THE UPANISHADS
A term paper for Philosophy 343
by Delia Morgan
I. Introduction
The
Upanishads are often considered to be the culmination of the Vedas, the ancient
sacred texts of
Regarding the intuitive, mystical nature of the Upanishads, it should be noted that the basis of the philosophy is highly practical; that is, it is not concerned with mere speculation, but only with addressing those issues which relate directly to the conditions of life and their improvement. This is in direct contrast to the stereotypical Western image of mysticism as impractical, remote and disconnected from the concerns of daily life. The rishis knew that in order to improve life, one must ask basic questions concerning the basic nature of reality and of human beings, and the ultimate goal of human existence. This speculative exploration marked the beginning of the Upanishads.
II. Metaphysics
Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality -- what the universe is, what sorts of entities exist, and what their properties are. In the Upanishads, the two main streams of speculation concerned the nature of ultimate reality, and the question of human identity; these two streams were later to converge, in one of the most profound and startling philosophical assertions ever conceived.
One basic question of the Upanishads may be considered to be 'who am I?' The thinkers of the time asserted that the true self must be that unchanging essence which continues throughout all processes of change, and proceeded to answer this fundamental question by a process of elimination. One cannot be the physical body, since that changes throughout life, and ceases at death. One cannot be one's social identity, the roles one plays, for similar reasons. One cannot be merely the mind, because the contents of our minds change constantly. What is left? What is the one, constant, unchanging aspect of existence? Their answer was: consciousness itself. Here they were careful to distinguish consciousness, or awareness, from the contents of awareness -- the thoughts, feelings and sensations one experiences. Consciousness itself is a subjective experience, and cannot ever be an object; that is, it can never be empirically observable or describable, it cannot be separated out from the experiencer.
This is what psychotherapist Arthur
Deikman terms the observing self; the object self (or ego or empirical self, in
contrast, would be that part of the identity which has characteristics and
which can be regarded as an object. (Deikman, p. 70-74) This distinction between consciousness and
its contents is one which is ignored, or glossed over in the West; we tend to
emphasize only the objective and disregard the subjective. Instead we tend to
draw the line between the physical and the mental -- the traditional Cartesian
mind/body duality. Indian thought considers this focus on the objective and
phenomenal world, to the exclusion of subjective reality, to be avidya,
ignorance, which keeps us realizing the true nature of awareness. In
There are some astonishing corollaries to this idea. One is that, since consciousness is unchanging, it cannot be affected by death; it cannot have an ending or beginning, for that would imply change. Also, since it is without distinctions, there can be only one. If one consciousness were different from another, it would have to have some quality which made it different. So all consciousness is one. This raises important questions of personal identity: it implies that the true Self of all creatures is the same, eternal being. Our usual ideas of self, which constitute the ego, are those changing and illusory qualities which merely cover over the pure unchanging Self. This Self they called Atman, eternal and indestructible. (Radhakrishnan, Sourcebook, p. 45 -48) They furthermore claimed that one can become aware of the Atman through direct experience of oneself as pure awareness.
The other stream of speculation concerned the nature of the universe itself. The earlier Vedic religion centered on the gods and ritual life, and emphasized attaining the good things in life -- health, prosperity, family, etc. Later on the rituals took a turn toward the magical, as their efficacy was considered to come more from the ritual actions and spoken words themselves, than from the gods one sought to please. The gods did have power, but what was the source of their power? And what was the source of the power in the spoken word? In early speculations in the Rig Veda, one can sense this mystery: "Whence was it born, this emanation...by which the gods only later came to be?..." (Rig Veda 10.129; Goodall p. 16) The idea arose that there was one unified power underlying all these things, and that power they termed 'Brahman.' The word may have come from the idea of a vitality, growth or power inherent in prayer; but it ended up being considered as the transcendent power underlying all of existence, the ultimate reality on which the universe is grounded. That upon which the universe is founded cannot be just another thing, like the things that exist within the universe; it must be something entirely different, beyond all objects, infinite and eternal, subtle and transcendent. Brahman was both the source and the dissolution of all phenomenal existence.
Given these two streams of thought, one concerning human identity and the other concerning the nature of the universe, it would naturally follow to ask how they are related. Both the individual self and the universe are seen to have an underlying transcendental and unchanging reality; what is the relation of the Atman to the Brahman? The central and astonishing revelation of the Upanishads is that they are identical -- Atman is Brahman. The self at the core of our existence, our pure consciousness, is the very ground of the universe itself. The famous expression conveying this is 'Tat twam asi' -- 'Thou art That.' In our true nature, we are the eternal consciousness of the universe. This assertion is grounded in experience; that is, it is not an idea that was deduced by the intellect, but rather is an immediate, direct introspective intuition.
This idea is often mistaken in the west as saying 'I am God.' But Brahman is not really parallel to the idea of God in western monotheism; it is not personal, has no qualities, is beyond good and evil, is not really involved with the universe. It is 'nirguna Brahman,' without qualities. However, there is also the idea of 'saguna Brahman,' Brahman with qualities. The qualities of Brahman are then described as threefold: it is Sat, pure existence or being, Chit, pure awareness or sentience, and Ananda, pure peace or bliss. Saguna Brahman may be considered to be expressed as a personal deity, and hence is an important religious idea, but this is not the principal concern of the Upanishads.
A third important area of Indian metaphysics concerned the nature of phenomenal existence. The universe itself may be considered as an emanation of Brahman, which in its pure essence remains unaffected by the universe; the world is spun out of Brahman as a spider spins a threaded web. (Mc Greal, p. 156) If the human soul is really Brahman, if our true nature is boundless, eternal and blissful, then how is it that we come to be in this life? Suffering and limitations are inherent in life, but why? To answer this, they turned to a central idea of cause and effect, karma. In life humans make conscious choices and take certain actions, and that these actions have effects which rebound on the performer of the action. From this they deduced that good actions result in good karma, and pleasant consequences for the individual, and bad actions result in unpleasant consequences. This could be considered as a system of rewards and punishments as in the West, but is usually considered less personal, as a sort of automatic mechanism; in this way, karma upholds dharma, the cosmic natural and moral order.
In Indian thought, karma also solve
the 'problem of evil,' with which the West has struggled for so long: why do
bad things happen? Karma says that they
happen due to our own actions. But one may object that misfortunes often befall
newborn babies, or other seeming innocents. This objection Indian thought
answers with the idea of reincarnation; one reaps the results not only of this
life, but of previous lives also. Reincarnation is an ancient idea in
III. Ethics
Where metaphysics is concerned with what is, ethics is concerned with what should be. Ethics asks: what is the highest good, and how to go about attaining it? In India, metaphysical speculation and intuitive experience had discovered that the true nature of human life was to be found in the Atman -- pure being, awareness and bliss. All of the problems associated with life come from the separation from Atman; this separation is due to ignorance of this true nature, and the resultant clinging to the limited identity of the ego-self, with all of its cravings and attachments. If this ego-self could be overcome or eliminated, and pure Atman realized, one would attain moksha, liberation into the boundless bliss of Pure Being. This is the highest good in Indian thought, and all other ideas of good and bad derive from it; good is what leads to moksha, bad is what traps us in samsara, the phenomenal world of death and rebirth.
One may eventually, through meditation and understanding of the Vedas, arrive at the experiential realization of moksha in this lifetime; hence scholarly learning and meditative discipline are keys for one who aims at moksha. But it was also understood that this pursuit requires preparation, and that not everyone is ready for the rigorous discipline in this lifetime. However, those practices which best prepare one to receive the knowledge are those which lessen the attachment to the ego-self; these can be described as virtues, since they are also the modes of action which have generally been deemed good in all cultures -- honesty, generosity, kindness, etc., -- those basic virtues necessary to a well-functioning society. In this way Indian thought ties ethical behavior to the attainment of the ultimate good; even if one does not attain moksha in this life, by good behavior one will come back to a better life, closer to the eventual goal of liberation. The grounds for this ethical system are partly intuitive -- the idea of the highest good is arrived at by introspection; they are also partly utilitarian -- the subsidiary goods are those which best allow oneself to attain liberation, and also maintain the moral order of society.
It is important to note that, although moksha is the highest good, it is not the only good. Life and society go on, and such benefits as health, prosperity, and family, are also considered important. To this end the Upanishads laid out various ethical and moral specifics, how to follow one's dharma or moral duty. These ethical rules pertained to the various classes or castes in society, as well as to gender, stages of life, and so on. But the general rules of ethics pertained to all: damyata (self-control), daya (compassion), and datta (generosity). (Hiriyanna, p. 28) When one became ready to pursue moksha, this ethical basis would form a foundation for later teaching, and would culture the personality of the student toward a receptivity to the truth.
III. Epistemology
Philosophy deals not only with what is and what should be, but also considers what we can know, and how we can know it. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge; given a certain claim, how can it be known to be true? Generally, there are considered three or four sources of knowledge: sense perception/experience; reasoning; authority (often scriptural); and sometimes, revelation/intuition. The modern western world has generally ruled out all except the first two of these, under the influence of scientific materialism; authority may be cited, but authority is not enough by itself, and must derive from sense experience or reason. Intuitive, subjective experience in the West is generally disregarded as a source of knowledge, since science restricts itself to the objective, physical world, and since the West has taken science as its model for all knowledge. The Upanishads, in contrast, rarely cited authority in their teaching; in addition to reasoning they emphasized experience, but it was primarily intuitive experience. The reasoning involved in arriving at Upanishadic ideas has already been touched on. The idea of intuition as a basis for knowledge deserves further examination.
Subjective experience has often been disregarded since it is considered not objectively verifiable. But as Deikmann and others have pointed out, all of our so-called objective knowledge is really based on subjective experience -- sense perceptions are involved in measurements and all other observations. What we really mean by 'objective' is a sort of consensus: we consider a measurement objective because the subjective experience of others seems to agree with our own subjective experience. Often called 'intersubjective consensus', this is part of the basis for all our knowledge. Science uses the criteria of repeatability and predictability in verifying scientific claims, which are really criteria of consensus. However, this type of intersubjective consensus is also available to the mystic. Indeed, mysticism regards itself as a science, insofar as its claims may be validated by anyone willing to perform the necessary experiments upon their own consciousness. Mysticism, like science, includes a technology of verification; but here the technology aims at achieving states of consciousness in which certain mystical truths become self-evident. (Deikman, p. 19-21)
Among the most well-known type of mystical experience worldwide is that of the true self as boundless and eternal, similar to the Upanishadic revelation of the Atman. Given that there are established methods or prescriptions for attaining intuitive truth, and that there appears to be a consensus regarding the resulting experience, it may not seem too far a stretch to consider mysticism as a science, or at least as a valid method for attaining knowledge. Interestingly, in Indian thought, two types of knowledge are recognized: 'apara' is knowledge of the empirical world, and is considered a 'lower' kind of knowledge; 'para' is intuitive knowledge, of a transcendental truth, and is the truer, 'higher' knowledge.
IV. Other teachings:
In addition to the basic philosophy described above, there are a number of other key ideas which have contributed to the Indian worldview, some from the Upanishads and some from later teachers.
One of these ideas is that of Maya. In the metaphysics which teaches that Brahman is the ultimate reality, more real than the phenomenal world, or even perhaps the only reality (the idealist or nondualist view) how does the empirical world come about? What is its relation to Brahman? The analogy of a spider and its thread was mentioned above; a similar metaphor describes the universe as a world-tree rooted in Brahman. (Radhakrishnan, Sourcebook, p. 49) Or, then again, Brahman as Atman or Self, is itself likened to a tree, the universal 'resting place' to which all things, like birds, return in repose. (Sourcebook, p. 50) Other ideas describe Brahman infused throughout the universe as salt is in salt water; one cannot locate it, but it is everywhere present. (Sourcebook, p. 69) Yet another answer is to be found in the idea Maya; Maya is often described as the illusory power which results in the perception of the material world. It is often described as a veil that covers and hides the Absolute, Brahman. (McGreal, p.157) Maya was much discussed by later writers; among them was Shankara, the founder of the Advaita (nondualist) school of Vedanta, who lived around 800 c.e. He taught that only Brahman is truly real; but that the world is not therefore unreal, but only 'apparent.' He also expanded the categories of knowledge to three: ultimate knowledge (of Brahman), empirical knowledge (of the world), and illusory knowledge (dreams, hallucinations). He taught that Maya proceeds from our ignorance of ultimate truth, and that the distinction we make between the Absolute and the phenomenal, between Brahman and the universe, comes about from that ignorance. From the standpoint of Brahman, the illusion disappears and it is seen that there are not two things, but only one undifferentiated reality. (McGreal, p. 215-216) While some writers have considered Indian metaphysical ideas to reflect a basic pantheism, others have emphasized idealistic monism. In either description, there is widespread agreement that Brahman is both immanent in the world and also transcends it; an attitude that in Western religious thought has often been termed panentheism.
Later texts also elaborated upon the journey toward self-realization, the paths by which one may be liberated. The Bhagavad Gita lays out at least four paths to the goal: meditation (mystical yogic technology for attaining deeper states of awareness), knowledge (intellectual/scriptural), action (practiced with total involvement and detachment from results) and devotion (to the divine in some form). Shankara tends to discount the paths of action and devotion, and emphasize the paths of knowledge and meditation. Ram Dass, a modern American teacher, reminds us that almost anything may be used as a vehicle for awakening, and that different methods work for different persons. He encourages us to embrace all of life's experiences fully, with an open heart, and use it for our own liberation. (Ram Dass audio tape) His teaching serves to bring us back to the central point that the Upanishadic teachings are not intended as mere abstract speculation, but as the key to living a life that is fully and richly alive.
V. Summary/Conclusions:
The Upanishadic philosophy has stood for thousands of years as a source of inspiration and guidance, and a practical tool for vastly improved living. In the past, it served as the original jumping-off point for Buddhism, which still maintains many of the core ideas, and which spread all throughout Asia. Our present age has seen it expand far beyond the East as many modern westerners have turned to its ancient teachings to find a peace and profundity often missing in our own culture. Its core teachings are that of the eternal Self, the Atman, and its identity with the ultimate divine source of the universe, Brahman. It offers both intellectual and intuitive insights into the nature of reality; perhaps more importantly, it offers methods by which the seeker can discover these truths for herself. For the most part, its claims are those which can be verified by the subjective experience of those willing to undertake the practice. And contrary to some western stereotypes, there is nothing in the basic teaching which would conflict with modern scientific knowledge, although its basic assumptions seem to stand in direct conflict with the ideology of the scientific-materialist worldview.
When considered in comparison with the scientific-materialist philosophy, the Upanishads seem to have more and deeper truths to speak to the human soul. As a philosophy for living, it is one which provides a deep sense of meaning to life, and a sense of interconnectedness with the whole universe, as well as a practical ethical basis. Scientific materialism, however, since denying any realm other than the physical, cannot provide any framework for meaning or purpose; it also offers the generally unsatisfactory view that death is a finality, a complete cessation of being. In Indian thought, the ultimate goal attainable by every living soul is that of eternal freedom and bliss.
It is
perhaps more interesting to compare the Upanishadic philosophy with a religious
philosophy. While much of western monotheism would be incompatible with the
Indian teachings, many or most pagan religions could accommodate it very well
within their basic worldview. Such religions tend to be pantheistic; Nature and
the Divine are considered the same thing, or two views of the same thing,
similar to some interpretations of the Upanishads; and the Gods are viewed as
parts or aspects of the one divine reality, a view also much in agreement with
Indian thought. (Although many pagans would identify the Goddess with the idea
of a personal Brahman.) However, the pagan religious viewpoint tends to
emphasize devotion, ritual and magic, which are downplayed and even criticized
in the Upanishads as a reaction to earlier Vedic religion. Many pagans would
also agree with reincarnation and the evolutionary path of the soul toward the
realization of its own divinity. But pagan religions are also considered
'religions for living on earth' -- pagans usually have no interest in seeking
to be liberated from earthly existence, but rather seek to experience a deep,
ecstatic communion with Nature. Perhaps the pagan ideal would be similar to
that of the jivan-mukta, the 'liberated-in-life' who continues earthly
existence, finding bliss and perfection in all things while remaining free from
clinging attachment. But more likely, a pagan would wonder why the effort to
break through the veil of Maya, why try to escape from the dance of Lila? Our
true nature is the Divine, and for whatever reason the Divine chose to dance
into existence the phenomenal the world and all its drama, and to dive into the
experience of that world as a vast multitude of individual living creatures;
who are we to claim that this drama is better ended? It is not inconceivable to
imagine an existence in which the profound experience of the unbounded divine
is maintained in awareness, along with a rich appreciation of all of the color
and variety of the unending cycles of temporal life; a paradox, but perhaps one
that embraces the best of both worlds.
Notes/References:
1. The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, by M. Hiriyanna; George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1949.
2. Great Thinkers of the Eastern World, ed. by Ian McGreal; Harper Collins, 1995.
Articles: "The Upanishads" by Lawrence F. Hundersmarck and "Shankara" by Bina Gupta.
3. A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, ed. by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Charles A. Moore;
Princeton University Press, 1957.
4. Indian Philosophy, by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan; Humanities Press, N.Y. 1923.
5. Hindu Scriptures, ed. by Dominic Goodall; University of California Press, 1996.
6. Who Are You? by Ram Dass; audio tape from 2-day workshop at Windstar, date unknown.
7. Class lectures, by Prof. N. Champawat; Cal State University Northridge, 1998.
8. The Observing Self, by Arthur J. Deikman; Beacon Press, 1982.
9. The Indian Way, by John M. Koller; Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.