13 Aug 2017
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Smt. Devi (w/o. Dr. Nikhil) asked: You told that the upper and Lower worlds are to be treated as upper and lower levels of devotion to God and should not be treated as the physical places separated by physical distance. But, simultaneously, you say that the upper and lower worlds exist in space geographically, which can’t be seen by us due to the God’s will acting as unimaginable barrier. How to co-relate both these two concepts?
Swami Replied: Coimbatore-city in which you presently reside is called as the Manchester-city of India. Manchester-city exists in the world outside India. The statement means that like the Manchester-city in the world, Coimbatore-city is in India. Coimbatore doesn’t contradict the geographical existence of Manchester outside the India. This human body called as Pindaanda is a representative mini model of this vast macro world. Hence, worlds existing in this external universe exist in our body also as the various psychological levels in spiritual progress. I told that these geographically existing upper and lower worlds should not be treated in terms of physical distance like the physical distance existing between various countries on this earth. The physically distance between countries can be covered by physical journey by a vehicle like airplane. One can never travel from one of these worlds to the other by a vehicle since the distance is not exactly like the physical distance in units of kilometers that can be covered by a vehicle. If the distance is physical, these worlds could have been seen by us like different countries of the earth. The distance can be covered only by change in psychological state of the soul because these invisible worlds are covered by the unimaginable barrier or God’s will. The soul reaches these worlds based on the progress of its spiritual level. On this earth, one can reach the other country by the moving vehicle without reference to any spiritual level. Hence, the distance between these worlds can’t be taken in terms of physical space, which can be covered by the moving capacity of the vehicle. In the case of these super natural worlds, the capacity of the moving vehicle (energetic body of the soul) is only the spiritual level. My statement refers this difference between the distance of these worlds and the distance between these countries on the earth. The physical existence of these worlds and movement of the energetic body of the soul like a vehicle are not denied in both cases. In the case of countries, the cause of moving capacity is the fuel of the vehicle. In the case of these worlds the fuel is the spiritual progress of the soul in its body-vehicle.
The same unimaginable God exists in the body of Vishnu in Vaikuntha world and in the body of Krishna in the Brundavnam village on this earth. A devoted energetic being near Vishnu in Vaikuntha is as good as a devoted cowherd sitting near Krishna in Brundavanam. There is no difference between Vaikuntha and Brundavanam since the same unimaginable God exists in the energetic body of Vishnu and materialised body of Krishna. A devotee present near Krishna in Brundavanam village on this earth is not at all different in any way than a devoted energetic being present near energetic incarnation in the upper most ultimate abode of God (Brahma Loka). The Brundavanam village itself is the ultimate top most world or Brahma Loka. Thus, the concept of physical distance disappears in the case of these worlds. When I said that Coimbatore is Manchester of India, Coimbatore is not really the Manchester. But, in the case of these words, it is not the concept of simile because the same unimaginable God exists in Vishnu and Krishna. In this case, Coimbatore actually becomes the Manchester. This is the difference between these worlds and the physically distant countries on the earth. Therefore, the main point is that one need not bother about these worlds existing with geographical distance between them in the space. The physically distant worlds are accepted, but, the physical distance becomes meaningless since all these worlds can be attained on this earth in the present life itself without even an iota of difference. The reason is that Krishna is exactly Vishnu and hence Brundavanam is exactly Vaikuntha. Here, the concept of simile should be thrown out because Krishna is not similar to Vishnu since Krishna is Vishnu Himself. Therefore, one can forget the idea of attaining energetic body after the death and the concept of travelling to different worlds by the movement of energetic body since all these worlds can be attained here itself in this present life only. This is the point which is I wanted to emphasize by that statement.
These supernatural worlds are in the imaginable domain being in the creation, but, are involved with the will of God or unimaginable domain since these worlds can never be found through any instrument even in the future scientific research of humanity. These worlds are in the intermediate place between the upper unimaginable domain and the lower imaginable domain. These worlds are invisible even to the future scientific equipments of future humanity. They are invisible to the humanity not because of the high frequency of energy of these words and their energetic beings. If it is so, there is a hope that these worlds may become visible to the advanced instruments in future. The reason of their invisibility is not due to the high value of their frequency, but, is due to the superior frequency due to the will of God. Such superiority is due to the unimaginable power of God and not due to high value of the frequency of the energy. If these worlds exist in the lower imaginable domain itself, the inter distance can be travelled by the advanced vehicles. In such case, you can never attain the ultimate abode of God in Brundavanam village on this earth itself. The unimaginable power involved with these supernatural worlds makes them different from the physically existing countries on the earth. In such case only, the ultimate abode of God geographically present in the top most space can exactly come down to the earth. This is not the case of mere similarity, but, this is the case of exact transfer of the top most world to the earth without any disturbance to the already existing top most world or abode of energetic incarnation of God.
Dr Nikhil asked:
1) What is the difference between Avidya and Maaya?
Swami Replied: The medium of unimaginable God is called as Maaya (Indro maayaabhih pururupa iyati... Veda, Maayinamtu Maheshwaram... Gita). The medium of the soul is called as Avidya, which means inert. Since the soul itself is awareness, the medium of the soul should be non-awareness or inert. Since the unimaginable God is beyond awareness and inert matter and energy, the medium of God is both awareness (Paraprakruti) and inert matter and energy (Aparaaprakruti). The soul is called as Paraprakruti or a part of the imaginable creation. The creator or God is beyond the soul (awareness) and rest creation (inert energy and inert matter). Maaya is said to be the associated item with God and hence can’t be the creator Himself. Hence, Maaya is also the creation or Prakruti made of awareness (para) and inert energy with inert matter (apara). This point is made clear by the Gita in saying that Maaya is prakruti or creation (Maayaam tu Prakrutim viddhi). In such case, there should be no difference between Maaya and Prakruti or Creation in essence. The difference comes only when this total prakruti or creation (actually small part of creation only as the human being or energetic being) becomes the medium of God and the apara part of prakruti (actually a small part only) becoming the medium of soul. Since the soul (awareness) is a part of Prakruti, the inert matter with inert energy (Apara) constitutes the medium of the soul. Hence, you can’t say that the entire prakruti is the medium of the soul since soul itself is a small part of paraa prakruti. But, in the case of God, the entire Prakruti (both Para and Apara) become His medium since the unimaginable God is the third item beyond both Para (Akshara) and Apara (Kshara) parts of Prakruti. God is the third unimaginable item, who is beyond both parts of imaginable prakruti or creation (Yasmaat kshara... Gita). The conclusion is that the medium of God is both inert and non-inert parts of Prakruti whereas the medium of the soul (Para) is only inert Apara part of prakruti or creation.
Awareness is called as Sattvam. Inert energy is called as Rajas. Inert matter is called as Tamas. Sattvam is responsible for good qualities like true knowledge and justice. Rajas and Tamas are responsible for bad qualities like ego, ignorance, cheating and injustice. The medium of the soul is Rajas and Tamas and hence the soul or Sattvam is always influenced by bad qualities like sins etc. The influence of Rajas and Tamas on the soul is so much that the soul becomes almost Rajas and Tamas in its very core. Its natural quality of Sattvam becomes very weak, which moves far from the soul. The soul becomes the core content of Rajas and Tamas and Sattvam stands far from it as an external instrument to be used for the victory of injustice, if necessary. In the case of God, Sattvam is very close to God and becomes almost like the core content of God whereas Rajas and Tamas are far from God to be used as external instruments for the victory of justice, if needed. I explain this difference taking the examples of Duryodhana as soul and Krishna as God. Duryodhana cheated Dharma Raja in playing gambling since cheating is his core content. He used Sattvam as external instrument to support his internal injustice by speaking “did I force him to play this gambling? Did I force him to bet his brothers and wife?” The speech of Duryodhana appears to be perfectly justified and due to this reason only, Krishna allowed the punishment of Dharma Raja to go to forest for 12 yrs. Gambling is one of the five horrible sins. After the punishment also, he did not agree to return their kingdom and this shows that he is Rajas and Tamas by core and justified arguments (Sattvam) were used as instruments only for the victory of injustice. The same gambling was played by Krishna in the war and Sattvam or victory of justice is His nearest core content (Sattvopaadhiriswarah). His cheating or Rajas with Tamas becomes the external instrument used in support of the victory of His justice. In both Duryodhana and Krishna all the three qualities are common. The difference is that Sattvam is nearest to God whereas Rajas and Tamas are nearest to the soul. The medium of the soul that causes the sins is called as Avidya, whereas the medium of God that gives punishment to sins is Maaya. If you see the soul of Dharma Raja, Sattvam is remaining in his soul, but, Rajas and Tamas are also influencing it now and then provoking him to play the gambling without rejecting it.
If you compare Krishna and Dharma Raja, the similarity is that Sattvam is near to both and Rajas and Tamas are far from both. But, there is a slight difference in this point also. In the case of Dharma Raja, sattvam itself is the soul whereas in the case of Krishna Sattvam is near to the inner most soul or unimaginable God. Rajas and Tamas can penetrate into the soul in some time in the case of Dharma Raja. In the case of Krishna, all the three imaginable qualities (Sattvam, Rajas and Tamas) can never penetrate the inner soul called as unimaginable God. Dharma Raja is soul with good qualities (Sattvam) surrounded by Rajas and Tamas, which are always trying to influence the soul. Duryodhana is the soul with bad qualities penetrated by Rajas and Tamas. Actually, the word soul or sattvam stands for mere awareness that can be influenced by good or (and) bad qualities. Sattvam stands for knowledge also representing good qualities. Krishna is the unimaginable God beyond all the three good and bad qualities, but, is nearest and dearest to Sattvam while using the far Rajas and Tamas as instruments in the play, if required.
The word Maaya has two senses: i) It is most wonderful unimaginable power (Maya vaichitrye) and ii) It doesn’t exist without its source or unimaginable God (Yaa Maa). When the Prakruti (both para and apara) becomes the medium of God as energetic being or human being in the incarnation, this medium or prakruti (both para and apara parts) also attains the unimaginable nature in doing miracles. Hence, this medium or Prakruti becomes unimaginable and is called as Maaya. This can be seen while the boy Krishna is lifting huge hill on His tender finger in which apara prakruti becomes unimaginable. When Krishna revealed His unimaginable knowledge in the Gita, the Para prakruti attained unimaginable nature. Prakruti, as the medium of soul runs always with power of imaginable principles and is called as mere Prakruti and not maaya. This Prakruti of the soul is unaware of unimaginable God and hence is called as ignorance or Avidya. The unimaginable God is not only aware of the knowledge of entire prakruti, but, also is aware of Himself and such knowledge clearly indicates the unimaginable power or Maaya or Vidya. The cheating is based on the principle of illusion, which shows the non-existent to appear as existent and which is common between Krishna and Duryodhana as the means, but, the ends are different, which are victory of justice and injustice respectively. Not only the nearest Paraprakruti (Sattvam or awareness) became unimaginable as seen by His unimaginable knowledge in the Gita, but also the far Rajas and Tamas (inert energy and inert matter) present as the external body also became unimaginable while lifting the huge hill by His tender finger. Thus, both Para and Apara parts of prakruti standing as the medium of God become unimaginable due to the influence of inner unimaginable God. Hence, the Prakruti or medium of God alone becomes Maaya and not the prakruti or medium of the soul. In the sense of wonderful unimaginable power the medium of God is Maaya. With reference to unimaginable God, this creation or Prakruti is non-existent and due to this reason only 1) the unimaginable God can do anything in this unreal world and 2) the unimaginable God is never touching even our imagination to maintain this non-existent world as fully real and existent. The second reason is responsible for your total inability to even imagine God. The existence of unimaginable God with the non-existing creation is called as Paramaartha dasha or absolute reality of Shankara. This state is beyond our logic and even our imagination. Hence, Ramanuja and Madhva never touched this state in which the souls remain as totally ignorant of the existence of unimaginable God and non-existence of this creation. Ramanuja and Madhva started with vyavahaara dasha or relative reality, which is mentioned by Shankara also. In this relative reality, the mediated unimaginable God as first energetic incarnation is the starting point as the source of creation and the process of creation can be conveniently explained by taking the logic of cause (mud) and effect (Pot). The process of even the first item of imaginable creation (inert energy) being created from the unimaginable God is impossible for explanation and hence, such process also becomes unimaginable. To avoid this confusion in the beginning itself, which may result in atheism or non-existence of unimaginable God, it becomes a better convenient explanation for easy understanding for souls. The starting is done with the mediated unimaginable God or the first energetic incarnation (Sukshama chidachit Vishista) from whom this universe based on the same unimaginable God (sthula chidachit vishista) is emerged out. The awareness (chit) and inert energy along with inert matter (achit) exist in the cause itself, which can appear in the effect like the black colour of mud appearing in the pot. From the awareness of cause, the souls in the creation (effect) are generated. From the inert energy and matter of cause, the inert matter and energy of the effect or creation appear. This follows the worldly logic of creation of effect from a similar cause. Hence, the non-inert material of souls and the inert material of the rest world exist in effect transferred from its cause. The word ‘Vishista’ means some other third item, which is possessing awareness and inert matter with inert energy. Such third possessor is the unimaginable God, who is mediated by the energetic form and hence can be easily imagined by mind. Apart from the relative reality of Ramanuja and Madhva, Shankara included the absolute reality also. You are contradicting Shankara as if He spoke about absolute reality only without mentioning the relative reality. The total concept with unimaginable and imaginable sides was presented by Shankara whereas Ramanuja and Madhva presented only the imaginable side of the concept for the convenience of understanding of the souls. The unimaginable side of the concept need not be presented to souls because when the unimaginable side is presented, the relative reality including the souls totally gets disappeared and hence it is not relevant to be preached to the souls. There is no contradiction between the three divine preachers in view of this analysis. Ramanuja and Madhva also indicated the absolute reality or the unimaginable God by the word Vishista, which means the third possessor of both the components (awareness as ‘akshara’ and inert energy with inert matter called as ‘kshara’) of the creation. Ramanuja and Madhva also know the state of absolute reality, but, avoided it in explanation by not mentioning it directly with emphasis like Shankara. The unimaginable power of the first energetic incarnation is nothing but the unimaginable God mentioned indirectly by Ramanuja and Madhva. Shankara also knows the importance and the need of relative reality for the souls, which was clearly explained by Him everywhere. He ran away by seeing the elephant saying that the whole world is non-existent and hence His running away from non-existent elephant is also non-existent, which means that the world exists for the soul, which is a part of the world. Shankara never told that this creation is non-existent (Asat). He told that it is both existent (sat) and simultaneously non-existent (Asat). The contradiction between these two can be removed since both are simultaneously possible from the angle of soul and God, which can be neither told as mere existent nor mere non-existent and this is indicated by the word Mithya (sadasat vilakshanaa).
The perfect monism of Shankara can be fully understood in the case of human incarnation existing with reference to exceptional devotees liking the unimaginable God to appear totally before their eyes. This is possible in view of absolute reality in which unimaginable God alone exists while the creation (human being-component) is non-existent. Based on this, the human being component becomes non-existent and the unimaginable God alone exists. The non-existent human being appears as if existent by the omnipotence of God since the soul (devotee) can see only the rest part of the creation (human being component). The extension of this perfect monism to every human being shall be understood based on the then existing atmosphere of atheists, which will never believe in the existence of God unless atheist himself is declared as God. But, later on, devotees tried to exploit this concept without doing any spiritual effort and also sins were done based on the non-existence of creation. Ramanuja understands the background atmosphere of Shankara very well and condemned only His followers for their exploitation. He always told that whatever told by the followers of Shankara is not correct (Yaduchyate Shaankaraih...). He never told that whatever Shankara told is wrong. All the philosophy of Ramanuja stands perfectly true in the relative reality of Shankara, which alone is meant for the souls to be preached. When Shankara told that His running is non-existent with reference to the non-existent elephant, it explains both the planes of reality. In the plane of absolute reality the non-existent elephant indicates the non-existence of the entire creation in which the soul and its running also become non-existent. In the plane of relative reality, the elephant, the soul and its running exist since entire creation exists in which unimaginable God can never be referred except the first mediated energetic incarnation of unimaginable God called as Narayana. Ramanuja advises us to forget the absolute reality in which we become non-existent. The unimaginable God reduced His importance to be presented as the property (unimaginable power) of mediated God for the sake of convenience of souls for understanding. The mediated God becomes the base of this unimaginable property (Brahmanopi Pratisthaaham— Gita). There is no difference between unimaginable God and unimaginable power since more than one unimaginable item can’t exist and thus nothing is lost by presenting unimaginable God as the unimaginable power.
More than one correct concept can be interpreted as the alternate meanings of the same statement in scripture and in doing so the logic and grammar naturally permit such correct interpretations. This can be illustrated in several scriptural statements in the following way.
The basic concept is that only two items exist, which are unimaginable creator and imaginable creation. The word Maaya can represent the creator based on its sense of wonder as unimaginable since the root word (Maya) has this sense. The same word can be used to mean the creation also in the sense that it is non-existent (Yaa Maa) in absolute reality. Similarly, the word Prakruti can be used in the sense of creator since this word has the meaning that it is the root cause (Prakrushtam kriyate anayaa, Prakrutirmulakaarane). The same word can be the creation also, which means the best effect evolved from the cause (Prakrustaa Krutih). Let us see the interpretations in the Gita: Maaya is said to be prakruti (Maayamtu prakrutim). Maaya is said to be the power of God along which God enters prakruti (medium) to preside it (Prakrutim svaam…). The word Maaya in this verse is used as the unimaginable power of unimaginable God (ittham bhutalakshana trutiyaa). Even though the unimaginable God is not different from unimaginable power (due to impossibility of two separate unimaginable items), this way is used to explain to the souls based on worldly logic in which we say that the Sun rises along with his shinning denoting the different existence of possessor and its power. Here, Prakruti means the creation (part) acting as His medium called as human being component. In the verse “Maayaamtu prakrutim” the word prakruti means the root cause and the word Maaya means the unimaginable God and resulting meaning is that the unimaginable God is the root cause of creation.
If the concept is established true by sharp logical analysis, in order to support such concept the grammar co-operates to the evolution of such true concept from the words of scriptural statements. Perfect monism of God and soul in incarnation spoken by Shankara is correct based on the plane of absolute reality. In the same incarnation, the concept of monism between God and soul (actually dualism) due to impossible isolation (Apurthak siddha) is also simultaneously correct based on the plane of relative reality established by Ramanuja. The perfect dualism without any impossibility of separation exists between the God and an ordinary soul (as outside the context of incarnation) can be extended to the incarnation also based on the same plane of relative reality is also simultaneously true as established by Madhva. The simultaneous truth of all these three concepts is based on i) the omnipotence of unimaginable God, which can avoid the contradiction between these three concepts and ii) the difference between the angles of devoted receivers varying in their different levels of spiritual progress. If you understand Datta as Hiranyagarbha (Brahma or Madhva), Narayana (Vishnu or Ramanuja) and Sadashiva (Shiva or Shankara) being one and the same due to the common unimaginable God, you can’t find even an iota of difference between these three preachers. The difference in these three philosophies is only due to different exploitations of the original philosophies by the followers and in condemning such exploitations these three philosophies appear as if contradicting with each other. The Veda says that Narayana is Brahma and Shiva (Brahmaacha..., Shivascha...). But, the followers, who are black charcoals unable to understand these three preachers, who are original diamonds (the preachers and followers are human beings only just like diamond and charcoal are made of the same carbon atoms!) become so much ignorant that they create insertions in Puranaas to condemn the other two preachers in praise of their own preacher. In the Padma Puranam there is a fantastic insertion, which says that Lord Vishnu asked Lord Shiva to mislead the people against Himself (Janaan mat vimukhan kuru)! Fantastic! In such case, how Shankara propagated the devotion towards God Vishnu through His famous song “Bhaja Govindam...”? These ignorant followers may give another wonderful explanation for this that Lord Shiva did opposite to the word of Lord Vishnu since both are bitter enemies to each other! The scripture says that let the longevity of any devotee be safe as long as the devotee doesn’t differentiate Vishnu and Shiva (Yathaantaram Na pashyaami tathaa me svastiraayushi). This means that once you find any difference between Ramanuja and Shankara, you are equal to a dead person! Since Shankara told that unimaginable God can be expressed by silence only (Mouna Vyaakhyaa…) and also since Buddha kept silent about God, it is justified if Shankara is called as Buddha in disguise (Prachchanna Buddha). But, Shankara was called as the follower of Buddha in disguise (Prachchanna Bauddha), which is not justified at all since Shankara condemned the non-existence of God (atheism) of the followers of Buddha, who misinterpreted the silence of Buddha as non-existence. The followers against Shankara say that since God is the soul, it means that God does not exist beyond this world (soul), which is attributed as the atheism of Shankara. Shankara has to tell so in order to convert atheists in to theists. This possibility of soul being God can’t be totally condemned since God becomes the soul in incarnation. This basic true concept is simply extended to every soul by Shankara in special circumstances of the then existing atheistic atmosphere.
2) What is the meaning of Paraavara in the verse “Tasmin druste Paraavare”?
Swami Replied: The verse (Bhidyate hrudaya...) says that the knot of ignorance is broken, all doubts are clarified and all sins are destroyed when the devotee catches and recognizes God in human form called as ‘Paraavara’. Paraavara means the Satguru, who is God appeared in human form for the uplift of His devotees. The word Paraavara has two words in different senses: i) Para and Avara, ii) Paraa and Vara, iii) Paraa and Avara, iv) Paraa and Aavara and v) Para and Aavara.
Let us take the first way (i) in which para means greatest God and Avara means the inferior creation or Prakruti, which is acting as the medium of God. God is beyond both Paraa and Aparaa parts of Prakruti. The word para here means God, who is different (para) from both the parts of Prakruti. Since the medium (both parts of Prakruti) stands as inferior (Avara) to God, the words Paraa and Avara mean the greatest unimaginable God mediated by the human being or both parts of Prakruti. When Paraavara is seen (drushte), all the benefits happen and God in human form alone can be seen by your naked eyes. All the doubts are cleared only when such human form preaches knowledge by which all doubts are cleared and the root knot of ignorance is broken (parasya prakruteratitasya avara prakrutih upaadhih).
In the second way (ii) the word Paraa stands for the non-inert part (awareness) of Prakruti. The word Vara stands for the husband or bridegroom since paraa stands for the wife or bride. In this way, the second part (inert Aparaa) of Prakruti has no place and the second part is also required in the medium of God as the inert human body (Paraayaah prakrutibhaagasya varah bhartaa).
In the third way (iii) Paraa and Avara stand for the first (non- inert awareness) part and the second inert (matter and energy) part of Prakruti respectively, which mean just a human being, who can’t give all these benefits (Paraayaah prakrutibhaagasya Aashrayah aparaa prakruti bhaagah Avarah).
In the fourth way (iv) the words Paraa and Aavara mean the awareness acting as cover of God (paraa eva avaaranam) in one mode (prathamaa tatpurusha), which is not possible since awareness itself requires inert container and can’t act as independent container of God. In this same (iv) way itself, taking another mode (shashthi tatpurusha) we can say that Paraa means awareness and Aavara means its inert container (paraayaah aavaranam), which again results as the human being only, which can’t give the above benefits.
In the fifth way (v) para means God and Aavara means container. In the sense that God is the container (of this world) in first mode, the result is the unimaginable God, who can’t be seen (drushte) and hence becomes inapplicable (para eva aavaranam). In the other mode, the result is container of God, which is the medium of God and this is the same as the first (i) way (parasya aavaranam). In this second mode, you should take the container of God as the medium used for the facility of seeing by devotees and you should not take that the container means the base (Aadhara) of God.
The final conclusion is that Paraavara means the human incarnation of God seen by eyes clearing all the doubts by which the original knot of ignorance is broken.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★