Gita Rahasya -Tilak 248

Gita Rahasya -Tilak


They say that if one believes that there is only one qualityless Brahman which pervades everything, one cannot explain how the mutable, perishable, and quality- ful objects came into existence out of this immutable Brahman ; because, although one may describe the Name-d and Form-ed universe as ' Maya ', yet, in as much as it is logically impossible for the qualityful Maya to come into existence out of the qualityless Brahman, the theory of Son-Dualism falls to the ground. Rather than that, it would be more proper ( i ) to accept as eternal a qualityful but perceptible form of the Name-d and Form-ed ' perceptible universe like Prakrti, as is done in Samkhya philosophy, and ( ii ) to imagine that at the innermost core of this Prakrti, there is another permanent element in the shape of the Parabrahman [1], just as there is steam in an iron engine, and ( iii ) to believe that these two Elements form a Unity like the grains in a pome- granate. But. in my opinion, it is not proper to ascribe this meaning to the Upanisads. It is true that the Upanisads contain descriptions which are sometimes Dualistic, and at other times purely Non-Dualistic, and that we have to reconcile them with each other. But, we cannot reconcile the various statements in the Upanisads with each other by accepting the Dualistic point of view, as satisfactorily as can be done by accepting the .Non-dualistic point of view, and saying that when the qualityless Brahman is taking up a qualityful form an illusory Dualistic state seems, only to that extent, to have come into existence.

For instance, the words in the phrase tat tvam asi' can never be satisfactorily explained from the Dualistic point of view. It is not that Dualists did not realise this difficulty. But these Dualists have analysed that' phrase by saying that 'tat tvam' means 'tasya tvam', that is r "Thau art OF That, which is something different from thee ; thou art not That Itself" ; and they have, in this way, somehow or other explained away this very important canon, and satisfied themselves. But those persons who understand even a little of Sanskrit, and whose minds are not perverted as a result of obstinacy, will at once see that this forced meaning is not correct. In the Kaivalyopanisad [2], the terms 'tat' and 'tvam' have been interchanged by analysing the phrase 'tat tvam asi' as "sa tvamem tvameva tat" (i. e., "It is thou, thou art It"), and this canon has been proved to be in support of Non-Dualism. What more shall I say ? Unless one excises away the major portion of the Upanisads, or in- tentionally closes one's eyes to them, it is impossible to show that there is any other import in the Upanisad science except a Hon-Dualistic import. But, as these arguments are endless, I shall not further discuss the matter here.


References And Context

  1. ( Br. 3. 7 )
  2. (Kai. 1. 16)

Related Articles