ु

ौीगो नमः

‘Vedic History’ and ‘Worldly History’ 
In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.10 there is the teaching pertaining to the ‘creation’

of the Veda-s by Brahman. The mantra reads thus:

े
स यथाि धारािहतात पृ् थग्धमा
ू िविनरवे ं वा अरऽ
े ू
महतो भत े ु 
े यजवदः
िनिसतमतग्वदो

े र्
सामवदोऽथवािरस इितहासः पराण ू ु
ु ं िवा उपिनषदः ोकाः सऽाण्यनाानािन ााना ैवैतािन िनिसतािन ॥

//"As from a fire kindled with wet fuel various kinds of smoke issue forth, even so, my dear, the Rig—

Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda, the Atharvangirasa, history (itihaasa), mythology (purANa), the

arts (vidyA), the Upanishads, verses (slokas), aphorisms (sUtras), elucidations (anuvyAkhyAnas)

and explanations (vyAkhyAnas) are like the breath of this infinite Reality. From this Supreme Self are all

these, indeed, breathed forth.//

Sri Shankaracharya, while commenting on this mantra, writes for the word इितहासः of

र्
the Upanishad: ‘such as the dialogue, etc. between UrvashI and PurUravas - उवशी

हारा.’ (Shatapatha brAhmaNa 11.4.4.1).

The Editor of this edition of the Bhashyam, Sri S.Subrahmanya Shastri, in the foot notes

writes:

ु
इितहासः पराणम ्
इा दौ भा े वदगत
े र्
-अथवादपािण ु ृ
परावािन ु
मााणीम ।्

े ं
भारतादीनामनािदवदूितपाासभवात ।्

//By the terms ‘itihAsa and purANam’ of the mantra, the BhAshya intends to say:

those statements contained in the Veda-s, as having ‘occurred’ in the ancient times are

to be taken. However, the texts of the MahAbhArata, etc. cannot be regarded to be

included by these Vedic terms as it would be unreasonable to hold that they have their

source in the Vedas.//

It would be interesting to note in the Kathopanishat, for this opening mantra:

// Vajasravasa, desiring rewards, performed the Visvajit sacrifice, in which he gave away all his
property. He had a son named Nachiketa. // the Acharya starts the commentary with the words:
ु
//तऽााियका िवाथा र् । // The *story* there is by way of eulogizing the knowledge.//

The Acharya, consistent with His Brihadaranyaka Bhashya we referred to earlier, writes in the
Kathopanishad context too: this is an AkhyAyikA, an account of a past event aimed at eulogizing , stuti,
ू र् )
arthavAda. Now, ‘arthavAda’ could be a statement of an actual incident/event of the past, (भताथवादः
ु
bhUtArthavAda, or a mere eulogy: stutyarthavAda (गणवादः) or even a statement of a fact, in the manner
ु . In any case, all these come under the category of
of an allusion, that is already known: अनवादः
‘itihAsa/purANa’ in the Vedic context. Thus, we have a certain entity in the Veda that is called an
‘itihAsa/purANa’ by the Veda itself.

ु
िवरोध े गणवादः ् नवादोऽवधािरत
ात अ ु े।

ू र्
भताथवादानात ् र्
अथवादिधा मतः ॥

//There are three kinds of ‘artha-vAda-s’. 1. GuNavAda or metaphor where the literal meaning is
incompatible with what is established by some other pramANa, 2. anuvAda or restatement where the
meaning is established by another pramaNa and 3. bhUtArthavAda where the meaning is neither
established nor precluded by any other pramaaNa-s.
(http://books.google.com/books?id=TCWU_ua5kxgC&lpg=PA436&ots=MerpQ3WOs5&dq=arthavada%20vedanta&pg=PA436#v
=onepage&q=arthavada%20vedanta&f=true) //

//Such "stories" in the Vedas become purposeful only because of the injunctions associated with
them and they belong to the category of "arthavada". Why does a doctor print his certificate in
advertising his medicine? To persuade people to buy it (the medicine). In this way in arthavada
untruth is mixed with truth. The untrue part is called "gunavada". There is another term called
"anuvada". It means stating what is already known. For instance, the statement that "fire burns".
Mentioning the ingredients of a medicine is an example of "bhutarthavada". "Gunarthavada" is to
tell a story, even though untrue, to make it useful for the observance of a rule. "Do not drink
liquor" is an injunction (or interdiction). To tell the "story" that a man who got drunk was ruined
is arthavada. The purpose- or moral- is that one must not drink. To say that if a man drinks he
will be intoxicated is anuvada. (http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part12/chap9.htm) //

However, this has to be distinguished from the ‘worldly’, ‘loukika’ itihAsa/purANa. Taking the cases of
the composed / authored ones like the Mahabharata, Ramayana and other puraNas, we have a definite
author like Bhagavan Veda VyAsa, Sage Valmiki, etc. These ‘stories’ are believed to have ‘taken place’ in
the setting of the TretA yuga or Dvaapara Yuga.

The events recorded in the Veda, however, are different from the above in that they are not events that
occurred at a particular yuga-setting and authored by a specific person.

We have this one interesting case in the Kathopanishat. When Nachiketas asked for the knowledge of the
Fire Ritual (in encashment of the second boon) that would take people to heaven, the AchArya Yama
taught him this. In appreciation of the disciple’s phenomenally quick grasping and reproducing the
method of the ritual, Yama declares.1.16,17 :

//The MahAtma Yama, being well pleased, said to Nachiketa: I will now give you another boon: this fire
shall be named after you. Take also from me this many-splendored chain.

17. He who has performed three times this Nachiketa sacrifice, having been instructed by the three and
also has performed his three duties, overcomes birth and death. Having known this Fire born of
Brahman, omniscient, luminous and adorable and realized it, he attains supreme peace.//

In the ‘aruNa prashna’ of the Yajur Veda, we find the mention of this ritual, with the name of Nachiketas,
े ं िचीत’. If we hold that the two events are sequential/successive in time, then
in the expression: ‘नािचकत
we end up concluding that the aruNa prashna is a ‘later’ portion of the Veda. This would be against the
traditional view that the Veda-s are eternal, never composed by anyone at any point of time. Then, how
is one to understand the sequence of the two mantras, the one in the Kathopanishad and the other in the
aruNa prashna? It is here that we have to abandon the worldly method of sequencing events and simply
take the Vedic pronouncements ‘as they are’. The Kathopanishadic ‘event’ of Yama granting the ‘naming’
of the Ritual after Nachiketas is not to be seen as an event in terms of worldly time. This is because, the
agni ritual has always been there and the aruNa prashna name ‘naachiketa’ has always been there. Also,
the Kathopanishat mantra we saw above also has always been there.
Here is just one instance where Shankaracharya considers the UpaniShadic character Nachiketas as a
‘real’, human, character: In the UpaniShat there is a mantra 1.1.2 that says this Nachiketas is a ‘kumAra’,
ु ं ूथमवयस ं स ं अूाजननशिं बालमवे ....( while still in the
े ं कमार
a small boy. Shankara comments: त ं ह निचकतस
prime of life, still not adolescent, still a mere boy…) By the word अूाजननशिम ् Shankara means: the boy
has not attained the capacity to procreate. Now, we see that the Upanishad is describing Nachiketas as a
‘kumaara’ and Shankara explaining it in these terms. It is evident that unless Shankara considers this
character Nachiketas as a ‘real’ person, He would not give out such a down-to-earth explanation to
inform us the physical stature of the boy. Such examples abound.

In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Shankara often goes into an in-depth psychological analysis of the
personalities involved. The Janaka-Yajnavalkya conversations offer a rich ground for Shankara to probe
into the working of the minds of Janaka and Yajnavalkya based on a sentence of the Upanishad.

Thus we have instances of Shankara treating these ‘Vedic historical’ persons just like any other character
of a ‘worldly-historical’ work.

In conclusion, an excerpt [from the Book 'Exalting Elucidations', containing a series of dialogues where

Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamigal, the 35th Acharya of the Sringeri Sharada Peetham,

gives clarifications on a variety of topics concerning Sanatana Dharma. The book is a

Publication of Sri Vidyatirtha Foundation, Chennai. (Rs.50)] is reproduced from the
Chapter ‘Veda-s’:

//Disciple: We find many stories in the Veda-s. Are they accounts of historical events?

Acharyal: No. The stories do not relate to actual worldly incidents. The Veda-s, which are like
the breath of the Supreme Being, have no beginning. As such, they are not the records of the
historical events of any age. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad for instance, contains a discussion
between sage Yajnavalkya and king Janaka. This is not the retelling of a dialogue between two
individuals who lived in some specific period. An event similar to that narrated could have
occurred at some time but it cannot be said that this is what has been cited in the Upanishad.
The stories in the Veda-s are meant only as an illustration. //
This distinction between ‘Vedic-historical’ and ‘worldly-historical’ personalities and events does not
preclude Shankaracharya from considering the characters as ‘real’ ones, analyzing them and bringing out
the relevant facts from them. All this is done without vitiating the ‘Vedic history’- ‘worldly history’
divide. He chooses to freely quote from the innumerable episodes in the Vedic repository when He
writes commentaries and other works. It is as though He is quoting from this ‘Vedic History’ Book. And
that is quite appropriate, as is the way anyone would do with the ‘worldly History’ book. The
Brihadaranyaka mantra cited at the beginning of this article is the proof of there being ‘historical’ events
in the Veda too. The other examples are of the Ajaatashatru – Baalaaki episode of the Br.UpaniShad,
NArada-SanatkumAra dialogue of the Chandogya Upanishad , the Shounaka-Angiras exchange of the
Mundaka Upanishad and so on. A unique example is:

In His Brahma Sutra Bhashyam, Shankara has recounted an interesting Vedic tale. BAShkali was
desirous of knowing Brahman. So, he approached the enlightened sage BAdhva and requested: ‘Please
teach me about Brahman.’ BAdhva remained silent. BAShkali repreated his appeal but again the sage
did not respond. Being earnest, BAShkali asked for the third time, ‘Please teach me about Brahman.’ The
sage said, ‘I have already taught you but have failed to comprehend. This Atma is quiescence.’ (Give BSB
ref.) The source of the Vedic tale is unknown.

Om Tat Sat