7. Ultimate Reality

By knowing Brahma everything is known because everything else is unreal as compared to it and appears to be real to us on account of our ignorance or Avidya. There is nothing other than it in this world “says the Brihadaranyaka Upanisad^[1] and Katha Upanishad.^[2] This extreme position is modified by the former Upanisad itself by saying that the manifested world is reality real and therefore Brahman is the “Reality of realities” or Truth of truths (11 1-20) which means that the world is not wholly unreal.

Chandogya Upanisad identifies the manifold universe with the Brahman when it says,

“Verily, the whole of this (world) is Brahman”^[3]

‘Om’ ‘Tat’, ‘Sat’-this has been declared to be the triple designation of Brahman” (xvii, 23), if it can be designated at all.”

The imperishable is the Supreme Brahman. Its dwelling in each individual body is called “Adhyatma” (viii,,3).

“All this world is pervaded by Me in my manifested form: all beings exist in Me, but I do not well in them” (ix, 4),

But then the Gita says further,

“Nor do beings exist in Me, behold my Divine Yoga. Bringing forth and supporting the beings, Myself does not dwell in them” (ix, 5),

Because,

“Just as the wind moving always everywhere rests even in space, all beings rest in Me(without producing any effect on Me)” (ix, 6).

This is the transcendental as opposed to the pantheistic view of Brahman.

Having stated the real nature of Brahman as it appears to be, the Gita limits its realization only by the Yogis,

“Because of their perfectly tranquil mind with passions quieted, free from taint, with the heart concentrated by yoga with eyes of evenness for all things and beholding the self in all beings in the self” (vi, 27 to 30).

But this mystical realization is extremely difficult for ordinary men.

“Greater is their trouble whose minds are set on the Unmanisfested; for the goal of the Unmanisfested is very hard for the embodied to reach”(xii, 5).

On the principle that the easier is the better, the Gita recommends to the common man that as he cannot become a yogi all at once, the best course for him is to adopt the method most suitable to his mental capacity from among several alternatives. He must concentrate and fix his mind on the Brahman; if he cannot do that, he should learn to do all his work and duties with the consciousness that he is doing all that as an offering to God and if he cannot do even that, he must, by selfcontrol, learn to do all acts disinterestedly abandoning the desire to get their fruits (xii, 8 to 11).

Then comes the summarized version of this alternative process which is the crux of the Gita’s teachings to the common man.

“Better (because easier) is knowledge than mere mental exercise; better is concentration than knowledge, but better than concentration is the renunciation of the fruits of action. Because peace (of mind) immediately follows renunciation” (xii, 12).

Thus according to the Gita, the realization of the abstract Brahman is for the yogi and not for the common man who need not bother himself with this unattainable ideal for him, but should adopt other alternatives as they are instrumental in giving him happiness as well as salvation. At the same time, it is at least necessary for him to know that although the Brahman as such is unknowable, its reflection in the cosmic world is not only knowable in the external world but also in his own consciousness. Thus the Gita adopts the view that for the common man, the cosmic manifested Brahman, is as real as the Absolute unmanifested Brahman, is to the yogi because both are two different aspects of the same Brahman.

This is in accordance with the view of one of the most important Upanishads, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad;

“Brahman has but two forms-gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited,defined and undefined,”(II, 3-1).^[4]

The same, Upanishad calls Brahman ‘the Reality of realities ‘, the second ‘reality’ meaning the relative reality. This is a modified position of the other view that Brahman is the sole reality and nothing else is true and real. In the Gita also, these two views of Brahman appear in different places and consequently there are apparent contradictions. But the main difference between Upanishads and the Gita on this point is that while in the former there is one-way traffic for all, the Gita points out different ways for different persons according to their mental capacity in apprehending reality. The Gita has tried to provide a practical solution for the difficulties created by the absolute standard of the Upanishads, by applying the principle of relativity to religious philosophy. Like the Upanisads for the Gita also the ultimate reality is Brahman. Unlike the Upanisads the Gita tried to make room for the persons of different temperaments. According to the Gita, temperamentally there are three kinds of persons, viz, in whom feeling predominates and in whom thinking predominates and in whom willing predominates.

So it had to dilute the metaphysical idealism of the Upanisads with a theistic religion. Like the Upanisads in the Gita also the Brahman is described in two ways–as the abode of all the auspicious qualities and as beyond all this qualities. Krishna says that at the end of every kalpa all the beings enter his prakrti and at the beginning of every kalpa He brings them forth again. Prakrti brings forth the whole creation under my supervision, all the glories of the world are created by me from within myself (ix,7). But by these and other such passages we should not think that the Gita advocates Saguna Brahman. Krishna has said that this manifest form of his is formed by his own maya.

My real nature is unmanifested, unconditioned. It is beyond the senses (vii, 24-25). Thus it is clear that the manifest form of the Lord is unmanifested, avyakta, beyond the senses. To get manifest from the unmanifest is his maya. Therefore in the Gita the Upanisadic idea of Brahman is accepted. The vedic deity Vishnu is identified with Brahman on the one hand, and with Krishna-Vasudeva on the other. The Gita also teaches the worship of personal God. Krishna is represented both as an absolute Reality as well as a personal God. He is the supreme, omnipotent and all pervasive deity.

We read in the Gita:

“Who sees Me in all and all in Me, for him I am not lost, and he is not lost for Me” (vi, 30).

There is nothing else that is higher than I (beyond, outside of Me),; on Me this all is strung like necklace of pearls on a string”(vii,7).

This doctrine of God has an important bearing on the scheme of liberation as envisaged in the Gita. Two other theological doctrines found in the text deserve mention; first there is the doctrine of avatara or reincarnation, second the doctrine of maya. God takes birth and lives on earth in human form for establishing dharma and destroying wickedness (iv, 7-8).

A most important concept in the teachings of the Gita is that of maya. The word occurs already in the Rgveda where we are told that Indra assumes many forms through maya. Here the word means magical power of God Indra. The same meaning is found in the Gita also. Maya is a magical or mysterious energy or power of Krishna.

Thus although God is unborn, He appears to be born through his maya. This text says:

“Though I am unborn, though my atman is eternal, though I am the lord of beings, yet establishing Myself in My own nature (prakriti), I come into being by My own power (maya) (iv,6).

In some passages maya is treated as divine illusion composed of three strands (guna), of goodness (sattva), passion (rajas), darkness (tamas). In order to attain liberation, the seeker has to go beyond this cosmic illusion.

We may point out that according to some scholars there is a difference between the Upanisads and the Gita so far as the conception of Reality is concerned. In the Upanisads we find the Reality is an unconditioned principle, the Absolute. In the Gita the Reality is a self-conscious personality–whose “will” ultimately prevails.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Brihadaranyaka Upanisad,IV, iv-19 from “The Brihadaranyaka Upanisad” Commentary of Sankaracarya,trans by Swami Madhavananda,p-517

[2]:

Katha Upanisad (IV,10-11).

[3]:

Chandogya Upanisad, 111 14-1

[4]:

II, 3-1.