Since our entire discussion revolves around God or Brahma, probably we should first define what this God is. Many people who claim to be believers have tough time defining God.
They may describe God as some person in the heaven, or some deity in a temple, and so on. But they probably cannot ‘define’ God.
Badarayana gives a very simple and straight forward definition of God or Brahma. Well, Badarayana in his cryptic Sutra style spells out these words only partially and says
“Janmaadi asya yathah”-- by whom the origination etc. of this
Probably he refers to the definition of God given in the Upanishads which he considers as authority.
In the Taitarïya Upanishad a sage Varuna defines Brahma or God as
“God is that from which this entire world came into existence, that by which this entire world is sustained, that into which this world returns at the end”
-- Taitarïya Upanishad, Bhriguvalli 1
Some of you who are familiar with Bible or Quran probably recognize this as the very same definition given in these respective scriptures. Was that a coincidence? Or does it indicate the influence of one school of thought on the other? Or did ancient Jews and Muslims inherit this idea from Indians? Or did all these people have a common ancestor?
Definitely there was lot of intermingling of people across the globe with lot of similarities in ideas. But it is unlikely that the sages both in the east as well as the west, who kept almost aloof, ever had any interaction across the geographic boundaries. Though at scholarly levels there could have been borrowing of ideas. But most of the Biblical prophets were simple people whose boundaries were limited to their near neighborhood. So also, of the Islamic prophets.
Their source is not some common ancestry, nor it is some influence of some race over other. The only thing that is common to them was that all of them meditated. Through meditation, all of them attained the same truth or almost the same truth.
In another Upanishad namely the Shwetashwathara Upanishad, there is a story of a group of sages who debated among themselves on fundamental questions. They failed to arrive at a conclusive answer to their questions. And finally, they decided to meditate and find the truth. The Upanishad says that the truth these people arrived at after meditation was that it was God who is behind existence, sustenance and final reabsorption of this entire Universe. Probably the Upanishad is using this story as a symbolic way of telling the ultimate truth.
Well, as long as you don’t arrive at this truth by yourself, it remains a mere faith. Does it have any utility in that case?
I always argue that faith is an inalienable part of our life. Not only that all faiths are not useless, they can even have a salutary effect on us, both as individuals as well as societies. So, we don’t need to discard them as mere faiths.
The Upanishads build on this basic definition of Brahma to arrive at the conclusion that whatever exists is nothing but a form of Brahma. The world not only ensued from Brahma, nourished by Brahma and ends in Brahma, but it IS BRAHMA! That idea, even if it is mere faith based, has profound influence on all of us.
If all this is Brahma, then it means that we are all one. There is no meaning in mutual hatred and distrust. It helps in embracing the entire world, not just the humans, but also all living and nonliving things as well. That is when an idea becomes highly acceptable, even if it is a mere faith.
For Badarayana, this idea of Brahma as the sole cause of existence was important because that gives a unified view of the world. A unified view calms you down and takes you inward, where as a diversified view scatters your thoughts and takes you outward. Even in that way, seeing unity in diversity helps.
This unification approach exists at various levels in all schools of thoughts and religious scriptures. The Abrahamic religions have a God and a collection of beings who are his subordinates. There is unification when it comes to the subordinates in the sense that they are all one in the eyes of God. They are all children of the same God.
On the Indian side the Samkhya philosophers unify all material things as one entity and the sentient things as souls. The atomic theorists or Vaisheshikas view all material things as combinations of set of atoms and the souls as sentient beings who use these material things. Neither of them believes in God per se, but they attempt unification at various levels.
Upanishads take this idea of unification to the extreme. They say that everything gets unified in one single entity namely God or Brahma.
It is difficult to say whether Badarayana had this unification in mind or was he merely talking about Brahma or God. If you believe what Sankara says, Badarayana does seem to stress on unity in the absolute sense. But if you listen to later Vedic scholars such as Madhva who are duelists to the core, Badarayana was only talking about Brahma and he had no intention to unify things. For duelists the Brahma Sutra was a tool to assert supremacy of God, and quash their opponents who did not believe in God.
Let us not take any sides, but move on and see how Badarayana puts forth his views.
A series on ancient Indian composition Brahma Sutra. © Dr. King, Swami Satyapriya 2020-21
No comments:
Post a Comment