Gita Satsangh: Swami Dayananda: Part II: Gita Chapter VII Verses 24 to 26

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Poojya Swami Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam

studied under the guidance of Swami Chinmayanandaji and he is a great

Vedantin. Swamiji's commentary and explanation are from the Advaita

Philosophical point of view. Let me take this opportunity to thank

Swamiji for granting permission to post his Homestudy Gita Notes to

the list. The Gita Homestudy Gita Notes along with chanting of the

entire Gita verses are available at

Arshavidyagurukulam.(.http://www.arshavidya.org/)

 

Part II: Gita Chapter VII Verses 24 to 26

 

EVEN THE EFFORT IS DISPARATE

The effort, however, is not really equal. Paramatma is not separate

from atma, the seeker; it is already accomplished. It is oneself

alone. And yet, without viveka, a person abandons it and pursues

something else. He has nectar in his hand and he gives it up and

extends his hand for some gruel. Atma is already available without any

effort. He has only to claim it, nothing else. Only one effort is

involved here, knowledge. But if he does not discern this, he has a

lot of things to do.

If he has vairagya, a clarity about what produces what, and if he

loves knowledge, all he has to do is only to inquire. What effort is

there in that? And yet when he undertakes this pursuit, the whole

society will sympathise with him, thinking that he is making a great

sacrifice and wondering what is wrong with him. But he doesn't feel he

has sacrificed anything. He has a commitment to the pursuit of

knowledge; and so, there is no real giving up and no effort.

For a person with such a commitment this concept of giving up is all

nonsense. When the fruit is ripe it detaches itself from the tree; it

does not give up anything. It falls off the tree because otherwise it

would hang and rot. It has to fall so that another tree will come out

of it. Giving up is only from the standpoint of a person who has some

difficulties, not for the person who has maturity. For him there is no

giving up; there is simply growing out of.

Others consider that he has made a foolhardy step. But if he is a

viveki, he will understand them. They have their own value system. If

they ask him what he will do for his next meal, he will say, `When I

am hungry I will think about it.' The future is not a problem for him.

For such a person there is no effort at all in this pursuit.

The whole pursuit being in the form of inquiry, all he requires is his

mind. For rituals, a lot of ingredients are required but for

knowledge, only the mind. And there is no sense of effort in the

inquiry because all along he is discovering something. And that is all

he wants. All along it is beneficial, not just at the end. It is one

continuous pleasant affair. From the beginning it is an end in itself

and therefore, it is entirely different from any other pursuit.

So, in fact, there is no equality of effort. And in terms of the

result they are definitely different. One is samsara; the other is

moksa. They are opposites. But still people do not come directly to

Bhagavan, so, he shows him sympathy here in this verse.

Those who seek Me directly attain Me while those who look upon artha

and kama pursuits invoke various deities and gain only the limited

results they seek. Krsna has already explained the meaning of the word

mam, Me, here as the one who is the self of everything, the one the

jnani knows as himself. He says that these people recognise his

essential form and therefore, are non-separate from him, the Lord. The

whole presentation here is from the standpoint of paramatma. Either

Vyasa introduces Krsna here as Isvara or Krsna introduces himself as

Isvara. Whether Krsna was a historical figure or an avatara or not,

does not matter.

In this verse he is introduced very clearly.

avyaktam vyaktimapannam manyante mamabuddhayah

param bhavamajananto mamavyayamanuttamam Verse 24

abuddhayah — those who lack discrimination; avyayam — changeless;

anuttamam — beyond which there is nothing greater; mama param bhavam —

My limitless nature (as atma); ajanantah — not knowing; mam avyaktam —

Me who is not manifest (to any means of knowledge); vyaktim apannam —

endowed with a particular manifest form; manyante — consider

Those who lack discrimination, not knowing My limitless, changeless

nature beyond which there is nothing greater, look upon Me who is

formless as one endowed with a manifest form.

LACK OF DISCRIMINATION DENIES RECOGNITION OF ISVARA

Abuddhayah means those who have insufficient viveka. The negative

particle `a' here means inadequacy as used often in an expression such

as, `I have no money.' Everyone has intellect, buddhi, but if they

lack viveka, they are called abuddhis, people of limited

discrimination. In the context here they are devotees but because they

are abuddhis, lacking in discrimination, they look upon Me as Visnu in

this particular form of Krsna.

Avyaktam mam vyaktim apannam manyante — they look upon Me who is

avyakta as vyakta. Avyakta has two meanings. Sankara takes it here as

aprakasa, not known (as an object). It is not accessible to any means

of knowledge we have and therefore, is not known directly.

The other meaning of avyakta is unmanifest. Because they lack

discrimination they look upon Me as now endowed with a particular

manifest form — manyante vyaktim apannam. I am considered to be Lord

Visnu who was in heaven, Vaikun¶ha, and has now come here as Krsna.

ISVARA'S REAL NATURE IS NOT KNOWN

Why do they consider Me as vyaktim apannam when I am avyakta? Because

they do not know My limitless nature — mama param bhavam ajanantah.

They do not know My limitless nature, the nature of paramatma. So, it

looks as though what is avyakta has become vyakta.

The word vyakta can be looked at in another way. The nature of

paramatma, Isvara, is always vyakta, always manifest. It is always

available, nitya-aparoksa, for the following reasons. Any experience

is imbued with the very nature of atma. Whatever the experience, there

is the presence of consciousness, the nature of atma. A given

experience is of an object which was previously away from you and has

now come into the range of your experience. Since it was not there

before, it will not be there in the same form the next minute. The

object can also be a thought form without a corresponding external

object. Whatever be the object, in the experience of every object, one

thing is invariable — experience. The object is a qualifying factor to

experience. Without a particular object there is pure experience.

Just as through all the beads of a necklace runs one thread, similarly

in all forms of experience, what is always present is consciousness,

the svarupa of atma. Is it away from you? i.e., is it paroksa? Is it

perceived by you as an object, pratyaksa? If it is, it was not

perceived previously and therefore, later it won't be perceived. This

contradicts our experience of ourselves. Atma, is not an object of

perception, much less an object of inference. All inference is because

of the presence of atma. Therefore, atma, is neither something remote

that is inferred, paroksa, nor an object of perceptual experience,

pratyaksa. That is why it is called aparoksa. It is immediately known

yet not perceived or inferred.

AN ORIENTATION CAN PERSIST AFTER KNOWLEDGE

One who knows this contemplates upon the knowledge constantly

recalling Me, Paramesvara, to his mind. This recollection is always

preceded by listening to the sastra — sravana. Unless you have already

collected an experience you cannot recollect it. Paramesvara is

understood through the sastra. But even after exposure to the sastra

and analysis of it, one can still have the orientation that he is the

body. This is called deha-atma-buddhi.

There is a difference between an orientation and a confusion. A simple

confusion requires clarification only once. Suppose you use the wrong

key to unlock a door. You immediately understand the confusion because

the door does not open. Therefore, you choose the right key and

confusion is resolved. There is no further problem. But suppose a door

gets sealed off and a wall is erected behind it. Even though you know

there is no longer a functional door there, out of habit you will try

to open it for some time. Then you remember yourself. This is an

orientation.

For me this problem is very visible. When I travel by car, I always

sit in the passenger seat. In India, I know the cars have right hand

drive and that I am supposed to go to the left door, not to the right

door. But when I go to India after being in America for some time, I

go only to the right door. Why? There is no confusion. I know what is

left and right. I know in America it is left hand drive and in India

right hand drive. But still I commit a mistake because there is an

orientation.

When there is such an orientation you have to remember. It does not go

away just because you have resolved the confusion. Nor does it go by a

single recollection of what you know. The notion that atma is the body

and the body is atma, is what we call deha-atma-buddhi. This confusion

is resolved by the sastra. Once it is resolved you should not have any

problem. But we see that the problem continues. Either the sastra is

not properly understood or the problem continues because of

orientation. Even in one life so many years have been invested in this

notion. How are you going to remove it just because somebody said `tat

tvam asi?' The orientation has to go.

HOW DOES ONE CORRECT THE ORIENTATION?

To help remove this orientation we need the exposure to the teaching,

direct and indirect. Then there is what we call brahma-abhyasa which

consists of dwelling upon that – tat-cintanam, talking about it –

tat-kathanam, mutual discussion among seekers, – anyonyam tat

prabodhanam. Contemplation is also included. Living with the knowledge

in this way for a length of time is remembering — smaranam. And it is

absolutely necessary.

This is to be done as long as necessary. Sankara says elsewhere,

satatam smarati nityasah. Nityasah means always and so does satata.

Why does he use two words with the same meaning? Satata has the sense

of without any interval — remembering Isvara constantly. Remembering

here is spending one's time in contemplation, in dwelling on the truth

of Isvara as revealed by the words of the sastra. The word nityasah

also means `always,' but it has the sense of a length of time. You can

dwell constantly for one day, two days, one week or one year. So,

constantly, for how long is this to be done? For this Bhagavan says,

`nityasah — for a long time.' The affix sas on nitya gives the meaning

of abundance. Nitya means always and adding sas to it extends it. It

is not a one or two days or a three year affair. It is to be done as

long as one is alive.

But it is not an unpleasant task. It is a very pleasant affair.

Constantly remembering the fact that aham is Paramesvara is something

that one loves. It is the highest form of joy because you cannot be

better than that. It is not simple self hypnotism. It is a knowledge

born of sastra and again and again we dwell upon that. Somehow the

mind will pose the question, `How can I be Paramesvara?' It may argue,

`How can you be Paramesvara in spite of a backache.' You now have a

contemplative theme. This is how the contemplation continues. Anything

that opposes the vision has to be met with. How long should this go

on? Sankara says — as long as one is alive. In the beginning perhaps

it is something that has to be done consciously. Then later it becomes

very natural. There is really nothing for you to think about.

If the fact, `aham paramesvarah' is very clear to you, then, there is

no problem. Your mind does not pose any objections. Neither a mental

condition nor a condition of the physical body is taken to be the

nature of atma. Things are viewed as they are. In this case one does

not need to do anything.

But when someone requires smarana, for how long should it be done? As

long as it has got to be done, it is done. `The one who constantly

dwells upon Me through listening, answering objections, contemplation

and even satsanga, as long as he is alive, for him I am sulabha,

easily gained,' says the Lord.

THE GAIN OF PARAMESVARA IS EASY — SULABHA

There are a number of reasons why Isvara is easily gained. Any

accomplishment requires some effort, even wearing your clothes.

Suppose you have a shirt that is a little tight. When you are in a

great hurry, you would rather not wear it because it takes a half a

minute extra to put it on. You want to avoid that extra time and

effort.

Now suppose you need some money. You have to put in effort. If you

want power, you have to put in effort. If you want pleasure, it takes

some effort on your part. To create a pleasurable situation you have

to manipulate a lot of things. Only then can you relax and enjoy. And

if you want to go to heaven, a lot of effort is involved. A lot of

things have to be avoided; a lot of things have to be done.

But the gain of Brahman is `sulabha,' says the Lord. While going to

brahma-loka requires the maximum amount of effort, gaining Brahman is

no effort. If it is argued that always dwelling upon Brahman is an

effort. It is not. Because there is no effort in dwelling upon what

you love. Everybody loves to stand before the mirror. Even an old man

who has cataracts in his eyes and does not see well at all, still

stands before the mirror and tries to look at himself. Why? — because

of love for atma. So, here, it is not an effort, because, love is not

an effort. It is very natural. For a mumuksu, dwelling upon

Paramesvara is a matter of love.

And it is very natural because, atma is of the nature of absolute

love. Any form of love extended towards any object is, after all, for

my own sake. That object makes me pleased and therefore, becomes an

object of my love. What I really love is my pleased self, atma. And

since atma, is Paramesvara, whose nature is ananda, there is nothing

more to be desired. Being absolute fullness, atma, becomes the object

of absolute love. So, dwelling upon it becomes a joyous thing. Because

it is the most desirable, dwelling upon it is not a painful affair. It

is a love affair; it is what you love the utmost.

And nothing new is produced either, because, atma is already existent

as Paramesvara. The result is not born of effort; it is born purely of

recognition. There is no effort involved; nothing new is added;

nothing old is removed. The accomplishment is of an already

accomplished fact. Therefore, it is sulabha, easily gained.

Then you may argue that the removal of ignorance is an effort. In

fact, you only recognise and in the recognition, ignorance gets

removed. You do not do any action. It is purely an activity of the

pramana. Therefore, it is sulabha. The one who dwells upon Me is

endowed with a mind, which is tranquil, contented, and under control,

in the sense that it does not have any problem with reference to

reflection on Paramesvara.

Whenever the mind is free, it goes towards Bhagavan, like a person in

love with someone. The mind very naturally goes towards the object of

love. It does not require an appointment. Similarly here, the mind of

a mumuksu, a jijnasu, will naturally go towards paramatma, the vastu.

He has understood the nature of paramatma as something that is not

different than himself. So where else will the mind go?

Until that takes place, he continues to do sravana. Will is used in

the beginning and later the very subject matter takes over. Afterwards

he doesn't require any will at all. It is something like going to a

kumbha-mela. You don't require a road map. All you have to do is get

into a crowd that is going. Soon the momentum of the crowd is so great

that even if you want to go back, you cannot. It becomes like a moving

ramp. People from behind push you and you keep moving. You are in the

stream. You keep moving and you find yourself right in front of Ganga!

This is exactly what happens here. A certain will is required until

you get into this stream of thinking of understanding. Once a certain

clarity is there, there is no effort at all.

In the previous verse, Krsna said that these people who lack

discrimination, not knowing my real nature, look upon Me as someone

who has a form. They think I am someone remote from them who has

assumed a body and come here from another place. In fact, I am the

whole world and I am the atma of everyone. This is My real nature —

changeless and beyond which there is nothing greater. Not knowing Me

in this way, they regard Me as having a given form.

Sankara asks, what is the reason for this ignorance? Why do they

worship other devatas and pursue smaller ends? Why do people not

directly seek the Lord? Krsna points this out in the next verse.

naham prakasah sarvasya yogamayasamavrtah

mudho'yam nabhijanati loko mamajamavyayam Verse 25

yoga-maya-samavrtah — completely covered by yogamaya; sarvasya — for

everyone; na aham prakasah — I am not recognised, known; ayam lokah —

this person/world; mudhah — being deluded; ajam — one who is unborn;

avyayam — one who is changeless; mam — Me; na abhijnati — does not

know

1. I am not recognised by everyone. A person, completely covered

by yoga-maya (maya united with the three gunas) is deluded and does

not know Me properly as the one who is unborn and changeless.

2. Alternate Reading: I, completely covered by maya, united with

the three gunas, am not recognised by everyone. A person is deluded

and does not know Me properly as the one who is unborn and changeless.

COVERED BY MAYA, NOT EVERYONE RECOGNISES BHAGAVAN

Na aham prakasah sarvasya — I am not known to all people. Na aham

prakasah means I do not come to light. Even the people who see Me now,

see only this boy from Brindavan. They do not recognise Me, Isvara, at

all. The Lord says, `I cannot be known by all people.' And, Sankara

adds here, that the Lord can be seen only by certain bhaktas, certain

seekers. This means Isvara comes to light only for those who seek him

and are qualified to recognise him, not to everyone. Why?

People are covered by maya — lokah yoga-maya-samavrtah. Yoga, Sankara

says, means the connection or tying together of the three gunas. That

is maya. By that maya, united to the three gunas, they are covered.

Previously it was said that people are deluded by the three gunas —

tribhih guna-mayaih bhavaih ebhih sarvam idam jagat mohitam. As we

saw, it is the product of the gunas that delude. Sattva accounts for

happiness, rajas for sorrow, and tamas for dullness. By these, people

are covered. Avrta means `covered' and samavrta means `totally

covered.' By this yoga-maya — the three gunas and their products —

people are totally covered.

WHAT IS COVERED?

The question is, what is covered? Suppose consciousness, atma, is

covered, then, you would not be able to know anything; there would be

no world — that is, there will be jagadandhya-prasanga. You must know

this expression. It is one that is used often in the sastra. How would

there be no world? If the eyes are obstructed I cannot see; if the

ears or any of the five sense organs are obstructed, they cannot

perceive. Similarly, suppose consciousness is really obstructed by

this yoga-maya, then, you will not perceive anything. The mind will

not be able to observe the world — there would be

jagadandhya-prasanga. Jagadandhya means being blind to the world. This

is contrary to our experience. We do experience the world. And

consciousness is not covered by anything. That is why we are able to

see, to hear, to think, even to say `I am a samsari and therefore, a

mumuksu.' All this is possible because consciousness is never covered.

Then what is covered? The verse says, `lokah.' Loka is defined as that

by which something is known, experienced — lokyate anena iti. If that

is so, is it the unconditioned consciousness, atma-caitanya, or is it

the consciousness, conditioned as a knower, pramatr-caitanya, that is

indicated by the word loka? Consciousness is never covered. We have

seen that. Therefore, loka here means the knower, pramatr-caitanya,

the one who recognises an object. It is only from his standpoint that

there is covering,

What is covered for him is the nature of atma. It is not understood.

All understanding is for the knower. Therefore, it is from his

standpoint that we say the nature of atma is covered by maya, by

ignorance.

It is mistaken for a doer, an enjoyer, and therefore, someone subject

to birth and death etc. The whole thing is an error on the part of the

knower who is consciousness essentially. That very consciousness

obtaining as the knower is covered by ignorance.

DELUDED, THE PERSON DOES NOT RECOGNISE ME

Mudhah na abhijanati mam — being deluded the person does nor recognise

Me. Naturally when the mind is totally covered by maya, a person is

deluded and does not recognise Me. The external world, the physical

body, and so on, are not deluded, nor is consciousness, atma. There is

only one thing in this world that can be deluded — the mind,

antah-karana. All delusion resides there. Loka, the consciousness

conditioned by the mind, called the knower, does not know Me. That

knower alone is deluded. Nothing else. Therefore, he does not know Me,

mam na abhijanati.

Abhijanati is a very good word here. Janati means `he knows;'

abhijanati means `he knows properly.' Na abhijanati means `he does not

know properly.' All devotees know Isvara in some form other than

themselves; as another individual located somewhere in the world — as

paroksa. The Lord says, `The whole world is Me but a devotee looks

upon it as something different from Me. Even though I am his very

atma, he does not recognise that. On the contrary, all that he

recognises about Me, I am not.' Only one thing is there — Brahman; no

history, no biography, no problems, only satyam jnanam anantam brahma

— it was like that before, it is like that now and it will always be

like that. But that he does not know. And not knowing Me like this, he

also does not know himself. He knows only what he is not. After

saying, `I am,' he will relate an elaborate history and will add

psychology to it by bringing in the subconscious or the unconscious.

Therefore, he has a variety of histories. And they are all valid,

because he does not know Me — mam na abhijanati. He knows Me, but only

well enough to commit a mistake about Me.'

Even to mistake something you must have some knowledge of it. You must

see the rope; only then can you mistake it for a snake. Similarly atma

has to be known in some way before you can commit any mistake about

it. And it is always available for one to commit a mistake. Atma is

always self-evident, nitya-aparoksa. Evident enough for the buddhi to

commit a mistake uniformly.

Then we keep compounding it. Through experiences, the mistake gets

more and more complicated. That is what we call living. There is one

fundamental error followed by a variety of others. These entrench the

original mistake. It is buried under all the other mistakes you are

now busy correcting. But it is always there.

Therefore, no matter how much you keep correcting the secondary

mistakes, you do not arrive at the right solution. It is like solving

an arithmetic problem. You commit a mistake in the first step of

simple addition, then you commit a mistake in multiplication, then in

division. Afterwards you correct the mistakes in multiplication and

division. But you do not think you can commit a mistake in addition

because it is such a simple thing. Therefore, you get the wrong

answer. The same is true with samsara. The original mistake is not

corrected. Before continuing the seeking, the first step is to find

out, if am I a seeker. Do I have to seek? If that is not answered

properly and you keep on correcting every subsequent step, it is

meaningless.

UNIQUENESS OF IGNORANCE OF ATMA

This ignorance of atma is different from ignorance of an object like a

pot. There are a lot of things in this world, like a pot, which you do

not know and are therefore, objects of your ignorance. Atma, however,

unlike a pot, is not an object of ignorance — or knowledge. It does

not have its basis in yoga-maya and therefore, like a pot, it cannot

be an object of yoga-maya, ignorance. It is self-evident and is the

basis of both ignorance and knowledge.

Being covered by yoga-maya amounts to this. The knowledge, which has

to take place in the buddhi is now covered or obstructed by the

products of the three gunas. The obstruction is not for atma; it is

for the mind where the knowledge has to take place. Therefore, we say

that there is ignorance of atma until the knowledge takes place. In

other words, it is there until it goes away for good!

UNIQUENESS OF KNOWLEDGE OF ATMA

When we say knowledge is obstructed by yoga-maya, what do we mean by

knowledge, jnana? Two meanings are possible. One is pure consciousness

— jnapti-svarupa-jnanam. The other is, that by which a given object is

known, i.e., the instrument of knowledge — jnayate anena iti jnanam.

This is vrtti-jnana.

Now, consciousness is not obstructed by yoga-maya. As we have

seen, that would mean that there would be jagadandhya-prasanga. That

is, the world would not be recognised. Therefore, the only other thing

that can be obstructed is vrtti-jnana, that by which something is

known. This knowledge, which removes ignorance and error,

takes place only where a vrtti can take place, that is, in the buddhi.

There is no other place where it can occur. Atma has to be understood

only by the mind — manasa eva anudras¶avyah.

Not understanding the sastra, people interpret statements like, `yato

vaco nivartante aprapya manasa saha,' to mean, `You must transcend the

mind, etc.' What is said there is that, along with the mind the words

come back having not accomplished the atma, that is, having not

objectified the atma. Atma is not available for objectification by a

vrtti. You cannot relate to it as you would to an object like a pot or

a tree.

You relate to the object of a vrtti as, `This is the object, I am the

knower of this object.' Can you relate this way to a vrtti for which

the `object' is atma? Can you say, `This is atma' like how you can

say, `This is pot?' If you can, then, who are you? This knower-known

difference, which is always present between the object and the knower

does not exist with reference to the nature of the knower. Then how do

you ever recognise it?

A SPECIAL PRAMANA, A SPECIAL VÎTTI — AKHANDA-AKARA-VÎTTI

Any vrtti leading to knowledge can be produced by only a means of

knowledge, a pramana. To generate a vrtti that will remove

self-ignorance, our known means of knowledge, perception and

inference, will not work because they reveal only objects. Only

sabda-pramana can create the vrtti that destroys ignorance of the

subject, atma. Atma is not created by the pramana; it is because of

atma that the pramanas can even be operated. It is the vrtti that is

created. And the sastra is the pramana which can create this new

knowledge, vrtti-jnana, by a sentence that reveals the truth of the

knower. This sentence, maha-vakya, creates the vrtti that removes the

ignorance of the nature of the knower. That vrtti is the

akhanda-akara-vrtti.

Akhanda-akara-vrtti means that between the object of knowledge and the

knower there is no difference. What is common between Isvara and the

jiva is limitlessness, akhanda. After negating the differences, the

sastra says, `tat tvam asi — that Isvara is you.' This creates a vrtti

that brings about the understanding that the meaning of the word `you'

and the meaning of the word Isvara are the same. What abides as the

basis of everything, jiva and Isvara, is one consciousness. This

particular recognition, brought about by the vrtti, takes place in the

mind destroying ignorance of the fact that atma is akhanda, limitless.

Before that, the knower is covered by yoga-maya and therefore, does

not recognise his limitlessness. When the mind is under the spell of

the gunas and their products, there is no possibility of this

vrtti-jnana, `I am Brahman — aham brahma asmi.' Hence the Lord says,

`Being covered by yoga-maya naturally, people are deluded and do not

recognise Me — mudhah ayam mam na abhijanati.

WHAT IS NOT KNOWN?

Bhagavan says, `One does not know Me properly…' Who is that `Me'?

It is aja, the unborn self. Certain things are not born but they die,

like ignorance. It cannot have a beginning. If it began, something

must have been there before it came into existence — something that is

opposed to ignorance must have been present before it. That can only

be knowledge. Where there is no darkness, there is necessarily light.

Similarly, where there is no ignorance there is necessarily knowledge.

But if knowledge was there, how could ignorance come about? Therefore,

we understand that ignorance has no beginning. Can we also say it has

no end? No. Ignorance of atma or anything else has no beginning but it

ends when you know what it is.

Atma also cannot have a beginning. If it came into existence at a

given time, someone must have been there to note it. Otherwise how do

we know that it was born? If someone was there to observe the birth of

atma he had to be a conscious being. But that is atma. Atma cannot

simultaneously exist and observe the termination of its own

non-existence. And when atma does exist, there is no possibility of

its having had a non-existence and subsequent birth. Therefore, atma

has to be aja — unborn.

Atma is thus beginningless, but unlike ignorance, it is endless. It is

avyaya, it does not change — na vyeti iti avyayam. It has no decline,

no destruction. Krsna says, `They do not know Me as the one who is not

born and is never destroyed, the one who is eternal.'

IS BHAGAVAN ALSO COVERED BY YOGA-MAYA?

Sankara raises a question here. If Bhagavan cannot be known properly

by all beings because he is covered by yoga-maya, then, is his nature

also not cov