The Upanishads are among the world’s oldest metaphysical treatises representing the philosophical inspirations and conclusions of Indian sages deep in their forest hermitages regarding the nature of reality. Scholars universally hold that they could not have been composed later than the 7th century B.C. and predate the glorious 6th century when a sudden spate of thinkers and prophets like Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, Homer and Pythagoras propounded new philosophies and launched great religions.
Thus at the dawn of history these pioneering and extraordinary thinkers pondered answers to fundamental questions about the nature of existence, the cosmos, man and nature and their inter-relations. From their early insights they advanced to profound philosophical and spiritual revelations which eventually crystalized into the Monism of Hindu beliefs, the concept of the unity of the created universe, integral with the metaphysical world of the spirit, the concepts of the Soul at the heart of physical reality and the immanence of the spiritual essence in all we behold – and finally the nature of the supreme Universal Essence, the supersoul and Godhead.
Further introspection produced the fundamental philosophical premises of reincarnation through transmigration of the soul, the doctrine of Karma, the concept of Illusion and their ethical and moralistic implications. The development and crystallization of the thought has determined indelibly for millennia the belief systems, spirituality and ethics of the Hindu mind right down to the present day.
All Indian philosophical and religious traditions, whether theistic, pantheistic, materialistic or atheistic derive their ultimate inspiration from this seminal body of introspection of the thinkers and sages of yore, ruminating without any inhibitions or constraints on questions about the origin, nature and destiny of man and the universe, seeking to find answers to grasp the essence of a universal truth.
The verses are presented in Socratic fashion through dialogues between seekers after knowledge and their mentors, eminent sages, who attempt to answer questions with questions of their own, prying, so to speak, answers from the questioners themselves. The dialogues are between the sages and their wives, kin, or disciples who present theories and propositions of their own which are either inadequate or only partially true. Thus the arguments move back and forth as the intuitive knowledge enhances and evolves. Then finally the seers who have arrived at their conclusions through insight and intuition present their vision of the truth, which has continued to inspire Hindu thoughts and beliefs to this day.
What is remarkable and wonderful in all this is that there is no predetermined assumption nor a preordained dogma but a rare and exhilarating freedom of thought which succeeded in grasping the truth which later crystallized as established theory or dogma. It is like a clear slate suddenly filling up with extraordinary and seminal unheard of propositions dispelling confusion and untenable and naive assumptions of pre-history.
Thus in a sense the Upanishads expose the genesis and creation of Hindu beliefs and dogma. One becomes as it were, a witness to the very process whereby a body of beliefs developed and matured. Such a vision of evolving thought is rarely available generally. It is as if in studying the evolution of man one encountered the fossils of dinosaurs, apes and our immediate ancestors the Neanderthals and Homo-erectus.
This evolution of Hindu thought witnessed in the Upanishads ( ending ignorance through knowledge in Sanskrit) is replete with numerous aphorisms and superb Sanskrit poetry and mystical insights.
The Upanishads themselves form part of the Vedas, considered by Hindus in general as the repository and fountainhead of all knowledge and religious and spiritual inspiration. Emerging from the inspirational womb of the Upanishads was the primary Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita.
Thus an examination of the evolution of Upanishadic thought would prove invaluable for the scholar of metaphysics in general and Hinduism in particular in witnessing the progression of man’s quest to unravel the mysteries of the universe of which he is a part.
I shall limit this post merely to introducing the Upanishads in the interests of brevity, taking up the review of the evolution of its thought in the next post. However in closing I wish to underline that what informs the dialogues are infectous and refreshing arguments and counter arguments between curious scholar – sages and students seeking to fathom the mysteries of temporal and spiritual existence transcending limiting frontiers of understanding through an unrelenting quest for truth, which is finally presented in their verses. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad hails that extraordinary journey from ignorance to enlightenment:
” From the unreal lead me to the real
From darkness lead me to light
From death lead me to immortality”
( Asato ma sat gamaya
Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya
Mrityor ma amritam gamaya )
Wonderful post. I an looking forward to reading your thoughts on the upanishads. I would like to read them one day, hopefully soon.
LikeLike
Monika thanks – presenting the Upanishads is an excercise in educating myself also – reading them is not always a rewarding excersise unless one has a firm grip of the context and evolution of the thought as i am trying to present – the evolution of seminal thought that shaped India and in many ways influenced the world – my hunch is that this pristine thought travelled east (buddhism) and west ( Greece)eventually giving rise to Monotheism and pantheistic trends ( Schopenhauer ) and New Age. Of course the poetry and mystical insights contained in them will remain a gift to the world. I shall labour hard to try to make a reasonable and well researched presentation if for no other reason than to clear my own thinking.
LikeLike
I know I am going to pay a price for admitting this, but I have, in the past, read Cliff Notes on a work just prior to reading the source. It helps me reduce the anxiety of data without reference. Once I have an outline imagined, the details have compartments and time-lines to fill.
I have relied on Intros over the years for this reason, so thanks a million for remembering first principals, and remembering there are people like me that benefit immeasurably from a clear outline… the interior/exterior if you will.
LikeLike
entirely agree – to read the Upanishads at source without gudance or an intro can prove to be a misleading and frustrating excerscse
LikeLike
Jim
Dinner is served – courses on the Upanishads carefully cooked on the table steaming hot – if you have the appetite you are invited to the table – bring digestives along
Chef Indrajit
LikeLike
Indrajit,
While reading a textbook on the Upanishads I recall a consistent feeling that the words reflected truth and made perfect sense. Those passages which mention the light in all people and all things are moving. One of the best spiritually based books I’ve ever come across. Thanks for posting on the Upanishads’ timeless wisdom.
Jerry
LikeLike
Jerry you are welcome and thanks and more to follow – incidentally i educate myself as i prepare to post
Indrajit
LikeLike
Delving into the Upanishads or the Rig Veda requires such a lot of concentration. I have them both, as well as the Bhagavad Gita …… what a marvelous foundation for the only way I found my path. I must read them again anew!
LikeLike
intros are immensely helpful – thanks
LikeLike
[…] The Upanishads : an introduction (indrajitrathore.wordpress.com) […]
LikeLike
Nice intro, but I would question the details of interpretation, or maybe its just the language. For instance, the use of the words ‘conjectural’ and ‘speculations’ throughout. I don’t think the writers of the Upanishads would have agreed that they were speculating. They may also not have agreed that they were preaching monism, since nondualism would be the usual interpretation. But maybe I’m being too pedantic.
LikeLike
The remarkable thing about the Upanishads, unlike later scriptures was that the thoughts of the sages were not considered by them as emanating from any divine source – they were free thinkers who often corrected or amended their position from verse to verse as new insights arose – they were like the early Greeks who were not propagating dogma – all western analysts are agreed on this – there’s was a realm of pure speculation as the Hymn of the Rig Veda shows (”..in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not”) – it is only much later that their thoughts began to crystallize into Hindu dogma.
Analysts today describe their thought as Monist, they had not given it a name – the great Indian philosopher saint of the 8th century finally gave it that name (Advait or non-dual) and western philosophers called it Monist which is a term from Western philosphy.
LikeLike
Not divine revelation, no, but not speculation. The example you give would indicate not speculation or confusion but the subtlety of the truth, its Janus-faced nature. Who is there to know or to know not when there is no division between knower and known? As one Upanishad asks, who is there to understand the understander?
I realise that many people call it monism, fair enough, but because this term usually indicates a numerical value, especially in western circles, advaita or nondual would be less likely to mislead. (Unless, of course, one actually interprets it as monism, as some do). In this I follow Radhakrishnan in his ‘Philosophy of the Upanishads’. No doubt there is dogma in Hinuduism but I see none in the Upanishads. I feel you do them an injustice by suggesting that they are conjectural and represent the origin of Hindu dogma.
Just my two cents.
LikeLike
While I agree that the example may not be apt in indicating speculation I do hold that the thinking of the Upanishadic seers was speculative in nature (dictionary meaning of speculation also includes:Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.) And I have sought to indicate that such free thinking was what made them remarkable. As for Monism it is a well understood philosophical term that cannot mislead – I have also used Advait or non-dual later but that is a matter of semantics, for the author to determine. If you read carefully what I have said it is indeed that their philosophical musings were not dogmatic but that only in later Hindu thinking their ideas crystallized into Hindu dogma. and many like me firmly believe that present day Hindu philosophical tenets are grounded in the Upanishads. Furthermore by asserting this I do them no injustice rather if I was an Upanishadic seer I would feel honoured that my thoughts became religious tenets later. Of course we can agree to disagree..
LikeLike
I would not be honoured if my knowledge was later characterised as philosophical musings. And it is rather obvious that the word ‘monism’ can mislead. It is very often used to mean that the universe is one as opposed to two. ‘Advaita’ avoids this interpretation. But as you say, we can agree to differ, I won’t bang on.
LikeLike
Sir,
With all due respect I wish also to disabuse you of your presumption that I imputed dogma in the thinking of the great Upanishadic seers as the quote below from my post will amply demonstrate:
”What is remarkable and wonderful in all this is that there is no predetermined assumption nor a preordained dogma but a rare and exhilarating freedom of thought which has yet to define the truth and before it becomes crystallized as established theory or dogma. It is like a clear slate suddenly filling up with extraordinary and seminal unheard of propositions dispelling confusion and untenable and naive assumptions of pre-history.” – therefore musings/speculation rather than following a predetermined course of dogmatic thinking makes their thought more original and creative –
Eminent Western philosophers have defined Hindu thought and beliefs and philosophy as ‘Transcendental Monism’ and ‘Intelligent Monism’ – and as I am not a philosopher of any standing I don’t see why I should disagree with them since in every repect it appears to be more Monist than merely Non-Dual.
Also so far as ‘numerical values’ are concerned i find dual to be as numerical as Mono.
Finally though we don’t seem to agree a lot I must say I welcome your observations which makes the post more a dialogue, if not a dual-logue rather than a monologue, no facetiousness intended
Indrajit
LikeLike
Monism indeed means that the Universe is one – and every facet of Hindu Advait thinking
holds the same – it is only later with Christian influences, that thinkers like Ramanuja, contested the extreme Monism or non-dualism of Shakaracharya (as i do, who am a firm believer in godhead and therefore somewhat dualistic though with reservations) – please do look at my later posts – if anything, from the Upanishads through to the Bhagvad Gita – it appears to me to be only Monism.
LikeLike
Furthermore Sir, how in the Hindu view would you call the universe as ‘Two’ – pray enlighten me.
I would like very much to access your blog if you have one – this has been a most interseting series of dialogues. – thanks
LikeLike
The universe would be ‘not-two’. It is called ‘not-two’ because it would be incorrect to call it one. I was not complaining that you accused the Upanishads of being dogma. I was complaining that you called it speculation.
LikeLike
Sir,
Maybe my use of the word speculation irked you – what then would you call free thinking where there is no preordained dogma and no determinism in thinking – the free thinking of an Einstein Darwin Halkins – what would you call it rather than speculation??? – when you do not know but think you do?
and what is not-two – rather than pone – please do explain
LikeLike
one not pone
LikeLike
wow this dialogue is great – give me more lol
LikeLike
Brahman – ” there is only one Brahman, without a second ” – As a unity only it is. It is to be looked upon- this indemonstratable, enduring Being” – Brihadaranyaka Upanishad – it is all over the Upanishads, Sir, how then can one say it is not monist and merely non – dual??
LikeLike
believe me Sir, I am not trying to score points – i wish to learn if I am wrong
LikeLike
My apologies, Indrajit, if I’ve seemed overly argumentative. I feel these issues are important. Here’s how I see it.
It is true that Indian philosophy is often called monism. But it is an unfortunate word. In the West monism means that by reduction the world is one substance. So eliminative materialism would be monism. So probably would be monotheism. Bertrand Russell was a neutral monist and thought that the Upanishads were nonsense. So it is a word that can be very misleading in relation to the Upanishads.
‘Nondualism’, or ‘advaita’, on the other hand, cannot be misinterpreted. Advaita is a very clear avoidance of the word monism. It states a negative, that the world is ‘not-two’, but it very carefully avoids saying that it is ‘one’. If Brahman were ‘one’ then the terms ‘advaita’ and ‘nondualism’ would be unnecessary.
If we give the Upanishads a monist interpretation then we must call it monism. But if we give it the more orthodox interpretation, as we do for advaita Vedanta, then it would be risking a misunderstanding to call it monism. For clarity it seems much better to call it by a name that is not ambiguous or open to misinterpretation.
The term ‘unity’ may mean ‘one’ in some contexts, but when used in connection with nondualism it would not mean ‘one’. It would mean something rather like one but it would be a more subtle idea. It would be the idea that Brahman is a non-numerical phenomenon standing prior to the numbers. It would be where the numbers come from. Number is form, and form would emerge from formlessness or the unmanifest.
Thus, for instance, Al Halaj warns us that we cannot say ‘God is One’, since this would be to suppose that there is something else as well as God, namely ‘ourself as testifier’.
Does this clarify what I was getting at?
The point about speculation was this. We may believe that the writers of the Upanishads (or any scriptures) were speculating. This, however, is itself a speculation. So we cannot state that they were speculating, we can only state that we think they were (if we do).
Until their doctrine has been falsified we have to allow for the possibility that they were, as they claim, speaking from knowledge. Hence I objected to your assumption that they were speculating. If you say ‘I think they were speculating’ then fair enough, you’re entitled to your opinion. But it would be unrigorous to actually state that they were. You don’t know that they were, and they do not say that they were. It would be to assume that they did not know whether what they were writing down was true, which is hardly a sympathetic reading.
I hope you see why I objected. I didn’t really want to start an argument but just felt the Upanishads were being undersold.
LikeLike
Thanks Guymax for taking the trouble to clarify and elucidate – I didn’t get the feeling that were being argumentative though I did feel that your criticism of the use of the word speculation was unduly pedantic ( to use your own expression) –
I like and appreciate your explanation – though very fine – that preceding numbers , or being their origin we should eschew use of Monism to describe’It’ as One rather than not – two but by the same argument any numerical conception, even not two, would be inadequate and the best thing would be not to give IT any nomenclature whatsoever and fall Silent, as any effort to describe would be to give it some name-form (Namrupa) – alas in our aspect as material beings communicating with language that would be too obscure and ‘rigourous’ which is beyond my poetic nature full of limitations of form – further more I have always admired the amazing and colourful style of presentation of Heinrich Zimmer rather than Radhakrishnan’s relatively cold and academic presentation, and his naming of Hindu thought and philosophy as Transcendental Monism – so while I appreciate what you say I would like to remain with my definition of Monism – it also helps me to contrast it with the ‘Dualism’ of the Judaic faiths where the creator and the created are distinct and it is blasphamy to equate them as Hallaj must have realized on his execution.
Sure the great seers believed that they felt the pulse of truth in what they felt and said but going through the Upanishadic verses ( when compared with the sonorous voice of Krishna in the Gita ) at least I am left with the distinct impression that their speculations/meditations meandered seeking to give shape to intuition and inspiration – necessarily the ideas were evolutionary and always developing rather than unchanging and crystallized, between one and another – I therefore like the choice of the word speculation though by it I do not mean to equate it with the ‘speculation’ of the stock market – being poetic by nature more than philosophical i do take liberties with language but in my view those are legitimate.
Thankyou for your interest and concern – believe me , as you can see, the spirits of the great seers appreciate what i am doing and feel honoured.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, discussion of texts and writings from hundreds and thousands of years ago must consider that in those times there were no distractions. No radio, TV, magazines, etc. – just direct personal experience. This factor may be underappreciated to the point where the profound experiences of spiritual seekers and writers of those times are not fully understood.
Thanks,
Jerry
LikeLike
so riight Jerry
LikeLike
Ah well. I suppose we can choose to dismiss them as speculation.
LikeLike
never would I dismiss the great fountain of knowledge emerging from the Upanishads as anything but the emergence of profound knowledge of the truth- but that sense of evolutionary thought arising from deep introspection does remain – and then I did give you a dictionary interpretation and now picking up an Oxford Thesaurus I find affirmation as it says, inter alia, for speculation:: consider, meditate, ponder, reflect, ruminate, theorize, weigh up, wonder – all of which they must have done in reaching their conclusions – and musing is – ‘being absorbed in thought’. – for those who have a different interpretation or disagree, there is our exchange in the comments below the post to ponder both views and arrive at their own conclusions or feel if they believe otherwise that both views have been presented. the point is also of usage and expression.
LikeLike
finally, Im curious to know what word you would have used in place of speculation in the context in which I have used that word – I might still get wiser?
LikeLike
A good question. To be honest I would avoid categorising them in this respect so the issue is avoided. As the Upanishads are scriptures, in the sense that they are supposed be true and spoken from certain knowledge, I would use whatever words would apply for the Bible, the Quran, the Buddhist sutras, the Tao Te Ching and so forth.
We do not speak of the Buddhist sutras as speculations, in fact the Buddha advises us to avoid speculation, and I see the Upanishads as deserving of the same respect. Maybe they are speculations, and we are entitled to the view that they are, but we cannot take it for granted since this would be to deny the claim made by their writers. So I would call them knowledge and truth, as they are presented, discovered by direct experience, while not expecting people necessarily to believe this.
What I mean is, we can assume they are conjectural, but we cannot state that they are unless we know that they are. Otherwise we must hedge our bets and say that they may be conjectural, (in all the meanings you list earlier) or they may be an attempt to write down what is known very clearly to the writer. It is this second interpretation that seems missing from your intro and whose absence got me a bit agitated. .
I like your posts elsewhere by the way, those that I’ve read, it’s just this one that bothers me.
LikeLike
Thanks – while I still like to use the term speculation in the sense that I have used it, as have several eminent scholars and Indologists), to highlight the process of free thinking without preconceptions in that extraordinary period of human discovery of the essence of truth, and to regard them as open minded pioneering( not dogmatic) thinkers whose thoughts continued to evolve ( notice the way they ask disciples what they think) I could also add (as I believe that they do) that their inspirational verses were among the earliest realizations of fundamental existential truths, presented as profound convictions resulting from their introspections.Yet they continued to speculate( meditate) on the essence of truth but I agree that what they finally presented they did not consider as speculation but as the truth itself.
LikeLike
I have amended the post to fill the lacuna which you pointed out that the impression should not remain that their speculations did not result in a firm body of beliefs that they were indeed presenting and that after the speculations and meditations their verses were what they felt was the whole truth.
LikeLike
Speculation does not result in knowledge. It results in theories. But it looks like we’re not going to agree so I’m sure it’s best if we leave it there.
LikeLike
Reader’s feedbacks are important, therefore I am substituting other words for speculation in a manner that it does not change the gist of my post in any way. I appreciate your interest.
LikeLike
A resolution! I hope you don’t feel I browbeat you into this. Wikipedia says ‘The Upanishads are considered by Hindus to contain revealed truths (Sruti) concerning the nature of ultimate reality.’ It is this ‘revealing’ that would be contradicted by the idea of speculation.
But all’s well that ends well. Thanks for an interesting disagreement. 🙂
PS. I notice that Wiki has the Upanishadic literature being added to even today.
LikeLike
You would be surprised that very eminent Western Scholars and philosophers have in their books widely used speculation in the sense i ahave – it is a matter of usage i suppose
Indrajit
LikeLike