18 May 2022

Matasamanvaya Prakaranam (The Topic of Correlation Among Religions)

Jump to other chapters in BRAHMAJṆĀNAM (The Knowledge of God)

1. Bhinnajñānāni cāṅgānām, aṅgī hastī sa bhidyate |
Jñeyaprakaraṇe bhinne, tattadanvaya ujjhitaḥ ||

[All the ancient philosophers, who developed various theories are quarrelling with each other because the concept of totality is missing. Every theory is correct when it is applied to a part of the total concept as in the case of blind people studying the form of an elephant by touching different parts of the elephant (Andhagaja nyāya). The elephant is like a pillar if its leg is touched. The same elephant is like a wall if the side of its stomach is touched. The same elephant is like a rope if its tail is touched. Unless the total concept is realized to understand the elephant in total, the quarrels among these theories are inevitable. The total concept is understood if the reference and the context of each theory is realized. When you say that the elephant is like a pillar, the reference is the leg of the elephant and the context is that you are studying a part of the elephant and not the whole elephant.]

2. Dṛṣṭiprakaraṇe jñeye, hastino'ṅga vimarśataḥ |
Bhinnavādā ssame satyāḥ, kalaho'ṅgi samanvaye ||

[The Ajātivāda of Gauḍapāda is correct if he confines himself only to the reference of God and there also, a part of the context. He says that the world is not born since it is only the illusion of the soul. God is the absolute reality and the world by itself is unreal and not actually born with reference to God. If you apply this to the soul, it cannot be correlated because the soul is also a part of the world and if the world is not born, the soul is also not born. This concept can’t be applied to the soul itself as the reference. It can be applied only to God. In the case of God also, it can apply only to the essential nature of the creation, which is that it is not real at all. Even in the case of God, there is a different nature of the creation, which is called as the acquired nature. The world becomes absolutely real when it is benefited by the gift of the absolute reality of God. The shape of the pot is unreal by itself, but is real due to the gifted reality of the mud. In this second context of the acquired nature of the creation, Ajātivāda becomes a failure. Hence, Śaṅkara has not only taken the essential nature of the creation (non-reality), but also took the acquired nature of the creation (absolute reality) and finally said that the world is neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal (which is called as ‘mithyā’). This concept of Śaṅkara covers both the contexts of God (that the world is absolutely unreal and also absolutely real). Rejection of two contradicting natures indirectly means the dual nature (Syādasti nāsti) and this type of concept covers the theory of the seven-fold truth of Jainism. The essential nature of non-existence (Syāt nāsti) of the world covers the concept of non-existence of everything (Śūnyavāda) of Buddhism. The acquired nature of gifted absolute reality of the world covers the concepts of Rāmānuja and Madhva. The concept of Rāmānuja and Madhva (that the world is real) covers i) the second context of God (that the world is absolutely real giving real and full entertainment to God) and ii) The reference of the soul (that the world is always real to soul). In this way, every philosopher is correct if the basic points of reference and context are realized, which confine each philosophy to a part of the total concept only.]

3. Dvau tribhi stīrṇo daivasthaḥ, saptabhaṅgī ca bauddhadhīḥ |
Jīvapakṣe na vai śūnyam, svayaṃ śūnyāt dvisattayā ||

[There are two references, which are that of God and soul. God has two contexts (i) The essential nature of the creation, which is non-existence and ii) The acquired nature of the creation, which is the gifted absolute existence of God) whereas the soul has one context only (the relatively real world is absolutely real for the relatively real soul since the soul is a tiny part of the world). The incarnation is accommodated under the reference of God because the incarnation is just the mediated unimaginable God. Śaṅkara made soul as God by which both the contexts of God are linked to the soul. One of the two contexts, which is the essential nature of the non-existence of the world, by itself, can’t be linked to the soul. Since the soul is a tiny part of the world, the soul also gets the same essential nature of the world so that the soul becomes non-existent by itself. This confusion came since Śaṅkara wanted to convert atheists into theists and then slowly into devotees. For this purpose, the soul was said to be God and this was not the real heart of the concepts of Śaṅkara. Leaving this one concept by understanding this background, Śaṅkara differentiated the absolute reality of God and the relative reality of the world. In fact, there is no difference between the absolute reality and relative reality as long as the relative reality is shining like the absolute reality due to the gifted absolute reality from God. If you differentiate the absolute and relative realities of God and world respectively, God can’t get real entertainment because real entertainment is possible only between two equal realities. In this way, the concept bends towards Rāmānuja and Madhva. If you differentiate the two absolute realities of God and world, since the essential nature of the world (granted absolute reality) is tagged with the world, it makes the philosophy to bend towards that of Śaṅkara. Buddhism stands along with Ajātivāda of Gauḍapāda when the world was not at all created.]

4. Trimatāni sthāyibhedāt, koṇatraitaṃ sakṛt pare |
Bhinnadṛg bhinna jīveṣu, vaktā śrotru vibheda vāk ||

[The same incarnation of God says that He is God to devotees having zero egoistic jealousy. If the jealousy is 50%, the incarnation says that it is the son of God. If the jealousy is 100%, the incarnation says that it is a servant-messenger of God. These three angles are to be maintained at the same time catering to receivers of knowledge present in different stages of spiritual progress. The philosophies of the incarnation are also different in view of the suitability and the extent of digestion of the spiritual knowledge.]

5. Buddho'vatāra stanmaunam, nohya Brahma sadarthadam |
Āśātyāgo mahāprema, sādhako daiva harṣakṛt ||

[Buddha is one of the ten incarnations of God Viṣṇu and We wonder how Buddhists misunderstood Buddha as an atheist. His silence on God is the best expression about the unimaginable God, Who is beyond words and logic. Buddha mainly stressed on the sacrifice of desire so that the devotee will enter the path of pure and real love towards God without aspiration for any fruit in return so that the relationship between God and devotee will not be based on business account of give and take policy. Such pure devotion can only really please God.]

6. Avatāramataṃ tyaktaṃ, Dayānandena doṣataḥ |
Anyena cānya saṃhārāt, mataṃ śiṣyānusāri yat ||

[The concept of human incarnation was rejected by Śrī Dayānanda Sarasvatī since false human incarnations started trying to exploit the innocent public. Due to the climax of ego and jealousy, one human incarnation (Jesus) was tortured and killed. The next following human incarnation (Mohammed) also rejected the concept of human incarnation that leads even devotees to commit such horrible sin due to the influence of egoistic jealousy towards co-human forms. The concepts of spiritual knowledge are modified based on the psychology of human beings surrounding the human incarnation.]

7. Taijasā'rūparūpatvāt, bhidyete paścime mate |
Arthato nākhilavyāpī, śaktyā syāt doṣa nirgamāt ||

[The first energetic incarnation having human form of energetic body exists in Christianity as in Hinduism. The Islam religion accepts the formless energetic medium with God in it, even though basically it believes in an all-pervading God. However, this omnipresence of God can be taken in the effective sense instead of the actual literal sense so that presence of God in a sinner can be avoided.]

8. Advaitaṃ ca viśiṣṭaṃ ca, dvaitaṃ paścimagaṃ matam |
Sa tejaḥ paramasmiṃstat, tasmin sa iti ca kramāt ||

[The three philosophies of the three divine preachers can be correlated in Christianity since monism is supported by saying that God and the incarnation are one and the same (because it is told that the incarnation is the truth, the light and the path). The whole-part relationship of God and soul in qualified monism is expressed through the concept of treating the incarnation as son of God. The dualism of God and servant is well expressed in the concept of treating the incarnation as a messenger. These three concepts reflect the three statements respectively that the incarnation is light (monism), the light is in the incarnation (qualified monism) and the incarnation is in the light (dualism).]

9. Annāt puruṣa ityatra, Cārvako'pi samanvitaḥ |
Sarvāṃśa saṅgrahā nnāgaḥ, siddhaḥ pūrṇaḥ samāṅgajaḥ ||

[The Veda says that awareness or soul is born from the imaginable inert food (Annāt puruṣaḥ). The born imaginable soul is a part of the imaginable creation. This means that the soul is not God and in this way, even Cārvāka, the founder of atheism, is correlated. In this way, the philosophy of every religion including atheism is correlated so that the full form of the elephant appears clearly when all these philosophies are placed in their confined regions as various limbs. Each philosophy should not claim that it is the total form of the elephant. If the totality is claimed by a part, problems will arise resulting in confusion and emotional quarrels.]

10. Tattvaṃ sarvamataṃ hyekam, nohyaṃ prāk saguṇam param |
Svarnarakau pravṛttau ca, kuto bhedaḥ kathaṃ raṇaḥ? ||

[The essence of every religion is perfectly one and the same. The unimaginable God is the absolute root source. Such God becomes incarnation (both energetic and human incarnations) and prescribes the contents of the scripture of each religion. Since the root God is only one, how can the scriptures become different in their basic contents? The concept of spiritual life (nivṛtti) is the unimaginable God and His human incarnation that came down to establish the scripture of every religion. The concept of worldly life (pravṛtti) is justice leading to heaven and injustice leading to hell. Every scripture is basically one and the same as far as pravṛtti and nivṛtti are concerned. Where is the scope of difference among the scriptures and where is the scope of hatred to fight with each other?]

11. Daivadharma'dharma sāmyāt, ko bheda ścāstikeṣvapi? |
Ūhyo'pi nāstikadveṣaḥ, pātāle jñāna meghagaḥ! ||

[The biggest wonder in this creation is that the theistic religions based on the fundamental belief of God, following justice and rejecting injustice are expected to be the closest friends with immense love towards each other, but, are quarrelling with each other like bitter enemies in war! Devotees having tremendous spiritual knowledge giving very deep interpretations of the scriptures of their religions are covered by full stupidity in criticising other religions, which are just reflections of their own religions! They are not realizing that when they scold the forms of God of other religions, they are scolding the form of God of their own religion indirectly! On one side, intelligence is reaching its climax and on the other side, even the fundamentals are totally missing! If all the theistic religions unite with each other and fight against atheism, at least, some understanding can be attained! The quarrel between theistic religions is really as unimaginable as the unimaginable God!]

12. Yugapat deśa rāṣṭrasthaḥ, kendra viśvamatānugaḥ |
Svamataṃ varjaye nnaiva, pararūpaṃ na dūṣayet ||

[A person belonging to a state government in India is simultaneously belonging to the central government of the country. Similarly, the follower of every religion must be simultaneously the follower of the central religion called Universal Spirituality. Being born in a religion, one must follow the path of that religion with utmost sincerity without thinking of change to another religion. Being the follower of Universal Spirituality, one must not scold or criticise the forms of God of other religions and other religious scriptures. This will lead to world peace and transform the entire world as one family (Vasudhaika kuṭumbakam).]

[27 November 2022]

13. Saprākaraṇikārtho’sti, sākṣāt dhanañjayāyitaḥ |
Dhairyāya hyanyathā'hantā – ''kṣepaḥ svārcana dhīḥ katham? ||

[We shall examine the background of the context in which a statement is told (why he told like that?) and not merely study whatever he told. This refers to the background of Shankara in telling atheists first that every soul is God and later on telling that every soul must worship God. Krishna also says that 1) He is Arjuna (Pāṇḍavānāṃ Dhanañjayaḥ) and at the same time 2) scolds Arjuna for his ego (Yadahaṃkāramāśritya…) and says that Arjuna must worship Krishna (Manmanā bhava…). The first context is to give confidence to Arjuna and the second context is the real state of Arjuna, a mere soul.]

May 29, 2023

14) Aparā Jaḍaśaktyātmā buddhe ściditi bodhakaḥ ।
Sarvāśakti rna kintvevaṃ bhāgā ttraita matānvayaḥ ।।

[Even the latest philosophy of the Triad (Traita Siddhānta) can be correlated. In the Gita, there are two types of classifications. One is Puruṣa (creator) and Prakṛti (creation). The other type is Puruṣottama, Puruṣa (Parāprakṛti) and Prakṛti (Aparā prakṛti). We called Aparā prakṛti as Ātmā or Mūlaprakṛti or Mūlamāyā, which is inert energy created by God in the beginning (Tattejo'sṛjata). Here, we said that this inert energy is condensed into matter and also formed as awareness. The entire creation consisting of inert energy, matter and awareness is a modification of the basic inert energy. This means the inert energy is the basic material of the entire creation including souls and hence, is perfectly justified to be called as Ātmā. Ātmā means that which pervades all the creation. Therefore, inert energy is perfectly justified to be called as Ātmā or soul (soul can be called as cosmic soul or Viśvātmā). Since Ātmā means that which pervades the entire creation, the root meaning of the word is also satisfied. In this way, we get creator or the unimaginable God and creation, the imaginable domain (including souls), which is Ātmā or inert energy. We have two components in this way, creator and creation (creation including souls). This is dualism that satisfies the first type of classification, which is Puruṣa and Prakṛti (Prakṛtiṃ Puruṣaṃ caiva… - Gita).

But, we have the other type of classification that introduces three basic items instead of two basic items. The three basic items are:- Creator or Puruṣottama or God, Puruṣa or the soul strictly called as individual soul or Jīva or Parā prakṛti or Akṣara and the rest of the creation other than the souls, called Aparā prakṛti or Kṣara. This three item classification (Traita siddhanta) is mentioned in the Gita in the chapter called Puruṣottama Prāptiyoga. Generally, we take the third item as inert, but, in the Gita, this third item includes mind, intelligence and basic ego. This means that the third item is not only an inert item but also includes three internal instruments (antaḥkaraṇams) of Parā prakṛti. This means, we cannot say that the third item is entirely inert. In this way, we can support the concept of Traita siddhanta that Ātmā preaches jīva. Here, we shall be careful in not saying that the entire third item is having awareness. The third item contains awareness here and there only. Hence, we cannot say that the entire Ātmā is preacher of jīva. We can only say that a specific portion of Ātmā contains buddhi or intelligence and can be the preacher of jīva. Of course, we can take a part of the whole in the name of the whole, in that sense, buddhi alone can also mean Ātmā. In this way, the Traita Siddhanta philosophy is correlated in Universal Spirituality. Moreover, the so-called awareness is also pervaded by the Mūlaprakṛti or inert energy only and in this way, we cannot eliminate the importance of inert energy even in awareness. The soul or Parā prakṛti is not having the logical intelligence and hence, it is justified in saying that Aparā prakṛti having intelligence is the preacher of the Jīva. But, here, the entire Aparā prakṛti is not involved in preaching. Still we can say Aparā prakṛti having intelligence is preaching. For example, a person has intelligence in the head only. But, when he preaches with the help of the head, we can say that the person is preaching and we need not say that the head is preaching.

We can correlate this triad in another angle. Paramatma means unimaginable God or Parabrahman. Jeevatma means the individual soul. Atma means the incarnation (energetic or human) of Parabrahman by mediation, which includes any incarnation starting from God Datta. The word Atma is referred to God on several occasions in the Veda. The incarnation preaches all the individual souls about true Spiritual knowledge and thus, Atma can be considered as the preacher of all the individual souls.]

[June 28, 2023]

15) Kva sa Kṛṣṇo mahā vārdhiḥ, kvāyam jīvaḥ pṛṣatkaṇaḥ |
Jalasāmānya tattvārthāt, advaitaṃ mauḍhyameva hi ||

Where is the mediated God like Krishna, Who is like huge ocean? Where is the soul, which is like a tiny water drop? If you bring monism between these two, due to common essence of water, it is only foolishness. In the mediated God, God (Parabrahman or unimaginable God) and the medium exist and is like the person wearing the dress. The soul is merely dress without the wearing person. Hence, the difference is very very significant because of the absence of the unimaginable God in the soul.

16) Tadanūhyohyayoḥ uktaṃ, sāmānyaṃ tacca nocyatāṃ |
Indrajālāt mahāyogī-siddhi ssatyārthadīpikā ||

The unimaginable God is beyond imagination whereas, the soul is an imaginable item. Thus, if you take the unmediated unimaginable God and imaginable awareness called soul, the above said commonality also does not exist. The unimaginable God created this creation like a magic master creating magic. Even then this, a far better example is the creation of some imaginable item by a supernatural person (like an incarnation) just by His will. This last example reveals the secret of creation of this imaginable world by the unimaginable God. By this example, we can understand that the unimaginable God created this imaginable world without any reduction in the unimaginable content of the unimaginable God. This means no portion of the unimaginable God is modified into the imaginable creation. Hence, the creation-process itself is unimaginable like the unimaginable God. Therefore, you can never bring similarity between the unimaginable God and the imaginable creation (or imaginable soul, which is a part of the imaginable creation). The above example of incarnation is not a simile but the very original concept because the unimaginable God presenting the incarnation Himself is creating the imaginable item (part of creation or creation). The example of the incarnation illuminates the true meaning of the process of creation. Hence, you need not worry that there is no practical worldly example for this concept.

17) Nāsti prakṛti dṛṣṭāntaḥ, tasyānūhyasya sṛṣṭigaḥ |
Tasyaivānupraveśena, dṛṣṭānta ssvasya nāparaḥ ||

The unimaginable God created the imaginable creation in which all items are imaginable only. Hence, no item of the imaginable creation can be a simile to the unimaginable God. The incarnation is seen in this creation and due to this point, you shall not say that the incarnation is an item of this creation. The reason is that the Veda says that the unimaginable God Himself enters this creation as incarnation and remains unimaginable by Himself while becoming imaginable and visible through the medium simultaneously (Sacca tyacca… Veda). By this, the unimaginable is not modified into an imaginable item (Avyaktaṃ vyaktimāpannam… Gita). Hence, the unimaginable God remains as unimaginable only so that the incarnation cannot be treated as an imaginable item to become simile of the unimaginable God. He Himself cannot become simile to Himself because there are no two such items.

[July 02, 2023]

18) Catuśśṛte rarkavidyā, jñeyā tat pratīkataḥ |
Mahāvākyai ścaturbhiśca, gītāt sākṣa dupāsanam ||

[The information about worshipping Sun as God (Ādityavidyā) can be explained in four steps:- i) This Sun is God to be worshipped (Asāvādityo Brahma), ii) The objection to this statement is that the Veda says that Sun rises due to fear from God (Bhīṣodeti sūryaḥ), iii) The clarification is that Sun is not God directly, but, advice is given that Sun shall be worshipped as God (Ādityaṃ Brahmeti upāsīta) and iv) Further clarification is given that you shall understand God as that unimaginable item and this Sun worshipped by you as God is not really God (Tadeva Brahma tvaṃ viddhi nedaṃ tat yadidamupāsate). This means that worshipping Sun is the worship of the representative model of God like saluting the flag to salute the nation (Pratīka upāsanam). This is indirect worship. The direct worship (Sākṣāt upāsanam) is worship of the contemporary Human Incarnation as explained by the four great statements that God is in human form resembling ordinary human being (Īkṣternāśabdam… Brahmasutram, Mānuṣīṃ tanumāśritam… Gita).]