By Gurushankar Swaminathan
What is Theism? In traditional sense, it is the belief in atleast one God. Monotheism is defined as the belief in only one god and polytheism is defined as belief in many gods. The abrahamic faiths like Islam follow monotheism where Allah is the supreme god and none except him. The faith follows a male centric god and there is no other name than Allah. The abrahamic faiths follow a particular rules and regulations, DO-s and DONT-s that the ‘believer’ has to follow without questioning. He cannot question those rules, the life of the prophet or the ultimate God. The abrahamic God is isolated from the nature and everything is GOD’s . Thus an element of attachment to a name and gender, obstruction to free thinking and free will can be seen in the Abrahamic faiths. Those who questioned the abrahamic faith were exiled, killed or termed as witches e.g Women in Europe, Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen etc. Example, “Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” ( Quran 9.29)
Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.
But did Indians ever used a word like theism and its conception as in the west? Are the so called gods Vishnu, Bhrama, Indra, agni etc isolated from the nature? Is there a male centric God? Is there any attachment to the name?
“Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti”
The very definition of the word theism has a lot of smearing of Abrahamic theology in it. The metaphysics based on Vedas and Upanishads are beyond any form of theism be it monotheism or polytheism, as they point to “reality” which cannot be described by terms like monotheism or polytheism. The Vedic discourse recognizes the “reality” both in its formless and manifest aspects. But today, the Vedic science and philosophy is demeaned, distorted and reduced by measuring it through an abrahamic framework. Therefore, let us try to lower the bar (of the Vedic discourse) to enter into a discussion in this regard.
Let us try to respond to a few of the cliched items that are used to criticize the Vedic knowledge. Here we are distinguishing scriptural aspects and the individual practices or beliefs:
Polytheism: While the modern day Hindu may, based on Puranas, look at the disintegrated aspects of REALITY, the truth is that there is an inherent realization that all these aspects roll into the REALITY. The most often used example to dig out polytheism in Hinduism is the story of 33 million Gods in Hinduism. From the scriptures, we find plethora of quotes that completely debase this myth.
Rig Veda 1/164/46: They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni or the heavenly sunbird Garutmat. The seers call in many ways that which is One; they speak of Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.
Rig Veda 8/58/2: Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways; only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe; only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things. In very truth, the One has become the whole world.
Atharvana Veda 13/4/12: He is the One, the Onefold, the only One.
Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, 3/9/ 1 – 9, involves a conversation between Shakalya and Yajnavalka on the number of Gods, as follows :
1. Then Vidagdha Shakalya asked him: “How many Gods are there, Yajnavalkya?”
He replied according to the Nivid, quoting the number mentioned in the Nivid of the All-Gods: “Three hundred and three and three thousand and three.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“Thirty-three.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“Six.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“Three.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“Two.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“One and a half.”
“Yes,” he said, “but how many Gods are there really, Yajnavalkya?”
“One.”
“Yes,” he said, “but which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three?”
2. Yajnavalkya replied: “These are but their powers; there are only thirty-three Gods.”
“Which are these thirty-three?”
“The eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, and twelve Adityas make thirty-one; thus with Indra and Prajapati there are thirty-three all told.”
3. “Which are the Vasus?”
“Fire, the earth, wind, space, the sun, the sky, the moon, and the stars–these are the Vasus. In them is stored all treasure; hence they are called Vasus.”
4. “Which are the Rudras?”
“The ten breaths that are in man, and the atman is the eleventh. When they leave the mortal body, they cause men to weep. Because they cause men to weep, they are Rudras.”
5. “Which are the Adityas?”
“The twelve months of the year, these are the Adityas. They move onward, carrying along all that is; hence they are called Adityas.”
6. “Who is Indra? Who is Prajapati?”
“The thunder is Indra, the Sacrifice is Prajapati.”
“What is thunder?”
“Lightning.”
“What is sacrifice?”
“The victim.”
7. “Which are the six?”
“Fire, the earth, the wind, space, the sun, and the sky–these are the six, for these six are all.”
8. “Which are the three Gods?”
“The three Gods are the three worlds, for in them all those Gods exist.”
“Which are the two Gods?”
“Food and Life Breath.”
Which is the one and a half?”
“The one who blows.”
9. “About this God they say: as the one who blows [the air] is one only, why speak of one and a half? Because in him all this has developed, hence it is called one and a half.”
“Which is the one God?”
“Life Breath; he is Brahman, which they call ‘that’ .”
Mundaka Upanishad/3/1/8: Eye cannot see him, nor words reveal him; by the senses, austerity, or works he is not known.When the mind is cleansed by the grace of wisdom, he is seen by contemplation–the One without parts.
Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad/ 3/8/9: It is in truth that Imperishable, O Gargi, who is not seen but is the seer, who is not heard but is the hearer, who is not thought but is the thinker, who is not known but is the knower. There is no other seer but him, no other hearer but him, no other thinker but him, no other knower but him. And it is that Imperishable which is the warp and the woof of space.”
Thus, the Vedic scriptures recognize the unity of REALITY without any human intervention or intercession. Going by the playbook of West Asian theisms, the Vedic discourse is head and shoulders above the Abrahamic monotheism, for the reason mentioned above. In the context of Islam, where, oneness, among other things, points to not associating partners with God, there are tons of verses in Vedas (in addition to the above) that show what true oneness is. As mentioned above, Vedic scriptures do not attach a human or a quasi human aspect, while dealing with REALITY.
And this REALITY transcends gender, where, it is portrayed to be HIM, HER and THAT. Here are a few feminine instances of REALITY.
Rig Veda 10/125/7: At the world’s summit I bring forth the Father. My origin is in the Waters, in the ocean. Thence I am spread through all existing worlds and even touch the heaven with my forehead.
The above verse refers to Vac (the Word) in Devi Sukta and Vac is feminine in nature.
Rig Veda 1/113/19: Mother of Gods and brightness of the Godhead, token of sacrifice, shine forth on high. Rise up and look upon our prayers with favor. Bless us among people, Dawn ever desired.
The above verse refers to Usha a.k.a Aditi (the feminine principle of Brahma).
Rig Veda 10/72/4: Daksha was born of Aditi. Aditi was born of Daksha.
The above verse shows the unified nature of REALITY from a gender standpoint.
Idol Worship / Cow Worship / Phallus Worship: Why is cow such a revered animal in Hinduism? Parking aside the domestic uses of a cow, the mammal symbolizes Aditi of Vedas. The Mother cow that bestows all the good tidings to man and Aditi encompasses everything in her. She is the feminine principle of Prajapati. So this is the mapping that is in vogue today, where, cow is the symbol of Aditi of Vedas and Kamadenu of later day Puranas. The fact is that people do not worship cow (or idols for that matter) but the mammal is seen as a symbol of Aditi. Does anybody think that Hindus think that an idol or a mammal is God, per se? Had they thought so, the destruction of Somnath temple by the invading armies from the deserts would have meant the symbolic end of the religion.
Is Shiva Linga a phallus? Too much of Wendy Doniger can have this effect. Shiva linga personifies the Skambha (cosmic pillar of Vedas – Atharvana Veda 10/7). Skambha , in Vedas, symbolizes the REALITY that holds this cosmos together. Again, it is basic common sense that in a temple, ageing leads to idols and Lingas undergoing wear and tear. So an old Linga is repaired and restored. If Hindus worship the object per se (the non-living Linga), why would they renovate it. Can God be renovated?
The Created and the Creation puzzle: There is a theological difference between the Abrahamic idea of the creator that resides in a separate realm far away from the Universe, who, after having created the cosmos, shows his immanence by sending down streams of messengers, from his place up in the sky. There is a clear DMZ between the creator and the creation. But the Vedic metaphysics offers a different conception, where, the REALITY, is both inside and outside the working of the cosmos and the DMZ dissolves. Here is an instance from the Upanishads.
Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad/3/7/3 – 22.
3. “He who dwells in the earth, yet is other than the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
4.”He who dwells in the waters, yet is other than the waters, whom the waters do not know, whose body is the waters, who controls the waters from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
5.”He who dwells in the fire, yet is other than the fire, whom the fire does not know, whose body is the fire, who controls the fire from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
6″He who dwells in space, yet is other than space, whom space does not know, whose body is space, who controls space from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
7.”He who dwells in the wind, yet is other than the wind, whom the wind does not know, whose body is the wind, who controls the wind from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
8.”He who dwells in the sky, yet is other than the sky, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, who controls the sky from within– he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
9. “He who dwells in the sun, yet is other than the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, who controls the sun from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
10. “He who dwells in the regions of space, yet is other than the regions of space, whom the regions of space do not know, whose body is the regions of space, who controls the regions of space from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
11. “He who dwells in the moon and the stars, yet is other than the moon and the stars, whom the moon and the stars do not know, whose body is the moon and stars, who controls the moon and the stars from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
12. “He who dwells in the atmosphere, yet is other than the atmosphere, whom the atmosphere does not know, whose body is the atmosphere, who controls the atmosphere from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
13. “He who dwells in the darkness, yet is other than the darkness, whom the darkness does not know, whose body is the darkness, who controls the darkness from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
14. “He who dwells in the light, yet is other than the light, whom the light does not know, whose body is the light, who controls the light from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
“So far with reference to the divinities. Now with reference to beings.
15. “He who dwells in all beings, yet is other than all beings, whom all beings do not know, whose body is all beings, who controls all beings from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
“So far with reference to beings. Now with reference to the body.
16. “He who dwells in the life breath, yet is other than the life breath, whom the life breath does not know, whose body is the life breath, who controls the life breath from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
18. “He who dwells in the eye, yet is other than the eye, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, who controls the eye from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
19. “He who dwells in the ear, yet is other than the ear, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, who controls the ear from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
20. “He who dwells in the mind, yet is other than the mind, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, who controls the mind from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
21. “He who dwells in the skin, yet is other than the skin, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, who controls the skin from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
22. “He who dwells in the understanding, yet is other than the understanding, whom the understanding does not know, whose body is the understanding, who controls the understanding from within–he is the atman within you, the Inner Controller, the immortal.
The above verses show that the creator is the life force of living beings and the dynamism of the cosmos. This also shows the dual aspect of REALITY being manifested, yet, unmanifested, known, yet unknown and being inside yet being outside.
These are merely addressing some of the most common criticisms heaped against Hinduism to show how misplaced and abrahamic their understanding of Hinduism is and in fact, going by their own play book, specifically on monotheism, the Vedic discourse itself completely refutes them, for, Vedic metaphysics is not dependent on the need for believing in a human messenger to attain salvation.
Girdhar says
Thats a brilliant article Gurushankar. It refutes many of the myths about Vedas and exposes an inferior word like theism which is used to measure the Vedic knowledge! 🙂
Arjun says
Gurushankar, Thats an excellent and well explained article but its unfortunate you are surrounded by people who will drag you down with them
Jeff says
The Hindu term for theism is Ishvaravada. It has both similarities to, but also important differences from, classical Western theism. It is not “supernaturalist.” That is, Hindu theism does not see the divine as completely separable from the universe, which in traditions like Vishishtadvaita Vedanta is likened to the body of God.
MRaghavan says
I appreciate this article, but struggle with a question. The Reality extolled by Vedas and Upanishads is leaps and bounds above the Abrahamic theistic sentiment on intellectual levels. However, what does this viewpoint do for everyday life? The common man, particularly at moments of struggle or grief, naturally needs a higher, far more personal being for solace and perspective. My readings into Veda and Upanishads suggests to me a Reality that is removed from compassion, mercy and the like. So, whom do we as Hindus turn to in times of need?
Melissa says
Listen, I appreciate what you have to say about the Vedas and have found this article to be very thought provoking, but I really have to take exception to the first paragraph of this article. I come from one of the Abrahamic faiths and have never experienced “DOS and DON’TS that the ‘believer’ has to follow.’ I live in New York City, surrounded by people of differing races and creeds, where tolerance is the norm out of necessity. Most of my friends are unbelievers, and many of them had this same misconception about theism-that it is defined by rules and closed-mindedness. I have to say, from the inside, that people of faith are encouraged by their priests, preachers, imams, ministers to think for themselves and to think deeply. Religion, as John Lennon said (to paraphrase) “whatever helps you sleep at night.”. It is the deepest questions of our existence that keep us up at night. The Abrahamic theistic faiths had to address these questions or they wouldn’t have lasted for the millennia that they have.
I teach yoga and have studied a bit of Indian philosophy, and I love to contemplate the Upanishads from both the point of view of traditional Hinduism as well as from my own Christian worldview. What I find new insights either way, and far from being closed minded, I both understand other religions/points of view and find my own faith either strengthened, augmented, or even shaken, which is normal and to be desired.
Girdhar says
@Melissa : Please read this :
micheldaninoDOTvoiceofdharmaDOTcom/kaliyuga.html
vedaDOTwikidotDOTcom/dharma-and-religion
Replace DOT with .
@Mraghavan : PLease read chapter 14, 15 and 16 of Bhagvada Gita. The struggle and grief depends on the age and circumstances too. For a child who doesn’t understand the various names given to the divine elements, he seeks refuge in the shelter of his parents. When a school kid gets punishment he may find solace in his mother’s care. Thus, for a child his parents are divine. But a time may come when the parents grow old and they may need the care of their children.
If you comprehend from a broader level, its the levels of consciousness or the three modes of material nature as explained by Bhagvad Gita at play. Please read
http://www.chakranews.com/vedic-wisdom-and-the-evolutionary-path-of-consciousness/1047
BG 14. 22-25
Lord Krishna said: One who feels no resentment at the appearance of illumination, activity as well as illusion, O Arjuna, nor desires their cessation; one who neutrally situated is not disturbed by the three modes of material nature, one who remains firmly poised without wavering knowing that the modes of material nature are the performer. One who is equipoised in happiness and distress, firmly situated internally, regarding equally a lump of earth, a stone or gold, equally disposed towards the desirable and the undesirable, in honor and dishonor, equal to both friends and enemies, abandoning all endeavors for activity and renunciation, one is declared transcendental to the three modes of material nature.
Mohan says
Giridhar,
To me, the ideals of the Gita suggests to me that we should be cold-hearted robots, unemotional. I would like to see someone maintain such equipoise when watching a family member suffer, or seeing the acts of war.
I am startled at how ignorant Hindus pretend to be when it comes to human nature.
Melissa – I am an appreciator of Western religion, and have a particular fondness for Judaism. We Hindus accuse the Old Testament to be filled with violence and cruelty. Little do we acknowledge our own Mahabharatha and Ramayana, which are filled with violent acts. As far as the “do-s and “don’t-s”, just ask the next generation about their parents’ views on pre-marital sex, dating, drinking, non-vegetarianism and so on. There is just as much there as there is in any other faith.
Arjun says
Mohan, Sure you are Hindu because what you saying is the same nonsense missionaries come out.So thats for exposing yourself which im sure you do to young choir boys like the rest of the church
MRaghavan says
Arjun
I am ardent follower of the Tenkalai sect of the Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja Vaishnava Sampradaya of Tamil Nadu. My family has roots in the temple towns of Kanchipuram and Srirangam,
I raise the question with due credence to the AzhwArs, a set of Tamil mystics who lived between the 6th through 9th centuries as part of the Sangam Age.
Their philosophy augmented the notion of the Brahman of the Upanishads by proclaiming Him to be extremely kind and loving in nature. Indeed, our existence and all that we have in this life is His Gift to be cherished. This theism excelled what is proposed by the Western faiths in that it has no concept of a Devil, sin, or damnation. All are blessed by Him and all will eventually be with Him.
I personally feel that we are comparing apples to oranges in comparing Vedantic concepts with Judao-Christian dogma. If we can argue that our views about a Personal God are in line with and in fact, exceed that of the theism of the West, then I think our argument is a logical one. Vedanta is mysticism, and as such, offers little solace in day to day life.
Girdhar says
@MRaghavan :
It depends what and how you define solace. ANd that is exactly why I brought the levels of consciousness and three models of material nature as explained beautifully by bhagvad Gita. It is not a collecion of independent chapters, but a complete dialogue between a shattered Arjun, who couldn’t find solace and peace, and Krishna which need to be understood as a conversation by first understanding the circumstances surrounding that dialogue.
What is solace? Greedy businessmen define it as ‘profits and more profits’, Sexual Perverts define it in terms of lust, people attached to power define it in terms of name and fame. You remove profits and a businessman will be disturbed, you remove lust and sexual perverts will be disturbed and lack of name and fame will cause people attached to power to be disturbed.
One needs to identify, what is causing that disturbance? It is nothing but ‘attachment’ to money, lust, name and fame that is causing disturbance. Thus to live a happy life free of disturbances Bhagvad Gita teaches the art of detachment, which is one of its teachings. Where is the solace in dividing the world between muslims and non-muslims, christians and non-christians. Thus the Veda never divided people on the basis of any ‘isms’. The world is born in bliss and ends in bliss, between which it lives under the effects of maya that rise from material aspects of the bhrahman which the Bhagvad Gita explains in the form of “I/Me”.
IMO, not getting affected by the adversities of the nature and life is indeed highest form of solace 🙂
PLease read : http://www.bhagavad-gita.org
@Mohan : If you think like that, then I believe you haven’t really understood Gita. It is not just about detachment and karma, but dharma at a greater level. Watching your family member suffer is not dharma. ‘Equipose’ doesn’t mean you should do nothing. It only means objectivity and detachment in your actions. But you actions should be for the promotion of dharma and not deluded by attachment.
e.g Dhrtrashtra, was deluded by his love for his son Duryodhan, because of which adharma started rising. Similarly, Arjun was also deluded during the start of the battle. If the war was not fought, then adharma would have prevailed like how woman (draupadi) was disrespected in front of the entire hastinapur. The kauravas broke the rules of the war by killing abhimanyu (many to one). Thus Mahabharat cannot be called a good or a bad battle, but a dharmic one!
What would you do if your brother was killing someone and being adharmic? Wouldn’t yyou stop him? Or would you be deluded by your love for your brother that you’d be ignoring his actions and letting him continue?
Indeed Mahabharat and Ramayan are filled with violence. But did you ever thought why there was violence in the first place? To prevent war, Krishna went to Kauravas for peace. When they didn’t agree, He asked for five villages for the five pandavas, but duryodhan didn’t even give them an inch of land. He only hated Pandavas and hence the war was inevitable.
In many areas, christian missionaries preach love and give food to the poor in lie of conversion to christianity. They preach hatred for the non-christians calling them unclean, ignorant and beastly. Do you find this dharmic? Christians have killed the pagans, threatened galileo for questioning chruch and have wiped many Hindus in India only. Is that violence dharmic?
So please understand what exactly is dharma. It is not religion as westerners have mapped it into, but righteousness, duty and ethics! Please read the links in my previous post. 🙂
MRaghavan says
Sir
I have read and re-read Bhagavad Gita, including its many interpretations. The Ramanuja tradition treats Krishna not as a teacher of some art, but as Narayana incarnate, whose came to redeem all souls.
And it is here that you have missed the point. Krishna states that it is He Who is Cause, the Action and Effect. The maya that we feel we are deluded by is His Maya, His Wonder, not ours. The Dharma that we are supposed to follow lies in knowing that He is the Ultimate Agent and Benefactor, and that all is in accordance with His Will, not ours. The Vishwaroopam that presented to Arjuna was His True Nature as the One Who Has manifested all all beings, not some reality outside of Himself.
As far as solace is concerned, it is mOksha, in its literal sense as freedom. If we humbly know our place as His being present in all things and all beings, that all things happen because of His Will, then we no longer take agency over them. Thus, having them, not having them, winning or losing will all be seen as the result of His Will, including the actions that we take in response to these conditions.
Our acharyas say that the entire Mahabharata was created, maintained, and eventually ended by Krishna solely out of His desire to save Draupadi from both the arrogance of the Kauravas and the ignorance of the Pandavas.. The Ramayana, and the violence contained in it, was simply to bring Sita to the people, such that the Lord could come and save the world, including Ravana himself, from his own misguided arrogance.
All that you have in the way of mother, father, friends, spouse, etc., all are His Grace. Still others are driven by greed or lust. They succeed in doing so, or they fail in doing so, again because of His Grace. “ellAM iraivan sEyal” is the popular saying. By having this thought in mind, we can give up the notion of bearing the burden of Dharma to Him, and live life as simple human beings.
Humility and faith is the essence of Ramanuja’s teachings, as it is the teachings of many great souls. Such an idea exists in Judaism and Christianity, and perhaps a healthy exchange of these ideas will lead to greater understanding between us.
irAmAnusar adiyEn
Girdhar says
@MRaghavan :
I haven’t really read secondary interpretations of Bhagvada Gita, but interpreted it purely from my own understanding. But yes, some see Krishna as a teacher and some see him as Narayan incarnate and that hence the conception of an avatar. 🙂
When we speak of cause, action and effect, we must understand the nature and the effect of maya. Understanding and Dedicating his life to supreme nature or the ultimate reality spoken in essence of “I/Me” in Gita, one is not affected by Maya anymore. When one is equiposed in all circumstances and risen above all the conditioning and effects of material nature, he no “affected” by it. Please read chapter 13.
Therefore yes everything emanates from the same ultimate reality, spiritual as well as material energies. But it is not the ultimate reality which is affected by it, but the man who is deluded by the attachment and sense gratification. You may question if the ultimate reality is the cause and the effect, then why would it cause the various road accidents, evilness in Duryodhan etc?
Chapter 9.4
All of the universes are prevaded by Me, in an imperceptibly subtle manifestation and all living entities find their support in Me; but I am not supported in them.
e.g How can energy which supports the mankind and manifests in different forms like mechanical energy, solar energy, kinetic energy, tidal energy etc be suported by man?
Chapter 9.5
Behold my extraordinary and unparalleled majestic transcendental opulence; My omniscient Self is the maintainer of all living entities and the protecter of all living entities but never influenced by them or by the material nature.
Chapter 9.13
Now I shall explain that which is to be known, realizing which the nectar of immortality is attained; that reality is eternal having me as the Supreme, beyond cause, beyond effect and designated as Brahman the Ultimate Truth.
Chapter 9.14
With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and faces everywhere, hearing all; that reality exists pervading everything in this world.
Chapter 9.15
That Ultimate Truth is cognizant of all the senses of the material nature; yet is devoid of all material senses, completely unattached yet the sustainer of everything, transcendental to material nature, yet the maintainer of material nature
One way of saying this is that the nature of ultimate reality itself is its various manifestations (e.g chapter 7 and 10) where the true nature remains unborn, unmanifested, beginingless, endless etc.
The various manifestations includes the maya as well as us. What is maya? One may call it as a constant change, an illusion of perception of colors in sky where sky is colorless, an illusion of flat surface where the surface is round on earth, straight motion of light where even the light travels in a bended path due to effects of gravity, illusion that we see the sun in present whereas we see sun 8 minutes in the past because sunlight takes 8 minutes to reach the earth. What is Maya? Is is separate or an illusion because of our limited senses which are prone to attachment?
Thus Gita teaches to control the mind with the weapon of detachment.
Chapter 15.3-4
The real form of this tree cannot be perceived in this world. No one can understand where it ends, where it begins, or where its foundation is. But with determination one must cut down this strongly rooted tree with the weapon of detachment. Thereafter, one must seek that place from which, having gone, one never returns, and there surrender to that Supreme Personality of Godhead from whom everything began and from whom everything has extended since time immemorial
When we talk about will, it can again be categorised into “dharmic” and “adharmic”. When we do the work out of our own free will by understanding the dharma, then it in accordance with the nature. If our free will rests in adharma for sense gratification, materialism, power, fame, name, lust, greed etc then it is adharmic. Thus, that “Dharma” is our conscience, our inner voice, devoid of any attachment, which can be called the individual consciousness as explained in Gita throughout.
I would request you to follow your own wisdom and understanding by reading the scriptures yourself and not some acharyas. The basic element of understanding is questioning and hence you need to question your acharyas also, like you are questioning me. Your acharyas had their own understanding.
But my understanding is that mahabharat was fought a time when the adharma was at its peak, where
– Woman was being harassed in front of her own family, servants, brothers, uncles, fathers, mothers, grandsires openly and no one could do anything
– the villages were being harassed and exploited by demons like Kansa
– Those who wanted to live in peace weren’t allowed even an inch of land
– When to kill a warrior abhimanyu, every Kaurava broke his Kshatriya code and attacked him brutally
– Shishupal abused the elders and Krishna repeatedly
The examples can be many. India had spread from Indian subcontinent to Afghanistan. So please do not visualize the villages or lands as they show us on the TV serials.
If the purpose of ramayana was to save Sita, then why did Dasharatha even exile him? Why did Kaikayi misused the promise given by Dasharatha? Why not let them live in Ayodhya only? Please understand that nature has its own way of working. Perhaps the whole scheme from the very birth of Ram was to unite the spiritual people, dharmic warriors to fight against those, who have digressed from the dharmic path, i.e the demons who as shown in Ramayan, caused unrest, killed the rishis and the people etc?
BG 4.7
Whenever and wherever there is a decline of righteousness and a predominance of unrighteousness, at that time I manifest personally, O descendant of Bharata.
Thus, Kalki Purana states the appearance of Kalki. If you have read the Nostra Damus, it has some close parallels to Kalki Purana. But that is a different matter. Perhaps the various mouths, face, ears of the ultimate reality in the form of you and me, animals, reptiles, fish etc are indeed watching all the adharma in the universe? 🙂
I cannot explain Gita completely from my understanding as it might take a whole book. But we need to think at higher consciousness of the whole conversation. So yes, a a healthy exchange of these ideas is always good. 🙂
MRaghavan says
Mr. Giridhar,
I think it would be quite difficult for me to question Sri Ramanuja and Sri Adi Sankara on the Gita.
Be that as it my, I do not at all disagree that there is difference between the Paramapurusha and the jeevas who are bound in samsAram. Nor do I disagree that this same Purusha is not affected by the actions of this world. What I have been suggesting is an idea that seems at odds with the people in this list – namely, faith. Faith means finding strength in knowing that what is taking place in this life, mAya or not, is at the command of the Supreme Being. If we are suffering because of our karmas, it is is because He has ordained so, and it will be Him who relieves us of this.
Similarly, if we are drowning in fame and fortune, this too is but His Grace, which, when He feels necessary, may also be removed.
We are, as Ramanuja says emphatically, his sEsham, with Him being the sEshi. We are eternally together, and this is encompassed as sEshasEshi sarIra bhAvam.
So, why Dasaratha exiled Rama was because Rama Himself made it occur like that for His Own Purpose. Similarly, the entire enactment of the Mahabharata was for His Purpose. His Blessing is the same reason that we are exchanging such a healthy discussion. So, like our Western counterparts, we should cultivate faith in Him.
Girdhar says
@MRaghavan :
“He has ordained so, and it will be Him who relieves us of this”…I believe your understanding of Bhagvada Gita is abrahamic in nature. In the abrahamic faiths as pointed rightfully bu the article, the God is considered to be separate from the nature. The western faiths divide the humanity between people of the ‘book’ and infidels or non-believers, muslims and non-muslims, christians and non-christians. We must first question if the abrahmic god was flawless in his creation, then why didn’t he make everyone a muslim or every a christian? Why did the Islam started only 1400 years ago and Christianity in 4004 B.C 9.30 am? Why is Allah called a he? Why can there be no other name than Allah as per muslims?
Whereas, The ultimate reality has no gender that we may call that reality as “him”, “her” to “that”. It is only the sanskrit to English mapping that get distorted to “him”, “her” or “that”.
BG 9.11
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities.
Example, According to quantum theory, everything is a play of energy. Even the matter is a condensed form of energy. Thus fooled by our senses we percieve matter as distinct from energy, unable to realize that matter changes and the atoms are temporary existence which dissolve into energy only.
Now, in Hindi we may say, “Uski leela amrampaar”. Here, uski may refer to her, him or that. The Hindi word is a mere abstraction whereas the English mapping is gender centric and hence the misunderstanding. Thus the Vedic riddles and Gita in persepective of “I and me” is beyond gender. When we speak “He has ordained so, and it will be Him who relieves us of this”, then we are only treating us as separate from that reality. When we think negatively, is it “he/she/it” who is lowering our intellect or it is us only? When we go onto the path of adharma, is it he/she/it who is causing that adharma or us only?
Thus, conceptually and practically, we are lowering our intellect and conscience when we walk on the path of adharma. Usually when we eat too much, we become fat and sloppy. When we are mentally/physically inactive, it leads to mental/physical stagnation respectively. Who is causing and who is the effect? Our karma of physical inactivity leads us to being physically stagnated, to become fat and physically fragile and inflexible.
When think about the science, our mind revolves around the science. When think of revenge, our mind revolves around revenge. Thus the verses 9.22-25 of Gita. At a grander level, it is the consciousness which moves accordingly to the karma after the death of the material body.
@MRaghavan, “if we are drowning in fame and fortune, this too is but His Grace, which, when He feels necessary”.
It is not his grace, as the verses in my previous post clearly establish. Yes, modes of material nature, maya etc are all his aspects and so are the knowledge and spiritual energies. But mankind is taught to rise beyond the materialism and towards the spirituality which a person can realize in his practice of meditation and yoga too. Thus we have
BG 3.42
It is declared the sense are superior but more than the senses the mind is superior but more than the mind the intelligence is superior and more than the intelligence that which is superior is the individual consciousness.
If the ultimate reality itself is detached, then how can it grace us into attachment to name, fame and fortune? Thus, the attachment is an integral element of the human nature beyond which the person needs to rise above. 🙂
What would be the difference between the mankind and robots if you think negative aspects ‘may also be removed’? Thus, one should make, the realization of the ultimate truth, as his/her goal with the weapon of detachment and knowledge.
IMO, the best way to understand the ultimate reality is to understand oneself first and question himself.
Apolloreach says
@ Giridhar: You can have a psydonymn has Mr.Bhagavad Gita 🙂 Your BG knowledge / perception is darn good.
@ Raghavan: Given you stated that you follow Ramanuja Acharya, Krishna in the BG, does recognize the need for a “personal God” for solace and that is why, he does answer Arjuna that knowing HIM in the PERSONAL form is easier for a devotee than to seek HIM in through the impersonal / formless Brahman. I donot recollect the verse / chapter numbers though. And it is for this reason that the BG talks about Bhakti Yoga, in addition to the Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga. The last two require regimental practice of control of reactions to deeds and a high level of intellectual maturity. Whereas, the way of the Bhakti Yoga is precisely the way for the average soul that is desperate for some solace from a supreme power to just do away with difficulties and gives primacy to devotional service in the path of a personal deity (Shiva / Vishnu / Shakti / Muruga). But the key here is that this philosophy is espoused in the BG and SMB and some other Puranas.
The Abrahamic faiths/theology are at the level of the Bhakti Yoga of our Dharma. But the more you delve into Upanishads, the more you will infer that to understand true Vedic theology one needs to move BEYOND nama / rupam (name and symbol). The impersonal Brahman is Shiva,Vishnu, Kumara, Shakti, all rolled into one.
Girdhar says
@Apolloreach : Thank you. I am still a student of Gita. I believe you are talking about chapter 12 of BG. 🙂
mraghavan says
@Apolloreach and others, if you say that bhakti yoga is something akin to the Abrahamic religions and that we must move beyond them to be true to Sanatana Dharma, then what would you say about Meerabai, Chaitanya, Jayadeva, Tukaram, Tulasi Das – indeed Ramanuja himself? Were they also just foolish followers of Abrahamic notions? And what to say of Gandhiji, whose last words show the outcry of a Bhakta.
And, if you suggest that Abrahamic religions only limited themselves to Bhakti, then what about the Kabbalah of the Jewish faith or the Lost Gospels in Christianity, both of which speak in terms of the Advaita Vedanta that you seem to espouse.
Intellectual maturity does not assure emotional maturity. It is in the devotional outpourings that we see the elements of humility and the cognizance of our own human frailty that binds us together as human beings. To say that we Hindus are beyond all that would be a futile argument, given that our native country is known for levels of greed and corruption that are unheard of anywhere else in the world.
Since we all seem to have great regard for the Gita, may I suggest that you look at Chapter 18, verse 66, where Krishna commands us that we discard all dharmas and simply surrender ourselves to His Care. This is the penultimate verse for Ramanuja, who extolled it as a mantra for all souls, our only means to redemption. But, perhaps Krishna is an Abrahmic god, at least in your eyes.
Enough said.
Girdhar says
@MRaghavan :
There are different sects of Hinduism in the form of Vaishnavism, Shaivism etc which revolve around the personalisation of the ultimate reality. But these sects never espouse the idea of enforcing their ideologies, i.e personal names and stories on other sects, by hook or crook. A hindu therefore can go to masjids, churches, celebrate Id, Christmas and new year etc. But can the same be said for the abrahamic followers in terms of tolerance of names and symbols?
If that was indeed the case, we would have seen Muslim invaders praying in temples instead of destroying them, Christian invaders respecting the science an philosophy. language etc of the land instead of calling them ignorant, inferior, burning the witches and giving threats to people like Galileo. On the contrary, the Indian philosophy contained questionin e.g “neti neti” and hence Buddha was revered for questioning the practices of corrupt Bhrahmins who distorted and reduced the Vedic teachings.
Meerabai, Chaitanya, Jayadeva, Tukaram, Tulasi Das, Ramanuja etc had their own understanding. Whatever they practiced they never harmed other people. On the contrary, christian missionaries convert and preach hate for the non-christians and call them unclean, misguided, sinners etc.
In quran we have, “Fight those who believe not in Allåh, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allåh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection” ( Quran 9.29)
Levels of consciousness doesn’t mean that the lower levels are foolish. Therefore, IMO, these abrahamic religions are not even at the level of bhakti yoga, because they espouse the idea of hatred and intolerance for the people who do not follow their religion.
When we speak of devotional outpourings and compare it to intellectual maturity, it is at a higher level of consciousness that we see that the devotional outpourings to the individual elements of the divine nature are actually a manifestation of the same ultimate truth.
Thus Vedas have ‘devotional outpourings’ for Indra, Agni, Varuna etc. A comprehender would see the properties and of these Individual elements and rever them. Hence Sun is revered as it forms the essence of human life. It is nothing but a ‘part’ of ‘devotional outpourings’. But the learned who has understood the Vedas, would see the Sun, water, fire, vayu, space etc and the spiritual energies etc as a part of the same ultimate reality.
Thus the shruti cannon i.e Vedas and Upanishads take the ‘devotional outpourings’ and ‘intellectal maturity’ hand-in-hand together with the underlying principles of detachment and dharma.
The verse 18.66 that you talk of you, only affirms what I stated in my post (September 9, 2011 at 7:12 am) that “one should make, the realization of the ultimate truth, as his/her goal with the weapon of detachment and knowledge”. The essence of Bhagvad Gita is not enforcement by hook or crook, but an enlightment, a teaching based on Dharma and detachment, which started when Arjun, in grief, surrendered himself to Krishna and asked him to help him. Only then Krishna sung the divine song called Bhagvad Geet.
Morever, we have
BG 6.36
But the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness practiced by one with uncontrolled mind is difficult to obtain; thus it is My opinion that in this endeavor controlling the mind is the practical and appropriate means of achievement.
BG 18.63
Thus the most confidential wisdom of all that is confidential has been described by I to you; deliberating fully on this; accordingly act as you wish.
Hence, we see that Krishna repeatedly tells Arjun that whatever he is teaching is his opinion, but he is free to do as he wishes!
So again when you state “Krishna commands us that we discard all dharmas and simply surrender ourselves to His Care”, there are following errors in the comprehension
1. You think Krisha enforces/commands whereas he doesn’t. He only opines and tells Arjun to do as he wishes
2. When you state “His care”, you again percieve the Bhagvad Geeta from an abrahamic framework.
Repeatedly, in Geeta, Krishna teaches to work for “him”. It is the same thing that I stated in my previous posts about free will which is in accordance to “Dharma” which should be based on detachment. I don’t think it is healthy to quote some secondary interpretation for your own understanding. Every person can flaw in his understanding. Similarly, given a premise, in this case Gita, different people may have different interpretation of the same text. But when you quote secondary interpretations, you are bound to contain “errors of mediatory interpretations”.
Secondary interpretations can be useful if you yourself do not understand something. A science textbook needs to be understood from your perspective. A tutor may be needed when you are stuck. But having a tutor from the start, IMO, is disrespecting your own intellect. Therefore, for a healthy debate I request you to bring in your own interpretation of the scriptures instead of Ramanuja. How can you or I learn, if its not your interpretation in the first place? 🙂
Dr. Paresh Ch. Majumder says
Hare-Krsna Hare-Krsna Krsna-Krsna Hare-Hare
Hare-Rama Hare-Rama Rama-Rama Hare-Hare
Congratulations. Happy KRSNA-Jyonti. Thanks to all you like. We are for all, All are for us to share what to do for us & for next generation, to reach our human goal. Friendship can do everything for rebuilding PEACE removing all ignorance +evilness all over the world. So come & share what can we do for humankind +environment & their rights improving their physical, mental & spiritual health based on “Total Health Solution”. Thanks again for going ahead for mankind +PEACE more than heaven all over the world/universe. I’m a Humanist, Researcher & Physician for doing best world-wide, come & share what can we do together for all in the world/universe. Go ahead ensuring the meaning of “Total Health Solution” for All to do the best. ….Please send your opinion if possible..
Apolloreach says
@Mraghavan: Giridhar has responded in detail to your last comment. But the difference between what is in the Upanishads and their position in the Vedanta darshana is quite different from the position of Kabbala. As you know Kabbalah doctrines are not mainstream Judaism at all. And less said that better it will be about lost Gospels. The Church calls these Gospels to be spurious. So the mainstream Judaism or Xtianity do not agree with their own doctrines that talk about an impersonal God. And that is where the rub is. And these doctrines came into existence in Judaism and Christianity in the last 800 years or so but our Vedas talk about God being impersonal and beyond space and time and something that cannot be recognized by an entity in space and time.
I am not putting rungs on which form of Yoga is good or better. The point is that as per our own Upanishads, one must strive to move beyond the name and form of the Almighty to seek the eternal bliss. I respect the likes of Meerabhai and Chaintanya and Ramanujacharya but for we also have the likes of Shankaracharya & Ramana Maharishi that sought an impersonal Brahman. And you seem to look at a schism between the two ways but I do not. When Adishankaracharya can talk about an impersonal Brahman but integrate Shakti, Vishnu, Kumara et al through his poetry (espousing Bhakti Yoga), I look at the synthesis and not the schism in the paths.
mraghavan says
I had no longer wanted to comment, but you both are putting yourself at great risk of retribution from followers of Ramanuja and other bhakti school champions.
Yes, I agree that neither the Kaballah nor the Lost Gospels are considered part of the doctrine of these two respective faiths, but nevertheless the ideas are there.
The fact is that while advaita was popularized by Sankara, there is little evidence to suggest that his many devotional works were actually written by him. On the contrary, it is later followers of the Sankara Muthams who suggested that bhakti to the Saguna Brahman was an accepted approach to Brahma-Jnanam. This is not supported by popular opinion, but it is by historians and skeptics.
Coming to the point of Ramanuja, all may respect, but all but a few would find reason to deny his logic in providing a clear and lucid understanding of Veda and Upanishad that did not go into the circular logic that these sAstras are part of mAya but at the same time are our only source of the existence of Brahman.
However, he too was a Vedantin, and there is no doubt that a schism between this and the views of the Tamil saints regarding the nature of the Supreme Being. A clear distinction lies in the individual’s role in spiritual enlightenment. The Tamils, in line with some of the upanishadic texts, suggests that it is the Supreme Being’s Agency in the life of the jeeva that brings such realization about. The free will of the individual is at most, only acts in accepting or denying this knowledge. The role of the Supreme Being in this spiritual activation is called “arul” in Tamil, which I could only translate as Grace, as there is no equivalent in Sanskrit.
And speaking of Sanskrit, I wonder at @Giridhar’s knowledge in his incorrect understanding of Chapter 18.66, which is called the charama slOka by Sri Ramanuja. There is little to leave to interpretation in Krishna’s statement “mAm Ekam saranam vraja…” I am reluctant to share the entire passage as it is considered a mantra by students of the Ramanuja tradition.
I would suggest that rather than blindly defining ideas in such polarizing terms as “Abrahamic” versus “Vedic”, a more dispassionate study of the theistic elements of the Gita be examined. And, based on dispassionate study, you will find that I am the last who can be accused of being “Abrahamic”, but am a convinced student of Ramanuja.
With that, let us not bore readers of what is clearly an online magazine with continued debate on issues that we cannot agree upon.
Apolloreach says
@ MRagahavan: Tamil Saints is a bit too generic. As you know Tamil Saints (Alwars – Vaishnav / Nayanmar – Shaivites) looked at Vishnu and Shiva respectively as the personal deity in the Bhakti Yoga tradition. The base for Advaita lies in Upanishads, specifically Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad. And the base of Bhagavd Gita lies in, among other RV hymns / Upanishads, a bit more in Chandogya & Mundaka Upanishads. If we may call God as the Bruhat Satyam (as found in Rig Veda), the Upanishads try to pierce into this unknown realm in multiple ways – Chandogya Upanishad tries to seek Brahman though a layered approach & calls PRANA as Brahman, among an entire list of human faculties linking the mortal w/ immortal. The Kena Upanishad flashes everything internally and tries to know the mind behind the mind.
Bhagavad Gita condenses a lot of the analyses based on Upanishads and serves the knowledge of the Supreme Truth on a platter. In Maitrayani Upanishad it is stated that two Brahmans exist. One as the audible sound and the other that is unmanifest & is silent. The silence is to be known through the sound. This is precisely the idea behind nama / rupam and the impersonal Brahman. A personal deity is the first step in heading towards the impersonal Brahman.
And the reason why Abrahamics is an anathema to Vedic wisdom is because, the base of Abrahamic theology is history. Historical base cannot be the corner stone for theology. We should not even care to put Eloha / Elohim / YHVH / Yahweh / jehovah / Jesus etc on the same plane with the Vedic Truth. Despite the 100s of names that Vedas address God with, they also address the Supreme as the unnameable THAT. And Vedas do not need/expect God to bail out a bunch of people from slavery in Egypt or Punjab. That makes the deity conditional and that is where prophecies became a big deal in the Abrahamic discourse & they give rise to a lot of fatalism (the famous / latest Insha Allah fatalism). Let us face it, Abrahamics do not even own the name of their primary deity / creator,as, it has been sourced from the likes of Sumerians, Egyptians, Romans and Greeks.
So, my submission is that Bhakti Yoga and the belief in the immanence of a named personal deity is a stepping stone towards the transcendental / impersonal Brahman. And these discussions on this forum serve to help may people that are keen to understand Vedic wisdom. So I doubt if anyone is gonna be bored 🙂
MRaghavan says
@Apolloreach I do not disagree with you. The basis of Advaita lies in Upanishads. That is why I suggest that a separate tradition, one rooted in Tamil thought, exists independently of Vedic/Vedantic understanding. Historical evidence suggests that this tradition allowed for the inclusion of some Vedic/Vedantic ideas, resulting in the synthesis that we find in South Indian Hinduism today.
I argue, as I did earlier, that advaita should not be used to compare and contrast Vedic thinking with Judao-Christian-Islamic thought, since this school is rooted in a rudimentary form of Bhakti. For such an understanding, one may use the Bhakti theologians such as Ramanuja who utilized the very same upanishads that you speak of (the 10 principal ones) in forming the basis of his logic of a Personal Brahman. Surprisingly, Ramanuja never quoted from the Azhwars in justifying his logic; only the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, and the Bhagavad Gita, just as Adi Sankara did. To say that one is a stepping stone to another would be a moot point by knowing this. Indeed, Ramanuja never said that he was creating some sect or cult out of his philosophy. Indeed, to him it was the Vedic Truth that Sankara spoke of. It is merely looking at the same object with different perspective.
The Brahman remains just as nameless, just as formless, and as much a source of the world as we know it in Ramanuja’s understanding. Unlike Sankara’s Brahman, however, the world remains real and is pervaded by Brahman in order to exist. It too goes far above the Western notion of God, but can be used in effective comparison, as has been done by A. Govindacharya and Fr. Francis Clooney to name a few.
Apolloreach says
@ MRaghavan, I think you are narrowing the discussion down to AdiShankaracharya Vs Ramanuja. I’d not like to be part of that discussion. And I have had the opportunity to read the works of both Ramanuja and Adi Shankaracharya. The concept of Maya, as interpreted by you or many of those belonging to Dvaita school is missing something big time. The MAYA or the so called flux is contextual to / relative to the constancy of the Supreme Brahman. Maya is not about this life or prana or the car your drive or the kids you have or the work you do being unreal.
And from the standpoint of Tamil literary works, I beg to differ. Be it from an etymology standpoint or from the key messages, I do not see Tamil works on Shiva or Vishnu being independent of Vedas / Upanishads. And I have not equated Advaita of Vedanta with “Me and my Father are one” of Jesus Christ. You tried to bring in ideas from Kaballah and non-canonized gospels to state that even Abrahamics have something like Advaita and I was responding to that. And leaving aside the semantics of what I stated on “stepping stone” please feel free to read the Upanishadic verse I quoted and others too. The drift simply is that the unknown can be understood by what is known / manifested. But the fullness of the unknown cannot be contained by the name/form that are easy to relate to. The journey has to go beyond that realm.
MRaghavan says
I’m not at all narrowing the discussion. @Giridhar did, by suggesting that any type of theistic position is “Abrahamic” in nature. I had merely intended to empirically show otherwise by pointing out Ramanuja’s theistic position being based on the same high and might Vedanta that the original article used to put down other faiths.
Now with regards to Tamil works, the very word you advaitins like to use, “maya” is a Tamil word. It is derived from the word “mayOn” or “mAyan” which means wonder, not flux. It is a reference to nedumAl, the Tamil god whom the Vedics identified with a minor sun-god, Vishnu. Since mAl means all expansive,meaning that he is everywhere, the closest translation is Vishnu, which means all-pervading. The god Sivan of Tamil literature is not the same Siva described in the Puranas. That latter Siva is Roudram, angry, and is seen as a wild man residing in the mountains of the Himalayas. The Tamil god Sivan is Nataraja, the god whose dance is this existence.
And I am certain that in Sankara’s teachings, the kids, my car, et. al. are considered part maya in the advaita sense as they are all part of prakriti, which is maya. If you are identifying maya as ahankAram then you are speaking the same as Visitadvaita.
Now with regards to labeling me as a dvaitin, you are being amateurish in your understanding of Tamil literature. Let me quote from the AzhwArs – “yAverum yEvurum thAnai”. Or how about “…avaL ivaL evaL uvaL, thAm avar ivur avar…”? Both these sentences suggest that the Supreme Being has made Himself all that is, so all things are mAyon, the Wonder that is Himself. I am highly doubtful that this is a dvaitic idea. And despite “ignorant” souls like Ramanuja following it, it is not even Abrahamic.
Apolloreach says
MRaghava: Nope, I did not categorize you as Davitin at all. Perhaps the OR in my sentence led you to believe so. I never categorized you into anything based on isms. And I see that you are obviously a follower of Ramauja’s philosophy. To me the philosophy of Ramanujacharya or Shankaracharya are not etched in stone. While you may not be open to some of these standpoints being probed, I have no qualms in questioning what these great souls espoused. This is not to take away the wisdom of any of those acharyas.I will revisit the WHY of this latter.
Now you are making a claim that the Shiva or Tamils is different from Shiva of Puranas. Puranas is my weakest link. So let me park aside the Puranas. But Shiva of Puranas is derived from aspects of Rudra of Vedas. In Vedas, if you delve deeper into attributes of Rudra, across Rig Veda or the Rudram / Chamakam sections of Yajur Veda, a common set of attributes is easy to be seen. And Shiva is all but one aspect of Rudra that is mentioned in Rudram / Chamakam. While the usage of Rudra has been replaced at large by Shiva, the attributes of Vedic Shiva / Rudra and those described in works like Periya Puranam of Tamil literature are the same. And extending it further, Nataraja of Chidambaram is based on a legend,where, Shiva, after smoting a demon performed the dance / tandava. But if you read this legend, this dance was performed not in Chidambaram but in Kalahasti. So you are in error with your idea that Nataraja of Tamilnadu is different from the Shiva of Puranas and Vedas.
And can you explain why in places like Tiruvannamalai or Chaidmabaram, in addition to Thevaram, Rudram / Chamakam is also recited, if Shiva of Tamils and Shiva or Puranas / Vedas are different. If anything, the Taittriya Samhita of Yajur Veda (where Rudram / Chamakam occurs) is a tradition that is living primarily in Tamil Nadu, AP and Karataka.Please do not spread these kind of ideas that lack scriptural evidence.
And I am very curious how you bent Mayon to make it mean Maya philosophy. I now believe that you seem to tag the Aryan Invasion Theory. I do know that Mayon is closer to Tirumaal, Vishnu & Mayavan (Krishna) in Tamil literature but how will you reconcile Mayon Maruga being a name for Karthikeya in Tamil literature??? I find it impossible to buy your line that Mayon of Tamil literature became Maya of Shankara’s philosophy.
And the last 2 statements of Alwars is derived from Rig Vedic and Upanishadic verses that mean the same. And I use Ramanuja or Shankara or Madhva to expand my understanding of Vedas and Upanishads. But I do not gulp down completely all that these great souls espouse. There in lies the difference. But either way, forget Abrahamics, please do not make claims like you made on Shiva and Tamils which contradicts with the evidence at hand. And there are many Tamil deities and inscriptions in temples in TN that tie us back to various Vedic divinities like Varuna, Mitra, Vayu, Marut etc..So please refrain from tagging the Abrahamic / Aryan Invasion Theory line. If you think that I am hectoring, so be it.
Apolloreach says
All,
With the last comment from MRagahavan it has become important to set the record straight. His claim that Shiva of Tamils ( called Nataraja) and the Shiva otherwise are different is absurd. Here is proof that refutes the above stated premise. There is a very famous literary work in Tamil called Purananuru. There are verses in it ( I do not have the verse numbers on hand) that talk about Rudra / Shiva, Karthikeya (called as Seyon in Tamil, among other names), Balarama and Krishna. These 4 deities, in that literary work, are said to be the the protectors of the Universe. Shiva is mentioned as a deity that has a flag containing the bull & is a ferocious deity, his hair is red in color (fire like) and is locked and his throat is like a black gem.This description ties us directly to Rudram of Yajur Veda. Kumara / Muruga / Karthikeya/Ceyon achieves whatever he sets out to. He has a peacock in his flag.Balarama is described to be as white a conch shell.He weilds a plough against his enemies and his strength is unmatched. Krishna is described to be blue in color and is terrific in his attributes. And Kumara of Tamil literature matches exactly with the Kumara of Harappan excavations and of the Rig Veda. In addition to these deities, Tamils also worshiped Durga (Shakti) called in Tamil as Korravai and Varunan (Varuna of Rig Veda) & Vendan (King Indra). These can be seen from another Tamil literaty work called Tolkappiyam.
So my basic point is that Shiva / Rudra of Tamils is NOT any different from the Shiva / Rudra of Vedas or Puranas.
@MRagahavan, please check your standpoint on the so called Tamil Shiva and please refrain from spreading these baseless ideas.
mraghavan says
Very good, Sir. I am a Vaishnavite, and, as such, have limited knowledge of Saiva works. But, your response are “wikipedia” perceptions of religion. How about the goddess mAri, Armukham, and perumAL? Krishna is never mentioned in Tamil literture by name. He is ThirumAl, and he has always been described to be black, the color of the raincloud, not blue. Korravai’s other name was kolli, whose name meant danger. In Sanskrit, she became Kali, the goddess of blood. And, where is the name kumara in Tamil? The sentiments, the devotion, and the role of these gods is quite distinct from the Sanskrit view.
With the exception of Varunan and Ayan (Indra), the Tamil gods bore no resemblance to the Vedic panchabhUtas nor the grahanams of Sanskrit. These are Tamil concepts, adopted by Sanskrits during the age of the Agamas.
I find it humorous though, that you did not directly respond to the question at hand – the AzhwArs and your accusation that they are dvaitins, as @Giridhar calls “Abrahamics”. Perhaps you should spend more time doing a dispassionate study of their obvious theism before passing judgement
The bottom line is this – the original article says that all aspects of theism can be labelled as being Abrahamic. This is clearly not the case.
Girdhar says
@Mraghavan : When you say statements like ..
– “you both are putting yourself at great risk of retribution from followers of Ramanuja and other bhakti school champions”
– “but am a convinced student of Ramanuja”
…then, there are elements of the same Abrahamic fear and blind following.
You have not really commented on my post dated “September 10, 2011 at 8:15 am” and previous points, or many of the points that @Apolloreach has raised. But yet you opine, by stating Ramanuja without much scriptural backing or factual consistency for which I had posted numerous verses from Gita itself. On the contrary, you are only judging the arguments as ‘amateurish’ and questioning the knowledge of people, which I understand is very easy, rather than actively replying to the numerous verses, their interpretations, the examples and the logic behind it.
How can you continue a healthy debate if the basics are not met in your own posts? 🙁
Please understand that being a student of scriptures (Vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc) is much different than being the student of Ramanuja. If you are a student of Ramanuja and argue by quoting him and only his interpretation, then you are indeed narrowing your understanding to/through one man’s perception. But if you are using your own mind for the scriptures without quoting Ramanuja or Shankaracharya, then IMO, your arguments hold some weight.
I was waiting for your reply for my previous post, but it seems you have not only ignored the interpretations but also the verses 9.4, 9.5, 9.13-15, 15.3-4, 4.7, 9.11, 3.42 and specially 6.36 and 18.63.
The word theism, meaning belief in God, like I argued is much different from the word astik which means adherance to Vedas. Vedas, Upanishads, Gita etc promote questioning like I stated, neti neti, (which you ignored) and promotion of one’s conscience and consciousness, dharma, detachment/objectivity etc. How can one adher to Vedas without questioning and detachment? Like an every ideal student, the dharma of a vedic student is to question the science he is reading and develop his own objective approach via detachment. Thus, to understand the Vedas, one has to take the ’emotional outpourings’ and ‘intellectual maturity’ hand in hand, like I discussed (which you ignored). Different hymn like to Agni, Varuna, Vishnu etc in Vedas are both at a ‘bhakti level’ and intellectual level. These can also be called the “divine glories” that Krishna speaks of in the context of “I and Me”. When seen through a higher level of understanding, one can understand that these glories are part of the same ultimate reality, the unborn, the unmanifest manifesting into different energies and forms. On the contrary, you may research yourself on the origin of the term atheism, which was used in what context and usage.
Thus, the Vedic scriptures are neither monotheistic nor polytheistic, which I agree with the article. Atheism on the other hand means a disbelief in an abrahamic conception of God. Can one deny the existence of Surya Dev (Sun), Agni dev (Fire) etc?
Thus neither monotheism, nor polytheism or atheism relate to Vedic scriptures.
@Mraghavan : We are not here to discuss what Ramanuja or Shankaracharya had stated, but to discuss what the scriptures state. Like I stated in my previous reply, which you ignored entirely, “How can you or I learn, if its not your interpretation in the first place?
BTW, FYI, Krishna primarily means ‘the dark one’ and not the black one. It comes from the word “Karsh” which means to “to pull or attract”. From this word, derives the word like “akarshit” meaning attracted.
IMO, you should spend more time reading primary scriptures instead of secondary works of Ramnuja or Shankaracharya, as like I stated, when reading secondary works, you are bound to contain the “errors of mediatory interpretations”. So far you have only chanted the glories of Ramanuja. Perhaps you’d be kind enough to enlighten us with your own primary interpretations? 🙂
I was thinking that you must be a Vaishnavite when you gave us your abrahamic conception of “surrender ourselves to His (Krishna’s) Care”. The common mistake that hardcore vaishnavites who blindly follow the secondary works instead of reading the scriptures themselves do is that they think Krishna is some personal God. But unfortunately, you seem to have missed 9.11, chapter 7 and chapter 10 of BG.
BG 9.11
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities.
BG 10.21
Of the twelve Adityas I am Visnu, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon.
BG 10.23
Of the eleven Rudras I am Siva and of Yaksas and Raksasas I am Kuvera the treasurer of the demigods, of the eight Vasus I am Agni the fire god and of mountains Meru.
BG 10.33
Of letters I am the first letter A, and of compound words the dual word, I am eternal ever flowing time and the four-faced Brahma.
In short, chapter 7 and 10 brief the various manifestations, forms and energies of the ultimate reality which is the same conception that this article explains. The cause and effect are given in chapter 13, i.e due to modes of material nature, and how one can move beyond them.
I would request you to expand the discussion of BG and continue from my previous reply and all the points and verses that you missed entirely, before you reply to this post or perhaps you can search and find what Ramanuja might have said on the related discussion and verses 9.4, 9.5, 9.13-15, 15.3-4, 4.7, 9.11, 3.42 and specially 6.36 and 18.63 to start from. 🙂
MRaghavan says
@Giridhar with all due respect, it is clear to me that your familiarity with Sanskrit is very limited, what to speak of where this debate is going. The argument is clear, which is much better presented by @Apolloreach, is whether or not theism a part of the Hindu experience. You and others have “poo-pooed” faith as mere sentiment, akin to what you have defined as the limited understanding of Westerners, the so-called “Abrahamics”. My argument is that theism is as much a part of the Hindu experience, and am using examples from South Indian Hinduism to justify that position.
Before I present to you what Ramanuja said about the Gita, perhaps you can quote me the passage that includes “nEti, nEti” in the Bhagavad Gita, because I cannot recall one.
mraghavan says
@Apolloreach there is no evidence in early Tamil tradition that suggested that Karthikeya or Skanda were the same as Murugan. Murugan was a god of the mountains. His name means the sweetness of the nectar of flowers, and as such he is seen as being a god bearing the good quality of willing to come to fight on behalf of others. He is often depicted riding a mAyil, or peacock, because it is a symbol of male virility. As such, he was often approached by young women for the blessing of a good husband.
Skanda was a purAnic god of war, and Karthikeya was the Vedic astrological deity of that was associated with the Pleades. Puranas and stories were concocted when Aryan and Dravidian myths were synthesized. There is no evidence for an actual invasion; but most scholars support the position that the Aryans were later settlers to the same region who were welcomed in. The liberality and adjusting nature of Hinduism caused transculturation between the two peoples.
mayOn is an apt suffix because it means ‘that which brings out aschiryam (awe)”. The noble deeds of Murugan both in puram and aham literature are admired with this epithet.
Girdhar says
@MRaghavan :
aham chintayami tavm esham vadishyasi| Aham kathayami gitopdesham vedam cha, tvam gurujananaam saaram| ‘neti neti’ aham na vadaami geetey bhavati, apitu praachinvidyayaam| kripaya drishyasi punah ?? 🙂
Apolloreach says
@MRaghavan : I can draw from the likes of Paripadal, Tholkappiam, Purananuru etc and link Ceyon, Muruga and Skanda in Tamil lexicography. But before I can do that, do you accept that you were wrong about Tamil Shiva being something different from the Puranic / Vedic Shiva? If you still stand by your statement, please bring in evidences from Tamil literature of the Sangam period on Shiva that contradict the Vedic Rudra / Shiva.
And on theisms, Westerners understand zilch about Vedic theology. Now you are trying to state that theism is part of Hindu traditions. But the 6 darshanas of Hinduism make theism redundant. Among the 6, Samkhya system of Hindu philosophy borders on what is today called as (a)theism. But Samkhya philosophy is part of the Nastika Darshanas. Theism is belief in one deity but Samkhya Darshana explicitly states no such deity exists but that is still part of the ASTIKA philosophy of Hinduism. So the Hindu astika / nastika philosophy is not the same as Western theism / atheism.
And I cannot believe that you think the schism of Aryan and Dravidians. So please be honest enough to admit that you also believe that Ravan in Ramayan was a Drvaidian, who,somehow knew the Vedas though. And in Ramayan, Aryan Ram, stayed in the Dravidian place called Rameshwaram and as Nehru observed, launched a war against Dravidian Ravan (Ramyan was an Aryan Vs Dravidian war). Is the Vishnu of Trichy, Srirangam Dravidian and is the Vishnu of Badrinath Aryan? Is the Shiva of Rameshwaram Dravidian while the Shiva of Banaras Aryan?
I will await your responses before walking you through how Skanda, Muruga, Kumara, Ceyon are the same using Sangam literature.
Apolloreach says
I meant that Samkhya was an ASTIKA philosophy. The line “But Samkhya philosophy is part of the Nastika Darshanas” was intended to read “But Samkhya philosophy is part of the Astika Darshanas”
Apolloreach says
@MRaghavan – You stated “Very good, Sir. I am a Vaishnavite, and, as such, have limited knowledge of Saiva works. But, your response are “wikipedia” perceptions of religion. How about the goddess mAri, Armukham, and perumAL? Krishna is never mentioned in Tamil literture by name. He is ThirumAl, and he has always been described to be black, the color of the raincloud, not blue. Korravai’s other name was kolli, whose name meant danger. In Sanskrit, she became Kali, the goddess of blood. And, where is the name kumara in Tamil? The sentiments, the devotion, and the role of these gods is quite distinct from the Sanskrit view.
With the exception of Varunan and Ayan (Indra), the Tamil gods bore no resemblance to the Vedic panchabhUtas nor the grahanams of Sanskrit. These are Tamil concepts, adopted by Sanskrits during the age of the Agamas. ”
Can you substantiate what you have stated above? We can play the etymology game all day. For instance Ahattinai mentions Vendan (king) as the name for Indra & it matches Veidc Indra’s attributes. But you stated that Ayan is Indra but I thought Ayan means Brahma. Like in Ahattinai, please link Ayan with Indra from Sangam literature. If you did not know about Shiva, why did you stick your neck out and make a grand claim that Tamil Shiva and Vedic Shiva are different? And I have no qualms when you state that Tirumal / Mal mean Vishnu. No issues there.And Durga / Kali have aspects that devour demons and display gore. So Kolli also means to a feminine killer. No issues. Now to Kumara. Tamil Murugan’s attributes link him to Vedic Kumara was what I said. Kumara in Rig Veda is the earth based prototype of Rudra. And I can show once again from the likes of Purananuru and Tirumurgattrupadai that Muruga/Ceyon/Kanda/Skanda has attributes that match the RV deity of Kumara.
Once again, please do respond on whether you still stand by your Tamil Siva Vs Vedic / Puranic Shiva distinction…
mraghavan says
@Apolloreach If you want honesty, I will be frank and open. From your first response Sir, I see that are a hyper-emotional and irrational man, who somehow has the audacity to suggest, based merely on conjecture, that theism does not exist in Vedic thought, even though Krishna clearly elucidates in the Gita that He is the Supreme Being incarnate.
Before I stand corrected on Shiva – whom I never said was not a North Indian god, but was one that was interpreted by the South in a different way – I think you should stand corrected on the six Darshanas. The Samkhya, Mimamsa , and Vedanta Darshanas are all Astika, in that they recognize the validity of the Vedas. It is not just the Samkhya that is Astika.
But, whether it exists or not, there is a different interpretation of theology as offered by Tamil tradition, and it is, through and through, a theistic – and may I dare say – in some ways, a monotheistic tradition.
My argument is simple – I am of the conviction that a belief in a nAstika Hinduism has what has allowed rampant amorality, corruption, greed, and disregard for the value of life to flourish in India. Contrast this with your so-called “inferior” religions of the West – the Protestant work ethic, the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, the Golden Rule. You may challenge these by speaking of their angry god, but fear of punishment has never been the motivation for human beings to engage in selfless altruistic action. Just look at the Ambani Brothers, the Marans, and others versus Bill Gates. I would doubt that his teeming contributions to aid the less fortunate stems from his fear of an angry god.
Take the example that @Giridhar used – Krishna means all attractive. The root for Krishna can also be used to derive karshanam, which means to till. Out of His Own Volition, Krishna cultivates bhakti – reverence – in our hearts, for our benefit. Balarama is seen holding a tilling plough, not an axe, for that reason. Thirumazhisai Azhwar calls Krishna – patthi uzhavan. Now this bhakthi is not bhakthi yoga, it is love in higher form that leads to peace. NammazhwAr says: mAyarvara madhinalam arulinan yavan avan, it is He who Blesses us with thoughts of Himself for our benefit.
All the quotes you have made are about Shiva from Tamil puram literature are fine, and I can accept them. But, you have done little in way of quoting from aham literature, thirupugazh, thirumurai, or other works which clearly accept Shiva as a personal, monotheistic god.
As far as your comment about Chakravarthi Thirumugan and Ravanan are concerned, I can only say – RUBBISH! In my eyes, Sri Ramar is the Supreme Being, devoid of race or creed. His actions are motivated by His Desire, they are not driven by dharma or some racist bigotry. If we see Him as the Supreme Being, the totality of Sri Ramayanam can be understood in context.
@Giridhar, I am not intending to mistrust, but I need the specific chapter and verse for this to read it myself.
Girdhar says
@Mraghavan : I thought you knew sanskrit since you questioned my ‘familiarity with sanskrit’ to be asking a question like “but I need the specific chapter and verse for this to read it myself”, which I had already replied previously in sanskrit in post “September 15, 2011 at 6:09 am”. 🙂
BTW, personal judgments like “hyper-emotional and irrational man”, one word answers like “RUBBISH”, ‘amateurish’ seem to be the typical standards set by the blind believers who cannot answer anything on their own. It is rather a character of those who follow the secondary works. I wonder if this is your notion of a “healthy debate”.
Should we analyse your reading and comprehension skills, the mockery you create of scriptures and dangerous rumours you spread by frivolously and blindly percieving them through mediatory works, call you a coward for running away and
1) Ignoring my posts on “September 10, 2011 at 8:15 am” and “September 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm”
2) The sanskrit reply I gave which you ignored and then asked a question like verse in Gita for neti neti, the reply for which is already in that sanskrit reply. I thought you knew sanskrit since you questioned my sanskrit. I thought we could chat in sanskrit all day long!
3) Ignoring 9.4, 9.5, 9.13-15, 15.3-4, 4.7, 9.11, 3.42 and specially 6.36 and 18.63 of BG, which talk of the ultimate reality being beyond cause and effect, which is impersonal, promotes questioning which is a character of higher consciousness etc to name a few? And then, 10.21, 10.23 and 10.33? And then chapter 7 and whole 10?
I was just getting started in a ‘healthy debate’ but seem to be stuck in
– character analysis
– cautioning us of the great risk of retribution from followers of Ramanuja and other bhakti school champions
– chanting the glories of your fervent belief in Ramanuja
– your abrahamic conception of Krishna and his care
– reducing the article to what Ramnuja and Shankaracharya said, Ramanuja Vs Shankaracharya instead of your understanding of the verses from the Vedas, Upanishad and Gita
4) Ignoring the facts, relations and logic behind the mappings between astik and theism, dharma and religion, monotheism/polytheism etc.
You ignore and you repeat the same arguments with @Apolloreach. I wonder if you really respect the time other people spend on discussing with you, your posts, which in your own tone, can be called a repeated gibberish disconnected from the scriptures both in factual consistency and logical correctness.
It is quite easy to digress and bring personal judgments, but again I ask you to please reply to my post dated “September 10, 2011 at 8:15 am” which you have ignored entirely, let alone the post dated “September 14, 2011 at 5:33 pm”.
BG 9.11
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities.
So lets carry on with the ‘healthy discussion’ 🙂
Girdhar says
* I was just getting started in a ‘healthy debate’ but *you* seem to be stuck in ….
Apolloreach says
@MRagavan: Mixing SIR with adjectives like “irrational man” epitomizes what an oxymoron is all about. I care two hoots about what you think of me. But here is the thing :
1) Tamil Shiva Vs Vedic Shiva: You are merely playing with words when you say that you mean that Shiva was interpreted differently by Tamils (in your last comment). Here is your original comment and it contradicts what you stated in your last comment – “The god Sivan of Tamil literature is not the same Siva described in the Puranas. That latter Siva is Roudram, angry, and is seen as a wild man residing in the mountains of the Himalayas. The Tamil god Sivan is Nataraja, the god whose dance is this existence. ” When pushed to substantiate your claim from Sangam literature, you only seemed to wax eloquence & hurl abuses. If you had no clue about Shiva (as you yourself claimed), why did you venture out to articulate a baseless idea?
2) Darshanas: The 6 Darshanas (Astika) include Samkhya too that borders on the modern day, Western theory of atheism. So my point was that the theism of Westerners is different from what the Vedic Astika means. And I look at the “theism” that you use to describe Shaivite / Vaihnavite works differently. I do not look at Shiva / Vishnu as independent, disconnected deities but to me they are merely some of the multiple names of the Supreme Truth. Rudra has certain defined aspects and so does Vishnu, in Vedas. But as many Vedic verses clearly show, they are all part of the same higher Truth. I do not treat one deity to be higher than another. And it is precisely why I hold Vedas and Upanishads to be truer than any of the Acharyas. And I’d believe more in the words of someone like Yajnavalka than the likes of Shankaracharya or Ramanujacharya because, the likes of Yajnavalka were still closer to the period of Veda samhitas and their mindset & understanding was different from the Acharya traditions. I’d go with the integrated Brahman of Upanishads than with named / personal Shaivite or Vaishanavite traditions.
3) And you seem not to understand the drift of my arguments. Why do you expect me to quote from Tirupugazh and later day works? I was pushing back against your baseless Tamil Shiva argument and when the premier work of Sangam literature (Tolkappiyam) talks about the legend of Shiva destroying the three cities (Puranic legend), your whole argument on Tamil Shiva vs other Shiva falls down. Shaivite works including Periya Puranam came after Tolkappiyam. I was trying to use Sangam literature to establish that YOUR Tamil Shiva was no different from Vedic / Puranic Shiva. You are not the first person to have come up with this borrowed idea of Tamil Shiva being something else from the Vedic Shiva. And in the past, people that said so, wanted not later day Shaivite works to back my standpoint but authentic Sangam literature. So there can be nothing more authentic (to back up my argument) than Tolkappiyam or Purananuru of the Sangam era 🙂
mraghavan says
@Apolloreach I am a writer by profession, so I don’t need lesson in grammar. As far as oxymorons, aren’t we all.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the role of such great souls as Shankara or Ramanuja – something which I feel is supercilious and vain on your part – and fail to recognize that the verses of both the AzhwArs and NayanmArs were part of the Sangam Age, we are just speaking apples and oranges, and this conversation will be never ending.
I can only conclude by saying that if you do believe that Vedas can be adhered to without the rationalist and reformative ideas of Sankara and Ramanuja, then I can only wish you well in your aswamedha sacrifices and in your deafening the ears of non-Brahmin listeners with hot oil upon hearing Veda being chanted.
Good luck to you.
yellAm iraivan sEyal
MRaghavan says
For the benefit of the readers of this forum, my mentor has inspired me to share a few words on the nature of the tradition that has come to be known as Vaishnavam, although it is, in actuality a philosophy that can be applied by and for the benefit of people of all faiths.
Popular Hinduism is largely based on the idea of advaita, which suggests that the world is at worst, a place of suffering or at best, an temporal illusion. The only True Reality is Brahman, an abstract and largely undefinable consciousness for which we are driven to realize. However, the Upanishads suggest that the closes description to this Brahman’s nature is “Satyam, Jnanam, and Anantam”, True, Wise, and Infinite. If that is the case, then the idea of a temporal, illusory world would be a contradiction for the following reasons:
1. If the sense of individuality and matter are temporal, Brahman, who is Eternal and Unchanging, cannot be a part of it, putting the aspect of Brahman’s Anantam in question.
2. If the world is illusory and consciously responsible for it, then Brahman is lying to itself, putting to question its being Satyam.
3. It is believed that yoga, as is suggested by Upanishads and summarized in Bhagavad Gita as Karma, Jnana and Bhakthi is the responsibility of the deluded self to know its true nature as Brahman. Thus, it suggests that Brahman can be deluded by avidya, questioning its nature as jnanam.
Consequently, we should presume that the world is real, that the souls are real, that these are a direct extension of Brahman’s nature. As such, it is Brahman, so statements like “aham Brahmasmi” become justified in this context.
@Giridhar has asked me a lot about the Gita. I have been reluctant to respond in particular because from the standpoint that I am presenting, the very word yoga means connection. The root “yuj” means yoking or connecting. Consequently, the karma, jnana and bhakthi yogas are something that are directly due to and guided by the Supreme Being. Vishnu Saharanmam speaks of Brahman as “karanam kAranam, karta”, meaning that the reason for our actions, the acting itself, and the fruit of the action are being done by Himself. So, the yoga that Krishna has asked us to engage in is already being done by Him, in times and in ways that are at His Discretion. I know that @Giridhar will now challenge with his thorough knowledge of the work, and my Sanskrit will far too limited to reply very well. I humbly submit, however, that I base this position on clear and direct discussion with my mentors over 20 years.
Now with regards to the Azhwars and Tamil Tradition. The Tamil sentiment, extolled in poetry and ethical doctrines like the Thirukkural, is not as philosophical in nature as it is humanistic. It suggests that life is best lived with an affectionate attitude towards others. The goal of the mature human being is not personal gain, but to be of some benefit to society as a whole. From this, it is natural that the Supreme Being is seen as the One with the Most Affection. He acts without expectation, and Blesses by creating and preserving this world as it is. As such, there is no need to seek anything else, or be worried about one’s liberation, because life itself, if seen in this context, is already Heaven.
This knowledge makes us to accept our own humanity, and our non-entitlement in our own salvation. He makes us know that He expects nothing from us, not even our desire to know Him, but rather Makes His Presence Known to us, in life itself. Bhakti, in this case, is seen as adimai or sEshatvam, an awareness that all is at His Bidding and Care (Dharma itself is defined as perumAl thiruvullam, Bhagavad Sankalpam in Sanskrit). With this awareness, the best we can pray for is an opportunity live a good life.
With this in mind, we ourselves will be inspired to live life with affection, cognizant of its being His Blessing.
The theistic sentiment of the AzhwArs compliments, and in fact, serves as a pragmatic example of the Vedantic understanding of Brahman offered above. I hope that one can see how this philosophy can be better be compared to the Occidental faiths, on a level that is on par with them, devoid of ideas of sin and damnation. It also mitigates the need for blind adherence to ambiguous notions of Dharma. To me, this approach is far more applicable in the day to day lives of ordinary human beings, bringing both peace of mind and solace to lead a purposeful life.
2. If it is the part of the
Apolloreach says
@ MRaghavan: Oh man. Now you have gone off on a tangent. Please explain your statement “I can only conclude by saying that if you do believe that Vedas can be adhered to without the rationalist and reformative ideas of Sankara and Ramanuja, then I can only wish you well in your aswamedha sacrifices and in your deafening the ears of non-Brahmin listeners with hot oil upon hearing Veda being chanted. ” exposes your understanding. Where did I talk anything about adhering to Vedas. And I am sure you know enough to understand that Vedas are not avout an open / shut book that deals with beliefs and non-beliefs in boolean. It is only because of the questioning attitude that Vedas promote did Upanishads find such an important place in the corpus of Vedic literature. And role of Shankaracharya and Ramanujacharya in what they did to our Vedic dharma is different from the theology the two great souls espoused. Where have I been disrespectful of either of them? And but for Shankaracharya’s great efforts, you and I’d have ceased to be Hindus. No questions there…
But what I said and still maintain is that someone like Yajnavalka or Satyakarma Jabala were still breathing the spirit of Veda samhitas and the Sanskrit of that time. They theselves were away from the period of closure of Veda samhitas but they still predated the time of multiple shakhas based on sutras (like Apastamba) and many other Brahminical traditions that came up based on shakhas like Bhaskala or Shakala…The flux of time between them, the likes of Patanjali, Yaska is itself quite great. Now add the flux of time between say Yaska and Sayana and then the likes of Shankaracharya or Ramanujaacharya and it will be even greater. So I was talking about capturing the essence of what the Vedas were saying, which, owing to the time period, varied from Upanishadic time to the millenium of the achatya traditions. Once again, I am talking about the messages of our scriptures and not about religious practices that have been always changing. Phew…
mraghavan says
@Apolloreach Capturing the “essence of what Vedas were saying” cannot be done by denying the fact that the Vedas have numerous references to violent acts both to animals and people. The fact that they matured beyond that is certain, but it took the reforms of Sankara and Ramanuja to bring them into the peace-loving traditions that we find today. That is what I meant by what I said.
Regarding Yajnavalkya, I was under the impression that the was directly connected to Vedic having divided the Yajur Veda into Krishna and Shukla. Even if that were not the case, can we actually be so specific on the period in which he lived? The Veda is said to be anAdhi, and I don’t recall found any historical or empirical evidence for when and how it actually came into being – albeit some evidence in Turkmenistan for its having been practiced there around 1000 BCE.
If you wish to understand my position on Veda better, and how I believe, the inclusion of the Azhwar hymns brought a more humane understanding of religion as a whole, I would suggest you read the later post. Perhaps this can return us to the healthy conversation that @Giridhar has repeatedly requested.
Apolloreach says
@MRagahvan: I am using the first line of your last post to widen the scope of discussion. Please substantiate “Capturing the “essence of what Vedas were saying” cannot be done by denying the fact that the Vedas have numerous references to violent acts both to animals and people. ” from authentic Sanskrit verses. Please do not bring in interpretations / translations of the likes of Servapalli Radakrishnan or Nehru or Grififfth or Max Muelle.
Apolloreach says
And Raghavan, let us have this discussion with laser beam focus. Given Rig Veda is the root of everything (in the context of Vedas) and Samhitas are the sanctum-sanctorum of the Veda, please try to bring in evidence from Rig Veda samhitas, to back your claim.
mraghavan says
I ask again, first read my posting on the essence of Vaishnavam. We can continue after that.
saroj says
@mrraghavan.
sir i think the stand of brahmanists is more on a stronger base. that is because, i feel that if God has an intrinsic form, then you limit him to space and time,on the other hand God is beyond both.that is why i cannot stand with your claim.thus the perfect way to solve this dilemma is to see krishna in bhagavad githa as a representation/personification of the impersonal brahman.thus in the verse where krishna asks arjuna to dedicate all his actions unto him,it means that krishna is asking arjuna to dedicate his dharma and karma unto brahman via krishna,or keeping in mind krishna is brahman personified and not to a separate person such as krishna..this is because with a form, a person can fix his mind more properly and efficiently.here krishna is asking arjuna to offer his dharma/karma as an offering to brahman in the form of krishna.
the first statement of mine is more or less the reason as to why i dont stand much with ramanuja,and with iskcon.