English
In another sense it means the Vedas. Thus in the Gita, 1 Caraka-samhitd, Iv. 1. 54. 2 Gitd, 1x. 10, mayadhyaksena prakrtth sityate sacardcaram. 3 [bid. vil. 20 and vill. 21; also 1x. 4, where it is said, ‘‘AIl the world is ’ pervaded over by me in my form as avyakta; all things and all living beings are in me, but I am not exhausted in them.” 474 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. III. 15, it is said that the sacrificial duties are derived from Brahman (Vedas). Brahman is derived from the eternal; therefore the omni- present Brahman is always established in the sacrificest. The idea here is that, since the Vedas have sprung from the eternal Brahman, its eternal and omnipresent character is transmitted to the sacrifices also. The word “omnipresent” -(sarva-gata) is probably used in reference to the sacrifices on account of the diverse and manifold ways in which the sacrifices are supposed to benefit those who perform them. In the Gita, 1v. 32, also the word ‘“‘ Brahman ” in Brahmano mukhe is used to denote the Vedas. But in Iv. 24 and 25, where it is said that all sacrifices are to be made with the Brahman as the object and that the sacrificial materials, sacrificial fire, etc. are to be looked upon as being Brahman, the word “‘ Brahman” is in all probability used in the sense of God?. In v. 6, 10, 19 also the word “Brahman” is used in the sense of God or Igvara; and in most of the other cases the word is used in the sense of God. But according to the Gita the personal God as Igvara is the supreme principle, and Brahman, in the sense of a qualityless, un- differentiated ultimate principle as taught in the Upanisads, is a principle which, though great in itself and representing the ulti- mate essence of God, is nevertheless upheld by the personal God or Igvara. Thus, though in vir. 3 and x. 12 Brahman is referred to as the differenceless ultimate principle, yet in xiv. 27 it is said that God is the support of even this ultimate principle, Brahman. In many places we also hear of the attainment of Brahmahood (brahma-bhiita, V. 24, V1. 27, XVII. 54, or brahma-bhitya, xiv. 26), and also of the attainment of the ultimate bliss of Brahman (Brahma-nirvana, 11. 72, V. 24, 25, 26). The word brahma-bhiita does not in the Gita mean the differenceless merging into one- ness, as in the Vedanta of Sankara. It is wrong to think that the term ‘‘Brahman” is always used in the same sense in which Sankara used it. The word ‘‘Brahman” is used in the sense of an ultimate differenceless principle in the Upanisads, and the Upanisads were apprized by all systems of Hindu thought as the repository of all sacred knowledge. Most systems regarded the attainment of a changeless eternal state as the final goal of realization. As an illustration, I may refer to the account of *) Gita, Wie 85. ® Sridhara, in interpreting this verse (Iv. 24), explains it by saying, tad evam paramesvararadhana-laksanam karma jfidna-hetutvena bandhakatvabhavad akar- maiva. XIV] Avyakia and Brahman 475 Samkhya given by Caraka, in which it is said that, when a man gives up all attachment and mental and physical actions, all feelings and knowledge ultimately and absolutely cease. At this stage he is reduced to Brahmahood (brahma-bhiita), and the self is no longer manifested. It is a stage which is beyond all existence and which has no connotation, characteristic or mark!. This state is almost like a state of annihilation, and yet it is described as a state of Brahmahood. The word ‘“‘ Brahman” was appropriated from the Upanisads and was used to denote an ultimate superior state of realization, the exact nature of which differed with the different systems. In the Gita also we find the word ‘‘ Brahman” signifying a high state of self-realization in which, through a com- plete detachment from all passions, a man is self-contented within himself and his mind is in a perfect state of equilibrium. In the Gita, v. 19, Brahman is defined as the faultless state of equilibrium (nirdosam hi samam brahma), and in all the verses of that context the sage who is in a state of equanimity and equilibrium through detachment and passionlessness is said to be by virtue thereof in Brahman; for Brahman means a state of equanimity. In the Gita, XIII. 13, Brahman is described as the ultimate object of knowledge, which is beginningless, and cannot be said to be either existent or non-existent (na sat tan nasad ucyate). It is said that this Brahman has His hands and feet, eyes, head, mouth and ears everywhere in the world, and that He envelopes all. He is without senses, but He illuminates all sense-qualities ; Himself unattached and the upholder of all, beyond the gunas, He is also the enjoyer of the gunas. He is both inside and outside of all living beings, of all that is moving and that is unmoved. He is both near and far, but unknowable on account of His subtle nature. Being one in many, yet appearing as many, the upholder of all living beings, the devourer and overpowerer of all, He is the light of all light, beyond all darkness, He is both knowledge and the object of knowledge, residing in the heart of all. It is easy to see that the whole concept of Brahman, as herein stated, is directly borrowed from the Upanisads. Towards the end of this chapter it is said that he who perceives the many living beings as being in one, and realizes everything as an emanation or elaboration from that, becomes Brahman. But in the next chapter Krsna as God says, 1 nihsrtah sarva-bhavebhyas cihnam yasya na vidyate. -Caraka-samhitd, Iv. 1. 153. 476 The Philosophy of the Bhagavad-gita [cH. ‘‘T am the upholder of the immortal and imperishable Brahman of absolute bliss and of the eternal dharma.’ In the Gita, xiv. 26, it is said that ‘he who'worships me unflinchingly through devotion, transcends all gunas and becomes Brahman.’ It has just been re- marked that the Gita recognizes two different kinds of avyaktas. It is the lower avyakta nature of God which has manifested itself as the universe; but there is a higher avyakta, which is beyond it as the eternal and unchangeable basis of all. It seems very prob- able, therefore, that Brahman is identical with this higher avyakta. But, though this higher avyakta is regarded as the highest essence of God, yet, together with the lower avyakta and the selves, it is upheld in the super-personality of God. The question whether the Gita is a Samkhya or a Vedanta work, or originally a Samkhya work which was later on revised, changed, or enlarged from a Vedanta point of view, need not be elaborately discussed here. For, if the interpretation of the Gita, as given herein, be accepted, then it will be evident that the Gita is neither a Samkhya work nor a Vedanta work. It has been pointed out that the word samkhya, in the Gita, does not mean the traditional Samkhya philosophy, as found in Igvarakrsna’s Karika. But there are, no doubt, here the scattered elements of an older philosophy, from which not only the Samkhya of Isvarakrsna or the Sasti-tantra (of which Isvarakrsna’s work was a summary) developed, but even its earlier version, as found in Caraka’s - account, could be considered to have developed. There is no doubt that the Gita’s account of Samkhya differs materially from the Samkhya of the Sasti-tantra or of Igvarakrsna, from the Samkhya of Caraka, from the Samkhya of Paficasikha in the Maha-bharata and from the Samkhya of Patafijali and the Vydsa-bhasya. Ordi- narily the Samkhya of Patafijali is described as a theistic Samkhya (sesvara-samkhya) ; but the Isvara of Patajfijali is but loosely attached to the system of Samkhya thought as expounded in Yoga. The Isvara there appears only as a supernormal, perfect being, who by his permanent will removes the barriers in the path of the evolution of prakrti in accordance with the law of karma. He thus merely helps the fulfilment of the teleology of the blind prakrti. But in the Gita both the purusas and the root of the cosmic nature are but parts of God, the super-person (purusottama). 'The prakrti, from which the gunas which have only subjectivistic characteristics are derived, is described as the maya power of God, or like a XIV] Avyakta and Brahman 477 consort to Him, who, being fertilized by His energies, produces the gunas. The difference of the philosophy of the Gita from the various schools of Samkhya is very evident. Instead of the one prakrti of Samkhya we have here the three prakrtis of God. The gunas here are subjectivistic or psychical, and not cosmical. It is because the Gita admits a prakrt: which produces the subjectivistic gunas by which the purusas are bound with ties of attachment to their experiences, that such a prakrti could fitly be described as gunamayi maya (maya consisting of gunas). The purusas, again, though they are many, are on the whole but emanations from a specific prakrti (divine nature) of God. The purusas are not stated in the Gita to be of the nature of pure intelligence, as in the Samkhya; but the cognizing element of consciousness (cetand@) is derived from another prakrti of God, which is associated with the purusa. It has also been pointed out that the Gita admits the sat-karya-vada doctrine with reference to immortality of the self, but not with reference to the fruition of actions or the rise of consciousness. The Samkhya category of tan-mdtra is missing in the Gita, and the general teleology of the prakrti of the Samkhya is replaced by the super-person of God, who by his will gives a unity and a purpose to all the different elements that are upheld within Him. Both the Samkhya of Kapila and that of Patafyali aim at securing, either through knowledge or through Yoga practices, the final loneliness of the translucent purusas.