4

Brahman has 2 states - manifested and unmanifested. The world we are living in is manifested. After Mahapralaya, everything is dissolved and all that remains is unmanifested state. In Gita, it is said that, in unmanifest state, everything is reduced to the size of half thumb.

Now my question is how it is even possible? God is infinite and when we say it is reduced to the size of half thumb, we are giving it a size which effectively means it has become finite and God cannot be finite.

Pinakin
  • 5,371
  • 3
  • 24
  • 58
  • 1
    The size you refer to is the size in the human heart - not the size of Brahman in the physical world. Brahman is described as infinite because it touches everything. That which is inherently spiritual by nature has no physical dimensions. – Swami Vishwananda Nov 03 '15 at 11:05
  • @SwamiVishwananda No, I am not talking about the soul. I am talking about the state of cosmos before the big bang which is the size of half a thumb. – Pinakin Nov 03 '15 at 11:14
  • Which Gita verse are you referring to? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 13:10
  • @KeshavSrinivasan I read it in Gita but don't remember that verse now. – Pinakin Nov 03 '15 at 13:24
  • 2
    @ChinmaySarupria I tried searching the Bhagavad Gita, and the words thumb and size do not occur at all. I did find a reference to "smaller than the smallest", although that wasn't in the context of describing what is there when the Universe is dissolved: http://www.vedabase.com/en/bg/8/9 The only text I know that describes a Purusha the size of a thumb is the Katha Upanishads, not he Bhagavad Gita. But the Katha Upanishads discusses this thumb-size Purusha as living in the heart, it doesn't talk about when the world is dissolved. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 13:35
  • @KeshavSrinivasan Right now I don't know the verse but here is another article: http://www.godrealized.org/cosmos/entire_cosmos.html. The author says the same thing. – Pinakin Nov 03 '15 at 13:44
  • @ChinmaySarupria I Googled Gita and "half a thumb", and it seems like a lot of websites make the claim that this is found in the Gita. But none of them cite a specific verse, and I'm pretty sure it's not there. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 13:57
  • @ChinmaySarupria You can read the Bhagavad Gita here: http://www.vedabase.com/en/bg – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 14:14
  • Without the exact verse it would be difficult to guess what it means. I have heard of some saints say that Purusha is present in the heart in the size of half a thumb. But probably that isn't what you are asking. Good q. – Sai Nov 03 '15 at 18:52
  • @Sai Yeah, that's mentioned in verse 12 of this chapter of the Katha Upanishad: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15013.htm This verse is known as the Angushta Pramita Vidya, and it's discussed in Adhyaya 1 Pada 3 Sutras 24-25 of the Brahma Sutras: http://www.advaita.it/library/brahmasutras2.htm – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 22:28
  • @Sai It is the discussion of this verse that leads to the discussion of whether gods and low-caste people are qualified for Jnana, because the question arises of whether the verse applies to gods, considering that their bodies are much bigger than the bodies of humans. The Purvapaksha argues that the Katha Upanishad wasn't intended to be read by gods, because otherwise it would specify "size of a human thumb" rather than just "size of a thumb". But Vyasa refutes that by saying that the Purusha in the heart is proportionately bigger for the gods! – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 03 '15 at 22:31
  • 1
    @KeshavSrinivasan That's quite interesting, thanks for the references! – Sai Nov 03 '15 at 22:41

1 Answers1

4

The only reference to the size of a thumb in scripture, in several Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras, is when referring to the atman (brahman) inside the heart of an individual being. I am not aware of any other reference as to Brahman before manifestation being the size of a thumb. What it really refers to is the difference between the spiritual and material dimensions. The Spirit has no physical, no material dimensions, so all souls, all of Brahman can exist within the physical size of a thumb - even less. If I remember correctly the Sanskrit actually says 'no bigger than' the size of a thumb the reference is not meant to imply an exact dimension, it is meant to imply that it has no physical dimension, that the Infinite can exist within the smallest physical dimension.

The Brahma Sutras state in I. 3. 24-25 (Swami Vireswarananda translator):

  1. From the very word ("Lord" by which it is referred to in the text) (the being) measured (by the size of the thumb is Brahman).

[and Shankaracharya's commentary] "The being of the size of a thumb, resides in the centre of the body. (Knowing that) Lord of the past and future, one does not seek to hide oneself any more. This is That" (Katha U. 2. 4. 12). The being referred to is Brahman, because he is spoken of as the Lord or ruler of the past and future. It cannot be the individual soul, though the limitation in size and residence in the centre of the body by themselves might be more applicable in its case. Moreover in reply to the request of Naciketa who wanted to know Brahman, Yama refers to this being of the size of a thumb thus: "That which you wanted to know is this."

  1. But with reference to (the space in) the heart (the highest Brahman is said to be of the size of a thumb); (and because) man alone is entitled (to the study of the Vedas).

[and Shankaracharya's commentary] How could the all-pervading Brahman be of the size of a thumb, as stated by the previous Sutra? Because the space in the heart is of the size of a thumb, therefore Brahman, with reference to Its abiding within that space, is described as being of the size of a thumb. Since Brahman abides within the heart of all living creatures, why is the 'thumb' used as a standard? Because man alone is entitled to the study of the Vedas and to the different Upanishads of Brahman prescribed in them, therefore it is with reference to him that thumb is used as the standard of measurement.

Swami Vivekananda (Complete Works, V2, p 409) says:

Infinitely smaller than the smallest particle, infinitely greater than the greatest existence, the Lord of all lives in the cave of the heart of every being. He who becomes sinless sees Him in all His glory, through the mercy of the same Lord.

Christian theologians in the European Middle Ages had a similar question which perplexed them. The question was - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The answer being either 1 or infinite. If angels had physical dimensions, then only one can. If they have no physical dimension, then an infinite number can...

Another good reference to this is Brahma Sutras 1.2.7 (Swami Vireswarananda translator), the verse says that Brahman is referred to as this size for "the sake [or convenience] of contemplation", and commentary "otherwise it is difficult to meditate on the all pervading Brahman".

Also Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.3 "He is myself within the heart, smaller than a grain of rice, smaller than a grain of barley" etc.

Swami Vishwananda
  • 24,140
  • 2
  • 34
  • 78
  • What about the Big Bang? It happened from a point and then everything expanded from that. – Pinakin Nov 06 '15 at 11:00
  • @ChinmaySarupria Some say bigbang never happend and Universe has no ending and beginning. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/32659/20150214/big-bang-didnt-happen-new-theory-suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm – The Destroyer Nov 06 '15 at 12:43
  • @ChinmaySarupria How can you say that "singularity" as Hiranyagarba? Timelines of two theories don't match. – The Destroyer Nov 06 '15 at 14:36
  • @ChinmaySarupria So do you equate formation of manifest from unmanifest (singularity) as big bang? But big bang happened in physical universe. Manifest contains other worlds beyond physical worlds. Dark matter and Dark Energy can be termed as spiritual worlds( some say they are gateways to parallel universes) but we are not sure about them. What do you mean by big bang exactly? – The Destroyer Nov 08 '15 at 11:33
  • @AnilKumar By Big Bang I mean that creation which takes place after Maha Pralaya ends, at the time of new Brahma. – Pinakin Nov 08 '15 at 11:49
  • @SwamiVishwananda, do you agree with the explanation provided for Why Did Swami Vivekananda Die So Young? in this YouTube video? – Say No To Censorship Nov 17 '15 at 19:30
  • For the most part, yes. Ramakrishna had told Vivekananda that when he learned who he (Vivekananda) truly was, he would give up the body, but he had to do some work for Ramakrishna first. Vivekananda came down with diabetes in '97, which at that time was untreatable and almost always resulted in an early death. He was in very bad health from the diabetes the last 3-4 months of his life. It is written that about 2 weeks before his death, he asked a disciple to read each days predictions in the daily almanac for the foreseeable future... – Swami Vishwananda Nov 19 '15 at 15:41
  • @sv. (see also the first comment above) ...when the disciple came to July 4th (the day he gave up the body), he told the disciple to stop reading. He gave other hints also. In his correspondence with different disciples (in his Complete Works) he spoke occasionally about his death coming. Many yogis know when they will give up the body. Patanjali's Yoga Aphorisms gives details. – Swami Vishwananda Nov 19 '15 at 15:50
  • @SwamiVishwananda Thanks for the details. So are you suggesting that, Swami Vivekananda's diabetes was self-induced? Or that he had no control over that but could control when he would exactly die? – Say No To Censorship Dec 03 '15 at 00:00
  • @sv. Great souls like him know when the time is for them to give up the body. All bodies are subject to decay and death. Yogis can, if they want, control their bodies to give it good health. A man once asked Ramakrishna, when he was dying from his throat cancer, why he did not focus a little on his body and cure his illness. Ramakrishna looked at him startled and said "I have given my entire mind over to God, and you are asking me to take some of what I already have given to God and put it on this cage of flesh which is subject to decay? That I cannot do." – Swami Vishwananda Dec 03 '15 at 03:57
  • @ChinmaySarupria reference your first comment about the Big Bang. Just finished a new book on current particle physics thinking. Closer all the time to Brahman and the Upanishads. Book is titled "Spooky Action At A Distance" by George Musser – Swami Vishwananda Dec 11 '15 at 14:16
  • @SwamiVishwananda, I went through your answer above. You've quoted verse 25 of Shankara's Brahma Sutra commentaries, where he says that, just bcoz the space of the heart is the size of the thumb, Brahman too (who resides there) is considered the size of the thumb. My question is, why it dwells specifically in the "Heart" (which Ramana maharshi says is at the right side of the chest) and not in other parts of the body. If it's all pervasive, it should be present in our legs, eyes, fingers etc. In each and every parts of the body. – The Crimson Universe Sep 21 '18 at 07:16
  • @TheCrimsonUniverse It is meant to convey several thoughts. First, that Brahman has no physical dimensions and can reside in the smallest spaces. Second, the heart has been interpreted by yogis oftentimes to refer to the heart chakra, which in the fine body is near the physical heart. When the heart charka opens, that is when spirituality really starts. Jnanis refer to the heart as being the buddhi, and as that being the 'seat' of the atman. The atman (Brahman) pervades everywhere. All these can be taken as means to help in meditation. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 29 '18 at 05:24
  • @TheCrimsonUniverse Different methods for different aspirants. The heart is associated with love, not the mind. If there is one word for Brahman, it is love. – Swami Vishwananda Sep 29 '18 at 05:25