About the Book
Where did the world come from?, Who created it?, What happens to a person after death?
Thoughts on such questions are found in the Rig Veda, the oldest extant Indo-European text, dating back to circa 1500 BCE. It provides insights into the world-view of the Aryans who migrated and settled in India approximately 4,000 years ago. Many of the concepts and ideas that comprise present-day Indian world-views descend from the Vedas and the Upanishads.
However, couched in mythological and religious forms, these concepts are prone to give a lopsided impression that Indian philosophy is theistic in nature. But teasing them out from such literature leads to a loss of the context within which they developed and evolved over time. In Search of Immortality seeks to recontextualize Indian world-views by tracing them from their origin in the Rig Vedic hymns to their evolution into various orthodox and heterodox philosophical systems, and illuminates the cluster of quintessential ideas that have molded the Indian psyche over several millennia.
Introduction
The intrinsic curiosity of humans to know about the world and build a world-view could be instinctive. There may be a knowledge instinct built into human nature, which is driven by the imperative to survive. It is well known that the pressure to survive has been working not only on humans but also on their ancestral animals for millions of years. With this evolutionary past, it is not hard to assume that this pressure structured and programmed the human mind to view the world in a self-oriented manner; and created a pre-disposition for understanding the world in a fashion that would improve human survival…Man sees the world as some-thing other than himself, and is instinctively driven to learn more about it, organize, control, and master it as much as possible. Thus the most basic drives for food, sex, shelter, and safety force humans to organize experiences in a way to make some sense of themselves and their world, learn important lessons, and derive rules for living a purposeful life.
As the regularities and patterns in nature become increasingly obvious, the world becomes more comprehensible and predictable, letting people think in a more systematic and logical manner. Thus mythical thinking is only an early phase in the development of a world picture. As the picture becomes more mature with time, it reaches a stage when it allows philosophical and critical thinking and scientific probing of ideas that were held dearly, and paves the way for either supporting or refuting them, with a possibility of altering the world-view.
Where Did the World Come From?
There are varied speculations in the Rig Veda on how the world was possibly created. This is because the Veda is a collection of visions and thoughts of many sages and seers. Perhaps each had his own opinion. According to one such opinion, multiple gods created the world by sacrificing the Primal Being called Purusha, the original Man and the divinity, with a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet. This story assumes the pre-existence of an immortal Primal Being as well as gods who sacrificed him to create the world. There are also hymns that present individual gods as the creators of this world.
If the universe comes in and out of this imperishable ground, then what is the difference between the two? In answer to this, the Maitri Upanishad says that the Brahman has two forms—the formed and the formless, i.e. the manifested and the un-manifested. The world manifests out of the un-manifested Brahman. The latter is real, while the former is unreal. This naturally begs the question: Why is the un-manifested real, whereas the manifested world that can be seen, touched, smelled, felt, and experienced is unreal? The reason is that ‘the real’ is defined as that which lasts forever, is permanent and unchanging. The manifested world, on the other hand, is constantly changing, elusive, and impermanent. So the world is unreal, but the everlasting Brahman is real. Therefore, what is real exists, but what exists may not be real!
In the Shakta philosophy, Devi or Shakti creates, preserves, and destroys this universe. The Shakti myth is considered to have a pre-Vedic origin in the cult of Mother Goddess—apparently the primitive form of Tantrism—in which people performed fertility rites and worshipped linga and yoni (male and female organs) that represent Shiva and Devi. Based on archaeological findings of terracotta figurines of Mother Goddess and carved specimens of linga and yoni, the cult is believed to be as old as the Harappan culture of the Indus Valley or may be even older. It has been argued that the beliefs and practices of this pre-Vedic cult, which suggests a female-dominated society, were later on absorbed in the Vedic texts that had their origins in a patriarchal system.
The idea of creating opposite sexes by splitting the original Person in the Rig Veda lasted through the Upanishads and the Puranas. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says that the Self shed half of itself to produce a female. The androgynous God Shiva is another example with both male and female principles in one. And, likewise, Vishnu has his own feminine aspect. Thus the perpetuation of creation through the union of opposite polarities depends upon the original sacrifice or division of the first Being.
Although the Nasadiya Sukta clearly questions the role of gods in creation, it is quite tempting to assume that the Indic world-view believes in the theistic creation of the world. The strongest arguments against the idea of creation by God come from the Vedic school of Purva Mimamsa…The heterodox sects of Jains and Buddhists also refuted the idea of divine creation.
How Does It Work?
Even when we hear a story that a god separated the earth from the sky and created the space between the two, it usually doesn’t compel us to ask: Where was the god standing before the space was created? This apparent paradox —If the space was created with the creation of cosmos, then where was the creation taking place—is not a problem with the Rig Veda. It is a problem arising from our habit of seeing things with boundaries lying in space, such that we view even the universe as an object located somewhere, some place outside of it. The modern scientific picture of creation—the Big Bang—runs into the same problem. We visualize the early universe exploding somewhere.
In the Vedas, epics, and Puranas, Time, or Kala, is often seen as a god, an absolute being, standing outside of everything and controlling everything, from the events of a human life to the creation and age of the universe. These views on time led to speculation about the role of time in practical matters that have a bearing on human life and fate. Does time decide human fate? Or, does man create his own destiny with his efforts?
Each philosophical system has its own perspective of the world, builds its own model of how it is composed, and how it works. Based on that, it arrives at its own conclusions. Together, they cover a wide range of possibilities about the nature of time—as real or imaginary, absolute or relative, continuous or discrete. Space is conceived either as a continuous or granular absolute substance or as an abstraction derived from the events happening in nature. Causation has its own share of variations: either a permanent being or substance is driving the world phenomena, or the events are happening one after another due to the inter-relationship between the constituents comprising the reality. The effects produced from these changes are either distinct from the cause, pre-exist in it, or the same as the cause.
Who Am I?
The Vedas do not seem to say much about who or what man is. However, there are hymns in the Rig Veda that speak of the continuation of happy life even after death, suggesting a belief in an element of human being that lasts beyond his or her physical death. And it is this element that experiences life in this world as well as in the other world. Thus the Vedas assume imperishability of life.
The Upanishads’ challenge is: How to find immortality? Life’s happiness depends on it. Man’s immortality has to be established on a firm ground. Just because the Vedas say that man has an afterlife isn’t enough. There must be a reason to believe in it. So to find the firm ground for immortality, the Upanishads turn to the unknown reality mentioned in the Rig Veda—‘By its inherent force the One breathed windless: No other thing than that beyond existed.’—and call it Brahman, which originally meant holy power, a magic spell, or a reality that grows, breathes or swells. However, this ultimate reality is paradoxical in nature and hard to understand.
The philosophy diametrically opposed to the view in the Upanishads is that of Indic materialism, also called the Lokayata philosophy. For this school, matter is the only reality. Body and mind are different forms of matter. Consciousness is just a configuration of matter. With the dissolution of body, consciousness is also lost forever. Soul has no meaning for the materialists.
In response to the question, “If there is no permanent self, who experiences life and is able to recall past experiences?”, the Buddhists say that the five nama-rupa (name and form) skandhas—form, feelings, perception, volition, and consciousness—characterize a person. These skandhas (bundles or aggregates) are changing every moment from birth until death. Hence, they are different at different stages of life. But through an unbroken series of cause and effect the skandhas at any stage are caused by those of the previous stage and, in turn, cause skandhas of the next stage…When the present skandhas identify with the past skandhas, they serve as the basis for recollection and give a person a sense of continuity.
While the Sankhya scheme, with its two ultimate realities, is much simpler in comparison to the Nyaya-Vaisesika system, according to which the world is made of nine different building blocks, Sankhya has its own problems. How do matter and consciousness—substances of entirely different natures—interact with each other? Although, unlike the Nyaya-Vaisesika, the Sankhya at least attempts to show an interaction between soul and matter, it is not clear how just the proximity of soul could induce matter to evolve. Furthermore, is soul conscious of itself, or does intellect infer it? How does it realize that it is bound to matter and would like to be released from the bondage?
The first person to propose the theory of Advaita Vedanta is considered to be Shankar’s predecessor, Gaudapada, In his Karika of the Mandukya Upanishad, Gaudapada proposes that life is like a waking dream. The so-called objective world including body, mind, senses, and sense organs are mere illusions. The only reality is the eternal or unchanging Atman or Brahman, the only observer or witness. Through its own power, or maya, Atman imagines itself to be an individual being, or jiva, which, in turn, imagines the rest of the subjective and objective entities in the world.
Pierre Baldi argues in his book, The Shattered Self, that the problem with the way we perceive ourselves is our conventional self-centric view of the world, and, with the realization of possibilities offered by the technological advances, “the boundary between the self and the other, the self and the world, the inside and the outside has begun to blur, and ultimately may evaporate entirely.”
It would be hard to say that the Indic systems have reached a definitive answer as to whether determinism or free will governs life. The lack of clarity could be partly due to the fact that in some of the Indic systems, a person or a self is viewed as an illusion. Assumption of free will allowing a person to act upon the surrounding world would entail subject-object dichotomy. But this dichotomy is the illusion, which is to be removed in order to be liberated; to gain freedom, personal will has to be suspended. Moreover, free will of an unreal person is in itself an illusion.
Thus the verdict of modern science on free will seems to fall on the side of the hard version of the Karma theory. But then, there are those who think that although the brain works like a machine, man is still responsible for his actions, It is assumed that despite the deterministic functioning of brain, a person has the ability to control his or her behavior. The same assumption underlies the soft version of the Karma theory.
How Do I Act?
Perhaps the broadest definition of dharma is provided in the Mahanarayan Upanishad: Dharmo vishvasya jagatah pratistha…dharme sarvam pratisthitam, i.e. ‘The world is supported by dharma…everything is established in dharma’. In this sense dharma is related to the word dhaaran, which means holding, supporting, protecting, etc. To understand how the world is established in dharma, we have to go back to the story of creation, when the world came into existence.
It seems Manu wants to emphasize the importance of the order that was placed in the world during creation. This order must be preserved to sustain the creation and prevent it from being destroyed. Being a book of law, the Manusmriti is concerned with the social order and the rules comprising dharma, the moral order, for maintaining the social structure. These rules of dharma determine the right and wrong course of human action. The smriti says that in order to sustain and protect the world, the creator conceived four occupations for humans belonging to four different classes: Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Shudra.
Despite resentment and criticism, the caste system and its practices persisted until the later centuries, when saint-cum-social-reformers such as Kabir, Raidas, and Nanak in the fifteenth century spoke against the system. By this time, Islam was already in India, causing another division in the society between Hindus and Muslims. These saints taught human fraternity above all divides based on caste or creed.
Dharma is not an absolutely rigid code for all times and places. It is malleable and life supporting. However, its flexibility due to the openness to interpretation of scriptures, following local customs, and acting according to one’s own conscience, is what makes dharma difficult to decide. It creates a conflict.
In the third century BCE, Ashoka, the third and the last important king of the Mauryan Empire, propagated his version of Dhamma (the Prakrit form of the Sanskrit term Dharma). According to the historians of ancient India, there were immense social, cultural, religious, ecological, and economic variations in the vast empire encompassing almost the entire Indian subcontinent. In order to assimilate the diversity and govern a complex society, a policy was needed that would harmonize people at an ideological level and allow administering the large empire with a minimum use of force. Hence, Ashoka enunciated the Dhamma principles.
The epic Mahabharata praises and upholds non-violence as the highest form of dharma—ahimsa paramo dharma. But practicing non-violence requires a tremendous amount of conviction, courage, and self-control. In a world where aggression and violence are driven by the desire to protect one’s own self-interest and point of view, stepping beyond the sphere of personal interests is extremely challenging. Only with great knowledge, experience, and understanding, may one reach a stage where he or she may choose to exercise self-control and be able to break the cycle of tit-for-tat behavior to practice ahimsa. However, the Mahabharata does not take an absolute position on ahimsa. Despite its insistence on the importance of non-violence, the epic admits the limits to ahimsa and forgiveness.
The elaborate laws of conduct in the Manusmriti do not mean that an individual is subordinate to the society. A person has the freedom of choice. He or she is advised to make choices in life based on the interpretation of scriptures, local customs, and one’s own conscience. However, the appeal is to choose and act for the good of others, which does not mean suspending one’s self-interest. Society’s gain does not imply the individual’s loss. The case of Ashokan Dhamma clearly shows how the king was able to strike a balance between the personal and the collective interests.
Modern scientific research indicates that, over the long course of evolution, nature has selected human behavior that promotes survival through sharing, cooperation, and group formation. At the same time, these very instincts also lead to the formation of mutually exclusionary groups, promoting the attitude of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’, and engaging in group wars and genocides. Thus, on the one hand, society provides protection to its members allowing them to meet their needs, on the other hand, the groupish or clannish nature of the society can also wreak havoc on the lives of people, if individuals fail to make right decisions.
What is the Purpose of Life?
While moksha gave the overall meaning to life, dharma, artha, and kama laid the foundation in the material world required for one’s spiritual upliftment. Material life gave the experience and knowledge needed for the psychological growth and release from the worldly life to attain emancipation. The book of law, Manusmriti, clearly conveys that only after meeting one’s obligations to gods, ancestors, and men, and having finished worldly duties, should one focus on achieving liberation in the last stage of life
A mechanized life regulated by rigid codes of conduct and traditions might have felt stifled and bereft of any spontaneous spiritual experience. It is likely that the lack of resonance between external rituals and internal spiritual experiences led to the need for rethinking the purpose of these actions. We find the sages of the Upanishads questioning the ritualized life prescribed in the Vedic texts, and thinking differently about sacrifice and salvation. The sacrificial rituals were now considered inferior. The Mundaka Upanishad says: ‘These deluded men, regarding sacrifices and works of merits as most important, do not know any other good. Having enjoyed the high place of heaven won by good deeds, they enter again this world or a still lower one’. The prospect of reaping the rewards of good actions in this life and winning a place in heaven was not appealing anymore. Life in heaven as envisioned in the Vedas was no longer considered sufficient. Man was now seeking escape or release, nishkriti, from the perpetual cycle of coming and going.
Going beyond good and evil does not mean the liberated person acts unethically. Ethical behavior is a pre-requisite for reaching the state of liberation. Only through experiential knowledge, truth, self-control, patience, and performing one’s duties selflessly, can one be emancipated. The liberated person adheres to dharma without any expectations of gain. But, in this adherence, he is not chained to rules as an unliberated person is. Free from the conflict of opposites and devoid of attachment, dharma flows out of his being. Dharma is the way of life for such a person.
As the idea of attaining liberation in one’s lifetime gained momentum after it was introduced in the Upanishads, the obvious question was whether one had to leave the world for moksha or could one stay in it and achieve freedom. This was when the idea of vairagya, which was earlier understood as leaving the worldly life behind, received a different meaning. In so far as one performed one’s duties and rites, met life’s obligations with equanimity to pains and pleasures arising out of these actions, and developed self-control to deal with fear, anger, lust, and desire, one was considered to have renounced the world and thus was free. Such a person, called jivanmukta (free in life), was believed to perform his part dispassionately without any attachment to the fruits of his actions.
Faith cannot be broken down into something else and further analyzed for a better understanding of it. It is either there or not there. Perhaps it is similar to the primitive feeling or belief in the indestructibility of life. It may be considered as an instinct that compels us to trust people, systems, and institutions in the world, believing and hoping that we can rely on them. This instinctual faith does not assume the existence of any supernatural reality. A child, with no knowledge of God or any higher doctrines, instinctively places its trust in its mother. Facing any stressful situation, it automatically runs to its mother for protection. This instinctive faith seems to have an evolutionary advantage. Without it, one can hardly imagine the survival of human beings against all odds during our long evolutionary past. The ability to face and overcome all man-made and natural disasters in human history bears witness to this faith.
There are widely divergent views among the orthodox schools on soul, its nature and relationship with God, and on liberation. Even the Vedantists differ a great deal among themselves, depending on how they interpret the Brahma Sutra. Some believe the soul is an illusion while others believe it to be real. Then again, the soul is either the same as Brahman or is different from Brahman, with different degrees of relationship with the ultimate reality. But among these schools and sects, one idea is predominantly common: happiness and moksha are attained with the removal of ignorance in life through knowledge, good actions, and devotion. For these schools, this is the purpose of life. This is what gives life a meaning.
Man is constantly pulled between the conflicting dichotomy of pleasures and pains. He tries to maximize pleasures while minimizing pains to suit the needs of his ego. Thus the ego that helps a person steer through life also brings misery. Different systems consider the sense of ‘I’ as ignorance. They either try to lower the heightened sense of ego or completely eliminate it. The two interesting solutions in this regard are those of non-duality by Shankar and of no-self by Buddha. The Advaita says that there is no individual ‘I’ or personal self. It is an illusion, merely a reflection of Brahman. Buddhism goes a step beyond. It drops the idea of a permanent soul or Brahman and, through its reductionist approach, systematically demonstrates that there is no person. It is only a fiction. There is no real owner of experiences that cause suffering. And finally, the later schools of Buddhism argue that the world with all its objects and experiences is empty, is only a mental impression, a mind game. There is no ignorance, no suffering, no release from suffering.
Enduring Elements of Indian Thought
It is hard to point out what really inspired the search for freedom and immortality. Were there multiple reasons or one specific cause responsible for this switch? Based on the available information, one may speculate that the overall social environment in that period could have prompted the change. Part of the problem could have been the mechanized lifestyle under the varna-ashram dharma, filled with rites and rituals. But other socio-political factors might also have contributed to the dissatisfaction with life. For example, social stratification under caste system led to serious social inequality. Numerous inter-tribal fights amongst Aryans and battles with non-Aryan local inhabitants for cattle, land, and political dominion could have added a further cause of destabilization in the society, breeding much anxiety and uncertainty.
In this new environment, the pressure from the rising popularity of the heterodox sects led Brahmanism to respond by adapting to the local tribal religions and sects. The old Vedic deities—Indra, Agni, Soma, Yama, and Varuna—lost their high places and a fresh breed of new gods and goddesses arrived, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti, Durga, Ram, Krishna, Vasudeva, Jagannatha, Ganesh, and so on. This was the fertile ground on which Hinduism was born as a result of the transformation of Brahmanism through its interaction with the tribal religious sects and assimilation of their deities, rites, and rituals.
The old pre-Aryan practices and beliefs of the land survived through the Vedic period as parallel traditions and resurfaced in the future through the major world-views of the subcontinent. By blending, transforming, apposing, reusing, and reinterpreting the ideas from the old and the new—the pre-Aryan and the Aryan concepts—these world-views have enriched and energized the intellectual landscape of India throughout the last 3,500 years. They have given rise to multiple systems of thought, all of which aspired to the same end goal of life, using many of the same constitutive elements. Despite having subtle or major differences in their world-views, these systems are glued together by a set of core concepts: karma, dharma, rebirth, ignorance, renunciation, enlightenment, and moksha. These form the kernel of Indic thought.
This article was published in Namarupa, Issue 20, Spring of 2015