Interpreting Vedic and Puranic Texts in a Vacuum and Out of Context

Image Courtesy: www.anjalika.in

I intended this post as an "unlearning-relearning" lesson for people (including me) to remove any prejudices that might exist in our interpretation of Vedic, Puranic, and other ancient Hindu scriptural texts. Prejudices may include - "all this is made up by brahmins", "anybody arguing 'for' any of this is an apologist", etc. Hopefully, any judgement will be made at the end of the entire post.

Please comment if you see me making any factually inaccurate statements or have anything to share.

The Vedas (encompassing Upanishads, Braahmanas, etc.) Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata (including the Bhagavad Gita), Aagamas, Manusmruti, Brahmasutras, and some other texts form the core scriptural texts of the Hindu system.

Of these, the Vedas are the only texts considered "shruti" ("apaurasheya" or authorless). In the Hindu system, the Vedas exist eternally without at any point in time or space being created or destroyed - like the laws of physics (although portions of the Vedas may be unavailable at times or incorrectly understood). The eternal existence of the Vedas is identical to that of the supreme being and the infinite number of souls. The unwritten nature of the Vedas are the reason why they form the final point of reference when considered alongside all other texts. And the Vedas are a neutral final point of reference even over say, the Bhagavad Gita rendered by the supreme being (Krishna avatara).

Timelines of these Texts
We know that the Bhagavad Gita was rendered by the supreme being (Krishna) to Arjuna on the Mahabharata battlefield. At the end of the Gita, when Arjuna is ready to fight, the war begins. This makes it easy to date the Bhagavad Gita (based on other accounts, e.g., that of Sanjaya).

The Mahabharata was first recorded by Vedavyasa. The war itself, of course was described by Sanjaya in real-time. The entire Mahabharata was retold by sage Vaishampayana to Janamejaya (son of Parikshit and descendant of the Pandavas).

Even with these timelines, there are some things to note. The events of the Mahabharata play out at the end of the Dwapara Yuga (around 5000 years ago). Janamejaya is the second Kuru king in the Kali Yuga which is believed to have begun during the reign of Parikshit.

With most other texts, most notably the Vedas, there have been attempts (mostly by Europeans) to date each part of the Vedas. Contrary to the traditional India belief of the Vedas being not time-bound, the Europeans used the Vedas very literally. Descriptions of regions, peoples, and rivers (for example) were used as descriptions of these at a certain time in history. For good reason or bad, these attempts were also driven by a linguistic analysis of the Vedas. There is wide variance in the Sanskrit style used, which suggested to the analysts different authors who contributed to the Vedic whole at different points in time. "Vedic period" is a common term we hear.

In the Vedas, portions (mantras, suktas) are ascribed a "rishi moola" or a sage who discovered ('was revealed to') that portion of the Vedas and made it available to the common man. This attribution is not one of authorship, but one of discovery. In the Hindu system (as the Vedas themselves state), the Yugas (in Manvantara after Manvatara, Kalpa after Kalpa of Brahma) play out infinitely. Just as the souls and the supreme being exist without beginning or end, the Vedas (that arguably are the 'documentation') exist indefinitely too. In each Mahayuga, the Vedas that "exist in the ether" are merely rediscovered for the benefit of humans.

What changes in each iteration is either the 'Manu' (each Manu's reign runs for about 71 Mahayugas the current Manu is Vaivasvatha), or the Kalpa (one day-time equivalent of Brahma; we are currently in the Shveta Varaha Kalpa). I don't know if any such details are known to man beyond the current Kalpa. The main rishis may change from Mahayuga to Mahayuga, and hence perhaps Puranic details that relate to the specifics of that Yuga.

A Pause
Let's take a pause here. There may already be several questions in our heads regarding the authenticity or validity of what the Vedas or Puranas say. Why must one believe the stories that a Purana might say? Why must a Kalpa be as long as it is claimed to be? How can something be authorless (i.e., the Vedas)?  If there is a Manu reigning now, where is he? I don't believe there can be any conclusive proofs that that answer these questions. Below are some things to consider.

The Metaphorical vs The Literal
The Vedas and Puranas use a lot of linguistic instruments and styles to convey things. It is fair to say, based on centuries and millennia of analysis and schools of thought that exist and thrive even today, that these texts have layered meanings, sometimes apparently conflicting one another. For example, the Rudraprasna (Rudram) may convey at a superficial level (to someone with rudimentary Sanskrit knowledge) the supremacy of Rudra/Shiva. The Narayana Upanishad may convey at a superficial level the supremacy of Narayana. What do Rudra and Narayana denote? Are they just 2 among the many million Hindu gods? Who is supreme, Rudra or Narayana? What does supreme mean, by the way? What are the qualities of God? These are questions that require deep analysis. The Hindu system has been predominantly rooted in the analysis of theVedas, for they are believed to be authorless. The other texts (whether God-given or human-written) are additional texts for reference, but cannot override anything the Vedas say.

It is this metaphorical nature of our texts that confuses many. The Purusha Sukta says "padbhyaam shoodro ajaayata". So, the shudra (in the Varna system) must have originated from God's legs? I don't think it is to be interpreted as literally as that.

Unfortunately, many translations that float around, especially on the internet, are poor translations. Either they do not provide the right context, or are outright incorrect. A lot of things are lost in translation, from Sanskrit to English. For example, I read some translations of passages from the Manusmriti as it relates to women. One translation read something like this: "women always look to seduce men, so be careful around them." I highly doubt that that was what the Manusmriti said. Bottles and bottles of ink have been wasted by people coming up with or using such translations to brand the Manusmriti as being anti-women. The correct import (corroborated by many other texts) is for men to control all their senses for a laser-like focus on their intellectual pursuits, and be careful around things that are likely to cause distractions. And, remember that "lose control" itself is an approximate translation. Controlling of senses includes the eating of Satvic-only foods (the avoidance of meat, some root vegetables, etc.), the performance of strict penances and yagnas ("sacrifice" is another of those poor translations), avoidance of wealth and material comforts, etc. The implication is not (and cannot be) that women are all seductresses. Any Indian can tell you that.

The Decline of Dharma and Morality through the Yugas
Most in the Hindu system believe that dharma and morality have gradually declined over the ages. This is not merely through what the Puranas or other texts say, but through general experience as well. Just in the last century, there is a general decline in personal and family values and an individualistic push towards material wealth and comforts. This goes against the simple lifestyles that were the norm even a century ago. No doubt there was bloodshed in the middle ages and before between kings and their armies. The general peace that we experience in much of the world today is, by no means, an indicator of dharma being somehow in any upward trajectory.

The Krita (Satya) Yuga, the Puranas describe, was a time when there was nothing but goodness, with no hint of evil. No jealousy, no greed, no hunger, no physical duties other than austerities and hardship (tapasya) that men and women put themselves to for intellectual and spiritual needs. There was no need to cook or indulge in any physical hardship for survival, for, the absolute lack of any evil (or evil intent) enabled the conjuring up of any food man desired. Of course, man would not 'desire' food, for the only real desire would be intellectual upliftment. It is difficult for us today to imagine what a time like that might have been, where, for e.g., no laws were required (for no crimes were intended or committed). Everybody lived their lives as prescribed in the Vedas not out of compliance but out of their own volition.

Note that this blissful state of the Krita Yuga is not to do with individual human being alone, but with the entire human race at that time. Equally good men and women have existed in other yugas (in Treta and Dwapara, at least) but the human race at that time did not collectively have the virtue of the Krita Yuga.

The Manusmriti is believed by some (mostly those that don't know exactly what is in it) to be one of the main reasons for Indian society's ills today. Note that much of what the Manusmriti says are corroborated in many of our other texts such as the Puranas. The roles of people in the different Varnas,  for example. Modern interpretations tend to assume that the Brahmins had it good and luxurious according to the rules they themselves established. Quite the contrary. Note that with their role being intellectual inquiry and dissemination to others, the lifestyle prescribed for them is one of begging for food. Do you believe that Brahmins of the Manusmriti might be better off than what the Shudras are prescribed? Think again. The Brahmins are to beg, the Shudras could buy food from the Vaishyas. Again, "beg" is a poorly translated word. Bhiksha or daana (charity) are not the same as "begging" in today's world.

In the Treta Yuga (during which Rama incarnated), there was already a decline in dharma. Examples of evil (normal human behavior according to today's yardstick) include Kaikeyi scheming against Rama, of Vali kidnapping his own brother Sugriva's wife, of Sugriva forgetting his promise to Rama of helping search Sita, etc. With the beginning of a decline in dharma in the Treta Yuga came the varna system (this I believe is when Manusmriti was really composed and kicked in). Rules and regulations for the conduct of people, the duties of kings, of brahmins, of vaishyas who run the economy, etc came into effect.

It is my understanding that the varna system as it existed in its earliest form allowed for people to move from one varna to another after they had proved themselves worthy of it. The varna system was not strictly based on one's birth. Why would not everybody want to move to the "highest level" of Brahmins? Because it meant an austere life with little material pleasure outside of marital life. It is not just a 1st class ticket that the varna system accorded to Brahmins. You could not simply sign up to become a Vaishya unless you were capable of managing wealth and contributing to the agrarian society and economy in the right way, or a Kshatriya unless you had that talent. All this said, I need to investigate further to learn more about the evolution and degradation of the varna system through the yugas. I have a lot of unanswered questions myself.

Clearly, the varna system has become more rigid through the Yugas, especially in Dwapara and of course even more rigid in Kali Yuga. Even in the Dwapara Yuga, Krishna incarnates to rid the earth of tyrant Kshatriya kings. Subcastes based on intermarriage seem to have come into vogue even in the Dwapara Yuga (for e.g., Soota - Karna's perceived caste - was the caste of those born of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother). At some point in the Kali Yuga, there appear to have emerged outcastes (Dalits) for reasons that I don't understand. This is clearly a major problem with the way the varna system evolved. Brahmins today do not necessarily have only intellectual pursuits or lead austere lives, the Vaishyas fleece society, the Kshatriyas do not protect their people well, etc., leading to general discontentment and disbelief in the system.

Note that the Varna system flourished for the benefit of all with pervasive mutual trust and the fulfilment of roles and responsibilities, not when abuse had begun corrupting it.

Conclusion
Our opinions (usually extreme) on the Varna system, on our scriptural texts - their stories and other content, are for the most part based on what we believe to be in them, not based on our own study. We lack the context to properly interpret them, and whether our own extreme point of view is one of complete trust or hate, it will do us well to apply the proper context and learn from what they have to offer.