Gita Rahasya -Tilak 898

Srimad Bhagavadgita-Rahasya OR Karma-Yoga-Sastra -Bal Gangadhar Tilak

CHAPTER 13 SRIMAD BHAGAVADGITA पुरुष: प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान्गुणान् । कारणं गुणसंगोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु ।। 21 ।। उपद्रष्टाऽनुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः । परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन पुरुषः परः ॥ 22 ॥ य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणै: सह । सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि न स भूयोऽभिजायते ।। 23 ।। Translation:-(21) Because, when Prakrti is superintended over by Purusa, It enjoys the constituents born of Prakrti ; and this union with the constituents (of Prakrti) becomes the cause for the Purusa to take birth in a good or bad species. Description:-This description of the difference and the mutual relation between Prakrti and Purusa is from Samkhya philosophy. The Blessed Lord now explains that the 'Purusa' of Samkhya philosophy is called the 'Paramatman' by Vedantists ; He thus links the Samkhya with the Vedanta philosophy ; and when that is done, the Consideration of the Prakrti and Purusa is harmonised with the Consideration of the Body and the Atman. ] Translation:-(22) This 'upadrasta', (that is, One, Who sits near and sees the constituents of Prakrti), Who gives the consent, Who is the 'bharta' (that is, One, Who adds to the constituents of Prakrti), and the Enjoyer, is known as the parapurusa (that is, the Highest Purusa — Trans.), the mahesvara (that is, the Highest Isvara — Trans.) and the Paramatman, Who lesides in the Body. (23) Who thus knows the Purusa (as quality less) and (that) Prakrti (alone is) full of qualities, however he may be acting, does not get re-birth. Description:-[When it has been proved in stanza 22, that the Purusa is the Paramatman within the Body, the inactivity and apathy, which are the qualities of the Purusa according to Samkhya philosophy now become the inactivity of the Atman ; and a harmony Is established between the arguments of the Samkhyas and Vedanta. Some writers on Vedanta imagine that Samkhya philosophy is inimical to Vedanta philosophy; and many Vedantists look upon the Samkhya arguments as entirely negligible. But instead of doing so, the Gita has expounded the question of the Body and the Atman, once from the point of view of Vedanta, and again from the point of view of Samkhya philosophy (without, however, abandoning the Non-Dualism of Vedanta ). This shows the equability of the Gita-science. Nay, this may be said to be an important difference between the expositions in the Upanisads and in the Gita respectively. This clearly shows that though the Gita does not accept the Dualism of Samkhya philosophy, it does not fail to accept as much as is acceptable out of Samkhya philosophy. It has been stated in stanza 2, that the Knowledge of the Body and the Atman is nothing but the Knowledge of the Paramesvara. The Blessed Lord now incidentally explains in short the various means of acquiring Release, by acquiring this Knowledge of the Body and of the Paramesvara within the Body — ]