Gita Rahasya -Tilak 219

Gita Rahasya -Tilak


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].


References And Context

  1. (Gl. 11. 17 ; 13. 15)
  2. (Tai. 2. 9)
  3. (Gl. 4. 6)

Related Articles