13. The one thing worth knowing

 

46All purposes served by a well of water can in every way be served by a great reservoir. Similarly he who knows Brahman knows everything.

 

Of course he doesn’t know Rocket Science! But he knows that he doesn’t need to know Rocket Science. And he knows that he doesn’t need to know how to handle computers. And he knows that he doesn’t need to know how to drive a car. And he knows that he doesn’t need to know how to play politics. And he knows that he doesn’t need to know how to cook good food. And he knows that he doesn’t need to know how television works. Just as you know that you don’t need to know what the political situation in Papua New Guinea in 1897 was. And as you know that you don’t need to know Hungarian language or the rules of its grammar. And as you know that you don’t need to know the mating habits of Amazonian bees. In fact he who knows Brahman knows that he doesn’t need to know anything else as compared to this one thing that he has come to know.

The converse is also true. You may be the greatest expert in Rocket Science on this earth plus the greatest computer expert plus the President of the most powerful nation on earth plus the richest person on earth plus…, yet you may be left with the feeling that you don’t know the one thing that ultimately matters!

The person who knows Brahman has the master-key of life. Therefore he doesn’t need the hundreds of keys that open the mysteries of the hundreds of areas of life. One key opens them all. "All purposes served by a well of water can in every way be served by a great reservoir" says the first part of the verse. All purposes served by the hundreds of keys to the hundreds of areas of life are served by the master-key. The person who knows Brahman solves all his problems in one stroke. He doesn’t do a patchwork job, he doesn’t try to solve all the hundreds of problems he faces individually. He goes to that which is the source of all problems, and tackles that.

The statement "He who knows Brahman knows everything" can be considered similar to what a Christian would mean when he says, "He who knows God knows everything", similar to what a follower of the Vedas would mean when he says, "He who knows Rta knows everything", similar to what a follower of Lao-Tsu would mean when he says, "He who knows Tao knows everything." In fact, we can even extend this to Atheists! Atheists are uncomfortable with the word "God" but would happily talk about "the great and infinite subconscious mind of man" which they have had a slight experience of. So for the sake of our Atheist brothers, we can make a similar statement, "He who knows the great and infinite subconscious mind knows everything!" If you are one of those who prefer the terms "Higher Self" and "lower self," use those. Words are unimportant here.

The one thing to do, is to "know Brahman". That is because the fruit of mere works is transitory, while the result of the knowledge of Brahman is something permanent. The Vedanta-texts declare it in many places – "And as here the world acquired by work perishes, so there the world acquired by merit perishes" (Chandogya Upanishad VIII-1-6); "That work of his has an end" (Briharadaranyaka Upanishad III-8-10); "By non-permanent works the Permanent is not obtained" (Katha Upanishad I-2-10); "Unreliable indeed are those boats, the sacrifices" (Mundaka Upanishad I-2-7); "Let a Brahmin, after he has examined all these worlds that are gained by works, acquire freedom from all desires. What is not made cannot be gained by what is made. To understand this, let the pupil, with fuel in his hand, go to a teacher who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman. To that pupil who has approached him respectfully, whose mind is altogether calm, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman through which he knows the imperishable true Person" (Mundaka Upanishad I-2-12, l3). "He who knows Brahman attains the Highest" (Taittiriya Upanishad II-1-1); "He who sees this does not see death" (Chandogya Upanishad VII-26-2); "He becomes a self-ruler" (Chandogya Upanishad VII-25-2); "Knowing him he becomes immortal here" (Taittitiya Aranyaka III-12-7); "Having known him he passes over death; there is no other path to go" (Svetasvatara Upanishad VI-15); "Having known as separate his Self and the Mover, pleased thereby he goes to immortality" (Svetasvatara Upanishad I-6).

"Knowing Brahman" is the most important theme of the Upanishads. Some passages from the Upanishads which point to the importance of "knowing Brahman" are:

From the Mundaka Upanishad:

I-i, 3-7: 3Saunaka, well known as a great householder, having approached Angiras duly, asked, "O adorable sir, which is that thing which having been known, all this becomes known?" 4To him he said, "There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired – the higher and the lower"; this is what, as tradition runs, the knowers of the import of the Vedas say. 5Of these, the lower comprises the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharva-Veda, the science of pronunciation etc., the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there is the higher by which is attained that Imperishable. 6By the higher knowledge the wise realize everywhere that which cannot be perceived and grasped, which is without source, features, eyes, and ears, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, multiformed, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, and undiminishing and which is the source of all. 7As a spider spreads out and withdraws its thread, as on the earth grow the herbs, and as from a living man issues out hair, so out of the Imperishable does the Universe emerge here.

II-i-10: The Purusha alone is all this – comprising karma and knowledge. He who knows this supreme, immortal Brahman, existing in the heart, destroys here the knot of ignorance, O good-looking one!

II-ii-9: In the supreme, bright sheath is Brahman, free from taints and without parts. It is pure, and is the Light of lights. It is that which the knowers of the Self realize.

III-i-4: This one is verily the Vital Force that shines divergently through all beings. Knowing this, the illumined man has no occasion to go beyond anything in his talk. He disports in the Self, delights in the Self, and is engrossed in spiritual effort. This one is the chief among the knowers of Brahman.

 

From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II-iv-14:

Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known – through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower?

 

From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:

III-v-1: …Therefore the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge; having known all about this strength and scholarship, he becomes meditative; having known all about both meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman. How does that knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such. Except this, everything is perishable.

III-viii-8: He said: O Gargi, the knowers of Brahman say, this Immutable Brahman is that. It is neither gross nor minute, neither short nor long, neither red color nor oiliness, neither shadow nor darkness, neither air nor ether, unattached, neither savor nor odor, without eyes or ears, without the vocal organ or mind, non-luminous, without the vital force or mouth, not a measure, and without interior or exterior. It does not eat anything, nor is It eaten by anybody.

III-viii-10: He, O Gargi, who in this world, without knowing this Immutable, offers oblations in the fire, performs sacrifices and undergoes austerities even for many thousand years, finds all such acts but perishable; he, O Gargi, who departs from this world without knowing this Immutable, is miserable. But he, O Gargi, who departs from this world after knowing this Immutable, is a knower of Brahman.

 

From the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad VI-I, 1-7:

1Once upon a time there was one Svetaketu, the grandson of Aruna. His father said to him, ‘O Svetaketu, live the life of a Brahmacharin. Dear boy, there never is anyone in our family who does not study and is only nominally a Brahmin.’

2Having gone to the teacher’s house when twelve years old, he came back when he was twenty-four old, having studied all the Vedas, conceited, arrogant and regarding himself as very learned. 3His father said to him, ‘Svetaketu, dear boy, you, I see, are conceited, arrogant, regarding yourself as very learned; did you ask for that teaching through which what is unheard becomes heard, what is unthought becomes thought of, what is unknown becomes known?’

‘Of what nature, revered sir, is that teaching?’

4‘Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real. 5Dear boy, just as through a single ingot of gold, all that is made of gold would become known, for all modification is but name based upon words and the gold alone is real. 6Dear boy, just as through a single nail-parer all that is made of iron would become known, for all modification is but name based upon words and the iron alone is real – such, dear boy, is that teaching.’

7‘Surely, my revered teachers did not know it, for if they had known, why should they not have told it to me? However, revered father, teach it to me’.

‘Be it so, dear boy’, said the father…

 

From Mandala-Brahmana Upanishad (II-3 to 5):

He who knows Brahman and who is the sole enjoyer of Brahmic bliss which is eternal and has dawned once – that man becomes one with Brahman. There are five states: Jagrat (waking), Swapna (dreaming), Sushupti (dreamless sleeping), the Turya (fourth) and Turyatita (that beyond the fourth)… The Yogin is one that has realized Brahman that is all-full beyond Turya… Then the Yogin becomes immersed in the ocean of bliss. When compared to it, the bliss of Indra and others is very little. He who gets this bliss is the supreme Yogin.

 

From Satyayaniya Upanishad:

4One who knows not the Veda realizes not that omnipresent One (Brahman); one who knows not Brahman reaches not that supreme abode. He who realizes that the omnipresent god, the omniscient one, the prop of all, that sage, seer of reality, attains the state of wisdom while living.

24If a person has realized that he is the Atman non-different from the universal Self, what can he wish for, and to fulfil which desire need he torture his body by various kinds of austerities? 25A wise-man knowing this truth and thus a knower of Brahman shall have this consciousness. He shall not worry himself with many words; for it is only torturing language.

40He who has supreme faith in God and the same faith in his Guru is a knower of Brahman, who reaches supreme beatitude. Such is the teaching of the Veda.

 

From the Katharudra Upanishad (v.13):

Not by action, not by begetting children, not by anything else, only by knowing Brahman, man attains Brahman.

 

From the Suka Rahasya Upanishad (v.44):

Other knowledge will surely perish, while the knowledge of Brahman leads to Brahman.

 

From the Prashna Upanishad part III:

1Then Kausalya, son of Asvala, asked him, "O venerable sir, from where is this Prana born? How does He come into this body? How again does He dwell by dividing Himself? How does he depart? How does He support the external things and how the physical?"

2To him he said: You are putting super-normal questions, since you are pre-eminently a knower of Brahman. Hence I speak to you…

 

From the Chandogya Upanishad:

IV-i-7: The attendant, having searched for him, came back thinking, ‘I could not find him’. Janasruti said to him, ‘Well, where the knower of Brahman should be searched for there search for him’.

IV-ix-1: Satyakama reached the house of the teacher. The teacher addressed him, ‘Satyakama!’ ‘Yes, revered sir’, he responded.

IV-ix-2: ‘Dear boy, you shine like a knower of Brahman; who is it that has instructed you?’ Satyakama assured him, ‘People other than men. But I wish, revered sir, that you would expound it to me.’

IV-xiv-1: The fires said, ‘O Upakosala, dear boy, to you are revealed this knowledge of the fires and the knowledge of the Atman. But the teacher will tell you the way.’ His teacher came back. The teacher addressed him ‘Upakosala!’

IV-xiv-2: ‘Yes, revered sir’, he responded. ‘Dear boy, your face shines like that of a knower of Brahman! Who is it that has instructed you?’

 

From the Atma Upanishad:

II-5(b)-8. What discipline is required to know, ‘this is a pot’, except the adequacy of the means of right knowledge? Once it is given, the knowledge of the object supervenes. The ever present Self shines when the means of Its cognition is present. Neither place nor time nor purity is required. The knowledge ‘I am Devadatta’ depends on nothing else. Similarly, the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ of the Knower of Brahman is independent. Just as the whole world by the sun, by the splendor of the Knowledge of Brahman is everything illumined.

II:10(b)-11. The child ignores hunger and bodily pain and plays with things. In the same way, the happy Brahman-Knower delights in himself without the sense of ‘mine’ and ‘I’. Thus the silent sage, alive and alone, the embodiment of desirelessness, treats the objects of desire.

II:19-20. By fate is the body borne into contexts of experiences at appropriate times. On the contrary he who, giving up all migrations, both knowledge and unknowable, stays as the pure unqualified Self, is himself the manifest Shiva. He is the best of all Brahman-Knowers. In life itself the foremost Brahman-Knower is the ever free, he has accomplished his End.

II:21-22. All adjuncts having perished, being Brahman he is assimilated to the non-dual Brahman, like a man who, with appropriate apparels, is an actor and without them resumes his real state. In the same way the best of Brahman-Knowers is always Brahman alone and none else.

II:22(b)-24(a). Just as space becomes space itself when the enclosing pot perishes, so, when particular cognitions are dissolved, the Brahman-Knower himself becomes nothing but Brahman, as milk poured into milk, oil into oil, and water into water become milk, oil and water. Just as, combined, they become one, so does the Atman-knowing sage in the Atman.

 

From the Annapurna Upanishad:

I:1-2. The king of Yogins, Nidagha, prostrated flat before Ribhu, that pre-eminent knower of Brahman. Then, rising, that ascetic respectfully said, ‘Teach me the truth about the Self; by what kind of adoration have you, Oh Brahmin, attained this state?

III:2. Ribhu: In the region of Sumeru the celebrated sage Mandavya resorting to Truth imparted by Kaundinya became liberated in life.

III:3. Having attained the status of Jivanmukti, that foremost knower of Brahman, that great sage, made up his mind, once upon a time, to withdraw all his sense-organs from their respective objects.

III:19. Then he becomes that which is beyond even the range of words which is the nihil of the nihilist and Brahman of the knowers of Brahman;

IV:2-3. O Brahmin, a non-knower of the Self, still in bondage, achieves the powers to fly in space, etc., by virtue of specific substances, incantations, practices and potencies of time. This is not the concern of the Self-knower. One having contentment in one’s Self never hankers after the phenomena of nescience.

V-98. Just as a mirror is not stained by reflections, so is the Brahman-Knower inwardly unstained by actions’ fruits.

V-101. Let him give up his body either in a holy spot or in the hut of an eater of dog’s flesh: Once knowledge is won, one becomes Gnyani, a knower of Brahman, free from all latent impressions of Karma.

 

From the Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad, chapter IV:

30The wise ascetic has no work to do nor has he any emblem. The sage free from ‘mine-ness’ and fear, calm, uninfluenced by the pairs of opposites, taking food without caste-distinction, 31clad in loin cloth or unclad, shall remain deeply engaged in meditation. Thus the Yogin, solely devoted to wisdom is fit for identity with Brahman. 32Even though he may carry an emblem (such as the staff), the real cause of his liberation is his spiritual knowledge alone. To the people here, an assemblage of emblems is meaningless. 33He is a knower of Brahman who knows not the difference between one who is good or bad, unlearned or highly learned in scripture, of good or bad character.

 

From the Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad, chapter VI:

13That ascetic is considered as one beyond the castes and orders who realizes the supreme truth which is free of the body, senses, etc., 14which is the all-witness, the spiritual wisdom, the self of bliss and the self-radiant. Castes and orders, etc., pertaining to the body are invented by the bamboozling illusion. 15They (the castes and orders) are never part of my Self which is of the form of pure consciousness. He who realizes thus by the teachings of the Upanishads shall be deemed as one beyond the castes and orders. 16He whose conduct conforming to castes and orders has dropped out on visualizing his Self, goes beyond all restrictions of castes and orders and remains in the Self. 17The knowers of the truth of all the Vedas declare that man to be beyond the castes and orders who is established in his Self, having reached the stage beyond his order (ashrama) and his caste. 18Therefore, Oh Narada, even the castes and the orders of other people have all been superimposed on the Self by delusion; this is not done by the knower of the Self. 19There is no Vedic injunction, no prohibition, no rule of exclusion or inclusion to those who have realized Brahman; nor is there anything restricting their conduct, Oh Narada.

 

From the Shandilya Upanishad, Chapter 3:

Therefore he who knows the meaning knows everything. He who always contemplates on the supreme that It is himself becomes a knower of Brahman.

 

From the Taittiriya Upanishad II-i-1:

The knower of Brahman attains the highest. Here is a verse uttering that very fact: "Brahman is truth, knowledge, and infinite. He who knows that Brahman as existing in the intellect, lodged in the supreme space in the heart, enjoys, as identified with the all-knowing Brahman, all desirable things simultaneously.

 

From the Tejo-Bindu Upanishad I-22:

It is ‘That’ which is really called silence and which is naturally understood. There is silence in children, but with words latent; whereas the knowers of Brahman have silence but without words.

 

From the Maha Upanishad:

IV:85-86. He who remains giving up what is implied and expressed is Shiva himself, the best of the Brahman-Knowers. That un-decaying being is the substratum of all, without comparison beyond words and mind, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and subtle.

VI-46. ‘Having given up all baseless mental constructions and the latent impressions, he who has won tranquillity is the best among the Knowers of Brahman; he is the liberated. His renunciation may only be deduced.

 

From the Maitreya Upanishad I-1:

Like fire blazing without smoke and burning all as it were with his effulgence the sage Sakayanya, the knower of the Self, said to the king: ‘Rise up, rise up, choose a boon’. Bowing to him the king said: ‘Revered Sir, I know not the Atman. But we hear that you are a knower of the truth. Expound to me that’.

 

From the Mandukya Upanishad III-47:

That highest Bliss exists in one’s own Self. It is calm, identical with liberation, indescribable, and unborn. Since It is one with the unborn knowable (Brahman), the knowers of Brahman speak of It as the Omniscient Brahman.

 

From the Pashupata Upanishad:

Suppose we decide to do away with rules of logic, it can be told that he who understands Brahman himself becomes the great knower of Brahman.

 

Thus "Knowing Brahman", is the most important theme of the Upanishads. So, how does one come to know Brahman anyway? Before we answer that question, we note an interesting and important thing: the Geeta will shift from the Advaitic viewpoint of verse 46 (and before that, verses 11 to 30) to the Dvaitic/ theistic viewpoint from verse 48, right up to the end of the chapter. In the Dvaitic/ theistic viewpoint, "God" and "man" are different, separate from each other. Verse 48 will start with "Established in yoga, perform actions…" and the verses following that will deal with the process of getting established in yoga i.e. union with God, and what a sthitapragnya i.e. person in yoga (union with God) is like. From verse 48, Brahman and the Advaitic view will not be mentioned at all. And then in the end, in verse 72, suddenly Krishna will come back to the Advaitic view saying, "This is the state of Brahman. One is not bewildered on achieving this. Being situated in this, even at the time of death, he attains liberation in divine consciousness."

How come all this switching back-and-forth? Answer: The way to know Brahman is through knowing God/ Ishwara. Brahman is the ultimate monistic reality of things as declared by the Upanishads. But the normal day-to-day experience of man is far from monistic. It is very much dualistic. Man very much experiences day-to-day life as objects different from each other. And you can start on a journey only from where you are, not from some hypothetical point on the way. The Advaitic view presented till now is like the description of the final destination. But simply giving a description of the final destination doesn’t help. You need a vehicle to take you there, and the process of yoga i.e. developing your relationship with God is the vehicle. Even the great Advaitic, Shankaracharya, used his devotion to Shiva as his vehicle. Since the normal day-to-day experience of man is Dvaitic, it is natural and normal for man to deal with a personal God/ Ishwara than with an impersonal Brahman, an impersonal "Absolute." In the Advaitic (monistic) viewpoint, the Atman and the Param-atman/ Brahman are one in essence. In the Dvaitic (dualistic) viewpoint, God and man are different from each other, and that’s the natural and normal way man experiences day-to-day life. Hence it is easier for the normal man to know a personal God/ Ishwara than an impersonal monistic Brahman. Krishna’s answer in 12:2-5 to Arjuna’s question in 12:1 makes the same point. Taking a sneak peek forward, in chapter 12, verse 1, Arjuna will ask the question, "In this way always joined those devotees of yours who properly worship you, or those who are devoted to the indestructible, unmanifest; of them who are the ones with perfect knowledge of yoga?" To which Krishna will answer in verses 2 to 5, "Fixing their minds unto me, who are always joined to me and worship me with faith of a high grade, they are the most joined in my opinion. But those who properly worship the indestructible, the indefinite, the unmanifest, the all-pervading, inconcievable, unchanging, unmoving, fixed, controlling the set of sense organs, with a same intellect everywhere, engaged for the benefit of all living beings, they too get me only. Very troublesome is their movement towards consciousness of the unmanifest, unattached. Movement towards the unmanifest is full of great grief to the embodied." In other words, both of them reach the same place, the destination is the same, but the journey is easier for the dualist worshiping a personal God. Once his relationship with a personal God is well-developed, once he has attained a level of equanimity, once he is no longer attached to the things of this world, he can ask the questions "Whot (or What) is God? Who am I? What is everything ultimately made of?" and move to the answer that "Everything is ultimately consciousness." Note: theoretical understanding, or understanding in the mind has little value. Its value is limited to making a person aware of Brahman, and motivating him to know Brahman for himself.

The easier and faster way to know Brahman then, is through "knowing God." So, how does one come to know God/ Ishwara? Let’s use an analogy here to communicate the process. How does one come to know another person? There are clearly-defined steps in coming to know another person. The first and lowest level step is to get to know more about that person, by gathering information about him. When you are going to meet a very important person, you first gather information about him. So it is with "knowing God" also! The first and preliminary step is to gather information about God, which you can do by reading books/ attending spiritual meetings etc. But that is only the starting point. "Knowing more about God" is vastly different from "knowing God" just as "knowing more about another person" is vastly different from "knowing that person."

The second step in getting to know another person is to meet that person, and have a number of meetings in which you carry out intelligent conversations with him. You talk to him about various areas of his life – his work, his desires, his goals and objectives, his way of working, his struggles, the problems he faces, how he came to this situation, his colleagues and supporters etc. But that’s not enough to know him as a person. If it’s okay with him, then you talk with him about his personal life – his family, his hobbies, how he relaxes, his personal struggles. You ask him about his childhood, his youth years etc. Now you have come to "know him" a little better.

As far as developing your relationship with God is concerned, this is more the other way round: you talk to him and tell him all that you are going through. Sure, he knows about it all anyway, but the purpose here is not to give him information, but to develop your relationship with him by opening up your life to him as you would do with a close, trusted friend. The following poem beautifully captures the process:

Tell God all that is in your heart, as one unloads one’s heart, its pleasures and its pains, to a dear friend.

Tell Him your troubles, that He may comfort you;

tell Him your joys, that He may sober you;

tell Him your longings, that He may purify them;

tell Him your dislikes, that He may help you to conquer them;

talk to Him of your temptations, that He may shield you from them;

show Him the wounds of your heart, that He may heal them;

lay bare your indifference to good, your depraved tastes of evil, your instability.

Tell Him how self-love makes you unjust to others,

how vanity tempts you to be insecure,

how pride disguises you to yourself and to others.

If you thus pour out your weaknesses, needs, troubles, there will be no lack of what to say. You will never exhaust the subject. It is continually being renewed. People who have no secrets from each other never want for subjects of conversation. They do not weigh their words, for there is nothing to be held back; neither do they seek for something to say. They talk out of the abundance of the heart, without consideration they say just what they think. Blessed are they who attain such familiar, unreserved intercourse with God.

When you tell Him your troubles, He comforts you. When you tell Him your joys, He sobers you down. When you tell Him your longings, He purifies them. When you tell Him your dislikes, He helps you to conquer them. When you talk to Him of your temptations, He shields you from them. When you show Him the wounds of your heart, He heals them. This is real prayer; not the mumbling of right-sounding words spoken for the sake of making a show.

But even talking to another person has a limit. There is a point beyond which you cannot go in getting to know a person by mere talking, and frankly, you might not even have got to know him truly as he is for people are good at presenting an acceptable façade. If you really, really want to know a person well beyond a point, you move to the third level – get involved with him in his work! Then you will know him much better than you would by mere talking!

The process of getting to "know God" involves similar three steps. The first step is to "know more about God" which you can do by reading books/ attending spiritual meetings etc. The second step (talking to God) is the step of prayer. In the beginning of chapter 12, Arjuna will pop the question, "In this way always joined those devotees of yours who properly worship you, or those who are devoted to the indestructible, unmanifest; of them who are the ones with perfect knowledge of yoga?" The "indestructible, unmanifest" is Brahman. In reply, Krishna answers that both lead to the same goal, but devotion to a personal deity is much easier. In fact in religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, there is only devotion to a personal deity, there is no "knowing the indestructible, unmanifest." And the vast majority of Hindus too prefer devotion to a personal deity. Prayer to such deities is the second step, corresponding to the second step of "talking to another person" to get to know him better.

But as we have seen, talking works only up to a point. If you want to go beyond that point in knowing another person, you have to get involved with him in his work! So it is with God. Prayer works only up to a point. If you want to go beyond that point, the only way is to get involved with God in his work. And that means obedience! Because God is the boss! He doesn’t take orders from you; no, not even suggestions. He knows much better. Most people get stuck at prayer-point. They are the vast majority of the "religious" types who can spend hours in prayer, but ignore or disobey the voice of God from within them. When he speaks to them and tells them to do something, they would rather busy themselves with any other activity, even religious activity. The religions anyway provide them not only with plenty of activity to busy themselves in, but also provide the feeling that they are making progress in their walk with God, when actually they are not. This is the strongest of all delusions.

Obedience to God when he speaks to you through your inner voice, even if it has to go against your established religion, is the ultimate way to get to know God better. It was the same for Abraham, it was the same for Gautama Buddha, it was the same for Martin Luther. It’s the same for you too. And it’s not a one-time event, but a gradual process, taking place over the years. And gradually, as you do it more and more, you find God’s Spirit flowing through you more and more, and you start experiencing yourself as a tool in God’s hands. On your way to becoming the nimitta-matram of 11:33.

The process of getting to "know God" is the same as the process of replacing the state of "Ahamkara" ("I am the doer") with the state of being "Nimitta matram" of 11:33 i.e. "I am merely a tool, an instrument in the hands of God." These are not mere words. It’s when your experience of life becomes "I am not doing anything. It is actually God doing what he wants to do through me." It is exactly what Jesus meant when he said, "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does" (John 5:19) and "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me" (John 5:30), "I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me" (John 8:28), and "For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it" (John 12:49). It is exactly what Paul meant when he said in spite of all his hard work, in 1 Corinthians 15:10, "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me." When one reaches such a state, one is freely flowing in the Spirit, all sense of "I am the doer" goes. And with it goes all the confusion about what one has to do. In that state, there are actually no decisions left to be made, neither is there any confusion left as to what is to be done. In fact there is nothing left to be done, nothing left to be achieved! The state of such a person (called "Avadhuta") is best described in the Avadhuta Upanishad verses 11 to 19:

There is neither death nor birth; none is bound, none aspires. There is neither seeker after liberation nor any liberated; this indeed is the ultimate Truth. Many were my activities perchance in the past for gaining things here and hereafter, or for obtaining liberation. All that is now of the past. That itself is the state of contentment. Verily remembering the same (i.e. the past) achievements involving objects, he now remains thus ever content. The miserable ignorant, desirous of children, etc., must suffer. Wherefore shall I suffer, who am filled with supreme bliss? Let those who yearn to go to the other worlds perform rituals. What shall I, who am of the nature of all the worlds, perform? For what and how? Let those who are qualified interpret the Scriptures or teach the Vedas. I have no such qualification, since I am free of action. I have no desire for sleeping or begging, bathing or cleaning. Nor do I do them. If onlookers thus superimpose, let them do so. What matters to me the superimposition of others? A heap of the red-black berries would not burn, even if others superimposed fire on it. Likewise, I partake not of worldly duties superimposed on me by others. Let them, who are ignorant of the reality, study the scriptures; knowing the reality why should I study? Let them who have doubts reflect upon what was studied. Having no doubts, I do not reflect. Were I under illusion, I may meditate; having no illusion, what meditation can there be for me? Confusion of body for the self, I never experience.

This is the state of a person who "knows Brahman". Please, please note: Such statements can be made only by a person who has reached that state of knowing Brahman. Statements like "Why should I study?" and "Why should I reflect?" and "Why should I meditate?" can be made only by people who have realized the self and live in the goodness of it! Only a person who has reached the destination no longer has a need of the vehicle. A Pablo Picasso can do away with the "rules" of painting, but only after becoming a master of playing by the rules. A Sachin Tendulkar can do away with the "rules" of batting, but only after becoming a master of batting "by the rules." If I try to do the same, it will flop miserably! Don’t throw away the studying of the Scriptures and reflection and meditation so fast. When you have mastered playing by the rules and have gone beyond them in obeying God radically, God will let you know when he wants you to put them aside.

And as our verse under consideration says, "He who knows Brahman knows everything." When one knows what is really to be known, when one knows that which is the one thing worth knowing, what else is left to be known? What is left to be done? What is left to be achieved? "By attaining Brahman, what is to be got is got, which causes no grief; it is the place of highest joy" says the Maha Upanishad III-10. Whatever is to be done is to be decided by God. Who am I to decide what is to be done? Who am I to decide what I am to do? It is God who has to decide, not I! I am not going to decide anything on my own. I am through with all that. I have seen the foolishness and the ultimate futility of all that. In fact I am only to be the tool, the nimitta-matram in God’s hands. And since I am not the decider anyway, I need not goad myself to action towards it, I need not be the supplier of energy for it. I can be as lazy as I want to! If God wants to do something through me, then let him supply the energy for it! A nimitta matram is a passive tool in the holder’s hands; any activity of its own on the tool’s part will only be a hindrance to him!

(Now statements like "I am not doing anything. It is actually God doing what he wants to do through me" have been used by people to justify all kinds of evil such as rape, theft, and murder. The simple answer to that is that there is no need for God to do such things! Such acts are always caused by Ahamkara, the ego to satisfy the sense organs. People are simply using God’s name to justify their evil acts.)

One comes to know Brahman better gradually by doing what Brahman/ God wants one to do, rather than doing what one wants to do. As one does that more and more, one experiences greater peace and joy, greater sense of fulfillment and satisfaction, greater sense of purpose in life, greater sense of freedom or liberation, along with less fear, anxiety and worry. Experiencing the goodness of this way of living more and more, one comes to doing it more and more (despite the great odds stacked against such a way of life). Gradually, gradually, one gives up more and more control to God/ Brahman/ Ishwara/ Tao/ Rta/ Higher Self/ subconscious or whatever you want to call it (words are unimportant here), as one realizes that one’s own thoughts/ emotions/ objectives/ goals/ way of life is foolishness and stupidity anyway as compared to that of Brahman/ Ishwara/ God/ Tao/ Rita/ Higher Self/ subconscious or whatever you want to call it.

Doing this more and more, one realizes that if there is one thing that one needs to do on this earth, it is this: get to know God/ Ishwara/ Brahman/ Tao/ Rita/ Higher Self/ subconscious (or whatever you want to call it) better by doing what he/ it wants you to do, rather than doing what you want to do. It is the same as "obeying you inner voice" to those who are uncomfortable with any of these words.

Since in Advaita philosophy everything is ultimately one, in Advaitic terminology God/ Ishwara is also called "supersoul" or "over self" and has been so used in verses 3:30, 7:29, 8:1, 8:3,10:32, 11:1, 13:12, and 15:5 ("adhyatma"= adhi + atma in Sanskrit). The definition is given in 8:3, "The indestructible divine consciousness who is supreme by nature is called the supersoul." This "over-self" or "supersoul" wants to pull you up. And correspondingly, there is a "lower self" that wants to pull you down. In chapter 6, verses 5 and 6 the statement is made that, "Uplift the self by the self, not debase the self. Certainly the self itself is the friend of the self and also the enemy! The self is friend of the self for whom the self is victorious over itself. But without control over the mind, the self behaves certainly like an enemy." Such a statement only makes sense when understood as "Uplift the self by the (supersoul), not debase the self. Certainly the (supersoul) itself is the friend of the self and (the lowersoul) the enemy! The (supersoul) is friend of the self for whom the (supersoul) is victorious over itself. But without control over the mind, the (lowersoul) behaves certainly like an enemy." The "lowersoul" can be looked upon as the "devil" or "Satan" counterpart of Advaitic Hinduism, just as the "supersoul" can be looked upon as the "God" part. Again, we need to be careful not to be trapped by words. If we do, we would be like two people fighting over a glass of water, one saying "This is water", another saying "No, this is hydros." What you call it is not important, what you do with it is. Similarly whether you want to call it "God" or "Ishwara" or "supersoul" or "over-self" or "the great subconscious mind" doesn’t matter, what matters is what you do with it/ him. And whether you want to call it "the devil", "Satan", or "lowersoul" doesn’t matter; what matters is what you do with him; what matters is whether (to use Biblical/ Quranic terminology) you have regular victories over him or whether (to use the terminology of the Bhagavad Geeta 6:5) you "do not debase the self by the self." What matters is (to use Biblical/ Quranic terminology) whether you use God’s help in uplifting yourself or whether (to use the terminology of the Bhagavad Geeta) you are "victorious by the self" (6:7) and whether you regularly, "Thus understanding him who is superior to the intellect, steady the self by the self and conquer the enemy, in the form of formidable lust." (3:43)

"There is no devil, no Satan, no sin, it’s all an invention of Christianity," say many Hindus. "What ‘delusion’? It’s sin and has to be called sin. The devil is to be called ‘the devil’" retort the Christians. That’s like fighting over words. "It’s water"; "No it’s hydros"; "No it’s water, and water should be called water." As far as I am concerned, call it what you want, call it ‘devil’ or call it ‘delusion’, the important thing is to overcome it and know God better.

 

Next, what prevents us from knowing Brahman/ Ishwara/ God? The first obstacle should be obvious from the above. If one comes to know Brahman/ Ishwara/ God better by simply doing what Brahman/ Ishwara/ God wants one to do instead of doing what one wants to do, then doing what one wants to do instead of what God wants us to do is the first obstacle. Generally God wants us to clean ourselves up first whereas we want to do everything else. The one thing that man hates to do is to do away with his sins, and will go to great lengths to avoid that (even using religious duties and observances as a cover-up). But God’s spirit can flow smoothly through clean conduits only. The cleaner you are as a conduit, the more easily can his spirit flow through you and use you as a nimitta matram for whatever he wants to get done. The more clogged you are with the things of this world and your own rubbish, the less smoothly can his spirit flow through you; the less can he use you as a nimitta matram. If you are still full of yourself, full of your own ideas and desires and ambitions and goals, where can God fit in? God won’t play second fiddle to you. If he is to work with you, he is to be the boss. Else he will let you continue doing the stupid things that your life is filled with anyway. He has given you the freedom to do what you want to do with your life and he won’t take it away from you. And he won’t force himself on you. He is too much of a gentleman to do that. The first thing he wants to do with you is to clean you up. Chapter 16 from the Bhagavad Geeta and the Sermon on the Mount from the Bible (Matthew chapters 5 to 7) are excellent places to start. Compare yourself, your life with the standards laid out there. See the vast gap between you and God’s standards. Start cleaning yourself up. And take God’s help whenever needed. You sure will need it. There is no way you can achieve those standards on your own! You will need God’s help, and need it in plenty! Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

Is it possible to know Brahman, to "see the self by the self" while still continuing in sin? Yes it’s possible, as says the Atma Upanishad, chapter II, verses 5 to 8: "What discipline is required to know, ‘this is a pot’, except the adequacy of the means of right knowledge? Once it is given, the knowledge of the object supervenes. The ever present Self shines when the means of Its cognition is present. Neither place nor time nor purity is required. The knowledge ‘I am Devadatta’ depends on nothing else. Similarly, the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ of the Knower of Brahman. Just as the whole world by the sun, by the splendor of the Knowledge of Brahman is everything illumined."

Yes of course it is possible to know Brahman, to "see the self by the self" while still continuing in the grossest sins. No inner purity is required to see the self by the self just as no inner purity is required to know ‘this is a pot.’ And that’s exactly where many Advaitins get the belief that there is no place for ethics in Advaita, because everything is ultimately illusionary.

Yes it’s possible to know Brahman while continuing in sin, but it is impossible to sustain it. Not just difficult, but impossible. You get a glimpse of it, only to lose it within seconds. Arjuna makes the point in 6:33-34 and Krishna concurs. Why is this so? Why is it impossible to sustain that state if you are still continuing in your sins? Because sin can also be looked at as "captured consciousness." (Many Hindus don’t like the word "sin" because they say there is no such thing as sin; it’s all an invention of Christianity. For them, I would simply ask, please explain to me what "papam" means in the Geeta 1:36, 1:45, 2:33, 2:38, 3:36, 5:15 and 7:28. Anyway, if you are an Advaitin and don’t like the word "sin", substitute for it "captured consciousness." It’s the same.) Consciousness is easily captured by the things of this world (and of heaven as we saw under verse 44 where the words "apahrta chetasam" are used). Says 2:60, "Even for a man who sees and is endeavoring to control them, son of Kunti, the senses can abduct by force the mind and put it into agitation."

Money, power, fame, women, recognition, material comforts, electronic gadgets, latest cars, all kinds of new innovations, all kinds of strange "achievements", all kinds of learning, are capable of capturing the consciousness of man and making him their slaves. As says the Mandukya Upanishad in IV:79-80, "Owing to fascination for non-existing objects, Consciousness engages Itself in things that are equally non-existing. On realization of the non-existence of objects, Consciousness, becoming free from attachment, abstains from them. Then, there follows a state of stillness, when the Consciousness has become free from attachment and does not engage Itself in non-existing things. That is the object of vision to the wise. That is the state on non-distinction, and that is birthless and non-dual." And as says the Maitrayani Upanishad in Part III: "The self is like a drop of water in the lotus leaf. This is overwhelmed by Prakriti. Being overcome he is in a state of delusion and does not see the Lord in himself making him act. Content with the mass of constituents and confused, unsteady, in eager pursuit, smitten by desire, yearning, conceited, thinking ‘I am that, this is mine’ he binds himself by himself as in a net, he roams about." And further in Part IV, "Like a prisoner, one in the clutches of Death is not free; dwells in the midst of many fears. He who is maddened by worldly pleasures is like one intoxicated. He is in the grip of sin and roams, like one bitten by a snake is he in the jaws of danger, as in darkness one is blinded by passion. As caught in a magic show one is in the midst of Maya. He sees every thing wrongly as in a dream, without essence like the pith of plantain – like an actor dressed up for a moment – falsely attractive like a painted wall. It has been stated ‘sense-objects’ like sound are there, sources of trouble. Attached to them, the self forgets the supreme place." Any act of sensuousness, in which the mind lusts after the objects of the senses, hoping to get through them joy and satisfaction, necessarily creates more agitations in the mind, and this itself leads to more bondage and attachment. And in Hinduism, any action done in bondage is sin, because that makes you get caught in the cycle of life and death, and is inimical to moksha or liberation.

Now the very essence of the Atman is freedom. And to "know the Atman" or to "know Brahman" is to know it as free consciousness, as consciousness that is not captured by the objects of the world. It is in fact to become free consciousness yourself! As we will soon see under verse 2:64 ("He who is freed from attachment and aversion, and moves amongst the objects of the sense organs without the self coming under their control, in such regulated freedom of the self, he attains grace") and 2:71 ("A person who gives up all desires, who moves about untouched, without possesiveness or egoism, he attains peace"), it is a person whose consciousness is not captured by the objects of the sense objects, who can be said to be a "free" person. A person who is continuing to sin, yet claiming to know the Atman, to know Brahman is under delusion. It’s like a prisoner saying "I know freedom, I am free" yet continuing to be in prison! That can only be called "delusion." A captured consciousness is not a free consciousness. The two are opposites. Both can’t be true at the same time. So there is no way you can "know Brahman" in a sustainable way and yet continue in your sins. Inner purity is an absolute must for knowing Brahman in a sustainable way.

 

Secondly you will have to give up the worship of all other gods! The gods are also a part of the "things of the world that capture man’s consciousness!" You cannot worship any other god if you want to know Brahman! The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verse 1:4:8 says,

"This, which is nearer to us than anything, this Self, is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than all else. And if one were to say to one who declares another than the Self dear, that he will lose what is dear to him, very likely it would be so. Let him worship the Self alone as dear. He who worships the Self alone as dear, the object of his love will never perish"

The gods don’t like it when you know the truth and stop worshipping them and direct your worship only towards the Supreme. The reason is simple and is stated in verse 1:4:10,

"Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like an animal for the gods. For verily, as many animals nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the gods. If only one animal is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not liked by the gods that men should know this."

Who liked to lose cattle? (in an agrarian economy. In today’s terms, it would be "Who likes to loose money?") Obviously, nobody. Not even the gods. Men who worship these gods are like cattle to them. Men who worship other gods "nourish" them, just like cattle nourish men. No man liked to lose even one of his cattle; similarly no god likes to lose any of his devotees. His nourishment goes! If you want to "know Brahman," you simply gotta forget your fancy gods! "The worshipers go to their gods" (7:23) and "They go to the gods who are avowed to the gods" (9:24). If you want to know God, you gotta worship only God. As the Svetasvatara Upanishad says in IV-13, "Let us offer our worship with oblations to that blissful Divine Being who is the lord of the Devas (gods), who governs the bipeds and the quadrupeds and in whom the worlds rest." And in VI-7, "May we realize Him – the transcendent and adorable master of the universe – who is the supreme lord over all the lords, the supreme God above all the gods, and the supreme ruler over all the rulers." And the Maha Upanishad says in VI-20, "Discarding the Lord who reigns in the heart, those who run after some other god are in fact seeking a gem after casting away the Kaustubha already in their possession." The Annapurna Upanishad says in IV:28-30, "The sage fulfils his duty with the realization, ‘I am the one Brahman’; Brahman is the ground of all, non-dual, supreme, eternal, of the essence of being, intelligence, and bliss, beyond the range of word and mind. There shine not the forms of the moon and the sun; the winds blow not; and none of the gods (are there). This divinity alone shines forth as being, pure by itself, free from rajas." Similarly the Tripura Tapini Upanishad says in V-3, "In that there are neither worlds seen nor unseen; no gods or demons; beasts or non-beasts; ascetics or non-ascetics; outcastes or non-outcastes; brahmins or non-brahmins. Alone and single, the supreme Brahman, all-quiet, shines forth. Gods, seers, manes, prevail not there. The awakened knower, the all-knower is Brahman." The Mundaka Upanishad says in II-i-7 that the gods themselves emerged from him: "And from Him duly emerged the gods in various groups, the Sadhyas, human beings, beasts, birds, life, rice and barley, as well as austerity, faith, truth, continence and dutifulness." According to the Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad VI:37-38, "Neither ceremonial ablution nor muttering prayers, nor worship of the gods, nor offering oblation to gods, nor means of accomplishing anything, nor fire-ritual, etc., is to be practiced by him (the Brahman-seeker) here. He has not to do the worshipping of gods, offering oblation to the manes, going on pilgrimage and the observing of vows." Part of VII:1 says "He shall not witness the festival in honor of any god… He shall not perform external worship of gods." Says the Paramhansa-Parivrajaka Upanishad, "Excepting the Self he sees nothing else. Unclad, bowing to none, not uttering Svaha (as he worships no gods), not uttering Svadha (to propitiate the manes), without the need to send back (gods as they have not been invoked), free from blame and praise, not resorting to mantras and rituals, not meditating on other gods (than the supreme God), refraining from aims and their absence, with all activities ceased, firmly established in Consciousness consisting of Existence, Knowledge and Bliss, being conscious of the one supreme bliss, he ever meditates on the Brahma-Pranava that he is Brahman alone and thus fulfils himself; such a one is the Paramahamsa mendicant monk." Says the Sannyasa Upanishad, Second Adhyaya in verse 74, "The ascetic has no worship of gods, nor witnessing festivals" and in verse 75, "There is no receiving of the offerings made to a deity. He shall not worship gods externally."

In fact, the Niralamba Upanishad, calls as "demoniac" any activity done to secure the power of the gods, including repetition of their names and fasting when it says in verse 36, "What is the demoniac? Demoniac is the austerity, rooted in entrenched attachment, aversion, destructive violence, hypocrisy, etc.; that torments oneself by performing ‘repetition of holy names’ and Agnihotra while fasting and that is prompted by the desire to secure the power of gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Ishana (i.e.Shiva)." Just before, in verse 30, it has called the yearning for adoring gods and men as bondage: "Bondage is the imagination prompted by the yearning for adoring gods, men, etc." Idol-worship likewise is condemned in the Maitreya Upanishad II-27: "To one desiring liberation worship of idols made of stone, metal, gem and clay results only in the experience of rebirth; hence the sage should perform the worship of his heart alone. To prevent rebirth he shall avoid external worship." Says the Yajnavalkya Upanishad, verse 12, "If an ascetic remains in identity with the highest self-effulgent Brahman which is beyond name, etc., then to whom shall he, the knower of the Atman, pay obeisance? Then the activity of bowing ought not to be done."

So it’s either the Supreme, or the other gods. You can’t have them both. If you want to know Brahman, you have to give up all your other gods! The worst thing is that many of these gods are worse than human beings, and certainly worse than the ideal human being that the Bhagavad Geeta wants men to be. Many of these gods are selfish, egoistic, quarrelsome, self-imposing, haughty and flirtatious. They fight, steal, and indulge in mockery, womanizing and merry-making. A devotee cannot act better than his god. Petty gods cap your growth to a petty level. The higher and better the god you worship, the higher and better is the possibility of your growth. If you want the highest and best for yourself, you gotta worship the highest and best only.

Religion is a system of beliefs and worship. Unfortunately, Hindu philosophy has not gone hand in hand with religious beliefs and practices. Philosophically, in Hinduism there is only one Supreme Self, the Brahman worthy of worship. But when the question of worship comes to the ground level, we see what a vast gap is there between the highest and the lowest. Amongst all the religions, the gap between the highest and the lowest is perhaps the greatest in Hinduism. The philosophy laid out in the Upanishads of one God, the Universal Self or Brahman, and man being the nature of consciousness as a part of Brahman, is perhaps the highest found in any religion. No other religion has reached the heights of Advaitic thinking that are found in the Upanishads. Yet it is equally true that in practice, no other religion has reached the depths of practices at the ground level as Hinduism has, with its spirit of deadness, orthodoxy, superficiality, hypocrisy, superstition and lack of objectivity and practices including idolatry, fetishism, polytheism, ancestor worship, promiscuity and sexual "experimentations" in the name of Tantra, worship of plants, trees, animals, sun, moon, planets, earth, mountains, rivers, seas, fire, water, air, other human beings, saints, any other thing and every other thing. While the philosophy is of the highest caliber, the religious life and practices in India are very primitive, rudimentary, crude, uncivilized, savage and barbarian. Practices were so in every part of the world. But when people came to know the truth, they threw away their primitive beliefs and practices. They threw away the gods and practices created by human imagination and fancy, and turned to the one great God who is above all. Unfortunately for India, it hasn’t happened here as yet.

Progress for the Truth takes place when men of integrity take a firm stand for the truth. O, when is that going to happen in India? Illiterate, poor folk are less capable of discerning and discriminating between truth and lies than the knowledged. The pity is that in India, even the highest philosopher who has studied the Upanishads and is aware of the truth about Brahman will stoop down to worship a snake, a monkey, a cow. Or prostrate himself before an idol. He claims to be the most enlightened and at the same time degrades himself by his actions. When asked as to how his behavior is in line with his beliefs, his reply is that "there is God in the idols also. And I am bowing before the God in the idol." There is generally no reply forthcoming when further asked that, "the same God is there within you also; then it’s God bowing down before himself. What sense does that make? In fact if at all, the God within a human being is more than the God within the idol." A devotee cannot become better than his god. In fact when a person worships someone/ something he is declaring that he is lower than what he worships. When a person worships an animal, tree, idol, he is declaring that he is lower than these. How does it square up with the Hindu belief itself that since moksha is possible only for humans, the human birth is the highest of births? Even so-called yogis and gurus declare by their actions, that they consider themselves to be lower than animals and pieces of stone or metal. As verse 3:21 will say later on, "That which the best people do, that same thing other people do. The standards he sets, other people imitate it." Is it any wonder that more than 90% of India is still in the grip of deadness, orthodoxy, superficiality, hypocrisy, idolatry, superstition and lack of objectivity? It’s in the hands of the people of integrity in India to firmly stand for the truth and not fall for the pressures of society. Only then can India progress to become an advanced nation. No nation can be considered advanced while such practices prevail. It’s not fine economic theories and smart management practices that are going to lift the vast masses of India. These may bring material prosperity to the miniscule minority, but the vast masses of India live in their religion. And unless their lives change to be in line with the truth, the nation as a whole cannot be considered advanced.

 

Knowing Brahman is a huge subject, and can be said to be the principal subject of the Bhagavad Geeta as of the Upanishads. We have covered two aspects briefly here – purity of heart and not worshipping of other gods. There is no point in covering all aspects of it here; they will anyway get covered as we go along. So let’s move on to the next verses. But before we do so, a technical comment on the verse. This verse has been known to be difficult to translate, and is much disputed. The problem comes because of the multiple meanings that the Sanskrit words can take. The verse in Sanskrit is:

yavan-arthah uda-pane sarvatah sampluta-udake

tavan sarveshu vedeshu brahmanasya vijanatah

Word for word translation for the first part gives:

In the way – purpose – water – well – every way – great reservoir – water

The second part however, can be translated in four ways, depending on how you translate vedeshu and brahmanasya:

In the same way – everything – vedas – Brahmin – knowledged

In the same way – everything – vedas – Brahman – knowledged

In the same way – everything – knowledged – Brahmin – knowledged

In the same way – everything – knowledged – Brahman – knowledged

I have chosen to use the fourth translation because it best fits the context. First of all, the two parts of the verse are comparing two situations and showing a similarity between them. So there has to be some kind of parallel between the two parts 46a and 46b. In the first part of the verse, the comparision is between a well of water and a reservoir (or a flood) of water. Both of them are sources of water – one small, another large or complete. So the best fit for 46b would be that which would compare two sources – one small, and another large or complete.

Secondly, the immediately preceding verse 45 has said to go beyond the vedas. That is something extraordinary and surprising, because the vedas were considered to be the ultimate in knowledge. In fact it could be said of those times that people believed that "he who knows the vedas knows everything worthwhile there is to know." So verse 46 has in some way to justify that assertion. Why should anyone go beyond the vedas? And how could anyone do so?

The first translation would be "In the same way, a Brahmin is knowledged in all the vedas" does not satisfy either of these requirements. It is not a comparative statement but a simple statement describing a situation. So it doesn’t fit in with 46a. Neither does it fit with verse 45, for it doesn’t answer why anyone should go beyond the vedas. Also, caste questions are not a subject in these two verses, knowledge is. So why should the word "Brahmin" be used? So the first translation can be rejected straightaway.

The second translation would be "In the same way, he who knows Brahman knows the vedas." That fits in with verse 45 because it clearly shows why anyone should go beyond the vedas. But it is not factually true, because anyone can know Brahman by direct experience, without knowing the vedas. The lower castes who were not allowed to know the vedas, and all outcastes could and can know Brahman directly, without knowing the vedas. And knowing Brahman does not make you automatically know the vedas!

The third translation would be "In the same way, a Brahmin is knowledged in everything." That again, like the first translation, is not a comparative statement. Plus how does the question of caste comes into the picture here?

The fourth translation, "Similarly he who knows Brahman knows everything (worth knowing)" satisfies all the requirements. Firstly it provides a very good reason for going beyond the vedas. It is not he who knows the vedas who knows the one worthwhile thing to know, but he who knows Brahman. He who knows the vedas but doesn’t have first-hand experience of Brahman has only book knowledge. Secondly, it offers a valid comparision to 46a: The knowledge of Brahman is like having a large (or complete) reservoir of water, as compared to the knowledge of everything else which is like having a well of water. Thus knowledge of Brahman is to knowledge of everything else as large reservoir is to a well. And thirdly, it offers a natural sequel to verse 45 that has ended with "possessed of the self (=Brahman)." Knowing everything (worth knowing) is a natural result of being "possessed of the self." Thus in all ways, the translation "Similarly he who knows Brahman knows everything" provides the best fit. Hence we have chosen to accept that.