Gita Rahasya -Tilak 240

Gita Rahasya -Tilak

CHAPTER IX THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF We have, in this way, proved that the Brahman is the same in form as the Atman. But, some are likely to think that because the Atman is believed to be of the form of Consciousness (cidrupi), the Brahman is also that form (i, e., cidrupi). It is, therefore, necessary to give here some further explanation of the true nature of the Brahman, and at the same time of the true nature of the Atman. cit or jnana (Knowledge) is a quality acquired by Reason— which is gross in nature — by contact with the Atman but. in as much as it is not proper to arrogate this quality of. Reason to the Atman, one must, from the philosophical point of view, look upon the fundamental form of the Atman as qualityless and unknowable. Therefore, though the Brahman of the same nature as the Atman, it is, according to some to some extent improper to say that both or either of these is of the same nature as tit (Consciousness or Knowledge). It is not that their objection extends only to the Brahman and 'Atman being conscious in form ; but, it naturally follows, that it is also not proper according to them to apply the adjective sat (Real) to the Parabrahman; because, sat and asat (Reality and Illusion) are two qualities, which are contrary to each other, and always mutually dependent, and which are usually mentioned with reference to two different things. He who has never seen light, can never get an idea of darkness; and what is more, he cannot even imagine the couple (dvamdva) of light and darkness. The same argument applies to the couple of sat and asat (Real and Illusory). It is quite clear that when, we notice that some objects are destroyed, we begin to divide all things into two classes of asat (perishable) and sat (non- perishable) ; or, in other words, in order that the human mini should conceive the two ideas of sat and asat, it is necessary that these two opposite qualities should come before the human eyes. But, if there was only one substance in the beginning,, how can one apply to this Fundamental Substance the two mutually dependent words sat and asat, which came into- existence by being applied to two different substances after duality had first come into existence ? Because, if you. call that fundamental substance, sat, then the question arises-- whether at that time (that is, before duality had come into- existence) there was in existence something else by the side of it. Therefore, in the Nasadiya-Sukta of the Rg-Veda, no- adjective is applied to the Parabrahman and the Fundamental Element of the universe is described by saying : "in the commencement of the world, there was neither sat nor asat, but- whatever there was, was one", and that the couples of sat and: asat came into existence afterwards  ; and it is- stated in the Gita that he whose Reason has become free from the doubles of sat and asat, hot and oold, etc. reaches the- nirdvamdva (beyond-doubles) sphere of the Brahman, which is beyond these doubles .