Isvara or Issara(in Pali)
Over a long history, Hindu understanding and worship of the invisible divine sensed around and within them developed from early praise and sacrifice offered to a network of radiant beings or devas, to a more focused devotion to a single, supreme, personal deva, praised as Īśvara ("The Lord"). The term īśvara, (from the Sanskrit root īś-, “to rule,” “own,” “be powerful”) came to be the chief term in Indian philosophy and religion for “God", in the sense of a single all powerful, all-knowing ruler, who creates, maintains, and destroys the world. Even so, this Hindu term is not identical to the Western monotheistic sense of God, for it contains a history which has produced a view of the Lord, balanced between impersonal and personal concepts, in a context which assumes a multiplicity of divine powers.
Thou, at birth, O Agni, are Varuṇa
when kindled thou doest become Mitra
in thee, O son of strength, all gods are centered,
to the worshipper thou does become Indra. (ṚV. 5.3.1.)
And further in Ṛgveda 1.164.46: “In many ways the priests speak of that which is but one; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan” (Keith, 1925, 88).
The tendencies to view the devas as tightly interrelated, even to blur their individual identities, and from time to time to elevate whichever deva was being addressed as supreme did not imply that they were all equal. Although all devas were divine, some were clearly more important and more frequently invoked, such as Indra (the most popular), Agni, Soma, and Varuṇa, important building blocks in the growing concept of divinity.
Though they have relatively fewer hymns, early “creator gods” also provided suitable nuclei around which the concept of a kind of proto-Īśvara began to form. The “Universal Architect,” Viśvakarman, is called the One God (eka deva), "Father" (pitṛ, janitṛ),"Creator" (dātṛ), "Arranger" (vidātṛ), "Supreme" (param), "Bountiful Lord" (maghavan sūri), "Lord of Speech" (vācaspati), and characterized as omnipotent and omniscient (viśvacakṣur uta viśvatomukho viśvatobāhur viśvatspāt, i.e. "having eyes, mouths, arms, and feet everywhere"; ṚV. 10.81-82). While Ṛgveda 10.121 extols the primordial being called Prajāpati (“The Lord of Progeny”) in the highest terms: “the only lord of created beings present at the beginning.” He commands all, even the gods, and is called the sole king of the world, owning the universe, the supreme god. (ṚV. 10.121.8). Even more important for later thought is the being called Puruṣa (“The Person”) in Ṛgveda 10.90. He is omniscient and omnipresent lord, identified with the unfolding universe, yet also transcendent to it in the form of a macrocosmic person, devoid of personality, the abstract personification of vedic sacrifice ( yajña ). Manifest creation here is seen as the result of the sacrificial dismembering of this unmanifest cosmic being, later (in the Brāhmaṇas) identified with Prajāpati, “The Lord of Progeny".
The term Īśvara is used for the first time in the latest collection of vedic hymns, the Atharvaveda. Here the term is applied to the god Agni (“Fire”), Vāyu (“Wind”), Prāṇa (“Life Energy”) and Kāla (“Time”) - all later associated with the supreme God, Rudra-Śiva, also called Maheśvara (“Great Lord”). Even so, the term Īśāna is still the most common term around which the vedic hymns are developing a vision of a supreme Lord, often connected with visionary practices and yogic disciplines such as Atharvaveda 15, where a wandering divine ascetic grows to become the great god and lord of the gods.
The vedic hymns show a great diversity and multiplicity of gods and a confusing array of power and myth. The chief of the devas, Indra, though the recipient of the most hymns, never develops into a supreme Īśvara. As the vedic cult of sacrifice grows, the earlier figure of the Prājapati, who symbolizes the power of sacrifice and by extension of priests, grows in an abstract way, beyond Indra and the popular vedic gods. The corpus of revealed priestly books, the Brāhmaṇas, explaining sacrifice and the meaning of the cryptic myths, shows us a priestly algebra of equivalences in which Prājapati as the mysterious power of sacrifice, is equated to the primordial person (Puruṣa) and all the major gods, the universe and the transcendent immensity beyond, brahman , the absolute. In this priestly literature, Prajāpati is the undisputed Lord, yet his depleting self-sacrifice always puts him in need of priestly replenishment. In elevating sacrifice they are, perhaps, in effect, elevating man as priest, as the decisive actor in the universe, sustaining that which sustains all. Yet what is the essence of human priestcraft? Repeatedly the Brāhmaṇas assert that it is knowledge which is the sine qua non of sacrifice – without requisite knowing there is no effect from the rituals. It is left to the next and even more inward strand of vedic literature, the Upaniṣads, to explore the power of knowledge, as the Brāhmaṇas explored the act of sacrifice.
In the Bhagavadgītā we also see a poetic amalgamation of all possibilities, the ambiguous mix of pantheism, monism, dualism, and personal theism. However, here the god’s personality becomes more distinct, dramatically human, and the bhakti, mentioned but once in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad is detailed out for the first time into a complete path of salvation, a “yoga” preferred over the paths of knowledge (jñāna) or works (karman), yet still closely related to them as well.
The poem (or song) in 18 chapters calls itself an Upaniṣad and a yoga-text, but presents its discourse in the form of a dialogue between the Pāṇḍava general, Arjuna, and his charioteer, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who happens to be an avatāra of the supreme divinity – Īśvara, himself, in human form. That the Bhagavadgītā presents itself as the personal advice spoken by the Lord in the temporary role of a charioteer to an old friend could not contrast more with the upanishadic declarations of the sage Śvetāśvatara. The situation itself intensifies the experience of divine personality. Beyond the dramatic and very human situation, the Lord here has more to balance than just his natures as both cosmic monarch and ātman/brahman – Kṛṣṇa has taken on human form and nature as well. Until a god has taken on the “two-armed form” of human life it is very doubtful as to whether he or she can be a personal god in the fully appealing sense of the term. Having heads, and hands and feet everywhere (as early vedic gods such as Puruṣa, the cosmic person, are described) conveys power and all-pervasiveness, but taking human birth and social roles – driving a friend’s chariot into battle, exhorting him, chiding him, reasoning, praising, and smiling (in addition to cosmic majesty and transcendental wisdom one might expect of the supreme) creates a personal god to whom persons, not just ascetic philosophers, can relate.
The breakthrough in the conception of deity in the Bhagavadgītā is the developing avatāra doctrine in which a high god may “descend” in a visible material form to delight and save his devotees and restore cosmic balance. For example, in the fourth chapter of the Bhagavadgītā Lord Kṛṣṇa declares:
"I have known many past births, and so have you, Arjuna. I remember them all, while you do not, enemy-burner. Although I am unborn and imperishable, although I am lord of the creatures [bhūtānam īśvaro], I do resort to nature [prakṛtim svām], which is mine, and take on birth by my own wizardry [ātmamāyayā]. For whenever the Law [dharma] languishes, Bharata, and lawlessness flourishes, I create myself. I take on existence from eon to eon, for the rescue of good and the destruction of evil, in order to reestablish the Law. (BhG. 4.5-8; trans. van Buitenen, 1981, 87)
Kṛṣṇa, however, is not only the foundation of brahman, and the person beyond the universe who rules it, he is also the pantheistic divinity immanent throughout it. Is the Lord to be thought of then as personal or impersonal?
Kṛṣṇa goes on to explain that the impersonal conception of deity and the meditative path of knowledge to realize it requires greater toil, while the bhakti approach brings salvation quickly (BhG. 12.1-5). Bhakti is clearly held up as supreme - the path to salvation which seems to crown the cumulative tradition. Kṛṣṇa reveals himself to be more than the universe, that in which the universe, the totality rests (BhG. 7.12; 9.4), and still blatantly, victoriously personal. In a period of religious and political upheaval, the Bhagavadgītā offers a transvaluation of the old values, a personal God approached primarily through a spiritual discipline of love and surrender, available to all facets of society, yet firmly upholding the stratified social order.
Īśvara, as Kṛṣṇa, is socially present, a prince of an earthly clan, and personally approachable – yet when he gives the vision of his true universal form (BhG. 11), even the warrior Arjuna begs him to withdraw it, such is its impersonal, awesome, and terrifying impact. This bhakti has both the feel of devotionalism, fervid and warm, yet its yogic heart remains tranquil and cool.
The tendency already noted to penetrate the multiplicity of appearance by finding key equivalences develops in the Mahābhārata in the doctrine of avatāras (descents) and vyūhas (expansions). The supreme deity’s ability to descend to earth in different concrete forms and personalities (ten main avatāras) and to express himself in four divine expansions, vyūhas (noted in the Narāyaṇīya section, chs. 335-352, of the Mokṣadharma, book 12 of the MBh.), allows for the consolidation of a wide range of sects and deities, mythic heroes and sages under the worship of Viṣṇu including: Nārāyaṇa, Hari, Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa (of many forms), Nara, Saṃkarṣana, Pradhyumna, Rāma, Puruṣa, Kapila, and so on.
Though less prone to use avatāras, Rudra-Śiva similarly consolidates such vedic deities as Prajāpati, Puruṣa, Agni, and Vāyu, and by incarnation Lakulīśa, and includes in his family many other divinities as his wives (Durgā, Pārvatī, Kālī) or children (Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya). In the later Upaniṣads and especially the Purāṇas, sectarian encyclopedias of the myths, rituals, and doctrines of major gods and goddesses, Viṣṇu and Śiva are each vividly adored as exclusive “Supreme Lord,” Parameśvara.
As popular sectarianism rises to become synthesized with the Brahmanical tradition, the focus of devotion, Īśvara, becomes increasingly concrete and anthropomorphic (influence from Mediterranean and Persian traditions, though difficult to document, is a clear possibility). The protection and boons graciously bestowed on the bhakta by his chosen Lord become important themes. The later Purāṇas emphasize the increasing availability and popularity of temples and famous pilgrimage centers, recitation and hearing of sacred texts, as well as the practices of repeating and meditating on Īśvara’s divine name (japa), preeminently the sacred syllable oṃ . From around the 6th to the 9th centuries in South India the enthusiastic missionaries known as Āl̠vārs and Nāyāṉars sing, dance, and debate their way into great prominence, imparting a new personal and emotional intensity to the understanding of bhakti and Īsvara. In the North saints such as Nimbārka, Rāmānanda, Kabīr, Caitanya, and Vallabha focus religion on devotional worship of one Lord. Even so, the flip side of the devotional coin, the impersonal aspect of divinity, the inevitable baggage of the upanishadic brahman/ātman concept is still a powerful element that maintains a certain ambivalence in the understanding of divinity, and a cool anchoring depth for the agitated surface of devotional fervor. The main philosophical challenge in conceptualizing Īśvara was in reconciling these two sides of the Hindu revelation while refuting the nontheistic views of Buddhists, Jains, and materialist philosophy.
Sāṃkhya, (“Calculation,” based in the Sāṃkhyakārīkā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa, c. 400 CE), arguably the oldest, explains the world through a strict impersonal dualism of matter ( prakṛti ) and consciousness ( puruṣa ). Like Jain and Buddhist philosophies, Sāṃkhya does not reject the existence of limited gods, who make their way through the rounds of birth and rebirth ( saṃsāra ) according to their actions, like all other beings. Given the operation of the cosmic law of karman , there is simply no need to postulate Īśvara as moral regulator, creator, maintainer, or destroyer. Yoga (based in Yogasūtra of Patañjali, 450 CE), however, which uses Sāṃkhya ontology, does speak of Īśvara, though only as a template of pure consciousness, whose invoking sound, oṃ, makes the ideal medium to calm the mind for meditation. Later commentaries, influenced by the rising tide of Hindu Īśvara bhakti, tend to elaborate the rare mentions of the Lord in Yoga into a more anthropomorphic theism. Buddhist thought, though early on rejecting a supreme god (Pal. Issara) and relying only on individual effort, in time also develops a place in the Mahāyāna movement for bhakti to sublime divine beings such as bodhisattvas, cosmic buddhas (such as Avalokiteśvara and Amitābha) who do function as analogues to supreme personal savior gods in Hinduism. Jainism, an Indian religion even more ancient than Buddhism, also developed a enthusiastic place for bhakti to their array of parameṣṭhins (“supreme beings”), humans who have achieved highest consciousness. Even so, worship of these tīrthaṅkaras (“ford crossers”) and arhats (“noble ones”), though it has the prayerful look of Īśvara bhakti in temples and homes, does not allow for the existence of any single personal creator, maintainer, destroyer deity. As in early Buddhism, the goal is an impersonal state of consciousness beyond ignorance and suffering, based on one’s own action.
The philosophical analysis of ritual action in Pūrvamīmāṃsā, (based in the Mīmāṃsāsūtra of Jaimini, c. 200 BCE-200 CE), also finds no reason to support Īśvara. Here natural law, dharma , in the form of the vedic injunctions takes the place of any divine agent, creator, or moral governor of the universe. Action (karman) is understood to naturally generate an unseen potency, apūrva, which determines the consequences of action for all agents automatically, without the need to postulate any personal god in charge.
Nyāya (“logic,” based in the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama) and Vaiśeṣika (a kind of proto-scientific atomic realism; based in the Vaiśeṣikasūtra of Kaṇāda Kāśyapa) schools, (c. 300-350 CE) have no early place for Īśvara as well. Later commentaries, however, such as that of the Śaiva Udayana (c. 11th cent. CE), defend the concept of Īśvara, as the bodiless agent who acts to combine and dissolve the basic atoms of the universe. He is understood as the source of Veda and all spiritual knowledge, an omniscient, compassionate father. Even so, he is not the creator ex nihilo, for both souls and atoms are understood as eternal, and in enforcing morality he is strictly bound by the karman of all beings. Again we find a rather impersonal, personal deity.
The last and most prestigious orthodox Hindu worldview, Vedānta, (based in the Upaniṣads and their doctrines, summarized in the Vedāntasūtra of Badarāyana) preserves, in its many schools, the ongoing debate about the personal and/or impersonal nature of Īśvara in complex and flexible ways. The oldest school, that of Śaṅkara (c. 800 CE), takes the inherent tension between impersonal and personal conceptions of god into account in an ingenious way that recognizes the integrity of both, while asserting the ontological priority of the impersonal absolute. To do this, Śaṅkara’s nondual (advaita) worldview establishes two levels of truth, absolute and relative: (a) higher brahman (godhead, not God) is the ultimate reality, being-consciousness-bliss beyond subject/object differentiation or any other distinction or quality, and (b) lower brahman, the manifold world of names and forms perceived due to ignorance ( avidyā ). Here Īśvara is understood as higher brahman perceived through ignorance – as real as everything else on its own level, but not the ultimate truth. Īśvara and bhakti do have an important role in removing ignorance and thus helping the apparently individualized soul back to the ultimate experience of its true nondual identity.
Later Vedānta philosophers strove to give more importance to Īśvara and religious worship with a qualified nondualism (viśiṣṭādvaita): Rāmānuja’s (1017-1137 CE) qualified non-dualism, argued for brahman as a whole made of eternally distinct parts: Īśvara, souls, and the material world. As the soul inhabits the body, so Īśvara inhabits the material universe and rules souls as the soul of the souls, from within. For Rāmānuja the importance of worship and devotion to Īśvara is clearly the vital element in salvation, underscoring sectarian differences, only intensified by later Vedānta thinkers, such as Madhva (1238-1317 CE) and Vallabha (1481-1533 CE). Understanding Īśvara as exclusive and supreme Lord, eternally distinct from individual souls, emphasizes the Lord’s sovereignty and the importance of surrender to his grace, a central thread in the development of most Hindu religious sects, both Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva, to the present day.
Īśvara in the Vedic Hymns and Priestly Books
The earliest written record, the hymns of the Ṛgveda, praise a wide variety of shining powers of nature, which are seen as personal such that they are offered food and drink, and are described as wearing clothing, fighting, driving chariots, procreating, and so on. However, they are not always anthropomorphic, and are often identified with natural objects, powers and forces, animal forms, or abstract concepts. Several are described as all-knowing, and unlike human persons they can be invisible and ubiquitous. There is a general tendency to treat the individual god being eulogized in any particular hymn as the supreme or most important god, superior to all the rest and wielding not a few of the powers and characteristics usually associated with others. In these earliest hymns there is not even one reference to the term Īśvara or Lord. The related terms Īśāna or Īśa (“Master,” “Ruler”) are used for such deities as the universal sovereign Varuṇa, guarding cosmic order, Agni, god of fire, Indra, lightning hurling leader of the gods, Puruṣa, the cosmic person, Soma, the drink of immortality, and Savitṛ, the illuminating sun. Though none of these are supreme personal deities, one can see the concept developing. The early vedic view suggests something more like a divine ecosystem, an interdependent web of divinity, in which the devas are somewhere between discrete persons and functional powers or facets of a greater whole, a greater person, whose individuality, despite the underlying unity of his parts, is also ambiguous. So in the Ṛgveda, it is said of the priestly deva, Agni,Thou, at birth, O Agni, are Varuṇa
when kindled thou doest become Mitra
in thee, O son of strength, all gods are centered,
to the worshipper thou does become Indra. (ṚV. 5.3.1.)
And further in Ṛgveda 1.164.46: “In many ways the priests speak of that which is but one; they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan” (Keith, 1925, 88).
The tendencies to view the devas as tightly interrelated, even to blur their individual identities, and from time to time to elevate whichever deva was being addressed as supreme did not imply that they were all equal. Although all devas were divine, some were clearly more important and more frequently invoked, such as Indra (the most popular), Agni, Soma, and Varuṇa, important building blocks in the growing concept of divinity.
Though they have relatively fewer hymns, early “creator gods” also provided suitable nuclei around which the concept of a kind of proto-Īśvara began to form. The “Universal Architect,” Viśvakarman, is called the One God (eka deva), "Father" (pitṛ, janitṛ),"Creator" (dātṛ), "Arranger" (vidātṛ), "Supreme" (param), "Bountiful Lord" (maghavan sūri), "Lord of Speech" (vācaspati), and characterized as omnipotent and omniscient (viśvacakṣur uta viśvatomukho viśvatobāhur viśvatspāt, i.e. "having eyes, mouths, arms, and feet everywhere"; ṚV. 10.81-82). While Ṛgveda 10.121 extols the primordial being called Prajāpati (“The Lord of Progeny”) in the highest terms: “the only lord of created beings present at the beginning.” He commands all, even the gods, and is called the sole king of the world, owning the universe, the supreme god. (ṚV. 10.121.8). Even more important for later thought is the being called Puruṣa (“The Person”) in Ṛgveda 10.90. He is omniscient and omnipresent lord, identified with the unfolding universe, yet also transcendent to it in the form of a macrocosmic person, devoid of personality, the abstract personification of vedic sacrifice ( yajña ). Manifest creation here is seen as the result of the sacrificial dismembering of this unmanifest cosmic being, later (in the Brāhmaṇas) identified with Prajāpati, “The Lord of Progeny".
The term Īśvara is used for the first time in the latest collection of vedic hymns, the Atharvaveda. Here the term is applied to the god Agni (“Fire”), Vāyu (“Wind”), Prāṇa (“Life Energy”) and Kāla (“Time”) - all later associated with the supreme God, Rudra-Śiva, also called Maheśvara (“Great Lord”). Even so, the term Īśāna is still the most common term around which the vedic hymns are developing a vision of a supreme Lord, often connected with visionary practices and yogic disciplines such as Atharvaveda 15, where a wandering divine ascetic grows to become the great god and lord of the gods.
The vedic hymns show a great diversity and multiplicity of gods and a confusing array of power and myth. The chief of the devas, Indra, though the recipient of the most hymns, never develops into a supreme Īśvara. As the vedic cult of sacrifice grows, the earlier figure of the Prājapati, who symbolizes the power of sacrifice and by extension of priests, grows in an abstract way, beyond Indra and the popular vedic gods. The corpus of revealed priestly books, the Brāhmaṇas, explaining sacrifice and the meaning of the cryptic myths, shows us a priestly algebra of equivalences in which Prājapati as the mysterious power of sacrifice, is equated to the primordial person (Puruṣa) and all the major gods, the universe and the transcendent immensity beyond, brahman , the absolute. In this priestly literature, Prajāpati is the undisputed Lord, yet his depleting self-sacrifice always puts him in need of priestly replenishment. In elevating sacrifice they are, perhaps, in effect, elevating man as priest, as the decisive actor in the universe, sustaining that which sustains all. Yet what is the essence of human priestcraft? Repeatedly the Brāhmaṇas assert that it is knowledge which is the sine qua non of sacrifice – without requisite knowing there is no effect from the rituals. It is left to the next and even more inward strand of vedic literature, the Upaniṣads, to explore the power of knowledge, as the Brāhmaṇas explored the act of sacrifice.
Īśvara in the Upaniṣads
Doubts and questions about efficacy of sacrifice in assuring salvation began to preoccupy some priests and ascetics in troubling times (c. 800 CE). The intellectual center of gravity moved to those successful hermits who through direct experience fathomed the inner connections between the external world and the internal person. The teachings revealing the fruits of the austerities ( tapas ) and yogic meditation of these sages were handed down to their closest disciples as “esoteric knowledge"(upaniṣad): in which the ultimate substrate of the objective universe, brahman, and the unchanging abstract core of the subjective person, ātman , were described, analogized, and finally equated to one another. In the early Upaniṣads (c. 800 BCE) this tended to de-emphasize any focus or development of a supreme theistic divinity in favor of realizing ones impersonal spiritual essence as ātman/brahman. In this period the vedic gods were seen as superhuman but limited creatures subject like all other souls to the impersonal moral law of action and reaction, karman . Doubtlessly on the village and popular level theistic thinking continued to develop. However in the later Upaniṣads, from about 500 BCE, the concept of Īśvara emerges fully. In the Kaṭhopaniṣad even the knowledge of the ātman is said to be based on the grace of the creator rather than instruction or learning (KaṭhU. 2.20-23). Finally in Śvetāśvataropaniṣad personal and impersonal conceptions of divinity coalesce into Īśvara as a single, supreme, gracious, personal god. Here Rudra, “The Howler,” the fierce vedic storm god (also known in propitiation as Śiva, “The Kind One”) whose cult has continued to grow, is said to create the world, pervade it, and indwell humans as their soul, ruling all. Rudra is now identified with every significant previous conception of divinity and is seen as creator, protector, and destroyer of the universe. Moreover, there is now exuberant talk for the first time in an Indian text of bhakti to a supreme and unique personal god. Though he is Lord of the external world, it is the knowing of the Lord in meditation as the inner soul that brings ultimate liberation. This is still an impersonal salvation with a veneer of personalism, a perfume of devotionalism. In effect this represents a synthesis of early upanishadic “pantheism” and growing popular devotional theism, rather than the celebration of a personal Lord “totally other” and separate from the world and the souls of his creatures. Hindu theism is born in mysticism and meditation and never looses its characteristic inwardness.Īśvara in the Bhagavadgītā
Rudra-Śiva was not the only vedic nucleus around which a bhakti-oriented cult began to form. The vedic god Viṣṇu, noted for his three great strides, his all-pervasive nature and his identification with the sacrifice merged with the popular cults of Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa, and Nārāyaṇa in time to become the other principle divinity to whom the term Īśvara was applied. The text that most closely parallels the exaltation of Rudra in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad and develops the concept of Īśvara even further in the direction of a vividly personal Lord is the section of the Mahābhārata epic know as the Bhagavadgītā . The Bhagavadgītā, (at least in its oldest strata) dates back approximately to the time of the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad (c. 200 BCE).In the Bhagavadgītā we also see a poetic amalgamation of all possibilities, the ambiguous mix of pantheism, monism, dualism, and personal theism. However, here the god’s personality becomes more distinct, dramatically human, and the bhakti, mentioned but once in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad is detailed out for the first time into a complete path of salvation, a “yoga” preferred over the paths of knowledge (jñāna) or works (karman), yet still closely related to them as well.
The poem (or song) in 18 chapters calls itself an Upaniṣad and a yoga-text, but presents its discourse in the form of a dialogue between the Pāṇḍava general, Arjuna, and his charioteer, Lord Kṛṣṇa, who happens to be an avatāra of the supreme divinity – Īśvara, himself, in human form. That the Bhagavadgītā presents itself as the personal advice spoken by the Lord in the temporary role of a charioteer to an old friend could not contrast more with the upanishadic declarations of the sage Śvetāśvatara. The situation itself intensifies the experience of divine personality. Beyond the dramatic and very human situation, the Lord here has more to balance than just his natures as both cosmic monarch and ātman/brahman – Kṛṣṇa has taken on human form and nature as well. Until a god has taken on the “two-armed form” of human life it is very doubtful as to whether he or she can be a personal god in the fully appealing sense of the term. Having heads, and hands and feet everywhere (as early vedic gods such as Puruṣa, the cosmic person, are described) conveys power and all-pervasiveness, but taking human birth and social roles – driving a friend’s chariot into battle, exhorting him, chiding him, reasoning, praising, and smiling (in addition to cosmic majesty and transcendental wisdom one might expect of the supreme) creates a personal god to whom persons, not just ascetic philosophers, can relate.
The breakthrough in the conception of deity in the Bhagavadgītā is the developing avatāra doctrine in which a high god may “descend” in a visible material form to delight and save his devotees and restore cosmic balance. For example, in the fourth chapter of the Bhagavadgītā Lord Kṛṣṇa declares:
"I have known many past births, and so have you, Arjuna. I remember them all, while you do not, enemy-burner. Although I am unborn and imperishable, although I am lord of the creatures [bhūtānam īśvaro], I do resort to nature [prakṛtim svām], which is mine, and take on birth by my own wizardry [ātmamāyayā]. For whenever the Law [dharma] languishes, Bharata, and lawlessness flourishes, I create myself. I take on existence from eon to eon, for the rescue of good and the destruction of evil, in order to reestablish the Law. (BhG. 4.5-8; trans. van Buitenen, 1981, 87)
Kṛṣṇa, however, is not only the foundation of brahman, and the person beyond the universe who rules it, he is also the pantheistic divinity immanent throughout it. Is the Lord to be thought of then as personal or impersonal?
Kṛṣṇa goes on to explain that the impersonal conception of deity and the meditative path of knowledge to realize it requires greater toil, while the bhakti approach brings salvation quickly (BhG. 12.1-5). Bhakti is clearly held up as supreme - the path to salvation which seems to crown the cumulative tradition. Kṛṣṇa reveals himself to be more than the universe, that in which the universe, the totality rests (BhG. 7.12; 9.4), and still blatantly, victoriously personal. In a period of religious and political upheaval, the Bhagavadgītā offers a transvaluation of the old values, a personal God approached primarily through a spiritual discipline of love and surrender, available to all facets of society, yet firmly upholding the stratified social order.
Īśvara, as Kṛṣṇa, is socially present, a prince of an earthly clan, and personally approachable – yet when he gives the vision of his true universal form (BhG. 11), even the warrior Arjuna begs him to withdraw it, such is its impersonal, awesome, and terrifying impact. This bhakti has both the feel of devotionalism, fervid and warm, yet its yogic heart remains tranquil and cool.
Īśvara Bhakti in the Epics, later Upaniṣads and Purāṇas
While the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad and the Bhagavadgītā represent important milestones in the development of the conception of a personal god, their gods, as we have seen, retain much of the impersonal absolute of the early Upaniṣads, and can be seen in themselves as more universal, inclusive conceptions of deity, not yet primarily sectarian. In the gradual rise of Vaiṣṇavism and Śaivism, we find a narrower, exclusive conception of Īśvara, which appropriates the previous forms and conceptions of divinity, whether from the vedic tradition or the popular folk-religion, for its own purposes, as witnessed by the epics, the later Upaniṣads, and early Purāṇas. Religious histories of India document the rise of the cult’s of two major early gods, who surpass and absorb the wide range of vedic and popular deities, something like the way major rivers grow from their local tributaries. Over time Hindu conceptualizations of the plethora of divine powers get gathered into the cult of just two Īśvara figures, that of Rudra-Śiva and Viṣṇu-Kṛṣṇa. They both grow historically by amalgamation.The tendency already noted to penetrate the multiplicity of appearance by finding key equivalences develops in the Mahābhārata in the doctrine of avatāras (descents) and vyūhas (expansions). The supreme deity’s ability to descend to earth in different concrete forms and personalities (ten main avatāras) and to express himself in four divine expansions, vyūhas (noted in the Narāyaṇīya section, chs. 335-352, of the Mokṣadharma, book 12 of the MBh.), allows for the consolidation of a wide range of sects and deities, mythic heroes and sages under the worship of Viṣṇu including: Nārāyaṇa, Hari, Vāsudeva, Kṛṣṇa (of many forms), Nara, Saṃkarṣana, Pradhyumna, Rāma, Puruṣa, Kapila, and so on.
Though less prone to use avatāras, Rudra-Śiva similarly consolidates such vedic deities as Prajāpati, Puruṣa, Agni, and Vāyu, and by incarnation Lakulīśa, and includes in his family many other divinities as his wives (Durgā, Pārvatī, Kālī) or children (Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya). In the later Upaniṣads and especially the Purāṇas, sectarian encyclopedias of the myths, rituals, and doctrines of major gods and goddesses, Viṣṇu and Śiva are each vividly adored as exclusive “Supreme Lord,” Parameśvara.
As popular sectarianism rises to become synthesized with the Brahmanical tradition, the focus of devotion, Īśvara, becomes increasingly concrete and anthropomorphic (influence from Mediterranean and Persian traditions, though difficult to document, is a clear possibility). The protection and boons graciously bestowed on the bhakta by his chosen Lord become important themes. The later Purāṇas emphasize the increasing availability and popularity of temples and famous pilgrimage centers, recitation and hearing of sacred texts, as well as the practices of repeating and meditating on Īśvara’s divine name (japa), preeminently the sacred syllable oṃ . From around the 6th to the 9th centuries in South India the enthusiastic missionaries known as Āl̠vārs and Nāyāṉars sing, dance, and debate their way into great prominence, imparting a new personal and emotional intensity to the understanding of bhakti and Īsvara. In the North saints such as Nimbārka, Rāmānanda, Kabīr, Caitanya, and Vallabha focus religion on devotional worship of one Lord. Even so, the flip side of the devotional coin, the impersonal aspect of divinity, the inevitable baggage of the upanishadic brahman/ātman concept is still a powerful element that maintains a certain ambivalence in the understanding of divinity, and a cool anchoring depth for the agitated surface of devotional fervor. The main philosophical challenge in conceptualizing Īśvara was in reconciling these two sides of the Hindu revelation while refuting the nontheistic views of Buddhists, Jains, and materialist philosophy.
Īśvara in Indian Philosophy
Orthodox Indian philosophy is traditionally limited to the six worldviews (darśanas), which accept and build on vedic revelation: Sāṃkhya and Yoga, Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika, Mīmāṃsa and Vedānta. Of these, four, much like the competing nonorthodox philosophies of Buddhism, Jainism, and materialism (Lokāyata), reject the concept of Īśvara.Sāṃkhya, (“Calculation,” based in the Sāṃkhyakārīkā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa, c. 400 CE), arguably the oldest, explains the world through a strict impersonal dualism of matter ( prakṛti ) and consciousness ( puruṣa ). Like Jain and Buddhist philosophies, Sāṃkhya does not reject the existence of limited gods, who make their way through the rounds of birth and rebirth ( saṃsāra ) according to their actions, like all other beings. Given the operation of the cosmic law of karman , there is simply no need to postulate Īśvara as moral regulator, creator, maintainer, or destroyer. Yoga (based in Yogasūtra of Patañjali, 450 CE), however, which uses Sāṃkhya ontology, does speak of Īśvara, though only as a template of pure consciousness, whose invoking sound, oṃ, makes the ideal medium to calm the mind for meditation. Later commentaries, influenced by the rising tide of Hindu Īśvara bhakti, tend to elaborate the rare mentions of the Lord in Yoga into a more anthropomorphic theism. Buddhist thought, though early on rejecting a supreme god (Pal. Issara) and relying only on individual effort, in time also develops a place in the Mahāyāna movement for bhakti to sublime divine beings such as bodhisattvas, cosmic buddhas (such as Avalokiteśvara and Amitābha) who do function as analogues to supreme personal savior gods in Hinduism. Jainism, an Indian religion even more ancient than Buddhism, also developed a enthusiastic place for bhakti to their array of parameṣṭhins (“supreme beings”), humans who have achieved highest consciousness. Even so, worship of these tīrthaṅkaras (“ford crossers”) and arhats (“noble ones”), though it has the prayerful look of Īśvara bhakti in temples and homes, does not allow for the existence of any single personal creator, maintainer, destroyer deity. As in early Buddhism, the goal is an impersonal state of consciousness beyond ignorance and suffering, based on one’s own action.
The philosophical analysis of ritual action in Pūrvamīmāṃsā, (based in the Mīmāṃsāsūtra of Jaimini, c. 200 BCE-200 CE), also finds no reason to support Īśvara. Here natural law, dharma , in the form of the vedic injunctions takes the place of any divine agent, creator, or moral governor of the universe. Action (karman) is understood to naturally generate an unseen potency, apūrva, which determines the consequences of action for all agents automatically, without the need to postulate any personal god in charge.
Nyāya (“logic,” based in the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama) and Vaiśeṣika (a kind of proto-scientific atomic realism; based in the Vaiśeṣikasūtra of Kaṇāda Kāśyapa) schools, (c. 300-350 CE) have no early place for Īśvara as well. Later commentaries, however, such as that of the Śaiva Udayana (c. 11th cent. CE), defend the concept of Īśvara, as the bodiless agent who acts to combine and dissolve the basic atoms of the universe. He is understood as the source of Veda and all spiritual knowledge, an omniscient, compassionate father. Even so, he is not the creator ex nihilo, for both souls and atoms are understood as eternal, and in enforcing morality he is strictly bound by the karman of all beings. Again we find a rather impersonal, personal deity.
The last and most prestigious orthodox Hindu worldview, Vedānta, (based in the Upaniṣads and their doctrines, summarized in the Vedāntasūtra of Badarāyana) preserves, in its many schools, the ongoing debate about the personal and/or impersonal nature of Īśvara in complex and flexible ways. The oldest school, that of Śaṅkara (c. 800 CE), takes the inherent tension between impersonal and personal conceptions of god into account in an ingenious way that recognizes the integrity of both, while asserting the ontological priority of the impersonal absolute. To do this, Śaṅkara’s nondual (advaita) worldview establishes two levels of truth, absolute and relative: (a) higher brahman (godhead, not God) is the ultimate reality, being-consciousness-bliss beyond subject/object differentiation or any other distinction or quality, and (b) lower brahman, the manifold world of names and forms perceived due to ignorance ( avidyā ). Here Īśvara is understood as higher brahman perceived through ignorance – as real as everything else on its own level, but not the ultimate truth. Īśvara and bhakti do have an important role in removing ignorance and thus helping the apparently individualized soul back to the ultimate experience of its true nondual identity.
Later Vedānta philosophers strove to give more importance to Īśvara and religious worship with a qualified nondualism (viśiṣṭādvaita): Rāmānuja’s (1017-1137 CE) qualified non-dualism, argued for brahman as a whole made of eternally distinct parts: Īśvara, souls, and the material world. As the soul inhabits the body, so Īśvara inhabits the material universe and rules souls as the soul of the souls, from within. For Rāmānuja the importance of worship and devotion to Īśvara is clearly the vital element in salvation, underscoring sectarian differences, only intensified by later Vedānta thinkers, such as Madhva (1238-1317 CE) and Vallabha (1481-1533 CE). Understanding Īśvara as exclusive and supreme Lord, eternally distinct from individual souls, emphasizes the Lord’s sovereignty and the importance of surrender to his grace, a central thread in the development of most Hindu religious sects, both Vaiṣṇava and Śaiva, to the present day.
Comments
Post a Comment