Vedic Worldview

The main problems and categories of the Vedic worldview

The Structure of the Universe (Theocosmology)

The question of the origin of the universe naturally leads to an inquiry into its structure. Since the gods are included within the universe, it is appropriate to describe this with the term “theocosmology.”

In exploring the structure of the universe, just as in its origin, we encounter what could be described as biomorphic (zoo- and anthropomorphic) and technomorphic models. A zoomorphic interpretation of the world’s structure and natural phenomena can be found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where the universe is represented as a sacrificial horse. A few excerpts from this text are worth noting.

The sun is the horse’s eye, the wind its breath, and fire its mouth. When the horse yawns, lightning flashes, and when it shakes, thunder rumbles. Anthropomorphic depictions of the cosmos include its comparison to the Purusha, the universal man. The underlying logic here seems to be: that from which the world originates is also what the world is. Therefore, the Upanishads speak of the Purusha-universe: “Fire is his head, the sun and moon are his eyes, the directions are his ears... and air is his breath.”

Some aspects of the technomorphic model of the universe can be seen in the concept of the three-part vertical structure of the world. "The three places (three lokas, recalling the Latin locus, meaning place) are the heavens, the atmosphere, and the earth. Each part of the world is governed by its own deity: in the heavens, Vishnu or Surya; in the atmosphere, Indra; on earth, Agni. The deceased ancestors (the Pitris) dwell in the heavens, while below the earth reside the Asuras. Later, in the epic Mahabharata, a fourth realm emerges—the subterranean world of the serpent deities, the Nagas.”

A critical element of cosmological thought in the development of Vedic philosophy is the notion of the support or foundation (Skambha) of the universe. This foundation is established by the gods in the intermediate space (the atmosphere) to support and bind the parts of the universe together. This, we believe, reflects an architectural or constructional analogy, which is why we refer to this as part of the technomorphic model. The role of this support or pillar of the cosmos was often played by the world tree, rooted in primordial waters (similar to the Greek figure of Atlas) or the rays of the sun, which penetrate and bind the world together (a parallel can be found in Egyptian mythology, where the solar god Ra-Amun plays a similar role).

The evolution of this notion of the universal support is tied to the concept of Brahman. The use of the term Brahman to signify a support or foundation, including the cosmic one, can be linked to a sociomorphic basis. According to S. A. Dange, Brahman originally referred to the ancient Aryan community, which, naturally, served as a support for its members. Additionally, the term Brahman also denoted the leader of the community. Thus, it is clear that the word Brahman could refer to support in many different senses. In the Upanishads, Brahman is described as the food and breath of humans, as well as their name, speech, and mind. However, in Vedic cosmology, Brahman comes to represent the foundation of the universe itself and becomes the central concept of Vedic philosophy. The authors of the Upanishads pose questions such as: “What is the thread that holds this world together? Who is the internal ruler that sustains this world from within?” And they answer: “He who knows this thread and this inner ruler is the knower of Brahman.” For example, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad states: “He who knows this thread and this inner ruler knows Brahman, and he knows the worlds.”

The key to interpreting Brahman lies in two tendencies: the naturalistic and the metaphysical. These tendencies express the central philosophical question: Is being limited to the phenomena of the world, or does it encompass some hidden essence as the foundation or substance of the universe?

The naturalistic view of Brahman as the foundation of the world involves identifying it within the world itself, locating it in some tangible part of human experience. Thus, Brahman as the thread of the universe is identified with the wind or space filled with wind. The idea of the wind as the all-encompassing essence of the world unfolds in this way: fire dies out into the wind, the sun sets into the wind, and waters dry up into the wind. The thread connecting the worlds is the wind.

At the same time, the Upanishads describe the atmospheric space and the wind—natural elements—as the incorporeal and immortal Brahman. This conception, rooted in Vedic anthropomorphism, views the wind as the breath of Brahman, leading to the transformation of Brahman from a physical substance (air, space) into a metaphysical and ideal substance—a purely transcendent Brahman. A good example of this is found in the Taittiriya Brahmana, which states that the “wood and forest” from which heaven and earth were carved was Brahman.

Thus, Vedic literature develops the doctrine of Brahman as the transcendent foundation of being, hidden behind the phenomena of the material world. In this doctrine, the universe is no more than the outward manifestation of Brahman.

In addition to Brahman, the concept of Atman is used to express the idea of the origin and basis of everything. Atman, another crucial category of Vedic thought, is described as follows: “The earth, wind, air, waters, heavenly bodies—all are Atman. Everything arises from it, and everything returns to it.” Like Brahman, Atman is the inner ruler; it dwells within the earth, waters, fire, wind, and so on, like salt dissolved in water.

The final component of our cosmological discussion is Rita, the principle of cosmic order, the universal law. The word Rita (a masculine term) means the “course of things.” Through Rita, the sun moves, the seasons change, and day alternates with night. All proceeds according to Rita.

In conclusion, we have presented the Vedic worldview as a somewhat linear classification of cosmogonic ideas and a fairly coherent doctrine of primordial principles. However, the sources are not as unambiguous as they might appear. L. S. Vasiliev notes that Vedic texts contain confusion and contradictions about the creation of the universe and the relationships between being and non-being, Brahman, Atman, Purusha, and so on. This reflects the complexity of the process by which ancient thinkers came to an ontological understanding of the world and attempted to construct a consistent theory of cosmology.