We are pleased to offer to Medhavis a new series on Upanishads, the creme-de-la-creme of Indic Philosophy, which has influenced the thought & living in India & other influenced cultures for millennia. This series is authored by Dr S K Balasubramanian. The editor stumbled on some of his writings at an e-group and was struck by the calibre of both knowledge & ability to explain the intricacies & details.
Medhavis will, it is hoped, read with interest & comment & interact with the author, who has indicated willingness to be engaged. Over to the author-
UPANISHADS
Apologia: I am not a conventional scholar or a spiritualist. I would rather fit the description: “scholar among rakes and a rake among scholars.” I belong to nowhere.
I welcome critical comments on the facts but please keep abuses out of the way. The latter do not settle any question.
I am giving only the highlights. I have no illusion that my comments are enlightening. The idea is to arouse the interest of busy lay persons so that they may pursue the matter more deeply at leisure.
This is the introductory part of, hopefully, a long series.
Preamble: I have not studied the Upanishads under any guru. This has two effects. My views are free from conventional cliché and jargon. Most of the readers might belong to my category and are as likely to be ignorant of the fine print. Their interest would be focused on what the scriptures have to say on daily life rather than on the after-life.
The second effect is that my interpretations do not have ideological loci. By this I mean there is no preconceived notion into which explanations have to be fitted. I have no constraints nor am I confined to any shell. My views are free ranging. There is nothing ‘procrustean’ in my approach. Procrustes was a character in Greek mythology. He had a cot into which he would fit a visitor. Protruding parts would be chopped off and parts falling short would be stretched till they fit the cot.
“Nothing is sacrosanct and nothing is taboo or inconvenient”, is my way. In spite of this “no-holds-barred” approach, the Upanishads have retained my respect. That is the measure of their timelessness.
Life is a process with only one full stop. Life does not follow any formula.
I would illustrate my approach by its singularly successful example: the Ganga syndrome. The Ganga episode occurs in Mahabharata. Ganga bore several children to the king Shantanu. She killed every infant she gave birth to. The king stopped her when she was about to kill the last one who became Bhishma.
Mahabharata gives its own explanation to exonerate the river goddess Ganga. I took it differently. It might indicate an irregular streak in human behavior. Confirmation of my view came when several women were found to have killed their offspring, infant and grown up. In fact what was once considered inexplicable ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ or ‘crib death’ is now regarded as engineered death, brought about by mentally unstable mothers. Ganga typified that behavior.
I go a step further and postulate that Mahabharata is not about didactical morality but about existential reality. That is why it is said that there is nothing that is not covered by Mahabharata. This does not relate to modern inventions like a supersonic-plane. It relates to human behavior.
The relevance of Mahabharata in our current affairs means that human behavior had not changed over the ages. The motivations, the tactics and the consequences are unchanged. We behave in the same manner as our ancestors of long ago. This is understandable.
So when I quote the Gita it may look like the devil quoting the scriptures. I quote because the problems had not changed over the ages. Krishna’s solutions may still have validity and may be applicable. This is not to say that one should follow the scriptures verbatim. Words have no importance as the Gita admits (II, 42) but their sense or spirit is still valid.
Sophistry solves nothing. It serves to freeze or fossilize attitudes. Humanity deserves better. That is what makes Hindu scriptures relevant today.
Vedanta: The Upanishads are collectively known as Vedanta.
A relevant question is “who should study Vedanta” that literally means beyond the “Veda”. “Veda” might refer to the scriptures held in reverence and also to secular knowledge.
The inclusion of secular knowledge means that some ‘knowledge’ is necessary to understand and tackle Vedanta. I would add that some real-life experience is necessary to understand the Upanishads. Child ‘prodigies’ are excluded.
Shankara was an exception. Even with Shankara one finds a streak of pessimism in two of his works, Bhajagovindam and Vivekachudamani, as a result of overexposure. Shankara was in fact adjudged “inadequately experienced” in life during his debate with Mandana Mishra.
To avoid cynicism arising from sophistry, only those who have had some experience in life should study Vedanta.
A certain degree of objectivity is also essential. I would say, “Objectivity is the operative word of Vedanta.”
Dogmas and resultant single-track assertions are not acceptable in the study of Upanishads.
We have a phrase in Tamil that I find impossible to render as pithily in English. A vegetable has to spend time on the plant to become ripe. It is no good if it ripens too early in its life cycle. ‘Immaturely ripened’ individuals are not advised for the study of Vedanta.
Recently a respected journal rejected an article of mine saying it was not ‘nuanced’ enough after the editor accepted that I had raised “interesting” points. I took it to mean that I had stepped on some sensitive toes. I might be doing it here too
Facts alone are important. Sensitive toes are not.
As an Upanishad says, Satyameva jayate na anrtam or “reality prevails over delusions”.
The Sources: Sri Ramakrishna mission had published all the important Upanishads in Sanskrit original with English translation. Shankara’s commentaries are also included in the mission’s publications.
I have depended upon these publications.
I do not depend upon Shankara. He was a towering genius but I do not like to be subsumed by his imposing personality. Any blame in interpretation devolves only on me.
Besides, the process of thinking in English is different from thinking in Sanskrit. Right English idiom is necessary to convey the proper sense. I have been subjected to several modern day influences that I hold dear. I try to synthesize these with the scriptural message.
It is for this reason I do not restrain myself to be literal. I try to convey the correct spirit.
Anant Pai had done a great service by giving episodes from the Upanishads in his Amar Chitra Katha series. I do not consider it below my dignity to recommend these ‘comics’ published by India Book House. They are as accurate as the original and more easily understood. The comics should not be dismissed as “childish”.
A wide-bodied friend used to say that his words carry his weight and mine will carry only my weight. Ultimately one’s own “weight” is the determining factor. So be it. The reader has to acquire his own weight.
The Upanishads: The Upanishads proceed stepwise in their inquiry into the nature of the Ultimate Reality. They have to be, and are, strictly logical. All viewpoints are considered and addressed before reaching any conclusion.
The Gita is considered as the summation of all the Upanishads. The latter are regarded as the milch cow and the Gita the milk from the cow. Gita deals with existential reality and the Upanishads with the ultimate. Often the two intermix.
The Upanishads come in different sizes ranging from Mandukya with only 12 shlokas to the massive treatises like the Brihadaaranyaka and Chaandogya. Some are direct like the Ishopanishad and some are argumentative like the Kena and Prasna. Kathopanishad is lively with a story. Swami Vivekananda was said to have liked it.
The Mahaavakya: Each Upanishad has at least one mahaavaakya that may be called the theme statement. The Mahaavaakya sets the tone of the Upanishad.
Taittiriya Upanishad may be recited like the Veda. I had learnt the recitation from a cassette put out by the Chinmaya mission.
Shanti patha or peace invocation is the prayer for blessing before the start of the study. Peace is a precondition for meditation and the prayer is often for that purpose. Shanti patha is more an invocation than a petition. Every Upanishad has a shanti patha. They also share a shanti patha with others. The invocation shows what we might expect.
The plan would to present the shanti patha followed by a discussion of the mahaavaakya, if any, followed by translation of all or main shlokas. The choice is mine. There is no particular prescription or guideline.
We shall start with Ishopanishad in the next instalment.
Skb.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-18 18:40:03
How can any one fault you for wishing that the Upanishadic authors' intent and purpose in their creation be not harmed? Especially when you do not mind different shades of interpretation which do not strike at the root of the interpreted.
I agree totally and look forward to the discussions.
Warm regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-18 07:30:58
The point of my discussion is to encourage Dr. S to give a clear, coherent interpretation of whatever text he is discussing. I don't mind if his interpretation is non-adhyatmik. However, I do want to see an interpretation that will not go completely against the intent of the author.I dislike opinions of people like Hans-Georg Gadamer who claim that the point of any interpretation is to simply deconstruct a text without any regard for the intent of the author. For example, did the author of Mahabharata want to talk of unstable women who kill babies when he wrote the anecdote about Ganga killing her babies? What would be the point in doing so? Does it enhance the plot? Does it tell us about how to live our life? I want Dr. S to give an interpretation that makes sense in the context of the text. I am writing this fully aware that not everybody will agree with my point of view. Of course there will be no scope for any discussion if everybody agrees on everything!
Regards
Pradip
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-17 20:04:14
I see what you mean regarding the purport of the Mahabharata.
Dr SKB says that the entire source of his study of the Upanishads are the publications of Sri Ramakrishna Mission. A number of us have enjoyed reading these excellent publications and can therefore expect an enjoyable fare also from this learned author, who, while he may not have gone to a formal Guru, does seem to take his subject very seriously.
In fact he says,
In spite of this (Dr SKB's approach, that is) 'no-holds-barred' approach, the Upanishads have retained my respect. That is the measure of their timelessness.
Since the subject has earned and retained his respect, we can expect a positive contribution. He has also expressed himself open to criticism without 'abuse'.
Let us look forward to sharing the fruit of his efforts.
Warm regards. Partha
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-17 11:32:05
Welcome aboard medha Journal!
the
Ganga syndrome. The Ganga episode occurs in Mahabharata. Ganga bore several
children to the king Shantanu. She killed every infant she gave birth to. The
king stopped her when she was about to kill the last one who became Bhishma.
Mahabharata gives its own explanation to exonerate the river goddess Ganga. I
took it differently. It might indicate an irregular streak in human behavior.
Confirmation of my view came when several women were found to have killed
their offspring, infant and grown up. In fact what was once considered
inexplicable ?sudden infant death syndrome? or ?crib death? is now regarded as
engineered death, brought about by mentally unstable mothers. Ganga typified
that behavior.
The relevance of Mahabharata in our current affairs means that human behavior
had not changed over the ages. The motivations, the tactics and the
consequences are unchanged. We behave in the same manner as our ancestors of
long ago. This is understandable.
Your approach seems to me to be too literal. Can a river marry a human being?
It seems to me that Mahabharata author has very carefully chosen this story to
block a literal interpretation like yours. Moreover, Mahabharata itself claims
that the purpose of writing it was to explain the Sruti:
As the full-moon by its mild light expandeth the buds of the water-lily,
so this Purana, by exposing the light of the Sruti hath expanded the human
intellect. (Adi Parva I)
Moreover it also makes the claim that hearing it read allows one to attain the
world of Brahma as is clear from this verse:
This Bharat consists of a hundred thousand sacred slokas composed by the
son of Satyavati, of immeasurable mental power. He that reads it to others,
and they that hear it read, attain the world of Brahman and become equal to
the very gods. This Bharata is equal unto the Vedas, is holy and excellent;
is the worthiest of all to be listened to, and is a Purana worshipped by the
Rishis. It contains much useful instruction on Artha and Kama. This sacred
history maketh the heart desire for salvation. Learned persons by reciting
this Veda of Krishna-Dwaipayana to those that are liberal, truthful, and
believing, earn much wealth. Sins such as killing the embryo in the womb, are
destroyed assuredly by this. (Adi Parva LXII)
This is sacred history. Reading it in such a profane manner does not seem to
me to be very profitable. There are millions of other books that can be used
to learn about profane subjects. Let me advance a more suitable
interpretation. The infants "killed" by Ganga represents realized souls who
escape this profane world as quickly as possible. Ganga here stands for the
accumulated merit of these realized souls.
[A relevant question is ?who should study Vedanta? that literally means
beyond the ?Veda?. ?Veda? might refer to the scriptures held in reverence and
also to secular knowledge.
The inclusion of secular knowledge means that some ?knowledge? is necessary to
understand and tackle Vedanta. I would add that some real-life experience is
necessary to understand the Upanishads. ]
Secular knowledge in the Vedas are grouped in Vedanga. I doubt very much if
Sruti can or should be read for secular knowledge. I would say that secular
knowledge is in fact not a requirement for studying Sruti.
Regards
Gangp
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
attain the
> world of Brahma as is clear from this verse:
This is a worshipful way to understand Mahabharata. I have looked at the
epic as a compendium of existential challenges not morality. "Ganga
syndrome" exemplifies my approach.
I have conceded that the traditional approach is different.
I had said that episode "might indicate an irregular streak in human
behavior. " I think it does.
2.Reading it in such a profane manner does not seem to me to be very
profitable.
You might call it profane. My respect for the epic is because it is so
comprehensively frank without projecting wishes and prejudices.
3. Can a river marry a human being?
Ganga here is the river in anthropomorphic form. The epic says Shantanu saw
a beautiful woman; not a flowing river. the story is allegorical.
4. who should study Vedanta?
You have specified what I called secular knowledge as Vedanga without
contradicting me. That does not negate my position that secular experience
is necessary to understand Vedanta. Certain emotional maturity is what I
meant.
I had also said that the Vedas could be understood as the more popular
scriptures or just knowledge. I had called it seculat to differentiate it
from the scripture. This was done to explain why it is the anta.
5.secular knowledge is in fact not a requirement for studying Sruti.
Nor for the sruti but it is essential for vedanta. Without maturity it would
be just sophistry. Vidya, higher knowledge and avidya, the secular knowledge
are the terms for the two. The Ishopanishad is clear that one alone would
not lead anywhere.
1. It depends on what one looks for in the Mahabharata. I was looking at it
from
the human point. To me Mahabharata is not a moral or adhyatmic story. It is
a comprehensive story
dealing with the existential limitations.
Ganga syndrome is significant in that my interpretation had received
confirmation from medical cases. I can cite these without references.
That is why I did not accept the explanation based on vasus.
2. What would be the point in doing so? Does it enhance the plot? Does it
tell us about how to live our lives?
It does help us live lives better. Now I understand why women need
psychological support during delivery. That is why we send them to their
mother where hospital are not available.
I had had similar experiences that fortunately did not end in tragedy. The
lesson is clear never leave a recently delivered woman alone with the child.
The epic was an eye opener to me. In fact my respect for the ancient Hindu
thinkers went up for this reason. They were brutally objective.
Other cultures find it difficult to come to terms with the reality of life.
Sops are so much more comfortable.
The plot has no relevance.
I have interpreted the axiom "Satyameva jayate" from this angle. I am
forwarding it as separate mail for posting.