LIMITED SIMILARITY BETWEEN GOD AND THE SOUL

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

When similes are selected for the unimaginable God, the concepts of comparison should be always limited and not to be fully extended in all other aspects. This principle exists even if you give a simile to an imaginable item taking another imaginable item. For example, if you compare the face of somebody to moon, the aspect of simile should be confined to the pleasantness only. You should not extend the aspect of similarity to other points and say that the face contains black spots since the moon also has black spots. If this is the case of simile between two imaginable items, how can you expect a total similarity between unimaginable God and any imaginable item? You cannot bring another unimaginable item for a better similarity to the unimaginable God since two unimaginable items cannot exist. You can say that two imaginable items exist because both are imaginable and clearly understood with their distinct boundaries. Two unimaginable items cannot exist since both are not understood and hence, cannot be differentiated. Another important point is that if you find maximum similarity between two items, you should not mistake that both items are one and the same. The face of somebody may have maximum similarity with moon in aspects like shape, colour, pleasantness etc. This does not mean that the moon and the face are one and the same. Similarly, the soul or awareness has maximum similarity with the unimaginable God in several aspects. By this, you should not mistake that the soul and unimaginable God are one and the same.

Let us see the aspects of similarity by which some philosophers are confused to think that soul is God. The soul is eternal with respect to the body and its eternality is only relative but not absolute. You cannot bring another absolute reality as simile for God since God alone is the absolute reality. There is no other way. Therefore, you should not mistake the soul as absolute reality. This is clearly stated in the Gita. The Gita says that the soul has no beginning and is eternal and can never be damaged while the body can be damaged. This means that the eternality of the soul is with reference to the mortality of the body. Soul is energy and body is matter. With respect to matter, energy is eternal. But, energy is not absolutely eternal because energy was also created by God (tattejosrujata… Veda). However, you can take the soul as work form of energy because the awareness is only a specific work form of energy. In such case, everyday, the soul has beginning and end (Athachainam… Gita). The Gita mentioned this second possibility of the aspect of the soul and never condemned it since this second aspect of the soul is also not wrong. But if you take the soul basically as inert energy, it is eternal (Nityaha sarvagatah sthanuh… Gita). The word ‘sthanuh’ means inert. Thus, both aspects of the soul as per the outlook of the receiver are mentioned in the Gita. You should remember that the soul is created item only in any aspect and not the creator. Even high intellectuals misunderstood Shankara since He is the topmost genius. Later on, Ramanuja gave the clarification about the concept of Shankara. Again, some misunderstood Ramanuja and Madhva clarified it. I am only reminding the essential truth that is lost in the sequential stages (Yogo nashtah… Gita) of the three divine preachers.

The other comparable aspect of soul is creativity. The imaginary world is created, maintained and dissolved by the soul like the world by God. Again, there are limitations in this comparison. The soul creates the imaginary world based on the input gathered from the external world and therefore, the creativity is not genuine. In the case of God, creativity is genuine because there was no external world before the creation of the world. Another limitation is that the imaginary world is only conversion of a part of the awareness and thus, awareness is reduced by the creation. The quantity of awareness gets reduced after sometime during the imagination. But, in the case of God, there is no modification and hence, God is not reduced after creation. Thus, the process of creation by God is unimaginable whereas the process of creation of imaginary world by soul is imaginable.

Whenever an imaginable item generates another imaginable item, the characteristics of the generator enter the product. No characteristic of unimaginable God is ever known. Therefore, any simile from the imaginable items to God utterly fails in this point. Even the awareness is a known specific work form of inert energy, which is the modification of inert energy only. Therefore, awareness, the imaginable characteristic, cannot be the characteristic of unimaginable God. Awareness is not even an independent item, which is only a dependable property since work is dependable on the working material. Therefore, awareness is neither God nor even the characteristic of God.

Mistakes in the Advaitin’s Analysis

1. The first mistake is that you apply the analytical conclusions of the subject of imaginable items to the unimaginable God.
2. The second mistake is that based on the above analysis, you conclude that the existence of awareness in the world is the entry of cause or its characteristic into the product. By this, you conclude that awareness is the cause of the world or at least the characteristic of such cause.

There are several materials and properties existing in the world and awareness is just one among them. Then, why don’t you take other existing properties also as God and apply the same status of logic? You need not fear that if God is not awareness, it means God has to be concluded as an inert item. In the items of the world, such conclusion is possible because the world consists of only awareness and inert items. You must recognize the existence of unimaginable item, which is beyond these two types of items of the world. Moreover, by virtue of un-imaginable power, God can know everything and He need not be awareness to know like the worldly item. Therefore, you need not fear that if God is not awareness, He cannot know anything or cannot wish to create the world. If this single point is clearly understood, the Advaita philosophers will come out of their misunderstanding of Shankara. Shankara called awareness as God since God is always associated with a living human being while He comes down. The Veda and Shankara used the words, ‘jnana’ and ‘prajnana’, which do not mean mere awareness. Awareness indicates a living being. The word ‘jnana’ indicates a human being. ‘Prajnana’ indicates a specific human being associated with special knowledge. Of course, ‘prajnana’ includes ‘jnana’ and ‘jnana’ includes awareness. ‘Jnana’ means the knowledge in the imaginable level and ‘Prajnana’ means the knowledge in the unimaginable level. The hundred rupees include 10 rupees and 10 rupees include 1 rupee. Therefore, you should not confine the 100 rupees and 10 rupees to one rupee only. Moreover, you can call God through the associated item like calling the bearer of apples by the word ‘apples’. Hence, you can call God by awareness or knowledge or special knowledge. But, such call is confined to only the context of human incarnation in which God is associated with the special knowledge. You can call the bearer of apples by the word ‘apples’ only when he is carrying on the apples. When he is not associated with apples, you will not use such usage. Another important point is that Shankara used this context since His task was to convert atheists into theists. Atheists never believe God and hence, Shankara attracted them by calling them as God so that the existence of God, which means their own existence, cannot be denied.