|
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
|
Top