This is a passage I liked from the book "Human Being in Depth : A Scientific Approach to Religion" by Swami Ranganadananda. This is a *highly* recommended book for people interested in the synthesis of science and religion.
################
In the Mundaka Upanishad [I.1,3], we find this question put by a earnest student to a great teacher : "What is that reality, O blessed One, by knowing which we can know all that there is in this manifested universe ?"
Is there such a unique reality by knowing that we can understand all the manifestations of nature, internal as well as external ? Is there a unity behind this diversity, a One behind the many ? To this the teacher gave a very significant reply:
There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired by man; so say the knowers of Brahman. One is called transcendental knowledge (para vidya), the other is knowledge of intellectual nature (apara vidya).
Both must be cultivated. Of these, intellectual knowledge, says the teachers of the Upanishads, consists of the sacred Vedas, phonetics, the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, prosody, and astronomy. In fact it comprises what we today would call the "entire gamut of positivistic knowledge," including the secondhand knowledge of the experience of religion contained in the sacred books of all religions. Here in this Upanishad we have a scientific mind of the highest order-impersonal and detached. There is no desire to put forth a cherished opinion. Truth alone is the motive power, even if that truth goes against one's attachments and aversions. The teacher says that even the Vedas, the sacred book of the Indian people, belong to the category of ordinary knowledge. Who would dare say that one's own sacred books are ordinary, except one who is of a detached and scientific frame of mind, who is in search of truth and not dogma; who has nothing to hide, no opinion to uphold, no prejudice to defend, who just wants to know the truth and is prepared to sacrifice everything else in the bargain.
No religion except that derived from the Upanishadic tradition has practiced this bold detachment. The follower of every other religion, if asked what is ordinary knowledge, would unheisatingly reply: All the sacred books of all religions except my own. But this teacher of the Upanishads has the detachment and boldness, proceeding from the love of truth, to say that even the Vedas, held in such veneration by all, are secondary; all the sacred books and all the positive sciences and the arts are of a lower nature**.
##################
** - Here lower nature doesn't mean science is inferior. It just means there is a higher knowledge which is transcendental. I could really appreciate our attitude towards science. We have given equal emphasis to science as well.
################
In the Mundaka Upanishad [I.1,3], we find this question put by a earnest student to a great teacher : "What is that reality, O blessed One, by knowing which we can know all that there is in this manifested universe ?"
Is there such a unique reality by knowing that we can understand all the manifestations of nature, internal as well as external ? Is there a unity behind this diversity, a One behind the many ? To this the teacher gave a very significant reply:
There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired by man; so say the knowers of Brahman. One is called transcendental knowledge (para vidya), the other is knowledge of intellectual nature (apara vidya).
Both must be cultivated. Of these, intellectual knowledge, says the teachers of the Upanishads, consists of the sacred Vedas, phonetics, the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, prosody, and astronomy. In fact it comprises what we today would call the "entire gamut of positivistic knowledge," including the secondhand knowledge of the experience of religion contained in the sacred books of all religions. Here in this Upanishad we have a scientific mind of the highest order-impersonal and detached. There is no desire to put forth a cherished opinion. Truth alone is the motive power, even if that truth goes against one's attachments and aversions. The teacher says that even the Vedas, the sacred book of the Indian people, belong to the category of ordinary knowledge. Who would dare say that one's own sacred books are ordinary, except one who is of a detached and scientific frame of mind, who is in search of truth and not dogma; who has nothing to hide, no opinion to uphold, no prejudice to defend, who just wants to know the truth and is prepared to sacrifice everything else in the bargain.
No religion except that derived from the Upanishadic tradition has practiced this bold detachment. The follower of every other religion, if asked what is ordinary knowledge, would unheisatingly reply: All the sacred books of all religions except my own. But this teacher of the Upanishads has the detachment and boldness, proceeding from the love of truth, to say that even the Vedas, held in such veneration by all, are secondary; all the sacred books and all the positive sciences and the arts are of a lower nature**.
##################
** - Here lower nature doesn't mean science is inferior. It just means there is a higher knowledge which is transcendental. I could really appreciate our attitude towards science. We have given equal emphasis to science as well.
11 comments:
Para vidya and apara vidya. Nice explanation. Yes we had science and sprituality inseperably bound to each other.
Good One!
dear Kasthuri,
I think the analogies in your previous post were fine but when you intend to use an analogy it must not be liable to attack (if it is then so called rationalists and intellectuals will do their utmost to make all your ideas seem unacceptable), therefore it was out of concern that I pointed out the analogies which had this liability sewn into them.
as for this post I cannot put it better. There are two things I would like to tell you
1. The seers of the upanishads were men of extraordinary intellectual honesty. the seers we have now irespective of their philososphical leanings hold the vedas as the very breath of God and do not accept their secondary status even though SRIKRISHNA refers to them as unnecessary for one who has the true BRAHMA-JNAANA.
2. I think positive sciences even though they are secondary to Para Vidya should be accepted as valid Pramanams of knowledge about phenomena and science can also reach Para Vidya through mathematics and theoretical considerations will show the limits of science in this egard and how to transcend them through vedantha.
SARVAM SRIKRISHNAARPANAMASTHU!
"The follower of every other religion, if asked what is ordinary knowledge, would unheisatingly reply: All the sacred books of all religions except my own."
Well said Kasthuri :)
WOW it is heartening to read about paravidya, in a changing environment where information gathering is equated with knowledge
Kasthuri
Though I prefer to call you srini :)
Great post. More on this later.
kindly visit these blogs, in fact I am compiling the list of fellow sanatins
http://www.swahilya.blogspot.com/
(hindu reporter)
http://soundaryam.blogspot.com/
http://aestheticheritageindia.blogspot.com/
(Singer Chinmayis mom)
Nice post..liked it.
How true it is that the greatest knowledge is the Transcendental Knowldge and how many of the millions of men and women would know and accept it ? So intense is the influence of maaya that one would not even consider accepting this..forget about getting 2 realize that Supreme Knowledge..:)
Kasthuri Srinivasan: I like the contents. But will take some time to read the contents and will come back later.
As usual, I had to read the post 3 times due to my sittrarivu!.
Interesting that you mention.."Here lower nature doesn't mean science is inferior". Working in a research lab, with many "rational" and "pragmatic" scientists, I find that they do not recognize the "other" kind of knowledge AT ALL.
@ tj : We have both science and spirituality. But the science of spirituality is what that is missing !
@ anand : I think you are little mistaken here. "Secondary" knowledge doesn't mean they are inferior. In fact, they are necessary to understand "primary" knowledge which is transcendental. If the seer says the vedas are secondary then it means there is something primary which is to be known. I guess that's the spirit in which Sri Krishna would also have mentioned in Gita.
@ arjuna : FYI, I didn't say these things. Thanks anyway.
@ paavai : Yes, it looks like knowledge is more like gathering info nowadays. But, when it comes to transcendental knowledge, intellectual knowledge is just like gathering info.
@ ganesh : Thanks for the links. I'll watch out.
@ krishna : How true it is that the greatest knowledge is the Transcendental Knowldge and how many of the millions of men and women would know and accept it ?
I guess that's why its a transcendental knowledge :-)
@ swahilya : Take your own time. ty.
@ tt_giant : It may be that my sittrarivu doesn't know how to write properly. I think (as the word suggests) transcendental is beyond rationalism and pragmatism. But, I also believe to some extent that they can be explained in more "earthly" terms.
What is the meaning of apara vidya .. could you elaborate on this ... I don't think apara vidya translates to intellectual science ... the intellectual sciences fall into para vidya
@ saravana kumar : Welcome here. In sanskrit "para" refers to "supreme". For example, "para Barhman". In Narayana Sukta, we have "Narayana Para Brahmam Tatvam Narayana Paraha" , which says Narayana is the Supreme Brahman. "apara" is something not supreme or a lower state compared to the supreme and so "apara vidya" referes to not so supreme knowledge or the worldly knowledge. Vedanta maintains that transcendental knowledge is the supreme knowledge or "Para Vidya".
Post a Comment