The Esoteric Significance of the Kathopanishad - 3.8 Swami Krishnananda
========================================================================
========================================================================
11/01/2020.
Chapter 3: Nachiketas’ Third Boon-8.
Post - 8.
=======================================================================
1.
Without going further into this question, I expect you to exercise your mind a little bit in the direction of a solution to this great problem.
Where is God?
If we ask this question to anybody, he will say He is everywhere. This idea of everywhere arises on account of space. God is always, and everywhere. He is eternal, and infinite. This is considered to be the best definition of God. The idea of infinity is somehow connected with the idea of a large expanse in space. God is all-pervading, omnipresent.
What else can we say about God?
But this idea of omnipresence arises because of space. If space is not there, the question of indwelling, omnipresence, all-pervadingness, etc., does not arise.
And what was God before space was created?
Where was God?
We say He is everywhere, but we should not say this because the question of everywhere is the question of connecting God with the creation – this world, this universe – which is an evolute, an effect which proceeded from a cause. We are asking another question altogether:
What was the nature of God before He created the world?
We should not define Him in terms of the effect that followed afterwards.
Who is a human being?
He is the father of a son. We should not say that because there may be human beings who are not fathers of sons, and a person is not necessarily only a father and nothing else. There is something in that person other than his fatherness. Likewise, eternity is also not a correct definition of God because eternity is connected with the concept of time.
An endless duration is called eternity from our point of view, but time is an evolute. God is not endless, durationless existence because that would be to define Him in terms of what He created or manufactured; He is not omnipresent because that also would be a definition in terms of what He created afterwards.
Who is God, and what was God doing?
God was doing nothing. This idea of nothing is also a conditioned statement. Thus we cease to think completely, and no answer can be given to this question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Where was God?
A priest was discoursing on the nature of God, and one intelligent person from the audience got up. “Holy Sire, where is God?” he asked. “God is in heaven,” replied the priest.
“But where was God before heaven was created?”
When Brahmaloka was not there, Vaikunta was not there, Kailasa was not there, when the seven planes of existence were not there, when creation was not there, where was God?”
Such a question seems to be the meaning behind what Nachiketas asked.
How could Yama answer such a question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
There is no elaborate answer to this question recorded in the Kathopanishad. Either we do not have the whole of the Upanishad extant in the libraries of the world, or the Upanishad ends with an abrupt, elusive answer whose meaning we have to read between the lines. A similar difficulty was felt by Maitreyi, the consort of Sage Yajnavalkya, when something was told by Sage Yajnavalkya which was almost like an answer to this question. After the passing, there is no consciousness.
"sa yatha saindhava-khilya udake prasta udakam evanuviliyeta, na hasya udgrahanayeva syat, yato yatas tv adadita lavaṇam eva, evaṁ va ara idam mahad bhutam anantam aparam vijnana-ghana eva; etebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya, tany evanuvinasyati; na pretya saṁjnasti, iti are bravimi, iti hovaca yajnavalkyaḥ."
Na pretya samjnasti (Brihad. Up. 2.4.12), said Yajnavalkya.
This is our difficulty also. We cannot understand what it is to be united with God. There cannot be a greater frightening situation than to be told this.
I think many of us here, or perhaps everyone, may feel :
What is the purpose of losing oneself in God-being or Universal Existence if the experience of oneself is not to be there?
To be the sugar candy is not as worth the while as to eat the sugar candy. There is a taste of the sugar candy, but sugar candy itself does not know that it is sweet. Perhaps it does not know what it is.
========================================================================
To be continued ....
========================================================================
========================================================================
11/01/2020.
Chapter 3: Nachiketas’ Third Boon-8.
Post - 8.
=======================================================================
1.
Without going further into this question, I expect you to exercise your mind a little bit in the direction of a solution to this great problem.
Where is God?
If we ask this question to anybody, he will say He is everywhere. This idea of everywhere arises on account of space. God is always, and everywhere. He is eternal, and infinite. This is considered to be the best definition of God. The idea of infinity is somehow connected with the idea of a large expanse in space. God is all-pervading, omnipresent.
What else can we say about God?
But this idea of omnipresence arises because of space. If space is not there, the question of indwelling, omnipresence, all-pervadingness, etc., does not arise.
And what was God before space was created?
Where was God?
We say He is everywhere, but we should not say this because the question of everywhere is the question of connecting God with the creation – this world, this universe – which is an evolute, an effect which proceeded from a cause. We are asking another question altogether:
What was the nature of God before He created the world?
We should not define Him in terms of the effect that followed afterwards.
Who is a human being?
He is the father of a son. We should not say that because there may be human beings who are not fathers of sons, and a person is not necessarily only a father and nothing else. There is something in that person other than his fatherness. Likewise, eternity is also not a correct definition of God because eternity is connected with the concept of time.
An endless duration is called eternity from our point of view, but time is an evolute. God is not endless, durationless existence because that would be to define Him in terms of what He created or manufactured; He is not omnipresent because that also would be a definition in terms of what He created afterwards.
Who is God, and what was God doing?
God was doing nothing. This idea of nothing is also a conditioned statement. Thus we cease to think completely, and no answer can be given to this question.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.
Where was God?
A priest was discoursing on the nature of God, and one intelligent person from the audience got up. “Holy Sire, where is God?” he asked. “God is in heaven,” replied the priest.
“But where was God before heaven was created?”
When Brahmaloka was not there, Vaikunta was not there, Kailasa was not there, when the seven planes of existence were not there, when creation was not there, where was God?”
Such a question seems to be the meaning behind what Nachiketas asked.
How could Yama answer such a question?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.
There is no elaborate answer to this question recorded in the Kathopanishad. Either we do not have the whole of the Upanishad extant in the libraries of the world, or the Upanishad ends with an abrupt, elusive answer whose meaning we have to read between the lines. A similar difficulty was felt by Maitreyi, the consort of Sage Yajnavalkya, when something was told by Sage Yajnavalkya which was almost like an answer to this question. After the passing, there is no consciousness.
"sa yatha saindhava-khilya udake prasta udakam evanuviliyeta, na hasya udgrahanayeva syat, yato yatas tv adadita lavaṇam eva, evaṁ va ara idam mahad bhutam anantam aparam vijnana-ghana eva; etebhyo bhutebhyah samutthaya, tany evanuvinasyati; na pretya saṁjnasti, iti are bravimi, iti hovaca yajnavalkyaḥ."
Na pretya samjnasti (Brihad. Up. 2.4.12), said Yajnavalkya.
This is our difficulty also. We cannot understand what it is to be united with God. There cannot be a greater frightening situation than to be told this.
I think many of us here, or perhaps everyone, may feel :
What is the purpose of losing oneself in God-being or Universal Existence if the experience of oneself is not to be there?
To be the sugar candy is not as worth the while as to eat the sugar candy. There is a taste of the sugar candy, but sugar candy itself does not know that it is sweet. Perhaps it does not know what it is.
========================================================================
To be continued ....
========================================================================
Comments
Post a Comment