|
CHAPTER IX
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF
In the description of the Narayaniya or Bhagavata religion in the Santiparva of the
Mahabharata, the Blessed Lord has described His real form to
Narada as being " invisible, unsmellable, untoucheable, quality-
less, inorganic (niskala), unborn, eternal, permanent and
inactive (niskriya); and said that such His form is known as
vasudeva paramatman' ( Vasudeva, the Absolute Atman);
and that He is the Paramesvara who has transcended the three
constituents, and who creates and destroys the universe [1].
Not only in the Bhagavadgita but also in the Bhagavata
or Narayaniya religion described in the Mahabharata, and
eyen in the Upanisads, the imperceptible form of the Parames-
vara is considered to be superior to His perceptible form, and
his imperceptible form is again described in three ways ,
that is, as being qualityful, qualityful-qualityless and quality-
less, as will appear from the quotations above. Now, how is
one going to harmonise these three mutually contradictory
forms with the superior and imperceptible form of the
Paramesvara ? Out of these three forms, the qualityful-quality-
less or dual form may be looked upon as a step between the
sagun (qualityful) and the nirguna (qualityless) or the ajneya
'(unknowable) ; because, one can realise the qualityless form
only by, in the first place, realising the qualityful form, and
then omitting quality after quality ; and it is in this rising
grade that the worship of the symbol of the Brahman has been
described in the Upanisads. For instance, in the Bhrguvalli
in the Taittiriyopanisad, Bhrgu has said to Varuna in
the first place that anna (food) is Brahman, and thereafter he
has in a gradual order explained to him the other forms of the
Brahman, namely, Vital Force (prams), Mind (mams), diverse
'knowledge (vijnana) and joy i. e. ananda [2]. Or, it
may even be said that, since that which has no qualities cannot
be described by adjectives showing quality, it is necessary to
describe it by mutually contradictory adjectives; because, when
you use the words 'distant' or 'real {sat) our mind gets
inferentially the idea that there is some other thing, which is
near or illusory (asat). But, if there is only one Brahman to
be found on all sides, what can be called near or illusory, if
one calls the Paramesvara distant or real (sat) ? Therefore,
.one cannot but use such expressions as, 'It is neither distant
nor near, It is neither real nor illusory' and thereby get rid of
.mutually dependent quality-couplets like distant and near, or
illusory and real ; and one has to take advantage of these
mutually contradictory adjectives in ordinary conversation for
showing that, that which remains, and which is qualityless,
and is such as exists everywhere and at all times, in an
-unrelated and independent state, is the true Brahman [3].
|
|
