Jag ga ma ma ga dhe re ka sa ga re Jag ga ma ma ga dhe re ka sa ga re
Om Avtarine Shri Swaminarayanaya Namo Namah
Shri Harikrishnaya Namo Namah
Shri Purna Purushottamaya Namo Namah
Shlok number 105 continue
Rutsthonu sukshma chhidropavo gnyata vyapya khilam tanum gnyan shaktya sthito jivo gnyeyochhedyadi lakshanah
Doubt
If consciousness and its functions like happiness and other qualities are the attributes of the visible body, then just as the body is visible, consciousness and qualities like happiness should also be visible like the body.
But they are not visible.
Then the materialist Charvaka says that the earth is visible, its quality is smell. The earth is visible there, but the smell is not visible.
The nature of objects is such that forms and other objects can only be experienced through their respective senses.
So, the quality of consciousness, as described, is experienced only through direct perception by the mind.
So, how can it be seen with the eyes like the body?
In this way, if we consider the distinct nature of objects perceived by the senses, then in materialism, the body itself is the soul, and the meaning of 'I' and 'this' are one and the same. Just as one experiences 'I am this' in one's own body, one will have to believe 'I am this' in another's body as well, leaving no room for such doubt.
The experience of the body, which is the possessor of qualities, occurs through the external senses and also through the mind.
However, the experience of consciousness, which is the dharma of the body, can only be had through the mind.
And the experience of the 'I' consciousness, the feeling of 'I am,' is also mental. Therefore, just as the grossness residing in another's body, which is 'this,' can be seen with the eyes, similarly, the 'I' consciousness, the feeling of 'I am,' residing in another's body, cannot be perceived by our external senses.
Just as everyone directly experiences the external perception of being fat or thin, the experience of 'I-ness' is not universally accepted through external senses, similar to the external experience of fatness and thinness.
Doubt
The 'aham graha' (sense of 'I') can only be experienced by oneself; no one else can experience it.
Arrogance and the sense of 'I' are both different.
The sense of 'I' is the natural quality of the jiva.
And arrogance is when people act arrogantly regarding the body or the objects of the world; call it pride or arrogance.
That is worth giving up.
But the sense of 'I' does not leave.
That is the dharma of the body, that is the dharma of the soul.
Charvakas believe that the body is the soul.
This is to make people understand.
Doubt
Indeed, if we consider it, there is no inconsistency or impropriety in stating the unity of the experience of 'I' (aham artha) and the experience of 'this' (idam artha).
There are four such sentences.
Then, just as the practical word 'I' is used for oneself, the word 'I' should also be used for others.
Resolution
No, I am gross
It is not used.
The nature of the word 'I' is such that it is used only for oneself.
The word 'I' is meaningful only in the person who utters it.
In another person, the imagination of such an experience of 'I' is merely a form of fear by the mere word.
In the physical body, there is no such thing as 'I' like the form etc. other than the body. If one sees another's body with open eyes like one's own body, then one experiences the soul in the form of such a body.
The word only refers to the experienced object.
In that, I am not capable of using such a word to refer to the experience of others.
Therefore, in another person, the feeling of 'I' cannot be created.
That is just a rumor.
The combination of elements like earth, which is called the body, and in which consciousness has arisen, has the attributes of happiness and sorrow of the body itself.
And those are also the internal attributes of the body.
Therefore, the entry of external senses into it is impossible.
Therefore, they cannot be perceived like external attributes.
Therefore, it is determined that the jiva tattva is not different from the body.
Body
The soul is separate from the body.
There are some who believe that.
And the body is the soul.
Some people who believe that are Charvakas.
In that, happiness and sorrow are the attributes of the soul.
If he considers it separate from the body, then it becomes possible for him.
But now, happiness and sorrow are all worldly, everyone experiences them, so he tells the other person that he has to arrange for it, right?
So, happiness and sorrow are the attributes of the body, whether you say of the soul or of the body, the soul and the body are one.
Those who believe that are Charvakas.
All hedonists believe that.
People who are hedonists
Have more attachment to enjoyment.
Attachment is inherent in every human being.
Rarely is there anyone free from attachment to enjoyment.
Maharaj Gunatitanand Swami said that Nishkulanand Swami
There might be only a few like Brahmachari Mulji and Mava Bhagat who have no attachment to worldly pleasures.
No affection.
Otherwise, everyone has a little bit of it.
So, there's no one like that at all.
But the belief is that all these hedonists have such a belief.
The body itself is finished.
And if the body is considered everything, then
Money, all the comforts and conveniences of this world, are considered everything.
The combination of elements like earth, which is called the body, and in which consciousness and knowledge have arisen, has the attributes of happiness and sorrow of the body itself.
And those are also the internal attributes of the body.
Therefore, the entry of external senses into it is impossible.
Therefore, they cannot be perceived like external attributes.
Therefore, it is determined that the jiva tattva is not different from the body.
The belief of the materialist Charvaka is as stated.
Regarding this, great saints who know the truth say that knowledge arises spontaneously in the body.
It is very difficult to prove that matter.
Because it is said that the body is produced from elements like earth, there is no consciousness or knowledge in those elements themselves.
If there is no consciousness in the substances from which the body is made, then how can there be consciousness in the body made from those substances?
It is a rule that whatever special qualities like consciousness are present in the effect, such as the body, those qualities must already be present in its cause.
Because the form that is in the pot is already present in half of its skull-pot, as it appears.
The Charvaka materialist says that just as intoxicating power arises from the yeast seeds in the middle of the fermentation process,
Similarly, a conscious power that was not present before arises in the combined elements like earth.
That is directly visible.
In today's language, don't they say bacteria?
When yeast is added, bacteria are produced, and in the same way, these four elements
When the time comes, consciousness arises in it.
That is what the materialists say.
But Maharaj does not say all that.
Charvak, the materialist, says that just as intoxication arises from the yeast of alcohol, so too does the power of consciousness arise in the combination of earth and other elements, which was not present before, and this is directly visible.
In some places, the origin of form in a pot, etc., is said to be due to a prior cause. What is the obstacle to the origin of this directly perceived consciousness-knowledge? What is the objection?
The qualities that appear in the effect must have been present in the cause from the beginning, and you give the example of the form of a pot. Such an inference of yours cannot negate the consciousness that is directly perceived.
Charvak says that inference cannot really be called a valid means of knowledge.
The act of taking fire after seeing smoke can also happen due to doubt or illusion. In that, the real
Charvak believes in only one प्रमाण (means of knowledge): direct perception.
He does not believe in other means of knowledge.
Charvak says that inference cannot really be called a valid means of knowledge.
One who only has the vision of this world.
Where will we go after death, or whether we will experience sorrow or happiness—those who do not have such a perspective are called Charvaks.
In that, there is no need for true valid knowledge.
If one goes near smoke and then perhaps finds fire, that is considered accidental.
When Maharaj went to Dhoraji, all those atheists came to Maharaj.
So Maharaj talked a little about dharma, and about happiness and sorrow.
So all of them immediately said, "Maharaj, you all, the idle people, have arranged this."
There is nothing like that for the other world or this world.
Maharaj had no debt, so Maharaj made him go into samadhi and sent him to Yamapuri.
So then, when he woke up, he started believing everything.
That person, when alive, does not believe, but later cries, beating their head.
Why not then?
One who wakes up early is called wise.
Not at four in the morning, but rather, one who wakes up before dying.
It is said to wake up early in the morning.
He who sleeps early in the evening and wakes up early, his strength, intellect, and wealth increase, and his body remains in comfort.
Dalpatramji has said that.
Doubt against Charvak: Where there is a valid inference in the form of invariable concomitance, which is the definite co-existence of smoke and fire, why should one imagine doubt or illusion? Charvak says it is not so. That definite inference is not there. Inference cannot be proven as a valid means of knowledge at all.
Doubt against it.
The proof of inference is indeed established by observing the co-existence of the inferable fire and the reason smoke hundreds of times, isn't it?
Charvak.
Even if the concomitance of fire and smoke has been observed in certain places like kitchens, the definite concomitance of past fires and smokes, future fires and smokes, and fires and smokes in distant regions in the present time, which has been experienced, is little. And the unexperienced concomitance of such fires and smokes is abundant, it is much.
Therefore, there can be a doubt about the irregularity of the concomitance of smoke and fire, which is a fallacy. Hence, the invariable concomitance, the definite concomitance of smoke and fire, is impossible.
Now the commentator replies to Charvak, the materialist, that what you say is not so.
When the definite and regular concomitance of numerous fire and smoke entities is observed in thousands of places like kitchens, then there is no reason for doubt regarding the concomitance of other similar past and future unobserved fire and smoke entities.
Then there cannot be any doubt about the irregularity of the concomitance of smoke and fire, which is a fallacy.
Because to doubt something merely because it has not been seen in another similar object without any other reason, when the first object is clearly visible, is not considered a valid means of knowledge.
That is why the general proximity, the strength of a close relationship
From this, the definite concomitance of smoke and fire, a necessary relationship, can certainly be established.
Therefore, inference is not invalid.
Furthermore, another point is that if you consider inference to be completely invalid, then all worldly transactions will break down.
When innocent young children first see an object or a person with their innocent, wide eyes, they only gain knowledge of its shape.
But they do not know their names or specific types of species, etc.
Then, when they observe the behavior of their elders, hear their names and species, etc., and then think, all knowledge comes to them through inference.
When a person living in a village goes towards the forest and sees the shapes of wild animals that he has never seen before, he remembers the sentence he heard earlier.
That a nilgai is like a cow.
The gavaya is similar to a cow.
Then he remembers his own cow, and based on that inference, he gains true knowledge of the nilgai.
What more is there to say?
You, the direct perceptionist, who have started refuting the validity of inference,
are clinging to a flawed inferential reason, and even in that, you are relying on inference.
Only the knowledge of its shape is obtained.
Furthermore, the materialist previously said, "What objection does inference have to a directly experienced object?"
Regarding that, the commentator says, "Can anyone directly perceive the consciousness that arises in a child in the womb at the appropriate time?"
Or is that consciousness external, like heat? Or is that consciousness external, like heat?
If you say that consciousness is mental,
then that consciousness can also only be known by its own self.
And the consciousness of another person can only be known through their actions.
When a child is in the mother's womb,
then that child thinks, 'I am'
and the mother's 'I'
those two are separate.
The two are not one.
If there is only a body, and the body itself is the soul, then that cannot happen.
Or is consciousness external, like heat?
If you say that consciousness is mental,
then that consciousness can also only be known by its own self.
And the consciousness of another person can only be known through their actions.
Indeed, no one can even directly perceive the way their own consciousness arises.
Therefore, the materialist view that a unique consciousness arises in the body, which is a collection of elements, is indeed refuted by the validity of inference.
Four sentences.
Just as intoxication arises from the seed of yeast in the middle of fermentation, even though there is no intoxication in the causal form.
Similarly, consciousness arises in the physical body.
Therefore, the qualities of the effect are always preceded by the qualities of the cause; the reason given in that inference is not a valid reason.
But you will not be able to say that it is a fallacy.
Because the rule that a quality present in the cause also appears in the effect applies only to specific qualities present in the effect, not to general qualities.
Intoxication is a general quality, not a specific one, so there is no rule for it.
The commentator says that until now you were talking about the manifestation of a unique consciousness in the body, which is a collection of elements.
Now, if you abandon that argument and adopt the principle of the manifestation of consciousness preceded by the qualities of the cause, then listen.
To acquire consciousness in the body, one must assume consciousness in the hands, feet, etc., from which the body is made. Furthermore, to acquire consciousness in those hands, feet, etc., one must also assume consciousness in the subtle causal elements that initiate them.
Thus, as its respective cause, until the chain of causes of the body is complete, sufficient consciousness must be accepted even in those subtle elements.
If that is believed, then many conscious entities should be assumed in the body made of all those things.
But if that is not the case, then the system of whole and part relationship would not exist in those many conscious entities.
Maharaj has taken that question in the Vachanamrut, hasn't he?
That if all the senses and inner faculties are considered conscious, then for the liberation of the jiva, the liberation of all of them should also occur along with it.
The liberation of the 24 elements should also happen.
Then the jiva will get its share.
It won't come alone.
So, all these elements in the body are inanimate.
And as a cause, they are animate, so says Maharaj.
He asked whether the elements are animate or inanimate.
Elements, meaning the 24 elements in our body, are they all animate or inanimate?
If they are animate, then what happens?
24, then there would be 24 jivas.
And if one does something, its 24th part is received by each one.
That doesn't happen.
So, all of them are not animate; they are inanimate.
This body is made of the five elements; when the jiva leaves it, the body of the five elements remains.
So, the five elements are separate.
And even in that, the dharmas of the elements of everyone's body are different.
The bones and muscles in this body are the dharma of earth.
Blood circulation is the dharma of water; digestive fire is the dharma of fire.
Prana-vayu is the dharma of air.
And all the empty spaces that are there, many of them, all that is the dharma of akasha.
So, these five elements are separate.
They combine and form the body.
And it changes.
Just as a person discards old clothes and takes on new ones.
The jiva leaves one body and goes into another body.
So, the jiva is separate, and the body is separate.
The joys and sorrows of the body are separate, and the joys and sorrows of the jiva are separate.
But he has considered them as one due to delusion.
If it is believed that way, then Gunatitanand Swami has spoken of 'dash mod'.
What does he say from his home?
Directional confusion means
Huh?
Wrong direction.
Illusion.
Illusion.
Illusion.
Illusion.
Illusion.
Wrong, wrong, it's become 'dash mod', he says, 'dash mod'.
So, you don't know; if it's east, it looks west.
Similarly, we have become 'dash mod'.
Only the body is visible.
And all these dharmas of the body appear to be one's own.
If it is believed that way, then many conscious entities should be considered in the body made of all those.
But if it is not so, then the system of the relationship between the whole and its parts would not remain in those many consciousnesses.
And the limits set by the jiva itself would also not be maintained.
Because many jivas gathered together only create trouble.
Again, the dehatmavadi says that
When pots and other earthen vessels are baked in a kiln, a different form arises in those pots, etc., which was not present before.
It turns red. When an earthen pot is raw, it is black, and when it is baked, it turns red.
In that, when the five elements of the body come together, consciousness enters it.
In the form of that pot, etc., there is no prior existence of the causal quality.
In the same way, by the power of some unique maturation, when the body is in the womb, an unprecedented consciousness, which was not present before, suddenly manifests in it.
Besides that, there is another example.
For example, sometimes an unprecedented form is produced merely by a single combination.
So, your rule that the effect has the qualities of the cause is broken.
Scorpions are born from cow dung.
There's cow dung, right?
A scorpion is born from a pile of dung.
That's how it is.
So, in the scorpion and cow dung, where did the causal quality and the effect quality match?
It's not necessary that a scorpion is born only from a scorpion.
A scorpion can also be born from cow dung.
It's not that a moth is born only from a moth.
It can also be born from mud.
If that is said,
then the effect quality and the causal quality did not match much in that.
So, it doesn't apply like that.
So, when these five elements come together, consciousness arises in them, and that is called a jiva, nothing else.
For example, the arguments of the dehatmavadis are very strong.
You cannot cut it.
For example, sometimes an unprecedented form is produced merely by a single combination.
That's why it is said in the scriptures, 'Shraddhasva' (have faith).
Have faith.
For example, sometimes a unique form is produced merely by a combination.
So your rule, which is a causal attribute, breaks down.
And it appears, and it is also seen, that if lime and turmeric powder are mixed in water, a red color immediately appears in it.
Kumkum is made like that, isn't it?
If kumkum is made, then in reality, what is kumkum? It is turmeric.
What do they put in it? If they put lemon, it turns red.
So where did the red color come from?
Then the commentator says that even if it happens that way.
But you say that when the body is in the womb, then a unique consciousness suddenly manifests in it.
If it is so, then why does that consciousness not last as long as the body remains?
The body lies there, and consciousness departs.
When a person is about to die.
So, nowadays, in foreign countries, you have to get a date for it.
They might die on Monday, and the cremation date comes on Saturday.
So what to do then?
Until then, if there is consciousness, then it would not be known.
So consciousness is separate from the body.
If it is so, then why does that consciousness not last as long as the body remains?
The color of a pot baked in a kiln remains as long as the pot remains.
But consciousness does not remain as long as the body remains.
Even though the body is firm and healthy, consciousness appears to be dissolved in deep sleep and so on.
Similarly, the attributes of consciousness, such as happiness, also remain absorbed in deep sleep.
The redness produced in water merely by the combination of turmeric and lime, which are completely different from redness, also never seems to leave the water.
Therefore, the visible consciousness and happiness, etc., come and go daily.
As long as its support, the body, remains, it does not remain.
Therefore, it is certain that it is not an attribute of the body.
The color that has appeared in the pot from cooking.
The color that appears in the pot from cooking, or the red color that appears merely from the combination of lime and turmeric, does not repeatedly come and go.
Charvaka says that consciousness and knowledge disappear in deep sleep and reappear in the waking state; this should not be believed.
But the consciousness that is not awake in the state of deep sleep, that is unmanifest, manifests in the waking state, it becomes manifest.
This is the only difference between the states of deep sleep and waking.
Therefore, the consciousness residing in the body, which is a collection of elements, remains as long as the body remains; there is no defect in it.
Then the commentator says that consciousness is not inert like a pot or other objects, therefore it certainly remains illuminated merely by the existence of its own nature.
So, it cannot be said that consciousness exists but is experienced or unmanifest.
Just as the Advaita Vedantins say that only I, devoid of external tendencies, remain as mere consciousness in deep sleep.
Similarly, we also say that only the manifestation of consciousness remains in deep sleep.
The commentator says you cannot say like the Advaita Vedantin.
Because consciousness is a kind of quality.
Its manifestation is not possible without a support.
But it manifests only with a support.
Advaita Vedantins, considering consciousness with its support to be separate from the body, experience the manifestation of consciousness even without external contact.
Whereas according to you, the body itself is the support of consciousness, so if consciousness manifests with its support, then its manifestation should be with the body itself.
So how can consciousness have only internal manifestation without external connection?
Charvaka.
Just as the Advaita Vedantin calls knowledge attributeless, we also consider consciousness to be without any object in deep sleep.
The commentator says you cannot describe attributeless consciousness in deep sleep like the attributeless knowledge-वादी.
Because those Advaita Vedantins consider attributeless knowledge-consciousness itself to be the Atman.
So it is appropriate for them to say that.
And for those who consider the physical body to be endowed with the quality of consciousness, it would not be appropriate to say so.
If you follow the opinion of that Advaita Vedantin, then that consciousness, separate from the body, will be considered as accepted in the form of the jivatma.
If we truly consider it, it will be known that knowledge can never be without an object.
How is it to call something knowledge even if it has absolutely no object?
It is extremely contradictory, like saying that a barren woman is the mother of a brave man.
If you say that consciousness, like sound, has become the support of an unmanifested vritti, then that is also not correct.
Because according to you, the soul is only that aggregate of elements in which consciousness has manifested, so in a state without conscious vrittis, the soul itself will be said to have been destroyed.
According to you, sound also does not remain as long as its supporting substance exists, because you do not consider sound to be a quality of the eternal akasha.
Because you do not consider sound to be a quality of the eternal akasha.
Oh, you haven't even accepted akasha.
If you consider sound to be a quality of air, then its destruction is also possible with the destruction of its support.
Again, there are four sentences, they only believe in the four elements, they don't believe in akasha.
Many other Buddhists do not believe in akasha.
There is no element like akasha.
Buddhists believe that.
Most atheists believe that.
All those who are externalists from the Vedas.
Even in Jainism, they do not consider akasha as an element.
In its philosophy.
Again, the commentator asks the dehatmavadi,
You, who consider the soul to be the body itself, after stopping all the activities of the external senses and concentrating the mind, when you experience 'I am this', then in that mental perception, who is the subject of that perception? Tell me that.
You do not consider the soul to be separate from the body, therefore you will have to consider this gross body as the subject of direct perception.
If the body itself is considered the soul, then the awareness of the body's hands, feet, and other limbs must also occur at that time.
The body has form; when we directly see that form, we do not experience its touch.
The body has form; when we directly see that form, we do not experience its touch.
Similarly, you Charvakas cannot say that when the body as a whole is perceived, its parts are also perceived.
Because the experience of form and the experience of touch occur through different senses.
So it cannot be said here in the same way.
Here, if the body, which is an aggregate of elements, appears in mental perception, then it is appropriate to accept the mental perception of its parts as well.
In the world, there is no person who experiences the whole without experiencing the parts.
Then you will say that when the whole is experienced, then at the same time, the parts are also experienced.
That rule is only in external dealings.
To say that it is not in the internal mental process is like describing the impossible.
The happiness of the five senses has been taken very subtly.
It's all shastrartha (scriptural debate).
What is the difference in the matter of purushartha between these dehatmavadis who consider the pleasure of the five senses as the ultimate goal, and the animals and birds of the lower species?
Therefore, those with such understanding have no purushartha at all.
For them, the purpose of an animal's birth is also said to be their purpose.
In this way, they can never think of their upward progress.
But what more discussion is there to have with dehatmavadis like sheep and goats, who only look towards degradation? This is enough.
The Naiyayikas and Vaisheshikas, who consider the jivatma to be all-pervading, come and say that the jiva is all-pervading.
Why do you limit its nature by saying that it resides in the heart?
The commentator says that the jiva is not all-pervading, but it is merely an atom.
Therefore, it is appropriate to say that it resides in some part of the body.
The scholars of Nyaya Vaisheshika say that this soul, rich in special knowledge, resides in the midst of the senses.
This special knowledge
rich in knowledge
Saying that this soul, rich in special knowledge, resides in the midst of the senses, and then saying that this unborn soul is great, is very vast, thus the Shruti has called the jiva great.
So it is as subtle as an atom.
No, but the all-pervading is all-pervading.
Smriti also says that there was a dispute about its measure.
Is the jiva an atom or all-pervading?
All-pervading means in conjunction with all places.
All material objects are connected to the all-pervading.
So, wherever there is an object in the world, it is connected to all of them, just as the sky is connected to all of them.
The sky is here, it is in Gujarat, it is in America, the sky is connected everywhere.
That is called all-pervading.
So if the jiva is all-pervading, what's the problem with believing that it is all-pervading?
How can it be in one place?
How can it stay in one place?
If it is all-pervading, it doesn't need to stay in one place, does it?
If our jiva is all-pervading like the sky, then what's the problem?
So what's the problem?
All these jivas are one.
When it's snowing in America and hot here, he realizes that his knees are burning and his back is freezing.
If it's all-pervading, that's what happens, right?
All-pervading means that just as the sky is spread everywhere, our jiva is also spread everywhere.
If one believes that, then this objection arises.
That in some country there is something, and in some country there is something else, and in some place it is raining, and in some place it is hot, and in some place it is cold.
If the whole earth is like that, and if it is all-pervading, then it should experience all three things.
One task should be done.
But that never happens.
Whatever is one, that experience happens, that it is hot right now.
Or it is cold right now.
So that means it is not all-pervading.
It is located in one place.
It resides in one country.
Smriti also says that the Atma, by which this entire inert element is pervaded, you should know that Atma to be imperishable.
This jivatma cannot be cut, burned, rotted, or dried.
But it is eternal and resides in all.
So the jiva is not like an atom, but it is all-pervading.
The commentator says 'nitya sarvagata' (eternal and all-pervading), does that come in some shloka in the Gita?
Eternal, all-pervading, firm, all-pervading, eternal, eternal.
Firm, all-pervading.
It is said that it is eternal.
So if it is called all-pervading, then it is all-pervading.
All-pervading means spread everywhere.
So what should its meaning be?
Spread everywhere within this body, within the body.
No, no.
Is there anything like that? All-pervading means it is said in the Gita that it is not said that it is all within the body.
All-pervading, firm, eternal, O eternal one.
So, if it is all-pervading, then you say that Maharaj said in this that the jivas are characterized by knowledge and power, and in that, it is said to be related to the body.
But it is not said in the Gita as it is said.
So what about that?
It can know everything.
All-pervading means it is different in everyone.
It is in everyone, the meaning of all-pervading is that it is everywhere.
But it is not said in the Gita whether it is separate or one.
So the jiva is in everyone, all-pervading means it is here, in America, in the polar regions, in the equator, everywhere, in the sky, in all living beings.
There, everyone is doing something or the other, their own work.
No one is sitting idle.
Thus, it is all-pervading.
But not all-pervading, there are two types of all-pervading.
You'll find someone or the other everywhere.
So if you travel all over the world, you'll find some people from India, no matter where you go.
So India is called all-pervading.
Gujarat is said to be all-pervading.
Wherever you go, even if you go to a small village, there
It is said in the Gita that it is all-pervading.
And Vibhu Sarvagata means God is all-pervading, like the sky.
He is alone everywhere, even then.
Or it is called all-pervading because it can move everywhere.
Here it is also said that all-pervading means that it is said like that.
But God is the question of Vibhu here, isn't he?
All-pervading means there is movement everywhere.
But Vibhu means not again, the one who argues against it considers it Vibhu, so he does not consider it all-pervading.
Otherwise, the jivatma is called all-pervading in such a way that it can enter everywhere, in trees, in banks, in animals, and so on.
The commentator says that the words that say that the jiva is all-pervading are like the great wind is all-pervading, and they show another meaning that is otherwise proven.
Because in the Gita, at that place, there is no intention to say that one person is all-pervading, but it is only to say that there is no region without the nature of air.
In it, the word of the Gita is also pervaded by the nature of the self in all living beings.
The Shruti mentioned above describes the nature of Paramatma.
That is actually all-pervading, it shows God to God.
In the Shruti, what is said about the all-pervading is said about God. God is all alone, yet he is spread everywhere.
Therefore, it does not describe the nature of the jiva.
The soul, which is full of knowledge and resides in the midst of the senses, is presented as the jivatma, and the soul known through the practice of the mind and meditation is presented as Paramatma.
The commentator has another thing to say: if the jiva is considered all-pervading, then the evolution, upward movement, and movement, going and coming back, which are mentioned in the Shrutis, will prove false.
Evolution is mentioned.
When it dies, the jiva comes out of this body and enters another body, so if it is considered like the sky, then it would not be there.
The sky cannot exit from here and enter another place.
And this is said in the Shruti.
Utkramantam prananutkramanti, like that.
When the jiva transmigrates, the prana also follows it.
And it goes from one place to another.
And in this world, it often happens that he remembers his previous birth, that I was there before and then came here.
So, transmigration happens.
Even now, there are instances of past lives happening.
If the jiva is considered all-pervading, then the evolution, movement, and return of the jiva, which are mentioned in the Shrutis, will prove false.
For example, this soul emerges from the great light of the senses, it emerges from the eyes, from the head, or from any other part of the body, this is called transmigration.
Any jiva that leaves this world goes to the moon world.
This movement is said to be a temporary attainment.
After experiencing the fruits of karma, one comes back to this world to perform karma again, thus the Shruti speaks of returning.
Naiyayikas say that in reality, the transmigration from the body is of the prana vayu.
That of a jiva endowed with prana is said to be metaphorical.
Therefore, there is no objection to calling the jiva all-pervading.
Then the commentator says that
The transmigration of prana also occurs only through the transmigration of the jiva.
The Shruti establishes that.
So, there will be a contradiction with that Shruti.
While transmigrating, that jiva's
Utkramanam Utkramantam Anu Utkramantam Sthitam Vapi Bhunjam, not that.
The Shruti says that when this transmigrates, the pranas transmigrate after it.
The Shruti is like that.
It must be there.
There is a line.
Tam Utkramantam Anutkramanti Pranah.
Such is the Shruti.
So, Tam Utkramantam means when the jiva transmigrates, the pranas transmigrate behind it.
Again, pranas mean all the senses and the five pranas, the entire subtle body of 19 elements.
When transmigrating, the main prana transmigrates after that jiva.
Then, after the yagna, due to performing the yagna, there was rain. Just like this sentence, it then states the reason.
Even if you formally state the transmigration of the vital air in the jiva and resolve the contradiction of the Shruti of evolution, the meaning of the Shruti that speaks of the jiva's movement and non-movement will not fit in any way.
Moreover, in the Shruti, the jiva is clearly stated to be like an atom, just as this atomic soul should be understood by the mind.
The Nyayi says that the great all-pervading Atman should be understood as atomic due to the Upadhi of the mind, meaning the atomicity of the Atman is conditional.
The commentator says you cannot say that.
According to you, the purport of the sentence's connection is broken.
The real meaning is to be understood by the mind.
The Nyayika did not use the word 'anu' for the jiva to indicate its size or measurement.
This word 'anu' is used to describe the jiva as extremely subtle, making it difficult to comprehend.
Therefore, calculating its dimension is unnecessary.
Then the commentator says that the oneness with the Shruti statements that speak of the atomic dimension of the jiva, which are steadfast, uniquely established, and based on truth, is clearly visible.
For example, the jiva is seen as extremely subtle, like the sharp point of an awl.
If the tip of a hair is divided into 100 pieces, and then one piece is taken and again divided into 100 pieces, then the jiva, which is like that subtle piece, should be known as subtle.
Moreover, the Sutrakara also speaks of the atomicity of the jiva, just as the Shrutis speak of the jiva's evolution, movement, and non-movement, therefore the jiva is subtle like an atom.
It should be believed that going and coming is to be done by the jiva itself.
The jiva is not an atom; it is called great in the Shruti.
No, that is not so; that greatness is attributed to the Paramatma.
The jiva is directly called an atom, and its measure, like the sharp point of an awl, is also stated in the Shruti.
Even though the jiva is like an atom, it pervades all the organs of the body through its inherent knowledge, and therefore it can experience happiness and other things.
The Sutrakara has illustrated this matter with the example of a ray of light.
Just as the sun and other celestial bodies, though located in one place, appear in many places through their light, so too the jiva pervades the entire body through its inherent knowledge.
Doubt.
The knowledge of the atomic soul is its dharma. That knowledge has spread from the soles of the feet to the head, and it also spreads elsewhere through its support. How is that possible?
Why not?
Does not the luminous quality of the radiant sun and others spread to other regions from its support, the sun and so on?
Qualities like form are non-substances; their rule is that they do not reside in other regions from their substratum.
But light and knowledge are not non-substances like white form etc., but they are substances.
Doubt.
If the jiva is considered atomic, it will contradict the Shruti that speaks of the contraction and expansion of the jiva.
That Shruti says, 'O child, when the jiva abandons one branch of this large tree with many branches, then that branch dries up.'
The commentator says that the Shruti does not mean what you say.
The purport of that Shruti is in the contraction of the jiva's inherent knowledge.
Due to the destruction of the unseen karma, which is the cause of enjoyment for the jiva residing in that tree, the jiva's inherent knowledge contracts.
And by abandoning that branch, that branch dries up, so this Shruti has no contradiction with the atomicity of the jiva.
Doubt.
If the jiva is as subtle as an atom, how could a single atomic jiva like Saubhari and others assume many bodies?
Sage Saubhari assumed 50 bodies.
So if a jiva is like an atom, how can it assume 50 bodies?
If it is all-pervading, it can assume them.
How much powerful logic has been given.
The commentator says that the inherent knowledge, as much as it spreads and expands, enables it to sustain one body or many bodies.
The main reason for sustaining the body is the inherent knowledge itself.
That inherent knowledge spreads through karma in its supporting body from the soles of the feet to the head, and elsewhere it spreads due to the influence of yoga.
There are two different ones.
That was the effect of yoga.
This is the effect of karma.
The knowledge of the blind, the jiva in the heart, sits like an atom, and it pervades the entire body from the nails to the top of the head.
He is sitting.
So, God has said that according to his karma.
And Saubhari, by the influence of yoga, extended it a little.
And it also started in 50 bodies.
And just as God assumed 9 lakh forms, that is natural for him.
There was no such thing as yoga or that he achieved it because he practiced yoga.
Saubhari
Saubhari had 50 bodies.
Do that.
Saubhari had 50 bodies, so the soul would only reside in one of the 50, right?
Only in one.
First number.
He is given numbers like Saubhari number one, two, three, four, 50.
Such numbers are given because they were all Saubhari.
So
Saubhari one, Saubhari two, like that.
For us, it's like Ghanshyam Prakash, Ghanshyam Jivan, Ghanshyam, we make slight changes in those names, but there was no Saubhari Jivan or Saubhari Prakash in that.
Otherwise, these were all Saubhari.
So then he has to be given numbers like Saubhari number one, two, four, 45, 49, 50.
So, the soul was only in Saubhari number one.
And all the other 49 that were there
they were wandering around like us.
Without a soul.
They wander.
Thus, the expansion of Dharmabhut Jnana, which is called development in the form of a word, a unique combination, has remained in the body even during the state of deep sleep due to prarabdha karma or the power of yoga. Therefore, even at that time, it is consistent and possible to maintain the body.
Doubt
The expansion of the soul that occurs in all of us is based on prarabdha.
What happened to Saubhari was based on the influence of yoga.
What happens to God is natural.
He assumed 9 lakh forms, so he didn't need to practice any yoga.
He is with resolve.
It's natural.
Natural knowledge is a powerful action.
That is natural in God.
There is an online question: What is Dharmabhut Jnana? The question is Saubhari.
What is Dharmabhut Jnana?
There is a lamp, and the light of this lamp goes in all four directions.
In the scriptures, it is called Dharmabhut Jnana.
So those are the words of the scriptures.
Dharmabhut Jnana means its power, it is called a kind of power.
It can be called the knowledge of the soul.
Knowledge of the soul
It's called the knowledge of the soul, isn't it?
It is knowledge.
We are sitting here.
And if a sound occurs half a kilometer away, our mind reaches there.
That there was a rumble, lightning must have struck somewhere.
And it feels so far away.
It feels close here.
Who measures all that?
The intellect does.
Soul knowledge.
So knowledge spread that far.
Even if we are sitting here with our knowledge.
But the circus searchlight, they used to do it like this, like this, like this, like this.
Then they shorten it and lengthen it.
The searchlight does all that.
Similarly, the soul has a searchlight, which is called Dharmabhut Jnana.
So it can be made long or short.
From here, he can also think like that.
That we are talking to someone and have a phone, and the phone is in America.
So sometimes they make video calls and talk to them.
Then our Dharmabhut Jnana reaches all the way there.
He would have reached America.
So Dharmabhut Jnana can go, there is no problem with that.
So that is called Dharmabhut Jnana.
That is its expansion and power.
Its nature is such that any object takes shape.
That place, time, object can take shape.
The past can also take shape.
And the future can also take shape.
The goal is that I want to become like this.
That's what's called a vision, isn't it?
That after 15 years, I will be like this.
After 25 years, I will become a mahant.
50 disciples will be roaming around me.
They will be saying, "Yes, Swamiji, yes, Swamiji."
So that's called visualizing, isn't it?
And either sexually or visually, one of the two is said.
It can be called sexually and it can be called visually.
So they visualize like that.
So our knowledge can also move in the past.
It can also move in the future.
It can move across countries.
And it can move in time.
So that is called dharmabhut gnan (knowledge of dharma).
There is no such arrangement in anyone else; it is only in knowledge.
There is some arrangement in light.
That the sun, its image, Maharaj says, is seated in its chariot.
But when it rises, it removes the darkness from infinite crores of universes.
That is called its effulgence.
Similarly, the knowledge of the jivatma (individual soul) is called dharmabhut gnan.
And that is called prabha; the names are different.
Both works are considered one.
Shankar, who is God, takes avatars.
So just as Saubhari took 50 forms.
In the same way, God takes avatars so that different jivas (souls) in them
God Maharaj said in the Vachanamrut that there is no match for God.
That sometimes he says he takes many forms.
And he even tells someone.
And he takes out one of his hairs and says, "Go, you become an avatar and do the work," then he can do that too.
In the Bhagavat, it is said that there is a black hair and a white hair.
Sitakesha Krishna
Kesha
Sitakrishna Kesha
In the second canto of the Bhagavat, it is said, Sitakrishna Kesha.
God himself believes that if he pulls out one of his hairs and puts it down, saying, "Do the work of this avatar," then he can do it.
Saubhari developed his knowledge; God doesn't have anything to develop.
God himself doesn't have anything to develop.
Sitakrishna Kesha
God said that I have two hairs.
His two avatars work.
And he also does it like Saubhari.
He tells someone, if there is a devotee of his, he orders him to go and do it, then he also does it.
In this way, there are many types of avatars.
So they called them Avesha avatar, Kala avatar, Vibhuti avatar, and all such avatars.
Saubhari is called a Vibhuti.
Saubhari is called a Vibhuti.
So God can do that. God doesn't have a rule that he has to do it like Saubhari.
But Saubhari's example is just to help us understand in our minds.
But God doesn't have to do that.
For God, that hair is still physical.
Each and every quality of God goes there and works.
God's quality is knowledge.
So they are called Kala avatars.
That God puts his quality in someone else.
His knowledge.
So he starts doing work just like God.
God's power is put into someone else.
Lord Parshuram, God put his power in Parshuram.
So no Kshatriya child could raise his head against him on the entire earth.
He
Otherwise, all the Kshatriyas were powerful; they used to shake the entire earth.
Baan, Sahastrarjun, and all of them.
If he walks this way, the earth rises from that side, and if he walks this way, the earth rises from that side.
They were all like that.
But no child could raise his head against God.
So it is said that God put his quality there.
He put his own divine power there.
He said, "Go, now you can roam around."
Just as Maharaj put it in the beard of that Sheikhji, saying, "Go, your beard will be seen and that will happen."
That is called putting his divine power.
Now, Maharaj didn't put it in a human; Maharaj put it in his beard.
After shaving the beard, nothing happens.
So God has no such rule.
Imagination
So God.
That's why it is said that one should have faith in whatever God does.
There should be no doubt in it, do not doubt with your own intellect.
And if one does not doubt with one's own intellect, then it is said that Maharaj says that he has crossed Maya.
And if even Brahmaji has doubts about God's character, then he is said to have drowned in Maya.
The first one is Saubhari and the other 49.
So in the first number, the jiva was original.
The rest were his vibhutis.
Dharmabhut gnan.
So in the avatars, the question is whether the avatars are other jivas or God.
That's why it is said that there are six, five, six types, and if there is an Avesha avatar, it is called a jiva.
If someone has left a kala, it is called a jiva.
There are Anshansh avatars, Ansh avatars, Ansha avatars, Anshansh avatars, Kala avatars.
All of them are of different types.
So, based on which avatar it is, there is a jiva in it.
And if it is a vibhuti, there is no jiva.
Suppose Saubhari assumed 50 forms, then there would be no other jiva in it.
But even then, if Saubhari, who is number 25, thinks that he wants to withdraw all of them, it won't happen.
The others say that I didn't come in that.
If Saubhari, who is number one, says that he wants to withdraw, then all of them can be withdrawn.
So he can do the withdrawal and deposit, but no one else can.
So that much difference is said to be there.
The first number and the remaining 50 numbers are not considered equal.
And God is even beyond that, Saubhari is just one.
He was a yogi, not even a mukta.
He is not called a mukta.
He was a yogi.
If muktas like Gopalanand Swami and others had come, they could show even more divine power than him, enough to shake everything.
And God is even beyond that.
So it is beyond imagination, whatever he does, he does well, that much should be kept in mind.
And it is said that one should not consider anyone else to be like Maharaj.
He believes that there is no one else like Maharaj.
So if that much certainty is achieved, then the rest, whatever is like God, will be shown when we go there.
From here, it doesn't fit into our imagination.
Shastriji Maharaj used to tell a very nice story.
There was an old time, and a man from a village in Gir went to Mumbai.
So he went to Mumbai, and then he must have come back, so he talks about Mumbai, saying that in Mumbai it's like this, and in Mumbai it's like that, and in Mumbai it's like this.
So the small children, all 10-12 years old, they have all the curiosity and say Mumbai is like this and Mumbai is like that.
So he says, how many people are there in Mumbai?
Oh, millions of people live there.
Millions of people live in one place?
Where?
Wrong.
What to do?
Where do all of them go to the toilet?
Because in the village, they used to go with flour like that.
Now, where do those one lakh people go?
And how many miles do they walk to find a place to sit?
So it is said that this is about God.
That we don't know where everyone goes to the toilet.
So they all use that local language, where do they go to relieve themselves?
In the morning, everyone leaves together.
So, a hundred thousand people need at least some area.
So it happens that why does God do this?
Victory to Jayanand Swami Maharaj.