Pooja

(First Posted on bloopdiary on 09/05/2003)

Classes of Worship

Modes and methods of Hindu worship can be classified into two distinct categories, the Vedic, (based on the prescriptions of the Vedas, primarily the Samhitaas and the Braahnmanaas), and the Aagamic or Pauranic, (based upon later scriptures, the puraana, the sutra, the shaastra and the Itihaasa, literature). Aagama literally means ‘that which has come’; thus Aagama rituals are derived from some older source, canonically the Veda.

Vedic worship centred on the fire-sacrifice, (the Yajna), certain religious and domestic rituals, (shrauta sutraas and griyha sutraas), and the sacraments, (samskaara). Very few of these rituals are in common practice today. The most widespread rituals of worship today are of the Pauraanic or Aagaamic variety. One very important difference between Hindu forms of worship and Judeo-Christian / Islamic ones, is that congregational or public worship is absent in Hinduism. This is traditionally because of the Hindu concept of adhikaara or spiritual competence; not every one is competent for every form of worship.

Most present Hindu rituals of worship seem to have developed after the establishment of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy. This is because the changes in religious rituals from the Vedic to the Aagaamic seem consonant with the themes prevalent in the six orthodox systems (darshanas); this rationalisation was missing in many Vedic rituals. A very significant change is the integration of Yoga methodology into the rituals; given that Yoga was a non-Vedic, and probably a pre-Aryan system. The orthodox Yoga system, also called the Ashtaanga Yoga or eight limbed Yoga has eight ascending stages that culminate in realisation of the Brahman in a state of super-consciousness, samaadhi. Four of these eight stages are an integral part of all ‘worship’ – namely, posture, (aasana), breath (life force)-control, (praanaayaama), placing or fixation, (nyaasa or dhaaranaa), and deep concentration & contemplation (dhyaana).

The presence or absence of these components separates the worship rituals from the preparatory rituals; more on this later.

The significance of Yoga is also seen in temple worship where the installation of the image of the Deity, the vigraha or the pratimaa in the sanctum-sanctorum (from the foundation upwards) is analogous to the six plexuses (chakras) in the body; the image itself being equivalent to the thousand-petaled-lotus, (sahasraara-padma). The temple thus depicts the body of the yogin.

Methods of Worship

There are three forms of worship in present day Hinduism (almost entirely Aagama). These are described below:

Poojaa

This form of worship is common in temples. It is also a daily activity in Hindu homes where images in the family altar are worshipped. Special Poojaa rituals, worshipping specific deities as parts of specific festivals or otherwise (e.g., Ganesh Poojaa during the Ganesh Festival, or the Satya-Naaraayana Poojaa) are also common.

Poojaa includes the four elements of Yoga as described above. In addition, it involves invocation of the Deity in the worshipper, specifically at his manipura chakra, which is transferred to the image. In the main, Poojaa consists of the five offerings or attendances (panchopachaara). Though they are called ‘five offerings’, these are really ‘six’; they are yet called ‘five offerings’ probably because the first and the sixth offering have the same ‘seed mantra’. These six offerings are represented by the material used during Poojaa which are water, (paadya), sandalwood paste and other fragrant substances, (gandha), flowers, (pushpa), incense, (dhoopa), light, (deepa) and food, (naivedya). Each of these has an emotional and theological significance. The Deity is the all-pervading Absolute, the six offerings represent the five elements that constitute the manifested universe and the individual-Self (jiva) of the worshipper. The offerings thus symbolically represent the return of the manifested universe, including the individual-Selfs, to the Brahman, the all-pervading Purusha.

The offerings also imply an emotional relation to Deity. Thus the offering of water, represents that element, (Aapa), and denotes ‘acquaintance’ with the Deity. Sandalwood and fragrances, represent the element earth, (prithvi), and symbolise trust in Deity. Flowers represent ether, space, (Aakaasha), and convey adoration of Deity. Incense represents wind, (Vaayu), and denotes devotion, (bhakti), to Deity. Light represents energy, (Tejas), and stands for knowledge, (jnana) of the Real. And finally food, representing the individual-Self, (jiva), denotes the realisation of the identity of the worshipper with Deity. The offering of food is accompanied by what is called ‘oblation of the life-forces’, the praanaas.

After the Poojaa is completed, the Deity is transferred back to the manipura chakra within the seeker. This symbolic step is not observed in temple worship, or after worshipping at the family altar because Deity is in a way ‘permanently’ invoked in those images.

Japa / Dhyaana

Chanting and contemplation of Deity is a very private, one-to-one form of worship. No image is required here. The four steps of Yoga are followed. In most cases, Deity is invoked, but the transference does not occur t any physical image, rather to the image residing in the minds eye. Japa involves repeating the name of the Deity or repeating the mantras of different Deities, Ishthas.

Sometimes, a hymn of praise or a strotram is recited, instead of performing japa, making the worship akin to a prayer, (praarthanaa). Most often, the stotram recitation is not a prayer making requests to the Deity, but simply comprises of verses of adoration, describing the form of the Deity (Ishtha) to be remembered, (smaran), and contemplated upon (dhyaana), or praising the greatness and goodness and benevolent deeds of the Deity.

Practice of the eight-limbed Yoga, or Raaja Yoga meditation, as it is often called, is itself a form of worship. This method of worship doesn’t have any ‘external’ symbolism associated with it. Yoga is different from the other modes of worship though, in that it goes for the gold as it were. The goal of Yoga is salvation, (Moksha). The first two stages of Yoga constitute ethical readiness, the next two stages physical readiness, the fifth stage ‘withdrawal’ refers to control of the senses, (this is where the difficult part begins). The sixth and the seventh stages are fixation (“dhaarana” = holding on), and deep uninterrupted contemplation beyond any memory of ego or ‘I-ness’, (dhyaana). Japa or recitation of the name or mantra is often used as an aid for fixation, while a hymn (stotram) describing the form of the Deity (Ishtha) may be recited to help create a mental picture of the Deity, the object of meditation. The final stage is samaadhi; a state of ‘realisation’ of the identity of the Self, (Aatman), and the Real, (Purusha); the fruition of all worship. This realisation is Moksha. The Ashtaanga Yoga therefore is often called the most perfect, the best and the ideal mode of worship.

Homa

This rarely practiced form of worship is a legacy of the Vedic yajna. It involves making oblations (of clarified butter, rice, etc.,) into the sacred fire with the chanting of mantras.

Other religious activities include singing of songs of praise or bhajans, which is usually done in groups, listening to religious discourses (pravachana), etc. These activities are most often communal and congregational. However, they do not typically constitute ‘worship’, (Upaasanaa), but are preparatory and educative in nature.

Inter-Religious Dialogue

(Reposted with some changes from the original entry on bloopdiary posted on 10/06/2003)

What is dialogue?

Simply put, a dialogue is a conversation between two people. But in the context of religions the definition most apt is “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.” However, the definition is still too general. In the domain of religions, an amicable settlement or agreement is difficult. Firstly, such ‘agreements’ would require centralized decision-making; something that even the most organized of religions cannot possess, (especially in comparison with entities like the nation-state), primarily because faith/belief is a matter of individual conscience which is inherently beyond the scope of any form of legislation. Secondly, the very nature of belief in religious matters renders agreement that can resolve the conflicts exceedingly difficult, almost impossible to achieve.

The expected result of inter-religious dialogue then cannot be agreement; it has to be comprehension. Naturally, a superficial conversation cannot be dialogue in this sense. A sustained encounter between members of different religious traditions with the stated intent and determined efforts towards understanding another point of view; this will be our ‘definition’ of ‘Inter-Religious Dialogue’ (IRD), for the purpose of this entry.

Owing to my situation and scope of knowledge, this entry, while it attempts to be about IRD in general, is likely to get an ‘India & the West’-‘Hinduism & Christianity’ slant, particularly in terms of the examples I would cite. In contrast to most other entries on this diary, this entry is also going to contain my personal opinions & views, rather than simply information. I request the reader’s indulgence.

The purpose of dialogue

Why is IRD required? To gain an understanding of the other religious tradition is simplistic answer. Comprehension cannot be an end in itself. There could be many reasons why people would want to indulge in IRD. There would be those who like to engage in scholastic discourse, philosophers of religion, students of comparative religion, theologians, and such like scholars would fall in this category. However, their objective usually is to gain knowledge about several religious traditions and they usually would not focus on the interactions between two specific traditions. An increasing number of people seek to know about other religions with a view to promoting diversity and pluralism. Often, instruction about ‘World Religions’ creeps into school curricula at least in part for this reason. Civic authorities in areas having large minority population often ‘teach’ facts about the minority religions to those of their employees that are likely to come in contact with the minorities, with the view to enhancing sensitivity towards cultural issues. Historically though, proselytisation has been the most important reason for engaging in IRD. In fact IRD began as a kind of ‘by-product’ of Christianity’s missionary activities. It was the Vatican, which formalised IRD as a kind of ‘policy’ in what has often been perceived as an effort to tone down the aggressive/offensive thrust of its missionary activities. Owing to this history other considerations often clouded IRD. For much of the Americas, Asia and Africa, Christianity was a pre-cursor and/or compatriot of colonialism.

IRD with a view to proselytisation involves negative ad well as positive scrutiny of the ‘other’ religion. Negative scrutiny focuses on the flaws of the other tradition & its customs and contrasts those with the merits of ones own. Positive scrutiny, on the other hand, tries to identify points of similarity, and then attempts to use these as points of reference for reaching out and convincing.

Types of dialogue

Dr. Eric Sharpe, the renowned scholar of Comparative Religion categorises IRD into four types. Other scholars (Donald Mitchell) have also arrived at very much similar ‘levels’ of dialogue.

Human Dialogue or the Dialogue of Life: At the most basic level, this involves courteous interactions with adherents of other religions that are encountered. It involves exchanging gifts and greetings and in many ways to meet simply as human beings rising above the different religious traditions that separate them. Most of us indulge in this kind of dialogue when we interact with people of other faiths.

Secular Dialogue or the Dialogue of Collaboration: This level of dialogue sees people of different faiths collaborating in matters of public / common concern. The religious beliefs while relevant to such collaboration are not be discussed or brought into focus. A good example would be joint declarations by several religious figures adhering to different faiths against sectarian violence.

Discursive Dialogue or the Dialogue of Theological Discussion: This involves debate, study of scripture and such ‘scholarly’ endeavours. It can often involve heated arguments. Most formal IRD processes fall into this category. It is a very specialised level and involves comparison of beliefs and values. Hence it is required that the participants are well informed about the theology, philosophy, beliefs and customs of the two traditions involved.

Spiritual Dialogue or the Dialogue of Religious Experience: This level of dialogue involves spiritual practice. It involves praying, meditating, fasting, etc., often involving the use of the spiritual methods of the other tradition. It can also involve praying together, each according to his/her own tradition, or narrating / sharing ones spiritual experiences. Some would contend that this level is no ‘genuine’ dialogue in any way. I would tend to believe that this is the deepest level of dialogue possible and one, which most benefits the dialogists concerned. Spiritual dialogue, by its very nature can never be a mass activity. There are likely to be even fewer spiritual dialogists than there would be discursive dialogists.

IRD in India

Lets take the example of India and the history of Hindu-Christian dialogue. Christianity came to India, most probably via Syria, through trading routes with South India. Legend has it that the apostle St. Thomas landed in India in 42 AD and won a substantial following. These Christian communities though, remained small and little if any records of ‘dialogue’ exist. The coming of the Europeans in the 16th Century, led by the Portuguese started the first sustained ‘missionary’ effort in India. Each colonial power brought its own set of missionaries and they wrote back to Europe of the appalling religious beliefs and practices of the Indians. Much of the study of Hinduism emanating from these missionaries for the next 200 years focused on ‘negative proselytisation’. Such horrific ‘Hindoo’ (sic) practices like ‘suttee’ (sic) were written about, convincing devout audiences back in Europe of the need to bring both Christianity and European rule to the barbaric natives of India.

Starting the 18th century, this began to change. Visionaries like the French Catholic missionary, Jean-Antoine Dubois, who believed that the work of a Christian missionary should be based on a thorough acquaintance with the innermost life and character of the native population, began to study Hinduism closely. The second phase in Hindu-Christian IRD began advent of British rule in several parts of India. This brought intellectuals to India and less biased information about the Jewel in the Crown began to flow back to Europe. Stalwarts like Sir Monier Williams, Sir Edwin Arnold, Dr. Max Muller, pioneers in the translation of Hindu scriptures, aimed to study and understand. While their stated objective continued to be evangelism, they were scholars and not preachers. The ‘positive proselytisation’ phase of dialogue had begun. In parallel, secular and human dialogue evolved and continued in parts of India with substantial Christian communities (Goa, South India, the North East, etc), this continues to date.

An interesting and indirect result of the first century of British Rule was what has been called the ‘Hindu Renaissance’. This manifested in three distinct ways. The first to emerge was the need for reform. The impact of western education produced reformers and thinkers like Raja Rammohan Roy, Keshubchunder Sen, Justice Ranade, etc. Many of these thinkers studied Christianity and felt that Hinduism had several things to learn from it, particularly in areas of religious organisation (the Church, Hinduism does not have a parallel institution), and a systematic approach to community & social service. Several of these thinkers initiated steps in this direction by founding spiritual societies and organisations. A second manifestation was spearheaded by Hindu mystics like Shri Ramakrishna, and his foremost & most famous disciple Swami Vivekananda. Their lives and teaching sought to demonstrate that Hinduism is not a dead religion of the hoary past but a vibrant religion that retains its vitality and has an immense amount of spiritual wisdom to offer to the west. It is unclear to what extent the British rule was causally responsible for this reaction, however it certainly gave rise to the means (enhanced communication, modern means of transport, etc) to enable Hinduism to reach out to the west in, what has often been described as, the Indian ‘counter-mission’. Their pioneering impact was extended by scholars like Dr. S Radhakrishnan, philosopher, teacher and statesman, who chaired the Oxford department of Indian Philosophy.

A third and somewhat militant outcome was an antagonistic revivalism that held that Hinduism did not need to learn from other religious traditions, it needed to rediscover its ancient wisdom and past glories. This school of thought is epitomised by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and his Arya Samaj. While this school had limited impact on dialogue directly, it found increasingly vocal support in the rising tide of Indian Nationalism. The association, if not the identification, of Christianity with colonialism meant that India’s nationalist leaders, including Mahatma Gandhi, naturally looked askance at missionary activity.

Owing to these factors the history of discursive Hindu-Christian dialogue in India has been rather turbulent. The scars of partition and the horrific communal conflicts that preceded and followed the division have made religion is a very sensitive issue in modern India. On one hand are the ‘secularists’ who vehemently proclaim the oneness of all religions, on the other hand is the militant Hindu right, (a very new phenomenon in Hinduism), who demonise other religions as anti-national. Both positions render dialogue difficult. The first renders dialogue unnecessary, the second position prevents it.

Political ideologies however cannot seggregate people into isolated compartments. Religion, in India is a very visible feature and it permeates the daily lives of its teeming millions; not for nothing has India often been described as the most religious country in the world. A multitude of religions not withstanding, commonalities of culture and language ensure a thriving secular & human dialogue between the adherents of various religions. All said and done, it is this spirit of tolerance that is ingrained in the Indian ethos as a result of millennia of living with adherents of ‘other religions’, that binds the nation together, despite all the contradictions and tensions.

Assessment & Conclusion

Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology is an example of successful dialogue. Gandhi is best known for his doctrine of non-violence (ahimsa). Like many educated Indians of his time, Gandhi travelled to England to study Law. It was while in England that Gandhi studied the New Testament. The Sermon on the Mount profoundly influenced him. He saw the life transforming moral courage that would be needed if a person were to be able to ‘turn the other cheek’. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ certainly played a role in Gandhi's thinking when he formulated his method of non-violent resistance (satyagraha).

Popular thinking about the colonies in Britain (and other Western imperial powers) was the ‘White Man’s Burden’ ideology – the belief that the barbaric lesser races of the world required the civilising & moral influence of firm and paternalistic European rule to prevent them from disintegrating into chaos, (negative proselytisation was fodder for this ideology). Rudyard Kipling's entire generation, most Europeans & North American’s at some level believed this and thought that their rule in the colonies was morally justified. The importance of Gandhian thinking, which even Indian historians often miss is that he snatched that 'moral high ground' from the British! He put India's freedom struggle on an EVEN higher moral pedestal. Most reasonable Christians in Britain & America saw that Gandhi & his followers who 'turned the other cheek' were BETTER Christians than the British police who beat them up!! The insights Gandhi derived from the teachings of Christ made him a BETTER HINDU than he was before and in becoming a better Hindu he became a better Christian than his Christian oppressors! Such insights ate the ‘Eureka’ moments of IRD.

In my opinion, the four levels of dialogue should ideally follow in that sequence. Only if IRD ultimately leads individuals to participate in spiritual dialogue can it attain its stated objective – comprehension of the other religion in a ‘religious’ sense. Dialogue in this sense involves understanding that all religions seek to address the fundamental questions of human existence. Thus it is very much possible, that learning about the answers provided by another tradition can help us better understand the answers given by our own. This enhanced understanding is the fruition of dialogue. The sincere attempt to understand another faith often results in us seeing glimpses of our own faith in what we considered an alien line of thought.

At all levels, when sincerely attempted IRD usually does lead to more harmonious relationship between the various religious traditions. The sincerity is a key qualifier, essential to retain the 'spirit' of dialogue. It is this sincerity that leads to true tolerance. A polite glossing over of differences between religious traditions, or a mushy mushy over simplification of the core issues with superficial statements like 'it is all one God' is anti-thetical to the spirit of dialogue. Hinduism has the idea of spiritual competence, (adhikara). And only someone who has that competence, (the adhikarin), has the right to declare the identity of some spiritual concept or say that some ritual is meaningless. Only someone who has the adhikara to really see the identity of Christ & Krishna has the right to proclaim that. Often enough, well intentioned but over-enthusiastic attempts at dialogue fail because people fail to recognize this caveat.

On Moksha

Introduction

Soteriology (the science of salvation) in any religious tradition starts with a spiritual problem, a ‘Fall’ as it were, to which salvation / nirvana is put forward as a solution. In generic terms, most religions propound that the present human existence is a state of imperfection. This imperfection is seen as the ‘fallen, sinful’ state by Christianity, it is seen as a state where mankind is has to endure endless (dukhkha) suffering through countless cycles of rebirth by Buddhism, it is seen as a state of ignorance (avidya) and hence of limitations and karmic bondage by certain schools of Hindu thought. Soteriology, then, would deal with the principles and methods that bring about transformation of man from his present state, to a better state, a state of perfection, completeness, or happiness. It is but natural, that the ideas of what this state of perfection / completeness is like, and the method by which the transformation of man is to be achieved, is determined, at least in part, by ideas about what gave rise to the state of imperfection in the first place. Christianity, postulates that it was Adam & Eve’s choice to disobey God that brought about the fall, Theravada Buddhism, while it does not state so clearly, seems to take the stand that ‘dukhkha’ is an inherent property of existence, some schools of Hindu thought, take a similar stand in that ‘separateness’ developed as an inevitable consequence of creation. In this sense then, ‘Moksha’ describes the state of spiritual perfection, as variously conceived in Hindu thought.
Moksha is the highest of the four legitimate aims (purusharthas) of human existence. However, it is difficult to get clear definitions of Moksha in Hindu scripture. The state of Moksha has been differently conceptualised by various schools of thought, and the Upanishads, the bedrock of Hindu philosophy, often describe Moksha in metaphorical and poetic language that easily lends to different interpretations. The Mandukya Upanishad, at one place, (III.4), describes Moksha as absorption into the Brahman; “

As on the destruction of the jar, the space (ether) enclosed within merges with akasa (the space element), even so the individual sould merge into the Atman.

” The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, (IV.3.21), however, describes Moksha as the state where all desires and the resultant sorrows have been quelled; “

As a man in the embrace of his beloved wife knows nothing without and within, so the person when in the embrace of the Intelligent Self knows nothing without or within. That, verily is his form in which his desire is fulfilled, in which the Self is his desire, in which he is without desire, free from any sorrow.

” Such differences have led Hindu philosophers to present several models of Moksha, bothe theistic and non-theistic. At the heart of these differences is the acknowledgement that different metaphysical conceptualisations of the imperfection of the human state and of the phenomenal universe would lead to correspondingly different ideations of the perfect and hence desirable state that is to be strived for.

Etymology

Moksha derives from the root verb ‘muk’ = to loose, to let loose, to free, to let go, to slacken, to release, to liberate, through its participle form mokshyati = to be loosed, to be set free, to be released. Moksha thus means emancipation, liberation, release. Two other terms often used as synonyms for Moksha are kaivalya and nirvana, though the later is more common in Buddhist philosophy. Kaivalya is the noun form of the adjective kevala = only, exclusively one’s own, not connected with anything else, isolated, abstract, absolute, simple, pure, uncompounded, unmingled, entire, whole, all, complete. Kaivalya then is the state of perfect isolation, of absolute unity, abstraction, detachment from all connections, beatitude. Nirvana is a derivative of the compound word ‘nirvati’, ‘nir’ = without, not (the prefix of absence), ‘vati’ = to blow (as vayu = wind). Nirvana thus means blown out, put out, extinguished, calmed, quieted, and tamed.

The ideals of Moksha

The six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, (astika darshanas), namely Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Purva-Mimamsa, and Vedanta or Uttara Mimamsa, have differing concepts of Moksha. These six schools are not entirely divergent. They are often grouped into pairs owing to the commonality that they have amongst them. Thus Nyaya-Vaisheshika forms a pair because logical analysis and empirical attempts go hand in hand. Samkhya-Yoga are paired because their cosmogony is nearly identical. Purva & Uttara Mimamsa base their doctrine on scripture, with the Purva (pre) Mimamsa focusing on the first part of the Vedas, namely the Samhitas and Brahmanas, while the Uttara (post) Mimamsa focuses on the last portion of the Vedas, namely the Upanishads, hence the name Vedanta. While most of these schools do not emphasize or even necessitate a deity, theistic interpretations find a strong voice in some of the sub-schools of the Vedanta Darshana. It needs to be noted that it is the theistic view of Moksha, especially within the context of devotional theism that is most commonly held in popular Hinduism today. The differing views on Moksha as per the six darshanas are given below.

Moksha in Nyaya

Nyaya, the school of Hindu logic, defines moksha as freedom from pain. “This condition of immortality, free from fear, imperishable, consisting in attainment of bliss…” Nyaya adopts a negative definition of Moksha rather than a positive ‘enjoyment of pleasure’, (a view inherent in the idea of heaven present in the Vedic hymns), out of the view that pleasure is always tainted by pain. This position thus prima facie is analogous to the Buddhist idea of duhkha.

Moksha in Vaisheshika

The vaisheshika school postulated an atomistic (and hence a pluralistic) world view. Moksha according to this school was the state of freedom from all connection with qualities, conditions and attributes. The Self attains Moksha when it rids itself of the qualities produced by contact with names and forms (nama & rupa) and regains its independence.

Moksha in Samkhya

The samkhya, enumeration, is a dualistic school, which postulates an eternal distinction between matter or nature, prakriti, and the Self, purusha. Intellect, buddhi, evolves from matter and generates the ego, ‘I’ ness, ahamkara, from which evolves the mind, manas, and so on. The Samkhya system thus enumerates the 25 principles, tattvas, (the non-material Self, purusha, and the 24 material principles evolved from nature, prakriti). Owing to the activities of the intellect, buddhi, the Self, purusha, identifies itself with nature, prakriti. It becomes ignorant of its true nature as pure unfettered consciousness. Moksha, as posited by samkhya is the state of pure consciousness when the Self, the purusha, detaches from prakriti, thus regaining its inherent nature by quelling ignorance through discriminative knowledge. The samkhyan state of moksha is not defined in terms of pain or pleasure, because these are modes of prakriti and do not apply to the Self.

Moksha in Yoga

Yoga draws heavily upon Samkhyan cosmogony. It however stresses upon the method of attaining Moksha more than explicating it as a concept. Yoga however admits theism; a deity, Ishvara, God, is postulated as the object of meditation. Moksha in yoga is kaivalya, perfect isolation, absolute independence. The Self is shrouded in ignorance, avidya, which causes it to possess desires and fetters it to matter. Moksha, kaivalya is attained when ignorance is destroyed by attaining discriminative knowledge in the final stage of meditation, super-conscious samadhi.

Moksha in Purva Mimamsa

The mimamsa school which stresses upon ritual, originally did not concern itself with the problem of Moksha. Mimamsa stated that scrupulous performance of Vedic rituals led to the attainment of heaven, swarga, and stopped at that. The later mimansakas gave very divergent views of Moksha. Some defined Moksha as ‘the absolute cessation of the body, caused by the disappearance of dharma & non-dharma.’ Others stated that Moksha is simply the natural form of the Self. Still others adopted the nyaya definition of freedom from pain. There were also some mimamsakas that defined Moksha as ‘realisation’ of the atman, thus bringing them close to the non-dualist view.

Moksha in Vedanta (Uttara Mimamsa)

Undoubtedly the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, Vedanta derives its philosophy from the Upanishads. A key text for the Vedanta school is the Vedanta Sutra or the Brahma Sutras of Badarayana, a compendium of 555 highly cryptic ‘aphorisms’ that summarise and attempt to systematise the philosophy of the Upanishads. In line with the classical Hindu scholastic tradition, the various schools of Vedanta explicate their interpretations by way of commentaries, bhashya, on the Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads. So esoteric, speculative, metaphorical and varied are the ideas presented in the Upanishads, so cryptic are the aphorisms of the Brahma Sutra, most are no more than 2-3 words long, that they are amenable to various interpretations and hence the Vedanta schools present diverse ideas. At core however, all Vedanta schools accept the doctrine of ‘Atman-Brahman’. The fact that they postulate a Unitary Absolute Reality distinguishes the Vedanta schools from the other darshanas talked of above.

The Ultimate Reality, Atman-Brahman

The notion of ‘Atman-Brahman’ is central to the concept of Moksha in Vedanta. Even the theistic schools, postulate the Deity as ‘Saguna Brahman’, the Brahman with qualities / attributes. As detailed in the entry ‘On the Nature of Deity’)., the Brahman is the single eternal absolute impersonal supreme reality, the ground of the cosmos, the primal source and ultimate goal of all existence, which is attribute-less and beyond all literal expression and comprehension. The ‘Atman’ is the immaterial, innermost ‘Self’, the essence of the being, the eternal core of the personality that survives after death and that transmigrates to a new life. Dr. Radhakrishnan defines Atman as the ‘foundational reality underlying the conscious powers of the individual, the inward ground of the human soul, the super reality of the individual ego, jiva.’ The Upanishads proclaim the identity of the Atman and the Brahman, the Self and the Absolute. The Vedanta schools differ in their views on the nature of Moksha in terms of the interplay of Atman-Brahman.

Advaita (Non-dualism, Monism)

Advaita, monism or non-dualism, of Adi Shankaracharya is the most influential of the Vedanta schools. To understand the concept of Moksha in Advaita, we need to put in place some of the basic definitions of Advaita-vedantic metaphysics.
Advaita defines the Brahman as absolute knowledge, pure consciousness. Brahman is without any attribute (nirguna), without any activity or movement (nishkriya), without any parts (niravayava), unconditioned and absolute, (nirupadhika), and having no distinguishing element, (nirvishesha). Brahman is One, indivisible, without a second, and having in itself no difference (bheda).The common description ‘sat-chit-ananda’ of the Brahman, does not imply any qualities, it simply means that Brahman is ultimate reality (and hence absolute & unchanging), pure consciousness, and perfect bliss.
This definition of the Brahman raises a tricky question. How can an ever-changing universe be causally linked to the absolute, unchanging Brahman? It is not, argued Adi Shankara. The ever-changing material universe with the many individuals (jiva) inhabiting it are declared to be unreal (as opposed to the Absolute reality of Brahman); the Brahman merely appears as the world due to avidya (nescience / ignorance), causing the jiva-atman, to believe that it is distinct from Brahman. This principle that ‘makes things appear what they are not’ is Maya or adhyasa. Given this illusory nature of the universe, there is, strictly speaking, no creation. In reality, the world does not exist, never existed, never will exist. Advaita hence propounds strict monism. It states that the Atman and Brahman are one and the same; the individual and the absolute are identical - That Thou art, tat tvam asi, say the Upanishads. The very ‘individual-ness’ of the individual, is Maya. Moksha is the knowledge, jnana, of the identity of one’s Self with the Brahman. Moksha can only be attained through knowledge, jnana, not through action, karma, because, Moksha is ‘direct knowledge’ of the Brahman. When the person experiences ‘I am Brahman’, aham brahmasmi’, that is Moksha. At Moksha, all limitations are lost, the atman expands into the infinitude of Brahman; becomes Brahman.
Adi Shankaracharya’s doctrine of Maya, which uncompromisingly declared the world to be unreal, was unpalatable to many Hindu philosophers. A disturbing point was that Advaita left little room for a deity. Advaita stated that Ishvara, God, and the deities of the Hindu pantheon, are Brahman seen through the mirror of Maya. The other schools of Vedanta, some of whose adherents severely criticised the ideas of Adi Shankara’s Advaita, were staunchly theistic, and actively promoted the Bhakti tradition.

Vishistadvaita (Qualified Non-dualism)

The qualified non-dualism, Vishishtadvaita of Ramanujacharya is primarily a theistic, and particularly, a Vaishnavite, interpretation of Vedanta. Ramanuja’s work was possibly the earliest attempt to provide a philosophical structure to devotional theism and demonstrate its orthodoxy in terms of the Shruti, Vedic Scripture. In many ways, it serves as an antipode to Shankara’s non-dualism.
Ramanuja’s Brahman, is saguna Brahman, the Brahman with attributes, attributes of perfection and goodness. Ramanuja argues that the qualities of Being (sat), consciousness (chit) and bliss (ananda), give to Brahman a character and a personality. The most prominent qualities of Brahman are knowledge, power and compassionate love (karuna). The Advaitic impersonal absolute Brahman is thus transformed into the all powerful, all knowing, benevolent, God, Bhagawan or Ishvara. The Upanishads declare that Brahman is satyam-jnanam-anantam, Truth, Knowledge, Infinitude. Ramanuja’s metaphysics, postulates the reality of three distinct orders; matter (prakriti), souls (jiva) and God (Ishvara). He maintains that there is non-duality between these orders in the form of an underlying unity in the infinitude of God/Brahman; but Brahman/God is qualified (Vishishta) by the orders of matter and souls; hence the name, qualified non-duality, Vishishtadvaita.
Moksha, for the jiva is a state of bliss in the company of Ishvara. Thus the jiva maintains its individuality even in the state of Moksha; there is no merging of the “I” into the “All”. The route to Moksha is bhakti that leads to the grace, kripa, of Ishvara.However, bhakti for Ramanuja is dhyana, meditation bearing the character of devotion / love.

Other schools

There are numerous other Vedantic schools; the dvaita, dualism school of Madhavacharya; the bhedabheda, difference-non-difference, school of Bhaskaracharya, Nimbarka, and others; the Achintya Bhedabheda or Bengal school of Chaitanya; the shuddhadvaita, pure non-dualism of Vallabhacharya, and some more. All of them are theistic in character and lay stress upon bhakti.

Conclusion

The concept of Moksha is inextricably linked with its corresponding concept of deity. Each philosophical system has its unique metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology, and these serve to define the concept of deity as well as the notion of Moksha in the system concerned. As Moksha is the summum bonum, the highest goal of spiritual endeavour, each system recommends its own ‘prescription’ to achieving it. These prescriptions basically involve four methods, paths, margas.

On Karma

Introduction

The word ‘Karma’ has for some time now become part of the vocabulary of the West. But the general understanding of the concept is limited to vague notions of the ‘what-goes-around-comes-around OR as-you-sow,-so-shall-you-reap’ variety, very often leaving out the theory of rebirth. This is a major lacuna. Belief in reincarnation and transmigration of the Self (samsara) is an important component of the Hindu doctrine of Karma. It is believed that the Law of Karma symbolises the perfect justice inherent to the cosmic order. Together with Dharma, it gives a more complete picture of Hindu ethics.

Etymology

‘Karma’ derives from the Sanskrit noun ‘karman’ meaning an act, action, performance, work, labour, activity, etc., which in turn derives from the root verb ‘kri’, which means to do, to make, to perform, to cause, to effect, to undertake, and a whole such host of actions. Over time, the word has come to mean a whole cluster of words and ideas. Karma thus means not just the actions, but the cumulative consequence of all ones actions. The idea of Karma is so deeply ingrained in the Indic mind, so entrenched is the notion that an individual’s destiny is the direct consequence of his / her past actions, that, in popular parlance, Karma is often used as a synonym for ‘fate’.

Historical Development

Like most ideas in Hinduism, Karma traces its roots to the Vedas; particularly, the principle of ‚ta, which amongst other things envisages that an eternal moral order is involved in the very course of nature. The idea that no action by anybody is lost in vain and that a person has to undergo the consequences of his action according to its merits or demerits, is found in the Vedic literature. However, these ideas were still inchoate in the early Vedic period (1800 – 1200 BCE). These ideas start becoming more articulate from the period of the Brahmana literature (ritual commentary), till by the time of the early Upanishads (1000 – 800 BCE) the Law of Karma was well established in Hindu Philosophy. Gautama Siddhartha, (563-486 BCE), the Buddha, carried forward these ideas to Buddhism; albeit with some changes.

The Doctrine of Karma

The Principle of Karma has two aspects to it. Firstly, it states that NO action is lost in vain (kritaprasnasah); one can in no way escape the consequences of his action(s). Secondly, it also categorically states that NO one is to bear the consequences of actions which he has not one himself, (akritabhyupagamah). If somebody does not exhaust the fruits of his actions in the present life, he has to assume a future life by way of rebirth. This makes rebirth / reincarnation & transmigration of the Self, together known by the Sanskrit word ‘Samsara’, a necessary consequence of the law of Karma. Seemingly ‘undeserved’ pleasure or suffering is believed to be the outcome of meritorious or wicked deeds done in past lives. A commonly known image of the concept of reincarnation is the ‘Wheel of Rebirth’ which holds the individual in bondage. Karma leads to rebirth in order that the Self may face the consequences of its past actions which in turn causes the Self to perform more actions resulting in even more consequences for it to face. This cycle goes on endlessly; the Self is as it were in ‘bondage’ tied to the ‘wheel of rebirth’ enduring endless cycles of births and deaths. A rather gloomy pessimistic outlook for the fate of the Self, but more on that later.
While Karma literally means action of any kind done by a sentient being, only voluntary (aichchika) karma is thought to be morally significant, it is these Karmas that generate effects or consequences.

Corollary: Latent Tendencies (Samskaras)

A very important corollary to the law of Karma is the law of desires, “As is his desire, so is his will; as is his will, so is the deed he does, whatever deed he does, that he attains.” (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV 4,5). It is believed that each action gives rise to latent tendencies (samskaras) which the Self carries forward in each successive rebirth. Good actions give rise to good tendencies and wicked actions give rise to wicked tendencies and these cumulatively reside in the karmic memory, as it were, of the Self. In effect this means that each Self, accumulates both benevolent and malicious tendencies over many births. Thus every person is born with great capacities for both good and evil. This gives rise to a strange combination of pre-destination and free-will. It is believed that each action that a person chooses to perform (free-will at work here), either good or bad, awakens a corresponding latent tendency for good or bad which in turn impels (pre-destination) the person to perform even better or wickeder actions. As these latent tendencies are awakened, it takes greater resolve, stronger exercise of will on part of the person to halt and reverse the virtuous or vicious cycle, in a persons life.

The ‘playing out’ of Karma

Depending upon the kind of influence they have on the Self, Karma is classified into four categories. Accumulated (sanchita) Karma, is the sum total of all the unrecompensed mass of Karma cumulated over many births. Matured (prarabhdha) Karma, is that portion of accumulated Karma that ‘plays out’ in a persons life as ‘fate’. It is matured karma that determines such things as the circumstances of birth, the fortunes (good or bad) that the person encounters in his life. Present wilful (kriyamana) karma, is that currently being accumulated owing to actions being performed. Immediate (agami) Karma, is the immediate consequence / recompense of our present wilful actions. To explain it differently, we are constantly performing actions some of which have immediate consequences, some of which get accumulated to be recompensed later; some of the recompense we face is on account of actions performed in this life, some on account of those performed in previous lives. For example, if I over eat today, I will face its recompense (indigestion) tomorrow. If I steal from someone, and manage to go unpunished by the law, I will have to face the consequences in some future birth.

On things to come

The Law of Karma has often been accused of being pessimistic, of promoting fatalism, and of being an explanation given by the higher castes to justify the exploitation of the lower castes by blaming their miserable conditions on wicked actions of a previous birth. Indeed, when seen in isolation, the doctrine of Karma may seem like an elaborate attempt to come to terms with the unfairness of life, by inventing a system that tries to explain the unfair events by a fictitious cause and effect logic. However, when interpreted along with the ideas of Dharma and the concept of Moksha, (the Hindu equivalent of the Christian concept of salvation), it becomes clear that the doctrine of Karma is not pessimistic or fatalistic, and that it was not propounded as a justification for an exploitative social system.

On Dharma

Dharma derives from the Sanskrit verb root ‘dhri’, which means to uphold, to support, to carry, to bear. The word Dharma thus literally means, ‘that which upholds’. What is it that Dharma upholds? Everything.

Dharma has both the descriptive and prescriptive aspects ti it. In the first sense, Dharma describes the ‘way things are’. It connotes the inherent order and harmony in the nature of all entities that constitute the cosmos. In the prescriptive sense, Dharma sets the standard for the ‘way things aught to be’. It portrays the ideas and ideals that should be aspired for. Implicit in this syncretisation of the descriptive and prescriptive senses of Dharma is the proposition that goodness, harmony, order, etc., are the essential quality or character of the phenomenal world, and evil, discord, chaos, etc., are aberrations.

Dharma, thus, encompasses the concepts described by the English words duty, law, religion, custom-tradition, conformity (to dharma), virtue, righteousness, morality, rule, authority, etc. Dharma, in its entirety, symbolises the positive aspects of the phenomenal world (the universe) since it is a reflection of the fact that the phenomenal world (the universe) derives from, is sourced out of and is grounded on Deity. Dharma, thus, is a manifestation, a symptom, of the immanence of Deity in all existence. Hence, it is Dharma which enables and ensures spiritual progress towards the attainment of the self’s spiritual goals.

In practical terms, Dharma operates on all levels from the microcosm of the individual to the macrocosm of all existence. For the individual, this manifests as conformity to social and ritual duties, to the traditional rules of conduct for one's caste, family, and profession. Such requirements constitute an individual's Dharma (law and duties), and are the part played by the individual in contributing to the broader stability, law, order, and fundamental equilibrium in the cosmos, in nature, and in society. The contextual nature of Dharma is apparent in the different scopes of applicability of the different, often overlapping, levels or layers of Dharma. The individual prescriptive Dharma is defined by its context with reference to the descriptive Dharmas pertaining to ever expanding levels of family, caste, society, nation, human-kind, all life and all existence. Traditional Hindu thought, thus propounds a relativistic outline of morality. The dos and don’ts of ethical conduct would differ for different individuals, under different circumstances, at different points of time.

Returning to the operative levels of Dharma; at the core lies ‘Svadharma’ – the essential quality, nature, character of the individual (‘Sva’ = oneself) and conformity to it. Individual identity is comprised of the ‘inborn nature’ (genes) as well as life experiences, cultural milieu and upbringing – the accretive sum of nature and nurture – that defines who a person is. Svadharma enjoins the individual to be a genuine person, to be true to himself – true to his identity. Hinduism’s rejection of proselytisation is founded in this idea of Svadharma. A person’s religion is defined by his Svadharma; it constitutes of his genes, his heritage, his culture and upbringing, and hence is inherently unchangeable. One can act differently from what one’s Dharma requires, but one CANNOT CHANGE one’s Dharma. Changing ones religion is tantamount to denying ones identity and acting in contradiction of ones nature – something which is not conducive to attaining ones spiritual goals. For this reason, Hinduism does not seek to win converts. No one who is not born to it can become a Hindu. Says the Bhagawat Geeta, “Verily, death itself, (if encountered) in (following) one’s Dharma is admirable; (following) the Dharma of another is fearsome (in terms of its consequences).”

Man is a social animal. The atomic unit of social organisation is the family. The most visible part of Dharma is the one that deals with the individual’s relation with his family and with society. This is level of ‘Varna-Ashrama Dharma’. Varna = colour, and it refers to the individual’s and his family/clan’s place, rank, or position in society, and the duties and professions incumbent upon them. In ancient Hindu society, a family’s profession and place in society was hereditary. For instance, Brahmin families were supposed to engage in education, officiating over rituals and interpreting the scriptures and families would follow these professions generation after generation. The much abused ‘caste system’ of Hinduism is a crude derivative of the Varna Dharma, and the exploitative customs and beliefs that became part of the caste system are examples of the ill-effects of enforcing a rigid dogma and hierarchy on the fluid and relativistic spirit of Varna Dharma. (More on the caste system in a separate entry as and when time permits.)

While Varna Dharma pertained to the hierarchy and ‘division of labour’ associated with social segmentation and occupational specialisation, the Ashrama Dharma laid down the duties, expectations and requirements of individuals in various stages of life. Traditionally, four stages of life were recognised. The first stage was the ‘brahmacharya ashrama’, the preparatory stage of life as a celibate student. This was the phase of life when the individual received an education. After completion of education, which included a period of apprenticeship in the hereditary profession, the individual usually got married and entered the phase of the householder, the ‘grihastha ashrama’. The prime duty of a person in this stage of life was to earn a living and help provide for and nurture the family. In practical terms this was the longest phase in the individual’s life. This long period of productive social life was followed by a phase of retirement known as ‘vanaprastha ashrama’ or the ‘forest-dweller’s phase’. In this phase the individual, after having fulfilled his duties and discharged his responsibilities in the householder phase, was expected to gradually withdraw from this active life and to devote time to spiritual quests. The fourth and final phase was the phase of renunciation, ‘sanyasa ashrama’ which was entered into after the previous contemplative stage had brought about a level of detachment from the material world, was the phase of dedicating ones life to attaining ones spiritual goals. In between them, a person’s Varna or position /profession in society and his ‘ashrama’ or stage of life together gave the complete ‘prescription’ for all the social activities, duties and obligations of the individual.

A level above Varnashrama Dharma is a kind of general ethical code called ‘sadharana dharma’ or ‘samanya dharma’. These are the common virtues that all individuals (irrespective of caste, gender or age) would need to persevere to inculcate. Several such virtues are enumerated in the scriptures pertaining to Dharma, the Dharma-shastras. Most such ‘lists’ include Non-violence (ahimsa), truth (satya), integrity (asteya), purity (saucha), control of the senses, (indriya-nigraha), perseverance (dhriti), forgiveness (kshama), self-control (dama), wisdom (dhi), learning (vidya), and absence of anger (akrodha). This over-arching set of virtues is perhaps the closest analogue Hinduism has to the Ten Commandments.

Rta, is Dharma at the highest level. It represents the cosmic laws and forces by which all things are maintained (upheld). Thus all entities, both animate and inanimate, operate according to the principles of the rta. Often interpreted as the universal truth, the concept of rta exists from the earliest Vedic period (possibly pre-dating the Vedic deities). In the Vedic era, it was believed that the correct performance of the rituals as described (and prescribed) in the Vedas was essential to maintain rta, failing which the cosmic order would collapse into chaos. However, towards the end of the Vedic period, by the time of the Upanishads, the emphasis had shifted from rituals. The idea of the Brahman envisioned the rta, as a manifestation of the Brahman, as sustained in itself. The word, rta, derives from the root verb ‘R’ which has two sets of meanings. It signifies, ‘to move’ and ‘through movement, to fit or to arrange’. Thus, the Vedic concept of rta has ordered activity, or organised movement as its basic element. As a manifestation of Brahman, rta is believed to be one of the primal constituents of the universe. rta sets the ‘ideal’ in place at the cosmic level, in reference to which the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ assumes some meaning. rta thus implies that there is no caprice or disorder in the realm of morality; and in doing so rta becomes the seed of the doctrine of Karma. Thus rta is the totality of Dharma and anrta (non-rta) as its anti-thesis is adharma. However, the high degree of abstraction in the concept of rta makes it difficult to deduce practical moral dictates from it. This is where the axiomatic de-abstraction of the rta sequentially into sadharana Dharma, Varna-ashrama Dharma and Svadharma comes into play. However, the ‘mandate’ of upholding the universe means that Dharma has to extend beyond morality, to the entire sphere of human behaviour. This is where Dharma extends to embrace such prescriptive and descriptive ideas as duty, tradition, customs, law, virtue, righteousness, etc. Dharma is the ‘right way of living’, and the Hindu Dharma is the Hindu way of life.

On Revelation

All Hindu scripture is divided into two categories. The ‘Shruti’ literature – that which was ‘heard’, and the ‘Smriti’ literature – that which is remembered. Roughly, these two types of literature correspond to ‘revelation’ (shruti) and ‘tradition’ (smriti).

The core of the ‘Shruti’ literature is the ‘Veda’ – which simply means ‘knowledge’. The Veda is Hinduism’s most ancient scripture and is axiomatically regarded as an absolute authority revealing fundamental, eternal and unassailable truth. Paradoxically, however, its content has long been practically unknown to most Hindus, and it is seldom drawn upon for literal information or advice. Still, it is venerated from a distance by every traditional Hindu (astika - from the verb asti = to be, to exist, thus ‘astika = ‘he that believes in the existence of’), and those Indians who reject its authority are regarded as unfaithful to their tradition (nastika – he who does NOT believe in the existence of). The Veda is also regarded as the basis of all the later texts (the ‘smriti’ or tradition part of Hindu scripture) used in Hindu doctrine and practice. Interesting to note here is a fact that underlines the primacy of the Veda for Hinduism; nastika, the ‘unbeliever’ is not a person who rejects a deity, who denies the existence of ‘God’, he is a person who rejects the authority of the Veda. However, this does not make Hinduism the people of a ‘book’ primarily because the ‘Veda’ is more of the ideal of eternal knowledge and does not simply refer to the collection of hymns. Even more puzzling to the western students of Hinduism is the fact that the Vedic hymns are not a set of rules or laws for religious, or social behaviour, and the Veda does not by itself enjoin a specific morality on those who revere it. Vague as this idea sounds, it will become clear when the classification of Vedic scripture is outlined.

The ‘Veda’ is not regarded as the ‘word’ of the deities. The Veda is eternal, it does not come into existence when a God ‘speaks’ it out, Veda has always been – always will be. The Veda is fundamental; it exists on its own (swayambhu) and does not depend upon a deity for its existence. The Veda is not a ‘book’ because eternal knowledge cannot be encompassed in a book. Interpreting the Veda as the ‘word’ of the Brahman, is also not accurate either because an attribute-less reality cannot ‘speak’ a ‘word’.

The Vedic literature comprises of something like a four by four matrix. There are four Vedas, the Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva. Each veda comprises of four sections:

1. The Samhita (collection): a collections of hymns (suktas and mantras)

2. The Brâhmaòas (named after the Brahmins who conduct the Yajna): a manual of the rituals of the Vedic fire sacrifice along with the meaning of these rituals, the Brahmanas

3. The Aranyakas (‘books’ of the forest): these texts mark a transition from the ritualism of the Samhita and the Brahmanas to the speculative philosophy and spiritualism of the Upanishads. So many Aranyakas form the concluding sections of the Brahmanas, while some Aranyakas have the Upanishads appended to them or embedded in them. These scriptures are esoteric in nature, and they emphasise the the true mystique of the Yajna (sacrifice rituals), by glorifying the inner mental sacrifice as against the external material one. Hence, these texts were traditionally restricted for study and contemplation in the forest (aranya); hence the name aranyaka.

4. The Upanishads (to sit beside): Regarded as the culmination of the Vedas, the Upanishads are often referred to as ‘Vedanta’ – ‘end of the Vedas’, because they are the last part of the Vedic scripture. The Upanishads represent the esoteric knowledge imparted by the teacher (guru) to his disciple/ pupil who ‘sits beside’ him; hence the name Upanishad. The importance of the Upanishads as the core spiritual wisdom of India cannot be over-emphasized. The Upanishads are concerned with the contemplative-realisational aspects of spiritual life, as against the ritual aspect as described in the samhitas and the brahmanas. There are over 200 Upanishads, including such recent works as Khristopanishad and Allopanishad (Upanishads about Christ and Allah respectively). However, most of these 200 are known as Upanishads for name sake only. Usually, 13 Upanishads are regarded as the principal Upanishads, and are connected with one Vedic rescension / branch or another. The principal Upanishads were composed between 1000 BCE to 300 BCE.

The Upanishads represent the high watermark of Vedic thought, but many aspects of their teachings were too subtle to be adequately comprehended by ordinary people. They demanded a high intellectual level, strict spiritual discipline and a degree of Vedic education. The Upanishads gave the people a philosophy, but not a religion.

Usually when the word ‘Veda’ is used, it refers to the entire body of Vedic literarure. However, when the name of a specific Veda is used it generally refers to the samhita of that Veda. Thus the term ªig Veda usually means the Rik Samhita or the Rig Veda Samhita. The erm ‘four Vedas’ often signifies the four samhitas. These are the oldest religious scripture of Hinduism and span almost a millennium from 1800 BCE to almost 1000-900 BCE. The four samhitas are:

1. the Rig Veda: comprising sacred songs and hymns (mantras, suktas) praising the Vedic deities is the oldest of the Samhitas. It is estimated that the Rig Veda was composed between 1800 BCE to 1200 BCE. It has 1028 suktas (hymns) arranged in 10 books called mandalas. Many of these books are named after the clan of Brahmins descended from the seer who ‘heard’ the hymns. The suktas of the Rig Veda in praising the exploits and achievements of the vedic deities present their mythology. However, some suktas serve as an indication of future developments in Vedic thought along two different lines, ritualism and philosophical speculation.

2. the Sâma Veda: consisting of melodies and chants used by the brâhmaòas (Brahmins, priests) during the fire-sacrifices ‘yadnya or yajna’. Most of the 1549 mantras in this samhita are taken from the Rig Veda, particularly the 8th and 9th books (mandalas). These hymns are re-arranged for liturgical purposes in forms that can be used as ‘samans’ (chants) during the yadnya. Using the Sama Veda hymns as basis the actual chants of the recorded in the ‘ganas’ collections of songs.

3. the Yajur Veda like the Sama Veda is also ritualistic in character and is in many ways the first regular textbook of Vedic ritual as a whole. It mainly deals with the duties of the ‘adhvaryu’ the chief Brahmin who officiates over the rites of the Yadyna / Yajna. (The name of the veda Yajur and the Yajna derive from the same root word Yaj). There are two main branches or rescencions of the Yajur Veda, the Krishna or Black Yajur Veda and the Shukla or White Yajur Veda. These rescensions are not different so much in content as in arrangement. In the Black Yajur Veda, the mantras or hymns (mostly derived from the Rig Veda), the Yajus, sacrificial formulae in prose, and the ritualistic explanation (known as the Brahmana) are mined together.

4. the Atharva Veda: a very heterogeneous collection of mantras. Unlike the Sama Veda and the Yajur Veda which mostly repeat the hymns of the Rig Veda, the Atharva Veda is an independent set of mantras that concerns itself with the everyday life of the Vedic people and is usually considered the Veda of magic. The Atharva Veda hymns are very diverse in character, they have charms to counteract diseases and ward of evil spirits, descriptions of medicinal herbs, prayers for health, wealth, happiness and longevity, love spells, chants that help kings accomplish various royal tasks, black magic and counter black magic, and perhaps most surprisingly, philosophical speculations.

As described above, each samhita has its associated brahmana, aranyaka, and upanishad. It will be easier to present these in a tabular form:

Veda	Samhita (Rescensions)	Brahmana	Aranyaka	Upanishad
Rig Veda	Rk	Kaushitaki, Aitareya	Kaushitaki, Aitareya	Kaushitaki, Aitareya
Sama Veda	Jaiminiya	Tandya, Jaiminiya, Talavakara		Chandogya, Kena
Krishna Yajur Veda	Taittiriya, Kathaka, Maitrayaniya	Taittiriya, Katha	Taittiriya, Katha	Taittiriya, Katha, Svetaswatara, Maitri
Shukla Yajur Veda	Vajaseniya	Shatapatha		Isa, Brihadaranyaka
Atharva Veda	Atharvana	Gopatha		Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya

This massive collection of texts is the ‘shruti’ or revealed scripture of Hinduism. Before moving on to the even more voluminous ‘smriti’ portion of Hindu scripture, I would like to add a few words about the Upanishads. Better known in India and abroad as 'Vedanta' - the culmination of the Veda, the Upanishads are regarded by most scholars of Hinduism and Indian religions as the foundation of Indian philosophy. The Upanishads are significant for two main reasons. Firstly they represent what is called the 'Axial Shift' in Indian thought. And secondly, they articulate clearly for the first time, several key concepts that are the cornerstones of Hinduism and Indian Buddhism. It would not be wrong to say that the Upanishads mark the transformation of the Vedic religion of the ancient Aryans, into Hinduism.

The Vedic Aryans, lived in the thick of divinity. The Vedic deities were not just presiding masters of natural phenomena controlling them from their heavenly abodes, they were these forces in person. Everything in the world was infused with divinity and the Vedic deities themselves belonged to the everyday world of men. Part of this Aryan view of the universe was the concept of ‘Rta’ the cosmic order. The sacrifice (yajna) was the very centre of these cosmic processes as well as human concerns, and religious desires and goals. It was through the sacrifice that the cosmos continued in its cycles and that human beings obtain the goods of life and a place in heaven in the next world. The aim of spiritual life during the early Vedic period was to maintain the cosmic order and secure for man, prosperity, happiness, bounty and longevity in this life, and prolonged enjoyment of the same in heaven after death. This was done by singing hymns of praise to the Vedic deities and offering oblations to them as part of the Yajna.

The Upanishads, mark a dramatic shift in spiritual thought. ‘Heaven’ was no longer seen as the summum bonum of mankind’s spiritual quest. The idea gained ground that material enjoyments, even the attainment of heaven and its pleasures was transient; that moksha, (liberation, state of perfect bliss and complete freedom), could not be attained by mechanical performance of rituals (works, karma) alone. The Upanishads develop four crucial concepts the that are central to Hindu metaphysics, atman, Brahman, karma and samsara. These and some other Upanishadic concepts are also shared by Buddhism and hence they have had an impact well beyond the geographic boundaries of their country of origin. These ideas were radically new in the 10th Century BCE and were the true fruition of tentative speculative beginnings made in the Samhitas and Brahmanas. It is the Upanishads that state that the goal of spiritual life is to attain moksha; and moksha is attainable through gaining true knowledge of the self (atman) which reveals the identity, the oneness of the atman with the Brahman. Atman is Brahman. 'That thou art', proclaim the Upanishads.

Of Hinduisms and their Gods

Cousin Ashutosh asked me whether the gods my family and his worshipped / prayed to were not personal gods and if so how was any personal god of Hinduism different from the Abrahamic personal God. He in fact suggested that I respond in the form of an entry. I agreed to do so, but realised that the query and its context was broader - how exactly is the Hindu God concept different the Abrahamic one? In any case, the question pre-supposes that there is a unitary Hindu God concept, which in turn pre-supposes that there is a unitary Hindu-ness (for lack of a better word) that sprouts a unitary Hindu God concept. This needs some elaboration and that can best be done in an entry.

An ambitious entry it is going to be because it will explore several interrelated but distinct themes. I hope I can write something which is not totally incomprehensible to my readers. However, since most readers of this diary have hitherto displayed a perseverant capacity for intellection, I can be audacious enough to believe that as long as I do not go over-board with unexplained Sanskrit terms, my readers will be able to wrap their considerable minds around this one.

At one level, the differences between 'Hinduism' and the Abrahamic religious traditions are so obvious as to make this entry trivially superfluous. Polytheistic idol worship as opposed to monotheism worship 'in the spirit'. The well ordered church ceremony of the mass as against the chaotic throngs at the temples and the river-ghats. This entry is unnecessary. My contention though is that these obvious surface level contrasts distract from some of the core historical points of divergence. For a start then, I will enumerate a few key sources of differences which I shall subsequently elaborate on.

1. Hinduism is not a 'religion' in the same sense that Judaism or Christianity or Mahayana is


2. Even if we concede that Hinduism is a 'religion' in a broad sense; it is not ONE religion, but a conglomerate of religious traditions


3. As far as I know, Hinduism is the only set of religions that has retained its pre-axial components in its post-axial theologies and liturgies


4. Over the 4000+ years of its existence, the religious traditions have undergone significant changes to the point that the Hinduism of today would be unrecognisable to the Vedic Aryan


5. All the above have resulted in a multifarious, multi faceted, multi layered, god concept which is prolific in its day to day manifestations and profusely even profoundly bewildering to outsiders

It is not a trivial fact that wide-spread self identification of 'Hindus' using the label 'Hindu' is a relatively very recent occurrence. It is common knowledge that the term 'Hindu' first came about as a geographic appellation. A Hindu is a native resident of 'al-Hind' the land beyond the river Indus (Sindhu). In pre-Islamic India, Hindus did not describe themselves as 'Hindu' as opposed to being Buddhist (Bauddha) or Jain (Jaina). He would most likely have described himself as Vaishnava and almost certainly would state his caste jāti. A straight forward question - "What is your religion?" would have been very perplexing to the average Hindu of 700 AD. More so, because the question would probably need to be phrased as "What is your dharma?" The puzzled Hindu in question would probably have hesitantly proffered some confused statements about his caste-obligations and ritual duties. Some vague word-concepts like sanātana dharma (eternal dharma) did exist - but no Hindu would probably give that as an answer to a question "What is your religion?". The other 'religions' of the period - Buddhism with its variants; Jainism were seen as heterodox (and to that extent heretical) philosophies or world-views (nāstika darshana). The idea of 'religion' constituting a sharp bordered group identity probably did not exist. The unit of group identity was the jāti, the caste. Buddhism was not juxtaposed with Hinduism - bhikkus (Buddhist monks) were juxtaposed with brāhmans (members of the priestly caste). Even with the advent of Islam in India the situation did not end up as a polarisation around 'religious' identities. Though it is possible that it was the Islamic invaders who commenced the use of the term 'Hindu' to describe the natives of their new conquest; it did not lead to self-identified concepts of 'we the Hindus' amongst the natives. It took a while for the Hindu collective self-identity to aggregate in polarisation set opposite to the mlechcha or the yavana (as the foreigners were called).

It was by late medieval times - in the Mughal and post Mughal periods that Hindu self-identity becomes apparent. But even then, it was inchoate and probably not labelled as such. When I think collective self-identity as 'Hindus' I imply the term across the geographic spread of India. When in Indian history did the idea of religious identity and commonality reach a stage where the Kashmiri Pundit, the Bihari Kayasth, the Maratha-Kunbi and the Canara Veerashaiva could collectively recognise themselves as possessing a shared religious identity. I would contend that this identity was not crystallised till the colonial era. I would contend that it was the 'Hindu Renaissance' (centred in Bengal and Bombay but later diffused into the Punjab and Madras as well) that led to the crystallisation of the collective Hindu self-identity.

It was around this time too that the religion of the Hindus came to be styled as an '-ism' as European Indologists (Max Muller, William Jones, Charles Princeps, et al) did their pioneering work. In their eyes 'Hinduism' was the religion of the remainder - all those native Indians who were not Muslims, Christian, Buddhist, Parsee, Sikh, Jewish or Jain were 'Hindus'. The early indologists were clearly used to monolithic creed based unitary religious groupings. Naturally, the bunched together most of the extant indigenous religious traditions of their colony under the convenient label 'Hinduism'. By what stretch of imagination can the beliefs and practices of a Tantric Kāpālika and a Brahmo-samaji be clubbed together under the single umbrella called 'Hinduism', I am unable to fathom.

The dictionary definition of religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) cites several meanings of the noun of which the first two are what is pertinent to this discussion. As per this religion is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Even a new student of Hinduism will be able to see that Hinduism does not answer specify the above definitions in a single unique manner. There are multiple 'theories' and doctrines regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. And even then, having a cause, nature or purpose is not seen as the essence of a universe in the Hindu world-view. "The universe just is" is a perfectly valid assertion very compatible with Indic thought. The universe as 'creation' is also not a matter of important commonly held doctrine; multiple 'creation stories' and innumerable versions of each story have been in currency. An average Hindu of today would just as easily think of creation as Māyā. Ideas of the genre of Creationism and Intelligent Design would seem far fetched and irrelevant in this scheme of things. It is in the realm of devotional and ritual observances and codification of moral requirements that the fullest extent of the mind-boggling variety of religious artefacts of Hinduism are manifest. But a neutral observer can easily see that the various sets of beliefs and rituals that go together under the label 'Hinduism' are so diverse; that if one were to apply the same criteria of extent of differences in grouping religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam could very well be clubbed together as one religion. I would in which case proffer the nomen 'Abrahamism' for this purpose.

The concept of the axial age and the axial shift - supposedly developed by Karl Jaspers is a useful generic classificatory scheme in the objective study of religion. To recapitulate these ideas in brief - most early religions developed by mankind were concerned with maintenance of the cycle or balance of nature, the universe. The aim of religious observances was to secure man's place in the greater scheme by ensuring the benign ness (if not the benevolence) of deities by ensuring that natural rhythms - seasons, monsoons, river-floodings, etc, on which man so heavily depended - did not fluctuate erratically. Religion therefore had pragmatic goals - to ensure abundance of food, health and offspring and a normal healthful life. In the period known as the 'axial age' mankind first began to think about deeper questions bringing about a new consciousness almost simultaneously in different insulated geographies. The Socratic tradition of Greece, the post-Persian exile introspection of Judaism, the Upanishadic upheaval in religious thought on the banks of the Ganges, Confucian and Daoist thinking in China all around the same time. This new thinking of the axial age led to the axial shift in religious thinking. Religion turned to soteric concerns. ideas about the human soul and its ultimate goal became the central concerns of religion.

It is quite clear that ancient Vedic religion, druidic religions, Aztec / Inca religions, the religions of the early patriarchs were all pre-axial non soteric religions. It is also evident that Vedanta / Bhakti traditions, modern Abrahamism, Buddhism, etc., are post axial soteric religious traditions. Modern Hinduism, to the extent that some Vedic rituals co-exist with more recent beliefs is, to my mind the only major religion to have retained its pre and post axial components. To give an example, a very common ritual celebration in India today is the Satya Nārāyan Pûja, a special ritual worship carried out either to commemorate a special occasion or as a thanksgiving. These and other such pûja celebrations are very clearly a Puranic (later Hinduism) versions of the appropriate grayha sutra (domestic) rituals of the Vedic era which the householder was enjoined to perform. The phala shruti or schedule of benefits accruing to the host (yajamāna) at whose behest the priests carry out these ritual celebrations clearly indicate the pre-axial emphasis - the benefits include clearly 'this-worldly' benefits like prosperity, male off-spring, health and longevity to the host, etc. However practices like dhyāna (meditation) or various bhakti practices like the singing of bhajans or rosary telling have soteric objectives as their stated intent (to greater or lesser degrees).

And finally and most obviously is the sheer impact of the passage of time. Even if we discount the theories of the Harappan origins of Hinduism, the Vedic roots are in themselves very ancient. Modern Historians contend that the Rik Samhitā the oldest and the largest of the Vedic corpus was composed between 1800 and 1500 BCE. The liturgical texts (the brāhmanās) were completed by 1000 BCE and the philosophical "forest" treatises, the aranyakas sometime soon after. The oldest of the Upanishads which lay the foundation of Modern Hinduism were already finished by 800 BCE - the estimated date for the beginnings of the sāmkhya teachings which outlined the theoretical basis for the practice of meditation - yoga which by all estimates is a very ancient practice (some contend it to be a pre-Vedic Indus culture practice). And yet through these 1000 years of transition - the yajna - the fire sacrifice was the central and the cardinal religious activity. Circa 500 BCE the present consensus date for completion of the Bhagawat Gīta by which time the Upanishadic ideas of ātman-Brahman had become established, a shift away from the ritualised yajna is clearly visible. The Gīta often talks of the 'internal' yajna of the yogin. But most importantly, the personal God complete with all the trappings of omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence has made his appearance - as very clearly seen in several passages of the Bhagawat Gīta. True, the Vedic gods Indra, Vāyu, Varuna, etc too might be called personal gods, but these had no real claims to being omni-anything. But the idea of this god-concept of all powerful omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent personal Gods - Brahmadev, Vishnu, Mahesh, Devi, Ganesh et al was contemporaneous with if not pre-dated by the Upanishadic impersonal ātman-Brahman.

It is easy for us modern Hindus to underestimate or even ignore the stupendous importance of the yajna to the Vedic Aryans. Verily, the act of the yajna was for all practical purposes more salient than any god-concept of the Vedic era. Creation itself was not seen as an act of divine omnipotence - creation was a yajna like any other, where the Lord of Beings (Prajāpati) sacrificed himself to himself that beings (including the gods) may be. Idam yajnam bhuvaneshu nabhih (this yajna is the navel of the world) declared the officiator (the adhvaryu) of the yajna. The act of yajna itself, the very utterance of the hymns and mantras - chanted as oblations were poured into the sacred fires - were manifestations of a great power that actualised and sustained all creation (including Indra and the other gods of paradise). The ideation of this power was later crystallised as the Brahman in Vedantic thought. But more on that later. It is indicative of the sweeping change of emphasis that Hinduism has undergone that the yajna - a ritual of such all consuming importance in Vedic times - is rarely if ever performed today. Most present day Hindus can live a religious life without performing or even witnessing a single yajna. We have today a new pantheon, a new mythology, a new corpus of rituals. If you could time-teleport a Vedic Aryan priest to a 18th Century Hindu temple you would end up with a thoroughly bewildered man! Here is a quick comparison - the Vedic priest killed, cooked and consumed meat including beef (as part of the yajna) something which is an anathema to most modern Hindu Brahmins; the Vedic priest did not make and worship idols; the principal gods of Hinduism today were lesser known, minor or unknown deities in Vedic times; the most important sacred texts of today didn't exist in Vedic times. I could go on with the list, but I trust I have made my point. And yet, none of the old traditions were specifically or doctrinally discarded and all of them continue in some form or the other. The same applies to the god-concept. The old Vedic pantheon, the Lord of Beings, the new Puranic pantheon and running through these like a common thread the highly abstract god-concept articulated by Vedānta. Is it surprising that the god-concept that began as an idealised abstraction of this intensely ritualised act called the yajna is the very one which the leading proponents of the 19th Century Hindu renaissance turned to when they sought to resurrect and revitalise Hinduism in face of criticism from modern Abrahamism?

The above account is interspersed with examples of the various types of god concepts that have evolved over time and which continue to co-exist in Hinduism today. Can a religion with such multifarious and divergent god-concepts - from the nature gods of the Vedic times, to the Puranic personal Gods to the Vedāntin's impersonal 'God' - be effectively described as a single religion? Doesn't the idea of religion imply a common belief-set where the god-concept is concerned? And doesn't the lack of such a common belief set preclude a common nomenclature for the various religious traditions in question?

The answer is no - we are by and large justified in using the common label 'Hinduism' to describe these religious traditions precisely because 'Hinduism' represents an identity which is by no means a mere religion. As I have said before, it is not without reason or justification that the Supreme Court of India itself has ruled Hinduism to be a 'way of life' rather than a religion. A shared doctrinal belief-set for all its adherents is not a requirement for 'a way of life'. In this schema, Hinduism becomes a cultural identity that subsumes a range of religious persuasions. And yet there are shared features that almost all belief-sets that are grouped together under Hinduism possess.

1. Acceptance of the 'authority' of the Veda (at least in name)


2. Belief in the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation


3. Acceptance of the possibility of achieving the soteric goal of Moksha or liberation


4. The need to be born into a jāti (caste) in order to 'be' a Hindu (belong to a Hindu community)

It must be noted that these are all observed features that most people / groups that can nominally be called Hindu and which are nominally accepted as Hindu by other Hindu people/groups have. These are not beliefs which when accepted make a person Hindu. It is not a trivial observation that NONE of these pertain to a god-concept. It is not necessary to hold belief in a god-concept to be a Hindu.

Also, it must be noted that acceptance of the authority of the Veda is in no way comparable to the acceptance of the Bible in Christianity. No statement is made regarding the 'literal truth' of the Veda the way claims of this sort are made with respect to the Bible. In fact asking a Hindu "Do you think the Veda is the literal truth?", is a good way to baffle the poor fellow. Similarly the idea of there being 'Veda thumpers' is patently absurd. 'Veda' means 'knowledge'. The Rig-Veda is simply knowledge (in the form of the) Rik chants. The Vedas, unlike the Bible, is not a book. It has no narrative thread. The Vedas consist of four kinds of scripture - a compendium of hymns known as the samhitā, liturgical texts known as the brāhmanās, speculations on the meanings of the hymns and liturgies called the aranyakas, and finally philosophical treatise the Upanishads. The Veda was / are not meant to be 'read' - unlike the Bible. The Veda also unlike the Bible was not even written down until quite recently. The hymns of the Vedic samhitās were basically chants (udgīta) sung by a group of chanters (the udgatrs) to be used in yajna. The sequence in which to utter these chants, the ritual ceremonies and actions to accompany the chanting is described in great detail in the liturgical texts the brāhmanās; the liturgies often require specific verses from different hymns to be sung - so it was possible that an entire hymn never needed to be sung. It is obvious that the hymns of the samhitā were based on a detailed mythology involving the Vedic gods. However, this mythology is now lost to us because it was never written down or remembered unlike the Vedas themselves which were memorised and transmitted from generation to generation - teacher to disciple. In fact so accurate was the transmission of the Vedas over more than 2000 years that in the late medieval ages when the Vedas were finally committed to writing down the written versions of particular rescensions compiled from different groups of Brahmins in different parts of India were identical syllable for syllable. In any case, the point is that a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Veda is a meaningless idea.

This then concludes my belaboured exploration of the salient features that differentiate the god-concept and the 'religious' traditions of Hinduism from these ideas in Abrahamic monotheism.