The non-existent was not; the existent was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss?
There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else.
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat.
Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom.
Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above.
Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?
Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.
- Rig Veda, Creation Hymn
We have had a lot of discussion recently about traditional vs modern, and so I thought it would be interesting to actually read a few words from the ancient world. Click below to read more.
The Vedas were preserved orally using remarkable mnemonic devices that ensured not one word could be changed - in the words of one scholar, the above is "a tape recording from 3500 BC". In translation, obviously.
What strikes me about this Creation Hymn is that the author is fundamentally agnostic and curious. He really has the spirit of enquiry - he is more interested in getting at the truth than in getting a pat answer.
Today people make all kinds of assertions about the nature of God and what He knows or does, and to back this up they claim that the ancients discovered all of these things or had them revealed to them. I think that an objective reading of this text should throw all of that into question. The ancients did not have a monopoly on wisdom. Nor were they more confident than us, necessarily.
Day 2 of the 1991 Conversation has Mr MacLaren quoting the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, asking whether what it says about the transmigration of the father into the son is true. HH simply replies, "This is not so," and goes on to explain why. He doesn't qualify it - he just says that the Upanishad is wrong, on the basis of Advaita Vedanta philosophy. So perhaps we today are rather more certain of our point of view than the ancients were.
Howsoever that may be, the author of the Creation Hymn has the right attitude - awe at the universe, curiosity about it, reverence for the spiritual, and a desire to know. The Upanishads, the first systematic philosophy, are among the fruits of this desire.
Reading this hymn, I can personally feel great kinship and affection for its ancient author.
PS Sorry about the picture - I couldn't resist it!
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I started a new job recently. One of the observations that arose when I began was that there was a tendency of myself and others to ‘size each other up’. ‘Do I have more knowledge or experience than them?’, or something similar. What continues to be observed is that many people build up a collection of things that they ‘know’ which makes them useful or indispensable. Underneath this is a basic survival instinct, whether of organism or ego. If I have a collection of things that nobody else knows then my job’s safe. The ‘new guy’ is a threatening unknown as perhaps he knows more.
What has been evident in several situations is that the possibility of moving forward, or arriving at a creative solution to a problem entails, before anything else, an admission of unknowing. The next step is to ask what appears to be a stupid question. The result is often that no-one else has thought of the obvious either. No doubt because they’re all defending their accumulated knowledge. And this because of fear in some guise or other.
I relate this back to the discussion on intelligence, that it isn’t related to prior knowledge. Intelligence is unknowing. It is the space that allows us to see beyond the limited categories that we usually work within. So it always has the capability to be expansive. (Isn’t this the meaning of Brahman - growth, expansion, evolution?)
To quote one of my dodgy new-age sources again ; )
Knowing is a keen memory of all the chess openings, over a neatly squared chess board, with well-behaved pieces;
unknowing brings one to a bewilderment in midgame from which a victory may spring.
~ Alan Harris
This must be similar for any true insight, inspiration, revelation or realisation? I also don’t believe this is at all to do with us or anyone else having all the answers. Isn’t it to do with becoming aware of the expansive space of unknowing and the insight that arises from it? Certainly, this is the only 'answer' that doesn't result in existential claustrophobia.
What this brings to mind is the nature of devotion.
The medieval monastic community was a lifetime commitment, which began with service to the structure and organisation of the monastery. This service over the years became devoted service, out of which emerged naturally, devotion. And this in turn, day in, day out, prepared the mind for true personal knowledge to emerge naturally.
We're doing a short course in lifelong devotion ! We're great at devoted service, but the devotional gets a short slot.
So in the West we're a bit keener on answers than questions. Fair comment ? A life of questions may be better than a life of answers ?
Are we lacking a sense of wonder ? For myself, yes. But I'm working on it..
Congratulations on the job, Kapila.
Here's something I found recently:
What is the Divine Darkness?
… do, dear Timothy, in the diligent exercise of mystical contemplation, leave behind the senses and the operations of the intellect, and all things sensible and intellectual, and all things in the world of being and nonbeing, that you may arise by unknowing towards the union, as far as is attainable, with it that transcends all being and all knowledge. For by the unceasing and absolute renunciation of yourself and of all things you may be borne on high, through pure and entire self-abnegation, into the superessential Radiance of the Divine Darkness.
But these things are not to be disclosed to the uninitiated, by whom I mean those attached to the objects of human thought, and who believe there is no superessential Reality beyond, and who imagine that by their own understanding they know It that has made Darkness Its secret place
- Pseudo-Dionysius
Anonymous, I really agree with you about devotion and devoted service.
anonymous said:
So in the West we're a bit keener on answers than questions. Fair comment ? A life of questions may be better than a life of answers ?
Seems to me the 'living' question is the expansion? As long as it's a genuine question, how could the Absolute fail you?
Kevin
I find the 2nd paragraph of the Pseudo-Dionysius quote a little unclear. It reads like there is a 'someone' who should not disclose their knowledge. But surely, in the context of the quote, being attached to thought-objects automatically blinds us to going beyond them? Therefore even if we were told of something 'beyond', that information would also be turned into an object of thought? I think the quote could possibly also be read in this way? How do others hear it?
I've heard a similar thing said of Buddha, that he refused to give answers to many things as the answers would be worshipped as objects in themselves. Another form of idol worship? I think this is where the erroneous tag of nihilism arises. It isn't nihilism. I invite the curious to read Sri Ramana or Sri Ramakrishna on the subject of Buddha. Very interesting...but I possibly digress.
I think that he is saying that the uninitiated are those who believe that God can be an object of thought. Therefore to disclose the teaching to them is just to feed that idea. It does no good to them, and opens the teaching up to ridicule when they repeat it, or turn against it.
A bit like Buddha, Confucius refused to answer questions about two things - heaven and human nature. He was primarily concerned with morality, and regarded deep philosophy and theology as an easy way out of difficult questions for those who wanted to avoid the real work.
Post a Comment