Rahul  Peter Das

Part Two
NB. The footnotes for this article are linked to a separate footnote page.

I have already mentioned that the wide application of the  term "Veda" and the corresponding adjective "Vedic"  has not gone unchallenged in South Asia; indeed, it remains a bone of contention  to this very day. Yet even many challenging this usage of the word seem  not to be able to escape the influence of this very usage, as an extract  from a small booklet setting forth tenets of the Arya Samaj shows:

The Vedas are four in number, The Rg. Veda [sic], The Yajur  Veda, The Sama Veda, The Atherva [sic] Veda. Vedic literature consists  of other treatises also, some commentaries, others [sic] notes, legends  and stories of different values, written in different times and under  different circumstances. As far as the Arya Samaj in [sic] concerned,  the Vedas are the final authority. All other treatises, old or new, small  or big, are only of secondary importance.⁴⁴

This confusion has had the not surprising effect of necessitating  a clarification of some sort. Often it is explained that those texts which  qualify as "Vedic" according to the definition also followed by  Western classical indologists are the original Vedas. Prabhupada also follows  this terminology at times,⁴⁵ even differentiating between the original Vedas  and the "supplementary Vedic literatures" (namely the Puranas).⁴⁶ But  he notes with disapproval the Arya Samaj's acceptance of only these original  Vedas as authoritative. ⁴⁷

Prabhupada also draws attention to statements in Madhva's  commentary on the Brahmasutra which bolster his usage of "Veda"  to correspond to "Vedic₂". He refers to the commentary  on Brahmasutra 1,1,3 as proof that according to Madhva the four Vedic  Samhitas, the Mahabharata, the Pancaratra and the "original Ramayana" (as he translates Madhva's mularamayana-) are  "Vedic literatures". Prabhupada holds that according to Madhva  "any literature following the conclusive statements of this Vedic literature  is also to be considered Vedic literature."⁴⁸ Actually,  in the passage referred to, Madhva designates these texts only as shastra-,⁴⁹ but Prabhupada also quotes another verse from  Madhva's commentary on 2,1,5 (Prabhupada refers to it as 2,1,6) ⁵⁰ which clearly designates these same texts, as  well as the puranas accepted as authoritative by Vaishnavas, as "Veda".⁵¹ Though Madhva only quotes this verse from a  Purana, the fact that he does obviously accept it as authoritative shows  that he subscribes to its views.⁵² It  should be noted, however, that (at least as far as I can ascertain) Prabhupada  does not seem to follow Madhva to the extent of calling texts other than  those already referred to above "Vedic", i.e. in extending the  scope of what I have designated as "Vedic₂" even more.

In this context I may be permitted to draw attention to the  fact that the Bhagavadgita is also traditionally known as an Upanishad.  Prabhupada too does not fail to draw attention to this.⁵³ May not such traditional terminology have facilitated  the development of the semantic field of what I have labelled "Vedic₂"?

This brings us to another problem regarding Prabhupada's terminology.  A few times he refers to the Vedas and the Upanishads,⁵⁴  even though the former mostly subsumes the latter. Such a differentiation  is clearly problematic, unless it refers not to the differentiation between  Vedic and non-Vedic texts, but to texts more concerned with sacrifice and  those not concerned with the topic, viz., to non-Upanishadic Vedic texts  and the Upanishads. Or else "Veda" here is used in the same archaic  sense which Bronkhorst⁵⁵ has drawn attention to, namely to denote the  mantras, here in their collected form (as the Samhitas), thus differentiating  them from other Vedic texts.

This explanation seems indeed to be the correct one, for Prabhupada  also explicitly speaks of four Vedas and the Upanishads,⁵⁶   and differentiates between "Upanishads and Vedic mantras"⁵⁷  (even though mantra- is elsewhere used to refer to quotations from  the Upanishads too).⁵⁸ Thus, it does seem that what is meant here is  a differentiation primarily between the Samhitas and the Upanishads, the  place of Brahmanas and Aranyakas remaining unclear. And it is the Samhitas,  in contradistinction to the Upanishads, which are in the context of this  differentiation referred to as "Vedas."

We thus have another use of "Vedic" here, which  I propose to label "Vedic3." The differentiation between Vedas  and Upanishads is incidentally also referred to by another branch of the parampara- associated with Bhaktibinod Thakur.⁵⁹

Finally, we find a usage of the word "Veda" (without,  so it seems, any corresponding adjective "Vedic") which seems  confined to Prabhupada's oral discourses and does not-at least as far as  I could ascertain-appear in his writings.⁶⁰ In  this case Prabhupada recurs to the primary meaning of veda-, namely,  "(sacred) knowledge", and applies this to the sacred scriptures  of any religion, as examples naming the Bible and the Koran.⁶¹   But it seems that this use of the word "Veda" to refer to scripture  associated with other religious traditions is hardly known, probably because  it is - seemingly - not found in Prabhupada's writings, but only in the  transcripts of his conversations, which were until recently not easy to  come by.

Thus we see that Prabhupada uses the same word "Vedic"  in three different meanings: "Vedic₁" approximates  most closely to what the Western classical indologist would understand by  this term; "Vedic₂" refers to texts containing what  is to Prabhupada Vedic thought and which are hallowed inasmuch as they are  derived from Vyasa; and "Vedic₃" is a narrower application  of "Vedic1", referring only to the Samhitas (as contrasted to  the Upanishads) and thus continuing an ancient usage of the term. Prabhupada  also is on record as using "Veda" to refer to other scriptural  traditions. Obviously, this usage of the same term in different meanings  is liable to lead to misunderstandings, unless one is able to carefully  differentiate these different meanings in each individual case in which  the term is used.

Have those following in Prabhupada's footsteps always been  aware of these differentiations? I have already briefly remarked on this  problem of the usage of "Vedic" and "Veda" elsewhere,⁶² as  well as the fact that some scholars, particularly from North America (and  not affiliated with ISKCON), also often do not explicate what they mean  by "Vedic" in certain problematic contexts.⁶³ This latter is in no small part due to the fact  that a similar variety of meanings also seems to obtain in other modern  writings on South Asian religions, especially writings from groups professing  these religions.

Although it would be highly interesting to examine this problem  and how such terminological issues may have influenced Prabhupada, our concern  here is only with finding out what Prabhupada means in his writings, and  how what he means has influenced others. To obtain an answer to this question,  I have examined a sampling of writing by scholars affiliated with ISKCON  or influenced by Prabhupada, and have analysed their use of the terms "Veda"  and/or "Vedic". Unfortunately, I could obtain only a handful of  works,⁶⁴ and  of these only a few contained relevant information. But I think that these  few will nevertheless serve to give some idea of the usage prevailing, even  if they may not be truly representative.

A work by Nanda-nandana⁶⁵ is  particularly interesting in this regard. He first refers to the Vedic literatures  (mark the plural!) as being composed, in their oldest part, of the Rigveda,  Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda, followed by the Brahmanas,  the Aranyakas and the Upanishads. But he then goes on to add the Vedantasutra,  the Bhagavadgita, the Mahabharata, the Puranas and the Ramayana (p.23). Yet he seems aware of the problems connected with this terminology,  as he refers to the Puranas and the Mahabharata as "Vedic supplementary  literatures" (pp.37f.) and differentiates between sruti- and smriti-, to which latter he reckons the Puranas, Bhagavadgita and Mahabharata (p.38). Interestingly, his definition of sruti- is "the four Vedas and the Upanisads". This clearly characterises  the Samhitas alone as being "Veda" in a narrow sense. He further  quotes Shankara, of whom Prabhupada's opinion is ambivalent, to show that  the Bhagavadgita is "the epitome of the essentials of the whole  Vedic teaching" (p.38), and also cites passages from the Puranas, claiming  that these are Vedic as well. He draws attention to a passage from the Chandogyopanishad that regards the Itihasas and Puranas as the fifth Veda. From all of this  he deduces that all the texts he has mentioned are "authentic Vedic  literatures" (p.38). Once the bona fides of these works as Vedic have  been established, the author basically uses only the Bhagavadgita and the Bhagavatapurana to explain "secret teachings of the  Vedas."

The similarities of Nanda-nandana's many-faceted usage of  "Veda" and "Vedic" with that of Prabhupada are too obvious  to receive comment. It seems, though, that Nanda-nandana is quite aware  of the potential for confusion contained in such usage, and thus systematically  explains his terminology before starting on his actual subject matter. In  this he differs from Prabhupada, whose remarks are, as we have seen, scattered  throughout his work, and not explicated systematically.

Satsvarupa dasa too, in his work on Vedic literature,⁶⁶   basically has the same arguments found in the work of Nanda-nandana (pp.1f.),  even differentiating between "The Four Vedas" and "The Upanishads"  (pp.40ff.). His gleanings from "Vedic" literature also are, not  surprisingly, as a rule from the Bhagavadgita and the Bhagavatapurana. Thus he too seems to give us a more or less faithful representation of the  ideas of Prabhupada. But he further adds a statement which introduces a  subtle twist, and the matter seems to me so interesting that I shall quote  the relevant passage (pp.1f.) in full:

In any case, to be accepted as Vedic, a literature must  maintain the same purpose as the original Vedic texts. The Vedic scriptures  (shastras) comprise a harmonious whole with a harmonious conclusion  (siddhanta). Consequently, we may accept as a bona fide Vedic writing  any work that expands on the Vedic siddhanta without changing its  meaning, even if the work is not one of the original scriptures. In fact,  the Vedic tradition necessitates further authoritative works that convey  the Vedic message according to time and place. However, to be genuine,  these extensions of Vedic literature must strictly conform to the doctrines  of the Vedas, the Puranas, and the Vedanta-Sutra.

Vedic literature is neither dead nor archaic. Nevertheless, any literature  - be it ancient or modern - must be considered non-Vedic if it deviates  from the Vedic siddhanta. Thus Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, though  definitely outgrowths of Vedic literature, are not considered Vedic.

This, as is obvious, could allow one to bestow the epithet  "Vedic" on many more texts than those mentioned by Prabhupada,  while at the same time rejecting certain texts Prabhupada considers to be  Vedic. In both cases the main criterion is the contents of the individual  work, and clearly this facilitates manipulation. As it is, although I have  found no evidence at all for individual works, or their parts, regarded  as "Vedic" by Prabhupada being rejected as non-Vedic, there are  examples in the writings of Satsvarupa dasa for an extension of the scope  of the epithet "Vedic". Thus, in a "book of essays on selected  verses of Vedic literatures"⁶⁷ we find quoted, obviously as examples of Vedic  literature, alongside the Bhagavadgita, the Bhagavatapurana, the Brahmasamhita and the Upanishads, also Chaitanya's Shikshastaka and Sanatana Goswamin's Haribhaktivilasa.

One may argue that these are extremely important works for  Gaudiya Vaishnavism; but what about the case of the Prabhupadapranamamantra (p.125)? Satsvarupa dasa too is clearly aware that this is not actually  "Vedic", but justifies its inclusion on the grounds that it "will  continue to be recited just like classical Vedic slokas" (p.134).⁶⁸  This is a most interesting development, and it clearly accords with what  Madhva says in his commentary on the Brahmasutra⁶⁹.  However, as I have already pointed out, I have not found evidence that Prabhupada  followed Madhva in this. Even though Prabhupada does say that "any  books deriving knowledge from these Vedas are considered Vedic literatures",⁷⁰ I  have found no evidence that he has actually interpreted this definition  so widely. But such an interpretation is possible if one takes such statements  literally, and this seems to have been the case with Satsvarupa dasa.

Ravindra Svarupa dasa, however, takes a different approach  in his collection of essays⁷¹.  He mentions Vedic knowledge often, and the Bhagavadgita is referred  to as being the essence of this (p.51), but, as far as I could ascertain,  it is nowhere called Vedic literature. In fact, the only time he defines  the term "Veda" is when he says: "Vyasa divided the Veda  into four and wrote it down. Yet he knew that we would still be unable to  understand the Vedas, and so he composed a number of supplementary works  in which he spelled out the intentions of Vedic thought explicitly"  (p.51). It is obvious that the "supplementary works" are the very  ones which I have called "Vedic2". In this way Ravindra Svarupa  avoids the ambiguity of Prabhupada's terminology. He could even have pointed  to a similar usage by Prabhupada himself ⁷².

The last significant author I would like to mention is Steven  Rosen. He follows Prabhupada's terminology in that several times he calls  "Vedic" all the texts for which I have chosen the labels "Vedic1"  and "Vedic2". ⁷³  According to him, the "many sections of the Vedic texts" include  the smriti-⁷⁴. He explicitly calls the Puranas "later  'Vedic' texts."⁷⁵   But the word "Vedic" in the last citation is put within quotation  marks, which could be Rosen's way of differentiating it from what I have  called Prabhupada's "Vedic1".

Thus, even this very small sampling of writings shows a diverse  usage of the term "Vedic", a usage which may at times be considered  not a faithful reproduction of Prabhupada's own usage. The possible implications,  if any, of such discrepancies are not a part of this study. Neither have  I been concerned here with the problem thrown up if Prabhupada's spiritual  lineage should, as Elkman (op.cit. in note 4) holds, ultimately extend back  to Baladeva (p.186) - the same Baladeva who, again according to Elkman (p.41),  does not believe in the authoritative nature of the Puranas, including the Bhagavatapurana.

This article was originally presented as a paper at the Shrila Prabhupada  Conference in Detroit, 3-5 November, 1996.

Part  One

Back to Vol. 4, No. 2 Contents

Back to Top