Posted on: 10 Nov 2020
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Continuued from Part-3...
The word ‘unimaginable awareness’ used above does not mean that the awareness is unimaginable. The word awareness is only taken in the sense of the action of thinking, which is done by the unimaginable God. It simply means that the unimaginable God did an action which is the process of thinking. There are only two items: (a) the unimaginable God as the subject or the doer and (b) the action of thinking done by the unimaginable God.
Since the absolute God is unimaginable, He cannot be the imaginable relative awareness. The action of thinking also cannot be this relative awareness because there is no place for the relative awareness in the subject and hence, there is no place for the relative awareness in the work done by the subject. In the case of the imaginable soul, the subject is imaginable awareness and the work done by the subject is also imaginable awareness. In the case of God, there is no place for the imaginable awareness anywhere.
Parabrahman is defined as the absolutely real-unimaginable-non-mediated God (Paramārtha-sadanūhyam anupādhikaṃ Parabrahma). The action of such unimaginable God is wishing to create the world to get rid of the boredom arising out of loneliness and to have some entertainment. Such wishing or thinking is also simple thinking like the thinking of a soul. The soul wishes to construct a house to get rid of the boredom of inaction and get entertainment. The process of thinking seems to be common to both the unimaginable God and the ordinary soul. In reality, God’s process of thinking is not this relative awareness at all. Relative awareness does not exist at all, either in God’s process of thinking or in God, the thinker. Due to this common point of thinking, the unimaginable God may be misunderstood to be an ordinary soul or an ordinary soul may be misunderstood to be the unimaginable God. Due to the common aspect of a white shining appearance, the pearl shell may be mistaken to be silver or silver may be mistaken to be a pearl shell. Both illusions are possible, but in different places.
Cit is understood to be thinking (saṃjñānam) or noticing a stored thought (smaraṇam). So, cit can mean the thinking of God or the thinking of a soul because the verb-form of cit, which is cetati or cetayate, stands for thinking, in general. Thus, based on the root-meaning (vyutpatti or yoga) cit can refer to the thinking of God as well as the soul. Let us fix this word cit to mean the thinking of God alone and not of the soul. Such fixing of a word to mean only a certain thing is called rūḍhi (fixing by convention). So, the use of the word cit to mean the thinking of God becomes a yoga rūḍha usage. In other words, this usage satisfies both the root meaning (yoga) and is also fixed (rūḍhi) to mean a particular thing (the thinking of the unimaginable God).
The word paṅkajam means, that which is born of mud (paṅka). Both the lotus and the snail are born from the mud in a pond and so; both can be called paṅkajam, by yoga (root meaning). But, by convention (rūḍhi), this word is fixed to mean only a lotus. Thus, using the word paṅkajam for a lotus satisfies both yoga and rūḍhi and hence, the usage is a yoga rūḍha usage. The snail can also be said to be paṅkajam based on yoga (root meaning), but such a usage has no rūḍhi; i.e., the word paṅkajam is not conventionally fixed to mean a snail. Hence, the lotus is treated to be the original meaning of the word paṅkajam, whereas, a snail is its apparent meaning.
Similarly, cit can be fixed to mean the action of thinking of the unimaginable God to make it a yoga rūḍha usage. Ātmā can mean the unimaginable God, as we see in the Vedic statement “Ātmana ākāśaḥ”. God is said to be Ātman since God is very important in creation as the soul is very important in the body. Therefore, Cidātmā (Cit + Ātmā) means the original non-mediated unimaginable God, doing the action of thinking. However, with such a definition of the unimaginable God, there is a risk of generalizing that whoever thinks, is the unimaginable God. For instance, since the soul also thinks, we may conclude that the soul is also the unimaginable God. To avoid this error, the soul can be called cidābhāsa because it is not really the unimaginable God even though it exhibits the process of thinking (cit), which we have fixed to mean the thinking of the unimaginable God alone (yoga rūḍha). Thus, the thinking of the soul becomes an example of an illusion.
But when the illusion is removed, the soul does not become the unimaginable God. When the illusion is removed, the soul realizes that it is not the unimaginable God. The illusion is removed when we realise that we have fixed cit to mean only the thinking of God and we have excluded the thinking of the soul. Hence, the word cit cannot be used in the case of the soul, in that real fixed sense. Therefore, thinking of the soul must be concluded to be a false cit, which is an illusion of the real cit.
This whole process, which is well-aligned with the Advaita theory, is agreeable, but the concluded result should not be as they have done in the case of the illusory snake and the real rope. The Advaita philosophers should fix the concept first and only then take an appropriate simile or example for comparison. A simile can be taken for a partial concept too, as there is no need for all the aspects of the similie to match with all the aspects of the original concept. Unfortunately, Advaitins, give the simile first and go on applying all the points of the simile to the original concept, so that, finally, a false concept results!
The Ṛg Veda mentions two birds sitting on the same tree. It is a simile for God and a soul existing in the same body of the Incarnation. The two birds are merged together due to love (Dvā-suparṇā sayujā sakhāyā...). It is said that one bird is eating the food liked by it and the other is ‘shining’, without eating any food. Here, the awareness of the soul-bird is maintained by the food eaten by it. The food is converted into energy upon oxidation, which is transformed into awareness in its functioning brain and nervous system. In the other God-bird, there is no need of either food or a brain and nervous system to produce awareness because the awareness of God is merely the process of thinking done by the omnipotent-unimaginable God.
The food mentioned is the food liked by the bird. It is interpreted by scholars to mean that the soul-bird performs deeds and so, inevitably receives fruits of its deeds. But if the fruits eaten by the soul-bird were the fruits of the soul’s deeds, then the bird would have to eat both liked (merits) and disliked (sins) fruits. Taking the literal meaning (vācyārtha) of the word ‘food’ is preferable to an implied meaning (lakṣaṇārtha). The two birds are said to be friendly and merged (sayujā) with each other. This clearly refers to the Human Incarnation since God and the soul (human-component in the Incarnation) love each other like friends (sakhāyā) and they have also merged together to become one. Friendship is said to be the second-last step of devotion (Sakhyamātma nivedanam...).
In this context of the Human Incarnation, the two birds representing God and the soul are mentioned. The merging between them is perfect, as far as our imagination goes. But, beyond our imagination, dualism between God and the soul exists, even in that perfect merging in the Incarnation. If the human being-component develops an ego, the God-component will quit it, as in the case of Paraśurāma. If the human being-component conquers its ego, the perfectly merged state continues forever, as in the case of Rāma, who is said to be a complete Incarnation (Pūrṇa Avatāra). In the case of an ordinary human being, only one bird, which is the soul, exists. This soul is the awareness generated from the liked food eaten by it.
Awareness and the game of thoughts are well-explained as the special work form of inert energy. Awareness is the transfer of information from senses to the mind and this point is demonstrated in the case of a robot. The electronic circuits in the processor (computer) of the robot are smiliar to the brain and nervous system. Inert electrical energy gets converted into the work-form of sensing information from the surroundings, which is the ‘awareness’ of the robot. Thus, the generation of inert energy in the human body and its functioning in the brain to produce the patterns of thoughts is well-understood by comparing it with the technology of a robot. In the analysis of the items of the imaginable creation, science and its discoveries play the ultimate role. Hence, awareness is just a specific work form of inert energy and inert energy is the first item of creation of the unimaginable God (Tat tejo’sṛjata...—Veda).
Following are the steps of ignorance and knowledge as described in the Pañcadaśī, along with their correct interpretation:
In the world, no imaginable awareness has omniscience and hence, the omniscient awareness of God must be unimaginable. We also know from the world that awareness always needs a container, which can either be an energetic body or a human body. It is just like coffee, which needs the mug as a container. Even if we accept that since the omniscient awareness is unimaginable and does not need a container, in any case, we have to accept that such awareness is unimaginable. When we use the term ‘unimaginable awareness’, we should not think that the awareness itself is unimaginable because awareness is always imaginable. At the same time, the imaginable awareness found in the world cannot become unimaginable awareness. In order to get out of all these contradictions, the best way is to say that the term unimaginable awareness means the awareness of an unimaginable entity.
In this case, that awareness is not the subject, as in the case of the soul. Instead, the awareness is just a form of work, which is the process of thinking, observing or noticing. The complete meaning of this term unimaginable awareness is that some unimaginable item is doing the work of thinking. That process of thinking is also unimaginable because the relative awareness does not exist in that process of work. The word awareness should only be taken in the sense of ‘work’ and not in the sense of the worker. In the case of the soul, awareness is the worker as well as the work. The soul, which is the awareness, is an imaginable item since awareness is imaginable. The unimaginable awareness means that we do not know anything about the nature of that unimaginable item, except that it is doing the work called awareness or thinking.
The self-identity indicated by the word ‘I’ is linked to the awareness and is the subject, in the case of a mediated soul. We can also link the word ‘I’ to the entire collective body including awareness. So, we can say that the work of awareness (thinking) is done by the entire collective body indicated by ‘I’, which includes the awareness as the subject as well as the work. An Indian can say that he belongs to India and India includes him also as a part. This is an example of the usage of the word ‘I’ to mean the collective body, instead of only the subjective awareness. One says “My awareness (taken as work) is awakened”. In this sentence, the subject ‘my’ means the collective body and not the same awareness, which is work. Such an interpretation avoids the repetition of the same word for both the subject and the work.
The Veda says, “I am God” and “You are God”, which are the first two great Vedic statements (mahāvākyas). Here, God means the Human Incarnation. ‘I’ and ‘you’ are used only in the singular form. The contexts of these statements could also be that a single Human Incarnation is declaring, “I am God” and a human being addressing a single Human Incarnation saying, “You are God”. The context of the third Vedic statement could also be of a person pointing to a particular Human Incarnation saying, “He is God”. If the actual intention behind the third statement were that every soul is God, there was ample opportunity to word this third statement as “All the souls are God”. But it is not worded in that manner and only a singular wording is used. In the statement, “The soul is God” (Jīvo Brahmaiva...), the word ‘soul’ can indicate all souls. But, the third Vedic statement “This soul is God (Ayamātmā...)”, only refers to a specific soul and not any soul in general.
The fourth Vedic statement clearly proves that a specific soul possessing excellent spiritual knowledge is God (Prajñānaṃ Brahma) and this correlates with the third statement. The word prajñānaṃ stands for special excellent spiritual knowledge alone and not for mere awareness. A separate word ‘cit’ or ‘cetanā’ exists for mere awareness and it is included in the list of items of the imaginable world in the Gītā. The other two characteristics that can be indicators to identify God are love and miraculous power. But they are generally not touched because the excellent spiritual knowledge alone can direct souls along the right path of spirituality and hence, it is very important for all of humanity. This initial step of spiritual knowledge also covers subsequent steps of devotion and service with sacrifice, by including information about both.
Śaṅkara said that He is God Śiva in two ways: (1) He said that He is the unimaginable God who alone remains after eliminating every imaginable item (Tadeko’vaśiṣṭaḥ Śivaḥ kevalo’ham). (2) He is God Śiva, who is the possessor of awareness and bliss (Cidānandarūpaḥ Śivo’haṃ Śivo’ham...). The first statement indicates the presence of the unimaginable God (Parabrahma) in a fully-merged state with God Datta. The unimaginable God is the unimaginable item, which alone remains upon eliminating all the imaginable items of the imaginable creation (Neti Netīti...—Veda). The repeated word “Na, na...” applied to every item in creation is the elimination of those items for not being God. The second statement indicates the presence of God Datta in a fully-merged state with God Śiva. Both possess relative awareness in the form of their souls and that awareness is filled with bliss. Parabrahma is merged with God Datta. God Datta is merged with God Śiva and God Śiva further merged with the soul of Śaṅkara. The soul of Śaṅkara is the result of the merging of Parabrahma with Datta, Datta with Śiva and Śiva with Śaṅkara. Here, only the soul is selected for merging because the body of every soul (energetic or human being) is perishable and every soul is assumed to be God by Śaṅkara. Hence, the topic about every soul becomes the topic of God alone.
Rāmānuja did not consider every soul to be God and selected only one soul along with His body as God. He selected both the body and soul of the mediated God Datta, who is also called Nārāyaṇa or Viṣṇu, as God since that particular body of Datta is also eternal (Aprākṛta deha). Śaṅkara says that only the soul of every energetic or human being is God since its body is non-eternal, as seen in the case of any human or energetic being. Rāmānuja selected the mediated God (both soul and body) as eternal because every soul is not God. Madhva’s philosophy is also along the lines of Rāmānuja’s in this aspect of selecting a specific energetic being as God. Both kept silent about the merging of the unimaginable God with that first Energetic Incarnation, otherwise, the importance of the first Energetic Incarnation would be lost. Both treated the first Energetic Incarnation as the ultimate God and gave the place of unimaginable God to it.
The Advaita philosophers often quote the following verse:
Asti bhāti priyaṃ rūpaṃ
Nāma cety-aṃsa-pañcakam
Ādya-trayam brahma-rūpaṃ
Jagad-rūpaṃ tato dvayam
It means that creation and God together are made up of the following five aspects: (a) Existence, (b) Radiance, (c) Bliss, (d) name and (e) form. The first three aspects belong to God and the last two belong to creation. I would like to give the following alternative verse with a significant change in the concept of the third and fourth lines:
Asti bhāti priyaṃ nāma,
Rūpamityaṃśa-pañcakam,
Teṣāmādyaṃ Parabrahma,
Jagadanyat catuṣṭayam.
This new verse means that the first aspect alone belongs to the unimaginable God, whereas, the rest of the four aspects only belong to creation.
The first aspect is existence (asti). The Veda says that the only information about the non-mediated unimaginable God that can be known is that He exists (Astītyeva upalabdhavyaḥ...). The second aspect is radiance or shining (bhāti). The direct meaning of which is the radiance of inert energy. The Veda says that in the beginning, God created inert energy (Tat tejo'sṛjata). The Veda also says that, in the beginning, God created space (Ātmana ākāśaḥ). Since space is subtle inert energy, there is no contradiction between the two. This means that in the beginning, the unimaginable God created inert energy. The third aspect is bliss (priyam). Bliss must be possessed by awareness and hence, awareness is introduced by the word bliss. Scholars try to interpret shining or radiance as awareness, which is an indirect meaning (vyañjanā). But this is not necessary since the direct meaning of radiance as inert energy itself is proper. The fourth aspect is name (nāma) that indicates an item through its meaning. The fifth aspect is form (rūpam) which means a materialised (matter) item. These aspects show that God created inert energy from which matter and awareness are evolved. If you take the mediated God, all the five aspects belong to Him because the unimaginable God represents the first aspect, whereas, the rest four represent the medium and we know that the unimaginable God, upon mediation, becomes the mediated God.
When a human being thinks, there are three items: (i) The ‘I’, which is the worker (kartā) or the subject and which can even refer to the entire body, including the soul, (ii) the working instrument (karaṇam), which is the awareness or the soul and (iii) the work (kriyā) done by the subject with the help of the working instrument, which is the process of thinking. When the unimaginable God thinks, there are two items only: (1) the worker or the subject, who is the unimaginable God and (2) the work done by the subject, without any working instrument or awareness. That work is simply the process of thinking. In the case of God, you cannot expect the presence of a working instrument or awareness since both inert energy and the materialized brain and nervous system are absent. This is because God could think even before creating creation. God’s process of thinking is also unimaginable since it (thinking) happened without the working instrument (relative awareness).
In the case of a human being, there are three components in the process of thinking namely the subject, the instrument of work and the work. In the case of God, there are only two components namely, the subject and the work.