Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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