Higher and Lower Knowledge
4. HIGHER AND LOWER KNOWLEDGE
The Upaniṣads make a distinction between two kinds of knowledge, the higher (parā) and the lower (a-parā).
The lower knowledge consists of all the empirical sciences and arts as also of such sacred knowledge as relates to things and enjoyments that perish. It is interesting to note that even the four Vedas are included in the category of lower knowledge.
Nārada, in spite of his encyclopaedic learning, both secular and sacred, finds that he is sorrow-stricken, and so seeks enlightenment from Sanatkumāra who characterizes all the former's knowledge as mere name (nāma eva).
That alone is higher knowledge which relates to the Imperishable (a-kṣara). It is described as that knowledge whereby what has not been heard of becomes heard of, what has not been thought of becomes thought of, what has not been understood becomes understood.
This is further explained as the knowledge of the ground which is more than and inclusive of the knowledge of the various expressions or manifestations of the ground.
Just as by one piece of clay all that is made of clay may be known—the modification being only a name depending on a word; the truth being of the ultimate ground which is the absolute self, the lower knowledge is nescience or false knowledge (avidyā).
"Widely contrasted and different are these two,” says the Kaṭha, “nescience (avidyā) and what is known as knowledge (vidyā).
The Śvetāśvatara refers to knowledge and ignorance that are placed hidden in the imperishable, infinite, supreme Brāhman, and characterizes ignorance as a thing perishable and knowledge as a thing immortal.
Yājñyavalkya speaks in more than one place of the unknowability of the self. How, then, can there be knowledge of the self?
In the course of his teaching to his wife, Maitreyī, the sage observes:
“After departing, there is no consciousness (for the soul).”
This bewilders the lady, who asks for clarification.
The reply that Yājñyavalkya gives is:
“Where there is duality as it were, there one sees another, one smells another, one hears another, one thinks of another, one understands another.
Where, however, everything had become just one’s own self, there whereby and whom would one smell, see, hear, speak to, think of, or understand?”
This is the answer to the question about the unknowability of the self.
The self is unknowable not because it is unknown, but because it is the basis of all knowledge, nay, knowledge per se. In short, it cannot be known as objects are known.
“You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing. You cannot think the thinker of thinking. You cannot understand the understander of understanding. He is your soul, which is in all things.”
The Kena-Upaniṣad teaches the same doctrine when it says that thither, to the self, the eye goes not, nor speech, nor mind, and that it is other than the known and above the unknown.
The Taittirīya declares that words and mind turn back, not being able to attain it.
Our words and thoughts are relevant to the realm of plurality; they fail with reference to the non-dual spirit. Yet, we have to make use of them as indicators or sign-posts, and not as vehicles taking us to the very end.
“As unity the self is to be looked upon—this unknowable, constant Being, free from blemishes, beyond space, the unborn self, great, permanent.”
The self is to be comprehended as “It is.” This is the supreme knowledge, para vidyā, true wisdom. The Upaniṣads ask us to seek this knowledge from a competent teacher who is not only learned but also in possession of the profound experience.
It is true that such a teacher is difficult to get but so is a competent pupil. All good things are rare and hard to accomplish.
“Wonderful is the declarer, proficient the obtainer of It! Wonderful the knower, proficiently taught!”