Sri Ramakrishna Math : The Vedanta Kesari, September 2003

In the last month's editorial we discussed the subject `waking up from the waking state'. A logical query follows: How to wake up? Should it come about automatically, or should any particular effort be necessary? Curiously, this `waking up' can be brought about through a phenomenon that can be called `knowing the known'. We are familiar with a `knowing the unknown'. Hence this approach seems to be a mockery of our own experience. Yes, it is so; because it eludes the reach of all tools that are used by us as means to knowledge. The Vivekachudmani (verse 1) discusses this point with remarkable aptness. Shankara encapsulates this idea in an aphoristic sentence: tam agocharam, `That' is beyond the scope of knowledge. By the word tam he alludes to a Brahman, which, many believe, is a figment of the imagination of the Advaitins. Oneness of the entire existence has been discovered by the Advaitins through realization. It will be unfair to call a realization `out of this world'. Rather, we see that it has been a trend among our contemporary celebrities throughout the world to propagate Advaitic ideas in their own language and name. There is a kind of shyness to publicly admit the urgent necessity of applied spirituality as the panacea for all evils. Peter Drucker, the celebrated Management Guru, does not feel it prudent to keep this truth a secret. He says that the best CEO for any company would be one who has a `Doctorate in Divinity'. Whatever be the source, truth remains a truth only. With this contingency in mind, Shankara clarifies the wrong notions about the proof of the existence of Brahman.

It is not difficult for us to appreciate a process of knowledge when it is about knowing the unknown. The idea is embedded in the word `know'. But, how to authenticate a process of knowledge that tries to know the known? This is a genuine problem. On the other hand, the scriptures say that it is no problem to do so; it is like knowing a thing that we already knew, but in a different name--what we knew as the Jiva is in reality Brahman! Sri Ramakrishna tells a story: Once a pregnant lioness attacked a flock of sheep. Unfortunately, unable to bear the impact of her jump, she gave birth to a cub and died on the spot. The lion cub remained in the flock of sheep and was raised in the sheeptradition. One day a lion attacked the flock and before it could kill any prey, it saw to its utter bewilderment--a young lion running away in fear and bleating! The lion caught hold of the stupid cub, took it to a pond, showed him that his and the senior lion's faces tallied. Both of them belonged to one species; hence the cub should not behave like a sheep and be afraid of his own people. The junior lion discovered himself as a lion, roared and bounded into the forest.

This type of knowledge does not bring about any new cognition. What can be more convincing than telling the questioner that he/she is Brahman? Yet we, the same Brahman, have a question: What is the proof that we are Brahman? This question can be asked without being aware that it exposes our ignorance in a convincing way! Again, the scriptures do not talk about an unknown Brahman or a known Brahman; they discuss a Brahman that is not unknown.

To arrive at this understanding Shankara takes the following method. At first he discards the idea that Brahman is known saying: tam agocharam. Brahman is beyond the scope of the process of a knowing that separates the knower from the known, which is valid in the case of ordinary sense perception of a limited object. Let us analyze the workings of ordinary logic:

(a) Pratyaksha pramâna, or knowing with the help of all the indriyas will not make the grade. The senses themselves are so handicapped that one cannot stand pramâna to the other. If I say my house is at a place where it is soundless, it is all right. But if I say, `the world is soundless', then my statement is absurd. Because it proves that I am deaf and therefore my statement about sound cannot be accepted. If I say: `I see that your lips are moving, but I cannot hear the sound,' then either you are dumb or I am deaf. Sound testifies to the power of the ears' faculty. Those who have ears will hear. Therefore, my seeing the lip-movement doesn't testify to the faculty of the ears.

(b) What about the much-relied-upon anumâna jnâna, inferential knowledge? It also could not claim a better value. An inference requires a hetu (in the logic of inference it forms the middle/second member or premise of a three- or five-member syllogism)--as smoke (hetu) in the case of proving the invisible fire (called major or sâdhya, i.e., the object to be inferred). For Brahman, there is no worldly indication or sign or mark available to supply that hetu, which has the universal accompaniment (called vyâpti) by the major (sâdhya). Interestingly, this vyâpti (accompaniment of the hetu and the sâdhya) is derived by us through pratyaksha pramâna, as for example, through pratyaksha pramâna we know that smoke always goes with fire. So, in the analogy of inferring fire through the smoke, both smoke and fire have vyâpti or universal concomitance. Since nothing can stick to Brahman (Asango hi ayam purushah, this Reality is unattached. Asparsham &agandhavat etc.), the process of inference fails due to the absence of or defects in the hetu.

So, we turn to Shruti or âgama pramâna, because Brahman is indicated by the epithets, shâstrayoni (Atman or Brahman can be inferred through scriptural data alone), and hence aupanishadam (It is available in the Upanishads). Shankara, therefore, specifically says (Vivekachudâmani, verse 1): sarva-vedânta-siddhânta- gocharam, it is available as the subject matter of the Vedanta. He does not use a general term: sarva-veda-siddhânta, the subject matter of the `Vedas' (or the Karma and Upâsanâ Kândas of the Vedas). What is Vedânta siddhânta? The Vedântasâra says: Vishayah tu, jiva-brahma-aikyam, the subject matter is: the identity of the empirical self, jiva, and the transcendental Self, Brahman. This knowledge does not have its origin in a Purusha or Creator. It is the Truth; so it is Eternal. An aspirant has only to discover this knowledge; he or she does not invent it. Swami Vivekananda (hereafter Swamiji) has explained this phenomenon in detail:

`What we say a man "knows", should, in strict psychological language, be what he "discovers" or "unveils"; what a man learns is really what he "discovers", by taking the cover off his own soul, which is a mine of infinite knowledge.'

`These principles have existed throughout time; and they will exist. They are non-create--uncreated by any laws which science teaches us today. They remain covered and become discovered, but are existing through all eternity in nature. If Newton had not been born, the law of gravitation would have remained all the same and would have worked all the same. It was Newton's genius which formulated it, discovered it, brought it into consciousness, made it a conscious thing to the human race. So are these religious laws, the grand truths of spirituality. They are working all the time. If all the Vedas and the Bibles and the Korans did not exist at all, if seers and prophets had never been born, yet these laws would exist. They are only held in abeyance, and slowly but surely would work to raise the human race, to raise human nature. But they are the prophets who see them, discover them, and such prophets are discoverers in the field of spirituality. As Newton and Galileo were prophets of physical science, so are they prophets of spirituality. They can claim no exclusive right to any one of these laws; they are the common property of all nature. The Vedas, as the Hindus say, are eternal. We now understand what they mean by their being eternal, i.e., that the laws have neither beginning nor end, just as nature has neither beginning nor end.'

Any investigation depends on the samples or data the investigator collects. The validity of the data is never questioned. Opinions differ in respect of the process to be undertaken to reach the conclusion, or the conclusions reached or inferred from the available data. In the case of empirical reasoning (laukika pramâna) we have to depend on empirical data. To prove SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) we have to depend on data received from SARS patients. This data cannot be questioned. Similarly in order to prove a transcendental (alaukika) reality we have to depend on transcendental (alaukika) data that are available in the Shruti alone. So the Shruti pramâna has to be accepted as unquestionable pramâna. A cross-verification of the authenticity of the scriptural data has been done times without number in the religious history of the world by the admission of all sages and seers. Sri Ramakrishna says that his realizations tallied with the scriptural records. Sri Krishna alludes to the veracity of the alaukika data when he says to Arjuna: I shall equip you with transcendental vision (divya chakshu), because you won't be able to see this transcendental phenomenon (Vishvarupa) svachakshu- shâ, with the help of your own empirical or physical eyes. Our pramânas should depend on the data available from the one transcendental source called the Shruti, and on none else.

In one's spiritual undertaking this fact has to be convincingly understood. It eliminates the chances of distressing doubts surfacing in the mind and thereby causing loss of zest. To clarify any doubt in spiritual life one should turn to the scriptures alone, time and again, and find solution. One does not go to sources that have nothing to do with transcendental reality. A spiritual life should be accompanied by religious books that have relevance to the particular path it follows. There is a saying in Sanskrit: Âvrittih sarva-shâstrânâm bodhât api gariyasi, a regular chanting and reading of the scriptures is higher than realization. It helps to keep the initial fire aglow. Such studies enable us to shift our dependence from our own limited understanding and purify the mind that is the main instrument for a spiritual life; the lens through which we see should change. Swamiji discussed this point when he said: 'Religion deals with the truths of the metaphysical world just as chemistry and the other natural sciences deal with the truths of the physical world. The book one must read to learn chemistry is the bookof nature. The book from which to learn religion is your own mind and heart. The sage is often ignorant of physical science because he readsthe wrong book--the book within; and the scientist too is often ignorant of religion because he too reads the wrong book--the book without.'

Sri Ramakrishna told Vidyasagar, 'You know all this; you simply are not conscious of it. There are countless gems in the coffers of Varuna 'one of the prominent Divinities in the Hindu pantheon'. But he himself isn't aware of them.' Similarly, Brahman is known, but unclearly. The Panchadasi (1.12) convincingly clarifies this point saying: 'Standing at a distance a person has been listening to the chorus chanting of students. His own son is there in the group. He is able to hear the voice of his son "generally" mingled with the voices of all students, but not "particularly", because it cannot be identified as: "this is my son's voice".' Similarly, Brahman is known 'generally' but not 'particularly'. A standing object at a distance may not be known or identified as a stump of a tree or a human being, but, at the same time, it is unquestionably known as some existent thing or 'something'. We may know that we exist biologically or materially, but do not know that we exist spiritually, eternally, also. Hence it is a search for a known thing the knowledge of which has become hazy with time.

One may argue that so many philosophies complicate the subject. Our answer is an emphatic 'NO'. Rather we would say, 'We complicate it.' Because we think we are fit for all; we could test all; we should taste all. Let us first judge our competence and then take up any one suitable path to reach the goal. The greatest hope about this undertaking is unique in that the goal itself will help us to reach it, for it is not an inanimate goal. The Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, has beautifully expressed it as 'to jump into the open arms of a living God.'