As all the bodily forms we take are temporary, does that mean the eternal and real is formlessness?

From Ravikumar Shukla Someone might argue that, after death, we also leave our present form, and may get another form, lets say a form of a dolphin. That means our present form is not real, similarly the next form of dolphin is also not real, since it will get destroyed by time factor. Now, can someone say that forms are not real because they get destroyed by time, but we are real because we don’t get destroyed and hence we are truth. For substantiating the above point, this people take the support of Srimad Bhagvad Gita, chapter-2, verse-16. In which they claim that, that which is false is always destroyed (forms) And that which is true is never destroyed (soul) Hence they conclude by saying that , soul is formless How to understand this with Gaudiya Vaishnav commentaries in a better manner.please suggest

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Hare Krishna. Question from Ravi Kumar Shukla Prabhu. Our present form is temporary and when we die, we may get another form, say that of a dolphin, which is also temporary.

So, although all the forms that we get are temporary, still we remain. So based on this, someone may argue that what is false is that temporary thing and what is real is what remains beyond the forms. Therefore, they say forms are unreal and formlessness constitutes the reality.

And for that, they take support of the Bhagavad Gita 2.16 na sato vidyate bhavo na bhavo vidyate sataha that which is real lasts and that which is unreal never lasts. They say the formless is unreal and does not last and that which is form lasts. So, how do we understand this from the Gaudiya Vaishnava perspective? In the light of what the Acharya has taught.

Answer, this seems logical but it leaves a fundamental question unanswered. Where does the illusion of forms come from? The idea that forms are unreal because they are temporary. If that is what the logic is all about and the formless is the only reality, then the question comes up where does the illusion of form come from? At all, it should not be there only.

The Bhagavad Gita says elsewhere in 15.1 It says that there is an upside down tree banyan tree with its roots upwards and its branches downwards. So, this indicates there is a reflection. Now, when there is a reflection, there has to be a reality.

Without that, how can there be a reflection? So, what is important to recognize is that a reflection indicates the presence of a reality and similarly the forms of this world need to have some basis in reality. Otherwise, there would not be an illusion which would not be a reflection. First of all, it would not be referred to as a reflection even in inference through a metaphor nor would there be anything like illusion of a form at all.

So, the foremost problem with this is the idea of where is the origin of forms. Now, if Krishna had been referring to form and formlessness, then in that section of the Gita, Krishna leaves it ambiguous. The specific Sanskrit two points that which is non-permanent, it does not last for very long.

That which is eternal, it never ceases to exist. So, what that is, Krishna has not specified it clearly. So, then what does it mean? We have to look at it in the context.

Now, this is 2.16 and immediately after this, Krishna is talking about the consciousness and then he talks about also He says there is some being which lives inside the body. So, if we look at the way things are being referred to over there and especially if we go to the first second verse of Krishna's instruction, 2.11 is and 2.12 is So, there Krishna is very categorically telling that that I, you and all these kings they have always existed in the past, they will exist now and in the future also they will continue to exist. So, Krishna is not talking about individuality or personhood in a conventional sense over here because just before that in the previous verse he said that now he is not going to talk on the conventional platform that platform is condemned and in 2.13 he again refers to So, he is clearly talking about a platform of enlightenment.

He is not differentiating the Dehi and Deha and thereby talking at that level he is saying all, everyone will continue to exist and now 2.17 if we see so there is a reference 2.12 before 2.16 which is very clearly talking about personhood as being an eternal fact and then also we see the next verses don't talk specifically about that they talk about the body then they talk about tolerance and they talk about attaining liberation that is 13, 14, 15 and 16 then 17 is this verse about now this Krishna also leaves ambiguous what does the sarvam refer to now the impersonalist may say that it refers to all of existence complete existence total, that soul pervades everything but then before that Krishna has been talking about Dehi the body and immediately after that also he talks about Dehi Deha and he is talking about one particular body over there he is not talking about one consciousness pervading all bodies there is no mention of that so sarvam as well as sat and asata these are non-specific non-specific nouns which Krishna is using and they can well be interpreted impersonally by those who want to but if you look at the context of the Gita they clearly are in a context where it is talking about personhood being eternal and it is also talking about the point of the body he is not talking about there is no verse that talks about totality of existence or all of universe in that section Krishna is just talking about the body and the soul differentiation suddenly for him to talk about something which pervades all of existence and not refer back to that again it would be completely out of context now this sarvam Ramanacharya gives another meaning of this and he says what is Krishna talking about over here the emphasis if you look at the context is indestructibility that 16 is saying that eternal that which is sat it never has abhava that it continues to exist for that which is real will continue to exist forever so now that means the point is talking about indestructibility and 18th is also talking about indestructibility so 17th is also talking about indestructibility and is also meant to be talked should be understood in that reference so sarvam here he says does not refer to all of existence it refers to all the material elements so normally an object destroys another object by entering into that fire when it burns it actually enters into our body water enters any weapon an arrow pierces so one element should be able to penetrate into another element to be able to destroy it but it cannot penetrate and that's the soul we cannot be penetrated by anything because the soul penetrates everything and because the soul penetrates everything the soul is indestructible by everything else and this is how sarvam is to be understood so both from the logical and the contextual point of view the logical point of view that if we say form is temporary all forms are temporary and therefore it is unreal then where does the conception of form where does the illusion of form come from at all that logical question is unanswered by impersonalist interpretations and secondly from the contextual point of view 2.16 it is referring to personhood and it is referring to the body it is not referring to totality of all existence and this is corroborated further also in the Gita in 15.7 when it says mamai vamsho jivaloke jiva bhutah sanatanah sanatanah jivalok actually krishna says they are my parts and they are sanatanah my parts they are eternally my parts and that is also confirmed by nanam chinnadhyah strani achedhyo yamadhayo yamakledhyo shashwayo cha so that the soul is indestructible and non-transformable sthanur achaloyam sanatanah sthanur is unchangeable it is talking about avikaryo yamuchyate so the soul is unchangeable and krishna is saying soul is eternally my part therefore the idea of the soul being the all-pervading brahman is not substantiated by the Gita or by logic thank you Hare Krishna.