By: Jayakrishna Nelamangala
||AUM shree gurubhyo namaha harihi AUM||
Before we study the Upanishad mantra #9, we need to observe some important points.
Technical words – advaita, dvaita, bheda, srushṭi, etc., must be understood only through a proper study of shāstra. if these technical words are given meanings that did not result from a study of shāstra, then, there is the danger of losing philosophy and in its place, all kinds of beliefs take over. Mantra #9 of this Upanishad warns against getting stuck with such beliefs.
Western terminologies such as dualism, pluralism, monism, etc., each term has to be understood and used in the same way as it is used in the west. Applying them randomly to a darshana in the Indian philosophical context does not do any justice to that darshana at all. So, we may be better off staying away from those western words.
The next three mantras teach us something that is very fundamental about the nature of true knowledge. Previously in mantra #7, it was stated that one who understands this (विजानतः vijānataḥ) and who understands this Ēkatva of Parabrahman (एकत्वं अनुपश्यतः Ēkatvam anupashyataha) for him, where is the question of mōha and śōka? (तत्र को मोहः कः शोकः tatra kō mōhaḥ kaḥ śōkaḥ) (meaning he has neither).
Observe how anupashyataha was translated as ‘understands’. In other words, In the previous mantra portions, where विजानतो vijānataha was said to mean anupaśyata i.e., directly ‘know ing’ Parabrahman was explained as the meaning of ‘seeing’Parabrahman. That right knowledge, यथार्थ ज्ञान yathārtha jñāna is there only when it is in association with the recognition and rejection of wrong-knowledge. Otherwise, what is the consequence? The next mantra teaches it beautifully. This mantra has some very significant implications, as we shall see. Just as there is the need for right-knowledge, there is also a need for recognizing and rejecting all that is wrong-knowledge.
Previously, we studied mantra #3 of this Upanishad which taught us that wrong knowledge leads to stations of misery. There is no exception to the rule that one who has knowledge that is opposed to what is established by pramāṇās i.e., tattva, he will receive mahādukha, without fail.
If we follow wrong-knowledge, then there is guaranteed disaster. This verse #9 establishes the fact that even a greater disaster is caused by not recognizing and not rejecting such a wrong knowledge.
उपनिषत् upaniṣat
अन्धन्तमः प्रविशन्ति येऽविद्याम्उपासते ।
ततो भूय इव ते तमो य उ विद्यायाँ रताः ॥ ९ ॥
andhantamaḥ praviśanti yē’vidyām upāsatē |
tatō bhūya iva tē tamō ya u vidyāyām̐ ratāḥ || 9 ||
The mantra uses both the word avidyā and also the word vidyā. What is avidyā and what is vidyā? Obviously, they are opposites. Vidyā is true knowledge and opposed to true knowledge is avidyā. Please remember that when knowledge is mentioned, there is always an object of knowledge. ‘Objectless knowledge’ is a meaningless phrase. You always get knowledge of ‘something’, that something is the object of knowledge. The knowledge that grasps its object as it is, is true knowledge. The knowledge that grasps its object as it is not, is wrong-knowledge. In technical parlance, the former has names such as pramaa, yathaartha and here it is called as vidya. The latter has names such as bhramaa, ayathaartha and here it is called as avidya. To given an example, pramaa grasps a rope as a rope and a snake as a snake. On the other hand, bhramaa grasps a rope as a snake. There is what is called ‘prāmāṇya svatastva’. Without getting into all its epistemological details, we will just say here that the validity of true-knowledge is internal to it, whereas the invalidity of false-knowledge is external to it. To give an example from perception, when conditions of cognition are perfect the knowledge produced by the ‘eye’ is self-valid. What are those conditions of cognition for perception? They are a) broad daylight b) perfect eye-sight c) when the object distinguishes itself from its surroundings and 4) when there is good mind-concentration. Under these perfect conditions of cognition, if the eye shows a snake, then it is grasped as a snake and if the eye shows a rope then it is grasped as a rope. This is how we all have come to know what a snake is and what a rope is. However, when the conditions of cognition are sub-par i.e., when there is no proper lighting or when the mind is focussed elsewhere or when the eye-sight is not twenty-twenty or when the object and its surroundings are confusing, then what is grasped as the object and the actual object need not be identical. This is why in epistemology, it is said that the validity of true-knowledge is intrinsic to it. However, when the conditions of cognition are sub-par, what the object in front is and what the mind grasps it as, do not coincide. This is when a rope is perceived mistakenly to be a snake. Note that we don’t confuse the rope to another random thing such as a car or a tiger. It is only mistaken to be something similar to a rope. A rope is perceived as a snake because of the similarities between a snake and a rope, both of them have a similar structure and curl similarly. This is why the mind does not confuse a rope to a random thing. While explaining the ontological status of this world, some thinkers teach that the whole world is perceived as an illusion. It is quite incorrect, because, what is similar to this world? It can only be another world. Since that is also a world, it too should be perceived as an illusion and so on. Thus, a series of ‘worlds’ are created without ever explaining the reality of the world we all are living in! Moreover, this upanishat has taught us, “yāthātathyatō arthān vyadadhāt śāśvatībhyaḥ samābhyaḥ”. So, it would be quite against the conclusion of this Upanishad to speculate on the reality of this universe. For us to get confused between a rope and a snake, there should be two real entities viz., rope and snake. If this world itself is an illusion, then not only the snake is an illusion but even the rope is an illusion! Without properly understanding the nature of bhrānti, one should not speculate on such philosophical issues.
We will continue with our study of the Upanishad mantra #9 in the next issue of the magazine.
Kśrīkr̥ṣṇārpaṇamastu
Leave a Reply