Audios & Videos

Bhagavagd Gita - Session 27- Track 2703

Now, that reality is both mobile and immobile. It is affirmed also in the Upanishad. It is also affirmed in the Bhagavad Gita. So we are on a sound footing: when all the three great ‘statements’ are available to us, confirming each other, it is very clear that the Reality is both the immobile and the mobile. The Isha Upanishad says: tad ejati tannaijati (Isha U.5); tad ejati means ‘that which is one’, ejati, it moves; tad–na–ejati, it does not move. So, it is very clear that the Isha Upanishad recognises that Reality is both immobile and mobile. Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that there is a Purusha which is mobile kśaraḥ, there is another Purusha which is akśara, and that ‘I’, ‘Purushottama’, ‘I am above both mobile and the immobile’, Purushottama. So, this is exactly what the Veda says that Reality is both mobile and immobile. It is very rightly said that the Bhagavad Gita is a summary of the Vedic knowledge and this is one of the example to show how the Vedic Knowledge is fully reflected in the Bhagavad Gita.


And then He says about Himself that “I am Purushottama”.

So, we start with this basic statement that there is Reality which is at once mobile and immobile. Now, normally we think that mobility and immobility are opposed to each other. But Purushottama in the Gita says that they are not opposed to each other. In our normal experience we feel that mobile and immobile are opposed to each other. Now, what is opposed to each other is normally judged by us, by words that we use, mobile, immobile, the words themselves are contradictory of each other. Immobile means ‘that which is not mobile’. So, when you say that Reality is both mobile and immobile, we really feel very constrained, and many people who are not prepared to speak or to understand, or to reflect, or to meditate, or to go into the depths with seriousness, it is very easy for them to pronounce that the Vedic teaching, the Upanishadic teaching, Gita’s teaching is self–contradictory, logically untenable and therefore false. It is very easy to say for anybody who plunges into these propositions.

It is now in recent times that people have become more cautious. Why? Because recently some discoveries have been made by Physics which are very surprising. For example they have discovered that when they break the atom, down and down and down to the lowest element, you find that it is from one point of view a particle, from another point of view it is a wave. So, you have got to say that the utmost, smallest onoḥ oniya, that which is smallest, smaller than the smallest is at once a particle and wave. Now, particle is non–wave, and wave is non–particle. So, now they have been obliged to say that we cannot help it. When we come to the down most reality, we find the reality surprising: it is self–contradictory; it is at once a particle and a wave.

Because they have now come to realise that there can be such things, it is easier for us now to go back to these statements, where the Vedic Rishis and the Rishis of the Upanishads, and Sri Krishna, they have not been shy at all of telling two things which are contradictory at the first sight. They also knew no contradiction as far as you and I know; and they knew that well they would be charged of self–contradiction and therefore of being wrong, and yet they did not shy at all, get ashamed of it at all, they have said it very clearly: tad ejati tannaijati, and I am both kṣara and akṣara at the same time, and even beyond it.


It is, it is, and even if you go to the down most atom it is like this; when you go to the highest it is like that.

It is also said that the wave and particle form ?few words? status of the observer, does it some how link the consciousness and the force?

That is a further question which is now arisen. Previously it was said that physics can be learnt without bringing the consciousness at all into the picture. Now, it is found that you can’t learn physics without bringing consciousness into the picture. Previously it was taught that matter and consciousness were opposed to each other: where there is matter there is no consciousness, where there is consciousness there is no matter. And now they are obliged to say that it is not anymore so. So, even the dichotomy of matter and consciousness is now being questioned. In fact one of the most important things of today in physics is consciousness. The nature of matter has been examined quite a great deal and when now they study more and more the nature of matter, they are obliged to study the question of consciousness: this is the modern mood, modern ??? , and therefore what we are saying does not seem so very jarring to the modern mind today. Twenty years ago it was very jarring, but during the last twenty years the progress made by physics is so great that this dichotomy of body, mind which was very powerful, it has gone overboard. This dichotomy between matter and consciousness is also now thrown away. The dichotomy between wave and particle is also thrown away. Actually speaking this difference between wave and particle is that wave is movement, and particle is stable,(not movement): immobile and mobile you find at the root of the whole thing. ??? atom is at once particle and wave, it means it is tad ejati tannaijati at the same time: ‘it moves it does not move’. Particle is that which you can catch at one point, and wave is something that moves out: so, it is at once mobile and immobile.