God in Vedas and Upanishads

Ancient Hindu Conceptions of God
Vedic and Upanishadic Conceptions of God

(a) Introduction to Indian Philosophical thought

Indian philosophical thought can be generally divided in two divergent currents. One having its source in the Vedas and the other independent of it. The prevailing spirit of the Vedic richas is optimistic, however, a note of sadness in them can often be found, e.g., RV I, 124.2, the song addressed to goddess of dawn, Ushas:

“Obeying the behests of Gods, but wasting away the lives of mortals, Ushas has shown forth – the last of many former dawns and the first of those that are yet to come.”

The second current commences, as a distillation of Vedas though references to the stream of thought are present in later Vedic richas. It appears as critical and negative approach but evolves a constructive side of great consequence to Indian History. Broadly speaking, it is realistic and pessimistic.

These two currents are not, however, mutually exclusive. The shared elements (consisting of the aim of life and the path to achieve it) of the two schools of thought are:

(i) Aim: It is defined in religious philosophy, i.e., religion and philosophy are not sundered from each other; in the last resort, their purpose is the same, viz., a seeking for the central meaning of existence. Religion may stand for anything ranging from a sum of scruples, which impede the free use of our faculties to the yearning of the human spirit for union with God. The distinctive mark of religion is that it serves to further the right living. The goal of the religion for an ancient Indian was Moksha not just intellectual conviction. The conception of Moksha varies from system to system in Indian Philosophy but it marks, according to all, the culmination of a philosophic culture.
Philosophy in India originated under the pressure of a practical need arising from the presence of moral and physical evil in life. The objective is how to remove this evil. The idea of Moksha, however, is not related to the end of the world it can be achieved in this life. Even though a distant ideal it was achievable. This is the idea of a ‘jivan-mukta.’

(ii) Path to achieve the aim: Renunciation – the path to moksha.

The discipline in Vedic and Upanishadic traditions varies but the ascetic spirit is the under-lying idea in both. The primary difference is the following: while the Vedic system promotes progressive renunciation, the Upanishadic system holds the possibility of instantaneous turning away from the world whatever may be the circumstances. Vedic system propounds ashram theory: brahmacharya, householder, hermit to ascetic. For the Upanishadic “any moment of disillusionment about the world” is enough for renouncing the world. This renunciation was formalized by Gita in the “principle of detachment and the motive of self-love which is involved in striving for reward hereafter was eliminated by Gita with its teaching of disinterested action.”

In summary, the two elements common to Vedic and Upanishadic traditions are: Moksha as the final ideal and the ascetic spirit of discipline as the means to achieve it.

(b) Vedic Conception of God and Universe

Vedas consist of mantras in Rk – and Atharva – Samhitas. They are religious songs in praise of one or more deities and were intended generally to be sung at the time of offering worship to them. Earliest form of religion consists in the worship of natural powers. In other words early man personifies the powers of Nature, which by virtue of great strength become his gods. These deities are divine only in a qualified sense, for, though called gods, they are necessarily conceived in a human mind and are regarded as being actuated by the same motives and passions as the person that conceives of them. In capsule, the man creates god in his own image.

It is generally true and also applicable to Vedic concepts that the primitive man becomes aware of the regularities in the natural world and tries to fit the totality of his perception in a cause – effect framework. The conception of deities, hence, is a theory of the mankind to make sense out of the observations. In this way a reason is developed for the observations and they are ascribed to the agencies of imagined gods, though the understanding in logical terms is still not there. This is the basis of religious incomprehensibility of world (=universe) of the primitive man.

The Vedas contain three groups of thirty-three gods.
(a) gods of sky, e.g., Mitra and Varuna;
(b) gods of mid-air, e.g., Indra and Maruts; and
(c) gods of earth, e.g., Agni and Soma.

None of these is supposed to be above any other. Unlike Greek mythology, for example, the prevailing type of Vedic gods is one of incomplete personalization. Vedic gods not only maintain cosmic order but also sustain moral codes. Thus they are friendly to the good and inimical to the evil. So, in order to avoid gods’ wrath one should be righteous. Varuna is a clear example. He not only determines the behavior of rivers but keeps a close watch on all personal sins. In the later parts of the Vedas Varuna is overtaken by Indra who is a god of battles. In course of developments, Indra was considered to be not sufficiently moral and had to yield to more ethical gods. In Vedas the worship of gods evolves from childlike communion to hieratic practices but the objective of worship remained steadfast, viz., personal gain. Over a period of Vedic time gods were not beseeched but compelled to grant favors because the required sacrifices were made and actions performed. This is the start of introduction of magical elements in the worship mode. For overall population later Vedic period implied increasing emphasis on ritual. Also, gradually the disenchantment set in about the efficacy of rituals (probably, it was established that no matter how perfectly the rituals were carried out the desired aim could not necessarily be achieved).

Some rishis started looking for the primary cause and moved away from plurality of gods. This led to monotheism but it was approached through henotheism, which means that whichever god you happen to be worshipping should be considered above all others. This “opportunistic monotheism” was abandoned in favor of philosophical monotheism, which implies the common concept that underlies gods with different names (RV I 164.46). The characteristic of creation was isolated as a chief function of gods and the super god was named vishwakarman but it was soon abandoned. Prajapati is another such attribute. Thus one of the Brahmanas (Shat-path Brahmana, V, i., z. 10 and 13 states there are thirty three god and Prajapati is 34th including all.

Monism: The search for godhead was soon recognized to be yielding only partial unity. Monotheism necessarily implied duality. There is a higher conception of unity including nature as well as god and this is monism. It is fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RV, X.129 provides an example of emergence of monism. Fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RVX.129 provides an example of emergence of monism within the Vedic school. In monism God does not transcend nature but is immanent in it. The world does not proceed from God but is itself God.

J. Muir’s translation of RV, X.129:
Then there was neither Aught nor Naught, no air or sky beyond.
What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?

Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change
Of night and day.

That one breathed calmly, self-sustained; Not else beyond it lay.
Gloom hid in gloom existed first-one sea eluding view.

That one, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.
Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,

Which nothing with existence links, as searching sages find.
The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss –

Was it beneath? Or high aloft? What bard can answer this?
There fecundating powers were found; and mighty forces strove –

A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.
Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation arose?

No gods had then been born – who can e’er the truth disclose?
Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no –
Its Lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.

© Upanishadic Conception of God and Universe

Upanishads represent a spirit different from and even hostile to ritual and embody a theory of universe quite distinct from the Vedas. All Upanishads reflect this antagonism, e.g., Mundaka Upanishad states “whoever hopes for real good to accrue from these rites is a fool and is sure to be overtaken again by death and decrepitude.” (Mundaka Upanishad: Mundak I. Chapter ii. 7.) Upanishads substitute an allegorical form for literal interpretation of the rites in the Vedas. Upanishads signify secret instruction imparted, at private meetings, to a student by the rishi. Upanishads were first to develop the concept of a supaatra. Upanishads have been composed by several rishis. We have about 200 Upanishads. They often contain pithy statements such as “Tat tvam asi”, that thou art. Most of the early ones are pre-Buddhist. They represent the earliest effort of man at giving a philosophical explanation of the world. The text is usually in a dialog form and reads more like poetry than a treatise. Information is generally presented in an allegorical form. The teaching of Upanishads is intellectual and monistic. The two pillars of this teaching are the Brahman and atman. Brahman as prayer is what manifests itself in audible speech. Atman initially meant breath and then came to mean whatever constitutes the essential part of any thing in particular for a man, it is the self/soul. Thus the soul represents the inner world while the Brahman represents the external world. The atman/Brahman correlation is a consequence of seeking correspondence between an individual and universe. As an example of this one notes the representation of universe via the man in the Purusha sukta in Rig Veda where the universe is represented by a human body.

When the rishis started to go beyond the child like conception of individual gods and the external world in post-vedic period they were led to Brahman and atman as the lowest common denominators for external and internal realities. At some stage in the evolution of thought – desiring ardently unification of external and internal realities Brahman was identified– thru human psyche – with a human’s inmost essence: atman. This fusing is described in Upanishads via mahavakyas: “Tat tvam asi”,”Aham brahmo asmi” leading to the equation [Brahman = Atman]. In other words nature, man and god are one.

This all-inclusive concept is described by satyam – gyanam – anantam where satyam points to immediate certainties of individual perception, gyanam to spiritual nature of man and anantam to its all-inclusive nature. This is called Absolute in Upanishads. (For more discussion of this point see Chhandogya Upanishad)

The idealistic monism in Upanishads is found to appear in two forms between which there is an important difference. In some passages Absolute is presented as all comprehensive (saprapancha) i.e., cosmic form while in others again as all exclusive (nisprapancha) i.e., acosmic form. Chhandogya Upanishad describes cosmic model as sum-total of all. Totally complete hence calm. It is identified as the self. Brihad Arranyak Upanishad describes Brahman, thru Yagyvalkya, as outer space in a negative way and asserts it is beyond the grasp of human experience. Shankara unified these two models when he ascribed cosmic model as describing Absolute from external point of view and acosmic model when Absolute is described from transcendental point of view. This unity is discussed Mundaka Upanishad. Thus Brahman in Upanishads is both immanent in the world and transcendent of it.

Idea of Soul in Upanishads:

To the seers of Upanishads the existence of soul is a necessary presupposition of all experience. Soul is described as purusha, which is explained as puri-shaya, what lies in the citadel of body. The existence of the physical body, with its diverse but cooperating parts implies the existence of something whose end it – the body - serves. In the narrow span of a single life we cannot possibly reap the fruits of all we do. Nor can we, so long as we confine our attention to this life alone, fully account for all the good and evil that may come to us (Katha Upanishad: Part II, Chapter ii.7). Individuation of soul, i.e., association of a soul with a body-mind, leads to forgetting of its essential identity with Brahman.

In summary, as far as the Vedas are concerned the nature gods of Vedas were subordinated to Praja-pati. Then in Upanishads, Praja-pati was subordinated to Brahman and nature gods including Sun, Agni, Vayu, Indra even Prajapati became servers of the highest. The fact is that we cannot properly look for any theistic view in the Upanishads whose main concern is with the philosophic Absolute, except where the Absolute itself is personified and spoken of as God. The Upanishads explicitly repudiate an objective conception of God. “Whoever worships a deity thinking that to be one and himself another - he does not know.” (Brihad Aranyak Upanishad Part I.Chapter IV,10)