|
CHAPTER IX
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABSOLUTE SELF
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.
|
|
