What are some Advaita Slokas from the Bhagavad Gita?

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

Art by Smt.Vani Rao,Baton Rouge,LA

Quora link : https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-Advaita-Slokas-from-the-Bhagavad-Gita

There is not a single shloka in Bhagavad Gita that preaches the popular Advaita. Note a simple thing. If some shlokas teach popular Advaita and some refute the same, then we must conclude that Sri Krishna blabbered inconsistent things. The futile and ridiculous effort made by some Advaitins will be handled below by very simple and straight-forward explanation. It was never the heart of Sri Krishna or the scriptures to preach the identity of jIva and Paramatma. The Advaitins thrive on ambiguity and try to use double talk.

Subrahmanyam Thuruga gave a mixed Dvaita and Advaita stuff and called that as Advaita. If Sri Krishna removed ignorance of Arjuna, did He remove His own ignorance (If Arjuna is non-different from Him)? When it is said that the Lord Sri Krishna is everything, it simply means that He controls everything. We use such expressions in daily life, When Microsoft was formed by Bill Gates, people said - “Microsoft is Bill Gates”. What they meant was “Microsoft is Bill Gates’(note apostrophe - meaning He owns it and He controls it)”. Lord Vedavyasa knew that people misuse such identity statements and so He told in Padma purANa - “tvadadhInaM yatassarvamatassarvO mato bhavAn” (“As every thing is under Your control, it is said you are everything”). This same explanation is to be used for the famous verse they try to use for Advaita - “brahmArpaNaM brahmahavirbrhmAgnau...”. Everything - the tools of offering to the Lord, the act of offering, the havis or ghee that is offered, the fire of offering, the person who offers, etc are all under His control and He is the ultimate goal of everyone. If every soul is Himself, where is the question of reaching Him? Brahmaiva tena gantavyaM becomes meaningless even if a trace of Advaita is brought in.

Look at the ambiguity that is brought in by him. He says that there is change in Arjuna before and after. If Arjuna is same as Sri Krishna, what is the meaning of change? He is talking fully Dvaita and says that that is Advaita! One changes his mind, because He is not all-Supreme? The All-Supreme God does not keep on changing His mind. There is omniscience in case of God, and there is absence of omniscience in case of jIvas like Arjuna. This is very basic. Then they have total confusion between impermanence and illusionary. No one would say “this hare’s horn will be destroyed tomorrow and you can paint it blue today”.

The word separate has multiple meanings. They use “the jIva does not exist separately from God” and claim that it is Advaita. Now let us clarify this for such folks by pointing out that ‘separately’ can be understood differently and then describe which applies and which does not.

If the word separately is used to indicate “independently”, then the jIva does not exist separately from God, as it is eternally dependent on God. This same concept of ‘eternally dependent’ also indicates, one(God) that is independent and one(jIva) that is dependent. So, if the word is used only to indicate distinction, then only in that sense they have separate experience - one independent and one dependent. Note the famous upanishadic statement - “dvA suparnA sayujA sakhAyA...” - “two birds, inseparable companions, are on a branch of the same tree. One of them tastes the sweet and bitter fruits of the tree; the other, tasting neither, calmly looks on, ever-contented”.

This same Dvaitic thought reverberates throughout the Gita.

Chapter 13 shlokas 2 and 3 clearly preach Dvaita. Only Shri Krishna is kShetraj~na. Arjuna or any other jIva is not kShetraj~na. Even though Arjuna is a great adhikari, the Advaitins themselves keep on labeling Arjuna as mandAdhikAri and in the same tongue, why do they want to say Arjuna as non-different from Sri Krishna? Their double talk does not stop there. Then to support their inconsistency, they bring “vyAvahArika satya and pAramArthika satya”. Now for these verses -

idaM sharIraM kaunteya xetramityabhidhIyate |

etadyo vetti taM prAhuH xetraj~na iti tadvidaH || 13-2||

xetraj~naM chApi mAM viddhi sarvaxetreShu bhArata |

xetraxetraj~nayorj~nAnaM yattajj~nAnaM mataM mama || 13-3||

“Oh Arjuna, this entire collection of “Avyakta, mahat, AhankAra tattvas, etc.” is called kShetra and those who know this call only Him, who knows all this, as kShetraj~na. Know only Me as kShetraj~na, as I know all the matters of these kShetras. The proper understanding of the kShetra and kShetraj~na is the true knowledge, according to me.”

Not every one is kShetra~na. Where is Advaita here? This is pukka Dvaita. Of course there is only one kShetraj~na, Sri Krishna. Surely, all our bodies, colors, shapes, forms, places, minds, actions, senses, etc. are all kShetra. Jivas are not included here. kShetraj~na is Lord Sri Krishna. Who has to know about kShetra and kShetraj~na? The jIvas, who are different from both these. Welcome to Dvaita.

Realized that not all readers would get why I said “Welcome to Dvaita”. So let me explain in Advaitic way.

Now as they claim, if all the Jivas are like pawns in the chess game or the characters in the video game, certainly none of these ask the player - “why are you killing me?”. Now in this double game, where jIva is projected as a lifeless pawn and video game characters and also somehow these non-living are treated as living and questioning the player! The fun does not stop there. These fictitious entities, named Jivas, are also identified with God somehow. For justifying all this gimmick, somehow the unreality of this world has to be brought in. Then why does Lord Sri Krishna take so much pain to describe this illusory kShetra! Now Lord Sri Krishna has also to be entangled in this vyAvahArika satya? Is His goal to teach vyAvahArika satya or pAramArthika satya?

When one thinks of all this, the person would crave to get out this endless trap of Advaita. Now the last fun of BG 18-73. If one goes Advaita way, the poor Lord Sri Krishna, who is non-different from Arjuna was caught up earlier in Moha and so taught Himself Gita and at the end declares “naShTo mohaH smRutir-labhdhvA..-..(O Achyuta, my delusion has been destroyed and memory has been regained by me through Your grace. I stand with my doubt removed and I shall follow Your instruction.) !!

Oh my God, both Dvaita and Advaita in the same sentence, same breath!

The confusion is reiterated by Prasad Chitta. He takes 2-12 and says that by taking a close look at that, one jumps somehow to 18-61. And continues only Dvaita meaning for that. When the Lord resides in the heart of all the living beings and makes them move like puppets, mounted on the machine by His own Maya (which is His svarUpa-bhUta-ichCha - it does not mean any illusion), where is Advaita here? There is the controller and the controlled. Pukka Dvaita. People have to wake up.

There is nothing beyond Supreme consciousness - how does that make all jivas as non-different from Supreme consciousness?

Now comes Shree Priya. She takes the literal translation of “BrahmArpaNam brahmahavirbrahmAgnau...” Does she and other Advaitins realize that oblation, melted butter, the tools used, the fire, etc. are all part of kShetra? Are they aware of kShetra-kShetraj~na-vibhAga yoga? Wont they wake up and try to understand what is meant here? I have explained above how to understand this. People have to wake up.

From her own translation of 4-19, where is Advaita here? What is the true fire of knowledge? It is knowing about the independence of the Lord and ever dependence of jIvas. The learned are different from the wise person, who are all different from the Lord. Multiple ones are talked about.

Now Odde Siva Kesavam is trying to establish Advaita using 10-37? The 10th chapter is the vibhUti yoga of BhagavadgIta. It explains how the Lord gives special abilities to various ones. His enlisting starts from 10-21. “AdityAnAM ahaM viShNuH(Among Adityas, I am Vishnu)” Lord is known as ViShNu, because He is all-pervading. His VibhUti rUpas are of two kinds - pratyakSha and tirohita. PratyakSha - means, He is talking about His own forms - like ViShNu, Kapila, VyAsa, VAsudeva, RAma, etc. Tirohita means - in others and in other things - He is present as sannihita rUpa in those names and give them the special position. Obviously, when He says that He is vajrAudha among weapons, He is not the inert Vajraudha. He is present in the name of Vajra in that weapon and makes that special (though not first rank, as Sudarshana chakra, Kaumodaki gada, etc. are even superior). Similarly He is present inside Dhananjaya with the name Dhananjaya and makes him special(dhanaM jayati iti dhanaMjayaH - conquers wealth). All vRushnis are not called Vasudeva. All pANDavas are not called Dhananjaya. All munis are not called VyAsa. All the kavis are not called ShukrAcharya. There itself Advaita goes out of the window.

Now this person, Odde Siva Kesavam does a gimmick. The Lord addressed Himself in First person, Second person and Third person. This is all persons in grammar. Right? So, all persons are Lord Sri Krishna! What a logic? Lord Krishna is present in all people and so Lord Krishna is all people!! If milk is present in a vessel, milk is vessel? What a logic?

This is classic example of Advaita?

Now comes 9-17. Lord Krishna is father, mother and sustainer of the world.

By world, does He mean, the inert objects or living beings? Obviously the living beings. And obviously the living beings are not Lord Krishna. Where is Advaita here?

9-16 is very similar to 4-24. It is also pukka Dvaita. obviously Lord Krishna is not the inert homam or objects used in homam.

Same thing with 9-19. It just simply means that Lord Krishna controls nectar, death, sat and asat. There is no Advaita what so ever. Like this there is not a single shloka in Bhagavdgita, that speaks of Advaita.

Prabhu Dayal Mishra gave some loose statements. There is no flowery language in Vedas and Lord Krishna never criticized the language of Vedas. He criticized the people, who go with the superficial meaning of Vedas - who are called traividyas. Krishna never said that He is just an onlooker. He takes up all the roles. The question was not about Vedanta in the shlokas. The question was about Advaita in the shlokas.

Now for Vikram Iyer, the verse 13-17 talks about the unity of various forms of Paramatma, but not between Paramatma and Jivas. Paramatma is in you, He is in Me. You and I live in different places. So is Paramatma in you different from Paramatma in me? No, He is not. This in no way makes you same as Paramatma, nor me same as Paramatma. Please don’t create confusion.

Similarly 13-18 talks about His all-controller-ship. There is no Advaita here. Same with 13-28. The Lord’s forms are all same. Note the word “sarveShu bhUteShu tiShThantaM(One who is in all the living beings) - He Himself is not all living beings”. Note the word yaH pashyati sa pashyati (One who sees or knows this is the real knower). Where is Advaita here? It is pukka Dvaita. Same way 13-32 says - Even though the Lord is present in the bodies of all the living beings, the undiminished Paramatma is untainted by karmas, due to His anAditva(beginninglessness), guNatraya-rAhitya (being unaffected by trigunas). But the Jivas are bound by the karmas. Where is Advaita here? It is pukka Dvaita.

“aitadAtmyamidam sarvam, sa AtmAtattvamasi” - It has to be split as “AtmA and atattvamasi (that thou art not). Even if one splits as AtmA and tattvamasi - it only means that you are under His control.

Keshava Mahadeva, see above for proper understanding of 4-24.

Pradip Gangopadhyay, not only Advaita, all vedanta schools say that “divine knowledge or Jnana leads to moksha.” So, by your examples, you are supporting all vedanta schools. Your argument that your examples support Advaita is like saying that the president wears a white coat and so who ever wears a white coat is President.

Dan McCann gave a trivial meaning to the Gita verse 2-16, and claimed that the nature of existence as non-dual can be logically derived for this technical verse. That is an impossibility.

Even with all its triviality, there is no mention of any Advaita here. At least, in the case of water in the mirage, water appears to be there and after examination, one concludes that there is no water. In case of Gita, Advaita does not even appear to be there and yet why are these Advaitins imagining Advaita in Gita? Does this verse say Paramatma alone exists? Does this say nothing else exists?

First of all even such a trivial meaning has nothing to do with Advaita or non-duality. They start off giving the trivial meaning for that which exists, or that which does not exist. Then why are they making first jump to existence itself and second jump to “non-dual, Advaita, without a second”? What Advaita is here? What is their understanding of this verse wrt Paramatma/God or world/jagat or the objects in the world?

Such a trivial meaning renders the verse futile and does not achieve anything. Let me give couple more examples for such trivial derivations, which are practically useless.

1. What I eat, I eat.

2. What I don’t eat, I don’t eat.

This is also axiomatic! It would be virtually impossible for a rational person to see these two statements as somehow false. Accepting them as true, we see there is no non-eating in eating. And also there will not be eating in non-eating.

1. What I keep, I keep.

2. What I don’t keep, I don’t keep.

This is also axiomatic! It would be virtually impossible for a rational person to see these two statements as somehow false. Accepting them as true, we see there is no non-keeping in keeping. And also there will not be keeping in non-keeping.

It is ridiculous to claim that the Gita verse had set out to convey this trivial, practically useless and pretentiously axiomatic meaning.

If we remove the garb of present tense to this ambiguous translation and try to bring some clarity to that by attaching some tense and there by making some sense, it can lead to four possibilities.

Poss-1:

1. What exists (now), exists (now).

2. What doesn’t exist (now), doesn’t exist (now).

This is the most obvious one and gives a trivial position and this does not add any value.

Poss-2:

1. What exists (always), exists (now).

2. What doesn’t exist (at any time), doesn’t exist (now).

This is also a trivial position and this does not add any value.

Poss-3:

1. What exists (always), exists (always).

2. What doesn’t exist (at any time), doesn’t exist (at any time).

This is also a trivial position and this does not add any value.

Poss-4:

1. What exists (now), exists (always).

2. What doesn’t exist (now), doesn’t exist (at any time).

This is an absurd position.

BhaskarAcharya tried to give this apparent meaning, which goes against our experience itself. He tries to explain this in his words - “That which exists now will never get destroyed. That which does not exist now, will never get created.”. A pot that will be created tomorrow does not exist today. That does not mean that it will not be created tomorrow. Similarly if a pot exists today, it does not mean that it will never get destroyed. It will get destroyed some time in the future. So, that is absurd only.

There are two ways this blunder of triviality and absurdity can be avoided for the verse -

nAsato vidyate(.a)bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayorapi dR^iShTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || 2-16||

When such trivial or absurd meaning is avoided, one can notice that it is a big blow to the popular Advaita.

Option-1:

There is avagraha between vidyate and bhAvo, which is perfectly grammatical and that is effectually making it “abhAvo”.

Note that all the Vedantins agree that Paramatma is eternal. If we ask “Is there anything else that is eternal?”. This has been already answered by Lord Krishna earlier - “na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM...”. Not only Paramatma is eternal, all the Jivas are also eternal. But some may still be trapped in the mental lock that all the Jivas are same as Paramatma and so only Paramatma is eternal. That is further answered in this.

asataH abhAvaH na vidyate | sataH abhAvaH na vidyate |

Here two questions arise -

1. Why the two sentences? Why not just one sentence - sataH asataH cha abhAvaH na vidyate |

That is to give emphasis. It should not be just one casual statement.

2. Here what is meant by asat and sat?

“sat” means Paramatma. He is eternal. “asat” means “kAraNa prakRuti(Causal Matter) - or mUla prakRuti (Primordial matter). The immediate question is “How can that meaning be given? What is the justification?”.

In Bhagavata it is said - “sadasadrUpayA chasau guNamayyA guNo vibhuH (The Lord, who is beyond Sattva, Rajas and Tamas, created this world from the effectual and causal matter). asadavyaktarUpatvAt kAraNam chApi shabditaM = asat is in ummanifest form and so is also called kArana (Causal form). The Rigveda hymn says - asataH sadajAyata = The Manifested form of matter (sat) was born from the Unmanifested form of matter (asat).

Thus the Manifested form (Sat) is also eternal - pravAhataH - gets created and gets destroyed and gets recreated again and again. The conservation of mass and energy reiterates the reality and non-illusory nature of the creation and also eternality of mass-energy.

There is enough support from the scriptures that both ParkRuti and PuruSha are nitya or eternal. Even “kAla(Time)” is also nitya or eternal. Shri Vishnu Purana says - “prakRutiH puruShashchaiva nityau kAlashcha sattama” (Oh Best of the wise, PrakRuti, PuruSha and kAla(Time) are eternal).

In Gita itself -

prakR^itiM puruShaM chaiva viddhyanAdI ubhAvapi |

vikArAMshcha guNAMshchaiva viddhi prakR^itisambhavAn || 13-20||

Here PrakRuti means Chetana prakRuti (LakshMi) and JaDa prakRuti (Inert Matter). PuruSha means Paramatma and Jiva. Thus more than one eternal object are there.

The space is also eternal. J~nAna (or knowledge) is eternal and aj~nAna (ignorance) or avidya is also eternal.

Option-2: There is no avagraha between vidyate and bhAvo, which is also perfectly grammatical and that is effectually making it “bhAvo”.

From asat (evil deeds), bhAva(Happiness) does not ensue. From sat (good deeds), abhAva (sorrow) does not ensue. Meaning the fruit for the actions - be it reward for good deeds or punishment for bad deeds, God will dispense justice appropriately only.

How can these definitions be justified? Refer to Gita shoka 17-26.

It may be possible to extract oil from the sand. It may be possible to drink water from the mirages. It may be possible to search and find hare’s horn. But it is impossible to find the popular Advaita in Bhagavadgita.

Shri KrishNArpaNamastu !!

Other QA