Vaac and Word [Logos]

Vaac in the Vedas: Spoken or Written Word?

The concept of Vaac in the Vedas poses a profound question: does it primarily signify the spoken Word, integral to Vedic rituals, or does it transcend into the theological realm of the written Word? This question becomes particularly intriguing when juxtaposed with Panikkar’s comparative theology, which seeks to bridge Vedic Vaac and the Christian Logos. While Panikkar’s interpretation opens pathways for dialogue between traditions, it also invites critical reflection on the contextual integrity of both.

Vaac and the Spoken Tradition in the Vedas:

The Vedic tradition places significant emphasis on the oral transmission of knowledge, particularly in the context of Yajna (sacrifice). In this framework, the correct pronunciation and intonation of sacred sounds are paramount, highlighting the centrality of the spoken Word.1 Vaac, the divine Word, is not merely a medium of communication but is believed to carry the power to shape and sustain the cosmos through ritual utterance. In the Vedic texts, the spoken Word is sacred, and its proper articulation is viewed as a direct conduit to divine forces. As Panikkar notes, “She needs always to be uttered, by men, by gods, or by the Creator himself. This element of submission, however, is responsible for her decline. She gradually loses her primordial supremacy until she is defeated by manas [mind] in the Brahmanas and plays a secondary role in the Upanishads”2. This evolution reflects a shift in the Vedic tradition, where Vaac’s importance diminishes as the focus transitions from ritualistic practices to more abstract philosophical concepts. By the time of the Upanishads, Vaac, though still significant, assumes a secondary position to the metaphysical exploration of Brahman (the ultimate reality) and Atman (the self). Not only this, but the progression of Hinduism also reflects further shifts in the significance of Vaac. During the Upanishadic period, Jnana (knowledge) replaced Vaac in its earlier role tied to mantras primarily used in Yajna. Later, during the Bhakti period, Bhakti (devotion), while not replacing Jnana, gained prominence and became co-equal with Karma (ritual action) and Jnana. Further, Swami Vivekananda’s promotion of Advaita as the culmination of every religion paved the way for Neo-Vedanta,3 which emphasized ‘Experience’ over Scripture.4 Although Yajna is still performed by a select few, the importance of Vedic Vaac as mantra never regained its earlier prominence, even though the chanting of mantras in rituals retained its significance—particularly in terms of their intonation and performance rather than theological understanding.5

This contrasts sharply with the role of the Word in the Bible. In the Christian tradition, the Word as Logos, while also originating from God, remains eternally central and unchanging. The Logos, as Christ, though submitting to God the Father in His humanity, never loses its divine authority or foundational role as the Word of God. Unlike Vaac, which undergoes a gradual decline in its philosophical and ritualistic importance within the Vedic tradition, the Logos in Christianity remains foundational to the understanding of creation, revelation, and salvation. It is not subject to the decline or secondary status that Panikkar suggests for Vaac. The Vedic Vaac is not merely philosophical but deeply performative, with its efficacy grounded in the ritual act.

The spoken Word in the Vedas is believed to have transformative power, essential for the success of the ritual and the connection between the human and the divine. This performative aspect contrasts with Panikkar’s broader theological interpretation, where he often associates Vaac with written and eschatological dimensions. This raises critical questions about whether Panikkar’s interpretation, emphasizing its connection to scripture and ultimate ends, fully captures the essence of Vaac in its original Vedic context, where its power is immediate, ritualistic, and cosmologically grounded.

Panikkar’s Comparative Theology: Vaac and the Logos

In Panikkar’s cosmology, Vaac is a theandric reality—a meeting point between the divine and the human. He parallels Vaac with the Christian Logos, describing it as the “first offspring of the Absolute,”6 a mediatory principle that connects heaven and earth. He further asserts that Vaac, like the Word in Christian theology, moves from silence to speech and back to silence, a journey imbued with eschatological significance.7

This interpretation draws heavily from Christian doctrines, particularly the linear progression of the Word—from creation to ultimate reunion with the divine, as seen in the Gospel of John and Revelation. Similarly Panikkar’s portrayal of Vaac as having an “atoning”8 function, akin to the sacrificial role of Christ, further solidifies this alignment. However, this theological mapping raises concerns about whether it adequately reflects the cyclical worldview inherent in Hinduism, especially regarding the “atoning” function of the Word, which is absent in the Vedas but central to Christian theology. Even the Purusha Yajna in the later part of the Rig Veda (10.90), which describes Prajapati offering himself through dismemberment, is presented in the context of creation, not as a Prayaschitta (atonement) in the Christian sense.

The Tension Between Linearity and Cyclicality

A critical tension arises when comparing the linearity of Christian cosmology with the cyclical nature of Hindu thought. The Christian Word is situated within a framework of linear time, progressing from a definitive beginning through creation, sacrifice, and eventual eschatological fulfillment. In contrast, Hindu cosmology envisions creation as an eternal cycle of birth, dissolution, and rebirth, calling into question the applicability of a linear trajectory to Vaac.

Moreover, Vaac and the Vedas are considered apauruṣeya (unauthored)—neither created by God nor humanity—thus eternal and transcendent, even beyond the cyclical nature of creation. The Vedas are understood as timeless, emerging anew in every cosmic cycle through the meditative insight of the Rishis.

However, this process introduces a critical divergence: while Vaac involves the mediation of human agency to reveal its eternal presence, the Christian Word, though revealed through human agency in the form of the Scriptures (e.g., the Gospels), is believed to be divinely inspired and infallible. The Christian understanding holds that the Scriptures are a direct, self-revealing expression of divine will, preserved from error through divine guidance. This distinction underscores the irreconcilable aspects of the two paradigms: while both traditions uphold the Word as eternal, they differ significantly in the means of its manifestation and its cosmological role: the authorless Veda is regarded as eternal, while the Logos originates from God, who may be considered its author.

However, when Panikkar says, “From the perspective of the Vedic Revelation, one would not hesitate to say that the Word is the embodiment of Man as well as of God. In the Word – whose function is both to conceal and to reveal – God and Man meet. It is the theandric reality par excellence”9, I wonder if such a concept of ‘Vedic Revelation’—as the ’embodiment of Man and God’ whose function is ‘both to conceal and to reveal’—can truly be found in the Rig Veda?

Preserving Contextual Integrity

While Panikkar’s efforts to establish a theological dialogue are commendable, his interpretations risk superimposing Christian motifs onto Vedic concepts. For instance, as noted above, his depiction of Vaac as having an “atoning” role may inadvertently project Christian sacrificial themes onto the Vedic ritual tradition. The Vaac of the Vedas, deeply rooted in oral recitation and ritual practice, resists such reinterpretations and invites us to honor its performative and contextual integrity.

Bridging Eternities: A Unified Perspective

Panikkar’s comparative theology provides a profound starting point for exploring the theological depth of Vaac and its relationship to the Christian Word. However, the discussion reveals key divergences that must be acknowledged for meaningful dialogue. While both traditions affirm the Word as eternal, their cosmological frameworks—cyclical versus linear—and their modes of manifestation present challenges to complete harmonization. The Vaac of the Vedas, rooted in ritual, cyclical renewal, and human mediation, invites a distinct form of engagement with the eternal, one that challenges linear interpretations and insists on its unique cultural and theological identity.

In addition to these theological tensions, Panikkar’s use of translations warrants closer scrutiny. His distinctive translations often reflect his Christian theological perspectives, raising questions about their fidelity to the original texts. A comparative study of these translations can illuminate the extent to which Panikkar’s interpretations resonate with, or diverge from, the intent of the Vedic tradition.

For example, his selections of Vedic texts and the titles he assigns to them—such as: 1. Revelation—RV 10.71-4 (pp. 6ff); 2.The Word—RV 10.125; 3. The Unspoken Word—RV 1.164.34-35, 37, 45;4. The Knowledge of the Sacred Word—AV 4.1; 5. The Origin of the Word—TMH 20.14.2; TB 2.8.8.4; SB 1.4.4.1; SB 1.4.5.8-12; SB 10.5.3.1-5;6. The Interior Word—AU Invocation; BU 1.2.4-6; 3.7.17; CU 3.18.3; 7.2.1-2—should be further studied to understand how traditional Vedic commentators, like Sayana, and various acharyas, such as Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhava, interpreted these texts.10 It is important to examine whether Panikkar’s interpretation remains faithful to Hindu tradition or has been adapted to align with his Christian theology. This task, though challenging, is essential for engaging with Panikkar’s work both critically and appreciatively.

Finally, Panikkar’s method of “dialogical dialogue” serves as a model for transformative interfaith engagement. By stepping outside preconceived frameworks, he invites participants to allow their perspectives to be reshaped through authentic encounters with other traditions. This spirit of mutual enrichment reminds us that true dialogue lies not in collapsing distinctions but in understanding and honoring them.

The metaphor of the Square Round encapsulates this approach, guiding us to embrace both the tensions and the possibilities inherent in theological dialogue. By preserving the contextual integrity of each tradition, we can foster a deeper appreciation of their unique contributions to the understanding of the eternal Word.

It would be an interesting study to explore how the concept of the Word evolved in both traditions beyond their classical texts. For instance, in later Hindu traditions, the notion of Shabda (sound) as an expression of the divine takes on new dimensions, as seen in the philosophies of Tantra and Vedanta. Similarly, in Christianity, the Word continues to unfold through theological interpretations and lived experiences, adapting to new cultural and historical contexts while maintaining its foundational significance.

Such a study would not only deepen our understanding of these traditions but also enrich the practice of comparative theology. By tracing the trajectories of the Word in diverse contexts, we might uncover shared insights and distinctive wisdom, fostering a dialogue that is both rooted in authenticity and open to transformation.

In conclusion, Panikkar’s exploration of Vaac and the Christian Word offers a compelling vision of interfaith dialogue. However, the theological and cosmological tensions it uncovers remind us of the importance of engaging with traditions on their own terms. True dialogue respects the integrity of each tradition while seeking the deeper truths that unite us across our differences. Through this approach, we honor not only the Word as an eternal reality but also the diverse ways in which humanity has sought to understand and express its significance.

Neo-vedanta even went beyond scripture to experience as we already notes in

Neo-Vedanta gained prominence, particularly after Swami Vivekananda’s influential address at the Chicago Parliament of Religions. Under Vivekananda, Neo-Vedanta positioned Vedanta as the foundation for global spiritual unity, transcending individual religious traditions. As Vivekananda proclaimed, “Vedanta is the rationale of all religions. Without Vedanta, every religion is superstition, but with it, everything becomes religion.” Neo-Vedanta framed Vedanta as the essence of all religions, asserting that no religion or scripture could be complete without it.6

Notes

1 ‘…It is essential that the person who performs the sacrifices with all accessories has a correct knowledge of their nature and scope and these mantras are valuable guides in helping them to remember the exact nature of those sacrifices while they are performed….’— Mantras or the Mimamsaka Conception of Mantra-Pramanya.  Prof. V. A. Ramaswamy Sastri.  Pp. 373-377, in, Dr. H. L. Hariyappa and Dr. M. M. Patkar, eds. Professor P. K.  Gode Commemoration volume. Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1960,  p. 374

2  Raymond Panikkar, Vac In the sruti, pp. 3-24 in Gispert-Sauch, S.J. ed. God’s Word Among Men, papers in honour of Fr. Joseph Putz, S.J., Delhi, Vidyajoti, 1973, [Cf. Brhadaranyaka Upanisad  IV, 1, 2, sq.] p. 18

3 “Vedanta is the rationale of all religions. Without Vedanta every religion is superstition,” but with it, “everything becomes religion.” [Algondavilli Govindacharya, Three Lectures on Inspiration, Intrusion, and Ecstasy (Wesleyan Mission Press, 1897)Citations are from lecture 1, 11, citing Viekananda, the Madras Mail, February 6, 1897 p. 7] in Francis X. Clooney, SJ, The Future of Hindu-Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry, New York, Routledge, 2017 , p. 54

4 Though Rambachan have written a scholarly book in the context of critiquing Swami Vivekanand’s view of ‘experience as the evidence’, still what he says about the importance of proper exegesis considering the context than involving a text torturing is applicable in every field of Textual exegesis in every religion.  I call such attempts as ‘text torturing’ though these words are not exactly used by Rambachan but similar thought is echoes in his book: Anantanand Rambachan,The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda’s Reinterpretation of the Vedas. Sri Satguru Publications A Division of Indian Books Centre, Delhi., 1995.  Also in “Where Words Fail” in Philosophy East and West, and Accomplishing the Accomplished University of Hawaii Press 1991. [These two works by Rambachan are accessed from ChagBGT, 18-11-2024, 8.20 am.]

5. See Appendix

6 …the Word is the first offspring of the Absolute and sprang from it in a peculiar way. [Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 1,3,21; 4,1,2; etc.] In the last analysis God has no name because He himself is Word.—ibid. p. 3

7 …Out of the silence the Word sprang up [Maitrayaniya Upanisad 6,6] and into the silence she will plunge again; meanwhile the word is made by the Word and, moreover, the second silence is not like the first one. Once the Word has become Cosmos the Word cannot go back to her source without the Cosmos accompanying her.—ibid. p. 6

8…There is no salvation without a calling and an answer.  The Word, thus, is used in the sacrifice not merely as an accidental instrument, but as a necessary one. It is the Word which by virtue of its “atoning” function unites heaven and earth.—p. 7

9  ibid. p. 5

10 Abbreviations used in this article: AB-Aitareya Brahmana: AV-Atharva Vede Sarmhitä; BS-Brahma Sutras of Badarāyana; BU-Brhadaranyaka Upanisad; CU Chandogya Upanisad; JaimUB-Jaiminiya Upanisad Brahmana; KathU-Katha Upanisad; MaitB-Maitrayaniya Brahmana: MaitU- Maitrāyaniya Upanisad; RV- Rg Veda Sarmhita; SB-Satapatha Brahmaņa; TA-Taittiriya Aranyaka; TU-Taittiriya Upanisad; TMB Tändya Mahābrahmaņa; TS-Taittiriya Samhita.

Appendix

It is important to note that while Scripture and various siddhantas (philosophical doctrines) such as Advaita and Vishishtadvaita form the foundation of many philosophical schools, for the common people, the devotional traditions—primarily expressed through bhajans, kirtans, and bhakti songs—have also held significant importance. However, the theological and philosophical interpretations within these schools were often confined to the doctrinal frameworks of their respective sampradayas (traditions).

In some traditions, such as Srivaishnavism, the foundational scripture, the Divya Prabandham,1 came to be regarded as the “Tamil Veda.” Over time, a distinct tradition of recitation, comparable to the Vedic tradition, was developed. Despite this emphasis on proper recitation, even a casual recitation of these texts by a follower—without strict adherence to the traditional methods—was believed to bring spiritual and ritual benefits.

Similarly, in the Saiva tradition, trained specialists known as Oduvars were responsible for the traditional recitation of devotional songs. While the Vedas retained their authority in both traditions, the role of Vaac (speech) as emphasized in the Vedas did not receive equivalent focus in these contexts.

During temple festivals, particularly the annual Brahmotsavam, the interplay of Vedic and devotional traditions becomes evident. For instance, in Srivaishnava festivals, Vedic scholars and traditional singers (known as Arayars2) accompany the deity’s procession through the streets.3 Interestingly, the positions of these groups in the procession differ between traditions. In Srivaishnavism, the hymn singers lead the procession, with the Vedic reciters following, symbolizing the Ubhaya Vedanta (“two Vedas”) doctrine. In contrast, Saiva traditions reverse this order, with Vedic reciters leading and hymn singers following.

Footnotes:

1. The Tiruvaymoli was regarded as an Upanishad, often referred to as the Dravidopanishad. The entire work of Nammalvar was considered parallel to the Vedas: the Tiruviruttam to the Rigveda, Tiruvaymoli to the Samaveda, Tiruvaciriyam to the Yajurveda, and Periyatiruvantati to the Atharvaveda. This alignment was influenced by the prestige of Sanskrit in Vedantic circles of Tamil Nadu, which also led figures like Ramanuja to write in Sanskrit despite being Tamil speakers and admirers of the Alvars.
   Jean Filliozat, “Tamil and Sanskrit in South India,” pp. 1–10. in Passages: Relationships Between Tamil and Sanskrit, ed. Kannan M. Jennifer Clare, Institute Français De Pondichéry, 2009, P. 9
2. See below on Arayar
3. In Srivaishnava temple processions, the singers of the Alvar hymns walk in front of the deity’s image, while the Vedic reciters follow. This contrasts with Saiva processions, where the order is reversed. The Srivaishnavas view this as a symbolic expression of the Ubhaya Vedanta doctrine. Indira Viswanathan Peterson, Poems to Siva: Hymns of the Tamil Saints, Motilal Banarsidass, 2007 (Reprint), p. 58.

Appendix [This information is accessed by ChatGBT on 11-12-2024]

Arayar Sevai refers to a traditional performance in Srivaishnavism, where trained professionals known as Arayars sing the Divyaprabandham, a collection of hymns composed by the Alvars, the Tamil poet-saints of the Srivaishnava tradition. This form of devotional singing holds significant importance in Srivaishnava temples, especially during festivals and special religious events.

Here is some more detailed information about Arayar Sevai:

1. Role of the Arayars:

The Arayars are highly skilled individuals who have undergone rigorous training in the traditional art of reciting and singing the Divyaprabandham, which consists of hymns dedicated to Lord Vishnu. The training for Arayars is steeped in both religious and musical traditions. Their vocal skills are honed to meet the specific musical and devotional standards of the Srivaishnava community.

2. Training and Specialization:

Arayars receive formal training in the correct way to sing and recite the Divyaprabandham. This includes mastery over the complex tunes and rhythms (called ragas and talas) used in the hymns. They are also instructed in the meanings and spiritual significance of the verses, enabling them to perform not only as singers but also as interpreters of the divine texts.

In addition to the musical training, they are taught the proper ritual and sacred recitation techniques that align with the broader practices of Srivaishnava spirituality.

3. Performance During Festivals:

Arayar Sevai is most prominently performed during the annual Brahmotsavam (temple festival), a grand event that celebrates the divine presence of Lord Vishnu in the temple. During these festivals, the Arayars sing the Divyaprabandham in front of the deity as part of the processions and rituals.

The performance often involves highly structured recitation, starting with specific hymns, and progressing through different segments that match the themes and movements of the temple procession. The hymns are sung in Tamil, and sometimes also in Sanskrit, to glorify the deity and to create an atmosphere of divine presence and devotion.

4. Symbolic Role:

In Srivaishnava tradition, the role of the Arayars is symbolic. Their position in the procession is of particular significance. Typically, the Arayars lead the procession, walking in front of the deity’s image, whereas Vedic scholars, who recite the Vedas, follow behind. This reversal of the usual order—where traditionally the Vedic reciters lead—symbolizes the Srivaishnava belief in the superiority of the hymns of the Alvars (the Tamil saints) over the Vedic hymns in their worship of Lord Vishnu.

5. Cultural and Religious Significance:

Arayar Sevai is a vital cultural and religious expression of Tamil Srivaishnavism, where music and devotion are inseparable. It is a form of bhakti (devotion) that emphasizes the importance of ritualistic singing as a means of connecting with the divine. The practice strengthens the community’s ties to both their historical heritage and their ongoing spiritual journey.

6. Unique Features:

• Sacredness of the performance: The recitations by the Arayars are not merely musical performances but are considered acts of divine worship. Each note and syllable is imbued with sacredness, and the Divyaprabandham is believed to have a spiritual impact on both the performer and the listeners.
• Distinctive music and style: The style of music used by the Arayars is unique to Srivaishnavism, blending complex rhythms and melodies that have been passed down through generations. The traditional music is often referred to as Arayar Pattu.

Conclusion:

Arayar Sevai is a beautiful and deeply spiritual tradition within Srivaishnavism that emphasizes both the musical and theological importance of the Divyaprabandham. Through the performance of Arayars, the Srivaishnava community continues to honor its rich heritage while connecting with the divine through sacred music and hymn-singing, particularly during important festivals like the Brahmotsavam.