Download Inquiry Systems of Upanishads: A Comment

Inquiry Systems of Upanishads: A Comment
- Pranava Kumar Vasishta GV
200201018
There are six schools of Philosophy in India that are regarded as orthodox, because they
believe in the Vedas.
Vyasa’s philosophy is par excellence that of the Upanishads. He wrote in Sutra form, that
is, in brief algebraical symbols without nominative or verb. This caused so much ambiguity that
out of the Sutras came dualism, mono-dualism and monism or “roaring Vedanta”; and all the
great commentators in these different schools were at times “conscious liars” in order to make the
texts suit their philosophy.
- Swami Vivekananda from “The Complete Works of
Swami Vivekananda Vol. VII - Inspired Talks (Pg 36)”
The mentioned six schools of Philosophy are: Saankhya, Yoga, Nyaaya, Vaiseshika,
Poorva Mimaamsa, Uttara Mimaamsa or Vedanta. Of these six philosophies, the most
influential one is the sixth one – Vedanta.
The Vedas find their final expression in the Upanishads. And indeed, the Upanishads
are called Vedanta. Vyasa wrote this in the Sutra form in his Vedanta Sutras or Brahma
Sutras. These Brahma Sutras were very abstract that they raised several doubts and
this resulted in the Vedantic thought into three major sub-divisions – Advaita or monism
(expounded by Sri Adi Sankaracharya), Visishtadvaita or mono-dualism or qualified
monism (expounded by Sri Ramanujacharya), and Dvaita or dualism (expounded by Sri
Madhvacharya).
According to Swami Vivekananda - “Abstract unity is the foundation of Jnana Yoga. This
is called Advaitism. This is the corner stone of Vedanta philosophy, the Alpha and the
Omega.” Therefore, in order to proceed further into the inquiry of Upanishads, one
needs to keep in mind that this inquiry follows monism or that this system of inquiry was
expounded by Sri Sankara.
What is an Upanishad? ““Upa-ni-shad" means to "sit near by". The Upanishads are the
teachings imparted by a guru to his student sitting by his side [sitting at his feet]. You
could also take the term to mean "that which takes one to the Brahman". "Upanayana"
may be interpreted in two ways: leading a child to his guru; or leading him to the
Brahman. Similarly, the term Upanishad could also be understood in the above two
senses.”1
Prof P N Murthy in his research note introducing the topic raises curiosity in the reader
by starting with the voice of an ancient seer saying:
“Srunvantu Hey Vishve, aham amrutaaryaputrah!”
And Prof Murthy follows it up with the reaction of people towards the explorer. He says –
“They want to believe his experience. But how? Is it a mere flash in the pan? Can this
experience be repeated by others? What is the inquiry system?” – I feel that the
1
Taken from the online edition of “The Vedas” from www.kamakoti.org
questions - “But how?” and “Is it a mere flash in the pan?” are not the correct questions
to be asked. Firstly, a belief is not bound to any rational explanation. And moreover if a
question of the Discovery being a mere flash in the pan occurs then the next two
questions have no meaning. I say this because, in order that a person inquires into the
Vedanta, as Prof Murthy later points out in the attitude to inquiry that a student should
confirm with himself – “Let there be no rejection of Brahman by me”. Also these
questions should not have been raised when Prof Murthy later when he talks of the
“Basic Assumptions” states that one needs to believe in “All creation is one. It is
Brahman…”
If the questions raised were just -“Can I repeat experience the same? What is the inquiry
system? (Or) How do I go about it? “- I feel that it would set the stage for the research
note better.
In the explanation of the term Upa-ni-shads given above, it is said that they are the
teachings imparted by a Guru to his student sitting by his side and here, we need to
remember that a Guru is a person who shall lead the student to the Brahman, the
Ultimate Reality. The Inquiry systems of the Upanishads are influenced by mainly the
following aspects:
a) The nature of the disciple
b) The nature of the Guru
The inquiry is based on the type of questions that the student poses to the Guru and
also the type of answers that the Guru gives him. Also, it depends on how and what the
Guru wants to impart to his disciple. Their relation also influences the system of inquiry.
In the note, Prof Murthy does cover the nature of the disciple by giving the examples of
Satyakama, Upakoshala, and then later gives an apt example to capture the attention on
how the disciple gets educated on the basis of their nature through the example of
Prajapita from Brhadaranyakopanishad. We also get an understanding of the nature of
the Guru from the first two examples, the judgment of the Guru on the nature of his
disciple and the way he tests him so that the disciple gets to understand the Brahman.
I feel that Prof Murthy should have given equal importance to the nature of the Guru, by
giving the details about the nature and how it results in developing various types of
inquiry into knowing the Ultimate Reality by the student. In the note, Prof Murthy does
give a very good example covering this aspect under the sub title “Strands” where he
talks of superimposing images on the supposed Ultimate, the Brahman. A similar way of
inquiry is explained in the Taittiriyopanishad. I quote from the book “The Vedas” the
same –
"Bhrguvalli" is the teaching (upadesa) imparted by Varuna to his son Bhrgu. "Upadesa" here is
not to be understood as something dictated by the guru to his student. Varuna encourages his
son to ascend step by step through his own experiments and experience. Bhrgu performs
austerities and thinks that the sheath of food is the truth. From this stage he advances gradually
through the sheaths of breath, mind and understanding and arrives at the truth that is the sheath
of bliss. He realizes as an experience that the Atman (the nature of bliss) is the ultimate truth.
Here in this example, we see that the way of teaching done by the teacher also depends
on the student. Another example of the same is the example of Svetaketu from
Chandogyopanishad. I quote from the book “The Vedas” again –
In character Svetaketu was the opposite of Satyakama and was proud of his learning. His father
Uddalaka Aruni teaches him to be humble and in the end imparts to him the mantra, "Tat tvam
asi" (That thou art), the mantra which proclaims the non-difference between the individual self
and the Brahman. "Tat tvam asi" is the mahavakya of the Samaveda.
Now that the Guru-Sishya (= disciple) relation is better understood, we can appreciate
the invocation
“sahanaavavatu sahanou bhunaktu
saha veeryam karavaa vahaii
tejasvinaavadheetamastu
maavidvishaavahaii
OM Saantih! Saantih! Saantih!”
In the Prof Murthy’s note, after the sloka “OM Poornamadah …” – The sentence that
follows it is “Such is the subject of inquiry” – I feel that this is a typo and it must be
“object of inquiry”.
The Upanishads show various ways of Upasana and each of them relates to a way of
inquiry. I shall now like to point at one such inquiry system which must be mentioned
explicitly but has not been done in the note.
This corresponds to the interaction between the various ways in which one can perceive
the Brahman. 2If generally we perceive that Brahman is the Self, then is there any point
in continuing our inquiry? That is we come to know “Aham Brahmaasmi!” – That is I am
Brahma – then do we need to inquire further? Sri Sankara provides an answer to this
question in the affirmative. He cites a few of the various opinions as to the specific
nature of the Self as follows:
a) The Self is the body endowed with the quality of intelligence (a
materialist view, also held by many unlearned people).
b) The Self is the “organs endowed with intelligence” (brain, heart,
etc.) (another materialist view).
c) The Self is “a mere momentary idea” (a Buddhist view).
d) The Self is void or empty (another Buddhist view).
e) The Self is “a transmigrating being different from the body,”
which is both the producer and the experiencer of the consequences of
action (a Hindu view based on Nyaaya philosophy).
2
Taken from the essay “Sankara’s World View” From On Sankara (Thomson-Wadsworth,
"Wadsworth Philosopher Series," 2003). Italics mine.
f) The Self is a transmigrating being different from the body, which
is the experiencer of the fruits of action, but which does not engage in
action (another Hindu view based on Saankhya philosophy).
g) Brahman (“the Lord”) is the True Self of the individual, whose
individual soul is an appearance only, a product of ignorance (the
Vedanta view, which Sankara endorses).
Thus, there are many opposing views as to the nature of the Self. According to Sankara,
some of these perspectives are based on sound arguments and on correct
interpretations of Vedic (scriptural) texts, while some are based on fallacious arguments
and on Vedic texts misunderstood and misapplied. We must not, Sankara argues,
embrace any one of these opinions without careful thought and consideration;
for failing to comprehend the true natures of Brahman and the Self and the true
relationship between them may well bar us from the bliss of spiritual liberation. For these
reasons, an inquiry into the nature of Brahman and into the relationship between
Brahman and the Self (Atman) is both possible and necessary.
And this is the reason why we say “Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati” – The knowledge of
Brahman comes only when you realize Brahman.
Finally, I would like to quote from “The Vedas”, the difference of Upanishadic inquiry
from other forms of inquiry :
In other countries philosophers try to apprehend the Truth on an intellectual plane. The
Upanishadic inquiry is different, its purpose being to realize inwardly the Truth perceived by the
mind or the intellect. Is it enough to know that halva is sweet? You must experience its sweetness
by eating it. How are the Upanishads different from other philosophical systems? They (the
Upanishads) consist of mantras, sacred syllables, and their sound is instinct with power. This
power transforms the truths propounded by them into an inward reality. The philosophical
systems of other countries do not go beyond making an intellectual inquiry. Here, in the Vedas in the karmakanda - a way of life is prescribed for the seeker with actions and duties calculated to
discipline and purify him. After leading such a life and eventually forsaking all action, all Vedic
karma, he meditates on the truths of the Upanishads. Instead of being mere ideas of intellectual
perception, these truths will then become a living reality. The highest of these truths is that there
is no difference between the individual self and the Brahman.
References:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Vivekachudaamani – Sri Adi Sankarachaarya
“The Vedas“ – Chapters 30, 33 from the www.kamakoti.org
“UpanishadVahini” – English version from www.vahini.org
On Sankara (Thomson-Wadsworth, "Wadsworth Philosopher Series," 2003)
The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Vol VII and VIII on Jnana Yoga