Dual Nature of the Soul

[Message on Dasara, Day-8]

[Mr. Surya asked a point: “You told that in the Gita the Lord said that awareness is daily born and perishes daily. But some are pointing out that how in the same Gita, it is told that soul is eternal?”]

Swami replied: There are two theories about the soul. In one theory the soul is eternal. This is correct because if you take the soul (awareness) as inert energy in its basic form, energy is eternal. The eternality of the soul is proved in the deep sleep since the life continues due to the existence of inert energy as the heat in the human body. Due to this inert energy only, all the systems in the human body are functioning and the life is maintained. The deep sleep indicates the co-functioning of two systems, which are food (Annamaya Kosha) as body and respiration (Pranamaya Kosha) to produce the inert energy by oxidation of food. In the same deep sleep, the awareness perished. Even the last trace of awareness, which is self-awareness (awareness of awareness only) as seen in meditation, disappears in deep sleep. Therefore, you have to agree that the awareness is transformed into its basic content, which is inert energy. In other words, you can say that the awareness disappeared or is destroyed. When the golden ornament is converted into lump of gold, you can say that the ornament is destroyed. Again, when you awake, the awareness is born. This is the concept of experience and cannot be disputed. If you view the soul as inert energy, it is eternal as evident from the deep sleep. If you view the soul as awareness, it is born daily and dies daily. Both these are the two angles of view about the soul. It is like the dualistic nature of electron, which is particle as well as a wave. The electron exhibits the properties of both in different contexts only but not in the same context. Similarly, the soul exhibits both the properties in different contexts. Both cannot co-exist in the same context because both contradict each other. The Lord mentioned both the theories of the soul in the Gita and it is very important to note that the Lord did not condemn any theory. The two words used in this context, which are Atha and Cha mean that both are equally valid theories in their own contexts (Athachainam… Gita).

The soul is a bundle of qualities or feelings. Awareness of awareness is also a quality. Therefore, you can never filter the qualities from the awareness (soul) because the awareness itself is a quality of the inert energy produced by the oxidation (Prana) of food (Anna). Awareness is a special work done by the inert energy flowing in a specific system (machine), called as nervous system. The inert energy does several works when it flows in different systems. If the inert energy enters the bulb, a special work, called as light is produced. The same inert energy enters a radio and the special work, called sound is produced. The work has beginning and end. Therefore, awareness being a specific work has birth and death. In deep sleep, the nervous system is not functioning since the inert energy does not flow in it. Therefore, according to the Gita both the concepts are correct in their contexts. The awareness or soul is again sub-divided as various feelings. The awareness of awareness is also a feeling only. Therefore, the soul is not different from feeling. Feeling or thought or quality is work only. The Gita says that the soul is not different from the bundle of qualities (Nanyam Gunebhyah). At the same time, the soul as the essential inert energy is different from all the feelings because the works (feelings) are done by the inert energy. This aspect of inert energy different from qualities (feelings) is also mentioned in the verse of the Gita (Gunebhyascha Param… Gita). In this verse, the above two theories are clearly explained. The work always begins and ends, but the working source (energy) remains always. The light may be put on or put off. But the electricity is stored in the battery.

Shankara spoke everything from the view of God since He was the incarnation of God (Lord Shiva). For God, everything in the creation including primary energy (Mula Maya) is a relative truth with respect to Himself. Therefore, God is the absolute truth (Brahma Satyam) and the world is a relative truth with respect to Him (Jagat Mithya). When God comes in human form, you are misunderstanding that an individual ordinary soul (Jiiva) is in the gross human body. Such Jiiva in your angle is not really Jiiva but is God (Jiivo Brahmaiva Naparah). Therefore, whatever Shankara said is absolutely true from the point of God. Why did He tell so from the view of God and not from the view of soul? The reason is that Shankara is God and not the soul. Shankara explained the complicated subject assuming that ordinary subject is well known to everybody. You are the soul and this point is very clear and needs no explanation. But Krishna is a subject of dispute. You say that He is ordinary human being. But sages like Vyasa say that He is God. Shankara clarified this complicated subject of Krishna only. But the clever human beings, to satisfy their egoism, jealousy and ambition without any effort, have misinterpreted the total theory. The ordinary subject that every human being is soul and not God and that the world is real, has to be explained again because it is made complicated. To explain this man-made complicated subject, Ramanuja (Adishesha) and Madhva (son of Vayu) came down and explained the whole concept from the view of the soul. Since they are souls, they could explain the view of the soul very clearly. Similarly, Shankara was incarnation of God (Shiva) and hence, could explain very well the view of God.

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

Qualities Are Common to Incarnation and Human Being

The three qualities are common to the human incarnation and human being. In human being, the three qualities are already set-up in certain fixed proportions, called Samskaras. In human incarnation (in the case of God creating a fresh human body for His incarnation), the three qualities are available in equal proportions and can be spontaneously mixed in any ratio that is required to the divine play. The gross body and the three qualities are common in both the human being and human incarnation. The human being has no other extra item and thus, can be defined as the composite of the three qualities (Jiivaatman) and gross body. The human incarnation has extra item, which is God. The special divine knowledge of human incarnation is not inherent characteristic of the awareness or Chit (Atman) because of its specialty indicated by the prefix “Pra” in the word Prajnanam. The knowledge of the ordinary level is also not inherent characteristic of the awareness. The awareness is only the medium of expression of knowledge. The knowledge present in a scholar is from the teachers, who taught him and their source was books. The chief source of all the books is the Veda. The source of the Veda is God. If this knowledge is the inherent sign of awareness (Chit), all the living beings having common chit, must have knowledge to the same level. Thus, God is the source of knowledge of all levels including the Chit. But God has not granted the same level of knowledge to all the living beings.

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

★ ★ ★ ★ ★