Shri Datta Swami

Posted on: 24 Aug 2006


More Advaita Questions-III

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Parabrahman—Beyond Brahman: The meaning of the word Brahman is ‘greatest’. Any greatest item within the boundaries of a category can be called as Brahman. In the Veda food (Annam), life (Prana), mind (Manas), Intelligence (Vijnana), bliss (Ananda) etc. are called as Brahman within the limits of certain specified categories. Awareness, due to the quality of knowledge is also called as Brahman. In the Gita, the greatest scripture (Veda) is called as Brahman. The greatness is estimated by not only the quantity but also by the quality. Inert energy, which is all-pervading and which is the material causing creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe is called as Brahman in the quantitative sense. Awareness or the soul is called as Brahman from the aspect of its precious quality i.e. knowledge. Even the entire universe being wonderful in quality and infinite in quantity can be called as Brahman (Sarvam Khalu Idam—Veda). The soul is qualitatively Brahman but in deep sleep, it becomes inert energy and thus becomes Brahman quantitatively. Since God is greater than the universe, God is the greatest, because He is greater than the greatest universe. Therefore God can also be called as Brahman. Thus, there is lot of confusion in the usage of the word Brahman. Basically there is no danger if we take any item in the creation as Brahman because all the greatest items in the creation in their corresponding categories can ultimately become the single entity called as inert energy, which is called as Brahman. Since there is homogeneity of the inert energy in all the items of the creation, there is no confusion in the basic sense. However, in the case of God, it is totally different. God is not any item in the creation and therefore cannot enter into the homogenous phase with any item of the creation.

Every item of the creation is rejected by the sages as not God (Neti Neti). The Veda and the Gita say that God is beyond even imagination. In fact no word can be used to indicate God because the meaning of any word is understandable. We have no objection if you use the word Parabrahman in the sense that it is best and greatest item. The word ‘Para’ means very good. However, such meaning brings the above objection [of understandability] even though grammar allows it. Now the context is not an exercise on grammar. The context is that we should use some word for God in such a way that by hearing the word you should not understand the meaning of it [you should not feel that you have understood it]. The Veda says that even angels have understood that God cannot be understood (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam). The Veda also says that if anyone says that he has understood God, he has not understood anything about God. At least the former is better because he has at least understood the un-understandable aspect of Brahman. The Lord says in the Gita that no one can understand Him (Mamtu veda Na kaschana). The word Parabrahman exactly suits this requirement. You can take the sense of this word in another way, which is also accepted by grammar i.e. “Param Brahmanah yat”, which means that God is beyond Brahman. Since you have used the word Brahman for all the greatest items of creation and also for the entire universe, now this word Parabrahman means the God who is different from any greatest item of the creation and which is also different from the entire creation. The requirement is fulfilled without opposing the rules of grammar.

Shankara said that Parabrahman can only be explained by silence since no word can be used (Maunam Vyakhya…) to describe Him. The Gita also says that Parabrahman is beyond Sat and Asat. Sat means the final absolute inert energy (Mula Maya) and the Asat means all the other relatively true items like matter, awareness etc. Within the limits of the Vyavahara Dasha (the view of the soul), the inert energy is a Paramartha Dasha [upper subdivision of vyavahara dasha]. The soul is awareness in the dream and waking state. However, in deep sleep the soul becomes the inert energy. Thus the deep sleep state indicates the higher sub-division and the other two states denote the lower sub-division. The higher sub-division is absolute truth within the limits of the relativity from the view of the soul. This higher sub-division (deep sleep) should not be misunderstood as the absolute truth of God. In the final Paramartha Dasha, even this inert energy becomes only a relative truth because the inert energy is the work of God. The worker is always the absolute truth and his work is only the relative truth. In this stage, God alone remains as the single absolute truth (Ekameva—Veda, Mattahparataram—Gita). However, this state should not come from your mouth applying it to yourself. You can speak of this state only with reference to God, because the inert energy (yourself in deep sleep) also disappears at this level. How can you speak about yourself when you do not exist?

In the Gita, the word ‘Sat’ used in this verse cannot mean ‘truth’ because in that case, the word ‘Asat’ used in the same verse would mean that Parabrahman is not true. If you say that, then the statement immediately contradicts itself because in the same verse it is also told that Parabrahman is not non-existent. Therefore the words ‘Sat’ and ‘Asat’ should not be taken as existence and non-existence, which contradict each other. The word ‘Sat’ should be taken as inert energy and the word ‘Asat’ should mean the modifications of inert energy. If you call God covered by inert energy as Brahman, then also the word Parabrahman means the hidden God beyond the energy. Shankara said that Parabrahman cannot be explained by words but the Brahma Sutras discuss Brahman with words. This means that the Parabrahman indicated by silence is different from the Brahman discussed by words. The word Parabrahman cannot be a word [in the sense of a term or defining word] because it indicates something, which is not understood beyond Brahman. The word has not positive indication since God can be only indicated by negation of other things. This verse of the Gita has its direct root in the Veda (Na sadaasit Nosadaasit). God is also said to be existent or ‘Sat’ by the Veda (Astityeva) but God is never said to be ‘not Sat’ [nonexistent] as in the above Vedic statement. The above ‘Sat’ means ‘understandable and experianceable existence’. The existence of God is un-understandable but experianceable. The above existence, with respect to its modifications can become non-existence with respect to God. However, God’s existence will never become non-existence with reference to any item. Thus the word existence should be differentiated when used in different angles.

We say that the pot exists and we also say that the mud exists but you have to differentiate the existence of mud from the existence of God. The mud exists during the existence of pot and also after the destruction of the pot. However, the pot exists only during its existence and does not exist after the destruction of the pot. You must realize that you are only pot and not the mud. There is no harm in stating both the above statements if the corresponding references are exactly mentioned. The whole confusion comes due to the higher sub-division of Vyavahara Dasha (where inert energy only remains) appearing as Paramartha Dasha (where God alone exists and nothing other than Him exists). The higher subdivision can be called as a relative Paramartha Dasha whereas the Paramartha Dasha can be called as the absolute Paramartha Dasha. Even in the relative Paramartha Dasha, you remain only as a part of the inert energy (Mula Maya) and you do not become Brahman because Brahman is the inert energy charged by God. Of course you can call yourself as Brahman even in the relative Paramartha Dasha in the sense that the inert energy itself can be called as Brahman. Inert energy can be called as Brahman because it is the quantitatively greatest item of the creation. Thus the word Brahman brings several senses simultaneously and confusion appears.

The four Mahavakyas can be explained in this sense. Myself, yourself, and he or she is Brahman because basically all the three are the final all pervading inert energy (Brahman). The last Mahavakya means that awareness (Prajnanam) is also the final inert energy (Brahman). Therefore in order to save God from this confusion of the usage of the multi-dimensional word ‘Brahman’, a separate word Parabrahman is introduced by the Gita and also by Shankara. You are stating that you are already God without any effort, which means that God is converted into yourself. Therefore God is in danger by your philosophy made of confusion. I can appreciate if you can at least put effort to convert yourself into God, in which case God is not in danger. In fact Hanuman converted Himself to God (Brahman and Ishwara simultaneously) by doing real sacrifice and service to God.

Associated and Inherent Characteristics of Brahman

Certainly creation, maintenance and destruction of the world is an associated characteristic (Tatastha Lakshana) of God but if the associated characteristic cannot be found in any other case, it can be taken as an inherent characteristic (Swarupa Lakshana). No other item except God can create, maintain and destroy the universe. Therefore, even though it is not an inherent characteristic, it can be treated as an inherent characteristic and be used for identification. If you say that a certain cow is recognized by the cowbell around its neck, the objection comes that some other cow can also have a cowbell and therefore identification is not possible. However, suppose only one cow has a cowbell around its neck and other cows do not have it. Then the cowbell can be treated as equal to an inherent characteristic, which is the loose skin hanging below the neck of the cow.

Other miraculous powers of God are transferable [God grants those powers to people who do adequate penance for them]. However, the miraculous power of creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe is treated as an inherent characteristic of God. Therefore, Lord Krishna gave the vision of Vishwarupam, which is the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the universe. In this vision, the cosmos appeared, remained for some time and disappeared at last. Miracles are also one of the identification marks of God (Satya kamah—Veda). Every human incarnation did at least one miracle in his lifetime. Rama converted the stone into Ahalya. Of course all the miracles are transferable to any soul by the grace of God. The miracle is an indication of the existence of the super power of God. The Gita says that God is the possessor of the super powers (Mayinamtu Maheshwaram). The Gita also says that any miracle observed anywhere indicates His power alone (Yadyat Vibhutimat…). The photochemical cell captures solar energy and that energy is emited as light in a torch present in the hands of a person. The light emitted, indicates the solar energy, which has come from sun alone. Neither is the person handling the torch, the sun, nor is he the possessor of the sunlight. Similarly any miracle performed by anybody indicates the power of God and finally it indicates God alone. It does not indicate the power of the person handling that torch. The person cannot claim to be the sun and also cannot claim to be the possessor of that energy. However the cosmic vision [Vishwarupa] is a special power, which cannot be handled by anybody except God. Therefore Arjuna asked for that special identification.

Similarly the Prajnanam is the special knowledge that cannot be delivered by any soul except God. Qualities, physical form etc may vary from one human incarnation to another human incarnation from time to time. But the special divine knowledge (Prajnanam) will never vary and so it stands as the constant sign of God. Even within the lifetime of the same human incarnation, the physical form and qualities may change as time proceeds and as the situation changes. But the Prajnanam remains eternal, which is beyond time, physical form and qualities. Krishna and Jesus may look totally different in their appearance, language, culture and even qualities. But the similarity in the Gita and the Bible clearly proves that the same God existed in both. In fact knowledge requires awareness as the basis and it is only a quality of Sattvam. Again here the impossibility of any other soul delivering such [extraordinary] knowledge makes this associated characteristic, be treated as an inherent characteristic.

The divine special knowledge delivered by God is understood by you with full surprise, but this does not mean that the God who delivered that knowledge is understood by you. The Gita was understood by Arjuna since all the doubts were cleared by the Lord. This does not mean that the Lord is understood as said by the Lord Himself (Mamtu Veda Na). Therefore Brahman remains unknowable and unimaginable at any cost. You cannot derive that awareness (Chit) is a special associated characteristic [that can be considered as an inherent characteristic] because Chit exists in every living being and is a perfect associated characteristic. Chit is a requirement for knowledge but cannot be the knowledge. Wherever knowledge is present, Chit must exist as in the case of human beings. However, wherever Chit exists, knowledge need not exist as in the case of birds and animals. Since Chit cannot be the identity mark of a human incarnation of God, every living being is not God. Similarly knowledge cannot be the identity mark and therefore every human being is not God. Only the special knowledge present in a particular human being like Krishna, Jesus etc. and which is not possible for any other human being (Prajnanam) to give, can give the final precise step of the address of the human incarnation. The living being [saying that God is in any living being] is stating the broad bottom step of the address like the name of the city. It means God that is not available in inert items. The human being [saying that God is in any human being] gives the higher step of the address, which is the particular street of that city. A particular human being, having special knowledge (Prajnanam) gives the exact house number.

The unique adjectives for this special knowledge are infiniteness and truth. No human being has the guts to stand on the truth while delivering the knowledge except the Lord. Here God is said to be knowledge, which means the personification of knowledge. You can find such usage allowed by grammar for example, it is stated that potentiality [capability] has no criterion of age (tejasamhi navayah). Here the potentiality means the possessor of immense potentiality (gunatisaye gunini gunavyapadesah). Therefore the possessor of immense knowledge can be called as knowledge [figure of speech: metonymy]. Thus even the special unique knowledge, which is seen in the case of God alone, is not God by itself, since it is only the most precise final step of the address. When the fate of such Prajnanam is like this, it is ridiculous to say that mere awareness is God. When even the house number is not the person directly, how can the city be the person? The person is beyond every step of the address. Even these address-steps only indicate the existence of the person (Asteetyeva—Veda) and do not reveal even a trace of the nature of the person.

When we see that in the beginning of creation inert energy alone existed, the time dimension has already started with the space, which is the first form of inert energy. Energy requires space for propagation. The propagation takes place only under the dimension of time. It is proved by Einstein that time can never be isolated from space and vice-versa. Therefore the time dimension starts with the first creation itself. When the three dimensional space disappears, the fourth dimension time also disappears simultaneously. Since God is beyond space it means God is beyond the time also. Therefore the phrase “In the beginning” indicates the point of first creation, from which time starts. Even in the Veda this time (Agre) is referred to, along with the first form of creation called as Sat (sadeva somya idamagre). Here the word Sat means the inert energy, which existed in the beginning of creation. It is the absolute truth (Sat) with respect to its modifications like matter, awareness etc, which are relative truths (Asat). In the Veda it is also told that Asat existed in the beginning and Sat was generated from it (Asadva idamagre). In this case, the word Asat denotes the first primary inert energy, which is relatively true (Asat) with respect to God. From this primary energy its modifications like matter, awareness etc. appeared, which are relatively true (Asat), which respect to the primary energy. From these modifications other modifications have appeared. Matter is modified into forms. Awareness is modified into feelings or thoughts or qualities. Now with respect to these forms and qualities, which are relatively true, their sources (matter and awareness) are absolute truths (Sat). Therefore from the primary energy, which is a relative truth with respect to God (Asat), the matter and awareness, which are absolutely true with respect to forms and qualities (Sat), have appeared. Thus both these statements in the Veda do not contradict each other.

Since the whole creation is relatively true (Asat) with respect to God, the only absolute truth (Paramartha Sat) is God. The creation is a chain of alternative absolute and relative truths. Each item is absolute truth with respect to the next relative item and the same is a relative truth with respect to the previous item. The beginning of this chain is God, which is the absolute truth. The end of this chain is form (rupa) and quality (guna). Therefore God is the absolute truth (Paramartha Dasha) where as the forms and qualities are absolutely unreal (Pratibhasika Dasha). In between these two ends of the chain, lie matter and awareness which are relatively real (Vyavahara Dasha). The gross body is matter but the form of the gross body is absolutely unreal. The soul is awareness, but a vibration of the soul, which is quality, is also absolutely unreal. The awareness (soul) is captured by the absolutely unreal forms of the gross bodies and the qualities of the souls. The soul and the gross body are linked by the qualities, which constitute the link called as subtle body (Jeeva). When the soul gets rid of these vibrations, the soul becomes standstill without any thought (Sthitaprajna). Among these thoughts, the forms of matter including the gross body also are realized as unreal. Such self-realization brings peace but such person can easily fall down (Savikalpa Samadhi) since his effort is based on himself. However, if the grace of God is achieved by accepting the Super Self, which is different from the self, then the self-realization becomes eternal. Therefore realization based on the self-effort leads to temporary liberation due to egoism. The same self-realization becomes eternal on achieving the grace of the Lord through service and such liberation is eternal (Nirvikalpa Samadhi). Thus realization leads to liberation spontaneously because the determination results in practice. Temporary liberation indicates incomplete realization. Complete realization leads to permanent liberation.

The soul is the absolute truth with respect to its feelings and thus the dream [composed of mental feelings and qualities] is a relative truth with respect to the soul. This is a good simile for God and the creation of the universe except for one difference. The dream is made of feelings and the feelings are made of awareness. Thus the dream is a modification of awareness. Even if it is a negligible modification, which is apparent (Vivarta), strictly the modification is real in qualitative sense (Parinama). However, since the modification is very less and negligible in a quantitative sense, it can be considered as almost absent. If you treat this negligible modification as nothing, the Ajati Vada of Gaudapada results (ajatih prakritistatah). The modification as negligible reality is the Vivarta Vada of Shankara, which is in a quantitative sense. The modification is real in a qualitative sense and is called Parinama Vada of Ramanuja and Madhva. Thus there is no difference in theories of all these spiritual preachers. The soul is the absolute truth with respect to the lower plane of forms and qualities. However, the soul, which is the awareness or a special work form of inert energy, itself, is a modification of inert energy. Therefore, the soul is relatively true with respect to the primary inert energy. The soul attains its original form in deep sleep and thus deep sleep can be considered as the state of absolute reality with respect to its modifications (Sushuptyekasiddhah—Shankara). This state of absolute reality should not be equated with the state of the absolute reality of God, in which the entire world consisting of primary energy, matter, awareness, forms, qualities etc is itself a relative truth. The absolute reality of God is beyond even deep sleep and is indicated by silence (Turiya). Silence means that there is no word to indicate this state, since it is unimaginable. If you take the absolute reality of the soul, it is valid only with respect to the lower plane. The same soul, with respect to the primary energy becomes only a relative reality. The ruler of a village is a king only with respect to those villagers. He cannot be the king, who is the ruler of the entire kingdom, in which the ruler of the village and those villagers are also included. Simply the common word ‘ruler’ cannot make the ruler of the village become the ruler of the kingdom. Similarly the absolute reality (Paramartha Dasha) of the soul cannot be the absolute reality of God and so the soul cannot be God.

The dream may be a relative reality with respect to the soul, but even during the time of the dream, the physical world made of matter exists in equal state with the soul [equally real]. Even if the soul becomes inert energy and merges with the entire continuous homogenous ocean of cosmic energy (Brahman) by attaining the state of an Avadhuta or by entering the state of deep sleep, it has not crossed the dimensions of creation, which is the primary energy in essence. Thus the soul in the state of awareness is the absolute reality with respect to its feelings, by which alone a daydream or sleep-dream is created. In this state, it is simultaneously a relative truth with respect to the primary energy. The soul can attain the complete state of absolute reality, when it becomes primary energy in the state of deep sleep or in the state of an Avadhuta, but this absolute reality is only with in the limits of creation because this primary energy is again relatively true with respect to the ultimate absolute reality that is God.

You are arguing that God is the awareness because God wished to create a second item for entertainment (Ekaki...Sadvitiyam...—Veda). The Brahma Sutra also refers to this point (Ikshaternaashabdam). If the story had ended with just wishing, you could conclude that God is awareness; because wishing is a characteristic of awareness. Then you could have said that every living being is God. However, the story did not stop at this point. After the wish, God created this universe, which is so wonderful that it is unimaginable to the knowledge of any human being. This point is mentioned by Shankara in His commentary on the second Brahma Sutra. Thus when you observe the wonderful design and the management of this universe, do you only infer simple awareness, which is present even in birds and animals? The potentiality of knowledge to create and manage this universe, which never existed even partially or in the form of parts before its creation, is tremendous. It cannot possibly exist in the brain of any human being. Thus the possibility that all living beings, including human beings are God is negated. If it were the question of a mere wish, we could have inferred that God is any simple living being. If it were only the technological knowledge of an engineer or only the managerial knowledge of an administrator, which is seen in this world, we could infer that God is a human being. However, even after intensive analysis of the universe, one is unable to draw the total technological background of this universe even today; a fact accepted by even the topmost scientist. This proves that one has to attribute it to a super-state of knowledge. Only the human incarnation like Lord Krishna etc., who is a Superman, can be inferred [as God who possesses that special knowledge and power to create, maintain and destroy creation].

Therefore the meaning of the second Brahma Sutra is not simply establishing God as a simple living being (awareness or Chit) but it is establishing God as a Superman (Purushottama or human incarnation of God). Therefore God cannot be concluded to be normal awareness. The word Prajnanam does not mean normal awareness. It means the super special knowledge, which beyond the capacity of any human being. Human incapability is clearly seen from the unimaginable design of this universe; even top scientists are shocked by their incapability in finding the final foundation of the universe when they search at deeper and deeper levels.

The word Prajnanam is not used in the sense of awareness and thus usage (Rudhi) contradicts your sense. Even the word ‘jnanam’ is not used to mean awareness [Advaita equates Jnanam or knowledge with chit or awareness in their analysis]. An animal having awareness is said to be ajnani, which means ‘without jnanam’. If jnanam had meant awareness, such statement would not have come. If you say that by saying that God is awareness, you only mean that God is not inert matter, the conclusion comes that you have understood God. If you say that God is not this [not one specific item in creation], it means that you have understood God. However, if you say that God is not any item in this creation, which means entire universe, then it concludes in your total unimaginability of God. Therefore partial negation makes God one of the items of the world. You can only negate a partial item in the case of another partial item. You can say that the pot is not cloth. However “God is not cloth” cannot be stated because God is not a partial item like a pot. Moreover all the items of the world homogeneously exist as all pervading inert energy. Therefore if you deny any partial item, you have to deny all the items of creation, since God is beyond inert energy. If you say that awareness is God, then awareness is a special work-form of inert energy that is produced by the oxidation of food (Annam) by oxygen (Prana). The Veda says the same (Annatpurushah). Then how can you deny food and oxygen, which are inert matter being God and select only awareness? If you reject mud, there is no pot. Inert matter is the source of awareness. Due to this reason alone does the awareness become its original source (inert energy) in deep sleep; just like the mud pot becomes mud on destruction. You must remember that the soul becomes all pervading inert energy (Brahman) and in that state alone can the soul can be said to be Brahman, which is the essence of this entire creation (Sarvam Khalu idam—Veda). If you limit the soul to mere awareness, it can never be Brahman because it is discontinuous. However the word Brahman here means only inert energy and not God. All the four Mahavakyas can be understood in this line, which means that myself, yourself and he or she are inert energy (Brahman) and finally awareness or even knowledge of any state, is essentially inert energy (Brahman). Therefore the negation of inert items is meaningless in realizing the nature of absolute God. However the negation of inert items can be a helpful broad step of the address of God, who comes down in the human form into this world.

The third Brahma Sutra means that God comes down to deliver a spiritual knowledge (Shastram). Therefore the fifth Brahma Sutra means that God cannot be an inert object because of the requirement of preaching since the spiritual knowledge preached by God is special and is impossible for any human being to preach. The awareness of living beings and the knowledge of human beings are only more and more precise steps of the address. This Prajnanam, which is impossible for any other human being to preach, is the most precise step in the address, like the house number. The impossible special knowledge is already supported by the point, which says that the knowledge of the creativity and management of the universe is impossible for any human being in the world. When this God who has that unimaginable knowledge of the creativity of the universe comes down, certainly the spiritual knowledge delivered by Him must be also wonderful and unique and must be also impossible for any other human being.

Even in the case of the human incarnation, God’s nature is not understood because God is hidden in the human form. Through the unimaginable talents of that particular human form, the hidden God is inferred. The existence of God is experienced or felt. Such experience is not the knowledge of God. It has no reference to His nature. A blind fellow feels the existence of the movement of somebody near him. He has only experienced the existence but he has not understood whether the moving item is a person or some animal. Similarly from the wonderful talents of the human form, only the existence of God is experienced. Since such experience of the existence of God is not knowledge about God, God remains unknown because His nature is not at all understood. The Veda says that only His existence is realized but the knowledge of His nature is never attained (Astityeva Upalabdhavyah). Here ‘upalabdhi’ only means experience; not knowledge. The existence of God gives you the knowledge of the unimaginable nature of God. You can only understand that He is not at all understandable (Yasyaamatam—Veda).

The creator is always only one (Ekameva—Veda), but the creation contains variety (Vividhaiva—Veda). The person is only one but his works can be different like walking, talking, singing etc. This again proves that the creation having multiplicity must be a form of work alone and not the worker (Kriyayam Vikalpah natu vastuni—Shankara). The Veda also says that Brahman is only one and that there is multiplicity in creation. If you take Brahman as the primary inert energy, all the modifications in the creation are only of the energy in essence. If you take Brahman as God, since the primary energy is also not real with respect to God, the multiplicity is unreal since the world itself is unreal before God. The entertainment of God with an unreal world is impossible. One cannot enjoy a daydream unless he imposes ignorance on himself. However, if he is captured by ignorance totally, it will be a real dream, in which he has no trace of independence or control over his dream. Moreover, such full ignorance does not give entertainment because he is subjected to lot of misery in the real dream. However, in the daydream, the ignorance is not complete and therefore the entertainment and control exist side by side. Therefore when God descends, He keeps himself under the control of the primary energy (Mula Maya) and will be like the dreamer in the sleep, having full ignorance. The two examples of the daydreamer and sleep-dreamer are created by God to make us understand the concept of Ishwara and the concept of human incarnation respectively. The ordinary human being is always controlled by the Mula Maya. But the human incarnation can rise to the state of Ishwara at any time, whenever He wishes. When He does not wish so, the human incarnation is as good as an ordinary human being, enjoying fully under the control of ignorance. However, He controls the Maha Maya with His superpowers. Sometimes He appears to be controlled by the Maha Maya or even Maya for greater entertainment. However, He never crosses the Mula Maya because there is no need of it. To show His control over Mula Maya, there will be no spectator except Himself because when He withdraws Mula Maya, the entire creation disappears. This does not mean that the Mula Maya is controlling Him; He only keeps Himself under the control of the Mula Maya. Mula Maya controls Him but she is always aware that He is her sole controller. When He enters the world through an energetic form (upper world) or human body (earth), this is the situation. If He crosses the Mula Maya, there is no entertainment though He becomes the Full Controller.

The first Brahma Sutra mentions about the enquiry of Brahman. This Brahman cannot be God or Parabrahman. The enquiry requires the use of several words. The discussion about Brahman means that there is some debatable aspect. Regarding God, there is no debate because He is beyond all the words and imaginations. The debate about God comes only when God enters a medium. The discussion is whether the medium should be taken as God directly or indirectly. God and the medium may be taken as two separate items and we may say that God is experienced through the medium. The other view is that a medium can be treated as God as the electric wire is treated as the electric current.

The second Brahma Sutra says that the medium should be considered as God because the medium (Krishna) gave the vision of the Cosmic form (Vishwarupam). This vision shows that the cosmos is produced, maintained and dissolved by Him. The vision shows the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe. Before the vision, the vision of the cosmos (Vishwarupam) did not exist. When it appeared, it indicated the creation of the cosmos. When it disappeared, it showed the dissolution of the cosmos. The external cosmos always existed and exists even before this vision. If the external cosmos did not exist before this vision, Arjuna could not have existed to see this vision. The third Brahma Sutra says that the reason for God entering the medium of the human form is to preach spiritual knowledge (Shastram). The fourth Brahma Sutra says that the medium (Krishna) can be taken as God because of the all-pervading God in that medium like the electric current in the wire (Samanvayat). The fifth Brahma Sutra says that God enters only into living beings and never into inert objects. If you say that the Lord was present in the iron pillar [in the story of Prahlada], it was a special occasion and was done only to support the word of His devotee that God can appear from any corner of creation. However, in the case of the human body of Krishna, He existed from birth to death in that body. The existence of the Lord in the iron pillar was just for that moment. The main purpose of the incarnation of God is to preach spiritual knowledge to humanity for its eternal welfare. For such purpose, only the human body is congenial for human beings. The forms like fish, tortoise etc., [that the Lord took in the past yugas] were only for certain special occasions to destroy the evil forces. The fifth Brahma Sutra gives only a step of the broad address of the Lord. This step only denies the inert items. If a person is in Delhi, it means that He is not in other cities. To indicate that he is not in any city except Delhi, the precise steps of the address (Aativahikah tallingat—Brahma Sutra) are not necessary. We simply say that he is in Delhi. This does not mean that he will be found anywhere in Delhi. Similarly God will not be found in every living being. Then we say that He is in a particular street in Delhi, which is like saying that He is in a human body. The wish to create indicates the broad area of awareness which exists in all living beings (Tadaikshata—Veda), which is like the name of the city. The next precise step is the name of the street, which narrows the search to human beings through the word ‘knowledge’ (Satyam Jnanam—Veda). Knowledge exists only in human beings (Manusheem Tanum—Gita). Again it does not mean that He can be found anywhere on that street. The first step does not mean that every living being is God. The second step does not mean that every human being is God. The third most precise step is the house-number on the street, which is the particular human body (Vasudevah sarvamiti—Gita) called as Krishna, Jesus etc. If you enter the house, a person can be found very easily in that house. Such a Superman is indicated by the special knowledge (Prajnanam). Therefore all this analysis relates only to the steps of the address of the human incarnation and the existence of God is experienced through that human form. Therefore the unknowability of God is always maintained, since the nature of God is not understood.

(To be Continued...)