Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - The Path to Immortality

{Reproduced from "The Upanishads" by Eaknath Easwaran. Comprises of notes from his introduction & a short passage from the Upanishad.}

"Brihad-aranyaka" means "the great forest" and is the longest and the most revered Upanishad. The story revolves around Yajnavalkya, a saint famous for his dialogues with his wife Maitreyi, a contemporary Gargi and for being Guru to the famous king Janaka of the Ramayana fame.

The basic feature of Yajnavalkya's teachings in the first part of the Upanishad is to realize the self, which is identical in all of us. If we discover this self, he tells his wife, in our own consciousness and see that when we love, we love this self, then there would be no more parting and sorrow in this world. This teaching forms the first part of the Upanishad.

In the next two sections, Yajnavalkya enters a discourse with Gargi and explains how all existence is woven with the Akshara, the Imperishable, which has no size, cannot be sensed, does not have senses, has no attachment, cannot consume nor can be consumed. As per him, all physical phenomena is grounded in this Akshara. To know this Akshara, according to Yajnavalkya is to achieve immortality at death. (I am yet to understand the concept of Akshara, but it seems to me that this was one of the first attempts to write a theory that explains everything, similar to the general theory of relativity or today's upcoming string theory.)

In the closing, the Upanishad reveals what to do after realizing the realities of life, with the three syllables "da-da-da" that is "damyatta, datta, dayadhvam" - translated as be self-controlled, give, be compassionate.

We have thus summarized the Upanishad. I'll close the post by quoting a passage that I most identify with, something that is relevant today in this age of nuclear families, loved ones separated by compulsion of occupation, children studying in a far off country and shaping their future. That is, the parting of Yajnavalkya from Maitreyi.

~
The Path to Immortality
~

1) "Maitreyi", Yajnavalkya said to his wife one day, "the time has come for me to go forth from the worldly life. Come, my dear, let me divide my property between you and Katyayani."

2) Maitreyi: " My lord, if I could get all the wealth in the world, would it help me to go beyond death?"

Yajnavalkya: "Not at all. You would live and die like any other rich person. No one can buy immortality with money.

3) Maitreyi: "Of what use then are money ane material possessions to me? Please tell me, my lord, of the way that leads to immortality.

4) Yajnavalkya: " You have always been dear to me, Maitreyi, and I love you even more now that you have asked me about immortality. Sit here by my side and reflect deeply on what I say.

5) A wife loves her husband not for his own sake, dear, but because the Self lives in him.

A husband loves his wife not for her own sake, dear, but because the Self lives in her.

Children are loved not for their own sake, dear, but because the Self lives in her.

Children are loved not for their own sake, but because the Self lives in them.

Wealth is loved not for its own sake, but because the Self lives in it.

Brahmins are loved not for their own sake, but because the Self lives in them.

Kshatriyas are loved not for their own sake, but because the Self lives in them.

The universe is loved not for its own sake, but because the Self lives in it.

The gods are loved not for their own sake, but because the Self lives in them.

Creatures are loved not for their own sake, but because the Self lives in them.

Everything is loved not for its own sake, but because the Self lives in it.

This Self has to be realized. Hear about this Self and meditate upon him, Maitreyi. When you hear about the Self, meditate upon the Self, and when you finally realize the Self, you come to understand everything in life.

6) For brahmins confuse those who regard them as separate from the Self. Kshatriyas confuse those who regard it as separate from the Self. Gods and creatures confuse those who regard them as separate from the Self. Everything confuses those who regard things as separate from the Self.

Brahmins, kshatriyas, creatures, the universe, the gods, everything: these are the Self.

7) No one can understand the sounds of a drum without understanding both drum and drummer;

8) nor the sounds of a conch without understanding both the conch and its blower;

9) nor the sounds of a vina without understanding both the vina and the musician.

10) As clouds of smoke arise from a fire laid with damp fuel, even so from the Supreme have issued forth all the Vedas, history, arts, sciences, poetry, aphorisms, and commentaries. All these are the breath of the Supreme.

11) As there can be no water without the sea, no touch without the skin, no smell without the nose, no taste without the tongue, no form without the eye, no sound without the ear, no thought without the mind, no wisdom without the heart, no work without hands, no walking without feet, no scriptures without the word, so there can be nothing without the Self.

12) As a lump of salt thrown in water dissolves and cannot be taken out again, though wherever we taste the water it is salty, even so, beloved, the separate self dissolves in the sea of pure consciousness, infinite and immortal. Separates arises from identifying the Self with the body, which is made up of the elements; when this physical identification dissolves, there can be no more separate self. This is what I want to tell you, beloved.

13) Maitreyi: I am bewildered, Blessed One, when you say there is then no separate self.

Yajnavalkya: Reflect on what I have said, beloved, and you will not be confused.

14) As long as there is separateness, one sees another as separate from onself, hears another as separate from oneself, speaks to another as separate from oneself, thinks of another as separate from oneself, knows another as separate from oneself. But when the Self is realized as the indivisible unity of life, who can be seen by whom, who can be heard by whom, who can be smelled by whom, who can be spoken to by whom, who can be thought of by whom, who can be known by whom? Maitreyi, my beloved, how can the knower ever be known?

Isha Upanishad: Summary

Expressing in detail each verse of the Isha Upanishad gets too long for a blog, so I will only make a brief summary of the ideas behind the Upanishad as translated in the previous post. The Isha  Upanishad follows the principle of reconciliation of extremes such as:

1) The Conscious Lord and phenomenal Nature.

2) Renunciation and Enjoyment

3) Action in Nature and freedom in the Soul.

4) The One Stable Brahman and the Multiple Movement.

5) Being and Becoming

6) The Active lord and indifferent Akshara Brahman.

7) Vidya and Avidya.

8) Birth and Non-birth.

9)Works and Knowledge.

The Upanishad doesn't glorify any extreme over the other. Renunciation is to go to the extreme, but it should be integrated with enjoyment. Action has to be complete, but so has there to be freedom of soul from its works. And while unity is the goal, it has to be brought about through experience of the multiplicity. This is much unlike later thought where God, Renunciation, Quietism, the One, Cessation of Birth, the Knowledge, were praised and the concepts of the World, Enjoyment, Action, the Many, Birth, the Ignorance were subdued, which culminated in Illusionism and the thought that existence in the world is a snare and a meaningless burden imposed on the soul by itself, which must be ended asap. The concept of seeing multiple things as one is not an insignificant one and is the basis of much science that is prevalent today. As Aldous Huxley wrote: "All science, is the reduction of multiplicities to unities."  

Going through each of the above mentioned 9 groups:

1) The Conscious Lord and the Phenomenal Nature:

• The Nature is described as a movement of the Conscious Lord.
• The objective of this movement is to create forms of his consciousness so that He can enjoy the multiplicityby occupying many bodies as the one soul and enjoy the movement by their relations.

2) Enjoyment & Renunciation:

• Enjoyment of the above mentioned movement depends upon renunciation of the principle of desire founded on the principle of egoism and not a renunciation of world existence.

3) Action & Freedom:

• In this regard, the Upanishad believes that actions are not inconsistent with the soul's freedom, and that it only appears that man is bound by his works.
• He has to recover his freedom by recovering the consciousness of unity in the Lord, unity in himself, unity with all existence.
• After this, he should embrace life and work completely, and work towards manifestation of Lord in them, since that is the law and objective of our life.

4) The quiescence and the movement:

• The Quiescence of the Supreme being and his movement are just one Brahman and to discriminate between them is a function of our consciousness.

5) Being and Becoming:

• Being is one, Becomings are many, but this simply means that all Becomings are one Being.
• The individual is urged to see the One Being, but we have not to cease to see the many Becomings and are included in the Brahman's view of Himself.

6) The active and the inactive Brahman:

• Both of these are simply two aspects of the one self, the one Brahman, who is the Lord.
• The inaction is the basis of the action and exists in the action. This inaction is actually His freedom from all He does and becomes.

7) Vidya and Avidya:

• The consciousness of unity is Vidya and the consciousness of multiplicity (which is the result of the movement of the one consciousness) is Avidya.
• This consciousness sees all things as one in its truth idea. but differentiate in mentality and formal becoming.
• The cause of the ego-sense is recognition of only Avidya and avoiding Vidya.

8) Birth and Non-Birth:

• The self is uniform and undying and in itself always possesses immortality. 
• It does not need to descend into Avidya and Birth to get the immortality of Non-birth; for its possesses it always. 
• It descends in order to realize and possess it as the individual Brahman in the worldly life.

9) Works and Knowledge: 

• Works and knowledge oppose each other only until they are of the egoistic mental character.
• Mental activity is essentially fragmentary, & only when the ego is diminished does it see the Oneness behind everything.
• It is then, that True Buddhi (Vijnana) emerges from the Buddhi which is possible on the basis of the senses.
• Vijnana leads us to pure knowledge (Jnana), pure consciousness (Chit). There, we realise our entire identity with the Lord in all.
• In Vijnana, Will & Sight are combined and no longer as in the mind separated from each other.
• Thereafter our will becomes the law of truth in us, and knowing all its acts and their sense and objective leads to the human goal, which is the enjoyment of Ananda, the Lord's delight in self being the state of Immortality.
• In our acts also, we become one with all beings and no longer proceed on the path of egoism based on divisiveness.

Isha Upanishad: Translation

We will end our discourse on the Isha Upanishad started earlier with this post and the next. First, we will start with the translation of the Upanishad from the renowned saint Aurobindo.

(Note that the invocation to the Upanishad starts with the shloka mentioned in the earlier post. This translation is meant for the rest of the Upanishad.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this is for habitation by the Lord, whatsoever is individual universe of movement in the universal motion. By that renounced thou shouldst enjoy; lust not after any man's possession. (1)

Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action cleaves not to a man. (2)

Sunless are those worlds and enveloped in blind gloom whereto all they in their passing hence resort who are slayers of their souls. (3)

One unmoving that is swifter than Mind, That the Gods reach not, for It progresses ever in front. That, standing, passes beyond others as they run. In That the Master of Life establishes the Waters. (4)

That moves and That moves not; That is far and the same is near; That is within all this and That also is outside all this. (5)

But he who sees everywhere the Self in all existences and all existences in the Self, shrinks not thereafter from aught. (6)

He in whom it is the Self Being that has become all existences that are Becomings, for he has the perfect knowledge, how shall he be deluded, whence shall he have grief who sees everywhere oneness? (7)

It is He that has gone abroad - That which is bright, bodiless, without scar of imperfection, without sinews, pure, unpierced by evil. The Seer, the Thinker, the One who becomes everywhere, the Self existent has ordered objects perfectly according to the nature from years sempiternal. (8)

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone. (9)

Other verily, it is said, is that which comes by the Knowledge, other that which comes by the Ignorance; this is the lore we have received from the wise who revealed That to our understanding. (10)

He who knows That as both in one, the Knowledge and the Ignorance, by the Ignorance crosses beyond death and by the Knowledge enjoys Immortality. (11)

Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Non-Birth, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Birth alone. (12)

Other, verily, it is said, is that which comes by the Birth, other that which comes by the Non-Birth; this is the lore we have received from the wise who revealed That to our understanding. (13)

He who knows That as both in one, the Birth and the dissolution of Birth, by the dissolution crosses beyond death and by the Birth enjoys Immortality. (14)

The face of Truth is covered with a brilliant golden lid; that do thou remove, O Fosterer, for the law of the Truth for sight (15)

O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O Ordainer, O illuminating Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is they most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The Purusha there and there, He am I. (16)

The Breath of things is an immortal Life, but of this body ashes are the end. OM! O Will, remember that which was done remember! O will, remember, that which was done remember.(17)

O God Agni, knowing all things that are manifested, lead us by the good path to the felicity; remove from us the devious attraction of sin. To thee completest speech of submission we would dispose. (18)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With this, I will end this post. I will return tomorrow, with a summary of the whole Upanishad.

P.S: Do let us know if you need an expansion of one of the shlokas. I will provide it for you in the comments section.

Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam - What it was and what it is made out to be.

A few days ago while blog hopping, came across two great posts [(1) and (2)] by fellow blogger Bharatendu on the well known homily of Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam and how it has been misinterpreted by our socialist and secular mainstream intellectual thought which has made it out to be some kind of vision of global village by ancient India. In fact, it is nothing of the sort, and had little importance in the day to day lives of our ancients. I found these great pieces by Bharatendu spread very little, and hope to bring more attention to this topic by posting it here.

So, the shloka in which vasudhaiva kutumbkam appears is as follows: -

अयं निजः परोवेति गणना लघुचेतसां
उदार चरितानां तु वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम ॥

This is translated as :

"This is my own and that a stranger is the calculation of the narrow minded. For the magnanimous hearts however, the entire earth is but a family."

The way this shloka is quoted ( I would go so far as to say abused), it would seem that it is part of an important scripture, such as the Bhagvada Gita, the Vedas, the Manu Smriti or the Puranas and formed an important part of the life of our ancients. A few examples of it's use (from Bharatendu's blog) are as follows:

"In ancient India the liberal perspective was defined by the concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam… in contradiction to the ‘Clash of Civilizations’… the theory I don’t agree with. We have to reclaim that liberal space.” : Dr. Manmohan Singh, The Prime Minister of India, Address to the Harvard Alumni Association, March 25, 2006 at New Delhi.

“…India that once, 2000 years ago, had proclaimed vasudeva(sic) kutumbakam – the world is one family…”: Ms. Sonia Gandhi in her acceptance speech on occasion of being conferred the “Grand Officer of the Order of Leopold” by Belgian government for her “constructive nationalism and efforts to foster a multicultural, tolerant society in India”, on November 11, 2006 at Brussels / Bozar.

"...Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam is our foreign policy." Pranab Mukherjee in his Rajya Sabha speech on Dec. 5 2007.

But so far, the shloka has only been found (as untill 2008 by Bharatendu) in the hitopadesha, panchatantra, certain summaries of works of Chanakya and Bharatrihari, Maha Upanishadam, certain recensions of vikrama charitra and in the works of Bhatta Udbhata and it is not at all part of a sermon directing people to believe that "the whole world is my family". I am quoting one of the stories mentioned by Bharatendu while demolishing the shloka for our purpose here to understand one instance of the use of the shloka, and the reader is requested to follow the rest of the posts linked in the references section.

subuddhi the Crow, chitrA~Nga the Deer, and ksudrabuddhi the Jackal

“Long long ago, in the champakavaTI forest of magadha, there lived two friends – a Deer called chitrA~Nga and a Crow named subuddhi. It so happened that a Jackal named kshudra-buddhi, (the proposer of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, as we shall soon see), was passing by and his eyes caught hold of the healthy Deer as he was grazing nearby. The lust to devour him immediately arose in the Jackal’s mind, but knowing Deer to be too swift in a chase, he decided to fall back on his cunning – to win first the confidence of the Deer. The VK-preacher therefore approached the Deer, saluted him, and introduced himself as a lonely newcomer with friendly intentions, and proposed a friendship and brotherhood with the Deer. The naive Deer fell for the sweet words of kshudra-buddhi, and not knowing his true intentions, invited him to his own dwellings.

So, they started towards the Deer’s place, and on their way sitting on the branches of a champaka tree was Deer’s old and wise friend subuddhi the Crow. Seeing them passing by, the Crow asked the Deer, ‘O chitrA~Nga, who is this second fellow with you? ‘ ‘A Jackal, my new friend’, answered the Deer. To this, the Crow asked: ‘But, do you know him well enough? One should never extend friendship and shelter to anyone without knowing their real nature and intentions, learning the history of their ilk and giving them a test of time.’ The Deer lightly shrugged this aside, saying, ‘But this Jackal is very friendly’.

Seeing his friend in delusions, the Crow began relating to him a story about how jaradgava a Vulture was killed by unwisely trusting an impostor (that story reproduced later below). He warned the Deer against trusting the Jackal without learning more about him.

So far the Jackal had kept quiet, and it is at this juncture that he opened his argument with the famous shloka of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam, demanding the Deer to not be of a narrow mind by considering the Crow a friend and himself an alien. The vasudhaiva-kuTumbakam discourse successfully put to rest all doubts that had arisen in the Deer’s mind, and dismissing the Crow’s wise council he went ahead in bringing the VK-preacher into his home.”

The remainder of the story can be summed up in two sentences. The cunning VK-reciting Jackal started dwelling with the naive Deer, and as soon as the opportunity arose, pushed him into a deadly trap. However before he could kill the Deer, our wise hero subuddhi the Crow devised a clever trick by which not only the Deer was rescued but also the VK-reciting Jackal was slain.

Now, that is the context in which VK is recorded in the hitopadesha by the great paNDita of politics nArAyaNa, and he is unambiguously clear about its application when he assigns this shloka to come from a brotherhood-preaching shrewd subversionist. It gives a clear warning against blindly welcoming any idea, individual or group without due diligence of studying their history, nature and intent.

However, let us also read the other story, in response to which the VK is uttered in hitopadesha, which would leave absolutely no room for any doubts in this matter of how hitopadesha treats vasudhaiva kuTumbakam:

jaradgava the Vulture and dIrghakarNa the Cat

While warning his friend against trusting the Jackal, subuddhi the Crow thus addressed the Deer:

“There, on the banks of the mighty bhAgIrathI is a cliff called gR^idharakUTa, and upon it grew a great fig-tree. In the shelter of its hollow lived an old Vulture named jaradgava, who due to old age had neither any eyesight left in his eyes nor nails in his claws. The other birds that lived on that tree were friendly to him, and out of pity used to donate from their own food small portions to him, and this way the poor fellow was passing his days. In return, jaradgava used to guard the little offspring of the birds when the parent birds were away.

One day, when the older birds were gone, a Cat called dIrghakarNa (‘Long Eared’) came there to make a meal out of the nestlings; and those tiny birds alarmed at seeing him, created noise that roused jaradgava from his slumber. ‘Who comes there?’ demanded jaradgava. Now dIrghakarNa, on noticing the big Vulture, aborted his meal plans, but as a flight was not possible he resolved to trust his destiny and to approach tactfully. ‘Arya,’ he responded, ‘my salutes to you!’ ‘Who is that?’ asked the Vulture. ‘A Cat,’ answered dIrghakarNa. ‘Lay off, Cat, or I shall slay you,’ shouted the Vulture. ‘I am ready to die if I deserve death,’ said the Cat, ‘but first let me be heard.’ ‘OK then, tell me first your purpose of arrival.’ asked jaradgava.

‘I live,’ melodramatically began dIrghakarNa, ‘on the banks of ga~NgA, bathing daily, performing the penance of chandrAyaNa vrata, strictly being a vegetarian like a bramachArI. The birds that come there, speak very highly of you as the one firmly established in dharma and worthy of all respects. So with my curiosity greatly aroused about you, I decided to drop by Sir, to learn from you about nIti and dharma.’

‘You appear like so deep gone in learning,’ he continued, ‘and still Sir, I am surprised that your sense of dharma tells you to be ready to slay a guest! Doesn’t the nIti say unambiguously about what a man’s dharma is towards his guests?’ The Cat then went on delivering an elaborate speech, quoting eloquently from the shAstra-s about the dharma and cut quite an impressive lecture on peace and non-violence.

Shrugging that onslaught of quotations from shAstra-s aside, wise jaradgava interrupted, ‘Listen, I know only this, that you are a cat and the cats eat meat. Since here are young birds that I am given to protect, I warn you one last time – leave immediately.’

Upon this, dIrghakarNa intensified his drama, and touching the ground with his two claws and then his ears, invoking all the Gods, he said, ‘I have overcome all the passions by practicing the chandrAyaNa vrata; I have learnt the shAstra-s; and I am a follower of the religion that is called non-violence itself. And so he went on.

Such prolonged drama of the Cat finally silenced the old Vulture, who at last allowed him to live in the hollow of the tree with himself.

With the passage of days, and having gained more confidence of the Vulture, the Cat slowly began picking the nestlings for his meal. After devouring them one by one, the cunning fellow would drop their bones near the hollow of jaradgava, who being blind did not notice it.

One day, alarmed at their children going missing, the parent birds began investigating. The shrewd cat quickly made his escape, and the birds soon discovered the bones near the hollow of jaradgava. They at once inferred that their children had been eaten away by the old Vulture in whom they had placed their trust. Thus enraged the birds swiftly executed jaradgava in no time. Although being innocent and a true well-wisher of the birds, he paid for the folly of giving shelter to the wrong kind.”

Above story is which evokes the vasudhaiva kuTumbakam from the cunning subversionist in hitopadesha.

References:

[1]: The Hoax called Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam - Part 1

[2]: The Hoax called Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam - Part 2

Knowledge, from a Vedic Perspective

This is from the book: "In search of the cradle of civilization" by Georg Feuerstein, Subhash Kak and David Frawley. It is a good read, for people who are just beginning to learn about Hindu culture. I was expecting a lot more about certain details but the authors have only skimmed across several important topics. Perhaps, that was their intention. Anyway, I am paraphrasing from passages which explained what was knowledge according to my ancestors, which for people like me, who are in the field of creating knowledge might be irrelevant since we need to know things in its exactitude. The problem with knowing things from a materialist perspective is that the knowledge gets locked from the general public and they cannot grasp it without sufficient investment of time starting from the basics of that branch of knowledge. This is alleviated by the Vedic method of conveying knowledge and the subtle metaphorical ideas that are more generalized and easier to grasp for the laymen, provided he accepts a Guru and knows or is shown how to decode the metaphors. The following is how knowledge was expressed according to the Vedas: -

1) Vedic theory of knowledge is based on a belief in the interconnectedness and unity of the whole universe, primarily the three components - viz. the cosmos (adhideva), the individual living being (adhibhuta), and the Spirit (adhyatma). Thus, the Vedas are meant to be interpreted in three ways.

2) The Vedic rishis acknowledged that straight logic cannot answer all questions and that scientific knowledge included some paradoxes for e.g. Yajnavalkya when he says in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: "The Gods are fond of the invisible and dislike the visible." In this sense, the invisible is the vast realm of existence that is not perceptible to the senses.

3) The Vedic Rishis did not go into the details of any phenomenon, but communicated the essence of what they saw. And this was in the form of metaphors, which is why it is advisable not to read the Rig Veda superficially.

4) The Vedas are to be read with a questioning attitude and not with a closed sense of dogmatism. Asking questions are the first step towards acquiring knowledge, and in this the Vedic perspective mirrors functioning of today's science.

5) The Rishis proclaimed a unity that is inexplicable and can be seen only from an elevated state of mystical awareness. This is considered a creative reservoir or potentiality, also known as the Purusha and envisioned as a giant man.

6) The world was said to be created through the Purusha's self sacrifice. His mind was said to have given rise to the Moon, his eyes to the Sun, his breath to the air element, his navel to the midspace, his head to the sky and his feet to the earth.

7) The purpose of human creation was now to preserve the unity of the Purusha and all human activity including architecture, sculpture and literature was to be modeled on it. In fact, they set the goal of life to study the mystery of the Purusha.

We shall end this topic here, for as I said, the authors have only skimmed this important topic. I will revisit it when I get my copy of this great book by one of the best authors ever possible, on the topic.

Role of religion in a society and fault tolerance.

In this day, when people have started regarding science as their, blatant outspokenness is glorified - (whether it be for a better cause or by one woman mobile republics, that remaining of no consequence) and evangelical atheism is on the rise, religion has been relegated to the poor and lower - middle middle class of the society, it might be useful to understand some role of religion in shaping the society, that too from an engineering perspective. But let me first start with Machiavelli's views on how religion is useful in shaping the society.

Reading from the points Machiavelli makes in the chapter "On the religion of Rome" from the discourses on book one of the first ten books of Titus Livy, which are as follows: (it is necessary to make an attempt to generalize the points and not quote verbatim, since Machiavelli talks from an Italian/Roman perspective which many readers might not follow or find boring.)

1. After Romulus's reign in Rome was over, the Senate elected Numa Pompilius as his successor and Numa introduces religion into Rome to discipline civil society so as to put a fear of God into the people.

2. This facilitated easing of policy execution on the part of the leaders.

3. Citizens then stood in far greater fear of breaking an oath than a law, as though they had a greater fear of God's might than for man's.

4. Religion was useful in directing the armies, in animating the people, in keeping men good and in shaming the wicked.

5. Where there is religion, it is easy to introduce military discipline, but where there is no religion, the latter can be introduced only with great difficulty.

6. Without invoking God, intelligent people have many beneficial things which might not be directly acceptable to the people.

7. Thus, religion introduced by Numa into Rome was one of the primary causes of her prosperity, for that was the source of good laws, which in turn, bring good fortune, and from good fortune results all the good from the institutions of the land.

Along with the above, there is one major sector that religion has a role in, that is, designing the society according to the rules of fault tolerance. Now, what does fault tolerance have to do with it? Well, this is what fault tolerance means. (click) The theory here, is that while you can make an excellent system when you delete any mention of God, the sole responsibility of leading such a system depends on good rule by the ruling class and which over a long period of time, decays since the ruling class will invariably get corrupt with concentration of power in the hands of a cliche. Once the ruling class starts manifesting decay, and licentiousness, the society will start crumbling, for there is nothing to fall back onto (Remember the Sanskrit saying, 'yatha raja, tatha praja' really becomes true in this case, since there is no better ideal available for the people to follow. In case of a pre-existing religion, at least some people will try to emulate the Gods of the religion, and rise above their rulers). This is where fault tolerance comes into play, that the system keeps on running at sub-optimal conditions even when the key dominoes of the system have been withdrawn. This is where Machiavelli too realizes the importance of this concept, but of course, he doesn't call it by this name. As per Machiavelli, welfare of a republic or kingdom lies not in ruling it wisely while the ruler lasts, but in organizing it in such a way that the state endures after he has passed away. And the best effect of religion is here.

The obvious corollaries (my points) that emerge from such a religion would be that -
1) The control nodes of such a religion should rest solely within the state. If the control nodes exist outside, they can lead to external manipulation of a people.

2) The structure needs to be kept decentralized with checks and balances on the powers of each control node, otherwise we have to endure with a parallel power centre apart from the Central Government in the same state.

3) Towards the above end, the religion should be divided into different philosophical schools to not only cater to people of different tastes, but also so that there is constant competition between each school, something that would help each school of thought better itself and its followers. Yet, there should be a common meeting ground of each school rooted in Dharma.

4) The end goal of such a religion should be to make people do good during the existence of a good state, even after the good state has passed, and create a legend that enables the people to resurrect the same state, or resist an imperial power.

As usual, followers are invited to add more to this post.

Differentiating the pleasant and the good.

Many people can't differentiate the pleasant and the good. This is a big problem in a democracy, where people start voting themselves lollipops and vote a bread and circus democracy in, also check what that means by an excellent post from a close ally.

I know, Diwali prayers and the feeling of union with family, laughing and joking are all good, but if you have time, try to get your countries out of such a democracy if it is in one, and if it is not in one, keep it out of it.

In this, a part of the Kathopanishad can be of use. I am quoting an excerpt from a translation of the upanishads by Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester. I assume either you have a copy of the Kathopanishad, or can read the part before the part I have taken from online sources.

Nachiketa: "Tell me, O King, the supreme secret regarding which men doubt. No other boon will I ask.

Yamaraj: "The good is one thing; the pleasant is another. These two, differing in their ends, both prompt to action. Blessed are they that choose the good; they that choose the pleasant miss the goal.

Both the good and the pleasant present themselves to men. The wise, having examined both, distinguish the one from the other. The wise prefer the good to the pleasant; the foolish, driven by fleshly desires, prefer the pleasant to the good.

Thou, O Nachiketa, having looked upon fleshly desires, delightful to the senses, hast renounced them all. Thou hast turned from the miry way, wherein many a man wallows.

Far from each other, and leading to different ends, are ignorance and knowledge. Thee, O Nachiketa, I regard as one who aspires after knowledge, for a multitude of pleasant objects were unable to tempt thee."

Please read the rest of the Upanishad from your source. Let us resolve to be like Nachiketa and be able to differentiate between the pleasant and the good this year. At some places, that has already begun to happen. May that light spread and elevate us from this darkness. A very happy deepavaly and a happy new year to all of you readers.

Sankhya vs. Yoga

In an earlier post, I had questioned why Sankhya was said to be inter-related with Karma Yoga in the Bhagwada Gita. While I haven't found anything on that, I have been able to find a discourse between Bhishma and Yudhishthira where Bhishma answers Yudhisthira on the difference between Sankhya and Yoga. This is from an unabridged version of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata translated by Shri Kisari Mohan Ganguli.

Yudhishthira said: It behoveth thee to explain to me, O sire, what the difference is between the Sankhya and the Yoga system of philosophy. O foremost one of Kuru's race, everything is known to thee, O thou that art conversant with all duties!

Bhishma said: The followers of Sankhya praise the Sankhya system and those regenerate persons that are Yogis praise the Yoga system. For establishing the superiority of their respective systems, each calls his own system to be the better. Men of wisdom devoted to Yoga assign proper and very good reasons, O crusher of foes, for showing that one that does not believe in the existence of God cannot attain to Emancipation. Those regenerate persons, again, that are believers in the Sankhya doctrines advance good reasons for showing that one, by acquiring true knowledge of all ends, becomes dissociated from all worldly objects, and after departing from this body, it is plain, becomes emancipated and that it cannot be otherwise. Men of great wisdom have thus expounded the Sankhya philosophy of Emancipation.

When reasons are thus balanced on both sides, those that are assigned on that side which one is otherwise inclined to adopt as one's own, should be accepted. Indeed, those words that are said on that side should be regarded as beneficial. Good men may be found on both sides. Persons like thee may adopt either opinion. The evidences of Yoga are addressed to the direct ken of the senses those of Sankhya are based on the scriptures. Both systems of philosophy are approved by me, O Yudhishthira. Both those systems of science, O king, have my concurrence and are concurred in by those that are good and wise. If practised duly according to the instructions laid down, both would, O king, cause a person to attain to the highest end. In both systems purity is equally recommended as also compassion towards all creatures, O sinless one. In both, again, the observance of vows has been equally laid down. Only the scriptures that point out their paths are different.

Yudhishthira said: If the vows, the compassion, and the fruits thereof recommended in both systems be the same, tell me, O grandsire, for what reason then are not their scriptures (in respect of the paths recommended) the same?

I have quoted only the beginning of the conversation, the rest can be followed from here.