Vedic Philosophy

Vedic Philosophy

—Ganga Prasad Upadhyaya, M.A.

Reproduced by Dr. Vivek Arya'

In common parlance “Vedic Philosophy” means ‘Vedanta’, and ‘Vedanta’ means monism, chiefly of Shankaracharya. But philosophers have divergent views on the question. The medieval Indian philosophy is generally divided into two classes—orthodox or that based upon the Vedas, and heterodox, denying the Vedas altogether. The six well-known schools belong to the first category, and Charvakas, Jains and Buddhas belong to the second. Thus all the six schools claim to be Vedic. But the stream of philosophic thought in India has never flown between two hard-bound rocks. Once started, however narrow at the outset, it broadens its channel and goes on branching off in numerous ramifications, baffling the logician’s efforts to define them. For instance, Shankar took his cue from Gaudapada, who was the teacher of his teacher and elaborated the theme and put it into a definite shape. This is what is commonly known as “Vedanta” (the end or quintessence of the Vedas). But Shankara’s followers and devotees amplified it in all sorts of ways and a vast literature grew up; and for an ordinary reader it becomes difficult to make his way out through the unmanageable tangle. Neither the Vedanta of Shankar is the same as of Gaudapada, nor of Anandgiri as of Shankar, nor of the Vedantists of modern times, such as a Vivekanand and Tagore, the same as of Anandgiri. But outside the pale of Shankar’s Vedanta, there are philosophers who refuse to agree with Shankar, though they are as devoted to the Vedas as anybody else. They do not say that the world is a mere illusion, an offspring of Avidya or nescience. There are modified non-dualists (e.g. Ramanuja), dualists (e.g. Kapila), atomists (e.g. Kanada) and several others with shades of difference (e.g. Ballabha). They all claim for themselves the title of “Vedantin”. In modern times there arose another orthodox philosopher, Swami Dayananda, who, basing his philosophy on the Vedas, boldly announced that Shankar’s Vedanta is only a Neo-Vedanta, differing basically from the Vedanta of Vyasa (on which Shankar has written a very elaborate commentary) and therefore from the Vedanta of the Upanishads and of the Vedic seers of old. When we speak of Vedanta (Veda+anta, the end of the Veda), we totally ignore Vedadi (Veda+adi, the beginning of the Veda), the starting point. Does any student of the Vedas find the nescience (maya)-theory at the beginning of the §Rg. Veda or any other Veda? Even sage Vyasa starts with the desire to know Brahma and the description of Brahma as one who causes creation etc. of the world. Where is Maya or Nescienee here? No illusion. The victim of illusion would not be anxious to know Brahma. And a seeker after Brahma cannot be dubbed as the one bewitched by illusion. The third aphorism of the Vedanta is still more significant. Brahma is the fountain-head of all Shastras (scriptures). Shastra in Sanskirta is only that which propounds the true principles of living. If from Brahma emanate the Shastras or the Veda, how can the Veda inculcate a philosophy of nescience or illusion as from the very Brahma emanates the world? Then, take the first verse of the Rg Veda—“Agnim-ide”. Here there is no hint whatsoever of illusion. The whole Sukta presents a realistic view of the universe and its maker. Shankar, though a powerful champion of the Vedas and a formidable foe of Buddhism, takes his cue of illusion from the nihilist Buddhists* who built their philosophy upon dreams. They argued that just as dreams are unreal, so is the world and the phenomena. Their starting point was dream. They likened the wakefulness with dream. This was the upsetting of the two component parts of the argument. It was just like this. The picture of a flower is not a real flower and as the flower is like the picture, so the flower is also not real. Should the flower be first, and then the picture? Or the picture first and then the flower? Shall we argue from the flower to the picture or from the picture to the flower? Should we infer the properties of the picture from those of the flower or vice versa? Which is primary and which secondary? Is the wakefulness the reflection of the dream, or dream the reflection of the wakefulness? Even Shankaracharya was forced to admit, though in another context, that dreams are simply a sort of copies of the knowledge derived in the wakeful state. (Vedanta Sutra II. 2.29)

It is a well-known maxim that those who are born blind have no colour-dreams. This shows that whatever philosophy starts from dreams and makes dreams its bed-rock is very shaky and misleading.So much about the so called Vedanta. We have only given a hint of “beware”, so that the reader may not confuse the Vedanta, as is commonly supposed, with Vedic Philosophy. If we want to know what Vedic philosophy is, we shall have to make a direct approach to the Vedas. To rely upon the subsequent literature, produced by the polemics of various thinkers, will be highly misleading. Take the Rig Veda. Begin to read it anywhere. The first thing that will strike you is the bold realism of the Vedas. In the first Sukta we begin with the adoration of Agni, the purohita or the foremost placed (i.e., the most prominent) Supreme Being, the creator of seasons and the master of all gems (precious objects). He has been the object of adorations of the ancients and moderns’ alike. Is it not realistic? Sometimes the Sun is addressed as it appears on the horizon and bewitches us with his grandeur, sometimes the early dawn (Ushas) is admired for its darkness-killing qualities. Winds, streams, mountains and other objects of nature present themselves to our eye. Are they all dream? How did you conclude that they are dreams? Then again, not only the Vedic seers sing and admire, they seek and discover. They invent and build. They are the builders of a stupendous and most lasting civilization. There is hardly any branch of science—physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, which did not receive due attention from them and which they did not develop and utilize in their daily behaviour. We admit that behind the concrete realism there are not wanting traits of abstract ideas. But the very fact that we abstract (with our mind) from the objects of observation which by themselves are not abstract but exist in spite of and outside of our brain, shows that the Vedic philosophy is Realism.

There is a well-known verse of the Rg Veda which is often quoted as proving the germ of the theory of illusion in the Vedas: — Nasadasit Nosadasit (Rg. X 129-1) It means : “There was not non-existence, nor existence. But those who read illusion or Maya in this verse were highly misled. Perhaps they tried to make the Vedas consistent with the prevalent theory of illusion. The first part clearly negatives the nonexistence. The second part simply denies the effect, i.e., creation, previous to its being created. In the fourth verse of this very Sukta the following words clearly explain the Knot : “Sages who searched with their heart’s thought discovered the existent’s Kinship in the non-existent.”

This does not refer to illusion. This only says that every effect which is first nonexistent and then becomes existent, has a Kinship with its cause which exists before the effect. In the things seen in dreams this Kinship is either loose or sometimes broken. Shankaracharya has dwelt upon these features of dreams in his commentary on the Sutra quoted above (II, 2.29). Every jar has a Kinship with its cause clay. Ice has a Kinship with its cause water. If there is an illusion and by seeing a piece of white cotton we mistake it for ice, the Kinship is broken.

We stop here for brevity’s sake. For further elucidation we refer the reader to our

“Philosophy of Dayananda”.

The second significant point of Vedic Philosophy is the due place provided for “Soul” or “Life”. To sum up in a short sentence, the Vedic philosophy is not Theo-centered, but bio-centered. Many religious creeds are theo-centred. They start with the conception of God, they elaborate this conception and they merge everything into God-head. But the Vedas deal differently. In other philosophies soul and matter appear by the way, as if byproducts, products not at all important. God is the only eternal entity. From it emanates everything else, and into it all dis-appears in the end. There is the creation, and there is its creator. The action is there and so is its actor. But the further analysis of an action is wanting. The very purpose of the creation is wanting. It has been unscrupulously ignored.

The whole universe is teleological. All thinkers are at one on this point. But in all theo-centred philosophies this teleology (the purpose of creating) is missing. If God is the only eternal entity, then why does He create? The theologians in general shirk from the duty of answering this question. They shudder at the false apprehension of invoking God’s wrath by such skeptic or heretic attitude. They forget that the best and the most successful devotee is he who understands the heart of his master by discovering the purpose of his activities. You cannot say that this vast universe with its stupendous complexities has been created by a whimsical creator with no definite purpose. And if there be such a God, as in fact He is not, his devotion would mean the surrender of a noble nature to an unprincipled master. Take any object in the world, or any event. All have a purpose. And what purpose can God have, if there is no other entity? Such a God would be an imperfect being. Will it not be more blasphemous? The Vedic philosophy does not postulate such a being. Everything that we find in the world is for the sake of some needy being, some soul, and some living thing, which constantly requires help. You have eyes, why? To see with. Does God need your eyes? What purpose will your eyes serve if you are not in the picture? Then, the sun. He helps your eyes in seeing, and the eyes of myriads of other creatures—men, dogs, insects, etc. Of what use is the sun if no other living beings exist? And if you say that God first creates these living beings and then the other substances for their use, the question still stands unsolved. What purpose do these beings serve of God? First create a hungry soul, then let him cry of hunger, and then provide food for him. Why all this fun? Such a belief may be a pious musing, but not a philosophy.

Vedic philosophy, therefore, is bio-centered. It deals with life, and as life implies a creator and preserver, it inculcates the existence of a Supreme Being over and above the existence of other beings. All schools are scholar-centered and not teacher-centered, though teachers are required for the sake of students. As in dealing with students, so in dealing with living beings, you must conceive the existence of God too. We proceed from ourselves to our maker and not from our maker to ourselves. Therefore Vedic philosophy envisages the eternality of three things—God, souls and matter. You can call it trinity or trinism as distinguished from monism. This thing has been very clearly described in the Vedas by a beautiful allegory. We give here the three relevant verses. On the same tree live embracing each other two beauteous birds of equal age and friendly. Of these two, one tastes the fruit (of the tree). The other, not eating (the fruit), supervises (§Rg. V. I. 164, 20-22). Here beautifully-phumaged (soul birds), knowing their shares in the nectar (sweet food), incessantly receive inspiration. The Lord-protector of these whole universes, Lord of Wisdom enters into my immature self. (He inspires souls). The tree on which honey-tasting beauteous birds—they all live and propagate, the fruit of which, the fore-part, people call sweet, that sweetness is not realized by that (Bird) which does not understand the father or the Supreme bird (God).

(Here I have tried to translate verbatim in order to help the reader in realizing all phases of the meaning.)

Let us clear the allegory. There is an insentient tree (an inanimate dwelling place) on which dwell two sentient birds, one the lower sentient or soul and the other the higher sentient or God; one the eater and the other the feeder. This triad you will find everywhere, in every phenomenon. A child is born. There is the material body (the tree); there is the lower sentient bird, the soul, the helpless soul, crying for food, having no control upon any part of the tree; yet there is a third entity, the higher bird, which does not eat but feeds. When a man dies, there too is the same triad; the insentient tree, diseased and worn out, quite helpless in doing any service; the lower ibid or lower self-clinging to the tree, still an eater; but over and above there is a higher self, the feeder, which has stopped feeding and is forcing it to quite the tree. This is called death. Between birth and death, there is a succession of states and stages, where this triad is conspicuous—God, soul, and matter. What you call life is the joining together of the insentient matter and the sentient soul, the former serving the needs of the latter. But neither of the two is powerful enough to act and react. There is a power over the two that brings them together, the Great Feeder that puts the food and the eater together. The food is prepared according to the needs of the eater. The feeder has no interests of his own in determining the nature of food. He is, no doubt, the determining agency but the chief factor of determination is the requirement of the eater. This is what I mean when I say that Vedic Philosophy is bio-centric. The Vedas are full of prayers addressed to God, the higher bird, but even the names by which God is called show the relation in which the eater looks upon the feeder—father, brother, friend, Lord, etc. The devotee is all through seeking his own interests, livelihood, peace, strength, bliss, etc.

Many knotty doubts that trouble a thinker regarding the problems of life can be satisfactorily cleared on this basis of the eternality of this triad—God, souls and matter. This universe in which we find ourselves is neither illusory, nor a modification of God, nor a part or piece of God’s being. God is neither modifiable nor divisible. A perfect being must be above these limitations. Souls or lower selves are many (infinite in number. countless). They are subject to pain, pleasure, hatred or affection. They constantly strive to liberate themselves from pain. They have to struggle hard. They are constantly in need of insentient matter, which they strive to utilize, but not always successfully, because these souls being many, and having different requirements, come into clash with each other, and Lord God supervises the interests of all and keeps them within bounds. These souls have a share in the creation, as birds have a share in the fruit of the tree. God or nature (matter imbued with God’s immanence) provides with raw material. Look at your own town. The matter will be clear. It is the souls living in the town that have made what the town is—buildings, parks, etc. God did not create them. So is the case of dens of the beasts and nests of the birds or bee-hives. Thus we souls are co-shares in the economy of nature. Our social organizations with so many implications are the result of this co-sharing. This means freedom of action on the part of the soul. We are not hard and fast bound. It is not all that God does. He leaves sufficient margin for the free action of all souls, thus making them responsible for making their own destiny. The eternality of souls, with their dependence on matter for their activities, postulates that the souls’ contact with the material bodies must be temporary and ever-recurring. This means transmigration of souls from one material body to another. The Bhagwat Gita beautifully describes it by comparing the body with our clothes. We change our bodies like our clothes. Souls never die. They are never born. They are eternal. It is their contact with the material bodies that begins and ends. Thus Vedic philosophy is always optimistic. It helps us in always hoping for the better. No eternal hell. No eternal heaven. No eternal doom. The door of bliss is always open. This has been called by sacred scriptures as “triumph over death. He who understands Vedic philosophy loses all fear from death. The “death” for him is but a change, not always for the worse, may be for the better, according to the doings of these souls. The moral values of our actions are to be measured by this test. Here is a conjunction of mental and moral philosophies of the Vedas. As the universe is one, not a congeries of accidentally or fortuitously joined together elements but a well set up organism, its parts are inter-connected. Therefore the Vedic philosophy cannot be split up into two independent sections, moral and mental. They are simply two facets of the same things. What I should do depends upon what I am. Know thyself first, then, “Do, thyself”. Duty is what is due from you, and “due from you” is the debt that you owe on account of the place you hold in the universe. The last sentence of the Rg. Veda is very significant: “Act so that your cooperation may be obtainable for all (Rg. Veda X. 191.4). All the moral virtues are a corollary to this principle—ahinsa or non-violence, satya or truth, etc. etc. (vide Yoga Sutras). They are social virtues, as well. Because no society is possible unless the individuals base their actions upon soun1d principles. On the principles briefly sketched above is founded the all comprehensive Vedic civilization, of whose grandeur, vastness and imperishableness we hear so much. The division of human life into four ashramas or stages (Celibacy or student stage, Grihastha or household stage, Vanaprastha or ascetic stage of non-attachment, sanyas or “quit worldliness” stage) constitutes a well devised programme of spiritual evolution. Then the division of the society into thinkers (Brahmans), soldiers (Kshatriyas), economists (Vaishyas), labourers (Shudras) also aims at the accomplishment of the same end, the tasting of the fruit of the tree by hungry souls and the over-seeing of the non-taster Providence above.

In the above allegory of the tree and the two birds the most significant thing is the emphasis laid upon the fact that the lower-self tastes, while the higher-self does not taste. It only oversees or superintends over the whole organization of the Universe. This is an indication that higher the lower self-rises in divinity and nearer it approaches the higher self or God, its greed for tasting the fruit of the tree becomes less, till it is reduced to the irreducible minimum. Self-abnegation is the highest morality. God is ideally selfless. In order to be God-like we must be selfless. Self-less-ness is Godly. Selfishness is dogly.

This is the crux of all morals.

To recapitulate, the Vedic philosophy is:—

1. Realistic, as distinguished from idealistic.

2. Bio-centric, as distinguished from theo-centric.

3. Trinism, as distinguished from monism.

4. Altruistic, as distinguished from individualistic.

5. Catholic, as distinguished from communalistic.

Modern Hindu religion, as is generally known as Hinduism, is a congeries of several warps and woofs derived from many sources woven together in different times by different agencies and under different circumstances.

—