|
CHAPTER IX
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF
In as much as whatever is,, is Brahman, it is distant and it is
also near, it is real or existent, and, at the same time, it is
-unreal or illusory ; and looking at the matter from another
point of view, the same Brahman may be defined at the same
time by mutually contradictory adjectives [1].
But though, in this way, one justifies the dual qualification of
'qualityful-qualityless' yet, it still remains to explain how the
two mutually contradictory qualifications of 'qualityful' and
qualityless' can be applied to the same Paramesvara. When the
imperceptible Paramesvara takes up a perceptible (vyakta) form
which is cognisable by the organs, that may be said to be His
Maya or illusion ; but when He changes from the Qualityless to
the Qualityful without becoming perceptible to or cognisable by
the organs, and remains imperceptible, how is He to be called ?
For instance, one and the same indefinite Paramesvara is
looked upon by some as qualityless, and is described by the
words "neti, neti", that is, "It is not this, It is not this"; whereas
others consider him qualityful, that is, as possessing all
qualities and being the doer of all things, and being kind. Then
it becomes necessary to explain, what the reason for this is, and
which is the more correct description, as also to explain how
the entire perceptible universe and all living beings came into
existence out of one qualityless and imperceptible Brahman.
To say that the imperceptible Paramesvara, who brings all
projects to a successful conclusion, is, as a matter of fact,
qualityful, and that His description in the Upanisads and in
the Gits as 'qualityless' is an exaggeration or meaningless
praise, would be like cutting at the very root of the philosophy
of the Absolute Self; because, characterising as an exaggeration
'the conscious self-experience of great Rsis, who, after concen-
trating their minds and after very minute and peaceful
meditation, have expounded the doctrine, that that is the true
form of the Brahman which: "yato vaco nivartante aprapya
manasa saha" [2], that is, "is unrealisable by the mind,
and which cannot be described by speech" ; and saying that
the true Brahman must be qualityful, because our minds cannot
grasp the idea of an eternal and qualityless Brahman, would
be as reasonable as saying that one's own candle-light is-
superior to the Sun ! It would be different, of course, if this
qualityless form of the Paramesvara had not been explained
and justified in the Upanisads or in the Gita ; but such is not
the case. The Bhagavadgita does not rest with saying that
the superior and true form of the Paramesvara is imperceptible,,
and that His taking up the form of the perceptible Cosmos is
His MAYA[3].
|
|
