King Janak of Videha, as we all
know, was not only a great king but also a great philosopher. There were many eminent intellectuals and
scholars in his court. Of these, nine were known as the ‘navratna’ or the nine
gems. One of these nine was Gargi Vachaknavi, daughter of Rishi Vachaknu. She
was a brahmavadini like Maitreyi. Her conversations with Yajnavalkya are recorded
in the sixth and eighth brahmana of the Brihadranayaka Upanishad. The basic
difference between Maitreyi and Gargi is that Maitreyi’s questions had elements
of both jnan and bhakti, Gargi is an intellectual interested only in ideas
about the cosmos and Brahman.
There were hundreds of men in King Janak’s court who were
famous for their erudition and wisdom. King Janak wanted to know who was the
greatest of them all. A philosophic
congress, a ‘brahmayajna’ was organized ostensibly around the theme of the
sacrificial fire. It was called ‘Bahu dakshina’ because of all that was given
away by way of charity. The Brahmins assembled were free to challenge their
peers. Who ever won the debates would be given one thousand cows. No ordinary
cows, mind you, but creatures as big as elephants, their horns sparkling with
ten gold pieces. None of the Brahmins dared to declare himself the greatest
except Yajnavalkya. In his trademark ‘I am the best’ style, he said to his
disciple Samsrava: ‘Son, drive these cows away’. This infuriated the Brahmins.
Asvala, King Janak’s priest came forward: ‘Yajnavalkya, do you then happen to
be best among us Brahmins?’ Yajnavalkya’s reply is cryptic: He folded his hands,
bowed and then said: ‘Venerable Sir, you are the finest Brahmin in the king’s
court. We have taken the cows because I need them. I am a seeker of animals.
Not that I have the most knowledge.’ A contest becomes inevitable. Asvala tells Yajnavalkya that he must now prove
he is the best.
Five Brahmins come forward to test Yajnavalkya. They
question Yajnavalkya about the sacred fire, life after death, the nature of Brahman
and so on. Every one of them is defeated. Others follow and meet the same fate. Finally, it’s Gargi’s turn. Much has been
made of Gargi’s challenge to Yajnavalkya and her attempt to defeat him in
argument. I see it as a learning curve. A woman with a sharp intellect like
Gargi would have known at once that she was dealing with a mind far more
powerful than hers. She uses the contest
as an opportunity to ask Yajnavalkya questions that no one else can answer.
She starts by asking
very elementary questions about sagun Brahma
as reflected in the existential universe:
‘Yajnavalkya,” said she, “If all this (earth), is pervaded
by water, by what, pray, is water pervaded?” [1]
Yajnavalkya replies that water is pervaded by air. She then asks him a series
of questions about what pervades the air, sky, world of Gandharvas, sun, moon,
stars, gods, Indra, Prajapati or Virij and finally Hiranyagarbha. The rationale
is that everything is based on a subtler and less finite element which is its
cause. Thus a finite earth is based on a relatively unlimited and subtler
element, water. The earth is the
effect. Water is the cause. Similarly, air (subtle) is the cause; water (gross)
is the effect. This line of reasoning continues until we come to Hiranyagarbha[2].
Hiranyagarbha is an interesting concept. The word has two
roots: ‘hiranya,’ meaning of golden luster and ‘garbha’ meaning womb.
Literally, golden womb or the womb of the self born Brahma depicted here as
embryo in a self manifested womb[3].
(BU: 3, VI: 10, 12). Gold signifies
value and the simile is used in a way similar to ‘the pearl of great price’
mentioned in the Bible. We are speaking
of something precious. Hiranyagarbha is not the last but the penultimate stage,
pervaded by Brahman, the ultimate Reality. In terms of the line of argument, we
have made a classic progression from the known and empirically verifiable
(earth, water) to the unknowable (Hiranyagarbha).
Gargi’s final question is: “By what, pray, is the World of
Hiranyagarbha pervaded?” Yajnavalkya replies: “Do not, O Gargi, question too
much, lest your head should fall off.” I.e.
you are asking me questions about that which should not and cannot be
questioned. What started out as a search for meaning would then degenerate into
an ego trip. Yajnavalkya is also in a
bind. He is now dealing with that which
cannot be defined. If he answers, he looks foolish. If he doesn't he admits
defeat. Yajnavalkya asks Gargi to stop and she does. Unlike Sakalya, she is not
stupid and stubborn enough to ignore Yajnavalkya’s warning. We are now at the point where sages say:
‘Neti, neti’ not, not this.’ (BU: 4: 4-22). In other words, we have reached a stage where
our intellect fails us. We can grasp Brahman only by understanding what it is
not. By this negative process, we finally reach a point where there is some
amount of conceptual clarity about what Brahman is.
It’s worth noting that the concept of creation is alien to
Vedanta. We have the image of the embryonic Brahma in Hiranyagarbha but this is
not analogous to the creation of the universe as in Genesis (The Holy Bible).
The universe is one infinite, eternal
continuum. According to Swami Vivekananda, the seed or potential universe gradually
evolves to manifest the perfect avatar as in Buddha or Christ. Thereafter a process
of involution starts which eventually culminates in the seed form. This cycle
repeats itself through eternity.
Gargi’s questions
don’t stop here. Like everyone assembled, Gargi had one chance to question
Yajnavalkya. However, she is not done. She needs another chance. She turns to
the cognoscenti present and begs their permission to ask Yajnavalkya two
questions. ‘If he answers them, none of you can defeat him.’ Mercifully, there
is no chauvinist present in King Janak’s court to say: ‘You should be sitting
at home and peeling potatoes. Who are you to tell us that if he can’t answer
your silly questions, none of us can defeat him?’ The savants present are wise.
They agree.
There is a threshold beyond which ideas become sublime. This
is exactly what happens now. Gargi asks Yajnavalkya[4]:
“O Yajnavalkya that of which they say that it is above the
heavens, beneath the earth, embracing heaven and earth, past, present and
future, tell me in what is it woven, like the warp and woof?”[5]
Yajnavalkya replies that it is woven on ether or akasa. The word ‘akasa’ comes from two roots:
a+kshate meaning that which shines. It is space associated with light and time.
The word is variously translated as sky, space and ether. The first of Gargi’s
final questions relates to space (akasa)
and is a transition from the relative to the absolute sphere. At this
level, space is an infinite continuum which exists through eternity. So we have
both time (Kal) and space (akasa). To quote a familiar example from the Rig
Veda, space confined within a pot merges into the limitless space outside when
the pot breaks. Causality is absent from
this equation because the space inside the pot and outside it are always one.
The breaking of the pot is not the cause of the identity between the two. We are at a point where Reality just is but consciousness is absent. Hence
the mahavakya: ‘Prajnanam Brahman’, i.e. consciousness is Brahman. (Rig Veda: 3:3.1).
Gargi bows and then asks on what is ether (Akasa) woven and
rewoven? Yajnavalkya replies:
“O Gargi, the Brahmanas call this the Akshara (the
imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither red
(like fire) nor fluid (like water), it is without shadow, without darkness… It
is without taste, without smell, without eyes… without speech, without mind, without light
(vigor), without breath, without a mouth (or door)… having no within and no
without…That Brahman, O Gargi, is unseen, but
seeing; unheard, but hearing, unperceived, but perceiving, unknown, but
knowing. There is nothing that sees but it, nothing that hears but it, nothing
that knows but it. In that Akshara, then, O Gargi, the ether is woven like warp
and woof.”
Gargi bows to Yajnavalkya. He has both defeated and enlightened her. She
says to the pundits in the august assembly: “You will be lucky if you can get
off by bowing to him. None of you can defeat him in argument.”
A word of explanation
is in order. Yajnavalkya first uses the ‘neti, neti’ approach to explain what
Brahman is not. Brahman is not a substance, not a being, not an energy, not a
force but beyond all these. He doesn’t
stop there. Obviously Brahman, being
existence, must have positive attributes. So Yajnavalkya goes on to give Gargi
a glimpse of what Brahman is: the unseen by whose light we see, the Imperishable
which is unheard but hears and so on. There is no attempt to define that which
cannot be defined. An understanding of what Brahman is has been conveyed
through a series of metaphors and images
There is another facet worth noting. When Gargi asks her
first set of questions, Yajnavalkya speaks in terms of cause and effect. This
is because the questions relate by and large to the existential (relative)
universe which is bound by time, space and causation. When Yajnavalkya answers Gargi’s second set of
questions, he guides her to the realm of the absolute (Nirguna Brahman). Swami Vivekananda uses the analogy of the
inverted tree to explain the difference between the two: Brahman (the Absolute) is the seed which
slowly evolves and branches out into the relative universe.
Gargi’s second question in round two is an attempt to understand
the nature of the Supreme Self or Brahman. When the knot of the heart is cut, mortal
becomes immortal. We are free of all illusion and ignorance: ‘Aham Brahmasmi!’ (Yajur Veda: BU: I, 4:10) King
Janak had once asked Yajnavalkya about the Self:
“When the sun has set and the moon has set and the fire has
gone out, and no sound is heard, what then serves as his (man’s) light?”
Yajnavalkya replies: “The Self indeed is his light, for by
the light of the Self man sits, moves about, does his work, and when his work
is done, dies.”
[1]Brihadranayaka
Upanishad, Yajnavalkya Kanda, Chapter III, Section VI:1, Gargi Brahmana. The
Upanishads, p.143 .books.google.co.in/book?id=N7LxQb
[2] www.esamskriti.com>Eassays,
T.N.Sethumadhavan.
[3] BU,
op.cit, III,VI:10,12
[4] The
Upanishads, II, VIII, trans. By Max Muller (1879) www.sacred-texts.com
[5]BU:III,VIII:1-12
