As we discussed in the previous episodes, the supporters of Brahma or God somehow managed to silence their opponents in the Vedic camp. Prominent among these opponents were the Samkhya and the Vaisheshika.
These opponents, though they accepted the authority of the Vedas, were not willing to accept the concept of God. Not at least as a source of the created world. They had their own reasons which the Brahma supporters vehemently refuted.
But actually, many of the Samkhya concepts like Prakriti, indriya, bhoota, manah, ahankara, Buddhi, and so on, are accepted by the Vedic group. These concepts find mention in many of the Upanishads. For example, the beautiful chariot analogy given in the Katha Upanishad uses many of the Samkhya concepts. It talks about the soul as a rider riding on a chariot pulled by the Indriyas or sense organs as the horses, Manah or mind as the rein that controls these horses, and Buddhi or intellect as the charioteer who holds this rein. But what was rejected was Samkhya’s insistence on the idea of creation of a world without needing a sentient entity namely God. That is something these Brahma supporters cannot compromise on😉
Both the Samkhya and the Vaisheshika talked about insentient things acting on their own to create the world. They felt that no God is needed. Brahma supporters insisted that insentient entities cannot by themselves give rise to a sentient world.
But the war was not yet over for the Brahma supporters.
At least the Samkhyas and the Vaisheshikas accepted the authority of the Vedas. They had some common ground with the Brahma supporters. But India had another set of philosophers, who totally rejected the Vedic authority. They had their own scriptures. How do you fight with them?
The only way is to show logical inconsistencies in their scriptures and show that their scriptures are unreliable. Also, by showing how their reasoning contradicts our day-to-day experience. That is the approach the Brahma supporters take to reject the opponent’s views as well as to defend their own side.
Who are these opponents we are talking about? Badarayana does not clearly name them. He only makes reference to some ideologies which he considers as illogical. But it is not clear whom he is referring to. But later Brahma supporters took them to be Buddhists and Jains.
Among these, Buddhists are well known as followers of Buddha. Jains are some ascetic sect of people who trace their origin to Vedic sage Vrishabhanatha. These people existed even in Buddha’s times and Buddha referred to them as ShramaNas or Nirgranthis.
Since Badarayana probably is pre-Buddhist and pre-Jain, he may not be referring to them. He may be referring to some ideology that was prevalent in his times which could well have been the precursor to Buddhism and Jainism. In the absence of clarity on this, we have to go by what Sankara and other later Brahma supporters said. That is what I am going to do in the discussions that follow.
Let us take the Buddhists first.
Even though Buddha is accepted as the 9th incarnation of God Vishnu by most Hindus, they were not quite happy with the philosophies that were propounded by the Buddhists. On the other hand, the Buddhists rejected the Vedas as the final authority, though Buddha himself was from Vedic background and studied under many Vedic scholars.
Their differences stemmed from some of the most fundamental issues that formed the core of Vedic philosophy. Buddhists rejected the concept of Soul as well as God which was at the heart of Vedic way of thinking. Naturally, there was no way they could reconcile to a common understanding.
Buddhism evolved over a period of time. It started as Theravada which was based on the recorded discourses of Buddha. The main source of this Buddhist sect was Tipitaka – a voluminous collection of Buddha’s lectures recorded during his life time and complied 2 centuries after his death. That makes it roughly 2500 years old. Buddha rarely talked high philosophy. His lectures were in simple language using simple illustrations that can be easily grasped by lay individuals. But these were later interpreted as philosophic underpinnings of Buddhist thought.
As time progressed, newer versions of Buddhism emerged, post Buddha. The original form of Buddhism namely the Theravada was seen as a lower path or Heenayana. Later Buddhist philosophers came up with esoteric forms such as Vijnyanavada, Shoonyavada and so on, which were seen as higher paths or Mahayana. This proliferation of forms went on even outside the boundaries of ancient India and amalgamated with local systems, giving rise to Vajra Yana, Zen Buddhism and so on.
The core of Vedic thought was the concept of Atma or soul. Though there were differences whether this Atma was a single entity called Brahma or multiple entities each almost identical with the other, all Vedic people accepted that soul does exist. They also believed that this soul is eternal, which never undergoes any destruction nor is it ever born. Whether it is the Samkhya or the Vaisheshika or the Yogis, all believed in the existence of soul. In that respect, they had agreement with the Brahma supporters. But some of them either rejected the concept of God or accepted it partially.
But the Buddhists rejected both these concepts – soul as well as God. They also rejected the idea of eternality of anything. They said everything is perishable or anicca. Things just come and go and nothing exists permanently. The existence is momentary or KShaNika, if at all!
That sounds interesting. Many people who know a bit of Buddhism may not have known this facet of Buddhism. Before we accept or reject their theory about the world, let us first hear what they have to say. Please join me in the next episode where I will go into the Buddhist way of thinking.
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment