The cow is known universally as an animal that is preeminently held sacred and holy by Hindus since time immemorial. She is used as a metaphysical symbol of nature's bountiful and selfless generosity. She symbolizes the Divine Mother who loves her children (real and adoptive human) unconditionally. She is by her own nature very gentle, docile, harmless and warmly affectionate. Only people who have actually reared cattle, lived in close proximity with them and observed their character minutely would appreciate the magnanimity and beautiful and intelligent nature of cows.
The Vedas, which are the most ancient and most sacred scriptures of Hinduism, are filled with deep multiple levels of metaphysical and spiritual symbolism of the cow and the bull. The cow figures innumerable times in the Vedas as a symbol of deep revelation of spiritual knowledge. The Sanskrit name gauḥ (गौः) is a synonym for the Earth, sacred revealed Speech (vāk वाक्), mystical Light and the flow of deep insight. The Nighaṇṭu, the ancient Vedic thesaurus, lists among the words for the cow, jagatī (जगती) and śakvarī (शक्वरी), which are Vedic poetic meters (chandas छन्दः), and Aditi (अदिति) and Iḷā (इळा), which are names of female deities. It is noteworthy that Aditi is the mother of the gods and the mother of the universe in Vedic metaphysics, and Iḷā is the ancestor and progenitor of the Vedic people. Such is the reverence and affection for the cow.
The Ṛgveda, the oldest Veda and the cornerstone of the foundation of the edifice of Hindu civilization, dating back to at least 3500 BCE (and very probably much earlier), features a recurring creation myth in which Indra kills the mythical dragon Vṛtra who has all the waters and riches trapped. Once he is killed, Indra discovers the cows and releases them, thereby creating the universe. Here, the cows are the symbol of primeval life and knowledge. Indra is the original Govinda who finds the cows (gā avindat; RV 1.101.5; 1.103.5; 5.29.3; etc.), and he has a special bond with cows, very much paralleling the later legends of the cowherd Kṛṣṇa Vāsudeva in Vṛndāvana.
In spite of such extensive evidence for the deep reverence for the cow in the Vedas, western Indology academics (not "scholars", which has a much more esteemed meaning) and their Indian cohorts of the left-leaning variety, as usual unscrupulously brush aside such inconvenient evidence in order to further their own erroneous and devious theories about crude, brutish and primitive slaughter and sacrifice of cows and beef-eating in Vedic times. There is a huge inconsistency in their approach. On the one hand, distinct from Hindu tradition, they espouse an internal chronology for the development of the Vedic corpus, saying that Samhitās were composed first, followed much later by Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka texts. On the other hand, they also espouse a theory of gradual development from primitive pastoral society of cow sacrifice and beef-eating to a mature agricultural society where animal sacrifice is gradually abandoned. The inconsistency here is shown by the fact that the supposedly oldest Vedic texts, the Samhitās, have absolutely no evidence of any animal or cow sacrifice or beef-eating, while the same is found in supposedly later Brāhmaṇa or Śrauta prayoga texts.
The metrics of consistency, academic rigor, and integrity demand that the western Indology academics recognize the fact that in the oldest Vedic text, the Ṛgveda Samhitā, there is absolutely no evidence for animal sacrifice and beef-eating. On the contrary, the text shows the utmost reverence for the cow, and the existence of simple rituals with preponderance of deeper metaphysical or spiritual significance. The fact that the Vedic religious system was not monolithic but was instead a complex criss-crossing of multiple beliefs and customs, is seen in the later gradual development of complex rituals and introduction of animal sacrifice. This later period is represented by the Brāhmaṇa and Śrauta Sūtra texts.
This view also agrees with traditional doctrine that in the golden first epoch (Kṛta Yuga), there was no animal sacrifice and no yajñas, and people were spiritually advanced, while there was a proliferation of rituals and yajñas in the second epoch (Tretā Yuga) as seen from Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.2.1 (tretāyāṃ bahudhā santatāni).
To recapitulate, all evidence from the oldest and most important Vedic text shows the practice of simple rituals, a complete absence of cow/animal sacrifice, and utmost reverence, sanctity and spiritual symbolism of the cow. Later Vedic texts show a gradual development of complex rituals, reduced and simplified spiritual symbolism, and introduction of the non-Vedic new practice of animal sacrifice.
In demonstration of the above evidence, I shall present below the Cow Hymn (RV 6.28) of Ṛṣi Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya, one of the most ancient Vedic seers. The sixth maṇḍala, which contain his hymns, is universally accepted as the oldest part of the extant Ṛgveda Samhitā. In case the reader had the impression so far that cows were only symbolic in the Ṛgveda, the cows in this hymn are very real, and share a deep bond with Indra.
Sāyaṇa's commentary is straightforward and reflects the mantras almost identically. The only noteworthy point is that in verses 3 and 4 he interprets the verbs of present tense (laṭ lakāra लट् लकारः) as the benedictive (āśīrliṅ आशीर्लिङ्) and imperative (loṭ lakāra लोट् लकारः) moods. I shall mention the specifics under each verse.
RV 6.28.1:
आ गावो अग्मन्नुत भद्रमक्रन्त्सीदन्तु गोष्ठे रणयन्त्वस्मे ।
प्रजावतीः पुरुरूपा इह स्युरिन्द्राय पूर्वीरुषसो दुहानाः ॥ १
ā gāvo agmannuta bhadramakrantsīdantu goṣṭhe raṇayantvasme ।
prajāvatīḥ pururūpā iha syurindrāya pūrvīruṣaso duhānāḥ ॥
"May the Cows come to us, may they bring welfare, may they sit in our home, may they be satisfied with us. May they be plentiful in calves, in different forms, and in large numbers, may they be available for milking at Dawn for Indra."
Here the rishi is hoping that the cows will be satisfied and happy with him and his family. The cows are treated as exalted deities whose pleasure is an important goal for the rishi.
RV 6.28.2:
इन्द्रो यज्वने पृणते च शिक्षत्युपेद्ददाति न स्वं मुषायति ।
भूयोभूयो रयिमिदस्य वर्धयन्नभिन्ने खिल्ये नि दधाति देवयुम् ॥ २
indro yajvane pṛṇate ca śikṣatyupeddadāti na svaṃ muṣāyati ।
bhūyobhūyo rayimidasya vardhayannabhinne khilye ni dadhāti devayum ॥
"Indra generously gives to the worshiper who pleases him with beautiful hymns. He never takes away wealth from him. Again and again, Indra makes his wealth grow, and places the worshiper who desires Indra in a secure place safe from enemies."
RV 6.28.3:
न ता नशन्ति न दभाति तस्करो नासामामित्रो व्यथिरा दधर्षति ।
देवाँश्च याभिर्यजते ददाति च ज्योगित्ताभिः सचते गोपतिः सह ॥ ३
na tā naśanti na dabhāti taskaro nāsāmāmitro vyathirā dadharṣati ।
devām̐śca yābhiryajate dadāti ca jyogittābhiḥ sacate gopatiḥ saha ॥
"Our Cows are never lost, they are never harmed by thieves. The weapons of enemies never violate or injure them. These Cows, by means of whom their owner worships the Devas and gives, he enjoys their company for a long time."
Here, the indication is that the cows are not only sacred but also domestic pets with whom their owner enjoys an intimate friendship and bond, and hopes to have their companionship for a long time.
Sāyaṇa's commentary: naśanti नशन्ति (present tense) = naśyantu नश्यन्तु (imperative); dabhāti दभाति (present tense) = hiṃsyāt हिंस्यात् (benedictive); ā dadharṣati आदधर्षति (present tense) = ā krāmatu आक्रामतु (imperative); sacate सचते (present tense) = saṃgacchatām संगच्छताम् (imperative).
So Sāyaṇa's interpretation would be: "May our Cows never be lost, may they never be harmed by thieves. May weapons of enemies never violate or injure them. These Cows, by means of whom their owner worships the Devas and gives, may he enjoy their company for a long time." This does make better sense in some ways, but fundamentally it's the same.
RV 6.28.4:
न ता अर्वा रेणुककाटो अश्नुते न संस्कृतत्रमुप यन्ति ता अभि ।
उरुगायमभयं तस्य ता अनु गावो मर्तस्य वि चरन्ति यज्वनः ॥ ४
na tā arvā reṇukakāṭo aśnute na saṃskṛtatramupa yanti tā abhi ।
urugāyamabhayaṃ tasya tā anu gāvo martasya vi caranti yajvanaḥ ॥
"The war-horse never catches them, they never go to the place of slaughter or sacrifice. The Cows always roam without fear on the wide-spreading land of the mortal worshiper."
This verse is very important for its direct and unambiguous statement that cows are never slaughtered in any way (i.e. either for food or for ritual sacrifice). The word "saṃskṛtatram" is the generic word for a setup used for cutting up the body of an animal.
Sāyaṇa's commentary: aśnute अश्नुते (present tense) = prāpnuyāt प्राप्नुयात् (benedictive); yanti यन्ति (present tense) = gacchantu गच्छन्तु (imperative).
saṃskṛtatram संस्कृतत्रम् = viśasanādisaṃskāraṃ विशसनादिसंस्कारं (preparation of meat by slaughter, cutting, etc.).
So Sāyaṇa's interpretation would be: "May the war-horse never catch them, may they never go to the place of slaughter or sacrifice. May the Cows always roam without fear on the wide-spreading land of the mortal worshiper." This interpretation as a benediction by the rishi, complements the main literal meaning of the verse.
The original words state the fact of absence of cow slaughter/sacrifice, while the interpretation expresses prayer, concern and hope for the protection and safety of the cow.
What we can glean from this verse is that at least during the Vedic time period and culture of rishi Bharadvāja (most ancient period), cows were not slaughtered by the Vedic people. This practice may have been carried out by non-Vedic contemporaries of the Vedic people, who abhorred it because it conflicted with their own reverence and affection for the cow. This contempt and abhorrence for animal sacrifice may have expressed itself in the rishi's benediction of protection (as per Sāyaṇa) for cows from the ill fate of slaughter.
RV 6.28.5:
गावो भगो गाव इन्द्रो मे अच्छान् गावः सोमस्य प्रथमस्य भक्षः ।
इमा या गावः स जनास इन्द्र इच्छामीद्धृदा मनसा चिदिन्द्रम् ॥ ५
gāvo bhago gāva indro me acchān gāvaḥ somasya prathamasya bhakṣaḥ ।
imā yā gāvaḥ sa janāsa indra icchāmīddhṛdā manasā cidindram ॥
"Cows are my prosperity, may Indra grant me cows. They provide the offering (in the form of clarified butter) for the freshly squeezed Soma. O people! these Cows are verily Indra. I desire Indra with deep and sincere meditation."
Sāyaṇa's commentary: imā yā gāvaḥ sa janāsa indrah इमा या गावः स जनास इन्द्रः = evaṃbhūtāḥ yā gāvaḥ santi tā eva gāvaḥ indraḥ bhavanti एवंभूताः या गावः सन्ति ता एव गावः इन्द्रः भवन्ति
So this verse makes it unambiguously clear that cows were truly and sincerely considered Indra himself. Thus the sanctity and sacredness of the cow in Vedic religion and culture is firmly established.
RV 6.28.6:
यूयं गावो मेदयथा कृशं चिदश्रीरं चित्कृणुथा सुप्रतीकम् ।
भद्रं गृहं कृणुथ भद्रवाचो बृहद्वो वय उच्यते सभासु ॥ ६
yūyaṃ gāvo medayathā kṛśaṃ cidaśrīraṃ citkṛṇuthā supratīkam ।
bhadraṃ gṛhaṃ kṛṇutha bhadravāco bṛhadvo vaya ucyate sabhāsu ॥
"O Cows! you make an emaciated person fat, you make an ugly person beautiful. O Cows, you with auspicious voices, you make our homes auspicious. Your mighty power and strength is praised in the sacred assemblies."
RV 6.28.7:
प्रजावतीः सूयवसं रिशन्तीः शुद्धा अपः सुप्रपाणे पिबन्तीः ।
मा वः स्तेन ईशत माघशंसः परि वो हेती रुद्रस्य वृज्याः ॥ ७
prajāvatīḥ sūyavasaṃ riśantīḥ śuddhā apaḥ suprapāṇe pibantīḥ ।
mā vaḥ stena īśata māghaśaṃsaḥ pari vo hetī rudrasya vṛjyāḥ ॥
"May you have many offspring, may you graze on delicious grass, may you drink pure water from safe and easily accessible water places. May neither thieves nor predatory animals get control over you. May you be spared from Rudra's weapons."
RV 6.28.8:
उपेदमुपपर्चनमासु गोषूप पृच्यताम् । उप ऋषभस्य रेतस्युपेन्द्र तव वीर्ये ॥ ८
upedamupaparcanamāsu goṣūpa pṛcyatām । upa ṛṣabhasya retasyupendra tava vīrye ॥
"Let this mixture (or blend) be imbibed into the Cows, into the Bull's seed, and into your might, O Indra!"
This verse is not fully clear, even by Sāyaṇa's commentary. My guess is that the cows and bulls are fed a medicinal nutritious supplement. Even to this day, traditional Indian farmers regularly feed a highly nutritious blend to their cattle. Sāyaṇa says that through the use of milk and milk derivatives as havis offering in the yajña, Indra also ultimately receives and imbibes this "mixture or blend".
Monday, June 29, 2020
Thursday, May 21, 2020
The philosophical idea of varṇa (not "caste") in Upaniṣad and Veda
First, let us look at the following passages of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4:
ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव तदेकं सन्न व्यभवत् । तच्छ्रेयोरूपमत्यसृजत क्षत्रं यान्येतानि देवत्रा क्षत्राणीन्द्रो वरुणः सोमो रुद्रः पर्जन्यो यमो मृत्युरीशान इति । तस्मात्क्षत्रात्परं नास्ति तस्माद् ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते राजसूये क्षत्र एव तद्यशो दधाति सैषा क्षत्रस्य योनिर्यद् ब्रह्म । तस्माद्यद्यपि राजा परमतां गच्छति ब्रह्मैवान्तत उपनिश्रयति स्वां योनिं य उ एनं हिनस्ति स्वां स योनिमृच्छति स पापीयान् भवति यथा श्रेयांसं हिंसित्वा । ११
“Brahman alone was indeed all this in the beginning. It being alone did not prosper. Hence it created a better form than itself, called Kṣatra. These are the deities who are Kṣatra — Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mṛtyu and Īśāna. Hence, there is nothing higher than the Kṣatra, and that is why the Brāhmaṇa worships the Kṣatriya from below in the Rājasūya — he bestows that glory on the Kṣatriya only. The Brahman is the origin of the Kṣatra. Hence, even though the king is raised to superiority, in the end he seeks refuge in his origin, the Brahman. He who harms him, he harms his own origin and becomes sinful just as by harming one’s elder.”
स नैव व्यभवत्स विशमसृजत यान्येतानि देवजातानि गणश आख्यायन्ते वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या विश्वेदेवा मरुत इति । १२
“He still did not prosper. He created the Viṭ (i.e. Vaiśya). These are the Viṭ deities — the ones enumerated in groups — Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Viśvedevas and Maruts.”
स नैव व्यभवत्स शौद्रं वर्णमसृजत पूषणमियं वै पूषेयं हीदं सर्वं पुष्यति यदिदं किंच । १३
“He still did not prosper. He created the Śūdra varṇa. The deity who is Śūdra is Pūṣan. This earth is indeed Pūṣan, because she nourishes everything that exists.”
तदेतद् ब्रह्म क्षत्रं विट् शूद्रस्तदग्निनैव देवेषु ब्रह्माभवत् ब्राह्मणो मनुष्येषु क्षत्रियेण क्षत्रियो वैश्येन वैश्यः शूद्रेण शूद्रः …. । १५
“This then is the Brahman, Kṣatra, Viṭ and Śūdra. Brahman became Agni among the deities, and among humans it became the Brāhmaṇa. Similarly, from the Kṣatra deities came the human Kṣatriya, from the Vaiśya came the Vaiśya, and from the Śūdra came the Śūdra.”
We must first understand the objective of the Vedic texts, the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas. Technically, there are no traditionally separate texts called Upaniṣads because these are extracts from the Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas or Āraṇyakas.
So these prose texts aim at providing integrative philosophical explanations for fundamental questions of human existence. While the Brāhmaṇa texts do this in the context of elaborating the rituals of yajña and the mystical symbolism of each ritual, the Āraṇyaka texts take a step further and abstract the philosophical explanations further.
The above quoted passages demonstrate the typical style of this integrative philosophical explanation. The overall theme of the section 1.4 is to discuss the sole existence of the ultimate spiritual reality called Brahman and the creation of the universe and its various aspects. Hence, the same metaphysical Brahman is conflated with post-creation physical categories such as the human Brāhmaṇa. This is an example of expressing the identities and equivalencies between the physical and metaphysical realms. As is understandable, when crossing the boundary from metaphysical to physical, we cross from pure unconditional truth to conditioned human constructs.
The first point to note carefully is the use of the neuter “It” and “Brahman” in the first paragraph. This refers to the primeval state of the undifferentiated ultimate non-dual existence of Brahman in and of itself, prior to creation of a duality. In this state, obviously everything is the same Brahman without distinction and discrimination. This is the state that is the goal of spiritual aspirants. Looking at it from another point of view, the state of Brahman is also the reversal of creation, where all the dualities merge back into the non-dual state.
Hence, our tradition makes no distinction between enlightened persons (Jñānis) of different births or “castes”. Once a person becomes a Jñāni, he/she is beyond physical constructs, and joins the metaphysical non-duality. Our history is filled with people of various “high and low” births who attained the same unquestionable spiritual status. This is also supported by authority. The previous passage in this same text says that whoever realizes the truth “I am Brahman” surely becomes Brahman without distinction. Also, Śaṅkarācārya says in his Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyam, “ज्ञाने सर्वेषामधिकारः jñāne sarveṣāmadhikāraḥ” — “Everyone is entitled to knowledge”.
However, the subtle point to be noted is that once the physical categories of duality have been created, every category “owns” a mode of operation. Hence, in the created universe, jumping across modes of operation is resented by definition. To simplify terms, what I mean is that although everyone is entitled to knowledge, not all the various modes of gaining that knowledge are open to all classes of people. This is an unfortunate and inevitable paradox of the created universe. The end state of equality is respected, but the means of reaching that end state have restrictions. In our tradition, we see three stages of development:
The second point to note is that after creation of the duality of the universe, Brahman by its non-dual self is not adequate to operate in this duality. This might seem nonsensical as Brahman is everything and omnipotent. However, the non-dual Brahman “in-and-of-itself” exists in a completely different plane than the physical “dualized” universe. To give a sci-fi analogy, a creature from a three-dimensional world cannot operate in a two-dimensional world without modifications. Hence, Brahman needs to “dualize” itself into various modes and forms that correspond to the various aspects and elements of the physical universe. This is the reasoning behind the existence of, for example, five senses to correspond to the five media of perception.
The extrapolation of the non-dual Brahman into the four categories according to modes of operation (Karma) is as essential to the working of the universe as any other aspect.
This idea is evident in the above quoted passages, where the four categories are ascribed even to the deities. So it should be obvious and indisputable that the philosophy of the four varṇas is not based on denigration, oppression, disadvantaging or other development that is inevitable in real-world social group dynamics. Hence we observe that the text says that the Brahman did not prosper until all four varṇas had been created.
As a consequence of this “dualization”, please notice the text beginning to use the words “He” and “Brāhmaṇa” in place of “It” and “Brahman”.
The third point to note is the ascription of the Brāhmaṇa as the source of the Kṣatriya even though the latter gets all the glory. This is easily understood philosophically. The Brāhmaṇa symbolizes all undifferentiated or non-specialized mental activity. As such all idealized aspects of the mind such as general decision-making, intellectualizing, conscience, uncompromised adherence to truth, etc. will be the starting point for actual physical implementation or action, which is symbolized by the Kṣatriya. As we see in the physical world, the film actor is the center of attention and fame, whereas the director works behind the camera.
This philosophy demonstrates a great symbiosis that was conceived and implemented by our ancients. The Brāhmaṇa cannot be undermined by the Kṣatriya, as the former is uncompromised idealization, whereas the latter is forever facing constraints that force compromise. The concept is that of ideal ideation and optimized implementation.
The fourth point to note is the great spiritual and physical status of the Śūdra varṇa. Not only is the god Pūṣan called Śūdra and identified with Mother Earth who sustains all life, but the text says that the human Śūdras are descended from the divine Śūdra, just as the other human varṇas are descended from the divine varṇas.
So, all the varṇas are philosophically and theologically equal in status and dignity.
In this context, the criticism and denigration of the Ṛgvedic Puruṣa Sūktam (10.90) as defining a hierarchical “caste” structure, is extremely pedestrian, willfully ignorant and unenlightened. In particular, the origin of Śūdra varṇa from the feet of Puruṣa (10.90.12: padbhyām śūdrah) is followed by the origin of the Earth also from the feet of Puruṣa (10.90.14: padbhyām bhūmih). So if origin from feet is supposed to imply attributed inferiority, then should we consider the Earth on which we live, as inferior? And if so, inferior compared to what? Moreover, Puruṣa himself is introduced in the first verse as possessing a thousand heads and a thousand feet. So it seems that both the head and the feet are equally important characteristics of the Puruṣa.
Now, as far as the social reality is concerned, there is no doubt that every idealized social system will degrade and deteriorate when it steps into human society, which is comprised of imperfect humans with their greed, fear, envy, lust and a host of other vices.
The historical system that was named “caste” is actually a combination of the philosophical categories of varṇa and the biological lineage of jāti.
ब्रह्म वा इदमग्र आसीदेकमेव तदेकं सन्न व्यभवत् । तच्छ्रेयोरूपमत्यसृजत क्षत्रं यान्येतानि देवत्रा क्षत्राणीन्द्रो वरुणः सोमो रुद्रः पर्जन्यो यमो मृत्युरीशान इति । तस्मात्क्षत्रात्परं नास्ति तस्माद् ब्राह्मणः क्षत्रियमधस्तादुपास्ते राजसूये क्षत्र एव तद्यशो दधाति सैषा क्षत्रस्य योनिर्यद् ब्रह्म । तस्माद्यद्यपि राजा परमतां गच्छति ब्रह्मैवान्तत उपनिश्रयति स्वां योनिं य उ एनं हिनस्ति स्वां स योनिमृच्छति स पापीयान् भवति यथा श्रेयांसं हिंसित्वा । ११
“Brahman alone was indeed all this in the beginning. It being alone did not prosper. Hence it created a better form than itself, called Kṣatra. These are the deities who are Kṣatra — Indra, Varuṇa, Soma, Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mṛtyu and Īśāna. Hence, there is nothing higher than the Kṣatra, and that is why the Brāhmaṇa worships the Kṣatriya from below in the Rājasūya — he bestows that glory on the Kṣatriya only. The Brahman is the origin of the Kṣatra. Hence, even though the king is raised to superiority, in the end he seeks refuge in his origin, the Brahman. He who harms him, he harms his own origin and becomes sinful just as by harming one’s elder.”
स नैव व्यभवत्स विशमसृजत यान्येतानि देवजातानि गणश आख्यायन्ते वसवो रुद्रा आदित्या विश्वेदेवा मरुत इति । १२
“He still did not prosper. He created the Viṭ (i.e. Vaiśya). These are the Viṭ deities — the ones enumerated in groups — Vasus, Rudras, Ādityas, Viśvedevas and Maruts.”
स नैव व्यभवत्स शौद्रं वर्णमसृजत पूषणमियं वै पूषेयं हीदं सर्वं पुष्यति यदिदं किंच । १३
“He still did not prosper. He created the Śūdra varṇa. The deity who is Śūdra is Pūṣan. This earth is indeed Pūṣan, because she nourishes everything that exists.”
तदेतद् ब्रह्म क्षत्रं विट् शूद्रस्तदग्निनैव देवेषु ब्रह्माभवत् ब्राह्मणो मनुष्येषु क्षत्रियेण क्षत्रियो वैश्येन वैश्यः शूद्रेण शूद्रः …. । १५
“This then is the Brahman, Kṣatra, Viṭ and Śūdra. Brahman became Agni among the deities, and among humans it became the Brāhmaṇa. Similarly, from the Kṣatra deities came the human Kṣatriya, from the Vaiśya came the Vaiśya, and from the Śūdra came the Śūdra.”
We must first understand the objective of the Vedic texts, the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas. Technically, there are no traditionally separate texts called Upaniṣads because these are extracts from the Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas or Āraṇyakas.
So these prose texts aim at providing integrative philosophical explanations for fundamental questions of human existence. While the Brāhmaṇa texts do this in the context of elaborating the rituals of yajña and the mystical symbolism of each ritual, the Āraṇyaka texts take a step further and abstract the philosophical explanations further.
The above quoted passages demonstrate the typical style of this integrative philosophical explanation. The overall theme of the section 1.4 is to discuss the sole existence of the ultimate spiritual reality called Brahman and the creation of the universe and its various aspects. Hence, the same metaphysical Brahman is conflated with post-creation physical categories such as the human Brāhmaṇa. This is an example of expressing the identities and equivalencies between the physical and metaphysical realms. As is understandable, when crossing the boundary from metaphysical to physical, we cross from pure unconditional truth to conditioned human constructs.
The first point to note carefully is the use of the neuter “It” and “Brahman” in the first paragraph. This refers to the primeval state of the undifferentiated ultimate non-dual existence of Brahman in and of itself, prior to creation of a duality. In this state, obviously everything is the same Brahman without distinction and discrimination. This is the state that is the goal of spiritual aspirants. Looking at it from another point of view, the state of Brahman is also the reversal of creation, where all the dualities merge back into the non-dual state.
Hence, our tradition makes no distinction between enlightened persons (Jñānis) of different births or “castes”. Once a person becomes a Jñāni, he/she is beyond physical constructs, and joins the metaphysical non-duality. Our history is filled with people of various “high and low” births who attained the same unquestionable spiritual status. This is also supported by authority. The previous passage in this same text says that whoever realizes the truth “I am Brahman” surely becomes Brahman without distinction. Also, Śaṅkarācārya says in his Brahma-sūtra-bhāṣyam, “ज्ञाने सर्वेषामधिकारः jñāne sarveṣāmadhikāraḥ” — “Everyone is entitled to knowledge”.
However, the subtle point to be noted is that once the physical categories of duality have been created, every category “owns” a mode of operation. Hence, in the created universe, jumping across modes of operation is resented by definition. To simplify terms, what I mean is that although everyone is entitled to knowledge, not all the various modes of gaining that knowledge are open to all classes of people. This is an unfortunate and inevitable paradox of the created universe. The end state of equality is respected, but the means of reaching that end state have restrictions. In our tradition, we see three stages of development:
- In the beginning, when society was simple (i.e. symbolized by a new creation), everyone regardless of birth had equal entitlement over knowledge (Jñāna) and modes of operation (Karma). This is when everyone studied Veda and performed yajña.
- As society proliferated, the entitlement over knowledge (Jñāna) was still equal but the different modes of operation (Karma) were now “owned” by different categories. This is when everyone still studied Veda, but not everyone could perform yajña.
- As competition grew in society, there was increasing monopolization of both knowledge (Jñāna) and modes of operation (Karma). This is when not everyone could study the Veda nor perform yajña. This is also when alternative parallel systems that provided the same knowledge as the Veda (e.g. Epics and Purāṇas) came into existence. This restored the state back to the one where everyone is entitled to, and has access to, knowledge.
The second point to note is that after creation of the duality of the universe, Brahman by its non-dual self is not adequate to operate in this duality. This might seem nonsensical as Brahman is everything and omnipotent. However, the non-dual Brahman “in-and-of-itself” exists in a completely different plane than the physical “dualized” universe. To give a sci-fi analogy, a creature from a three-dimensional world cannot operate in a two-dimensional world without modifications. Hence, Brahman needs to “dualize” itself into various modes and forms that correspond to the various aspects and elements of the physical universe. This is the reasoning behind the existence of, for example, five senses to correspond to the five media of perception.
The extrapolation of the non-dual Brahman into the four categories according to modes of operation (Karma) is as essential to the working of the universe as any other aspect.
This idea is evident in the above quoted passages, where the four categories are ascribed even to the deities. So it should be obvious and indisputable that the philosophy of the four varṇas is not based on denigration, oppression, disadvantaging or other development that is inevitable in real-world social group dynamics. Hence we observe that the text says that the Brahman did not prosper until all four varṇas had been created.
As a consequence of this “dualization”, please notice the text beginning to use the words “He” and “Brāhmaṇa” in place of “It” and “Brahman”.
The third point to note is the ascription of the Brāhmaṇa as the source of the Kṣatriya even though the latter gets all the glory. This is easily understood philosophically. The Brāhmaṇa symbolizes all undifferentiated or non-specialized mental activity. As such all idealized aspects of the mind such as general decision-making, intellectualizing, conscience, uncompromised adherence to truth, etc. will be the starting point for actual physical implementation or action, which is symbolized by the Kṣatriya. As we see in the physical world, the film actor is the center of attention and fame, whereas the director works behind the camera.
This philosophy demonstrates a great symbiosis that was conceived and implemented by our ancients. The Brāhmaṇa cannot be undermined by the Kṣatriya, as the former is uncompromised idealization, whereas the latter is forever facing constraints that force compromise. The concept is that of ideal ideation and optimized implementation.
The fourth point to note is the great spiritual and physical status of the Śūdra varṇa. Not only is the god Pūṣan called Śūdra and identified with Mother Earth who sustains all life, but the text says that the human Śūdras are descended from the divine Śūdra, just as the other human varṇas are descended from the divine varṇas.
So, all the varṇas are philosophically and theologically equal in status and dignity.
In this context, the criticism and denigration of the Ṛgvedic Puruṣa Sūktam (10.90) as defining a hierarchical “caste” structure, is extremely pedestrian, willfully ignorant and unenlightened. In particular, the origin of Śūdra varṇa from the feet of Puruṣa (10.90.12: padbhyām śūdrah) is followed by the origin of the Earth also from the feet of Puruṣa (10.90.14: padbhyām bhūmih). So if origin from feet is supposed to imply attributed inferiority, then should we consider the Earth on which we live, as inferior? And if so, inferior compared to what? Moreover, Puruṣa himself is introduced in the first verse as possessing a thousand heads and a thousand feet. So it seems that both the head and the feet are equally important characteristics of the Puruṣa.
Now, as far as the social reality is concerned, there is no doubt that every idealized social system will degrade and deteriorate when it steps into human society, which is comprised of imperfect humans with their greed, fear, envy, lust and a host of other vices.
The historical system that was named “caste” is actually a combination of the philosophical categories of varṇa and the biological lineage of jāti.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Ṛṣi Bharadvāja’s enlightenment in the Ṛgveda
The Ṛgveda Samhitā is the fount of all religious, spiritual and philosophical systems that originated in India. It contains the seeds of all subsequent developments. And yet, it is misunderstood even by people who claim to be Vedic scholars or experts in Hinduism.
I have seen two categories of views on the Veda Samhitās. The first view is that of western Indologists and academics who, since the time of Max Muller, see the mantras as nothing but primitive and childish prayers to gods asking for material benefits, without any higher spiritual content. This category sees a gradual "development" or "progress" in maturity from the Samhitās to the Upaniṣads, which are the sole containers of philosophy, metaphysics and higher subtle thought. In fact, this category is of the opinion that the Upaniṣads represent a revolt against the prevalent Vedic religion represented by the so-called ritualistic Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas and the institution of yajña. Many, and probably the vast majority of, modern-day thinkers, scholars and laypeople are of the same view.
The second view is that of some Indian scholars such as Aurobindo, Dayanand Sarasvati, and their followers and admirers. According to this category, the Samhitās contain knowledge encrypted in symbols that has been ignored by tradition. And this category goes to extreme lengths trying to attribute strange new-age psychological interpretations to the deities. In effect, this category tries to force-fit their ideas into the Samhitā texts, and the result is a strange, highly concocted, artificial and unusable meaning of the mantras. According to this category, the Samhitās alone contain the original, uncorrupted philosophy of the Vedas, and the Upaniṣads are deviations and corruptions.
I find that both the above categories are equally incorrect, simplistic and inadequate explanations of the complex Vedic corpus. Even a cursory glance at the Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads shows the common thread running through all of them. That is why tradition has grouped these together under the term Veda. The above two categories of incorrect views result from the arrogance and presumption that they themselves have better knowledge of the Vedas than the tradition of thousands of years, whose adherents solely dedicated their entire lives to the study and analysis of the Vedas. I shall write a future article on the concordance between the Samhitās and Upaniṣads.
I had previously shown the deep spiritual and metaphysical meanings of Agni in the Ṛgveda (here, here and here). I had also shown (here) that the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya recognizes appropriately the spiritual symbolism present in the mantras.
Here, I shall provide another example of the spiritual knowledge present in the Ṛgveda Samhitā, and its recognition in the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya.
The present sūktam is Ṛgveda 6.9, whose ṛṣi is Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya and devatā is Agni Vaiśvānara.
To me, this hymn is quintessentially Vedāntic in its vocabulary and expression. It is surprisingly "modern" in its candid expression of the internal process of self-realization, and yet, it is undoubtedly one of the most ancient Vedic hymns, as also its author is a very ancient seer in the Vedic lineage. This again proves to me that the entire Vedic corpus contains the same metaphysics throughout. I shall present Sāyaṇa's commentary where the mantra appears to be cryptic or where it has multiple meanings, and hence his commentary shows the traditional understanding of the spiritual meaning of the mantra.
अहश्च कृष्णमहरर्जुनं च वि वर्तेते रजसी वेद्याभिः ।
वैश्वानरो जायमानो न राजावातिरज्ज्योतिषाग्निस्तमांसि ॥१॥
ahaśca kṛṣṇamahararjunaṃ ca vi vartete rajasī vedyābhiḥ |
vaiśvānaro jāyamāno na rājāvātirajjyotiṣāgnistamāṃsi ||
"The dark day (i.e. night) and the bright day (i.e. day) which enliven all creatures keep turning around by means of well-known signs. Vaiśvānara, being born like a king, dispells darkness with his light."
Sāyaṇa: "... रजसी स्वस्वभासा सर्वं जगद्रञ्जयन्तौ .... यद्वा रजसी द्यावापृथिव्यौ । ... एतच्च वैश्वानराग्नेराज्ञया ... । " -- "rajasī means the pair which illuminate or enliven everything by their brilliance. The other meaning of rajasī is the earth and heaven. ... All this comes from the will of Agni Vaiśvānara."
नाहं तन्तुं न विजानाम्योतुं न यं वयन्ति समरेऽतमानाः ।
कस्य स्वित्पुत्र इह वक्त्वानि परो वदात्यवरेण पित्रा ॥२॥
nāhaṃ tantuṃ na vijānāmyotuṃ na yaṃ vayanti samare'tamānāḥ |
kasya svitputra iha vaktvāni paro vadātyavareṇa pitrā ||
"I do not know the warp (tantu) nor do I know the woof (otu) nor that which they weave in the gathering. Whose son shall here talk about the subject, through his father who was recent?"
Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरस्य महत्त्वमाख्यास्यन्नृषिस्तदर्थं यज्ञं वस्त्रात्मकतया रूपयन् तस्य दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीति यज्ञवादिनो मन्यन्ते । पटं यज्ञलक्षणं देवयजने सततं चेष्टमानाः ऋत्विजः तन्तूनोतूंश्च संतन्वन्ति । वस्त्ररूपेण निष्पादयन्तीत्यर्थः । इह अस्मिन् लोके कस्य स्वित् कस्य खलु पुत्रः मनुष्यः वक्तव्यानि परस्तादमुष्मिन् लोके वर्तमानो यः सुर्यः तस्य पित्रा अवस्तादस्मिन् लोके वर्तमानेन वैश्वानराग्निनानुशिष्टः सन् वदेत्? न कश्चिदपि प्रवदितुं शक्नोतीत्यर्थः । रूपकतया जगत्सृष्टेर्दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीत्यात्मविदो मन्यन्ते । तन्तून् तन्तुस्थानानि वियदादीन्यपञ्चीकृतानि भूतानि न विजानामि । ओतून् पञ्चीकृतानि स्थूलान्योतुस्थानीयान्यपि वियदादीनि न विजानामि । न च तत्कार्यं पटस्थानीयं प्रपञ्चं विजानामि यं प्रपञ्चं सततं चेष्टमानाः संसारिणो वयन्ति उत्पादयन्ति । तेषां भोगार्थमीश्वरः सृजतीति कर्तृत्वमुपचर्यते । इहास्मिन्विषये परस्ताद्बुद्धेरविषये वक्तव्यानीमान्यवरेण अर्वाचीनेन सृष्ट्युत्तरकालमुत्पन्नेन पित्रा स्वजनकेनानुशिष्टः सन् कस्य खलु पुत्रः वदेत् । स्वोत्पत्तेः प्राचीनं वृत्तान्तमजानानः कश्चिदपि न वदेदित्यर्थः ।"
"According to the school of ritualistic interpretation, the ṛṣi is trying to describe the greatness of Vaiśvānara through the symbolism of the yajña as a fabric, and expresses the difficulty of knowing it. The ever-active priests weave the warp and woof of this fabric. The ṛṣi is giving an analogy of the sun in heaven as the son, and Agni Vaiśvānara on earth as the father, and asks, which human can talk about these deep topics having been instructed by his father? The meaning is that nobody can. According to the school of metaphysics or spiritual interpretation, this is a symbolism for the universe whose creation is a mystery and cannot be known. The warp symbolizes the undifferentiated subtle elements, and the woof symbolizes the differentiated gross elements. The creatures living in the universe are constantly weaving this fabric by their activities. Or this fabric has been woven by the creator for the enjoyment of the creatures. So being here (in this universe), to talk about things that are beyond the intellect, nobody who has been instructed by their human father (whose birth is recent compared to the universe), can talk about these things. Having not understood the ancient source of their origin, nobody can talk about these mysteries."
स इत्तन्तुं स विजानात्योतुं स वक्त्वान्यृतुथा वदाति ।
य ईं चिकेतदमृतस्य गोपा अवश्चरन्परो अन्येन पश्यन् ॥३॥
sa ittantuṃ sa vijānātyotuṃ sa vaktvānyṛtuthā vadāti |
ya īṃ ciketadamṛtasya gopā avaścaranparo anyena paśyan ||
"He knows the warp and the woof, and he speaks the truths from time to time. He who sees all this, is the protector of immortality, and he roams below, while seeing through another above."
Sāyaṇa: "यद्यपि उक्तेन प्रकारेण दुर्ज्ञानानि तथाप्येतानि वैश्वानरोऽग्निः जानाति वदति चेत्यनया प्रतिपादयति । स एव वैश्वानरोऽग्निः तन्तुस्थानीयानि गायत्र्यादीनि छन्दांसि स्तुतशस्त्राणि तथा ओतुस्थानीयानि यजूंष्याध्वर्यवाणि च कर्माणि वि जानाति । ऋतुथा काले काले तत्तदनुष्ठानसमये वक्तव्यानि वदेत् । अवस्तात् भूलोके पार्थिवाग्निरूपेण संचरन् परस्ताद्दिवि सूर्यात्मना सर्वं जगत् प्रकाशयन् इमानि परिदृश्यमानानि सर्वाणि भूतानि जानाति । यद्वा । स एव तन्तुं तन्तुस्थानीयानि सूक्ष्मभूतानि विजानाति नान्यः कश्चित् । तथौतुमोतुस्थानीयानि स्थूलभूतानि च स एव विजानाति । स एव वक्तव्यान्युपदेष्टव्यानि काले काले यदा यदा विद्यासंप्रदायोच्छेदस्तदा तदा वदेत् । कोऽसौ यो विजानीयाद्वदेच्चेत्यत आह । यो वैश्वानरो विश्वनरात्मकः परमात्मामृतत्वस्य विमोक्षणस्य गोपा रक्षिता अवस्तात् संसारदशायां चरन् अन्तःकरणोपेतः जीवात्मभावेन संचरन् परस्तादविद्याया ऊर्ध्वं वर्तमानेनान्येनोक्तविलक्षणेन निरुपाधिकेन सच्चिदादिलक्षणेन रूपेण पश्यन् सर्वं जगत्प्रकाशयन् इमानि जानाति । तथा च परमात्मानं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते -- ’तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (श्वेउ ६।१४)"
"(Ritualistic interpretation): These mysteries are known to Agni Vaiśvānara. He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the various chandases and the woof symbolizing the ritualistic works of the Yajus. He speaks from time to time as in during the regular times of performance of the rituals. He moves on the earth in the form of the terrestrial fire while seeing all creatures in the form of the sun giving light to the entire universe. Or else:
(Spiritual/metaphysical interpretation): He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the subtle elements and the woof symbolizing the gross elements. He alone speaks the secret teaching from time to time when the lineage of knowledge is broken among humans. Who is this who knows and shall speak? He who is known as Vaiśvānara, who is present in all living creatures, the Paramātman, the protector of immortality, i.e. Mokṣa. He moves in the world as the Jīvātman conjoined with the mind, and sees the universe through the higher form, beyond Avidyā, and defined as Saccidānanda without attributes. This form illuminates the entire universe. Hence it is said in the Śruti: "Everything shines because He shines, by His light everything is lit up" (Śvet. Up. 6.14)"
अयं होता प्रथमः पश्यतेममिदं ज्योतिरमृतं मर्त्येषु ।
अयं स जज्ञे ध्रुव आ निषत्तोऽमर्त्यस्तन्वा३ वर्धमानः ॥४॥
ayaṃ hotā prathamaḥ paśyatemamidaṃ jyotiramṛtaṃ martyeṣu |
ayaṃ sa jajñe dhruva ā niṣatto'martyastanvā3 vardhamānaḥ ||
"He is the first invoker, see Him, this immortal light within mortals. He is born firm and he is omnipresent (i.e. present everywhere), and being immortal he grows through a body."
(This is pretty straightforward, and it is quite clear from Sāyaṇa's commentary).
ध्रुवं ज्योतिर्निहितं दृशये कं मनो जविष्ठं पतयत्स्वन्तः ।
विश्वे देवाः समनसः सकेताः एकं क्रतुमभि वि यन्ति साधु ॥५॥
dhruvaṃ jyotirnihitaṃ dṛśaye kaṃ mano javiṣṭhaṃ patayatsvantaḥ |
viśve devāḥ samanasaḥ saketāḥ ekaṃ kratumabhi vi yanti sādhu ||
"This firm light, that is bliss, that is subtler than the mind, is hidden within the senses (or creatures). All the deities, with one intention and one intelligence, surround Him, the doer of deeds."
Sāyaṇa: "ध्रुवं निश्चलं मनसः तस्मादपि जविष्ठं अतिशयेन वेगवत् ईदृशं वैश्वानराख्यं ज्योतिः पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु जङ्गमेषु प्राणिषु अन्तः मध्ये निहितं प्रजापतिना स्थापितम् । किमर्थम् । दर्शनार्थम् । किं च सर्वे देवाः समानमनस्काः समानप्रज्ञाश्च सन्तः एकं मुख्यं गन्तारं वा क्रतुं कर्मणां कर्तारं सम्यक् आभिमुख्येन विविधं प्राप्नुवन्ति सेवन्त इत्यर्थः । यद्वा । पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु प्राणिष्वन्तर्मध्ये हृदये मनो जविष्ठं मनसोऽप्यतिशयेन वेगयुक्तं ध्रुवं निश्चलं निर्विकल्पम् । तथा च वाजसनेयकं -- "अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयः" (वा सं ४०।४) इति । ज्योतिर्ब्रह्म चैतन्यं निहितम् । न केनचित् स्थापितम् । "यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्" (तै आ ८।१) इति हि श्रूयते । किमर्थम् । दृशये दर्शनार्थम् । ज्ञानेन हि सर्वं जानन्ति । दीव्यन्तीति देवा इन्द्रियाणि । विश्वे सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुराद्याः समनसो मनसा सह वर्तमानाः सकेताः सतेजस्काः सन्त एकमद्वितीयं क्रतुं सृष्ट्यादीनां कर्मणां कर्तारं विश्वनरात्मकं परमात्मानमभिलक्ष्य साधु सम्यक् वि यन्ति विविधं गच्छन्ति । देवा एव वेममभि वि यन्ति । आभिमुख्येन विविधमुपयन्ति । उपासत इत्यर्थः । तथा च श्रूयते -- "तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्" (बृ उ ४/४/१६) इति ।"
"(Adhibhūtam/adhidaivatam) The firm light called Vaiśvānara, which is subtler than the mind, is placed within the creatures by Prajāpati for the sake of the vision. And all the gods with common mind and common consciousness serve this one doer of actions. Or else:
(Adhyātmam) Within the creatures, i.e. in the heart, there is hidden a firm and independent light that is subtler than the mind. As the Vājasaneyi text says: "The unmoving one that is faster than the mind" (Iśa. Up. 4). The light is Brahman consciousness. It is not established by anyone, i.e. it is there by its own nature. As the Śruti says: "Whoever knows this that is hidden in the heart in the highest space" (Tai. Up. 2.1). The purpose of this light is to have the vision, because by this vision one knows everything. The senses are called Devas because they shine or because they go forth. So the senses along with the mind approach this One Doer from various directions. This Doer is the Vaiśvānara, the omnipresent Paramātman, who does various deeds such as creation, etc. Or the Devas worship Vaiśvānara. As it is said in the Śruti: "The Devas worship the Light of lights, the Immortal." (Br. Up. 4.4.16)."
वि मे कर्णा पतयतो वि चक्षुर्वी३दं ज्योतिर्हृदय आहितं यत् ।
वि मे मनश्चरति दूरआधीः किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये ॥६॥
vi me karṇā patayato vi cakṣurvī3daṃ jyotirhṛdaya āhitaṃ yat |
vi me manaścarati dūraādhīḥ kiṃ svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye ||
"My ears fly forth, and my eyes fly forth striving to see this Light hidden within the heart. My mind wanders far in search of it, what shall I speak of, and what shall I think?"
(This verse almost appears modern in its candid description of the internal processes when the sage is in rapture of his vision of the Light, when he has lost himself in the One Consciousness, such that he is beyond speech and thought. The last phrase "किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये - kim svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye" is an exact paraphrase of "यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह - yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha", "From which speech and mind turn back, not having reached" of Taittirīya Upaniṣad.)
Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरं श्रोतुकामस्य मम कर्णौ वि पतयतः विविधं गच्छतः । श्रोतव्यानां तदीयगुणानां बहुत्वात् । तथा वैश्वानरं दिदृक्षमाणस्य मम चक्षुः इन्द्रियं वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति । द्रष्टव्यानां तदीयरूपाणां बहुत्वात् । तथा ज्योतिः प्रकाशकं हृदये हृदयपुण्डरीके आहितं निहितं यत् बुद्ध्याख्यं तत्त्वं इदमपि वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति वैश्वानरात्मानं ज्ञातुम् । अपि च दूरआधीः । दूरे विप्रकृष्टे विषय आधीराध्यानं यस्य तादृशम् । मे मदीयं मनः च वि चरति विविधं प्रवर्तते । एवमहमहमिकया सर्वेष्विन्द्रियेषु प्रवृत्तेषु किं स्वित् अहं वैश्वानरस्य रूपमिति वक्ष्यामि । किमु नु किमु खलु संप्रति मनिष्ये मनसा प्रपत्स्ये । वैश्वानरस्य गुणानामनन्तत्वात् मन्दप्रज्ञेन मया ज्ञातुं न शक्यत इत्यर्थः ।"
"Desirous of hearing Vaiśvānara, my ears go forth in different directions due to His infinite qualities to be heard. Desirous of seeing Him, my sight goes forth due to the infinite forms to be seen. The light established in the heart also strives to know the Vaiśvānara Ātman. Thus with all the senses striving to know Him, and since they fail, what can I say and what can I think about it? (i.e. He is beyond the senses, but I have already found Him as the immortal light within my heart)."
विश्वे देवा अनमस्यन् भियानास्त्वामग्ने तमसि तस्थिवांसम् ।
वैश्वानरोऽवतूतये नोऽमर्त्योऽवतूतये नः ॥७॥
viśve devā anamasyan bhiyānāstvāmagne tamasi tasthivāṃsam |
vaiśvānaro'vatūtaye no'martyo'vatūtaye naḥ ||
"All the gods bowed down in fear in front of you, Agni, when you were hidden in the darkness. May Vaiśvānara protect us, may the Immortal One protect us."
This verse is quite clear and needs no explanation. However, there is a deep metaphysics associated with the "Agni hidden in the darkness", which I have discussed in detail in my Agni: Part 3 article.
I have seen two categories of views on the Veda Samhitās. The first view is that of western Indologists and academics who, since the time of Max Muller, see the mantras as nothing but primitive and childish prayers to gods asking for material benefits, without any higher spiritual content. This category sees a gradual "development" or "progress" in maturity from the Samhitās to the Upaniṣads, which are the sole containers of philosophy, metaphysics and higher subtle thought. In fact, this category is of the opinion that the Upaniṣads represent a revolt against the prevalent Vedic religion represented by the so-called ritualistic Samhitās and Brāhmaṇas and the institution of yajña. Many, and probably the vast majority of, modern-day thinkers, scholars and laypeople are of the same view.
The second view is that of some Indian scholars such as Aurobindo, Dayanand Sarasvati, and their followers and admirers. According to this category, the Samhitās contain knowledge encrypted in symbols that has been ignored by tradition. And this category goes to extreme lengths trying to attribute strange new-age psychological interpretations to the deities. In effect, this category tries to force-fit their ideas into the Samhitā texts, and the result is a strange, highly concocted, artificial and unusable meaning of the mantras. According to this category, the Samhitās alone contain the original, uncorrupted philosophy of the Vedas, and the Upaniṣads are deviations and corruptions.
I find that both the above categories are equally incorrect, simplistic and inadequate explanations of the complex Vedic corpus. Even a cursory glance at the Samhitās, Brāhmaṇas, Āraṇyakas and Upaniṣads shows the common thread running through all of them. That is why tradition has grouped these together under the term Veda. The above two categories of incorrect views result from the arrogance and presumption that they themselves have better knowledge of the Vedas than the tradition of thousands of years, whose adherents solely dedicated their entire lives to the study and analysis of the Vedas. I shall write a future article on the concordance between the Samhitās and Upaniṣads.
I had previously shown the deep spiritual and metaphysical meanings of Agni in the Ṛgveda (here, here and here). I had also shown (here) that the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya recognizes appropriately the spiritual symbolism present in the mantras.
Here, I shall provide another example of the spiritual knowledge present in the Ṛgveda Samhitā, and its recognition in the traditional commentary of Sāyaṇācārya.
The present sūktam is Ṛgveda 6.9, whose ṛṣi is Bharadvāja Bārhaspatya and devatā is Agni Vaiśvānara.
To me, this hymn is quintessentially Vedāntic in its vocabulary and expression. It is surprisingly "modern" in its candid expression of the internal process of self-realization, and yet, it is undoubtedly one of the most ancient Vedic hymns, as also its author is a very ancient seer in the Vedic lineage. This again proves to me that the entire Vedic corpus contains the same metaphysics throughout. I shall present Sāyaṇa's commentary where the mantra appears to be cryptic or where it has multiple meanings, and hence his commentary shows the traditional understanding of the spiritual meaning of the mantra.
अहश्च कृष्णमहरर्जुनं च वि वर्तेते रजसी वेद्याभिः ।
वैश्वानरो जायमानो न राजावातिरज्ज्योतिषाग्निस्तमांसि ॥१॥
ahaśca kṛṣṇamahararjunaṃ ca vi vartete rajasī vedyābhiḥ |
vaiśvānaro jāyamāno na rājāvātirajjyotiṣāgnistamāṃsi ||
"The dark day (i.e. night) and the bright day (i.e. day) which enliven all creatures keep turning around by means of well-known signs. Vaiśvānara, being born like a king, dispells darkness with his light."
Sāyaṇa: "... रजसी स्वस्वभासा सर्वं जगद्रञ्जयन्तौ .... यद्वा रजसी द्यावापृथिव्यौ । ... एतच्च वैश्वानराग्नेराज्ञया ... । " -- "rajasī means the pair which illuminate or enliven everything by their brilliance. The other meaning of rajasī is the earth and heaven. ... All this comes from the will of Agni Vaiśvānara."
नाहं तन्तुं न विजानाम्योतुं न यं वयन्ति समरेऽतमानाः ।
कस्य स्वित्पुत्र इह वक्त्वानि परो वदात्यवरेण पित्रा ॥२॥
nāhaṃ tantuṃ na vijānāmyotuṃ na yaṃ vayanti samare'tamānāḥ |
kasya svitputra iha vaktvāni paro vadātyavareṇa pitrā ||
"I do not know the warp (tantu) nor do I know the woof (otu) nor that which they weave in the gathering. Whose son shall here talk about the subject, through his father who was recent?"
Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरस्य महत्त्वमाख्यास्यन्नृषिस्तदर्थं यज्ञं वस्त्रात्मकतया रूपयन् तस्य दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीति यज्ञवादिनो मन्यन्ते । पटं यज्ञलक्षणं देवयजने सततं चेष्टमानाः ऋत्विजः तन्तूनोतूंश्च संतन्वन्ति । वस्त्ररूपेण निष्पादयन्तीत्यर्थः । इह अस्मिन् लोके कस्य स्वित् कस्य खलु पुत्रः मनुष्यः वक्तव्यानि परस्तादमुष्मिन् लोके वर्तमानो यः सुर्यः तस्य पित्रा अवस्तादस्मिन् लोके वर्तमानेन वैश्वानराग्निनानुशिष्टः सन् वदेत्? न कश्चिदपि प्रवदितुं शक्नोतीत्यर्थः । रूपकतया जगत्सृष्टेर्दुर्ज्ञानत्वमनया प्रतिपादयतीत्यात्मविदो मन्यन्ते । तन्तून् तन्तुस्थानानि वियदादीन्यपञ्चीकृतानि भूतानि न विजानामि । ओतून् पञ्चीकृतानि स्थूलान्योतुस्थानीयान्यपि वियदादीनि न विजानामि । न च तत्कार्यं पटस्थानीयं प्रपञ्चं विजानामि यं प्रपञ्चं सततं चेष्टमानाः संसारिणो वयन्ति उत्पादयन्ति । तेषां भोगार्थमीश्वरः सृजतीति कर्तृत्वमुपचर्यते । इहास्मिन्विषये परस्ताद्बुद्धेरविषये वक्तव्यानीमान्यवरेण अर्वाचीनेन सृष्ट्युत्तरकालमुत्पन्नेन पित्रा स्वजनकेनानुशिष्टः सन् कस्य खलु पुत्रः वदेत् । स्वोत्पत्तेः प्राचीनं वृत्तान्तमजानानः कश्चिदपि न वदेदित्यर्थः ।"
"According to the school of ritualistic interpretation, the ṛṣi is trying to describe the greatness of Vaiśvānara through the symbolism of the yajña as a fabric, and expresses the difficulty of knowing it. The ever-active priests weave the warp and woof of this fabric. The ṛṣi is giving an analogy of the sun in heaven as the son, and Agni Vaiśvānara on earth as the father, and asks, which human can talk about these deep topics having been instructed by his father? The meaning is that nobody can. According to the school of metaphysics or spiritual interpretation, this is a symbolism for the universe whose creation is a mystery and cannot be known. The warp symbolizes the undifferentiated subtle elements, and the woof symbolizes the differentiated gross elements. The creatures living in the universe are constantly weaving this fabric by their activities. Or this fabric has been woven by the creator for the enjoyment of the creatures. So being here (in this universe), to talk about things that are beyond the intellect, nobody who has been instructed by their human father (whose birth is recent compared to the universe), can talk about these things. Having not understood the ancient source of their origin, nobody can talk about these mysteries."
स इत्तन्तुं स विजानात्योतुं स वक्त्वान्यृतुथा वदाति ।
य ईं चिकेतदमृतस्य गोपा अवश्चरन्परो अन्येन पश्यन् ॥३॥
sa ittantuṃ sa vijānātyotuṃ sa vaktvānyṛtuthā vadāti |
ya īṃ ciketadamṛtasya gopā avaścaranparo anyena paśyan ||
"He knows the warp and the woof, and he speaks the truths from time to time. He who sees all this, is the protector of immortality, and he roams below, while seeing through another above."
Sāyaṇa: "यद्यपि उक्तेन प्रकारेण दुर्ज्ञानानि तथाप्येतानि वैश्वानरोऽग्निः जानाति वदति चेत्यनया प्रतिपादयति । स एव वैश्वानरोऽग्निः तन्तुस्थानीयानि गायत्र्यादीनि छन्दांसि स्तुतशस्त्राणि तथा ओतुस्थानीयानि यजूंष्याध्वर्यवाणि च कर्माणि वि जानाति । ऋतुथा काले काले तत्तदनुष्ठानसमये वक्तव्यानि वदेत् । अवस्तात् भूलोके पार्थिवाग्निरूपेण संचरन् परस्ताद्दिवि सूर्यात्मना सर्वं जगत् प्रकाशयन् इमानि परिदृश्यमानानि सर्वाणि भूतानि जानाति । यद्वा । स एव तन्तुं तन्तुस्थानीयानि सूक्ष्मभूतानि विजानाति नान्यः कश्चित् । तथौतुमोतुस्थानीयानि स्थूलभूतानि च स एव विजानाति । स एव वक्तव्यान्युपदेष्टव्यानि काले काले यदा यदा विद्यासंप्रदायोच्छेदस्तदा तदा वदेत् । कोऽसौ यो विजानीयाद्वदेच्चेत्यत आह । यो वैश्वानरो विश्वनरात्मकः परमात्मामृतत्वस्य विमोक्षणस्य गोपा रक्षिता अवस्तात् संसारदशायां चरन् अन्तःकरणोपेतः जीवात्मभावेन संचरन् परस्तादविद्याया ऊर्ध्वं वर्तमानेनान्येनोक्तविलक्षणेन निरुपाधिकेन सच्चिदादिलक्षणेन रूपेण पश्यन् सर्वं जगत्प्रकाशयन् इमानि जानाति । तथा च परमात्मानं प्रकृत्य श्रूयते -- ’तमेव भान्तमनुभाति सर्वं तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति’ (श्वेउ ६।१४)"
"(Ritualistic interpretation): These mysteries are known to Agni Vaiśvānara. He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the various chandases and the woof symbolizing the ritualistic works of the Yajus. He speaks from time to time as in during the regular times of performance of the rituals. He moves on the earth in the form of the terrestrial fire while seeing all creatures in the form of the sun giving light to the entire universe. Or else:
(Spiritual/metaphysical interpretation): He alone, Agni Vaiśvānara, knows the warp symbolizing the subtle elements and the woof symbolizing the gross elements. He alone speaks the secret teaching from time to time when the lineage of knowledge is broken among humans. Who is this who knows and shall speak? He who is known as Vaiśvānara, who is present in all living creatures, the Paramātman, the protector of immortality, i.e. Mokṣa. He moves in the world as the Jīvātman conjoined with the mind, and sees the universe through the higher form, beyond Avidyā, and defined as Saccidānanda without attributes. This form illuminates the entire universe. Hence it is said in the Śruti: "Everything shines because He shines, by His light everything is lit up" (Śvet. Up. 6.14)"
अयं होता प्रथमः पश्यतेममिदं ज्योतिरमृतं मर्त्येषु ।
अयं स जज्ञे ध्रुव आ निषत्तोऽमर्त्यस्तन्वा३ वर्धमानः ॥४॥
ayaṃ hotā prathamaḥ paśyatemamidaṃ jyotiramṛtaṃ martyeṣu |
ayaṃ sa jajñe dhruva ā niṣatto'martyastanvā3 vardhamānaḥ ||
"He is the first invoker, see Him, this immortal light within mortals. He is born firm and he is omnipresent (i.e. present everywhere), and being immortal he grows through a body."
(This is pretty straightforward, and it is quite clear from Sāyaṇa's commentary).
ध्रुवं ज्योतिर्निहितं दृशये कं मनो जविष्ठं पतयत्स्वन्तः ।
विश्वे देवाः समनसः सकेताः एकं क्रतुमभि वि यन्ति साधु ॥५॥
dhruvaṃ jyotirnihitaṃ dṛśaye kaṃ mano javiṣṭhaṃ patayatsvantaḥ |
viśve devāḥ samanasaḥ saketāḥ ekaṃ kratumabhi vi yanti sādhu ||
"This firm light, that is bliss, that is subtler than the mind, is hidden within the senses (or creatures). All the deities, with one intention and one intelligence, surround Him, the doer of deeds."
Sāyaṇa: "ध्रुवं निश्चलं मनसः तस्मादपि जविष्ठं अतिशयेन वेगवत् ईदृशं वैश्वानराख्यं ज्योतिः पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु जङ्गमेषु प्राणिषु अन्तः मध्ये निहितं प्रजापतिना स्थापितम् । किमर्थम् । दर्शनार्थम् । किं च सर्वे देवाः समानमनस्काः समानप्रज्ञाश्च सन्तः एकं मुख्यं गन्तारं वा क्रतुं कर्मणां कर्तारं सम्यक् आभिमुख्येन विविधं प्राप्नुवन्ति सेवन्त इत्यर्थः । यद्वा । पतयत्सु गच्छत्सु प्राणिष्वन्तर्मध्ये हृदये मनो जविष्ठं मनसोऽप्यतिशयेन वेगयुक्तं ध्रुवं निश्चलं निर्विकल्पम् । तथा च वाजसनेयकं -- "अनेजदेकं मनसो जवीयः" (वा सं ४०।४) इति । ज्योतिर्ब्रह्म चैतन्यं निहितम् । न केनचित् स्थापितम् । "यो वेद निहितं गुहायां परमे व्योमन्" (तै आ ८।१) इति हि श्रूयते । किमर्थम् । दृशये दर्शनार्थम् । ज्ञानेन हि सर्वं जानन्ति । दीव्यन्तीति देवा इन्द्रियाणि । विश्वे सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणीन्द्रियाणि चक्षुराद्याः समनसो मनसा सह वर्तमानाः सकेताः सतेजस्काः सन्त एकमद्वितीयं क्रतुं सृष्ट्यादीनां कर्मणां कर्तारं विश्वनरात्मकं परमात्मानमभिलक्ष्य साधु सम्यक् वि यन्ति विविधं गच्छन्ति । देवा एव वेममभि वि यन्ति । आभिमुख्येन विविधमुपयन्ति । उपासत इत्यर्थः । तथा च श्रूयते -- "तद्देवा ज्योतिषां ज्योतिरायुर्होपासतेऽमृतम्" (बृ उ ४/४/१६) इति ।"
"(Adhibhūtam/adhidaivatam) The firm light called Vaiśvānara, which is subtler than the mind, is placed within the creatures by Prajāpati for the sake of the vision. And all the gods with common mind and common consciousness serve this one doer of actions. Or else:
(Adhyātmam) Within the creatures, i.e. in the heart, there is hidden a firm and independent light that is subtler than the mind. As the Vājasaneyi text says: "The unmoving one that is faster than the mind" (Iśa. Up. 4). The light is Brahman consciousness. It is not established by anyone, i.e. it is there by its own nature. As the Śruti says: "Whoever knows this that is hidden in the heart in the highest space" (Tai. Up. 2.1). The purpose of this light is to have the vision, because by this vision one knows everything. The senses are called Devas because they shine or because they go forth. So the senses along with the mind approach this One Doer from various directions. This Doer is the Vaiśvānara, the omnipresent Paramātman, who does various deeds such as creation, etc. Or the Devas worship Vaiśvānara. As it is said in the Śruti: "The Devas worship the Light of lights, the Immortal." (Br. Up. 4.4.16)."
वि मे कर्णा पतयतो वि चक्षुर्वी३दं ज्योतिर्हृदय आहितं यत् ।
वि मे मनश्चरति दूरआधीः किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये ॥६॥
vi me karṇā patayato vi cakṣurvī3daṃ jyotirhṛdaya āhitaṃ yat |
vi me manaścarati dūraādhīḥ kiṃ svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye ||
"My ears fly forth, and my eyes fly forth striving to see this Light hidden within the heart. My mind wanders far in search of it, what shall I speak of, and what shall I think?"
(This verse almost appears modern in its candid description of the internal processes when the sage is in rapture of his vision of the Light, when he has lost himself in the One Consciousness, such that he is beyond speech and thought. The last phrase "किं स्विद् वक्ष्यामि किमु नू मनिष्ये - kim svid vakṣyāmi kimu nū maniṣye" is an exact paraphrase of "यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते अप्राप्य मनसा सह - yato vāco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha", "From which speech and mind turn back, not having reached" of Taittirīya Upaniṣad.)
Sāyaṇa: "वैश्वानरं श्रोतुकामस्य मम कर्णौ वि पतयतः विविधं गच्छतः । श्रोतव्यानां तदीयगुणानां बहुत्वात् । तथा वैश्वानरं दिदृक्षमाणस्य मम चक्षुः इन्द्रियं वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति । द्रष्टव्यानां तदीयरूपाणां बहुत्वात् । तथा ज्योतिः प्रकाशकं हृदये हृदयपुण्डरीके आहितं निहितं यत् बुद्ध्याख्यं तत्त्वं इदमपि वि पतयति विविधं गच्छति वैश्वानरात्मानं ज्ञातुम् । अपि च दूरआधीः । दूरे विप्रकृष्टे विषय आधीराध्यानं यस्य तादृशम् । मे मदीयं मनः च वि चरति विविधं प्रवर्तते । एवमहमहमिकया सर्वेष्विन्द्रियेषु प्रवृत्तेषु किं स्वित् अहं वैश्वानरस्य रूपमिति वक्ष्यामि । किमु नु किमु खलु संप्रति मनिष्ये मनसा प्रपत्स्ये । वैश्वानरस्य गुणानामनन्तत्वात् मन्दप्रज्ञेन मया ज्ञातुं न शक्यत इत्यर्थः ।"
"Desirous of hearing Vaiśvānara, my ears go forth in different directions due to His infinite qualities to be heard. Desirous of seeing Him, my sight goes forth due to the infinite forms to be seen. The light established in the heart also strives to know the Vaiśvānara Ātman. Thus with all the senses striving to know Him, and since they fail, what can I say and what can I think about it? (i.e. He is beyond the senses, but I have already found Him as the immortal light within my heart)."
विश्वे देवा अनमस्यन् भियानास्त्वामग्ने तमसि तस्थिवांसम् ।
वैश्वानरोऽवतूतये नोऽमर्त्योऽवतूतये नः ॥७॥
viśve devā anamasyan bhiyānāstvāmagne tamasi tasthivāṃsam |
vaiśvānaro'vatūtaye no'martyo'vatūtaye naḥ ||
"All the gods bowed down in fear in front of you, Agni, when you were hidden in the darkness. May Vaiśvānara protect us, may the Immortal One protect us."
This verse is quite clear and needs no explanation. However, there is a deep metaphysics associated with the "Agni hidden in the darkness", which I have discussed in detail in my Agni: Part 3 article.
Thursday, April 9, 2020
शङ्करः लोकशङ्करः (श्रीमदादिशङ्कराचार्यानामुपरि)
शङ्करभगवत्पादानां विषये किञ्चिल्लेखनीयमिति मनोऽकरोत् :)
तादृशां महामहिमानां विषये लिखितुं तु सर्वथानर्होऽहम् । तथापि स्वाध्यायसाधनापूजनरूपेषु वीक्ष्येदम् यथामति यथाज्ञानं लघुप्रबन्धम् प्रस्तूयते । कतिपयमासानन्तरं संस्कृतभाषायां वाक्प्रचलति, तर्हि प्रायः न पूर्वकृतप्रबन्धवत् सौष्ठवम् गृह्णातीदम् ।
शङ्कराचार्याणां जीवनचरित्रं तु केवलं दन्तकथासु गुरुपरम्पराविश्वासेषु प्रशंसाग्रन्थेषु च विद्यते । तेषु “शङ्करदिग्विजयम्” इत्येतस्मिन् प्रायेणान्येभ्य अधिकतरं विस्ताराः प्राप्यन्ते । तेष्वपि कियान् भागः साक्षात्सत्यमित्यवधारयितुमशक्यम् । केषांचनानुसारेण शङ्करः अणिमाद्यष्टसिद्धीनवाप्य जनानामुपरि ताः प्रयुक्तवानिति श्रूयते, परं न तस्य निश्चितसत्यत्वं प्रतिपादयितुं शक्यम् । तर्हि केवलं सुप्रसिद्धघटनाः अत्रोल्लिख्यन्ते ।
सामान्यदन्तकथानुसारेण, शङ्करः बाल्य एव सुतीक्ष्णमतिः सन् सर्वे वेदाः सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि अन्तर्गमयित्वा अत्यन्तमेधावी आसीत् । सः परमसाम्प्रदायिकानां नम्बूतिरिब्राह्मणानां संन्यासवर्ज्यानां कुटुम्बे जज्ञे । तर्हि शङ्करः स्वपरिवारसम्प्रदायं विरुध्य संन्यासं स्वीचकार । प्रायेणैषा ह्येव घटना संकेतरूपेण कथिता यत् स एकदा नद्यां नक्राक्रान्तः सन् केवलं तदा मुक्तोऽभवद्यदा स्वमातुः संन्यासस्वीकारस्यानुमतिं प्राप्तवान् ।
परम्परानुसारेण स अष्टमे वर्षे संन्यासं स्वीकृत्य द्वात्रिंशत्तमे वर्षे परमपदं प्राप्तवान्, तेन चतुर्विंशतिवर्षाणि तावत्यल्पावधौ मानवानूह्यकर्माणि साधितवान्, तस्मादेव तं साक्षाद्दक्षिणामूर्तेरवतारं मन्यामहे । पश्यामश्चेत्, प्रत्येकविषये अमानुषसाधनानि कृतवान् ।
सिद्धान्ते त्वप्रतिममद्वैतं केवलतर्कशुद्धरीत्या प्रतिपेदे प्रचचार च । एतस्मात्पूर्वं तु बादरायणादाभ्यानेका आचार्याः उपनिषद्दर्शनं सुव्यवस्थितरीत्या प्रतिपादयितुमयतन्त । तेषु प्रयत्नेषु ब्रह्मसूत्रनिबन्धस्तु सर्वोत्कृष्ट इत्यत्र न कोऽपि संशयः । परं तत्र वेदवाक्यविश्वासोपरि सिद्धान्तः प्रस्तुतः । तन्न नास्तिकेभ्यः प्रत्यायकं, वेदवाक्यानादरत्वात् । तर्हि शङ्करः प्रथमं शुद्धतर्कप्रतिपादनेन सिद्धान्तं सुसंस्थाप्य, तदनन्तरं वेदोपनिषदृषिदर्शनस्य चात्मानुभवस्य च शुद्धतर्कप्रतिपाद्येन सह सुसंवादित्वं दर्शितवान् । तस्य ब्रह्मसूत्रस्योपरि शारीरकभाष्यस्य प्रधानभूतं वाक्यमिदं — “य एव हि निराकर्ता तस्यात्मत्वात्” इति तर्केण यदि पश्यामः स्वस्यैवास्तित्वं निराकर्तुं सर्वोऽप्यशक्तः, तर्हि स्वस्यैवान्तस्तममस्तित्वमेव परमसाक्षी परमचेता परमानन्दी इत्यात्मन अपरोक्षानुभूतिः ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारश्च ।
लौकिके तु सर्वप्रसिद्धं साक्षादमानुषकर्म तु प्राचीनभरतवर्षस्य चतुर्ष्वपि दिक्षु पर्यटनं च मठस्थापनं च । तस्मिन्नसौकर्ये काले पर्वत-नदी-वन-मृग-जनपदादि आपत्सु मध्ये एकाङ्गी सन् पदैव कथं स देशस्याद्यन्तं चचार इति तूहातीतमेव । परं यदि तस्य मनसि वैदिकधर्मानुशासितभारतस्यैक्यं सुस्पष्टं नासीत्, तर्हि नैव सः दक्षिणायां शृङ्गेर्यां, उदीच्यां बदरिकाश्रमे, प्राच्यां पुर्यां, प्रतीच्यां द्वारकायां समानमठानां स्थापनं कुर्यात् । न वाप्येताः प्रदेशाः परस्परमज्ञाताः — अतिप्राचीनकालादेव वैदिकधर्मः एतेषु प्रदेशेषु जाज्वल्यमान आसीत् । तस्मादेव समानसंस्कृतिधर्मेषु तेषु विविधप्रदेशेषु वेदमूलस्यैव स्वसिद्धान्तस्य प्रचारः सुकर आसीत् । इदं आधुनिकपण्डितंमन्यमानानां पाश्चात्यदुःसिद्धान्तगतानुगतिकानां बुद्धिजीविभ्रान्तानां यदपमतोऽस्ति “भारतस्यैक्यं केवलं मुगलानां वाङ्ग्लानां वा शासने कृतं” इति, तमपमतं खण्डशः भिनत्ति ।
तत ऊर्ध्वं तेन षण्मतं च पञ्चायतनपूजाविधिं च स्थाप्य भारतस्य पुरातन वैदिकधर्मस्य च साम्प्रदायिकदेवतार्चनक्रमस्य च पुनरुत्थानं पुनरुज्जीवनं च कृतवान् । तस्माद् यद् बौद्धस्य जीवननिराकरणं च “सर्वं दुःखमयं” इत्याग्रहं चानुत्साहं चासीत्, तं निवार्य जीवनोल्लासं च सर्वतोमुखप्रगतिं च “सर्वस्मिन् ब्रह्मस्वरूप आनन्द एव” इत्याग्रहं स्थापितम् ।
बौद्धस्य ऐकान्तिकं दृष्टिकोणं निरस्य, वैदिकधर्मस्य वैश्विक समष्टिदृष्टिकोणस्य पुनःस्थापनं, प्रायेण शङ्करभगवत्पादानां यशस्तमा संसिद्धिरिति वक्तुं न कोऽप्यतिशयः ।
अत्राद्वैतसिद्धान्तस्य प्रति एकमन्यथाग्राहं निवारणीयम् । “ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या” इति कथितकथनं कथञ्चिदप्यनुकूलसूत्रत्वेन साधु वासाधु वा प्रभूततया सर्वैरुपयुक्तं प्रतिभाति । न शङ्करेण क्वापि जगन्मिथ्येत्युक्तम् । तेन तु प्रज्ञानस्य विविधाः स्तराः प्रतिपादिताः यथा — प्रातिभासिकं, व्यावहारिकं, पारमार्थिकं — इति । पूर्वपूर्वादपरापरः स्तरः सत्यतरः, परं न कोऽपि स्तरः साक्षान्मिथ्या । तस्मिन् तस्मिन् स्तरे यदा स्थित्वा प्रज्ञानमनुभवति, स स स्तरः सर्वथा सत्यमेव ।
अस्याः भ्रान्तेः एकः दुष्परिणामः यद् व्यावहारिक-पारमार्थिक-स्तरयोरभेदत्वं मूढतया मन्यन्ते केचन प्राज्ञंमन्यमानाः । एतेषां सुसंमूढानां हिन्दूनामनुसारेण, यद्यपि सर्वं तद्ब्रह्मैव, तर्हि जगति व्यवहारसमयेऽपि सर्वे जनाः, सर्वे मताः, सर्वे मतानुयायिनः समानतयैव द्रष्टव्याः व्यवहार्याश्चेति । एतन्नाद्वैतसिद्धान्तः । यदि कश्चिन्मां हन्तुमुत्सुक आगच्छन्नस्ति, तर्हि सर्वसामर्थ्येन स्वरक्षणं कर्तुं मम जन्मसिद्धाधिकारोऽस्ति । स्वरक्षणसाधनं कदाचित् रिपुच्छेदनेन भवेत्, कदाचित् केवलं रोधनेन भवेत्, परं नैवाकर्मणा स्वरक्षणं सिध्यति । अत्र हिन्दूधर्मस्य शरीरमिति संकेतः । यदि कश्चिदाक्रामकः विदेशी मताभासः हिन्दूधर्मस्योपरि आघाताः वारंवारं कुर्वन्नेवास्ति (न केवलं भौतिकाघाताः, अपि तु सांस्कृतिकाः, जनसंख्याकाः, राजनैतिकाः, इत्यादि), तर्हि तमापत्कारकं रिपुं सकर्मकतया, बुद्धिमत्तया, रोधनं वा संहारो वा स्वधर्मकर्मानुष्ठानस्य प्रथमं पदम् ।
यदि शङ्करभगवत्पादानामेव चरितं पश्यामः, न सः केरलस्थे स्वगृहे एव स्थात्वा विचारितवान् — “अहो, सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मैव, तर्हि सर्वं समानं, तर्हि ममाद्वैतप्रचारे वाप्रचारे वा, बौद्धस्य निरसने वानिरसने वा न किञ्चिदन्तरं वर्तते । अहमत्रैव किमप्यकुर्वन् तिष्ठामि” इति । सोऽतिदुष्करपरिश्रमेण सनातन वैदिकधर्मस्य संरक्षणमकरोत् । तत्त्वेवाद्वैतसिद्धान्तस्य प्रमाणभूतमनुष्ठानम् यद् व्यावहारिक-पारमार्थिक-स्तरयोरन्तरं सुसंज्ञात्वा सम्यगाचरणे प्रयोगः ।
“श्रुति-स्मृति-पुराणानामालयं करुणालयं । नमामि भगवत्पादं शङ्करं लोकशङ्करम् ॥”
तादृशां महामहिमानां विषये लिखितुं तु सर्वथानर्होऽहम् । तथापि स्वाध्यायसाधनापूजनरूपेषु वीक्ष्येदम् यथामति यथाज्ञानं लघुप्रबन्धम् प्रस्तूयते । कतिपयमासानन्तरं संस्कृतभाषायां वाक्प्रचलति, तर्हि प्रायः न पूर्वकृतप्रबन्धवत् सौष्ठवम् गृह्णातीदम् ।
शङ्कराचार्याणां जीवनचरित्रं तु केवलं दन्तकथासु गुरुपरम्पराविश्वासेषु प्रशंसाग्रन्थेषु च विद्यते । तेषु “शङ्करदिग्विजयम्” इत्येतस्मिन् प्रायेणान्येभ्य अधिकतरं विस्ताराः प्राप्यन्ते । तेष्वपि कियान् भागः साक्षात्सत्यमित्यवधारयितुमशक्यम् । केषांचनानुसारेण शङ्करः अणिमाद्यष्टसिद्धीनवाप्य जनानामुपरि ताः प्रयुक्तवानिति श्रूयते, परं न तस्य निश्चितसत्यत्वं प्रतिपादयितुं शक्यम् । तर्हि केवलं सुप्रसिद्धघटनाः अत्रोल्लिख्यन्ते ।
सामान्यदन्तकथानुसारेण, शङ्करः बाल्य एव सुतीक्ष्णमतिः सन् सर्वे वेदाः सर्वाणि च शास्त्राणि अन्तर्गमयित्वा अत्यन्तमेधावी आसीत् । सः परमसाम्प्रदायिकानां नम्बूतिरिब्राह्मणानां संन्यासवर्ज्यानां कुटुम्बे जज्ञे । तर्हि शङ्करः स्वपरिवारसम्प्रदायं विरुध्य संन्यासं स्वीचकार । प्रायेणैषा ह्येव घटना संकेतरूपेण कथिता यत् स एकदा नद्यां नक्राक्रान्तः सन् केवलं तदा मुक्तोऽभवद्यदा स्वमातुः संन्यासस्वीकारस्यानुमतिं प्राप्तवान् ।
परम्परानुसारेण स अष्टमे वर्षे संन्यासं स्वीकृत्य द्वात्रिंशत्तमे वर्षे परमपदं प्राप्तवान्, तेन चतुर्विंशतिवर्षाणि तावत्यल्पावधौ मानवानूह्यकर्माणि साधितवान्, तस्मादेव तं साक्षाद्दक्षिणामूर्तेरवतारं मन्यामहे । पश्यामश्चेत्, प्रत्येकविषये अमानुषसाधनानि कृतवान् ।
सिद्धान्ते त्वप्रतिममद्वैतं केवलतर्कशुद्धरीत्या प्रतिपेदे प्रचचार च । एतस्मात्पूर्वं तु बादरायणादाभ्यानेका आचार्याः उपनिषद्दर्शनं सुव्यवस्थितरीत्या प्रतिपादयितुमयतन्त । तेषु प्रयत्नेषु ब्रह्मसूत्रनिबन्धस्तु सर्वोत्कृष्ट इत्यत्र न कोऽपि संशयः । परं तत्र वेदवाक्यविश्वासोपरि सिद्धान्तः प्रस्तुतः । तन्न नास्तिकेभ्यः प्रत्यायकं, वेदवाक्यानादरत्वात् । तर्हि शङ्करः प्रथमं शुद्धतर्कप्रतिपादनेन सिद्धान्तं सुसंस्थाप्य, तदनन्तरं वेदोपनिषदृषिदर्शनस्य चात्मानुभवस्य च शुद्धतर्कप्रतिपाद्येन सह सुसंवादित्वं दर्शितवान् । तस्य ब्रह्मसूत्रस्योपरि शारीरकभाष्यस्य प्रधानभूतं वाक्यमिदं — “य एव हि निराकर्ता तस्यात्मत्वात्” इति तर्केण यदि पश्यामः स्वस्यैवास्तित्वं निराकर्तुं सर्वोऽप्यशक्तः, तर्हि स्वस्यैवान्तस्तममस्तित्वमेव परमसाक्षी परमचेता परमानन्दी इत्यात्मन अपरोक्षानुभूतिः ब्रह्मसाक्षात्कारश्च ।
लौकिके तु सर्वप्रसिद्धं साक्षादमानुषकर्म तु प्राचीनभरतवर्षस्य चतुर्ष्वपि दिक्षु पर्यटनं च मठस्थापनं च । तस्मिन्नसौकर्ये काले पर्वत-नदी-वन-मृग-जनपदादि आपत्सु मध्ये एकाङ्गी सन् पदैव कथं स देशस्याद्यन्तं चचार इति तूहातीतमेव । परं यदि तस्य मनसि वैदिकधर्मानुशासितभारतस्यैक्यं सुस्पष्टं नासीत्, तर्हि नैव सः दक्षिणायां शृङ्गेर्यां, उदीच्यां बदरिकाश्रमे, प्राच्यां पुर्यां, प्रतीच्यां द्वारकायां समानमठानां स्थापनं कुर्यात् । न वाप्येताः प्रदेशाः परस्परमज्ञाताः — अतिप्राचीनकालादेव वैदिकधर्मः एतेषु प्रदेशेषु जाज्वल्यमान आसीत् । तस्मादेव समानसंस्कृतिधर्मेषु तेषु विविधप्रदेशेषु वेदमूलस्यैव स्वसिद्धान्तस्य प्रचारः सुकर आसीत् । इदं आधुनिकपण्डितंमन्यमानानां पाश्चात्यदुःसिद्धान्तगतानुगतिकानां बुद्धिजीविभ्रान्तानां यदपमतोऽस्ति “भारतस्यैक्यं केवलं मुगलानां वाङ्ग्लानां वा शासने कृतं” इति, तमपमतं खण्डशः भिनत्ति ।
तत ऊर्ध्वं तेन षण्मतं च पञ्चायतनपूजाविधिं च स्थाप्य भारतस्य पुरातन वैदिकधर्मस्य च साम्प्रदायिकदेवतार्चनक्रमस्य च पुनरुत्थानं पुनरुज्जीवनं च कृतवान् । तस्माद् यद् बौद्धस्य जीवननिराकरणं च “सर्वं दुःखमयं” इत्याग्रहं चानुत्साहं चासीत्, तं निवार्य जीवनोल्लासं च सर्वतोमुखप्रगतिं च “सर्वस्मिन् ब्रह्मस्वरूप आनन्द एव” इत्याग्रहं स्थापितम् ।
बौद्धस्य ऐकान्तिकं दृष्टिकोणं निरस्य, वैदिकधर्मस्य वैश्विक समष्टिदृष्टिकोणस्य पुनःस्थापनं, प्रायेण शङ्करभगवत्पादानां यशस्तमा संसिद्धिरिति वक्तुं न कोऽप्यतिशयः ।
अत्राद्वैतसिद्धान्तस्य प्रति एकमन्यथाग्राहं निवारणीयम् । “ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या” इति कथितकथनं कथञ्चिदप्यनुकूलसूत्रत्वेन साधु वासाधु वा प्रभूततया सर्वैरुपयुक्तं प्रतिभाति । न शङ्करेण क्वापि जगन्मिथ्येत्युक्तम् । तेन तु प्रज्ञानस्य विविधाः स्तराः प्रतिपादिताः यथा — प्रातिभासिकं, व्यावहारिकं, पारमार्थिकं — इति । पूर्वपूर्वादपरापरः स्तरः सत्यतरः, परं न कोऽपि स्तरः साक्षान्मिथ्या । तस्मिन् तस्मिन् स्तरे यदा स्थित्वा प्रज्ञानमनुभवति, स स स्तरः सर्वथा सत्यमेव ।
अस्याः भ्रान्तेः एकः दुष्परिणामः यद् व्यावहारिक-पारमार्थिक-स्तरयोरभेदत्वं मूढतया मन्यन्ते केचन प्राज्ञंमन्यमानाः । एतेषां सुसंमूढानां हिन्दूनामनुसारेण, यद्यपि सर्वं तद्ब्रह्मैव, तर्हि जगति व्यवहारसमयेऽपि सर्वे जनाः, सर्वे मताः, सर्वे मतानुयायिनः समानतयैव द्रष्टव्याः व्यवहार्याश्चेति । एतन्नाद्वैतसिद्धान्तः । यदि कश्चिन्मां हन्तुमुत्सुक आगच्छन्नस्ति, तर्हि सर्वसामर्थ्येन स्वरक्षणं कर्तुं मम जन्मसिद्धाधिकारोऽस्ति । स्वरक्षणसाधनं कदाचित् रिपुच्छेदनेन भवेत्, कदाचित् केवलं रोधनेन भवेत्, परं नैवाकर्मणा स्वरक्षणं सिध्यति । अत्र हिन्दूधर्मस्य शरीरमिति संकेतः । यदि कश्चिदाक्रामकः विदेशी मताभासः हिन्दूधर्मस्योपरि आघाताः वारंवारं कुर्वन्नेवास्ति (न केवलं भौतिकाघाताः, अपि तु सांस्कृतिकाः, जनसंख्याकाः, राजनैतिकाः, इत्यादि), तर्हि तमापत्कारकं रिपुं सकर्मकतया, बुद्धिमत्तया, रोधनं वा संहारो वा स्वधर्मकर्मानुष्ठानस्य प्रथमं पदम् ।
यदि शङ्करभगवत्पादानामेव चरितं पश्यामः, न सः केरलस्थे स्वगृहे एव स्थात्वा विचारितवान् — “अहो, सर्वं खल्विदं ब्रह्मैव, तर्हि सर्वं समानं, तर्हि ममाद्वैतप्रचारे वाप्रचारे वा, बौद्धस्य निरसने वानिरसने वा न किञ्चिदन्तरं वर्तते । अहमत्रैव किमप्यकुर्वन् तिष्ठामि” इति । सोऽतिदुष्करपरिश्रमेण सनातन वैदिकधर्मस्य संरक्षणमकरोत् । तत्त्वेवाद्वैतसिद्धान्तस्य प्रमाणभूतमनुष्ठानम् यद् व्यावहारिक-पारमार्थिक-स्तरयोरन्तरं सुसंज्ञात्वा सम्यगाचरणे प्रयोगः ।
“श्रुति-स्मृति-पुराणानामालयं करुणालयं । नमामि भगवत्पादं शङ्करं लोकशङ्करम् ॥”
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Vyaṣṭi and Samaṣṭi in Vedic philosophy
The concepts of Vyaṣṭi (व्यष्टि) and Samaṣṭi (समष्टि) are quite apt in describing the outlook and perspective of someone who has truly imbibed and internalized Vedic philosophy.
Vyaṣṭi denotes the individuality and separateness of things, and Samaṣṭi denotes the integral wholeness. There are other similar pairs of words to denote this pair of opposites — such as, vyāsa (to analyze or expand or differentiate) and samāsa (to contract or merge or integrate).
In the Vedas, the ṛṣis do not miss even the tiniest aspect of the universe in their universal rapturous vision of the complex and intricate interconnectedness of everything. The poetic genius of the ṛṣis is exalted by their deep enlightenment of the ultimate reality in its manifestation as the universe, even as it remains itself.
Vedic philosophy is unique in the world for its concepts of vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi. Enlightenment or realization of the ultimate reality cannot happen without witnessing both vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi together. The superficial separateness of things should lead to a recognition of the deeper connection, and the deep oneness of everything should be seen in expressions of diversity and variety in the universe.
This dynamism is at the heart of the nature of reality called Brahman. If this give-and-take dynamism between separateness and unity was not true, then we would not exist as individuals and yet be capable of recognizing the unity underlying diverse things. It is our own innermost nature that gives evidence.
This is abundantly evident in the Vedas. For example, the one and same Agni is said to be Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and all other gods:
त्वे विश्वे सहसस्पुत्र देवास्त्वमिन्द्रो दाशुषे मर्त्याय ॥
tvamagne varuṇo jāyase yattvaṁ mitro bhavasi yatsamiddhaḥ |
tve viśve sahasasputra devāstvamindro dāśuṣe martyāya ||
"You, Agni, are Varuṇa when born, and you are Mitra when kindled. O Son of Strength, in you are all the gods, and you are Indra to the mortal worshiper."
In this verse, it is clear that Agni is identified with all the other gods, and in fact is said to envelop all gods. The verses following this one elaborate on Agni's identity with other named gods. A similar theme is found in Gṛtsamada Bhārgava's hymn RV 2.1 where Agni is literally identified with nearly all the named gods of the Vedic pantheon. [1][2][3]
Another example is the famous refrain in RV 3.55: “mahad devānām asuratvam ekam”— “Great is the single asura-ness of the gods”. [4]
And yet, all the gods also have their individuality. They are all also worshiped individually with their own characteristic features and feats (līlā).
This is the exemplar of the dynamism of vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi.
Even in the Upaniṣads, the state of Brahman is described as a negation of all worldly pairs of opposites (samaṣṭi), and at the same time, as the source of all those opposites (vyaṣṭi).
For example, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.2,4:
“सत्यसङ्कल्प सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः सर्वमिदमभ्यात्तः” — “satyasaṅkalpa sarvakarmā sarvakāmaḥ sarvagandhaḥ sarvarasaḥ sarvamidamabhyāttaḥ”
“That Brahman is one whose every imagination becomes reality, who performs all actions, who smells everything, tastes everything, and envelops everything.”
And also, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.20:
“स यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद्यथाग्नेः क्षुद्राः विस्फुलिङ्गाः व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति” — “sa yathorṇanābhistantunoccaredyathāgneḥ kṣudrāḥ visphuliṅgāḥ vyuccarantyevamevāsmādātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti”
“Just as a spider creates its own web and moves around in it, just as small sparks fly out from a big fire, exactly the same way from this Ātman all energies, all worlds, all gods and all things have emerged.”
So the above examples demonstrate the vyaṣṭi aspect.
At the same time, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.8:
“अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमोऽवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमरसमगन्धमचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवागमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमबाह्यं न तदश्नाति किंचन न तदश्नाति कश्चन” — “asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo'vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamarasamagandhamacakṣuṣkamaśrotramavāgamano'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti kiṃcana na tadaśnāti kaścana”
“It is not gross, not subtle, not short, not long, not red, not wet, not shadowy, not dark, not windy, not spacious, not connected to anything, does not taste anything, smell anything, see anything, hear anything, say anything, think anything. It is not bright, not breathing, has no mouth, has no measure, has no interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor does anything eat it.”
And also, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 7:
“नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञं अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यम्” — “nāntaḥprajñaṃ na bahiṣprajñaṃ nobhayataḥprajñaṃ na prajñaṃ nāprajñaṃ adṛṣṭamavyavahāryamagrāhyamalakṣaṇamacintyamavyapadeśyam”
“It is neither internal consciousness nor external consciousness, nor both. It is not conscious nor unconscious. It is unseen, non-transactionable, ungraspable, without definition, unthinkable, without representation.”
The above examples demonstrate the samaṣṭi aspect.
Admittedly, the Upaniṣads contain more teachings on samaṣṭi, as seen in the various meditation aids such as madhuvidyā (Bṛ Up) and pañcāgni vidyā (Ch Up). This is because Upaniṣads are specifically meant to be pedagogical texts for the spiritual aspirant (sādhaka), whereas the Samhitā mantras are the expressions of deep vision of the ṛṣis who are the spiritually accomplished (siddha). The siddha has seen both the samaṣṭi and vyaṣṭi aspects of reality, and sings ecstatically about both of those aspects. The sādhaka must focus on moving from the vyaṣṭi of the everyday world to the samaṣṭi.
Obviously from the above discussion, we see that the vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi pair has meaning only in a realm of existence which exhibits aspects of both. If the frame of reference is always purely one of them and never the other, then from that frame there can be no realization of either of them. This is a paradox that has also seen a lot of thought in Hindu tradition—
For example, even in the Ṛgveda, RV 10.129.7:
“यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद” — “yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyomantso aṅga veda yadi vā na veda”
“The one who is the supreme, in the highest realm, he alone knows, or maybe he does not know.”
This mantra is wrongly interpreted as expressing agnostic or atheistic views. All it is saying is that the state of Brahman is the state of pure samaṣṭi, where there is nothing other than Brahman for it to know. So Brahman knows only itself, or it is as good as saying it knows nothing.
Another example is from classical Advaita teachings, where the significance of a human birth is emphasized repeatedly. It is only humans who are fortunate enough to experience the vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi pair through the three states of consciousness (waking-dreaming-deep sleep). The realization of Ātman through the analysis of the three states (avasthā-traya-nyāya) is an important part of Advaita pedagogy. Here, the teaching is that the gods are so unfortunate because they do not experience the dreaming and deep sleep states, and hence they cannot attain the same realization of Ātman as human beings, and must take birth as human beings to attain mokṣa. Of course, this is a paradox of post-Vedic theology where the Devas are a separate class of beings subordinate to Brahman. Whereas in reality, the Devas are already part of the frame of existence of pure samaṣṭi of Brahman, which is why they do not have dreams or sleep.
References:
[1] Essential Nature of Agni in the Rig Veda
[2] Agni -- Part 2: Supreme ingularity, reconciliation of opposites
[3] Agni -- Part 3: Divine Darkness, or Light withing the Darkness, or Divine Death, or Death before Life
[4] Asura in the Rig Veda
Vyaṣṭi denotes the individuality and separateness of things, and Samaṣṭi denotes the integral wholeness. There are other similar pairs of words to denote this pair of opposites — such as, vyāsa (to analyze or expand or differentiate) and samāsa (to contract or merge or integrate).
In the Vedas, the ṛṣis do not miss even the tiniest aspect of the universe in their universal rapturous vision of the complex and intricate interconnectedness of everything. The poetic genius of the ṛṣis is exalted by their deep enlightenment of the ultimate reality in its manifestation as the universe, even as it remains itself.
Vedic philosophy is unique in the world for its concepts of vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi. Enlightenment or realization of the ultimate reality cannot happen without witnessing both vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi together. The superficial separateness of things should lead to a recognition of the deeper connection, and the deep oneness of everything should be seen in expressions of diversity and variety in the universe.
This dynamism is at the heart of the nature of reality called Brahman. If this give-and-take dynamism between separateness and unity was not true, then we would not exist as individuals and yet be capable of recognizing the unity underlying diverse things. It is our own innermost nature that gives evidence.
This is abundantly evident in the Vedas. For example, the one and same Agni is said to be Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and all other gods:
- Vasuśruta Ᾱtreya, RV 5.3.1
त्वे विश्वे सहसस्पुत्र देवास्त्वमिन्द्रो दाशुषे मर्त्याय ॥
tvamagne varuṇo jāyase yattvaṁ mitro bhavasi yatsamiddhaḥ |
tve viśve sahasasputra devāstvamindro dāśuṣe martyāya ||
"You, Agni, are Varuṇa when born, and you are Mitra when kindled. O Son of Strength, in you are all the gods, and you are Indra to the mortal worshiper."
In this verse, it is clear that Agni is identified with all the other gods, and in fact is said to envelop all gods. The verses following this one elaborate on Agni's identity with other named gods. A similar theme is found in Gṛtsamada Bhārgava's hymn RV 2.1 where Agni is literally identified with nearly all the named gods of the Vedic pantheon. [1][2][3]
Another example is the famous refrain in RV 3.55: “mahad devānām asuratvam ekam”— “Great is the single asura-ness of the gods”. [4]
And yet, all the gods also have their individuality. They are all also worshiped individually with their own characteristic features and feats (līlā).
This is the exemplar of the dynamism of vyaṣṭi and samaṣṭi.
Even in the Upaniṣads, the state of Brahman is described as a negation of all worldly pairs of opposites (samaṣṭi), and at the same time, as the source of all those opposites (vyaṣṭi).
For example, Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.2,4:
“सत्यसङ्कल्प सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः सर्वमिदमभ्यात्तः” — “satyasaṅkalpa sarvakarmā sarvakāmaḥ sarvagandhaḥ sarvarasaḥ sarvamidamabhyāttaḥ”
“That Brahman is one whose every imagination becomes reality, who performs all actions, who smells everything, tastes everything, and envelops everything.”
And also, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.1.20:
“स यथोर्णनाभिस्तन्तुनोच्चरेद्यथाग्नेः क्षुद्राः विस्फुलिङ्गाः व्युच्चरन्त्येवमेवास्मादात्मनः सर्वे प्राणाः सर्वे लोकाः सर्वे देवाः सर्वाणि भूतानि व्युच्चरन्ति” — “sa yathorṇanābhistantunoccaredyathāgneḥ kṣudrāḥ visphuliṅgāḥ vyuccarantyevamevāsmādātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti”
“Just as a spider creates its own web and moves around in it, just as small sparks fly out from a big fire, exactly the same way from this Ātman all energies, all worlds, all gods and all things have emerged.”
So the above examples demonstrate the vyaṣṭi aspect.
At the same time, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.8.8:
“अस्थूलमनण्वह्रस्वमदीर्घमलोहितमस्नेहमच्छायमतमोऽवाय्वनाकाशमसङ्गमरसमगन्धमचक्षुष्कमश्रोत्रमवागमनोऽतेजस्कमप्राणममुखममात्रमनन्तरमबाह्यं न तदश्नाति किंचन न तदश्नाति कश्चन” — “asthūlamanaṇvahrasvamadīrghamalohitamasnehamacchāyamatamo'vāyvanākāśamasaṅgamarasamagandhamacakṣuṣkamaśrotramavāgamano'tejaskamaprāṇamamukhamamātramanantaramabāhyaṃ na tadaśnāti kiṃcana na tadaśnāti kaścana”
“It is not gross, not subtle, not short, not long, not red, not wet, not shadowy, not dark, not windy, not spacious, not connected to anything, does not taste anything, smell anything, see anything, hear anything, say anything, think anything. It is not bright, not breathing, has no mouth, has no measure, has no interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor does anything eat it.”
And also, Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad 7:
“नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञं अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यम्” — “nāntaḥprajñaṃ na bahiṣprajñaṃ nobhayataḥprajñaṃ na prajñaṃ nāprajñaṃ adṛṣṭamavyavahāryamagrāhyamalakṣaṇamacintyamavyapadeśyam”
“It is neither internal consciousness nor external consciousness, nor both. It is not conscious nor unconscious. It is unseen, non-transactionable, ungraspable, without definition, unthinkable, without representation.”
The above examples demonstrate the samaṣṭi aspect.
Admittedly, the Upaniṣads contain more teachings on samaṣṭi, as seen in the various meditation aids such as madhuvidyā (Bṛ Up) and pañcāgni vidyā (Ch Up). This is because Upaniṣads are specifically meant to be pedagogical texts for the spiritual aspirant (sādhaka), whereas the Samhitā mantras are the expressions of deep vision of the ṛṣis who are the spiritually accomplished (siddha). The siddha has seen both the samaṣṭi and vyaṣṭi aspects of reality, and sings ecstatically about both of those aspects. The sādhaka must focus on moving from the vyaṣṭi of the everyday world to the samaṣṭi.
Obviously from the above discussion, we see that the vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi pair has meaning only in a realm of existence which exhibits aspects of both. If the frame of reference is always purely one of them and never the other, then from that frame there can be no realization of either of them. This is a paradox that has also seen a lot of thought in Hindu tradition—
For example, even in the Ṛgveda, RV 10.129.7:
“यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद” — “yo asyādhyakṣaḥ parame vyomantso aṅga veda yadi vā na veda”
“The one who is the supreme, in the highest realm, he alone knows, or maybe he does not know.”
This mantra is wrongly interpreted as expressing agnostic or atheistic views. All it is saying is that the state of Brahman is the state of pure samaṣṭi, where there is nothing other than Brahman for it to know. So Brahman knows only itself, or it is as good as saying it knows nothing.
Another example is from classical Advaita teachings, where the significance of a human birth is emphasized repeatedly. It is only humans who are fortunate enough to experience the vyaṣṭi-samaṣṭi pair through the three states of consciousness (waking-dreaming-deep sleep). The realization of Ātman through the analysis of the three states (avasthā-traya-nyāya) is an important part of Advaita pedagogy. Here, the teaching is that the gods are so unfortunate because they do not experience the dreaming and deep sleep states, and hence they cannot attain the same realization of Ātman as human beings, and must take birth as human beings to attain mokṣa. Of course, this is a paradox of post-Vedic theology where the Devas are a separate class of beings subordinate to Brahman. Whereas in reality, the Devas are already part of the frame of existence of pure samaṣṭi of Brahman, which is why they do not have dreams or sleep.
References:
[1] Essential Nature of Agni in the Rig Veda
[2] Agni -- Part 2: Supreme ingularity, reconciliation of opposites
[3] Agni -- Part 3: Divine Darkness, or Light withing the Darkness, or Divine Death, or Death before Life
[4] Asura in the Rig Veda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)