TO KNOW OR TO BE—THAT IS THE QUESTION
Perhaps the most succinct spiritual advice ever given to a seeker is just to “BE.”
In our day-to-day practical life, however, we are told to “be this” or to “be that.”
What does it really mean just to BE?
We are also told to “Know Thyself.”
What does it mean “to know” and “to be?”
In order to answer these two most fundamental questions, we have to understand a vital point about the subject and object of knowledge. For simplicity, let’s divide all knowledge into two broad categories—Self-knowledge and knowledge of everything else.
Let’s first take the example of the knowledge [of things] other than Self-knowledge.
When the object of our knowledge is other than our own Self, there is a clear distinction between “knowing” the object and “experiencing” (or being) the object. It is because the object to be known (and experienced) is separated from us in time and space.
For example, let’s say we read about an exotic place like Kashmir or Hawaii. And if we happen to be living elsewhere, these places will obviously be separated from us in time and space. We have to cover some distance to go to Hawaii and that will involve some time, depending upon where we are currently located.
Space and time are spoken of as space-time continuum in modern physics, meaning both are co-dependent. To cover space, we need time and passage of time involves coverage of distance/space, notionally speaking.
Similarly, we can take another example. Let’s just say we want to “experience” our favorite dish, like rice-pudding or rasgulla or gulaab jaamun. [this is just a thought-experiment; so please hold in check your taste buds!] It will involve some knowledge/skill and some time to make them (or else walking to the refrigerator at least) and some time to experience or savor them.
In the examples, Hawaii or rice-pudding, objects were separated from us and hence involved time-space to convert their “knowledge” into their “experience.” Hence, in these cases, knowing a thing was clearly different from being or experiencing the thing.
So far, so good.
This is not so in case of Self-knowledge. Our Self is the innermost, closest-most thing to us and therefore is not separated from us in either time or space. The word “Upaniṣad” means Self-knowledge—ātma-jñāna—the definite knowledge (ni) of the closest/nearest (upa) thing, (sada)-vastu, the Self, because our Self being the most nearest thing, is known to us most spontaneously and immediately.[1]
Thus, in case of Self-knowledge, the “object” of knowledge and the “subject” of the knowledge—that is, the Self—is one and the same. Therefore, knowing the self and experiencing the self is simultaneous (yugapada) and are not two different activities.
As Self, the very subject, by definition, cannot become an object of knowledge, the question arises as to how can it ever be known. Fortunately, however, as the Self is self-evident as the ever-present Consciousness (chaitanyam) in the form of ‘I-am-ness’ (aham), it does need to be known in manner we need to know other things. It is self-proven (svataha-siddha) and self-illumined (svataha-prakāsha).
Hence to know the Self and to be the Self is one and the same. To know is to be—in the case of the Self.
Once we grasp this vital point, much of the confusion on the path of spirituality is resolved.
Then we do not talk about “experiencing” the Self, for the Self is the very experiencer. How can the experiencer experience itself?
How can the eye see itself?
Perhaps through the mirror.
The teachings of the scriptures as interpreted by competent teachers act as that mirror.
To know the Self is to be the Self.
To be the Self is to forget the self.
To forget the self is to be the Self of All
To be established in this sarvātmabhāva—experiencing the self in the Self of All—is the goal of all spiritual practice.
This is one summary of Vedānta—the inner core of wisdom teachings.
~Based on the teachings of Pujay Swami Paramarthanandaji.
[1] In his pravachans on Ādī Śaṅkara’s famous prakarana grantha called Upadesha Sāhasrī , Pujay Swami Paramarthanandaji has explained the derivation of the term Upanishad as follows: The basic root of the word is sad with two prefixes, upa and ni, and a suffix, kwip. The expression, sad, with the suffix has three meanings, which are 1. to loosen, 2. to destroy and 3. to lead. The prefix, upa, means ‘immediate’ (samipataha) and ni stands for nischayam (definite). The final meaning of the term, Upanishad, is accordingly given in the verse as a teaching which immediately and definitely 1. loosens the knot of bondage and 2. destroys rebirth and 3. leads to the attainment of Brahman. Retrieved November 28, 2015: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/tattvaloka/upadesha1.htm
Recent Comments