Arguing Positively as a Hindu 01

You may react to the title in many ways. Why to argue? what is there anything positive? If you consider everything is already positive, where is the need for argument? If you are arguing then how can you call yourself a Hindu? Like this, the reactions may be varied. But if you are a person who is not thinking that being a Hindu is possible in only one way and that way is already fixed in books and mandated by tradition, promoted by personages with very little variations, then you are one who believes in arguments and arguing positively for betterment. But really speaking, if we understand our social history, Hindu itself signifies such a person who argues positively for betterment and updating oneself over time. As against this, the fixed type of person who abhors any change in tradition and discourages any argument on Sastras, that type is usually called  Vaidik or Sastric or Sampradayik person. The Hindu is one who is worried about the society as such, the social development and the social progress and the social unity. The Hindu wants to adopt and adapt ideas of the heritage towards betterment of the society. The Hindu wants to make the life more meaningful in the present reality of the world. Naturally the Hindu is one who believes in interpreting the books of wisdom dynamically towards social progress and unity. When the traditionalist worries about the literal meaning of Sastras, the Hindu is careful about the purport and the ultimate practical significance of Sastraic ideas. The Hindu is one who has learnt the lesson of time and has realised the necessity of being relevant in society and the world. And active interpretation is essential for one who realises the value of time, society and reality. 

Srirangam Mohanarangan 

***

Why flowers are used in worship of God ..

Flowers are so lovely to behold. 

Earth seems to smile at us, being touched by the rays from the sky. 

Colours sing with a fragrance. 

The contours of petals wink at us with a violent goodliness of heart. 

We can ask the bee its opinion 

vagrant and sweet, 

like a king or differ from it 

like God. 

But a flower, the earthly smile at the divine, 

teases always our eyes 

and also our noses 

but teaches our mind 

again and again 

notes of divinity. 

I am musing on reading 

these lines of Havelock Ellis 

on flowers and God : 

' Flowers are of all things most completely
and profusely the obvious efflorescence
of loveliness in the whole physical
world. 

Gods are of all things the
most marvellous efflorescence of the
human psychic world. 

These two Lovelinesses,
the Loveliness of Sex and the
Loveliness of Creation, bring the whole
universe to two polar points, which yet
are in the closest degree resemblant and
allied."... 

And perhaps it is because
men and women are in function flowers
and in image gods that they are so
fascinating, even enwrapped in the rags,
physical and metaphysical, 

which sometimes
serve but to express the Flower-
God beneath.' 

Flower to the Divine... 

there flows my mind. 

Srirangam Mohanarangan 

***

What is Vedanta? 02

To quote verbatim Sayana, may not sink with the modern aptitude of reading. And also his commentaries are in Sanskrit and only a small portion or passages have been translated into Tamil or English. So if need be, the relevant passages can be given separately in the last as notes. But my preference is the research method of giving the quoted passages both in original and translation then and there. 

Anyhow coming back to our enquiry, Veda denotes that body of knowledge which informs us about the transcendental issues and the supra-natural means suited to solve such issues. But here one question arises. The problems may be beyond the ken of our ordinary means of knowledge but when you offer even transcendental solutions you have to express them in the ordinary language of human beings, so that they can understand what is being told. But the intention of that transcendental message has to be abstract and the purport of the words cannot be the ordinary sense we derive on first reading or literal reading. We may argue about the actual words used. But the project's original intention is not on the surface but deeply couched in all linguistic ways of communication or suggestion. 

Even in literature, in poetry, we never waste our time in the denotative sense of the poems but the connotative and suggestive nuances of meaning implied. And for all that, poetry deals with aesthetic dimensions of our day to day experience in the world. Even for that we agree to lend ourselves to the process of purport, if at all we care about poetry. Poetry most often resonates from the visceral layers of language and words. 

So if we really care about transcendental issues we cannot afford to be adamant in our non-cooperating with the text of transcendental issues and means, call it revelation or Veda. Why is it called revelation? Because the issues being beyond the ken of our ordinary means of knowledge, naturally the solutions and knowledge of the means to solve such issues could not have been attained through the same ordinary means of knowledge and hence this body of knowledge is called revelation. 

So there is a gap between the Veda or the revelation, which informs us about the transcendental through the language of human beings and our understanding the same by our usual and surface methods of meaning. How to lead us from our apparent understanding of obscurity towards a clear grasp of the transcendent intention, that is at the bottom of the text. This venture of interpretation, which takes us by employing various linguistic means across the gap to the original sense intended is called hermeneutics. So hermeneutics does exactly the opposite of what the language of expression does at the start. The language couches the meaning, hiding it inside various forms of expression. Hermeneutics brings out the hidden meaning, out from all the forms of expression. What essence the language hides, that very same essence hermeneutics brings out to the patient and passionate enquiring minds. 

This 'essence' is what is meant by the word 'anta' in Sanskrit. So the 'anta' of the Veda or the essence of the Veda is what is called Vedanta. And in Upanishads we will quite often see the enquirers discussing about philosophical issues in various ways and exclaiming now and then 'this is what is meant by that Rik or Rig Vedic mantra'. That means the process of hermeneutics is in action in bringing out the hidden meaning or the essence of the great text of Veda. Hence the Upanishads are primarily signified by the term Vedanta (Veda anta). 

Srirangam Mohanarangan 

***

What is Vedanta? 01

If you type-in the word 'Vedanta' in any dictionary, say Merriam-Webster or Oxford, you get something like a Hindu system of philosophy with an added phrase of Sankara or qualified monism. May be some details pertaining to the Upanishads may be there. If you go in for the meaning of the word 'Vedanta', then you may have to split the word into two parts. 'Veda' and 'anta'. So we are now left with two questions: what is 'veda'? what is 'anta'? So, now, understanding what is meant by the word 'Veda' is basic to all further questions about Vedanta. Where to refer and whom to consult to arrive at the meaning of the word 'Veda'? 

If we refer again some dictionary or some encyclopedia or some online search, surely it is going to be something like 'vedas are four', 'Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda and Atharva Veda' and something about mantras and yajnas and all that. So too many new words pop up and make things obscure and what little effort we want to take, we withdraw from anything further. Ultimately we make a package in our mind as 'Hindu religious things or books'. This is not knowing really but stop-gaps we have to roll on. 

So where to refer to get at the real meaning of the word 'Veda'? Sayana, in the 14th century has written commentaries for all the four vedas. He was a great Vedic scholar and a minister of Vijayanagar Empire in one. In his commentary on Rig Veda and Yajur Veda he has dealt with this question, namely, 'what is Veda?'. If we understand the main point in what he is saying, it will give us a clear basis in understanding next what is Vedanta? Now, what does Sayana say? 

Sayana takes up the nature of basic human action. What is human action? It is the effort taken by human beings, by virtue of their belonging to the human species, towards achieving something which they want or avoiding something which they do not want. All human actions are born out of this basic issue. Achieving the wanted or avoiding the unwanted. Based on this fundamental nature of human effort as such, Sayana begins to explain the meaning of the word 'Veda'. 

To achieve what they want or to avoid what they do not want, human beings adopt various means. The means are natural and rational. Why natural? Because we can see them or experience the means. That is, the means are tangible in some way or other. Why rational? Because every means we adopt has a reason behind it, a purpose. Only if the means are suitable for our purposes we adopt them. So the means we employ are basically natural and rational. In our day to day worldly experience and also consulting others or consulting the records of others' experiences we are able to make sure the best means suitable for our purpose. We don't need any divine revelation or communications from the beyond to guide us in these our efforts in the world. Actually the usual methods of knowing, like perception and inference and we can add scientific knowledge in our times, are all quite sufficient and enough for our living and achieving what we want or avoiding what we do not want. 

Now, sometimes in the usual run of life and experiences, transcendental questions pop up and we are faced with such issues which transcend our senses and experience and which are beyond our regular methods of knowing. For example, rather than birth what is shocking to us is death. Actually 'birth' should be also shocking to us. But it becomes an occasion of joy and celebration and our expectation being satisfied, we do not probe any further the sudden occurrence of being. But the sudden stopping of being is very rude on our regular experience and we are thrown into transcendental questions. What is after death? Who was here with us, whose form is still around, which we have been transacting with but the being inhabiting that form is gone. That being, strangely we have not perceived literally in our worldly experience. So this our worldly experience is suddenly breaking to pieces over this issue and we are left to gape at the unseen mystery. 

Then we appropriate the whole predicament on to us personally and we are in the grip of a problem. To solve this the regular means of knowing, are they sufficient? May be or may not be at the present state of progress. But this transcendent issue which has broken our regular smoothness is not going to wait. And it is occurring again, again and yet again. When it is going to be our turn we do not know. But a problem without any tangible means has suddenly cropped up amidst our living experience. And any means which are otherwise regularly natural and rational are not going to answer these transcendent issues and questions. That much we know. But are there any transcendent means suitable to avoid this discomfort and to achieve the transcendental comfort? Sayana says that the knowledge which informs us about such transcendental means and giving answers for such transcendental questions, such knowledge is called Veda. And only such knowledge alone is called Veda. 

Srirangam Mohanarangan