Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVIII

Dr. Bibek Debroy

The word अवतार​ is translated as incarnation or descent.  It comes from the word अवतर​ण (अव√तॄ) meaning descent or coming down.  प्रलयपयोधिजले धृतवानसि वेदम्। विहितवहित्रचरित्रमखेदम्॥ केशव धृतमीनसशरीर जय जगदीश हरे॥ Many of us have heard this.  We need not necessarily know where it is from.  It is actually from Jayadeva’s “Gitagovindam” and is the first song (“gitam”), number 1.2 of the composition. The entire text is beautiful poetry and so is this song.  That’s the reason it is sung so often.  It is also known as the “Dashavatara strotam”, pinning down the number of “avatara”-s as ten.  These are Vishnu’s incarnations.  

Except in some very rare cases, Shiva doesn’t have incarnations.  Most people tend to assume Vishnu has 10 incarnations.  That’s by and large true.  However, there are also occasions where 24 or 12 incarnations are mentioned.  Most people also tend to assume they know the names of the 10 incarnations and they are (1) Matysa; (2) Kurma; (3) Varaha; (4) Narasimha; (5) Vamana; (6) Parashurama; (7) Rama; (8) Krishna; (9) Buddha; and (10) Kalki, with Kalki to come in the future.  It isn’t always that consistent.  Sometimes, (9) Buddha is replaced by Balarama.  In Jayadeva, the list is (I am using the names used by Jayadeva and not replacing the words with more common synonyms) (1) Meena; (2) Kacchapa; (3) Sukara; (4) Narahari; (5) Vamana; (6) Bhrigupati; (7) Rama; (8) Haladhara; (9) Buddha; and (10) Kalki. Do I need to translate the shloka I quoted?  I guess not.  Except to say that “vahitra” means boat and “vihita” means arranged or contrived.  You arranged the Vedas through your character, which is like a boat in the waters of destruction, and held them up in the form of a fish.  That’s a loose kind of translation.

The following, from BG 4.7, is far more famous than Jayadeva and needs no translation whatsoever. यदा यद हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत​। अभ्युत्थानधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम्॥  The presumption is that when adharma raises its ugly head, Vishnu creates himself in the form of an incarnation, to destroy adharma and establish dharma.  The progressive transition of those 10 incarnations through an evolutionary process has often been commented upon, from a fish to a tortoise, boar, man-lion, dwarf and then man.  But think of the stories connected with those incarnations.  In what form where they adharma?  The fish saved Manu from a flood.  Unless that saving is interpreted as an instance of dharma, what was the adharma there?  

The tortoise was relevant for the churning of the ocean.  The gods were related to the asuras, they had the same father, though different mothers.  Indeed, in distributing the amrita, a deception was practiced on the demons.  Unless one accepts the premise that all asuras are necessarily bad, there was no obvious act of adharma.  Hiranyaksha stole the earth and the boar killed him.  Ditto for Hiranyaksha’s elder brother, Hiranyakashipu, and the Narasimha incarnation.  Beyond oppressing the gods and sometimes dislodging them from heaven, it is difficult to make out a case for adharma.  Vamana and Bali are an even stronger example.  There is nothing to suggest that Bali was bad in any sense and his generosity was taken advantage of.  Sure, a single kshatriya, Kartavirya Arjuna, caused offence.  However, did that constitute enough adharma for Parashurama to exterminate kshatriyas 21 times?  An individual’s act of transgression led to extermination of the collective varna.  I can extend the argument for Rama, Krishna and Balarama/Buddha.  The case for establishing “dharma”, however defined, and destroying “adharma”, however defined, is not that strong.  At best, that BG 4.7 can be applied to Rama and Krishna.

Notice that none of the incarnations, so far, have been brahmanas.  Parashurama may have been born as one.  But de facto, he was more like a kshatriya and there is a story about why he behaved that way, connected with his birth.  The incarnations have all involved violence, the way of a kshatriya, not that of a brahmana.  There is a shloka that was composed by Swami Vivekananda in honour of Shri Ramakrishna and it is as follows. स्थापकाय च धर्मस्य सर्वधर्मस्वरुपिणे। अवतारवरिष्ठाय रामाकृष्णाय ते नमः॥  It needs no translation. It is obvious enough.  This is also a different kind of establishment of dharma, and there is a reference to Shri Ramakrishna as an “avatara”.  This kind of establishment of “dharma” is the brahmana mode.  There were duties meant for brahmanas and there were duties meant for kshatriyas.  I am using the word duty, because this is not “dharma” in the sense of “moksha dharma” and emancipation.  It is more “dharma” in the sense of good conduct.  

For example, brahmanas are meant to study, teach, perform sacrifices, officiate at the sacrifices, receive gifts and give gifts. That is good conduct for a brahmana.  For a kshatriya, included in that good conduct is chastisement and reward, chastisement of those who are wicked and reward of those who are good.  That’s more like rule of law.  BG 4.7 is about rule of law.  It is not about “dharma” in its broader sense of emancipation.  As I have said before, “dharma” in the sense of emancipation is about what is inside you.  Rule of law is about the external world.  It shouldn’t be surprising that none of the incarnations have been brahmanas.  What of Kalki, yet to come?  I am not sure how to describe Kalki.  He is a bit like Parashurama.  He will clearly be born in a brahmana household, so the Puranas tell us.  But riding on a white horse and with a blazing sword in his hand, his behaviour will be like that of a kshatriya.  If you read about what he will do, especially in the Kalki Purana, it is the spread of dharma through the sword.

There are nuances in dharma. And all I wanted to point out was that “dharma” in connection with the incarnations is a very specific kind of interpretation.

Prakriti: What is "the truth"?

Please welcome guest writer* Rishi Raj Manglesh, a Senior IT Consultant in the Nordic region. He has a keen interest in Indian studies and is happy to give his perspective on almost everything if it helps... Today he shares his views about the concept of 'satya' often translated into English as 'truth'. But is it as unidimensional as that? Read on to find out. A bit of thinker Rishi Raj enjoy tackling serious questions, so please connect with him for via his twitter handle @rmanglesh

When we try to understand Truth or "Satya", derived from the Sanskrit word Sat, it means that which always exists, unchangeable and consistent. What would it actually mean?

It would mean that truth is the same for me, you and everyone else. Moreover it would also be the same in the past, present and future as well. It is static and also called as Absolute or Eternal truth which doesn't change with time.

But due to limitation of expression and inability to know all at once, we might require a different versions of truth which suits to our context to understand the absolute truth. Such a dynamic narrative which evolves with our spiritual development may be/could be or can be different to me, you or anybody else. Such a truth which is not static but expresses absolute truth can be called Relative truth which changes with time.

------------------

Why truth is so essential to know?

Because it is part of our existence. Our physical being along with the narrative of relative and absolute truth put together is our existence actually. "Our being" is not just physical manifestation but also an attribute of several qualities due to our life situation and original nature - known as Prakrti.

Relative truth is the illusion (maya) which is rajasic in nature. The absolute truth is playground of existence which is sattvik in nature whereas physical being is a manifestation of tamasic energy.

We can hopefully go further into the details of gunas in future but perhaps it is enough to understand now that our existence has three main pillars: ourself, illusion which exists temporarily and absolute truth or very fine balance between our self and real nature.

------------------

How does relative truth manifest itself in our life?

The relative truth is rajasic thus creative and related to the creator thus our self.

Therefore my illusions are just mine. My perception of self, others, family, society and future goals, ambitions makes my world and my world is always different then someone else world.

To realize the illusion or our own world, the GOAL of life is education. Education will give individual enough skills, abilities and knowledge to achieve our world.

--------------------

How absolute truth manifests in our life?

This is sattvik and always perfectly balanced thus providing stability to continue our existence. It is a link of our prakrti to eternal prakrti. This is not about an individual world but a shared world. To live in shared world, the GOAL of life is dharma so that we strike fine balance with ourselves and others who makes up the real world.

Thus, education can vary in how it drives the individual, but dharma is a common code which everyone should follow to have a balance in life with others. The rise of adharma would simply mean indifferent conduct to other and would create imbalances thus threatening the very of self, or the object of existence.

-----------------

Why is Dharma goal of our life along with Artha, Kama & Moksha?

It is natural to chase our world and one will most likely follow an efficient and effective mean to individual achievement and survival. But it is not easy to realize that too much individualism can create disharmony in the society and nature. Thus, dharma has to be goal of life to live and let others live and strike a balance with nature.

To add further, the dharma should be based on absolute truth. We could ignore and let all such traditions and beliefs go which are specific to certain time and social realities.

* I may or may not agree with the views of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVII

Dr. Bibek Debroy

 How best is dharma pursued - the new age way or the traditional? What helps us centre ourselves? Stop being scattered?Is it a personal god? A temple? A physio-neurological practice? Is there one right way? Bibek Debroy nudges us to examine our own beliefs and perhaps our conviction that 'our' belief is the best? Read on, leave a comment, share your views. Follow @bibekdebroy on Twitter to discuss this, to probe his mind further.




India has the second largest road network in the world, 0.66 km of roads per sq km of land.  All of us are always travelling along some road or the other.  I wonder what would happen if I asked you to name an Indian road.  I suspect someone would name Grand Trunk Road, someone else would mention one of the National Highways, someone else would mention one of the more recent Expressways.  Few would mention a village road, or a local road.  A road network is actually built from below.  It then aggregates upwards into those national highways and all-India level roads.  I think there is a parallel with the way we approach dharma.  एकम् सत् विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति.  Most people have heard of this.  “Truth is one.  Wise people have spoken of it in different ways.”  Though this expression occurs in other Vedas too, the main source is the Rig Veda, 1.164.46.  I do have a minor problem with the way shlokas, or parts of shlokas, are plucked out and used, independent of the context.  For instance, this is a hymn to the Vishvadevas and the reference was to Indra, Mitra, Varuna and Agni, not quite the general sense in which we interpret the expression today.  But that’s a minor point.  In our pursuit of dharma, all of us walk our own individual roads.  But in the process of upward integration, we often aggregate into a personal god, typically Shiva or Vishnu.  I think a debate about a personal god is sterile and pointless.  Down the years, our betters have speculated about this.  A personal god isn’t necessary for pursuit of dharma, though it may help.  Read Swami Vivekananda.  However, if we make a fetish about a personal god, and confuse the means with the end, it isn’t sufficient either.

When I think of the map of India or Bharatavarsha, I am intrigued.  There are the mountains, up in the north, associated usually with Shiva.  There are the oceans, down there in the south, associated usually with Vishnu.  There is the vast expanse in the middle.  With some stretch of the imagination, they are identified with Brahma.  I said some stretch of the imagination, because only a slice of present-day India was known as Aryavarta or Brahmavarta.  There is a story about Brahma being cursed. Consequently, with the exception of Pushkara, there is no temple to Brahma, none that I know of.  In the flatlands of India, we seem to be cursed like Brahma.  Normally, we don’t think about

dharma.  There is an exception when we approach the mountains or the oceans.  Both of them have been around for thousands of years.  When we visit either, we are struck by the transient nature of human existence and our minds turn to religion.  Recently, I and my wife, and a friend and his wife, were on a visit to Nepal.  We went to a hill near Pokhara.  Phewa Lake, in Pokhara Valley, stretched out on one side.  But on the other side, in splendid isolation as the evening sun set, we could see Dhaulagiri, Annapurna-I and Manaslu.  For those who don’t know, these 3 figure in the list of the top ten highest mountains in the world.  My friend remarked, “How can your mind not turn to religion?”  Precisely.  Getting away from the flatlands helps.

I said I have an ambivalent feeling about a personal god.  (I don’t think I need one, though I can appreciate other people feeling the need for one.)  I have a similar ambivalent feeling about temples.  I rarely go to temples and whenever I have gone, the temple has left no mark.  There is only one exception, the Mahakaleshvara in Ujjain.  This is one of the 12 jyotirlingas and is the only one that faces the south.  We went there about 4 years ago.  For whatever reason, I have not been able to get the image of the linga out of my head.  It keeps recurring, often in my dreams, perhaps suggesting that I should go there again.  Anyway, Kathmandu is famous for the Pashupatinath temple.  I have been to

Mahakal, Ujjain.

Kathmandu at least 7 times earlier, but have never bothered to visit Pashupatinath.  This time, something odd happened. We had already made up our plans to go to Nepal.  A fortnight before we were due to leave, at a party, we ran into a gentleman, who though a professional, is part-time astrologer cum mystic, more the latter than the former.  He casually remarked, “You should go to Pashupatinath.”  We hadn’t told him we were going to Nepal, nor had he any means of knowing that.  It was a strange coincidence.  We did go to Pashupatinath.  Did it leave an imprint, the way Mahakaleshvara had?  No, it did not.

As far as I can make out, temples are relatively new.  I may be wrong.  But I don’t know of major temples that go back before the Gupta period.  The practice of dharma, such as yoga, requires the identification of an auspicious spot.  But that’s an individual identification, no different from having a prayer-room in one’s house.  A temple is more collective in nature. I am prepared to buy the argument that a designated place of worship creates positive energies.  If nothing else, it does it in a placebo kind of way.  For a prayer-room in one’s house, Swami Vivekananda talks about this in “Raja Yoga”.  It calms you down, you pacifies you and makes you ready.  Perhaps one can extrapolate this to collective energies and positive synergy in temples.  There is quite a bit of stuff floating around on ley lines and the earth’s energy, much of it drawing on books by Alfred Watkins (“Early British Trackways”, “The Old Straight Track”) and extending it in ways that Watkins would have found exceedingly strange. Somehow, I prefer old age DAKM, rather than all this new age stuff.

Upanishads in the Muktika-Upanishad

Many thanks to Mr. Narayan Namboodiri for sharing this translation with us. You can follow Shri

Namboodiri on Twitter via his handle @PnNamboo

उपनिषद्विषये

(Based on Muktikopanishad)

मुक्तोपनिषदि, यत्र श्रीरामः स्वभक्तं हनूमन्तं आत्मज्ञानम् उपदिशति, उपनिषदां आहत्य सङ्ख्या, तथा १०८ मुख्योपनिषदां विषये, तासां नामानि च उल्लेखितानि सन्ति । एते श्लोकाः प्रथमोध्याये सन्ति ।     

वेदान्ते सुप्रतिष्ठोऽहं वेदान्तं समुपाश्रय । ७ ॥

Sri Rama to Hanuman - I am well seated in Vedanta, so you take refuge in Vedanta) 

वेदान्ताः के रघुश्रेष्ठ वर्तन्ते कुत्र ते वद ।

हनूमञ्छृणु वक्ष्यामि वेदान्तस्थितिमञ्जसा ॥ ८ ॥

Hanuman – Oh Rama! What are Vedantas and where do they exist?

Sri Rama – I will tell you where Vedantas exist, please hear from me.

निश्वासभूता मे विष्णोर्वेदा जाताः सुविस्तराः ।

तिलेषु तैलवद्वेदे वेदान्तः सुप्रतिष्ठितः ॥ ९ ॥

Sri Rama –  Vedas with tehir details were borne out of Mahavishnu’s ie., my breath. And Vedanta exists in Veda like oil in gingelli grains.

राम वेदाः कति विधास्तेषां शाखाश्च राघव ।

तासूपनिषदः काः स्युः कृपया वद तत्वत ॥ १० ॥   

Hanuman – Oh Rama! Please tell me correctly how many types of Vedas are there, and the types of Veda shakhas. Also please tell me which are the Upanishads forming part of the Vedas?

ऋग्वेदादि विभागेने वेदाश्चत्वार ईरिताः ।

तेषां शाखाह्यनेकाः स्युस्थाषूपनिषदस्तथा ॥ ११ ॥

Rama – It is said that there are four different Vedas like Rgveda. They have many Shakhas, as also that many Upanishads.

ऋग्वेदस्य तु शाखाः स्युरेकविंशति स!ङ्ख्य काः ।

नवाधिक शतं शाखा यजुषो मारुतात्मज ॥ १२ ॥

सहस्र सङ्ख्यया जाताः शाखाः साम्नः परन्तप ।

अथर्वणस्य शाखा स्युः पञ्चाशद्भेदतो हरे ॥ १३ ॥

Hanuman! Rgveda has 21 Shakhas, Yajurveda has 109 Shakhas, Samaveda has 1000 Shakhas and Atharvaveda has 50 Shakhas. (Thus the total no of Veda shakhas would be 1180.

एकैकस्यास्तु शाखायाः एकैकोपनिषदन्मता । १-१४ ॥

Each of these Vedashakhashas has its own Upanishad.  Thus, no of Upanishads would also be 1180.  

३०–३९ श्लोकेषु १०८ मुख्योपनिषदां नामनि दृश्यन्ते । तासु १०८-तम उपनिषदस्ति मुक्तिकोप

Further information can by found here:

http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/upanishad_list.pdf

http://luizfernando.info/pbd/The%20108%20Upanishads%20-%20Swami%20Nirmalananda%20Giri.pdf

The 18 Vidyās: भारतीयविद्यास्थानानि

Please welcome guest writer Mr. Narayan Namboodiri! After a life time of working and consulting as a Chemical Engineer, Mr. Namboodiri devoted his time to the pursuit of Sanskrit. Coming from a long tradition of Sanskrit scholarship, he has been a volunteer and teacher at Samskrita Bharati for seven years now. He finds teaching Sanskrit very satisfying, and his latest teaching stint has been with #SanskritAppreciationHour on Twitter. You can follow him and his sessions via his handle @@PnNamboo  Today, on special request, he shares the 18 Vidyās - in Sanskrit. Try to unravel it. And post translations in comments :-) Shortly a translation will be provided...and you can tally yours with it!

१८ विद्याः  (भारतीयविद्यास्थानानि)  

अङगानि वेदाश्चत्वारो मीमांसा न्यायविस्तरः

पुराणं धर्मशास्त्रं च विद्याह्येताश्चतुर्दश ।

आयुर्वेदो धनुर्वेदो गन्धर्वो वेद एव च

अर्थवेदश्चतुर्थश्च विद्याह्यष्टादश स्मृताः ॥

वेदाः                  ऋग्वेदः, यजुर्वेदः, सामवेदः, अथर्ववेदः ।

वेदाङ्गानि           वेदाङ्गानि षडेतानि शिक्षा व्याकरणं तथा ।

निरुक्तं ज्योतिषं कल्पं छन्दोविचितिरित्यपि ॥

शिक्षा शिक्षयति व्यक्तं वेदोच्चारण लक्षणम् ।

वक्ति व्याकरणं तस्य संहितापदलक्षणम् ॥

वक्ति तस्य निरुक्तं तु वेदनिर्वचनं स्फुटम् ।

ज्योतिश्शास्त्रं वदत्यत्र कालं वैदिककर्मणाम् ॥

क्रमं कर्मप्रयोगाणां कल्पं तत्र प्रचक्षते ।

मन्त्राक्षराणां सङ्ख्योक्ता छन्दोविचितिभिस्तथा ॥

मीमांसा - (२० अध्यायाः)

सर्ववेदार्थप्रविचारपरायणा काण्डत्रयार्थविचारपरा च ।

-          फुर्वमीमाम्सा (१२ अध्यायाः) अग्निष्टोमादिकर्मणां विवरणम् ।

-          मध्यममीमांसा (४ अध्यायाः) अग्निष्टोमादिकर्मभिः अन्तःकराणशुद्धिप्राप्तानां मोक्षेच्छूनां सकळब्रह्मोपासनम् उपदिशति ।

-          उत्तरमीमांसा (४ अध्यायाः) सकळब्रह्मोपासनद्वारा साधनचतुष्टयसम्पन्नानां परमपुरुषार्थं उपदिशति ।

न्यायशास्त्रम् –

प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणलक्षणं उपदिश्य अवैदिकानां पाखण्डवादैः वेदरक्षणाय न्यायशास्त्रम्।     

पुराणम् –

इतिहासस्यापि उपलक्षणं पुराणमुच्यते, इतिहासः पुराणं च पञ्चमो वेद उव्यते,  इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् इति वाक्यैः पुराणविद्या वेदविद्यातुल्या, वेदार्थबोधप्रदायिनी च ।

पुराणं पञ्चलक्षणयुतम्-

            सर्गश्च प्रतिसर्गश्च वंशो मन्वन्तराणि च ।

            वंशानुचरितं चेति पुराणं पञ्च लक्षणम् ॥

सर्गः सृष्टिवर्णनम्, प्रतिसर्गः प्रलयम्, सूर्यचन्द्रादिवंशवर्णनं वंशः, स्वायंभूवादि मनुमर्णनं मन्वन्तरम्, वंश्यानां महानुभावानां वर्णनं वंशानुचरितं च ।      

मुख्यपुराणानि १८:

ब्राह्मं पाद्मं वैष्णवं च शैवं भागवतं तथा ।

भविष्यं नारदीयं च मार्कण्डेयं तथापरे ॥

आग्नेयं ब्रह्मवैवर्तं लैङ्गं वाराहमेव च ।

स्कान्दं च वामनं चैव कौर्मं मात्स्यं च गारुडम् ॥

ब्रह्माण्डं चैव पुण्योऽयं पुराणानमनुक्रमः ॥

     

एतदतिरिच्य सन्ति अनेके उपपुराणान्यपि ।

धर्मशाश्त्रम् –

अप्रत्यक्षश्रुतिमूलकधर्मानाश्रित्य देशकालावस्थाधिकारिभेदानुसारं विभिन्नवर्णाश्रमादिकर्मप्रदिपादनेन वैदिकधर्मानुष्ठानं व्यवस्थापयन्ति धर्मशास्त्राणि । 

आयुर्वेदः –

धर्मसाधनं शरीरं अरोगं स्वस्थं च कर्तुं उपायानुपदिशति आयुर्वेदः ।

धनुर्वेदः –

प्रजापालनतत्परेभ्यः पार्थिवेभ्यः पापिष्ठानां शत्रूणां दमनाय पार्वतपार्जन्याद्यस्त्रशस्त्रप्रयोगानुपदिशति धनुर्वेदः ।

गन्धर्ववेदः –

सामगानोपयोगाय स्वरलक्षणं उपदिशति गन्धर्ववेदः ।

अर्थवेदः –

सन्ध्यादि षड्गुणानां (सन्धिः, विग्रहः, यानं, आसनं, द्वैधं, आश्रयं च) तथा सामादिसप्तोपायानां स्वरूपोपदेशेन, कृषिगोरक्षादिना च चरुपुरोडाशादीनां सम्पादनोपयवर्णनम् कुर्वन् अर्यवेदः वैदिकधर्मव्यवस्थितेः सहायको भवति । 

              

Schedule for #SanskritAppreciationHour on Twitter for the week beginning 3rd February, 2014

Date	Time	Lecturer	Topic	Twitter handle
Tues 4th Feb	12.30pm UK, 6pm India	Eric M. Gurevitch	Bhartṛhari’s Nītiśataka	@EMGurevitch
Wed 5th Feb	11am UK, 4.30pm India	Mr. Namboodiri	Rāmodantam	@PnNamboo
Thurs 6th Feb	3.30UK, 9pm India	Suhas	Vairāgya-śatakam	@suhasm
Fri 7th Feb	2pm UK, 7.30pm India	HariTirumalai	Rekhagaṇitam (Geometry in Ancient India)	@haritirumalai

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVI

Dr. Bibek Debroy

Setting the tone for the New Year, Dr. Bibek Debroy vivifies our sense of inquiry, and   leaves us with more questions than answers to ponder. The answers are within us, rather than without, he suggests. He reminds us that Hinduism has a library rather than 'a book', and further, that theories and texts merely provide a conceptual framework. How then do we pursue puruṣārthas (dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa)? How do we find answers? What is your view? Leave a comment or interact with Bibek on Twitter via his handle @bibekdebroy 




यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः। वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यद्स्तीति वादिनः॥  That’s BG 2.42.  Loosely translated, those who aren’t learned, speak flowery words and say that there is nothing else other than the words of the Vedas.  The word Shabda-Brahma has many meanings and nuances.  In some contexts, it means the Brahma that can be attained through sound, hymns, mantras and rites. (Please don’t hasten to correct me about other meanings of Shabda-Brahma, since I have hedged adequately.)  This is in contrast to the Para-Brahma of Vedanta.  For example, 6.44 of BG states, जिञ्जासुरपि योगस्य शब्दब्रह्मातिवर्तते.  Again translated loosely, those who inquire about yoga, transcend Shabda-Brahma.  Whether attainment of Shabda-Brahma is a necessary and sufficient condition to attain Para-Brahma, has been the subject of philosophical speculation.  Clearly, according to some beliefs, it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.  But let’s leave that debate aside.  

Our sacred texts are divided into shruti and smriti.  In a loose sense again, shruti is revelation.  Shruti texts weren’t composed by anyone in particular.  They were revealed to rishis.  Stated differently, rishis put down their experiences in shruti texts.  In contrast, smriti texts have specific composers.  Notice that BG is a smriti text. It isn’t shruti. Whenever I say, or write, anything about dharma, artha, kāma, or mokṣa (DAKM), there is a predictable reaction.  But such and such a text says such and such.  That contradicts whatever you have said or written.  The reason I am proud to be a Hindu is that there is no definitive sacred text.  Even the BG isn’t quite the single sacred text, though it captures much of the essence of Hinduism. That’s the reason, if you cite chapter and verse from some sacred text, I will be able to cite chapter and verse from some other sacred text that seems to suggest the opposite.  

In the last resort, what are religion and DAKM about?  They are about what you experience and your experiences might be different from mine.  The problem with religion interpreted in terms of a single sacred text is that it tends to become dogmatic.  This has been stated in a sacred text and therefore, I have to accept it as a matter of faith.  I don’t think that’s what Hinduism is about.  In that narrow sense, it isn’t about faith.  It’s about experiencing.  In that sense, it is empirical.  It is something that can be tested.  When the rishis set down the shruti texts, they were effectively documenting their experiences and nothing more.  Lest you think that I am saying something heretical or novel, that’s exactly what Swami Vivekananda said in his monograph on “Raja Yoga”.

The theory and the sacred texts provide a conceptual framework and no more.  At best, since others have experienced something and they aren’t all charlatans, I should try it out.  In tantra and yoga, I can give the taxonomy of the chakras (from muladhara up to sahasrara) and kundalini and ida/pingala.  But DAKM isn’t about what Patanjali, Panini, Vyasa or Kapila have said.  Nor is it about Swami Vivekananda, Swami Yogananda or Swami Sivananda. These are nothing but exhortations to us to try it out.  Science is based on empirical evidence.  

So is DAKM, except that the empirical evidence doesn’t pertain to the external world.  It pertains to what is inside us and that cannot be captured through the senses.  The taxonomy merely says that all of us have latent powers.  We don’t use our potential powers fully.  There is thus potential divinity in all of us, if that is the expression to be used.  In this era of science, there is legitimate reason to treat what religious teachers have said with skepticism.  But since I don’t believe the empirical evidence of religious teachers, the right response should be to try it out.  That’s the only way the hypothesis can be falsified.  I hope you now understand why I said I am not interested in citations from chapters and verses of sacred texts.

योग: चित्त-वृत्ति निरोध: The trouble with Patanjali is that these are sutras.  They are cryptic and need explanations.  This is 1.2 from Patanjali.  I will not give a translation, because you will then quibble about whether I have translated chitta, vritti and nirodha properly.  Different people have translated it in different ways.  This is Swami Vivekananda.  “Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff (citta) from taking various forms (vrittis).”  Without a commentary, I don’t think this is a particularly illuminating or good translation.  But that’s neither here, nor there.  Yoga is about self-control and restraint and realizing one’s own inner self.  Given 1.2, in the 8-fold yoga category, it is about yama and niyama.  Going back to empirical testing, try it out.  Will you find “divinity”?  Will you get special powers?  Will it change you?  I don’t know.  I think the answer depends on you and on how far you are up the ladder, certainly in response to the first two questions.  

For the third question, I can give a categorical answer.  It will change you.  As I have said in passing in an earlier blog, you changing isn’t only about what you will get.  It is also about what you will lose. योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनंजय । सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ।।  That’s 2.48 of BG.  Loosely translated again, perform your tasks without any attachment, by resorting to yoga.  Be indifferent to success and failure.  This equality/indifference is said to be yoga.  If you spend some time on meditation every day, you will automatically lose the attachment and gain the detachment.  I don’t care, nor know, about special powers (siddhi), except through reading what people have said.  But what I have described is a significant enough gain and it isn’t पुष्पितां वाचं.