02 Oct 2016
Shri P V N M Sharma asked: How to correlate the two contradicting concepts: 1) the human being component is different from God. 2) The human form (human being) in which God exists Itself is God?
Swami replied: Due to this question only, the spiritual knowledge (Brahma Vidyaa or Brahma jnaanam) becomes most complicated to be understood by the devotees. The general saying in the world also resulted due to this complication only and the saying is “Is it Brahma Vidyaa?, So that we cannot understand that?” The confusion comes only when you see all the concepts in one angle only, in which case only you get the mutual contradiction of different concepts. If you isolate the concepts towards their correspond angles, correlation of the concepts is achieved. I will illustrate this with an example in science, which is that electron is having both natures of energy (wave) as well as matter (particle). Hence, we say that electron has dual nature of energy and matter. If you treat electron with wave nature, the units are ergs and if you treat electron with particle nature, the units are grams or atomic mass units (amu). Both units corresponding to both natures contradict each other since dual nature means both concepts existing together in single phase called nature. Two properties can co-exist if both are in different phases but not in one phase. For example, if we say that a white person is running. These two properties (white colour and running motion) can co-exist since both are in different phases. The white colour is in the inherent phase where as the running motion is in associated phase. Inherent means that the person is always white. Associated means that the person can withdraw from running motion and stand in static condition. Hence, both co-exist. But, if you say that the person is standing and running or the person is white and black, contradiction between each pair of properties results since each pair is in the same phase. Standing and running are in the same associated phase. White and black are in the same inherent phase. The particle-nature and wave-nature belong to the same inherent phase because the question comes whether the electron is a wave or particle by its inherent nature. To solve this problem, we have to say that the electron behaves as a particle on some occasions and as wave on some other occasions. We have to separate the pair of properties in single phase by taking the division of time or time gap. We can say that a person was white in childhood and became black latter on due to work in the exposure of sun. Here, the two inherent properties (white and black) are separated by time gap. Similarly, we can say that the person is running in the morning and is sitting after that in the office in the noon. Thus, both associated properties (running and sitting) are separated by time gap. If you don’t give this time gap, contradiction between two properties in the same phase will certainly result for confusion. Another parameter that can separate a pair of properties in the same phase without contradiction is ‘angle of reference’. For example: a ship is moving in the ocean. In the angle of a nearby person travelling in a boat, the ship is moving. In the same time for a person standing far on the sea shore, the ship is static in the same time without any time gap while the two properties (dynamic and static) in the same phase (associated) appear without any contradiction. This is very important to understand the contradiction of two concepts existing in the same phase as told in the Gita. A scholar understands both contradicting properties in the same phase at the same time by separating the angle of reference. For two persons understanding their own different angles of reference only, there is no contradiction between two properties of the same phase existing in the same time. As said in the Gita, a scholar understands action in inaction and vice-versa (karmanyakarma...). By differentiating both angles of reference applying to a pair of properties in the same associated phase and in the same instance of time, clarification results by the two perceptions of dynamic and static states by two different perceivers in the same time.
With this background, we can understand the contradictions and resolve them taking the help of the above concepts, which can be summarised:
1) Two properties in different phases do not contradict in the same time for even a single angle of reference. Example: Same person can see a white coloured human being in running condition since white colour is in inherent phase and running is in associated phase.
2) Two properties in the same phase also don’t contradict each other for the same angle of reference with time gap. Examples: i) A person was white in childhood and black in old age for the same observer (same angle of reference) even though white and black are two contradicting properties existing in the same inherent phase. ii) A person is running in the morning (dynamic) and is sitting in the office in the noon (static) for the same observer (angle of reference) even though both dynamic and static properties are in the same associated phase.
3) Two properties in the same phase also don’t contradict each other in the same time (without time gap) if the angles of reference are separate. Example: i) One person near the ship finds it moving where as another person far from the ship finds it static in the same time even though static and dynamic conditions are in the same associated phase. ii) Same person is found red for a person keeping red spectacles on his eyes and the same person is found green for another person keeping green spectacles on his eyes in the same time (without time gap) even though both colours are inherent properties of the body of the person. Here, the perceived colours are to be treated as real with reference to the perceptions of different angles of reference existing as perceivers.
Entry of Unimaginable God in Human Form Never Direct
Based on this background we will analyse the contradictions appearing in the human incarnation in the following ways:
i) When the unimaginable God merges with the pure energetic form called Dattatreya, such resulting energetic form after merger becomes God Dattatreya. Since God is unimaginable, you cannot differentiate God from Dattatreya because after separation of both, even though the pure energetic form (Dattatreya) is visible and imaginable (in view of the context that Dattatreya appears to our eyes by lowering the frequency of the energetic form that comes down to the visible range), the other entity (unimaginable God) is not only invisible but also unimaginable. When you separate two items, both should be clearly visible or at least imaginable after separation as different entities. Therefore, unimaginable God and Dattatreya are inseparable and one and the same. Dattatreya becomes permanent address of unimaginable God since Dattatreya can never be separated from unimaginable God. In this case we can say that there is perfect monism between unimaginable God and Dattatreya. Hence, for anybody at any time God Dattatreya exists and neither pure Dattatreya (only external energetic form) nor pure unimaginable God exist independently in isolated state. This is the perfect monism of Shankara. However, you can argue saying that before the creation of this energy by unimaginable God, the unimaginable God existed independently and also the first energetic form (Pure Dattatreya) just after creation before the entry of unimaginable God existed independently. This argument is agreed in the past (before creation of energy) but not in the present (now, unimaginable God exists as God Dattatreya only) and not in the future (since God Dattatreya continues forever) also. Hence, the contradiction coming from your argument should be solved by the analysis of parameter of time gap. Present and future are only important since past is always neglected by everybody saying ‘past is past’. That, which exists permanently in the present and in the future forever can be practically treated as Eternal.
ii) The human incarnation of God Dattatreya results like God Sai Baba. Sai Baba is a pure materialised human form like pure Dattatreya (pure energetic form). Sai Baba becomes God Sai Baba like Dattatreya becoming God Dattatreya. In both cases, the first and last stages are one and the same because in both cases created forms (energetic and human forms) become incarnations of the creator (unimaginable God). The middle process in both these cases is slightly different. In the case of God Dattatreya, the unimaginable God entered directly the created energetic form and stays there forever. The reason for this permanent stay is that the energetic form stands forever. The problem with human form is that the human form cannot stand forever and has to disappear by the death, which is separation of its components. Therefore, if unimaginable God enters the human form directly, the unimaginable God has to quit it after some time. If the unimaginable God exists as unimaginable God only, the entry and exit of unimaginable God can’t be understood by human beings. Reason is before entry the entering item as well as after exit the same quitting item can’t be understood being unimaginable. In such case even the entry and exit may be doubted. The intensity of the energetic form of God while merging with human form can be adjusted suitably by the inner unimaginable God. Hence, unimaginable God never enters the human form directly. Only God Dattatreya (containing unimaginable God in Him forever) enters the human form of Sai Baba, who quits the human form as soon as it dies. The entry of unimaginable God in to human form is never direct. Of course, you can say (in not very strict sense) that unimaginable God entered the human form since unimaginable God and Dattatreya have become one and the same by merger and the result is that unimaginable God means God Dattatreya and God Dattatreya means the unimaginable God.
iii) The merger between unimaginable God and Dattatreya resulting in God Dattatreya is accepted. Next, the merger between God Dattatreya and the human form called Sai Baba is also to be accepted in the same way. Hence, the unimaginable God becoming God Dattatreya and God Dattatreya becoming God Sai Baba are simultaneously accepted. As far as the present state of time is concerned, for any observer (angle of reference) God Sai Baba means God Dattatreya and God Dattatreya means the unimaginable God. Thus, there is no trace of difference between the three entities (Unimaginable God, God Dattatreya and God Sai Baba) as far as the present state of time is concerned without going into past and future. If you go in to past neither Dattatreya is God Dattatreya nor Sai Baba is God Sai Baba because there was a span of time when the unimaginable God did not become God Dattatreya and God Dattatreya didn’t become God Sai Baba. Similarly, if you take the span of future, the unimaginable God will remain as God Dattatreya and God Dattatreya may not remain as God Sai Baba since the human form called Sai Baba has to disappear some time or other in the future. All these concepts stand true in the very strict sense of the ultimate analysis.
iv) In God Sai Baba there are two components, which merged with each other and also get separated after the death of human body of God Sai Baba. The two components are: 1) God Dattatreya, the energetic incarnation in which unimaginable God exists in merged condition. There is no separation of the external energetic form called Dattatreya at any time in present or future. This is the permanent residential address of unimaginable God. 2) God Sai Baba in which God Dattatreya exists in merged condition. God Dattatreya is inseparable as long as He stays in the external human form called Sai Baba. God Dattatreya can quit human firm after death or even in the life time of human incarnation. God Dattatreya left Parashurama while alive whereas He did not leave the human form till death as in the case of Rama and Krishna.
As long as God Dattatreya exists, the human form is God Dattatreya Himself just like the energetic form of God Dattatreya is the unimaginable God Himself during His stay. Hence, monism of God and human form is as correct as the monism of unimaginable God and energetic form called Dattatreya. But, God Dattatreya leaves the human form for which death is inevitable. Whether God Dattatreya leaves the human body and its soul or leaves the human body alone keeping on His merger with the soul is left to the will of God Dattatreya. This point of separation proves dualism of God Dattatreya and the external human form. After separation, we have the two components separately visible, which are God Dattatreya and the human form. Therefore, dualism is justified.
v) Both monism and dualism are simultaneously correct with respect to the angle of reference or perceiver. As long as human being component (human body+soul) is in monism with God (God Dattatreya), the statements of monism coming out from the mouth of human being component are with respect to the angle of devotees serving the human incarnation as God. The unimaginable God appeared to the devotees through this monism only and there is no other way than this (Naanyah panthaah… Veda). If dualism is expressed, the concentration of devotees is marred. For the sake of that angle, Krishna and Jesus told that they are God. In fact, God only spoke those statements through their mouths. At the same time, this monism should not be with respect to the angle of human being-component, in which case, it will fall with ego like Parashurama. Both Parashurama and Krishna told that they are God. But, the backgrounds are different. Parashurama told monism with ego in the angle of reference to self itself. Krishna told the same monism for the sake of developing the devotion of Arjuna and the angle of reference is Arjuna and not Krishna Himself.
Therefore, both monism and dualism are correct simultaneously with reference to the different angles of reference. One angle is of devotees for monism and the other angle is of human being component for dualism.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★