Relevance of the Bhagavadgita to Humanity : 25-2.Swami Krishnananda.

 =======================================================================

========================================================================

Sunday, September 04, 2022. 08:00.
Chapter 25: The Lower Self and the Higher Self-2.

========================================================================

It is possible for the soul to be everywhere and yet be independent in some way, like mirrors reflected one in the other, placed one in front of the other, and so on. Such illustrations are provided. God can be near us. We need not necessarily be wandering in the kingdom of God freely as an enjoyer of salokya. We can also have some samipya. We can be near God, in the same cabinet of God, as it were, or in His own palace or in his own Vaikuntha, in his own Kailasha, in his own Manideepa – whatever our concept of the great Master, the Divine Being, is. We can daily have darshan of God, not merely be moving in the kingdom. That is samipya. That is one kind of salvation because there is no bondage. We are near God. But greater freedom is sarupya, to be like God Himself, as if we are dressed like God, we have all the forms of God, and we look like God. It is said that in Vaikuntha Jaya, Vijaya, Pashudan, all look like Mahavishnu with shankha, chakra, gada, padma in their hands. We cannot know who is Vishnu and who is a Pashudan. But another concept of salvation is that non-separability from God's existence. It is savidya mukti.

Theologians view interesting illustrations of the possibility of salvation in this manner. If sesame seeds and rice grains are mixed together, there is a mix-up, a communion of sesame seeds with rice grains. One quintal of rice grains and one quintal of sesame seeds mixed up and shaken seem to have communion, one with the other. They become one, and we cannot separate one from the other. This sort of moksha is sometimes countenanced by thinkers such as the followers of the Madhva school. But yet we are independent. A grain of rice is not the same as a sesame seed. They can never become one or unite.

Or there can be a closer communion such as milk and water, which is not as markedly different as sesame and rice. We cannot distinguish one from the other, yet milk can never become water. They are two different things. Under given conditions the water can be separated from milk. So even in an apparent communion, there is a distinction. But if water is mixed with water, or milk with milk, that is real communion.

What is the position of the Self when it is bound, when it is on the path to freedom, and when it is liberated? One status of the soul is in bondage, another status is when it is striving to get liberated, and a third status is when it is totally free. The Bhagavadgita does not enter into these scholastic disquotations or metaphysical arguments on the nature of Self. The Bhagavadgita is a practical instruction. It is a teaching on the way of actual living in this world. But it is not unconscious of these difficulties that may arise in the notion of the Self. The Bhagavadgita is conscious of the possibility of these divergent notions that can associate themselves in respect of the nature of Truth, Reality. And it appears to me, at least, that the Bhagavadgita has, notwithstanding its awareness of these possible differences, succeeded in bringing a rapprochement of all these thoughts, and all these things that have been told seem to have a little grain of truth in them, though they do not tell the entire truth.

It is true that there is some point in opinions held in this manner. They are not entirely out of point. They are not one-hundred-percent falsehood. But they are truths of a particular category. The Bhagavadgita accepts that there are categories of fact, and when we come to the issue now in this verse in the Sixth Chapter of the Bhagavadgita, we are to consider the status of the Self.

The Self is called the Atman. The Atman, which is the Self, is the friend of the self. The self has to be raised by the Self. The self has to be expanded by the Self. The self has to be improved by the Self. The self has to obey the Self. And the self should not be deprecated; it should not be cast into any mood of despondency. The Self is the friend of the self; the Self is also the enemy of the self. It appears in this little verse that all the philosophies are pressed into a concentrated focus. We can take any idea of the Self as we would like because some notion of the Self is at the back of these statements, namely, that the self has to be raised by the Self, that it should not be trampled down, that it is its own friend, and that it is also its own enemy. It is the friend when it is conquered. It is the enemy when it is opposed.

How is it possible to oppose the Self? How is it possible to be a friend of the Self? Where comes the question of raising the self by the Self, and what is actually the meaning of deprecating, trodding down, disregarding or resenting the self? These questions cannot be answered if we have one stereotype notion of the Self. That is why I feel that the Bhagavadgita has here in its mind all the types of notion of the Self. All are valid because each person, each one of us, is one kind of self. None of us is identical in the concept of Self, or even in the living of it in practical life.

To be continued ...

=======================================================================