06 Oct 2006
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Message on Dasara, Day-5] The soul is the weakest form of energy in this creation. The nervous system can be easily burnt by even little heat (fire). The awareness flows in such tender nerves and is therefore, weaker than even a little bit fire. Such weakest form of energy (soul) is imagining itself to be the strongest energy (Brahman; assuming that Brahman is understood as strongest energy), which controls even the sun as per the Veda. Fire, which can burn the nerves very easily, could not burn even a dry grass blade when God did not wish! In that case, I am unable to understand how can this weakest soul do anything without the grace of God! When the soul becomes absolute zero by this knowledge, it will completely surrender to God and then it can be uplifted to the state of God (Hanuman) or even to the state of master of God (Radha). Such complete surrender to God is stressed by the Gita (Tvameva Sharanam Gachcha…). You can reach the highest state of Advaita (becoming God) in all aspects like controlling world (state of Ishwara) through the path of complete surrender to God. You can even cross Advaita by becoming the Master of God through this path.
We do not negate the fruit of Advaita for a soul. We only negate the path (Atma Yoga) adopted by the Advaitin to reach that state. Hanuman attained the perfect and real Advaita by becoming the Creator of the world (Ishwara). Ishwara is potentially Brahman like the chief minister in the post. The Brahman of Advaitin is like an ordinary person sitting in meditation or in a coma, who is only aware of himself and thus, such Brahman is called as impotent Brahman. Does the Advaitin really become the omnipotent Brahman? What is the sign of Brahman? The second Brahma Sutra says that the sign of Brahman is the creation of the world etc. In that case, how can you be that Brahman without its sign? When the sign of fire is heat, how can you claim that you are fire without heat? You are ice-cold and claim to be the fire! You may say that the creation of the world etc., is not the real inherent sign of Brahman. Then, what is the real sign of Brahman? You will say that Chit (pure awareness) is the real sign of Brahman. Then why did not Vyasa say in the second Brahma Sutra that the Chit (mere pure awareness) is the real sign of Brahman? Did He not know this real sign? [This] Looks like you have discovered the real sign of Brahman which was not known even to Vyasa!
We agree that the creation of the world etc., is not the inherent sign of Brahman and it is only an associated sign because the inherent sign of Brahman is unimaginable. But exploiting this point, you should not try to establish that another associated property like Chit is the real sign. At least, the creation of the world etc., can be treated as the real inherent sign because it is always associated with Brahman. There is no Brahman without the aspect of Ishwara. Ishwara is a property (creation, ruling and destruction of the world) of Brahman, which is always associated with Brahman and can be treated as the almost inherent sign. Only with this view, did Vyasa mention Ishwara as the inherent sign of Brahman, immediately in the second Sutra. The first Sutra mentions about the enquiry regarding Brahman. The second Sutra gives the sign of Brahman by which you can recognize Brahman. Since Brahman is unimaginable, no real inherent sign can be given. Only the constantly associated sign can act as the inherent sign. There is no meaning in denying this given sign and imposing another sign on it, when no real inherent sign can be found out.
Advaitin Reduced Shankara to Mere Awareness
The main reason for such an action of the Advaitin is to avoid the inconvenient sign (Ishwara) and to establish the convenient sign (Chit) so that he can immediately become Brahman without any effort, because the convenient sign is common to both Brahman and himself. If he agrees to accept Ishwara as the real sign, he can never become Brahman because he can never become Ishwara. Therefore, he changed the very basic constitution and stated that Ishwara is unreal since He is an associated sign. To achieve the selfish end, he introduced Chit as the real inherent sign of Brahman so that he can immediately become Brahman on the spot! However, even Chit is an associated sign of Brahman and not the real inherent sign. The Advaitin could have at least accepted the special knowledge (Prajnanam) as the assumed inherent sign. He did not do this also because such special knowledge is found only with his Guru (Shankara). He reduced Shankara to mere awareness without any knowledge so that he can claim himself to be equal to Shankara through the common Brahman. All this is the effect of the unlimited ambition to become greatest Brahman, infinite egoism of the self and unimaginable jealousy towards a co-human form of God including his own Guru (Shankara). All these are welded with the Advaitin’s over intelligence in creating misinterpretations of even scriptures like the Brahma Sutras.
Hanuman never agreed to this point. He never claimed to be Brahman. The Sun-God, who was taught the Gita by the Lord for the first time also fears God (Bhishodeti—Veda). Yama said in the Veda that He is unable to know Brahman. Veda Vyasa says that Ishwara is the sign of Brahman and did not mention Chit in the place of Ishwara. This petty Advaitin, who is like a small monkey before Hanuman, who dies by sunstroke under the summer sun, who shivers even by seeing the messengers of Yama and who is not fit even to be a student of Veda Vyasa, claims to be Brahman! If Chit were the inherent characteristic, why would Vyasa take the associated characteristic (Ishwara) to identify Brahman when the inherent characteristic (Chit) is available?
In the Veda too, an associated characteristic of Brahman is given, which is special divine knowledge (Prajnanam). Knowledge is also not the inherent characteristic because Brahman is unimaginable. Knowledge indicates the existence of Chit but Chit does not necessarily indicate knowledge. A scholar must have awareness but every living being having awareness like animal, is not a scholar. When Chit does not indicate even knowledge, how can the special knowledge be indicated by Chit? A lump of gold does not indicate even an ornament having an ordinary design. How can such a lump indicate an ornament having a special design? If knowledge were the inherent characteristic of Chit, every living being would have knowledge.
The Advaitin means not only knowledge (Jnanam) but also the special knowledge (Prajnanam) by the word chit. The special knowledge like the Gita can be given only by a specific human being like Krishna. Therefore, just like the state of Ishwara, Prajnanam is also impossible to be achieved by every human being. Hence, in interpreting the Veda too, the Advaitin played his usual over intelligent tricks. Since knowledge or special knowledge requires chit, he has fixed the meaning of chit to both these words. The design of the ornament is not the inherent characteristic of gold. The design needs gold for its expression. The designer is responsible for the design. Similarly, knowledge requires chit for its expression. The designer of the knowledge is different from chit. God is the designer of the special knowledge and not the chit. God is the source of both chit and knowledge. God granted knowledge only to certain items of chit, which are human beings. God granted special knowledge only to a specific human being like Krishna. Due to this reason, every living being having chit does not possess knowledge. For the same reason, every human being possessing knowledge, does not possess the special knowledge. Therefore, neither knowledge nor the special knowledge is inherent characteristic of chit. If design is the characteristic of gold, wherever a lump of gold is seen, the design must be seen simultaneously. Wherever fire exists, heat is present simultaneously and therefore, heat can be called the inherent characteristic of fire.
Use of Ignorance and Knowledge
The continuous entertainment of comedy and tragedy arranged alternately in repeated sequence is based on the alternate use of ignorance and knowledge of the reality. In a cinema, when comedy comes, you should have the ignorance of the reality that it is just an imaginary picture so that you can fully enjoy the comedy under the illusion that it is true. When tragedy comes, you should have the knowledge that it is just an imaginary movie so that you can be free from worry and entertain yourself even with the tragedy by detachment. Such alternate application of knowledge and ignorance is the cause of continuous happiness (Bliss or Ananda). The Lord says that He uses such alternate application of ignorance and knowledge (Mattah Smritih—Gita). The Veda also says the same (Vidya Chaavidya cha...).
In the human incarnation, God dwells in the human being (Manushim… Gita). In the Gita, it is said that God enters the human body. Here, the human body is the human being. The human being consists of the causal body (Atman), subtle body (Jiva) and the external gross body. Therefore, in general, the human being is a body consisting of the three sub-bodies. The Atman and Jiva together are called as the human being (Jivatman). In a very general view, the human being is meant to indicate the Jivatman along with the gross body also. In any case, God enters the human body, which is the human being (Jivatman) along with the gross body. This does not mean that God enters only the gross body without Jivatman. When the king is in his palace, he is associated with servants also. The servants are under his full control and therefore, can be treated as inert parts of the inert palace. Thus, when we say that the king lives in the palace, it does not mean that the king is alone in the palace. Similarly, when we say that God enters the human body, it naturally means the gross body along with the servant Jivatman. The Veda says that God (Master) and His servant (Jivatman) live in the gross body like two birds on a tree (Dvaa Suparnaa…).
In the comedy, the ignorant Jivatman feels happy and the happiness is also shared by God due to His pervasion all over the Jivatman. In the tragedy, God with His usual knowledge of reality avoids the worry and derives happiness by entertainment. Such happiness is shared by the Jivatman, who is pervaded by God. The individual soul is capable of drawing happiness from comedy using its inherent ignorance. God is capable of drawing happiness from the tragedy using His inherent divine knowledge. It is an alternating system of ignorance and knowledge. Thus, the continuous happiness (Ananda) is maintained by this special two-in-one system of human incarnation. Such a system is mentioned by the Veda, when God enters the world in human form (Satcha Tyatcha Abhavat…). The word Sat indicates absolutely real God and the word Tyat indicates the relatively real human being.
God always possesses divine knowledge and cannot get real ignorance in spite of His hectic efforts. Darkness can never cover the sun. Ignorance cannot cover God. While enjoying the comedy, full and real ignorance is required to receive the full and real happiness. Such full and real ignorance is not possible for God. This is the reason why He does not get full enjoyment on seeing the world-cinema [as a spectator]. Of course, His knowledge of the unreality of the world helps in not getting worried due to tragedy and thus, converting even the tragedy into entertainment. This is the defect regarding comedy and this is the merit regarding tragedy on the side of God. The individual soul in the world is quite opposite to God. He has full and real ignorance to enjoy the comedy and get full happiness. At the same time, the individual soul cannot have full and real knowledge regarding the unreality of the world in spite of his hectic efforts. Therefore, he cannot get full and real relief from the tragedy. God cannot enjoy the comedy fully like the individual soul and the individual soul cannot be fully entertained in the tragedy like God. Both these defects can be rectified and both these merits can be mutually used if both God and individual soul join together like lame and blind persons (Pangvandha Nyaya…).
The Veda says that both God and the individual soul are joined in a human body in the world like two birds on a single tree in a forest. In the same hymn, the Veda says that the individual soul is enjoyer whereas God is non-enjoyer (Dvaa Suparnaa…, Atti Anasnan… Veda). Since the individual soul has full ignorance, it can really enjoy the world since the world is real to it. Since God has full knowledge, He cannot really enjoy the world. In comedy, full and real enjoyment is required and in tragedy, full and real non-enjoyment is required and therefore, the individual soul and God are suitable to comedy and tragedy respectively to derive continuous happiness. Thus, God and the human being (Jivatman or individual soul) share the continuous happiness by alternating interaction. The happiness derived by the individual soul in comedy is shared by God and the entertainment without grief derived by God from tragedy is shared by the individual soul because God pervades all over the individual soul in human incarnation. Thus, the human incarnation is a two-in-one system working alternatively like radio and tape recorder.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★