06 Nov 2016
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Objections raised by a forum user to Swami’s teachings (as propagated by a devotee)
1) Quote: The Higher Self to you is God to me; we just use different terms. We can use any number of words to point out the ultimate reality. However, the ultimate reality is beyond the most subtle of thoughts or imagination. It is completely unimaginable.
Objection - Based on that, the remainder of your comments would then seem to demonstrate a considerable imagination. In any case, all well and good. But even if not imaginable by the mind, it is experienceable as Self-awareness. This is what realization is.
2) Quote: I agree when you use the word 'descent'. True, the Higher Self or God descends to merge with an extremely rare soul. In the Gita, only Krishna is seen as God while Arjuna is seen as the soul. The ultimate reality or the unimaginable God merged only with Krishna and therefore He is considered as God incarnate. Arjuna, at that time, was only a soul. By implementing practically what Krishna had preached to him, yes, Arjuna could have probably become God in the future. But for that time, Arjuna was only a part of creation.
Objection - The Highest Self ‘descends’ into creation to become Nature/the Cosmos, only by an exclusive concentration of consciousness, unaware and ignorant of True Self, which is really what 'descent' in that case means. When this same Highest Self ‘descends’ fully conscious of God status, into the field of ignorant reality, this is the Divine Incarnation, as with Krishna.
There really is no ‘merging’, since Consciousness is inseparable from Existence. It's a question of concentration of conscious awareness within that existence.
Krishna is actually and symbolically man - as fully realized Being - Narayana.
Arjuna is actually and symbolically God - as the realizing disciple becoming God - Nara.
They are as we are: God, in some form or status, as everything is always and ultimately God, but what quality, status, aspects or range of consciousness represented within that differentiation is the significant value.
There is a reason and it is not arbitrary as to why the symbols of Nara and Narayana are often depicted as identical.
3) Quote: What I mean to say is this; although the unimaginable God created this universe, He can still remain separate from it. For Him, this universe is like a daydream, whereas for the soul, it is a materialized reality.
Objection - ‘Created but separate’ is usually a quality ascribed to dualism or qualified non-dualism. In a true Monism, there is naught but God - material, dream, will, created, uncreated, ignorant, illumined - all God in some quality, status, exclusive concentration of consciousness, form of Being (or becoming). This is the very basis of realization, since if God was truly separate from creation, how would the instructions of the Gita, the entire purpose for which Krishna came to reveal, be at all relevant as a possibility for human beings? That possibility - demonstrated by the Avatar as example - is available and enabled by a realization of the true nature of Creation; that it is not ‘separate’, but it is simply a conditional status of Consciousness; that Consciousness is embodied within it, IS IT, and is becoming (self) aware of it. The instruction of the Gita (Yoga) allows for the acceleration of this possibility. But significantly, it cannot be realized if God is separate from Creation, vs. integral to and inseparable from it as the ‘operative principle’, or Essence/Essential Reality of Existence.
4) Quote: The soul is part of the totality we call creation; in other words, it's a drop in an ocean of cosmic energy. Being qualitatively similar to the ocean, it can be considered to be one with the ocean. However, it is not one with God.
Objection - Usually God is the Ocean in the preferred direction of that metaphor. The drop is an individual human being. It describes two statuses:
i) In IGNORANCE: the individual is (appears) separate from God as ego (drop), etc. However, God is also the individual unaware/ignorant of its own innate status as ‘the Ocean’;
ii) As ILLUMINED: Preferred: God is the unitary totality, no division, fully conscious of Self, but that also includes conscious of SELF (God) even as differentiated (drop(s)), e.g., the individual has become aware of being God (ocean).
The soul is one with God because, since everything is God, there is nothing that isn’t one with God. But as a qualification, the soul is that portion of individuated being (jivatman) which is fully and always conscious of its God-oneness status.
Therefore, One with God is One whether in the appearance of drop or ocean. That is a monist conception in which all is God/ God is all, regardless of relative status, but importantly, realizable in and through human life because of that very same differentiated ignorant relative status.
5) Quote: The Higher Self you mention descends only into a certain part of creation while still remaining separate from the rest of it.
Objection - Highest Self IS the creation but at the same time is fully aware of this, having created Creation by its ‘descent’ into it - AS IT. (“I pervade the entire Universe as a fragment of Myself, yet I remain”). There is no separation - it’s still all God. What we call ‘descent’ is really a God-created sacrifice of conditional oblivion (ignorance) of true God-Identity. iow God created and is matter, e.g., Spirit in a conditionally unaware status of ITSELF.
In normal ignorant human life, there is the illusion of separation in and through that conditional ignorance of it, but this condition may be removed by Yoga - the purpose of the Gita’s (Krishna’s (God’s) ) Instruction to humanity (disciple (Arjuna) ).
6) Quote: The thing is it's tempting to apply worldly logic (based on perception) to God. We tend to assume that if something created us, then that something must also be a part of us. However, the Creator is above all analysis (although His creation can be understood using only logic). God supports the entire world and still remains separate from it.
Objection - That is a description of dualism, which if anything is generative of it, it would be a dualistic logic which assumes as a premise of separative surface appearance, that if anything created us - it must be separate. Fine if that is your belief. But dualism necessarily has certain limitations, chief among them, that it cannot account for the possibility of God-realization (which is in direct conflict with the Teachings of the Gita), and importantly, disqualifies dualism from a viable spirituality, save and except the possibility of escape from an ignorant physical reality post-mortem by (somehow, mysteriously) ‘returning’ to Source from which it is intrinsically disconnected by that very dualistic scenario in the first place.
7) Quote: At the same time, He can identify Himself with only a part of creation. I use the term 'Him/He' only for the sake of convenience. Such a possibility is beyond our scope of rationalization, which is confined purely to spatial dimensions.
Objection - By the first sentence, if you mean by, “identify Himself with”, you mean, concentrate a full awareness into an individual being (such as Krishna), then yes. That would be the principle of a Divine Incarnation. But that same Highest Self is also the essence of all ignorant aspects of Creation as well, only through an omnipotent Will (All-consciousness = All-power), which exclusively concentrates Self into various aspects and statuses of consciousness in ranges we see in the progressively conscious multiplicity of Nature, such as matter, plant, animal, human as well as ‘divine’. The ranges/qualities are simply limited according to those exclusive concentrations of consciousness - such as with those of human life with its commensurate qualities, restrictions and possibilities.
8) Quote: Even when God merges with a human being, that person becomes God only for onlookers. For example, Krishna was God incarnate only for others around Him (and very few at that), but the soul-component in Krishna always considered itself to be different from God.
Objection - With all due respect, that isn’t correct. Since everything is God, and God is both the essence and substance of all Reality, technically God doesn’t ‘merge’ with anything. Everything is already God. It’s just a question of the instrumental consciousness (why nobody recognized Krishna's true identity) and whether and how much that consciousness is aware of that Identity - in any form or appearance.
Significantly, Krishna spoke as God - directly - as that Identity, fully aware of GOD-SELF. Whether that is true as a matter of accepted belief is another matter. But in that case, there was no ‘merging’ per se, but a direct descent (into ignorant reality) of a fully God-Self-aware God-Consciousness in the form of ‘Krishna’ e.g. God in human form within the field of experience which is normally conditionally UNaware of God as intrinsic Identity.
9) Quote: The human incarnation is a very complex concept.
Objection - Ha! - evidently, so is the Divine Incarnation!
10) Quote: At the same time, it's the only way for one to fully experience God.
Objection - Likewise, it is the way God may fully experience being Man.
11) Quote: When Jesus said 'I am the truth, the way and the life', it was the God-component expressing Himself. On the other hand, when He said "Oh God! Why have you forsaken me?", it was the soul-component expressing itself.
Objection - With all due respect, the latter was Christ’s identification with the separative ego of mankind as the ignorant individuated being. The soul component by definition is fully aware of its Divinity, and in that case was compassionately acknowledging the ignorant suffering of mankind.
12) Quote: The human incarnation is a homogeneous mix of God and soul, where God and the soul retain their own identities while still remaining closely associated with each other. A human incarnation is always a realized soul, but a realized soul needn't necessarily be a human incarnation.
Objection - I think for purposes of any possible further discussion, an agreement of terms and their basic meaning would be helpful. For instance, what you mean by ‘human incarnation’ , as distinct from ‘Divine Incarnation‘. Otherwise there appears to be some confusion in the quoted passage immediately preceding this comment. For instance the soul by definition doesn't realize anything - it already knows it is one with God. It is the 'lower' instrumental (ignorant) being that realizes God.
13) Quote: Self-realization is only to do with understanding the oneness with all of creation.
Objection - ‘Cosmic’ is conventionally seen as the equivalent of Universal, which is the conventional equivalent to physical Creation. God is the universe but also transcendent of it. Traditionally, Oneness with Creation signifies Cosmic Consciousness, perhaps a requisite to God Realization, since the Cosmic is symbolic of the transcendental, but not its actual equivalent. Realization would require the being to become, in actuality - fully and permanently aware of the transcendental aspect as well as the Cosmic. Indeed, great sages have reported that in deepest meditation they experience the entire Universe as a tiny dot within their heart.
14) Quote: This creation changes endlessly, but God is permanent and without change.
Objection -Again, with all due respect, how can the Infinite not be available to transcend Itself? By definition it is limitless. Note that ‘permanent’ could be a quality ascribed to physicality, but Eternal does not necessarily negate or invalidate the capacity to change, nor imply the inability to change even if eternal. iow… How can any limitation be a property of omnipotence??
A true Oneness in the monist conception implies that God is the Creation itself, in all its incessant becoming, and as such, is not exclusive from it, as that very process of becoming of and within an evolution of consciousness that is Nature - is simply another aspect (conditional status) of God.
15) Quote: This is possible only if creation is relative to the absolute reality, which is God. The soul is a part of the relative reality. Absolute reality remains only when the relative reality disappears. And when this happens, even the soul or the ocean of cosmic energy disappears, because it is a part of it.
Objection -If creation is relative to the absolute reality, that means by your (in my opinion, questionable) reasoning, that the absolute is relative. (?) Meanwhile, the Absolute exists in appearance or disappearance, and is not dependent on either, precisely why it is not relative. That is what it means by ‘absolute’: it is not defined by any attribute which is derivative, exclusive, relative or dependent.
Swami’s replies to objections listed above are as follows.
1) Swami replied: Self means awareness. Self-awareness means awareness of thoughtless awareness, which is experienced in meditation where you dissolve all thoughts and be aware of your pure awareness. Awareness is specific work form of inert energy (that is generated by digestion of food) in a specific functioning nervous system. It is generated when you awake from deep sleep. It disappears when you enter deep sleep. Hence, in deep sleep, you do not have self-awareness. A thought is made of awareness like a jewel is made of gold. A bundle of thoughts can be also called as awareness as we call a lump of jewels as gold. Hence, there is no difference between pure awareness in meditation and bundle of thoughts in the awaken state. This pure awareness in its essential causal material called as inert energy, is called as soul (atman) and the bundle of thoughts is called as individual soul (jiva). The soul is said to be all-pervading and eternal. If you take pure awareness in the sense of bundle of thoughts (individual soul) as soul, this statement is not possible. Such pure awareness is limited to the body and is also not all-pervading. It is also born and disappears every day. Hence, you must treat pure awareness (gold) as bundle of thoughts (lump of gold jewels) and use the word jiva for both. The word ‘soul’ should be used for the basic inert energy that is transformed into awareness and also entered the awareness as basis. This basic inert energy is all pervading as cosmic energy. It cannot be limited by body since body (matter) is also a form of inert energy. Hence, the all-pervading nature, eternality, etc., are suitable to inert energy or soul. Both soul and individual soul (pure awareness or bundle of thoughts) are imaginable items of the imaginable creation. Hence, a soul or individual soul is not the unimaginable God, who is beyond even imagination, not to speak of experience. Whether you link the ‘I’ (yourself) to the soul or individual soul or body, all these three items are parts of creation only and not the Creator, who is beyond creation and even your imagination. Of course, such unimaginable God is mediated by a human form like Rama, Krishna, etc., and comes down to the Earth. The external medium of the unimaginable God, which is body, soul and individual soul together, is experienced and even seen with your eyes. There is no other way than this to experience the unimaginable God indirectly through the medium. This unimaginable God exhibits unimaginable events called as miracles through human incarnations and by these miracles, you can experience the existence of unimaginable God. Except existence, nothing else of the unimaginable God can be experienced or even imagined. The experience of the absolute God (unimaginable) is only the experience of existence of unimaginable God through inference with the help of the unimaginable miracles (asteetyeva… Veda).
Practical Proof Experience Contradict False Monism
2) Swami replied: Self means awareness, which is generated and dissolves every day and this is proved by science very effectively. Science is authority in the analysis of creation, though it cannot touch the unimaginable Creator. Self or awareness is awareness only and if you go deeper into the self to find out its background, the inert energy only appears, which alone is transformed into awareness in nervous system. It is just work-form, which is transport of information to brain by neurons. Hence, by digging self, you cannot touch the unimaginable God. If you go deeper and deeper depths of imaginable items of creation, you will get only imaginable items of creation, which are more and more subtle. A subtle item is invisible but imaginable. Unimaginable God is beyond subtle items, being not only invisible but also unimaginable. Hence, even if you concentrate for thousand years on yourself, you will end only in the imaginable domain (creation) and never can touch the unimaginable domain even by imagination! You can perceive and receive the unimaginable God only when He is mediated by the imaginable part of the creation. Arjuna is a bundle of soul, individual soul and body along with inert energy and belongs totally to the imaginable domain. Krishna is also imaginable domain just like Arjuna, but, Krishna is charged by the unimaginable God to become human incarnation. The difference between Arjuna and Krishna is only the unimaginable God.
What is the difference between consciousness and awareness? You are aware of your duty. You are conscious of your duty. Both mean the same. The consciousness or the awareness is bound by the law of nature. If food is not taken by somebody for a long time, there is no generation of inert energy, which alone transforms into awareness or consciousness and the person dies without the re-appearance of awareness or consciousness. Such consciousness is in every human being. Even if you concentrate on consciousness for thousand years, what can you attain? What you attained already before thousand years is attained after thousand years! You have the same awareness after thousand years. Even if you concentrate for thousand years on consciousness, you cannot lift even a big stone, not to speak of a big hill as lifted by Krishna. All this is against experience and logic, which cannot be accepted since experience is the final authority.
Awareness exists. A non-aware (inert) stone also exists. If awareness can’t be separated from existence, every item of this creation must have awareness. A stone is not having awareness. Does it mean that the stone is non-existent since awareness alone is existence?
Narayana (Vishnu) is the energetic form in which unimaginable God exists. Krishna is the human form in which Narayana (along with unimaginable God) exists. Nara is the human form, which is without Narayana (unimaginable God with energetic form). Narayana is the gold wire (energetic form) in which the electricity (unimaginable God) exists. Krishna is the copper wire (human form) in which the electrified gold wire (Narayana) exists. This means that both Narayana and Krishna are electrified. ‘Nara’ or Arjuna is the copper wire (human form) without electrified gold wire (Narayana) or without electricity directly (unimaginable God). The practical proof for a layman is that Narayana lifted Mandara hill (during churning of sea) and Krishna lifted Govardhana hill. Arjuna or yourself or Myself (with reference to human being component since My devotees feel that I am the human incarnation of Lord Datta. For others, who don’t believe this, I am just human being only.) cannot lift even a big stone even after concentrating on consciousness throughout our life period! Practical proof and experience contradict this false monism (misinterpreted Advaita of Shankara). When Shankara told that He is God, disciples also told the same. Shankara swallowed molten lead and disciples unable to do it, fell on the feet of Shankara. Then Shankara told that He alone is God (Shivah kevaloham).
3) Swami replied: If you say that realization of self makes one to become God, I have not become God even though I realized that I am the consciousness. Concentration of consciousness for thousand years reveals that it is just consciousness. If the consciousness is something other than consciousness, I may realize that consciousness is something else after concentration for thousand years. I am seeing a stone. After concentrating on the stone for thousand years, I realize only that the stone is a stone! All this is psychic illness or mental disorder, which is against the logic and experience. Shankara told that He is God because God is in Him. Realizing the original and inner nature of the self as the unimaginable God is possible only in the case of human incarnation like Krishna, Shankara, etc. The electric wire realizes that it is electricity, which is existing in it as experienced from the electric shocks given by the electric wire. A non-electrified wire doing penance even for million years cannot be the electrified wire since electricity did not enter it and such wire gives no shock even after million years, even if the wire concentrates on itself. After million years of concentration also, a non-electrified wire can only realize that it is mere wire without giving any shock!
Self is God provided that self is Krishna. This means only that the unimaginable God appears as a specific self (self means soul along with body since atman has both meanings in Sanskrit). This does not mean that every self is God. If you say that this wire is electrified, it does not mean that every wire is electrified. Self means a specific soul or human being. Please go through our website on this topic for further details in depth (www.universal-spirituality.org).
4) Swami replied: The Veda says that God is unimaginable in several statements like Yasyaamatam..., etc. The Gita also says that nobody knows God (Mamtu veda na…). The Brahma Sutras also say that God is the Creator of this universe (Janmaadyasya…), which means that no inherent characteristic (Swarupa lakshanam) of God is known. All these prove that God is beyond imagination since God, the generator of space, should not contain space in Him and hence, becomes beyond dimensions resulting as unimaginable entity. When it is said that this entire world is God (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma – Veda), then, God becomes perfectly imaginable and visible since world is imaginable and visible. This contradiction is solved by Shri Ramanuja through the Sanskrit grammar, which says that the first mode of proposition can be used when some property is controlled by somebody (Tadadhina prathama). Ex: All this area is Kalinga. This does not mean that all that area is King Kalinga. It only means that all that area is under the control of King Kalinga. As per Shankara also, this interpretation can be achieved. A rope is mistaken as a serpent. We say that the entire serpent is only a rope. It means that the snake is totally false and the absolute truth is the rope. If you say false as truth, it only means that truth only exists and false does not exist. The unimaginable God is absolute reality and this world is relative reality. With reference to God, world is unreal. But, soul is also a part of the relative reality only since soul or energy or awareness, etc., is also a part of the creation only. Hence, world can’t be unreal for the soul. It is only unreal for the unimaginable God or for the human incarnation possessed by the unimaginable God. Shankara could pass through the bolted door because He is possessed by the unimaginable God. You and I can’t pass through the bolted door even if we concentrate on our consciousness for millions and millions of years. Shankara agreed that the soul is God in the case of human incarnation only and declared that He alone is God (Shivah kevaloham). The word ‘kevala’ here means that ‘He only’. Of course, in the case of atheists, He played a trick to make them theists. He agreed that soul is God and asked atheists that they should accept the existence of God because they (souls) are God. This chocolate given to LKG kids can’t be extended to college students! He clearly told that wave belongs to mighty ocean and mighty ocean is not a wave (Saamudrohi tarangah).
5) Swami replied: The trick used in the case of atheists is extended to themselves and to several other human beings also due to the ambition for getting a lottery (becoming God without any effort) even without purchasing a ticket! “You are already God. You have to realize that you are God!” – How sweet is this offer! “You have got lottery of rupees one crore already deposited in your bank account! Realize this and withdraw required amounts from the bank.” This is the false monism misinterpreted by ambitious human beings. The perfect monism of God and soul is true only in a specific human incarnation like Krishna and not true in the case of any ordinary human being. Mere realization does not require any effort. I have to just know that one crore is already deposited in My account and have to simply withdraw and enjoy it. Can you bring any more sense than this to the word ‘realization’? As soon as you say the news of lottery, I can realize it at once and I should be able to withdraw the amount at once! I am unable to withdraw the amount practically because the amount is not in My account! The amount present in the account of Krishna can’t be withdrawn by Arjuna without the signature of Krishna on the cheque! Krishna alone could withdraw that amount by lifting the hill on His finger! All this is madness developed by theoretical feats of dry logic. Krishna is a human being (soul or atman). I am also a human being. Hence, I am Krishna. Narendra Modi is Prime Minister, who is a human being. I am also a human being, therefore, I am the Prime Minister! This is perverted logic of psychological disorder provoked by free lottery and nothing else!
6) Swami replied: Suppose one belongs to Congress party and condemns BJP party. If anything wrong happens, that is BJP and if any good happens, it is Congress! He has already a fixed notion about the two parties. If anything unconstitutional happens, it is BJP. Similar is your case. Your fixed view is “Monism is truth, dualism is wrong and is condemned by Gita”! You must come to monism or dualism as the end result of a long discussion involving logic and scripture. Without this, you are projecting the prefixed notions. Ramanuja is not My uncle and Shankara is not My enemy. Shankara is Shiva and Ramanuja is Vishnu. Both are one and the same. Monism is correct when you take the example of human incarnation (electrified wire). Dualism is correct if you take the example of non-electrified wire. Only in the case of human incarnation, the electrified wire can be treated as electricity. In the case of an ordinary human being, the non-electrified wire can’t be treated as electricity since there is no trace of current in it. Both are correct and one and the same since each is perfectly correct in its own context and own example.
7) Swami replied: If you say consciousness is all this creation made of various non-inert and inert items, it becomes absurd opposing experience. If all the creation is awareness only, how are we experiencing inert and non-inert items separately? Awareness is only a specific work form of inert energy. Hence, the basic material of this creation is inert energy, a form of which is awareness. In this way, you can admit inert basic material (inert energy) and its products as inert items and awareness separately. By this way, experience supports the existence of both inert and non-inert items. If you analyze the awareness, its essence is inert energy only. When the awareness is modified into dream consisting of both inert and non-inert items, the inert energy (cause) and non-inert awareness (effect) parts of the awareness modify into inert (causal) and non-inert items (effective) of the dream respectively. When the inert energy (cause) is modified into awareness (effect), the effect (pot) always contains the cause (mud). Hence, the inert energy (cause) generating awareness (effect) enters the effect like the mud entering the pot. Hence, even if you say that the creation is modification of awareness (mud pot), the creation consists of both inert (mud) and non-inert (shape of the pot) items. A mud pot (awareness) is broken into pieces. Each piece has both mud and a part of pot’s shape. A few pieces are powdered having no shape. Such shapeless powder can be the inert item and the broken pieces having both mud and shape can be the parts of awareness (awareness has causal inert energy everywhere). If you say that the dream is made of awareness, it means, in deeper sense, the dream is made of both effective awareness (pot shape) and causal inert energy (mud). Hence, awareness is made of two components: i) Casual inert energy (mud) and ii) Effective awareness (pot shape). Therefore, you can say that the dream is made of awareness (mud+pot shape), but, you should not say that the dream is made of only effective awareness without causal inert energy in it, which is impossible because awareness cannot exist without the basic inert energy. The effective awareness (pure awareness without inert energy) cannot be isolated from the causal inert energy like the pot shape that cannot be isolated from the causal mud. Very deep and sharp analysis alone done and understood with lot of patience can reveal the truth in systematic way. Otherwise, all your expressions are in confused state only due to lack of clarity of truth through elaboration.
8) Swami replied: The biggest foolishness is to say that everything and everybody is God. If it is so, where is the necessity of spiritual effort? Who should worship whom? All the spiritual efforts and scriptures instructing them are totally waste. Both Krishna and Arjuna are God. Does God preach God? Narasimha killed the demon. Does God kill God? God is beyond the creation. There are several Vedic statements like ‘Neti Neti’ and statements of the Gita like ‘Mamtu Veda na’, etc., to support this. The Veda says the merge (Tadevaanu praavishat) and the Gita also says the same (Manusheem tanumaashritam). I am very sorry to state that your statements lack clarity and logical ladder confusing not only the reader but also the speaker (yourself). You please elaborate all your statements step-by-step with full clarity so that I can also answer every point in detail. I am only answering whatever I have understood here and there, leaving the obscure and confusing mixed concepts contradicting each other!
9) Swami replied: You have not understood the meaning of the word ‘complex’. A ‘shop complex’ does not mean that the shops are not understood. Complex means a group in which many concepts are interlinked with each other in several ways. In the same human incarnation, you find i) Monism of Shankara (100% God and 0% human being) in which Krishna looks as God only for fully surrendered devotees like Gopikas, ii) Intermediate monism of Ramanuja in which God is the main component and human being is the minor component (60 and above God + 40 and below human being) looking as a divine human being for partial devotees like Pandavas and 3) Pure dualism of Madhva in which God exists separately from the human being and Krishna looks as pure human being (zero God and 100 human being) to egoistic atheists like Kauravas. The third option is the concept of God and every ordinary human being like us. All the three angles of the same human incarnation are simultaneously correct for different spectators. Hence, all the three philosophies are simultaneously true with reference to corresponding receiver. Hence, it is told as complex. Complex does not mean lack of clarity. It only means presence of several parameters simultaneously, which look contradicting each other in the absence of careful analysis. In fact, we have to say ‘Ha!’ for your bundle of confusions everywhere!
10) Swami replied: Ha! If God is man and every man is God, Gopikas, themselves are God. All their family members are God. Why should they run to a specific human form called as Krishna? If Arjuna is also God, ha!, why Arjuna should question Krishna for answers?
11) Swami replied: If you generalize these two concepts (soul and Divinity) with every human being, why every human being is unable to perform miracles like Jesus? Why Jesus alone preached the Bible or Krishna alone preached the Gita? If you say that Krishna identified His divinity, whereas Arjuna did not identify his hidden divinity, Arjuna performed penance for a long time and got the vision of God Shiva! Still, Arjuna was unable to find his hidden divinity! When the divinity does not enter the soul, the soul will find itself as soul only in spite of millions and millions years of concentration or penance. The Prime Minister visited your house and sat there for a few minutes. You are telling that the Prime Minister was always in your house since his birth hidden in a room!! This is the foolishness mixed with ego and jealousy (ego about yourself and jealousy about Krishna). The analysis of soul indicates that it is an item of creation (prakriti) called as the best part of the creation (para prakriti) and Creator is not hidden in it. Creator only enters a specific human being (Vaasudeva or Son of Vasudeva) to preach the spiritual knowledge to the world through the Gita. Saying that the divinity is hidden in you is like a defeated boxer fallen down keeping his hand on the back of the above winner saying that he has won!
12) Swami replied: You are totally confused and saying that a person with clarity is confused! For a mad person, another mad person is a normal human being! For a mad person, another normal human being is a mad person only! Realization means that you are the soul and not the body. Human incarnation means the realization of the soul that It is God because God mixed with It and this mixing is called as ‘Saayujya’. When the soul in human incarnation realizes that it is God, it is called as ‘Kaivalya’. If the soul realizes that still it is soul only different from God, it is called as ‘Saamipya’ (close but not one) and if the soul feels that it is like God, it is called Saarupya. All these Saayujya, Kaivalya, Saamipya and Saarupya are related to human incarnation only. All these three, which are monism, intermediate monism and dualism, are simultaneously true as per the view of the receiver. The human incarnation also has to proceed as per the level of the view of the receiver for some time till the receiver realizes the human incarnation completely. Hence, the points are:
13) Swami replied: Don’t you feel any sense of self-contradiction in your statements? He is cosmos as well as beyond cosmos! How this is possible? If He is both, there is no creation at all because the second item does not exist. That means the Veda, the Brahma Sutras and the Gita are saying lies while saying that God created this universe or cosmos (second item). Of course you can say from the angle of God that the created cosmos is relatively real and God is absolutely real as told by Shankara. Yes, it is perfectly correct that this world is unreal with reference to God. But, this soul is a part of creation and is neither God nor part of God. God is unimaginable and creation is imaginable. Soul is imaginable awareness and hence, soul is also relatively real in both senses (i) if you take the soul as causal inert energy, soul is relatively real because inert energy itself is relatively real. ii) If you take the soul as effective awareness, it itself is relatively real with respect to causal inert energy and hence, it is doubly relatively real with respect to God). Demons only say that they (souls) are God and that God beyond creation is unreal. Misunderstood monism is demonism. Demons at least felt that they are God after getting some miraculous powers from God. The human beings without a trace of miraculous power feeling that they are God are devils. Devilism is worse than demonism!
Add ‘The Ability to Do Proper Things Only’ to Omnipotence Side by Side
14) Swami replied: Again, sorry to say that I am not clear of what you want to say exactly. It is a mixture of clarity and confusion mixed here and there. There is no continuity of clarity. I cannot answer those confused parts. I can answer only the parts of clarity. You say that limitation is not a property of omnipotence. If God has no power to limit Himself, He is having 99 powers only except that one power. Then, how God is omnipotent? I am retorting your question to yourself like the reversed bullet hitting you! God can limit Himself as the human incarnation for the sake of the happiness of devotees. Omnipotence is always supported by the aspect of ‘proper’ (uchita). God is omnipotent and does everything that is proper. Hence, you cannot say that if God is omnipotent, can God make Himself non-existent? He will not do this because it is not proper. The omnipotence is always controlled by the aspect of ‘proper’. It is proper to please the devotees by appearing to them, by talking with them, etc., and hence, God has become human incarnation by limitation. You cannot put a question to a person (saying that he can cut anything with his sword) ‘can you cut your neck by your sword?’ Yes, he can cut his own neck with his sword to prove that he is omnipotent. But, you will immediately put another question “This fool has cut his own neck, does he not possess the omnipotence to control his foolishness?” Therefore, omnipotence means that God can do everything, but, He does certain things only which are not improper and foolish. Such limitation does not contradict omnipotence because you will attack again about His inability to control His foolishness! Hence, you must add ‘the ability to do proper things only’ to the omnipotence side by side.
15) Swami replied: I am totally confused here because there is no single word which is clear to My limited intelligence! O scholar of unlimited intelligence! I beg you to clarify your above para clearly in elaborated way so that an ordinary person like Me can first understand your comment to speak anything about it. I am sure that even God with omnipotent intelligence can’t understand anything from this! Don’t speak anything, which is not clear to you. If it is clear to you, it will be clear to any human being since you are also a human being. If it is not clear to you, every human being is confused as you are confused. Even God can’t understand this para using His omnipotence because the clarity here is like a drop of water in the desert. If God understands nothing as something, you will immediately attack saying ‘is God unable to understand nothing as nothing?’ I am telling you very clearly that I am criticizing the statements only and not the person, who uttered these statements. Why do you fear for elaboration, when there is vast space and wonderful facility to present everything clearly in elaborated way? In the ancient days, the palm leaves were short and writing with a needle putting holes was very much inconvenient and hence, the ancient scholars maintained lot of brevity, which is misunderstood in several ways. But today, God has given wonderful facility of presenting the concept clearly in elaborated way through lot of paper, number of pens and ink and lot of space in computer. I accept My utter defeat in your this last comment and declare that you have won finally! Anyway, I will present My concept clearly about absolute and relative concepts (which may be related to your point or not). God is absolute reality (Paramaartha sat) like the rope. Creation is a relative reality and is unreal with respect to the absolute rope like the illusory snake (Vyavahara sat). Soul is a part of the serpent (like the scale of the snake) and not a part of the rope like its thread. The Brahma Sutra says that no worldly example can be a full simile to the absolute God. God (rope) is beyond the world (illusory snake) and is unimaginable. You can’t find an unimaginable thread in the unimaginable rope! Hence, neither the soul is part of unimaginable God nor the unimaginable God Himself. The reason is that the absolute God is unimaginable where as the relative soul is imaginable. Soul is imaginable awareness. Awareness is seen as a pulse of inert energy (its causal part) in the oscilloscope on the screen. In deep sleep, awareness disappears and appears on awakening and thus, awareness is disappearing and appearing every day (nitya jaatam). Of course, the causal part of the awareness or the inert energy is all-pervading and is the root cause of all created items. But, even this inert cosmic energy (its subtle form is space) is generated by the unimaginable God as per the Veda (tat tejah asrujata). Therefore, for the relatively real soul, the rest relatively real world is real only and not unreal. For unreal part, the rest unreal whole is real. When the absolute real (unimaginable God) merges with the unreal part (soul), the soul (human incarnation) behaves as absolute real for all practical purposes. Hence, Shankara could enter the bolted doors (unreal for Him) and we can’t enter (since unreal world is real for us) so.
When I read your concepts, which are mixed with little clarity and lot of ignorance, I feel shocked in those concepts of confusion. Thinking that your subject is deep, I try again and again to understand your confused concepts assuming that the defect is in My brain and not with your expression. After struggling a lot, I finally conclude that the defect is in your expression and not in My intelligence. These shocks and struggles happen to be a torture given to Me. Since violence is the highest sin (ahimsaa paramodharmah), please be clear at every step without bothering about the space so that you can avoid this kind of mental torture to Me! I beg you for this with folded hands!
★ ★ ★ ★ ★