23 Dec 2014
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Shri Phani asked “Please elaborate about ‘I’ and ‘you’ with respect to single reference”.
Shri Swami replied: You have to take the meanings of ‘I’ and ‘you’ with respect to the speech of either Krishna or Arjuna only till the end. You should not mix both the speeches and enlighten the meanings of ‘I’ and ‘you’, in which case misinterpretation results. First, you must know that the item is more important than the word. The items are linked with the words as per the selection by the humanity from the beginning. This link makes you to remember its linked item immediately through the linked word. The items existed even when the words did not exist. Even now the birds and animals recognize the item by mind even in the absence of words with reference to them. Therefore, the item is fixed by a specific word (noun) like the pot item is fixed to the word pot. The word God comes only when God really exists there. On seeing the pot only, you utter the word pot. If somebody utters the word chair on seeing the pot, immediately he is condemned. Therefore, on seeing God only you have to use the word God. The pronoun like ‘this’ (similar to I, you, he etc.,) can be used to both pot and chair. When you say ‘this’, the meaning of ‘this’ may be pot or chair according to the item existing there. Similarly, the pronoun ‘I’ may mean God or soul according to the truth that whether speaker of ‘I’ is God or soul. When somebody speaks “I am king”, you should see whether the speaker is really the king or beggar. Since the pronoun ‘I’ can mean the king also, you cannot say that the speaker is always a king based on that logic. When you link the two words ‘I’ and ‘king’, it is your duty to verify whether the speaker is really a king or not. Similarly, when Krishna says, “I am God”, you must verify whether Krishna is really God or not. You must not link ‘I’ and ‘God’ everywhere. In such case, when Ravana says, “I am God”, you must also accept it. But, you deny it on verification. Therefore, you should not link the pronoun ‘I’ to God (king) only everywhere. If it is so, when the beggar says, “I am beggar”, you should not accept that statement and say that a beggar is also the king. Hence, ‘I’ is a pronoun only that can be linked to God (king) or soul (beggar) as per the context and subsequent verification.
Let us assume that there is a group of ten human incarnations along with Krishna. In that group, everybody can say “I am God”. Here, everybody is God not because that ‘I’ is always linked to God. Here the ‘I’ uttered by everybody means God since everybody is God on verification by analysis. Similarly, let us assume that there are ten human beings along with Arjuna. In that group of human beings everybody says, “I am soul”. Here also, everybody is soul not because the ‘I’ is linked to soul only everywhere. Here everybody is soul because everybody is found to be the soul in our verifying analysis. If ‘I’ is linked to soul only, the meaning of ‘I’ is violated in the group of human incarnations since there no ‘I’ is soul. Similarly, if ‘I’ is linked to God only, such link is violated in the second group of human beings since no ‘I’ there is God. Therefore, all the pronouns denote different items according to the context of the speaker subjected to subsequent verifying analysis to be done by us. Since ten kings of different sates told that everybody is a king by the statement “I am the king”, you can link the ‘I’ and king in that group only. This link should not be extended everywhere so that a mad beggar may also say, “I am king”. It is not accepted because the verifying analysis proves that the beggar is not the king.
Let us assume that both the groups of human incarnations (kings) and the human beings (beggars) are brought together. Krishna belonging to first group says, “I am God”. Krishna also says to Arjuna “you are human being and surrender to Me”. Here both the words ‘I’ and ‘you’ are with reference to the single speaker, Krishna, only. In this single reference, ‘I’ is always God and ‘you’ always is the soul, which is other than God. Shankara has taken this norm of language with reference to single speaker (Krishna) and said that ‘I’ (Asmat) is always God and ‘you’ (Ushmat) is always soul. The state of present Advaita philosophers becomes equal to the state of Arjuna if Arjuna made a misinterpretation by saying “I means God only everywhere. I am God since I am also using the same word I and hence, I need not surrender to Krishna”. This misinterpretation resulted because Arjuna mixed both the references regarding the meaning of ‘I’ of single reference extended everywhere. He has extended the link between ‘I’ and God everywhere not confining to Krishna and the group of human incarnations. He should have taken the meaning of ‘I’ with reference to him or his group of human beings and should have taken the meaning of ‘I’ as soul. In this way, you can mix the languages of both references by taking the ‘I’ linked to different items (God and Soul) and avoid the contradiction. Alternatively, you could have taken the language of single reference only throughout the concept. In the language of Krishna, Krishna (I) is God and Arjuna (you) is soul. In the language of Arjuna also, the same norm is followed since the pronouns I and you are linked with reversed items i.e., ‘I’ is soul and ‘you’ is God. When you mix both languages, the link in each language should be maintained. If you cannot do this, you have to follow the language of single reference only. In either way, contradiction will not result leading to confusion.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★