DHEE : The Essence of Hinduness (Part II)
(Vedic Roots of Equality)
by
Achintyachintaka
To open Part I of this article please click on the link below
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2009/08/freedom-of-thinking-essence-of.html
To open Part I of this article please click on the link below
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2009/08/freedom-of-thinking-essence-of.html
The question raised at the end of Part I of the article on “DHEE” (on http://www.swaveda.com/) was, “What is Dhee?” The cognitive science of the Vedas views Dhee as a faculty of the mind, which in its highest accomplishment enables one to comprehend the Ultimate in this Universe. The Ultimate in the Universe is Brahman in Vedic science and Vedantic literature. Dhee is not only vested in an individual but has a collective existence. It nurtures the entire cognate creation. The “Mahad” or “Mahadhee” of Saankhya Darshana refers to the Universal Intelligence. (Please see “Demystifying Shri Ganesha” on www.swaveda.com ). The basic eternal law (or laws) of nature is termed "Ritam" in Sanskrit. It can be intuitively comprehended by the human mind through the agency of Dhee. With proper tuning in of individual Dhee, Ritam can be directly perceived through a sub-faculty or a component of Dhee termed “Prajnya.” In a fully “realized” individual, who has experienced and comprehended the nature of Brahman, Dhee is privileged to enjoy prajnya that is filled with a deep unconscious and sometimes conscious knowledge of all the laws of nature, as intended in a statement, “ritambhara tatra prajnya.” (This expression is used by Patanjali in his “Yoga Sutras.” It means: “In that state the prajnya is filled with all the “rita’s” or truths.) Buddha or a “Sthitaprajnya” would have reached that state of consciousness or evolved to attain that state of being. Sthitaprajnya is an adjective used to describe such fully realized individual. There are other equivalent terms which convey the same state of being of a fully evolved human being. The classic quotation is from the second chapter of Bhagvadgeeta: "Sthitaprajnyasya kaa bhaashaa, Samaadhisthasya Keshava, Sthitadhee kim prabhaasheta kimaaseeta vrajeta kim?" Arjuna asks this question to Shri Krishna. Here it is obvious that the terms Sthitaprajnya, Samaadhistha, and Sthitadhee are nearly equivalent synonyms. (Approximate literal translation could be as follows: Keshava, what is the definition of the Sthitaprajnya who is also a Samaadhistha? Or, what does a Samaadhistha Sthitaprajnya express verbally? How does Sthitadhee exhort, how does he express himself non-verbally – how does he sit, and how does he conduct himself or how does he behave? In essence, in this quote Arjuna wants Shri Krishna also known as Keshava to explain to him the characteristics specific to an individual who deserves to be recognized as Sthitaprajnya, Samaadhistha, and Sthitadhee. These terms refer then to individuals enjoying experiential and existential states of consciousness and/or states of being. The clinical signs and symptoms of this highest potential condition of human life are yet to be defined and criteria for diagnosing this condition, if you may, are to be offered for the first time in this special Yogashaastra of the Vedaantic literature, Bhagavadgeetaa, to be offered by Vyaasa, its author, through the character of Shri Krishna)
Dhee is Universal Intelligence when recognized as “Mahadhee.” Mahadhee operates at a subconscious or supra-conscious level while individual Dhee has more conscious recognition by those who can begin to experience it. Sub-faculties of Dhee operating at uncoscious and conscious levels are the Neurolinguistic faculty (vaac), represented by Vaageshwari, the artistic poetic inspiration and talent (pratibhaa), represented by Saraswati, the faculty that gives deeper understanding of the un-manifest world (vidyaa) represented by Prajnya, (“prajnyaa” is an ability viewed as a composite of pratibhaa, vidyaa, inspiration, intuition or a superior talent that enables one to comprehend abstract concepts or the tatva’s including rita’s), and finally it is Dhee that is the container (aayatawaan – or a receptacle) of Jnyaana. The highest level of Jnyaana is expected to have knowledge of Brahman when Dhee becomes the container to receive it and it begins to perceive the process by which Brahman evolves into manifest world (The knowledge of this process is called Brahmavidyaa). This highest knowledge is described as Brahmajnyaana. Mahadhee and Dhee are, in a manner of speaking, the highest and the subtlest information storage and cognitive systems in Prakriti to say the least. Since the tatvas described as Brahman, Prakriti, and Mahadhee (or Mahad) are all-pervasive subtle entities (tatvas) present in the entire manifest and un-manifest universe, there is no locale for these entities. On the other hand, the individual Dhee is dependent on the brain, the most evolved and complex organ in the Human organism. Dhee and Mahadhee are qualitatively similar or same. However, the complexity and capacity of Mahadhee is beyond the grasp of ordinary individual Dhee. Mahadhee is magnificent in its magnitude. It is quite possible that the intuitive appreciation of such similarity could have led to statements like “man being created in the image if his creator (Western concept)” or “Nara and NaaraayaNa” being conceived as similar in nature in their noblest forms (Eastern concept). It is the individual Dhee that has the potential to experience the presence and nature of Mahadhee, Prakriti or Purusha (or Brahman). It must be mentioned and clarified at the outset that in Saankhya the entities identified as Purusha, Prakriti and Mahad have not been given any status of deities. Saankhya is an ancient natural science, and therefore, Saankhya does not bother to deify these entities or tatvas. Saankhya is not a theology but only a cosmogony. Saankhya can be conceived as the philosophy of natural science or metaphysics elaborating upon the tatvas underlying the nature of physico-chemical universe and the biosphere. The awe and sacredness attached to these concepts (Purusha, Prakriti and Mahad) would make them Paramaatman, Shakti, Ganesha in a different context where the divine qualities are attributed to these simple “physical” concepts, principles or tatvas described in Saankhya. Basically the sentient and non-sentient universe is de-constructed in Saankhya without contaminating Saankhya as a “spiritual,” “religious” literature addressing gods or god like concepts. Therefore, Saankhya philosophy could easily be misrepresented or misinterpreted as “atheistic”. Like science it is neither theistic not atheistic. Unlike science it attempts to reconcile and integrate cognate, sentient, and the non-sentient aspsects of the
Dhee is Universal Intelligence when recognized as “Mahadhee.” Mahadhee operates at a subconscious or supra-conscious level while individual Dhee has more conscious recognition by those who can begin to experience it. Sub-faculties of Dhee operating at uncoscious and conscious levels are the Neurolinguistic faculty (vaac), represented by Vaageshwari, the artistic poetic inspiration and talent (pratibhaa), represented by Saraswati, the faculty that gives deeper understanding of the un-manifest world (vidyaa) represented by Prajnya, (“prajnyaa” is an ability viewed as a composite of pratibhaa, vidyaa, inspiration, intuition or a superior talent that enables one to comprehend abstract concepts or the tatva’s including rita’s), and finally it is Dhee that is the container (aayatawaan – or a receptacle) of Jnyaana. The highest level of Jnyaana is expected to have knowledge of Brahman when Dhee becomes the container to receive it and it begins to perceive the process by which Brahman evolves into manifest world (The knowledge of this process is called Brahmavidyaa). This highest knowledge is described as Brahmajnyaana. Mahadhee and Dhee are, in a manner of speaking, the highest and the subtlest information storage and cognitive systems in Prakriti to say the least. Since the tatvas described as Brahman, Prakriti, and Mahadhee (or Mahad) are all-pervasive subtle entities (tatvas) present in the entire manifest and un-manifest universe, there is no locale for these entities. On the other hand, the individual Dhee is dependent on the brain, the most evolved and complex organ in the Human organism. Dhee and Mahadhee are qualitatively similar or same. However, the complexity and capacity of Mahadhee is beyond the grasp of ordinary individual Dhee. Mahadhee is magnificent in its magnitude. It is quite possible that the intuitive appreciation of such similarity could have led to statements like “man being created in the image if his creator (Western concept)” or “Nara and NaaraayaNa” being conceived as similar in nature in their noblest forms (Eastern concept). It is the individual Dhee that has the potential to experience the presence and nature of Mahadhee, Prakriti or Purusha (or Brahman). It must be mentioned and clarified at the outset that in Saankhya the entities identified as Purusha, Prakriti and Mahad have not been given any status of deities. Saankhya is an ancient natural science, and therefore, Saankhya does not bother to deify these entities or tatvas. Saankhya is not a theology but only a cosmogony. Saankhya can be conceived as the philosophy of natural science or metaphysics elaborating upon the tatvas underlying the nature of physico-chemical universe and the biosphere. The awe and sacredness attached to these concepts (Purusha, Prakriti and Mahad) would make them Paramaatman, Shakti, Ganesha in a different context where the divine qualities are attributed to these simple “physical” concepts, principles or tatvas described in Saankhya. Basically the sentient and non-sentient universe is de-constructed in Saankhya without contaminating Saankhya as a “spiritual,” “religious” literature addressing gods or god like concepts. Therefore, Saankhya philosophy could easily be misrepresented or misinterpreted as “atheistic”. Like science it is neither theistic not atheistic. Unlike science it attempts to reconcile and integrate cognate, sentient, and the non-sentient aspsects of the
Universe in a single frame of reference. At its sublime level Saankhya view of the entire Universe, or all existing universes if there are many, in any form, as entirely contained in the radiating sentient energy or Purusha. This frame of reference makes Saankhya look reductionistic yet the jury is not out to confirm or disprove its thesis. The question as to how the mass appears in the Universe and how energy is converted into mass are questions physicists are still grappling with although they have convincingly demonstrated how mass can be converted into energy. This said, one has to wait for scientific developments in the Quantum physics or Elementary Particle physics to arrive at the appropriate appreciation of the basic concepts of Saankhya. In the true Indian philospophical or Vedic tradition there is room for corrections or revisions of theory and the truth will prevail as there is no conflict between Vedic philosophy and science. Vedas are a pursuit of knowledge in the same scientific spirit and rests on "facts" as they exist and not on imaginary non-exitant entities (Sat and Asat). Asat is to be discarded.
The following discusstion regarding the etymology and different aspects of Dhee may be skipped at first reading, yet it would be of value to read it for the second reading of this article by a serious student.
_____________________________________________________________________
What is missing in the usual expositions on the Vedic Philosophy is emphasis on “Dhee (Dheehi).” It is important to understand the etymology of the words that have “Dhi” or “Dhee” in them to get a full picture of what is implied by this concept of Dhee. The words ending in “dhi” are sometimes viewed as not related to “Dhee.” Many Sanskrit scholars may not fully agree with this writer’s breakdown of the Sanskrit words to illustrate the pivotal presence of the concept of Dhee in the Vedic and Buddhist spiritual literature. It may be the initial criticism of the Part I of this article on http://www.swaveda.com/ by some Sanskrit scholars that some of the words (in Part I of this article) this writer has chosen to illustrate ubiquitous references to “Dhee” as drawing attention to this concept of “Dhee” do not have “dhee” in them in the strict grammatical sense except as a homonym. For example, the root “Dha” (“Dhri” or “Dhru”) stands for “holding,” and therefore, “Bud” in the word “Buddha” (Bodhati- Bodhate) refers to “to understand, to know” and “Buddhah” (one who holds the knowledge) in the sense of “enlightened” has no relation, it may be argued, to the word “Dhee.” Likewise, “Buddhih” is a term used for intellect as a faculty of the mind. The fact that the Dhi in this word is a rhasva (i) and not a deergha (ee) “dhee” makes it a word not related to “Dhee.” Also, the word “Vidhi” has a rhasva (“i”) “dhi” and as such only stands for “a method” “a rite” or a ritual. “Vidhee,” with deergha (“ee”) “dhee,” may stand for fate, “destiny or luck,” and neither is it related to “Dhee” as proposed by this writer. So, such somewhat legitimate scholastic arguments could lead to linguistic objections pointing to the fact that it seems the Rhasva dhi is more (dhiyati) related to “Dha” meaning simply to hold or to possess. For example, “a receptacle,” “dhi,” as in “jaladhi” (jala means water and jaladhi means a pond or a lake, literally a water reservoir) has nothing to do with “Dhee.” Such derivations and variations of the meanings of rhasva “dhi” and deergha “dhee” have lead to probable disconnection of “Dhee” from “dhi.” Such considerations in the scholastic semantic interpretations of “Dhi” and “Dhee” tend to offer these two homonyms as two separate concepts.
______________________________________________________________________
The effort of this author in this article is to tie in the two concepts (Dhi and Dhee) with focus on the quote from “Kaamandaka’s Neetisaara or Kaamandakineetisaara.” The reader is asked to focus on the words “grahanam” and “dhaaranam.” “Grahanam,” meaning “incorporation”, and “dhaaranam” meaning “holding” (Dhi- as related to dhaaranam – also note the closeness and connection of this concept to the concept of Dharma) as the necessary qualities of “Dhee” in the following authoritative definition of “Dhee” in “Kaamandakineetisaara.” (“shushrooshaa shravanam chaiva grahanam dhaaranam tathaa, uhaapohaartha-vidnyaanam tatvajnaana cha dheegunaah”). Approximate translation of this definition could mean something as follows: The qualities or characteristics of Dhee are nurturance, auditory comprehension, as also internalization and incorporation (grahanam) too, and in addition, retention (or holding in) (dhaaranam), scientific or logical reality based analysis or critical thinking (uhaapoha), and cognition or understanding of Tatvas (“Tatva jnyana” – For more detailed discussion about the nature of Tatva and Tatvajnyana see this author’s previous article on “Demystifying Shri Hanuman Part II” on http://www.swaveda.com/). This quote from Kaamandakineetisaara defining Dhee, if understood properly, will not only get one closer to understanding what “Dhee” stands for but also it will illustrate the closeness of the concept of dhi (holding faculty) to the comprehending internalizing faculty (dhee) and it beautifully illustrates how “dhi” as holding faculty is connected with the much larger concept of comprehensively viewed plenary faculties (tatvas), “Dhee” and “Mahadhee.” A cognitive framework as formulated here for understanding Dhee is considered absolutely essential to gain insight into the philosophical, metaphysical, and psychological underpinnings of “Saankhya” and "Yoga.” “Thinking out of the box” is essential to understand the drift of this article and many other previous articles on “www.swaveda.com” by this author.
The effort of this author in this article is to tie in the two concepts (Dhi and Dhee) with focus on the quote from “Kaamandaka’s Neetisaara or Kaamandakineetisaara.” The reader is asked to focus on the words “grahanam” and “dhaaranam.” “Grahanam,” meaning “incorporation”, and “dhaaranam” meaning “holding” (Dhi- as related to dhaaranam – also note the closeness and connection of this concept to the concept of Dharma) as the necessary qualities of “Dhee” in the following authoritative definition of “Dhee” in “Kaamandakineetisaara.” (“shushrooshaa shravanam chaiva grahanam dhaaranam tathaa, uhaapohaartha-vidnyaanam tatvajnaana cha dheegunaah”). Approximate translation of this definition could mean something as follows: The qualities or characteristics of Dhee are nurturance, auditory comprehension, as also internalization and incorporation (grahanam) too, and in addition, retention (or holding in) (dhaaranam), scientific or logical reality based analysis or critical thinking (uhaapoha), and cognition or understanding of Tatvas (“Tatva jnyana” – For more detailed discussion about the nature of Tatva and Tatvajnyana see this author’s previous article on “Demystifying Shri Hanuman Part II” on http://www.swaveda.com/). This quote from Kaamandakineetisaara defining Dhee, if understood properly, will not only get one closer to understanding what “Dhee” stands for but also it will illustrate the closeness of the concept of dhi (holding faculty) to the comprehending internalizing faculty (dhee) and it beautifully illustrates how “dhi” as holding faculty is connected with the much larger concept of comprehensively viewed plenary faculties (tatvas), “Dhee” and “Mahadhee.” A cognitive framework as formulated here for understanding Dhee is considered absolutely essential to gain insight into the philosophical, metaphysical, and psychological underpinnings of “Saankhya” and "Yoga.” “Thinking out of the box” is essential to understand the drift of this article and many other previous articles on “www.swaveda.com” by this author.
So let us take on the giants among the Indian and Western translators of Vedic and Vedantic concepts first. They have been extensively preoccupied with Atman and Purusha as the perceiving and comprehending agencies of the mind and also have been attributing an active role to them. The illustration below is to demystify the terms “Self” and “Person” used by these giants of English versions of Vedas and Vedanta and see these “tatvas” as merely nodes of consciousness. These individual (Purusha) nodes of consciousness or fields, by definition are passive until their “nirguna” nature becomes "saguna." That is to say, the individual as well as the Cosmic consciousness is devoid of any qualities that would be differentiating IT from anything else. It is only when IT begins to differentiate that the qualities or gunaas become discernible. (See the article on “Demystifying Shri Ganesha” and “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony” on http://www.swaveda.com/ ) The active faculty of the mind for the practice of Yoga is “DHEE” (not Atman or Purusha). Yoga as a discipline to achieve integration of the personality is focused on Dhee, a faculty uniquely evolved in human beings. Buddhi (vyavasaayaatmikaa buddhi or pragmatic intellect, for example) refers to problem solving cognitive abilities with mechanical, mathematical, verbal, performance, social, musical, and other synthetic creative functions of the intellect as well as visuao-spatial and visuo-motor perceptions and abilities (coordination) and the organizing and executive functions of the brain. Buddhi is, of course, essential for Dhee to evolve. In fact Shri Krishna advises Arjuna to start with this very first step, by saying, “vyavasaatmikaa buddhi eka-iva kuru Nandana.” (Bring together all the faculties of your pragmatic intelligence as if they are all one and concentrate). Dharma usually refers to refined moral development of the mind through incorporation of “good” samskaaras and use of a Viveka Buddhi. Viveka is the faculty of Buddhi or Dhee that enables one to be sensible, just, and appropriate in personal, family, social and global context responsible for what may be considered “judgment.” Saara-asaara Viveka Buddhi (This is the faculty that distinguishes relevant from irrelevant, essential from non-essential and recognizes the context and relationship of the background to the foreground, or the figure focused upon) or sad-asad Viveka (distinguishing real from unreal) is a sub-faculty of Dhee. Viveka can thus intuitively distinguish “Sadaachaara from Duraachaara (good conduct from bad conduct).” "Manas" in Yoga refers to the “emotional mind” and is considered lower in hierarchy, with its being assigned the status of an "indriya" (rough translation- “sense organ”) of Dhee along with five other indriyas. It is only proper considering that “manas” is, since infancy, an elaboration of the interoceptor derived information and memories that form the substratum for emotions which discolor current and past perceptions, cognition, memories, actions, and relationships and even the nature of reality as perceived by an individual. Manas has its language of the heart and often is not logical. It is not the intelligence by itself and it is Dhee that raises Manas derived input by processing it to render an emotional maturity to an individual. Yoga has special techniques to tame, modulate, and regulate manas and one of those techniques is Pranaayama. Dhee regulates the buddhi (intellect), manas (emotional intelligence), and the moral compass (Viveka and Dharma) to navigate oneself in one’s life (in the microcosm). Every child has a deeply seated sense of fairness and justice, compassion and love, and sensibility in its rudimentary form which emanates from this faculty of Dhee which develops and matures into the Dharmic tendencies of Dhee. Just intelligence alone does not make a mature human being. Refined Buddhi, Manas, and Viveka are the minimum three components of Dhee for a human being to be considered civilized and mature human being. These three components then sharpened by vaac, pratibhaa, prajnya, etc., blossom into fully evolved Dhee that attains the potential for comprehending Brahman, Atman or Purusha.
If one does not understand the reasons for this deviation from the traditional English translations by any of the giant scholars of the past, one will go back to spinning one’s wheels on the cultural miseducation (for understanding the implication of this term see “Antiquity of Cultural Miseducation” on http://www.swaveda.com/ ) that has inadvertently crept into the voluminous literature on Hindu or Vedic (Yoga philosophy and Yoga psychology) precisely because of the translational flaws. In this area it is next to impossible to determine who followed whom in this translational conundrum. Was it that the Indian scholars, who were limited in their usage of the English language, that mistranslated the key words initially while communicating with their Western students and scholars, or is it the Western scholars who were struggling to find the right words for Vedic Sanskrit concepts which they had not quite fully comprehended yet, while they were using their Western software to find the English equivalents? Is it too late to admit that there were no real equivalents for many Sanskrit words in English language? The translational flaws have, therefore, persisted in the English translations. The current English usage and verbiage have distorted the basic views of the English dominated “Vedic” culture which is unfortunately learned and discussed in English language by many who do not understand Sanskrit and also by those who understand Sanskrit. This is because one inadvertently gets caught up in the translational ruts that for some tends to provide an internally consistent body of knowledge based on consensual agreement and unquestioning acceptance. This leads to the perpetuation of original translational flaws in the literature.
There is so much (legitimate) emphasis on “Brahman” and “Purusha” in the Indian philosophy that a reader loses track of the fact as to which “faculty” of the “mind” is trying to describe these concepts and/or perceive them. The translation of the word “Purusha” as “person” or “self” has also caused enormous confusion. The words “person” and “self” are used in voluminous Western scientific and psychological literature with entirely different connotations and meanings than those implied by the Vedic scholars. The psychological phenomenon or a theoretical construct described as “self” evolves when the infant interacts with its social and inanimate environment as well as his own body to begin to form its internal image as a continuing stable separate entity, separate from its mother or primary love object. The Vedic “Self,” on the other hand, stands for the imagined, hypothetical, theoretical or postulated “experiencer” in each individual and is ordinarily equated with the English word “soul.” This “experiencer” is said to have an eternal existence separate from the body and the brain. So the “Self” in Vedic context is a philosophical entity or tatva (aatma-tatva) whereas in contradistinction the “self” in psychology is a mental construct every infant will develop to visualize or comprehend itself as a separate person(asmita and ahankara are necessary for this "self" whereas the Vedic "Self" and "SELF" are beyond the realm of Asmita and Ahankara). One finds many Indian as well as Western authors expounding Vedic Philosophy going back and forth with these two entirely different disciplines (Indian Philosophy and Western Psychology) using these same words as if they are interchangeable or by attempting to separate these two by capitalizing self as Self and person as Person to denote “aatman” or “purusha” respectively, (the terms, aatman of Vedanta, and purusha of Saankhya, are considered here as equivalent synomyms) yet discuss the attributes of Aatman or Purusha as if it is a person or self as denoted in the parlance of Western Psychology. In actuality there is no English equivalent for the word purusha as used in Sankhya and later in Yoga. Similar translational flaws seem to occur in translating the word “Aatman.” Once the words “person” and “self” are used, with or without capitalizing the first letter, they create problem with the words “Purushottama or Paramaatmaa.” What then can be the equivalents for these? “Super-person or Supreme Self”? Or “Super-self”? Once such translations occur there is an illusion created by translational flaws which generates spurious logical arguments and discussions dragging the readers or audience into a conundrum of circular, convoluted, logic which superficially sounds so profound that serious students spend years trying to disentangle knots therein. Is person inactive and inert? Or, how can person be inactive and inert when those who understand the word “person” will normally view it to be an active agent? Then one would go looking for evidence to show that Purusha is active in some other Vedantic discipline that differs from Saankhya. Such treatises and discussions are mostly word plays (play on semantics) and are mostly generated by the semantic confusion caused by the translational flaws. Besides creating a cognitive confusion and lack of clarity these kinds of translations have made Indian philosophy appear either too profound or a veritable inconsistent gobble de goop in its English or Western “trans-presentation.” When such translations fall into the hands of some basically insincere mischievous Western Indologists, or so called “scholars” of religious studies, etc., they provide for them the grist for the mill for their “monkey business” as described in the articles on “Demystifying Shri Hanuman.” (See three articles on http://www.swaveda.com/ )
Another look at Dhee will help one understand why the concept of Dhee is essential for scientific humanism. The very comforting preschool concept that all human beings are the children of God have not had any impact on the human race especially as reflected by the atrocious practices of the two major monotheistic religions that have inflicted untold miseries on the children of God that they believed or still believe not to be the favored children of God as they themselves were or are. There is another concept, that could, when assimilated by human civilization and comprehended by all educated and uneducated global citizens of the world, put a stop to Man’s inhumanity to man. That alternative paradigm, which is likely to be more scientific and plausible, needs to be fully explored. In this respect the connectedness of all human beings attains a paramount importance. “Dhiyah samagraah saa guneirudaaraadheeh” is definition of Dhee in Raghuvamsha of Kaalidaasa. An approximate translation of this quote is as follows: “Collectively all ‘dhees’ form Dhee (Mahadhee) which by its very nature is generous or noble.” This definition, therefore, clearly indicates that Dhee has singular (individual) as well as a plural (collective) connotation, for example, as one would understand by the word “faculty” of a university. “Guneirudaaraa” means: By nature it is noble or generous. The nobility of Dhee is in its highest potential to perceive and comprehend Brahman and/or Purusha. Dhee is by definition noble and “high-minded” (and therefore broad-minded). Dhee that has been illuminated or guided by Brahman (Tat Savitruh) will see no reason to condemn anyone to hell. Therein lays the secret strength of the Eastern “religions,” including Buddhism and Jainism (that use “Namaste” as a greeting). These religions or cultures have fully comprehended the human mind as endowed with Dhee. There is no need to elaborate on Hinduness here for those readers who have read this writer's article on “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony.” (http://www.swaveda.com/). How then, Dhee is the essence of Hinduness?
As stated in the article referred to above, the word “Namaste” carries in it this very essence. It is a gesture with hands, with eyes, with mind and Dhee, with a smile, with all acceptance and warmth with all noble feelings and emotions towards the other human being as equal, radiating love (Agape) through body language and expression, sincerely accepting all human beings and all people regardless of their religious, racial, socioeconomic or national background, with no consideration for caste, creed, or color. (A living example today of this may be in individuals like Sri Sri Ravisankar and many like him). This gesture of “Namaste” communicates in a very simple manner a “connectedness” of two individuals as equal (samaana). The ability to recognize the “Aatman” in one individual as the same as or similar to the “Aatman” in another is also a function of Dhee. Dhee recognizes its collective existence when it invents and puts into practice a simple social “gesture” for greeting that expounds a profound philosophical truth. That gesture is “Namaste” with joined hands to illustrate the “samaanata” or “equality” of two individuals.
If one does not understand the reasons for this deviation from the traditional English translations by any of the giant scholars of the past, one will go back to spinning one’s wheels on the cultural miseducation (for understanding the implication of this term see “Antiquity of Cultural Miseducation” on http://www.swaveda.com/ ) that has inadvertently crept into the voluminous literature on Hindu or Vedic (Yoga philosophy and Yoga psychology) precisely because of the translational flaws. In this area it is next to impossible to determine who followed whom in this translational conundrum. Was it that the Indian scholars, who were limited in their usage of the English language, that mistranslated the key words initially while communicating with their Western students and scholars, or is it the Western scholars who were struggling to find the right words for Vedic Sanskrit concepts which they had not quite fully comprehended yet, while they were using their Western software to find the English equivalents? Is it too late to admit that there were no real equivalents for many Sanskrit words in English language? The translational flaws have, therefore, persisted in the English translations. The current English usage and verbiage have distorted the basic views of the English dominated “Vedic” culture which is unfortunately learned and discussed in English language by many who do not understand Sanskrit and also by those who understand Sanskrit. This is because one inadvertently gets caught up in the translational ruts that for some tends to provide an internally consistent body of knowledge based on consensual agreement and unquestioning acceptance. This leads to the perpetuation of original translational flaws in the literature.
There is so much (legitimate) emphasis on “Brahman” and “Purusha” in the Indian philosophy that a reader loses track of the fact as to which “faculty” of the “mind” is trying to describe these concepts and/or perceive them. The translation of the word “Purusha” as “person” or “self” has also caused enormous confusion. The words “person” and “self” are used in voluminous Western scientific and psychological literature with entirely different connotations and meanings than those implied by the Vedic scholars. The psychological phenomenon or a theoretical construct described as “self” evolves when the infant interacts with its social and inanimate environment as well as his own body to begin to form its internal image as a continuing stable separate entity, separate from its mother or primary love object. The Vedic “Self,” on the other hand, stands for the imagined, hypothetical, theoretical or postulated “experiencer” in each individual and is ordinarily equated with the English word “soul.” This “experiencer” is said to have an eternal existence separate from the body and the brain. So the “Self” in Vedic context is a philosophical entity or tatva (aatma-tatva) whereas in contradistinction the “self” in psychology is a mental construct every infant will develop to visualize or comprehend itself as a separate person(asmita and ahankara are necessary for this "self" whereas the Vedic "Self" and "SELF" are beyond the realm of Asmita and Ahankara). One finds many Indian as well as Western authors expounding Vedic Philosophy going back and forth with these two entirely different disciplines (Indian Philosophy and Western Psychology) using these same words as if they are interchangeable or by attempting to separate these two by capitalizing self as Self and person as Person to denote “aatman” or “purusha” respectively, (the terms, aatman of Vedanta, and purusha of Saankhya, are considered here as equivalent synomyms) yet discuss the attributes of Aatman or Purusha as if it is a person or self as denoted in the parlance of Western Psychology. In actuality there is no English equivalent for the word purusha as used in Sankhya and later in Yoga. Similar translational flaws seem to occur in translating the word “Aatman.” Once the words “person” and “self” are used, with or without capitalizing the first letter, they create problem with the words “Purushottama or Paramaatmaa.” What then can be the equivalents for these? “Super-person or Supreme Self”? Or “Super-self”? Once such translations occur there is an illusion created by translational flaws which generates spurious logical arguments and discussions dragging the readers or audience into a conundrum of circular, convoluted, logic which superficially sounds so profound that serious students spend years trying to disentangle knots therein. Is person inactive and inert? Or, how can person be inactive and inert when those who understand the word “person” will normally view it to be an active agent? Then one would go looking for evidence to show that Purusha is active in some other Vedantic discipline that differs from Saankhya. Such treatises and discussions are mostly word plays (play on semantics) and are mostly generated by the semantic confusion caused by the translational flaws. Besides creating a cognitive confusion and lack of clarity these kinds of translations have made Indian philosophy appear either too profound or a veritable inconsistent gobble de goop in its English or Western “trans-presentation.” When such translations fall into the hands of some basically insincere mischievous Western Indologists, or so called “scholars” of religious studies, etc., they provide for them the grist for the mill for their “monkey business” as described in the articles on “Demystifying Shri Hanuman.” (See three articles on http://www.swaveda.com/ )
Another look at Dhee will help one understand why the concept of Dhee is essential for scientific humanism. The very comforting preschool concept that all human beings are the children of God have not had any impact on the human race especially as reflected by the atrocious practices of the two major monotheistic religions that have inflicted untold miseries on the children of God that they believed or still believe not to be the favored children of God as they themselves were or are. There is another concept, that could, when assimilated by human civilization and comprehended by all educated and uneducated global citizens of the world, put a stop to Man’s inhumanity to man. That alternative paradigm, which is likely to be more scientific and plausible, needs to be fully explored. In this respect the connectedness of all human beings attains a paramount importance. “Dhiyah samagraah saa guneirudaaraadheeh” is definition of Dhee in Raghuvamsha of Kaalidaasa. An approximate translation of this quote is as follows: “Collectively all ‘dhees’ form Dhee (Mahadhee) which by its very nature is generous or noble.” This definition, therefore, clearly indicates that Dhee has singular (individual) as well as a plural (collective) connotation, for example, as one would understand by the word “faculty” of a university. “Guneirudaaraa” means: By nature it is noble or generous. The nobility of Dhee is in its highest potential to perceive and comprehend Brahman and/or Purusha. Dhee is by definition noble and “high-minded” (and therefore broad-minded). Dhee that has been illuminated or guided by Brahman (Tat Savitruh) will see no reason to condemn anyone to hell. Therein lays the secret strength of the Eastern “religions,” including Buddhism and Jainism (that use “Namaste” as a greeting). These religions or cultures have fully comprehended the human mind as endowed with Dhee. There is no need to elaborate on Hinduness here for those readers who have read this writer's article on “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony.” (http://www.swaveda.com/). How then, Dhee is the essence of Hinduness?
As stated in the article referred to above, the word “Namaste” carries in it this very essence. It is a gesture with hands, with eyes, with mind and Dhee, with a smile, with all acceptance and warmth with all noble feelings and emotions towards the other human being as equal, radiating love (Agape) through body language and expression, sincerely accepting all human beings and all people regardless of their religious, racial, socioeconomic or national background, with no consideration for caste, creed, or color. (A living example today of this may be in individuals like Sri Sri Ravisankar and many like him). This gesture of “Namaste” communicates in a very simple manner a “connectedness” of two individuals as equal (samaana). The ability to recognize the “Aatman” in one individual as the same as or similar to the “Aatman” in another is also a function of Dhee. Dhee recognizes its collective existence when it invents and puts into practice a simple social “gesture” for greeting that expounds a profound philosophical truth. That gesture is “Namaste” with joined hands to illustrate the “samaanata” or “equality” of two individuals.
It would be corrupt to translate the Namaste or Vande as a mere greeting or a salute. There is utmost respect and affinity expressed in this gesture. The fact is that it is directed towards the human beings, mothers, fathers and even strangers leave alone the mother land and God that sustains the very existence of the individual. The concrete minded goons take objection to the use of the word "Vande" when addressing the mother land without comprehending how much love there is in a patriot when he/she appreciates what mother land has provided, the very nurturance to sustain life. These goons have not been silenced by explaining the humility involved therein rather than posing the mother land as being in competition with their God as they would want to corruptly interpret it. So, they take something traditional and simple and make it objectionable and offensive to themselves, and furthermore, irrationalyy bully others by imposing their will on others. Of course, goons will always find rationalization to bully others and impose their ways on others and explain away their antisocial behaviors. Sensible people with self respect must put a stop to it and ask them to leave the premises if they have objection to such reverence for the mother land. It is not and never is an insult to them or their God for one to say Vande or Namaste to their mothers or mother land.
Imagine Mahadhee as the equivalent of the Internet with each individual Dhee manifesting the potential to be a “search engine,” if you can accept such analogy of IT or “Information Technology.” There is, however, a vast difference between information storehouse and knowledge or wisdom. Purusha, Brahman, Atman are all-comprehending (not necessarily in the sense of information storehouse but a different type of knowledge that is called “jnyaanam” in contradistinction from “vijnyaanam”) or their nature itself is Jnyaanam. Therefore, when Dhee acquires this jnyaanam with its sub-faculty Prajnyaa leading Dhee to it, Dhee comes to a fulfillment of its designed, destined, or designated function and becomes the Dhee of a “Sthitadhee.” The individual who attains such a state of mind or state of Dhee is also called “Sthitadhee.” This function in the evolution of human beings may be conceived as the ability or potential for the highest possible cognition and maturation of Dhee to attain Brahmajnyaana according to the Vedic or Sanaatana dharma. The Vedic and Yogic science then is primarily devoted to refinement, evolution, and culmination of Dhee into a state of Samaadhee (state of consciousness or a state of being) where Dhee comes to rest in a state of balance and fulfillment of the individual Dhee as “Sthitadhee,” an adjective based upon the functional status of Dhee. Thus the samaadhistha by nature eventually becomes Sthitadhee. Likewise, the fulfillment or culmination of the sub-faculty of Dhee, Prajnyaa, in the most “spiritually evolved” individual leads to his/her becoming a “Sthitaprajnya or a Sthitaprajnyaa (as applied to a female)” This is also a similar adjective based upon the functional status of prajnyaa. The “sanskaaras” or impressions (or memories) imprinted on the individual dhee in this state of samaadhi are so very profound, strong and dominant that the other frames of reference in comprehending reality predicated upon previously ingrained sanskaaras begin to weaken naturally (tanjanya sanskaraa anyasanskaara pratibandhee – per Patanjali’s Yogasutras.) Samaadhi is a transcendental state, but repeated experience of samaadhi is consequential in leading to the state of being which itself deserves to be termed “samaadhi.” This is a slightly confusing aspect of Yogashaastra. This confusion can be relieved by understanding the fact that the highest integrative process (sanyama) in the evolution of Dhee is termed Samaadhi and the state of consciousness attained through this process of samaadhi is also termed “Samaadhi.” An individual who is consistently and perpetually in a state of samaadhi in the “usual wakeful” state is experiencing samaadhi as a state of being. This is termed the Sahajavastha (Natural State). Samaadhee is, thus a process of transformation through evolving higher states of consciousness. The (transcendental) states of consciousness finally lead to transformation of the aspirant’s maturation into a persistent highest evolved “state of being.” The individual who has attained that state of being is also called “sthitaprajnya.” The Buddhists call him a “Buddha” who has attained the “Bodhihi” (enlightenment). Bodhisatva, a practicing aspirant, has a potential to become a Buddha. So also, an aspiring Yogi who becomes samaadhistha experiences the transcendental state of samaadhi and attains a potential to become a sthitadhee or a sthitaprajnya through his “saadhanaa” (practice of yoga). Science of yoga is considered central to all Hinduness related spectrum (or groups) of “religions” or Sanaatana Dharmic traditions. Focus on Dhee is central for the practice of yoga. Therefore, “Dhee is the essence of Hinduness.”
Dhee is usually highly evolved in all highly talented artists, musicians, mathematicians, philosophers, and individuals who have contemplative nature. However, its tuning itself with Mahadhee is what leads to its fulfillment. There is disproportionate importance given to the faculty of “intelligence” in the Western culture at the expense of emotional maturity and Dharmic, superior moral or spiritual development. It is needless to say that it is lopsided and sometimes leads to disasters in social and occupational spheres as exemplified by the recent event in the finance market. There is an enormous emphasis on the all round development of Dhee in the Eastern culture. This leads to some de-emphasis of individualism. It leads to Sanskritization or civility or civilization of an individual as contemplated by Freud (see “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony” in http://www.swaveda.com/ ). It is always implied that there is Dharma in Dhee but there may not be Dharma in Intellect or Buddhi. Science and mathematics as well as the highest technological advances of the human civilizations applied in real life while not guided by Dhee can lead to disharmony and destruction, whereas the advances of the civilization guided by Dhee lead to peace and harmony. This is the master mystery of the Vedas transmitted through the secret Gayatree Mantra which contemplates on the individual dhee to be guided and inspired by Dheemahee (more on this word later) or Mahadhee originating in the (tat savitru) Brahman the source of all wisdom and knowledge.(see Part I of this article on http://www.swaveda.com/ ). This is a legacy of all Bhaarateeyas.
Finally, “Dhriti Shamaa Damo Asteyam Shoucham Indriyanigraha Dheehi Vidyaa Satyam Akrodho Dahshakam Dharmalakshanam” (Manusmriti VI-92) “Dhruti (fortitude); shamaa (patience); dama (self-restraint); asteyam (non-stealing, not taking anything that belongs to others by deceit or force, or through unfair trade); shaucham (cleanliness of mind, body and environment); indriyaanigraha (restraints of sense organs and greed); dhee (well defined exahustively in this article); vidyaa (knowledge); satyam (truth); akrodha (non-anger) are the ten characteristics of Dharma.” (Courtesy Dr. Srinivas Kalyanaraman). This quote amply illustrates the pride of place Dhee occupies as one of the ten essentials for Dharma. The cultures devoid of Dhee destroy one another as they lack an important component of Dharma which holds the human society or earthlings together.
Your feedback is encouraged and will be highly appreciated. Congratulations for struggling through a complex subject that ended up becoming so very simple. That is typical of Hinduness. This knowledge about Dhee belongs to all Bhaarateeyaas and it should be the hope of all Bhaarateeyas to strive to bring all knowledge to all Bhaarateeyas. The ideal goal of BHAA-RATA (Rata - Engrossed in Bhaa-Light-Knowledge) is to make all knowledge available to all deserving Bhaarateeya students on the basis of merit and “samaanataa” regardless of caste or class. Losing sight of this meaning of Bhaarata and the Vedic roots of equality or Samaanata over the millennia and the emergence of corrupt class and caste based social system in the Hindu society (one should understand that historically all Western and Eastern societies except perhaps the ancient Buddhist society in China have been guilty of encouraging education for certain privileged classes and this trait is not at all unique to Indian history nor for Hindu society as is being promulgated by some “secularist” media) have led to a cultural mis-education and misrepresentation that samaaanata in education is a Buddhist invention though Buddhism rediscovered the old Vedic principle that was not practiced in reality by the Hindus at the time of Gautama the Buddha. It is time for Bhaarat to rediscover its roots and eliminate asamaanata in Bhaarata in its educational systems, in both private and public sector, without the politicians’ vote-bank motivated divisiveness that will tear asunder the Bhaatateeya Society or Bhaarateeya Janam. Vedic knowledge is the inheritance of the entire human race and needs to be shared freely but it is the duty of Bharateeyas to own and protect it as they have done it for more than five thousand years.
ll Vande Maataram ll
P.S.: The author acknowledges the superb editorial contribution by Seshachalam Dutta, Ph. D.
0-----0-----0-----0----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0--
Dhee is usually highly evolved in all highly talented artists, musicians, mathematicians, philosophers, and individuals who have contemplative nature. However, its tuning itself with Mahadhee is what leads to its fulfillment. There is disproportionate importance given to the faculty of “intelligence” in the Western culture at the expense of emotional maturity and Dharmic, superior moral or spiritual development. It is needless to say that it is lopsided and sometimes leads to disasters in social and occupational spheres as exemplified by the recent event in the finance market. There is an enormous emphasis on the all round development of Dhee in the Eastern culture. This leads to some de-emphasis of individualism. It leads to Sanskritization or civility or civilization of an individual as contemplated by Freud (see “Hinduness for World Peace and Harmony” in http://www.swaveda.com/ ). It is always implied that there is Dharma in Dhee but there may not be Dharma in Intellect or Buddhi. Science and mathematics as well as the highest technological advances of the human civilizations applied in real life while not guided by Dhee can lead to disharmony and destruction, whereas the advances of the civilization guided by Dhee lead to peace and harmony. This is the master mystery of the Vedas transmitted through the secret Gayatree Mantra which contemplates on the individual dhee to be guided and inspired by Dheemahee (more on this word later) or Mahadhee originating in the (tat savitru) Brahman the source of all wisdom and knowledge.(see Part I of this article on http://www.swaveda.com/ ). This is a legacy of all Bhaarateeyas.
Finally, “Dhriti Shamaa Damo Asteyam Shoucham Indriyanigraha Dheehi Vidyaa Satyam Akrodho Dahshakam Dharmalakshanam” (Manusmriti VI-92) “Dhruti (fortitude); shamaa (patience); dama (self-restraint); asteyam (non-stealing, not taking anything that belongs to others by deceit or force, or through unfair trade); shaucham (cleanliness of mind, body and environment); indriyaanigraha (restraints of sense organs and greed); dhee (well defined exahustively in this article); vidyaa (knowledge); satyam (truth); akrodha (non-anger) are the ten characteristics of Dharma.” (Courtesy Dr. Srinivas Kalyanaraman). This quote amply illustrates the pride of place Dhee occupies as one of the ten essentials for Dharma. The cultures devoid of Dhee destroy one another as they lack an important component of Dharma which holds the human society or earthlings together.
Your feedback is encouraged and will be highly appreciated. Congratulations for struggling through a complex subject that ended up becoming so very simple. That is typical of Hinduness. This knowledge about Dhee belongs to all Bhaarateeyaas and it should be the hope of all Bhaarateeyas to strive to bring all knowledge to all Bhaarateeyas. The ideal goal of BHAA-RATA (Rata - Engrossed in Bhaa-Light-Knowledge) is to make all knowledge available to all deserving Bhaarateeya students on the basis of merit and “samaanataa” regardless of caste or class. Losing sight of this meaning of Bhaarata and the Vedic roots of equality or Samaanata over the millennia and the emergence of corrupt class and caste based social system in the Hindu society (one should understand that historically all Western and Eastern societies except perhaps the ancient Buddhist society in China have been guilty of encouraging education for certain privileged classes and this trait is not at all unique to Indian history nor for Hindu society as is being promulgated by some “secularist” media) have led to a cultural mis-education and misrepresentation that samaaanata in education is a Buddhist invention though Buddhism rediscovered the old Vedic principle that was not practiced in reality by the Hindus at the time of Gautama the Buddha. It is time for Bhaarat to rediscover its roots and eliminate asamaanata in Bhaarata in its educational systems, in both private and public sector, without the politicians’ vote-bank motivated divisiveness that will tear asunder the Bhaatateeya Society or Bhaarateeya Janam. Vedic knowledge is the inheritance of the entire human race and needs to be shared freely but it is the duty of Bharateeyas to own and protect it as they have done it for more than five thousand years.
ll Vande Maataram ll
P.S.: The author acknowledges the superb editorial contribution by Seshachalam Dutta, Ph. D.
0-----0-----0-----0----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0-----0--
No comments:
Post a Comment