Gita Rahasya -Tilak 218

Gita Rahasya -Tilak


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].


References And Context

  1. (Ma. Bha. San. 339. 31-38)
  2. (Taitti. 3. 2-6)
  3. (Gl. 13. 12)

Related Articles