Re:Gita Satsangh, Chapter 9 Verses 4 to 6; (Also: Query on Bhagavad Gita (IX-4,5,6) )

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Dear Ram2, Your questions are all valid. By raising them you are

only helping the satsangh to be fruitful. I am sure others will

also respond to your questions and make the discussion

worthwhile.

 

Now for your question on 'mat-sthAni sarva-bhUtAni'. All beings

exist in Me. All beings have Me as their substratum.

 

A standard example in modern times could be the movie screen.

All beings that are projected on the movie screen exist on the

screen. They have no separate existence in themselves. Without

the movie screen they have no existence. So the movie screen can

rightly say: 'mat-sthAni sarva-bimbAni' i.e. All the images are

in me.

At the same time the movie screen is not supported by the

images. So the movie screen might as well say 'na ca ahaM teshu

avasthitaH' meaning: I am not situated in them.

 

Now comes the punchline in the 5th sloka. 'na ca mat-sthAni

bhUtAni'. Meaning: Further, the beings are not in Me. Another

way of saying the same meaning is: 'The beings are also not in

Me'.

To understand this go back to the movie screen analogy.

The movie screen now says: 'Don't take me wrong. The images are

not in me. The images were not there on me before the

projection. The images will not be there on me after the

projection is over. Even when the projection is there, only I

(the movie screen) am there; what you see as image is only a

false appearance. The real truth is me. This is actually my

magical feat. I (the movie screen) am there always. I interrupt

the projected rays and I show you the images. This is my magic!

It is not permanent. Only I am permanent'.

 

Don't carry the analogy too far. In the case of the Lord and the

projected Universe, He is Himself the Projector, the Projected

and the Projection, all in One. It is all because of his divine

Power: yogaM aishvaraM.

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

[Guest guest]

Dear ProfVK,

 

Your movie screen analogy was a big help. Thank You.

 

Ram

>

>

> A standard example in modern times could be the movie screen.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

These are random musings on 9.4 and 9.5 from the point of view of

our daily experiences:

 

I see the sun = sun consciousness.

I hear the song = song (sound) consciousness

I touch ice = ice (cold) consciousness

I smell perfume = perfume (fragrance) consciousness

I taste sugar = sugar (sweetness) consciousness

I am aware of my thoughts = thoughts or mind consciousness

I am aware of my ego = ego consciousness

I am aware of my intellect = intellect consciousness

 

What are common in the above equations? I on one side and

consciousness on the other. They are the constants in all our moment

to moment transactions. The other things like sun, song, ice,

perfume, sugar etc. are variables and present on either side of the

equations.

 

Remove the variables. What remains? I = consciousness. Let us

capitalize consciousness (Consciousness) to indicate the sameness of

the two sides.

 

So, sun, song, ice, perfume and sugar ARE because Consciousness IS.

The reverse is not true. We cannot say: Consciousness is, because

sugar is.

 

Thus, Consciousness pervades the variables, which constitute all this

universe (internal as well as external). The variables are

experienced through sense organs and mind, which are themselves

objects in awareness. Consciousness which makes such experiencing

possible is unmanifest (avyakta). Only one who ponders over the

nature of things realizes this. Consciousness is not within the

variables because we cannot say "Consciousness is because sugar is".

 

It may be argued that objects validate Consciousness because in our

waking life there is a seeming continuity of object-consciousness.

This is not true because between the perception of two objects, there

ought to be a "gap" howsoever minute when nothing is perceived. What

constitutes that "gap" cannot be anything other than the substratum

on which perception takes place, i.e. Consciousness. Like the screen

remaining the substratum for the movie projected on it where the film

is nothing but a seeming continuity of fast moving individual

images. Besides, in deep sleep, there are no objects perceived

because space and time and, therefore, duality is withdrawn till the

sleeper wakes up to realize that he slept when he did not experience

the existence of any objects. Who was present during deep sleep and

where was that experience of not experiencing registered? The

obvious answer is Consciousness. There are people who talk about the

end of the world. If a barren world is to remain, then there should

be a Consciousness to perceive it. The conclusion, therefore, is

that Consciousness remains whatever the situation even if it means

nothingness because nothingness needs a perceiving intelligence to

sustain itself!

 

All this is covered under 9.4.

 

So, are the things perceived in Consciousness? It should appear so.

But, advaita cannot accept that because there cannot be anything

other than Consciousness and Consciousness cannot have an inside or

outside because It is one without a second. So, the thinking that

things are in Consciousness but separate all the same is a fallacy.

It is entirely an inadvaitic idea.

 

And then, is Consciousness in the things perceived? Let us take an

example. I see the sun. Sun-consciousness. I see the moon. Moon

consciousness. If these situations are analysed, we will find that

in the peak of both these experiences, the I, who is the seer, merges

with the objects perceived, to become one Consciousness. There is no

difference perceived at that moment. It is only afterwards that

duality arises making me think that I saw the sun, I saw the moon

etc. This is applicable to all our experiences including seeing the

mother-in-law but we don't realize it. We are so very much given to

the idea of duality that we refuse to see the sweet moments when

duality ceases to exist in our daily life! In the absence of duality,

it is all one – no subject, no object, no feeling of a process of

seeing. There is only Consciousness. And that Consciousness,

although It pervades everything, is not in anything, because if we

admit the existence of Consciousness separately in the things

perceived, we will be thinking again on inadvaitic lines. We would

then be unpardonably compartmentalizing Consciousness. Thus, neither

are the things in Consciousness nor Consciousness in them but the

things are because Consciousness is. This is the Divine Yoga (Unity)

hinted at in 9.5.

 

To conclude, therefore, there is only Consciousness – one without a

second. No things can be added to it, no things can be taken out of

it. It cannot be reduced or increased or divided into objects. It

is absolute avyayam.

 

Ram(2)-Ji – your "Universal" set (Venn Diagrams) is a good example.

The only problem, like in all other examples, even the Universal set

is limited in itself and the rest of the sets are in it which is not

the case with Consciousness.

 

Pranams to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

 

____________

 

 

 

advaitin, "Thommandra, Rama K." <Rama.Thommandra@a...>

wrote:

> Dear ProfVK,

>

> Your movie screen analogy was a big help. Thank You.

>

> Ram

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

I agree.

Examples, by their very nature, cannot represent all aspects of the theme

for which they are examples of.

Even Verse IX.6 - which is an example of IX.4,5 - does not reflect

everything that is being described in IX.4,5.

 

Ram

 

>

> Madathil Rajendran Nair [sMTP:madathilnair]

> Tuesday, October 08, 2002 10:34 AM

> advaitin

> Re:Gita Satsangh, Chapter 9 Verses 4 to 6; (Also:

> Query on Bhagavad Gita (IX-4,5,6) )

>

> The only problem, like in all other examples, even the Universal set

> is limited in itself and the rest of the sets are in it which is not

> the case with Consciousness.

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Nair

 

I found this post wonderfully clarifying. Thank you for it.

 

Grant.

 

 

>

> Namaste.

>

> These are random musings on 9.4 and 9.5 from the point of view of

> our daily experiences:

........

>

> Madathil Nair