PART IV
FALL AND DECAY
Varuna
The last subsection of Part III describes a phenomenon, a state of existence, which in its plenitude is accessible only to a very few and, indeed, represents an anticlimax in Man’s experience. Yet this phenomenon expresses, in a sometimes lopsided and often exaggerated way, something that is inherent in the human condition as such: Man’s personal experience of his own limitation in all spheres of reality and thus his yearning to break the boundaries of his humanness. The human individual is not infinite like God; he cannot even compare himself with the immortal Gods. He begins now to discover that he is not even Man, but just one member of the species and often at variance with his fellow Men. Even more, he discovers that within himself also there is a lack of harmony or, in the words of the Gita, that there is something obstructing his own will and compelling him to sin. 1 Man experiences failure not only because he suffers from his own limitations, but also because he is often ill-treated by God, spurned by the Gods, and attacked by his fellow beings, who exploit, betray, and even kill him. Worst of all, Man is defeated by circumstances which he could have avoided but which in point of fact he did not. In a word, Man is betrayed by his own self. No wonder that he will start searching for the Self. Man experiences his own impotence and he suffers disillusionment not only with others but also with himself. He fails to do what he wants and even feels that he cannot really want what he would like to want. Moreover, he senses the contingency of his own existence, he discovers that there are things and states that are irreparable. Until very recent times, to give a somewhat banal example, an adult could not replace his or, worse, her teeth if they were broken or lost in an accident of some kind. There are dreams that cannot be fulfilled and desires that have to be abandoned. There is nothing abnormal in this situation. To grow to maturity means to learn to accept the real human predicament. This acceptance of the human predicament is a common human experience and one that may be witnessed also in the development of Vedic Man’s consciousness. By human predicament we understand not so much the objective human condition as Man’s actual awareness of that condition. Thus Man’s consciousness of his condition is also part of the human predicament.
In other words, the ecstatic attitude described in previous parts is here diminished. Interiorization is no longer the privilege of select souls but the common lot of every Man entering this world, for no one escapes the experience of pain and suffering or the temptation to frustration and even despair. Man looks inward, not, first of all, to make the lofty discovery of a new and untarnished world, but to solve the riddle of his own self; he is a suffering being, trying to understand what has gone wrong with him, for the results are not what he expected or desired.
Man cannot grow indefinitely; blossoming cannot go on forever; to halt and remain in the optimum situation is not a real possibility. Man faces fall and decay. As we shall soon see, Vedic Man makes a clear distinction between long life and old age. The former is a blessing, the latter a curse; the former is a desideratum not of a single individual will but of the entire theanthropocosmic situation, the latter--except when something still worse, an untimely death, intervenes--an unavoidable destiny; the former is a sign of growth and maturity, the latter the unmistakable sign of fall and decay.
We should be very careful at this juncture not to use words that connote already developed theories or relate to other world views. We do not say, for example, that the shruti does not know the problem of evil or that it does not consider the fact of human sin. We simply point out that these two words, “evil” and “sin,” are in serious danger of being misunderstood if they are not kept directly related to the primordial attitude reflected in the Vedic Scriptures.
In the first place, anything that we say about sin and evil has to be understood against a backdrop formed by the concepts of rita, 2 satya, 3 dharma 4 and karma. 5 We may notice in passing that it is not legitimate to personify these four notions; Man’s attitude toward them is not as if he were facing a personal God. Neither, however, do they fit into a scheme of merely impersonal values, as if Man were caught in an imposed, inflexible, and faceless framework with no possibility of dialogue or freedom. Perhaps the personal-impersonal dilemma is less universal than it may appear to be, so long as the concept of person is not disentangled from its anthropomorphic connotations. On the one hand, these four terms express a supremely personal relation, for only in a personal universe do these terms have any intelligible meaning. On the other hand, they certainly do not represent individuals; they are not personifiable. They are transpersonal.
Furthermore, we may recall that the Vedic mentality takes it almost for granted that Man is not alone in the universe, that spirits of all kind, devas and asuras, are struggling not only among themselves, but also with Man, and that any abnormal interference may cause pain, suffering, and distress. In the final analysis there are no neutral values, no indifferent or irrelevant actions; everything is regarded as either good or bad in the most simple and pragmatic way.
A further point may be noted. As already mentioned in the preceding section, in the post-Vedic philosophical tradition disillusionment is often considered the beginning of philosophical reflection. The mind turns to philosophical inquiry once it has been disillusioned or, in other words, once it discovers the illusory character of the given appearances and tries to pierce through them to the real “thing.” In contrast with this attitude, other traditions affirm a sense of wonder to be the beginning of philosophizing. Amazement and wonder, we are told, direct the attention to what the eye does not actually see and thus the mind embarks upon philosophical speculation.
Both attitudes stem from one assumption: there exists more than meets the eye; there is a sense of discrepancy between the immediate data and what these data really are (or are pointing out, revealing, concealing, and the like). In both instances there is the conviction that the real is not immediately given or at least not immediately recognized. Here the human spirit responds in one of two directions: one Man is disillusioned because he expects more, that is, he expects the world to be more--nicer, truer, deeper, fuller--than it appears to be. There is an underlying optimism here which is disappointed when Man’s expectations are not met. A second Man, on the other hand, is astounded when he starts by not expecting so much and discovers the world to be less ugly, less shallow, and less disappointing than it appears. There is an underlying pessimism here that feels amazement when Man’s expectations are excelled. One is disillusioned because things are not the “real thing.” The other is amazed because things are “really the thing.” Obviously the two attitudes can be interpreted both ways, that is, as considering that the data are disappointing or amazing because they are or are not the “real thing.”
Our texts here speak of the great disillusion and abysmal disappointment, because Man is not as he should and could be or because Man is as he is, namely, mere Man. The first part of this alternative is illustrated by the spirit of the Vedas proper, the second one by the Upanishadic spirituality.
The first section deals with Man’s primordial unhappy experience: the bare and unavoidable fact of suffering and sorrow. We divide it into two subsections, one dedicated to the Vedic insight and the other to the Upanishadic vision.
The second section deals with a human experience that is no less primordial, concentrating on its more reflective, often sophisticated, or simply spiritual aspect: the experience of sin and mercy. The three subsections present an internal logic, easily detectable. There is a gradation from (a) disgust with oneself and a sense of guilt, that is, from the internal movement of regret and fear, to (b) the external encounter with a power, an agency, a God, ready to forgive and open to entreaty, and thence to (c) a third step in which the internal movement and the external one meet in the sacramental, that is, the theandric action, by means of which Man gets rid of his stain and obtains the longed-for forgiveness in a way that is neither exclusively wrought by himself nor merely granted freely by an external power, but comes to pass by means of an intimate and ultimately mysterious collaboration between the two. This is, in the last instance, the meaning of every living ritual.
The key words of this part are extraordinarily rich in meaning and, inevitably, the English words commonly used to translate them have very different connotations. We have therefore added the following note in order to clarify the meaning of those universal factors of human existence which in English we call evil, sin, suffering, and sorrow.
NOTE ON SANSKIT TERMS
Enas, n., crime, sin, misfortune, mischief, offense, fault, and thence also evil, unhappiness, blame. 6 It is one of the words most frequently used in the Rig Veda for evil in general, though its original meaning was more specifically some kind of violent act. 7 The adj. enasvat, guilty, sinful, is also commonly used. “Do not let us suffer for the sins of others”; 8 or, “Indra is our savior, even from grave offense.” 9
Agas, n., transgression, offense, injury, sin, fault. 10 It also appears quite frequently in the Rig Veda 11 with the meaning of sin against both Gods and Men. In the hymn VII, 8612 the words agas, enas, and anrta are closely related, as are the words enas and abhidroha (transgression) in Rig Veda VII, 89, 5. 13
Drugdha and abhidroha 14 derive from the same root druh- with the original meaning “to afflict or harm somebody,” whence druh as an adjective, which means harmful, afflicting, and refers frequently to a demon. The participle drugdha when used as a masculine noun means the transgressor, the evildoer, while as a neuter noun it means transgression, evil deed.
Amhas, n., anxiety, trouble, oppression. It occurs both as verb and noun in the Rig Veda with the idea of pressure, coercion, compulsion (from foes, situations, and the like). 15
Agha, bad, afflicting and, as a neuter noun, evil, mishap; later on it acquires the meaning of sin, impurity. 16 Aghashamsa is the one who is planning evil, the evil-wisher, the wicked man. 17
Kilbisha, n., probably had the original meaning of stain, dirt; from the Rig Veda onward it means sin, guilt, fault, offense, 18 and kilbishasprt means the removal or avoidance of sins. 19
A series of words formed with the prefix dus-, connoting badness, evil, difficulty, are frequently used. The most common term among them is:
Duhkha, m., from duh- (dus-) and kha (aperture, hole, cavern; axle hole), that is, having a bad axle hole, and hence uneasiness, pain, dissatisfaction, sorrow, trouble, distress, as opposed to sukha, happiness, ease, and so on. 20
We also find:
Durita, n., “bad course,” difficulty, danger, discomfort, on the one hand, and evil, sin, injustice, on the other. 21
Dushkrt, part., “doing evil,” used also as a masculine noun meaning evildoer, sinful man; 22 and dushkrta, n., sin, lit. the evil done, wrong accomplished. 23
Duhshamsa, evil-speaking, cursing, and hence evil, impious, or blasphemous. 24
Dudhi, evil-minded, of evil intention, 25 and a few minor words of similar formation. 26
Abhva, n., from the root bhu- with negative prefix, lit. nonexistence, means in both Rig Veda and Atharva Veda a horror, monstrosity, something terrible and frightening. 27
Anrta, what is opposed to rta, truth, order, that is, falsity, untruth, injustice, lawlessness, unrighteousness, lie. 28
Adharma, n., used at a later date for anrta with a very similar meaning: whatever is opposed to dharma, order, law, religion, that is, irreligiosity, unrighteousness, demerit, guilt. 29
Tamas, n., from the root tam-, to be stunned, stupefied, exhausted, suffocated, means not only external darkness but also, from the Rg Veda onward, evil, confusion, error, blindness, and so on. 30
Nirrti, f. noun from nir-r-, to go out or off, be deprived or dissolved. In the Rig Veda nirrti is the personification of dissolution, destruction, calamity, corruption, death, and also the abysmal abode of dissolution. 31 It has also been personified as the Goddess of destruction.
Papa, bad, evil, vicious, sinful; 32 used as a neuter noun in the Brahmanas, Upanishads, and Smrtis, where it means guilt, sin, crime (with punya, merit, virtue, as its opposite).
Papman, m., evil, misfortune, calamity, crime, sin, used from the Atharva Veda onward. It is also personified Evil, the devil or demon.
Pida, f., from the root pid-, to be squeezed or pressed out, 33 then to oppress, hurt, harm, injure; means pain, suffering, injury, affliction, and so on, always with the connotation of pressure or restriction, limitation.
Shoka, m., from the root shuc-, to burn, to shine, to suffer heat, to be afflicted, to grieve, means sorrow, affliction, pain, grief, anguish. In the Rig Veda it means almost exclusively heat, light, flame. 34
Cinta, f., originally thought, is used for anxiety, care, worry (anxiety as an effect of thought, from within). It does not occur in the Rig Veda, but only in Smrti literature.
Aparadha, m., from apa-radh-, to miss, to offend, to sin, means sin, offense, fault, mistake. It does not occur in the Rig Veda.
Asadhu means simply the negation of goodness (sadhu), wicked, bad, evil, disgrace, and so on.
Rna, n., means from the Rig Veda onward sinful, guilty, guilt, sin, transgression in the sense of something missing, due, lacking; hence debt, duty, obligation. Traditionally any dvija (“twice-born”) has a lifelong obligation toward the rshis, the Gods and the Forefathers. 35
Anutapa, m., from anu-tap-, lit, to heat, then to repent, to suffer the consequences of one’s deeds, means repentance, penitence. It is an important concept in the Dharmashastras. “If after committing a sin a man feels repentance for having done it, he becomes free from that sin. He becomes purified only by the resolution ‘I shall not act thus again.’ “ 36
Pataka, n., from the causative of the root pat-, to fall, means that which causes the fall that is, sin, crime. ln the Dharmashastras it is as frequently used for sin as papa. From the root pat- are also formed patana, fall, sinfulness, and patita, the fallen one, the sinner. 37Pataniya is synonymous with pataka.
Dosha, m., from the root dush - (to become bad, corrupted, impure to sin), means fault, vice, deficiency, sinfulness, offense, guilt; it occurs in the Upanishads and Smrtis (but not in the Rig Veda).
Klesha, m., from the root klish-, to torment, trouble, afflict, to suffer, means pain, affiction, distress. 38 In the Yoga Sutras five kleshas are given as the basic causes of affiction. 39