who has carefully studied the Indian interpretations is aware that absolutely no continuous continuous tradition extending from the composition of the Veda to their explanation by Indian scholars, can be assumed; that, on the contrary, between the genuine poetic remains of Vedic antiquity and their interpretations a long continued break and tradition must have intervened, out of which, at most, the comprehension of some particulars may have been rescued and handed down to later times by means of liturgical usages and words, formulae, and perhaps also poems connected therewith. This last work of rescue is exactly what Sayana’s commentary represents. But these scholars lament, and along with them their loyal pupils pupils of India, that Sayana is usually rational but is often deceived by the Brahmanas and misled by Yaska for whom he had a misplaced reverence. This is because though Sayana’s interpretation them sufficient material for their rationalistic theories of Vedic gods, Vedic religion and Vedic poetry, it contains many other things, his theological beliefs, his irrational reverence for the gods which are after all none but Nature-Powers, his acceptance and exposition of spiritual ideas-though occasionally-that Riks conveyed to him which could not be true according to them, considering the remote times of these primitive peoples and therefore adversely affected some of their suppositions and conclusions.
Aarga’s commentary is its preservation of marlier scholarly requently introduces interpretations attributed to pr as “केचित्” (some scholars say) or “आप” (the tachon these earlier scholars at often unknown, Dura’s willing historians with valuable evidence concerning the diversity of her than presenting knowledge as the monopoly of angle ation as a cumulative enterprise enriched by succes
But whatever they may have thought erroneously, all that is but natural and such are always the imperfections that attend the labours of all pioneers in any field. In the galaxy of vanguards in the realm of Vedic studies Max Muller will always shine among those of the first magnitude, if only for his excellent edition of the Rik Samhita with Sayana Bhashya.
Whatever notions he may have entertained earlier or later in the progress of his Vedic studies, he had one warning to give to his colleagues of the West; we can take it as a cau-tion to every one who takes to the study of the Rig Veda in India also. ‘What we must guard against in all these studies is rejecting as absurd whatever we cannot understand at once, or what to us seems fanciful or irrational. I know from my own experience how often what seemed to me for a long time unmeaning, nay, absurd, disclosed after a time a far deeper mean-ing than I should ever have expected.”
