The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - 2. Swami Krishnananda.

 

==================================================================================

Monday 13, May 2024. 06:50.
Article
Scriptures
Post-2.

==================================================================================

Psychologically, as well as metaphysically and philosophically, there seems to be an error in our notion that anything can be loved at all. The word 'love' becomes a misnomer when we investigate into its essences. If by love we mean affectionately clinging to something that is other than our own self, then love does not exist in this world. If love means asking for something other than one's own self, clinging to something other than one's self, feeling happy with that which is not one's self – if that is the definition of love, then love is hypocrisy; it does not exist. But if we say that love does not always mean love for something other than one's own self – it should be love for one's own self – who will love one's own self? That is, again, a psychological problem. Neither does love for another seem to be justifiable, nor does love for one's own self seem to be meaningful.

For the sake of the Self, everything is dear – is a very precise statement of sage Yajnavalkya. This statement is so precise, so concentrated, that its meaning is not obviously clear on its surface, because it does not appear that people love themselves, and it is difficult to make sense of this statement if you just say you love property because you are loving your Self. Nobody will understand what exactly this statement means. Am I loving myself when I love property? It does not look like that. I cling to something that I regard as my belonging. It does not mean that I am clinging to my own body when I am clinging to something which is my belonging – property, wealth, treasure, relation. Yajnavalkya says: “You do not understand things properly. That is why the meaning is not clear to you.”

We have, in our earlier discussions, concluded that everything in the world has a pure subjectivity in itself. It is not true that things are objects of perception. They are also subjects from their own point of view. If you, as a perceiver or a cogniser of a thing which you consider as an object, remain as a subject for that particular thing which you regard as object, that other thing may consider you as an object from its own point of view when it beholds you as something outside itself. When I see you, I am a subject perceiving you as an object of my perception. So, you are an object and I am a subject. But when you perceive me, you are a subject and I am an object. Now tell me: Who is the subject and who is the object? Is there anything that we can permanently call an object?

The analysis of consciousness, into which we entered sometime back, has shown us that the nature of the subjectivity of anything is essentially consciousness. You have to bring back to your memory this analytical study that we conducted in the course of our going through the Mandukya Upanishad, etc. Consciousness is the essence of the subjectivity of anything. There cannot be a 'perceiving' of anything unless there is a consciousness of perceiving. This consciousness, as we noticed by an analysis of its nature, is incapable of  being limited to a finitude of existence. Consciousness cannot be finite. That is to say, it cannot be located in any particular place. It cannot be even said to be inside somebody, because consciousness is the knower of the fact of its being inside someone. If someone says “consciousness is inside”, it is consciousness itself making this statement possible. The so-called consciousness, which appears to be inside, seems to be asserting that it is inside. Minus consciousness, no assertion is possible. Therefore it is consciousness that is apparently holding the opinion that it is inside; that is to say, it is not outside.

*****

Continued

===================================================================================