BHAGAVAD-GITA 2:24

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Vijay Sadananda Pai wrote:

> BHAGAVAD-GITA 2:24

> acchedyah--unbreakable; ayam--this soul; adahyah--unable to be burned;

> ayam--this soul; akledyah--insoluble; asosyah--not able to be dried;

> eva--certainly; ca--and; nityah--everlasting;

> sarva-gatah--all-pervading; sthanuh--unchangeable; acalah--immovable;

> ayam--this soul; sanatanah--eternally the same.

> TRANSLATION

> This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither

> burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable,

> immovable and eternally the same.

 

 

Someone might doubt that because the word "sarva-gatah" is grammatically

singular, it doesn't mean that *souls* are scattered throughout the creation (as

per Prabhupada's purport), but rather that the one, single, "unbroken"

(acchedya) soul is always all-pervading (sarva-gatah), as mayavadis assert.

However, there are other examples of singular words used in a plural sense.

Bhagavatam 1.4.13 provide one example of that. And "acchedya" simply means that

an individual soul cannot be subdivided, for the soul is eternally the same.

 

MDd

 

PURPORT

> . . .

> The word sarva-gata ("all-pervading") is significant because there is

> no doubt that living entities are all over God's creation. They live

> on the land, in the water, in the air, within the earth and even

> within fire. The belief that they are sterilized in fire is not

> acceptable, because it is clearly stated here that the soul cannot be

> burned by fire. Therefore, there is no doubt that there are living

> entities also in the sun planet with suitable bodies to live there. If

> the sun globe is uninhabited, then the word sarva-gata--"living

> everywhere"--becomes meaningless.

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

 

> However, there are other examples of singular words used in a

plural sense. Bhagavatam 1.4.13 provide one example of that.

And "acchedya" simply means that an individual soul cannot be

subdivided, for the soul is eternally the same.

>

 

Is there a formal name or rule for this in Sanskrit grammar?

 

Also, it occurs to me that such a thing could be used against us.

Maadhvas, for example, use something similar to justify their

interpretation of SB 1.3.28, the svayam bhagavaan verse.

 

- K

 

p.s. where are you these days? send me a personal e-mail with your

latest snail mail address and phone number.

[Guest guest]

 

Good point, but more doubt here regarding the last line "Sarvagatah Sthanur

Achaloyam" - Somehow I feel that these three words is pointing to the one soul

as it means "All pervading/Unchangeable/Immovable". And if we take all the

three attributes together then we cannot think of anything but one soul which

appears to be divided due to maaya as the Advaitins say.

 

The main reason for this seems to be that it is all pervading at the same time

it is immovable... Also in another place Krishna says:

 

"Sarvayonishu Yainekam Bhavam Avyayam Ikshate,

Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu Tad Jnyanam Vidhdhi Sattvikam"

 

In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada says that this impersonal form of

knowledge is in the mode of goodness.

 

But, we know that even the mode of goodness is a rope binding the Jiva in the

samsara sagara and hence we have to come to the point of accepting the Supreme

Personality of Godhead Swayam Bhagavaan Sri Krishna!

 

What do the enlightened Vaishnavas of this group think of this?

 

Hare Krishna!

 

Dasanudasa,

Somesh

 

[Edited for length]

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Somesh Kumar wrote:

 

> Good point, but more doubt here regarding the last line "Sarvagatah Sthanur >

Achaloyam" - Somehow I feel that these three words is pointing to the one

> soul as it means "All pervading/Unchangeable/Immovable". And if we take all >

the three attributes together then we cannot think of anything but one soul >

which appears to be divided due to maaya as the Advaitins say.

>

> The main reason for this seems to be that it is all pervading at the same

> time it is immovable...

 

"Immovable" is a less a problem if we understand that the self isn't subject to

the kind of time/space constrictions imposed on its material body. It is always

stable, or "sthanu." Similarly, all of the selves which permeate the Lord's

creation (sarva-gatah) have this nature, as mentioned in Gita, 18.20:

 

 

 

> "Sarvayonishu Yainekam Bhavam Avyayam Ikshate,

> Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu Tad Jnyanam Vidhdhi Sattvikam"

 

In other words:

"That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen in all living

entities, though they are divided into innumerable forms, you should understand

to be in the mode of goodness."

 

Notably, Krsna also says that living beings are "divided" (i.e., plural and

varied), yet "not divided" in the sense of any division within the self or in

regard to any essential difference in quality. Moreover, they all have "one

bhava," on which the discussion below may expand.

 

 

 

> In the purport to this verse Srila Prabhupada says that this impersonal form >

of knowledge is in the mode of goodness.

 

It simply means that in this material world we shouldn't passionately see

different *kinds* of jivas just because we see diferent kinds of bodies, as the

context of the above verse also confirms. There are indeed tamasic people who

don't even notice anyone else at all. But human beings are meant for

brahma-bhuta realization, at least. When one truly realizes the nature of

spirit, and one's identity as such, then one can see how all living beings are

alike. Only then can one really empathize with others (Gita 6.32):

 

"He is a perfect yogi who, by comparison to his own self, sees the true equality

of all beings, in both their happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!"

 

This is the idea behind phrases like "sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma," which we see so

much throughout the sastras. For example, note the personal scent in Srila

Prabhupada's translation of it in Gita 5.7:

 

"One who works in devotion, who is a pure soul, and who controls his mind and

senses is dear to everyone, and everyone is dear to him. Though always working,

such a man is never entangled."

 

What it says more literally translates that to such a person, everyone has

become as good as himself, and vice-versa. Freed up from the constraints of a

false ego, such a person is naturally "sarva-bhuta-hite ratah" (always engaged

in the welfare of others) too--as only he can be (cf., Gita 4.41). Indeed,

everyone else is far too distracted by rajasic and tamasic anarthas, with which

they try to exploit everything and everyone else they encounter; but they merely

bind themselves and others further, through such misapplied intention

(kama-sankalpa).

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, Somesh Kumar <tp_somesh_kumar>

wrote:

> Hare Krishna!

>

> Good point, but more doubt here regarding the last line "Sarvagatah

Sthanur Achaloyam" - Somehow I feel that these three words is

pointing to the one soul as it means "All

pervading/Unchangeable/Immovable". And if we take all the three

attributes together then we cannot think of anything but one soul

which appears to be divided due to maaya as the Advaitins say.

>

> The main reason for this seems to be that it is all pervading at

the same time it is immovable... Also in another place Krishna says:

>

 

However, any statement has to be read in the context of where it is

found, the context of the overall text, and the global context of the

Vedas. If there is even one pramaana, anywhere in the Vedas, which

describes the soul as a minute particle as opposed to a singular, all-

pervading thing, then that establishes the Vaishnava conception of

jiivaatmaa as opposed to the Advaitic conception.

 

Can you recall anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's purports in chapter 2,

where he quotes such a pramaana? If you find it, then you have your

answer.

 

(hint: I'm only asking because I know it's there)

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Can you recall anywhere in Srila Prabhupada's purports in chapter 2, where he

quotes such a pramaana? If you find it, then you have your answer.(hint: I'm

only asking because I know it's there)

 

I can find in Srila Prabhupada's purport to BG 2.17 the vedic evidence of soul's

minuteness and individuality:

 

This soul is described as one ten-thousandth part of the upper portion of the

hair point in size. The Çvetäçvatara Upaniñad (5.9) confirms this:

bälägra-çata-bhägasya

çatadhä kalpitasya ca

bhägo jévaù vijïeyaù

sa cänantyäya kalpate

When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each

of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the

measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul. Similarly the same version is

stated:

keçägra-çata-bhägasya

çatäàçaù sädåçätmakaù

jévaù sükñma-svarüpo yaà

saìkhyätéto hi cit-kaëaù

[Cc. Madya 19.140]

There are innumerable particles of spiritual atoms, which are measured as one

ten-thousandth of the upper portion of the hair.

Hare Krishna!

 

Dasanudasa,

Somesh

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Immovable" is a less a problem if we understand that the self isn't subject to

the kind of time/space constrictions imposed on its material body. It is

always stable, or "sthanu." Similarly, all of the selves which permeate the

Lord's creation (sarva-gatah) have this nature, as mentioned in Gita, 18.20: >>

Yes, we can take immovable in that way. But, the Advaitins might argue that

immovable here indicates the presence of one undivided soul. Because though it

is "Sarvagatah" i.e present everywhere and at the same time it is "Sthanur" -

located in one place. In other words:"That knowledge by which one undivided

spiritual nature is seen in all living entities, though they are divided into

innumerable forms, you should understand to be in the mode of

goodness."Notably, Krsna also says that living beings are "divided" (i.e.,

plural and varied), yet "not divided" in the sense of any division within the

self or in regard to any

essential difference in quality. Moreover, they all have "one bhava," on which

the discussion below may expand.

>>> An Advaitists version would be that Krishna says that though they seem to be

divided on account of body but they are not on the basis of the soul. Srila

Prabhupada in his purport acknowledges this as an impersonal vision.It simply

means that in this material world we shouldn't passionately see different

*kinds* of jivas just because we see diferent kinds of bodies, as the context

of the above verse also confirms. There are indeed tamasic people who don't

even notice anyone else at all. But human beings are meant for brahma-bhuta

realization, at least. When one truly realizes the nature of spirit, and one's

identity as such, then one can see how all living beings are alike. Only then

can one really empathize with others (Gita 6.32):"He is a perfect yogi who, by

comparison to his own self, sees the true equality of all beings, in both their

happiness and their distress, O Arjuna!"This is the idea behind

phrases like "sarva-bhutatma-bhutatma," which we see so much throughout the sastras.

>>> This explanation is very good. So in the brahmabhuta stage the Jivatma sees

the oneness in terms of the quality of the soul and not the oneness of the soul

itself. But, happiness and distress is in relation to the body. Is'nt it? With

respect to the soul there's no happiness or distress. So how can BG 6.32

indicate the soul?

For example, note the personal scent in Srila Prabhupada's translation of it in

Gita 5.7:"One who works in devotion, who is a pure soul, and who controls his

mind and senses is dear to everyone, and everyone is dear to him. Though always

working, such a man is never entangled." What it says more literally translates

that to such a person, everyone has become as good as himself, and vice-versa.

Freed up from the constraints of a false ego, such a person is naturally

"sarva-bhuta-hite ratah" (always engaged in the welfare of others) too--as only

he can be (cf., Gita 4.41). Indeed, everyone else is far too distracted by

rajasic and tamasic anarthas, with which they try to exploit everything and

everyone else they encounter; but they merely bind themselves and others

further, through such misapplied intention (kama-sankalpa).

>>>Yes, this is really true. Thanks for your valuable inputs.

Hare Krishna!Dasanudasa,

Somesh

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Somesh Kumar <tp_somesh_kumar>

wrote:

>

>

> >> Yes, we can take immovable in that way. But, the Advaitins might

argue that immovable here indicates the presence of one undivided

soul. Because though it is "Sarvagatah" i.e present everywhere and at

the same time it is "Sthanur" - located in one place.

>

 

The Advaitins might argue it, but they would be wrong. You yourself

just quoted the shruti pramaanas establishing that jiivaatmaa is a

minute particle. Consequently, what is said in Bhagavad-Giitaa, if

there is any doubt about it, must be interpreted so that it is

consistent with shruti also.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

 

The plurality of the soul is already established in 2.12. The purports of Srila

Prabhupada and Ramanuja clearly refute the Advaitin interpretation that it

refers to the bodies. We had some discussion a few days back and the devotees

threw some light on this. So, SP's purport is consistent with 2.12.

 

in your service,

Aravind.

 

Somesh Kumar wrote:

>>> An Advaitists version would be that Krishna says that though they seem to be

divided on account of body but they are not on the basis of the soul. Srila

Prabhupada in his purport acknowledges this as an impersonal vision.  

[Guest guest]

<<<achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

> However, there are other examples of singular words used in a

plural sense. Bhagavatam 1.4.13 provide one example of that.

And "acchedya" simply means that an individual soul cannot be

subdivided, for the soul is eternally the same. >

(and Krishna Susarla asked:)

Is there a formal name or rule for this in Sanskrit grammar? >>>

 

I'm not aware of one, but I'm not expert in this sort of thing either.

 

 

<<<Also, it occurs to me that such a thing could be used against us.

Maadhvas, for example, use something similar to justify their

interpretation of SB 1.3.28, the svayam bhagavaan verse.>>>

 

Perhaps; at least some of this is just the translator's discretion.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

mpt wrote:

 

"Immovable" is a less a problem if we understand that the

self isn't subject to the kind of time/space constrictions

imposed on its material body. It is always stable, or

"sthanu." Similarly, all of the selves which permeate the

Lord's creation (sarva-gatah) have this nature, as mentioned

in Gita, 18.20:

 

>> Yes, we can take immovable in that way. But, the Advaitins

might argue that immovable here indicates the presence of one

undivided soul.

 

 

That’s the assertion I tried to address above.

 

 

 

 

>>> An Advaitists version would be that Krishna says that

though they seem to be divided on account of body but they

are not on the basis of the soul. Srila Prabhupada in his

purport acknowledges this as an impersonal vision.

 

The oneness of all jives is that they all have the same general “bhava.”

Impersonalists don’t like to admit that this harmonious mood (eka bhava) is in

fact surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead Krsna, so they interpret

such things as impersonally as they can. People use this approach when they

actually don’t want to be held accountable for what they’re doing--or not doing.

 

 

 

 

>>> This explanation is very good. So in the brahmabhuta

stage the Jivatma sees the oneness in terms of the quality of

the soul and not the oneness of the soul itself.

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

 

>>>But, happiness and distress is in relation to the body. Is'nt it?>>

 

Yes, but please read on.

 

 

 

 

>>>With respect to the soul there's no happiness or distress. So

how can BG 6.32 indicate the soul?>>>

 

Like many others these terms can eventually become a bit troublesome, for they

mean different things to different people at different stages of the same

general process.

 

In a conventional and karmic sense, we talk of “material happiness and

distress,” and such is what Krsna refers to when he speaks of the deep empathy

of the yogi (in 6.32). Such sukha and duhkha are only material dualities.

Still, the soul undergoes them by misidentification. After all, who but the

soul can experience either one? Dead matter experiences nothing at all.

 

But there is spiritual happiness. Intrinsically, there is *only* happiness for

the soul, and in fact such happiness is a chief characteristic and symptom of

true spiritual realization (Gita 18.54):

 

“One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman

and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is

equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure

devotional service unto Me.”

 

Among advanced devotees, we may also say that there is even “distress” for the

soul, but that distress is actually only happiness--a concept wholly

incomprehensible to those who lack spiritual awareness and experience based on

it. Because we currently live in what is only a perverse reflection of reality,

our “happiness” is only distress--while in the spiritual realm, our distress is

actually only happiness!

 

Unfortunately, in material consciousness we are completely unacquainted with

such happiness, which is why we sometimes say there simply is no happiness in

the material world--just as we also say there is no love in this world.

Happiness actually *means* spiritual happiness. So it is with love, too, and

for that matter, just about everything else. We’re wholly innocent of all these

things. Aside from context, what determines the meaning of such words is one’s

own spiritual status; thus, disciples sometimes say that they know nothing at

all, depending entirely on the Divine grace of Krsna in the form of their

bonafide guru. It is said (Kenopanisad, 1.2-3):

 

“Knowing Him who is the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking,

the speech behind speech, the sight behind sight, the lifeforce (prana) behind

the life-force, completely freed, the wise attain deathlessness. Sight cannot

reach Him, speech cannot describe Him, thought cannot fathom Him. We cannot

understand or perceive how one would indicate Him. He is different from the

known, and far beyond the unknown as well. Thus we have heard from the ancients

who taught us this.”

 

And without His Divine grace, who could ever realize that what is indicated

above is a dark, brilliant, smiling boy named Krishna, whose face is smeared

with butter, and whose body is covered with the dust of His father's cows?

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

mpt@u.washington.edu wrote:

"Immovable" is a less a problem if we understand that theself isn't subject to

the kind of time/space constrictionsimposed on its material body. It is always

stable, or"sthanu." Similarly, all of the selves which permeate theLord's

creation (sarva-gatah) have this nature, as mentionedin Gita, 18.20:

>> Yes, we can take immovable in that way. But, the Advaitinsmight argue that

immovable here indicates the presence of oneundivided soul.

That’s the assertion I tried to address above.

>>> The explanation which you provided is very nice and understandable. Thanks

for that. Does'nt sarva-gatah means all-pervading and sthanur means located in

one place? But, as you said the soul is beyond the consideration of time/space

restrictions and also the Upanishads give the size of the soul as

one-ten-thousandth part of the tip of hair. Surprising to note that the

Advaitic philosophy did not consider this magnitude of the soul and instead see

the soul and super-soul to be the same. What could be the reason???<<<

 

>>> An Advaitists version would be that Krishna says thatthough they seem to be

divided on account of body but theyare not on the basis of the soul. Srila

Prabhupada in hispurport acknowledges this as an impersonal vision.

The oneness of all jives is that they all have the same general “bhava.”

Impersonalists don’t like to admit that this harmonious mood (eka bhava) is in

fact surrender to the Supreme Personality of Godhead

Krsna, so they interpret such things as impersonally as they can. People use

this approach when they actually don’t want to be held accountable for what

they’re doing--or not doing.

>>> I agree with you fully here..<<<

 

>>> This explanation is very good. So in the brahmabhutastage the Jivatma sees

the oneness in terms of the quality ofthe soul and not the oneness of the soul

itself.

Exactly.

 

>>>But, happiness and distress is in relation to the body. Is'nt it?>>

Yes, but please read on.

 

>>>With respect to the soul there's no happiness or distress. Sohow can BG 6.32

indicate the soul?>>>

Like many others these terms can eventually become a bit troublesome, for they

mean different things to different people at different stages of the same

general process.

In a conventional and karmic sense, we talk of “material happiness and

distress,” and such is what Krsna refers to when he speaks of the deep empathy

of the yogi (in 6.32). Such sukha and duhkha are only material dualities.

Still, the soul undergoes them by misidentification. After all, who but the

soul can experience either one? Dead matter experiences nothing at all.

>>> This is an interesting question "Who experiences?". Udhdhava asked this to

Krishna because the soul has nothing to do with any activities and the body is

dull matter. Then who is really experiencing?

Krishna replied that The false ego which assumes the body as the real self is

experiencing. Krishna in

Bhagavad Gita confirms this as well:

Prakrti Kriyamaanani Gunaih Karmaani Sarvasha,Ahankaara Vimuudhaatmaa, Kartaaham

Iti Manyate.<<<

But there is spiritual happiness. Intrinsically, there is *only* happiness for

the soul, and in fact such happiness is a chief characteristic and symptom of

true spiritual realization (Gita 18.54):

“One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman

and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is

equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure

devotional service unto Me.”

Among advanced devotees, we may also say that there is even “distress” for the

soul, but that distress is actually only happiness--a concept wholly

incomprehensible to those who lack spiritual awareness and experience based on

it. Because we currently live in what is only a perverse reflection of reality,

our “happiness” is only distress--while in the spiritual realm, our distress is

actually only happiness!

>>> Yes, probably you're referring to the Vipraalambha bhaava of a

Maha-Bhagavata who is in deep sorrow on not being able to see Krishna! As

Caitanya Mahaprabhu says:

"Yugaayatam Nimishena, Chakshusha Pravrshayitam,Shunyaayitam Jagat Sarvam,

Govinda Virahena Me"<<<

Unfortunately, in material consciousness we are completely unacquainted with

such happiness, which is why we sometimes say there simply is no happiness in

the material world--just as we also say there is no love in this world.

Happiness actually *means* spiritual happiness. So it is with love, too, and

for that matter, just about everything else. We’re wholly innocent of all these

hings. Aside from context, what determines the meaning of such words is one’s

own spiritual status; thus, disciples sometimes say that they know nothing at

all, depending entirely on the Divine grace of Krsna in the form of their

bonafide guru.

>>> Yes, in material world the so-called illusory happiness lasts only for some

time and that too has very bad after-effects. Mainly because the living

entities are trying to enjoy materially though they are actually spiritual

beings!<<<

It is said (Kenopanisad, 1.2-3):

“Knowing Him who is the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking,

the speech behind speech, the sight behind sight, the lifeforce (prana) behind

the life-force, completely freed, the wise attain deathlessness. Sight cannot

reach Him, speech cannot describe Him, thought cannot fathom Him. We cannot

understand or perceive how one would indicate Him. He is different from the

known, and far beyond the unknown as well. Thus we have heard from the ancients

who taught us this.”

And without His Divine grace, who could ever realize that what is indicated

above is a dark, brilliant, smiling boy named Krishna, whose face is smeared

with butter, and whose body is covered with the dust of His father's cows?

>>> I fully agree with you. As Vishvanatha Chakravarthi Thakura says:"Yasya

Prasaadaat Bhagavat Prasaado, Yasya Prasaadaan Nagati Kutopi,Dhyaayam Stuvams

Tasya Yashas Tri Sandhyam, Vande Guro Sri Charanaaravindam!"

Hare Krishna! Thanks very much once again for your nice answers!

Dasanudasa,Somesh