Wednesday, September 2, 2015

THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE ABSOLUTE





The first mantra of the Māndūkya Upanishad describes the nature of Omkāra and its connotation in relation to the whole universe. Now, it also denotes some object, as was pointed out earlier. It is a Universal Name which refers to a Universal Form in such a manner that the Name and the Form coalesce to constitute one Being. As the Name is Universal and the Form also is Universal, they have naturally to blend into a single existence, because we cannot have two Universals standing apart from each other. There is, therefore, the Universal Name coalescing with the Universal Form; nāmā and rūpa become one in this experience-whole. That experience is neither nāmā nor rūpa, by itself. It is both, and yet neither. God is not merely a form denoted by a name, nor is He an object that can be described by any person.

As all persons are included within the body of God, there is no naming God by any other entity outside it. Hence, in a sense, we may say that God is nameless. Who can call Him by a name? Where is that person who can call Him by a name! As there is, therefore, essentially, no name, in the ordinary sense of the term, that can designate God, He cannot also be regarded as a rūpa or a form which corresponds to a nāmā or a name.

There is an indescribable something which is designated ultimately by Omkāra or Praṇava, and, being indescribable, it is visualised by a name that conveys the best of possible meanings. Though it may itself have no name, and it cannot also be said to have any particular form, we, as jīvas, individuals here on earth, cannot envisage it in that transcendent nature. We have to conceive it in our mind before we can contemplate or meditate upon it for the sake of realisation. This meaningful and suggestive designation of that indescribable, transcendent something, is Brahman, the Absolute. 

No comments:

Post a Comment