15 Jun 2007
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Shri Lakshman asked Swami to explain the reason for the twist given by Shankara in His philosophy because of which alone the differences in the interpretations of the scriptures arose.]
Background-Relevant Preaching
If you understand the background of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva and also the different atmospheres of devotees that existed over a span of time, the differences in the philosophies can be realized and the unity in the entire program can be perfectly appreciated. Before the arrival of Shankara, the Purva Mimamsakas were very ambitious to get heavenly pleasures and were doing rituals to attain heaven. Ambition is the result of an excess of Rajas (Rajasolobhaevacha…—Gita). The inherent effect of Rajas is also ego. The atmosphere was that of the worst atheism full of ambition and ego. Whenever a soul is to be diverted to the right path, your initial philosophy should be such that it suits his nature. You can divert him only slowly to the right path, in course of time. If you want to control the drinking habit of a person, you must first become his friend in the bar. Slowly, after the full development of your friendship, you can advise him about the dangers of wine. He will hear you based on your friendship. When a bull is running full speed, you have to catch it and run along with it for some time. The bull feels that you are a friendly runner, who is running along with it. It will have a positive attitude towards you. Then you can control the bull. The preaching should always suit the psychology of the student.
A mere scholar will never bother about the psychology of the student and will just reveal the truth. He will ask you to go to hell if you do not accept the truth. He is not bothered about uplifting you. He is only interested in the correct interpretation of the scripture given by the Divine Father. He is only a co-soul and acts like a brother-guide who will not alter the truth respecting the scripture of the Divine Father. He has no guts to change the scripture of the Father. Such a guide is called as a Guru. But sometimes the Satguru comes down. He is totally different from a Guru. A Satguru is the Divine Father or God Himself and He has the guts to twist the scripture, if required, because He is the very author of the scripture. The Divine Father will not bother about the scripture and its true interpretation. He is always bothered about the way to uplift the souls who are present in the existing atmosphere.
Shankara was the human incarnation of God (Shiva) and He twisted the scripture to suit the ego and ambition of the people existing at that time. Shankara was the full Satguru and His attitude as a Father and His capability to twist the scripture as God is totally justified to uplift the people in such an atmosphere. The atheists were transformed into devotees later on, after entering the spiritual line. Advaita, which states that a soul is already God, is a chocolate prepared by Shankara for attracting the atheists who were the LKG students (to suit their ambition and ego). In course of time the same LKG students entered the college and the university after getting spiritual maturity. At this stage, the real interpretation of the scripture is required and liberated souls were sent by God to give the real interpretation. Ramanuja and Madhva were incarnations of devoted liberated souls viz., Adi Shesha and Vayu respectively. The soul has no guts to twist the scripture because the scripture is the word of the Divine Father. Hence, their attitude is always to project the real interpretation of the scripture. Also, in their surrounding atmospheres, the chocolate was not needed since the spiritual aspirants had already developed maturity. The real interpretation of the scripture was the need of that hour.
This does not mean that I have respected Shankara as God and insulted Ramanuja and Madhva as liberated souls. When God comes down as a human incarnation, God charges a liberated soul in a human body. Even in the body of Shankara, a liberated soul called as the Son of God existed. The liberated souls in Ramanuja and Madhva came down with the program of God. The difference between Shankara and the other two is that God was directly speaking through Shankara whereas in the other two, the cassette of the speech of God was being played. Essentially all the three can be treated as God alone. Even Narada says that the topmost devoted soul can be treated as God (Tanmayahite—Narada Bhakti Sutra).
The atmosphere existing in a particular period requires the entry of either God or a liberated soul. When the atmosphere becomes the worst and in such an atmosphere, if the scripture has to be twisted to uplift the souls, no soul can enter in such situations. God alone has to incarnate. When the atmosphere improves and the real interpretation of the scripture is the only requirement, God need not enter and it is sufficient if the liberated soul enters. Whenever you hear the correct interpretation of the scripture, a liberated soul is conveying it. Whenever you are seeing reshuffling of the scripture and re-orientation of the philosophy which is required badly by the situation, the only conveyer who can do so is God. The liberated soul follows the scripture of God and the scripture follows God. You find Lord Dattatreya being followed by dogs (the four Vedas) and not the Lord following the dogs. The Veda itself says that the Vedas were just blown out of the mouth of God (Nishshvasitamevaitat…). Hence, God alone can re-orient the scripture. In the commentary of Shankara you will find the scriptures re-orienting themselves to support His line of philosophy. In the commentaries of Ramanuja and Madhva you will find the real orientation of the philosophies following the scripture of God. But don’t think that God is twisting the scripture just for fun and entertainment. He is twisting the scripture just to uplift His issues, who are trapped in the wrong track. As soon as the souls are diverted to the right path, He will reveal the real and the original interpretation of the scriptures and remove the self-contradiction.
God present in Shankara prepared the twist of the scriptures as is seen in His commentary on the scripture. But the liberated soul present in Shankara composed a number of prayers to the Lord. The human incarnation is always a double-edged sword with God on one side and the liberated soul on the other side (Dvasuparna…—Veda). For the sake of atheists (Purva Mimamsakas) God in Shankara stood with the twist i.e. Advaita. For the sake of matured theists the liberated soul in Shankara stood with prayers to the Lord. In the time of Ramanuja, the situation improved because in the course of time, the LKG students grew up and entered college. The liberated soul [Ramanuja] alone with devotion and prayers to Lord was sufficient for them. Therefore, the inseparable and constantly associated liberated soul (Adi Shesha) without God came down to implement the advanced part of the program, which is devotion. Then the devoted souls were further matured and they became eligible to do selfless service to God due to their intensified devotion and this is the final university level where a separately existing servant of God (Vayu) came down as Madhva.
The background of each spiritual preacher is not a new interpretation from My mouth. This background is reflected in their own statements. Shankara always said that He was God (Aham Brahma Asmi) or Lord Shiva (Shivah Kevaloham). Shankara taught the path by which the soul could become God and He introduced the requirement of spiritual effort (sadhana) to become God, even though the soul is already God [according to the Advaita philosophy that He taught]. The clause of sadhana contains the whole secret because if the soul is already God, there is no need of sadhana to become God! He maintained the chocolate by stating that if ignorance is strong, sadhana is required to remove its practical effect (vikshepa) and for this He recommended worship to the Lord. While maintaining the initial twist, He brought atheists to the line of worship of God!
His statement that He is God indicates that the soul in His body became God since God charged it. This chance of the soul becoming God is open to every soul. Any soul by spiritual effort can become the Son of God. Thus, we are not denying the possibility of the soul attaining Advaita. We are only opposing the view that the soul is already in the state of Advaita. If that were true, Shankara would not have introduced sadhana to attain what the soul already was. Of course, Shankara proposed this concept of the soul already being in the state of Advaita, but you must understand it as a twist of the scripture; as a chocolate prepared for the sake of the atheists initially. Even there, the scriptural interpretation is maintained so that the atheists will not think that it is a twist. Here, in the twist, the soul is said to be already Brahman. But here Brahman means the greatest item in creation and not God, who is unimaginable and can be indicated only by silence. Of course, Brahman can also mean God because God is the Greatest, being greater than even the greatest soul. Atheists took the word Brahman in the sense of God and were attracted.
If anyone quarrels with Shankara, He will say that the sense of Brahman in Advaita is only the greatest item. Shankara exploited the possibility of multiple meanings of the word Brahman. Therefore, while on one side the twist is maintained for atheists, on the other side, the same twist stands legal and is justified for scholars. Such unimaginable genius can only be God! Ramanuja and Madhva never said that they are God. They always claimed to be servants of God. Ramanuja said that the soul is inseparable from God and this indicates that Adi Shesha is always associated with Lord Narayana. Madhva said that the soul is completely separate and is a constant servant of God. Madhva also directly said that He is the son of Vayu, who is a divine servant, helping the maintenance of the world. I am only recalling their own statements, which reveal their backgrounds as demanded by the requirements of the situations in their respective times.
Ramanuja stands as an intermediate station between Shankara and Madhva. The soul, thinking itself to be God, captured by the twist, cannot suddenly fall to the level of philosophy of Madhva, where the soul is a servant existing separately and doing service to God without any salary or aspiration of fruit in return. Madhva reveals this final truth at the end of the aspirant’s maturity. But if you analyze, Hanuman was in the state of Madhva and got the original fruit of Advaita. Thus the program of the three spiritual preachers is not an open chain but a closed circuit since the service proposed by Madhva brings the fruit proposed by Shankara. Therefore, there is perfect unity in the program of all the three preachers everywhere.
The soul, thinking it is God, is brought to the intermediate stage where it is advised to be a part (Amsha or Shesha) of God. But Ramanuja revealed that the soul is a part of only the external body (creation) of God (Chidachitvishishtah). Even in the level of Shankara, He recommended worshipping God to get His grace in becoming God (Ishwara anugrahadeva…). He also said that the soul is only a part of God (Satyapibhedapagame…). On one side Shankara says Aham Brahma Asmi (I am God) and on the other side He says Nadha tavakinoham na mamakastvam (Oh Lord, I am a part existing in You and You are not in me!). On one side He says Tattvam Asi (You are God) and on the other side He says Bhaja Govindam Mudhamate (Oh fool, worship God!). This means that He is telling one version to one sect and another version to the other sect. Otherwise if He were stating both these to the same sect, it becomes self-contradiction.
The first version is a chocolate to the atheists and the other version is the truth to matured devotees. Therefore, Shankara and Ramanuja at their levels already revealed the Madhva’s philosophy but they did so as a sugar-coated pill. Each Acharya knew the final and complete truth. They projected the truth partially as required in the respective situations for the psychological reason of making friends with those souls whom they wanted to uplift. Even if they spoke partially, internally they knew the total truth. In Shankara you have both God and a liberated soul and hence you have the total philosophy starting from LKG to PG[1], which is from the atheist to the devotee. In Ramanuja and Madhva, since they are only liberated souls, their philosophies are only for devotees and are the graduate and postgraduate levels.
Shankara: God or Soul
Once I came across a Vaishnava saint who was saying that Shankara was only a soul and hence He twisted the scripture due to His own confusion. The saint said that Shankara called Himself as Bhagavatpada, meaning that He is the foot of God. He said that Ramanuja on the other hand is called as Bhagavat Ramanuja meaning that He is God and hence He gave the clear and true version of the scripture. I refuted this saint’s version because Ramanuja never called Himself as God. Only His followers gave Him this adjective (Bhagavat). Ramanuja always said that no soul can become God. Of course Shankara called Himself as the foot of God. God calling Himself as the foot of God shows the submissiveness, which is the fruit of real divine knowledge. But Shankara referred to Himself in that way only for the sake of others; to preach submissiveness to them. Shankara announced clearly that He is God (Shivoham). But Ramanuja never announced that He is Lord Narayana. Moreover, the followers of Ramanuja say that He is an incarnation of Adi Shesha. Thus within the followers of Ramanuja, these two versions contradict each other. In the case of Shankara, the Son of God or the liberated soul said that He is the foot of God, whereas God in Shankara said that He is God. Ramanuja never said that He is God and in all His prayers He said that He is only the servant of God. This clearly proves that in Shankara both God and a liberated soul existed, whereas in Ramanuja and Madhva only liberated souls existed as per their own words. Here, the point is not finding out the difference in the greatness of each preacher. The point is finding out the requirement of their respective situations. According to the situation, the liberated soul charged by God (called as God) or the liberated soul alone came. You must give importance to the requirement of the situation and not foolishly quarrel about the greatness of any spiritual preacher to whom one is particularly connected.
Diplomacy and Genius of Shankara
The chocolate prepared by Shankara for the atheists in the initial stage shows the absence of any qualitative difference between the soul and Ishwara because both are Brahman or awareness. Here the word Brahman was taken as God by the atheists. Shankara maintained diplomacy by accepting the sense of God as well as the sense of any greatest item, for the word Brahman. The quantitative difference between the soul and the Brahman was also negated because the finite human body, in which the soul exists and the infinite universe in which Brahman exists, are also unreal with respect to the reality of the awareness. Here Shankara gave a comparison between the individual soul or space in a pot (ghatakasha) and Ishwara or the space in a room (mathakasha). Both the spaces are one and the same God or infinite space (mahakasha). Since the pot and the room are unreal with respect to the space, both are the same infinite space. Therefore, the individual soul and Ishwara are essentially one and the same Brahman in view of the unreal human body and the unreal world. This was the attracting chocolate prepared by Shankara to attract atheists. The atheist thought that the individual soul is always Brahman and that there is no need to do any effort to become Brahman. He was attracted to this idea since it was like there was this ancestral property, which was lying idle in his name due to his ignorance and all he needed to do was to take possession of it! The only effort needed is that the individual soul should know that it is Brahman! The atheist started accepting Brahman or God because he was already that forgotten Brahman! The golden chain is already on your neck (kanthachamikaranyaya). Then why deny it unnecessarily? But analysis reveals that it is only a chocolate prepared for kids to lead them to school and in reality the golden chain will be presented by God alone.
If the pot and the room are unreal, the single infinite space (Brahman) alone exists as said in the Veda (Ekameva advitivam Brahma…). In that case, there is no point of talking about pot-space and room-space, since the pot and the room are unreal. Now Brahman (infinite space) created the pot and the room for its entertainment and if you say that they are unreal, the entertainment for Brahman also becomes unreal. This means that God wanted entertainment but He could not get it. Then God cannot be omnipotent! If the entertainment has to be real, the pot and the room should be real even for Brahman. How can the individual soul then say that the world is unreal when that soul itself is a part and parcel of the world? Even if we assume that the individual soul is Brahman, the world must be real for the individual soul (Brahman) to have real entertainment. Before the creation and after the dissolution, the world may be unreal but during its existence it must be real even for Brahman, for the sake of real entertainment. To give reality to the world, Brahman imposes ignorance on Itself and gets real entertainment, because the world gains reality during the ignorance of Brahman. Actually, Brahman is not really ignorant, since the ignorance is only self-imposed. It is like the daydreamer enjoying his daydream, forgetting himself. During such ignorance the self-realization is not lost and hence the dreamer (Ishwara) controls the dream while enjoying it under ignorance. The ignorance brings reality to the dream and the realization brings unreality to the same dream.
Hence, for Ishwara the world is mithya, which is a mixture of reality and unreality (Satyanritemithunikritya…—Shankara) and as a result the world is neither real nor unreal. Even if the daydreamer enters into complete ignorance and sleeps, finally and really, the dreamer is not at all affected because when he wakes up, the original state is obtained. Rama became the Lord when He was awakened by Yama and He enjoyed the dream to the full extent due to full ignorance. Rama means ‘He who enjoys fully’. This can happen to Rama since He is the original dreamer. But if a person who is created in the dream and who is a part and parcel of the dream is awakened, he cannot become the controller of the dream. The dream continues with its usual power and he is always controlled by the dream. A king and a beggar have slept and both became beggars in the dream. When both are awakened, the king becomes the king and he is relieved from the role of a beggar. But the beggar is a beggar in the role and also as the original actor (dreamer). Hence, the beggar remains a beggar and there is no difference between the dream and the waking state in his case. Hence, the individual soul remains only an individual soul even after realization and will not become Brahman or Ishwara.
In the above simile, the room with four walls is compared to the world and Ishwara is Brahman associated with the world. Here, the world having infinite limits is associated only with the infinite space and cannot be compared to the finite room. Hence, there is no difference between Brahman and Ishwara. Whether the infinite world exists or not, the infinite space remains as it is and thus Brahman and Ishwara are one and the same. If the individual soul is not Ishwara it must mean that it is not Brahman also. If the individual soul cannot control the universe, it means that it is not Brahman since it is not Ishwara. Patanjali, in his Yoga Sutras, made Ishwara as the highest goal, since Ishwara is in no way different from Brahman. A king has the same efficiency of administration, whether he is sitting on the throne in the court or sitting with his queen in the bedroom. The king will show the same talent of administration at any place if required. He is called as the king not only in the court but also in the bedroom.
In course of time, Shankara brought out the quantitative difference between Brahman (Ishwara) and the individual soul by stating that He is a wave in the God-ocean. He maintained the qualitative similarity because the truth must be revealed only in steps. Ramanuja maintained the same wave-ocean relationship (Shesha-sheshi sambandha) between individual soul and God, but slowly removed the qualitative similarity also by saying that the individual soul is a part of the body of God (world) and not directly a part of God. The world is compared to a human body and God is compared to the awareness in that human body. This means that the individual soul is not a direct part of God. There is no qualitative similarity between the awareness in the human body (God) and the human body (world) and hence there is no qualitative similarity between God and individual soul since the individual soul is a part of the world. The world consisting of individual souls and inert bodies is compared to the external human body and God is compared to the awareness existing in the human body. The awareness in the human body is qualitatively different from the inert human body (in the comparison) and hence the qualitative difference between the God and the individual soul is thus brought out here. This becomes justified because God is unimaginable and the world including souls is imaginable.
Hence, there is no qualitative or quantitative similarity between the unimaginable God and the imaginable world in which the imaginable individual soul exists as a part of it. Therefore, there is no qualitative or quantitative similarity between the unimaginable God and the imaginable individual soul. In this simile, Ramanuja maintained the inevitable closeness of the awareness and the human body. This means that God and the individual soul are inseparable. God and individual soul are now differentiated qualitatively and quantitatively but the last consolation is that the individual soul is close to God and is inseparable.
Finally, Madhva removed even this last consolation stating that God is like the pot-maker and the world including individual souls is like the separate pot. This means that the individual soul cannot claim its closeness to God as its inherent property. If the pot-maker wishes, he may keep the pot very close to him or he may even keep the pot on his head. If the pot maker does not wish, he may throw away the pot. This means that if God is pleased, the individual soul may become close to God and may even be kept on the head of God as in the case of the Gopikas. If the individual soul is a demon, it can be thrown out. This is the final truth, which is bitter.
Advaita is like a sweet prepared from sugar and ghee which is given to the child in the beginning. As the child grows, the sweet must be slowly withdrawn because, as the person becomes older and older, the sweet will induce diabetes (ambition) and cholesterol (ego). The final bitter truth is like the bitter medicine given in old age, when the spiritual aspirant reaches the final stage of maturity.
God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God. If you do not care for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister need not pay even one-millionth of his attention to you in view of his far superior status. Thus, God need not pay even a trace of attention towards careless atheists. But God being the Creator of all souls, the parental attitude of God towards all souls brings Him down as a human incarnation to care even for the atheists. The attention of God to reform the atheists is the only remaining aim in throwing the atheists into the hell permanently (‘permanently’ means ‘for a long time’). Hell is the operation theatre in which the long surgery is performed and thus the constant effort of God to uplift every soul is to be always recognized. If the final message of Shankara were only Advaita, His closest students like Padmapada, Totaka, etc would have digested Advaita and would have behaved as friends with Shankara because they would have realized their oneness with Shankara. But we find that they were always falling at the feet of Shankara, who was their contemporary human incarnation, with full surrender as they praised Him saying “Karuna Varunalaya Palayamam…” If Advaita were true, each one of them was Shankara (Brahman) Himself and the above prayer would only be self-praise! The present Advaitin must have digested Advaita better than those closest disciples of Shankara and therefore, he is not even recognizing his contemporary human incarnation!
[1] Postgraduate Education
★ ★ ★ ★ ★