home
Shri Datta Swami

Posted on: 09 Oct 2006

               

DUAL NATURE OF THE SOUL

[Message on Dasara, Day-8 Mr. Surya asked a question “You have said that the Lord told that awareness is born daily and perishes daily in the Gita. But, how come some people point out that in the same Gita, it is told that the soul is eternal?”]

Swami replied: There are two theories about the soul. In one theory, the soul is eternal. This is correct because if you take the soul (awareness) as inert energy in its basic form, energy is eternal. The eternality of the soul is proved in deep sleep since life continues due to the existence of inert energy as the heat in the human body. Due to this inert energy alone, all the systems in the human body function and the life is maintained in the body. Deep sleep indicates the co-functioning of two systems, which are food (Annamaya Kosha) as body and respiration (Pranamaya Kosha) to produce inert energy by the oxidation of food. In the same deep sleep, the awareness has perished. Even the last trace of awareness, which is self-awareness (awareness of awareness itself) as seen in meditation, disappears in deep sleep. Therefore, you have to agree that the awareness is transformed into its basic content, which is inert energy. In other words, you can say that the awareness has disappeared or is destroyed. When the golden ornament is converted into a lump of gold, you can say that the ornament is destroyed. When you awaken, the awareness is reborn. This is our experience and cannot be disputed. If you view the soul as inert energy, it is eternal as evident from deep sleep.

If you view the soul as awareness [second theory], it is born daily and dies daily. Both these are two angles of view about the soul. It is like the dualistic nature of an electron, which is a particle as well as a wave. The electron exhibits the properties of both in different contexts but not in the same context. Similarly, the soul exhibits both the properties in different contexts. Both cannot co-exist in the same context because both contradict each other. The Lord mentioned both the theories of the soul in the Gita and it is very important to note that the Lord did not condemn any theory. The two words used in this context which are ‘Atha’ and ‘Cha’ mean that both are equally valid theories in their own contexts (Athachainam… Gita).

The soul is a bundle of qualities or feelings. Awareness of awareness is also a quality. Therefore, you can never filter the qualities from the awareness (soul) because the awareness itself is a quality of the inert energy produced by the oxidation (Prana) of food (Anna). Awareness is a special type of work done by the inert energy flowing in a specific system (machine) called as the nervous system. Inert energy does several types of work when it flows in different systems. If inert energy enters the lightbulb, a special type of work called as light is produced. The same inert energy enters a radio and the special type of work called as sound is produced. The work has beginning and end. Therefore, awareness being a specific type of work has birth and death. In deep sleep, the nervous system does not function since the inert energy does not flow in it. Therefore, according to the Gita, both the concepts are correct in their contexts.

The awareness or soul is again sub-divided into various feelings. The awareness of awareness is also a feeling. Therefore, the soul is not different from feeling. Feeling, thought or quality is work. The Gita says that the soul is not different from the bundle of qualities (Nanyam Gunebhyah). At the same time, the soul as the essential inert energy is different from all the feelings because the works (feelings) are done by the inert energy. This aspect of inert energy different from qualities (feelings) is also mentioned in the verse of the Gita (Gunebhyashcha Param… Gita). In this verse, the above two theories are clearly explained. The work always begins and ends, but the working source (energy) remains always. The light may be put on or off. But, the electricity remains stored in the battery.

Shankara spoke everything from the view of God since He was an incarnation of God (Lord Shiva). For God, everything in the creation including the primary energy (Mula Maya) is a relative truth with respect to Himself. Therefore, God is the absolute truth (Brahma Satyam) and the world is a relative truth with respect to Him (Jagat Mithya). When God comes in human form, you misunderstand that an individual ordinary soul (Jiva) is in the gross human body. Such a Jiva, who is a Jiva in your angle, is not really a Jiva but is God (Jivo Brahmaiva Naparah). Therefore, whatever Shankara said is absolutely true from the point of God.

Why did He say so from the view of God and not from the view of the soul? The reason is that Shankara was God and not the soul. Shankara explained the complicated subject assuming that the ordinary subject is well known to everybody. You are the soul and this point is very clear and needs no explanation. But, Krishna is a subject of dispute. You say that He is an ordinary human being. But, sages like Vyasa say that He is God. Shankara only clarified this complicated subject of Krishna. But clever human beings have misinterpreted the total theory to satisfy their egoism, jealousy and ambition without any effort. The ordinary subject that every human being is a soul and not God and that the world is real has to be explained again because it is made complicated. To explain this manmade complicated subject, Ramanuja (Adisesha) and Madhva (son of Vayu) came down and explained the whole concept from the view of the soul. Since they are souls, they could explain the view of the soul very clearly. Similarly, Shankara was incarnation of God (Shiva) and hence, could explain the view of God very well.

Avyaktam and Shunyam

The word Avyaktam generally means an item, which may be invisible or unimaginable or both. Avyaktam cannot mean vacuum, which is perceivable and imaginable. If you think that vacuum is imaginable but not perceivable, you can use the word Avyaktam to space also, which is vacuum or the primary energy. Since vacuum is energy, it means that it is something. Therefore, vacuum cannot be the meaning of shunyam [nothingness]. The word shunyam means ‘absence of everything’ or ‘unreal’. You may restrict the word Avyaktam to an item, which is both unimaginable and invisible. Even then the word shunyam cannot be an alternative for the word Avyaktam. Both God and the relationship between God and world are unimaginable and invisible and can be the meanings of Avyaktam in the strict sense. Both God and the relationship between God and world are real and cannot be the meanings of shunyam. Thus, the word shunyam is unreal by itself. However, if Buddhists take the original sense of Buddha for this word, shunyam can indicate the existing real item which is unimaginable and invisible. When the understanding capacity of an item is absent with us, the word shunyam means the absence of the understanding capacity and not the absence of that item. Buddha meant the absence of the grasping power of the intelligence when He used the word shunyam in the case of God. Buddha meant that the grasping power is shunyam and He does not mean that God is shunyam.

Difference Between Human Being and Incarnation

The three qualities are common to the human incarnation and human being. In the human being, the three qualities are already set-up in certain fixed proportions, called as samskaras. In the human incarnation (in the case of God creating a fresh human body for His incarnation), the three qualities are available in equal proportions and can be spontaneously mixed in any ratio that is required for the divine play. The gross body and the three qualities are common in both the human being and the human incarnation. The human being has no other extra item and thus, can be defined as the composite of the three qualities (Jivatman) and the gross body. The human incarnation has an extra item, which is God.

The special divine knowledge of the human incarnation is not the inherent characteristic of the awareness or Chit (Atman) because of its specialty indicated by the prefix ‘Pra’ in the word Prajnanam. The knowledge of the ordinary level is also not the inherent characteristic of awareness. Awareness is only the medium of expression of knowledge. The knowledge present in a scholar is from the teachers, who taught him and their source was books. The chief source of all the books is the Veda. The source of the Veda is God. If this knowledge is the inherent sign of awareness (Chit), all the living beings having common chit must have knowledge to the same extent. Thus, God is the source of knowledge of all levels including the Chit. But, God has not granted the same level of knowledge to all living beings. If God had granted equal knowledge to all living beings, you could have said that knowledge is the characteristic of Chit.

The different levels of knowledge differentiate the various categories of living beings. Human beings have the highest level of knowledge with respect to other living beings. But, within the category of human beings, different human beings again have different levels of knowledge as sub-divisions. Such sub-divisions differentiate ignorant people from scholars. Such sub-divisions are again due to the wish of God alone. In this setup when God comes in human form, He exhibits a special divine knowledge, which is not seen in any human being and this is also according to the wish of God. The source of such knowledge is also God present in the human form and not the Chit. Such special knowledge differentiates the superman from all the other human beings. In any case, chit is only a medium of expression of the design and not the real designer. If chit were the designer, every living being having the same chit would have the same level of knowledge. This concept separates God as the Designer, who is different from the Chit, which is the material of the design.

 
 whatsnewContactSearch