Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Husky]

Post 7/?





On ghorAngirasa and ChAndogya upaniShad.



On this bit of the Wackypedia entry for the Jain Teerthankara Neminatha:

It is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishads III, that the sage Ghora Angirasa imparted certain instructions of the spiritual sacrifice to Krishna, the son of Devaki. The liberal payment of this sacrifice was austerity, liberality, simplicity, non-violence and truthfulness. These teachings of Ghora Angirasa seem to be the tenets of Jainism. Hence, Ghora Angirasa seems to be a Jain sadhu. The word Ghora Angirasa seems to be an epithet given to him because of the extreme austerities he undertook. It may be possible to suggest that Neminatha was his early name and when he had obtained Nirvana after hard austerities, he might have been given the name of Ghora Angirasa[citation needed].

The style of argumentation in the above is as follows: "We just noticed that Vedic Hindus had already said the same things that Jainism would end up saying, 'therefore' such Hindus 'must' have been Jain/else influenced by Jainism" [claimed backwards in time, of course]

(Clearly some people think no proof needs to ever be provided for fantastical claims.)





BUT:



+ Neminatha can't have been "'given' the name Ghora Angirasa". [color="#0000FF"]Angirasa is not an epithet. It is a family lineage (family of *Vedic* Rishis, btw[/color] - which puts a double damper on the wild claims made above).



+ Section 3.17 of the ChAndogyopaniShad is the one being referred to and which is hence relevant to this post. This is the section where GhorAngirasa speaks of the esoteric meaning of the PuruSha sacrifice. (This sacrifice was the subject matter of the previous section too - where it was already explained how (esoterically) "man himself was the sacrifice". The topic of the Purusha sacrifice continues on from 3.16 into 3.17.)



+ GhorAngirasa is *very clearly* a Vedic ritualist himself:



+ The shloka where the names of "ghorA~Ngirasa" and "kR^iShNa devakIputra" are mentioned together is 3.17.6. In it, ghorA~Ngirasa - speaking to kR^iShNa - refers *directly* to 2 specific Riks, i.e. two entries from the Rig Vedam (which he then quotes in the succeeding shloka). Further, 3.17.6 speaks of the Vedic PuruSha of the Sun/prANa, aka the Parabrahman - i.e. using terms that are direct backreferences to Vedic verses that the shiShya is expected to know, since they're expected to know the Vedam - i.e. by having performed the rituals). GhorAngirasa *uses* the references to the Richas from the Rig Vedam to impart this knowledge. He then ends verse 3.17.6 with "tatraite dve R^ichau bhavataH", i.e. referencing 2 Riks, which he then proceeds to quote from in the next shloka, 3.17.7.



Not to mention that the context of this shloka - i.e. preceding and succeeding verses, in fact the *entire* teaching ghorAngirasa imparts - is replete with not just references to the Vedas/Vedic ritual but direct *quotations* from the Vedam. [Actually, the entire ChAndogyopaniShad and indeed many another old upaniShad quotes from the Vedam, because the whole purpose of those old upaniShads was to delve deeper into the "esoteric" meaning of - and product/transformation-of-self proceeding from - the "exoteric" yagnyas of the Vedic rituals, with as end the realisation of the ParamapuruSha. <- BTW, this is seen in all of 3.17 too.]



+ It is 3.17.4 where ghorAngirasa enumerates what is attained from performing this yagnya - i.e. the Vedic puruSha sacrifice that's been the subject all this while - and which attainments are listed as: tapas, dAnam (i.e. act of giving, includes both ritualistic gifting and what in Hellenismos is called philanthropia), Arjavam (rectitude/sincerity/righteousness)*, ahiMsA, satyavachanam (truthfulness). In 3.17.6 - which is the end of the section's teaching but for one shloka to follow which will round 3.17 off - Ghorangirasa actually literally refers to the lessons he has imparted kRiShNa as "this well-known doctrine" (teaching/learning/knowledge), i.e. that it is established knowledge of the Vedam, nothing new at all.

So note how the Wacky page is claiming for Jainism the well-known spiritual attainments of the Vedic puruSha sacrifice. :Hysterisch:



[* "Simplicity" would already be included/implied in tapaH I think, since frugality is surely a minimum for austerity. The claimants seen on wacky appear to have left out Arjavam, so maybe that means the enumeration doesn't align as beautifully with Jainism's "5" as they might have wished?]





Actually, here's the full text of ChAndogyopaniShad's 3.17, along with the literal translations (by native Hindus).

Since it would otherwise take too long, I'm summarising or else leaving out much of the footnotes that the Hindu translators give, though these actually provide relevant information (such as the relation to the actual Vedic rites mentioned, some of the details involved - all of which is information that's simply implicit in the Upanishad's verses that speak of/proceed from these rites as their basis, since it's expected that the Hindus who get round to these Upanishads already know the rites from actual performance).



Note again that the previous section (3.16) had been about of the same subject of the Purusha yagnya and its esoteric meaning of "man himself as the sacrifice". This section continues on from there on the same topic.



(Devanagari portions are largely a copy-paste job. As in: typoes in this are not mine.)

स यदशिशिषति यत्पिपासति यन्न रमते ता अस्य दीक्षाः ॥ 3.17.1॥

"1. That he (who performs the PuruSha sacrifice) feels hunger, that he feels thirst, that he does not rejoice -- all these are the initiatory rites of this sacrifice. [1]"

(Footnote explains how this corresponds to the sufferings from the austerities that are to be performed in the exoteric case of the initiatory rites to performing yagnyas, with the case of the Soma sacrifice as example. The notes conclude with: "So this initiatory rite is full of pains, and the pains of life are also similar to the pains of initiation.")



अथ यदश्नाति यत्पिबति यद्रमते तदुपसदैरेति ॥ 3.17.2॥

"2. And, that he eats, that he drinks, that he rejoices--all these approach the Upasadas.[1]

[1] "That is, one should look upon the causes of those pains and their remedies as Upasadas. Upasat is a sacrifice belonging to the variety of iShTis..." <details follow, ending with a comparison of the exoteric yagnya with the life of the human - the esoteric/"internal to the human" case.>



अथ यद्धसति यज्जक्षति यन्मैथुनं चरति स्तुतशस्त्रैरेव तदेति ॥ 3.17.3॥

"3. And that he laughs, that he eats, that he behaves as one of a couple -- all these approach Stotra and Shastra. [1]"

("Samshana means praise or stuti. The mantra by which shamsana is done is called shastra. The Rik mantras..." Then the footnote goes on about how this is done during the actual Vedic ritual and correspondence with the life of the human again.)



अथ यत्तपो दानमार्जवमहिꣳसा सत्यवचनमिति ता अस्य दक्षिणाः ॥ 3.17.4॥

"4. And his austerity, gifts, uprightness, non-violence and truthfullness -- all these are the largesses of this sacrifice[1]"

"[1] Austerity etc. (i.e. all 5 items listed) should be looked upon as gifts for the priest, for there is similarity between the two. By giving dakShiNA in the ritualistic sacrifice, righteousness increases; austerity etc. in a worshipper's life also produce similar result. Because of these similarities, man must himself be looked upon as a sacrifice--that is the purport of these two sections [referring to sections 3.16 and 3.17 of this upaniShad]."



तस्मादाहुः सोष्यत्यसोष्टेति पुनरुत्पादनमेवास्य तन्मरणमेवावभृथः ॥ 3.17.5॥

"5. Therefore[1] people say 'soShyati' (will procreate) and 'asoShTa' (has procreated).[2] Again, that is the procreation of this,[3] and death is the AvabhR^ita bath.[4]"

"[1] Man himself is the sacrifice. Therefore regarding both man and ritualistic sacrifice people say soShyati and asoShTa."

(Then Footnote [2] and [3] are about what these phrases used in Soma yagnya mean and how it relates back to man's life.

[4] Footnote is about how the yagnya's conclusion is followed by the ritual bath and how this corresponds to death coming at the end of life. Etc.)



तद्धैतद्घोर आङ्गिरसः कृष्णाय देवकीपुत्रायोक्त्वोवाचापिपास एव स बभूव

सोऽन्तवेलायामेतत्त्रयं प्रतिपद्येताक्षितमस्यच्युतमसि प्राणसꣳशितमसीति तत्रैते द्वे ऋचौ भवतः ॥ 3.17.6॥

Note that in the section translating the individual words, the translation for घोरः says "Ghora" and that for आङ्गिरसः specifically says: "A~Ngirasa (of the a~Ngirasa family)".

Then comes the usual section that provides a flowing translation of the entire shloka altogether:

"6. Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to DevakI's son kRiShNa and said: Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad--Thou[1] art the imperishable, Thou art the unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of prANa." (On hearing the above) he [2] became thirstless. There are these two R^ik stanzas in regard to this."

"[1] That is, the Person residing in the sun and identified with prANa. The PuruSha is the divine form of the PrANas."

"[2] That is, Devaki's son kR^iShNa. <...>"



आदित्प्रत्नस्य रेतसः ।

उद्वयं तमसस्परि ज्योतिः पश्यन्त उत्तरꣳस्वः पश्यन्त उत्तरं देवं देवत्रा सूर्यमगन्म

ज्योतिरुत्तममिति ज्योतिरुत्तममिति ॥ 3.17.7॥

[Note that 3.17.6 continues on into this shloka: 3.17.6 ended with the intention of making references to 2 Riks and so 3.17.7 provides those 2 direct quotes from the Rig Vedam.]



"7. (Those knowers of Brahman who have purified their mind through the withdrawal of the senses and other means like Brahmacharya) see everywhere (the day-like supreme light) of the ancient One who is the seed of the universe, (the light that shines in the Effulgent Brahman).[1] May we, too, having perceived the highest light which dispells darkness, reach it. Having perceived the highest light in our own heart, we have reached that highest light, which is the dispeller (of water, rays of light and the PrANas), shining in all Gods--yea, we have reached that highest light.[2]"



The footnotes then show which 2 Riks from the Rig Vedam - that ghorAngirasa had already promised in 3.17.6 that he would be quoting from - he ends up quoting in 3.17.7 (i.e. seen just above):

"[1] This first Rik (Rigveda 8.6.30), of which a portion only is given in the text, is similar in ideas to Rigveda 1.22.20.

[2] This is the second Rik (Rgveda 1.50.10)."

+ As seen from all the above, ghorAngirasa is not a Jain by ancestry - Angirasa is a Vedic lineage of Rishis, not a mere title - nor by ideology: GhoraAngirasa is a *Vedic* Hindu, who is explicating the internal meaning of the Vedic rites <- a knowledge which one cannot ever attain to without having performed the rituals of the Vedam first. That means *he* has been performing them, which is why he knows to speak of them with that first-hand knowledge of the matter that's exclusive to those who live a life of Vedic ritual. So there's just no *question* that he's a Vedic Hindu - a fact which makes him mutually exclusive with being Jain/Buddhist.



+ It also goes to show how both the ChAndogyopaniShad AND the Krishna Devakiputra seen therein - who is taught by the exclusively Vedic (i.e. Hindu) ghorAngirasa - don't know of any Neminatha/any Jainism. Making this last yet another allegation that has no basis.



+ The 5 "largesses proceeding from the (both exoteric and esoteric) puruSha yagnya" - these being "austerity, act of gifting, uprightness, non-violence and truthfulness" - are clearly Vedic: resulting upon external and internal Vedic ritual. (BTW, ancient Hindu texts have always explained Yoga/Tapas and Tantra/pooja as internal forms of the external Vedic Yagnya too and have always showed the direct correspondence between them. Same with the direct correspondence between Temple worship/rituals and Vedic ritual.)





In short: ghorAngirasa - a Vedic ritualist (as he himself demonstrates in the text) - is not a Jain by any stretch of the imagination, let alone being the Jain Teerthankara Neminatha. ChAndogyopaniShad can't be invoked as "proof" for Neminatha's historicity. (Nor as proof of the upaniShad knowing of Jainism.)