rīmad Bhagavad Gītā 24 страница

'Know that Prakrti and the individual Self are without beginning' (13.19)

'The Great Brahman (or Prakrti) is My matrix; in that I lay the germ; from it, O Arjuna, is the birth of all beings' (14.3).

The meaning of this last verse is that the ‘Great Brahman’, which is the matrix of this world, is called Prakrti and it is an insentient thing consisting of elements in a subtle state — in it, the Lord lays the germ called the sentient jīva. From that, namely, from the merging of spirit and matter, willed by Him, are generated all these beings beginning with the gods and ending with the immobile things combined with the insentient matter.

The Supreme Being and His “Corporeality”.

In the Vedas also, the subtle latent state of material elements is signified by the term ‘Brahman’:—

'From Him proceed the undifferentiated creation (Brahman) as also the world of matter and spirit (Anna) having name and form' (Mun. Up. 1.1.9).

Similarly several other Vedic Texts declare that the Supreme Being is the Self of all, and the conscious and non-conscious entities are inseparable from Him; because all entities, which exist as subjects of experience and the objects experienced, abiding in all states, make up the Divine ‘corporeality’ — consequently they are under His control. These Texts are as follows: —

'He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who is the Inner Ruler of the earth' ....... 'He who, dwelling in the Self, is within the Self, whom the Self does not know, whose body the Self is and who is the Inner Controller of the Self' (Br. Up. Madh., 3:7:3-22).

'He who is moving within the earth, to whom the earth is the body, whom the earth does not know.......... He who is moving within the Mrtyu (Nature), to whom Mrtyu is the body, whom Mrtyu does not know..... He is the Inner Self of all beings, sinless; He is the divine Lord, He is the one Nārāyaṇa' (Sub. Up., 7:1).

Here the term Mrtyu (or death) denotes the subtle state of unconsciousness which is expressed by the term Tamas, (inertia) because in the same Upanishad, it is declared:—

'The unmanifest (Avyakta) merges into the imperishable (Akshara) and the Akshara merges into Tamas

(Ibid., 2).

Elsewhere it is stated thus: —

'He, entering within, is the Ruler of all creatures and is the Self of all . (Tait. Arany. 3:21).

Therefore, the Supreme Being by having the sentient and insentient entities, existing in all states, as His physical manifestations, owns them as His modes, and thus appears in the form of the universe, both as its cause and its effect. So, with the purpose of stressing this point some Scriptural verses indicate an identity between the Lord and the universe both as cause and effect.

They begin with;—

'This Existence (Sat) alone, my dear, was in the beginning, one only without a second... It thought, "May I become many, may I multiply". It creates energy.' (Chan. Up., 6:2.:1:3), and end with,

'All creatures here, my dear, have their root in the Sat (Being), have their abidance in the Sat, have Sat as their support. All this has That [Brahman] for its self. That [Brahman] is Existence. That [Brahman] is the Self. You are That, O Svetaketu' (Chan. Up., 6:8:4:6—7).

The following passages are further testimony: —

'He desired, "May I expand into the many"; He performed self-discipline; having performed selfdiscipline, He created all this,' ................. 'He became both the Satya (individual Self) and Anrta (matter), He has remained true to His nature' (Tait. Up., 2:6:1).

The difference in nature between sentient and insentient entities on one hand and the Supreme

Person on the other, established elsewhere in Scripture is also affirmed here: —

'Lo! Entering into these three divinities (ie. the energy, water and earth) in the form of ātman (individual Self), which is Myself, I evolve the differentiation of name and form' (Chan. Up., 6.3.2) and also in the text,

'Having created it, He entered into it. Having entered it, He became Sat and Tyat......... He became both conscious and non-conscious, both the Satya (individual self) and Anrta (matter). He has remained true to His own nature' (Tait. Up., 2:6:1).

It is in this way that all the distinctions of names and forms are brought about.

The Veda also declares:—

'Then, this was undifferentiated. Now, it has become differentiated by names and forms' (Br.Up., 1.4.7).

Cause and Effect

Therefore, That which exists in the states of effect and cause, and which physically manifests as the sentient and insentient entities in their gross and subtle states is the Supreme Being. Because an effect is merely a modification of the cause, the effect becomes known when the cause is known. When the One becomes known, everything is known — this teaching of the Vedas is plausible and appropriate. In the passage:—

'Entering into these three divinities by way of the living Jīvātman (individual Self) which is My self, I evolve the differentiation of name and form' (Chan. Up., 6.3.2)

— the expression, 'the three divinities', represent all insentient matter and then, when the individual Selves with Krishna as their Overself, enter into insentient matter, the differentiation of names and forms arises. Thus, the teaching that all significant words used for things in their state of effect ultimately refer only to the Highest Self which is their cause is quite reasonable and appropriate.

Since the material cause of the cosmos is a composite factor comprised of Jīvas, Prakrti and Ishvara, it is perfectly tenable nevertheless that there is no actual intermingling of their respective natures. For example, the material cause of a multi-coloured cloth is a combination of white, black and red threads, yet the appearance of a single colour in the cloth is to be found only in the place where a particular coloured thread is concentrated — in the finished product, all the colours remain separate but together give the cloth its form and pattern. Similarly, although the cosmos has a combination of three factors — Iśvara, Jīvas and Prakrti for its material cause, still, in its state of effect, there is no commingling of the respective qualities of experiencer (subject = jīvātman), the experienced (object = material nature) and the Controller (Iśvara). Though the cotton threads can exist separately, they are sometimes intentionally woven together by someone and in consequence acquire the character of cause and effect. But in the case of cosmogony, there is a peculiarity in the fact that all entities — both Jīvas and Prakriti, in their two states of cause and effect derive their existential being only through being ‘modes’ (expressions) of the Supreme Person — by forming His ‘corporeality’. The existence of distinctions in nature and the fact that there is no admixture of natural properties thus applies both here [in the creation of universe] as well as there [in weaving of the patterned cloth].

Such being the case, although the Supreme Brahman enters into the effect, He does so without undergoing any change in His own essential nature — the immutability [of the Supreme Brahman] is well established. It is also appropriate to consider Brahman as the effect, because He is the inner sustaining Self of all sentient beings as well as insentient matter in their gross state differentiated by names and forms. Indeed, that which is called effect is nothing other than the cause appearing in a different state of being.

Nirguna Brahman

The various Scriptural passages declaring that the Supreme Brahman is devoid of attributes (nirguna) are also validated in the sense that He has no negative attributes, as the Vedas testify:—

'He [the Self] is free from sin, deathless, free from sorrow, hunger and thirst" — this passage negates all unfavourable attributes, and then affirms His auspicious attributes thus:

'Who desires truth, whose will is truth' (Chan. Up., 8.7.1).

This Vedic text itself confirms therefore that negation of attributes in respect of Brahman (Gunanisedha) is applicable in a general sense of [Brahman] being free from all negative attributes.

The doctrine that Brahman possess the attribute of intelligence is also quite tenable, because it amounts to saying that the true nature of Brahman, who is omniscient and omnipotent and is the antithesis of all that is negative, and who is the repository of all auspicious attributes, can be adequately defined only as One whose true nature is Intelligence Absolute, because He possesses self-revelation. The following passages teach that Brahman is the Knower: —

'He who is all-knowing, all wise (Mun. Up., 1.1.9).

'His supreme power is revealed, indeed, as various and natural, as consisting of knowledge, strength and activity' (Sve. Up., 6.8).

'My dear, by what means has one to understand the Knower?' (Br. Up., 2.4.14).

and other passages such as;—

'Brahman is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity' (Tait. Up., 2.1.1).

all teach that Brahman has the essential attribute of consciousness in as much as He can be defined only as [Cosmic] Intelligence, and because He is also self-revealing. In the texts —

'He desired, "May I become manifold" (Tait. Up., 2.6.1),

'It thought, "May I become many (Chan. Up, 6.2.3),

'It became differentiated by names and forms' (Brh. Up., 1:4:7)

— it is affirmed that Brahman thus exists of His own free will in a wonderful plurality of expressions having all immovable and movable entities as His ‘corporeality’. Consequently it is wrong to maintain the opposite view that Brahman is not the Over-self of the multifarious manifestations [of the phenomenal universe] in a real sense.

Thus, in the following texts, what is denied is the manifold existence of the ātman independent of Brahman: —

'He obtains death after death (continues re-incarnating) who sees difference here' (Kath. Up., 2.4.10),

'There is nothing here that is manifold' (Brh. Up. 6:4:19 & Kat. Up. 4:10),

'But where there is duality [notion of independence from Brahman], as it were, there one sees another.............. but where everything has become the Self.......... there, by what [organ] can one [independently] see what [independent thing] ........ Who shall know which by what?' (Br. Up., 2:4:14 & 4:5:15).

There also can be no denial of the manifold modality of the Brahman resulting from It’s spontaneous assumption of various names and forms because this is established in Vedic texts such as; —

'May I become manifold' (Tait. Up., 2:6:1 and Chan. Up., 6:2:3) etc.

This manifold modality is declared and affirmed in the commencement of even that passage which negates multiplicity by asserting;—

'But where everything has become the Self for one' (Br.Up., 4:5:15).

'Everything departs from him who knows everything to be apart from Him' (Br.Up., 2:4:6 & 4.5.7) 'Lo, verily from this great Being has been breathed forth that which is Rig Veda' (Ibid. 2:4:10).

Thus, there is no contradiction whatsoever among the Scriptural passages which assert difference in the essential nature, and in the manifested state, between the Self, matter and the Lord. There is also no contradiction in the Scriptural statement that they are identical. The same relationship that exists between the jīva and its physical body exists invariably between the Lord and His “body” — the sentient and insentient entities. The Vedic texts themselves establish that those entities which make up the ‘corporeality’ [of the Lord], exist in a subtle state of nondifferentiation in the causal condition. In the state of effect they change into a gross state with names and forms, and are then capable of differentiation into a multiplicity of entities as modes [expressions] of the Supreme Person.

Thus there is no space whatsoever for entertaining those [Advaitic] doctrines which impose nescience (avidya = ignorance) on Brahman; and the view [of Bhāskara's Bhedābheda] describing the differences in Brahman as due to certain limiting conditions (upādhis) and other such teachings [those of Yādava-prakāśa's] all of which are based upon unsound logic and are contrary to the Vedas. Let this verbose polemic end here!

⇐ Предыдущая 17 18 19 20 21 22 232425 26 Следующая ⇒