Bg. 2.12

Thus, having establishing Arjuna’s lack of wisdom through his unsuitable lamentation, the Lord of all beings, Bhagavān, next speaks about the fundamental difference between the jīvas and Himself to Arjuna, who was desirous of knowing the truth, and was thus standing with folded hands. That difference is established in the śruti: nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān He is the eternal among all eternal entities, and the chief conscious being among all conscious beings. Among the many living entities, He is the chief, who fulfills their desires. Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 6.13 O Arjuna, it is not that I, the Lord of all, Bhagavān, have not existed at some time (jātu) previously, at some beginning point. I have certainly existed. It is not that you also have not existed. You existed for certain. It is not that these kings did not exist. They existed for certain. And it is not that in the future, at some end point in time, all of us—I, you and all these kings—will not exist. For certain we will exist. Because the jīva, like the Lord of all, exists in all three phases of time, it is not proper to lament concerning the jīva. This is not just a conventional, illusory difference (vyavahārka bheda) between the jīva and the Lord, caused by ignorance (but which will disappear with the dawn of knowledge), because bhagavān, being omniscient, has no connection with ignorance. As well, even in the liberated state, the jīva’s separate designation is acknowledged in the scriptures. This is illustrated by such statements as: idaṁ jṣānam upāśritya mama sādharmyam āgatāḥ sarge’pi nopajāyante pralaye na vyathanti ca By becoming fixed in this knowledge, one can attain a transcendental nature like My own. Thus established, one is not born at the time of creation or disturbed at the time of dissolution. BG 14.2 One should also not say that the Lord, though actually fixed in non-duality, sees difference between Arjuna and Himself by invoking the theory of bādhita anuvṛtti, by which the liberated soul continues to have an appearance of dualistic vision after the illusion has been destroyed, but which does not create bondage. Even if such a theory were true, teachings could still not take place. Though one may think that a mirage in the desert is water, when that misconception is corrected, one continues with the conviction that the water is false. Though one continues to see the illusion of water in the desert after one has annulled the misconception, because one has the conviction that what he perceives false water, he does not try to take up that water for drinking or other uses. The Lord, continuing a sense of duality which has actually annulled by His realization of non-duality, and thus seeing difference between Arjuna and Himself (according to the theory of bādhita anuvṛtti), the Lord would not engage in teaching Arjuna whatsoever, because he actually would discern the truth of the matter— that duality of Himself and Arjuna was an illusion. [Note: The impersonalists advocate the theory of bādhita anuvrtti to explain the existence of the jīvana mukta, who is beyond duality, but can teach others, when teaching implies duality. According to this theory the liberated soul somehow maintains a type of conditional vision even after realizing non-duality as long as he maintains his body. This conditional vision caused by residual avidya does not interfere with his realization. However, even if he does have that temporary dualistic vision after non-dualistic realization, he would not act as if situated in dualism by teaching, since he would know that the dualism is false. This argument is given by Rāmanuja in his commentary on this verse.] “Through the teachings of scripture, we find that the intended subject must be non-difference of soul and the Lord since the object of scripture is to speak of something unknown (non-duality) and of beneficial result, and not to speak of what is already known (conventional duality) and useless. This is to be explained as the import of śrutis statements such as adbhyo vā eṣa prātar udety apaḥ sāyaṁ praviśati:: in the morning the sun rises from the water and in the evening merges in the water. (Aitreya Brāhmaṇa 4.20.13)” [Note: The statement is common knowledge and thus useless. It is approximate knowledge at best. However we have to search for deeper significance concerning something unknown to us, the merging of self into God, in the scriptures. This verse is also quoted in Vedānta Syamantaka 3.24.] This is foolish, for śruti declares difference alone: pṛthag ātmānaṁ preritāraṁ ca matvā juṣṭas tatas tenāmṛtatvam eti Having understood that the soul and the inciter of action (the Lord) are different, thus gaining the love of the Lord, one attains freedom from death. Śvetāsvatara Upaniṣad 1.6 This statement shows the value of knowledge of difference between the soul and the Lord, because of the mention of attaining a beneficial result for the individual ātmā—his attainment of freedom from death (amṛtatvam eti). The descriptions of God and jīva are also something unknown to common men, because they correlate distinctive, contrary qualities to God and jīva. The mutually contrary qualities of the Lord and the jīva—greatness and smallness, lordship and servitude— can be understood only through scripture. Also, the result of knowledge of non-difference is no result at all, because of non-acceptance of results. [Note: The opponent raised the argument that scriptures should speak of something unknown, which gives beneficial results. But since non-duality means not being conscious of anything, there can be no result at all.] Absolute non-duality, which the monists say is unknown, is actually unknowable, because it does not actually exist, like horns on a rabbit, and therefore is useless. [Note: The one unchanging Brahman without form or qualities is pure consciousness, but that consciousness cannot know itself or anything, since there is nothing to know or do, and any knowledge will create change. Therefore it is consciousness in name only, but is no better than dull matter.] In this way real difference between the soul and the Lord has been established.