25 Dec 2013
The Gita says that the same God exists in different human incarnations and looks like divided (Avibhaktam Vibhakteshu). But, God is not divided because God is not an imaginable item with spatial dimensions. God, being unimaginable, exists totally in each human incarnation and the concept of division, which is applied to imaginable items of the world, cannot apply to God, who is beyond space. Hence, the logic applied to discuss the imaginable components of imaginable creation fails in God as said in the Veda (Atarkyah…, Naishaatarkena…). This point of inapplicability of worldly logic in God is the reason to say that God is unimaginable, the basis being absence of spatial dimensions in God. This is the fundamental foundation concept of the entire spiritual knowledge and nobody should forget this and make God imaginable. If you make God imaginable, different people will think different imaginable items as God due to multiplicity of imaginable items. The unity is the unique characteristic of unimaginable God and hence only God is one. The above verse of the Gita is also applied to the soul existing in different living beings. Here, the soul should be taken as the final filtrate of pure awareness after filtering it from all the qualities. Such pure awareness is qualitatively one and the same in any living being since such pure awareness is basically the nervous energy. This nervous energy is fundamentally a stream of electrical pulses travelling through the neuro cells, which is estimated at about 55 milli volts. The brain, the spinal cord and the network of nerves constitute the whole system.
It is scientifically proved that the awareness is only a specific work form of energy functioning in the specific nervous system. If this system is absent, awareness is not at all generated as in the case of a stone. If you say awareness as God, do you mean that God is a generated product of a materialized system? The logic of ancient India was not so developed as much as the present Science and this is the reason for the ancient Indian philosophers to think that the pure awareness is beyond the items of creation and to conclude that it is God. This pure awareness is given top most place in the items of creation and hence, it is called as the best item of the nature (Para Prakriti). The Gita divides the nature (Prakriti) into two sub-categories and one is ‘Apara’ where as the other one is ‘Para’. It [Pure Awareness] can be seen as energetic pulse through the scientific instruments and the Veda says that scientists having very sharp intelligence have seen it (Drushyate tvagraya buddhya). Even the Gita says the same (Pashyanti Jnana Chakshushah). Even the Brahma Sutras established this fact saying that God cannot be the soul since the reason opposes it (Netaronupattheh). The reason is that God is unimaginable and soul is imaginable. Thus, the basic concept of misconstrued Advaita Philosophy gets smashed by the advanced experimental Science. There is no difference between the present Science and the ancient logic (Tarka Shastram) since both deal with the analysis of creation only. If the ancient philosopher, who is scholar in ancient logic, criticizes Science, it means that he is criticizing himself only.
However, the soul existing in all the living beings can stand as a comparison for the God existing in various human incarnations present in the same time. The simile allows only the comparison in one aspect without touching the other aspects. If you compare the face to Moon, the only permitted aspect is the pleasantness of the face and the Moon. Other differences should not be touched. The Moon appears in the night only but the face is seen in the day also. The Moon has black spots and the face is plain. The Moon disappears once in a month through growth and reduction. The face is not so. Hence, the only aspect that should be taken here is the common existence of the same pure awareness qualitatively in all the living beings, which can be compared to the common existence of the same unimaginable God in all the contemporary human incarnations. Coming to the differences, the pure awareness is quantitatively different in all the living beings in terms of its units like calories or ergs or joules etc. The awareness in an elephant is quantitatively very much compared to that of an ant. But, in the case of God in all the contemporary human incarnations, God is same qualitatively and quantitatively since these two concepts do not apply in unimaginable God. Like this, several other differences can be contemplated.
Madhva told that the living beings are different from each other since they exist in different levels. This is based on the levels of the qualities. Good qualities are considered as high level and bad qualities are considered as low level. This pure awareness is mixed with different qualities and hence, the difference in the souls as high and low. All the qualities come under three main headlines i.e., Sattvam, Rajas and Tamas. Sattvam is good whereas Rajas and Tamas are bad. The difference between the souls is due to the difference in the associated qualities as per Madhva. Shankara says that the soul is one and the same in all the living beings and here, we have to take the qualitative unity of the soul in all living beings as the pure awareness. Hence, both are correct from the view of associated qualities and the qualitative unity of pure awareness. This analysis should be the background in understanding the verse in the Gita, which says that the scholars see the unity in all the living beings like dog, cow, elephant, Brahmin and a non-vegetarian cobbler (Panditaah samadarshinah). This means that you should find the internal true unity in the external true difference. You should respect or reject based on the associated qualities. You can go near a pious cow but you cannot go near a wild dog. The unity of the soul helps you to make an effort to change the qualities of the cobbler to transform him into a Brahmin since the caste is decided by the qualities and the subsequent quality based actions (Guna Karma Vibhagashah – Gita). Ravana is a Brahmin by birth but a cobbler by qualities and actions. Shabari is a cobbler by birth but Brahmin by qualities and actions. Therefore, the caste system should be properly understood with the help of this analysis. In the Gita, in the above verse, while mentioning the cobbler, the word ‘Shvapaka’ is used for the cobbler. This word means the person, who hunts and eats even the dogs. The dog is the embodiment of faith and helps the humanity. Killing another living being is considered to be the highest sin and non-violence is the top most good quality (Ahimsa Paramodharmah). The respect and rejection is for the qualities and not for the soul, which is the possessor of the qualities. Caste means the classification of these qualities. Basically, there are only two categories or two castes. The caste of good qualities that should be respected and the caste of bad qualities that should be rejected. This verse is often quoted by some people, who argue that a good person and a bad person are equal according to this verse and hence, the bad person should be also respected and worshipped like a good person. Such an ignorant logic results due to improper analysis, which leads to the misunderstanding of the scripture. The photo of Shabari is kept in the worship room in the houses of Brahmins, which indicates the respect to qualities irrespective of the birth. All the sages made ‘Bhrurishrava’, a pot maker as the president of a sacrifice conducted in Naimisha forest (Refer: the Bhagavatam).
When you find a bad person and a good person, it is said that you should find the common soul or pure awareness existing in both. The soul in both has the same power of achieving any quality and rejecting any quality. This indicates the possibility of transformation of bad soul into good soul in which bad qualities are rejected and good qualities are achieved. By looking at the soul, you are reminded about the possibility of transformation, which is your duty. After transformation, you can respect the good soul.
Shri Phani: You say that Sattvam is good and Rajas and Tamas are bad. Sattvam represents Vishnu, Rajas represents Brahma and Tamas represents Shiva. Does this mean that Vishnu is good where as Brahma and Shiva are bad?
Shri Swami: The same word can have different meanings in the Sanskrit language. As far as the qualities are concerned, these three words stand in the above said sense. When you apply these three words in the case of the activities carried on by Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, different meanings come in to picture due to different angles of application. Rajas means the action (Rajah Karmani Bharata). Brahma is involved always in the action of creation. Creation is an activity, which is dynamic. Sattvam stands for knowledge and also maintenance of the existing status. Vishnu is involved in the maintenance of the world and also administration, which involves sharp analytical knowledge. Tamas stands for lack of discrimination as in the sleep, which is ignorance (Tamastvajnanajam viddhi). Shiva is involved in destroying the whole creation in the end without any discrimination. Hence, based on these meanings, the same three words are used for the three divine forms of the same unimaginable God.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★