• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bhagavad Gita 7.24

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
Namaste dear forum,

I suppose that this is yet another question where both options might be valid, but I looked up a verse in the Bhagavad Gita (7.24), and I noticed there are two different types of translation, claiming that either the Unmanifest is superior (which I assume to be Brahman), or the Manifest (which is the personal form of sri Krishna). Below I give some examples of English translations available to me:

अव्यक्तं व्यक्तिमापन्नं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धय: ।
परं भावमजानन्तो ममाव्ययमनुत्तमम् ॥ २४ ॥

avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam


The Manifest superior

Swami Mukundananda:
BG 7.24: The less intelligent think that I, the Supreme Lord Shree Krishna, was formless earlier and have now assumed this personality. They do not understand the imperishable exalted nature of my personal form.

Prabhupada:
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.


The Unmanifest superior

Swami Sivananda (claims to follow Shankara)
7.24 The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 - Verse 24 - 7.24 avyaktaṃ vyaktimāpannaṃ - All Bhagavad Gita (Geeta) Verses in Sanskrit, English, Transliteration, Word Meaning, Translation, Audio, Shankara Bhashya, Adi Sankaracharya Commentary and Links to Videos by Swami Chinmayananda and others (don’t know who this is)
The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having come to manifestation, not knowing My higher, immutable and peerless nature.

So, what are your opinions on this issue?
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I don’t know if they’re contradictory, just said in different ways. It’s just that it might be phrased a bit awkwardly.
Having come to manifest does not suggest that that is the “better option” (for lack of a better phrase.) Just that manifestation occurred. The following sentence does not imply that the manifest was the higher option, if you like.
But take that with a grain of salt.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Unmanifest superior

Swami Sivananda (claims to follow Shankara)
7.24 The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 - Verse 24 - 7.24 avyaktaṃ vyaktimāpannaṃ - All Bhagavad Gita (Geeta) Verses in Sanskrit, English, Transliteration, Word Meaning, Translation, Audio, Shankara Bhashya, Adi Sankaracharya Commentary and Links to Videos by Swami Chinmayananda and others (don’t know who this is)
The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having come to manifestation, not knowing My higher, immutable and peerless nature.

So, what are your opinions on this issue?
I go with 'Unmanifested Superior' without the 'Superior'. That also is an incorrect translation. I accept only the 'Unmanifested'. IMHO, Swami Sivananda's translation is closest to the original though I will replace the 'foolish' by a milder word, the 'ignorant', and 'higher' by 'real'. There being no 'higher' or 'lower', no 'superior' or 'inferior' forms of Brahman. What is Brahman IS Brahman.

As I take it, it is as if the Brahman is speaking directly to you that it is always the same, whether you see it or not (manifested or unmanifested), you do not know its real imperishable, peerless nature. Going by Chandogya Upanishad, that you term it as 'Krishna" is only a distortion of the name in the manner of speaking (vāchārambhanam vikāro nāmadheyam, mrittika iti eva satyam), the truth is that it is Brahman only.

Brahman is 'nirguna', without any 'applied attributes'. Like people make it into a personal God, a savior in times of peril, the judge of people's action. It is none of that. It is uninvolved, eternal and changeless. The change that one sees is an illusion only.
 
Last edited:

mangalavara

सो ऽहम्
Premium Member
Namaste.

Here is my amateur translation of 7.24 from Sanskrit to English:

The unlearned consider me
the invisible reduced to the visible.
They do not know my higher existence:
my imperishable, top-tier [existence].

In my opinion, which is strongly shaped by Rāmānujā's commentary, Kṛṣṇa is saying that who he is as Brahman is not merely the visible, lower nature but obviously the higher and invisible: the Supreme Self.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Fortunately one day we'll all realise it for ourselves, or transcend the idea of understanding what translators meant.
 

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
Thanks for your replies. I thought about them and I found that if "in truth", it is an "illusion" that Brahman becomes manifest, it would contradict another statement made in the BG,

English Translation - Swami Sivananda

4.7 Whenever there is decline of righteousness, O Arjuna, and rise of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself.

Of course, it can be argued that the BG was designed to contain paradoxical statements to create a certain mental state of awakening, or that two different texts were combined without regard to coherence. :rolleyes:
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I believe various people added their wisdom to BhagawatGita. Most were Vaishnava theists, some were Advaitists or people influenced by Samkhya and Nyaya. Therefore, you have a mix of ideas in BhagawadGita.
Verse 4.7 was obviously written by a Vaishnava. Verse 7.24 writer also was a Vaishnava but of a Advaitist bent. After all, all Advaita philosophies take Krishna to be Brahman (Nimbarka, Vallabha, Madhva, Chaitanya; Ramanuja's ishta was Vishnu. I suppose that started in the Gupta Empire era); even Sankara with 'Bhaja Govindam', my view of Advaita is an exception. Not even Gaudapada, Sankara's Parama-guru (Grandpa-guru) denied God.


"Linguistically, the Bhagavad Gita is in classical Sanskrit of the early variety, states the Gita scholar Winthrop Sargeant. The text has occasional pre-classical elements of the Sanskrit language, such as the aorist and the prohibitive instead of the expected na (not) of classical Sanskrit. This suggests that the text was composed after the Pāṇini era, but before the long compounds of classical Sanskrit became the norm. This would date the text as transmitted by the oral tradition to the later centuries of the 1st-millennium BCE, and the first written version probably to the 2nd or 3rd century CE." - Bhagavad Gita - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Namaste.

Here is my amateur translation of 7.24 from Sanskrit to English:

The unlearned consider me
the invisible reduced to the visible.
They do not know my higher existence:
my imperishable, top-tier [existence].

In my opinion, which is strongly shaped by Rāmānujā's commentary, Kṛṣṇa is saying that who he is as Brahman is not merely the visible, lower nature but obviously the higher and invisible: the Supreme Self.

Is this verse the source of the Saguna/Nirguna distinction, or is that made elsewhere?
 

mangalavara

सो ऽहम्
Premium Member
Thanks for your replies. I thought about them and I found that if "in truth", it is an "illusion" that Brahman becomes manifest, it would contradict another statement made in the BG,

English Translation - Swami Sivananda

4.7 Whenever there is decline of righteousness, O Arjuna, and rise of unrighteousness, then I manifest Myself.

Namaste, Sirona. Oṃ Gaṇapataye Namaḥ. Oṃ Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ.

I like your thoughts on the concept of Māyā (Illusion) and its relation to God appearing as an avatāra. If everything with form is an illusion, as in not actually real, the Lord's statement that he comes to us in a physical form is not meaningful. Moreover, adharma would merely be a feature of the unreal and therefore not worth eliminating.

The Śruti teaches that all of this is real. The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad states,

"As a spider might come out with his thread, as small sparks come forth from the fire, even so from this Soul come forth all vital energies (prāṇa), all worlds, all gods, all beings. The mystic meaning (upaniṣad) thereof is 'the Real of the real' (satyasya satya). Breathing creatures, verily, are the real. He is their Real" (Bṛihad 2.1.20).

The quotation above tells us that everything---the three worlds, divine bodies, physical bodies---is real. What makes them real is he who is Real: the Self, which is translated above as 'Soul.'

I hope this is helpful.

Works Cited​

Bṛihad-Āraṇyaka Upanishad. The Thirteen Principal Upanishads: Translated from the Sanskrit with an Outline of the Philosophy of the Upanishads and an Annotated Bibliography, translated by Robert Ernest Hume, Oxford University Press, 1921, pp. 73-176. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/thirteenprincipa028442mbp.
 

mangalavara

सो ऽहम्
Premium Member
Is this verse the source of the Saguna/Nirguna distinction, or is that made elsewhere?

Namaste. I am ignorant of there being any verse in the Bhagavad Gītā that is the source of the teaching of the supposed distinction between Saguṇa and Nirguṇa Brahman.

My view is that in BG 7.24, Kṛṣṇa speaks of pantheists when he states, 'The unlearned consider me / the invisible reduced to the visible' (my amateur translation). Pantheists believe that God is only immanent and that he is the cosmos, which, from Kṛṣṇa's perspective, is the reduction of the invisible to the visible. Kṛṣṇa then goes on to say, 'They do not know my higher existence: / my imperishable, top-tier [existence]' (my amateur translation). His higher existence is the invisible and boundless Supreme Self. As the Supreme Self, he is the source that the lower and visible emanated from. In Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 1.10, the lower and visible is essentially Pradhāna or Primordial Matter.

I hope this is useful in some way.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"As a spider might come out with his thread, as small sparks come forth from the fire, even so from this Soul come forth all vital energies (prāṇa), all worlds, all gods, all beings. The mystic meaning (upaniṣad) thereof is 'the Real of the real' (satyasya satya). Breathing creatures, verily, are the real. He is their Real" (Bṛihad 2.1.20).

The quotation above tells us that everything---the three worlds, divine bodies, physical bodies---is real. What makes them real is he who is Real:
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20 - evamevāsmādātmanaḥ - evam eva asmad atmanah - and even our selves.

Why are you translating 'atmanah' as 'souls'? 'Atmanah' is closer to 'entities', 'selves' or 'anything animated'. 'Soul' has a different meaning. What the verse is saying is that all selves originate from 'prana', the original self, which alone is the truth - 'prāṇā vai satyam'.
Relative Aspects of Brahman [Section I]

Atman - Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit

Lastly, going by one book or one scripture, makes you biased. Perhaps even in that book, there will be other meanings. This is only from the second chapter, I will search in other chapters as well and find other meanings. In various other books you will find many more meanings. :D
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Is this verse the source of the Saguna/Nirguna distinction, or is that made elsewhere?
Ideas in Hinduism are varied and very old, sort of eternal. At various times, various ideas dominate. Sometimes Dvaita (duality), other times Advaita (non-duality). You have both in the last 4000 years and even in RigVeda. Some places it says there are many, other places, it says there is only one. :)

In Hinduism, beliefs and opinions are the individual's choice, what is mandatory is 'dharma' (fulfillment of one's duties and engaging in righteous action).
 
Last edited:

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Namaste dear forum,

I suppose that this is yet another question where both options might be valid, but I looked up a verse in the Bhagavad Gita (7.24), and I noticed there are two different types of translation, claiming that either the Unmanifest is superior (which I assume to be Brahman), or the Manifest (which is the personal form of sri Krishna). Below I give some examples of English translations available to me:

अव्यक्तं व्यक्तिमापन्नं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धय: ।
परं भावमजानन्तो ममाव्ययमनुत्तमम् ॥ २४ ॥

avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam


The Manifest superior

Swami Mukundananda:
BG 7.24: The less intelligent think that I, the Supreme Lord Shree Krishna, was formless earlier and have now assumed this personality. They do not understand the imperishable exalted nature of my personal form.

Prabhupada:
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.


The Unmanifest superior

Swami Sivananda (claims to follow Shankara)
7.24 The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 - Verse 24 - 7.24 avyaktaṃ vyaktimāpannaṃ - All Bhagavad Gita (Geeta) Verses in Sanskrit, English, Transliteration, Word Meaning, Translation, Audio, Shankara Bhashya, Adi Sankaracharya Commentary and Links to Videos by Swami Chinmayananda and others (don’t know who this is)
The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having come to manifestation, not knowing My higher, immutable and peerless nature.

So, what are your opinions on this issue?
Two translations (good ones) that I have are,
Translation 1 (Bibek Debroy)
‘Those who are ignorant don’t realize my supreme and unchanging nature and think of me, the one who is unmanifest, as manifest.’
Translation 2 (Feuerstein)
The unwise think of Me as the unmanifest (avyakta) [ having] fallen into manifestation. [ They are] ignorant of My
higher state-of-existence (bhava), [which is] immutable and unsurpassed.

Here the point is not a comparison between the Brahman form and the Personal God Being form. Both could be considered unmanifest. The comparison is being made between the human incarnation form (which is the manifested form) and the unmanifested God/Brahman form (the verse does not distinguish which in this sentence) which is not manifested in the world.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Here the point is not a comparison between the Brahman form and the Personal God Being form. Both could be considered unmanifest. The comparison is being made between the human incarnation form (which is the manifested form) and the unmanifested God/Brahman form (the verse does not distinguish which in this sentence) which is not manifested in the world.
Sayak, what to talk of a human incarnation, Hindus believe their Gods to be completely manifest even in stone idols and images. That happens after consecration (Prāna Pratishthā). They graciously come when they are invoked at rituals. Hindus can find their Gods and Goddesses almost anywhere. Hindu Gods and Goddesses are not hidden. They sport and play with their devotees. That is when the ball fell into Yamuna where Kaliya, the serpent used to reside. Or when Saint Tulsidas was preparing the sandalwood paste, Lord Rama went about putting 'tilaks' on devotees foreheads. :D

"Chitrakoot ke ghat par, bhai santan ki bhir; Tulsidas chandan ghise, tilak karein Raghubir."
(There was a crowd on the banks of River Mandakini in Chitrakoot; Tulsidas was preparing the sandalwood paste and Lord Rama was applying it on the foreheads of devotees.)

Krishna-and-Kaliya2_InArticle_865x500.jpg

ram-ghat.jpg
Chitrakoot.
 
Last edited:

Sirona

Hindu Wannabe
Two translations (good ones) that I have are,
Translation 1 (Bibek Debroy)
‘Those who are ignorant don’t realize my supreme and unchanging nature and think of me, the one who is unmanifest, as manifest.’
Translation 2 (Feuerstein)
The unwise think of Me as the unmanifest (avyakta) [ having] fallen into manifestation. [ They are] ignorant of My
higher state-of-existence (bhava), [which is] immutable and unsurpassed.

Here the point is not a comparison between the Brahman form and the Personal God Being form. Both could be considered unmanif est. The comparison is being made between the human incarnation form (which is the manifested form) and the unmanifested God/Brahman form (the verse does not distinguish which in this sentence) which is not manifested in the world.

I found this very helpful. And thanks to all for your replies and keep going because it's interesting.:heart:
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No. We find the word ‘being’ applied in the Śrutis to the subtle body having wings, tail, etc. In the following passage, ‘“We can never beget progeny (initiate activity) so long as we are thus divided. Let us make these seven beings into one (the subtle body).” They made these seven beings into one,’ etc. (Ś. VI. i. i. 3), we ñnd the use of the word ‘being,’ as also in another Śruti (Tai. II. i.) referring to the gross body, which is the product of the food we eat, and other finer bodies. The words, This is with reference to the gods, close the topic so as to introduce the next topic, which is relating to the body.
The Two Forms of Brahman [Section III]

Emphasis on word 'being' to include only the living is wrong and is ignorance. As Mandukya says 'All things are Brahman' (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma). nothing can be excluded. Because there is none other (Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti - what exists is one, there is no second). The correct word is 'Bhuta' (whatever has come into existence, living or non-living). That is the essence of Advaita.

Mangalavara quoted Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and I latched on to it. :D
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"idaṃ brahma, idaṃ kṣatram, ime lokāḥ, ime devāḥ, imāmi bhūtāni, idaṃ sarvaṃ yadayamātmā"
This Brāhmaṇa (meaning his own self), this Kṣatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings, and this all are the Self.
Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (I) [Section IV]

yadayamatma = yad ayam atma = just as this self

Please know that Wisdom Library is not a Hindu site. They have selected what is convenient to them. It is a Chritian site, They will like to prop a Supreme God. But here Yajnavalkya says that 'all this' is self'. In Advaita, there cannot be this and that. There is either 'this whole' or 'that whole' as mentioned in this famous verse:

"Punrmadah, purnamidam, purnat purnamudachyate,
Purnasya purnamadaya, purnameva vaishyate." Ishavasya Upanishad
(That is whole, this is whole, from that whole arises this whole,
If from the whole, the whole is given, what remains is still whole."

I would not give selections from other Chapters, it will bore you. But I hope you get the idea. This is the essence of Advaita. Nothing is excluded. If anything is excluded, that falsifies true Advaita.
 
Last edited:

ajay0

Well-Known Member
Namaste dear forum,

I suppose that this is yet another question where both options might be valid, but I looked up a verse in the Bhagavad Gita (7.24), and I noticed there are two different types of translation, claiming that either the Unmanifest is superior (which I assume to be Brahman), or the Manifest (which is the personal form of sri Krishna). Below I give some examples of English translations available to me:

अव्यक्तं व्यक्तिमापन्नं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धय: ।
परं भावमजानन्तो ममाव्ययमनुत्तमम् ॥ २४ ॥

avyaktaṁ vyaktim āpannaṁ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam


The Manifest superior

Swami Mukundananda:
BG 7.24: The less intelligent think that I, the Supreme Lord Shree Krishna, was formless earlier and have now assumed this personality. They do not understand the imperishable exalted nature of my personal form.

Prabhupada:
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.


The Unmanifest superior

Swami Sivananda (claims to follow Shankara)
7.24 The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having manifestation, knowing not My higher, immutable and most excellent nature.

Bhagavad Gita Chapter 7 - Verse 24 - 7.24 avyaktaṃ vyaktimāpannaṃ - All Bhagavad Gita (Geeta) Verses in Sanskrit, English, Transliteration, Word Meaning, Translation, Audio, Shankara Bhashya, Adi Sankaracharya Commentary and Links to Videos by Swami Chinmayananda and others (don’t know who this is)
The foolish think of Me, the Unmanifest, as having come to manifestation, not knowing My higher, immutable and peerless nature.

So, what are your opinions on this issue?

The focus here is on Nirguna Brahman or the formless intangible Brahman of a sublter nature, in contrast to the grosser Saguna Brahman or Brahman with form.

Krishna here is trying to draw attention to the subtle nature of Brahman or Self which is present within everyone, rather than the grosser aspect of Brahman with form.
 
Top