Posted on: 18 Dec 2017
Pañcadaśādhāyaḥ
[Opponent: Speciality of knowledge of human incarnation can’t be standardized since the liking of receivers is in many ways. Due to this multiplicity of psychology of receivers, you can’t call any specific knowledge as special knowledge. In such case, how to identify the human incarnation by a standardized special knowledge?
Theorist:- The Veda says that God speaks special knowledge (Prajnaanam Brahma). The prefix ‘pra’ means special or excellent, which is specific to God and also specific to a set of receivers. It is specific to God in its excellent presentation without spoiling the ultimate truth and at the same time, it is specific to a set of receivers so that such receivers assimilate it without any problem. It also clarifies about the speciality by saying that the knowledge spoken by God is true and limitless. True means the fact experienced and logically justified. The logical justification is also necessary since mere experience is not justified like the experience of two moons in the sky by a defective eyed person. Before deciding the experience as true, logical analysis must be done as told by scripture (Vijnaana sunishchitaarthaah… Veda, Vimrushyaitat… Gita). ‘Limitless’ means elaborate due to various answers given to vast number of doubts posed by different people and in this process, the same concept should be presented in different modes like partial hiding of truth, full hiding of truth resulting in total twisting of the concept etc., based on the need of receptive nature and its extent of the receivers (Ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti… Veda) so that friendship with receivers can be achieved in the initial stage through which gradually the total truth can be projected step by step at the proper time. The knowledge of a preacher (Guru) is generally a partial truth and the knowledge of human incarnation of God (Satguru) is comprehensive truth taking all the partial truths in their proper places. One guru says that the elephant is like a flat wall, other says that it is like a lean rope, other says that it is like a cylinder and other says that it is like a pillar. A comprehensive picture of the total elephant is that it has a tusk like cylinder, has a tail like rope, has four legs like pillars and flat stomach like a wall. Satguru alone can give the total true picture.
A politician gives sweet coffee to a sugar patient by adding sugar. His aim is to please the receiver and get vote from him since he is interested in his own welfare and not in the welfare of the receiver. A spiritual preacher also gives sweet coffee to the same patient by adding sugar free pill so that the receiver is pleased by the sweetness and is as well as safe since it is sugar free. In giving sweet coffee for the pleasure of the receiver, both are one and the same. But, both differ in the ultimate aim, which is welfare of donor or welfare of receiver. Such preparation of special knowledge suitable to the psychology of a receiver without spoiling the ultimate truth (which is welfare of the receiver) is called as the special knowledge (Prajnaanam) prepared by God as special coffee for the sake of the specific sugar patient-receiver. The omniscient God alone can do such preaching based on the four criteria (Anubandha chatushtaya) i.e., eligibility of the receiver (Adhikaari), eligible subject for such receiver (Vishaya), the relationship between these two based on the extent of power of digestion of the concept (Sambandha) and use in making the receiver to climb immediate step related to other higher steps (Prayojanam). The language and style of presentation differs based on the status of receivers. Shankara had to speak with terrible Sanskrit scholars whereas Shirdi Sai had to speak with uneducated villagers of Shirdi. The subject is one and the same and only the language and style differed. The person is same in two different dresses. Shirdi Sai spoke about the interpretation of a verse (Pariprashnena sevayaa…) from the Gita with such status of logic that even a great Sanskrit scholar (Nanaachandolkar) was astonished! The difference is only in the expression of hidden or possessed power as per the requirement of context.
In conclusion, the receiver gets full satisfaction by the knowledge given by Satguru provided the receiver is not rigid due to ego and jealousy and is also very anxious of knowing the ultimate truth. The knowledge of Guru is not ultimate and complete, which gives partial satisfaction only to the receiver.]
[Opponent: The perfect monism of Shankara says that there is no God other than the soul and this is clear atheism. How can you say Shankara as the theist?
Theorist:- Shankara prepared the special knowledge (coffee) suitable for the atheist (sugar patient) by adding a sugar pill, which gives both sweetness and at the same time, protects the welfare (health) of the receiver. Shankara told that the soul is God and this is the sweetness of the sugar free pill. The lack of sugar that causes no damage is that the soul can become God only by the grace of God (Eswaraanugrahaadeva). This means that the soul is not God at the present moment and will become God by the grace of God only. It means only a clear dualism in the present moment. At the same time, there is a possibility of any soul to become God if God wishes (grace) so. This is true in the case of a specific soul becoming God as incarnation of God. The ultimate truth is not spoiled in anyway. The soul has to become devotee of God to get His grace. Here, both God and soul are introduced as separate entities and the possibility of soul becoming God (perfect monism) is accepted, which is the welfare of atheist-patient. At the same time, attraction was created by saying that soul is God (sweetness), which is also not false as in the incarnation. This is not to say that soul is already God and there is no need of any effort to become God. If soul is already God, there is no need of the grace of God since soul or God has always full grace on Itself or Himself! The ignorance of God (that He is not God and that He is a soul) is not mere theoretical (ajnaana aavarana), but, really materialized (ajnaana vikshepa) and as real as the soul itself. It means that never the unimaginable (God) was imaginable (soul). But, by the will (grace) of God, for a specific programme meant for the welfare of devotees, due to the omnipotence of God, the unimaginable God can become the imaginable soul through unimaginable logic. The effort of the soul is totally absent since Shankara says in His commentary that by no effort God can be achieved. This is the special coffee (knowledge) prepared by the human incarnation (Shankara) and the result is that atheists were happy (sweetness) and at the same time were converted in to theists (health of patient is protected). You can compare this sugar free pill-coffee of Shankara with the sugar-coffee of the atheist, Charvaaka, since both are having common sweetness (that soul is God). The theory of Charvaaka is that the presently existing soul itself is the ultimate and it need not become God since there is no God beyond the soul. You can find the difference in unity between these two philosophies. Charvaaka opposes the existence of God other than the soul. Shankara accepts the existence of God other than the soul and shows a process (of God’s grace) through which the soul becomes God. Some egoistic fools treated Shankara as an atheist without understanding His effort to convert atheists in to theists! This is the special knowledge of the human incarnation of God prepared with unimaginable intelligence to convert atheist in to theist, which is a real impossibility!]
[Opponent:- It is very difficult to identify the contemporary human incarnation by His special knowledge alone unless the grace of God co-operates with the effort. A miracle can’t also be taken as supporting evidence since it is not precise being performed by demons also.
Theorist:- The grace of God coincides with the effort, which is already put by the soul to become eligible to become incarnation without having such aspiration. Without the effort, which alone makes the soul indirectly to become eligible for incarnation, the grace of God alone will not work, even though it is omnipotent since the soul is not eligible. Eligibility shall be obtained by effort without a trace of aspiration to become incarnation. The lack of such aspiration combined with practical sacrifice in the service of God itself is the eligibility to become the human incarnation.
Similarly, seeing your sincere effort to identify the human incarnation, God will certainly grace you to proceed in the right path. The full satisfaction of your inner consciousness (the subconscious state about which you are also not aware and God is fully aware of it) based upon clarification of all your doubts of consciousness and inner consciousness also in various angles (chidyante sarva samshayaah) can be taken as confirmation of identification (bhidyate hrudayagrandhih... Tasmin drushte...). Continuous doubting throughout the life will mislead you to final loss of missing God in human-form forever (samshayaatmaa vinashyati... Gita). Analysis is essential, but, it should not be endless. Apart from analysis, you must take the help of divine scripture also, which is supported by experience of totally dedicated scholars (sages) and devotees. The correlation must be obtained from all angles. Such correlation can never appear unless you conquer your ego and jealousy towards a co-human form. To eliminate such jealousy to co-human form, pre-training is suggested, which is love and service to humanity. Miracles alone can’t give the identification of God, but, yet, a genuine miracle is very important proof of perception since God alone can do a genuine miracle. Even the miracle performed by a demon is from God only, but, you shall not take the demon as incarnation of God. God does all miracles, but, all miracles don’t indicate God! In a demon, God is forced to do a miracle, but, in human incarnation, God does a miracle by His full willingness only. In human incarnation, you can experience God performing the miracle, which is like a father directly coming to the bank and withdrawing the cash personally with the help of his good son assisting him to spend for good purpose. In a demon, you can’t experience God directly performing the miracle since it is like a bad son directly coming to the bank and withdrawing the same cash personally with the help of a cheque signed by his father to be spent for bad purpose. The demon takes the credit of the ownership of miracle whereas the human being-component in human incarnation says that it is just used for physical assistance in the expression of the miracle. Thus, even miracle helps you to differentiate human incarnation from the demon.]
[Opponent:- If you say that human incarnation must be identified by its excellent knowledge, the knowledge of a strong scholar is also excellent and to draw sharp marginal difference between the two is very difficult. Similarly, the same miracle is exhibited by both and to differentiate both is very very difficult.
Theorist:- The unimaginable God or unimaginable awareness is totally different from imaginable awareness or nervous energy called as soul. Awareness means to know something including self (object) and is essentially a process of knowing, which is done by the nervous system. The knower is also awareness (process) done by brain. In the self-awareness, the object is also awareness (process) only. In the case of unimaginable God, such awareness (soul) has no existence due to the absence of awareness, which is a specific work form of inert energy functioning in a materialized system. When we say that God is awareness, you must totally forget this worldly awareness, which is a work form of nervous energy. Even in the absence of such nervous energy or awareness and its related materialized nervous system and brain in God, God knows, thinks, is kind, is blissful, loves, is impartial to do justice, is furious to punish injustice etc., which are the characteristic works of this worldly awareness. He acts as worldly awareness without being and having this worldly awareness due to His unimaginable power or nature. When such unimaginable God merges with imaginable medium having this worldly awareness, such worldly awareness of medium attains unimaginable nature. Then, the imaginable awareness of the medium becomes unimaginable while remaining as the original imaginable awareness. We can also reverse this statement by saying that the unimaginable awareness has become imaginable awareness while retaining its unimaginable nature. Both these statements involve interaction between unimaginable and imaginable entities. The worldly logic always involves the interactions between imaginable items only and hence, it can’t be applied to both these statements so that we have to say that both these interactions (imaginable becoming unimaginable and vice-versa) are unimaginable only. Based on the same, we can also say that the process of generation of first imaginable creation (space or subtle energy) from unimaginable God is also unimaginable only. The further process of generation of other imaginable entities from imaginable space, naturally, involves imaginable worldly logic.
In the mediated God or incarnation, the imaginable awareness of the medium on becoming unimaginable (due to perfect merge of unimaginable God with imaginable medium) shows all the characteristic forms of imaginable awareness being transformed to unimaginable entities, which are the resulting unimaginable (special or excellent or wonderful) knowledge, love, bliss, kindness, will etc. With the help of such unimaginable characteristic forms of awareness, we can identify the existence of unimaginable God in the medium to recognize the medium as incarnation of God. The forms of unimaginable awareness of God are inseparable from the forms of imaginable awareness of the medium helping us to identify the imaginable medium as unimaginable God. In conclusion, we can say that the characteristic forms of imaginable awareness of the medium have become unimaginable helping us in our identification of unimaginable God in a specific medium.
When the will becomes unimaginable (satyakaamah... Veda), miracles appear in both demon and human incarnation. In demon, only the will becomes unimaginable and all other characteristic forms of imaginable awareness of demon exist as imaginable only (maintaining their original nasty nature), whereas, in human incarnation, all the characteristic forms of imaginable awareness of the human being-component have become unimaginable (maintaining their noble nature called as auspicious qualities or kalyaana gunas). This difference helps us to differentiate Ravana from Krishna. Even though both lifted huge hills due to common unimaginable will, Ravana never spoke spiritual knowledge (in fact spoke only sinful knowledge), whereas Krishna spoke marvelous spiritual knowledge called as the Gita. This is the difference in knowledge. Ravana was forcing Sita to accept him as her husband. In the case of Krishna, the sages doing penance for millions of births thinking God as their real husband turned to Gopikas in the last birth are denied by Krishna for the reason of justice. When they threatened to commit suicide, Krishna had to yield to them and all this happened to be the procedure of testing their bond to life partners (daareshanaa) in competition with God. This is the difference in love. Cruel Ravana was stealing others’ wealth, whereas, kind Krishna donated all His wealth to Sudaama. This is the difference in kindness and charity. Like this, except in the common unimaginable will (miracles), there is vast difference in every aspect to differentiate human incarnation from demon.
Similarly, you can differentiate human incarnation from a strong scholar through all other unimaginable characteristic forms of awareness and unimaginable will (miracles) of the human incarnation. If you are sharp, you can even differentiate the imaginable knowledge of even strong scholar (however much it may be wonderful) from the unimaginable knowledge of human incarnation. Similarly, you can differentiate the miracle of a demon having certain limitations from the miracle of human incarnation having no limitations. However, other aspects having full difference can be taken as clear evidences without taking the risk of sharp marginal difference in one aspect.]
[Opponent:- In the case of bhedaabheda or dvaitaadvaita religion of Nimbaarka, contradiction between difference and unity results as a defect. In the case of Shuddhaadvaita religion of Vallabha, pure monism of God without the help of unimaginable power is not correct because the difference between possessor of power (Sun) and power (Sunlight) is famous. In the case of achintya bhedaabheda religion of Chaitanya Mahaa Prabhu, the inability to explain the concept clearly is accepted as a defect. How can you provide answers for these three objections?
Theorist:- 1) Nimbaarka accepts both difference as well as unity between God and His power (soul) in the case of human incarnation and this is not a contradiction at all since both views are justified in view of two separate references having jealousy to human form and having no jealousy to human form. The fundamental dualism between electricity (stream of electrons) and metallic wire (chain of metal crystals) satisfies the devotee with jealousy to human form. The functional monism between these two (metallic wire exhibiting the shock property of electricity wherever touched) satisfies the devotee without jealousy to human form. This covers all devotees worshiping the human form of God. Both aspects are not in view of single reference and hence, no mutual contradiction.
2) Vallabhaa says that God creates the world without the help of His power called as Maayaa since God alone exists. God is unimaginable source of the unimaginable power called as Maayaa. This view is justified because two or more than two unimaginable items result as one unimaginable item only. Plurality is in imaginable items only. Hence, this religion stands very well through this concept. Shankara told that unimaginable God creates world through His unimaginable power called as Maayaa not in the sense that two unimaginable entities exist separately. The Veda says that God alone exists and there is no multiplicity in God (Ekamevaadvitiyam, Neha naanaasti…). The Gita also says that nothing other than God exists (mattah parataram…). This is the absolute plane of God with reference to the view of God only and not the soul. But, it is told that God creates world (including souls) through His unimaginable power called as Maayaa because the human brains are accustomed to the difference between source of power (Shaktimat) and power (Shakti). Based on this requirement of clear understanding for human brains, the Gita says God as Maayi or the possessor of the power called as Maayaa (Maayinam tu Maheswaram). For better understanding, following the norms of worldly logic, the statement is expressed in this way. When both the source and power are indicated by the same common adjective ‘unimaginable’, it essentially means that both are one and the same. Hence, this religion doesn’t contradict Shankara.
3) Chaitanya Mahaa Prabhu brought both these difference and oneness between God and soul to mean that unimaginable God became the imaginable soul (Vaasudeva) in this world while simultaneously retaining His unimaginable nature as unimaginable God beyond this world. This means that unimaginable God beyond the world retaining His unimaginable nature didn’t disappear at all even though He is completely transformed into imaginable soul as human incarnation in this world (Purnaatpurnamudachyate— Veda), by which both dualism and monism respectively are simultaneously maintained in view of single reference resulting in contradiction and no contradiction simultaneously. No contradiction is due to the unimaginable (Achintya) capability of unimaginable God. Since mutual contradiction resulted due to single reference and the same contradiction is solved by the unimaginable capability of God, this can also be accepted. This concept is unimaginable (Achintya) for the soul (defined by space) only and not for Him since He is beyond the space.]
[Opponent:- The unimaginable God got bored due to His loneliness and wanted entertainment by creating something different from Him. Then, He created this entire world by mere wish. The first item created was space or subtle energy. Then, subsequently air, fire, water, solid soil, plants, food and lastly soul was created. Till the soul was created, soul didn’t exist during the creation of space, air etc., up to food from plants from which only soul was created (Annaat purushah). For the soul only, space, air etc., can be real and not for God to whom they are always unreal. Before the soul (human being) is created, you don’t have any possibility to say that creation is real at least with reference to soul since soul was not yet created!
In the time existed before the creation of the soul, God created space, air etc., and they were unreal only to God. Before and after creation when space, air etc., are unreal to God, we must say that the creation itself was unreal to God. The reality of these created items (space, air etc.) became true for soul only when soul was created later on. Even after creation of soul, the entire world including souls is unreal to God. In such case, how God was entertained with the unreal world at any stage of creation (before creation, during creation and after creation, world was, is and will be unreal respectively only to God) till now?
Theorist:- As told by the Veda, when soul is created from food obtained from plants, this soul refers to the imaginable awareness created on earth having its container-body made of five elements (human being). Awareness can’t exist independently without its container (energetic or materialized). For this reason, creation of five elements was mentioned and then only creation of soul or awareness was told. The word ‘Purusha’ means the container (puri) in which the awareness lies (puri shete iti). You always ask for a cup of coffee and not coffee without cup!
As soon as the first element, space (subtle energy) was created, the unimaginable God got mediated with the first energetic body having relative awareness flowing in the energetic body with the help of energetic nervous system and energetic brain (prepared by a super technology involving unimaginable power of God). In such energetic body with relative awareness, unimaginable God got mediated by merge and is called as Datta or Eshwara, who created energetic living beings called as angles having energetic bodies associated with relative awareness (by super technology). Hence, from space onwards till creation of plants, energetic living beings (souls) existed for whom the products of creation had reality. The first item called as space or subtle energy alone is the object of unimaginable God, which was almost unreal (in our view) was really unreal to the unimaginable God. This slight difference between real unreality and almost unreality doesn’t matter much. However, to speak precisely (if you insist), space was really unreal object for the unimaginable God or unimaginable awareness. But, as soon as space or subtle energy was created, the first energetic body with relative awareness was also simultaneously created with which unimaginable God merged so that unimaginable awareness of God merged with imaginable relative awareness of the first energetic living being called as Hiranyagarbha (samavatataagre bhutasya jaatah- Veda). This relative awareness of Eshwara (Hiranyagarbha was the first energetic-individual living being and he was called as Eshwara after merging with unimaginable God as told by the Veda subsequently ‘Patireka aasit’) views the space as real and such experience is passed on to the unimaginable awareness merged with it. By this, the unimaginable awareness also views space as real only since the unimaginable awareness got identified with imaginable awareness through perfect merge. Hence, as soon as the first creation (space) was done, God mediated by space could view the space as reality, which was necessary for the entertainment. Such Eshwara created angels, who were viewing and experiencing the subtle energy as equal reality with which they are also made of. Hence, as creation proceeded, the subtle nature got more and more concentrated resulting in more and more gross nature and the entertainment increased due to more and more clarity of the object. When the creation was completed and human beings got created, the unimaginable God (through Eshwara) entered a gross human being also (to become human incarnation) and got entertained with equal reality of creation. Since as soon as the space was created, the first energetic body was also simultaneously created, the created space was received as reality only since it was perceived by the first energetic living being called as Hiranyagarbha in whom unimaginable God got already merged (experience of Eshwara becomes simultaneous experience of unimaginable God present in Eshwara). Hence, your objection that the creation remained as unreal only for the creator or unimaginable God is rejected since the direct spectator was mediated God (Eshwara) and not unimaginable God. Even though unimaginable God beyond world is not direct spectator, since unimaginable God and mediated God are one and the same, the same experience of the direct spectator (mediated God) enters the unimaginable God beyond the world also. We can call the mediated God as unimaginable God simultaneously due to perfect monism achieved between both by perfect merge. The process of merge between unimaginable God and imaginable Hiranyagarbha to become Eshwara is also unimaginable since the interaction is between unimaginable and imaginable entities.]
To be continued...