KENOPANISHAD - 2 : 4-3.

02/04/2019
SECTION - 2.
Mantram - 4.
Post-3.

The theory that the knowledge of the Self is the result of the contact of the Self with the mind is incorrect. This theory reduces the Self to unconsciousness. Several of the declarations of the srutis (Upanishads) would be contradicted by this theory. Because the Self is all-pervading, there would be an eternal contact of the Self with the mind, as wherever the mind is, the Self also is. What, then, is the meaning of remembrance and forgetfulness? There would be no forgetfulness at all because of the perpetual contact of the Self with the mind. Moreover, it is wrong to hold that the Self can be in contact with anything, because the Upanishads deny such a possibility. Only a substance with attributes can be in contact with another substance with attributes. The mind has attributes, but the Self has none. Infinity cannot be in contact with perishability. The knowledge of the Self is not the effect of its contact with the mind, as the acceptance of this theory would be to accept that consciousness itself is transient. The Self is eternal knowledge in its very essence. It does not require any contact therefor.

There is another theory which holds that the Self knows itself by itself, by becoming the subject as well as the object. This theory makes the Self perishable, because it divides the Self into two parts. The Self can never became an object of itself. If it does, it has to die. One thing cannot become another thing unless it dies to that one thing. The Self does not require another consciousness to know itself. Therefore it cannot be said that the Self becomes an object to know itself.

The theory of the Buddhists that the Self is perishable is wrong. According to the Buddhists, the Self is a constantly changing process, and not an existent being. A process is never what it is for more than a moment, and hence every process is transitory. According to this theory the whole existence is a moving shadow, a passing phenomenon without any substance in it. The absurdity of this theory is clear from the fact that no process is possible without an underlying connecting being. There is no flying without an object that is flying. There cannot be mere flying alone. And, also, something flies means something does not fly, viz., the ultimate space. Change implies changelessness. There is becoming means there is being. If the Self is perishable, there must be some imperishable being other than the Self. It is not possible to conceive of perishability except on the basis of imperishability. There must be an eternal, ever-enduring being, so that change or modification may be possible. Therefore, the theory of momentariness of existence propounded by the Buddhists is rejected.

To be continued ...