02 Sep 2010
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
The scientific atheists say that the cosmic energy is the ultimate God from which this entire creation is generated through big bang, maintained and destroyed. He says that another unimaginable God as generator of cosmic energy is unnecessary. If we say that an agent of intelligence is required to maintain all this creation in such a systematic manner, the atheists disagree saying that randomness with probability based on theory of evolution can be the reason for such systematic administration. We cannot completely rule out this answer of the atheists. In such case, the unimaginable God disappears and the imaginable cosmic energy becomes God. The concept of energy is clearly understood only through intricate scientific analysis like thermodynamics etc. and hence, an entity understood with difficulty can be treated unimaginable for the time being. If we say that the genuine miracles stand as perfect proof for the real unimaginable concept, the atheists still weaken us by saying that there is atleast 50% probability in the future for the revelation of such genuine miracle also. When such situation stands before us, the only concept of perfect unimaginable concept is the existence of infinite entity. This cosmos is infinite without beginning and end. Its boundary is perfectly unimaginable since even scientists agree that it can never be reached. Even if you reach the boundary of cosmos, will there be a compound wall indicating the limits of the universe? If such compound wall exists, what is present beyond that compound wall? Therefore, in this case, the real unimaginable boundary of the infinite cosmos has to be accepted even by science. There is no trace of possibility in future to explain the boundary of cosmos. This is the only proof for the real existence of an unimaginable concept indicating the unimaginable God.
We can say that God exists beyond the limits of the universe and thus, it means that God is always unimaginable. Arjuna had the vision of this infinite cosmos containing infinite matter and energy. The only statement given by Lord Krishna is that there is no end to this cosmic vision, which clearly means that the limits of the creation are infinite and unimaginable (Naantosti mama…)
The Gita introduces two types of classifications.
The first classification was favored by Shankara and the second classification was favored by Ramanuja. Infact, both are not mutually contradicting each other. There are only two items. The first item is the unimaginable creator and the second item is the imaginable creation. This is very clear classification. But, the problem is that the unimaginable God enters the creation. He enters a human being. The human being is a part of creation only. This part of creation charged by God is called as Purusha. Infact, this Purusha is also the creation itself, being the part of the creation. Thus, in the real classification, only one category is leftover, which is creation since the creator is counted in the creation itself through human incarnation, being identified as the part of creation. The unimaginable God can now be indicated by the finger as a human being or Purusha. Otherwise, the creator as unimaginable God cannot be even mentioned since He is indicated by silence. In the first classification, such super human being or human incarnation representing the unimaginable God stands for the word ‘Purusha’ denoting the creator. In this first classification, the word Prakruti indicates the creation in which the inert creation along with all the living beings including all the ordinary human beings exists. Therefore, in the first classification, the word purusha stands for God in human form only and never indicates an ordinary human being. The reason for this logic is that the ordinary human being is already included in prakruti. The three faculties of the human being (Mind, Intelligence and feeling of I) are included in apara prakruti and the fourth faculty (chittam) constitutes the para prakruti. These four parts constitute the four faculties (antahkaranams), which are the human being. The body of the human being constitutes the five elements mentioned in apara prakruti, which are inert matter and inert energy. The human being or awareness is only a special work form of inert energy in the functioning nervous system, which is inert matter. Thus, the human being and the human body are strongly inter-related and are inter-convertible forms only as work, energy and matter. Hence, there is no problem in including the human being in the inert creation. The entire creation is just the various modifications of the basic cosmic energy only. Therefore, you need not call the ordinary human being as Purusha and try to separate from the prakruti.
When you use Purusha as a separate word differing from prakruti, the Purusha stands for the creator only since the unimaginable creator is clearly different from the imaginable creation. Even though, the word purusha stands for an ordinary human being also, here in this context, the word Purusha should not indicate ordinary human being due to the above said reason. However, the usage of purusha meaning ordinary human being is justified in this context also since the creator is visible through the ordinary human being only as the medium charged by Him. Hence, the conclusion is that in this context, the separate word Purusha does not mean every ordinary human being but means only that specific human being charged by God. Based on this context, the Purusha Suktam in the Veda explains about the process of creation from Purusha, who is any specified human being charged by God like Rama, Krishna etc. Hence, the Purusha Suktam establishes human incarnation as the creator of this universe, who is the absolute God. Hence, the human incarnation, Krishna, stated that He is the creator (Aham sarvasya jagatah…). In the Purusha Suktam, it is said that purusha is this creation (Purusha evedam sarvam…). You need not doubt that the ordinary human being is this creation as a mini model since the human being consisting of four faculties of awareness and the human body consisting of five elements represent the entire nine constituents of the universe. The human being along with the human body is a mini cosmos. This interpretation is also possible and in such case, the word purusha is limited to ordinary human being. In such case, the necessity of third category comes and therefore, the creator is mentioned as Purushottama. The word Purushottama contains the word purusha, which means that the absolute God is in a specific human being or purusha. However, the above statement in the Purusha Suktam can also be interpreted in a different way, so that, there also the word Purusha stands for creator only. In this different way, the creation controlled by purusha can be said as purusha in the above statement. The state controlled by the king Kalinga itself is called as Kalinga. This interpretation is given by Ramanuja and surprisingly such interpretation supports the first classification favored by Shankara thereby indicating that Ramanuja and Shankara support each other only.
The interpretation of Ramanuja indicates the real world controlled by the real God. In the view of the soul, the world is real. Since Ramanuja is Adisesha, a soul only, he has given the interpretation in view of the soul. The world is unreal in the view of God and Shankara interpreted this in His view since He is the human incarnation of Lord Shiva, the God. In this interpretation, this world is God because the unreal world does not exist and the real God only exists. The unreal snake is told as the real rope. Thus, both these interpretations are correct as per the view of soul and as per the view of God. Shankara mentioned both these concepts as separate views of soul and God. Hence, according to Him, the world cannot be said as real or unreal in the same angle (Sadasat vilakshanaa…). People misunderstanding Shankara say that the world is unreal.
Kshetra and Kshetrajna
Therefore, the classification of prakruti and purusha is not the classification of non-living and living. Such classification comes in the study of creation only as in the subjects of science. In philosophy, the classification is between creator and creation. Prakruti includes living and non-living. Even purusha includes living and non-living because the human body is made of non-living elements where as the human being is made of four living elements of awareness. Purusha means the human being along with human body. The purusha containing God also is a couple of the same human being and human body. Similarly, there is another classification called as kshetra and kshetrajna, which again does not mean living and non-living. Kshetra means known and kshetrajna means knower. A knower also becomes known when that knower is known by other knower. Therefore, kshetrajna also becomes kshetra for another kshetrajna. When you know about mediated God like Krishna, the human form of God, even such God becomes known to the knower. The absolute God is always unknown and unimaginable to any knower and Krishna is a mediated God. Hence, throughout the Gita, God means only the mediated God. In the Gita, it is said that God is to be known (Jneyam yat tat…). You should not take absolute God here, which can never be known. The known is only the human incarnation to be differentiated from the other human beings. Here, the word known means such identification of the special human being differentiated from the other human beings. If you identify such special human being, we can say that you have known the absolute God also since the absolute God is identified with such special human being like the electricity being identified with the electric wire. Hence, in the same verse, after saying that God to be known, Lord Krishna mentions the absolute God (Anaadimat…). This clearly shows that there is no other way than this in knowing the absolute God as said in the Veda (Naanyah panthaa…). Hence, kshetra does not mean non-living and infact, the awareness is mentioned in kshetra only (Chetanaa dhrutih…). The body is said to be kshetra, which covers awareness also (Idam shariram…). The knower of the body is kshetrajna (Etat yo vetti…). The body also includes knower and hence, a knower also comes under kshetra. God is also a knower like a human being (Kshetrajnam chaapi maam…). This means God has awareness like the human being, even though awareness of God differs from the awareness of human being in several ways. The similarity is qualitative, which means that the process of knowing is one and the same. Thus, it is clear that the classification of known and knower is also not strictly followed in the classification of kshetra and kshetrajna.
The Gita says that in the body of human incarnation, there is a different knower other than one knower, the soul, and this different knower is the absolute God (Dehesmin purushah parah…). Due to omnipotence, absolute God has the potency to know. Here, the word ‘para’ means different. This shows that the human incarnation has two knowers in the human body as said in the Veda (Dvaasuparnaa…). Here the word ‘asmin’ indicates the specific body of Krishna, the human incarnation. Shankara has taken this verse totally in different direction since He had to preach atheists in that time, who did not believe in God other than themselves. He took the word ‘asmin’ to mean every human body. He took the word ‘para’ to mean best and not different. The resulting meaning is that in every human body, there is only one best knower, who is God. This results in saying that there is only one knower, who is God in every human body. The original version was taken by Ramanuja since he preached the theists in his time. The diversion of the original version by Shankara is for the sake of the then existing atmosphere of atheists in His time. Such diversion is inevitable since the aim was to slowly convert atheists to theists. By accepting the existence of their soul, they accept the existence of God since soul is God. The text of Krishna allows both the versions to suit the situations in different times. It is like a legal document written by a document-writer, which is interpreted by both the lawyers to suit their parties. You should not take this controversy to be present in the text or to be present between the commentators. This controversy should be taken as the controversy existing between theists and atheists.
The same statement preaches both with different angles like a two edged knife. Krishna is such double edged knife to cut the ignorance of both the parties opposing each other in the same time. At anytime, both theist and atheist exist. In the Gita, it is said that God is not involved in the deeds of the human being or qualitative soul present in the human incarnation (Na karoti na lipyate…). He extends this concept to atman, the soul, taken as the basic inert energy not involved in the deeds of qualitative soul (jeeva) and the soul is compared to another inert object called space (Yathaa sarvagatam…). This means that if the qualitative soul (jeeva) identifies itself with its basic form, the inert energy or soul, the human being is completely detached from the world and can enjoy the world as God enjoys the world by detaching Himself as the creator. The creator is detached from the creation through the basic point that creator is quite different from creation since creator is always beyond creation. The soul can be also detached from the rest of the creation and the reason for such detachment cannot be as above because the soul is not creator. Yet, the soul can be detached from the creation through another way even though it is a part of the creation. Such way is that the qualitative soul should think its own basic form as inert energy, which cannot be involved in any deed and in the enjoyment of any fruit. The human being can enjoy the creation as qualitative soul or awareness and at the same time get itself simultaneously detached by identifying itself as basic inert energy. In this way, both God and human being can enjoy the creation with detachment even though the process of detachment differs. The difference cannot affect the final detachment.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★