|
The Sanskrit term jnana derives from the verb root jna, which means 'to know', and
is commonly translated as knowledge, comprehension or wisdom. Jnana can refer to
the kind of knowledge we have of the temporal world (vttti-jnana), or to the intuitive
insight into the Ultimately Real that accompanies moksa or liberation (svarupa-jnana
or aparoksa-jnana). The path of jnana-yoga, which is the yoga of knowledge, incorporates
both these senses of jnana. The refinement of vrtti-jnana cultivates viveka (discrimination)
which is the capacity to distinguish the eternal from the transient, the true from
the false, as a means of dispelling the ignorance (avidya) that binds us to the
phenomenal world. Moksa occurs when this refinement reaches its culmination in the
realisation of svarupa-jnana, which is an unmediated identification with Brahman
or the Absolute. Like the term yoga, then, jnana can be understood as both the goal
and the means of attaining it. Even though jnana is used in both senses, as the
following verses from the Kena Upanisad illustrate, the jnana that arises with the
identification of the Self with Brahman is qualitatively different from the kind
of knowledge that is cultivated as a spiritual discipline in the path of jnana-yoga.
|
It is other than the known; it is also above the unknown. Thus
we have heard from those of old who taught us this. (I. 4)
That which is not expressed by speech, but that by which speech is expressed, that
alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore. (I. 5)
That which does not think by mind, but that by which, they say, the mind thinks,
that alone know as Brahman, not that which people here adore. (I. 6)
That which does not see by the eye, but that by which the eyes see, that alone know
as Brahman, not that which people here adore. (I. 7)
That which does not hear by the ear, but that which the ear hears, that alone know
as Brahman, not that which people here adore. (I. 8)
|
Jnana in the Bhagavad-Gita
The compound jnana-yoga first appears in the Bhagavad-Gita, where along with bhakti-
and karma-yoga, it forms part of a comprehensive threefold spiritual discipline.
The Gita praises jnana or wisdom for being the great purifier which helps us to
cross the sea of ignorance that keeps us in bondage (see verses IV. 35-38). This
purification takes the form of an evolution of the understanding or intelligence
which is variously influenced by the three gunas (the basic qualities or constituents
of prakrti or nature). In tamasa-jnana the understanding is of the nature of dullness
and indifference and clings to a single aspect of the phenomenal world as if it
were the whole of reality. In rajasa-jnana the understanding is moved by passion
and activity in perceiving a world of multiplicity without a sense of an underlying
unity. Finally in sattvik-jnana the understanding is illumined by the knowledge
that there is but one immutable Reality. When the understanding or intelligence
(buddhi) remains stable in sattvik-jnana, yoga is attained.
|
When your intelligence … stands unshaken and stable in spirit
[samadhi], then will you attain insight [yoga]. (II. 53)
When a man puts away all the desires of his mind, O Partha [Arjuna], and when his
spirit is content in itself, then is he called stable in intelligence. (II. 55)
He whose mind is untroubled in the midst of sorrows and is free from eager desire
amid pleasures, he from whom passion, fear, and rage have passed away, he is called
a sage of settled intelligence. (II. 56)
He who is without affection on any side, who does not rejoice or loathe as he obtains
good or evil, his intelligence is firmly set [in wisdom]. (II. 57)
He who draws away the senses from the objects of sense on every side as a tortoise
draws in his limbs [into the shell], his intelligence is firmly set [in wisdom].
(II. 58)
|
|
Jnana in Samkhya and Vedanta
As a spiritual discipline, jnana is also central to the philosophical traditions
of Samkhya and Vedanta. Samkhya doctrines can be found in the Bhagavad-Gita, and
form the basis of the metaphysics of Patanjali’s Yoga-sutras. In both the Samkhya
and Yoga darsanas, discrimination between the products of prakrti (nature) and purusa
(pure consciousness) leads to liberation (kaivalya). However where Patanjali recommends
practices that advance from dharana (concentration) though dhyana (meditation) to
samadhi in order to aid the development of this discrimination, Samkhya relies on
the refinement of jnana alone.
Both Sankya and Vedanta argue that what binds us to the cycle of birth, death and
rebirth is avidya (ignorance), and they look to knowledge to dispel it. In the Samkhya
tradition this is sought through reason because the discriminative intellect (buddhi)
is taken to be the first evolute of prakrti, and so it has precedence over all the
other elements of nature. In Vedanta the situation is not so straightforward. Even
though jnana-yoga is generally held to be an important aid to liberation, theistic
developments in some schools of Vedanta regard bhakti or devotion to the Lord as
the most effective means. However in Advaita Vedanta, which became the dominant
philosophical position with the decline of Buddhism in India towards the end of
the first millennium CE, jnana-yoga is considered to be sole means to moksa.
Advaita Vedanta
Advaita Vedanta was established as a mature philosophical system by Samkaracarya
(c. 788-820 CE), the great Indian philosopher-saint who tradition accepts as an
incarnation of the Hindu god Siva. Advaita means non-dual (a = 'not' + dvaita =
'dual, two'), and Samkara famously argued that the doctrine of absolute nondualism
contained the essence of the Upanisads in positing Brahman as the Absolute that
is beyond both the unity and the diversity of the phenomenal world.
In the Introduction to his commentary on the Brahma-sutra, Samkara argues that there
is a fundamental incompatibility between the two elements that support phenomenal
existence: the subjective and the objective. For Samkara the subjective element
is related to pure consciousness, the transcendental 'I', while the objective refers
to the 'thisness' of experience, the 'non-I' or entirely 'other' that is given as
an object to the subject in perception. The problem is how these two elements, which
are logically incompatible with one another in the manner of 'A' and 'not-A', can
be related in such a way as to produce this apparently seamless phenomenal reality.
Samkara’s response is that given that there can be no real relation between the
subject and the object, the relation we experience must be merely apparent and so
ultimately illusory. The essence of this illusion is an error based on the superimposition
(adhyasa) of the unreal on the real between which there can be no real relation.
The classic example is the mistaking of a piece of rope for a snake. As long as
the misapprehension lasts the snake appears to us as real and we respond in kind.
However on closer inspection we realise that what we believed was a snake is in
fact a piece of rope, and the error along with the illusion of the snake simply
dissolves. There is no real relation between the snake and the rope as the former
was only superimposed on the latter. In much the same way, the seeming relation
between the subjective and objective in empirical reality is sustained by the false
identification of the 'I' with the objects it perceives: what we believe to be our
body, senses, thoughts and feelings that by extension give reality to all external
objects. And just as the snake was shown not to be real by being contradicted and
therefore annulled by the recognition of the rope, so is all we take to be objective
in the empirical world shown not to be ultimately real when the true nature of the
transcendental 'I' is realised.
Brahman
According to Samkara, then, what sustains this phenomenal existence is our ignorance
of the true nature of the Self or atman which is identical with Brahman. Brahman
derives from the root brh, which means 'to expand' and 'greater than the greatest',
and might therefore be interpreted as that beyond which we cannot go; the ground
of all that manifests.
|
It is neither born nor dies, It neither grows nor decays, nor
does It undergo any change, being eternal. It does not cease to exist even when
the body is destroyed, like the sky in a jar (after it is broken), for It is independent.
(Viveka-cudamani, 134)
|
|
The nature of Brahman is described in the Upanisads as sat-cit-ananda: pure Being
(sat), pure consciousness (cit, from verb root cit = ‘to perceive, observe, think,
be aware, know’), and pure bliss (ananda, from the verb root nand = ‘to rejoice).
These three aspects are not qualities or attributes of Brahman but the very nature
of Brahman Itself. However from an empirical standpoint, a distinction can be made
between nirguna- Brahman, which is said to be indeterminate, unqualified, and transcendent,
and the conditioned and determinate saguna-Brahman who is also known as Isvara or
the Lord of the universe. The basis of this and all possible distinctions is maya
(from the verb root ma = ‘to measure, to limit, give form’) which is the veiling
and projective power of Brahman that gives rise to the grand illusion we know as
phenomenal existence, including Isvara.
Avidya
As the principle behind all appearances maya is avidya, and just as there is no
real relation between a piece of rope and the apparent snake that it is mistaken
for, there is no real relation between Brahman and the phenomenal world. Nevertheless,
just as we respond as if the apparent snake is real, so for all practical purposes
is this phenomenal world real for us, and as long as it is we mistakenly regard
ourselves as empirical individuals.
It is the individual self or jiva that knows, wills, feels and is an object of self-consciousness.
As such, the jiva is a subject-object complex that is individualised by the determinations
of an inner sense or antahkarana which is comprised of the buddhi (intellect), the
manas (mind), the ego (ahankara) and consciousness (cit). The subjective element
of this complex is known as the saksin, the pure, disinterested witness that illuminates
the modifications of the antahkarana in waking and other states and continues to
shine even in deep sleep when there are no objects of any description to shape an
experience. The saksin is of the nature of atman, and so is self-luminous though
limited by its association with the antahkarana which is a product of avidya.
When the snake is superimposed on the rope there is no sense in which the rope ever
becomes a snake. When the knowledge of the rope cancels the illusion of the snake,
we are left with the rope which in reality was all there ever was. Similarly, when
the jiva realises its true nature (svarupa-jnana) it does not become Brahman, as
Brahman is all there ever really was.
|
As, when a jar is broken, the space enclosed by it becomes palpably
the limitless space, so when the apparent limitations are destroyed, the knower
of Brahman verily becomes Brahman itself. (Viveka-cudamani, 565)
|
|
Next...
Archive
|