Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

One of the beliefs that does come out of these passages and which is very much in line with Biblical/ Quranic belief system, is the distinction between the body and the soul. Atheists of course, don’t believe in any "soul", but that is easily addressed, and to me it appears to be more a question of words. We need to be careful not to get trapped by words. If there is no soul separate from the body, then how come there is a vast difference one second before death and one second after death? The physical parts are the same, the material composition of the body is the same, even right down to the atomic level! One second before death, and one second after death, physically the body is the same. Yet something vital has happened; something vital has "left" the body. That something vital, which makes all the difference to the body, is the soul. That something vital, which was the "life" of the body and which was distinct from the body (though closely connected) has left; and the body now is only a physical collection of atoms and will only decay and disintegrate from here. No atheist can deny the elementary truth about this fact. He may use different words do describe the phenomenon of what happens at death if he is uncomfortable with the word "soul", but we need to be careful not to get trapped by words. The non-material part of a living being which gets separated from the material body at death-point, is what is meant when the word "soul" is used. And if any atheist holds that there is no such non-material part, he has to wake up to the elementary observations about life. From here we proceed with the belief that there is a soul that is separate from the material body. It may be very closely connected with the material body while the living being is alive, but this link breaks at death-point.

The second belief that also come out of this passage and which is very much in line with Biblical/ Quranic belief system, is that this soul cannot be destroyed. Now there are two meanings of the word "destroyed" and we need to be aware of both, since all three, the Geeta, the Bible and the Quran uses both the meanings of the word for the soul! For example, on the one hand the Geeta says that the soul cannot be destroyed in 2:17-21, "Know that the indestructible is that which pervades all this. Destruction of the imperishable no one is able to achieve. That which has an end are the bodies of the eternal; the embodied soul is indestructible and eternal. Therefore, fight, descendant of Bharata. Those who know him to be the killer and those who think him to be the killed, both of them are not in knowledge, for he neither kills nor is killed. He is not born, nor does he die. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not killed when the body is killed. He who knows that indestructible and eternal is this unborn and imperishable soul, how can he, Partha, kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?" Yet in 2:63, it says that "From anger arises delusion, from delusion bewilderment of memory, from a bewildered memory destruction of the intellect, with a destroyed intellect, he perishes." And in 16:21 it says that "Three kinds of gates are there of this hell, by which the self is destroyed - sense gratification, anger, and greed - therefore these three, give up." Similarly in the Bible, "eternal" is the adjective used to describe both heaven and hell as seen before. Yet there are enough passages that talk of the soul being able to be "destroyed":

How can this be? How can the Geeta and the Bible say at the same time both that the soul "cannot be destroyed" and the soul "can be destroyed"? Answer: with different meanings for the word "destroyed." When they say that the soul "cannot be destroyed," what is meant is that the soul "cannot be annihilated." And when they say that the soul "can be destroyed", they mean that the soul can be ruined i.e. come to such a horrible state that living becomes terrible! We also use the word "destroyed" with the same two meanings in our day-to-day conversations where the meaning is obvious from the context. Thus when we say that "the flame was destroyed," we mean that "the flame was annihilated" or "no trace of the flame was left." And when we say that "his life was destroyed by alcohol," we mean that "although he remained alive, because of his uncontrolled consumption of alcohol, his life became so bad that living became terrible." So when the Bible, the Quran and the Geeta say that the soul cannot be destroyed, they mean that the soul cannot be annihilated. And when the Bible and the Quran say that the soul will be destroyed in hell, they mean that the soul will find living extremely horrible. And when the Geeta says in 2:63 that "with a destroyed intellect, he perishes" it means that when the ability to distinguish between good and bad, right and wrong etc. is ruined, living becomes terrible for the person.

The third belief that is in line with the Bible and the Quran as can be seen from the table above when we speak in general terms, is that a righteous kind of life leads to a better state after death, and a sinful kind of life leads to a worse state after death. So it’s the kind of life you live that matters, not the belief you hold as to what happens after death. Both Jesus and Krishna have given adequate warnings that merely holding a particular set of beliefs, or even taking their names continuously by your lips, is not going to get you into any better state after death! Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-27, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash." And Krishna describes his ideal devotee in Chapter 12, verses 13 to 19 as follows: "Non-envious of all living entities, friendly, sympathetic, and without a feeling of 'mine', without ego, same in distress and happiness, forgiving, contented, a person constantly united, self-controlled, firmly determined, offering unto me the mind and the intellect, who is my devotee, that person is dear to me. Because of whom no one is agitated, nor who is agitated by others, who is free from happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, he is dear to me. Neutral, pure, on guard, free from care, removed from distress, who has renounced all endeavors, that devotee of mine is dear to me. Who neither rejoices nor grieves, neither has aversion nor desire, who has renounced auspicious and inauspicious things, who is full of devotion, he is dear to me. Equal to an enemy and to a friend, and also in honor and dishonor, in cold and hot, in happiness and in sorrows, free from attachment. equal in defamation and praise, silent in both, contented with anything, having no residence, of steady opinion, full of devotion, is dear to me." And all this in the chapter titled "Bhakti Yoga"! Where here is any description of the ideal devotee as a person tom-tomming his beliefs and making a general nuisance of himself? I wish that many of those who tout themselves as devotees of Jesus and Krishna would measure themselves by these words with some objectivity! They would find themselves sorely wanting on many counts, and in for a horrible surprise after death!

Now let’s take the verses under consideration, verses 11 to 30 of chapter 2, in detail one by one.

Verse 11 kicks off one of the most important sections in the Bhagavad Geeta. It says, "For what is not worthy of grief you are grieving, although you use words as the wise." There can be a big difference in our words and our behavior if what we believe is either not real to us, or it is of secondary importance. Arjuna would have heard the Vedantic teachings of the soul and Brahman hundreds of times, but it would not have been a reality in his life, because as we have seen before, he was not ready to receive it. In his very first sentence of the discourse, Krishna points out the big difference in the words and the behavior of Arjuna. We can all be like that. And aren’t the vast majority of Hindus exactly like that? Don’t the vast majority of Hindus believe that only the body dies and not the soul, and that the soul only moves to another body to continue its spiritual journey? Then why is it that there is so much grieving at funerals? And it’s not just superficial grieving, people are genuinely grieved at deaths. Shouldn’t these very same words be said to the vast majority of Hindus: "For what is not worthy of grief you’ll are grieving, although you’ll use words as the wise." There are very few groups who don’t grieve at funerals, but rejoice. Shouldn’t there be celebrations when a "good" person dies, that in this life he had made spiritual progress?

The reason for the big difference in our words and our behavior comes when what we say we believe is not real to us. Today Vedantic teaching is no longer a reality in people’s lives. People may pay lip-service to the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Geeta, praising and extolling them and becoming puffed with pride that such "great" scriptures belong to the land they have been born in (as if that’s what makes them great!), but how many know what they really teach? Out of them how many know it to be a reality in their lives? And for how many of them is it important and life-determining?

The second part of verse 11 says, "Neither for the living nor for the dead grieve those who are wise." The word translated "wise" is "panditah." In those days, the pundits were the truly wise people. Today, after the long period of degeneration of Hinduism, it is no longer so, and the word "pundit" is used more as a joke to describe a person who has a lot of head-knowledge about the Vedas etc., but whose life in reality shows not much wisdom worth talking about. Anyway, the verse says that the truly wise don’t grieve about either the living or the dead not just because they know that grieving achieves nothing (which even many worldly-wise people know), but because they know that grieving for something is behavior that is contrary to the truth about life.

Let’s take the first reason first – that the wise know that grieving achieves nothing. Even many worldly-wise people know that. There is no point in grieving for the living – for them you do what you can do, and leave what you can’t do to God. And there is no point in grieving for the dead – because you can’t do anything for them anyway! It’s only the unwise who grieve – and if you see it deeply, they are really grieving for themselves and not for others! If it were not so, they wouldn’t be grieving when "good" people die and happy when "bad" people die. "Good he is gone. Such a pain in the neck he was," they say (maybe not openly) when a bad person close to them dies. They are happy that he is no longer around to give them the pain in the neck! They are not sad that a person close to them lost so many opportunities in his life to become a better person, and had not made much progress in his spiritual walk. But when a good person close to them dies, they are sad. Sad for themselves, because they were the beneficiaries of his goodness and that will now be stopped. If they were genuinely concerned about the dead person, they would be happy that he made good use of this life to make spiritual progress. So, it’s all for themselves only!

But it’s the second reason for not grieving that’s really important. The wise don’t grieve for anything because they know that grieving for something is behavior that is contrary to the truth about life. Do you grieve that water is wet? Do you grieve that the fire is hot? Of course you don’t. Water is supposed to be wet – that is the truth about water. Fire is supposed to be hot – that is its nature, that is the truth about fire. To grieve because water is wet or fire is hot is to act contrary to the truths about water and fire. Similarly for the wise, to grieve over somebody’s death is to act contrary to the truth about life!

The pundits were those people who had learnt to distinguish between the sat (that which exists) and the asat (that which appears to exist but does not). As will be clear from the verses that follow, grief comes from an inability to distinguish sat from asat. Seeing sat as asat, and asat as sat is what leads to grief. Seeing what is permanent as temporary, and what is temporary as permanent is what leads to grief. The body is temporary, perishable, subject to decay. The soul is permanent, imperishable, and not subject to decay. If you want your body (or your near and dear ones’ bodies) to be permanent, imperishable and not subject to decay, you are bound to end up in grief sooner or later. Women, you can’t look sweet-sixteen all your life!

The first thing you need to know if you want your spiritual betterment is the distinction between body and soul, and on a broader level, the distinction between sat and asat. The vast majority of the people on the earth focus on the asat – that which is perishable. Only when your focus shifts to the sat, the soul, can you start on the road to spiritual progress. Till then you may make great progress on the road of asat, but since all progress on that road leads to temporary benefits only, it is bound to end up in grief for you.

The correct experience of a thing is called yathartha-anubhava i.e. experiencing something as it is. The incorrect experience (ayatharta-anubhava) is experiencing something as it is not. The more your experience of life is yathartha i.e. according to what it is, the better off you are. This is what we see in our daily lives. To take a simple example, suppose you have a meeting with someone in a position of authority (say a minister in the government) whom you are meeting for the first time for some important work of yours. This person, because of his position, can easily make your path smoother, or more difficult. You have heard from others that he is a tough, no-nonsense person, and has a tendency to flare-up at a perceived offence. As you are going for the meeting, you are filled with apprehension, if not dread. Finally the moment arrives and you walk into his office. After exchanging pleasantries, you talk business. He promises to consider your proposal. The meeting is over. After you are out of the office, you realize that your apprehension was quite unjustified. Sure he was a tough, no-nonsense person, as he has to be is he is to be worth his salt, but he was also patient in hearing you out, intelligent in his asking of questions, and also kind, considerate, understanding, and showing a sense of humor when you did make a gaffe! Your prior apprehension was only because your prior experience of him, which was based on hearsay, was ayatharta i.e. not according to reality. Now that your experience is according to reality, all your fear is gone. The very act of experiencing reality as it is, made all fear flee away from you.

The example given in many of the Upanishads is that of seeing a snake in a rope. You are walking with a friend on a road in the dark of the night when you see a snake lying coiled up on the side. Immediately, you are filled with fright and stop. But your friend says, "Hey, its only a rope," and shines his torch on it. The moment you see that it’s only a rope, your fear vanishes automatically. Similar is the case with life. The Upanishads say, the moment you see life as it is, i.e. yatharta, the moment you experience life in reality, the moment you see sat as the only thing that exists (and asat never exists), that very moment all your fear will vanish automatically. The following are the places in the Upanishads that use this example:

Niralamba Upanishad v 14:

Yoga Sikha Upanishad, 4.1:

Annapurna Upanishad IV-10:

Atma Upanishad II:26(b)-27(a):

Mandukya Upanishad II-17:

This same principle, applied to your entire life, will make all anxieties, worries, apprehensions, fear, flee from you. Coming back to the context of verse 11, the wise do not grieve for either the living or the dead because they see life as it is. When you see life as it is i.e. yatharta, you realize that there is nothing to fear or be worried about. This comes by knowing Brahman (covered later under verse 2:46). A person who knows Brahman "moves in reality" says verse 6:21, "Knowing that and situated in that, he moves in reality." The person who does not know Brahman moves in unreality. The Supreme Reality is "sat" that which exists. "In the sense of Supreme reality, the word 'sat' is thus used." (17:26)

Note: just having head-knowledge is not enough! Mere belief is also not enough. Before actually seeing the rope, if you say that, "Okay, I believe that it is a rope," it’s not going to benefit you any. You may talk yourself into moving ahead, but your heart will still be fearful. For fear to go away completely, you have to see for yourself that it is a rope and not a snake. Unless you experience yourself as pure consciousness, you don’t know reality as it is. Such experience is called aparoksha-gyana or aparoksha-anubhava. Scriptural statements, like the friend’s statement that it is a rope and not a snake, helps in the pursuit of knowledge in two ways: first it tells the mind that such knowledge is there and available to you. And second, it creates a desire in the heart, an inner motivation, to make efforts to move towards that knowledge. However, simply repeating those statements is not the actual self-knowledge.

Since the realization that "I am not the body, but the soul" is the starting point of spiritual betterment, it’s important to get a sense of the distinctions right away: The soul is the knower, body is the known. (This theme will be developed further in chapter 13 of the Geeta). The soul is eternal, all-pervading, unchangeable, and immovable (2:24), while the body is temporary, limited in space, changeable and movable. The soul pervades all the universe (2:17), while the body is limited to a location. The body is composed of physical elements, the soul is consciousness itself. The soul is a part of God, the mind and the six senses are situated in nature (15:7). We will deal in detail on these differences as we come to these verses. For now, we note that the realization that "I am not the body, but the soul, the sat-chit-ananda consciousness" is the starting point of spiritual betterment.

Verse 14 says, "Sensory perception, son of Kunti, gives rise to the experience of cold, heat, happiness and griefs. These come and go, and are not permanent; bear with them, descendant of Bharata." Here ‘cold’ and ‘heat’ are to be seen as figurative for ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’ because what is pleasant in hot, tropical regions would be unpleasant in cold, polar ones and vice versa.

By using the words "are not permanent," the Bhagavad Geeta first wants to draw our attention to the difference between the "permanent" and the "not permanent." Once again we go back to the definition of sat and asat. These don’t mean "truth and lies" or "real and unreal", but "permanent and transitory" i.e. "that which exists and will always exist" and "that which seems to exist but does not." Sat comes from "satat" or "satatya" – that which always is. Man gets engrossed in the asat i.e. the impermanent and that is the source of all his problems. He expects permanent happiness from that which is temporary; and that’s an impossibility! It’s not going to last; it’s going to end sooner or later, one way or the other. Either it goes, or its charm goes. (Or you go!) You fall in love with a person, and you expect it to last forever. As you heard often at the end of those fairy tales, "And they lived happily ever after." But that never happens. Nobody lives "happily ever after!" Expectation is of permanent happiness; object of expectation is temporary! It’s like – you experience a nice cool breeze, and you expect it to be for ever. You see a beautiful starlit night, and you expect it to last for ever. Spring comes, and you expect it to last for ever. But it never happens that way. The cool breeze stops. The beautiful starlit night gives way to the hot sunshine of the day. Spring gives way to the hot summer. It’s foolishness to expect them to last for ever. The problem is not with those things. It’s their nature to come and go. The problem is with us, with our expectations. We expect permanent happiness from the temporary. And that’s not possible.

What then is the solution? The solution is simple: don’t expect permanent happiness from the temporary. Expect permanent happiness only from the permanent, from that which will always exist, no matter what happens. And for that you will have to distinguish between the permanent and the impermanent, between the sat and the asat. And what’s the permanent, what’s the sat? The Atman, the soul, the pure-consciousness. And what’s more, it is not only permanent, it’s nature is also bliss i.e. innate happiness or happiness that is not dependent on anything else! So it’s elementary logic to look for permanent happiness in the Atman, the soul, the sat-chit-ananda consciousness alone. And that is what the Bhagavad Geeta is leading us to in the next few paragraphs.

The second contrast in verse 14 comes from the words "sensory perception." Eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin are the five sensory organs that are responsible for the sensory phenomena of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. The world is engrossed in these. Happiness for the vast majority of the people on earth is dependent on the pleasantness of the experiences that enter through these five gates. That too, as conditioned by the mind! One man’s idea of physical beauty is different from another’s. What is pleasant sound for one is jarring for another. What is fragrance for one is stench for another. What is tasty food for one is "yuch" for another.

Actually the objects themselves do not have the capability to give pleasantness and unpleasantness. It is only because the mind has been trained to think in a certain way that the pleasantness and unpleasantness comes. It is only when external circumstances tally with what the mind considers pleasant that the experience of pleasantness arises; and vice versa. Some children are taught to think from their childhood that non-vegetarian food is horrible while others are taught that it is wonderful and tasty. So when they grow up, the smell of kababs being roasted is "fragrance" to some and "stench" to others, the smell of tandoori chicken is "fragrance" to some and "stench" to others, the smell of frying fish is "fragrance" to some and "stench" to others. Earthworms, cockroaches, rats are delicacies in some communities, most of us would be repulsed at the very thought of eating them!

In contrast to this dependence on sensory perception, the perception of the Atman, the soul, the sat-chit-ananda consciousness, is non-sensory. Even a man who is blind, deaf, dumb, and has lost all his sense of taste and touch due to bodily burns can experience the bliss of the sat-chit-ananda consciousness because it is not dependent on his senses. And neither is it dependent on the ideas of pleasantness and unpleasantness that you hold in your mind.

Now it’s easy to understand statements like, "Bear with your grief, it shall pass soon" or "Bear with your difficult circumstances, there are easier times ahead" or "go through your pain for a time, they are always followed by good times in the future!" These kind of statements are expected from anyone. But the Bhagavad Geeta is saying something extraordinary. It is saying, "Bear with happiness and griefs," "Bear with pleasure and pain," "Bear with good times and bad." It is "he who is not disturbed by these and is equal towards both sadness and happiness, he is fit for immortality" according to verse 15. Why? Because both of these come and go. Both of these are not permanent. According to the Bhagavad Geeta, the super-rich man, whose happiness is dependent on his wealth, who prides himself in his wealth, his penthouse apartment in the costliest locality in town, the fact that his car is far more expensive than his fellow-men’s, his jet-setting lifestyle, his booming business and all its trappings, is as pitiable as the poor man whose happiness is dependent on making ends meet for the month. Why? Because for both of them, their happiness is dependent on something external to them.

Secondly all happiness coming from external objects and circumstances is relative. If a millionaire’s happiness is dependent on, and is derived from his millions, what happens to him when he is in a group of billionaires? He immediately feels lousy, he feels he is not worthy enough, he actually feels he is poor! It’s not wrong to be wealthy, what’s wrong is to have your happiness dependent on your wealth. Your wealth is relative, it shall pass soon; and if it doesn’t, you shall pass and you can’t take it with you. It’s better to be rich in the things that you can take with you.

Verse 15 says that "He who is not disturbed by these and is equal towards both sadness and happiness, that best of the best persons is fit for immortality." Disturbed by happiness? Yes, disturbed by happiness! Look at the poor man who has just won a lottery. He is thrilled; thrilled beyond measure; so much so that he goes berserk, almost goes mad! Look at the youngster who has just heard "Yes" from the girl he is crazy about. Look at the small-time businessman who has just won a big contract that will propel him into the big league. Look at the members of the team that has just won the world cup. Look at the supporters of the political party that has just been voted to power. All of them are "disturbed." And none of them are "fit for immortality." Why? Because their happiness is still dependent on asat, that which ultimately doesn’t exist. But this principle is not only applicable to the worldly realm. According to the Bhagavad Geeta, it is applicable in the religious realm also! The person whose happiness is dependent on the fact that he is going to heaven because of the good things he has done, and the religious rites he has carried out, is in the same boat! He too is not fit for immortality. After his merits are exhausted in heaven, he will come back to the mortal realms until he learns to have his happiness dependent only on the sat, i.e. the soul, the Atman.

Does that mean we are not to be happy by the good things of this world? Of course not. But that happiness is to be like the happiness a wealthy businessman feels when he gets a routine, small contract that hardly makes any difference to him. He hardly even notices it. He simply passes the Purchase Order to his subordinate for the necessary action and moves on to some other work. Within minutes he has forgotten about it. Yes, he is happy for it, but he is not ‘disturbed’ by it. When the happiness you get from the good things of this world becomes like this happiness, you are "fit for immortality."

This can happen only when your real happiness is coming from the sat i.e. the Atman, the soul. This happiness is so great and permanent and different in character, that there is a different word for it – ananda or bliss. Bliss is not dependent on anything in this world, is permanent, and is so big that it dwarfs all joys of this world. And you cannot work this up, just as the businessman can’t work up the level of happiness he feels when he gets a contract. If he is a big, successful businessman, then the happiness he feels when he gets a small, inconsequential contract will naturally be hardly noticeable. But what if he is a small, struggling businessman, who has just started out? Then even that small contract will bring him great happiness. He can’t help himself as to the level of happiness he feels. He may show externally that he is not disturbed by this good news, but inside he is thrilled, he is "disturbed". Only when he will become big and successful, will he be "not disturbed" by the small, new order. Similarly, only when you have drunk enough from the joy of the spirit, the Atman, and are full of that bliss, will you naturally find the joys of this world as small change. You can’t work it up. It has to be for real. You have to be in that drunken state of being full of the bliss that comes only from the Atman. Only then will you find the joys of this world as small change. The same is applicable for the bad things of this world. Our sadness because of them should be such that it is hardly noticeable because the bliss that we live in is so large, that a little bit taken out from it is hardly even noticeable.

It has to be for real. It is not a question of mood-making, of the "tell yourself you are happy and you will be happy" kind of nonsense. It has to come from the inside-out. Creating an external mood of being equanimous in happiness and sadness, loss and gain etc. will not work. You have to be equanimous on the inside. External equanimity has to flow from inner equanimity. Your external behavior has to reflect what you really are on the inside. You have to become equanimous and then let that equanimity flow out. What if you find that you are really not equanimous on the inside? Then it’s better not to be a hypocrite, acknowledge that you are not there yet (most people aren’t anyway), go to God and drink from him.

The way to get into this state is to drink more and more of the bliss that comes from the Atman until you are filled up. Once you are filled up with that bliss, you will become like an ocean, which undergoes no difference even though many rivers enter it. Then, even though many good things may happen to you, you will not be disturbed. And even though many bad things may happen to you, the decrease in your happiness level will hardly be noticeable. Just as the decrease in the water level of the ocean is hardly noticeable when a bucket of water is taken out from it. The same thing is described again in chapter 6, verses 18 to 22: "When his consciousness becomes established in the self, when he is devoid of craving for all sense gratification, he is called united at that time. As a lamp without wind is steady and does not flicker, to such can comparision be made of the yogis of controlled consciousness engaged in yoga by the self. The state where consciousness stops, being restrained by yoga, where the self sees the self by the self, the self becomes contented. That infinite happiness is obtainable by the intellect beyond the senses. Knowing that and situated in that, he moves in reality. Having gained this, he considers no other gain greater; thereafter situated in it he is not agitated even by great sorrows."

"He is fit for immortality." What does that mean? It doesn’t mean you won’t die! In the Bhagavad Geeta (as indeed, in all Hindu philosophy), it means you won’t come back to the mortal realms i.e. you won’t take re-birth. You have learnt all your lessons, and there is no need now to come back to learn anything more. You have passed the final exam! You have now learnt to be dependent fully on the Atman for all your needs. Being filled with the bliss that comes from the Atman alone, you are no longer dependent on anything in this world for your happiness. Nothing in this world affects you any more. You are like an ocean of bliss now. Let how many rivers of happiness enter you by good fortune upon good fortune, your happiness is not going to increase. Let how many tankers of happiness be taken out of you by misfortune upon misfortune, your happiness is not going to decrease any. You are full of the bliss of the Atman. Good and bad circumstances come and go, happiness and griefs come and go, they make no difference to you. You are not disturbed by them. You remain the witness of them all, the sakshi, the pure consciousness that is not affected by anything. The movie screen on which the images move. The stage on which the drama is played out. Some are happy scenes, some are sad. Some of them are intensely happy, some are intensely sad. But when the drama is over and all the actors and all the people in the audience have gone home, the stage remains the same, unaffected by all that has happened on it. Pure consciousness. When a person attains that stage, he is "fit for immortality", no longer has he any need to come back to the mortal realms to learn anything more.

Verse 16 comes to the definition of sat and asat, very important in Hindu philosophy. "Of the non-existent (asat) there is no being and of the eternal (sat) there is no non-being. The seers see this as the truth of both." "Sat" and "asat" don’t mean "truth and lies" or "real and unreal", but "that which exists and will always exist" and "that which seems to exist but doesn’t" respectively. To quote two well-known descriptions of asat: "That which is not in the beginning and which will not be in the end, but at the same time, which seemingly exists in the present" and from Mandukya Upanishad II-6, "That which is non-existent in the beginning and at the end is definitely so in the middle. The objects, since they bear the marks of the existent, appear as though existing." Thus dreams are asat because objects in a dream seem to exist in the present, but do not exist after the dream is over (nor did they exist before the dream began). Once we wake up we don’t take the objects and events in the dream seriously. In fact life is to be treated very much like a dream, because all the characteristics of a dream are present, thus say the Upanishads, as the following quotes show:

From the Mandukya Upanishad, chapter II:

From the Mandukya Upanishad, chapter II:

From the Nada-Bindu Upanishad:

From the Nirvana Upanishad:

From the Adhyatma Upanishad:

From the Akshi Upanishad:

From the Rudra-Hridaya Upanishad:

From the Suka-Rahasya Upanishad:

From the Varaha Upanishad:

From the Yoga Sikha Upanishad, chapter IV:

From the Maha Upanishad:

"Life is like a dream" is not just a poetical sentiment according to the Upanishads! It is an accurate statement of Reality!

There is a difference of course – events in the waking state have a connected consistency and progression that is absent in dreams. When you wake up in the morning, you find yourself on the same bed that you went to sleep on, in the same room you were in. But in the dream-state, the next dream (or even the next moment of one dream) has no connection with the previous one. In the waking state if you were sitting on a chair and don’t get up, after five minutes you will find yourself sitting on the same chair. Not so in dreams. The second difference is that in the dream state, you can do anything, even things that human beings don’t have a natural capability of, like flying.

But both these differences are not fundamental, and yogis have done such things (or have found such things happening to them) even in their waking states. When Jesus walked on water, he was not in dream-state. When Philip disappeared from the Jerusalem-Gaza road and appeared at Azotus (Acts 8:39), he was not in dream-state. The differences in waking-state and dream-state appear so cast in stone to us only because we have never thought otherwise. The testimony of all miracle-workers of all religions has been that these things are done by faith – "according to your faith it is done to you."

So the Asat are all objects which appear real, but are non-existent. Sat comes from "satat" or "satatya" – that which always is, that which always exists. Asat only appears to be real. Water is asat, but water is not unreal. If you are thirsty and drink it, it will quench your thirst. But it is still asat, because ultimately it is made up of consciousness, the same consciousness that each and every thing in this universe is ultimately made of. Including you. Only consciousness is sat, everything else is asat. The same sat is called para prakriti in 7:5, kshetragnya in 13:1-2, purusha in 13:20, and akshara in 15:16, as against apara prakriti, kshetra, prakriti, and kshara respectively for asat.

Sat is the consciousness, the experiencer, the changeless substratum on which all changes take place. For the waters of a river to flow, a motionless riverbed is necessary. Similarly, in order to hold together the millions of experiences at the levels of our body, mind and intellect, and give us the experience of a synchronized, well-connected whole, there is a changeless substratum – the consciousness.

"The seers see this as the truth of both." The word translated as "seer" is "tattva-darshibhih" which means those who see the underlying principle. In any field of knowledge, it is those who see the underlying principles of overt phenomena who are supposed to have really understood the subject. Whether it is physics, chemistry, maths, economics, computers, the price movements in the stock market, only a person who has grasped the underlying principles can be said to have understood the subject. Those who learn by rote have not understood anything. That’s why when an examiner wants to really test the understanding of a student, he throws in a question that has not come up before, but which can be easily solved by someone who has understood the underlying principles. And the examiner if he is wise, is not even looking for whether the student ends up getting the right answer. What he is looking for is the method the student uses to arrive at the right answer. If he has got the underlying principles right, he will try to apply them in trying to arrive at the answer. If not, he will try all kinds of tricks. And even if he somehow by luck, arrives at the right answer, the examiner knows that the fellow has not understood the subject. And if the student who applies the principles correctly but arrives at a wrong answer because of a silly calculation mistake, the examiner knows that he has got the underlying principles right, and in the course of life, he is more likely to be successful than the other fellow.

This is just as applicable in the field of life, as in any other field. Those who have seen the underlying principles of life will be more successful than those who somehow manage to pull along and at the end of their lives, wonder what happened! In the context of the Bhagavad Geeta and indeed of all Hindu philosophy, "success" is defined as "not coming back to learn the same lessons again." It’s called moksha, liberation from the cycle of life-and-death. It’s not "worldly success" like making money or becoming famous or politically powerful or even changing the destiny of the world. That’s like the fellow in the above example who got his answer right but principles wrong. He had external success, but no internal one. Real success is internal, not external. It is to see the tattva, the underlying principle of life, and live according to it. The people who have seen the tattva, the underlying principle of life, the "tattva-darshibhih" says verse 16, are those who have seen that the sat is always existing and the asat never existing. The sat is the Atman, the soul, the consciousness, the Brahman that is the central theme of the Upanishads.

This consciousness is the indestructible which pervades all the seen and the unseen. "Know that the indestructible is that which pervades all this. Destruction of the imperishable no one is able to achieve" says verse 17. The soul, the universal consciousness can’t be destroyed i.e. it can’t be annihilated. That’s its nature. Since it’s spoken in the context of Krishna encouraging Arjuna to fight the war and try to kill his relatives, teachers and elders on the opposing side, the significance of the statement is obvious. The quality of being indestructible naturally follows from its quality of being sat i.e. always existing. In fact, it’s two different ways of saying the same thing. The consciousness that pervades everything, which everything is ultimately made of, is indestructible. And obviously, since it is imperishable, nobody can annihilate it. "Arjuna, if you think that you are going to destroy the imperishable consciousness that pervades all the universe including the bodies of those whom you have to kill, then you are highly mistaken."

Verse 18a makes a very important statement: "That which has an end are the bodies of the eternal." The "bodies" are plural, but the one who occupies them, the "eternal" is in singular. Verse 13:17 makes the same point, even more explicitly: "Undivided but appearing as if situated divided in living beings, he is the maintainer and the object of knowledge, devouring and developing." The same with verse 18:20, "By which all living beings as of one imperishable nature is seen, undivided in the divisions, that knowledge know to be of goodness." So it’s not many souls occupying as many bodies, but one soul occupying many bodies, and changing them from time to time. The words used in 18a are "deha" for "bodies" (plural) and "nityasya-ukta sharirinah" (singular) for the dweller in the bodies. "Nityasya" means "always existing", "ukta" means "said to be" and "sharirinah" means "dweller in the body". All translations are agreed on this: there are many bodies, but one dweller, the universal consciousness. How is this possible? For the common man this is difficult to understand, and an analogy would be helpful in communicating. But remember that analogies are not proofs, I am offering this analogy only for communication purposes. Think of a lantern like those put up during festivals like Diwali. A lantern having many holes in it through which the light from inside comes out. How many sources of light are there? From the outside, it may seem as if there are as many sources as there are holes, but if you take a behind-the-scenes look inside the lantern, there is only one bulb! Similarly, there is supposed to be only one soul, one consciousness. If one looks superficially, there seem to be as many souls as there are bodies. Because of the working of Ahamkara i.e. the ego, it seems as if there are many souls in as many bodies. It is the Ahamkara that makes the consciousness think and believe that the consciousness associated with its body is separate from the consciousness associated with another body. But according to Vedantic philosophy, there is only one soul, one consciousness.

Verse 18b says, "the embodied soul is indestructible and immeasurable." "Indestructible" we have already seen. Measurable items are obviously those that can be measured – in terms of length, area, volume, weight, temperature etc. Only those things can be measured that can be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or felt (not just with our physical sense organs, but also with instruments that extend that ability to beyond the normal human spectrum). Later on in verse 25 it will be seen that the soul, the Atman, the consciousness, cannot be seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or felt with the eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin respectively. If it can’t then obviously it can’t be measured also.

Verse 18c says "Therefore, fight, descendant of Bharata." Why "therefore, fight?" Shouldn’t it be "Therefore it makes no difference whether you fight or don’t fight?" If the embodied soul is indestructible, then what difference does it make whether Arjuna fights or doesn’t fight? Answer: It makes no difference to the soul, but makes a lot of difference to Arjuna! Arjuna has not yet reached the stage where it didn’t make any difference to him whether he fought or not. Krishna himself, in another occasion, had run away from the battlefield! One of his names is "Ran-chhod" which means "battlefield-leaver!" However, the words of verses 34 to 36 were not applicable to Krishna. Honor, disgrace, derision, what others spoke of him, meant nothing to him, and he was beyond wanting heaven. These things still meant a lot to Arjuna, and would affect his spiritual future. Fighting or not fighting was still an issue for Arjuna. Hence he tells Arjuna to fight.

Verse 19 says, "Those who know him to be the killer and those who think him to be the killed, both of them are not in knowledge, for he neither kills nor is killed." The soul, the consciousness, is indestructible and cannot be killed as said before. So obviously if anyone thinks of the soul as being killed, he is not having right knowledge. The other side raises a question. If the soul is not the killer, then who is? The body by itself has not carried out the action of killing, it is the soul that has used the body (hands, legs etc.) for killing, so how can it be said that the soul is not the killer? Answer: The reference is to the killing of the soul and not the body. Of course the body is put to its end by the soul carrying out its action through another body. But it’s not that the soul has killed soul. Soul has only killed body.

Verse 20 is a summary of all the characteristics of the soul mentioned before: These are

In other words,

This has been said to be "dangerous theology" by some from other religions. "This justifies killing. If one believes this, then one can justify any killing," they say. To quote one Christian author who says it sarcastically,

Such a charge has always been laid against this teaching of the Bhagavad Geeta, that it justifies killing. But that charge is unfair, and it does more harm to the cause of the writer making such a charge (whatever the cause is). First of all, it is taken out of context. The Bhagavad Geeta is not justifying any killing. Murder certainly is wrong and it should be punishable by the state. The Bhagavad Geeta is justifying killing in a certain context, in the context of war, where the duty of the soldiers is to fight and kill if necessary for the protection of others. The question "What havoc will be created in the society if the philosophy is taught saying killing is not killing?" is not fair because that situation is not similar. The situation that is similar rather begs the question, "What havoc will be created in the society if in a war situation, the soldiers refuse to kill the enemy soldiers saying that (to use the very words of the above charge) ‘As man is not the life-giver, he has also no authority to end a life. Everybody has a right to live. It is the birth right of my enemy soldiers to live. They too have a right to live. Therefore I will not kill.’" Surely the above critic himself would not like to live in such a country!

Secondly, the central theme of the Bhagavad Geeta is not even the war and killing, it is spiritual development. The war situation is only incidental. In the case of soldiers in a war situation, killing leads to spiritual development and "not killing out of compassion" leads to spiritual regress! Arjuna was in a war situation and not killing out of compassion would have lead to his spiritual regress. Arjuna has shown enough maturity to ask even in a high-pressure situation as to what is shreyah for him i.e. what will lead to his spiritual betterment. In this case, his spiritual betterment lay in rising above his emotions and killing his enemies.

Killing then, is only the killing of the body and is justified in certain obvious circumstances like war, combating terrorism, self-defense or defense of others etc. The verse is not a universal sanction to murder anyone!

Verse 23 says that "Neither can he be cut by weapons, nor does fire burn him; neither water moistens him, nor does the wind dry him." The body can be cut by weapons, consciousness cannot. Consciousness will only be conscious of the body being cut by the weapon. The body can be burnt by fire, consciousness cannot. Consciousness will only be conscious of the body being burnt by the fire. The body can be made wet by water, consciousness cannot. Consciousness will only be conscious of the body being made wet by the water. The body can be dried by wind, consciousness cannot. Consciousness will only be conscious of the body being dried by the wind. It is consciousness that constitutes the soul, the Atman. In fact weapons, fire, water and air can’t even reach the soul, the consciousness; so how can they cut, burn, wet or dry it? An allegorical story in Kenopanishad (chapter III) makes the same point. Verse 24a says that "Uncleavable is he, unburnable is he, insoluble, and cannot be dried." The very nature of consciousness is that it is uncleavable, unburnable, insoluble, and cannot be dried. So how can anything cut it, let alone weapons? How can anything burn it, let alone fire? How can anything wet it, let alone water? How can anything dry it, let alone air? And it can’t be heated; so how can anything make it hot? It can’t be cooled; so how can anything make it cool?

"Eternal, all-pervading, unchangeable, and immovable is this eternal soul" says verse 24b. Its eternity is already described under verses 20 and 21 above. What does "all-pervading" mean? Consider the physical realm. "Space" is the all-pervading in the physical realm. It exists everywhere; all physical objects have their location in it. If an object is moved from location "A" to location "B", you don’t get extra space in location "A" and less space in "B". You get extra place in "A", but not extra space. The space remains the same. Physical objects have their existence in space. Similarly, everything – physical and non-physical (including thoughts, ideas, emotions, desires etc.) have their existence in consciousness. In fact even space itself and time itself ("space-time" for physicists) exist in consciousness. Space and time (sorry physicists, "space-time") exist because there is consciousness, because consciousness is conscious of them. It is commonly said that "the soul exists in the body", but the fact is that "the body exists in the soul, the consciousness." Consciousness is what is really all-pervading; nothing exists without it. In fact according to Advaita philosophy, nothing exists but consciousness; and everything else is but a play of Maya – physical objects, thoughts, ideas, emotions, desires, space-time, all are but a play of Maya. They all exist because of Maya. Just as in physics, it is space-time that exists and not "space and time separately" once the theory of relativity is grasped, in Advaita philosophy once Maya is cleared, reality is seen as one all-pervading consciousness alone, not separate objects, beings etc. In all gold articles, gold is all-pervading because they are made of gold only. In all iron articles, iron is all-pervading because they are made of iron only. In all mud pots, mud is all-pervading because mud pots are made of mud only. Similarly in all universe, consciousness is all-pervading because the objects of the universe, seen and unseen, is made of consciousness only.

"Stable" and "immovable" are the next two words that are used to describe the soul, the Atman, the all-pervading consciousness that alone exists. And these are merely derivative qualities from its all-pervading, only existing nature. "Immovable" means something that can’t be moved from one place to another. "Stable" means something that cannot be moved even in its own place. A tree is immovable but it’s not stable, you can shake it. We say about an unsteady stool that "it is not stable." Consciousness is both stable and immovable. If it were movable, where could it be moved to? Movement implies change in place, and that implies location. But all locations exist in consciousness, not the other way round! Just as in physics, space can’t be moved because all locations exist in space, similarly consciousness can’t be moved because space itself exists in consciousness, not the other way round. In fact consciousness is the ultimate immovable because everything (including space-time, thoughts, ideas, emotions, desires etc.) exists in consciousness!

The next three characteristics of consciousness, described in verse 25, are "unmanifest", inconceivable", and "unchangeable". "Unmanifest he is, inconceivable he is, unchangeable he is said to be" says verse 25a. "Unmanifest" means something that cannot be perceived by the five sense organs – eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. Consciousness cannot be seen by the physical eyes, cannot be heard by the ears, cannot be smelt by the nose, cannot be tasted by the tongue, and cannot be felt by the skin. The sense organs can perceive only sense objects that have attributes (visheshas) like form, sound, touch, taste, smell. Pure awareness (chaitanya) is not an object with attributes. It is free from all attributes (nirvishesha). The organs of action can handle only objects having limits, whereas consciousness is limitless (ananta). Says the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad in III-iv-2, "You cannot see that which is the witness of vision; you cannot hear that which is the hearer of hearing; you cannot think that which is the thinker of thought; you cannot know that which is the knower of knowledge. This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable." And in III-viii-11, "This Immutable, is never seen but is the Witness; It is never heard, but is the Hearer; It is never thought, but is the Thinker; It is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but This, no other hearer but This, no other thinker but This, no other knower but This. By this Immutable, is everything pervaded." Says the Katha Upanishad 1-III-15: "By knowing that which is soundless, touchless, formless, undecaying, so also tasteless, eternal, odorless, beginningless, endless, subtler than Mahat and constant, man is liberated from the jaws of death."

The eyes themselves exist because of consciousness, the ears themselves exist because of consciousness, the nose itself exists because of consciousness, the tongue itself exists because of consciousness, and the skin itself exists because of consciousness. Not only so, the sense of sight itself exists because of consciousness, the sense of hearing itself exists because of consciousness, the sense of smelling itself exists because of consciousness, the sense of tasting itself exists because of consciousness, the sense of touching itself exists because of consciousness. Just as fire itself cannot be the object of burning or heating, just as water itself cannot be the object of wetting, consciousness itself cannot be the object of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching.

"Inconceivable" means something that cannot be thought by the mind or experienced by the emotions. Consciousness cannot be thought of by the mind because all thoughts, all ideas themselves exist in consciousness. Consciousness cannot be experienced by the emotions because all emotions themselves exist in consciousness. In fact consciousness cannot be experienced at all because all experiences exist in consciousness.

"Unchangeable" means that it cannot be changed to anything else. What else can it be changed to – there is nothing else! Changes are always with respect to something else, and there is nothing else! If it were changeable, what could it be changed to? Any change would also imply either improvement or degradation. Consciousness is already perfect, so it can’t be improved. And since it is perfect, it is not subject to degradation either!

Does all this mean that consciousness cannot be known? Obviously not, because the major theme of all the Upanishads is "knowing Brahman" which is the sum total of all consciousness. Later on in verse 46, the Geeta itself will say, "He who knows Brahman knows everything." "Knowing Brahman" is the one worthwhile thing to do while we are here. Yes we can’t see consciousness with our eyes, we can’t hear consciousness with our ears, we can’t smell consciousness with our noses, we can’t taste consciousness with our tongues, we can’t touch consciousness with our skin, we can’t imagine consciousness with our minds, and we can’t feel consciousness with our emotions. But we can be conscious of consciousness with our consciousness. But even that statement is not true to Advaitic understanding. In Advaitic understanding, ultimately there is no "I" or "you" either. To be true to Advaitic understanding, we have to state it as "consciousness can be conscious of consciousness." Later on, verse 6:20 will put it as, "self sees the self by the self." And that’s the way to "know Brahman" because Brahman is ultimately all consciousness.

From verse 26, Krishna begins another argument, one dealing with a hypothetical possibility. He has stated what is the nature of the soul, the Atman, the consciousness: that it is eternal, unborn, indestructible, imperishable, all-pervading, stable, immovable, unmanifest, inconceivable and unchangeable, and being so, it is not appropriate for Arjuna to grieve. Krishna now takes up another belief about the soul to show that even by that belief, the conclusion is still the same: it is not appropriate for Arjuna to grieve! This belief he states by saying that "Even if you believe that he is always born and dies forever…" For people who hold such a view, life is a constant flow of appearance of forms, arising from nowhere and disappearing into nowhere. This is not the real nature of the soul, it is taken up only for argument purposes to show that even with this, the conclusion is still the same. Why? Because "For one who has taken birth, certain is death, and certain is birth for one who has died" (verse 27). If the sun has risen it will set. You don’t grieve in the evening that the sun is setting, do you? You knew it was inevitable, so you had it in your mind anyway. It was not unexpected. You knew throughout the day that when evening comes, the sun will set. It is its nature to do so. It has done what it was supposed to do. So why grieve? The second reason for not grieving is that you know that if it has set, it will rise again the next morning. So why grieve? Why not rather, enjoy the sunset, and the starlit night?

Arjuna was in the state where due to his attachment to his relatives, elders and teachers, he was overcome with grief at the prospect of killing them. In verses 26 and 27, Krishna says that even if he were to think that the soul actually dies, grief was not appropriate because it was sure to take birth again. He is not saying that this is actually what happens, because he has already stated that the soul does not die since it is indestructible and imperishable, neither does it take re-birth since it is eternal and unborn. He is only saying that even if Arjuna was thinking that his relatives, elders and teachers were going to die, even then grief was not appropriate because whoever is born, certain is death for him; and whoever dies, certain is re-birth for him.

In the next three verses, Krishna returns back to the real nature of the soul, the Atman, this time in relation with the manifestation of living beings. In verse 28, he says that "Unmanifest in the beginning are all living beings, manifest in the middle; and unmanifest after death." To be manifest means to be in a state where they can be seen, heard, tasted, smelt and felt by the eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and skin. To be unmanifest means even though existing, they cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelt or felt by the eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and skin. Thus to be unmanifest does not mean that their existence is not there. Their existence is very much there. But their existence cannot be perceived by us through our five sense organs. Ultra-violet and infra-red light are very much there, but we cannot see them with our eyes. They are unmanifest to us. Given appropriate equipment, we are able to perceive them. The same with sound waves. Our ears are capable of perceiving frequencies only within a range. That does not mean that there are no sound waves beyond those frequencies. Only that they are not manifest to us. The ears of certain animals have the capability to perceive sound waves beyond what our ears can. In verse 28, Krishna is saying that the same is the case with living beings. In their beginning they are unmanifest, in the middle they are manifest and we can perceive them with our sense organs, and after death they are unmanifest again.

Prima facie, the description seems to fit in more with the understanding of Ramanuja than that of Shankara. According to Ramanuja, the individual soul is really individual; it has sprung from Brahman and is never outside Brahman, but nevertheless it enjoys a separate personal existence and will remain a personality for ever. For Shankaracharya, the individual soul merges into Brahman absolutely after death. So prima facie, the description seems to fit in more with the understanding of Ramanuja. But verse 18 of the Mantrika Upanishad makes it clear that it is not so. That verse says, "In That in which the objects are dissolved, and, having been dissolved, become unmanifest, once more they attain manifestation; they are again born like bubbles." So there is a clear dissolution there. Anyway which one of the two understandings is correct, I don’t know. Neither do I care. A detailed discussion on the subject is beyond the scope of this work.

Verse 29 says, "Full of amazement some see this, full of amazement others speak of it as, full of amazement some others hear of him as. Even on hearing, anyone does not know him." There are four statements here. The first says, "Full of amazement some see this." Why? Because the soul is not seen the way we see other things. Physical objects, we see with our eyes. Ideas and mental constructs, we see with our mind. The relative importance and unimportance of things, we see with our intellects. But the soul we see with our soul itself! Verse 6:20 says, "The state where consciousness stops, being restrained by yoga, where the self sees the self by the self, the self becomes contented." Verse 13:25 says "By meditation in the self some see the self by the self, others by the yoga of logic and reasoning, and others by the yoga of action." This is a totally different way of seeing, unknown to the vast majority of the people. Most people know only three ways of seeing – by their physical eyes, by their minds, and by their intellects. And when for the first time they see the self by the self, it comes as a huge surprise! This is something totally new, something never experienced before! The physical objects that you are seeing around you are the same, the mind is totally silent, the intellect has nothing to weigh or evaluate; and suddenly something happens to you that makes everything look totally different! This is most amazing! The words "Is this what Reality is like? Wow!" come out of the mouth spontaneously.

Another reason for wonderment is that they realize that what they were seeking all the while was right there with them. "All that you need is within you." Human beings are "restless wanderers on earth." I got that phrase from Genesis 4:12, where God tells Cain after he has murdered his brother that he will be a "restless wanderer on earth." I like that phrase because it so precisely describes the state of man. Go here – go there, try this – try that, search here – search there, this holy place – that holy place, this guru – that guru, this book – that book, this good work – that good work. Restless wanderers on earth. And when they actually realize that what they were really searching for is right there with them, what a wonder!

Out of all those seeing it, some speak of it, also full of amazement. Why? First of all, they can’t help speaking about it, it is so amazing. But when they start speaking about it, they realize that no matter how much they try, no matter how well they describe it, they don’t come near even a hundredth of describing what it really is! Maybe a millionth; it’s so amazing! For how can something be described by the mouth in words, that which is beyond the five senses, the mind and the intellect? It’s impossible! (Note: If a person who has not seen the soul by the soul tries to talk about it, he falls flat.)

"Full of amazement some others hear of him as." Obviously! Here they are hearing about something totally different, something that is not the subject of the sense organs, mind or intellect. They are used to hearing only about things that can be experienced or sensed through the sense organs, the mind or the intellect. But now they are hearing about something that cannot be known through these usual channels. And the one who is describing it is saying that it’s the one thing worth knowing! And it’s being seen in his life. The deep contentment shows. As it says in 6:20, "where the self sees the self by the self, the self becomes contented." The deep contentment shows. And he is not agitated even by great joys and great sorrows. It shows. "Having gained this, he considers no other gain greater; thereafter situated in it he is not agitated even by great sorrows," says 6:22. Everything else becomes irrelevant to him. "What is it?" the hearers ask. "What is it that he has got? What is it that makes him so contented, so unmoved in the midst of even great joys or sorrows?"

Yet, "even on hearing, anyone does not know him." Why? Because the soul is not known by hearing with the ears, seeing with the eyes, tasting with the tongue, smelling with the nose, touching with the skin, thinking with the mind, or discerning with the intellect. The soul can be known only by the soul seeing itself by the soul. So how can anyone know him by hearing about him?

Does that mean it is useless to hear about it or read about it? No, for if it were so, of what use the Bhagavad Geeta, of what use the Upanishads, of what use the hearing from realized souls, of what use the meetings in satsangs? But it’s important to be clear about the real use of all these. The real use of all these is that they serve as catalysts. None of these are necessary, but any of them can serve as a catalyst. The self seeing the self by the self can happen anytime, anywhere, to anyone, most easily and naturally. It is a most natural phenomenon. You don’t have to make any effort to see it. It’s not a question of effort, it’s a question of realization. The click. You can’t do anything to make it happen. It happens when it happens. You can only be sensitive to it.

They why doesn’t it happen to more people? Because they are too engrossed in whatever they are engrossed in, in this world. Their senses have abducted the mind (2:60) and have carried away the intellect as wind carries away a boat on water (2:68). We will see the process in detail when we deal with verses 2:60-68. Also when it happens, if you are not internally clean, you won’t be able to sustain it You get a glimpse of it, and within seconds, it’s gone. We will cover this in more detail in chapter 13, "The one thing to know". For now we only need to note that there are only a very few people who see it (the soul by the soul), and see it on a sustainable basis for it to be considered a reality in their lives. The word "anyone" in verse 29 ("even on hearing, anyone does not know him") is to be taken figuratively as "very few." It can’t literally mean "no-one", because that would include Krishna himself and all the "seers of reality" that he mentions.

Verse 30 concludes the section with a restatement of its central thought: "The embodied dweller in every body is everlasting and cannot be killed. Therefore grief is not appropriate of you." The one thing that comes out of this section is the distinction between the body and the soul. This is the starting point of all spiritual growth. It is interesting to note that Krishna does not use the usual Vedantic words – words like Atman/ an-atman, Brahman/ Jiva, Purusha/ Prakriti, Maya/ Avidya etc. He rather uses descriptive words like eternal, unborn, all-pervading, indestructible, immeasurable, uncleavable, unburnable, insoluble, un-dry-able, stable, immovable, unmanifest, inconceivable, and unchangeable. This makes it easier for the layman and to the person who is not familiar with Vedantic jargon. Although even these words cannot lead one to seeing the soul by the soul, they do a much better job of indicating the soul than do words like Atman, Brahman, Purusha etc. These words will be used later on, but by then (hopefully) the reader would have got a sense of what is being spoken about! The soul is a very difficult (if not impossible) subject to communicate as verse 29 has said, and it’s very smart that in the first section that talks about the nature of the soul, descriptive words are used rather than technical ones. All these words are descriptive of things that are in the vocabulary of a normal person, and are not limited to those aware of Vedantic teaching.