Question: In the Upanishads, several types of worship are described. Studying those, it may be said that the knowledge of the identity of the self and brahman also is an aspect of worship-based rituals.
Answer: The consequence (samanvaya) of all Vedas is the knowledge of the essence. But this knowledge is not an aspect of any worship-ritual. This has to be understood. For the fulfillment of worldly and other worldly desires, there is a tendency of people to take refuge in some invisible existence or substance. Its result is the worship of deities. The qualified student of worship is one, and that of knowledge of brahman is another. The inquisitiveness of brahman arises in him who does not see happiness in small things. He who has become dispassionate towards the tiny, will only gain happiness from the huge (brihat) substance, he who only sees brahman as happiness. The name of the most huge substance is brahman. It alone is the bhooma. That which is the one in the many is the bhooma. In reality, without dispassion arising, there will be no inquiry into brahman, when worship of deities can happen with a small degree of inquisitiveness.
The happiness that is experienced in the small makes you subservient, makes you inert, since without identifying with the inert you will not experience happiness, even in its result, it will make you sad. The opposer of happiness is subservience and separation, that of awareness is inertness, identification with a real other, that of existence is perishability. That is why, if someone wants to seek happiness outside of the self, then he wants perishable happiness, he wants inert happiness, he wants subservient happiness. In reality, he is afflicted by the delusion of sorrow seen as happiness. That is why, after becoming dispassionate towards the happiness of action and worship, the inquisitor of brahman should take the refuge of a teacher for attainment of the knowledge of brahman.
To attain the knowledge of brahman from the words of the teacher, the inquisitor faces three refuges: self refuge, Ishvara refuge and means refuge.
After dropping everything and sitting down in one self, we will attain the supreme self naturally - this is the refuge of the self. Perform lots of worship, give lot of offerings to Ishvara, and being pleased, he will give us his knowledge - this is Ishvara refuge. We will catch hold of some such means that will give us result in the form of brahman knowledge - this is means refuge, like the practice of scripture, austerity, samaadhi, deity worship and so on. Self refuge is nothing but means refuge, only the direction of the means action is inward, and doership is not present. But both self refuge and means refuge do not have the capability to remove the delusion of doership and enjoyership. In Ishvara refuge, there is doership towards an invisible deity, it is not the means for immediate realization. But yes, this is the path of a beginner seeker.
The seeker who has attained dispassion from the minor is the foremost qualified student for the knowledge of brahman. He who takes the refuge of his intellect is a medium qualified student, and he who takes the refuge of an invisible deity is a lower qualified student of the knowledge of brahman.
Question: Is worship prior to the knowledge of the essence, or is it after?
Answer: It is prior, since after the knowledge of the essence, action, doer and result in the form of the entire world of duality is destroyed. That is why, no further ascribing or worship is needed. It is not even possible since that delusory knowledge of duality, once removed by the knowledge of oneness, will not come back again. Therefore, brahman or the knowledge of brahman is not the aspect of any worship ritual. Yes, there are some places in the Upanishad where the self has been described in statements of rituals, and for purposes of meditations, those mentions can be considered aspects of worship ritual. But, there are places where negative statements are used - it is beyond words, beyond touch etc., or where there is teaching of the oneness of the self and brahman like "you are that" etc., there, the teaching is not an aspect of worship, but only the description of realization of truth.
The credibility of the statements of Vedanta is not just in them being scriptural statements, but they are also borne of experience. The way in which the self is said to be brahman is also the way in which it is experienced, that is why they are means. Other statements of injunctions, in which there is no visible subject of the world, are means solely due to their coming from scripture. Those statements connected with the visible are proven by the experience of ordinary negation and assertion, that is why those statements are not means by themselves. Brahman is proven by scripture as well as by experience. Whereas ritualistic actions are only using scripture as means.
How is the credibility of Vedantic statements? Like "you are the tenth man". Every man is the tenth man in a group of ten fools, but due to foolishness they do not count themselves, but only the others. But when someone else comes in and points out "you are the tenth man", then immediate realization happens. Similarly, the self is brahman alone, even though it is immediate, due to ignorance it is as though indirect. Vedantic statements, by removing ignorance, take away that indirectness. The result of knowledge is the removal of ignorance, brahman is ever immediate.
Question: By Vedantic statemetns, the impressions of brahman are created in the mind, and through them, "the self is brahman" this knowledge is experienced. In reality, the self is not brahman. What if we say this?
Answer: It is not so. This is the special point about the science of the self. It neither creates impressions, and neither does it get created through impressions. Yes, all other sciences, being aspects of action, either create or get created by impressions. If you realize that you are a mass of knowledge, then that there is something called impression in knowledge, this notion of yours will be cut.
A pea contains five elements, as well as seedness which distinguishes it from wheat etc. It is due to this seedness alone that it grows, and produces fruits and flowers. But if we burn this pea, then the seedness of that pea will be destroyed, yet its elements remain. This means that existence (sattaa) does not have seedness. This seedness alone is impression (sanskaara). The seed can be burnt but not existence.
Similarly, the witness awareness is existence, it is without seed. In it there are no impressions of matter, action, emotion or ritual. So long as we are identified with the internal organ, these objects create impressions. After knowledge is gained, the internal organ, which is the basis for impressions, is itself negated. Then, how can the science of the self create impressions? And, if the self were created out of impressions, then for those impressions to be created, it would have had to be experienced some time prior, in that state, your internal organ would already have been negated, then the connection with me and mine would not have happened. But that is not the case, therefore the self is not created out of impressions.
"I am" is not an impression, it is an experience. I am a body, this is a natural knowledge. I am a human, this is social knowledge. I am a soul, this is scriptural knowledge. I am brahman, this is not a ascribing of brahman-ness on the I, but is the negation (adhyaaropa) of all natural, social, scriptural superimpositions. Therefore, the experience of the brahman-ness of the self is not created from impressions, but is indicated by the negation of all possible impressions.
The shruti said - all is the supreme self. Everyone heard this shruti, but each person responded to it differently. The action oriented person said - when all is the supreme self, one should serve everyone. The worshipper said - when all is the supreme self, then towards whom is there any attraction or aversion? One should keep the notion of the supreme self in everyone. The meditator said - when all is the supreme self, then one should practice the non-experience of the experienced diversity. The Vedantin said - Sir! what is there to do in this? The shruti is revealing the one truth. If all is brahman, then "I am brahman", "there is nothing different than me". Knowing this, he become fulfilled.
In this manner, the science of Vedanta is not an aspect of either action or worship. It is not created from impressions, nor does it create impressions. The means reveal their target. The target of Vedantic statemetns is the brahman-ness of the self, its target is not any ritual negation. If there is no doubt in your mind about the means (the shruti) and the target (brahman-ness) and there is no opposite thought (resistance) then you will attain the knowledge of brahman through the you are that staetment alone, since brahman is proven by scripture.
Question: So then, are we saying that brahman knowledge leads to liberation!
Answer: No, brahman knowledge itself is liberation. Through brahman knowledge, the ignorance of brahman-ness of the self is destroyed, and immediately, the light of liberation shines in the brahman-nature self. There is no interval between brahman knowledge and liberation. In this, experience and several shrutis are the means. For example:
1. The Mundaka shruti says that the knower of brahman becomes brahman (Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.9). Where the seer and seen are disconnected, there the seer of the pot is distinct from the seen pot. But where the seer is non-disconnected, but due to ignorance, a distinction between the seer and seen is experienced, there, when the non-disconnected self is realized (indicated by the negation of disconnectedness) there the seer becomes the seen. Due to ignorance, we accept ourself as the soul, and accept that brahman is distinct from us, the substratum existence. The knower is the you-aspect and the target is brahman, the that-aspect, but the shruti says - you are that. Disconnectedness is a delusion. When this is known, the distinction between the knower and the target vanishes, and the delusion of disconnectedness is removed, then the knower of brahman becomes brahman. There is only ignorance between the self and brahman, no action, no desire, no worship. Therefore, at the time of knowledge, "the knower of brahman becomes brahman".
During the time of ignorance, the subject of ignorance was brahman and its source was the I soul. When that very brahman was made the subject of knowledge, by saying I am that brahman, then it is seen that very brahman am I. Through knowledge, oneness between the source and subject, and ignorance was destroyed. Brahman is always of the nature of knowledge.
2. The second shruti of the Mundaka Upanishad says : After realizing that "paraavara" brahman, the knots of the heart are cut, all doubts are destroyed, and all actions end (Mundaka Upanishad 2.2.8).
"Paraavara" means the substratum of the entire moving and non-moving world. Realizing it means - seeing the all-self substratum, meaning Ishvara, in the form of one's own self. The "para" is the cause, it is Ishvara, and the "avara" is the effect, it is the world. The soul also is the effect with regards to Ishvara. Therefore, realizing the paraavara means seeing micro-macrocosm, soul-Ishvara and world-Ishvara, all as established in one's self-illumined self. What will happen by seeing in this manner? Ending of actions, destruction of doubts and cutting of the ignorance knot.
Even though you are the complete brahman, you make me and mine out of one internal organ, this is the knot of the heart. Delusion, superimposition, knot of inert and aware, all these are names for the knot of the heart. What are doubts? These also have ignorance at their root. They always come in pairs: Is it dual or non-dual? Are the self and not self one or two? Liberation is achieved through knowledge or action? Does knowledge lead to liberation or not? Is there another world or not? Is the self brahman or not? All these are doubts. What is action? The creator-created nature of desire and action is termed action here. Desire creates action, action creates desire again, the connection with desire-action leads to a repeated cycle of birth and death! This alone is action. Through knowledge, the knot of ignorance is removed, all doubts go away, and the connection with desire-action is destroyed to such an extent that the cycle of rebirth itself is broken. This alone is liberation.
These results of knowledge, which again is knowledge, definitely occur. There is no interval in the middle.
3. The shruti of the Taittireeya Upanishad says: One who knows the bliss of brahman is not afraid of anyone (Taittireeya Upanishad 2.9). Even Yaajnyavalkya tells Janaka of this same result, fearlessness : O Janaka, you have definitely attained to fearlessness (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.2.4).
Here, it seems to be the case that brahman and bliss are two different things, and their knower is the third thing. But in the Taittireeya shruti, bliss alone has been called brahman. It has also been said that the bliss brahman alone creates the world. This separation of bliss and brahman is only for grammatical reasons. Shruti 2.8 in that Upanishad analyzes bliss. There it is said as follows. If you are not ignorant, and you do not harbour any desire in your heart, then you will attain several times the unreachable bliss of humans spontaneously in the form of your self. It means that you yourself are of the nature of bliss. It is also said here that "brahman is truth, knowledge and bliss". The synthesis of all this is that you are the existence-consciousness-bliss-nature non-dual brahman.
When the knowledge that "I am the non-dual brahman" arises, then what will you fear? Fear is from another, from sorrow. Brahman is neither the other, nor the shadow of sorrow! "Brahman is fearless" (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.25). "Fear is of the other" (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.2).
The fear of death is the root of all fears. Through the knowledge of brahman, that fear goes away. Why should you worry about other fears? The existence is always imperishable. The wise person should not fear that they will become ignorant or mad, since in the form of awareness, these are not imagined! The intellect could be in samaadhi or in confusion, there is no fear. The wise person does not fear anything - neither object nor the absence of object, neither enjoyment nor absence of enjoyment, neither action nor absence of action! You have read this in the Chhandogya.
4. The shruti of the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad says : "That soul alone knew itself that I am brahman, with this knowledge he became all". (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10).
When the pot space is space alone, due to the adjunct of the pot, the name of space is pot space. Similarly, the soul is brahman alone, with the adjunct of body and internal organ, the name of brahman alone becomes soul. That brahman holding the name of soul knew itself. Knew what? Everyone knows their own self. The Chaaravaakas think of their self as the body or four elements. The Buddhists think of their self as momentary science. The Nyaaya school followers think of their self as the doer-enjoyer. The Saankhya and Yoga followers think of their self as the witness. The worshippers and atom school followers think of their self as a fragment of Ishvara. Everyone claims to know their self. The shruti said, we will make a constitution. He who knows based on that constitution, knows truly. The constitution says "I am brahman". If you know your self in the form of brahman, then the knowledge is correct. Devoid of the disconnectedness of space, time and matter, devoid of all three kinds of distinction, the undivided existence consciousness element brahman is me, and in me alone is this entire world creation shining. When you will know it like this, then you will know correctly. Its result? That I have become everything, this knowledge.
I am brahman, this knowledge is needed, but I am brahman, this arrogation is not needed. I am the body, I am the soul, etc. all these are arrogations. Their negation alone is required in the knowledge that I am brahman. Soul-ness is a delusion, "shrauta" is a delusion. This has not been accepted by looking at soul-ness. If you can see your soul-ness, then you are distinct from it to begin with. Soulness is the ascribing of the disconnected seen upon oneself, it is not our true nature.
In me, the brahman, this experienced creation, without existing, is being seen due to ignorance. In the vision of knowledge, experience is not distinct from the experience-self. Therefore, the world is non-distinct from me who is brahman.
5. Ishaavaasya Upanishad says : When he knows that "all beings are the brahman self alone", at that moment where can there by any sorrow or delusion for the one essence seer? (7)
In this manner, through the knowledge of brahman, the obstruction of the liberation-nature self is removed, it is not a command for any worship or action for liberation. This is because the shruti does not accept any interval between the knowledge of brahman and liberation. In action, there is always an interval between the knowledge of action and its result, which is the action itself, without which the result cannot be attained. But in brahman knowledge, liberation is attained at that very moment, this is the philosophy of the shruti.
The sage Vaamadeva realized that "I am brahman". As a result of this knowledge, he began to say that I alone was Manu, I alone am the sun (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10). This is an example of all-self-notion (sarvaatma bhaava). From the viewpoint of the knowledge of the "you" aspect, the self alone is the illuminator and substratum of the mind and the eyes. There is no interval of effect between the knowledge of brahman and all-self-notion.
In this manner, Naarada prayed to Sanatkumaara to cross him over the ocean of sorrow, and only through hearing which is knowledge, Sanatkumaara did so (Chhaandogya).
Question: "Knowledge of brahman" means knowing brahman, In other words, there is an action called knowing brahman, which means that brahman is the object of knowledge.
Answer: The shruti points out brahman as objectless (avishaya). "That brahman is beyond the known as well as the unknown" (kena Upanishad 1.3). A visible object is known (vidita) and an invisible object is unknown (avidita). It could be something that is invisible at this moment like a foreign country, or invisible at all times such as heaven but has been spoken about. Brahman transcends the known and the unknown both. Then he must be a non-immediate (paroksha) deity who could also be beyond the known and unknown, deity is a name-form entity only from the reference of the worshipper. No, brahman is not non-immediate, the "I" is ever realized, therefore he is ever immediate. But even here, brahman is beyond any notion in which form the "I" is known as well as unknown. That which by which all these are known, how to know that? (Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.8.14).
Now you say, if brahman cannot be an object of thought-flow, then it will forever remain unknown! Then the entire discussion of brahman is useless. And the scripture has been called the womb of brahman, that will also be refuted. Then it is not so. It has to be understood.
Even great Vedantins think that the effect of knowledge should happen in our body and internal organ. Like a treasure that is buried gives joy, at a minimum, there should be such joy. Then what you are saying is that brahman knowledge becomes a means of enjoyment for the body dweller, correct? This is just a state of arrogation of the body, not a state of brahman knowledge. The result of brahman knowledge is only the removal of ignorance, by which your imagined soul-nation is removed. Soul-ness means taking any fragment, any disconnected entity and calling it me and mine. A body which is 3.5 cubits long, which is 50-100 years old, which weighs 50-100 kilos, in it, the sinner and merit seeker which is calling it me and mine, joy-sorrow, accepting it as coming and going personality, thinking this as me and mine - all this is incorporated in soul-notion. This is a delusion, and by not knowing our true reality. Vedanta does not bring a shine to the face, does not bring money, does not remove disease. It only removes ignorance.
Brahman can only be objectless only when it is the self, the refuge of knowledge. That which illumines the object is objectless. Object, kinds of object, absence of object, that which illuminates these, that which knows objectness and objectlessness, that self is always departed from the object. Who knows? I know. Therefore I the self alone am objectless. That which stays away from objects and illumines them alone is objectless, the absence of objects is not called objectlessness.
No comments:
Post a Comment