3

BG 13.14: Everywhere are His hands and feet, eyes, heads, and faces. His ears too are in all places, for He pervades everything in the universe.

Often people argue that God cannot have hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. But Shree Krishna says that God has all these, and to an innumerable extent. We should never fall into the trap of circumscribing God within our limited understanding. He is kartumakartuṁ anyathā karatuṁ samarthaḥ “He can do the possible, the impossible, and the reverse of the possible.” For that all-powerful God, to say that He cannot have hands and feet, is placing a constraint upon Him.

However, God’s limbs and senses are divine, while ours are material. The difference between the material and the transcendental is that while we are limited to one set of senses, God possesses unlimited hands and legs, eyes, and ears. While our senses exist in one place, God’s senses are everywhere. Hence, God sees everything that happens in the world, and hears everything that is ever said. This is possible because, just as He is all-pervading in creation, His eyes and ears are also ubiquitous. The Chhāndogya Upaniṣhad states: sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma (3.14.1) “Everywhere is Brahman.” Hence, He accepts food offerings made to Him anywhere in the universe; He hears the prayers of His devotees, wherever they may be; and He is the Witness of all that occurs in the three worlds. If millions of devotees venerate Him at the same time, He has no problem in accepting the prayers of all of them.

So by commentary it is clear that "His" is referring to God.

BG 7.22: Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality, I alone arrange these benefits.

Shree Krishna reiterates in this verse that the celestial gods do not have the capacity to fulfill the material desires of their devotees. They can only grant wishes if God permits it. Labhate means “to obtain.” The devotees with mediocre understanding may think that they have obtained their desired material objects by pleasing the devatās (celestial gods). However, it is not the devatās, but God who facilitates everything.

My question : So why God(Shri Krishna) is referring to himself as He in the verse 13:14? But Shri Krishna refers to himself as I/Me in other verses(almost all).

2

The previous verse before Gita verse 13.14 says this:

13.13 - ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्न‍ुते । अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते

I shall declare that which has to be known, knowing which, one attains immortality — It is beginningless Brahman, to which I am superior; it is said to be neither being nor non-being.

So he is talking about something other than himself. This other thing is called "brahma" (Brahman). What is this other thing? It is the Jivatma.

Why is the Jivatma here called Brahman? The Jivatma here is called "Brahma" on etymological grounds since the root word "brh" means "to expand", and in the state of moksha the Jivatma's consciousness expands infinitely. The supreme being, Krishna, is also called "brahman", but in this context he is calling the Jivatma "brahma".

The term Brahman is also used as a synonym to designate the individual Self in Gita 14.26 & 27 Gita 18.54. (Ramanujacharya Gita Bhashya).

And finally the next Gita verse says:

Everywhere are Its hands and feet; Its eyes, heads and faces are everywhere; Its ears are on all sides; and It exists enveloping all things.

The Jivatma is described as such because:

the Jivatma in its original immaculate state, is able to act and move everywhere, it perceives everything, knows everything and enjoys everything. (Gita Bhashya)

8
  • In other words Jivatma == brahman by above explanation
    – Prasanna R
    Feb 6 at 3:39
  • 1
    But the commentary say this verse is about God. Feb 6 at 5:25
  • @PrasannaR Jivatma is being given the NAME "Brahman" in this context because the word Brahman etymologically means "expansion". In other contexts, Brahman is described to be DIFFERENT from the Jivatma.
    – Ikshvaku
    Feb 6 at 12:49
  • 1
    @DarkKnight That is the ISKCON commentary; other sampradayas have different views. My explanation is based on the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya.
    – Ikshvaku
    Feb 6 at 12:49
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku OK thanks for your answer. Feb 6 at 12:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .