Swami_Krishnananda The_Secret_of_Katha

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

for God are concerned, class and social distinction do not count. Anyone can be a
disciple of any superior. It is only knowledge that is expected and not social category.
The guru is most important and initiation very essential. This is what seems to be
conveyed by this term ananya in the Upanishad. Subtle is this knowledge.
Now, what is knowledge? Why is it regarded as so subtle? The subtlety of it really lies in
the fact that it is not an object of knowledge. Anything that is an object of our
understanding or mind can be regarded as a gross presentation definable in character, -
spatial and temporal in its location, and causal in its connection. The whole world is a
network of space, time and cause. Everything is somewhere in space. Everything is
sometime in the passage of the temporal process of events, and everything is connected
with something else in a causal chain. Everything is a cause, and everything is an effect.
This is the way we try to understand things. But this supreme mystery about which
Nachiketas put the third question is not the cause of an effect. It does not produce
anything. It is not also the effect of a cause. It has not been produced by anything. It is
not located in a particular place. It is not spatial. It is not also temporal, because it is not
there sometimes only in the passage of events. It is not anywhere, because it is
everywhere, and that which is everywhere is something which cannot be defined by the
mind. That which is indefinable is also unknowable to the mind because knowledge
given to the mind and the intellect is always in terms of definition. The definition need
The Secret of the Katha Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda
The Secret of the Katha Upanishad by Swami Krishnananda 28
27
not necessarily be verbal or linguistic. There is a psychological definition of an object
inwardly conducted when we begin to cognise it. A definition is an activity of the mind
by which it apprehends the location of an object in a particular manner, and so
indefinable things are also unknowable things. Inasmuch as reality is not spatial or
temporal, and is not causally connected, it is not definable by logical characters, and
therefore not capable of being known by the mind; not also capable of being judged by
the intellectual categories. Well; we can understand why Yama refused to give an answer
to this question of Nachiketas. How can you say anything about it, and that to a poor boy
from the mortal world, come in a state of sheer enthusiasm? Indra had to observe
brahmacharya for more than a hundred years to receive this knowledge from Prajapati
Four times had he to go to Prajapati and Prajapati would not impart this knowledge at
once. He gave a tentative explanation, and gradually instructed Indra after the latter
underwent this penance of brahmacharya. Together with the insistence on the necessity
of a guru in the imparting of knowledge, the Upanishad are also never tired of
hammering upon another qualification of the student of this knowledge:
brahmacharya. In many places it appears that brahmacharya and Brahman are almost
identified. Wherever there is brahmacharya, there is also Brahman-knowledge. Very
significant is this word, - brahmacharya. It is the conduct of Brahman that is actually
called brahmacharya. Charya is conduct, behaviour, attitude, disposition, demeanour,
and Brahma is the Truth. The conduct of reality is brahmacharya. So, when you
conduct yourself in a manner not in contradiction to the nature of Truth, you are
supposed to be observing brahmacharya. And what is the nature of Truth which you
should not contradict in your day-to-day conduct and which is supposed to be
brahmacharya? The nature of Truth is non-sensory existence. Truth is not a sensible
object. It is not seen, it is not heard, it is not tasted, it is not touched, it is not contacted
by any of the senses of our individual personality. Therefore, to desire for the objects of
sense would be a contradiction of the nature of Truth. Brahmacharya is sensory non-
indulgence. The opposite of sensory indulgence is the attitude of brahmacharya. Our
present-day activities are mostly a refutation of the principles of brahmacharya, and so
we are weak in every respect. We are unable to see, unable to hear, unable to touch,
unable to walk, unable to speak, unable to digest our daily meal. Everything has been
weakened, because our senses refute the existence of God. When you see an object you
deny God, because the denial of God and the perception of an object are one and the
same thing. When you hear a sound, you deny God. When you taste, when you touch,
when you have any kind of sensory activity there is an unconscious refutation of the
indivisibility of the existence of God. Brahmacharya has thus been, by an extension of
its meaning, regarded as sense-control. But sense-control is not the whole meaning of [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

Tematy