VEDANTA

Basically Upanishad thought is the Vedantic thought. This system is mainly opposed to the earlier Vedic ritualism (Purva Mimansa). But in itself it is very variant. It can form the basis of Pantheism, Monism, Materialism, etc., i.e. of the world -being the emanation of Brahman, the world being just illusory, and Brahman alone being real, etc.⁵⁹? Philosophers like Shankra, Ramanuja, Madhava, Nimbarka and others, have all given divergent interpretations of the Upanishads. Upanishad thoughts were not meant to be a religious system. These comprise teachings meant only for a small section most of who had withdrawn to the seclusion of the forest. The search was for an intuitional and mystic experience of unity with Brahman, with the knowledge of which everything became known. The fundamental reality is not personal, like God of theists to whom one prays with devotion and love. Hence the concepts of “That thou art”, “I am Brahman”, of Katha Upanisad, “He who perceives diversity in this world, suffers the death of all deaths”, and of Brahman alone being real, the rest being false and illusory.⁶⁰ Upanishads being speculative, contained divergent and contradictory thoughts without any attempt to reconcile them. The methodology is primarily meditational with the ideal of four Ashramas, the last two Ashramas being basically other-worldly and ascetic, involving disconnection with the delusive secular life.⁶¹ The final achievement is the result of one’s own efforts and not the gift of God or His grace. The Jivanmukta has no role to play and is indifferent to all activity, good or bad.⁶²” For, he transcends the condition of worldly existence. Later, the authors of the Upanishads also accepted the validity of Vedic ritualism and its social commands regarding caste. As such, they have become a component of the overall Vedic system, and have got scriptural sanctity as a limb of the Vedas. This background of the various Upanishads has to be kept in view in understanding Vedanta. Hiriyanna writes, “The diversity of teaching noticed in connection with theoretical teaching of the Upanishada has its reflex in their means of achieving it.”⁶³* “For example, one Upanishad alone mentions three such different means of attaining immortality devotion to truth, penance, and Vedic study and ascribing them to three specific teachers”⁶⁴. Second, the Upanishads and the sanctioned social system of the period gave clear approval to the caste system. The Chandogya writes, “The wicked are born again as outcastes, dogs or swine”⁶⁵. The Brihadaraniyaka (VI. 2, 15-16) gives a similar account. Evidently, the Upanishadic system, although other-worldly and meditational, accepts the ritualism and the caste ideology of the Vedas. We have briefly indicated the views of Ramanuja and his Vashist Advaita. We give hereafter the Vedanta of Shankra, which is the most popular Vedantic system.

Shankra and his predecessor Gaudapada pursue the line of thought in the Upanishads which considers the world to be just mithya (illusion), and Brahman alone to be real. Gaudapada, writes, “The manifold universe does not exist as a form of reality, nor does it exist of itself”. “Having attained to non-duality one should behave in this world like an insensible object”.⁶⁶° According to Shankza, all diversity is false (mithya). Therefore, to work while accepting the phenomenal existence of the world is sheer avidya (ignorance). The goal is to realize the truth of Brahman alone being real, and to deny the world. Ishwara and individual souls are parts of Brahman. Man is ignorant, since he fails to realize that all change in the world is without meaning or validity. This view denies the very basis of all socio-moral life. Shankra says, “I am not born. How can there be either birth or death for me? I am neither male nor female, nor am I sexless. I am the blessed peaceful one who is the only cause of origin and dissolution of the world”.⁶⁷ Change in the world is due to Maya which is neither real nor unreal, nor related to Brahman. The methods of devotion or worship are considered fruitless, the goal being the Absolute and not Saguna Brahman, God or Ishwara, which is a lower stage to be transcended by the Jnani. The path of devotion, he says, is for persons of narrow or poor intellect.⁶⁸ As he cannot deny the scriptural character of the Vedas, he says that the path of ritualism or sacrifices is prescribed out of compassion for persons of low or average intellect, and it can gain for them only heaven.⁶⁹ As in Sankhya yoga, withdrawal from the illusory adjuncts of Maya is suggested. Starting with Vairagya and dissociation with the world, the mystic achievement can be made only as Sanyasin, by giving up all works, good or bad, and as one who is unwilling to accept even the grace of God. The methodology is of Vedic study, reflection and meditation. The goal is to realize, ‘I am Brahman, (Aham Brahm asmi).’ It is an intellectual realization accompanied by Anubhava. The Jivanmukta has no role to play in life.’⁷⁰”? Swami Sivananda writes, about the modern Jnanis, Kalkotswami and Mowni Swami, saying that they “were unconscious of the movement of their bowels, and the Sevakas had to wash their bottoms.”⁷¹”! Such a Videhimukta “whose individuality is absolutely merged in Brahman, cannot have the awareness of the world which is non-existent to him. If his body is to be maintained, it has to be fed and cared for by others. The Videhimukta is thus not in a position to engage himself for the good of the World”⁷².” Self-realization breaks the chain of causation and the world appears false to him. Even the idea of God, being of a lower level, has finally to be transcended. For, “God is only the most subtle, most magnificent, most flattering false impression of all in this general spectacle of erroneous self-deception.⁷³” Evidently, celibacy is recommended and Shankra calls woman the ‘gateway to hell’.“⁷⁴ No wonder Zimmer writes, “Such holy megalomania goes past the bounds of sense. With Sankara, the grandeur of the Supreme human experience becomes intellectualized and reveals its inhuman sterility”.⁷⁵”° such is Sankara’s monism for which the world is mithya.

CLASSIFICATION

In the above background, we should like to give a broad classification of the different religious systems of the world. First, is the category of religious systems, including practically all Indians systems, except Sikhism. They are dichotomous in the sense that the paths of spiritual life and the empirical life are separate. The two Hindu systems outlined above, belong to this class. In them monasticism, asceticism, pacifisms, sanyasa, celibacy, downgrading of women, caste ideology in the social life, and ahimsa are normal features. For that reason, they are considered life-negating, sociomoral activities, as concluded by Maitra, being irrelevant and of no consequence. The goal is merger in Brahman or the realization ‘I am Brahman’. Metaphysically, these systems are either pantheistic or monistic. :

To the second category, belongs Christianity. It is a hit affirming system, but accepts pacificism, monasticism, celibacy and nunneries as a valid path of spiritual life. To that extent there is dichotomy in Catholic Christianity. Women are still not ordained as priests. Life participation is accepted, but the Sermon on the Mount prescribes non-resistance or pacificism. It is Theism, accepting participation in life and calls God Love. But, because of the appearance of monasticism and celibacy, it has, like dichotomous systems, become a salvation religion, more especially after the coming up of Science and Technology, when Secularism has become supreme in the empirical life. The religion is exclusive in the sense that salvation can be sought only through Christ.

To the third category, belong the whole-life or microprint systems of Judaism and Islam. Prophet Moses and Prophet Mohammad were simultaneously spiritual and political leaders. In both the systems, organisation of social life and a religious society are accepted as the duties and responsibilities of the religious man. Similarly, the use of force for a righteous cause is also sanctioned. But, in both these religions, in the later part of their history, pacificism, monasticism, asceticism, withdrawal from life and even celibacy, have appeared forming separate sects of these religions, like Essenese, Kaballists, etc., in the former case, and different Silsilas or sects of Sufis in the latter case. This has led to dichotomous tendencies in the life of these otherwise whole-life or miri-piri religions. Besides, both these religions are exclusive.

To the fourth category belongs Sikhism. It is a whole-life or a miri-pirt system, involving participation in life and total sociopolitical responsibility. In addition, it has three other features. By prescribing the Kirpan as a part of the wear of Sikhs two things have been emphasized by the Tenth Master. First, that the Sikh should not at any time forget his social responsibility concerning injustice and oppression. The Kirpan as a Hukumnama (order) of the Guru reminds him of the history and tradition created by the Gurus regarding the social responsibilities of the Sikh society. Second, the Kirpan stands as a warning that in Sikhism the paths of withdrawal, pacificism or monasticism are considered invalid. The point is clarified by the fact that the Sufis never organised a resistance against the tyrannical rule of the times, although some of them did side with the Gurus; and it was left to the Sikh Gurus to confront the misrule of the Empire. Its two other features relate to its universalism. For, the Guru prays to God to help the troubled world by any means, He may be Gracious enough to do.”⁷⁶ Second, it is Guru Nanak who says that his mission is, with co-operation of other Godmen, to ferry men across the troubled sea of life.”⁷⁷”

Hence the above four clear categories, each one of which has many of its essentials quite distinct from those of the other three.

CONCLUSION

We have stated that the fundamental that determines the essential principles of a religious system, is the spiritual experience of the Prophet, saint or seer, and his vision of the Ultimate Reality.

In the case of Hindu systems, especially the Vedanta, the Reality is sat-chit-ananda. It is thus a quietist concept of tranquility, peace, truth and bliss. As against it, in the concept of the Gurus, God is Love and an Ocean of Values, a God of Will giving direction to the World, and a Benevolent Enlightener. This determines for the seeker, who is to carry out His Altruistic Will, total responsibility in all walks of life, God’s domain being unlimited. The distinction about the Fundamental Reality, we have indicated, is real, and not just argumentative. For, this is the first and fundamental cause of difference between dichotomous religions mentioned above and the life-affirming religions like Sikhism, Islam and Christianity. Stace has tabulated the spiritual experience of mystics from the world over. He records blessedness, tranquility, holiness, unitary consciousness, paradoxically, etc., as the features of their experience.⁷⁸” Similarly, William James also records that experience to be passive, noetic, ineffable, transient, and unitary in consciousness.”⁷⁹” Neither of them states ‘Love’ as the feature of that religious experience. But Bergson, in his statement about the ultimate mystic experience calls ‘love’ the principal feature; the other or quietist experiences, he thinks, do not constitute the final achievement of the mystic path; and it is for that reason that such mystics are not fully creative and life-affirming. For him, the test of such experience is that for mystics having the summit experience, the love of God is transformed into God’s love for all beings in the shape of their activities and functioning.⁸⁰° That is the reason that the parable of Abu Ben Adam is a model in a whole-life religion like Islam. That the distinction is not artificial, has also been stressed by Aldous Huxley: “The Indians say, the thought about are one, and then of the way in which this un-owned experience becomes something belonging to me; then no me anymore and a kind of sat-chit-ananda, at one moment without karuna or charity (how odd that the Vedantists say nothing about Love) I had an inkling of both kinds of nirvana the loveless being, consciousness, bliss, and the one with love, and above all, sense that one can never love enough’.⁸¹! “Staying in this ecstatic consciousness and cutting oneself off from participation and commitment to the rest of the world this is perfectly expressed today, in powerful slang, in the phrase ‘dropping out’. It completely denies the facts, it is morally wrong; and finally of course, absolutely catastrophic”. “Absolutely Catastrophic”.⁸² “Love and Work if I should put in a nutshell the essence of Aldous’s life. I could not find a more precise way of saying it”, writes his wife.83 What needs emphasis is the fundamental difference between the spiritual experience of the Gurus and that of the Hindu mystics-cum-philosophers. It is because of this basic difference that one system becomes dichotomous, involving the separation of the empirical life from the religious life, with its features of monasticism, asceticism, sanyasa, celibacy and ahimsa, in the spiritual life, and the discriminatory and hierarchical caste structure in the empirical life; and the other system becomes whole-life, sanctioning moral activity and total responsibility in the empirical life as outlined earlier.

The Guru’s God is both transcendent and immanent, Sargun and Nirgun,⁸⁴ as against the Vedantic concept of Brahman being higher than the concept of Ishwara of God. Second, it, thus, remains unrelated to the delusive world. Third, following from the above, in one case life is real, and in the other case it is mithya and an entanglement. Fourth, as ‘against monasticism, asceticism, withdrawal and sanyasa, a householder’s life is accepted. Fifth, against the recommendation of celibacy and woman being considered a temptress, she is regarded as the equal of man and the mother of all life^.85 Sixth, against ahimsa, the use of force for a righteous cause, as a last resort, is accepted. It is no accident that of the ten Gurus, five kept armies, organised militarization and confrontation with the oppressive Empire. Hence also the warning through the Kakka of Kirpan against diversion or reversion to pacifisms or monasticism ignoring social responsibility towards one’s fellow beings, cardinally essential in a whole-life system. Seventh, the goal of life is to carry out the Altruistic Will of God,⁸⁶ involving creative activity, as against merger in Brahman or realization of ‘I-am Brahman’. Eighth, the methodology of virtuous deeds and an active moral life of securing justice, sharing and equality are recommended as against ritualism, reflection, contemplation or meditation alone, involving a super-moral ethic, and not a moral ethic as in a whole-life system.

Hence there is a complete contrast between the worldview of Vedanta and Vaisnavism, on the one hand, and of Sikhism, on the other hand. Sikhism, we may say, accepts the “idea that specifically designated organised bands of men should play a creative part in the political world destroying the established order, and reconstructing society according to the Word of God”.⁸⁷’ It believes, as observed by Collingwood, “The discovery of a relation is at once the discovery of my thought as reaching God, and of God’s thought as reaching me; and indistinguishable from this, the performance of an act of mine by which I establish a relation with God, and an act of God by which He establishes a relation with me. To fancy that religion lives either below or above the limits of reflective thought is fatally to misconceive either the nature of religion or the nature of reflective thought. It would be nearer the truth to say that in religion the life of reflection is concentrated in its in tensest form, and that the special problems of theoretical and practical life, all take their special forms by segregation out of the body of the religious consciousness, and retain their vitality only so far as they preserve their connection with it, and with each other in it” ⁸⁸ The Gurus state that unless man reaches the fourth stage of evolution or of Gurmukh, whose consciousness is linked to the Universal Consciousness or Will, man’s problems of conflict, poverty, immorality, and war will continue. It is stated, “God created first Himself, then Haumain (a sense of individualism), third, Maya (multifarious beings and entities) and fourth, the higher stage of Gurmukh, who always lives truthfully”^.89 Thus, Sikhism is a system of hope, activity and optimism about the future of man, with willingness to co-operate with other religions, while accepting God’s graciousness in creating other paths as well.

Our analysis of the three systems reveals that the worldviews of the Hindu systems, namely, Vaisnavism and Vedanta, are entirely different, if not in some sense diametrically apart, from that of Sikhism. Their religious perceptions are different, and consequently their goals, methodologies approach to the world, ethics, and worldviews are entirely different. They belong to the class of dichotomous and salvation systems, while Sikhism belongs to a whole-life or miri-piri system in which the Gurus have particularly guarded the society against accepting a monastic, pacifists, or lite-negating system.

In this context, we fail to find any relevance, meaning, or validity of any observation indicating that Sikhism is a sect or an offshoot of Hinduism, with a common theology, and ‘with nine tenths of Guru Granth Sahib being Vedantic in essence’. It is well known that neither Shankra, nor a Jnani, nor a Videhi Mukta would ever; contemplate participation in the world which is non- existent for him, and which activity they consider delusive and a fall. We hope that scholars with a variant view would concede that Guru Ayjun who created a ‘State within a State’ and the following five Gurus, who started militarization and confrontation with the Empire, well understood the bani of Guru Nanak and of the other Gurus. Guru. Tegh Bahadur, whose bani is also in the Guru Granth Sahib, distinguished himself as a soldier, and for that reason was called Tegh Bahadur. It is he who clearly spurned the offer of the Emperor that if he gave up socio- political activities, or organising what he considered to be ‘a Millat and consequent rebellion’, and confined himself to prayers and preaching, he-would get official grants.”⁹⁰ For, in the perception of the Moghul Administration: “The Guru was moving around with his disciples, quite intoxicated with pride, with a view to revolt”⁹¹.”! But, in the Master was burning the same Light of spirituality, the same Spirit of Saint-Soldier as in Guru Nanak. Only because of our personal prejudices and predilections human perceptions vary.

Ideologically, the Sant-Sipahi or whole-life concept is based on the view that cultures that fail to provide for moral moorings, which can be supplied only by religion, so as to enable the society to meet the challenges of the destructive and aggressive forces of life, inevitably decay into dichotomy, involving monasticism, Sanyasa and other-worldliness as the path of salvation, and un- bridled greed and injustice in the empirical life. It is for this reason that the inequity of the caste ideology could survive unchallenged for over three millennia in India. Similarly, even though Christianity and Christ were life- affirming, it is because of its pacificism and the exposition of its early theologians that made it other-worldly, dichotomous and a religion for the search of a life in heaven. For, Saint Augustine in his ‘City of God’ clearly believed: “The spread of Christianity would not ensure political and economic improvement. The earthy city of self-will would continue to exist amidst the rise and fall of states and empires”⁹². It is this dichotomy that led to large scale massacres, ghettos and crusades in the early centuries of the Christian Rule, and Hitler, Stalin and Hiroshima in our century.

We do not propose making any further comments and leave it to the readers to make their judgment on the issue of the independent ideological identity of Sikhism. It is not our intention, in any way, to misunderstand or misrepresent the two Hindu systems. For that reason we have, by and large, purposely confined our interpretation of those systems to what has been expounded by scholars from that society.

In the end, it is essential to record that however honest and analytical may be the interpretation of a believer or of a non- believer in God or the Ultimate Reality, there will continue to be great differences between their views. King writes: “One general conclusion which I draw from a long study of critics, of which the above is a sketch, that it is most important to remember the personality and circumstances of the critic. In a Natural Science like Chemistry it may not be necessary to know anything about the human being who is writing. In any subject which entails human subjects the work must be put into a personal context. Accordingly, one feels every work of critical scholarship should have a government statutory warning that its consumption may be deleterious to the soul’s health. If it is to do with religion, it should also have a statement of ingredients, including the religious standing of the writer. If he or she is a believer, it is necessary to know this, so that the critical reader can allow for bias. If he or she is not a believer, we should have some indication of that too, lest the disillusionment or enlightenment of a post-Christian, a post-Jew or 4 post- whatever, should give the critic rosy coloured spectacles or a jaundiced outlook”.⁹³”? It is not our argument that non-believers, atheists Or agnostics should not write about religion of their own society or about any other religion. But, we should like to stress that any attempt on the part of a non-believer to be dogmatic about a religion or its principles would be plain naivety.