It seems to me, as though, there is a fine thread of commonality running through the four verses 4.24; 6.29; 9.4 and 9.5 of Bhagavad-Gita, coming from the Chapters titled respectively, jnAnakarmasamnyAsayoga, dhyAnayoga and rAjavidyArAjaguhyayoga.
The verses are:
ब्रह्मार्पणं ब्रह्म हविर्ब्रह्माग्नौ ब्रह्मणा हुतम् ।
ब्रह्मैव तेन गन्तव्यं ब्रह्मकर्मसमाधिना ॥ — 4.24, BG.
Meaning: The ladle is brahman, the oblation is brahman, the offering is poured by brahman in the fire of brahman. brahman alone is to be reached by him who has concentration on brahman as the objective.
सर्वभूतस्थमात्मानं सर्वभूतानि चात्मनि ।
ईक्षते योगयुक्तात्मा सर्वत्र समदर्शनः ॥ — 6.29, BG.
Meaning: One who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, and who has the vision of sameness everywhere, sees his Self existing in everything, and everything in his Self.
मया ततमिदं सर्वं जगतदव्यक्तमूर्तिना ।
मत्स्थानि सर्वभूतानि न चाहं तेष्ववस्थितः ॥ — 9.4, BG,
Meaning: This whole world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest form. All beings exist in Me, but | am not contained in them!
न च मत्स्थानि भूतानि पश्य मे योगमैश्वरम् ।
भूतभृन्न च भूतस्थो ममात्मा भूतभावनः ॥ — 9.5, BG.
Meaning: Nor do the beings dwell in Me. Behold My divine Yoga! I am the sustainer and originator of beings, but My Self is not contained in the beings.
- All the verses talk about the post-Gnosis situation.
- 4.24 speaks from the perspective of the body which “notionally” functioned as the vehicle for the now-reliazed individual; and from the perspective ‘karma’ (action)!
- 6.29 speaks from the perspective of the mind (+ senses) which “notionally” functioned as the reins (mind) and horses (senses) for the now-reliazed individual; and from the perspective dhyAna (meditation);
- 9.4-5 speak from the perspective of the Non-dual message (a “Remembrancer”) which “notionally” functioned as the ‘ignition’ for the now-reliazed individual; and from the perspective of jnAna(‘Knowledge’).
- Actually NONE of the verses refer to or speak about the ‘individual.’
— The first (at 4.24, BG) talks about the actions of the physical body left in the world (like the slough which is shed by a snake, the snake itself having slid away – vide 1.4.7, BUB!);
— The second (at 6.29, BG) talks about the mind that is also a left over;
— The third and fourth (9.4-5, BG) are about the piece of “info” that ignited ‘detachment’ and destroyed itself at the end.
The Rationale Behind The Analogies:
The comparison of the body to the vehicle and senses+mind to horses and reins, is well-known. It flows from 1.3.3-4, kaTha U. (please see the figure at the top left of the Blog Post).
The concept of “Reminder” comes from 1.4.10, BUB (jnApakam hi shAstram – shruti is only a “Remembrancer”).
The idea of an “individual” (jIva). i.e., as a finite cognizer, emanates from adhyAsa bhAShya.
— Its nature is to think, “I am a finite separate entity; I am not All.”
— It gets engendered through mutual superimposition of the Real and unreal (satyAnRte mithunI kRtya).
— It may be (just for ease of understanding) thought of as a ‘peculiar’ combo of certain series of insentient elements (see adhyAsa bhAShya) and a spark of Sentience shining through them.
Reflection on the verses (mananaM):
As observed by Shri Prasanth Neti Ji elsewhere, “appreciating adhyāropa-apavāda framework of Vedānta teaching which culminates in ajātavāda is a must for assimilating the gist of these verses and Shankara bhAShya there on.
It is clear from bhAShya of 9.4 that “seeing Self in all” as taught at 6.29, BG, if misunderstood in a way which implies a limitation / containment to Self because being within/inside all, there is a danger of taking Self to be contained within a “form.” Then such a misunderstanding must be given up based on teaching of 9.4, BG where the Lord says, “I am not in them” (न च अहं तेषु अवस्थितः).
With adhyāropa-apavāda nyāya applied from 6.29 where the Lord says “All beings in Self and Self in all beings” and 9.4 where the Lord again says, “They are in Me but I am not in them,” and finally at 9.5 when it is declared, “The beings do not dwell in Me,” what ultimately these verses together convey as ‘a gradual unfoldment’ of teaching is:
“I alone exist without a second, and therefore, no relation whatsoever between I and them is possible at all !!!”
The culmination is clearly into ajAtavada where nothing is created to start with, let alone the question of whether Self is in the created objects or vice versa.
From the dictum that the shAstra must always be assimilated in an apavāda-pradhāna way, we can conclude that 9.5 is undoubtedly the highest (apavāda) teaching among 6.29, 9.4, 9.5.
The Appearance of a world post-jnAna:
Finally, regarding the question whether the world continues to be seen by the jñāni, there is no confusion to be entertained and the verdict is clear as exemplified beautifully by Shri Bellamkonds Rāmarāya kavi in his book, bhAShyArka prakAsikA, at 9.5, BG with the following verses from nādabindu Upanishad from Rg Veda:
अज्ञानं चेति वेदान्तैस्तस्मिन्नष्टे क्व विश्वता ।
यथा रज्जुं परित्यज्य सर्पं गृह्णाति वै भ्रमात् ॥ — 26.
तद्वत्सत्यमविज्ञाय जगत्पश्यति मूढधीः ।
रज्जुखण्डे परिज्ञाते सर्परूपं न तिष्ठति ॥ — 27.
अधिष्ठाने तथा ज्ञाते प्रपञ्चे शून्यतां गते ।
देहस्यापि प्रपञ्चत्वात्प्रारब्धावस्थितिः कृतः ॥ — 28.
अज्ञानजनबोधार्थं प्रारब्धमिति चोच्यते । — 29.
Translation: When what is called ignorance (ajñāna) by Vedānta is destroyed, where is the world (viśvataḥ)?
Just as, due to delusion, one abandons the rope and grasps it as a snake, in the same way, not realizing the Truth, a deluded mind perceives the world.
When the rope is recognised as a rope, the snake-form no longer remains;
Likewise, when the substratum (Self) is known, the universe is seen as void (ceases to exist!).
Since even the body is part of this universe, how can there be persistence of prārabdha (karma)?
It is only said that prārabdha exists to explain (things) for those still in ignorance.”
In case a lingering doubt haunts the inquirer about how the body survives on its own till its shelf-life is expended (with no claimant of ‘ownership’ to it and the successful ‘seeker’ being totally detached to it), one should recall that the pancabhUtAtmika deha (the aggregate constituted by the five fundamental elements) is, after all, a part of the world and no different from any other insentient object in the world. Further, Bhagavan Krishna teaches us at the following verses:
प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः ।
अहङ्कारविमूढात्मा कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ॥ — 3.27, BG.
Meaning: While actions are being done in every way by the guNa-s (qualities) of Nature, one who is deluded by egoism thinks, ‘I am the doer.’
तत्त्ववित्तु महाबाहो गुणकर्मविभागयोः ।
गुणा गुणेषु वर्तन्त इति मत्वा न सज्जते ॥ — 3.28, BG.
Meaning: O Mighty-armed One, the one who is a knower of the truth about the varieties of the guNa-s (qualities) and actions does not become attached, thinking thus: ‘The organs rest (act) on the objects of the organs.’
प्रकृतेर्गुणसंमूढाः सज्जन्ते गुणकर्मसु । — 3.29, BG
Meaning: Those who are wholly deluded by the guNa-s of Nature become attached to the activities of the guNa-s.
ईश्वरः सर्वभूतानां हृद्देशेऽर्जुन तिष्ठति ।
भ्रामयन्सर्वभूतानि यन्त्रारूढानि मायया ॥ — 18.61, BG.
Meaning: O Arjuna, Ishwara resides in the heart of all creatures, revolving through mAyA all the creatures (as though) mounted on a machine!
[Note: The translations of all the BG verses are taken from Swami Gambhirananda’s work.]
Some quotes relevant to the absence of the world for a Knower:
• “In the recognition that there is no second thing, duality resolves” – jnate dvaitam no vidyate GK 1.18
• “That it ·does not’ see in that ·state is because, although seeing then It does not see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is immortal. But there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see. BrU4.3.23
• (Resolution): We explain (ucyate) (listen). He who does not have (being w/o that anupapattau) any identification such as ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (ahaṃ mama abhimāna rahita) in the body, senses etc., cannot be a knower (pramātṛ). Thus, it is incongruous to say the means of knowledge (pramāṇa) such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) function in him (who is not a pramātṛ). That is, without the assumption of senses (indriya-s) there could not be any pramāṇa-pramēya vyavahāra since the senses cannot transact without their substratum (adhiṣṭhāna, the body). In addition, without superimposing a notion of Self (anadhyasta ātmabhāva) on the body, one could not be doing any action. Moreover, without a knower (pramātṛ) the pramāṇa-s do not function. Therefore, the means of knowledge such as direct observation and others (pratyakṣādī) are objects of the ignorant. Adhyasa Bhasya
• It is like this. As a man embraced by a woman he loves is oblivious to everything within or without, so this person embraced by the self (Atman) consisting of knowledge is oblivious to everything within or without (BU 4.3.21)
• “’0 good looking one, in the beginning this was Existence alone, One only, without a second.” ChU 6.2.1
• Bhasya: “Vediintin: No. Since the instruction of oneness is given by saying ‘Thou art That’, there is no scope for the difference between the basis and the thing supported, and similarly, there can be no scope of any vision with regard to oneself, since it has been ascertained in the sixth chapter that Truth is one Existence, without a second; and also in Upani~adic texts like: , … established in this unperceivable, bodiless … Brahman’ (Tai. II.7.1); ‘His form does not exist within the range of vision’ (Ka.11.3.9); ‘Through what, 0 Maitreyi, should one know the knower?’ (Br. 11.4.14). … The idea is that this (finitude) exists during the period of ignorance. It is like a thing seen in a dream, which exists only during that period, before waking. Chbh7.24.1”
• “He goes from death to death who sees any difference here.” KaU 2.1.10
• And this name and form are merely imagined in the Absolute, like day and night in the sun. From the standpoint of the highest truth, they do not exist.”Tait Bh 2.8
• Neither from itself nor from something else is anything born. Neither an existent nor a non-existent … is born. GK 4.22
• This is to be attained through the mind indeed. There is no diversity here whatsoever. He who sees as though there is difference here, goes from death to death. Ka 2.1.11
• “Through the mind alone (It) is to be realised. There is no difference whatsoever in It. He goes from death to death, who sees difference, as it were, in It.” Br 4.4.19
• This duality existing of the knower and the knowable is only the vibration of the citta. …GK4.72
• … But there is no duality there GK4.75
• Because the Imperishable is unmanifest, He is not accessible to words and cannot therefore be defined. He is unmanifest, not manifest to any of the organs of knowledge.” (BGbh 12 3)
• It is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does not know to whom it is known. It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know. Ke 2.3.
• But in a context where the unconditioned Self is one, there can neither be knowing by oneself not by another. Kebh2.4
• “For when there is duality, as it were, then one… knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one …know and through what? “Br2.4.14
Not so, for that is possible before enlightenment like the behaviour in a dream before awakening. The scripture also speaks of the use of perception etc. in the case of the unenlightened man in the text, “Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something” (Br. II. iv. 14, IV. v. 15); and then it shows the absence of this in the case of an enlightened man, “But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what?” (ibid) etc. BSbh4.3.14
• “The cessation of Ignorance is in fact the Absolute and that alone. For the Absolute is that in which Ignorance is in eternal ‘cessation’ ” SSSS, HoSS p141
• “Whether it is in the waking or in the dream or in the deep
sleep – everywhere this Turya alone exists ; when we observe
(Intuit) from the Paramartha Drishti, apart from the Chaitanya
of this Turyatman there do not exist these A vasthas like
waking, dream etc. at all ; just as in the waking the sea-shell
or nacre itself appears in the form of silver, this Chaitanya Itself
appears in the distinctive fonns of Pramatru, Pramat:la and Prameya
indeed. Tllerefore, even the ‘Pramatru Rupa’ (fonn of cognizership)
which is cognizing everything in that A vastha (i.e. waking) is,
in truth, a reflection (Abhasa) alone of this Tunyatma or Chaitanya.
Why say more? Even what we call ‘Jagrat Avastha:’ is also the
Abhasa only of this Chaitanya ; there does not at all exist any
Jagrat Avastha apart from Turlyatmatattwa ; similarly, apart from
Turyatman neither there exists whatsoever Svapnavastha nor the
reflection of the world comprising Pramatru, PramaQ.a etc. because
of the mental projections which appear within that Avastha ;
whatever appears to exist therein is verily an Abhasa (reflection),
false appearance of this Turyatma Chaitanya.” SSSS Essential Gaudapada p71
• Nanu: The pramanas must be invalid since they since they give knowledge about objects that are unreal. Thus instruction itself loses its point in that it cannot lead to truth or liberation.
Sankara’s reply: yes, it is quite true the pramanas are no less mithya than are the objects they propose to reveal however they may “produce” something real no less than death from a fancied snakebite. But, it is further argued, death is as unreal as its cause and we are looking for a real effect out of an unreal cause. BS bh 2.1.14
Thank you, Shri Michael Ji for the long list of Shruti and Shankara bhAShya citations re: “the absence of the world for a Knower.”
regards,
Just for the record (in case any readers are waiting for me to respond to some of these points):
I am not going to comment. We debated this topic “ad nauseam” a couple of years ago. (Quotation marks because I have used this phrase before!)
My book ‘Confusions in Advaita Vedanta: Ignorance and its removal’ is due out before the end of the year. In it, I address all of the aspects surrounding the question of what happens to the ‘person’ on gaining enlightenment, and what happens to the world. I looked at all of the most seemingly persuasive arguments and quotations made by scriptures and commentaries suggesting that the world disappears, including all of those provided by Ramesam and Venkat. I explained why the misunderstandings might arise and how to correct them. I provided quotations from scriptures and commentaries to support my contentions. Overall, I devoted some 25,000+ words to this topic.
As soon as the book can actually be ordered, I will list the contents addressing the issues and provide some extracts.