Upanishads - An investigation -2.

It is the second part of our process of being familiar with Upanishads. 

वैदिक वाङमय अपनी बातों को आँख मूँद कर मानने के लिए नहीं कहता। निर्धारित मापदंड ----- पाँच प्रमाण और उन्हें जाँचने के लिए तीन सुत्र (formula) । 

शब्द या शास्त्र प्रमाण, आप्त प्रमाण (time tested), आत्म प्रमाण (साधना से जाना), साक्षी प्रमाण (औरों ने वही जाना साधना से), प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण। इन पाँचों की व्याख्या अलग - अलग मिलती है इसीलिए तीन सुत्रों का प्रयोग अवश्य करें। And for that :-

There are three formulas for judging the authenticity of any Vedic scripture, it may include a part or the full scripture. They are as follows:

1. श्रुति, युक्ति तथा अनुभूति or study, reasoning and experience.

2. पक्ष (the side who will prove own point), प्रतिज्ञा (oath), हेतु (cause/reason), दृष्टान्त (example), निगमन (conclusion/QED). In the books one can see two three steps more but no need to be afraid. Some will say hetu before oath or thing required to be proven separately but that is the part of the oath. And oath will be taken by the side who wants to prove own point. The books are sometimes published like that. Personally didn't took पक्ष separately. While discussing the example analyses is done by both sides which is the inbuilt part of the process. 

3.  Pancha Adhikarana: विषय (subject), संशय (doubt),  पूर्व पक्ष (against), उत्तर पक्ष (for), निगमन /प्रयोजन (conclusion/need).

   In the order to make the technique (process) clear (digestable) word(s) is /are added but that must not manipulate the process. Like there isn't any separate or independent thing as atma but the word is used in the Vedic literature which points towards the absolute reality. If the teacher talks directly about nothing but Brahman (ब्रह्म) exist and there's no need to quarrel in the name of dualism, non dualism, etc, most of the students will remain confused. For the person who isn't from the classical tradition of गुरुकुल and is self taught either via net or reading hard copies or just running after surface meaning will search the added word in the texts. Like the sutras of all the schools of Indian philosophy were scattered (directly or indirectly in codified way) in the Vedic literature and were later categorized under different heads. 

Now if any person quarrels by saying that the names are absent in the literature so Indian philosophy isn't present in the Vedic literature, is just wasting time. In the same way the use of the word *प्रतिज्ञा (oath in the English) talks about the specific statement which is taken as correct by one side and gives the reason (hetu in which words of प्रतिज्ञा वाक्य) can't be used. And like this debate goes till the conclusion is reached. One must follow the process and stop scratching head for the word used to denote the steps. The experienced person will not use them (terms) and there are cases where even hetu isn't said separately or oath stays silent in the starting. The formulas are meant to show the way of working. 

While saying something about any word used in an ancient scripture, one must give priority to the period when it was used. A human mind gives meaning and form to every word, that is why, meaning changes from time to time and place to place. In the case of same language and in the same period changes can be easily noticed. It happens with every language. A reader may have a doubt about the written material of Vedic Literature since they were written in different periods and  by different scholars. The surface meaning differs from scripture to scripture and  it  may be taken as they are rejecting each other. In the society it is often said, sayings of rishis do not match with one another. While presenting a paper on Charvaka Philosophy in BHU in 2013, a scholar from Assam raised the same doubt mentioned above and passed a sarcastic remark via body language. After all, if academicians hear that Charvaka school is not atheist, its sutras/principles are very useful, there will be raised eye brows since most of them have never decoded the sutras and most probably got a PhD by labeling as a supporter of hedonism. It isn't their short coming, their mind is directed by their personal faith towards any cult, sect, 'Guru' who's expert in brainwashing,  etc. One professor of Rajasthan University accepted the hurry of getting a degree for a job which prevents horizontal and vertical research in philosophy or ancient scriptures. The urge of decoding the sutras, matching various scriptures and extracting the essence from them never sees the sunlight. In most of the cases a student is unable to imagine these points and just try to support the notes of the guide and if by chance someone tries, a shortage of scholars is noticed. It is an ironical situation where the tradition of proper guidance is in a disappointing position. A fear of losing the chair or even the jealousy by seeing the sharp intellect of a student creates a barrier which is harmful for the mass. In India there is only one example in the field of scriptural education where a pupil,  Ramacharya logically rejected the book Advait Siddhi written by his teacher Acharya Madhusudan Saraswati and gave the commentary named Tarangini to his teacher as a guru dakchina. And the open-minded teacher blessed him and said, 'I am proud that my shishya (student) has rejected (खंडन) me(my book).' The Vedic rishis who prepared  the literature were foresighted and for convenience of researchers gave three formulas to understand the scriptures. 

 The  formulas help in the matching and tuning of the scriptures. The Vedic literature has never asked anyone to follow them blindly and they don't dictate terms.  Any statement or saying can be judged and acceptance depends, on the result of, judgment. If the process of judging rejects, the line concerned, is not a part of Vedic literature. The formulas are given for use and they prove the openness of the scriptures. A scripture or its part comes in the list of Vedic Literature, if it reveals or supports the essence of Veda. 

What is that essence? 

The state of realization and staying in that without compromising on swadharma. A swadharma is that which asks a person to perform a course of action, required to be done at a given time and place. This is also done by a terrorist  but the difference is, the concept of the welfare of mass is absent.  None of the scriptures have ever asked anyone to run away from the assigned role. If home is taken as a monastery, profession or business run in a spiritualistic manner, the essence has been digested and applied. The spiritualistic manner denotes the status of mind where work is performed with a vision of service of the lord and the mass. There is no complain regarding the standard of the work and this mentality gives due respect to the division of labor. 

There's no need to convert a monastery/ashram in a home or converting spiritualism into business. When a person is not prepared from inside, any kind of external acceptance of renunciation is just a drama which brings name-fame  and not more than that. Most of the renowned demons/asuras were also realized but their nature didn't change.  Therefore realization isn't the final or only thing, one must know the way of proper behavior. After all, the path of spiritualism emerges from a balanced approach towards behavior. Self realization doesn't support the idea of do as you like. That is why, formulas were given and Upanishads even boldly asked the seekers to take the essence and keep them aside. 

This second part was meant for introducing the formulas which can be used by every student or admirer of Vedic literature. It hammers the orthodox view of not allowing females and people of so called lower caste( as if caste is by birth), to study, chant or even in some cases to listen the Vedic verses. This vision is the result of 'Inapt Education' where tendency of controlling the society by unfair means is proved.  

Can these formulas be used to judge dharmashastras (धर्मशास्त्र) or commentaries or books published in the name of old authors ? 

The formulas can be used for all kinds of scriptures which  are taken as a part and parcel of Vedic literature. Since scores of books are written and published by various cults and so called swayambhu ( स्वयंभू) gurus the society stays flowing in a wild river and cries for peace by saying ignorance is bliss.
Since India was divided in many small kingdoms and the people used to follow the religious belief of the ruler and if the new one followed another tradition the residents were attracted towards that. This change was mainly due to the defeat of the current ruler and the kingdom going in the hands of a ruler who follows something else or the kingdom doesn't have a successor so a new one is choosen who may not follow the same religious track. On the other hand India was attacked several times and the invaders destroyed Nalanda and  takhshila which were renowned places of education. The libraries of these two places were burnt and later on a part of the literature was destroyed by the various which emerged during Mughal period.

  Since Sanskrit didn't remain the medium of education and the scriptures were all in the Sanskrit so it became easy to control the society by manipulated interpretation. With this every cult followed its own agenda and played with the faith of the mass. Instead of going in their history, it is better to use the formulas to follow the scriptures and know the ground reality about those claims which are being made famous in the name of Vedic literature.

The treaties or smritis or dharmashastras were written to meet the requirements of a particular era and none said that they are unchangeable but every kind of torture was done in their name. With this portions were added in them to preserve personal interest. Therefore the formulas are the last option available to open the door.

In the last but not least the mass is misguided by the puranas which are full of contradictions, controversial facts and cooked stories. There's no guarantee of their version so formulas are really an eye opener. If we take the example of Devi Bhagvatam which glorifies female form of the almighty in a horrible manner and there was a chaos of granting a status of purana to this or to the Shrimad Bhagvatam. The former book proves  that sukadeva was married and have tried to create a division  in the male - female forms of almighty which is actually formless and nameless. It shows an extremist approach while  describing Gayatri which is a meter and a line written on that is called gayatri mantra (for details one can see the post - Gayatri in the eyes of the Upanishads ).   It is simlpy a case of intellectual terrorism. In the case of  sukadeva other evidences are opposing the angle of marriage which goes against the desire of  Devi   Bhagvatam. It is easy to say that this book belongs to another era or another chaturyuga.
  Swami Rajashram wrote Durjanmukhchapetika (दुर्जनमुखचपेटिका) in the favor of Devi Bhagvatam is the purana. Kashinath Bhutt opposed and wrote Durjanmukhmahachapetika (दुर्जनमुखमहाचपेटिका) and another intellectual wrote Durjanmukhapadyapaduka (दुर्जनमुखपद्यपादुका) in the favor of Devi Bhagvata. 

It shows the uncontrolled desire of promoting self interest in the name of scriptures. The books written by devotees are taken as proof for all which is absurd because the cult may take it as a proof but if they want to promote in the name of ancient scriptures formulas must be used to check their claim. It may be one or three marriages of hanuman or camel as his vehicle or any other issue.

 The  deities may do as they like but there must be uniformity of expression in the scriptures for the mass because by taking them as proof the society is divided and the groups start misbehaving with others by promoting their version. Many temples are built on that basis and huge marketing is done to promote them under every circumstances . 

✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️✍️

What about those who do not trust formulas or unable to work with them??

      Only the required sadhana related with the nature of the query. Conclusion must be discussed with the people of equal or higher frequency related with the topic. Like in science experiment is conducted but conclusion is checked by other scientists related with same topic. They also do the experiment. If the conclusion is same a theory comes for the mass. A common rule. Not going in details 4 a while. Therefore if you want to know di the sadhana needed. Here it means oneness with the topic /query. You don't have to follow formulas. Own conclusion may be due to the STM, LTM, upbringing so we ask to have healthy discussion with the people who have done the sadhana for the particular topic on which you're doing. The word sadhana means total dedication, dekegene, determination or meditating on the words (query). Hearty intellect deals with that everytime. In sub conscious mind also the query is present while doing other physical work. In free time that part also joins the subconscious level. 

Upanishad - An investigation (1).

           An Investigation

Upanishads belongs to every individual and must not be labeled as a property of any cult, sect or preacher, region or religion. In fact when eyes of wisdom opens, the person feels their presence in the heart and from that angle Upanishads are present in everyone.  The essence of Vedic Literature is mentioned in them and numerous styles are adapted to suit the grasping power of an individual. If the meaning is taken as the  last chapter of Veda, one point must also be considered. It is the conclusion of whole text in which main purpose of the whole script is kept in short but brief. 

There is a peculiar tradition of dealing with this topic. First of all, it is divided in, Dualism or Dwaita and Non-dualism or Adwaita. Teaching and writing is done on the basis of the names of different scholars. In that also there are several heads which gives a severe blow to the literature. The cordial relation among scriptures is shattered and inner link is totally ignored. The founder of every cult was taken as incarnation of Almighty by the followers and the leader was busy in proving personal  superiority, for some, Puranas were the final thing. Things mentioned in them were taken as final verdict whereas other rejected them totally and few even rejected Gita. They don’t recognize, those Upanishads, who are against their ideology and illicit reasoning became prominent while teaching, writing and preaching. Their full time was devoted in that and  the society couldn’t receive any motivational, positive and practical approach towards the life. Teaching and preaching of Vedanta remained at information level. Every organization wants promotion of their personal books. It seems as if, there are varieties of Vedanta or natural nature. That is why; conversion of bookish information  into knowledge didn’t take place. Instead of becoming an actor or try to enlighten others, one must see personal progress. To move towards, essence of Vedic Literature, matching of scripture must be done which makes digestion  of values easy. On the one hand the -'teachers' were busy in describing or unfolding Upanishads and on the other hand most of them were promoting their lust for power, prestige and popularity. And for that balanced approach towards behavior and spiritualism was sidelined. The society's mind was diluted and the mass thought that just by attending discourses they'll grasp the essence without thinking of the change in the behavior. 
Now let us try to match and extract the juice for the proper understanding of Vedanta. The discussion will start with Upanishads. Due to sponsored intelligence, several questions are raised without thinking on them. Some of them are:--

 How many Upanishads are there? Who was the writer? Which is the first one? What is written in them? Just keep them aside. Read them, after following our views. Then only you’ll understand.

There are only 2-3 mantra of few Upanishad in Veda. Later on they were expanded by others. They must not be taken as a part of Veda. Mahavakayas are mere labels. What about other vakyas? Other religions do not talk about God as a separate entity, what about Upanishads? They're influenced by jainism? 

There is no clear cut answer about the number of Upanishads and normally it is said that every branch of expanded veda had one upanishad of its own. The word expansion denotes the part added by the devoted students which means Samveda had 1000 Upanishads because it had the same number of branches.  Instead of quarreling about the number, one must take the essence because most of the branches are no more visible. Regarding the authorship, sages of Vedic Age were writers. They were seers of the mantras or the information was revealed to them. A person may think why it was revealed to a small group by the Almighty and rest of the mass was left in the hands of those messengers who were also haunted by their own vested interest. Why the process of revealing has stopped? 
 To receive the signal properly the receiver of the electronic gadget must be switched on and stay in  working condition. If both things are absent signal can't be received. The same thing happened in the case of revealing where quality of the person concerned was of that level in which signal from the almighty were easily received. Currently the people aren't interested in improving their quality and there is a vast difference in mental and intellectual views. And even the body language comes with an opposite version.  One can also see the matter in another way which says that things happens according to the cosmic requirements and currently there is no need of that level of receiver. 
 Some Upanishads were written in the period of incarnation. Everybody knows about the first one; it is Ishavashya Upanishad, found in the 40^th chapter of Yajurveda. Regarding the rest, they are scattered in Aranyaka or Brahmana part. Many cults do not take most of them as a part of Veda because smell of history comes from them. HOW? There are names of sages and the rulers who were present in the history of this nation therefore they can't be taken as a part of Veda which is aporushiya (not created or written by human hands). If believers in the authenticity of Veda take it as a visible garment of the Almighty, they must allow the supreme power to teach as it thinks and stop dictating the terms. On the one hand they take Veda as God's message or manifested in verbal form and on the other hand start explaining the teaching style. The grasping power of each and every individual is different and the vedic knowledge is for all so it must be left in the hands of the God to decide the technique of imparting knowledge. 
They contain topics related with the behavioral and spiritual welfare of the mankind. In the order to  get a learned son or a daughter, detailed process is mentioned in Brhadaranyak Upanishad, for eyes, there are Chakshu and Suryo Upanishad. 
They are divided on the basis of topic and cults are busy in expressing monopoly. The division was done by unreliable scholars, who were supporter of division and sponsored by cults or academic institutions who supported the way of divide and rule.  All the Upanishads are linked and they support the essence of Vedic Literature. They denote the progress of the seeker and do not dictate terms. 

They are not as difficult, as being made famous. In fact, some of the things are presented in a simple manner. 
Every easy thing was kept hidden from the society. They were promoted as, those scriptures, who don’t have anything to do with the contemporary life or have an impact on day to day behavior.

 If anyone reads with an open heart, the person will be surprised with the treasure hidden in them. Even the special knowledge of Sanskrit is also not essential. When one reads them via commentaries, confusion will arise. Everyone is unique in its respect; grasping power of every individual is different, same thing is revealed in different ways like, some of them follow a story style and others do not. Instead of searching the links of, names present in them, one must extract the essence. When you do not follow this simple rule, one thought will come that - 'none of the Upanishad matches with one another. Everyone says different thing.' Actually , they are saying only one thing your mind is so much pre- occupied, it is unable to understand the reality. A student of class 10 won’t follow a book of university level. For learning swimming you do not jump in the English Channel directly, in starting,  a swimming pool is recommended for beginners. 

Regarding the mahavakayas, it can be said, they were promoted for discussing the essence of Vedic Literature. Other vakyas or lines don't have that thing and they are busy in  discussing a single aspect like creation of the universe or only jiva or twam (manifested form) or only unmanifested (tat) or consciousness who is omnipotent and omniscient . Directly, they do not help in discussing, the required topic and any sensible reader can understand this difference. There are three basic formulas to follow the topic of Vedic literature and they will be shown in the second part of this post. For the need of this post only one is mentioned which says about study, reasoning and experience. Though trio of three things is essential, the  pseudo scholars cleverly removed  the study part. It was done to maintain the mental slavery. None of them, openly said anything against fake books and manipulation of authentic scripture. The human civilization has tolerated these elements and the history has forgotten their names, they also won’t remember the pseudo scholars. It is simply an action of cosmic wheel which gives a chance to everyone. There is a planned uprising and downfall of dynasties and thoughts. 

In the case of mahavakyas, an interesting thing is noticed. One of them is tatwamasi. It is present in, Chandogya Upanishad chapter 6. In that Rishi Aruni, preaches to his son, Shwetketu. It is explained nine times – 6.8.7, 6.9.4, 6.10.3, 6.11.3, 6.12.3, 6.13.3, 6.14.3, 6.15.3 and 6.16.3. They’ve rejected superimposed adjective on soul. The cults have manipulated this by changing its scriptural sense. It has been changed to; tasyah twam asi (you belong to goddess – by followers of, female form of Almighty), tasya twam asi (you are his), tasmin twam asi (you are in him), tasmei twam asi (you are from him), tasmat twam asi (you have come from him). For personal devotion, it may be supported for a time or till the maturity comes or till the mind is able to stay in the unmaifestated stage.  It mustn’t be promoted in the name of scriptures or by labeling it as the essence of Vedic literature. The nine examples points towards something else and the manipulators knew, followers won’t read the whole scripture, they’ll believe their guru. Just imagine the level of lust, of scholars of different cults. For them proving own hollow outlook was more essential than anything else. This discussion isn't rejecting the manifested form because for a balance in behavior and spiritualism both are needed. Swami Ramkrishna Paramhansa supported both and clearly asked to follow them in the order to get success in the path of spiritualism. He himself use to demonstrate this by showing the love for manifested form and sometimes going to the samadhi for realizing or experiencing the unmaifestated stage. It is not the single example of the universe but a sign of ground reality. 

All the Upanishads were divided by various sects and cults and were promoted as their  personal property.  The  gurus busy in settling the scores in the name of intellectual terrorism made the matter worse by promoting personal ideology via commentaries on some  of them. If one says that the division was made for studying them in groups, it would have been correct if they were taught with an open mind which sees a link between all of them. They aren't taught in this manner and straightaway others are  rejected by giving funny reasons. The fanatic followers of rituals rejected the views of those Upanishads which are open - minded on Ashatang yoga or sacred thread or Agnihotra. According to them those Upanishads are not meant for the mass or common seekers. Nowhere this kind of thing is written in any of those Upanishads. This will be seen in the third part of this post. The books written on the use of ash or chandan aren't upanishad though they're marketed in the name of Upanishads (Gopichandanoupanishad and Bhasmoupanishad). There were few Upanishads written during or after the incarnation (Narshima, Rama, Krishna) but they go with the line of other Upanishads and don't claim any special status.
  The total focus was on the Bhashyas of Adi Shankaracharya  so all of them never cared about extracting the essence needed for balancing the behavior. Their total discussion was on the supernatural aspect which was beyond the grasping power of the society. None of them took the pain to present its useful aspect. When Akshay personally talked with a head monk of a Vaishnava cult about the implied meaning of Narayana Upanishad, since they had described in a fancy manner by proving Vishnu as supreme because the Upanishad uses the word NARAYAN again and again while describing the creation, maintenance and destruction of universe. It seems as if all other forms of almighty came from him, in fact he has himself came out from the same source. It is described in Bhagvata Mahapurana which says, when Rishi Atri was doing penance to get a child like 'Almighty', the trio -- Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva came before him and said that trio is known as almighty. The head monk supported but expressed his inability to accept the meaning because it will go against his guru's commentary. The Guru Gita openly asks a disciple to abandon that guru who plays with scriptures.

The story famous in the society is based on puranas but in the case of any contradiction, they are not taken as Pramana or proof. If someone thinks, there are various versions belonging to various kalpas or yugas, he's isn't doing justice to Vedic literature.
There are three formulas present to judge the authenticity of any scripture. 

From past few years the tendency of showing supremacy of Jainism or proving it to be as ancient as Hinduism is promoted. That's why it is said that Upanishads were influenced by the teaching of Tirthankara Parshwanath but none could show any proof in the support of their claim. When thought process of two or more people follow the same frequency the 'conclusion' can be same which does not mean that one is influenced by other. If this childish view becomes the parameter the holy scriptures of all the religions are influenced by one another which is absurd because there was no internet or exchange of views while the scriptures were prepared. 
Total Vedic literature is broadminded, it will be shown in further posts.