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.