Concerning the four yugas, or cosmic epochs, in Indic literature, it is as follows: in the Vedas there are symbolic references to cycles of time. Specifically, there are both references in Rigveda 1.164.46 about the “wheel of time” (kāla-cakra) and its divisions. Also, the Yajurveda contains cosmological numbers that later influenced yuga theories. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Time is often seen as cyclical, with creation and dissolution recurring. The Mahabharata, (Shanti Parva 231–232) has a full description of the four yugas. Such as in Satya Yuga: Dharma stands on all four legs (truth, purity, compassion, austerity) and in Kali Yuga, Dharma stands on only one leg. There are descriptions of human lifespans, moral conditions, and decline. It also tells of Yuga Dharma, how duties change with each cosmic epoch. Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana give the most elaborate account of the yugas with the exact durations: Satya Yuga, 1,728,000 years, Treta Yuga, 1,296,000 years, Dvapara Yuga, 864,000 years, and Kali Yuga, the one we live in, 432,000 years. These four form a Mahayuga (4.32 million years). Further, crucial to Brahmanism, 1000 Mahayugas equals one day of Brahma. Lastly, the Surya Siddhanta (astronomical text), gives precise astronomical definitions of the yugas, matching Puranic values.
What I have gathered from Buddhist teaching is that this present epoch, the Kali Yuga, is ruled by conflict. So it’s to conflict we are naturally drawn.
Friedrich Hegel, who calls history “the development of Spirit” through dialectics and explains (using phrases like “the history of the world is the progress of the consciousness of freedom”) doesn’t have a cyclical, mythic timeline like the Hindu Yuga system (Satya → Treta → Dvapara → Kali, endlessly repeating) which are mostly taken from the Vedas and Purāṇas. His model is linear and teleological—history moves forward in a purposeful progression toward the realization of human freedom, not in recurring cosmic ages.
Conflict in his system plays an imports role as a dialectical, evolutionary, perhaps even cruel Darwinian struggle, to evolve ‘Spirit’ into his so-called ‘Absolute,’ an idealist construct. But it all sounds like cold comfort especially if its only useful purpose was to serve Karl Marks when he turned Hegel’s idealist dialects on its head and developed Dialectical Materialism, that says: society and history develop through conflicts in the material world—especially class struggles—that drive transformation. It’s basically Marx and Engels taking Hegel’s dialectical method but replacing Hegel’s “Spirit,” the evolution of freedom, with economic and social reality as the engine of change.
Comments
Post a Comment