Posted on: 29 Apr 2015
Shri Kishore Ram asked the following questions:
1. In divine discourse3, I found a discourse describing about the Sanyasis in the ancient times who were having desires on hunger, thurst, lust etc like a normal soul. For them to satisfy the desire of lust, there were a sect of unchaste ladies (Devadasis) who satisfied the sanyasis desire. I have couple of queries on this;
Swami replied: I told that there were sanyasins in the olden days. I did not give a certificate to them that they were true sanyasins. Since they were called as sanyasins by the society, I have to refer them by that name only. There is a tradition in grammar called as Rudhi. It means that you can use a word to some person even though its meaning is not applicable and the word is simply for the sake of identification of a person in calls. However, let Me analyse this issue from other side also. A sanyasi is devoted to propagate spiritual knowledge in the society so that the justice is perfectly maintained and the society runs on peaceful lines. If a sanyasi is doing this work, such a person is true sanyasi because the duty is performed by him without any selfish motive. He does not accumulate the wealth like a prostitute called Devadasi. These prostitutes have their children also and earn with selfish motive. Here comes the difference between sanyasi and Devadasi. This difference makes sanyasi pious, who is doing the service of God without accumulation of wealth for his non-existing family and Devadasi, who accumulates wealth from people for her selfish enjoyment and also for her family. Now, the common point in these two souls is regarding the lust and its subsequent sexual action. The hunger, thirst and lust are inevitable characteristics of body. Of course, the sin is totally absent in hunger and thirst. The lust is created by God for the generation of issues for the next generation of humanity. 99% of humanity gets married and fulfil this will of God. Hence, the lust and sex are not sinful by themselves due to the divine will. In the case of sanyasi, the lust and sex are not necessary and in fact show his lesser concentration on God. Such a sanyasi is of lower grade only but is far higher than general humanity since he has sacrificed all his time and energy for God’s work only. Hence, we have to respect such a low grade sanyasi also. The uneducated public respects even elementary school teacher, who is lesser than the lecturer of college and professor of University. The lust is developed due to the formation of sperm in the body. The body of sanyasi is as good as the body of any human being. A special body without lust cannot be created for him alone since lust is also a test, which should be passed on. This lust can be minimised by the ejection of sperm by hand etc., and this was also done by some sanyasis. In this process, the lust for the body of female is absent and hence is certainly better than going with a devadasi. A sanyasi meeting devadasi for sex is lower than a sanyasi getting his sperm ejected without devadasi. The second type of sanyasi is lower than a sanyasi, who is always absorbed in God and the blood in his body does not generate sperm and such a perfect sanyasi is called as ‘Urdhvaretaah’. Just like in medical education no point is secret, in spiritual knowledge also no point should be kept secret feeling odd and inconvenient and hence none should misunderstand Me for the frank explanation given here by Me.
2. - From Sanyasis end, it is not a sin since they are devoting thier time for god and welfare of world. But is it a Sin for Devadasis/unchaste ladies. Unchaste means a lady having illegal affair with another man other than husband. Please clarify
Swami replied: Large part of the answer to this question is already given in the above answer. A family lady marries one person only and confines herself to her husband only throughout her life even though the husband is a poor man. The devadasi is not in the line of this concept. She discards marriage and confines herself to any person, who is wealthy. After some time, when that person becomes poor due to her only, she leaves that person and confines herself with another wealthy person. The aim of devadasi is only to earn money, become rich and enjoy with the wealth. The first wealthy person who has become poor due to this devadasi is deeply hurt when she goes openly with other rich person. A family lady going with other person secretly without the knowledge of her husband is better than this devadasi. The sin of such family lady is reduced by one percent since she is not hurting the mind of her husband. A family lady, who does not go with any other person based on the awareness of punishment for the sin is far better than the above mentioned family lady. Such a family lady has also one percent sin since she is chaste due to fear of sin and not due to love to her husband. A family lady, who confines to her husband only due to love is really chaste without any sin. Sin is not only due to action but also due to the feeling in the mind. But, the sin due to feeling is very less compared to that of action since the feeling can be controlled.
All this analysis makes several people to put the question about Lord Krishna going with the married and unmarried Gopikas. I am wondering, why you have not put this question. All the above analysis belongs to Pravrutti or the social life dealing with the behaviour of souls. Pravrutti is also very very important since God gives the salvation if the soul is perfect in Pravrutti. The punishments for the sins are also very very serious in the hell. Only little punishment for a small sin is given in this world just to show that the soul can never escape the punishment of any sin. Nivrutti is the subject that deals with God, who is unimaginable and comes in human form. Lord Krishna is the human incarnation of God. God is higher than even justice. In the absence of God, we have to vote for justice rejecting the injustice. But, in Nivrutti you have to vote to God rejecting even the justice (Sarvadharman— Gita). Gopikas were perfect in Pravrutti and were never unchaste before the birth of Lord Krishna. Rejection of everybody and every concept for the sake of God is highest. The aim of following justice is also only to create good impression in the mind of God. God tests the soul about its total absorption in Him. Here, you should not say the God has lust. If it is so, why Lord Krishna never did such thing after leaving Brundavanam? Gopikas were sages in the previous birth and were tested by God in the ultimate stage. This context should not be generalized and should not be brought in to the field of Pravrutti.
3. - If it is not a sin for unchaste ladies, then the current prostitution also exempted from sin?
Swami replied: Since the prostitution is a sin, sin is sin at any time.
4. I am still not convinced with the point the unimaginable GOD is great. I am human being, for me I can only contact God through Human Incarnation. But, in many discourses it is mentioned the Soul + God component in case of Human incarnation. In that case, when we say God is suffering the sins for the sake Good Devotees, then actually it is suffered by the soul component of the Human incarnation who is again a great devotee of God. Because God cant be touched by pain/qualities and he is beyond all of them. Then how GOD is great? May be you say Such devotees are given Goloka, but they are brought down to Earth whenever there is a need for Human Incarnation. Then in this case how can you convince me that god is Great. For me the soul component or the devotee in the Human Incarnation is great.
Swami replied: You say that God is beyond the feelings of suffering, joy etc. This itself is to be analysed fundamentally. The reason for your such thought is that the soul is awareness and hence feels joy and sorrow. Since God is unimaginable, you think that He does not feel at all since He is not the awareness because He is beyond the awareness. Yes. I told that God is not awareness but I did not say that God cannot feel. The worldly logic is that awareness only feels. Hence, the human being feels and stone does not feel. If you say that God is not feeling, does it mean that God is inert stone? God is neither awareness nor any inert form. He is beyond both awareness and inert form. God is not only unimaginable but also omniscient. It means that God knows everything. No bit of awareness seen in this world can be omniscient. Hence, this characteristic of omniscient is unimaginable. God knows and feels due to His power of omnipotence, which is also unimaginable. I only say that the worldly logic is not applicable in the unimaginable God and hence God feels though not awareness. The soul feels since it is awareness. God is beyond the feelings because God takes the suffering by His will. The soul is forced to suffer and hence is not beyond the feelings. God suffers the fruits of the sins of His best devotee and the full free will of God here makes Him to become beyond the feeling. The soul component being associated with God is also affected like an iron object existing by the side of red hot object. The soul does not mind the effect of suffering due to its love for God. Hence, both God and soul become beyond suffering, which does not mean that God and soul do not suffer. It only means that the suffering is taken by both based on full free will. God, who actually suffers is far greater than the soul, which is a little bit affected due to nearness to God. God is greatest and any soul at any time cannot be even compared to God. The Veda says that nothing is equal to Him and not to speak of anything greater than Him (Natatsamah...).
5. I am bit confused on the topic of Ravana. In many discourses it is mentioned Ravana is an athiest, since he thinks God is a position of power which can be obtained by doing some penance. But in 1 discourse it is said that God gave him a role of acting as an athiest externally to the world. But in reality even internally he was bound to be attached with materialistic things and lust. He had devotion to lord Shiva just because he desired for something but not real devotion. So does that mean the current generation, where there are people who kill/murder/theft/rapes etc are also god's appointed roles? Please clarify.
Swami replied: When you see a cinema, you have to take the role only to get guidance in your practical life. The hero in the cinema is very good and brave giving you the advice to be like that to get success in your life. You should not take the personal life of the actor leaving that role. The actor in that role is very bad in the real life. I know that one actor, who showed lot of courage in a role of hero committed suicide due to weak mind. You should understand the life of Jaya, the gate keeper of God and the life of Ravana separately. You should not mix these two lives. Jaya should inspire you to become the servant of God to succeed in Nivrutti. Similarly, the life of Ravana should inspire you not to do any sin in Pravrutti. In the case of Ravana, actor and role are separate. In the case of general humanity, the actor and role are one and the same. Hence, you cannot say that every sinner is an actor appointed by God. Even if a sinner says like that in this world, he cannot escape the punishment in the hell since the omniscient God is there as the judge.
6. Regarding Mula Maya, Maya and Parabrahman. I understand from discourse that the Mula Maya also contains the pervaded parabrahman power and this Mula Maya is 99% and the rest 1% is creation which doesnt contain the pervaded power of parabrahman. I have couple of queries;
7. - The advaita philosophers admit that they have attained the state of Pure Awareness which is our soul. So does that mean Pureawareness including Parabrahman power or just pure awareness?
8. - In the same discourse, it is said that only top most genious like Swami Adi Shankaracharya attained the position of pureawareness/mula maya. Whats the difference between the 2? Also can a non-human incarnation attain the state of pure awareness including power of parabrahman?
Swami replied: You should follow the answer with high alertness and sharp intelligence. God is unimaginable. You may think that the unimaginable nature is the property and God is the possessor of the property. The possessor and property are two items like Sun and Sunlight. If you say that certain item present in a locked room is unseen, the item in the room and the absence of process of seeing it are two different entities, you should agree that both are inseparable. The logic of imaginable items like Sun etc., cannot be applied to the unimaginable item. Hence, the unimaginable God and His unimaginable nature cannot be treated as two entities since any number of unimaginable entities finally end as one unimaginable entity only. Now, is Maya unimaginable or imaginable? The answer depends upon the meaning you assign to this word Maya. The word Maya comes from the root word ‘Maya’, which means wonderful. The wonder may come from the imaginable entity also. If you see an extremely beautiful palace, you are wonder struck. You can also get wonder from the unimaginable event also. A small tender boy is lifting a huge mountain on His tiny finger and this unimaginable event also gives you wonder. Here, the unimaginable God is doing this miracle and hence the source of wonder is unimaginable entity. Since you cannot differentiate the unimaginable God and the unimaginable nature, the story of analysis is finished and the only conclusion is that the one unimaginable God exists. The Gita says that Maya is this imaginable creation, which is wonderful (Mayaamtu prakrutim...). Since God is the owner and possessor of this creation, God is called as Mayi as per the Gita (Mayinamtu...). Since God is possessor of Maya, it is proper to call the creation only as Maya. You should not say that Maya is unimaginable since nobody can cross it as per the Gita (Mamamaya...). But, the Gita also says that a real devotee of God can cross Maya (Mayaametam...). The word Maya also means that which does not exist (Yaa maa) with reference to the absolute true God. The unimaginable God is like the pure awareness and the creation is like the thought. In such simile only creation, maintenance and dissolution are clearly understood. A best simile for a best concept does not mean that the concept and simile are one and the same. The Advaita Philosophers have slipped in this point only. If the awareness is absolute God, the imaginary world should become the physical world. The physical world is the imaginary world of God but not awareness.
The unimaginable God wished to create this world for entertainment as per the Veda. This first wish itself is the first imaginable creation. Wish is thought and thought is imaginable. The source of this thought is always hidden being unimaginable. The first imaginable creation is this wish. The junction of these two (Unimaginable God and imaginable wish) is also unimaginable. The junction of awareness and thought is imaginable since both awareness and thought are imaginable. If you take this junction as Mula Maya, it is unimaginable. If you take the product coming out of this junction, which is imaginable wish as Mula Maya, it is imaginable. The unimaginable God and unimaginable junction are with respect to the intelligence of human being. Hence, if you want every word to be understood by you, it is better to call Mula Maya as the imaginable product. The wish need not take another step to generate a materialized object. A person wishes to build a house. His wish is implemented and modified in the form of the actual house at latter stage. In the case of God, there is only one stage. If God wishes, that wish itself is materialized object for the souls. The wish itself is materialization. The wish remains as wish for God and is simultaneously materialization for soul. The Advaita Philosopher should realize the difference between an object and its simile. Then only, he can understand that why his imagination does not appear as materialization to other souls. For God also this materialized universe appears as an imagination only. The imagination of God appears as materialization to the soul.
The imagination of a soul can appear as materialization to other souls in case that specific soul is pervaded by the unimaginable God as in the case of Krishna. But, Ravana also lifted a huge mountain even though God did not enter Ravana. The unimaginable power of God entered Ravana to do this miracle. Since there cannot be two unimaginable entities, you can say that the unimaginable God also entered Ravana during the specific time to do the miracle. In the case of Krishna, God always existed. Theory cannot become the practical even if the theory is truth. You know that God is unimaginable and by knowing this correct theory you cannot become unimaginable God. In such case, how the practical can happen based on false theory? The false theory is that the awareness is God. Based on this false knowledge, you can never become the unimaginable God. The correct theory followed by your total surrender and complete sacrifice may please God to enter you so that you can become God. Here also the true knowledge itself does not have the power to give you the result. The true knowledge can lead you to the correct path to attain the result. Hence, the direct transformation of knowledge in to practical is not true even in the case of true knowledge. The Advaita philosopher wants to transform the false knowledge in to practical immediately. Shankara encouraged this transformation of false knowledge in to practical in order to attract atheists towards God. The strong atheist can be attracted by strong attraction only. Such trick was played by Him in the time when all the people were atheists. Now the situation is different and one should understand Shankara carefully.
9. In Divine Discourse3, under discourse titled 'Practical Spiritual Effort', page 28. It is said to follow the advice of swami with careful analysis for a month and see wonderful results. Can you please elaborate what exactly we need to follow and how to do that. I would like to try it for a month.
Swami replied: The entire spiritual knowledge given by Swami should be understood by you with patience and you should draw the conclusions related to your interested direction. Swami says that you should not believe the knowledge of even Swami blindly. You should analyze it with your sharp intelligence and should enter the discussions with Swami if necessary. The discussion may end in the conclusion that you are right and Swami is wrong. In such case, Swami is ready to correct His knowledge. After arriving at such firm conclusion only, you should enter in to the practical side.
[Shri Anil asked the following questions.]
10. In one message Swami mentioned that some times Human incarnations would have followed non-veg habit since other higher aspects to be preached. But killing is the highest injustice. Killing human being and killing animals are not equal in sin?
Swami replied: A human being and animal have all the faculties, which are almost equally developed. The highest faculty called as intelligence is more developed in human being. Due to this, there is difference between animal and human being in the analysis, which is the work of intelligence. But, the suffering in the violence of killing is related to the mind, which is the lower faculty. This mind is equally developed in both. Hence, the suffering in the death is also one and the same. Killing should be justified whether it is human being or animal. You are shooting a tiger or man eater because it or he is going to kill and eat you. It is not a sin. But to kill a goat or chicken or cow or buffalo for the sake of food is the highest injustice. These animals and birds do not harm you and moreover help you also by giving milk etc. The chicken eats germs and purifies your surroundings. You are not harming the tiger but the tiger is going to kill you for food. Hence, it shall be killed. Similarly, these soft animals and birds do not harm you at all. But, you are going to kill these for food. You are exactly the tiger and should be killed. The human incarnation of God certainly follows the non-vegetarian culture after taking birth in such category. God in human form gets mixed with such people before preaching the spiritual knowledge by which people get transformed from all the sins including this sin. In view of this purpose of free mixing, the non-vegetarian food cannot be treated as sin in the case of God.
11. Some people argue that the sharp teeth and long intestines are given so that to have non-veg food. They also say that since plants gives oxygen killing plants and vegetables is the greatest sin than killing animals for food.
Swami replied: Why do not you think that the sharp teeth and long nails along with iron swords are given to human being in order to punish the sinful living beings? The sharp teeth and long nails of Lord Narasimha were used for such purpose. The act of killing is not sin but killing soft and good living beings is a sin. Plants give oxygen only in the morning for very short time. In other times, the plants give carbon dioxide only just like the human beings. Killing the plants is also sin, which is lesser due to undeveloped mind in plants. The suffering of pain is almost nil in plants. But, even then, it is sin. The crops like paddy are cut only after ripening and death. The leaves and fruits are plucked without harming the plant. This does not mean that you can kill an animal after sedation. You are robbing away the best part of the opportunity given to live and this is also sin. Hence, there is no compromise in this concept. Sorry for the inconvenience, which is inevitable.
12. God in human form carries the sins of a rare devotee who transformed. God is even above justice, why cannot God just cancel the sins without undergoing punishment Himself?
Swami replied: God can do that but does not do so. The rule created by Him cannot be violated by Himself, who is the best administrator. This gives a message to the humanity that the punishment of sin is inevitable for any human being including God. A good administrator follows all the rules set up by himself to stand as an example for others.