Then, there is a third idea which has been developed in the history of thought is what is called ‘Theism’ which tries to reconcile ‘Deism’ and ‘Pantheism’. According to Theism God is both ‘transcendental’ and ‘immanent’. Now, this is a grand idea, and many developed religions call themselves ‘theistic’; there are different forms of ‘Theism’. But when you examine these ideas, deistic ideas become very prominent, and the pantheistic ideas, God’s immanence in the world becomes diluted. In what way is God immanent in the world?
Immanence may have two meanings: God ‘in’ the world: that is one meaning of immanence of God, God ‘in’ the world that is immanence of God. And God ‘as’ the world, God Itself is the world, not in the world, but God Himself ‘as’ the world. God in all is one idea of immanence of God. Another one is God ‘as’ all is another idea of the immanence of God. Which of these two is advocated by any particular theory is to be examined. It makes a lot of difference. God ‘in’ the world and God ‘as’ the world, all the forms in the world being the forms of God Himself, and therefore there are many shades.
Now, in the Bhagavad Gita these two sentences, these two verses that we are reading, we will find ‘Deism’, ‘Theism’, ‘Pantheism’, and beyond all this, all put together. It is true that Bhagavad Gita is not a philosophical work so as to work out all of the arguments. The Bhagavad Gita is a transcription of experience. The Bhagavad Gita is a description of what knowledge of God you gain when you experience Him and that too when you experience Him by integrating all the systems of Yoga: all the methods of Yoga put together and then you attain to the knowledge of the Divine, what do you gain. The sum total of that whole knowledge is given in these two verses.
Now, let us see now these words:
matsthāni sarvabhūtāni na cāhaṁ teṣv avasthitaḥ || (IX, 4)
“All these objects are in Me, but I am not in them, I am above them.”
This is what is called, the supra–cosmic view of God: ‘All in Me, but I not in them’, is the supra cosmic idea of God. Very crudely speaking, if an object is in a bottle, you can say that the object is in the bottle, but the bottle is not in the object, that is because the bottle is larger, is bigger, but then the next statement bewilders you very much: na ca matsthāni bhūtāni (IX, 5), ‘even these objects are not in Me’. The first statement was: ‘All objects are in Me, I am not in them’, now He says, ‘Even the objects are not in Me’ and then He says: paśya me yogamaiśvaram, ‘See the majesty of my Yoga’. They are in Me, I am not in them, they are not in Me, either.
That is the difficulty. The difficulty can be resolved only if you grasp that all that is in the Divine, all that is in the world ultimately issue from the Divine. In other words Sri Krishna expounds here what is called: Monism, neither Deism, nor Theism, nor Pantheism, but Monism.
Monism is a theory according to which the Reality is one; there only one Reality. It is not as if God creates the world and world is different from Him. There is only one Reality; that Reality is a complex Reality; it is not a simple Reality. The difference between simplicity and complexity is that simplicity has only one characteristic. Complexity is that which has many characteristics. So Reality is one but it is not having only one characteristic: it has many characteristics. And these many characteristics are harmonious with each other; therefore it is complex. When complex is not a harmony it becomes chaos; but when complexity is harmonious, then it supports the true identity or oneness of the Reality, the Monism. There is no other example. That is the whole point, there is no example of a Reality which is one; the example of this is the supreme Divine Himself. He is the only one, there is nothing else; example would mean there are two, three things like each other. If there is one Reality therefore it is called: anupama; there is no upamā, there is no parallel of it. Reality is anupama. Therefore Sri Krishna says: paśya me yogamaiśvaram, ‘See the majesty of my Yoga, I am such a Reality of which there is no parallel, I am the only one. That reality is supra–cosmic, (that is one characteristic of it), but not merely supra cosmic; if it is only supra cosmic it becomes simple; but it is not merely supra–cosmic; it is also cosmic; it is also individual. These three words are ingrained in these two verses: the Reality is transcendental, supra–cosmic, but not extra cosmic: it is supra cosmic but not extra cosmic.