[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Help Please!
>Thileeban Singam (tsingam@chat.carleton.ca) wrote:
>Could anyone help me with these questions?
>1. What does the term Upanishad signify? When and by whom were the
> Upanishads composed?
The word Upanishad has been derived from the root sad, to which are
added two prefixes: upa and ni. The prefix upa denotes nearness, and ni denotes
totality. The root sad means to loosen, to attain and to annihilate. Thus the
etymological meaning of the word is: the knowledge or Vidya which when received
from a competent teacher loosens totally the bondage of the world, or enables
the pupil to attain the Self or completely destroys ignorance which makes us
see the One as the finite embodied creatures. (Ref: Upanishads translated by
Swami Nikhilananda)
The Rishis or Seers composed the Upanishads.
>2. According to the Upanishad, what is the distinction between
> 'higher knowledge' and 'lower knowledge'? How does the knowledge obtained
> in meditation differ from knowledge gained through the process of
>reasoning?
The lower knowledge includes all knowledge that endows a man with the
knowledge of the manifested universe and enables him to enjoy material
prosperity on earth. The higher knowledge enables a man to realize the Self
or God.
The knowledge of God is beyond the realm of logic. Nobody has ever
been able to prove or disprove the existence of God using logic. If you can
do that then God will come under the purview of science. Thus God can only be
"known" in a supersensuous experience (Aporakhsanubhuti). God is beyond our
senses. Thus the knowledge obtained in meditation is supersensuous knowledge.
>3. Why did Sri-Ramakrishna say "I want to eat sugar, I do not want to
> become sugar?'
An understanding of this statement requires knowledge about his
theological position. Before I can discuss Sri Ramakrishna's position I will
briefly discuss the theology of the great Acharyas of Vedanta as it will be
very helpful to understand Sri Ramakrishna's position.
You know that Sri Sankara postulates that Karma and Bhakti yoga purify
the mind and then Jnana yoga enables a person to directly experience the
non-dual Brahman or the Impersonal Reality. According to Sri Sankara the
Saguna Brahman or the Personal God is inferior to the Impersonal Reality or
Nirguna Brahman. According to other schools like that of Sri Ramanuja the
Personal God is the Supreme Reality. Thus Sri Ramanuja considers the Karma and
Jnana yoga to be preparatory and the Bhakti yoga to be supreme. He believes
that even to experience the divine bliss you need an experiencer to experience
that reality. The Advaita claim that during their experience of the non-dual
Brahman the experiencer and the experience becomes one is not accepted by him.
If the experiencer himself merges with the experience then who will experience
the experience?
Sri Ramakrishna, unlike Sri Sankara or Sri Ramanuja, regards both the
Saguna Brahman and the Nirguna Brahman to be equally true. Thus neither of
the 3 principal yogas, Bhakti, Karma or Jnana are superior or inferior to one
another. You should practice the yoga that suits you. He says that the normal
person's ego is completely opaque to the Divine light. When the aspirant
realizes the Saguna Brahman it is like seeing the Divine light from behind a
thin sheet of glass. That is the Bhakta retains a little of his ego to enjoy
the Divine bliss. There is a little separation between the lover and his
beloved. Then if the Bhakta wants to experience the non-dual Brahman then this
separation dissolves. It is as if that thin sheet of glass, the ego of the
Bhakta dissolves. One can no longer describe this unitary experience as there
is no one left to talk about it. Only when there is an "I" that I can tell you
. Where there is no "I" then who is there to tell you.
Now we can discuss his statement. Sri Ramakrishna means by his
statement that he wants to enjoy the divine bliss than become one with it. He
can say this as he regards both the Saguna Brahman and the Nirguna Brahman as
equally valid. It is his preference to keep a little separation so as to enjoy
the Divine bliss. Sugar stands for the divine. "To eat sugar" stands for
enjoyment of the divine bliss and thus for the retainment of a little ego. "To
become sugar" means the Advaitic experience of merging with the non-dual
Brahman.
Regards
PG
