God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?
[Sri JSR Prasad asked: Sashtanga Pranamas Swami. In the Gita, God said that the creation is in Him and also not in Him (Matsthāni sarva bhūtāni…, na ca matsthāni bhūtāni). How to correlate this?]
Swami Replied: The clarification is given in other verses like ‘bhūtabhṛt na ca bhūtasthaḥ’ (I am the possessor of the creation and not present in the creation.), ‘mayi sarvamidaṃ protam’ (all this creation is possessed by Me), na tvahaṃ teṣu te Mayi (I am not in the creation but the creation is on Me.) etc., reveal that God is the basic substratum (ādhāra). The shape of the pot is based ‘on’ the mud atoms whereas, the shape of the pot is not present ‘in’ the mud atoms. The creation is present ‘on’ God (aupashleshika saptamii vibhakti), but not ‘in’ God (abhivyaapaka saptamii vibhakti). The saptamii vibhakti (locative case) in Sanskrit means both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka).
I am possessing the shirt means that the shirt is ‘on’ me. I am possessing blood means that blood is ‘in’ me. Both these statements belong to the same locative case. If we take the locative case only, there is no difference between ‘on’ and ‘in’. Of course, it is clearly said that the locative case has both the separate meanings, which are both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka). In this locative case, another meaning is also said, which is ‘vaishayika’ (subject) and the example here is that I am a scholar ‘in’ grammar. But, this third meaning also is adjusted in the ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka) only as per English language.
When we take similes for the creator and the creation, people take mud and pot as a simile in which we have already told that pot is based ‘on’ mud particles (aupashleshika). If we take the simile of magician and magic, the creation or magic is based ‘on’ the magician since the magic is appearing outside the magician. Here also, ‘on’ (aupashleshika) is used in the verse Aham ātmā… sarvabhūtāśaya sthitaḥ. Here, God is said to be the basic substratum of the creation. The word ‘jalaashaya’ which means lake, tells us that the lake is the basic substratum of water (jala). The word Aatmaa is used for God because just as the soul is the basic substratum of the body maintained, God is the basic substratum of the creation. The word Aatmaa means that which is extending (atati). God extends as the basic substratum for this entire creation. The word Aatmaa need not be taken as soul only, but, in general, can be taken as any basic substratum that extends below the supported items.
God referred to in this context is the first mediated God called Iishwara or Naaraayana or Hiranyagarbha. Since medium has spatial dimensions, ‘in’ and ‘on’ are suitable for usage. But, if you take the unmediated, unimaginable God, He has no spatial dimensions and words like ‘in’ and ‘on’ have no meaning. In His case, we can only say that He is not affected or contaminated by the creation (asaṅgohyayaṃ puruṣaḥ- Samkhya). The reason is that the absolute reality of the creation is not inherent to the creation, but, the absolute reality of the unimaginable God (Parabrahman) is gifted to the creation by the unimaginable God Himself. Depending upon the nature of God and medium, we have to use the words like ‘on’ and ‘in’.
Even in worldly items, we have to follow this. For example, in the case of space, we can never use the word ‘on’ because space is not showing its boundaries. We can say that the air is ‘in’ space, but, space is not contaminated by air (Yathākāśagato nityam… Gita). Krishna says that He is sitting at the centre of the entire creation rotating the entire creation (īśvarassarva bhūtānām). The word ‘hṛddesśa’ means the centre of gravity which is the essential part for rotation. We say the essential meaning of the poet as ‘kavi hṛdaya’, which does not mean the physical heart of the poet. God told that He is extending Himself for the entire creation as the basic support (mayā tataimdam). God also told that He is ‘Aatmaa’, which means the basic support that is extending for the entire creation so that no part of the entire creation is leftover without the support (Ahamātmā…). The word ‘sarva bhūtāśaya sthitaḥ’ can be taken as 1. sarva bhūtāśaya stitaḥ which means that God is standing as the support, 2. The word ‘āśaya’ may be taken as the alternative of ‘hṛddeśa’ or centre of gravity to rotate the entire creation.
Logic says about four types of Abhaava (absence):- 1. Praagabhaava means that which did not exist before its production. 2. Pradhvamsaabhaava means that which will not exist after destruction. 3. Anyonyaabhaava that which does not exist in a different item and vice versa. 4. Atyantaabhaava means that which never existed at any time. This creation has praagabhaava because it did not exist before its first production. This creation has no second type of absence because in destruction, it only goes from gross state to subtle state.
The creation has third type of absence because it exists based on God and God also exists in the creation as incarnation. The creation has no fourth type of absence because it exists forever after its production by God for the sake of His entertainment. The gross state is the film show and the subtle state is the film reel. The reel always exists after its generation because no fool destroys the reel after the first show and reconstructs it for the second show. The shape of the pot is always associated with the eternal existence of the mud and only a fool destroys the pot, which is useful to bring water.
God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?
-
dattaswami
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am
Re: God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?
[quote=dattaswami post_id=615665 time=1672110956 user_id=4078]
[b][color=#0040FF]God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?[/color][/b]
[i][Sri JSR Prasad asked: Sashtanga Pranamas Swami. In the Gita, God said that the creation is in Him and also not in Him (Matsthāni sarva bhūtāni…, na ca matsthāni bhūtāni). How to correlate this?][/i]
[b][color=#0040FF]Swami Replied: [/color][/b]The clarification is given in other verses like ‘bhūtabhṛt na ca bhūtasthaḥ’ (I am the possessor of the creation and not present in the creation.), ‘mayi sarvamidaṃ protam’ (all this creation is possessed by Me), na tvahaṃ teṣu te Mayi (I am not in the creation but the creation is on Me.) etc., reveal that God is the basic substratum (ādhāra). The shape of the pot is based ‘on’ the mud atoms whereas, the shape of the pot is not present ‘in’ the mud atoms. The creation is present ‘on’ God (aupashleshika saptamii vibhakti), but not ‘in’ God (abhivyaapaka saptamii vibhakti). The saptamii vibhakti (locative case) in Sanskrit means both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka).
I am possessing the shirt means that the shirt is ‘on’ me. I am possessing blood means that blood is ‘in’ me. Both these statements belong to the same locative case. If we take the locative case only, there is no difference between ‘on’ and ‘in’. Of course, it is clearly said that the locative case has both the separate meanings, which are both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka). In this locative case, another meaning is also said, which is ‘vaishayika’ (subject) and the example here is that I am a scholar ‘in’ grammar. But, this third meaning also is adjusted in the ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka) only as per English language.
When we take similes for the creator and the creation, people take mud and pot as a simile in which we have already told that pot is based ‘on’ mud particles (aupashleshika). If we take the simile of magician and magic, the creation or magic is based ‘on’ the magician since the magic is appearing outside the magician. Here also, ‘on’ (aupashleshika) is used in the verse Aham ātmā… sarvabhūtāśaya sthitaḥ. Here, God is said to be the basic substratum of the creation. The word ‘jalaashaya’ which means lake, tells us that the lake is the basic substratum of water (jala). The word Aatmaa is used for God because just as the soul is the basic substratum of the body maintained, God is the basic substratum of the creation. The word Aatmaa means that which is extending (atati). God extends as the basic substratum for this entire creation. The word Aatmaa need not be taken as soul only, but, in general, can be taken as any basic substratum that extends below the supported items.
God referred to in this context is the first mediated God called Iishwara or Naaraayana or Hiranyagarbha. Since medium has spatial dimensions, ‘in’ and ‘on’ are suitable for usage. But, if you take the unmediated, unimaginable God, He has no spatial dimensions and words like ‘in’ and ‘on’ have no meaning. In His case, we can only say that He is not affected or contaminated by the creation (asaṅgohyayaṃ puruṣaḥ- Samkhya). The reason is that the absolute reality of the creation is not inherent to the creation, but, the absolute reality of the unimaginable God (Parabrahman) is gifted to the creation by the unimaginable God Himself. Depending upon the nature of God and medium, we have to use the words like ‘on’ and ‘in’.
Even in worldly items, we have to follow this. For example, in the case of space, we can never use the word ‘on’ because space is not showing its boundaries. We can say that the air is ‘in’ space, but, space is not contaminated by air (Yathākāśagato nityam… Gita). Krishna says that He is sitting at the centre of the entire creation rotating the entire creation (īśvarassarva bhūtānām). The word ‘hṛddesśa’ means the centre of gravity which is the essential part for rotation. We say the essential meaning of the poet as ‘kavi hṛdaya’, which does not mean the physical heart of the poet. God told that He is extending Himself for the entire creation as the basic support (mayā tataimdam). God also told that He is ‘Aatmaa’, which means the basic support that is extending for the entire creation so that no part of the entire creation is leftover without the support (Ahamātmā…). The word ‘sarva bhūtāśaya sthitaḥ’ can be taken as 1. sarva bhūtāśaya stitaḥ which means that God is standing as the support, 2. The word ‘āśaya’ may be taken as the alternative of ‘hṛddeśa’ or centre of gravity to rotate the entire creation.
Logic says about four types of Abhaava (absence):- 1. Praagabhaava means that which did not exist before its production. 2. Pradhvamsaabhaava means that which will not exist after destruction. 3. Anyonyaabhaava that which does not exist in a different item and vice versa. 4. Atyantaabhaava means that which never existed at any time. This creation has praagabhaava because it did not exist before its first production. This creation has no second type of absence because in destruction, it only goes from gross state to subtle state.
The creation has third type of absence because it exists based on God and God also exists in the creation as incarnation. The creation has no fourth type of absence because it exists forever after its production by God for the sake of His entertainment. The gross state is the film show and the subtle state is the film reel. The reel always exists after its generation because no fool destroys the reel after the first show and reconstructs it for the second show. The shape of the pot is always associated with the eternal existence of the mud and only a fool destroys the pot, which is useful to bring water.
[/quote]
You cannot get truth from fiction. If you think you have, you've found an apt metaphor in it for something you already knew. And truth About fiction, like what was intended or how the internal parts of the story relate, are self-referential and therefore pragmatically useless.
[b][color=#0040FF]God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?[/color][/b]
[i][Sri JSR Prasad asked: Sashtanga Pranamas Swami. In the Gita, God said that the creation is in Him and also not in Him (Matsthāni sarva bhūtāni…, na ca matsthāni bhūtāni). How to correlate this?][/i]
[b][color=#0040FF]Swami Replied: [/color][/b]The clarification is given in other verses like ‘bhūtabhṛt na ca bhūtasthaḥ’ (I am the possessor of the creation and not present in the creation.), ‘mayi sarvamidaṃ protam’ (all this creation is possessed by Me), na tvahaṃ teṣu te Mayi (I am not in the creation but the creation is on Me.) etc., reveal that God is the basic substratum (ādhāra). The shape of the pot is based ‘on’ the mud atoms whereas, the shape of the pot is not present ‘in’ the mud atoms. The creation is present ‘on’ God (aupashleshika saptamii vibhakti), but not ‘in’ God (abhivyaapaka saptamii vibhakti). The saptamii vibhakti (locative case) in Sanskrit means both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka).
I am possessing the shirt means that the shirt is ‘on’ me. I am possessing blood means that blood is ‘in’ me. Both these statements belong to the same locative case. If we take the locative case only, there is no difference between ‘on’ and ‘in’. Of course, it is clearly said that the locative case has both the separate meanings, which are both ‘on’ (aupashleshika) and ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka). In this locative case, another meaning is also said, which is ‘vaishayika’ (subject) and the example here is that I am a scholar ‘in’ grammar. But, this third meaning also is adjusted in the ‘in’ (abhivyaapaka) only as per English language.
When we take similes for the creator and the creation, people take mud and pot as a simile in which we have already told that pot is based ‘on’ mud particles (aupashleshika). If we take the simile of magician and magic, the creation or magic is based ‘on’ the magician since the magic is appearing outside the magician. Here also, ‘on’ (aupashleshika) is used in the verse Aham ātmā… sarvabhūtāśaya sthitaḥ. Here, God is said to be the basic substratum of the creation. The word ‘jalaashaya’ which means lake, tells us that the lake is the basic substratum of water (jala). The word Aatmaa is used for God because just as the soul is the basic substratum of the body maintained, God is the basic substratum of the creation. The word Aatmaa means that which is extending (atati). God extends as the basic substratum for this entire creation. The word Aatmaa need not be taken as soul only, but, in general, can be taken as any basic substratum that extends below the supported items.
God referred to in this context is the first mediated God called Iishwara or Naaraayana or Hiranyagarbha. Since medium has spatial dimensions, ‘in’ and ‘on’ are suitable for usage. But, if you take the unmediated, unimaginable God, He has no spatial dimensions and words like ‘in’ and ‘on’ have no meaning. In His case, we can only say that He is not affected or contaminated by the creation (asaṅgohyayaṃ puruṣaḥ- Samkhya). The reason is that the absolute reality of the creation is not inherent to the creation, but, the absolute reality of the unimaginable God (Parabrahman) is gifted to the creation by the unimaginable God Himself. Depending upon the nature of God and medium, we have to use the words like ‘on’ and ‘in’.
Even in worldly items, we have to follow this. For example, in the case of space, we can never use the word ‘on’ because space is not showing its boundaries. We can say that the air is ‘in’ space, but, space is not contaminated by air (Yathākāśagato nityam… Gita). Krishna says that He is sitting at the centre of the entire creation rotating the entire creation (īśvarassarva bhūtānām). The word ‘hṛddesśa’ means the centre of gravity which is the essential part for rotation. We say the essential meaning of the poet as ‘kavi hṛdaya’, which does not mean the physical heart of the poet. God told that He is extending Himself for the entire creation as the basic support (mayā tataimdam). God also told that He is ‘Aatmaa’, which means the basic support that is extending for the entire creation so that no part of the entire creation is leftover without the support (Ahamātmā…). The word ‘sarva bhūtāśaya sthitaḥ’ can be taken as 1. sarva bhūtāśaya stitaḥ which means that God is standing as the support, 2. The word ‘āśaya’ may be taken as the alternative of ‘hṛddeśa’ or centre of gravity to rotate the entire creation.
Logic says about four types of Abhaava (absence):- 1. Praagabhaava means that which did not exist before its production. 2. Pradhvamsaabhaava means that which will not exist after destruction. 3. Anyonyaabhaava that which does not exist in a different item and vice versa. 4. Atyantaabhaava means that which never existed at any time. This creation has praagabhaava because it did not exist before its first production. This creation has no second type of absence because in destruction, it only goes from gross state to subtle state.
The creation has third type of absence because it exists based on God and God also exists in the creation as incarnation. The creation has no fourth type of absence because it exists forever after its production by God for the sake of His entertainment. The gross state is the film show and the subtle state is the film reel. The reel always exists after its generation because no fool destroys the reel after the first show and reconstructs it for the second show. The shape of the pot is always associated with the eternal existence of the mud and only a fool destroys the pot, which is useful to bring water.
[/quote]
You cannot get truth from fiction. If you think you have, you've found an apt metaphor in it for something you already knew. And truth About fiction, like what was intended or how the internal parts of the story relate, are self-referential and therefore pragmatically useless.
Re: God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?
dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 4:15 am
[Sri JSR Prasad asked: Sashtanga Pranamas Swami. In the Gita, God said that the creation is in Him and also not in Him (Matsthāni sarva bhūtāni…, na ca matsthāni bhūtāni). How to correlate this?]
Swami Replied: Well, Sri JSR Prased, we all sometimes find ourselves in the position of simply not being able to make up our minds.
-
dattaswami
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am
Re: God said in the Gita that the creation is both in Him and not in Him. How to correlate this?
There are three statements in the Gita. i) The world is in Me, ii) I am not in the world and iii) The world is also not in Me (Matsthani sarva bhutani, na chaham teshvavasthitah, na cha matsthani bhutaani, nattvaham teshu te mayi...). God happens to be the unimaginable boundary of the imaginary world on all sides. [Example:] The area of the room is within the four walls. It is not beyond the four walls. It means it is in the control of the boundary wall. Though the area is within the boundary wall, it is not present inside the wall. The boundary wall is also not in the area of the room since the boundary wall is outside the room. [Another Example:] We say that an island is in the sea. It means that the island is surrounded by the sea on all sides like the boundary wall.Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:39 pm
You cannot get truth from fiction. If you think you have, you've found an apt metaphor in it for something you already knew. And truth About fiction, like what was intended or how the internal parts of the story relate, are self-referential and therefore pragmatically useless.
It does not mean that the sea is in the island. At the same time, when a sunk boat is immersed in the sea, we also say that the sunk boat is in the sea. The sea water is present in the sunk boat. In both cases, we have used the same type of sentence that the island or sunk boat is in the sea. There is similarity in the statement but there is difference in the situation since the sea water exists in the sunk boat and not in the island. Here, the universe is said to be in God like the island in the sea. The God is not in the world, which means that the sea water is not in the island. Hence, the case here is not the sunk boat. But, by the similarity of the construction of the sentence in both cases that both are in the sea, you may misunderstand that the island is in the sea like the sunk boat. In such case, it is negated by saying that the world is not in God like the sunk boat in the sea.
Neither the unimaginable God exists in the imaginable world to make the world also unimaginable nor does the imaginable world exists in unimaginable God to make God as imaginable. If God is in the world everywhere, the difference between good and bad becomes impossible. However, this does not mean that God cannot enter the world. As a general rule, God is not in the world. But, the omnipotent God can enter the world by entering a selected human being to make the human incarnation. The process of the entry is also unimaginable since the actions of God are also unimaginable.
The human incarnation remains imaginable in the external medium but becomes unimaginable in certain specific actions. Since God is not in any item of the world, every item of the world is rejected as God as said in the Veda (Neti Neti...). Every imaginable item in the world exhibits only imaginable characteristics due to absence of unimaginable God in it. At the same time, God enters the world through a selected specific human being to become human incarnation as said in the Veda (Tadevanu pravishat...) and this shows the omnipotency of God rejecting that He cannot enter the world. It is true that He did not enter the world. It is not true if you say that He cannot enter the world. The Veda says that He can enter any item in the world (Eeshaavaasyamidam...) and this statement is misunderstood as the statement meaning that He entered every item in the world. In this way, the contradiction in the statements of the Gita can be resolved.