The question arises with some regularity, "What is the Path of Knowledge?". I often hear it spoken of as implying that someone who enjoys study, acquiring various degrees etc is following the path of knowledge. Also, it is often rejected by those of a more practical persuasion as being mere 'information'. I feel that this is a misunderstanding as to what the path of knowledge actually is. Sure, study is an aid for all of us, but what is the actual practice of the path of knowledge?
The following excerpts are from "Sayings of Sri Ramakrishna". I find this helpful in being reminded what kind of 'knowledge' we are actually talking about. The second excerpt, though Sri Ramakrishna uses a physical analogy, I find similar to the "Catching the Chameleon" method. i.e, the observation and dropping of assumed identities. Would it then be necessary to assert anything? Seems that we are often subject to a whole lot more assertion than negation? 'Assertion' leads to accumulated conclusions, 'negation' to deeper consciousness as the identifications are let go. If the ahankara has adopted various accumulated conclusions or beliefs then, because of identification, it feels threatened when the beliefs are threatened. Ever seen this? What kind of behaviour does this lead to?
What is Jnana Yoga?
Jnana Yoga is communion with God by means of knowledge. The Jnani's objective is to realise Brahman, the Absolute. He says "Not this," "Not this" and thus leaves out of account one unreal thing after another until he gets to a point where all Vichara (discrimination) between the real and the unreal ceases, and Brahman is realised in Samadhi.
***
If a man knows his own self, he knows other beings and God. What is my ego? Is it my hand or foot, flesh or blood, muscle or tendon? Ponder deeply, and you will know that there is no such thing as 'I'. As you peel off the skin of an onion, you find it consists only of skin; you cannot find any kernel in it. So too on analysing the ego, you will find that there is no real entity that you can call 'I'. Such an analysis of the ego convinces one that the ultimate substance is God alone. When egotism drops away, Divinity manifests itself.
***
...if, on the other hand, the Truth is heard and understood intellectually but no attempt is made to renounce the unreal, of what use is that knowledge? Such knowldege is like that of the men of the world, and does not help one to attain the Truth. Or else a person may profess in mere words that the world is unreal and non-existant; but the moment sense-objects – colour, taste and the rest appear before him, he takes them to be real and gets entangled just like a man who verbally asserts that there are no thorns, but bursts out screaming as soon as his hand comes in contact with a thorn and gets pricked.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Is Knowledge Asserting or Negating?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's no doubt that the way of knowledge is traditionally negative in the way it proceeds from coarse to fine - neti, neti.
It's the same in the Christian tradition, where it's called the via negativa, the negative way. The positive way is devotional.
That, it seems, is why advaita (a path of knowledge, at least originally) is called "non-duality" rather than "unity" - the idea of unity is distracting to the intellect, but the idea of non-duality is not. Unity is for the lover; the intellectual calls it non-duality.
Forgive me Vayukesha, but the kind of assertion I was describing was not in my view the assertion of the devotional man. I was speaking of asserting something merely because a wise man has said it or it is written in the scripture. I don't think the man of knowledge is ultimatley interested in formulated knowledge or 'borrowed answers' as Sri Ramakrishna refers to them. But please do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying I think the words of Mahapurusha or scripture are wrong, just that asserting like this isn't really knowledge. It has the 'sound' of being technically correct but often misses the point.
Perhaps I contradict myself by quoting Sri Ramakrishna? But I would like to think I choose quotes carefully to reflect what has been known experientially at some point or time.
Reflecting on this whole question, it seems to me that if the man of knowledge did nothing but negate then he would be an atheist, cynic or nihilist. It isn't really like this. There is faith. There is faith that in negating the unreal, there must be a real substratum underneath? This is faith that is strengthened by experience. Is the faith and experience a positive thing. Yes, of course. But I suggest the man of knowledge continues to reject, leaving the positive experience 'known' but undefined.
I also suggest that this is not and cannot be a loveless path. Perhaps the love of the man of knowledge is for nirguna Brahman and the love of the devotional man is for the saguna Brahman? The former isn't loveless or nihilism but it may appear like that to those of another temperament.
Came across another gem by Sri Ramakrishna:
"Only two kinds of people can attain self-knowledge: those who are not encumbered ata ll with learning, that is to say, whose minds are not over-crowded with thoughts borrowed from others; and those who, after studying all the scriptures and sciences, have come to realise that they know nothing."
Further on the point of love for nirguna or saguna Brahman, perhaps these 'categories' also are partial...?
***
Once Sri Ramakrishna asked Narendra (Swami Vivekananda) what his ideal in life was. "To remain absorbed in Samadhi," repiled Narendra. "Can you be so small-minded as that?" the Master said, "Go beyond Samadhi. Samadhi is a trifling thing for you!"
***
On another occasion Sri Ramakrishna asked the same question to Narendra, and received the same reply as before. To which the Master remarked: "Why! I thought you were made of better stuff. How can you be satisfied with such a one-sided ideal? My strength is all-sidedness. I would like to enjoy fish, for instance, in a variety of ways - fried and boiled, made into soup, pickled etc. I enjoy the Lord not only in His unconditioned state of Oneness, as unqualified Brahman, in Samadhi, but also in His various blessed manifestations through sweet human relationship. So you do likewise. Be a Jnani and a Bhakta in one."
Kapila, I wasn't suggesting that you were talking about the assertion of the devotional. All I meant was that assertion is alien to the spirit of jnana-yoga.
Post a Comment