All are in Me, but I not in them....

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is how profound the knowledge (veda) is, and is offered for different levels of understanding. In sutra one (BG 9.1) Krsna tells arjuna that this information He will depart to him is the most secret wisdom (guhyatamam) some say this guhya-tamam, secrets of secrets.

Krsna says in BG 9.2 that this is raja-vidya ( king of knowledge or royal knowledge) and can be practically experienced and understood (pratyaksh avagamam).
What is this profound secret? (BG9.4 -the 2nd line reads)
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na ca aham tesu-avasthitah.

Sri Krsna is saying All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

What does this say? what does this mean to you? Perhaps looking at the Gita a bit and ponder this , we can have a discussion on this great knowledge.


pranams,

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
The beauty of the Bhagavad-gita is how profound the know is, and is offered for different levels of understanding. In sutra one (BG 9.1) Krsna tells arjuna that this information He will depart to him is the most secret wisdom (guhyatamam) some say this guhya-tamam, secrets of secrets.

Krsna says in BG 9.2 that this is raja-vidya ( king of knowledge or royal knowledge) and can be practically experienced and understood (pratyaksh avagamam).
What is this profound secret? (BG9.4 -the 2nd line reads)
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani na ca aham tesu-avasthitah.

Sri Krsna is sayingAll beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

What does this say? what does this mean to you? Perhaps looking at the Gita a bit and ponder this , we can have a discussion on this great knowledge.


pranams,

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

You verily have brought out the most important verse of Gita. Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation.

Please take a lead on this.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaskar Yajvan Ji,

Counterpoised with another verse where Lord says: 'Yogis see me in everybeing and every being in me', the present verse is truly a matter of meditation. Please take a lead on this.
Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste Atanu,
Thank you for your post....
Krsna's wisdom and insight on reality:
All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

'Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me'

I will await other's to consider these words before submitting my opinions and understanding.

Yet, one way to think about, All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, is the example (metaphor) of akasha , also considered Brahman. All things are contained in this akasha ( not visible, or space...I think the root word ksi plays a role here, as to destroy or parish. add in the 'a' for not, you have not + perishable, as in aksara). LIke that, all of this we see, feel, think , act, is contained in akasha. It is the background for all manifestation to occur, And if you add aksara to this, then all the Unmanifest. So Krsna is the foundation, substratium for all manifest and unmanifest. Then all beings are in HIM , end of story, because there is no thing that is not Him.

That is one idea for this... lets see what others who have thoughts on how they view these sutra's of Kesava.

pranams,

[saidevo]

Namaste Yajvan and Atanu.

1. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
2. Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.
3. Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me.

AkAsha as a metaphor contained in Statement no.1 seems to be an appropriate way to go about analyzing the statement. AkAsha as space is unmanifested. Everything that is created manifests only in space (and time? No, because time itself is a manifestation in space!) The very effect of manifestation gives a state of duality and a differentiation as a form with attributes. But the puzzle is, is the space of AkAsha contained in the manifested form or not? Surely, everything exists in space, but does space exist in everything? The pot of clay is in space, but I think Shankara said that the space is also in them, so if we break the pot only the space remains.

It is rather obvious to our senses and intellect that everything that exists, even the infinitesimal sub-atomic particle does contain space in the sense that space is found inside even such a particle. Can this mean that the form of a particle contains space? If it does, space should not be found outside it! Since space fills it and overflows it, we can't say that a form contains space, only the space contains it.

Since everything is contained in space, we can say that all forms are rooted in space or that space is the cause and the forms are the effect. But even these statements are wrong because if something is rooted in something that creates two things whereas here we have only one thing--space. So the conclusion could be that it is only space that appears as the forms--Advaita. Space cannot be the cause because in a cause-and-effect duality, both the cause and the effect do undergo change, whereas space is changeless and eternal.

Perhaps we can think of an analogy in the times of a day, the dawn and the dusk, beautifully termed as sandhi in Sanskrit. The dawn is when the night meets the day; the dusk is when the day meets the night. Yet both dawn and dusk are neither day nor night, there is no duality during that time. The world in such times exists as a dreamy silhouette and the mind finds it easy to transcend this outline. Perhaps this is the reason our rishis have advised us do sandhya vandanam, Gayatri japam and prANA yAma, and meditate at dawn and dusk.

Sri Krishna's statement emphasizes that though everything is in Him, they can't be He and have His wholesomeness. The part can only be in the whole and can never become the whole. Since nothing can be He, it can be said that He is not in everything.

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~~


Namaste Atanu,
Thank you for your post....
Krsna's wisdom and insight on reality:
All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. another author says it like this: Every being is located (or situated) in Me but I am not situated in them.

'Yogi's see me in everybeing and every being in me'

I will await other's to consider these words before submitting my opinions and understanding.

Yet, one way to think about, All beings are in Me, but I am not in them, is the example (metaphor) of akasha , also considered Brahman. All things are contained in this akasha ( not visible, or space...I think the root word ksi plays a role here, as to destroy or parish. add in the 'a' for not, you have not + perishable, as in aksara). LIke that, all of this we see, feel, think , act, is contained in akasha. It is the background for all manifestation to occur, And if you add aksara to this, then all the Unmanifest. So Krsna is the foundation, substratium for all manifest and unmanifest. Then all beings are in HIM , end of story, because there is no thing that is not Him.

That is one idea for this... lets see what others who have thoughts on how they view these sutra's of Kesava.

pranams,

From Gaudapada Karika on Mandukya

97
To those ignorant people who believe that Atman can deviate from Its true nature even in the slightest measure, Its eternally unrelated character is lost. In that case the destruction of the veil is out of the question.
98
All jivas are ever free from bondage and pure by nature. They are illumined and free from the very beginning. Yet the wise speak of the jivas as capable of knowing Ultimate Reality.
99
The Knowledge of the wise man, who is all light, is never related to any object. All the jivas, as well as Knowledge, are ever unrelated to objects. This was not told by Buddha.


This is the pivot of Sanatana Dharma. It is brilliant and it is Sanatana Dharma's triumph over Buddhism. Though Buddha did not emphasize the role of a transcendental being for a particular reason, which He himself explained separately (----so that an embodied being may not equate his tarnished I as same as the transcendental I).


But the real I in everyone is of the nature of knowledge. It has no commonality and no contact with objects. How can a thought which has no contact point with an organ like hand, still be able to move the hand?

After removing all objects, the eternal being remains in full. The eternal being has no part in the objects. But objects are all His forms alone, so Upanishad says: You are the old man with bent back and you are blue bird. Forms gone, all that remains is that EKO Lord.

This is the triumph of Sanatana Dharma and of Advaita.


Om Namah Shivayya

[Ganeshprasad]

Sri Krishna's statement emphasizes that though everything is in Him, they can't be He and have His wholesomeness. The part can only be in the whole and can never become the whole. Since nothing can be He, it can be said that He is not in everything.

Pranam saidevo

This is also my understanding. The example of the sun and the rays fit the bill some what, both are same in quality but the ray is not the sun, they are simultaneous one and different.

mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind. (15.07)

yathakasa-sthito nityam
vayuh sarvatra-go mahan
tatha sarvani bhutani
mat-sthanity upadharaya

As the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, always rests in ethereal space, know that in the same manner all beings rest in Me.(9.06)


Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

After removing all objects, the eternal being remains in full. The eternal being has no part in the objects. But objects are all His forms alone, so Upanishad says: You are the old man with bent back and you are blue bird. Forms gone, all that remains is that EKO Lord.


Om Namah Shivayya

Pranam Atanu ji
My understanding is that EKO Lord is never devoid of varieties within,
as you know i do not subscribe to any concept, that is why for me, only important thing is to follow Dharma, I leave it to the Lord to reveal what is the truth.
It is futile for me to worry about what Himalayas looks like but it is important for me to make preparation to get there that is if I want to go there.

bahir antas ca bhutanam
acaram caram eva ca
suksmatvat tad avijneyam
durastham cantike ca tat

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away.(13.16)


He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.The only proof of his existence is union with him.
He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad)


Bhagvan has already described the eternal nature of jivas in chapter 2.12. And further described eternal parts, as to what binds them in chapter 15.7


Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

My understanding is that EKO Lord is never devoid of verities within,
-------

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

Absolutely.

Additionally, whether the verities are inside or outside, He does not depend on the verities and without the verities He remains as the absolute nondual Lord.

Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,



Svet. Upanishad

IV-18: When light rises, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Shiva who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom (Pragnya).

Om

Pranam Atanu ji

Please can you expand on this,is Shiva different from the creator?
for who and why the ancient wisdom proceed.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

Please can you expand on this,is Shiva different from the creator?
for who and why the ancient wisdom proceed.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

In the context, Shiva is the absolute (not a being), neither a being nor a non-being, and beyond time (as there is no day no night). Whereas the Creator is endowed with a sense of I and is in the domain of time.

Though it is the Turiya Self that is ONE and ALL (since Pragnya is His), yet this Self is transcendental which has no connection to objects of Taijjassa and Vaisvanara, since there is no mind, which sprouts from Pragnya.


The point is that this timelessly true Turiya constitutes the stable core of Jivas that remains while objects exist and exists even if all objects are removed (when in samadhi or in deep sleep). This is said to be constant substratum while the play goes on and the lone auspicious truth when the play is paused/stopped.

Regards

Om Namah Shivayya