AVG 1.20

Chapter 1 (Guidance on self-realization): Verse 20
एकं सर्वगतं व्योम बहिरन्तर्यथा घटे ।
नित्यं निरन्तरं ब्रह्म सर्वभूतगणे तथा ॥ १-२०॥

PURPORT:

Just as ubiquitous as space is outside
as well as the inside of a pot,
even so is the uninterrupted nature of
reality that pervades all existent beings. 

TRANSLITERATION:

एकम् सर्वगतम् व्योम बहिः अन्तः यथा घटे ।
ekam sarvagatam vyoma bahiḥ antaḥ yathā ghaṭe ।
नित्यम् निरन्तरम् ब्रह्म सर्वभूतगणे तथा ॥ १-२०॥
nityam nirantaram brahma sarvabhūtagaṇe tathā ॥ 1-20॥

MEANING:

ekam (एकम्) = the same/similar
sarvagatam (सर्वगतम्) = ubiquitous/prevalent everywhere/all-pervading
vyoma (व्योम) = space/can also be taken as the erstwhile word for ‘ether’
bahiḥ (बहिः) = outside
antaḥ (अन्तः) = inner/inside
yathā (यथा) = as/just as
ghaṭe (घटे) = jar/jug।
nityam (नित्यम्) = eternal/invariable
nirantaram (निरन्तरम्) = uninterrupted/continuous
brahma (ब्रह्म) = nature of reality of the universe. Given that the word Brahman has a set of diverse references within ancient Indian Sanskrit literature (with different senses and shades of meaning), I felt compelled to write a short note on how concept has expanded in so far as it relates to my understanding of the verses in the Ashtavakra Gita. The most ancient Indian Vedic idea of Brahman is taken to mean the "power immanent in the sound, words, verses and formulas of Vedas". The verses also suggest that this ancient meaning was never the only meaning, and the concept has evolved and expanded since. In this sense, another way to expand on the concept is as follows: Brahman does not connote the existence (corporeal or otherwise) of an entity either from a metaphysical (what is real and what is the fundamental nature of reality), ontological (nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence), teleological (apparent purpose, principle or goal of something) or a soteriological (salvation) perspective; instead, Brahman connotes a designation taken to represent useful principles that helps one in furthering their understanding of reality. In this sense, Brahman simply connotes the nature of reality of the universe.
sarvabhūtagaṇe (सर्वभूतगणे) = compound word of  sarva (सर्व) + bhūta (भूत) + gaṇe (गणे) meaning ‘in all existent beings’; the compound consists of  sarva (सर्व) meaning ‘all/everything’; bhūta (भूत) connotes "past" and "being" (bhūta has connections with one of the most wide-spread roots in Indo-European — namely, bheu/bhu-, has similar-sounding cognates in virtually every branch of that language family, e.g., Irish (bha), English (be), Latvian (but));  gaṇe (गणे) meaning ‘flock, troop, multitude, number, tribe, series or class’.
tathā (तथा) = so/thus ॥ 1-20॥

COMMENT:

This verse draws our attention to two relevant and interlinked aspects that we have been talking about throughout the length of this chapter and in my opinion, nicely pulls together a couple of themes that will find recurrence with forthcoming chapters - the first is with reference to the fact that sentient beings are as much intertwined intrinsically and extrinsically within the fabric of reality (that is perceived by the being) in very much the same way that empty space pervades both the interior and the exterior of a solid object (as stated in the verse); and the second aspect is to take note of the fact that the verse references idealistic designations (concepts like ‘brahman’ and ‘eshwara’) that have undergone a gradual process of reification (when such designations should only be understood in terms of what they are - language constructs that are commonly construed contingent upon an individual’s frame of reference). Let me elaborate a tiny bit.

The nature of reality perceived by humans is based upon our senses filtering and sampling a small portion of the purported 'full panoply of reality' up to the extent to which the sense organ is evolutionarily attuned to (in the case of the eyes, it is the electromagnetic spectrum that we are capable of sensing whereas in the case of our ears, it is a limited portion of the audible spectrum and so on). Overlay this small portion of reality that is discernible by our sense organs upon imperfect theories and concepts developed by us to explain phenomena (theories that are always incomplete and provisional as the language constructs used to develop such theories and concepts are themselves imprecise and open to misrepresentation) and one gets a sense of reality that is very much divorced from any actual state of reality - if ever there can imagined to be such a state.

Thus, the human being is saddled with a compounded dilemma - the aspect of reality as perceived by our sense organs that is truncated and limited and that the minuscule aspect of reality that we sense is itself subject to varying interpretations due to the imprecise nature of our language designations. Just to further compound and complicate our understanding, we tend to apply emotional overlays on the perception of reality so obtained by introducing our own notions of beauty, elegance, symmetry and duality. The sense of reality thus obtained is very far removed from the actual ground truth - which may never be known.

I find that we react to our flawed sense of understanding either via humility or hubris. Humility in knowing that the full sense of reality may never be known and the names, concepts, theories, premises and axioms developed as we attempt to understand are best dependent designations that are tuned to our frame of reference. Or, we can choose to react with hubris in the sense that we mistakenly try to assign names and forms and fabricate underlying substrates within our minds with concrete essences and give them labels and plant such fabrications upon pedestals of our own making.

The lines in this verse can be construed as one or the other. The purport I have cultivated and developed throughout this chapter was within the confines of the former - a reading in humility where one is really unsure of the nature of reality, yet comfortable and finding liberation within the knowledge that it pervades every sentient being in this universe.

I will end with the following bits of thought that came to me as I was reading these verses:

Understanding that the first step towards finding a path to choice-less insight is to gradually steer oneself away from attachments to hitherto comfortable well-worn paths that led to reification and eventual deification of concepts, states, subjects or objects;
and, that the universe that is so manifested by the dependent arising and forms of emergent complexity is really a temporal waypoint bookended between two states of very high entropic values; and, unless proven otherwise, all such emergent forms of complexity including consciousness, the self-model, the idea of the soul and intelligence are just so – the origination of interdependent processes marked by an absence of any underlying permanency or essence of any sort. Given that the preceding two statements are themselves contingent upon our linguistic designations, it will be a futile attempt to ascribe to these statements any proclamation of underlying truths.