Why do we say we’re following the Vedas when we don’t even study the actual Vedas?

With respect to the Vedas — yes, the Vedas are indeed a vast body of knowledge. It’s often said that everyone claims to follow the Vedas, yet very few actually study them. Most people read secondary texts or commentaries at different times, not the original Vedas themselves.

In fact, many of your questions remind me of myself around 30 years ago, when I was first introduced to Bhakti. I’ll share with you where I have satisfactory answers, where I have answers that even I find incomplete, and how I personally look at these matters—because one of the key principles here is brahma-jigyānsā, or spiritual inquiry.

In the Vedic tradition, the emphasis is not so much on certainty of understanding as it is on the curiosity of the search. These are two distinct approaches. There is an ultimate reality, and we can approach it in two broad ways: the philosophical search and the religious search.

In the religious approach, one begins with faith—faith in a specific conclusion—and then seeks deeper understanding of that conclusion. For example, a child raised in a devotional family may be taught, “Krishna is God,” and accept it because the parents say so. Later, the child may begin to question: “What does it mean for Krishna to be God? Who is God?” Such questions mark the beginning of deeper realization.

Faith here is not blind. It is like deciding to go to America. Initially, I may not know everything about the country, but as I go there and explore, I begin to see its value. Similarly, one approach is to begin with a trusted conclusion and deepen one’s understanding gradually. The other approach is to start from scratch, explore options, and conclude, for example, that “America is the most prosperous country,” or that “Krishna is God.” Both approaches are valid and are part of the broader human search for truth.

People are wired differently—some thrive in structured systems; others prefer open-ended exploration. This diversity is reflected even in professional or corporate settings. Likewise, spiritual traditions—especially in the Vedic context—accommodate different temperaments. Some people follow structured ritualistic paths; others inquire, reflect, and grow organically.

Now, if we consider the Vedas, they start from where most human beings are—driven by desires. For most, the desire to understand the ultimate truth is not primary. Rather, people seek pleasure, power, or prosperity. So, the Vedas offer rituals to help fulfill such desires. As people experience the results of their desires, they may begin to question: “Who is fulfilling my desires? What is the source of these results? What is the ultimate reality?”

There is another class of people—smaller in number—who begin by questioning the validity of their desires themselves. They ask, “Is what I am seeking truly valuable? Is there something higher?” The Vedic texts accommodate both these groups.

Gradually, as people realize that fulfilling desires does not necessarily fulfill the heart, their inquiry deepens. This journey moves from the karma-kāṇḍa sections of the Vedas (ritualistic texts) to the jñāna-kāṇḍa (Upanishadic teachings). The Upanishads often emphasize renunciation and the limitations of the material world—highlighting that the world is not only distressing but deceptive. What appears attractive often entangles us.

Then we come to the Purāṇas, which bridge both the ritualistic and philosophical dimensions. The Purāṇas, especially the Bhakti-centered ones, incorporate narratives that illustrate how the fulfillment of desires often leaves one unfulfilled—and thus prompt deeper spiritual inquiry.

So, we can broadly categorize three approaches:

• Romanticize the world – “This world is real and can be made wonderful.”
• Demonize the world – “This world is a trap; the more we cling to it, the more we suffer.”
• Utilize the world – “Through this world, if used rightly, we can attain the other world.”

Bhakti philosophy primarily supports this third approach: using the world as a stepping stone to transcendence.

Now, this framework—romanticize, demonize, or utilize—is not rigid, just like a map is not the territory. On a map, borders appear clear, but on the ground, regions like the India-Pakistan or India-China border often have grey zones. Similarly, Vedic texts often overlap. Some Vedic hymns echo Upanishadic themes, and some Purāṇic narratives reflect Vedic rituals. The overlap is natural, but the framework helps in conceptual orientation.

Over time, as society changed, Vedic rituals lost their central appeal for many people. The knowledge remained relevant, but not all rituals retained their applicability. Hence, over centuries, teachers and ācāryas have selected and emphasized what is most relevant for their time—much like a doctor selects specific medicines from a large formulary based on the patient’s condition.

Most modern teachers of Sanātana Dharma—beginning from the late medieval period—have taken this approach: honoring the Vedas as a living tradition and drawing from it what is meaningful for the current era.

Ultimately, every human being must make their own spiritual journey. That means we must choose what makes sense to us—and what helps us make sense of life. These are two different criteria:

1. “This particular book or teaching makes sense to me.”
2. “This teaching helps me make sense of the world and my life.”

Our teachers and ācāryas assist us in making these choices.

So, to summarize the question: Why do we say we follow the Vedas even though we don’t directly study them?

Because the Vedas are both timeless and timely. Some sections are eternally relevant; others are contextually relevant. Spiritual teachers apply principles like adhikāra (qualification) and deśa-kāla-pātra (time, place, and circumstance) to determine what teachings are most suitable for a particular era or person.