The Upanisads
On the vaidika side, that is, amongst brahmanas and others who sought to maintain legitimation from Vedic sources, the mood of the period is represented in the Upanisads. The term Upanisad seems to connote “connections,” from the term bandhu? The search for equivalences, classifications, or congruences is suggested by the term.
This quest for “connections” often occurred in small groups as disciples (sisya) gathered around a teacher (guru). Both teacher and student were drawn largely from brahmana and ksatriya communities and were both male and female. Indeed, at least two women - Gargi Vacaknavi and Maitreyi - were mentioned as serious students cum teachers. The oldest of these Upanisads (no doubt reduced to writing some centuries later) represented oral exchanges occurring around the seventh century bce. These included the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, centered perhaps in the lower Gangetic basin and a product of the Yajurveda school of Vedic hymnists. The most commonly mentioned teacher in this school is Yajnavalkya. The other early set of dialogues is that of the Chandogya Upanisad, centered perhaps northwest of the upper Ganges in an area brahmanic writers referred to as Aryavarta. It was a product of the Samaveda singers. Other significant Upanisads representing reflections occurring by the sixth to fifth centuries bce are the Taittinya, Aitareya, and Kausitaka Upanisads. Such collections as the Kena, Katha, Isa, Svetasvatara, and Mundaka Upanisads were probably products of the last few centuries bce and, among other things, expressed a more theistic orientation.4These circles of seekers were hardly unanimous in their speculations, and their discussions covered a wide range of topics. There was some interest in the efficacy of rituals (albeit in somewhat less elaborate form) and descriptions of rituals for specific occasions - from those to assure a woman’s becoming pregnant to those intended to prevent pregnancy.
Yet a common pattern through the discourses was an attempt to make congruences between the older Vedic ritual symbolism and other domains, especially the body or person of the individual. While in the earlier Vedic discourses, connections were sought between the ritual system and cosmic processes, now the connections sought were more commonly those between parts of the human being and cosmic processes. The use of the numbers three or five continued the symbolic power of the older numerology - hence, reflections on the five “breaths,” for example - breaths which were thought to flow in various ways throughout the body.5 Similarly, “heat” (tapas) could be internalized to connote the meditative techniques which were thought to bring about ultimate release. While there were indications of an urban landscape in the discourses - for example, references to certain crafts and the court6 - there was greater emphasis on the value of ascetism in seeking freedom from urban malaise. Homologies were made between sacrificial space and bodily space. Punning and homophones were not uncommon. In the course of these discussions certain fundamental terms were used which became basic for much later speculation in India. In fact, many of the key questions which drive much of Indian religion and thought in subsequent centuries were raised by these Upanisadic seekers:1) What is the nature of the world or cosmos? This was a question already intimated in the cosmogonic myths of the Vedic hymnists.
2) What is the nature of the self? That is, what does it mean to be a person? Is there a permanent entity that can be called a Self? The Upanisadic sages invariably answered this last question in the affirmative.
3) What is ultimate? The term brahman was used to describe the ultimate essence, though this was articulated in various ways by different scholars. Further, satya (“truth” derived from the verb as - to be), was perceived to be one and the same as being itself.
Knowing that brahman was the essence of the universe was to know the “truth” that was ultimately liberating.4) How does one attain ultimacy? The preferred path of the Upanisadic sages was the path of wisdom (jnana), attained through stringent ascetism and contemplation, though ritual was not eschewed.
Many of these basic concerns were intimated in a passage that has become especially well known to Western students (Chandogya 6); here a sage is teaching a younger man, Svetaketu, the nature of the universe.
“Bring a banyan fruit.”
“Here it is sir.”
“Cut it up.”
“I’ve cut it up, sir.”
“What do you see there?”
“These quite tiny seeds, sir.”
“Now, take one of them and cut it up.”
“I’ve cut one up, sir.”
“What do you see there?”
“Nothing, sir.”
Then he told him: “The finest essence here, son, that you can’t even see - look how on account of that finest essence this huge banyan tree stands here.
“Believe, my son: the finest essence here - that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self (atman).
And that’s how you are, Svetaketu.”
“Sir, teach me more.”
“Very well, son.”
“Put this chunk of salt in a container of water and come back tomorrow.” The son did as he was told, and the father said to him: “The chunk of salt you put in the water last evening - bring it here.” He groped for it but could not find it, as it had dissolved completely.
“Now, take a sip from this corner,” said the father. “How does it taste?” “Salty.”
“Take a sip from the center - How does it taste?”
“Salty.”
“Take a sip from that corner - How does it taste?”
“Salty.”
“Throw it out and come back later.” He did as he was told and found that the salt was always there. The father told him: “You, of course, did not see it there, son; yet it was always right there.”
“The finest essence here - that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self (atman). And that’s how you are, Svetaketu.”
“Sir, teach me more.”
“Very well, son.”7
The term brahman was used to identify the fundamental essence of the cosmos - it was like the banyanness of the banyan tree, the saltiness of saltwater - it was unseen, had no name (nama) or form (rupa), but it was there in the beginning and pervaded all reality now.
In earlier Vedic ritual, brahman had connoted the basic sound to which priests had access and with which they could “re-create” the world. Now it had become the “essence” or underlying reality of the universe. The individualized counterpart to brahman in the same passage was atman - that manifestation of brahman in all beings. “You are that” (tat tvam asi) says the sage to the pupil to denote the oneness of the cosmic “self’ and the individual “self.” Such a vision became the basis for monistic thought in certain later Hindu schools including the thought of the eighth-century ce philosopher Sankara.The Mundaka Upanisad appears to suggest a slightly different vision, however:
Two birds, companions and friends,
nestle on the very same tree.
One of them eats a tasty fig;
the other, not eating, looks on.
Stuck on the very same tree,
one person grieves, deluded
by her who is not the Lord;
But when he sees the other,
the contented Lord - and his majesty -
his grief disappears.
When the seer sees that Person,
The golden-coloured, the creator, the Lord,
as the womb of brahman;
Then, shaking off the good and the bad,
the wise man becomes spotless,
and attains the highest identity.8
Here brahman and atman were like two birds in a tree, brahman on a higher branch and atman lower; they shared the same quality but appeared to be two different entities. This vision informed those vaidika schools which tended to be more nearly dualistic, possibly including the thought of Ramanuja, the great eleventh-century theologian.
Other ideas found their way into the discourses. There was, for example, a proto-psychology that emerged. Quite apart from reflections on breath, self, speech, etc. one finds analogized the relationship between senses, “mind,” and wisdom. The senses were like horses that run after external stimuli. The mind (manas) - that with which one thinks and accumulates knowledge - was like the charioteer who controls the senses and prevents them from running amok.
Yet wisdom (buddhi, jhana, etc.) transcended mere knowledge. It was the understanding that comes from seeing the truth about existence - it was liberating, enlightening wisdom.The fundamental human problem then, was not understanding, not seeing (avidya). In the same Chandogya passage cited above, the seeker was likened to a blindfolded person seeking the path to ultimacy.
“Take, for example, son, a man who is brought here blindfolded from the land of Gandhara and then left in a deserted region. As he was brought blindfolded and left there blindfolded, he would drift about there towards the east, or the north, or the south. Now, if someone were to free him from his blindfold and tell him, ‘Go that way; the land of Gandhara is in that direction’, being a learned and wise man, he would go from village to village asking for directions and finally arrive in the land of Gandhara. In exactly the same way in this world when a man has a teacher, he knows: ‘There is a delay for me here only until I am freed; but then I will arrive!’
The finest essence here - that constitutes the self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the self (dtman). And that’s how you are, Svetaketu.”
“Sir, teach me more.”
“Very well, son.”9
The unseeing person was to find a guru, who could lead him at least part of the way to a destiny where brahman and atman were indeed conjoined. This state of liberation came to be known as moksa, the ultimate awareness which frees one from all social constraints.
Other terms also became a part of the vocabulary of these speculations. Maya referred to the measurable or changeable world. It was a value-neutral term nonetheless interpreted in different ways depending on one’s worldview. Some schools saw maya as a problem to be overcome, as a veil which hid the truth (satya) about the nature of the universe. Others insisted it was pervaded by brahman, that essence of the universe, hence had a certain “relative” reality. Still others, especially in the context of later theism, claimed maya was the playground (lila) of the gods, to be affirmed and celebrated.
Karma (or karman) was another crucial term. Karma represented the law of cause and effect, a fundamental logic to the universal process. Once again, karma could be value-neutral - one could “use” the law of karma to bring about desired results, including one’s own enlightenment. Karma, as articulated by Yajnavalkya, could also connote the process of reincarnation. In time, karma came to be used in the hands of the powerful as a legitimation of status and power, as in our status is the result of past karma; while their low status is a result of their past karma. Yet the intention of the term in its early stages seemed to indicate that just as there is a logic of cause and effect to the universe, so in human affairs, favorable actions and/or causes could bring about favorable consequences. The term became an even more significant part of the path to ultimate liberation for Jains and Buddhists than it was for the Upanisadic thinkers.
The terms moksa and dharma could be found in Upanisadic discussions. Derived from the verb dhr (to hold up/bear/support), dharma appeared to represent a fundamental cosmic principle - the larger cosmos “supported” all beings within it, while all beings were obliged to “support” the cosmos. It epitomized the principle whereby one lived within the world. Moksa was release from all the world’s processes. If the universe were imagined to be a gigantic gyroscope, moksa would represent the axis around which it spun where there was total quiescence. One inched toward that axis in search of moksa but in such a way that the reciprocity of dharma was maintained. Dharma was living with the “system,” engaging in appropriate legal, ritual, and social behavior while working one’s way toward the ultimate possibility of moksa. The practice of dharma assumed greater significance in subsequent centuries within vaidika circles.
Finally, samsara was the cyclical process of death, life, devolution, and renewability - the logical consequence of the law of karma. The term samsara represented the world of change and transience that came to be viewed in a variety of ways in subsequent schools. The Upanisadic sages tended to view this “sea of change” as the arena from which one sought liberation (moksa), on which one practiced dharma or ritual to chart an appropriate course. For the Buddhists, this domain was impermanent and fraught with a sense of the unsatisfactory. For later theists, samsara was the realm in which the deity became manifest and offered “grace.”