PARABRAHMA SUTRAS (167-168)

167. Bhraantadrushtadravyayajnaniraaso gitah shruta eva.

Translation: The twisted sacrifice of material as seen today was rejected by Gita and in real sense it is in the path of Veda only.

Explanation: Veda deals with this karma or work involving the sacrifice of material or fruit of work in elaborate manner. Almost all the Veda gives stress on work and sacrifice of material only (Dravyayajna). But Gita gives a lower position to the sacrifice of material than the place of knowledge (Shreyaan dravyamayaat…). Therefore, there is a contradiction between Veda and Gita. This contradiction can be removed by understanding the position of Dravyayajna in the time of Gita, which is almost the beginning of Kali age. The sacrifice of material was misunderstood by the ignorant priests as seen today. The priests sacrifice the material in to physical fire without knowing the actual meaning of the word fire. Fire means Satguru, who is the human form of the God. Due to lack of proper knowledge of the word fire, the sacrifice of material is twisted and became wastage of material. In this context of the twisted sense of Drayayajna, the Lord condemned such foolish wastage of material and advised to give importance to knowledge so that the proper sense of the sacrifice should be understood first before its practice. Therefore, there is no contradiction between Veda and Gita in the real sense of sacrifice (Yajna). In fact, Gita stressed a lot on the sacrifice of work and material (fruit of work) everywhere as karma yoga.

168. Anuhyamiti nohyam yadastitvamaatrajnaapakam na svarupam.

Translation: One cannot argue that God is imagined as unimaginable, because the unimaginable nature indicates only the existence of God since it is not the real inherent characteristic of God.

Explanation: The unimaginable nature of God is not the inherent characteristic because it changes when God Himself becomes the observer. This means that God is unimaginable for others and is imaginable for Himself. Since the inherent characteristic cannot be altered by the change of observer, the unimaginable nature can no more be the inherent characteristic of God. This was already established in the above sutras. Hence, no inherent characteristic of God is known or experienced. Experience is not different from knowledge. The unimaginable nature acts as an inherent characteristic like the inseparable yellow thread to identify the married lady. The yellow thread is said to be inseparable but is not really inseparable. Therefore, by experiencing or knowing the unimaginable nature of God, you cannot claim that you have known or experienced God. If you claim that you have imagined God as unimaginable, and if you argue that by this way you have imagined God, then, even that becomes futile. The reason is that even if you imagined God as unimaginable, since the unimaginable nature is not the inherent characteristic of God, you have not touched God or God’s inherent characteristic through the experience of unimaginable nature. This means that you have caught only the yellow thread but not the lady. Hence, in no way can you imagine God. By this, the logical way of arguing that God is imagined as unimaginable is also totally rejected and there is no way to imagine God. The final conclusion is that the unimaginable nature gives the existence of God in that medium.