Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 : Verses 29 Swami Dayananda's commentary

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

On behalf of all of you I sincerely express my appreciation to Swami

Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam for providing his

commentary to benefit the list members.

 

Part II Verse # 29

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

RESOLVING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND OBJECT

There is really no difference between karta and karma, just as there

is no difference between a river and the ocean at the point where the

river reaches the ocean. You cannot tell whether the ocean receives

the river or the river reaches the ocean. In the confluence of river

and ocean, you will find that the river is all salt for miles.

Therefore, it looks as though the ocean is entering the river. Who is

the karta then? Who is the karma? We do not know. Sometimes we say the

river reaches the ocean and at other times we say the ocean reaches

the river.

Similarly, here, the karta, the one who gains the ananda, does not see

an ananda other than himself or herself. Therefore, the object and the

subject are one and the same — karta eva karma. This is unlike any

other thing; it is the knowledge of oneself. Thus, these two verses

are to be read together.

In the present verse, atmanam yunjan means connecting or uniting the

mind. The word evam, meaning `in this manner,' indicates what the mind

is to be connected to, meaning that it is united with the knowledge

that atma alone is indeed everything —aham eva idam sarvam. And,

uniting the mind with the object of contemplation, the meditator gains

atyanta-sukha, uttama-sukha.

The person is called a yogi here to indicate that his or her

contemplation is successful. The yogi, the meditator, is one who is

free of all obstacles. Again, this person is further described as one

who is free from adharma, from all punya and papa, vigata-kalmasa,

because how one lives one's life is very important to the success of

one's meditation. A successful meditator is one whose daily life is

free from adharma. Living according to ethical values renders the

person free from obstacles, in the form of conflicts. A vigata-kalmasa

is one whose life is free from the conflicts born of adharma. And that

vigata-kalmasa, that yogi, gains atyanta-sukha.

ATYANTA-SUKHA IS NOT EXPERIENTIAL

As has already been said, atyanta-sukha is a sukha that is not

comparable to the degrees of sukha that you gather. This is where

people make mistakes and talk about eternal bliss, etc. This sukha is

not eternal bliss; it is one's nature, svarupa.

To refer to svarupa-sukha as bliss means that it is experiential.

Then, comes the question, what is eternal bliss and how can I get it?

If it is something that you gain and that only lasts for a period of

time, how can you call it eternal bliss? If it is something

experiential, there is no jnana, no knowledge, there. Then what is

this atyanta-sukha? The verse itself defines it as

brahma-samsparsa-atyanta-sukha, a sukha that is born out of

recognising Brahman, contacting Brahman.

Whenever you touch something pleasant, the sukha you get is called

sparsa-sukha. Does this mean that by contacting Brahman, by hugging

Brahman, you will gain atyanta-sukha? No. Brahman is not an object

available for hugging. Brahman is a word used by the sastra for

revealing oneself as the whole. Because of the knowledge that atma is

Brahman, there is sukha, called brahma-samsparsa-sukha, a sukha born

of the contact of Brahman meaning the recognition of the self as

Brahman. This sukha belongs to Brahman; it is the very nature of

Brahman, in fact. Therefore, it is called svarupa-sukha.

Svarupa-sukha is not a sukha that is experiential. It is the sukha

that is recognised as the nature, svarupa, of every form of sukha. In

any form of sukha that you get, the sukha is because of svarupa-sukha,

the wholeness that is the nature of Brahman. Born out of the knowledge

that the self is Brahman, the meditator is said to gain this

svarupa-sukha.

BLISS ALWAYS COMES TO AN END

In his commentary to this verse, Sankara says that atyanta-sukha is

that which does not come to an end. If this sukha were bliss, it would

come to an end because any experience has a limit. Therefore, bliss is

a finite sukha, not atyanta-sukha that transcends all limits — the

limits of time or degrees. Such limits do not exist for the sukha that

is one's very nature because svarupa-sukha can never be experiential

sukha.

For sukha to be experiential, there must be a particular condition of

the mind and that condition will always change because it is within

time. Since it is within time, experiential sukha is non-eternal. But,

in every sukha, there is a svarupa, a truth, and that truth is the

nature of atma, which is free from any form of limitation. This

limitlessness, wholeness, purnatva, implied by the non-separation of

the knower from all that is known, the firm understanding that,

`sarvam aham asmi,' is the svarupa-sukha, referred to in these two

verses as uttama-sukha and atyanta-sukha. And, being the very svarupa

of atma, it cannot come to an end. As long as atma is there, sukha is

there, and atma, being beyond time, is eternal.

NO EFFORT IS REQUIRED TO GAIN SVARUPA-SUKHA

And how is this sukha gained? We always ask this question because,

generally, the more one does in the world, the more one gains. The

more you work on something, the greater the result. This being a rule

very well known to us, how much should one do to gain infinite sukha?

Infinite karma? No. The logic that we have for finite situations in

this finite world does not work here. In fact, if karma were infinite,

you could not even blink because blinking, like any action, is finite.

Therefore, if you had to do infinite karma, you would do no karma at

all!

In fact, no karma is involved in gaining atyanta-sukha, as Krsna

indicates here by the word sukhena, meaning `easily,' without tears,

without sweat, because this sukha is yourself. The self is Brahman and

atyanta-sukha is born out of the recognition of this fact. Naturally,

then, it is gained easily, sukhena.

Generally, in order to gain sukha, we have to do something that almost

always involves some duhkha also. For example, if you see a man

packing and you ask him where he is going, he may say, `I am going to

Hawaii.' When you ask him why, he will say, `To get some sukha.' On

the way to the airport, he runs into a traffic jam and becomes upset —

duhkha. On arriving at the airport, there are more problems — and more

duhkha. At the Hawaii airport, he finds that his baggage did not come

— duhkha. Even at the hotel, there is duhkha for him because the

travel agency did not book a room for him as arranged. All the way,

then, there is duhkha — and for what? Just to gain a little sukha, to

get some sun. And everyday he is there, it rains! On the day the sky

clears, he has to catch a plane; his holiday is over.

This, then, is what we call alpa-sukha, so much effort, so much

invested, and so much duhkha for a little sukha. Whereas, here, how

much effort is required, how much duhkha is there, for atyanta-sukha?

All the way it is pleasant. Pleasantly, sukhena, the person discovers.

The very inquiry is pleasant because the sastra says you are the

whole. It does not say that you are an idiot or a sinner, etc. It says

that you are everything and that not seeing it is idiocy. Therefore,

listening to the sastra is very pleasant indeed. No one else tells you

that you are everything, that you are the whole. Only the sastra

accepts you totally. The prophets and great gurus do not accept you.

Your father and mother, having their own ends to accomplish through

you, certainly do not accept you. Parents always want their children

to be something other than what they are. Thus, no one accepts you

totally except the sastra.

THE VISION OF THE SASTRA

No theology accepts you either. Every theology condemns you and then

tells you that it will save you. Everyone wants to save you, it seems;

everyone wants to be a saviour to others. All religions and theologies

are meant only for this purpose because, in their eyes, you are

condemned, whereas the sastra says, `tat tvam asi — You are That.' It

does not say, `tat tvam bhavisyasi — You will become That.' When the

sastra says, `tat tvam asi,' it is total, absolutely total. It is not

even a matter of acceptance; it just points out that you are the

whole. Because this is its vision, the sastra could not condemn you,

even if it wanted to!

You are the only satya that is in the creation; there is nothing else,

everything else being anatma, dependent upon the atma alone. You are

the only one who is self-existent, svatah siddha, and everything else

is dependent upon the self-evident being that you are. Therefore, you

are always totally accepted by the sastra — at the beginning and at

the end also. In the beginning, sastra says moksa, liberation, is

yourself, moksa being in the form of knowledge of atma alone. The very

starting point, then, is that you are already free, even though you do

not know it. Therefore, the subject matter of the sastra is something

that is already established, siddha-visaya, and gaining this knowledge

is a gain of something that is already gained, praptasya praptih, not

the gain of something not yet gained, na tu apraptasya praptih. To

begin this way is very pleasant indeed and the journey itself is also

pleasant.

Other kinds of sukha require effort and may not always be pleasant.

Even going to heaven requires a lot of effort, according to the

sastra. You have to spend a lot of time performing certain rituals

properly, for which a lot of tears have to be shed, literally, since

you have to sit before a fire to perform the rituals. Suppose, after

having shed all these tears, you go to heaven, you gain heaven sukha.

How long will you enjoy this sukha? Heaven sukha is also comparative

sukha, heaven being just another place in which you cannot stay

forever. There comes a time when you have to leave. Therefore, sukha

that one gains in heaven is anitya-sukha, non-eternal sukha, that

requires a lot of effort to gain.

ALL DESIRES ARE FOR ATMA ALONE

But, here, there is no effort; it is all sukha. This may seem a little

silly or overly simplistic, but that is how it is. When you do a

right-about-turn, your entire logic also reverses. Generally, all our

desires are for anatma, not for atma. Even heaven, svarga, is anatma,

not oneself, not I. Whenever you say, I am going to reach somewhere or

gain something, the object to be gained or reached is anatma, like

heaven, money, or anything that you want.

All the anatmas, are for atma alone. To gain sukha is for atma, for my

happiness, for my welfare, for my experience of something, I want this

or that, I want to go here or there — all of which are anatma for the

sake of atma. Thus, there is always this connection between atma and

anatma, and as long as the connection is a desirable one, there is

some kind of sukha, but it is always anitya, non-eternal.

It is this anatma-iccha, desire for anatma, that you give up and, in

its place, you choose atma-iccha. Anatma-iccha and atma-iccha are

opposites and are, therefore, two different things. Atma-iccha is the

right-about-turn, wherein you have a desire for the very atma itself.

Being a right-about-turn, the logic that was applicable to

anatma-iccha is not applicable at all to atma-iccha, atma being

accomplished already. Atma is; you are not going to create a new atma.

ATMA IS ETERNALLY PRESENT

Nor are you going to polish the atma. It is not that atma is covered

and needs to be cleaned up so that its original colour will shine

through. Atma is never coloured; it is always self-shining,

nitya-prasiddha. Because it is eternally present, it is never covered

by anything. The only covering possible, if the word is to be used at

all, is ignorance. And ignorance is not something that is scraped off;

ignorance just goes in the wake of knowledge, which is why Krsna says

that, without effort, the meditator gains the sukha that is his or her

nature.

A sukha that is born out of contact with anatma is anitya,

non-eternal, whereas the sukha born out of the knowledge of Brahman is

nitya, eternal. Atma contacting Brahman means yourself contacting

Brahman in terms of recognising Brahman. Thus, samsparsa is used here

only to point out that this is not like any other sparsa, meaning

`contact' the context here being that the recognition that atma is

Brahman takes place, because of which one gains nitya-sukha without

any effort.

In this verse, it is said that the jiva recognises and gains the sukha

and in the previous verse it was said that the sukha reaches the jiva.

Krsna explains it in this way because the jiva is sukha-svarupa. There

is no kartr-karma difference because there is no karta and no karma;

there is only atma. Nor is there any reaching. There is only the

dropping of ignorance and error, which is why it can be explained

either as sukha reaching the person or the person reaching sukha.

Ananda approaching the yogi and the yogi gaining ananda are one and

the same.

 

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRACK — JNANA

In all of this, one must be very clear that yoga is not something

independent of knowledge. There is no yoga track by which you come to

gain this sukha. Nor is there a karma track, bhakti track, or any

other track, each track leading to the goal. There is only the track

of jnana. Here in this chapter, yoga is dhyana, the track of jnana,

consists of knowledge, alone. To pursue knowledge, you can follow all

kinds of yoga — as¶anga-yoga, karma-yoga, etc. These disciplines will

definitely be useful because you have to become a vigata-kalmasa.

Therefore, you have to live a life of dharma, which implies a certain

attitude called karma-yoga. This attitude includes bhakti, prayer,

devotion, etc., all of which are useful for gaining jnana.

In this pursuit one uses whatever is required, but the track is one

and the same. There is no other track. Since this is how it is, what

else can you do? Atma is Brahman and the problem is one of ignorance.

Thus, the only track open to us is knowledge. The knowledge of the

oneness of Brahman is the end result of the practice of contemplation.

Therefore, let there be no confusion about there being any other

track. The yoga discussed in the Gita has its results in jnana alone.

It begins with jnana and ends with jnana.

Before contemplation, nididhyasana, there is sravana, listening to the

vision of the sastra that says atma and Brahman are one. Therefore,

nididhyasana is to make this vision clear of any obstacle.

Further, Krsna says:

sarvabhutasthamatmanam sarvabhutani catmani

iksate yogayuktatma sarvatra samadarsanah Verse 29

yoga-yukta-atma — one whose mind is resolved by this contemplation;

sarvatra —everywhere; sama-darsanah — one who has the vision of

sameness; atmanam — the self; sarva-bhutastham — abiding in all

beings; sarva-bhutani — all beings; ca — and; atmani — in the self;

iksate — sees

One whose mind is resolved by this contemplation, who has the vision

of sameness everywhere, sees the self abiding in all beings and all

beings in the self.

Here, Krsna says that the yogi, the meditator, sees the self, atmanam

iksate, meaning that he or she knows the self. And what self does this

person see? Everyone knows oneself as a person having a history, a

biography, which is identical with the physical body and the

experiences one has had.

This body is connected to some other bodies and therefore, there is a

brother, sister, son, daughter, or someone else. Generally, then, this

self that is known is connected to a given physical body, as a person

who abides in that body.

Whereas the yogi being discussed in this verse recognises himself or

herself as the self that abides in all beings — sarva-bhutastham

atmanam pasyati. And it is not just that; all the beings have their

being in himself or herself alone — sarva-bhutani ca atmani. Thus,

atma runs through everything and, at the same time, everything is in

atma. And who is it that sees this? Yoga-yukta-atma, one whose mind is

resolved by contemplation, who has achieved success in this

contemplation.

THE SAMENESS THAT IS IN EVERYTHING

Such a person is also sarvatra sama-darsanah, one who sees the

sameness, sama that is atma, in everything. In other words, there is

an appreciation, a vision, of that which is always the same in all

beings. In all beings, in everything, there is something without any

special attribute, nirvisesa, and there is something peculiar to each,

visesa. We see this nirvisesa and visesa in different types of golden

ornaments — chains, bangles, rings, and so on. In all of them there is

one thing that is nirvisesa – gold; while the particular form such as

chain, etc., is visesa.

Although gold is also an attribute, this example illustrates the point

being made here. With reference to all these chains, bangles, and

rings, there is something common in all of them, something nirvisesa,

something that is the truth, satya, of all of them — gold. There are

many visesas — all the various names and forms, nama-rupa. The

attributes, chain, bangle, ring, etc., have their existence in the

satya, gold.

Similarly, all nama-rupas have their basis, their truth, their

existence, satya, in atma, i.e., Brahman and that atma, Brahman I am.

The one who knows the nirvisesa, that is free from attributes, the

satya in everything, sarvatra, that, which lends its existence to all

names and forms, is called sarvatra sama-darsanah. Wherever the person

looks, he or she sees Brahman.

CONTEMPLATION IS THE APPRECIATION OF WHAT IS BEING SAID HERE

There is no real looking implied here. What is meant is that, for this

person, there is no ignorance about the self. The vision of the person

is that the self is in all beings and all beings are in the self. This

vision, the vision of Vedanta, described in its entirety in this verse

and the next two verses, is what is referred to as the knowledge. In

fact, these three verses lend themselves to contemplation because

contemplation is primarily the appreciation of what is being said

here.

The meaning of the word `I,' is not exactly as we understand it to be.

It is not this physical body-mind-sense-complex. When you say, `This

is my body, my mind, my senses,' you become someone who abides in the

body-mind-sense-complex. For this, you require no special knowledge;

in fact, it is very common for people to take themselves in this way.

And, not only do you take yourself to be someone who abides in the

body-mind-sense-complex, you also take the body, mind, and senses to

be yours, which is why you say, `This is my body, my mind, my senses.'

Similarly, when you say, `I am fat,' the body itself becomes the `I.'

When you say, `I am restless,' the mind becomes the `I,' and when you

say, `I am tired,' the prana becomes the `I.' This makes it possible

for us to have two situations here — either the physical body itself

is atma or atma abides in the body. Both are being negated here. This

atma that you talk about is the atma that abides in all beings —

sarvabhutastha, not just in one bhuta, in one body.

HOW CAN I RECOGNISE ATMA WHEN IT IS NEVER AN OBJECT?

And how do you appreciate this sarva-bhutastha-atma? Since atma never

becomes an object, you cannot see it like you can see the string that

runs through different beads, thereby holding them together. Because

you can see both the beads and the string, you can say that the string

is sarva-bhutastha, the beads being all the bhutas. The string is not

just in one bead; it runs through all the beads. Even if the beads are

of different shapes, colours, and value, all of them are run through

by one string. Here, both the beads and the string are objects. Both

of them are anatma.

Although this illustration is used to explain sarva-bhutastha-atma,

like any illustration, it is subject to defect. The defect here is

that both the beads and the string are anatma. As an object perceived

by you, the string is anatma, and so are the beads. Even if the string

is not seen by you because the beads are strung so closely together,

you can infer that the string is there. Thus, the string is an object

inferred by you. Whether an object is perceived or inferred, either

way it is an object known by you and is, therefore, anatma.

But, here, how does the one who recognises the atma in all beings,

recognise it? I recognise the various beings, but if I recognise in

all of them one atma, atma becomes an object of recognition. Atma can

never be recognised as an object. How, then, is this statement,

sarva-bhutastham atmanam iksate, to be understood?

Atma is only one and that is `I.' There is no other atma because

everything else is anatma. If we define atma as one thing referred to

as the first person `I,' then everything that is evident to this atma

becomes anatma. Therefore, is there not some difficulty here? How am I

to recognise atma in all these anatmas?

This problem arises because this atma that I recognise as myself is

not only in my physical body. It is not in any one physical body

alone. When you associate it with one body, it becomes ahankara, the

`I' notion. It becomes the jiva, the individual. Then you go one step

further and recognise the jiva as pure caitanya, pure consciousness,

alone. Then everything else in the world, all the beings, all the

minds, etc., have their being in that consciousness, which has no

particular location.

CONSCIOUSNESS, ATMA, IS NOT LOCATED ANYWHERE

If consciousness had a location, then it would be located only in

living beings. In other words, consciousness would be here in one

living being and at another place in another living being. Then how

would we recognise the one that is present in all these beings?

Between two beads we can see or infer there is string; this is how we

know that the string obtains in space also. But if consciousness had a

particular location, how could we recognise it? There is no way to

recognise consciousness, atma, except by understanding that it has no

location. It is not located anywhere.

Location itself is always in terms of spatial inquiry. The very

concept of location is based upon the various forms that you see

abiding in a space context. You see one object existing in one place,

`place P,' another object existing in `place P1,' and between them

there is space. Therefore, you say, `This object is located here and

that object is located there.' The location for two objects not being

the same, you ask where particular objects are located or from where a

certain person comes, etc.

A physical body definitely has a location; it has to be located. Even

concepts have their own location. And, if you analyse the location of

all these, you will find that they exist within the framework of time

and space alone. All concepts, time-space concepts and objects within

time-space concepts, exist where? That in which they are located is

atma, consciousness, called sarva-bhutastha-atma, the self or the

truth of all beings.

TIME AND SPACE ALSO HAVE THEIR EXISTENCE IN ATMA

Why? Because atma is not located in any one particular place. To

understand this is to have an appreciation of nirvisesa-caitanya,

attribute-free consciousness, which is the svarupa, the nature, of

atma. Nirvisesa-caitanya is not located in time or space because time

and space are not absolutes existing parallel to atma. Time and space

have their existence in the being that is caitanya. Consciousness,

cit, is the being, the existence, sat — sat is cit, cit is sat. And in

this sat-cit-atma, all beings have their existence.

Consciousness has no particular location in living beings because,

wherever there is a mind, consciousness is manifest there and where

there is no mind, consciousness is not manifest. There is nothing more

to it than that. Therefore, manifest consciousness is seen as though

it is a conscious being. A thought, a certain response on the part of

the person, is manifest and from this you may say that the person has

consciousness. In fact, this is not the way to look at it. The object

of such an inference is anatma. Whatever you infer is anatma alone.

The caitanya has no location whatsoever; in caitanya everything is

located. If this is understood, then wherever there is a being, the

being has its being in the self. The self is the basis, adhis¶hana,

for all beings. All beings have their adhis¶hana, their basis, in the

self alone. Therefore, the self runs through any being that you think

about and that being is sustained, vivified, by this same self alone.

In this way, atma becomes the adhis¶hana, the basis, for any bhuta.

Being limitless, atma is not bound by time or space. And, in this

limitless consciousness alone, all beings have their being, their

existence. Each one of them has its adhis¶hana, its basis, in atma and

therefore, in `I,' aham. Aham, atma, is not the self of any one being;

it is the self that abides in all beings — sarva-bhutastha-atma.

THE RESOLUTION OF ALL BEINGS INTO THE SELF BY KNOWLEDGE

The other statement in this verse, `sarva-bhutani ca atmani iksate,'

is also important. It means `and (the meditator) sees all beings in

the self.' How? This is what is meant by resolution. To understand

this, let us look at the different types of resolution or dissolution,

called laya or pralaya.

One type of laya is called nitya-laya, the resolution that takes place

daily when you go to sleep. Everything is resolved into yourself — all

your projections, your experiences, the world and all its beings — all

of them resolve into yourself alone in sleep. This is called

nitya-laya, daily dissolution.

Then there is maha-pralaya, cosmic dissolution, referred to by the

expression srs¶i-sthiti-pralaya, the creation, sustenance, and

dissolution of the world itself. This type of laya is like deep sleep

but with reference to the total, the cosmos, rather than to a given

individual. Nothing is really lost in these two types of dissolution

since everything is merely in its unmanifest condition and when it

manifests again it is just as it was before. When you come back from

sleep, you are as you were before and everything else comes back in

the same form also. Similarly, after maha-pralaya, the creation also

comes back exactly as it was before and can therefore, be considered

an extension of the deep sleep condition alone. Because these manifest

and unmanifest conditions form a cycle, nothing is really lost.

>From a manifest condition to an unmanifest condition is called

pralaya, dissolution or resolution; and from the unmanifest condition

to a manifest condition is called srs¶i, creation. And the continual

change that the manifest form undergoes is called sthiti, sustenance,

wherein the same manifestation seems to appear but with certain

changes. Sthiti is not a stationary condition; it is time-bound and

always changing. Everything is always in a state of flux, but still

recognisable.

Even though constantly changing, the same mountain is recognised by

you, the same sun, the same moon. Meeting an old friend after ten

years, you recognise the person in spite of the changes that have

taken place in each of you. If, moment to moment, things were to

change in such a drastic way that you could not recognise them at all,

there would be continuous dissolution, pralaya, and no sthiti at all.

Continuous dissolution and continuous creation is meaningless. There

is, then, a recognisable sthiti, sustenance, in spite of the changes

taking place.

The sun itself is imploding all the time and thus is not exactly the

same sun that you just saw a minute before. It may run out, too. In

the same way, nothing remains the same; everything is constantly

changing. There is creation, srs¶i, constant change within itself,

sthiti, and dissolution, pralaya. This srs¶i-sthiti-pralaya cycle is

nothing but the manifestation and unmanifestation of consciousness,

atma.

MOKâA IS ALSO DISSOLUTION

A third type of pralaya is called atyanta-pralaya, total dissolution,

and is what we call moksa. Atyanta-pralaya or moksa does not involve

any kind of disappearance. You look at the same object and resolve it

in the appreciation of its cause, the truth of the object,

satya-vastu. For example, when you see a thousand pots all born of

clay, you resolve all of these objects by appreciating clay as the

satya of every pot. Then there is maha-atyanta-pralaya.

When all names and forms, with their various distinct features, go

into a state of unmanifest condition, it is called either laya or

pralaya. This means that it is either nitya-laya or maha-pralaya.

Whereas, here, without changing any object, things are as they are,

but at the same time, they are envisioned by you as non-separate from

the cause, brahma-atma. This particular vision is unfolded in this

verse by the words — sarva-bhutani ca atmani iksate.

Vedanta reveals the cause, karana, of everything as satya and the

effect, karya, as mithya. This particular analysis is therefore,

called karana-karya-vada, cause-effect analysis. In fact, there is no

real karana or karya because one of them becomes mithya. This means

that the status of being a karana is also incidental. Everything that

is here is satya-brahma alone. Knowing this, you look at the world,

the same world, with a different buddhi. You look at it as the purusa,

`I,' the cause. Therefore, the entire creation is only in terms of

subtle and gross bodies — suksma-sthula-sariras. These alone are

created, whereas atma, being timeless, is not created. Uncreated, atma

is the truth of everything, satya-vastu, the basis, adhis¶hana, of any

creation that may be there. Atma is the very basis for the vision

implied by the words in this verse — sarva-bhutastham atmanam

sarva-bhutani ca atmani iksate.

Here, a problem can arise. Wherever there is adhis¶hana, a confusion

is possible between the basis, asraya, and the based asrita. For

example, when I say, `On the rope is a snake' or `On the gold is a

chain,' you may think that the snake is actually lying on the rope or

the chain is actuall