11 Feb 2017
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Answers to Dr. Nikhil's Questions
1) Could You please clarify the apparent differences in terminology regarding the four states from the Mandukya Upanishad?
[The terminology used by Shri Shankara and Shri Gaudapada in the discussion of the four states from the Mandukya Upanishad, differs slightly from the terminology used by You. At the macrocosmic level, the two Advaita preachers have used the terms Vaishvanara/Virat, Hiranyagarbha, Ishwara and Brahman/Atman for the A, U, M and the Turiiya states respectively. But while explaining Shri Ramanuja’s theory, You have used the terms Vishva, Virat and Hiranyagarbha for the first three states and not mentioned a term for the fourth state. It is unclear what term Shri Ramanuja used for the fourth state. Again, at the microcosmic level, the Advaita preachers have used the terms Vishva, Taijasa, Praajna and Atman respectively. But while explaining Shri Ramanuja’s theory, You have used the terms Vaishva, Taijasa and Praajna , for the first three states and not mentioned the fourth state. Table 1 included below, provides a more comprehensive comparison of the different terms used by different commentators and the Upanishadic descriptions for each of the states.]
Swami replied: I have explained clearly all these terms in the above said concepts of My reply. The fourth Turiya state is clearly the state of unimaginable God as indicated by the terminology of the Veda, which can’t be mentioned (Avyavahaaryam). This unimaginable God continues in the subsequent three states as observer through His unimaginable awareness. The human beings are also observers of limited objects in whose case the state of Praajna should be carefully analyzed. In this state, Eshwara and Vishva of Shankara should be taken as one, provided Vishva is not the human being but human incarnation. Vishva stands for the human body (Pindaanda), which is qualitatively same as universe (Brahmanda) due to same nine components (Navaavarana), of which eight are of apara and one is paraprakruti. The same unimaginable God is continuing in all the six states of macro (3) and micro (3) levels provided you take the unimaginable God/ Eshwara existing in all the states as said by Gaudapada (Eka eva). The differences are only between various media of God in micro and macro levels.
2) How did Shri Ramanuja explain the fourth state, if You say that He did not discuss the absolute plane at all?
[The Upanishad clearly describes four states. The fourth state is very clearly indicated to be an absolute state. So a commentator cannot avoid describing the fourth state and explaining it to be an absolute state. I am curious to know how Shri Ramanuja explained this state, differentiating it from the other three.]
Swami replied: The fourth isolated state is not mentioned by any preacher except Datta Swami for the fear that a separate fourth state may lead to the negation of God due to His unimaginable nature. Even though Shankara showed this state separately, God in this state also was said to be awareness only through which God is understood and hence there is no need of silence. Since He told that this awareness (as God) is the same relative awareness (as soul) for the sake of motivation of atheists, what He spoke is different from what is in His mind! His mind was revealed in saying (Maunavyakhyaa…) that this awareness is unimaginable and represented by silence only. He stands in relative reality like Ramanuja, but, indicates at the absolute reality by His finger showing above! Of course, we must also understand the surrounding context for not revealing isolated absolute reality. Ramanuja always stood in relative reality only without showing anything else by finger and reduced this isolated absolute reality to the unimaginable power of Narayana by which only the dualism is brought between Narayana and ordinary soul. The essential context required at the time of Ramanuja is that the partial devotees of Shankara should worship mediated God as absolute reality with perfect devotion based on Dualism. This was the actual aim of Shankara and Ramanuja fulfilled it. To speak straight, Narayana with unimaginable power (Brahmanopi pratishthaaham- Gita) is the fourth state of Ramanuja. An ordinary human soul with unimaginable power results only in the realized state (Atman) and this is the fourth state of Shankara. This shows that Shankara is also standing by the side of Ramanuja only in the relative reality!
3) In Your terminology for the four states, the given terms (eg. Vishva, Vaishva, Virat, Taijasa, etc.) refer to components (eg. matter, energy, awareness), whereas, in the original Upanishad and as per the Advaita preachers, the names are given to the ‘Conscious Agent’ or ‘Observer’ in that state.
[While trying to reconcile Shri Shankara’s theory with Your philosophy, You have interpreted the Praajna, Taijasa and Vaishva as an individual’s qualified awareness, the individual’s inert energy and the individual’s gross matter. In other words, the three terms according to You are components of creation; not the conscious agents in the respective states. This appears to be in contradiction with the original Upanishad and the Advaita preachers. For instance, the Upanishad also describes the Vaishvanara, in the waking state, as ‘sthuula bhuk’. It means that the Vaishwanara is the ‘enjoyer’ of gross objects; not gross matter itself. Even in Your interpretation of Shri Ramanuja’s theory, the terms appear to be treated more like components of creation rather than conscious agents. Could You kindly clarify.]
Swami replied: The observer mentioned in all the states is mediated by the same substance as that of the object perceived. Hence, while explaining the substance of the object, My intention is to explain the same common substance of the medium of the observer also since observer is awareness along with the medium possessed by the observer. Ex: In Taijasa state, observer or awareness is in subtle energetic body as medium. The object here is also inert energy and awareness. In macro state, the observer (Hiranyagarbha or Viraat) is observing the upper subtle worlds made of energy and energetic beings. Those worlds are made of energy and awareness. There is an exact similarity in the medium of observer and object of observer. Even in the micro state, the observer Taijasa is of awareness in subtle energetic body. The objects of the dream are also inert items made of inert energy and dreamt persons are made of inert energy with awareness. Hence, whether the medium of observer is explained or the object is explained, the contents are one and the same. There is no contradiction between medium of observer and object since inert energy and awareness are the two components of medium of observer and observed object also. The conscious agent is awareness in a specific body in any state. This means that awareness (conscious element) exists in all the states and if you confine to this conscious element only in all the states, how can you bring difference between these states since you are sticking to the observer (awareness) only in every state? Apart from observer, unless you consider the difference in objects and difference in the media of observer, you can’t get different states. It is not a single state everywhere to say that the only observer exists in all states. Then the word ‘different states’ becomes meaningless because the observer is only one substance everywhere, which is the awareness or conscious element. We are also mentioning that this same observer as awareness exists in every state (as said that Praajna or excellent knower makes the observers of the other two states also to know) and side by side we explain the various media of the observer and various objects before observer. The difference in the media of the observer should be explained thoroughly to show that the medium is not affecting the observer in any way. The observer has taken the medium, which is similar to the observed objects, so that the observer is entering the world through the same medium to become closely known to the world. This brings unity between the medium of the observer and the objects observed. Hence, knowledge of the observer (goal), knowledge of the medium of the observer through which devotees can approach (path) and knowledge of limited observer, who is a part of the objects (walker) are inter-related with each other. While taking Vaishvaanara as Sthulabhuk or enjoyer of gross objects in waking state, the objects are also to be analyzed along with the medium of Vaishvaanara. Both are one and the same, which are matter and inert energy apart from the inner awareness. This word is used for fire representing energy along with awareness that is transferred from the Taijasa state and hence, the word Viraatpurusha is used as alternative of Vaishvaanara. The word Purusha represents matter whereas Viraat or Taijasa represent energy with awareness.
Do not misunderstand that the waking state contains only matter. Matter is the special component appeared in waking state and this is the sense in representing waking state by matter alone. The awareness and inert energy from the previous states of deep sleep (awareness only) and dream (awareness and inert energy) continue in to the waking state also. Hence, the gross object means the object made of inert energy and matter as we see the gross body of Vaishvaanara or any gross object in this world. In the objects if awareness exists, they are living beings, if does not exist, they are inert beings. Vaishvaanara is the awareness in gross body made of matter and inert energy. The observed objects in this state are also awareness, inert energy and inert matter only. Hence, the explanation regarding the object becomes the same explanation of the mediated observer. This is the basis, whether I explained Ramanuja or Shankara or even any other philosophy.
4) Could You kindly clarify the ‘neglected versions’ of Shri Ramanuja’s theory?
[It is unclear, what Shri Ramanuja exactly said and which should be neglected and Your alternative version, which should be taken.]
Swami replied: Scholars say that Hiranyagarbha means simply collective awareness of the entire creation, which means all the souls added quantitatively. The souls are distributed and hence the quantitative addition is like saying just the theoretical figure of total cash present in all the branches of a specific bank in a specific city. All the cash from all the branches is not actually brought to one place and is pooled. This is one of the reasons that provoked Me to name the Praajna state of mere awareness as Hiranyagarbha. Hiranyagarbha was the first Jeeva created by God. Hence, Hiranyagarbha is the total relative awareness obtained by addition of souls in creation. In such case, these three states can be applied to an ordinary human being because it is only the Praajna state of Hiranyagarbha alone brings the problem of awareness in the state of deep sleep. If it is simply collective (Samashti) relative awareness at macro level, the story of a drop of awareness as soul must also apply to the micro level. A piece of ice is cool and also a block of ice is also cool and can’t be hot. Hence, Hiranyagarbha in macro level can’t be blissful (awareness disappears) in deep sleep since the soul in micro level of the same state does not have any experience during deep sleep due to absence of awareness. But, you say that Hiranyagarbha (or Eshwara as per Shankara) is blissful in this state of deep sleep! This means that Hiranyagarbha is not mere collective relative awareness, which disappears in deep sleep as in the case of soul, but, also is having unimaginable awareness that is not affected by deep sleep, which can be blissful. Hence, the unimaginable God exists in Hiranyagarbha. Another point is also that the collective relative awareness called as Hiranyagarbha is not distributed as bits of souls, in which case Hiranyagarbha is only an imaginary collective quantitative figure of souls. Hence, at least what we should say here is that Hiranyagarbha and souls exist separately and both are equal in total quantity of awareness. Hiranyagarbha is Rs.200/- existing in one place and separately Rs.200/- exist in 20 branches of bank, each branch having Rs.10/- in it. Now, you can say that Hiranyagarbha is the collective relative awareness in which unimaginable God or unimaginable awareness also exists. If we treat Hiranyagarbha as distributed bits (souls) only, the unimaginable God should enter every soul and thus the Praajna state of any soul should have blissful awareness during deep sleep, which is contradicted by practical experience of any soul. From the point of collective relative awareness, he is the first macro Jeeva whereas from the point of his Lordship He has unimaginable God merged with Him. Hence, the Veda uses both the words ‘Born soul from Mula Prakruti’ (Jaatah) and ‘Lord of creation’ (Bhutasya…patirekah) simultaneously to the same Hiranyagarbha. I am not bringing this concept of unimaginable God only in Praajna state since I am extending this concept to the other two states also. Hence, Gaudapada said that even the Vishva in the micro level of waking state is Lord (Vibhurviswah). The neglected version means to treat Hiranyagarbha at least as collective relative awareness existing in one place is misinterpreted by scholars in the wrong sense that Hiranyagarbha is distributed as souls in the creation and hence independent Hiranyagarbha is absent separately from these souls. This is the sense of collective awareness or Hiranyagarbha as per scholars. He is Rs.200/- distributed in all branches (souls) and separately there is no existence of Rs.200/- in single place as per the version of scholars! This version of scholars is horrible! I feel so. Hence, this version is neglected by Me. At least existence of Rs. 200/- separately in one place gives separate existence of Hiranyagarbha. Since He is the Lord, He is not mere collective relative awareness, but also is having unimaginable absolute awareness since the unimaginable God merged with Him. Hence, Hiranyagarbha or God Brahma is the result of first energetic incarnation as Eshwara (Datta) merged with the first energetic being. If you treat the unimaginable God with blissful unimaginable awareness as Eshwara, Hiranyagarbha will be the first energetic incarnation. If you take the unimaginable God with blissful awareness (as medium) and call Him as Eshwara, He comes in to Praajna state as per Shankara. If you treat the blissful awareness as unimaginable, God is not still mediated and in the Praajna state Hiranyagarbha appears with His relative awareness of soul. In the first Praajna state Hiranyagarbha is to be called as Eshwara also being the Lord. Follow the basic concept without worrying about the external terminology, which is linked with the changing media of God from one state to the other.
For Ramanuja, Narayana is the ultimate God even in Amaatra state. For Him, the greatness of Narayana is unimaginable and hence Narayana is unimaginable God. Due to the basic dualism, He does not like to extend Narayana in to further states. Actually, Hiranyagarbha means Brahma in Sanskrit dictionary. Narayana created Brahma, who is the first individual soul as per his philosophy. In such case, Brahma is only representative of creator (Prajapati), who often suffers with individual ego (being not merged with unimaginable God) and was taught a lesson by Lord Krishna. It all depends on the item to specify and the name you select for it. The name may have application of its meaning (Yoga) or may be put just for calling (Rudha).
5) The Mandukya Upanishad should be interpreted only in the special case of a human incarnation and not for the macro- and microcosmic levels in parallel, as done by previous commentators.
[I believe that the true spirit of the Upanishad, is “Sarvam hyetat brahma, ayam aatmaa brahma”, i.e. “All this (Creation) is (created or controlled by) Brahman (Parabrahman). This individual is (that) Brahman (Parabrahman)”. To the best of my understanding, the term Brahman used here is clearly in the sense of the ultimate Parabrahman. Of course the term Brahman can be used to mean the creation (energy) too, since any item that is greatest in the relevant category can be called as Brahman. But considering the meaning of the word ‘Brahman’ to be ‘creation’ or ‘energy’ is not appropriate here. The Brahman (or Atman) is clearly described in the Upanishad as the fourth absolute state (Turiya). If Brahman is considered to mean ‘creation’, it is certainly easy to understand that the individual, which is made out of matter, energy and awareness is identical with Brahman (creation), which is also made out of the same components. But such an interpretation is not in keeping with the overall effort of the Upanishad, which is to reveal the hidden fourth state (Turiya).
Also, such an interpretation would have very little philosophical significance (gauna artha). A person eagerly waiting for a letter from his father cannot be satisfied with any piece of paper, even if we say that the paper (material) of this piece of paper, is identical with the paper on which his father has written the letter. He needs that specific piece of paper on which his father has written the letter to him. The paper is only a medium. His interest is not to study the medium (material-paper) like a scientist. His real interest lies in the message that is conveyed through that medium. Similarly, saying that the basic content of any general individual (Atman) is energy and that energy is also the content of the whole creation (Brahman), only shows an identity of the medium. Showing the similarities or even an identity between the macrocosm and the microcosm, is not a very philosophically useful interpretation. Proving such a similarity or identity is probably not the main intention of the Upanishad; it might be an incidental benefit at the most. The Upanishads contain divine knowledge meant for those who are interested in knowing and attaining God (Ultimate Parabrahman). They are not mere scientists who are interested in studying the medium alone. So ultimately, one must accept that the word Brahman in the Upanishad must be interpreted in the sense of Parabrahman alone, since this interpretation alone is of the greatest significance and philosophical value.
If we agree that the true spirit or intention of the Upanishad is to establish the identity between the Atman (individual) and Parabrahman then I believe, it fixes the way in which the entire Upanishad is to be interpreted. This is because that true spirit of the Upanishad gets fully satisfied only in the special case of the human incarnation of God. Any general individual is clearly not God. This fact has been very effectively proven by You and is also consistent with experience. I feel that my opinion is well-supported by the last verse of the Upanishad (samvishatyaatmanaatmaanam), which means that Atman (Parabrahman) enters Atman (jivatman). This statement, similar to the Anupravesha Shruti of the Taittiriya Upanishad (tadevanu praavishat) should be interpreted only in the sense of God entering a human individual to become a human incarnation (heterogeneous entry). A homogeneous entry into all of creation contradicts experience as pointed out by You.
Proving an identity between any general individual and God was necessary for Shri Gaudapada and Shri Shankara to establish the Advaita theory, which was the need of the time. However, in the present context, that theory and its interpretations are not relevant. Thus, in my opinion, the entire analysis of the four states should be carried out only for the special case of the case of the human incarnation. I seek Your clarifications on this point.
I feel that revealing the hidden secret meaning of this Upanishad is the need of the time. It is said that even though this is one of the shortest Upanishads, in terms of depth and value, it is the greatest. It is said that this single Upanishad is capable of liberating a person instantly. I request You to analyze and reveal the hidden secrets of this Upanishad for the benefit of humanity.]
Swami replied: All these points exactly support the philosophy of Datta Swami, in which, human being in to which God enters is taken as human incarnation. Neither God enters every human being nor every human being in to which God doesn’t enter is God. Certainly, the Veda does not explain ordinary points, which can be easily known by worldly knowledge. The Veda means that which makes you know the points, which can’t be grasped by worldly knowledge as per its definition itself (vedayati iti). In every state, the same unimaginable God is the primary reference here and not the set of various media of God in macro or micro levels. You can take the soul with energetic subtle body or gross materialized body in the three states of micro level. Gross and subtle bodies are not objects, but exist unperceived in deep sleep also. In deep sleep subtle body did not disappear and in dream state gross body did not disappear. Based on this point only I mentioned Hiranyagarbha in deep sleep also and you can mention Viraat in dream state also as containers existing today, when we are talking about the past states. If you take ordinary human being without merged God, the Taijasa and Vishva levels are justified since every human being is observer of this physical world in waking state or dream world in dream-state. In Praajna-state, there is no enjoyment of bliss since the very basic awareness or enjoyer is in the form of the basic inert energy only in the state of deep sleep. Relative awareness can’t exist as Praajna unless the unimaginable awareness exists in it. Instead of taking human incarnation in Praajna state only, we can extend the same human incarnation to the other two states also to have unity in three states. The unimaginable God alone fits in the Amaatra state. A Human incarnation sees world in waking state, dreams in state of dream, becomes blissful in deep sleep and the unimaginable God in human incarnation is in Amatra state. Thus, all the four states can be explained in the human incarnation.
6) Are You not agreeing with the old Nyaaya-Vaisheshika theories, which said that there is no awareness in deep sleep, even though Shri Shankara had disproved them in order to establish the existence of awareness in deep sleep as ‘Praajna’?
[According to Your theory, there is no conscious entity in an individual during deep sleep. There is inert energy functioning in the brain, but it does not lead to the manifestation of awareness. The individual has awareness only during the dream and waking states. As a result, in the deep sleep state, You have interpreted Atman to be inert energy. The Nyaya-Vaisheshika opponents of Shri Shankara also held a similar belief regarding the state of deep sleep. However, the Upanishad clearly says the Praajna is full of bliss (anandamaya) and an enjoyer of bliss (aananda bhuk). It also indicates that this state is characterized by total ignorance of gross or subtle objects. For this reason, Shri Shankara interpreted the Praajna to be a conscious entity that is full of ignorance (avidya). Your theory appears to contradict the Upanishad. According to Your theory, there is no happiness in deep state since awareness is absent. You have said that the happiness felt upon awakening, is only a sense of freshness experienced (feeling energetic) due to the rest obtained in sleep. How can Your theory then be reconciled with the Upanishad?]
Swami replied: Again, I have to repeat the above said answer only. If you interlink all these four states, you are taking creator in the Amaatra state as per the adjectives of Upanishat itself. In this state, unimaginable God is clearly established by the list of adjectives given by the Veda. If you take human being in the other three states, you are taking creator in the original state and created soul in the next three states. In such case, the link between original state and subsequent three states disappears and you can’t have the unity in all the four states. You can say that God is observer in the original (Amaatra) state and soul is observer in the three subsequent states. This is also not possible because in the Praajna state, the Veda mentions five adjectives like omnipotent (Sarveshvara), omniscient (Sarvajna) etc., and hence the observer in Praajna state is not the ordinary human soul. The soul is ordinary relative awareness and is not having that much scene explained by five adjectives! Now, we can link original Amaatra state and Praajna state to the creator as observer and the other two states to ordinary soul as observer, who is a part of the objective world also! These two observers are totally different. Now, what I say is that let the other two states also be included to God as observer only since the other two states belonging to ordinary human being become the two states of human being component of human incarnation also so that in the other two states also, you can continue the same creator as observer. In this way, when all the four states are possible for the same observer due to the concept of human incarnation, why do you bother to link these two states (dream and awaken) to a separate observer (soul)? Accidentally, these two states are common to both human incarnation and human being. That much is to be agreed by us in view of the ordinary human being becoming one of the two components (God and human being) of human incarnation. Even if you try to extend the human being in to Praajna state neglecting My logic of deep sleep, you can’t answer the five adjectives like omnipotent, omniscient etc., given by the Veda to Praajna state of ordinary human being. Overlooking the impossibility of blissful awareness in deep sleep established by Me, you can forcibly say that the state of deep sleep is one of the three states of human being only. You may defeat Me as a poor fellow in not understanding deep sleep. But, can you defeat the Veda giving five adjectives like omnipotent etc., which contradict strongly your proposal of three states for an ordinary human soul?
7) Some Advaitins say that there is no conflict between the three Vedantic philosophies, since the other two are only a sub-set (vyavahara satta) of the Advaita theory, which is comprehensive and final. They say that no reconciliation of the three philosophies (trimata samanvaya) is needed since the Advaita theory itself correlates the other two. Could You please clarify the need for the reconciliation?
Swami replied: If you also believe that some Advaitins have already shown the correlation of three philosophies, I am very happy about it and in such case, you can consider My correlation as a repetition of such topic. An important concept can be repeated again and again as per scripture (Veepsaayaam dviruktih). If the serious quarrels that took place between the followers are also modes of correlation only, I am more happy because such quarrels must have been due to excess love (Pranayakalaha) to each other! So far, I never heard this correlation of followers and perhaps I must have been a well frog! However, I need not withdraw My correlation since it can be allowed as stressing the most important topic for bringing peace in the followers! I feel that there may be a superficial attempt to correlate Shankara with both, but not a detailed analysis throwing important concepts like surrounding context, Guru giving motivation by twisting concepts etc., which alone can bring perfect unity between the three divine preachers i.e., God Shiva as Shankara, God Vishnu as Ramanuja and God Brahma as Madhva as human incarnations.
Final Remarks
★ ★ ★ ★ ★