The problem that is developed by Shri Ram
Chandraji in the next chapter on the Knowledge
is very interesting and, in some respects, very
thought provoking. Firstly, all of us hold that
knowledge is the goal of Life and secondly, that
Knowledge is the only means by which we can
cross over our bondages and miseries. It is so
obvious a fact that we do not want to question
the postulate. "Jnanath Eva Kaivalyam" - it is
only by knowledge that we attain Liberation.
This is the sentence constantly heard from the
great scholars and perhaps even by saints. Some
people of course, have stated that:
"Bhaktya tvananyaya sakhyam aham evem vidho"
Arjuna
"Jnatum drastum ca tatvena pravestum ca
parantapa:"
"Except by Bhakti or Devotion undertaken by
you as instructed, that is, according to the
principles of Yoga, you will not be able to see
and enter into Me" says Sri Krishna.
We find ourselves in great difficulties in
the modern world between the people who say that
Jnana is very important and the only means, and
the others who say that Devotion is very
important and the only means.
Now, Shri Ram Chandraji enters into another
problem - the problem of knowledge and
ignorance. We all think that we start with
ignorance because we are all ignorant. And we
want knowledge to remove the ignorance, so that
we may be able to act properly, live sensibly
and rationally. Ignorance, therefore, is
something to be got rid of and knowledge is the
way by which we remove this ignorance. Now,
these two terms have been used in Upanishads as
"Avidya" and "Vidya". Avidya is ignorance and
Vidya is knowledge. No doubt, the Upanishad
writers or commentators had a different concept
of the word Avidya from mere ignorance. I shall
not dilate on that just at present, for it will
take us off from the main point at issue. In any
case we start with ignorance and, in fact
ignorance is actually found in our activity,
when we do not know how to act properly or
adequately to a particular situation. Action
done, which is uninformed by knowledge is
ignorance. A man is said to be ignorant not
because he has not read. He might have read
everything; yet he may remain ignorant because
he does not know how to use knowledge for a
particular situation. Now, that is a kind of
ignorance that we shall have to counter. Now, we
call a man ignorant when he is not able to have
proper knowledge to overcome a situation or meet
the situation. So, mere knowledge without
practice is meaningless and it cannot apply
itself to a situation. So both are, in one
sense, ignorant. You can say knowledge is a kind
of ignorance, just as ignorant action is a kind
of ignorance. Now, we are struggling in modern
world to get rid of what is called "learned
ignorance". Most of us are learnedly ignorant. I
do not think we are ignorantly learned. Now, our
Master says, we start with the preliminary
ignorance, it is true. And when we try to know
the situation what exactly do we do? In order to
know a situation we have to get out of the
situation and inspect the situation. That is,
knowledge involves a divorce or a separation
from the object or situation in order to meet it
or adequately respond to it and therefore it
means, you develop a division between the object
and yourself. And so, a knowledge of the
situation is always an external study of the
situation, not an internal one. So, your
knowledge is only limited to a particular
purpose, namely, to get food, get clothing, get
the amenities of life etc. For this purpose, you
get out of the situation in order to inspect it.
Therefore, there is a division of the subject
and object. And a knowledge is something
external to the object which is to be known.
Now, this is very limited. Your knowledge, in
every case, is limited knowledge. It is a
limited knowledge because it is not a knowledge
of the thing as it is in itself, but as it is
for you to meet a particular situation. All
knowledge, therefore, is a limited knowledge.
Therefore, we are in difficulties when greater
situations arise. As a matter of fact, in
science, we can see that every Law is only true
within limits. No law is absolutely working
beyond particular limits. When they go beyond
limits, you find that your laws do not apply.
Now this is very important, remember, because
knowledge is in fact, by its very nature,
limited and finite. Laws are finite and also as
we now find, they are probable but never
certain. All empirical laws are probables, in
greater or lesser amount, (it does not matter),
because if it exceeds the limits, you are in
error. That is basically wrong and you have to
confess that is ignorance. So behind every
knowledge, there is an ignorance and behind
every ignorance perhaps there is a greater
knowledge. Now this is the difficulty of
epistemology or theory of knowledge in
philosophy. And the greatest efforts of
philosophers and scientists has been to limit or
to find out the limits of our knowledge of every
kind. This is further shown by our theories of
reason which operate within limits. Now, for
instance, we think in philosophy and everybody
accepts that a thing cannot be both true and
false. That is the principle of contradiction.
If a thing is true, it cannot be false. If it is
false it cannot be true. But the misfortune of
our experience is that everything seems to be
both true and false. Now how to express this in
terms of our logic (Tarka)? So people said it is
impossible and so skepticism is the only result.
You must confess that you will have no absolute
knowledge and we can have only a little
knowledge, knowledge mixed up with ignorance in
different degrees.
And what is the distinction between a great
pundit and an idiotic child? Nothing except the
amount of ignorance that they have got. And, we
must know it is better to be ignorant than to be
wise, because we can excuse ourselves for our
failures, but a wise man gets punished for his
knowledge. Now, we have all these things in
ordinary practice. But logically, when we find
this proposition that is both falsehood and
truth can coexist just as Avidya and Vidya can
coexist it becomes impossible to explain. If we
say so many people laugh at us and say "what is
this type of knowledge?"
Here, coming to the real point which Shri Ram
Chandraji makes, we hold that our little
ignorance can be cleared with our little
knowledge, but the vast ignorance that is
pervading the whole Universe cannot be cleared
with our reason or with our actions. You cannot
clear the vast infinity of ignorance. Let us
confess that there is vast ignorance which is
the Reality. Almost you are seeing that it is a
kind of skepticism. You can never have a
knowledge of all with the instruments which you
now have. This knowledge is something which
comes out of the object in order to survey the
object. It is, to use the little world,
"experience". Ex means 'outside'. It is an
experience which is outside, or outer
experience. Now how to go beyond it? The reality
of the great ignorance is beyond this ignorance
and this knowledge. Master calls it Complete
Ignorance. Of course, he says 'I do not find any
other word for it'. And we do not have any word
in any language in any dictionary. Why not I use
the word complete ignorance? I know this is a
'shocking phrase' to us who are thinkers or
wedded to knowledge. But a real Jnani is one who
would go beyond our little ignorances and little
knowledges - finite ignorances and finite
knowledges. You do not take into consideration
the whole of Reality. Reality is beyond your
perception and imperception or reasoning. Now,
what is it by which you can know? It can be
known only through 'intuition' or vision.
Therefore, we go beyond the ordinary Pramanas or
instruments of knowledge and the means of
knowledge or ignorance whichever you please, and
rise to the level of direct vision of Reality
and knowing Reality for its own sake, by merging
yourself with Reality and not getting out of It
to inspect It. In order to know you thoroughly,
I must enter into you. By standing outside, I
shall certainly find your height, your weight,
this and that. Perhaps I may take an anatomic
view. But then I may not know you. Even if you
survey the whole of the Universe, as you are now
trying to do astronomically and otherwise, yet,
you will not know what the Universe is. It is an
external view of Reality and therefore a false
one. Is it completely false? I do not say so. It
is false. It is certainly not the reverse. Now,
we have to see whether we can intuit, know the
Reality within as part and parcel of it. Of
course that is what we are always. For the sake
of knowledge we came out of it as fish thrown
out of water. You see fishes just jumping out of
water and falling back. So we are all coming out
of the Being, looking at it and falling into it.
Therefore, we are coming out of it in order to
get back.
Which is the real life and which is the real
death? Death is flying out of Reality and
getting back to the Reality is life. We got out
of the Being to see the Being and when we merge
ourselves in God, we will know Him. Now we are
having a very imperfect, very personal, of
course useful in a little sense, of the term
'experience'. So, if you want to know Reality,
you will have to merge into that Reality which
is the Great Ignorance.
Now that means, you will have to cease to be
both a subject and object and also vanish. You
may all say it is meaningless. But there is no
other way or knowing Reality except merging
yourself in it, to live in it and be of it and
never think of 'knowing it'. Why? All knowledge
is a pragmatic reaction or preparation for
action in a premature way. Now, this is a very
important point undoubtedly made in very
theoretical way by some thinkers. But we have
never experienced this aspect. We are actually
seeing that the Ultimate is beyond both vidya
and avidya, beyond usual terms of subject and
object and knowledge. And it can only be known
by your merging yourself in it, becoming one
with it. By standing out of it, you may see a
bit here and a bit there but it is externality.
Now, to get back to this original condition of
Reality is undoubtedly a kind of leaving all our
philosophical attempts or scientific attempts to
know Reality even in the best objective point of
view. So you have to go beyond science and
beyond philosophy. And this experience is
available and possible. That is why our people
spoke about vision or Darshan of knowing God.
Firstly to know and be merging yourself in that
vastness with a feeling that you may be
nonexisting. What will happen to the drop of
water that falls into the ocean back again? The
drop may be complaining that it will be lost
once and for all just as I find myself
complaining if I am in the mass of human beings,
I will be lost in them. So, even if I colour
myself with a special kind of dress, black or
white or red, it does not matter. I will be
lost. Even the colours would be washed out in
the sea of beings. So also when we merge into
the ocean of beings we will be lost. Are you
prepared for that? Our knowledge consists in
holding on to this ego, identity and so
externally individuality develops. When we lose
our individuality and merge ourselves in that
vast ocean, we get the real intuition of
Reality. It is not always knowledge. What should
it be called? Master calls it Complete
Ignorance.
I wish I could devise another word. But then,
every word I thought in the matter has already
been given a bad name, a bad meaning. I think no
word is used for realization of Complete
Ignorance. It seems to me, after all, it is very
nice to call it by very bad name, because that
is what makes the people shudder at as Master
puts it.
The Upanishads say "Asatho Ma Sadgamaya". It
is a very big statement. We go from unreality to
Reality. And "Thama So Ma Jyotirgamaya" - we go
from darkness to light. Now, we are not going
towards light. Light is not our goal. We go
beyond both darkness and light.
"Na Thatra Suryo Bhati
Na Sasanko
Na Cha Pavakah".
There the Sun does not shine nor Moon
illumines nor the fire burns. In other words, it
is neither hot nor cold. Now, if such is the
condition, to which you go how can you say that
you are going towards Jyoti? Either the word
Jyoti has been improperly translated as light or
that it emerged when you merge in God. So the
word Jyoti is difficult for translation or
explanation of the commentators. It is something
far beyond darkness and light, something which
merges when you enter into the Divine that is
the goal. Now, as our Master says, Light is not
our goal. Light is equated with Vidya. Darkness
is Avidya. Our goal is not within these two
terms or the two experiences. Both of them are
experiences in the language in which we use it.
We must enter into that and merge in the Divine.
Any Which way you cannot say what exactly that
theory is. Now, Master says that it is a
condition of infant and the infant is ignorant
and looks out for knowledge. But is it so? Now,
I believe we have gone to a greater infancy. We
are in the condition of beyond thought and
beyond knowledge. At that condition, what is it
to see, to act or to live? You eat as if without
thought. You live as if you do not live. Now
that is a child and that is the condition of
something that is transcending.
"Not until you become a child shall you enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven" said Jesus. I would
only add "Not until you enter into the Kingdom
of God will you become a child".
|