Gita Satsang - Chapter 6 : Verses 30 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 III: Verse # 30

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

BETWEEN ATMA AND THE WORLD THERE IS NO BASIS-BASED RELATIONSHIP

Thus, we see that this basis-based relationship generally implies two

different things. Here too, the jagat, the world, all the beings,

sarva-bhutani, are based upon atma; and this is called

sarva-bhutastha-atma, the atma that is the adhis¶hana for all beings.

Even so, this is not a basis-based relationship. Such a division is

not there because all the bhutas are non-separate from atma, which is

why Krsna says here, sarva-bhutani atmani iksate. The person, the

sarvatra sama-darsi — the one who sees the sama, atma, in everything —

recognises all beings as non-separate from the paramatma, just as he

or she sees the clay in the pots and the gold in the chains.

Seeing all beings, time, space, everything, in atma is called

atyanta-pralaya, a dissolution of the difference between objects and

their cause. Atyanta-pralaya is not the dissolution of the world; it

is the dissolution of the difference between the world and its karana,

a difference born out of pure ajnana, ignorance. This difference,

division, is resolved in the vision that, whatever that is here is

non-separate from atma that is Brahman.

yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvam ca mayi pasyati

tasyaham na pranasyami sa ca me na pranasyati Verse 30

yah — the one who; mam — Me; sarvatra — everywhere (in all beings);

pasyati — sees; mayi — in Me; ca — and; sarvam — everything (all

beings); pasyati — sees; tasya — for him (or her); aham — I;

na pranasyami — am not remote; sah — he (or she); ca — and; me —

(from) Me; na pranasyati — is not remote

The one who sees Me in all beings and sees all beings in Me, for him

(or her) I am not remote and he (or she) is not remote from Me.

The vision of atma given in the previous verse is restated, using a

different language, in the first line of this verse. The earlier

expression, `sarva-bhutastham atmanam,' is put into the first person

here — the one who recognises Me in all beings, yah mam pasyati

sarvatra.

`Me' does not, of course, refer to the person, occupying the driver's

seat of Arjuna's chariot, named Krsna. Seated in the chariot, the

person, Krsna, seems to have a definite location and, yet, when

talking to Arjuna, he refers to himself as one who is everywhere,

sarva-bhutastha-atma. Wherever there is a bhuta, a being, it has its

being in Me alone. This `Me' is atma.

Thus, by replacing the words `sarva-bhutastha-atmanam' with mam,

meaning Isvara, Krsna quietly brings out the non-difference between

Isvara and the individual, jiva. The one who sees Me, Isvara, in all

beings, meaning as the adhis¶hana, the basis, of all beings, knows

himself or herself to be that same Isvara, paramatma, being

non-separate from atma.

Krsna also says here that everything is in Me alone — sarvam ca mayi

eva. I am the karana, the cause, for everything. I am the adhis¶hana

for everything, the basis for everything. Thus, the person being

discussed here recognises himself or herself in all beings and all

beings in the self alone. The only difference between this verse and

the previous verse, then, is that the word atma has been replaced by

the first person, mam, `Me.' Between the `Me' in the present verse and

atma in the previous verse, there is no difference whatsoever. One who

sees atma in everything and everything in atma recognises Isvara,

`Me,' in everything and everything in `Me.' I am the one who is the

basis of all beings and in me all the beings have their being, their

existence.

CAN ISVARA BE A SEPARATE ENTITY?

Between Isvara, Krsna, and jiva, the individual, there is no

difference whatsoever. Is there another Isvara? Since Isvara is

everything, how can he be separate from consciousness, caitanya, that

is the atma? If caitanya-atma is limitless, i.e., Brahman, then, there

is no way another being called Isvara can be standing separately

somewhere. If this were the case, Isvara would become just another

guy! Then there would be a difference between jiva and Isvara that

could never be resolved.

There are various contentions in terms of Isvara, the Lord, and the

individual, which have to be analysed to see if there is any truth in

them. Suppose you say, as some do, that the Lord is everywhere and I

am a fraction of that Lord. Does this mean that all these fractions

together make the Lord? If not, what does it mean? Which is the

fraction, please tell me. Is your physical body the fraction? Is your

mind the fraction? Or is atma-caitanya the fraction? And, in all of

this, what is dependent on what? What is the reality of what?

What is the reality of this physical body, this mind, etc.? When you

analyse them all, you find only one existence, satya, and the svarupa

of this satya is nothing but param brahma, which is caitanya-atma.

When the sastra talks of Isvara, it is from one particular standpoint.

All that is there is Paramesvara alone; jiva is also just a

standpoint. Only from a particular standpoint is there a difference

between jiva and Isvara — from the standpoint of the upadhi, there is

jiva and there is Isvara. The resolution of the two takes place only

in the appreciation of the essential paramatma, the satya-vastu.

Therefore, when the Lord says, `I am the Lord — aham isvarah' and the

jiva says, `I am an individual — aham jivah,' the aham is common and

the difference is mithya, meaning that it is entirely dependent upon

satya. The problem is the difference because, being dependent upon

satya, mithya is not another thing. The whole jagat is mithya,

depending upon the satya-vastu for its existence, and the satya-vastu

is what is referred to by everyone as `I,' aham. Therefore, anyone who

says `I,' including a mosquito, is param brahma alone. You are not `I'

and param brahma, you are only param brahma.

Even the person who does not know is param brahma. The statement, tat

tvam asi, means you are param brahma right now; it is not something

that you become later. Sruti does not say, `Ye shall become.' It says,

`That thou art — tat tvam asi.' This sentence is possible only when

the self is already Brahman, which is the vision unfolded in the

previous verse and restated in the first line of the present verse;

the one who sees Me in all beings and all beings in Me — yah mam

pasyati sarvatra, sarvam ca mayi pasyati.

This person is one who has the vision of the oneness of atma. Seeing

atma in all beings and all beings in atma is the vision.

THE RESULT OF THE VISION

And what is the result of this vision? Here, Krsna uses the first

person. Here the first person indicates that Krsna is talking as

Isvara. He says, `For the person having this vision, I will not become

remote — tasya aham na pranasyami,' meaning that, `I will no longer be

something known only indirectly to the person.' Why? Because Isvara is

atma. I do not become an indirect object of worship that is sitting

somewhere. I do not become someone who is away from the person,

because, Isvara is oneself, atma.

And not only that — the person also does not go away from Me — sa ca

me na pranasyati. I do not become remote for the person and the person

does not go away from Me. This fact was already there, but previously

the person did not know it. And now he or she knows. This is not

something that just happened because of some interference on the part

of the Lord. It was true before and it is true now. All that has

happened is that the person did not know it before and now he or she

knows. The person now sees himself or herself in all beings and all

beings in the self. A person of this vision never goes away from Me,

meaning there is no distance between Me and the person. Neither the

person goes away from me nor I go away from the person. I do not

become remote for the person and he or she does not become remote for

Me.

This means that previously there was a certain remoteness and Isvara,

paramatma, was something that was sought after. Isvara was someone

whose grace was invoked, etc. Now all the prayers and rituals have

paid off. The payoff is the vision that between jiva and Isvara there

is no difference. The difference is all resolved. This is what is

meant here by the statement — tasya aham na pranasyami. I do not

become something that is away for this person nor is the person away

from Me.

The Lord is usually presented as though he is behind a veil, and that,

he can see us but we cannot see him. Therefore, the Lord is someone

who always seems to be looking into your private affairs. But, here,

in this verse, Krsna is saying that the Lord has no veil or cover,

that prevents you from seeing him. Ignorance is the only veil there is

and that covering has already been removed. Therefore, there is no

obstacle; there is only one vision, the vision of the para-atma, the

whole. Everything resolves into this one atma alone.