Gita Rahasya -Tilak 251

Karma Yoga Sastra -Tilak


The Samkhyas consider Prakrti as an independent Real substance, in the same way as the Purusa. Therefore, they cannot, having regard to the theory of satkaryavada, account for the outcome of a qualityful Prakrti from a qualityless Purusa. But as the Non-Dualistic Vedanta holds that though Maya may be eternal, it is neither Real nor independent, but is, as stated in the Gita, a 'folly' (moha), an 'ignorance' ( ajnana ), or an 'illusion ( maya ) seen by the organs', the objec- tion based on satkaryavada, does not in the least affect the Non-Dualistic doctrine. If a son is born to a father, we can say that he is the result of the guna-parinama of the father ; but when there is only one individual, namely, the father, and he is seen appearing sometimes in the guise of an infant, and sometimes of a young man, and sometimes of an old man, there does not exist, as we readily realise, the relation of cause and product, or of guna-parinama between the man and his various disguises. In the same way, when we have come to the conclusion that there is only one Sun, we say that the reflection of that Sun seen in water is a kind of illusion, 1 and that there is cot another Sun which has come into existence by guna-parinama ; and astronomy tells us that when once the true form of a planet has been defined by means of a telescope, that form of it which we see by the naked eyes, is only an appearance resulting from the weakness of our eyes and the immense distance of the planet from us. From this, it becomes clear that a particular thing cannot be looked upon as an independent, real, and existing thing, merely on account of the fact that it is actually perceptible to our eyes and other organs. Then, why should we not make use of the same argument in the philosophy of the Absolute Self, and say that the qualityless Parabrahman which has been defined by the telescope of the knowledgeful (spiritual) eyes- is the only thing which is Real, and that the Names and Forms, which are visible to the knowledgeless natural eyes, is not the product or result of, or something which has come out of, this Parabrahman, but is purely a deceptive and illusory appearance due to the incapacity of our organs ?


References And Context