VERSE NUMBER 12 OF SAMKHYA YOGA OR THE YOGA OF KNOWLEDGE

HOLY GITA

CHAPTER TWO, VERSE 12:

SAMKHYA YOGA OR THE YOGA OF KNOWLEDGE:

VERSE NUMBER 12:

Text in Transliteration:

na tv evaa ‘ham jaatu naa ‘sam na tvam ne ‘me janaadhipah

na chai ‘va na bhavishyaamah sarve vayam atah param

Text in English:

Nor I, nor you, nor any of these ruling princes was ever non-existent before; nor is it that we shall cease to be in the future.

COMMENTARY BY SHANKARA:

There was no time when I was not in existence. I am in existence always. My body might have had its existence and destruction. But I have been always in existence. Likewise, there was no time when you were not in existence. You have always been in existence. And there was no time when these kings were not in existence. They also have always been in existence. We shall always be in existence in the future. Our bodies might decay. But we shall always be in existence. We are in existence without decay in three times. In this verse, the term “we” only connotes that there are many bodies. That term does not mean there are many Atmans or souls. The next verse speak about the indestructibility of the Atman or Soul.

COMMENTARY BY RAMANUJA:

First you should know the nature of the Atman. I am the Ishwar and omnipotent. I am always in existence. There was no time when I was not there. I am always in existence. Those Atmans like you, who are subject to me, have always been in existence. There was no time you all were not in existence. You are always there. We are not going to exist in the future is a question that does never arise. We shall always be there. As there is no room for doubt that there would never be a time when I would not be there, so you all shall always be there in existence. Your Atmans also are eternal. From this, we can understand that there the difference between me, the omnipotent and other Atmans, and the difference between the human Atmans(like you and these kings. You are all individual Atmans or souls subject to my omnipotent power. This is put down by Sri Krishna in categorical terms. Arnjuna was ignorant of the fact that all are eternal. (This was purely due to his ignorance). To cure that ignorance, Sri Krishna uses terms like I , you, these (kings) and thereby he makes it clear that the eternity of the souls. According to the religion of Bhskara, the difference between the human souls rise because of a confusion called “upadhi” (the appearance that there are many human souls). But these differences as described by them are not there in truth. Sri Krishna teaches there are difference between human Atmans or Souls. This is borne out by 6-13 of Swethasvatara Upanishad, 5-13 of kadopanishad where it has been adumbrated that the Atman which exists always helps other souls realize their desires. This proves that there are many human souls and Sri Krishna helps them realize thie individual desires. The adhvaidhis argument(Shankara’s arguments) about human soul or Jeevaatman and the Universal Soul, the Paramatma are given rise to by the ignorance called “avidhyai”. There are no such differences like that. We shall see that now. Here Sri Krishna teaches about the differences between Atmans or Souls “Atmabedha”. He is God, so his knowledge should be the real one. So he does not have this confusion that is the result of flase knowledge. There is no chance for the ignorance which is the consequence of ignorance. If it could be said ignorance about different Atmans is the cause of the “Atmabedha” or the theory of differences between the human Atmans or Souls, he need not have given this advice to Arjuna since He is free from such ignorance. The next argument put forward by the “adhvaidha philosophers” or who advocate the Lord is the one soul in all human beings, is that when a cloth has burnt up the ash appears as a length of cloth indeed. Like this Krishna might have been subjected, in his early stages of development, to such confusion, and because of that confusion, like the burnt up ash, remained in him even after his high attainments, and so taught multiple of souls. This argument is unacceptable. For example the person who looks at the watery vapour at yonder would not try to drink it. Because he knows there is no water there. So a Krishna who has attained the adhvaidha state(there is but one soul) would not have become confused again and said there were many atmans or souls. Then how could he have taught adhvaidham saying there is but one Soul?

Here they, (the adhvaidhis) might argue Sri Krishna was without self-knowledge in the beginning, but after learning the Sastras or Scriptures, he got the knowledge that there were not many atmans but only one in all. This argument goes against smiritis and strutis. 1.1.9 of Muntagopanishad, 6.7 of Swethaswatra Upanishad and 7.26 of Srimat Bhagavat Gita will prove this.

They might argue that He might argue that there are many atmans even after knowing there is but only one. If that were the case from the time of Sri Krishna and today, who is teaching whom? (Is one and single atman teaches itself?) what is the answer for this? There is but one atman and the noting there are differences in the atmans cannot coexist.

Adhvaidhis give an argument as “pimba and pradhipimba” or “reflexion and substance”. This cannot be accepted. The teachers were teaching to their own reflexions? Like this, the adhvaidhis might argue that  Krishna taught to Arjuna as his own reflexion. This is not a proper argument. If a knowledgeable person who has understood that his own appearance only gets reflected in the form of a mirror, knife, a bell would teach to those reflections?

Next, in adhvaidha teaches that there is but one Atman or Soul. Once this knowledge gets deepened, other objects would like false. That is another kind of knowledge consequent on it. Even thereafter how could there be confusion about difference of atmans or souls?

For this the adhvaidhis give an argument that a person with cataract would see the moon as not one but two. But he has the knowledge that there is but one moon. He knows from his friend also that there is but one moon. Even so, since he finds the moon with his own eyes as two, he loses his real knowledge. Even if he suffers from such wrong notions there is no use for him. He can never, with any notions, say that there is but one moon. This is the argument of the adhvaidhis.

According to your argument, when one gets the real knowledge about the atmon or souls which is one and  not many , the wrong notion that there are many atmans or souls  would disappear. If this were the case, from the Lord down to the present teachers’s act of teaching will not be conducive to truth. Because, if they get the knowledge about the single atman or soul, the teaching would become incompatible with their knowledge that there is but one atman. You might say that this confusion continues, so they teach as the confusion is not cleared up completely. If that were the case, are they teaching without getting complete knowledge?

Is Lord Krishna an illusory being? If He is not like that but the real Being, once he gets His Brahma gnana or self-knowledge, all other beings would disappear. In which case, there will be no teaching, will there be?

In answer to this you might say Krishana is an illusory being, if that be so, this world cannot benefit from such an illusory person. The question that arises here is Arjuna who is taught by Krishna is a real being or not. If your answer is that Krishana is an illusory being, then Arjunan would get his self-knowledge, thereupon everyone would disappear( including Krishna). Will any guru or mentor conceive of a situation as this one? They would think if we teach this disciple, he will finish us off, and so no mentor would come forward to teach self-knowledge.

If your answer is that Arjunan is a genuine being, he would think his guru or mentor was created by himself. And Arjunan, who thinks his guru, Krishnan and the knowledge he taught were created by him, then Arjuna’s chance of getting taught by Krishna will become impossible. How can we hold that a person gets sefl-knowledge through a teacher created by him?

Thus these kind of unwarranted arguments are liable to be ignored like this.

COMMENTARY BY MADHVA:

“na tveva,” I have never been non-existent before- why should the Lord say this? The Lord is an eternal being. So these kind of lines are unwarranted. Even so, they have been used to given to give examples. As the Vedantis say I am an eternal being. Like that you are also an eternal being.

According to Swamy Sivananda, Lord Krishna speaks here of the immortality of the Soul or the imperishable nature of Self (Atma). The Soul exists in the three periods of time (past, present and future). Man continues to exist even after the death of the physical body. There is life beyond.

According to Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Shankara looks upon this reference to plurality as conventional. He argues that the plural number is used with reference to the bodies that are different and not with regard to the one Universal Self. Ramanuja lays stress on the distinction between Krishna, Arjuna and the princes as ultimate and holds that each individual soul is imperishable and coeval with the whole universe.

The reference here is not to the eternity of the Absolute Spirit but to the pre-existence and post-existence of the empirical egos. The plurality of egos is a fact of the empirical universe. Each individual is an ascent from initial non-existence to full existence. As a real, from asat to sat. While the saamkhya system postulates a plurality of souls, the Gita reconciles this with the unity, the one Ksetrajgna in whom we live, move and have our being. Brahman is the basis of all things and is not itself a thing. Brahman does not exist in time but time is in it. In this sense also, the egos have neither beginning nor end. Souls are like Brahman, for the cause and the effect are essentially one as the sayings, “I am Brahman,” “That art Thou” indicate. Cp. Suso: “All creatures have existed eternally in the Divine essence as in their exemplar. So far as they conform to the Divine idea, all beings were before their creation, one with the essence of God”

The personal Lord, the Divine Creator, is coeval with the empirical universe. In a sense He is the totality of empirical existences. “The Lord of the beings travel in the wombs. Though unborn he is born in many ways.” (Verse 31.19); see also 32. 4.

According to Swamy Chidbhvananda, bodies appear and siappear, nut not so the Atman which ever Is. A question may be raised as to how the Atman persists while the body perishes. The answer comes in the form of the next verse of the Gita.

Comments of the blogger:

It appeares very difficult to understand the two commentaries by Shankara and Ramanuja with our common notion of the Gita, and the job of reconciling one with the other seems an uphill task. From the point of view of the lay person it might sound extraneous to the Text.  To someone in a hurry it might seem as nitpicking. But highly philosophical would appreciate these two stand points. For the laymen it is not so easy. Here comes the help of commentaries by Swamy Sivananda and Dr.S.Radhakrishnan and Swamy Chidbhavananda. Because of the several philosophical standpoints, several version and sects Hinduism became necessary. Dr.S. Radhakrishnan has brought in the empirical universe, the Empirical God, and Personal God to reconcile the two kinds of arguments. And he succeeds to a great extent.              

Lord Krishna is a great reconciler. He has reconciled almost all the schisms and sectarian views of the Hindus. Bhagavat Gita is all about four kinds of yoga for four kinds of people. We will get to know about them at the appropriate time and context. And the very culture of India is the ancient masters have never flinched from any relevant question about creation and salvation. Everything about the Hinduism is there in the Bhagavat Gita. But this should not lead to any question about who is superior, Vishnu or Siva. That would be foolish. Both are embodied versions of the Universal Spirits. We can worship either or both with no problem what so ever. I am an ardent devotee of Lord Shiva, but have been in continuous touch with Sri Krishna’s Gitopanishad. Nothing is the matter in this. We can boldly prayed to one or both and derive great benefit. Manikkavasagar, the great Saivait Tamil Saint has structured his great work, THIRUVASAKAM according to the Bakhthi yoga of Gita! 

What we should understand in today’s context is that there is little point for schisms in Hinduism. We have first to safeguard our ancient way of life to the next generation. The souls are immortal. This is true irrespective of religions. Then how could we afford to indulge in controversies. Both the Saivaits and Vaishnavaits should have deep respect for each others way of worship. We have to reclaim Hinduism, first for the benefit of India, then for the larger benefit of the world. Our people must be educated and sent to all the countries. Wherever they are the Hindus have succeeded to maintain their unique identity, while, at the same time, working to the best of their ability to the betterment of their surrogate mother country. We need not send Hindu Swamies  and saints to the foreign countries. The world is filled less with young people. The Hindus must go across the oceans both for finding employment opportunities and live and lead their lives as per our Scriptures. By that we can change the mindset of the worlds’ peoples. We only can reclaim the world. One Michael Anderson created havoc in Bhopal. For that puny little person the then American President flexed his authoritative muscles. But it is the Hindus who can save the world. We should find our religious feet first and then spread throughout the world so that the world could be saved from total annihilation. But this does not mean we should behave and speak like some motor mouths in the BJP, both inside and outside the cabinet. They only bring discredit to their party, besides the Hinduism.   

Both the Christianity and Mohammedanism have failed to make a great change in the respective people’s minds in the foreign countries. By contrast, the Indian Christians and Indian Muslims are leading a better religious lives because of our millennial tradition. The Indian Christians go to churche regularly and the Sunday Mass is a very religious one for our Christian brethren. The sabbatical day is not a joke for them. And the Indian Muslims follow the Holy Quran in the way it should be. They harbour no ill-will toward other religious people. But the same is not the case with the people where the Christianity and Mohammedanism were first founded! And the Sufism is like the Krishna bhakti cult. They find in the Allah the Great in everything and everyone like their Hindu brethren! And that is why they face much hardship from the fundamentalists.

Both Christianity and the Mohammedanism have failed to rise up to the occasion, and could not adapt to the changing world, and the modern science have wrecked the religious belief of the Christians outside India.

But the irony is we Hindus in India are fast loosing out to the highly materialistic European and Western cultures. This poses a great challenge. Our youths have little belief in the Hindu rites. They are armed with modern knowledge about science and techno gadgets. They have little faith in our age-old rites and religious way of simple and happy life. All the Hindu holy days and festivels are celebrated in front of the idiot box, the TV. And we are highly superstitious. That also was a phenomenon that is just one or two thousand years old. The Vedic saints had little superstition. They fully understood the elements, the universe and the Brahman. They had no schisms. When they came to south India they hugged and embraced the age old culture prevailing here. They accepted the Linga Rupam of the Universal God. And this came to be assimilated with the Rig-Vedic Rudra and Paramasivam was born! This does not mean, Lord Siva was a creation of Man. But we started to worship the Universal Spirit, as has been adumbrated in the Hindu, Christian and Mohammedan Scriptures with the form of Lord Shiva. Man never created God. Man only discovered God. But we invented many superstitious beliefs later. Against the tyranny of which rose Gautama, the Buddha.

Today, both the Holy Bible and Holy Quran have failed to adapt themselves with the changing of the time and science. Muslim Clerics have become more and more fundamentalist. And the Christian Clerics, right from the Pope are busy fighting against child sexual abuse and other such practices among their own priestly brethren in various European countries. Millions of dollars are sent to the Hindu India to change the vulnerable to Christianity. The secular India is fast loosing its religious foothold. Most of us have lost the touch with our ancient culture. That alone is the panacea to save this highly materialistic world.

Individual souls are eternal and have always been in the three periods of time. We have the God within us. It is only a matter of realization of our Self. For which the Gits shows four paths. Krishna is a great reconciler. He has reconciled almost all sects and beliefs of the Hindus. Both Saivaits and Vaisnavites should read each others Scripture, while scrupulously worshipping their personal God.

But for Shankara the Hinduism would have been lost. He commentated on all the Hindu Scriptures. He did not found any sect or religion. And Ramanuja’s viewpoints, so for as this verse is concerened, is acceptable to the Saivaits, too. They also hold the view that the individual soul existed in the beginning and then became ego-bound which caused them to become embodied; that their very nature is eternal. They either depend upon the material world and Nature or on the Creator. The former is the Pasu, and the Creator is Pathi. The soul continues to have its identity even after self-knowledge, according to the PASU , PATHI , PASAM philosophy.