vedas

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> How do we know when the vedas are to be read literally and when they are to
> be interpreted metaphorically?  Do we have a choice at all, or must the
> vedas be accepted or rejected (in their totality) as being the *literal*
> truth?  If the vedas are not *always* literally true then what criterion
> enables us to know when the vedas are literally true and when they suggest
> a merely "poetical" truth?

Any interpretation of the vedas hinges upon what your philosophy of
language is. For the pUrva mImAmsA school, the purpose of language is to
impel the listener to action. Accordingly, in their interpretation of the
veda, the statements that enjoin action assume utmost importance, and
all other portions of the vedas are interpreted as subsidiary to these
injunctions. A large portion of the veda is thereby classified as
arthavAda (explanatory portion/commentary).

For the advaitins, action is subordinate to knowledge. The vedas,
especially the upanishads, are seen as teaching knowledge, which does not
have to imply any action. Both advaitins and mImAmsakas interpret the
vedas according to the mImAmsA sUtras, but the advaitin qualifies his
interpretation as above. For both, the vedas are seen as necessary for
providing knowledge that is not accessible through the standard means of
perception, analogy, inference. For the mImAmsaka, the knowledge is
intimately related to ritual action, while for the advaitin, the knowledge
of brahman is seen as paramount.

In both cases, there is no insistence upon taking the vedas as *literal*
truth. In fact, where a statement in the vedas contradicts direct
perception, one is forced to interpret it in a metaphorical fashion. Thus,
the vedas, for all their infallibility, cannot contradict the fact that
fire burns.

> How could there be any other such criterion
> when the vedas themselves are the touchstone we must use to assess all
> other truth claims? Are we not forced to accept the vedas as being
> *literally* true or abandon the claim the vedas are the touchstone which
> can correctly assess all other truth claims?

Not so. Quite a large portion of the domain of human knowledge can make do
completely without the vedas.

In the pUrva mImAmsa and vedAnta schools, every cognition is self-valid
(svataH pramANa), and is invalidated only by other cognition (parataH
apramANa). In most ordinary cases, to prove or disprove something, one
need not invoke the authority of the veda at all. In fact, that would be
misuse of the veda, and would be like taking out a huge army to battle a
single rat.

Coming to the most crucial use of the veda for the advaitin, namely, in
the equation of the Atman with brahman, it is quite wrong to hold that
this is contradicted by perception. The simple reason is that brahman is
never an object of direct sensory perception.

Vidyasankar