The word "Veda" means knowledge. The head of the Veda-person is called Upanishad. Upa = without division, ni = complete, shad = knowledge. In other words, it is that supreme knowledge which is non-distinct from the known, and free from the disconnectedness of space, time and object, it is that complete brahman. This is the intent of the meaning of Upanishad. That is why, so long as the true nature of knowledge is not properly investigated, this point will not be comprehended.
I. Knowledge itself is the means, not a dependent means.
In understanding the meaning of any aspect (pada), knowledge alone will be the final decision maker. All interactions happen based on one's own knowledge. Whether it is to do with a certain subject or not, this decision will happen through knowledge alone. For example, the reality of the subject is determined by the senses, of the senses by the mind, of the mind by the intellect, and of the intellect by the knowledge-nature self. Even the experience of the unknown is knowledge ultimately. But, in order to demonstrate knowledge, is there need for another entity outside of knowledge? Never!
The triad of knower, means and known is also illuminated by knowledge. That is why, in order to prove knowledge, we do not require any of them. The illuminator of the presence and absence of this triad is knowledge alone. Whether they are there or not, knowledge remains. Without knowledge, who is there to experience them? There is presence of knowledge in the triad, and absence of the triad in knowledge. That is why, the reality of knowledge is undivided. Knowledge is not attained through means, but all interactions of means and knower are attained through knowledge. The conclusion is that knowledge is a means in itself, not a secondary or dependent means.
II. Knowledge is self illumined. It is not subservient to the doer, instrument, activity or result.
Even if the doer makes a million attempts, it cannot make post-knowledge into person-knowledge. Cognition is subservient to the doer. It can perceive something as ganesha, the Sun, then change it or drop it - in all of these, the doer is independent. But this is not knowledge, it is the creation of the doer which he establishes himself and then accepts it as independent. These cognitions can differ based on each doer, tradition, race and nation and they do happen, but the knowledge in all is always one. The post can be cognized as a robber or a policeman or a ghost, but when it ultimately happens, that knowledge that it is a post is always one. Change in a person does not mean change in knowledge, because no person can ever create knowledge. Even Ishvara is not the doer of knowledge, he himself is of the nature of knowledge. If we accept Ishvara as the doer of knowledge, then prior to the creation of knowledge, we will have to accept the absence of knowledge in Ishvara, but the absence of knowledge cannot be proven by any means or experience, because then that means or experience will also be knowledge-nature. The conclusion is that knowledge is not attained by any means, it is ever attained. In its causal form (kaarana roopa), the imagination of ignorance or change in knowledge is always unattached (nitaanta asangata). That is why knowledge is self illumined.
III. Knowledge is not disconnected in time.
When we begin to think that this knowledge is in the past, and this knowledge is in the future, then we as if accept that in the flow of time, knowledge arises and drops, in other words, knowledge is momentary. But what is this moment which has been ascribed upon time? The question is whether time is undivided or divided? If it is undivided then the distinction of past and future, of "kalaa kaashthaa" etc. are not possible, it is brahman alone. If it is divided, the knowledge will illumine those divisions alone, and the illumined distinctions cannot be ascribed upon the illuminator. For instance, pot, cloth etc. are different, but there is no difference in their illuminator. Similarly, the differences of minute and hour etc. cannot create a difference in their illuminator. In reality, the notion of division in time is without basis. Think about this - was there ever an absence of time, or will there be? The moment in which we imagine an absence of time will also be in time, and will remove the absence of time. Anything that is without absence is without division. Aggregating and separating only happen in a divided entity, not in an undivided entity. That is why, in the absence-less time, on the bases of distinctions of hour and second etc., imagining past and future is worthless. Then what do we say about the past and future which we experience? It is all conceptual (samvinmaatra). Any conceptual entity cannot divide consciousness. Therefore knowledge is not disconnected in time.
IV. Knowledge is also not disconnected in space.
Just like the conceptual past future etc. cannot cause disconnectedness in consciousness, the imagination of length-expansion of space cannot cause disconnectedness in consciousness since it is conceptual also.
The distinction in space appearing as east, west etc. do not have their refuge in space, they have their refuge in the pole star and other stars. Then is it fair to ascribe some other differences on something else? Never. Like time, there is never any absence of space. Whenever there is imagination of absence of space anywhere, that again will happen in some space. The absence-less space is brahman. The imagination of east or west, or of length expansion, is conceptual only, just like the length and breadth of a dream world. The distinction in space illuminated by a self illumined knowledge cannot divide knowledge. That is why knowledge is not disconnected in space.
V. There is no object disconnection in knowledge.
No matter what the object (vishaya), it will always manifest in some space and some time. Without the imagination of space and time, no object can appear. Similarly, without the distinction of object, space and time cannot be seen. When the distinctions of space and time are imagined to begin with, then how can the object which have them as the refuge be non-imagined?
These different visible objects, are they conceptual or more than that? If they are conceptual alone then what is the basis of their imagined distinction, in other words, they cannot be considered different than the three-time-negated (trikaalaabaadhya) reality. And if they are other than conceptual, then what is the harm in calling them forever unreal? Real and unreal, presence and absence can never be mixed. Now, let us accept that different objects are essentially different forms of one reality. But even this point is baseless. Without proving difference in space and time, there is no point in proving difference in reality. When we accept transformation in reality, then the sequence of the state prior, during and after transformation is expected. In this manner, the three-time-negation of reality itself will be cut, and there will be occasion for void-ness, temporary science or "sarvochhedavaada". If we imagine that one aspect of reality is stable, and the other aspect is initiating objects, or is transforming into their form, then this will be proven illogical. That entity which is split into one aspect cannot be permanent in another aspect. Aspect-difference is proven impossible. That is why, object does not arise in reality. The creation of objects is not connected with reality, unreality, reality-unreality or anything else. Those objects whose creation, sustenance, destruction is unproven, which are themselves permanently absent in their substratum, those which cannot be imagined without knowledge, such objects cannot cause disconnection in knowledge.
VI. The distinction of knowing (jnyaatritva) and known-ness (jneyatva) difference is only adjunct-level (aupaadhika), not real.
After space-time-object have been negated, the presence of any known distinct from knowledge is cut automatically. Without a known, knowing cannot be proven in reality. Both knower and known require each other, but knowledge does not require one, both, any, and is self illumined. If we accept that the known-form object exists priorto its knowledge, then due to inexperience (ananubhoota) it will be only an imagination. Without experience, an entity cannot be proven. Anyway, we do see different objects and their aggregate as the macrocosm, which in the form of the known, is distinct from us. Is that in the internal space or external space of knowledge (antara desha)? Firstly, the conception of inside and outside in knowledge is absurd. Second, accepting the known-object as external space takes away any association of knowledge with it. Third, if we accept it as being within internal space, we will have to accept a pervader-pervaded relationship of it with knowledge. This can only be possible if we accept knowledge to be the material cause of the object. But will this material cause knowledge attain transformation, and then take the form of an object? In this state we will have to accept a flow or sequence of transformation. Then this can only be accepted if the momentary nature of time is ascribed upon its illuminator knowledge.
But the attributes or faults of the refugee cannot touch the substratum. For the presence of an object in the beginningless endless knowledge, there is no one moment or many moments of time. Again the question arises, is the object in entire knowledge or in one aspect of knowledge? Portion-ness, complete-ness in knowledge are all imagined. Then if we accept the transformation of knowledge, then is there any form that will transform like milk into curd and will not that transformation also be in the form of knowledge? So then, any distinctions such as stage one, stage two etc. are only imagined by thought less people and are erroneous alone. When the known is rejected, there is no cause for the imagination of knowing.
VII. Knowledge does not give results of any purpose.
If we accept the creation of knowledge, we will have to describe a state prior to its creation, but without knowledge, that stage cannot be described. This means that there is no birth of knowledge. The pure state of the internal organ, or the object-less state, is also not the creator of knowledge, but the originator of thought. Through though, thought-flow oriented knowledge is nourished. When it becomes firm, it removes the delusion of absence of knowledge, not absence of knowledge itself. Per the "prakreeyaa grantha", this thought-flow-oriented knowledge expires in the next moment! It negates its own existence, as well as the thought-flow and the moment. When it is negated itself, then if it is negated by dropping any action or any result, or it remains after the removal of absence of knowledge, then duality will remain as it is. That is why, the imagination of purpose and result is obliterated. There is nothing like purpose or result by which knowledge can remove them. Absence of knowledge, like the clay in a pot, is not the material cause of the world in that sense, it is imagined for the attainment of the arrangement of the world. There is absence of knowledge - this imagination also is an error (vivarta) of knowledge. That is why, by the thought flow of knowledge, absence of knowledge cannot be destroyed, rather imagination alone is negated. This imagination of remover-removed exists in the state of thoughtlessness. From the vision of knowledge, any distinction of cause and result is always unproven.
VIII. In knowledge, there is no distinction of correct-incorrect and visible-invisible (aparoksha-paroksha).
Such distinctions are made in transactions, but upon contemplation, they are imagined object-oriented differences which are ascribed upon knowledge. The elephant in the dream is false in waling, but seeing the elephant in a dream is not false. "There was no elephant" - this is the nature of our waking memory, but not "no elephant was ever seen". The unreality of the elephant cannot prompt the unreality of knowledge. In the state of thoughtlessness, the incorrectness of the elephant is ascribed upon knowledge. In this manner, the invisibility of knowledge is also to be considered. Visible-invisible, these distinctions happen in entities such as a pot, but not in their knowledge. Can knowledge ever be far away from us? No. if we accept that there is a pot in the world and knowledge in the internal organ, then the knowledge of the pot will remain in the internal organ only. Where is any invisibility there? This is a small matter. Devoid of the distinction of refuge-object, in the non-dual awareness-nature knowledge, there is no talking of incorrectness and invisibility.
IX. Knowledge is always non-negated.
There is no companion or enemy of knowledge. Even absence of knowledge is illuminated by knowledge. "I am ignorant" this notion is also a type of knowledge. In knowledge, this notion-distinction is known by not thinking. This means that the distinction between knowledge and the absence of knowledge is imaginary since it is without conjunction (sandhiheena). That is why absence of knowledge cannot negate knowledge. When we imagine the negation of knowledge, the question arises: Will the revelation of negation of knowledge be known or unknown? Will there be any witness of it or not? If it us not known, and if there is no witness, there is no means left for knowing. And when it is known, and there is a witness, the reality of knowledge is proven to be non-destructible and undivided.
X. The nature of knowledge is indescribable.
When we begin to speak about an object, then we have the visible knowledge of "seen-ness", other-ness etc. in it. Any object which is capable of being spoken of will always be possessed with "this-ness", that is why it will also be the object of the mind and speech. In this situation, the subject-object notion also will be unavoidable. This is the reason why those who accept knowledge as created or partnered with the self, in the manner they have described it, Vedanta followers have negated it in the same way. Therefore, indescribability follows the tradition of heterodoxy (paramata). In Vedanta, all that indescribable means is that this knowledge is not distinct from its nature. Non negated ness, self illumined ness, non disconnected ness etc. all these indicators, cannot be given to any other entity, no matter what you term it. There cannot be one self illumined non disconnected entity different from me, it will always be negated when we investigate based on our experience. Indescribable does not mean unknown. The other cannot be different than known or unknown. That is why, the indescribable negates all describables of aspect-knowledge, and resolves everything in the unspeakable self.
XI. Truth, non-violence, meditation, worship, other-ness, causality etc. are characteristics of knowledge alone.
Keeping the transactional distinction between the seeker and the liberated person in front, if we investigate the nature of qualities such as truth, non-violence and so on, then any notion of reality in those qualities is due to being very close to the reality-nature self. The amount of self-closeness present in a thought-flow, will result in the same degree of realization or removal of ignorance its through further purification. Take thought-flows such as truth and non-violence as an example. There will be several untruth-form negative qualities, the related thought-flows of its speech and transaction will be burdened with the weight of worry and objects. Opposed to this, there is no worry or cover-up needed for any truth-oriented thought-flow. The seeker, with his straight forward nature, will be able to remain situated in his object-less truth-thought-flow, and in reality, that will be the state of the self. After removal of ignorance, he will not need to undertake any further effort.
Similarly, desire, anger, greet etc. faulty thought-flows also contain something and have an object inside them. Towards what entity do we have desire, anger, what do we want - without deciding this and taking its form, these faulty qualities cannot exist. Opposed to this, desirelessness, lack of anger and lack of greed etc. thought flows do not expect something as their target. The object-less thought flow does not show itself distinct than its refuge, the inner self. That is why removal of ignorance pertaining to the self is devoid of any obstacles. Only the with-object state appears to the seeker as distinct from reality. The object-less thought flow always appears as real-form, this closeness to the self is the characteristic of the knowledge-form self. It means: Since these thought flows have the absence of untruth, violence etc. they are knowledge-form, not notion-form, they are not many, they are non-dual. Meditation and worship also exist to consolidate many object-oriented thought flows, since they aim to see the oneness in the many.
The imagination of cause-effect and enjoyer-enjoyed in the knowledge-form self is impossible. Through statements of shruti, this meaning has been established. Keeping this point in mind, when we read the shrutis that speak about cause-effect notion, then their meaning is known clearly. Therefore-
1. To remove the delusion of permanency of the seen world, creation and dissolution are described.
2. To negate atoms, Prakriti and other causes, causality has been ascribed in the knowledge-nature supreme self.
3. To remove distinctions of intelligent cause and material cause, "oorna naabhi", "vishphulinga" etc. examples have been given, and the association of one knowledge with all knowledge has been shown. "He alone become many", "Let me become many" etc. statements are meant to remove the distinction between intelligent and material cause, not to indicate any transformation.
4. To negate transformation, the unborn non-dual nature of the supreme self has been described. To justify the seen world, maayaa has been ascribed upon the supreme self.
5. In some other shrutis, this ascribed maayaa has been negated. These shrutis say "there is nothing else besides the supreme self". All this ascribing of causality etc. has been done for the sake of removal of seekers' ignorance alone. Therefore the conclusion of all this is in knowledge alone.
6. Superior-ness, distance etc. also are concluded in the knowledge-nature self. The five tanmaatras superior to the senses, mind superior to the tanmaatraas, intellect superior to the mind, in this manner, one is distant from the other. The aim of this is to take the person from the outer to the inner. Mahat element superior to intellect, unmanifest superior to mahat element, and Purusha superior to unmanifest, this is the resting of superiority or distance, this is the culmination and final state. There is nothing beyond the Purusha - this is the glowing example of the oneness of the self. The sleep-method (laya prakriyaa) of the Upanishads also denote the duration of the quiet self.
XII. By being one with the indication of inseparability, knowledge, self, brahman, world etc. all words are synonyms, and reveal one meaning. So -
1. "Prajnyaanam brahman" prajnyaana is the non-disconnected brahman.
2. "Ayamaatmaa brahman" this self is the non-disconnected brahman.
3. "Brahmaivedam vishvamidam varishtham" this entire world is the non-disconnected brahman alone.
4. "Sarvam yadayamaatmaa" all this is the self alone.
5. "Ahamevedam sarvam" I alone am all this.
6. "Pratibodhaviditam matam" All knowledge is the knowledge of that alone.
7. "Kritsnaha prajnaanaghana eva" Everything is a mass of pure knowledge.
8. "Vijnyaanamaanandam brahman" Knowledge and bliss is brahman alone.
In the Gita, "jnyaanam jneyam", and similar statements in the Bhaagavatam and Vishnu Puraana, the afore mentioned meaning is supported.
In this manner, the meaning expounded by the Upanishads in "I", "this", "inner self" and "world" is the brahman-form alone. Now what is this brahman, hear this from the mouth of the Upanishads. That which is devoid of fragmentation of space, time and object, all-experience-form our self alone is the brahman.
"You are that" and other such great statements declare that all aspects such as seer-seen, you-me-him etc. are that one brahman alone. The brahman essence is indicated by no trace of any disconnection. In that seen-ness, many-ness, other-ness etc. does not arise, and is struck down. This is not knowledge of the essence, it is essence-form knowledge. Its knower is not the knower of brahman, he is the brahman-form knower.
With this description of knowledge, the non-human-authorship of Vedas and Upanishads is clear. Knowledge is knowledge alone, it is not the experience, emotion, memory or imagination of any person. Knowledge is self illumined, all-experience-nature, illuminator of samaadhi, doubt and all other experienced transactions, undivided, unborn and is self means. Its connection is not with the past, future, present, space, object etc. All this is the self. This is knowledge, this is to be known, any knowing is this alone, everything is this alone.
That text which demonstrates, created without prior memory, obtained through a beginningless tradition, "niyattanupoorvaka", is also termed as not being authored by a human. It means one thing, it is one self, it is one statement, even though there are intermediate levels of understanding it, but the supreme understanding is one alone. The head of the Veda person is the Upanishad. Through differences in limbs it may appear many, but is one. Knowledge is non-dual, this is the meaning of non-human-authorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment