Vedic meditative practices and roots of Yogic tradition

What is well known to most students of Indian history is that the ancient Harappan or Sarasvatī-Sindhu civilization in north-western India had many seals depicting typical meditative Yogic postures. Such Yogic postures are also encountered in depictions from early historic period. However, many skeptics still doubt on these postures as being Yogic. Some do accept these were indeed Yogic depictions, but states that Yoga was originally a non-Vedic tradition adopted by the Vedic Aryans who moved into India and settled in former Harappan regions after the fall of Harappan civilization. Meanwhile, many modern authors have gone as far as saying Yogic tradition has no religion at all!

This post is a humble attempt to trace Yogic elements in early Vedic texts.

To start with, the concept and practice of Tapas is an important part of Vedic culture . The Sanskrit term Tapas literally means 'heat' and can refer to the 'heat' represented by severe austerity which involved meditative practices.  Ṛg Veda 10.129.3 informs us that the whole universe was manifested from the Tapas of the absolute Creator. Tapas referring to heat is obviously also associated closely with Agni or sacred fire, for e.g. Ṛg Veda  6.5.4. Being associated with fire, it is also connected to Yajña or ancient Vedic rituals which use fire. 

Breathing practices centered around Prāṇa i.e. the vital life force represented by breathing is associated with kindling Agni or the sacrificial fire used in Vedic rituals as stated in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.2.2.15. Jaiminīya Brāhmaņa 1.14 also similarly describe meditative breathing practice associated with an internal form of Yajña. There are also various other references in Vedic ritual texts where control of Prāṇa is spoken about. So we can assume that the some of the Vedic rites involved breathing techniques which are also associated with Yogic meditative practices.

In the early Upaniṣad-s also we encounter various mentions of meditative practices. For example Cāndogya Upaniṣad 8.6.6 mentions the mystical meditative doctrine in which the inner force which is located deep within the heart is raised up through the subtle arteries called as nāḍī-s into top of the head to attain immortality. Similar descriptions can be found in other Upaniṣad-s  like Kaṭha Upaniṣad 6.16, Praśna Upaniṣad 3.6, Br̥hadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.19 etc. Another description from Taittirīya Upaniṣad 1.6.1-2 also mentions about inner force residing within the heart and attaining union with Brahman by opening the passage located in top of the head. 

Although direct details of specific meditative postures are not there in early Vedic texts, it is possible that these meditative techniques obviously involved some sort of postures. Early Buddhist and Jain texts also mention specific meditative postures. For example Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta of the early Buddhist Pali cannon mentions various techniques of meditation and also about cross legged posture which is the most commonly used meditative posture. Kalpa Sūtra of the Jains also mentions about Mahavira attaining enlightenment after undergoing severe meditation in a specific posture in which the heels are joined together. So both Buddhist and Jain traditions, dated variously from around 600-400 BCE, acknowledge the existence of various meditative postures and techniques.

 Broadly, we can call these as part of what we perceive as  early versions of Yogic practices. The control of Prāṇa represented by breathing which is associated with certain Vedic rites  is obviously similar to the Yogic meditative practices revolving around control of breathing and the mystical Vedic doctrine, which talks about rising inner force into top of the head through subtle nāḍī-s or arteries, is an obvious precursor to the later Yogic Kuṇḍalinī doctrine, the only differences being the Vedic doctrine states that the inner force is located within the heart instead of in the bottom of spine as in Kuṇḍalinī doctrine, and no direct mention is made of major Cakra-s associated with Kuṇḍalinī. 

Thus, like all other mainstream Āstika Hindu sects  (i.e. those sects which accepts authority of Veda-s), Yogic meditative practices too has its foundations in Vedic culture, which was later codified by sages like Patañjali. 

Further meditative postures and techniques kept on developing in later times. Even then, the foundation of these practices can be traced to Vedic texts.

On the significance of Vedic rituals

 

There are many allegations against the ancient Vedic rituals or Yajña-s, that they are useless and contain rather primitive contents such as animal sacrifices, obscene rites etc. Animal sacrifices, fertility rites etc were not unique to the ancient Vedic culture. We could see them in many parts of the ancient world. Before the civilizations evolved, all of humanity lived as primitive hunter-gatherers who hunted animals for food and other needs. Vedic rituals being among the oldest surviving ritual of mankind dating back to the bronze age and having it's roots in further antiquity would obviously contain elements which would be considered primitive or trangressive according to modern notions. For example Aśvamedha  or horse sacrifice involved the queen lying beside and mimicking copulation with the sacrificed horse, and Puruṣamedha or human sacrifice would have also originally involved similar rite, with horse replaced by human victim. Few variations of another ritual named Gosava grants sacrificer the right to answer nature's call anywhere he wishes and also cohabit with any women including his own mother, sister and women from his own clan, which is otherwise strictly forbidden according to Vedic laws. 

These may sound bizarre, but if we look at the details of the rituals, it becomes clear that some aspects of these rituals are quite complicated to perform. For example in Aśvamedha, the horse is sacrificed only after it is safely returned from all the neighbouring kingdoms where it roamed for an year representing the king. If any of the neighbouring kingdoms capture the horse, then it is a sign of war. But if the horse returned safely from the neighbouring kingdoms, then it would mean that the neighbouring kingdoms accepted the supremacy of the king represented by the horse. Thus the ritual could only be conducted by powerful kings. After the horse is returned safely to the hosting kingdom, it is offered to deities. It is said that along with horse, many other animals are also offered in the sacrifice. These animals are enumerated in texts like Vājasaneyi Saṃhitā book 24 of Śukla or White Yajur Veda and Taittirīya  Saṃhitā 5.5.11-24 of Kr̥ṣṇa or Black Yajur Veda. If we look at the animals in the list, we can see that it includes tiny ones like flies, bees, worms etc to bigger ones like rhinoceroses, tigers, lions, crocodiles, elephants etc! Though the wild animals in the list are to be released later, all of the victims in the list must be tied to the sacrificial posts or Yūpa. This huge list of animals are of course next to impossible to be used in rituals. In similar lines, Puruṣamedha also follows same theme with horse replaced by human victim. It also has a list of several other victims who are to be tied in sacrificial posts. These victims are not animals as in Aśvamedha , but humans of various castes, tribes, professions, characteristics etc as numerated in Vājasaneyi Saṃhita book 30. This large list of victims also appears to be impossible to gather just like the Aśvamedha list, and making Puruṣamedha an extremely complex rite as well. Texts like Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  13.6.2.13 already treats Puruṣamedha as symbolic sacrifice and even certain hymns of Ṛg Veda like 5.2.7, 1.24.13 etc echoes the tale of Śunaḥśepa or the boy who was chosen as victim of human sacrifice and was later released by the blessings of deities. This story could be viewed as abandonment of human sacrifice in general. But the human sacrifices continued to exist in post Vedic times, though they were extremely rare. A ritual named Agnicayana also involved burying the heads of several animals and also a human head on the ground before building the fire altar, which was later replaced with replica heads. In Gosava ritual, the sacrificer must behave like a bovine by kneeling down to eat and drink, graze on grass etc just like bovines. Though this is just one version of Gosava found in texts like Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa  2.113, while other versions found in texts like Pañchaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa  19.13 do not mention any transgressive acts. It is possible that the transgressive version is a modification of simpler version or vice versa. It is also said in Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa  that the king Janaka refused to perform the transgressive rite and another king Puṇyakeśa after halting the performance of the rite declared the performance of rite as being limited to old men. The trick here was to limit the performance of this transgressive rite as much as possible, since old men won't have much potency to perform this extremely complicated rite. Thus these complicated ritual performances would have been extremely rare and would most likely had modifications and or symbolic performances. 

The ritual interpretations also varied from one Vedic text to another as mentioned above, so this indicates that the different authors modified and interpreted the rituals. Vedic rituals are open for modifications and exceptions according to circumstances . For example when Vedic culture expanded from its heartland in north-west India into other regions, the original sacred Soma plant used in rituals was replaced with other plants due to unavailability of the original Soma in new regions where the Vedic culture expanded. Also according to the tradition, the Vedic rituals are only to be conducted in the lands where kr̥ṣṇamrga or blackbucks live as stated in texts like Manu Smriti 2.23. But when Vedic culture historically expanded beyond India into new regions like south-east Asia, the Vedic rituals were also conducted in these regions. Blackbucks do not live in regions like south-east Asia and they are mostly found in India (though they are facing extinction today). Clearly, here the ritualists made exceptions to the rule which is applied in mainland India or Bhāratavarṣa and performed Vedic rituals in other regions like South-East Asia. In later periods, the animal sacrifices which are part of many Vedic rituals were also substituted by offerings of grain cakes or Puroḍāśa. Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  1.2.3.6-7 narrates a story of how sacrificial essence from humans and animals finally got into grains. Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  1.2.3.5 also states that it is as an animal sacrifice the cake is offered, and Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  1.2.3.8 also associates different characteristics of the cake with that of different parts of animals. Further Taittirīya  Brāhmaṇa  3.2.8.8 explicitly states that the rice cakes are substitutes of animal victims and Taittirīya  Brāhmaṇa  3.2.8.9 also associates the cake with the sacrificer himself, hinting at the notion of self sacrifice or the sacrificer offering himself up as the animal victims represented by the cakes. It is important to note that the method of sacrificing actual animal was also quite sophisticated. Most of the time It involved suffocating or smothering the victim rather than butchering it as stated in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  3.8.1.15. Before the victim is sacrificed, the ritualists symbolically asks permission from the victim's family to sacrifice the victim and makes the victim sacrificially pure as narrated in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  3.7.4.5,  Taittirīya  Brāhmaṇa  3.6.6.1 etc. The language used in ritual is also quite toned down, and the victim is stated to be ‘quieted or ‘passed away’ instead of being killed. While the victim is being sacrificed, the priests would not look at the process either. The sacrificing is done by an assistant called Śamitṛ. Also narrated in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  3.8.1.10, that the sacrifice was not considered as killing at all, since the sacrifice which is a divine act could not be equated with death. After the sacrifice, the sacrificed victim would also be symbolically cleansed and revived as said in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  3.8.2.4-11. Thus we see elements of non violence in animal sacrifices, which later led to substitution of animals with cake and other vegetarian offerings. Hence we do not need to view Ahimsa or non violence and vegetarianism as a post Vedic Buddhist or Jain influence, it was a gradual development which happened within the Vedic tradition during later Vedic period. However, many ritualists would have still utilized actual animals in the rituals, while the ones who preferred non violent rituals would have used the substitute offerings. To sum up, we see an innovation or evolution of practices in the Vedic rituals and modifications or exceptions can be made in the Vedic rituals according to circumstances, but without altering the core performance itself. Even in the Uttarakāṇḍa section of Rāmāyaṇa, we read that Śri Rāma  performed Aśvamedha using golden image of Sīta Devi since she was not present during the performance of the ritual. As noted earlier, the role of queen was significant in the performance of the horse sacrifice.

 Also, no matter how primitive the Vedic rituals may may sound, the ritual acts does have internal meaning and symbolism. For example Aśvamedha  revolves the sacred cosmic horse, who is praised in Ṛg Veda 1.161-162. This divine horse symbolizes the fertile and ruling power and represents the Sun. The queen would embrace the divine horse unto herself as part of the sacrifice and it is clear from texts like Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  13.5.2.2 that this union has a cosmological background since the pairing is said to take place in heaven. If Aśvamedha revolves about divine horse, then Puruṣamedha revolves around Puruṣa Nārāyaṇa of Puruṣa Sukta from Ṛg Veda 10.90. Puruṣa Nārāyaṇa represents the whole universe personified and the human victim used in the ritual symbolizes this Puruṣa. As for the transgressive rites seen in certain versions of Gosava, these rites technically represents the notion of transcending human limitations, by living like an animal and having total freedom and liberation just like in heaven. Thus all ritual acts, even the so called primitive practices seems to have an internal meaning. Also in the Vedic sense, the place where the ritual is conducted is viewed as a divine space, for example Ṛg Veda 1.164.5 states the ritual is the center of the whole world. Whatever done in this divine space which are guided by the Vedic Mantras would be considered as divine, including the so called transgressive acts. 

Another thing is that the transgressive practices continued to exist even in post Vedic era when Tāntric or Āgamic (i.e temple and image based ) mode of worship evolved. Some of the heterodox Tāntric sects practicing the transgressive rites exist even today. It is also important to note that many of the mainstream orthodox Tāntric-Āgamic practices are also derived from Vedic ritual practices. For example Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  7.4.1.25-32 speaks of worshiping a gold image of a man symbolizing Puruṣa or the whole universe personified. This might've given rise to early image worship which later became popular in Tāntric-Āgamic tradition. The Pradakṣiṇa or Parikrama, the circumambulation of temples can be compared to the practice mentioned in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  9.1.2.6-8 where the ritualist has to circumambulate the fire altar used in Vedic rituals. The practice of Homa or havana, the offerings made in fire altar which is done in many temples are also obviously derived from ancient Vedic fire rituals. Another practice mentioned in Śatapata Brāhmaṇa  1.2.2.13 in which an object is purified using fire can also be compared with later ritual of Ārati. So many of the later Tāntric-Āgamic practices which are still practiced widely can also be traced back to ancient Vedic practices. 

Apart from this, the ancient Vedic rituals contributed to many of the early knowledge. The calculation and measurement of bricks to build the fire altars of different shapes gave rise to the ancient geometry and mathematics, the observation of stars and seasons to conduct rituals gave rise to astronomy, the speculations surrounding the sacrificial myths, goals, fruits of sacrifices etc gave rise to ancient philosophy, the strict emphasize on the use of Mantras and chanting in Vedic rituals must have given rise to the early linguistic thoughts, the acts, dialogues, dance, music etc which are part of many rituals like Aśvamedha, Mahāvrata etc would have contributed to the growth of early theatrical and dramatic tradition, the anatomy of sacrificial victims would have contributed to early surgical  tradition and so on. So before calling rituals as useless or primitive, one must remember about contribution of rituals to the civilization. These ancient rituals and also festivities are part of our civilization and they must be practiced to express or celebrate the ancient culture and heritage of our civilization.

On Hindu, Indian or Bhāratīya identity.

It is well known that the term Hindu originates from the Iranian version of Sanskrit term Sindhu, referring to water bodies such as rivers or specifically to the modern Indus river which is called Sindhu in Sanskrit. The earliest usage of the term Hindu is found in Iranian Avestan text of Vendidad 1.18, which is one of the sacred texts of Zoroastrians. This text mentions Hapta Hindu (read Heñdu) or Vedic Sapta Sindhu region, the land of seven rivers located in northern India. Behistun Inscription of Achaemenid Persian ruler Darius I who reigned in 6-5th centuries BCE also mentions the term Hindu (read Hiduš) referring to the regions in northern India. In later times, the term began to refer to the whole of Indian subcontinent and its inhabitants.

After the Achaemenids, the Greeks called the subcontinent region as Indós, India etc which is also derived from Sindhu in the same way how Hindu is derived from Sindhu.

So both the terms Hindu and India are synonymous, and have same geographical meaning referring to the civilization of Indian subcontinent and it's inhabitants.

The the term Hindu religion or Hinduism is used to collectively refer to all of the diverse non-Abrahamic Āstika traditions practiced in India, such as Vaiṣ‌ṇavism, Śaktism, Śaivism etc which accepts the authority of the Veda-s. There are also other Nāstika religious traditions like Buddhism, Jainism etc which do not accept the authority of the Veda-s.
Even when there existed intense rivalry between Āstika and Nāstika sects, they also shared many things in common. Concepts like Dhyāna, Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa, Dharma, Karma etc are common to both Āstika and Nāstika traditions, even though the interpretations may differ.
Also, many historical sites like Ajanta, Ellora, Elephanta, Badami, Khajuraho etc hosted both Āstika and Nāstika places of worship. They also used same symbols like Svastika, Śrīvatsa, Nandipada or Triratna, tree-in-railing etc during early historic period.
Āstika-s and Nāstika-s through many centuries of co-existence and inter mingling also would have influenced each other's diverse concepts and ideas.
So technically both Āstika and Nāstika traditions share same Dharmic heritage. It is upto the Nāstika-s to decide whether to call themselves as part of larger Dharmic Hindu umbrella along with the Āstika-s.

As for the tribal and folk religious traditions, majority of them are also influenced by either Āstika or Nāstika traditions.

So in sum, Hinduism being based on a geographical or civilizational term and consisting of various diverse traditions, would be more than just a religion and can collectively refer to the diverse civilizational traditions of Indian subcontinent.

Now some say the terms Hindu and India are not indigenous terms, and hence Hinduism or India didn’t exist before foreigners gave these names to the subcontinent and it’s people. Like pointed out before, both of these terms are foreign translations of Sanskrit term Sindhu.
So why shouldn't we call it by a Sanskrit term itself?

The native Sanskrit term of our civilization is Bhārata or Bhāratavarṣa.
The unity of the civilization of Bhāratavarṣa for the last 2000 years is visible from the early Caṅkaṁ era Tamil texts like Patiṟṟuppattu 11 and 43 which treats the regions from northern Himalaya to southern Tamil land of Kumari as one unified entity. Caṅkaṁ era is usually broadly dated from 500-300 BCE to around 300 CE.
The unity of Bhāratavarṣa is also evident from the Hāthigumpha inscription of Kaliṅga king Kharavēla dated around 200-100 BCE, in which Kharavēla talks about his expedition against the other kingdoms of Bhāratavarṣa. So Bhāratavarṣa was a civilization with many kingdoms within.

The name Bhāratavarṣa is derived from the name of the most illustrious Vedic kings, Bharata Dauhṣanti. He was son of king Duhṣanta (alternatively as Duṣyanta, Duṣmanta etc) and his wife Śakuntaḷa, from the Puru dynasty of larger Aila Candravanśa or lunar lineage of Vedic Kṣatriya-s.

As per Sambhava Parva of the great epic Mahābhārata, the Bhārata-s, most prominent tribe mentioned in the Ṛg Veda, the earliest Indian text, were also the descendants of this heroic king Bharata Dauhṣanti.

Glorious kings of Ṛg Veda like Sudāsa and Divōdāsa was from this tribe of Bharata and they were victorious in important battles mentioned in Ṛg Veda like Daśarājñá. Bharata Dauhṣanti is also mentioned in other Vedic texts such as Aitareya Brāhmaṇa 8.23 and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 13.5.4.14 , where it is stated that Bharata had attained the greatness which neither the men before nor those after him had attained.

So I feel it is better if we call our civilization (more than mere nation) as Bhārata or Bhāratavarṣa, and ourselves as Bhāratīya-s , a name which reminds of the civilizational patriarch Bharata Dauhṣanti.

It is also to be noted that the term Bhārata is also used as an epithet of Agni, for example in Ṛg Veda 4.25.4. Agni is the sacred fire representing the light of Vedic culture and without it's use no Vedic ritual was possible. Thus the term Bhārata is also connected directly with Vedic tradition, which is the foundation of our later traditions.

Since our great heroes like Chhatrapati Śivāji also utilized the term Hindu, I see nothing wrong in continually using it, although for an autochthonous identity, we can call ourselves as Bhāratīya-s.

The Abrahamic traditions and its followers of course are not part of this Bhāratīya or Indian or Hindu identity, since Bhāratīya traditions predate Abrahamisms and would collectively refer to the non-Abrahamic Dharmic traditions of Bhāratavarṣa derived from or influenced by the Vedic tradition and its later developments.

Vedic notion of divinity

Currently in Āstika Dharmic traditions which accepts the authority of Veda-s, we have different sects worshiping different Devata-s or deities as supreme. For example the Śakta-s worship Śakti or Devi, Vaiṣṇavas worship Viṣṇu, Śaivas worship Śiva etc as their supreme deities. During the Vedic era, there was more emphasis on the worship of deities like Agni, Indra, Varuna, Mitra, Vayu, Surya, Aditi, Savitṛ, Tvaṣṭṛ , Soma, Aśvini Kumara-s, Yama etc. Many of these divinities got their status changed in the later post-Vedic Āstika traditions when Viṣṇu , Śiva , Śakti etc got prominence.

The Vedic hymns are dedicated to a particular deity or sometimes group of deities in which the respective deities are praised as the supreme. For example in Ṛg Veda 1.98.1 Agni is praised as the supreme deity, in Ṛg Veda 6.36.4 Indra is the supreme, in Ṛg Veda 7.99.2 Viṣṇu is the greatest, in Ṛg Veda 2.33.9 Rudra is the mightiest, in Ṛg Veda 9.42.2 Soma is deity above all other deities, in Ṛg Veda 10.170.3 Surya is the supreme etc. So each Vedic deity has its own importance and is worshiped as the supreme deity in their respective hymns.

But besides this, there was also an abstract concept of the supreme absolute during the early Vedic era. Although it was not as popular as the other divinities, we can find reference of the absolute one or Eka in various scattered Ṛg Vedic hymns like Ṛg Veda 10.121, 10.129, 3.54.8, 10.81, 10.82, 3.55, 1.164.6, 1.164.46 etc. This Eka can be considered as an abstract state which represents totality of all the deities or all the deities reflect multiplicity of this abstract entity. Ṛg Veda 1.164.46 specifically mentions Ekam Sat or one being which the sages describe in multiple ways. This abstract concept of Eka or one entity, in my opinion, is precursor to the later concept of absolute Brahman. Any one who is familiar with the Āstika philosophies would also be familiar with the concept of Brahman, the changeless, eternal, absolute cause or source of the universe or existence and Ātman, our true self which is identical with supreme Brahman. In the Vedas, the term Brahman signifies prayer, devotion or the power of Mantra-s etc. In Ṛg Veda 4.16.9 the term Abrahma meaning unholy, prayerless etc also occurs. Brahman is also closely associated with Vak or sacred speech representing Vedic hymns, for example in Ṛg Veda 1.164.35. So in my opinion the absolute Eka Brahman can be termed as the mystical holy source or cause of the universe or existence.

I shall now explain this concept of the Eka or Brahman as found in the Vedic texts. Although there are many interpretations about this concept in various texts, I will mainly detail based on what is explained in the early Vedic texts. There are many names and aspects of Eka or Brahman in the Vedic corpus. It is called on as Hiraṇyagarbha, Prajāpati, Viśvakarma, Puruṣa etc.

Prajāpati - Prajāpati or lord of hosts (i.e created beings) is the main creator in the Vedic texts. Prajāpati first appears in late parts of Ṛg Veda and becomes a prominent figure from later Yajur Veda onwards. The name is also identified with many other deities but it is frequently applied to the abstract creator who is mentioned in Hiraṇyagarbha hymn from Ṛg Veda 10.121 and which represents all other deities. Prajāpati is obviously the creative aspect of manifested Eka or Brahman and in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 7.3.1.42, a Vedic ritualistic text, he is explicitly identified with the whole Brahman representing the totality or the omnipresence of manifested existence. In Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.1.2.13 it is stated that all other deities sprang from Prajāpati and Prajāpati also represents all the deities according to Taittirīya Samhita 2.1.4.3 Yajur Veda, reaffirming the fact that Prajāpati is an abstract figure which unifies all the deities. Prajāpati also has a very important role in the Vedic Yajnas or sacrifices. Prajāpati , although viewed as a father figure, also has motherly aspects. Prajāpati has a womb in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.2.2.5, becomes pregnant with all the creatures in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.4.2.1 and also has milk yielding breasts in Pañcavimśa Brāhmaṇa 13.11.18. Further in in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 5.1.5.26 it is stated that Prajāpati is both father and mother, representing father sky and mother earth. Prajāpati is clearly an enigmatic figure. Perhaps, the Vedic authors wanted to appropriate motherly female elements into the fatherly male Prajāpati , to make him as close as possible to the absolute brahman which has no gender.

In post-Vedic texts, the status of Prajāpati got degraded and there were many different Prajāpati-s. Prajāpati 's creative role also became limited to the creator deity Brahmā of Trimurtis. Also Avatara-s of Viṣṇu like Kūrma (tortoise) and Varaha (boar) in post Vedic texts are also associated with Prajāpati in Vedic literature. For example Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 14.1.2.11 mentions Prajāpati taking form of boar to lift up the earth just like Varaha Avatara and Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 7.5.1.5 also mentions about Prajāpati taking form of tortoise, reflecting Kūrma Avatara.

Puruṣa - Puruṣa , also called as Nārāyaṇa, is the cosmic male or personified universe. Puruṣa is frequently identified with Prajāpati like in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 7.4.1.15 and has similar attributes like Prajāpati . Puruṣa also plays an important role in many Vedic sacrifices. According to Puruṣa hymn from Ṛg Veda 10.90 which re-occurs in many other places with slight modifications, the whole world was manifested from the body parts of Puruṣa by the sacrifice of Puruṣa performed by the Gods. Puruṣa represents multiplicity of the universe and has multiple body parts. Puruṣa is everything, the entire manifested existence itself represented both time and space. Puruṣa fills the whole space in Ṛg Veda 10.90.1 and he is the past and the future representing time in Ṛg Veda 10.90.2. Atharva Veda 10.2.30 also identifies Puruṣa with Brahman.

In post-Vedic texts, Puruṣa Nārāyaṇa is identified with Viṣṇu and the multiplicity of Puruṣa became an important aspect of Viṣṇu . Puruṣa also became associated with Śiva since Linga or phallic symbol representing Puruṣa also became symbol of Śiva in later traditions. Puruṣa also plays an important role in Sāṃkhya philosophy, where he represents the supreme soul as opposed to his female counterpart named Prakṛiti or the manifested universe.

Viśvakarma - Viśvakarma the all doer or all worker is another abstract state like Puruṣa-Prajāpati and is identified with Prajāpati several times like in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.2.3.13. Just like the name Prajāpati, the name Viśvakarma is also applied to various deities, but it is mostly used for the abstract creator who is mentioned in Viśvakarma hymns of Ṛg Veda 10.81 and 10.82. These hymns also occurs in various other Vedic texts. Like Puruṣa, Viśvakarma also represents multiplicity and has many organs as mentioned in Ṛg Veda 10.81.3.In post-Vedic texts, Viśvakarma was viewed as heavenly architect.

Hiraṇyagarbha - The name literally means golden fetus, womb, embryo, germ etc .It is also possibly identical to Hiraṇya aṇḍa or golden cosmic egg mentioned in various Vedic texts such as in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11.1.6.1. This concept first appears in the Hiraṇyagarbha hymn of Ṛg Veda 10.121 where it is praised as the supreme absolute. This hymn is repeated many times throughout the Vedic texts just like Puruṣa and Viśvakarma hymn. Hiraṇyagarbha is also called on as Ka or who, an unknown mysterious entity, and is identified with Prajāpati in many instances like Ṛg Veda 10.121.10, Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 6.2.2.5 etc. Vājasanēyi Samhita of Śukla or white Yajur Veda 32.4 speaks about unity of everything in context of Hiraṇyagarbha . As the name indicates, Hiraṇyagarbha refers to the root cause or the infant state of absolute Eka or Brahman from which Prajāpati-Puruṣa-Viśvakarma representing everything, the whole manifested existence, arose. Thus, it is the closest state to the changeless and eternal unmanifested absolute Brahman.

So to sum up, Prajāpati-Puruṣa-Viśvakarma refers to same creative or manifested aspect of the absolute Eka or Brahman which represents the existence of the universe. Hiraṇyagarbha on the other hand refers to the root cause of existence which is beyond existence and thus represents the unmanifested state of absolute Eka or Brahman which is not yet fully existent.

There are also other abstract states which are not as popular as the above mentioned concepts in Vedic religious thoughts. For example, Skambha and Rohita which occurs in Atharva Veda 10.7 and 13.1. Skambha is a cosmic pillar which supports the universe and Rohita is symbolized red shining Sun which represents the absolute.

Vedic view on heaven, hell and afterlife

All major religions in the world believes in the concept of final redemption after death. It is the ultimate goal of our lives. Dharmic traditions call it as Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa or Mukti, the eternal release from the endless cycle of death and birth or Saṃsāra. The belief is that after death one will attain Svarga (heaven) or Vaikuṇṭha (Viṣṇu's abode) or Kailāśa (Śiva's abode) or any other realm and union with specific divinities according to the different sects. In this post I shall explain the concept of redemption according to the early Vedic tradition.

According to the early Vedic texts, the man who does good deeds, rituals etc goes to the heaven. Vedas calls heaven by many names such as Div, Vyoma, Dyaus, Svarga etc. It seems that Vedic people visualized the heaven as some realm deep within the sky because these terms are also synonymous the sky.

The heaven in Vedic thought is divided into three realms said in Ṛg Veda  1.35.6. First two heavens are the realms of Savitar or the solar deity. The third and the final realm of heaven is under the God of death, Yama Vaivasvata who is son of the Sun or Vivasvān .

Yama has his two four-eyed dogs to guard the pathway to the heavenly realm as stated in Ṛg Veda  10.14.10-12. He also has a twin sister named Yamī, whom the river Yamuna in northern India is named after and Manu Vaivasvata, the first ancestor of Vedic Aryans is also the brother of Yama as both are sons of Vivasvān or the Sun God. Ṛg Veda  10.14.2 informs Yama was the first mortal to die and discover the imperishable heavenly realm. Ṛg Veda 1.83.5 talks of Yama's 'deathless birth' i.e he got immortality in realm of heaven.

Ṛg Veda  10.165.4 identifies Yama with death itself. Vājasaneyi Saṁhita 39.13 also mentions Yama along with death and the destroyer.  It is possible that Yama had two aspects, first one being the ruler of heavenly realm who is also the guardian of ancestors and granter of immortality, and the second aspect being identified with death itself, as the annihilator.

Yama who was originally regarded as king of heaven gradually became degraded to mere judge of death, and further in later texts he became associated with Naraka or hell. However, he still retained his role as overlord of Dharma or Dharma Raja, and Yama has Iranian counterpart named Yima or Jamshed as he's known in later periods. He is the protector of creation in a mythical compound named Vara and the ruler of paradise. However, just like in Vedic tradition, Yima also gradually became a sinner after he instituted blood sacrifices by sacrificing an ox as stated in Yasna 32.8, an ancient Iranian scripture.

It is interesting to note that Yama is only mentioned once in the core books (books 2-7) of Ṛg Veda  which are considered as the earliest, he is mentioned in hymn 7.33 just twice. This could probably indicate that Yama was originally a latecomer into the Vedic pantheon possibly from tradition of early Iranians or some other early tradition which was parallel to Vedic tradition. It is however important to note that Yama's realm of highest heaven is mentioned may times in the core parts of Ṛg Veda .

The third realm of heaven (Tridiv) or the highest heaven (parame vyoman) is the realm of divinities as said in Ṛg Veda  10.135.1 & 7. Clearly even though Vedic authors viewed this highest heavenly realm as existing deep within the sky as in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.6.3.19, they also made it something transcendental or mystical. Many verses from Ṛg Veda  speaks of divinities like Agni, Brhaspati, Indra etc taking birth in this supreme heavenly realm as in Ṛg Veda 6.8.2, 4.50.4, 3.32.10 etc. Ṛg Veda 3.32.10 specifically states that Indra took birth in highest heaven and then pervaded from there throughout sky and earth. Highest heaven is the realm where both Sat (existence) and Asat (non-existence) meets as said in Ṛg Veda 10.5.7. It is also the place where Vak ( speech) and Brahman (mystical divine power of the Vedic speech) is united as in Ṛg Veda 1.164.35. Ṛg Veda 7.82.2 mentions all the Gods are in the highest realm of heaven. Further Chandogya Upaniṣad 8.5.3 mentions that the world of Brahman (i.e the supreme absolute cause of the existence) is in third heaven.The famous creation hymn of Ṛg Veda  also 10.129.7 claims that the creator who controls the world is located in the highest realm of heaven.

So without a shed of doubt, this realm is  ethereal and transcendental.

The highest realm of heaven is the deathless, imperishable place where the souls can feel the warmth of their departed Pitr̥-s or ancestors again, who reside with the divinities as said in Ṛg Veda  10.14.8. This realm is filled with everlasting pleasure, freedom, happiness etc as said in Ṛg Veda 9.113.7-11. These verses prays to Indu or Soma, the divine drink to grant immortality in the third or highest heaven. Atharva Veda 12.3.17 states that man will be reunited with his wife and children in  heaven. Verses from Ṛg Veda like 10.16.5 and 10.14.8 talks about gaining a new glorious body in the heaven after the parts of physical body is merged with various elements in the physical realm as in Ṛg Veda 10.16.3. Further Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 2.6.4.8 says that it is possible to attain union with specific divinities in their world (i.e heaven) by worshiping them.

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10.5.2.3 mentions Puruṣa or alter ego of Prajāpati which is located in the Sun is  both death and immortality. Vājasaneyi Saṁhita 31.18 also compares the color of Puruṣa to that of the Sun. Further Vājasaneyi Saṁhita 23.48 compares the light of the Sun with the light of Brahman. The Vedic authors perhaps knew  that the Sun is an immense source of energy and light, and no life was possible without it. In Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10.5.2.8 it is said that the Puruṣa in the Sun is also located in the right eye of human, with it’s female half in the left eye. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10.5.2.16 states that the Puruṣa is one and many, for he is in the Sun, and indeed he is present in everything in the physical world. Also Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 10.5.2.17 states that the Puruṣa in the Sun is both near and far away, since the Sun is far away from us, the Puruṣa seated in the Sun is located far away, but Puruṣa is also near to us since everything is his manifestation. Thus, the Sun is the seat of the absolute in the manifested realm according to Vedic texts. Prajāpati or manifested Brahman shines forth as the spirit within the Sun in physical realm and is also embodiment of Svarga (in the physical realm) as said in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.9.3.10.

Now, to gain access to Svarga one must know the true identity of oneself as narrated in Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa 1.17-18. It is stated that after one dies, the soul goes towards the region of the Sun (representing Prajāpati ). When the soul comes near to the Sun, the Sun will ask the soul to identify itself. If the soul identifies itself by it's personal or family name from physical realm where the notion of 'I' 'me' 'mine' etc exists, the soul will be dragged away from that region towards the physical realm by seasons (who are guardian of heaven's door) and the day and night will take possession of the soul, i.e it will return to the physical world and will be be caught up in endless cycle of rebirth or Saṃsāra . But if the soul identifies itself with the Svarga represented by Prajāpati, who in turn represents  the source of everything in the manifested existence, the soul can attain union with that spirit in the Sun representing Prajāpati and go onward to the transcendental heavenly realm of Svarga and attain immortality.

Thus, the only way to free oneself from the Saṃsāra or endless cycle of death and birth is by knowing one's true identity and source, which is nothing else than the supreme absolute.

This doctrine in my opinion clearly represents the earliest form of non-duality going back to the early Vedic texts. Some authors have argued that the notion of Saṃsāra or cycle of deaths and births is a theory adopted by early Upaniṣadic authors from early non-Vedic traditions which gave rise to Buddhism and Jainism. But I beg to differ with them because the doctrine from Jaiminīya  Brāhmaṇa clearly represents the theme of Saṃsāra , and this passage occurs in early Vedic ritualistic theme. Further same passages are repeated other text Jaiminīya Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa  3.14.1-5. Also the core theme of the departed soul attaining union with the Sun or it's light can be seen in Ṛg Veda 10.154.5, 1.125.6 & 1.109.7. So clearly the notion of Saṃsāra is nothing alien to the early Vedic Brahmanical tradition and it is not borrowed from Śramaṇic tradition.

It is interesting to note that the meditative doctrine which seems to be an early form of Kuṇḍalinī from Cāndogya  Upaniṣad 8.6 also involves attaining immortality by raising the power located within the heart to top of the head. This is spoken in context of attaining the Sun (and Prajāpati represented by the Sun).

It is to be noted that there also existed different doctrines which is different from passing through the Sun , these are Devayāna and Pitr̥yāna which is stated in earliest Upaniṣad like Cāndogya Upaniṣad 5.10.  In this doctrine, the world of Gods and world of ancestors are separate. The ultimate aim of this doctrine as in Devayāna is attain union with Brahman, while Pitr̥yāna leads to rebirth in physical realm after passing through various worlds. In Devayāna, union with Brahman is attained through different way from passing through the Sun and it doesn't view the Sun as the final goal like the mainstream Vedic view..

While the heaven is viewed as the ideal divine realm, the Vedic people feared the darkness which is associated with evil. Thus Ṛg Veda  2.40.2, 4.13.3 etc speaks of getting rid of darkness. Darkness is also explicitly associated with Rākṣasa-s or demonic beings in Taittirīya Saṁhita 1.3.9.2. So the darkness could have represented hellish element. Thus, Vedic authors also prayed to the divinities for protection from darkness as in Ṛg Veda  2.27.14. Finally, Taittirīya Saṁhita 5.1.8.5 speaks of overcoming the evil darkness and attaining the light of the Sun and the heaven.

Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa  11.6.1.1-13 and Jaiminīya Brāhmaṇa  1.42-44 narrates a story about how Varuṇa sent sage Bhrigu to otherworldly realms in some  which he saw torture and violence, these may represent hellish realms. One of the earliest mention of Naraka or hell is from Atharva Veda 12.4.36 where hell is placed in opposite to Yama's realm, i.e Svarga or heaven.

Diversity of Vedic culture

The Vedic culture was quite diverse in beliefs and practices. Many of them are often inconsistent with each other. For example one the Candogya Upaniṣad 3.19.1 states that in the beginning the universe was Asat (non-existentce) and Sat (existence) was a secondary phenomenon.At the same time, Candogya Upaniṣad 6.2.2 tells us that only Sat was there in the beginning. To cite another example from Vedic text named Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, in verse 7.4.1.15 it informs us that Prajāpati , Vedic creator deity, is identical with Puruṣa or the whole universe personified. But again in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 12.3.4.1 both Puruṣa and Prajāpati as spoken as different entities.

The inconsistency is also evident in the rituals and rites of Vedic society. To cite one example, the Vedic people practiced both cremation of the dead as in ṚgVeda 10.16 and burial of the dead as in Ṛg Veda 10.18. Ṛg Veda 10.15.14 also speaks of both cremated and uncremated dead.

So why these inconsistencies? In my opinion, the Vedic culture does not have a single founder and Vedic scriptures were not authored by a single group of authors with a codified system. It was authored by authors who had diverse beliefs and practices. Thus, these inconsistencies arose. The Vedic texts are open for interpretations and there were many Vedic branches or Shakhas specialized in a single Vedic text or Samhita. Each branches further has its own additional texts like Brāhmaṇa-s , Āraṇyaka-s , Upaniṣad-s, sūtra-s etc associated with the main Vedic text. Obviously these additional texts were diverse as well, and contained different interpretations of Vedic beliefs and practices. This diversity is the reason why the Vedic culture later evolved into various new sects which forms the current culture which we call as Hindu or Bhāratīya culture.

To sum up, it would be good to assume that Vedic culture was quite diverse in practices and beliefs, just like modern Hindu or Bhāratīya culture and the inconsistencies are not big issues in this case.

The greatness of Sanskrit language

The Sanskrit language or Sans‌kr̥taṁ dates back to the bronze age and it is the sacred language of Āstika  traditions. Vaidika or Vedic Sanskrit which was the language of Vedic texts later evolved into Laukika or classical Sanskrit. The Prākṛta or Prakrit languages were also related to Sanskrit and they were a later development.

During the early period, Sanskrit was mostly utilized  in  northern regions of India or Bhāratavarṣa and later it was utilized all over India and even beyond India as the Indian culture spread into wider regions. At its height, Sanskrit was utilized in a large area covering from Afghanistan to Indonesia. Through Buddhism, Sanskritic elements also reached many other regions such as Central Asia and East Asia.
Sanskrit or Sanskritic origin is also the single factor which unites and links all the diverse Indian religious and cultural traditions.

The corpus of  ancient Sanskrit literature  is huge and the ancient texts like four Veda Samhita-s, Āraṇyaka-s, Brāhmaṇa-s, Upaniṣad-s, Kalpa sūtra-s , Dharma śāstra-s and Smr̥ti-s , epics Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, Purāṇa-s and Upapurāṇa-s , Tāntric-Āgamic texts, Brahma sūtra, Mimamsa sūtra, Nyāya sūtra, Vaiśēṣika sūtra and numerous other works like Nāṭya-śāstra, Yoga sūtra, Kāma sūtra, Caraka Samhita, Suśruta Samhita etc would probably make the Sanskrit literature the largest ancient literature on the planet.

 It must also be noted that today we only posses Vedic texts from the surviving Śākha-s or branches of Vedic schools. Once, there existed more Vedic Śākha-s and the texts associated with the Śākha-s which are extinct today. So we can never underestimate the size of ancient Sanskrit corpus. The knowledge of Sanskrit would help one in reading all the surviving ancient texts, though it will take a lifetime to read all of them thoroughly.