|
In the older, ritual environment of the Vedas, the priests exercise a power over words-the power to control reality. By naming things and by speaking in the language of power, Sanskrit, they could manipulate reality. For their power to be fruitful, however, it was declared that the proper ritual context be absolutely perfect for anything to be accomplished. Their sole knowledge of this context hardened the Brahman/non-Brahman hierarchy in ancient India, which increased tension between the Brahmans and the Ksatriyas (warriors and civic leaders). The Ksatriyas desired to undermine the authority of the Brahmans, but to question a part of the system (specifically the power of the Brahmans) would be to question the entire social system (social hierarchy and distribution of power-which benefited the Ksatriyas and confirmed their authority).
The Brahmans held the Parusa ritual as the key to their strength. By ritually renewing Parusa (the primeval man) each year, they kept the world working. To deny the Brahmans power would be to deny the vary ritual, which maintained the world.
The Upanisads, texts written between in the first half of the first millennium B.C.E. (scholar's equivalent to B.C.), gave a clear role to the Ksatriya teachers by allowing for an internal reconstruction of Parusa. Through intellectual exploration and resignation of social status, they could maintain the whole by maintaining themselves. Simply put, they replaced the microcosmic event of the Parusa ritual with a microcosmic event of personal revelation to reinforce the macrocosmic event of world-maintenance. This is a further development in Indian analogical thought. By cultivating the essence of life in a small part, one could do so for the whole. So these new renouncers sought to encourage life through a personal, bodily ritual: yoga. Control of heat, breathing and emissions (sex) would strengthen the world around oneself. These new philosophers claimed that the Vedic rituals were functional, but no longer necessary. The Vedic thinkers claimed that the later, Upanisadic rituals were insufficient.
By developing a personal, asocial means to maintaining the world, however, these thinkers created the notion of 'self.' Through their individual actions, they became distinct from society. This individuation caused the loss of a group identity and distribution of responsibility for world order. It is not possible to simultaneously support society while removing yourself from it. One loses the group identity and becomes an individual. What remains is to rid oneself of that newfound individuality and re-merge with the divine, as represented by a group understanding.
The development of a notion of self-hood became vital to the religious history of India. Both Mahavira, credited with founding Jainism, and Siddharta Gautama, the Buddha, made the annihilation of self a primary goal in the 'salvation' of humans. Hindus, meanwhile, continued to claim that the self could be both eternal and still escape the world of rebirth by attaining moksa-release.
Because this system made Brahmans irrelevant, they argued that it lacked authority because they claimed that the Vedas did not uphold it. Upanisadic thinkers, however, found evidence for what they wrote within the Vedas and a logical debate began, which has not been settled to this day. Over the intervening 1500 years (before Islamic rule temporarily mooted the issue), Brahmans and Ksatriyas debated the efficacy of their respective mysticism and wrote commentary after commentary upon both sets of religious texts.
|
| |
