The world is in Me, I am not in the world and The world is also not in Me

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
dattaswami
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

The world is in Me, I am not in the world and The world is also not in Me

Post by dattaswami »

Resolving contradictions in the statements of the gita

There are three statements in the Gita. i) The world is in Me, ii) I am not in the world and iii) The world is also not in Me (Matsthani sarva bhutani, na chaham teshvavasthitah, na cha matsthani bhutaani, nattvaham teshu te mayi...). God happens to be the unimaginable boundary of the imaginary world on all sides. [Example:] The area of the room is within the four walls. It is not beyond the four walls. It means it is in the control of the boundary wall. Though the area is within the boundary wall, it is not present inside the wall. The boundary wall is also not in the area of the room since the boundary wall is outside the room. [Another Example:] We say that an island is in the sea. It means that the island is surrounded by the sea on all sides like the boundary wall.

It does not mean that the sea is in the island. At the same time, when a sunk boat is immersed in the sea, we also say that the sunk boat is in the sea. The sea water is present in the sunk boat. In both cases, we have used the same type of sentence that the island or sunk boat is in the sea. There is similarity in the statement but there is difference in the situation since the sea water exists in the sunk boat and not in the island. Here, the universe is said to be in God like the island in the sea. The God is not in the world, which means that the sea water is not in the island. Hence, the case here is not the sunk boat. But, by the similarity of the construction of the sentence in both cases that both are in the sea, you may misunderstand that the island is in the sea like the sunk boat. In such case, it is negated by saying that the world is not in God like the sunk boat in the sea.

Neither the unimaginable God exists in the imaginable world to make the world also unimaginable nor does the imaginable world exists in unimaginable God to make God as imaginable. If God is in the world everywhere, the difference between good and bad becomes impossible. However, this does not mean that God cannot enter the world. As a general rule, God is not in the world. But, the omnipotent God can enter the world by entering a selected human being to make the human incarnation. The process of the entry is also unimaginable since the actions of God are also unimaginable.

The human incarnation remains imaginable in the external medium but becomes unimaginable in certain specific actions. Since God is not in any item of the world, every item of the world is rejected as God as said in the Veda (Neti Neti...). Every imaginable item in the world exhibits only imaginable characteristics due to absence of unimaginable God in it. At the same time, God enters the world through a selected specific human being to become human incarnation as said in the Veda (Tadevanu pravishat...) and this shows the omnipotency of God rejecting that He cannot enter the world. It is true that He did not enter the world.

It is not true if you say that He cannot enter the world. The Veda says that He can enter any item in the world (Eeshaavaasyamidam...) and this statement is misunderstood as the statement meaning that He entered every item in the world. In this way, the contradiction in the statements of the Gita can be resolved.



-By Shri Datta Swami

www.universal-spirituality.org
Post Reply