The question arises: what is the significant difference between the moral-ethical requirements of acquiring Heaven, in Hinduism, and Non-Hindu, especially Monotheistic, cultures?
It is very obvious to the conscientious, discerning, and well-informed mind, that there’s a steady degradation in the ethical standards of Hinduism as time passed by, though it’s not “proven” that this degradation was caused by Hindus themselves.
The ethical stature of the Mahābhārata, and playwrights like Kālīdāsa and Bāṇabhaṭṭa, are breathtakingly lofty {here is an example I have already given: https://in-the-beginning-was-the-ecstasy.blogspot.com/2021/03/forgiveness-and-compassion-in-hinduism.html}, but as we rummage through texts down the centuries, one sees a weakening focus on moral values, and an increasing fixation on perpetually proliferating rites, donation to Brāhmaṇas on almost each & every occasion & almost every other day, making pilgrimages & bathing in rivers & lakes on astrologically determined specific days, and reciting mantras & words.
How much of this change is authentic – how much of this change was brought about because of drastic changes in the social, political and economic condition of the Hindus, and – how much is downright fabrication
– is not easy to determine.
The mighty Vedic-Upanishadic vision of tapas & yoga, of the philosophic tradition of Sānkhya-Yoga-Vedānta, and the great ethical principles of the Āryas embodied in the epics & early Purāṇas – remain intact, and are seen even in Tulsīdās.
But there are important changes, which are necessary to identify, to understand the causes of the downfall of India.
You can’t dump all the blame on “Invaders” and “the British” indefinitely – while, on the other hand, you can’t dump all the blame on the “Brahmins”.
The “later” Purāṇas are full of the heavily-veiled esotericism, philosophical grandeur, and rapturous vision of the Vedas and Itihāsas – but they’re muddled & riddled & corrupted with enormous heaps of nonsense.
It’s often difficult – not to say painful – to see the most exalted spiritual & metaphysical ideas in human history, tarnished by simply being placed alongside the most bewilderingly nonsensical injunctions & practices which all too obviously prove, how and why this society collapsed.
These injunctions & practices deflect a human being’s attention away from any deep inner moral development, and make virtue simply a question of repeating words & sentences, sitting & standing & praying in a certain direction & position, bathing in some river or lake, feeding a cow, and spending extravagant amounts of money in all sorts of lavish and excessively complicated rites.
The painfully tedious & meticulous injunctions about food – bordering on the ludicrous – seem to emerge from terrible, prolonged experiences of plague, famine, drought, and epidemic.
The vehemence of the commandments reveals an underlying terror {of life & people in general, of the constant breaking of the law, i.e. a general lawlessness}, universal distrust & misbelief, and the generally lower intellectual & moral quality of a community.
You need to psychologically terrorize only a very savage & brutal person, into conforming to a certain degree of lawful behaviour.
In this utter confusion, we’re glad to see a beautiful chapter in the otherwise-complicated Padma Purāṇa which bears in full the lofty ethics of the Ancient Indians, concentrating on the {inner} development of the heart & mind, & exaltation of the sentiments, and strengthening of the ethical fibre of man, rather than just repeating words & sentences.
Who qualifies, to go to heaven?
These are 28 of about 40 such listed people.
In what fundamental way does this vision differ from, say, the Christian vision of heaven?
Almost none.
But there is a great difference between the Indian conception of Heaven, and the Monotheistic.
The Indian Heaven is temporary, the Monotheistic Heaven is permanent.
In the Bible, at least relatively so, until the New Jerusalem emerges, when a “New Heaven” is expected and “the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” {Revelation 21.1}.
The Indian soul rises to heaven on account of its self-developed virtues & virtuous actions, enjoys all the pleasures of svarga, until the stock of its “merit” is exhausted, and incarnates again on Earth.
There is no such idea in Monotheism.
Thus, going to heaven has never been the final goal of the Indian, as it has been, of the Monotheist.
In the ultimate analysis, the Indian despises Heaven, as just a very beautiful and pleasurable Earth, and seeks to rise above & beyond Heaven itself.
There are many other differences, but this is the most important spiritual-moral difference, between Indian philosophy and Monotheism.
What is the conundrum?
It is this: the transcending of heaven necessitates the abandonment of all action, even of all good deeds, and even of kindness & compassion.
This is anathema, almost incomprehensible, to the dogmatic Monotheist.
The final aim of the Monotheist is abiding in Heaven.
The path to this is {say} “Love, Hope, Charity”.
The final aim of the Indian is Mokṣa or Mukti – which has nothing to do with Heaven.
The final aim of the Indian is not contemplation of God, or a “direct vision” of God, or even “dissolution of the individual soul in the universal soul”.
The final aim of the Indian is the experience of Mokṣa itself – in which there is nothing except Parabrahm.
It is, indeed, a tricky idea, which undoubtedly, over a period of time, was abused and led to many problems in Indian society.
Why?
Because, while lawfully, man must pass through the phase of action and experience into the phase of abstinence and renunciation, we see that men “jump the gun”, and head straight towards asceticism & renunciation.
The by-passing of good actions, of charity, of compassion, of kindness, of actually creating, expanding & upholding society – and straightaway jumping into abandonment of all worldly responsibilities, duties, and interests – is risky, to say the least.
Pernicious & degenerative, to say the worst.
Actions purify you, enlarge your intellect, deepen your soul, strengthen your resolve, and prove your spiritual and moral mettle.
They give you maturity, insight, and foresight.
Actions were codified in such a way so that they did not lead to chaos, confusion, bitterness, disillusionment, and permanent mental scars or chronic psychic dissipation.
Hence, the “rules”.
The “rules” were made to maintain the very delicate balance between attachment & detachment – between involvement & withdrawal – between affection & dispassion – so that you could participate, and yet not get stuck – so that you could be a part of things, and yet be able to walk away – so that you could affect things, but things would not cling to you.
All your needs & wants were fulfilled, and yet you could eventually get rid of them.
The 4 great aims of life – Dharma, Artha, Kāma, and Mokṣa – were all harmonized, balanced, and designed to be mutually-complementary, rather than be conflicting and mutually exclusive..
In the ultimate analysis, maybe action needs to be abandoned {for the experience of Mokṣa} – but you need to act first, and then abandon action.
And to attain Mokṣa, you need to first get rid of all Tāmasika and Rājasika feelings, words, and actions.
This is obviously the ancient Indian, Ārya ideal.
You cannot attain Mokṣa or Nirvāṇa,
without being Sāttvika,
without getting rid of all anger & lust & avarice,
without purging your consciousness of all wicked intentions, all dishonesty, all inimical feelings,
without being a compassionate, merciful, giving and kind person.
This is always expressed in conduct, in behaviour, in everyday life, in fulfilment of one’s responsibilities – in action.
This is a very important point, which is not recognized or understood as well as it deserves to be.
Per se, there is no fundamental difference between what enables a Man to go to heaven in India, and what enables a Man to go to heaven, in Monotheism.
It is being purely sāttvika which takes the Indian to heaven.
The sāttvika ideal is the Monotheistic ideal.
But Monotheism considers anything beyond the sāttvika ideal to be sacrilege.
It is “Satanism” – it is man equating himself to, or trying to be the equal of, God.
Mokṣa is thus, imminently, a “Satanic” ideal – because in the ultimate analysis, India recognizes no difference between the Ātman and Brahman.
There are, of course, various views in India, but this view has reigned supreme, as the most exalted.
But Monotheism’s idea of “self” or “soul” and “God” are not the same as that of India’s, so the misunderstanding has been tragic & devastating from the very beginning.
The Monotheistic “immortal soul” is NOT the Vedic Ātman, and the Monotheistic God is only loosely comparable to the Vedic Brahman or Parabrahm.
A proper understanding of terms would’ve helped avoid centuries of dispute & calumny & confusion.
To come back to the point about action and renunciation
– about the pursuit of heaven {or even higher realms than heaven} and the pursuit of Absolute Emancipation ...
The Ancient Indians glorified the Gṛhastha or Householder stage of life as the greatest, as that which supports all other stages, in which man marries, builds a household, has progeny, fulfils all duties towards family, friends & society, pays all debts even to his manes & the gods, enjoys life, enjoys wealth, enjoys sex – and THEN abandons it, to seek spiritual liberation from the cycle of birth & death.
He steadily progresses through an ever-increasing & ever-self-completing understanding of life – he progresses through a gradual, steady process of purification & enlightenment of body, speech and mind – slowly but surely into the phase of ascesis & renunciation.
The first two stages of life were both complete in themselves, and preparatory to the last two stages.
First, Action – then, Abstention.
First, the construction & nourishment of a great society – then, the spiritual freedom of the individual.
The abandonment of this delicate balance – between worldliness & renunciation – between a fulsome life which embraces all creation, and a deep spiritual striving to transcend time & space – seems to be a key feature in the debacle of Indian society.
An excessive focus on abandonment & renunciation – based on disgust for the world, intense pessimism & hopelessness – precisely led to what the Europeans branded “indifference”.
“Indifference” is the great murderer of fellow-feeling, compassion, kindness, and healthy action – of unity, fraternity, & creativity.
The Indian knows how NOT to do wrong, rather than TO DO good.
You do not hurt or violate – but you’re not involved or interested either.
Nobody & nothing is yours – nobody & nothing is permanent – nobody & nothing endures – the more this is drilled into the mind, the more you become apathetic & indifferent.
And how can the lack of involvement {read “action”}, and indifference to the sufferings & injustices around you, lead to the creation of a great society?
The Indian more than anybody else knows how to adjust to surroundings – to be content, to be stoical, to withdraw the mind & heart into oneself, to be resigned – but not to actively & dynamically change things for the better.
The Indian is a master in accepting the status quo and making the best of it – rather than changing the status quo.
You learn how to tolerate, how to put up with prolonged suffering and indignity, how to make heavy sacrifices and compromises.
Indians are masters in this: a psychic quality which has built up over several centuries, perhaps millennia.
The Indian somehow survives.
This comes from an excessive importance given to the Abnegation-Abstention ideal for centuries.
This was not always the case – but the texts make it very evident that this spirit of resignation, stoicism, abandonment, and withdrawal – became the revered ideal in India.
It is persistently branded into the mind, amidst voluptuous descriptions of unparalleled opulence & sensual enjoyment.
Alongside was always the ideal of self-denial, self-torture, self-immolation, self-abnegation – which finally led to the fakirs & the yogis cutting off their flesh in public, walking on hot coals, and sleeping on a bed of nails.
Can this be called a life?
From a purely individual point of view, it is a strange sort of triumph.
The {later} Sādhu, the Fakir, the {later} Yogi, is a mysterious & disturbing & fascinating phenomenon who stands completely beyond the pale of society – reveling in a morbid triumph of mind over matter – representing a grim contempt of the flesh by an immovable, resolute spirit – completely out of the reach of monarchies & revolutions, changes of empire & of regimes, beyond the control of kings & democracies, unconcerned with republics & dictators, uncontrollable by laws & constitutions, free of Church & Mosque & Temple.
Hence, everybody is disturbed by them, and yet, somewhere, everyone is compelled to respect them.
He who scorns the Fakir doesn’t realize that the Fakir’s whole life mocks him and everything he holds dear.
He doesn’t need your “development” – your “progress” – your “conquest over nature” – your railroads & aeroplanes – your “Rights” and rallies – your “Charity” and your compassion – your rocket-science and your “infinity and beyond” – your wars and your politics.
He just needs to be left alone.
He looks on with supreme indifference – if not contempt – as you enjoy and suffer, as you build and break, as you fight and fornicate, as you laugh and weep, as you live and die, as you argue & pry.
There is, btw, no lack of self-torturing ascetics in Monotheistic cultures – but how genuine they were, is not for me to say out here.
The Sufi ascetics seemed to possess some real wisdom and power, initiated into the ancient mysteries of the East – but nothing matches the strange, weird occult mystic-ascetic of India & Tibet.
And yet, this is also is a fundamentally unproductive ideal – which contributes nothing to the expansion, and abundance, and power & pride, of a society – and which seems to have overwhelmed India.
There is something sterile about the monk and the Fakir.
He knows neither family nor friends, neither kingdom nor race, neither ancestors nor descendants, neither prosperity nor poverty, neither history nor future.
The seeds of this psychic orientation, this mindset, can be seen in the Mahābhārata — the shadow of it can be felt even in the Upaniṣads – but it seems to have become a mass paranoia by the 15th-16th centuries CE.
Was it probably the only triumph left to Indians – this utter contempt of death & pain & harassment – this sheer indifference to failure & persecution, despair & hopelessness – reflected in acts of emotionless self-injury and public self-torture?
Did we become a society of Flagellants?
Did we enter a Dark Age?
It’s not easy to say, because India continued to be a rich society even under the Mughals, but, as far as the Hindu-Jains are concerned, a fundamentally uncreative one, whose sap – whose very deepest wellsprings –seemed to have dried up by the 16th century.
The creative fount, the sustaining power, the unifying energy – was gone.
There is absolutely nothing new, after the Vijayanagar Empire – if there ever was anything new in it.
This is a very complicated and lengthy topic, and really should not be discussed off-hand.
I think I’ve mentioned several salient points.
The purpose of this post was to share the refreshingly healthy and lofty moral ideal delineated in one chapter of the Padma Purāṇa.
It reveals that the ancient ideals of Vedic India rose like a shining mountain in full view of the later Indians, and they never really lost sight of the values of loving-kindness, compassion, and charitableness.
If you seek Heaven, you need to be a certain kind of person.
This chapter tells you what kind of person.
The translation is based on that made by Motilal Banarassidas Publishers.
1. “Those who follow dharma, with
· satya {truth, or truthfulness}
· tapas {askesis, or austerity}
· kṣānti {forgiveness, or peacefulness}
· dāna {charity}
· adhyāyana {study}
go to heaven.
2. Those high-souled ones
· who are ever enthusiastic about performing homas,
· who are devoted to reverencing the devas, and
· who those who approve of these,
go to heaven.
3. Those pure men who, seeking Viṣṇu as their highest refuge, study & sing (hymns about) Viṣṇu in pure places, go to heaven.
4. Those men who respectfully serve their mother and father...
5. Those who avoid sleep during the day...
6. Those who have renounced all forms of hiṃsā {i.e. harm, infliction of injury or pain, violence}...
7. Those who associate, or keep companionship with, the good/virtuous...
8. Those who are ever engaged in the welfare of all {sarva-hita-yukta}
9. Those who are free from greed {sarva-lobha-nivṛtta}
10. Those who help all {sarva-sāha}
11. Those who are like the refuge of all beings, or who give sanctuary to all {sarvasya-āśraya-bhūta}
12. Those who honour their elders {gurus} by means of service & penance...
{Tapas, here, probably doesn’t mean penance: the word tapas has been defined in many different ways.
The Bhagavad Gītā specifies 3 different types of tapas: that of the body, the speech, and the mind.
· “Worship of the Devas, the Dvijas {i.e. Brāhmaṇas}, the Gurus, and
the Prājñas {the knowers, the men of wisdom},
· Śauca {purity, cleanliness},
· Ārjava {uprightness, or rectitude, or straightforwardness, or simplicity},
· Brahmacharya {
· Ahiṃsā {non-violence, non-injury etc.}
– this is said to be the tapas of the body.”
· “The utterance of words that
¤ gives no offence, which are
¤ truthful (satya),
¤ pleasant (priya), &
¤ beneficial (hita), and
· regular recitation of the Veda (svādhyāya-abhyāsa)
– this is said to be the tapas of Speech.
· “Mana-prasāda {
· Saumaytva {
· Mauna {silence},
· Ātma-vinigraha {self-
· Bhāva-saṃśuddhi {
– this is tapas of the mind.
{B.G. 17.14-16}
Tapas could mean intelligence, wisdom, or knowledge, the sense being: those who serve their gurus devotedly & reverentially {śuśrūṣā}, and intelligently or thoughtfully {tapas}.
It’s also possible that since tapas generally means undergoing suffering, so the word may mean those who serve their gurus even by undergoing pain or difficulty.
The term Guru has also been defined in many subtle ways: “He is a Guru who is fully equipped with knowledge of the Veda, has excellent character, with senses under control.” Yama (Vīramitrodaya-Saṃskāra).
But we’re also told, by Devala in Aparārka:
‘
i) The sub-teacher
{perhaps what’s meant is upādhyāya, cf. Manusmṛti 2.141},
ii) the father,
iii) the elder brother,
iv) the king,
v) the maternal uncle,
vi) the father-in-law,
vii) the protector,
viii) the maternal & paternal grand-fathers,
ix) the uncle,
x) one of the superior caste,
—these are gurus among males.
i) The mother,
ii) the maternal & paternal grandmothers,
iii) the teacher’s wife,
iv) the uterine sisters
è of the father &
è of the mother,
v) the mother-in-law, and
vi) the elderly nurse,
—these are gurus among females.’
The above information is from the Commentary on Gagannatha Jha’s translation of the Manusmṛti.
In the relevant verse of the Padma Purāṇa, the word guru seems to have been used in this sense.
And now, returning to the list in the P.P. itself}
13. Those who reject any gift or donation.
{Peculiar injunction! in that there’s such enormous stress on giving charity, especially to Brāhmaṇas, who had no salaried jobs or proper employment, and who were completely dependent for their existence on such donations.
It is one of the great paradoxes and curiosities of Indian literature that Kings are repeatedly exhorted to give donations to Brāhmaṇas, but Brāhmaṇas are discouraged from taking such donations.
Generally though, this is very good advice.
From a strictly realistic point of view, taking charity is not a good thing.
In a certain sense, it enslaves you to the giver.
You are indebted, and the debt hangs on your head like a burden.
And even once you’ve paid your debt, you can never shake off the feeling that you’re somehow permanently beholden to the person who gave you something in exchange of nothing.
From a broader perspective, the fact that a group of people expects to be given things for free, is itself an unhealthy phenomenon.}
14. Those who clothe {or give garments to} thousands...
15. Those give {in or to} thousands...
16. Those who protect, or give refuge to, or save thousands {“trātāraśca sahasrāṇāṃ”}...
17. Those who free men from
· fear {bhaya}
· sin {pāpa}
· sorrow {śoka}
· distress or anguish {ātapa}
· wretchedness {dāridra}
and who release from {vimuṃca} {deprivation and disease} those who are emaciated because of poverty & disease {vyādhi-karśita},
go to heaven.
{How is this not Charity and “Agape”?
How can one be motivated, or inspired to do so, without Agape?}
18. ...Those wise young men,
who are like unto Brahman {the original says ātmasvarūpa},
who, though they be tender in years, have mastered their senses {jitendriya},
go to heaven.
{Cf. Manusmṛti 2.150: “The Brāhmaṇa, who brings about his Vedic birth, and teaches him his duty,—even though he be a mere child,—becomes in law the father of the old man (whom he teaches).”
Gautama-Dharmasūtra, 6.22-23: ‘Learning is superior to all; since it forms the very basis of Dharma.’}
19. ... Those men who give cows, gold, land, food, & clothes, go to heaven.
20. Those men
· who are delighted when implored, and
· who speak sweet words after having given what was asked for,
and
· who have given up the fruit of what is given,
go to heaven.
21. Those men who themselves create/make/generate houses, grains, and heroes, and give them to others, go to heaven.
22. Those men who never speak about the faults even of their enemies, and indeed, describe their virtues, go to heaven.
23. Those men who are not afflicted by jealousy on seeing the wealth of others, but are delighted, and congratulate them, go to heaven.
24. Those men of lofty spirit, who abide by the rules of the Shruti {i.e. the Vedas} and the Shāstras, while pursuing the path of Pravṛtti {i.e. the path of engaging in action} or Nivṛtti {i.e. abstention from action}, go to heaven.
25. Those men who never speak words that are not affectionate to people, but utter only loving words, go to heaven.
26. Those men who, even though afflicted by hunger, thirst and exhaustion, share {their food} with others, and make offerings to guests, go to heaven.
27. Those men who construct
· reservoirs of water {vāpi}
· wells {kūpa}, &
· water-booths {taḍāga},
for travellers, houses, and gardens,
go to heaven.
{This is particularly important in a swelteringly, blisteringly hot country like India. Indian literature is rife with references to long-distance travels of men, most probably traders, and the separation pangs felt by them and their wives {or female lovers}.
Given the importance of tīrthas, or pilgrimages – people were compelled by religion to get out of the confines of their village or town, expand their horizons, travel, visit & see a lot of new places, get a change of environment, a breath of fresh air.
Pilgrimages did serve several purposes: women, for instance, who were confined to their houses, got to travel to distant kingdoms and cities, and see the world.
Watering-houses, pools to bathe in, and places where you could slake your thirst, would be very important, to tired, weary pilgrims.
Everything was thought out very clearly.}
28. Those men who are
· truthful with the untruthful,
· honest with the dishonest {or behave with rectitude/are
straightforward, with those who are crooked},
· friendly even with their enemies,
go to heaven.”
