Bhagavatgita a detailed study chapter13.The field and the knower

[Guest guest]

12.jneyam yath thah

paravakshyaamiyath jnaathvaa amrtham

aSnuthe

 

anaadhimath param brahmana sath thath na sath uchyathe

 

 

I

shall declare that which is to be known, knowing which one attains the

immortality. It is the Supreme Brahman, with no beginning, and is said to be

neither being nor non-being.

 

In

the foregoing slokas Krishna was explaining

what are the necessary steps to attain the knowledge of Brahman.. From this

sloka he is elaborating on the Brahman itself

 

 

In

Bhagavatgita we always find the highest philosophical concept outlined here and

there which may sound baffling to the

ordinary intellect. Krishna was also

aware of it and subsequently starts elucidating.

 

The

Supreme Brahman is anadhi as declared by the upanishad, 'sadheva soumya idhamagra

aseeth ekameva adhvitheeyam,(ch.6-6-1) that Being , meaning Brahman, alone

existed in the beginning ,one only without a second.' Also it is said that by

knowing that everything else becomes known.

 

Again

it is said in the upanishad 'asath vA idham agra aaseeth;,thathO vai sath ajaayatha,(

Tait.2-7) in the beginning there was non-existence from which the being

came into existence.' Then to say that

the Supreme Brahman is neither sath nor asath seems to be contrary to the Upanishadic

declarations, which themselves sound self contradictory.

 

This

has to be examined in the light of the real nature of Brahman outlined in the

Upanihads. It is said 'yathO vaacho nivarthanthe aprapya manasaa saha, both

speech and mind are returning without able to reach the Supreme reality.' That

is, .Brahman cannot be limited by words or thought. This is the meaning of the

phrase 'neither sath nor asath.'

 

There

is a term that describes Brahman 'sva abhAva aprthiyogi.' A thing is the

prathiyogi , counter-correlate of its own non-existence. For instance a

pot is the prathiyogi of its

non-existence, ghatabhava. Now

Brahman being the only one without a second, there can be no

non-existence of it , that is , no sva abhAva of Brahman. So

Brahman cannot be the prathiyogi of its own non-existence. Only an

existent thing can be a prathiyogi of its nonexistence, . hence Brahman is

neither existent nor non-existent.

 

What

it really means is that Brahman cannot be proved by any pramana as being

existent as all the pramanas, means of valid existence, have limited scope and

cannot determine something which is not limited by expression. Similarly it

cannot be proved as non-existent since there can be nothing without it.

 

To

put this in simple words, to say that

something exists, it has to be shown to exist through some valid means of

cognition. There are four valid means of cognition, namely, perception,

inference, comparison and verbal testimony. Perception or prthyaksha is what is

understood by sense contact. The sense objects are seen, heard, smelt, tasted

and touched. But the Brahman could not be cognized by the senses because it is

beyond sense cognition, atheendhriyam.

 

 

Next

comes inference. We understand fire by means of the smoke. The smoke is

perceived and the fire is inferred. Even this does not hold good in case of

Brahman as there is no perceptible sign like smoke through which Brahman could

be inferred.

 

The

comparison serves as a means of cognition when we describe a thing by saying it

resembles something else. It means explaining something unknown by means of

something known as a comparison. But there is nothing like Brahman and the

comparison fails to serve as a means of cognition.

 

Lastly

the verbal testimony is something which is understood from verbal description.

Vedas are the only testimony for Brahman but they only serve as guidelines..

 

There

are two kinds of lakshaNa .definition. svaroopalakshaNam

is the definition of the characteristics .Brahman is defined as sathyam jnanam anantham,

existence , knowledge and infinity. But here is a difference between existence

and existent. A thing is said to be existent,

the existence of which is limited to that alone. But existence as such is all

pervading and that is Brahman. Similarly knowledge means the knowledge of something

but the Brahman is that knowledge by which everything else is known. Anantham ,

infinity means not limited by time, like

saying a thing exists today and did not exist yesterday, by entity, like saying

that this is a pot and not a cloth, and by place, like saying the pot is here and not

there. Brahman is dhesakaalavasthu aparichinnam, not conditioned by place,

time and entity. Hence Brahman cannot be limited by any description through

words.

 

thatasTha lakshaNa on the other hand

means indicative definition such as pointing out to a field where a

crane is seen sitting and saying that it is the field of Devadatta. The

definition of Brahman given in the Vedas as yatho vaa imaani bhoothaani jaayanthe, yena jaathaani jeevanthi yasmin

abhisamviSanthi, meaning, Brahman is that from which all beings come out ,by

which they are sustained and into which they merge back, is thathatasTha lakshana.

 

Brahman

cannot be called asath, because

there is no such thing as non existence of Brahman which is anantha, and

everything else exists because of Brahman.

 

In the subsequent slokas Krishna

explains the implications of the above

slok