A progressive evolution of ideas or mere difference in representation? - Part 2

It is evident that the composer of Mahabharata and Purana, Vyasa, knew very well the true significance of the Vedic Gods. He knew that when Veda speaks about Indra or Agni, they are not eulogizing a few minor Gods, but rather they, through the Karmakanda, are actually trying to reach out to one Supreme Being in various names and forms which would appeal to worshipers of various temperaments. The same concept is then being developed as a higher stage of spirituality in the Upanishads. Karmakanda is thus a step in the ladder to climb up and reach the roof of spiritual ascent, viz. Advaita. Since Shakti is not given due importance in Vedas and yet, got a lot of importance in Mahabharata and Puranas, it is evident that the Vedic sages considered God as an entity without sex. If they had promoted the male principle then Mahabharata and Puranas would have no other option than to follow suit and Tantra would not have become popular. Thus it is also evident that there is a progressive development of ideas, but not in the sense scholars would think. Upanishads, which are older than Mahabharata and are part of the Vedas, have already developed the concept of Moksha or liberation, mocking at the highest heavens. In fact the story of Kathopanishad, viz. the meeting of Yama and Nachiketa is also a story in Mahabharata. If Vedas would have been polytheist, so would have been Mahabharata and Puranas, but the polytheism, as depicted in the Vedas is only an apparent one, and so also in the Puaranas. The inherent message even in Puranas is that of one Supreme Being with various names and forms, representing various attributes. The same goes with Mahabharata. This because, the concept of One Supreme Being with various names and forms is the central or core tenet of the Vedas. The sages or rishis actually realized the spiritual truths; they did not have to theorize intellectually unlike the Western theology experts.  The two central tenets of Indian religion – the doctrine of Karma and the doctrine of Brahman who has become everything and is in everything, conditioned by the mysterious Maya and resulting in an apparent universe, flow beautifully from the Vedas to the other scriptures.

Also Sankara can be credited with the rediscovery of Advaita principles and presenting them in the proper form, but pure Advaitic texts exist from the age of Vedas – Yoga Vasistha, ascribed to sage Vasistha, the teacher of Rama, being one such prominent scripture, another being Astavakra Samhita. Gita, though is a text of harmony of all paths, contains important Advaitic messages, like Aham Atman Gudakesha Sarva bhutashaye sthitah (10.20), or Mayi Sarvam Idam Protam Sutre Mani Gana Iva(7.7), or Kshetrajnam Cha Api Mam Viddhi Sarva Kshetreshu Bharata(13.2), or Iswarah Sarva Bhutanam Hriddeshe Arjuna Tisthati(18.61), as well as qualified monist (Visisthatdvaita) messages like Mama Eva Amsha Jivaloke Jiva Bhuta Sanatana(15.7) and Gita is an integral part of Mahbharata. The message contained in Gita is also contained in most places of Mahabharata. Therefore pure Advaitic philosophy has already developed during Mahabharata period. Moreover Vyasa is also credited with BrahmaSutra, the treatise on Vedanta. Hence it is evident that Gita and Mahabharata are not further developments, but are great commentaries on the Vedic wisdom. Moreover the Western scholars have largely ignored if not completely disregarded the other schools of thoughts, prominent among them being Sankhya from Kapila, which also formed the basis of Buddhist and Jain doctrines. Sankhya did not believe in a Supreme Brahman or Ishwara. It was based on the two eternal entities, Purusha and Prakrti whose union is the cause of the visible universe and the world. However it postulated liberation from the bondage from the dominion of Prakrti by going back to the original pure state, that of the Purusha, an end state not very different from that postulated by Vedanta but different from that propounded by the Bhakti Shastras, the Puranas. Since Sankhya predates Puranas, it is an established fact that the concept of liberation and even that of agnosticism was developed much before and therefore there cannot be any evolution. One cannot simply evolve from “No God” to myriads of personal Gods and Goddesses. It should always be the other way round if we talk of evolution.

Thus it can be safely concluded that the Western scholars and their Indian counterparts are grossly wrong in forming their own notions about an evolution in spiritual thought. Much of their ignorance stem from their inability to comprehend the Indian culture in its whole and not in isolated parts and their deficiency in understanding and appreciating the immensity and complexity of the Indian philosophical thoughts. Only a luminary like Swami Vivekananda could understand the complexity. After Sri Krishna and Sankar, it was he who would try to establish the harmony of all thoughts, their importance and their relevance, in light of the teachings he received from Sri Rmakrishna. But then again this was not theoretical because like Sri Krishna and Sankara he actually realized what he propounded and most of his teachings were also based on the direct experiences of his Guru Sri Ramakrishna, the incarnation of the God in the form of harmony of all spiritual paths, who was never satisfied, in his own words, with monotony of one path or thought but like a true scientist and a musician, experimented with different thoughts and different notes, until he could either create something substantial or bind them together in one harmonious fusion.