16 Nov 2019
What is the difference between religion and philosophy? Why are there quarrels between the sub-religions in Hinduism? [This is part of a mahā satsaṅga or a great spiritual discussion between Swami and several devotees who had come from various places, seeking the clarification of their doubts.]
Swami replied: O Learned and Devoted Servants of God! Religion is a collection of traditions related to the external culture. They have been formulated by certain devotees for the sake of their followers. Philosophy is the spiritual knowledge, which is completely related to the personality of God. Religions differ much, but in philosophies, there is unity to a large extent. Whether it is religion or philosophy, sharp and deep logical analysis is necessary. The reason is that there are some good traditions established by good followers and there are certain bad traditions established by egotistic and bad followers. Even in philosophy or spiritual knowledge, there are certain theories that seem to be wrong and certain theories that seem to be right. We can easily bring a correlation between these various philosophical theories because there is an underlying common theory, which is like a stream flowing beneath the surface, uniting all the theories. The different theories in philosophy are actually meant for different levels of disciples. One theory may be correct for a certain level of disciples, but the same theory may appear to be wrong for disciples of a different level. From the point-of-view of the common unifying theory, all the different theories can be realized to be correct for the disciples of the respective levels. Thus, a correlation between the theories is certainly possible.
The traditions have no such value as possessed by the theories of spiritual knowledge. Sometimes, we can neglect certain differences between various traditions. The different traditions are meant to satisfy the different psychologies of people. But some traditions are found to be harmful upon analysis. Such harmful traditions should be bluntly rejected. Analysis is the torch-light that shows what is what. Based on it, you can accept, ignore or reject a tradition. Every theory in philosophy is useful for the followers belonging to some level or the other. Hence, no theory in spiritual knowledge should be neglected or rejected. Instead, recognizing the different levels of followers, a correlation should be made between the theories, which is certainly possible. Spiritual knowledge is always blessed by God, whereas traditions are blessed only by the intelligence of human beings. The intelligence of human beings and the resulting tradition may be straight or crooked. In any case, you should neither follow the traditions of a religion blindly nor the theories of philosophy. Both of them can be understood by your brain and hence, they are imaginable. They are not unimaginable like miracles. So, both religious traditions and spiritual theories should be analysed before following them.
In ancient India, there were four main sub-religions and they are: (1) Śākteyam, which is the worship of God in feminine form as Śakti. (2) Hairaṇyagarbham or Brāhmam, which is worship of God as Brahmā. (3) Vaiṣṇavam, which is the worship of God as Viṣṇu. (4) Śaivam, which is the worship of God as Śiva. Hairaṇyagarbham was followed by all sages in ancient times. Now, the sages have disappeared and hence, this second sub-religion has also disappeared. In the middle age, Vaiṣṇvam and Śaivam became very prominent and the differences between them increased so much that it led to serious consequences. All these differences are not at all related to the spiritual knowledge, but they are caused by blind devotion without analysis.
All these four forms of God are only the external media of the unimaginable God or Parabrahman. They are different energetic bodies in which the same Parabrahman is present in a merged state. Due to Parabrahman’s unimaginable power, the merging between the energetic bodies and Parabrahman is perfect and there is no internal division between them. Gender is only related to the external medium. Kālidāsa wrote a verse about the three divine forms of God, called Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Śiva. The verse says “It is only one God who appears divided into three. The priority of one form over the other two is just a formality based on the context. Sometimes, Śiva is greater than Viṣṇu and sometimes vice-versa. Sometimes Brahmā is greater than Viṣṇu and Śiva and sometimes vice-versa” (Ekaiva mūrtiḥ bibhide tridhā sā...). Parabrahman is the basic, ultimate, real and primary Actor. This primary Actor acts in His primary role, called Datta or Īśvara. This same Īśvara is known by many names including Hiraṇyagarbha, Nārāyaṇa, Sadāśiva, Parāśakti and Father of heaven. Datta further becomes a secondary Actor and acts in secondary roles like Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Śiva and Śakti. Śakti includes the three feminine deities, Sarasvatī, Lakṣmī and Pārvatī. So, Parabrahman is the primary Actor and Datta is the secondary Actor. These roles can further take tertiary roles.
Let us understand this more clearly through a specific example: Parabrahman is the primary Actor acting in His primary role, Datta. Datta becomes a secondary Actor and acts in a secondary role, Viṣṇu. Viṣṇu is the secondary role with respect to the primary Actor, Parabrahman. Viṣṇu further becomes a tertiary Actor and acts in the tertiary role (w.r.t. Parabrahman), as Krishna. Any role can become an Actor and further act in its next role because all of them are not different from the primary Actor, Parabrahman. Hence, all this is the play of the single ultimate Actor, Parabrahman. The various forms of God are thus the various roles taken by the same Parabrahman at different levels—primary, secondary and tertiary. One such form of God may take the role of master and another form of God may take the role of a servant. In that case, the difference between master and servant is only an external formality. It is part of the play which gives enjoyment while simultaneously conveying important spiritual concepts. We should only see the concept conveyed by the different roles assumed by God. There is no need to get too deep into the roles and recognize the actors in the roles because the ultimate Actor is only one. He is Parabrahman, the unimaginable God, who is the absolute ultimate Reality. Thus, we see internal unity despite the external diversity of roles.
Rāma is a role taken by Viṣṇu and Hanumān is a role taken by Śiva. All the forms of God are roles taken by God on one side and on the other side, they are also Actors who further take different roles. But all souls with their specific bodies are only roles. They cannot futher be actors due to the absence of Parabrahman in them. Of course, Advaita philosophers claim that they are not only roles but also simultaneously actors since Parabrahman is present in them too!
The followers of Vaiṣṇavam want to show that Viṣṇu is superior to Śiva. They quote the Viṣṇu Sahasranāma Stotram and say that Śiva worships Rāma, who is one of the roles taken by Viṣṇu. (Īśvara uvāca— Śrī Rāma Rāma Rāmeti...). They say that Śiva is the topmost devotee of Viṣṇu (Parama Bhāgavatottama). Since God Viṣṇu treats His devotees as if they were greater than Himself, Śiva too must be worshipped. They call it tadīyārādhanam, which means the worship of the devotees of Viṣṇu, along with the worship of Viṣṇu, which is called tadārādhanam. But, practically, they do not worship Śiva and some do not even enter the temple of Śiva! I object to their thinking showing the following counter-examples where Śiva is seen to be equal or superior to Viṣṇu: (1) Viṣṇu had taken the feminine role of Mohinī, become the wife of Śiva, and had even given birth to a son called Śāstā. Thus, Śiva is the husband of Viṣṇu! (2) The Veda says that Śiva is Viṣṇu (Śivaśca Nārāyaṇaḥ). (3) As per a story from the Purāṇam, Viṣṇu worshipped Śiva with a thousand lotuses every day, got tested by Śiva and was granted the lordship of the world.
The followers of Śiva, similarly, want to show the superiority of Śiva over Viṣṇu. They say that since Viṣṇu, as Mohinī, was the wife of Śiva, Viṣṇu is inferior to Śiva. Thus, they try to insult Viṣṇu. I object to their thinking by showing the following counter-examples where Viṣṇu is seen to be greater than or equal to Śiva: (1) Why is Śiva repeating the name of Rāma, who is the Incarnation of Viṣṇu? (2) Why did Hanumān, the Incarnation of Śiva become the servant of Rāma, who was an Incarnation of Viṣṇu? (3) Rādha was the Incarnation of Durvāsā, who was an Incarnation of Śiva. Krishna was the Incarnation of Viṣṇu. So, Śiva became the wife of Viṣṇu! This is the reversal of gender compared to the case of Mohinī and Śiva.
People even bring their petty gender-based fights into spirituality. Some try to prove the supremacy of the masculine God (Śiva), while others try to prove the supremacy of the feminine Śakti. This is really funny! Given below are examples that show the foolishness of such thinking. (1) Pārvatī did a lot of penance and worshipped Śiva, which shows that Śiva is greater than Śakti (male domination). (2) Pārvati became Ardhanārīśvarī, i.e. she became the left half of Śiva. This is the state when the devotee becomes equal to God. It represents a monistic Incarnation of God. (3) Pārvatī became Mahākālī and danced on Śiva (female domination). This represents the case of the dualistic Incarnation in which the devotee becomes the master and God becomes the Servant.
These examples clearly show that God has no gender bias. Biases only exist in people’s minds. Some people are so biased that they even argue about the differences between Rāma and Krishna, who are the Incarnations of the same Viṣṇu! The stories of the various divine forms of God are externally entertaining, but we must realize that there is internal unity in all the divine forms of God. The stories convey some important spiritual concept and that concept can be understood, only if you take the external roles and not the internal actors. We should take Rāvaṇa to be a bad demon and an enemy of Viṣṇu according to the external role he played. We should not say that Rāvaṇa is a good devotee of God Viṣṇu since the actual actor playing the role of Rāvaṇa is Jaya, the devoted gate-keeper of God Viṣṇu!
In a dualistic Incarnation, the climax devotee is different from God. But God and that devotee are attached to each other through the bond of divine love, such that God becomes the Servant and that topmost devotee becomes His master. It is in this sense that God Viṣṇu says, He is controlled by His devotee (Ahaṃ bhakta parādhīnaḥ). Although ordinarily, God is the Master and the devoted soul is the servant, this relationship gets exactly reversed in the case of the climax devotee, who can also be said to be a dualistic Incarnation of God.
The lack of the necessary background knowledge is the reason for the quarrels among the sub-religions of Hinduism and also those among the religions of the world. Hinduism is a micro-model of the macro-universe!
| Shri Dattaswami | Ekaiva muurtih bibhide tridhaa saa Kaalidaasa Shaakteyam Hairanyagarbham Braahmam Shaivam Vaishnavam Shiva Vishnu Brahma Shakti Hanuman Eshvara uvaacha ShriRaama Raama Raameti Tadiiyaaraadhanam Tadaaraadhanam Shivashcha Naaraayanah Ardhanaariishvarii Aham Bhakta paraadhiinah Ravana Rama Ishvara Ishwara Eshwara
★ ★ ★ ★ ★