Devas’ Liberation Only Through Knowledge

Invocation

(Nyāyamañjarī 3.173)

[Obeisance to Śiva, the eternal, enlightened, blissful one, who causes beings to experience the fruits of all their actions, by whose mere wish, the worlds arise, abide and, at the end, become dissolved.]

Liberation of the Devas Only through Enlightenment

In the previous discourse, I had articulated the scriptural view that one can attain liberation from transmigratory existence only through the realisation of Brahman and that, decidedly, nothing else is the direct means to it. The case of even the devas, says the scripture, is no different. While they experience grand delights in the course of their stay in heaven, that is not liberation. Knowledge of Brahman being essential for liberation, the devas too need to strive for and attain it if they are to become liberated. An averment of the Upaniṣads is:

[Among the devas, and, likewise among the seers and humans, only those who realised Brahman, became It.]

The purport is that only those devas who have acquired the knowledge of Brahman have become Brahman, and thus, liberated. Sage Vyāsa has ascertained this in the Brahmasūtras¹ and Bhagavatpāda has explicated it in His commentary thereon.

Corporality of the Devas

The Mīmāṁsakas disagree with this Vedāntic position. They do not admit that the devas the Vedas refer to are corporeal entities at all² and, so, object as follows: Only if one has a body, is it even possible for one to resort to means, such as hearing the Truth from a Guru, that would result in the dawn of liberating knowledge. As the devas have no body at all, there is no scope for these means being prescribed for them and, so, for their securing enlightenment.

The Vedāntin’s response is that the devas do have a body and that this is knowable from the Vedas, Smṛtis, Itihāsas and the Purāṇas. The Veda says:

[Indra has the thunderbolt in his hand.]

How can Indra hold, as said here, the thunderbolt in his hand if he does not have a body in the first place? Thus, this Vedic utterance shows that Indra has a body.

[The devas and the asuras were engaged in battle.]

The meaning of this statement that occurs in several places in the Veda is, ‘The devas and the asuras began to join battle.’ Were the devas to be bodiless, how could they have engaged in combat? One of the accounts that follows the Vedic statement considered is that as the devas prepared to fight with the asuras, they deposited their wealth with Agni for safe keeping, to be available to them later, even in the event of their defeat. However, Agni usurped it out of desire and absconded. The devas returned victorious and went after him. They finally caught him and forced him to give back their wealth.

According to another Vedic story, Agni had three elder brothers.

[Agni had three elder brothers. They used to carry the sacrificial offerings to the devas and while engaged in this task, they died (of fatigue).]

They were engaged in the task of carrying the oblations offered in the scriptural sacrifices to the devas. As they repeatedly conveyed the offerings, they were overcome by exhaustion and expired. Agni felt apprehensive that even he, who carried offerings like them, would die of fatigue. Hence, he fled from the devas and hid himself under water. The devas launched a search for him.

[A fish exposed where Agni was. Agni cursed it, saying, ‘You showed me. People shall kill you (fishes) in various ways (or at any time they want to do so).’ Thus, people kill fishes in various ways (or whenever they wish).]

A school of fishes in the water revealed Agni’s place of hiding to the devas. Infuriated by this, Agni cursed the fishes that they would be caught and killed. Accordingly, people keep catching and terminating the lives of fishes.

There are many such Vedic stories. We cannot make sense of them if we take it that the devas are bodiless. Not just Vedic narratives but even the numerous stories about the devas seen in the Smṛtis, Itihāsas and the Purāṇas demonstrate that the devas do have bodies.

Corporality and Concurrent Presence at Multiple Places

The Mimāmsakas argue against the corporality of the devas as follows. During a scriptural rite, we offer an oblation to Indra saying:

(Chant with which offerings are made for Indra.)

[Offered to Indra; svāhā! This is for Indra; it is not mine.]

Moreover, we even specifically call Indra to the site of the rite thus:

[O Indra! Do come here.]

Were a deva such as Indra to be an embodied entity, he would need to arrive physically at the spot concerned to accept the sacrificial offerings. While this may appear unproblematic, suppose that while a person performs a sacrifice here, another person engages in that rite at Kashi, another in Kashmir and yet another at Sringeri. Then that deva would have to be bodily present at all these places at the same time. This is impossible. So, the devas cannot be beings with bodies.

Bhagavatpāda’s response is as follows. Just because concurrent presence at diverse locations is unfeasible for you, why do you claim that this is impossible for a deva also? Even a human yogin who has acquired the extraordinary powers specified in the Yoga-śāstra by dedicatedly resorting to the means prescribed therein can, by taking up multiple bodies, be and function at various spots at the same time. It is said:

(Cited as smṛti in the Brahmasūtra-bhāṣya on sūtra 1.3. 27. Vāyu-purāṇa 2.5.148-149 has similar wording.)

[Having got the power of yoga, a yogin can, O best of the Bharatas, form many bodies for himself and move around in the world with them. Through some, he may acquire objects; by means of some, he may engage in intense penance. And then he may withdraw all of them, like the (setting) sun its host of rays.]

By the power of his will, a yogin can form many bodies, simultaneously be and function independently at distinct locations through them and then withdraw them. When a yogin can do so, why should it be inconceivable that the devas can form multiple bodies for themselves and, through them, be simultaneously present physically at various places at the rites there?

Invisibility of the Devas

The Mīmāṁsaka then argues: If the devas are really corporeal entities who come to where sacrifices are performed, they should be perceived there. However, they are beheld by none.

Bhagavatpāda’s response is: They are unperceived not because they are not bodily present but since they opt to be invisible by exercising their power to be so.

I recall remarking in a lighter vein some time ago that it makes sense for a deva such as Indra to not manifest himself before people because if he were to do so, they would not let him depart peacefully after accepting their offerings and would beleaguer him with a plethora of requests for favours!

To recapitulate, the Vedāntin rebuts the Mīmāṁsaka’s objections against the devas being embodied beings by showing that the corporeality of the devas is no bar to their being present simultaneously at multiple places and by also accounting for their not being seen there.

Reliability of the Corroborative Passages about the Devas

Countered in his attempts to show that there would be problems if the devas are corporeal, the Mīmāṁsaka endeavours to deracinate the very basis on which the Vedāntin holds that the devas are corporeal entities. He contends as follows:

The Vedic accounts of the devas are but arthavādas, corroborative passages. As per the canons of Vedic interpretation, the primary purpose of any arthavāda is to favour some Vedic injunction or prohibition and not to make known something on its own. Thus, you cannot rely upon the Vedic narratives, as you have done, to determine that the devas are corporeal entities.

Bhagavatpāda’s response is: It is true that the stories are arthavādas and their primary purpose is something other than what they directly describe. Nevertheless, just because the primary purpose of an arthavāda is something else, it does not follow that what it makes known should be disbelieved. Suppose a man sets out to procure something and, on his way to the shop, sees a stone on the wayside. Should his perception of the stone be set aside just because this was not the primary aim of his going out? Surely not. Though incidental, his perception is valid and one should accept that a stone does lie there. In like manner, though a Vedic narrative’s primary purpose is something else, what it itself conveys may be accepted.

To this, the Mīmāṁsaka says: I concede that though perception of the stone was not the person’s primary goal, it must be lent credence. However, the example is inapt here, for, unlike perception that shows something on its own, an arthavāda conveys something valid only in conjunction with a Vedic injunction or prohibition and not as separate from the latter. Consider, for instance, the statement, ‘If one wishes to go to hell, one should drink wine.’ It would surely be incorrect to separate the portion, ‘One should drink wine’ from, ‘If one wishes to go to hell’ and understand that drinking is prescribed here. The correct sense can be arrived at only from the sentence as a whole. Similarly, an arthavāda and an injunction mean something as a unit but you view an arthavāda separately and conclude something from it about the devas; this is on par with directing attention to just the sentential segment, ‘One should drink wine.’ Bhagavatpāda’s reply is: Unlike a sentence’s elements, an injunction and an arthavāda are syntactically distinct and do have appropriate meanings of their own. For instance, consider the following Vedic passage:

[He who desires prosperity should touch a white goat, dedicated to Vāyu. (The implicit injunction is that he should perform a sacrifice with Vāyu as its deity.) Vāyu is the swiftest deity. The sacrificer quickly approaches Vāyu with the latter’s special offering. Vāyu surely makes him attain prosperity.]

The injunction ‘vāyavyaṁ śvetam ālabheta bhūtikāmaḥ (He who is desirous of prosperity should touch a white goat, dedicated to Vāyu)’ is a separate sentence and the arthavāda, ‘Vāyur vai kṣepiṣṭhā devatā (Vāyu is the swiftest deity)’ is another complete sentence and both have independent meanings; the implied meaning of the former is that one should perform a sacrifice with Vāyu as its deity, while the latter points out that Vāyu moves very swiftly. Next, while you insist that the words of an arthavāda must be united with those of an injunction or prohibition, not only do the arthavāda and the injunction being considered have apt meanings of their own, their words do not gel with one another. For instance, if the verb in the injunction and a noun in the arthavāda were read together, one would have, ‘vāyuḥ ālabheta - Vāyu should touch or (by implication) Vāyu should perform a sacrifice.’ Alternatively, one would have, ‘kṣepiṣṭhā devatā ālabheta - The fastest deity should touch or (by implication) the fastest deity should perform a sacrifice.’ Clearly, both these combinations are gratuitous here. Thus, unlike your claim, an arthavāda does have its own meaning and its words do not form a syntactically apt single sentence with the words of the injunction.

The connection between the arthavāda and injunction under consideration comes to light as follows. First their individual imports – ‘Vāyu is the swiftest deity’ and, ‘He who desires prosperity should perform a sacrifice with Vāyu as its deity’ – are apprehended. The question then arises as to what the purpose of the statement about Vāyu’s swiftness is? The answer is that its purpose is to eulogise the injunction about performing a sacrifice in honour of Vāyu by presenting the notable nature of Vāyu and, thereby, commending the prescribed rite as one with a distinguished deity. As Vāyu is presented as the swiftest deity, it could be conceived that he who performs the prescribed sacrifice with Vāyu as its deity will obtain his desired fruit of prosperity quickly. Thus, an arthavāda does have a meaning of its own and it is through this meaning, which can well involve the devas, that it serves to corroborate an injunction or prohibition¹. Arthavādas are of three kinds. Some state what runs counter to what is known through some other means of valid knowledge such as perception; this kind of artha-vāda is termed ‘guṇavāda (an attributive or a figurative statement)’. An example is:

_________________________________

[The sacrificial post is the sun.]

It is stated that the sacrificial post is the sun. Perception, however, reveals that the solar orb in the heavens and the sacrificial post are not identical. Such statements of the Veda are figurative.

Another type of arthavāda comprises Vedic statements that convey what is independently known by means of some another means of valid knowledge, such as direct perception; this is called ‘anuvāda (restatement)’. An illustration of this is:

[Fire is a remedy for frosty weather.]

The import is that in the proximity of fire, chillness is not felt. This is known to us without the Veda telling us.

The third kind of arthavāda expresses what is neither contradicted by another means of knowledge, such as perception, nor is a reiteration of what is known; this type is labelled ‘bhūtārthavāda’. The arthavādas that point to the devas being corporeal beings are of this type.

Bhagavatpāda points out that as what is made known by these is not at odds with what is known through any other means of knowledge, it is but proper that it be accepted. Thus, the arthavādas of the kind seen about Vāyu and Indra do prove the existence of corporeal devas.

Direct Interaction with the Devas by Sages

Scriptural texts like the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas report that great sages such as Vyāsa directly dealt with the devas. This confirms that the devas do have bodies, for, were they to be bodiless, such contacts could not have occurred.

The Mīmāṁsaka’s rejoinder to this is: These accounts must be viewed as fictional, for we do not come across interactions with the devas of the kind that Vyāsa and some others are supposed to have had with them in the days of yore.

The counter to this is: People of the present times like you lack the competence to apprehend and commune with the devas. Just because you are unable to directly interact with them, how can you conclude that none could have done so at any time?

According to the Dharma-śāstra:

[One should perform the upanayana (investiture with the sacred thread and initiation into the Gāyatrī-mantra) of a Brāhmaṇa in the eighth year after conception.]

Parents now ignore this scriptural instruction that they should invest their sons with the sacred thread at the age of eight years, counted from the time of conception. Seeing this, would you conclude that this was always the case? If so, it would follow that, as far as you are concerned, the scriptural instruction about the time of investiture is itself redundant. The norm now is: People do not study their branch of the Veda as ordained. That, surely, does not imply that the study of the Veda was ever neglected like this. In general, people nowadays disregard the scriptural dicta about dharma. Because of this, would you decide that this was ever the case? If so, it would be tantamount to your viewing the very scriptural commandments as largely uncalled for. That would is improper indeed. Similarly, based on your not having seen and conversed with the devas, you ought not to dismiss the accounts in the scriptural texts like the Mahābhārata about the interactions of great sages such as Vyāsa with them. Their perception substantiates the corporality of the devas.

The Yoga-śāstra and Common Belief about the Devas

The Yoga-śāstra teaches that:

[As a result of study (that consists of the perusal of texts on liberation or the repetition of a holy mantra), there is communion with the desired deity.]

As a result of the intense repetition of a mantra, one can see and talk with one’s desired deity. The communion involves a deva physically appearing before the yogin.

Further, common belief, which should not be summarily pooh-poohed if its validity is probable, is that the devas do have forms. Thus, artists depict Indra as holding a thunderbolt in his hand and Varuṇa as bearing a noose.

Quest for Knowledge of the Devas

As the Vedas make known that the devas are embodied beings and this is supported by scriptural texts such as the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas, by the Yoga-śāstra and by common belief, obdurate denial of this should be eschewed and their corporality accepted as a fact. Since they have bodies, they are in a position to resort to the means, such as hearing the truth from a Guru, to attain the realisation of Brahman.

A possible objection is: As divine enjoyments are ever theirs, there is no question of their thirsting for and, so, pursuing the knowledge of Brahman.

It is feasible for a deva, who possesses intelligence, to someday or the other, become disenchanted with the glut of heavenly pleasures because of his recognising, ‘These enjoyments are but transient and finite and my stay in heaven is itself temporary. It is only the bliss of liberation that is unending and infinite. Thus, only that is worthwhile.’ With the dawn of firm dispassion through right understanding, he would turn away from the pleasures and, becoming intent upon liberation, strive for realisation, its sole means.¹

That there is no way to get liberation except through the knowledge of Brahman is made clear by the Veda as follows:

[There is no other path to liberation.]

This is a rule without exceptions. Referring explicitly to the devas, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad declares:

[Whoever among the devas realised Brahman, became Brahman.]

The import is that only the devas who realised Brahman attained liberation.

Exhortation

When the exalted devas themselves have to secure the knowledge of Brahman to become liberated and to do so have to dedicatedly practise the means for the said knowledge to dawn, need it be said that humans too need to do so?

Having heard Me speak about knowledge being vital for liberation, people have asked me to tell them some shortcut to become enlightened and liberated in a trice.

There is no such way. Realization is not something that can be had at the drop of a hat and, in the case of one, who is at the beginning of the path to it, many lives of effort are required. Thus, the Lord has said:

[Perfected in the course of many lives, he attains the supreme goal.]

If we begin to duly and diligently strive to advance in the path to realization, which alone results in liberation, we will reach the goal at least after several births; sans effort, however, liberation will not be ours even after aeons. May all of you understand the path well and, by conducting yourselves suitably, attain blessedness.

हर नमः पार्वतीपतये हर हर महादेव