Vedic Worldview

The main problems and categories of the Vedic worldview

Anthropology

Vedic literature offers very little direct information about the origins of humankind, which explains why this topic is often omitted in educational discussions. Nevertheless, it is possible to piece together certain elements related to the origin of humanity from scattered references. First, let us revisit what we have previously touched upon. According to the Rigveda, humans (purusha) arise from the cosmic being (Purusha) in the form of varnas (social classes): his mouth became the Brahmin, his arms became the Kshatriya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and from his feet emerged the Shudra. In the Shatapatha Brahmana, the deity Prajapati created humans from his own thoughts.

Now, let us complement this with insights from the research of T. Ya. Elizarenkova and V. N. Toporov on Vedic anthropology, specifically based on material from the Atharva-Veda. In the Atharva-Veda, a clear perspective of religious anthropology is presented: human beings, specifically the human body, are said to be created by the gods. Initially, the creation of the human body is depicted as a collective act of various gods, but later the notion of a single creator gains prominence. The process of creation is portrayed through a technomorphic model, describing the assembly of body parts, the drilling of holes in the head, and similar actions. Here are some excerpts from the text:

“How many gods, and who were they?
Who assembled the human’s chest, neck vertebrae?
Who positioned both nipples? Who set the elbows?
Which god attached both shoulders to the frame?”

A fundamental question in anthropology concerns the foundation of human existence. Similar to the world's foundation, the foundation of human life is also discussed in Vedic texts on two levels: the phenomenal, where it is sought in the observable psychophysiological aspects of human life, and the essential, where the search is for a deeper basis of these life manifestations, something hidden within or beyond them, ultimately leading to a conception of a transcendent, metaphysical essence of the human being. The phenomenal foundation of life is referred to as prana (life force), while the true foundation of pranas, the authentic basis of human life, is called atman, a term that here acquires its meaning as the core essence of a human being. Let us now examine the teachings on pranas and atman.

As mentioned earlier, pranas are the various manifestations of life: breathing, speech, sight, hearing, and thought. Among the pranas, breath is considered the most essential, as without it, life is impossible. Moreover, breath is seen as the substrate or container of all other pranas: “When breath wanted to leave, it pulled the other vital forces out of the body.” All the other pranas acknowledge, “You are the best of us. Do not leave.”

Breathing serves as a transition to the atman, which is considered the foundation of a person. Several phases of this transition can be noted. First, there is the search for perfect breath, one untainted by the evils of the world. It is said that demons (asuras) corrupted all the pranas: speech (people speak truth and falsehood), sight (they see the worthy and the unworthy), and so on. Even breath through the nose is corrupted, as it discerns pleasant and unpleasant smells. However, the asuras could not corrupt breath through the mouth, which does not distinguish between smells. This form of breathing is declared the best, called “middle breath,” pure and harmonious. It may be called the true prana.

Secondly, this perfect breath is considered invulnerable and immortal. Death tires and suppresses speech, sight, and hearing, but “death did not reach middle breath.” Hence, the other pranas acknowledge it as the best. These reflections on breath form the basis of the concept of atman.

Thus, the atman is breath transformed into the vital force that sustains the functions of the senses, speech, and thought, and serves as the subject, the Self, of their activities. This is evidenced, for example, by statements like: “He who knows ’I shall smell this,’ is the Atman; the nose serves him for smelling.” The atman is purified from physical traits and transformed into a spiritual-rational principle, as described in the Aitareya-Aranyaka, comparing the atman in plants (as sap), animals (as sensation), and humans: “The atman becomes progressively purer in humans. Indeed, in them, it is endowed with the highest degree of reason.” This tendency in understanding the atman is solidified in the Upanishads by rejecting the asuric view that equates the atman with the body. The god Indra states that the doctrine of the bodily atman brings no solace, as the body can be blind, lame, and, ultimately, mortal. Indra’s words reflect a religious-idealistic approach to the atman, aiming to provide solace by granting humans an immortal essence. The body itself is lifeless: “Indeed, only the breath-knowing Atman envelops and raises this body,” says the Kausitaki-Upanishad.

Ultimately, the atman-breath attains the status of the eternal, immortal substance of the human being when it is identified with Brahman, the world’s foundation. This identification is traced back to the sage Shandilya and is thus called the “teaching of Shandilya” (Shandilya Vidya). Historians of philosophy regard this as the pinnacle of monistic thought in ancient India, uniting the subject with the object, the knowing consciousness with the world. Through the merging of atman and Brahman, the atman-soul becomes a cosmic principle, often expressed in the Upanishads through the formula: “Just as spokes are fixed to the hub of a wheel, so too is everything fixed upon this breath.” Furthermore, the unity of the individual with the universe is affirmed.

Another crucial anthropological question presented in Vedic literature concerns death and the fate of the soul after death. This issue is significant because the understanding of death shapes one's view of life, its goals, and aspirations, thus influencing ethical perspectives.

In Vedic works, we encounter two views of death: one could be called a naturalistic philosophy, while the other is metaphysical. The naturalistic understanding of death is based on the idea of the unity of humans and the cosmos, where the body and pranas reunite with the cosmic elements after death. In the hymns of the Rigveda and the Brahmanas, it is said that after death, a person dissolves into nature: “Your sight will go to the sun, your breath to the wind... may the parts of your body dwell in the plants.” The individual “enters the fire with their voice, the moon with their mind, the directions with their hearing,” becoming one with these elements and finding rest.

The metaphysical perspective asserts that after death, the soul journeys to the heavens, to the gods, or ultimately to the abode of Brahman, the transcendent foundation of the world. According to the Upanishads, the soul may follow one of two paths after death: the “path of the gods” or the “path of the ancestors,” depending on a person’s way of life and actions.