Readings in Vedic Literature
A book by Satsvarupa das Goswami
1977, 1998 current edition
RVL: Preface
Preface
My plan to write this book
grew out of encouragement from professors in whose classes I taught while
touring as a lecturer for the Los Angeles Center for Vedic Studies. In
November, 1973, Dr. Alton Becker invited me to speak before the faculty and
students of the Center for South and Southeastern Studies, at the University of
Michigan. My paper proposed a fresh attitude toward Vedic studies: an attempt
to appreciate the Vedic knowledge on its own merits, as it exists apart from
the interpretations of empirical Western scholarship. Dr. Becker found the
viewpoint enlivening and advised me to develop it further. From conversations
with college students who knew only the current Vedic textbooks, I became
convinced that students of Vedic literature would be more enthusiastic if they
could believe that the literature they were studying was not merely a
hodgepodge of myths, but could actually give them a new and coherent view of
life. My travels led me to meet with Vedic scholars such as Dr. Edward Dimock
(University of Chicago), Dr. Thomas Hopkins (Franklin and Marshall College),
and Dr. Joseph O’Connell (University of Toronto). All of these gentlemen saw my
outline, and they confirmed that this book would be useful as a foundation for
Vedic studies.
My own interest in the
Vedic tradition began in 1966. In that year I met His Divine Grace A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupäda, who in the previous year had arrived in the
United States to teach Vedic culture. I had received a B.A. in English
literature from Brooklyn College, and I was doing graduate work toward a career
as a writer. But I decided instead to devote my life to studying the Vedas, and
in September, 1966, Çréla Prabhupäda accepted me as his çiñya (disciple). I
have been a personal secretary to Çréla Prabhupäda since 1970, and in 1972 I
received the sannyäsa order of life (awarded for scholarship and renunciation).
Overall, for the last ten years I have been studying the Vedic literature, writing
articles about it, and lecturing in United States colleges on behalf of the
Center for Vedic Studies.
The attempt herein is to
present a Vedic textbook and anthology for undergraduates that allows them to
hear a great tradition speak for itself.
Satsvarupa das Goswami
RVL 1: What Are the Vedas ?
1. What Are the Vedas ?
Madhva, one of the
principal teachers of Vedic philosophy, commenting on the Vedänta-sütra
(2.1.6), quotes the Bhaviñya Puräëa as follows:
åg-yajuù-sämärtharväç ca
bhärataà païcarätrakam
müla-rämäyaëaà caiva
veda ity eva çabditaù
puräëäni ca yänéha
vaiñëaväni vido viduù
“The Åg Veda, Yajur Veda,
Säma Veda, Atharva Veda, Mahäbhärata [which includes the Bhagavad-gétä], Païcarätra,
and the original Rämäyaëa are all considered Vedic literature.… The Vaiñëava
supplements, the Puräëas, are also Vedic literature.” We may also include
corollary literatures like the Saàhitäs, as well as the commentaries of the
great teachers who have guided the course of Vedic thought for centuries
Some scholars say that
only the original four Vedas—Åg, Atharva, Yajur, and Säma—are genuine Vedic
literatures.1 The Vedas themselves, however, do not support this view, nor do
the most prominent Vedic teachers, including Çaìkara, Rämänuja, and Madhva. The
Chandogya Upaniñad (7.1.4) mentions the Puräëas and Itihäsas, which are
generally known as histories, as the fifth Veda: itihäsa-puräëaù païcamaù vedänäà
vedaù. And Bhägavata Puräëa (1.4.20) confirms, “The historical facts and
authentic stories mentioned in the Puräëas are called the fifth Veda
In any case, to be
accepted as Vedic, a literature must maintain the same purpose as the original
Vedic texts. The Vedic scriptures (çästras) comprise a harmonious whole with a
harmonious conclusion (siddhänta). Consequently, we may accept as a bona fide
Vedic writing any work that expands on the Vedic siddhänta without changing its
meaning, even if the work is not one of the original scriptures. In fact, the
Vedic tradition necessitates further authoritative works that convey the Vedic
message according to time and place. However, to be genuine, these extensions
of Vedic literature must strictly conform to the doctrines of the Vedas, the
Puräëas, and the Vedänta-sütra.
Vedic literature is neither
dead nor archaic. Nevertheless, any literature—be it ancient or modern—must be
considered non-Vedic if it deviates from the Vedic siddhänta Thus Buddhism,
Jainism, and Sikhism, though definitely outgrowths of Vedic literature, are not
considered Vedic. Even the conception of Hinduism is alien to the Vedic
conclusion, as we shall see later.
The Vedic scriptures are
vast in scope. The Åg Veda alone contains 1,017 hymns, the Mahäbhärata consists
of 110,000 couplets, and the eighteen chief Puräëas contain hundreds of
thousands of verses. We may ask, “Why do these writings exist? Where did they
come from? Who wrote them?” The present book searches out the answers to our
questions in the Vedic çästras themselves.
RVL 1.1: The Purpose of the Vedic Literature
The Purpose of the Vedic Literature
As its main purpose, the
Vedic literature imparts knowledge of self-realization and, therefore,
liberation (mokña) from suffering. Generally, scholars agree that the goal of
Indian thought is to attain the truth, “the recognition of which leads to
freedom.”3 “Every Indian system seeks truth, not as academic, ‘knowledge for
its own sake,’ but to learn the truth which shall make all men free.”4 Indeed,
Indian thought strives not for information but for transformation.5 Bhagavad-gétä
describes knowledge as “accepting the importance of self-realization, and
philosophical search for the Absolute Truth.”6 Yet if people think they are
progressing on the path of material happiness, they will not seek to transform
themselves. Hence, another important realization—janma-måtyu-jarä-vyädhi-duùkha-doñänudarçanam:
“perception of the evil of birth, death, old age, and disease” (Bhagavad-gétä
13.9). Uncompromisingly, the Vedic literature asserts that despite its apparent
joys, material life means suffering. Vedic knowledge purports to free the
sincere inquirer from that suffering.
According to Bhagavad-gétä
(Bg. 8.16), “From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest,
all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place.” Apart
from the repeated miseries of birth, old age, disease, and death, the Vedic
writings describe another threefold set of miseries: miseries arising from the
body itself, miseries inflicted by other living entities, and miseries arising
from natural disturbances (such as severe cold, heat, flood, earthquake, or
drought). Vedic teachers argue that even if these latter miseries were absent,
no one could find happiness in the material world—the forces of time and death
force everyone to leave his position. Indeed, the Sanskrit description of the
earth is Måtyuloka, place of death. It is also duùkhälayam (a place of
miseries) and açäçvatam (temporary) (Bg. 8.15).
On hearing this sweeping analysis
of life in the material world, Albert Schweitzer termed the Vedic philosophy “world-
and life-negation.”7 Others have stated that the Vedas teach pessimism and
fatalistic resignation. But when we view the Vedas closely, we can discern that
they teach quite the opposite; they propose that the purpose of human life is
not to resign oneself to a temporary and miserable world, but to strive for
permanent happiness. For people who follow the Vedic formula, life means an
opportunity to attain victory over death. In the Vedic conception, a person
negates life precisely when he identifies the illusory body with the self and
considers the temporary world to be all-in-all. Such a person misses the
opportunity afforded a human being—the opportunity to inquire about the
Supreme.
The first verse of the Vedänta-sütra
(athäto brahma-jijïäsä) is both a declaration and an invitation to everyone: “Now,
therefore, let us inquire into the Absolute Truth.”8 The Vedas urge that people
take to the path of liberation. In one Bengali devotional song we find, “Lord
Gauräìga is calling, ‘Wake up, sleeping souls! How long will you sleep on the
lap of the witch called Mäyä [material illusion]?’ ”9
The Vedas describe
liberation as a special prerogative granted to human beings and not to the
lower species. For this reason the human body is compared to a boat by which
one can cross the ocean of transmigration. A good Vedic instructor who has
learned the Vedas is like a competent captain, and the Vedic hymns are like
favorable breezes. If a person doesn’t cross the ocean and attain eternal
liberation, he is considered unintelligent, for Vedic philosophy denies the
importance of any knowledge that does not lead to the cessation of sufferingThe
Garga Upaniñad advises, “He is a miserly man who does not solve the problems of
life as a human and who quits the world like a cat or a dog, not understanding
the science of self-realization.”10
RVL 1.2: The Origin of the Vedas
The Origin of the Vedas
The Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad
(2.4.10) informs us, “The Åg Veda, Yajur Veda, Säma Veda, Atharva Veda, and
Itihäsas [histories like the Mahäbhärata and Puräëas] are all breathed out by
the Absolute Truth. Just as one’s breath comes easily, these arise from the
Supreme Brahman without any effort on His part.”11 According to the Vedic
tradition, the Vedas are absolute and self-authoritative. They depend on
nothing but themselves for explanation. This very principle comes from the
mouth of Çré Kåñëa in Bhagavad-gétä (3.15): brahmäkñara-samudbhavam. “The Vedas
are directly manifested from the infallible Supreme Personality of Godhead.”
The commentator Çrédhara Svämé (Bhävärthadépikä 6.1.40) points out that the
Vedas are supremely authoritative because they arise from Näräyaëa Himself. Jéva
Gosvämé notes that the Vedic scripture Madhyandina-çruti attributes all the
Vedas (Säma, Atharva, Åg and Yajur), as well as the Puräëas and Itihäsas, to
the breathing of the Supreme Being. Finally, the Atharva Veda states that Kåñëa,
who in the beginning instructed Brahmä, disseminated Vedic knowledge in the
past.
Thus, as we have seen, the
Vedic scriptures delineate their own origin. The scriptures describe themselves
as apauruñeya, meaning that they do not come from any materially conditioned
person but from the Supreme (a source transcendental to mundane duality). Vedic
knowledge was imparted to Brahmä at the dawn of creation. Brahmä then
instructed Närada, whose realizations appear throughout Vedic literature.
Vedic knowledge is
considered eternal, but because the material cosmos is constantly in flux,
Vedic teachings constantly need reassertion. Although the material cosmos is
also considered eternal, it goes through stages of creation, maintenance, and
annihilation. Formerly the Vedas came down by word of mouth, but later the sage
Vyäsadeva compiled all the Vedic çästras in written form. In a separate chapter
we shall examine Çréla Vyäsadeva’s role and the history of the compilation of
the Vedas. We shall also consider how scholars try to understand the origins
and history of the Vedic literature through the empiric method.
RVL 1.3: The Vedic Process of Learning
The Vedic Process of Learning
We can see in the Vedic
verses an inexorable link between the substance of Vedic knowledge and the
means for receiving it (between the Vedic message, we could say, and the Vedic
medium)In contrast with Western conceptions, Vedic epistemology favors the
process called çabda (hearing from Vedic literature), out of three possible
knowledge-gaining processes.
The first process, pratyakña
(empiric sensual perception), depends on correction from outside sources. For
example, to our eyes the sun may seem no larger than a coin, but from
scientific calculation we learn that our senses mislead us—the sun is many
times larger than the earth.
The second
knowledge-gaining process, anumäna (theories based on evidence), cannot give
knowledge of what is beyond the range of proof. Charles Darwin’s theories and
much of archaeology and anthropology rely upon such inductive conjecture (“It
may have been like this, or perhaps it was like this”). According to the Vedas,
anumäna cannot independently lead to perfect knowledge. The Vedas assert that
objects beyond material nature cannot be known experimentally. These objects
are therefore called acintya. That which is acintya cannot be known by
speculation or by argument but only by çabda, the process of hearing from Vedic
literature.
Indeed, çabda, the third
knowledge-acquiring process, is considered the most reliable and important.
For, since human beings are limited and imperfect, their perception, theories,
and speculations cannot be perfect. With the exclusion of çabda, the Vedas
estimate all knowledge to be defective in four ways. First, regardless how
bright or precise a person may be, the Vedas affirm that he cannot escape
mistakes—“to err is human.” Second, a human being is subject to illusion. For
instance, the çästras mention that every materially conditioned being is under
the illusion that the body is the self. Whatever his position in the world, a
person is under illusion if he thinks of himself in terms of nationality,
religion, race, or family. (A person’s first step in transcendental knowledge,
according to the Vedas, is realizing that his identity is beyond the temporary
material body.) Third, every person has limited or imperfect senses. For
instance, in a darkened room he cannot see his hand before his face. Finally,
the Vedas maintain, everyone has a tendency to cheat. For example, a man who
presumes to instruct others although defective himself is actually cheating,
because his knowledge is imperfect.
Vedic knowledge is çabda,
knowledge through hearing from higher authority, and it is therefore considered
perfect. The Indian scholar Mysore Hiriyanna writes, “The Vedänta never
dispenses with reason, and the Upaniñads are themselves full of arguments. All
that is questioned is the final validity of reason in matters which do not come
within its purview.”12 To cite a traditional example, if a child wants to know who
his father is, he should ask his mother. He may make a survey of the male
population, but much more simply, he can ask his mother, the natural authority.
In other words, if a person can accept information given by an authority, he
does not have to take the trouble to research independently. The çabda method,
by which we accept authority, is imperative when we inquire about subject
matter beyond the purview of the senses and reason. We may note that in the
Vedic conception authority has no Western-styled negative connotations. The
term refers not to a dictator but to a deliverer of primary knowledge. For
instance, Shakespeare himself is naturally the authority par excellence on the
works of William Shakespeare.
Aural reception of
transcendental knowledge from authority is the Vedic standard. Whereas material
knowledge pertains to things within the material universe, transcendental
knowledge pertains to things beyond this universe. The Vedas point to a supreme
original truth unknowable either by direct perception (pratyakña) or by the
inductive method (anumäna). When, by aural reception from authority, a person
gains transcendental information, he becomes completely fulfilled and happy. He
transcends the dualities of the material world. On the other hand, when he
follows the empiric tradition, he comes to regard anything outside sensual
perception or induction as faith, dogma, intuition, or belief. He concludes, as
does A. B. Keith, “Such knowledge as is not empirical is meaningless and should
not be described as knowledge.”13
The Vedic philosophers
claim that çabda (hearing from an authority) opens up a realm of knowledge
beyond scientific methodology. They hold çabda to be the only process by which
we can know what is unknowable in our present conditioned state. To know his
father, a child has no other recourse than to ask his mother. This is a matter
not of faith, dogma, or feeling, but simply of hearing from one who knows. If a
person can learn from someone who has received perfect knowledge, he can get free
from all misery. “Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual
master,” the Gétä (4.34) enjoins. “Inquire from him submissively and render
service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because
he has seen the truth.” In the Vedic tradition, only the person who has “seen
the truth” can be the ideal teacher, the guru. In addition, the Muëòaka Upaniñad
(1.2.12) enjoins that a sincere student has to approach the ideal guru to
receive transcendental knowledge and enlightenment.
RVL 1.4: The Guru and Paramparä
The Guru and Paramparä
To learn more about çabda,
we should examine the Vedic conception of the teacher (guru) and the student (çiñya).
Not only must the student turn to Vedic literature for perfect knowledge, but
also he must receive knowledge personally from a qualified teacher with whom he
has a special relationship. Technically the word guru means “heavy,” and the
qualified guru must be heavy, or grave, with knowledge. Anyone who is
bewildered by the problems of existence must approach a spiritual master for
knowledge. Thus Bhagavad-gétä presents the ideal teacher-student relationship.
Faced with doing battle against his friends and relatives, Arjuna breaks down.
A noted psychologist has commented that Arjuna experiences “ontological
anxiety,” that he loses sight of his identity and his duty. Therefore, he
approaches his guru, Kåñëa (who is accepted throughout the Vedas as the Supreme
Person, the knower and compiler of the Vedas). “I have lost all composure,”
Arjuna says. “Please instruct me” (Bg. 2.7). Later, Lord Kåñëa tells Arjuna
that everyone should accept a bona fide spiritual master.
In the Muëòaka Upaniñad
(1.2.12) we find tad-vijïänärthaà sa gurum eväbhigacchet samit-päëiù çrotriyaà
brahma-niñöham:
In order to learn the
transcendental science, one must submissively approach a bona fide spiritual
master, who is coming in disciplic succession and is fixed in the Absolute
Truth. 14
Hiriyanna writes that this
Vedic view is not difficult to appreciate. “For self-effort, however valuable
in itself, is not an adequate means of grasping a truth so profound.… The
living voice of a teacher who firmly believes in what he teaches has certainly
a better chance of producing conviction than the written word.”15
Thus, the message of the
Vedas descends through the spiritual master. As we have mentioned, the Vedas
maintain that knowledge gained by sense perception or speculation can never
enable the student to reach the highest goal. Vedic truth reaches the student
by the descending process, from the Vedas and through the guru. This chain of
transmission is called guru-paramparä, the disciplic succession. In Bhagavad-gétä
(4.2) Kåñëa tells Arjuna, evaà paramparä-präptam: “This supreme science
[bhakti-yoga, knowledge through devotional service] was thus received through
the chain of disciplic succession.” Thus, the student’s relationship is not
just with his own spiritual master but also with the spiritual master of his
spiritual master and the spiritual master of that master and so on, in an
unbroken chain of masters. The chain of masters in which a particular guru
hears and speaks the truth is called his sampradäya. For instance, in the
Brahma-sampradäya, Vedic knowledge descends from Brahmä, and in the Kumära-sampradäya
it descends from the Kumära Åñis (sages). In the Vedic conception, these
sampradäyas began at the creation of the universe and endure to the present
moment in the person of the student’s own guru. Thanks to the consistency of
the transmission, all the previous gurus are present in the teachings of the
present spiritual master. The student receives the pure Vedic message in the
same way he might receive a mango from a number of men sitting on the branches
of a mango tree. The man at the top of the tree picks the fruit and hands it
down carefully to the man below. Thus, it comes down from man to man and
reaches the man on the ground, undamaged and unchanged.
One may question whether a
line of teachers can accurately pass the message from one to another without change
or addition. But not anyone can presume to speak Vedic knowledge in succession
from the past teachers—only a perfect guru. The Vedic process assures that the
transmission remains pure by assuring the qualifications of the transmitter.
RVL 1.5: The Qualifications of the Guru
The Qualifications of the Guru
Since the guru must
transmit the truths of Vedic knowledge perfectly, he plays a crucial role.
Consequently, the Vedas admonish the prospective disciple to acquaint himself
with the qualifications of a bona fide guru. Regrettably, in recent years many
Indian and Western teachers at variance with the Vedic version have undermined
the guru’s credibility. Now we have professional gurus who charge fees for
secret mantras and allow their students to disregard all the Vedic regulative
austerities, who teach yoga as gymnastic exertion and maintain that the purpose
of yoga is material well-being, and who defy the Vedas by declaring themselves
or everyone to be God, and so on. It is little wonder that when we hear the
word guru, we are skeptical.
Nevertheless, according to
the Vedic version, the guru-çiñya relationship is an eternal verity that a
person can realize only if he sincerely approaches a bona fide guru. It is therefore
necessary to first understand the symptoms of a bona fide guru—that is, of a
spiritual master who has received and can impart pure knowledge. Rüpa Gosvämé,
a sixteenth-century Vedic philosopher and disciple of Kåñëa Caitanya, lists in
his Upadeçämåta six symptoms of a guru: “Any sober person who can tolerate the
urge to speak, the mind’s demands, the reactions of anger, and the urges of the
tongue, belly, and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world.”16
The spiritual master is also
an äcärya, one who teaches by personal example. Intellectual brilliance
notwithstanding, a man of dubious personal character, who is attached to
selfish gratification and self-interest, cannot be a spiritual master. Çré Kåñëa
Caitanya stated, äpani äcari’ bhakti karila pracära: “First become perfect, and
then you can teach.”17 In other words, the guru must be a svämé, or master of
the senses, and not a slave to their dictates. No one should assume the titles
of guru, svämé, and sannyäsé (renounced monk) whimsically. The candidate must
actually demonstrate the qualities of guru, svämé, and sannyäsé.
By definition, the guru
imparts instructions consonant with the teachings of Vedic literature. He does
not deviate from Vedic teachings through mental speculation, nor is he an
atheist, a mundane politician or a humanitarian. He maintains that spiritual
knowledge is the ultimate welfare for humanity; therefore he himself lives a
life that demonstrates detachment from material pleasure. In other words, he
must be blissfully united with the Supreme. Vedic literature admits that such a
person is sudurlabha, very rarely found (Bg. 7.19).
For his part the guru
himself has to be a çiñya (student) of a genuine spiritual master in the
disciplic succession. There is also a checks-and-balance system called guru-çästra-sädhu.18
The teachings of guru must correspond with the teachings of sädhu (the previous
spiritual masters in the disciplic succession), which, in turn, must all
correspond with the direct meanings of çästra (the scripture).
RVL 1.6: The Qualifications of the Disciple
The Qualifications of the Disciple
A student must also be
qualified, and his basic requirements come to light in Bhagavad-gétä. The
disciple must “inquire from the guru submissively and render service unto him”
(Bg. 4.34). Faith in the guru is of utmost importance and qualifies one for
initiation. The Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (6.23)19 states:
yasya deve parä bhaktir
yathä deve tathä gurau
tasyaite kathitä hy arthäù
prakäçante mahätmanaù
“Only unto those great
souls who have implicit faith in the Supreme and the spiritual master are all
the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed.”
Faith in the guru is the
subject matter in a narration about Çré Kåñëa from the Bhägavata Puräëa (10.80).
When recalling His boyhood pastimes, Kåñëa recollects that when He once went to
collect fuel for His guru, He and His friend were lost in the forest during a
great rainstorm and spent all night wandering about. In the morning, when the
guru and other disciples finally found Kåñëa, the guru was very pleased, and he
blessed Kåñëa:
It is very wonderful that
You have suffered so much trouble for me. Everyone likes to take care of his
body as the first consideration, but You are so good and faithful to Your guru,
that without caring for bodily comforts You have taken so much trouble for the
satisfaction of the spiritual master. It is the duty of the disciple to
dedicate his life to the service of the spiritual master. My dear best of the
twice born, I am greatly pleased by Your action, and I bless You: may all Your
desires and ambitions be fulfilled. May the understanding of the Vedas which
You have learned from me always continue to remain in Your memory, so that at
every moment You can remember the teachings of the Vedas and quote their
instructions without difficulty. Thus You will never be disappointed in this
life or in the next.20
Kåñëa recalled the
incident in this way:
Without the blessings of
the spiritual master, no one can be happy. By the mercy of the spiritual
master, and by his blessings, one can achieve peace and prosperity and be able
to fulfill the mission of human life.21
Obviously, the faith
described herein is not simply intellectual agreement on some theological
matter. Rather, the disciple must completely surrender himself bodily and
mentally as the servant of the guru and take up the guru’s instructions as his
life’s mission. It is, then, no overstatement that “selection of a guru is more
significant than the selection of a spouse.” 22
The Vedas stress the need
for such complete commitment. After all, the guru acts as the disciple’s
savior. He alone can impart Vedic knowledge and thus liberation. The disciple
therefore owes a debt to his guru, who has personally lifted him out of
conditioned ignorance and blessed him with the perfection of eternity, bliss,
and knowledge. In his turn, the guru must execute his duties humbly as a
servitor of the Supreme and of his own guru in the disciplic succession.
If one satisfies his guru
by sincere service and actually understands the Vedic conclusion, he receives
initiation as a brähmaëa. A brähmaëa is a learned person who is responsible
enough to enlighten others. In India there are many smärta-brähmaëas, or
caste-conscious brähmaëas, who insist that one cannot be elevated to
brahminical status unless he is born in a brähmaëa family. This brähmaëa-by-birth
conception is decidedly non-Vedic. One scholar writes, “In the Çrémad
Bhagavad-gétä-parvädhyäyäù of the Mahäbhärata, Väsudeva-Kåñëa says in very
clear terms that the classification of the people into four varëas (castes) is
based on guëa-karma, i.e. spiritual quality and conduct.”23
There is a popular story
in the Chändogya Upaniñad about a boy named Satyakäma who approached a guru for
enlightenment. “Are you the son of a brähmaëa?” the guru asked. The boy said
that he didn’t know who his father was. The guru then asked him to inquire from
his mother, but the boy’s mother frankly told him that since she had known many
men, she wasn’t sure who his father was. The boy then returned to the guru and
said, “My mother doesn’t know.” Pleased with the boy’s honesty, the spiritual
master concluded, “You are a brähmaëa.”24
According to the Vedic
standard, anyone can be elevated by training. In the Hari-bhakti-viläsa of Sanätana
Gosvämé, it is stated that one who is properly initiated certainly becomes a brähmaëa,
just as bell metal can be turned into gold when mixed with mercury. In the
Seventh Canto of the Bhägavata Puräëa (7.11.35), Närada tells King Yudhiñöhira
that if one has the qualities of a brähmaëa, he must be accepted as a brähmaëa.
Thus, birth in a particular family, race, or religion is not an essential
qualification for a çiñya.
Most important among a
disciple’s qualifications are faith, service, and submissive inquiry. Yet the
disciple should not follow his guru blindly. In Bhagavad-gétä Arjuna asks a
series of probing questions, and Çré Kåñëa replies with philosophical reasoning
and references to çästra and sädhu.
In the Vedic tradition the
importance of the guru-çiñya relationship cannot be exaggerated. Indeed, the
Padma Puräëa stresses that it is impossible to gain spiritual knowledge without
a guru: “Unless one is initiated by a bona fide spiritual master in the disciplic
succession, the mantra that one has received is without any effectContinually
the çästras accentuate the inestimable value of association with a saintly
person. A moment’s association is said to be more valuable than thousands of
lifetimes without that association. A çiñya’s eagerness to hear from the guru
is itself a great qualification. After hearing, if he obediently carries out
the instructions of the spiritual master, the disciple automatically advances
beyond liberation, to the ultimate stage of love of God.
It is necessary that the çiñya,
like his guru, live according to the high moral standards set forth in the çästras.
Çaìkara states that a student of philosophy must meet the following essential
conditions: the student must have the strong will to inquire into the
difference between matter and spirit, he must renounce all personal demands and
self-interest, and he must restrain his mind and sensesUnless he can give up
all material pleasure and be detached from sorrow as well, he cannot qualify
for transcendental life. As Kåñëa confirms in Bhagavad-gétä (2.41), “Those who
are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is one.…The
intelligence of those who are irresolute is many branched.” Traditionally, a
disciple must give up the “four pillars of sin”: meat-eating, illicit sex,
gambling, and intoxication.26
RVL 1.7: Summary
Summary
We have described the
purpose, the origin, and the process of Vedic knowledge according to the
statements of the Vedas themselves. The Vedic follower accepts the çästras as
the words of the supreme person (éçvara, Näräyaëa), hence as axiomatic truths.
In other words, there is no need to verify those truths that the Vedas have
already set forth. Further, the follower should understand the cause of all causes
not by material knowledge or independent mental conjecture but by hearing
faithfully from an authorized spiritual master. The sublime secrets of
spiritual life passed on from guru to çiñya are open to everyone, regardless of
social caste or birth. To become a candidate for spiritual knowledge, the
follower must observe the regulations for purification set forth by the
guruThese are the basic precepts of the Vedas regarding the acquisition of
transcendental knowledge.
RVL 2: The
Empirical Approach to Vedic Literature
2. The Empirical Approach to Vedic Literature
In Chapter One we have
discussed some of the principles of Vedic learning handed down by the disciplic
succession of Vedic teachers. We should also note that in the last two hundred
years virtually all Western universities have taken a critical-historical, or
empirical, approach. Hinduism and Indian philosophy have become popular
subjects in many colleges, and there has arisen a community of established
Sanskritists and Indologists. However, if we compare the empirical version of
Vedic knowledge with the version of the Vedas themselves, we often find the two
at opposite poles. Empiric scholars rarely discuss this conflict. They assume,
usually correctly, that readers will accept the empiric version because of the
scholar’s reputation for probing research and analysis. When discrepancies
become obvious, the empiric scholars usually represent their own views as the
objective picture of Vedic civilization.
Yet these conflicts raise
a number of questions. Why do some scholars reject the explanations of the
Vedic literature’s origin, purpose, and transcendental nature as received from
both the texts themselves and the traditional Vedic scholars? Why is the Vedic
literature’s description of itself necessarily unacceptable? Is it simply that
the empiric scholars doubt that the Vedas or the äcäryas are what they say they
are? The Vedas claim divine origin, and the scholars deem their origin
mythological. The Vedas propose to elevate man from suffering and grant him
liberation, but the scholars suppose that studying the Vedas for spiritual
purposes is unscholarly. Although the Vedas warn that the Vedic teachings are
transcendental to material investigation, scholars reject such injunctions as
esoteric taboos and proceed to analyze the Vedas in an empirical spirit. They
frankly regard the Vedas as mythology and assign themselves to the task of
demythologizing.
The Vedas affirm that
Vedic knowledge must be heard from a spiritual master in the disciplic succession,
but the scholar who writes books about the Vedas is not a guru, nor does his
scholarly conscience allow him to accept such an approach. Moreover, the
scholar surveys the guru from what he considers a superior, more objective and
academic vantage point. The Vedas maintain that one must observe strict moral
standards and perform austerities before understanding Vedic literature, but
scholars consider such things to be unnecessary.
What is the best way to
study the Vedas? Should we give credence, after all, to what the Vedas say
about themselves? Before deciding, we should know something about the
substantiality of empiric Vedic scholarship.
RVL 2.1: Empirical Tools
Empirical Tools
The tools used by empiric Indologists
are the scientific standards of history, anthropology, archaeology, philology,
and related disciplines. Since Indological studies began, in the eighteenth
century, the research in every field has become increasingly sophisticated.
However, the scholars agree that their critical reconstruction of the origin
and nature of Vedic culture is highly uncertain.
RVL 2.2: History
History
Empiricists generally
place great importance on understanding historical development, but for the
Vedic period there is no history aside from the çästras. For thousands of years
the early Indians kept no such histories, and as O. L. Chavarria-Aguilar writes
in his book Traditional India, “A more unhistorical people would be difficult
to find.”1 A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy informs us, “A historical
treatment of Indian philosophy has not been taken up by the great Indian
thinkers themselves.”2 Ancient Rome had its Livy and ancient Greece its
Herodotus, but India had no great historian to record the Vedic period.
According to modern Indologists, the Indian’s lack of interest in history was
not due to a primitive inability to keep records; rather, he accepted the
historical version of the çästras as sufficient.
Scientific historians
choose not to accept the historical validity of the çästras; their alternative
is to begin the official history of India with the death of Buddha, in 483 BIn
any case, this is the earliest date empirically settled. Scholars concede that
the Vedic period began thousands of years before Christ, but as for the dating
of even approximate periods, “everywhere we are on unsafe ground.”3
Nevertheless, scholars have reconstructed various historical periods which they
theoretically assign to the thousands of unaccounted years. Pioneer Indologist
Max Muller devised a system of classifying the Vedic civilization into periods
called “Chandas, Mantra, Brähmaëa, and Sütra,” and a number of scholars have
concurred.4 Others have also given their own divisions. Radhakrishnan, for
instance, looks upon the broad divisions of Indian history as Vedic, Epic, Sütra,
and Scholastic.5 Handbooks on Vedic history differ on specific dates by as much
as one or two thousand years. Indeed, Moriz Winternitz, one of the most
respected chronologists, argues that any attempt to reconstruct the Vedic
period is unscientific. He writes, “The chronology of the history of Indian
literature is shrouded in truly terrifying darkness.”6 Winternitz somewhat
pointedly notes that it would be pleasant and convenient, especially when preparing
a handbook on Vedic literature, to divide the literature into three or four
periods and assign dates and categories. “But every attempt of such a kind is
bound to fail in the present state of knowledge, and the use of hypothetical
dates would only be a delusion, which would do more harm than good.”7 He states
that it is even better not to assign dates to the oldest period of Indian
literary history. Using discoveries by related field workers and conducting
further research into the texts, successive generations of historians continue
to develop new pictures of the Vedic past. However, Winternitz quotes a pioneer
American Sanskritist who years ago said, “All dates given in Indian literary
history are pins set up to be bowled down again.”8 Winternitz remarks, “For the
most part this is still the case today.”9 We may thus conclude that there is
simply no history of the original Vedic civilization in India, at least none
that is acceptable in the strict sense of empiric history.
RVL 2.3: Archaeology
Archaeology
Archaeology, of course, is
especially suitable for finding out about ancient cultures. But what was true
for Vedic historical records is also true for archaeological finds, which to
date give us no clear picture of Vedic civilization. Of course, many of the
geographical sites mentioned in the scriptures are still known, and according
to tradition many of the temples in India have been maintained for thousands of
years, but these sites have not yielded solid archaeological evidence.
Archaeologists and
anthropologists cannot accept the çästric version that Vedic civilization
flourished in India long before fifty thousand years ago—the date which
scientists assign as the earliest possible appearance of homo sapiens on earth.
Consistently the çästras mention that Vedic literature was written down at the
beginning of the age of Kali some five thousand years ago, and that
philosophers, yogés, and åñis lived many millions of years ago. Although
empiricists most often discount such sophistication in ancient humanity, they
do admit that “the history of the human race is being rewritten with new dating
processes and with exciting discoveries around the world.”10 The general trend
in the rewriting of human history is to push the theoretical date from the
beginning of advanced human civilization further and further back into what has
become known as prehistory. As far as the archaeology of India is concerned,
the excavations of cities and temples have produced no conclusive empirical
data about the Vedic culture’s first appearance.
Western archaeology got
its start in India early in the nineteenth century, when the surveyors of the
East India Company found many temples, shrines, old coins, and inscriptions
written in dead scripts. In the 1830’s the edicts of Emperor Açoka were
deciphered, and thus Indian civilization was dated at 300 B.C In the twentieth
century, work began on a large scale. The most famous archaeological
discoveries relating to the prehistoric period took place under the supervision
of archaeologist Sir John Marshall, who in the 1920’s uncovered the cities of
Harappa and Mohenjaro, located in what is now Pakistan. These were the cities
of an efficient, urban social community, now called the Indus civilization,
which has been dated at 3,000 B.C.11 Though a fabulous find for archaeology,
Harappa has contributed but little to our understanding of the ancient Vedic
period. If it was hoped that the discoveries at Harappa and Mohenjaro might
throw some light on the Vedas, this hope was not fulfilled. Among the artifacts
found at Harappa was a small figure of a seated man who might be Çiva, but this
is not definite.
Linguistic research and
interpretation of the Åg Veda have given rise to a hypothesis linking the Indus
civilization with the origin of the Vedas. As the story has it, the peaceful
Dravidians (the name of the original people of Harappa) were invaded by the
Aryan barbarians, who brought with them their tales of Indra (Åg Veda). This
account enjoys wide currency in books, but it is by no means a scientific
conclusion.12 Rather, it is a hypothetical creation set forth to explain what
would otherwise be inexplicable. About the Indus civilization, one Indologist
comments, “We do not know for certain who the authors of the remarkable
civilization were; it is another of those mysteries that make the scholar’s
life at once interesting and somewhat frustrating.”13 As for the theory that
the Dravidians met their demise under Indra’s hordes of plundering Aryans, H.
P. Rowlinson writes, “A number of scholars have pointed the finger of
accusation at the Aryans…but the guilt of those immigrants is far from
established.”14 Thus, although scholars favor various theories, archaeological
finds like those of the Indus civilization have to date given evidence
insufficient for reconstructing the period in which the Vedic scriptures were
composed.
Archaeology gains
considerable scientific veracity by allying with other disciplines, such as
atomic physics (which produced the carbon 14 dating process). Will
archaeologists one day find something that will actually solve the Vedic
riddles once and for all? Anthropologist Julian H. Steward writes, “Facts exist
only as they are related to theories, and theories are not destroyed by facts—they
are replaced by new theories which better explain the facts.”15 In other words,
we might say, although archaeologists intend to find out much more, they may
never know for sure.
Whatever facts and
theories the future may hold, archaeology, the empiricist’s main hope, has thus
far failed to penetrate the darkness that shrouds the Vedic period; the prime
record of Vedic culture is, of course, oral tradition. Hence, in the very area
where archaeology alone can give the empiricist knowledge, we can seriously
question whether archaeology is even relevant. “Religion is a mental or
spiritual phenomenon in which the sacred or supernatural word plays an
important part. Obviously this essential expression of religion cannot be
investigated archaeologically—the remains are wordless.”16
RVL 2.4: Linguistic Research
Linguistic Research
As we would expect,
research has spread to still other disciplines. In fact, among the most
important tools in Indological research is the study of linguistics. In the
late eighteenth century, linguists in India made a comparative study of
Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin and concluded that the languages were so similar in
vocabulary and grammar that they must have come from a common ancestral tongue.
In 1786, Sir William Jones theorized that Sanskrit and other languages had “sprung
from some common source which perhaps no longer exists.”17 This language
received the name proto-Indo-European. Although there is no clear evidence that
this language was ever spoken, linguists reconstructed a proto-Indo-European
language with the help of archaeologists, who contributed evidence on who might
have spoken it and where. Stuart Piggot writes: “The location of a possible
Indo-European homeland and the identification of the culture implied by the
linguistic evidence with a comparable archaeological phenomenon, has been a
matter of debate since the idea was first formulated in the last century.”18
>From a hypothetical language, a hypothetical human community emerged, its
members called Indo-Europeans. Because words like “horse” and “father” were
prominent in the vocabulary of proto-lndo-Europeans, the scholars constructed a
community of farmers who had domesticated the horse and in whose society the
father was dominant.19 Also, the scholars ascribed to them a religion and
rites, although no one can say for certain where these people lived. In a
recent history of India we find this assessment:
The aboriginal home of the
Aryans [the Indo-Europeans are supposed to be the predecessors of the Aryans
who invaded India] is again a controversial point, and in the face of the
hopeless chaos of conflicting views, it seems impossible to come to any
definite conclusion. The most probable theory seems to be that the Aryans
migrated into India from outside, the exact region from where they came being
still a point of discussion.20
Professor of linguistics
Ward Goddenaugh pointed out that chauvinism and racism definitely entered into
historical European interpretations of Indo-European origins. Thus, scholars
arbitrarily compiled data to prove that the Aryan forefathers came from
Europe.21
Despite limited
information, linguists tend to construct hypotheses. The prominent Sanskritist
A. B. Keith once remarked that by taking the linguistic method too literally,
one could conclude that the original Indo-Europeans knew about butter but not
milk, snow and feet but not rain and hands.22
Already, it appears, the
discipline known as linguistic paleontology has fallen out of favor with
scholars. In 1971, the eminent linguist Winifred Lehmann asserted, “Clearly,
the linguistic paleontologists had overextended themselves to the point of
elimination.”23 Dr. Lehmann insists that language cannot be used as a primary
source for reconstructing an earlier culture. Still, linguistic theories about
the origin and cultural background of the Vedas continue to figure prominently
in academic accounts of the Vedic period.
In order to date ancient
languages, in recent decades Morris Swadesh has devised a linguistic method
known as glottochronology. This method arose from the theory that over the
millennia, changes in the vocabulary of a language tend to occur at a regular,
measurable rate. Scholars have used this method to date the oral tradition of
the Vedas as well as the appearance of specific literatures. However, linguists
themselves report that “no matter how much the technique is refined, the only
dating that it can yield will be of the likelihood variety.”24
Glottochronologists have worked out graphs indicating areas in which there is a
ninety-percent likelihood that a particular specimen of language can be
assigned a correct date. The greater the time period in which the literature
might have appeared (thousands of years for Vedic literature), the greater the
variance in ascribing the approximate date. The variance grows so great as to
be no more than an educated guess. Linguistic critic Charles Hockett writes, “Obviously
it is not helpful to find that, though the most likely date of an event is
forty thousand years ago, the nine-tenths confidence level defines a span
running from ninety thousand years ago to a date ten thousand years in our own
future.”25 Although regarded as highly imperfect, glottochronology is the best
working tool available today for dating ancient languages. It has not, however,
revealed anything definite about the origin and real purport of the Vedic
literature.
Summary
As we have marked,
empirical evidence for the Vedic period seems scanty and fragmentary; the
scholars have few hard facts on which to base mature or reliable
conclusionsAccordingly, their full and elaborate picture of Vedic history seems
hypothetical and conjectural. Of course, drawn as it is from arduous
historical, archaeological, and linguistic research, the hypothetical picture surely
merits consideration. At the same time, it appears, Indologists would do well
to remember that an offlcial photograph is one thing, a hypothetical picture
quite another.
Actually, Western scholars
have never assessed the Vedic çästras on their own merit. The first studies of
the Vedas, for example, were clouded by less than objective motivations. In the
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, pioneer Indologists such as Sir
William Jones, Horace H. Wilson, Theodore Goldstuker, and Sir M. Monier-Williams
approached the Vedic culture with a view to replacing it with Christian
culture.26 This naturally tainted their investigation of Vedic literature.
While the missionary motive declined, an effort was made by the American
transcendentalist school (Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, etc.) to
appreciate the Vedas as they are. It would be fair to say, however, that the
empirical-historical method eclipsed this endeavor before it could shine forth.
And because the Vedic system is intrinsically beyond the range of empirical
investigation, modern Indologists have also been unable to study the Vedas on
the literature’s own terms. Thus, it may be appropriate to hear what the Vedas
say about themselves. As opposed to the fragmented, highly theoretical, or at
best partial appreciations of the Vedas by Western scholars, this approach will
aid us in understanding the wide range of Vedic literatures as a sublime and
cohesive whole.
RVL 3: Essential Elements of Vedic Thought
3. Essential Elements of Vedic Thought
Although he may be
unacquainted with Sanskrit, a new student of Vedic literature needs to
understand many Sanskrit terms. Simply memorizing words in a glossary cannot
fill that need; the Vedas themselves prescribe that to understand the meanings
of such terms as Bhagavän, Paramätmä, and Brahman, the student must become
transcendentally situated, or realized. He must know from personal experience
the distinction between matter (jaòa) and spirit (Brahman), and the nature both
of illusion (mäyä) and of the supreme controller (éçvara). Since some words,
such as dharma and rasa, have no real English equivalents, the student’s need
for personal experience and realization becomes so much greater.
To get a clear
understanding, the student should first learn the simple, literal meaning of
the Sanskrit terms. By avoiding allegorical interpretations and speculation, he
will avoid needless confusion. In other words, the student makes easier
advancement if he accepts the direct meaning given in the çästras rather than
the indirect meanings set forth by imperfect commentators. Vedic literature is
not difficult to understand if the student learns the terms of the çästras in
their original meanings.
RVL 3.1: The Three Aspects of the Absolute
The Three Aspects of the Absolute
The Vedic literatures
discuss three aspects of the Absolute Truth: Brahman, Paramätmä, and Bhagavän.
The Upaniñads focus upon Brahman; the yoga systems, upon Paramätmä; Bhagavad-gétä
and the Puräëas, upon Bhagavän. Bhägavata Puräëa (1.2.11) states that all three
aspects are actually one, seen from different angles of vision: “Learned
transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance
Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän.”1
1) Brahman
Brahman refers to the
impersonal, all-pervasive aspect of the Absolute Truth. The multifarious
manifestations of the cosmos—moving and nonmoving matter, atoms, bodies,
planets, space—are not ultimate causes in themselves, nor are they eternalof
them come from the eternal Brahman. The Vedänta-sütra (1.1.2) clearly states,
janmädy asya yataù: “The Supreme Brahman is the origin of everything.”2 The Muëòaka
Upaniñad (2.2.10–12) offers elucidation:
Brilliant is It, the light
of lights—
That which knowers of the
soul do know!
The sun shines not there,
nor the moon and stars;
These lightnings shine
not, much less this (earthly) fire!
After Him, as He shines,
doth everything shine.
This whole world is
illumined with His light.
… before,… behind, to
right and left,
Stretched forth below and
above.3
Radhakrishnan writes that
Brahman “cannot be defined by logical categories or linguistic symbols. It is
the incomprehensible nirguëa [“qualityless”] Brahman, the pure Absolute.”4
The Båhad-äraëyaka Upaniñad
(3.9.26) describes the Brahman philosophers as searching for the root of
existence in the components of matter but finding only neti neti: “That self is
not this, not that.”5 When one realizes Brahman, he knows the impersonal spirit
in all things.
2) Paramätmä
Ätmä means “self.” Thomas
Hopkins writes, “Ätman was distinguished from the gross physical body; it was
the inner self, the principle or energy that gave man his essential nature.”6
Vedic philosophy regards the self as eternal and individual; it is not
destroyed when the body is destroyed. On the battlefield of Kurukñetra, Kåñëa
has only encouragement for Arjuna:
Never was there a time
when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any
of us cease to be… For the soul [ätmä] there is never birth nor death. Nor
having once been, does he ever cease to be. He is unborn, eternal,
ever-existing, undying and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.7
The ätmä, individual soul,
is distinct from the Paramätmä (the Supersoul or oversoul, an identity beyond
the ätmä). The word parama means “supreme and transcendental,” and, as the Kaöha
Upaniñad (1.2.20) has it, the Paramätmä and the ätmä are like two birds sitting
on a tree:
Both the Supersoul [Paramätmä]
and the individual atomic soul [jéva-ätmä] are situated on the same tree of the
body within the same heart of the living being; only one who has become free
from all material desires as well as lamentations can, by the grace of the
Supreme, understand the glories of the soul.8
Awareness of one’s eternal
relation with the Paramätmä is the goal of the mystic añöäìga-yoga taught by
Pataïjali (the author of the Yoga-sütra). According to Bhagavad-gétä, “That
Supersoul [Paramätmä] is perceived by some through meditation.…”9 Perfection in
meditation results in the yogic trance called samädhi:
The stage of perfection is
called trance, or samädhi, when one’s mind is completely restrained from
material mental activities by practice of yoga. This is characterized by one’s
ability to see the self by the pure mind and to relish and rejoice in the self.
In that joyous state, one is situated in boundless transcendental happiness and
enjoys himself through transcendental senses. Established thus, one never
departs from the truth, and upon gaining this he thinks there is no greater
gain. Being situated in such a position, one is never shaken, even in the midst
of greatest difficulty. This indeed is actual freedom from all miseries arising
from material contact.10
This realization occurs
when the mystic sees the transcendental form of God within his heart. Although
only genuine mystics can see the Supersoul, He is seated in the hearts of all
living beings, whether they realize or not. “I am seated in everyone’s heart,
and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness.”11 The Paramätmä guides
the embodied soul, witnesses his activities, and awards him the results of his
actions. “The Supersoul enters into the bodies of the created beings who are
influenced by the modes of material nature and causes them to enjoy the effects
of these by the subtle mind.” [SB 1.2.33]
Knowing that the Supersoul
is present with each soul in each and every material body, the Paramätmä-realized
yogé sees all beings equally. “The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge,
sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brähmaëa, a cow, an elephant, a dog
and a dog-eater [outcaste].” [Bg. 5.18] Indeed, the unified vision of the Paramätmä-realized
yogé extends to all aspects of existence. “Such a person is situated in
transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything—whether it be pebbles,
stones or gold—as the same.… He is a perfect yogé who, by comparison to his own
self, sees the true equality of all beings, both in their happiness and
distress, O Arjuna.” 14
3) Bhagavän
Bhagavän realization is the
theistic vision of the Absolute Truth as the Supreme Person possessed of
inconceivable attributes.15 Paräçara Muni defines Bhagavän as the Supreme
Person possessing infinite beauty, knowledge, strength, fame, wealth, and
renunciation. Although the concept of creation suggests many great
personalities (or demigods), in the fullest sense the word bhagavän applies
only to the Supreme Being, the Godead Himself.
Bhagavän is the highest
feature of the Absolute. He is the Supreme Brahman (Parabrahman) and the source
of the Paramätmä. As we have noted previously, the Vedänta-sütra (1.1.2) states
that the Absolute Truth is the source of all emanations (janmädy asya yataù).
Further, the Vedänta and the Puräëas state that, as the source of everything,
the Absolute must possess intelligence and consciousness. These latter
attributes imply personality, and the supreme personal feature of the Absolute
Truth is termed Bhagavän. Whereas Brahman is devoid of material qualities or
attributes, Bhagavän possesses transcendental qualities. All beings rest in
Brahman, and Brahman itself rests in the Supreme Person. The Vedas regard
Brahman as the effulgence (brahmajyoti) of the transcendental body of the
Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Brahma-saàhitä (5.1) postulates that Bhagavän
is sac-cid-ananda-vigrahaù, the personal form of eternity, full knowledge, and
full bliss.16
Impersonal Brahman
manifests only the sat (eternity) feature of the Absolute. Brahman is to Bhagavän
as the sunshine is to the sun. The sunshine is the sun’s effulgence, and has no
independent existence apart from the sun. Paramätmä manifests the sat and cit
(knowledge) aspects of the Absolute, but Bhagavän alone fully manifests the
sat, cit, and änanda (bliss) aspects. Thus, Bhagavän is the full embodiment (vigraha)
of sac-cid-änanda.
Prefacing each of Lord Kåñëa’s
statements in Bhagavad-gétä is the phrase çré-bhagavän uväca—“The Supreme
Personality of Godhead said.” Further, the Gétä establishes that Bhagavän, Kåñëa,
is the ultimate truth: “There is no truth superior to Me.” [Bg. 7.7] Brahma-saàhitä
makes a similar confirmation, Éçvaraù paramaù kåñëaù sac-cid-änanda-vigrahaù: “The
supreme controller is Kåñëa, who has a transcendental form of eternity, bliss,
and knowledge.”18 And the Bhägavata Puräëa (1.3.28) indicates that all avatäras
proceed from the Supreme Bhagavän (Kåñëa).19
In one sense God, or
Bhagavän, has no name; yet His activities garner Him many names. The name Kåñëa,
meaning “all-attractive,” is fundamental because, by Paräçara Muni’s definition,
the Supreme Person must be all-attractive or all-opulent. To enact various
pastimes (lélä) for His pleasure and to create and maintain, Bhagavän Kåñëa
expands into forms such as Näräyaëa, Väsudeva, and Mahä-Viñëu. The name Kåñëa
(the all-attractive) also implies Viñëu (the all-pervasive). The name Bhagavän
(the all-opulent) implies the names éçvara (supreme controller) and puruña
(supreme enjoyer). Rüpa Gosvämé’s Laghu-bhägavatämåta has this to say about the
names given the Absolute:
According to the intimate
relationships between Çré Kåñëa, the primeval Lord, and His devotees, the Puräëas
describe Him by various names. Sometimes He is called Näräyaëa; sometimes
Upendra [Vämana], the younger brother of Indra, the King of Heaven [upa-indra];
and sometimes Kñérodakaçäyé Viñëu. Sometimes he is called the thousand-headed Çeña
Näga and sometimes the Lord of Vaikuëöha.20
When the inquirer realizes
Bhagavän, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, he simultaneously realizes
Brahman and Paramätmä. For we have seen that, far from being separate one from
another, the three aspects of the Absolute are all present within Bhagavän
1) Cit
Cit-çakti is the spiritual
energy of the Absolute Truth. Bhagavän, the Supreme Person, is the energetic
source, and through His internal cit potency He manifests the eternal kingdom
of God and His eternal liberated associates. “Just as mäyä builds this mundane
universe with the five material elements, so the spiritual (cit) potency has
built the spiritual world.”21 The spiritual universe is known as Vaikuëöha, “the
place without anxiety.” Bhagavad-gétä describes this separate universe as that
eternal nature which remains even after the annihilation of the material
universe.
Yet there is another
nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and
unmanifested matter. It is supreme, and it is never annihilated. When all in
this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is. That supreme abode is
called unmanifested and infallible, and it is the supreme destination. When one
goes there, he never comes back. That is My supreme abode. [Bg. 8.20-21]
The spiritual universe,
Vaikuëöha, is eternal; that is to say, it is exempt from the strict laws of the
material world, wherein all living entities suffer birth, old age, disease and
death. When Bhagavän enters the material universe as an incarnation (avatära),
He is never subjected to the material laws, but remains situated in His
internal spiritual potency (cit).
2) Jéva
The verbal root jév means “to
live, be, or remain alive,” and the noun jéva refers to the individual living
being, or soul. According to the Vedic analysis, the living being (jéva) is
separate from the body, yet, within each and every body (including those of
men, beasts, birds and plants), an individual soul (jéva) resides. Individual
consciousness is the symptom of the jéva’s presence.
Although the body is
perishable, the jéva is eternal. “Know that which pervades the entire body to
be indestructible. No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul.”23 The Bhägavata
Puräëa describes the size of the jéva: “There are innumerable particles of
spiritual atoms, which are measured as one ten-thousandth of the upper portion
of the hair.”24 Clearly, the jéva defies perception by the material senses.
According to the Vedic
conception, consciousness does not arise from a material combination; it is the
symptom of the jéva’s presence within the body. When the jéva leaves the body,
consciousness also leaves, and the body perishes. It is the jéva that is the
real self, but in contact with matter, it becomes conditioned. “The empirical
individual, the jéva, is self-limited by the body and senses.”25 Originally the
jéva is a spiritual part of the Supreme Bhagavän and shares His qualities of
sac-cid-änanda in minute portions. The jéva’s constitutional position is
subordinate to that of the Supreme Bhagavän. Although the Supreme Bhagavän
never falls within the control of the material energy, the jéva, out of
delusion and a misuse of his free will, falls under the control of the material
energy and forgets his relationship with the Supreme Bhagavän. Desiring to be
an independent enjoyer, the jéva enters the material world. The jéva’s fall
from his constitutional position provides the gist, of course, for Western
narratives such as Milton’s Paradise Lost.
Although the jéva in the
material world suffers in many ways, he remains under the spell of material
nature (mäyä). Actually the jéva soul has nothing to do with the material
world, but because of mäyä (illusion) he acts to satisfy himself through the
material senses. If he has not attained liberation from his material bodily
confinement by the time of universal annihilation, he returns to the body of
the Supreme Viñëu and takes birth again, in the next creation, to act out his
desires (karma). When the jéva attains liberation, he goes to the brahmajyoti
or even to Vaikuëöha, the spiritual planets where the Supreme resides in His
complete, personal form. Real liberation for the jéva is to attain his original
spiritual identity (svarüpa), for in his eternal form the jéva can associate
with Bhagavän, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
3) Mäyä
Material illusion is
called mäyä. Mäyä means “unreality, deception, forgetfulness”—“that which is
not.” Under the influence of mäyä, a man thinks that he can be happy within the
temporary material world. As the deluding energy of the Supreme, mäyä acts not independently
but under His direction. “It is by illusion (mäyä) the other (jéva) is
confined. One should know that Nature is illusion (mäyä) and that the mighty
Lord is the illusion-maker.”26
Mäyä’s power is such that
although a man may be suffering manifold miseries, he will think himself happy.
“The cause of man’s suffering and impotence is mäyä, under whose influence he
forgets his divine nature.”27 When the jéva identifies with the body, he
develops thousands of desires and then attempts to fulfill them. It is the
nature of the material world that the more the jéva tries to exploit the
material situation, the more he is bound by maya’s complexities. Acting under
the influence of mäyä, the jéva subjects himself to the law of karma (cause and
effect).
As for the origin of mäyä,
Bhagavän Kåñëa states, “This divine energy of Mine [mäyä], consisting of the
three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome.” [Bg. 7.14] The Vedas
further enjoin: “Although mäyä [illusion] is false or temporary, the background
of mäyä is the supreme magician, the Personality of Godhead, who is Maheçvara,
the supreme controller.”29
In sum, mäyä is a
delusion, a trick, a mirage that bewilders a person into thinking that
eternality and happiness abide in the activities of the material world (which
in actuality is temporary and miserable). Even a highly educated or intelligent
man may be under the spell of mäyä; Bhagavad-gétä designates such a person as mäyayäpahåta-jïäna,
“one whose knowledge is stolen by mäyä.”30 Vedic literature purports to free
all beings from the clutches of mäyä. “To be delivered from this illusion which
has somehow come to dominate the race of man is the end of all endeavor.”31
According to Bhagavad-gétä, it is very difficult for the jéva to break free
from the bondage of mäyä: “This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three
modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have
surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.” [Bg. 7.14]
RVL 3.3: Karma
Karma
Western science and
philosophy commonly hold that the law of causality governs all action and
events in the universe, that there can be no actions or events without
corresponding causes, at least on the material platform. The Vedic literature
calls this law of cause and effect the law of karma. From time immemorial, the
jéva has been acting in the material world and enjoying or suffering the
reactions of his actions. His actions bring about his transmigration from one
material body to another. In other words, the jéva takes off and puts on bodies
just as one takes off old and useless garments and puts on new ones. As the jéva
transmigrates, he suffers or enjoys the results of his past activities (karma).
In one sense, all karma is
bondage. Even pious activities, or “good karma,” bind a person to the wheel of
transmigration. One has to be freed from all karma if he is to transcend saàsära,
repeated birth and death. The jéva creates his own karma out of his particular
desires to enjoy this world in different ways. Thus, neither Bhagavän nor
material nature is responsible for the karma of the jéva; he makes his own
destiny. According to the jéva’s activities (and under the supervision of the
Supreme), material nature simply awards the jéva his next body to carry out his
desires. Freedom from the great chain of karma comes through knowledge. “As the
blazing fire turns firewood to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge
burn to ashes all reactions [sarva-karmäëi] to material activities.” [Bg. 4.37]
This “fire of knowledge” refers to the jiva’s awareness of his constitutional
position as the eternal servant of the Supreme. When one surrenders to Bhagavän,
he transcends all past, present, and future karma.
The jéva cannot become
free from karma merely by refraining from action. The Vedas portray the soul as
eternally and irrevocably active. “It is indeed impossible for an embodied
being to give up all activities. Therefore, it is said that he who renounces
the fruits of action [karma-phala-tyägé] is he who has truly renounced.” [Bg.
18.11] In other words, one has to learn the art of working without accruing
karma.
In Bhagavad-gétä, Bhagavän
Kåñëa explains this art of karma-yoga in detail. Briefly, one who performs his
activities as a sacrifice to the Supreme Bhagavän avoids karma, bondage within
the material world. Such refined, sacrificial activity is called akarma, that
is, action without reaction. The Närada-païcarätra explains that the art of
karma-yoga is håñékeëa håñékeça-sevanam: “serving the Lord of the senses with
one’s senses.” It is the function of the guru to teach his students this
elusive art of akarma, action without reaction.
RVL 3.4: Saàsära
Saàsära
Saàsära means repeated birth
and death, or transmigration. As a result of karma, a person may take his birth
in a family of wealthy merchants or in a family of insects. The Padma Puräëa
delineates that there are 8,400,000 species, and that the fallen jéva has to
undergo birth in every one of them. After evolving through many thousands of
births, the jéva at last reaches the human form, a chance to cultivate
self-realization for his ultimate liberation from the cycle of saàsära.
RVL 3.5: Guëas
Guëas
Literally, the word guëa
means “rope.” There are three guëas (modes of material nature)—goodness
(sattva), passion (rajas), and ignorance (tamas)—which bind one to nature like
three strong ropes. Consequently, the material world of mäyä is sometimes
called tri-guëa-mayé.
The jéva attains different bodies according to the guëas in which he has acted in the past, and each body in turn induces him