Hinduism & The Upanishads
‘Hindu’
is the Persian name for India (Persia and India are next door to each
other and have traded for thousands of years). Our society borrows the
term from the British, who get the term from the Persians. As we read
in the Vedas, Hinduism brought together many traditions from many
regions with many gods, but there are three levels that are equally
interchangeable and separable. First, each can have a particular god
that is the emphasis of one’s particular branch of the tradition.
Second, the many gods are each one aspect of a single god, often the
great father and creator, named by most traditions Brahma. Third, there
is a philosophical monism that goes beyond god or not god, living or
dead, conscious or unconscious, that is the One, called Brahman,
different from the personified Brahma.
There
are three paths of worship in Hinduism. First, there is devotional
worship, known as Bhakti Yoga (‘Yoga’ means ‘discipline’, or practice).
In Bhakti devotional worship, the devotee prays, sings hymns, lights
incense, and performs rituals to gain favor with the gods and heavens.
It is impossible not to notice that most of what we call ‘religion’ the
world over is in fact forms of Bhakti practice, devotion to particular
gods and ancestral spirits. The two most populous forms of Bhakti
Hinduism are Shaivism, the worship of Shiva (the transformer and
destroyer) and his incarnations such as Ganesh (the elephant headed
god), and Vaishnavism, the worship of Vishnu (the savior or preserver)
and his incarnations such as Krishna. Worship is often called
‘darshana’, or seeing/experiencing, and Hindus will say, I am going to
the seeing, meaning I am going to see and be seen by the god. Another
common form of Bhakti devotion is worship of a particular goddess such
as Kali. Notice that, like a scientist, Bhakti practitioners also
believe in learning by experience and seeing, but their subject matter
is quite different.
Raja
yoga, the second path, is worship by meditation and asceticism (living
in isolation, standing in place for days, fasting chanting the names of
gods for hours, sitting on spikes, and other means of hard activity)
meant to gain a meditative state of insight. Raja means ‘force’ or
‘effort’, and India is famous for its forest sages practicing these
techniques.
Jnana
yoga (“zshna-na”), the third path and my personal favorite, is worship
by acquiring knowledge, wisdom and understanding the order of things
through study and philosophizing. This class itself could be seen as a
form of Jnana yoga, designed to bring you closer to the core by studying
the ways of the world. All three paths, or any mixture of the three,
are understood to work towards the same goal: liberation from the bonds
of attachment and desire, rising into enlightenment and release from the
constraints of identity to join together with the whole.
There
is an ultimate goal to this process. Initially, there is hope for a
better next life. Many are familiar already with the Hindu idea of
reincarnation. This is not a form of afterlife particular to India, but
in fact there is evidence that many tribal cultures and early Egypt
believed that one’s present life will be reincarnated in another life on
earth based on one’s actions and intentions. This interconnection is
called ‘Karma’, which simply means ‘action’ in Sanskrit. Interestingly,
physical causation is ‘karma’, just as metaphysical causation (next
life physics) is ‘karma’, same word and understanding of cause and
effect applied to a different sphere of existence. If you punch someone
in the head, it is karma that makes their head reel backward, and karma
that also weighs down your chance for a favorable life after death in
the Hindu tradition.
Beyond
better lives, there is hope for release, for freedom from rounds of
rebirth on earth. This can be thought of as dwelling in a heaven with
one’s personal or family god, but also as a dwelling with the order of
things without residing in any particular place. Bhakti yoga tends to
favor the dwelling with a lord, while Raja and Jnana tends to favor the
dwelling with the universe as a whole, however it is important to
remember that some Hindus believe that both amount to the same exact
thing (while others will insist that their school’s truth is ‘more
true’, the same variation one finds in any religion and in our own
culture). This release is also called Moksha and Samadhi, but in
America we know this first and foremost by the same name as the famous
grunge band, Nirvana.
While
moksha is the ultimate goal, via the more immediate goal of positioning
oneself favorably for moksha either in this life (dwelling in the
forest or a monastery) or in a next life, there are three other goals
that Indian philosophy points to as desirable making four in total. In
addition to moksha/nirvana, there is law or morality, ‘dharma’ (the term
Jains and Buddhists use to describe their traditions and rules),
pleasure, ‘kama’ (as from the Kama Sutra), and material wellbeing,
‘artha’. Clearly, the overall idea is that pleasure and comfort (kama
and artha) are not in themselves evil, but one should pursue liberation
through discipline (moksha through dharma).
Ancient
India saw a great deal of development in science and technology. They
observed the natural world and put phenomena into families and
categories as did the ancient Greeks and as we still do today. The
Romans would trade Germanic and Celtic slaves to India in exchange for
Indian wootz, the metal most prized for weapons in the ancient world.
In mathematics the Indians were unsurpassed by ancient civilizations,
developing the base ten system and the Indian-Arabic numerals we use
today. They laid down the basics of symbolic equations, the concept and
symbolization of zero, and invented the variable (originally a thick
dot). All of this got picked up by the Muslims, who turned it into
algebra, which then got picked up by the Europeans, who turned it into
Calculus. Typically, we learn about Euclid and the Greeks doing
geometry as the source of the Western mathematical tradition. Muslims
were influenced by the Greeks and Euclid, but Euclid argued about lines
drawn in sand and did not use equations. It was the Indians who
invented the sorts of mathematical symbolism that the Muslims turned
into step by step symbolic mathematics as we know it today and teach it
up through high school.
The
Upanishads (beginning in 800 BCE, most having been written by 600 BCE)
were philosophical teachings about the soul/self (atman) and how to
release the soul from desire and identity to merge with the great One
and All (the goal of moksha or nirvana, discussed last time). The
Upanishads frequently interpret the stories of the Vedas as metaphoric
teachings, instructions for the truly wise on how to develop the
mind/soul/self. The self (atman) was to be united with the supreme
reality, oneness, and spirit of all, Brahman. ‘Upanishad’ means
“sitting down near/beside”, (upa, ‘near’, ni, ‘down’, sad, ‘sit’) as
these are the close teachings of the priest, philosopher or master who
has taught the Vedas for a long time and knows their secret and hidden
‘inner’ meaning. The students who were talented and advanced would sit
down beside the teacher after the normal lecture to get the advanced,
inner teaching that the normal students were not ready to hear.
Unfortunately, there are no authors to which the texts are ascribed,
having been lost to history. Perhaps some of these teachings are as old
as the Vedas, and were only written down after 800 BCE. There are over
200 Upanishad texts, though there are 10 central Upanishads.
One
of the most famous sayings from the Upanishads is Tat Tvam Asi, “That
is you”. No matter what “that” you are looking at, it is in fact your
own self because all is one and there are no complete or permanent
separations between any two things. This means there is no complete
distinction between any ‘this’ or ‘that’, and thus no complete
distinction between atman and Brahman, or between any of the gods and
Brahman. This is similar to another passage of Zhuang Zi the Daoist,
one of my favorite skeptical passages of philosophy, which says, “A sage
too has a this and a that, but his that has a this, and his this has a
that”. Notice the monism that unites all connecting not only the
various Hindu gods together but all individuals in the singular One of
reality.
Just
like the unorthodox systems of Jainism and Buddhism would do later, the
Upanishads point beyond particular duties to ritual, sacrifice, caste
or class to the supreme goal of self-liberation. This had a great
appeal to those who were not Brahmins, the priests who formed the top
level of the caste system. While the Upanishads did not say to abandon
the caste system, the teachings were applicable to all. As we will see,
Mahavira who founded Jainism and the Buddha both had great appeal as
they openly said that one did not need to be reborn as a priest to have a
shot at nirvana. Rather, one could have it in this very life and not
need to reposition oneself for a better life through karma. Both
Mahavira and Buddha were warrior’s sons and so were second class
themselves. We can see that, as the Upanishads caught on and became one
of if not the most influential source in the further developments of
Indian thought, people increasingly questioned the Vedas and the caste
system even as they continued to retain them as many still do today.
In
the Katha Upanishad, a dialog between the sage Naciketas and Yama, god
of death, the good is praised above the pleasant. As the sourcebook
points out, this is very similar to what Socrates argues in dialogues
written by Plato. The highest mind is to be pursued, rather than the
simple passing pleasures. Naciketas says to Death, after being taught:
“Ephemeral things! That which is a mortal’s, O End-maker, even the
vigor of all the powers, they wear away. Even a whole life is slight
indeed. Yours are the vehicles! Yours is the dance and the song!”.
This passage uses ‘vehicles’ as vessels or individual things that
convey pleasure or anything else. The vehicle is a popular metaphor for
teaching or school in Indian thought, and as we will see the various
schools of Buddhism are known as vehicles.
Yama
replies that those who teach that reality is some part rather than the
whole are blind men led by a blind man. This is, in fact, the origin of
the phrase, “blind leading the blind”. Yama says, “Him who is the
bodiless among bodies, stable among the unstable, the great,
all-pervading self, on recognizing him, the wise man sorrows not”. Yama
uses a metaphor used by Plato through the mouth of Socrates, the self
as charioteer, the body as a chariot, and the senses and passions as the
horses. Yama tells of a complex stack of higher and truer selves:
“Higher than the senses are the objects of sense. Higher than the
objects of sense is the mind, and higher than the mind is the intellect
(buddhi, also ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’, just as the Buddha is the
‘awakened one’). Higher than the intellect is the great self. Higher
than the great is the un-manifest. Higher than the un-manifest is the
great person. Higher than the person is nothing at all. That is the
goal. That is the highest course.”
In
a hilarious passage of the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, a student questions
that master about how many gods there are repeatedly, and the master
keeps changing his answer. At first, he says that the Vedic hymn to all
the gods says there are 303 and 3003, which would be 3306 all together.
Then he says there are 33, then 6, then 3 (likely Vishnu, Shiva and
Brahma), then 2, then one and a half, and finally one, which is breath
and Brahman.
In
the Maitri Upanishad, we read, “In this cycle of existence I am like a
frog in a waterless well…In thinking ‘This is I’, and ‘That is mine’,
one binds oneself with oneself, as does a bird with a snare…Therefore,
by knowledge (vidya), by austerity (tapas), and by meditation (cinta),
Brahman is apprehended…For thus has it been said: He who is in the fire,
and he who is here in the heart, and he who is yonder in the sun – he
is one”. This is again very similar to things we will read in the
Daoist Zhuang Zi.
Next class, we will study Jainism and Buddhism, two of the non-Hindu unorthodox schools of Indian thought.
Intro Philosophy Lecture 4: Jainism & Buddhism
Jainism,
or “Jain Dharma” is still practiced today by four million Jains (not
Jainists as some mistakenly say). There are currently 4 Million in
India today, with many others in communities around the world including
New York and Toronto. Jainism rose just before Buddhism, as Mahavira
(650 BCE), the main teacher and founder of Jainism, lived just before
the Buddha (550 BCE), though all of these dates are still in debate.
Jainism
advocates two principles that are shared with Indian thought but
credited to Jain innovation: anekantavada, the multiplicity and
relativity of reality or “non-one-endedness” and syadvada, the
hypothetical and imperfect nature of perspective and judgment that is
always the fiber of human truth. According to these two principles, all
human beliefs and judgments are temporary and partial views of each
particular thing, including the self, and the cosmos, the greater whole.
Jains, like Buddhists, believe that things may or may not be as they
seem and may or may not be expressible as they are. Jains believe that
there are seven points of view of each and every thing. Each thing,
including the cosmos and the self:
somehow is in a way that is describable
somehow is not in a way that is describable
somehow simultaneously is and is not in a way that is describable
somehow is indescribable
somehow is in a way that is indescribable
somehow is not in a way that is indescribable
somehow is and is not in a way that is indescribable
While
other schools, including Nyaya logician/debaters, claimed that Jains
and Buddhists are at fault for contradicting themselves and seeing
contradicting views in things, the Jains and Buddhists argue that one
only falls into problematic contradiction if one makes one-sided claims.
This is a classic duel between all/none logic and some/some-not logic,
between the absolutist and the relativist. The absolutist says the
relativist does not have certain truth and contradicts themselves
because they are on all sides of the issue, and the relativist replies
that the absolutist does not have the full truth and contradicts
themselves because they are NOT on all sides of the issue.
Jain
texts use the example of hot and cold. An absolutist would argue that a
thing cannot be both hot and cold at the same time, but a relativist
would argue that a thing is always somewhat relatively hot and somewhat
relatively cold. To say a thing is simply hot ignores how cold it is,
and to say it is simply cold is to ignore how hot it is. We could
supply the example of a refrigerator, which cools on the inside by
heating up in back and drawing the heat out of the inside. A
refrigerator is simultaneously hot and cold, and it could not be cold in
one part unless it is hot in another.
Jains
also, much like the wheel of Lao Zi in chapter 11 of the founding
Daoist text, the Dao De Jing, use the example of a pot being solid and
empty, there and not there. In one part, it is, and in another part, it
is not. They use another example of a multicolored cloth, which is and
is not many colors all over. Notice that each thing one can say about
anything is true in some ways, but false in others, a very critical way
that things are and are not as they are described yet are never fully
describable. Jains argue that one sees and argues for the side of
things that one wants to see, that one wants to be true. This is yet
another example of attachment and desire carving the One into many,
shining light on some and plunging others into darkness and ignorance.
Jains
note that, because human views and descriptions are always one-sided,
it is perfectly alright to understand the whole yet lead people in one
direction as opposed to another, just as ignorant arguers do, if one
sees all of what one is doing. Jains and Buddhists would see Jain and
Buddhist teachers and saints in this light, as always telling what
cannot be fully told, as leading us towards what is in all directions to
begin with. It is only a low and ignorant mind that thinks such
leading is impossible because it is contradictory.
Jains
use the image of a tree, with the absolute view (naya) as the trunk,
what one joins after being fully liberated, and the particular view as
the branches and twigs. Notice that the trunk is and is not the twigs,
just as the absolute and all-encompassing view is each particular view
as a sum of them all but is not each particular view in that it is
everything opposed to each particular view as well.
Similarly,
Jains argue (like Hegel, who considers seeing being, non-being and
becoming simultaneously in things as the first leap of philosophy and
associates it with the ancient Greek skeptic Heraclitus) that things
simultaneously are and are not because they are being birthed/generated,
stable/still, and decaying/transforming at the same time at all times
that they are. Each of these views are false if they are considered
independently true as opposed to their opposite, but in conjunction with
their opposites they are the whole truth of each particular thing and
of truth as a whole. Notice that the union of stability with
transformation as a single whole view is entirely similar to the
orthodox Hindu union of Vishnu, the preserver/savior, and Shiva, the
destroyer/transformer, in Brahma, the personification of all.
Jains
were also early proponents of the idea that the cosmos works in cycles:
like the physical rising and setting of the sun, consciousness rises,
then sets. People start to become awakened teachers and develop
religion in the rising era, and people lose religion in the setting era.
This is endless, like the cosmos. The cosmos becomes enlightened to
its own self through us, and then loses consciousness of itself through
us. The Hindus and Buddhists share a similar picture of the cosmos, and
the Indian golden age of philosophy, which includes the birth and
teaching period of Mahavira and the Buddha, is seen as the apex, the
high noon, of this current cycle. Unfortunately, we currently live in
an era of dimming religion and consciousness according to most Jain and
Hindu teachers (the Hindus following the Jains in this picture).
Jain
teachers and saints are known as Tirthankaras, “one who makes a ford”
(cutting through water as order over chaos, as land becoming firmament
in the chaotic waters). Mahavira (also Mahavir), the founder of
Jainism, is understood by Jains to be the 24th Tirthankara. Like others
of his time, Mahavira was a practitioner of austerities that are aimed
at detachment from desire and multiplicity of the world: fasting,
standing in jungles, going without food or luxuries for extended periods
of time. Statues of Mahavira and other Tirthankaras show vines growing
up their legs and bodies, as vines grow several feet in the jungle a
day and so would grow up your body if you practice standing austerities
for days at a time. Jains believe that these practices purify the
self/soul/mind.
Here,
we come to THE critical difference between Jainism and the other
schools of Indian thought. In Hinduism and Buddhism, karma can be
positive (merit and blessing) or negative (demerit and sin). Thus,
karma can either help you up or drag you down. For Jains, karma is
always bondage, always weight that keeps you down, always division or
blockage between you and the ALL. Thus, one tries best to avoid
accumulating karma and to destroy the karma one has already accumulated.
While
there are kinds of karma and attachment that make ourselves and others
happy which the Jains call good, they are hindrances to be overcome if
final liberation is to be obtained. If you really, really like waffles,
this is fine but to become one with all you must be as indifferent to
waffles, neither loving nor hating waffles, as the cosmos. Jains
believe that “good” karma, such as that which causes pleasure when
helping others out of compassion, matures and falls off naturally along
with the body. It is easier to get rid of “good” karma which only
affects the body, but it is still to be left behind.
Jains
are famous for their doctrine of the negativity of attachment and the
radical nonviolence that follows from this principle. Jains wear masks
to prevent insects from flying in their mouths, sweep the ground to
avoid killing insects (even though the killing would be unintentional,
it would still be an accumulation of karma), influenced other Indian
thought in promoting vegetarianism, and even don’t eat root vegetables
as it kills (up-roots) the whole plant rather than that plucked from the
plant. Like Buddhists, Jains believe that one should be disciplined
and practice austerities and meditation not just for one’s own
salvation, but for compassion and salvation for all living beings.
The
best way to understand the dual practice of avoiding karma AND
shredding karma is the Metaphor of the Leaky Boat: You ride in a boat
across water to a distant shore (Nirvana). Notice that water represents
chaos and desire, and the land represents the firm and the enlightened.
The boat is leaky, and water is pouring in. You have to BOTH plug the
leaks (preventative principles like vegetarianism that prevent bad
karma from getting IN you) and bail out the water that has already
inside the boat (shedding karma, practicing austerities like fasting or
standing in postures to get the karma you already have in this life OUT
of you). Jains believe that it is only by this two-pronged strategy
that the individual can be fully liberated and join back together with
the cosmos and thus gain eternal life rather than round after round of
rebirth.
From the Tattvarthadhigama Sutra, a central Jain text:
“There
is a stoppage of inflow of karmic matter into the soul. It is produced
by preservation, carefulness, observances, meditation, conquest of
sufferings, and good conduct. By austerities is caused the shedding of
karmic matter…Liberation is the freedom from all karmic matter, owing to
the non-existence of the cause of bondage and to the shedding of the
karmas. After the soul is released, there remain perfect right-belief,
perfect right-knowledge, perfect perception, and the state of having
accomplished all.”
Buddhism
According
to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha, the “awakened one”, practiced
austerities like Mahavira, but found that this way was not enough.
Buddhism is famous for long periods of meditation, and this is quite
like Jain austerities of standing in postures, but Buddhism suggests
that it is through balance and not extremes that one will be liberated.
The Buddha found Jain asceticism to be one sided and promoting of self
hatred which is still attachment and duality.
According
to the tradition and legend, Buddha’s father was the king of a kingdom
in Northern India. When the Buddha was born, the king’s wise men told
him that his son would be EITHER a great king OR a great holy man. The
king did not want his son to be a holy man, but rather the next king, so
to control his son he hid his son away in his palace and gave him all
the luxuries in the world, hiding death and pain from him, surrounding
him with dancing girls and servants and only healthy, happy, obedient
people. At 29, the Buddha had become bored of this, and snuck out to
see the city, taking along his trusted servant. In succession, the
Buddha the Four Sights (an old man, a sick man, a dead man, and a holy
man). When he saw the first three, his servant each time told him that
this was unfortunately inevitable for everyone, but when he got to the
fourth, the holy man (likely a Jain or proto-Jain), his servant told him
that the monk was working on the first three (age, sickness, and
death).
The
Buddha was immediately envious of something more wonderful than he had
ever possessed in the palace, and so he escaped into the jungle where he
found sages practicing austerities. The Buddha did these Jain (or
proto-Jain, depending on the scholar) austere practices in the jungle
for six years, but he found that this brought no great enlightenment and
in fact brought him self-hatred and self-denial (notice here that this
is where Buddhism breaks away from Jainism as a direct criticism of Jain
practice, taking much of Jainism with it in the process but seeking a
middle way between denial and indulgence, attached to neither). The
Buddha left the jungle disappointed. He decided to sit beneath a large
tree, the Bodhi Tree (which one can go see in India today, a tree
supposed to have been grown from the original in the original spot), and
he vowed not to rise until he found complete and total truth or he
would give up his life. After 49 days, at the age of 35, he realized
complete enlightenment, the goal of moksha and nirvana that the Hindus
and Jains also revere. This is defined in the tradition as the total
extinction of greed (raga), hate (dosa), and delusion (moha), obtainable
in this life by any being by overcoming duality and desire.
Philosophical Ideas of Buddhism
The
Doctrine of the Middle Way: In all things, as the mind splits things
into opposites and prefers one while rejecting the other, one should
always practice moderation between the extremes. As a criticism of
Jainism, this means that one should balance pain and pleasure, being
attached to neither, rather than chase pain and difficulty to liberate
the self. The Buddha found Jain practice to be immoderate: too much
de-emphasis of self is attachment to self hate, not detachment from
particular things (as self-hate is particular and bound up with
particular things just as much as self-love or pride is). One must love
and hate the self, bringing the two together, to find detachment from
many and complete identity in the One, the All.
Doctrine
of Impermanence: The Buddha taught that all things are impermanent.
Thus, everything is constantly evolving, never the same twice. Only
the great All is eternal, the One to which we all belong, but as soon as
you say this it becomes a conception, a particular being separated from
other particular beings, and then is simply a temporary being in your
mind.
Codependent
Arising (Pratityasamutpada): Another major teaching of Buddhism is
codependent arising of all phenomena. All things are themselves in so
far as they are connected to every other thing. Opposites, such as heat
and cold or self and other, do not anchor things in themselves or give
things their true meaning, but rather all things exist dependent on all
other things. Just like Jains, Buddhists believe that because of
suffering there is attachment and bondage to particular things, to “this
versus that”, such that we come to have one-sided views of ourselves,
of particular things, and of the cosmos as a whole. Growing in wisdom
and enlightenment is growing into identity with the whole, with all the
sides that human minds can cling to out of despair, anger and fear. The
Buddhists, like the Jains, believe that one does not have a permanent
self, and this constant transformation is a central cause of the fear
and clinging of the mind to something opposed to an opposite in order to
seek stability. However, because the things and views are not
themselves permanent, the mind must jump from one thing to another,
seeking ideal stability in each thing and then leaping to the next with
the same hope, endlessly without rest unless wisdom is developed and
liberation achieved. The Buddhists use the metaphor of the monkey mind,
of a monkey leaping from branch to branch in a frenzy.
