BGita 9.4 The entire creation is pervaded by Me and My form cannot be objectified. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
BGita 9.5 And beings are not in Me. Look at My higher nature. I am the Sustainer of beings, bringing them forth and not dependent on beings.
Q: I have been mulling over “ i am in them, i am not in them……” for a while.
Brahman as form is speaking through Ishvara “ I am in them, they are in me”
But Brahman is not an object. It is so much everywhere that it can’t be reduced to a thing within itself. Likewise not a thing can penetrate “it”, hence “i am not in them, they are not in me”
As a human being with a brain and intellectual faculties, i can know both those affirmations. What is in between these two states of understanding? Ishvara (Brahman with Maya). I blame Maya 😀 it carries Karma. Dharma is order, order is love. Karma equals sinning against Dharma. Love is not a thing.
Brahman as form is speaking through Ishvara …
We need to be clear about Brahman and Ishvara. Yes, there is a connection, a ‘relationship’, but there is also a difference, not exactly the same. Which name is used depends on the context. Spend some time thinking about this distinction between Brahman and Ishvara.
Brahman never takes form, always remains formless, never moves, never changes, never associated with matter, cannot be experienced, has no features like all-pervading, omniscient. Brahman is not a form and does not speak. Nothing happens with Brahman. Brahman is always Brahman only, nothing else. Nothing can be said about Brahman other than “is” and “know”, Sat and Cit.
Note, it is Ishvara, not Brahman, that ‘speaks’: “I am in them; they are in Me. I am not in them; they are not in Me.” It is Ishvara, not Brahman, which appears as the universe with all the laws, energies, forces, principles, powers, matter. It is Ishvara, not Brahman, that moves, becomes objects, takes form, is associated with matter, has qualities, powers, governs, is the order in the universe.
Yes, Ishvara is Brahman with active Maya. Even so, Brahman always remains Brahman, unassociated, as described above. Hence, Brahman can be considered to be ‘beyond’ Ishvara!
For example, a person with the larynx … when silent, he/she is person. With an activated larynx, person is now called ‘speaker’. But person still continues as person. Only a name change is made into ‘speaker’. But the speaker is always only person. Even though person and speaker are connected, are related, the person always remains person only, silent. Only the speaker, not person, produces sound.
So too, with Brahman. The equivalent to ‘person’ is Brahman. The equivalent to ‘speaker’ is Ishvara. The equivalent to larynx is Maya. The sound produced is equivalent to manifestation. Just as there is a subtle distinction between person and speaker, there is a subtle distinction between Brahman and Ishvara.
Ishvara is the name used whenever we discuss manifestation, form, movement, pervading matter, association with matter. Manifestation happens through Maya. If the name Brahman is used as the Source of the universe, what is implied, really meant, is Ishvara. Anything to do with the world, ‘them’, forms and matter … use Ishvara, not Brahman.
Conclusion: Brahman excludes form. Brahman is never as form. Brahman is not speaking through Ishvara. It is only Ishvara which speaks.
Since Ishvara is the source of matter and forms, ie. pervades matter and forms, it is Ishvara which says from Ishvara’s own viewpoint: “I (Ishvara) am in them (forms).”
From the viewpoint of matter, forms, ie. when Ishvara speaks about matter and forms, Ishvara says: “They are in Me” since Ishvara pervades them.
But Brahman is not an object. Correct.
Why is Brahman not an object? Ishvara can be appreciated as manifested forms, ie. objects. We cognitively appreciate those objects to be Ishvara manifested. The universe, the world, is not Brahman manifested, only Ishvara manifested. Brahman never manifests and so can never be an object. Brahman is nirgunam, ie. without qualities nor features because Brahman is beyond matter. Thus, Brahman cannot be made into an object, cannot be objectified.
Ishvara is sagunam, with qualities, features and manifests as all kinds of objects, eg. visible-invisible, moving-unmoving, etc. Nothing can be said about nirgunam Brahman. The only statement: Brahman IS. That is why the only terms applicable to Brahman are: Be-ingness, Know-ingness … pure Beingness, unconditioned Awareness. Anything to do with objects and forms with qualities, features, relates to Ishvara, not Brahman.
It is so much everywhere … By ‘it’ you mean Brahman.
The word ‘everywhere’ implies space which is part of manifestation, ie. related to Ishvara. So, Ishvara is so much everywhere, not Brahman. It is like space and air (BGita 9.6). Space is like the container and air is like the contained. Similarly, you could think of Brahman, like space, as a vast container while Ishvara, like air, as the contained. This means Ishvara is ‘less than’ Brahman or Brahman is ‘more than’ Ishvara … in a manner of speaking. There is a subtle distinction between Brahman and Ishvara.
it can’t be reduced to a thing within itself … By ‘it’ you mean Brahman.
This phrase applies to Ishvara. Ishvara is vast, more vast than the universe. Ishvara pervades everything, everywhere. True, Ishvara cannot be reduced to, not limited to one thing. Ishvara is everything in the universe and “can’t be reduced to a thing within itself”. The phrase which can be added to ‘within itself’ is … “nor outside itself”.
Likewise not a thing can penetrate “it”
Why use the word ‘penetrate’? It implies two separate things, one ‘penetrating’ the other. The word used with Ishvara is ‘pervade’, ie. present in and also present beyond.
Present in is ‘immanent’; Ishvara is present concurrently with the form and within that form, pervading it, enlivening it. They are present together. The form cannot exist without Ishvara, like ring cannot exist without gold. It is in this context of immanence, ie. pervasion and presence with the form, that the phrases which applies are … “I am in them; they are in Me.”
Present beyond is ‘transcendent’. Ishvara is also more than, other than, distinct from, beyond, separate from all forms. It is in this context of transcendence that the phrases which apply are … “I am not in them; they are not in Me.”
What is in between these two states of understanding?
The answer is the reply in the first paragraph … We need to be clear about the distinction between Brahman and Ishvara.
Summary
If there is difficulty in differentiating Brahman and Ishvara, it is better to stay with Ishvara for the time being. Use only Ishvara for v9.4 and 9.5. Please also see the attached doc on “Growth in Spiritual Maturity”.
As stated by Swamiji, these verses 9.4 and 9.5 have caused much confusion, even for commentators of the BGita. Be with what you understand so far and work towards a fuller understanding of the subtle difference between Brahman and Ishvara.
This discussion also brings up the topic of trust, shraddha. It is not blindly accepting whatever is said. Because we begin from a position of ignorance, it is helpful to have some trust in the scriptures and teaching. The scriptures want to help and liberate us. They are trustworthy and are proven to be so over millenia.
Some topics require more trust than logic and the distinction between Brahman and Ishvara is one such topic. For example, students initially need trust when the science teacher in class says that the water they drink is actually two gases. Similarly, have trust until you can verify for yourself that what is shared as the distinction between Brahman and Ishvara is accurate and true. Once you know and are clear, you do not need trust. In the lab, the science teacher demonstrates how water is two gases; now the students do not need trust because their trust has been verified. It is the same here.
Other topics require more logic than trust, for example the Law of Karma. For such topics, the mind can be used with a small amount of trust because such matters can be confirmed through logic and experience.
Know when to trust more and when to use the mind more. Such is the nature of enquiry. Until then, because of ignorance, trust and give the benefit of any doubt to scripture and the teaching until the problem is clarified by yourself, for yourself.
