Posted on: 01 Apr 2017
Shri Balaji Asked: 1) In the verse below,
“satyena labhyas tapasa hy esa atma samyag-jnanena, brahmacharyena nityam, antah-sarire-jyotir-mayo hi subhro yam pasyanti, yatayah kshinadosah”
Can we take the overall meaning of 'antah-sarire...pasyanti' to imply devotees freed of sinful actions will see God in human form?
Swami Replied: 'Inside the body' does not mean that whether it is own body of the sage (yati) or the human body of someone else. Due to this, we can take the meaning in three ways. 1) It can mean the soul present in the own body of sage. Here, the soul is said to be full of light (Jyotirmayah). Jyoti means light or inert energy. The word ‘Maya’ can mean a modification (Mayat vikaare). Since the soul or awareness is the work-modification of the inert energy in the specific nervous system existing within the body, Jyotirmaya can clearly mean the soul or awareness. 2) If you take the human body of human incarnation or even the energetic body of energetic incarnation, this object seen can be the first energetic incarnation, God Datta. In energetic incarnation like Brahma or Vishnu or Shiva, Datta, the first energetic incarnation exists merged. This can mean that Datta is seen in the energetic incarnations. Here also, the form of Datta is a modification of energy only, be it the body of Datta or the soul of Datta. Hence, 'Jyotirmaya' can stand for the first energetic form (energetic body and soul). 3) This can also mean the unimaginable God present in Datta. But unimaginable God can't be even imagined and in such case how He can be seen? This doubt can be cleared by saying that the verbs indicating action can also mean the action of knowing (Gatyarthaanaam dhaatunaam jnaanaarthakathvaat). Hence, here, seeing means knowing. This means that the sages recognised the existence of unimaginable God, who is in Datta. The immediate objection here is that how unimaginable God can be modification of energy (Jyotirmaya)? This can be cleared by saying that the word ‘Maya’ has another meaning of pre-dominance (Mayat praachurye). The unimaginable God is associated with Datta made of energy. This means the total content of Datta is imaginable energy along with the unimaginable God, who does not mix with imaginable energy. The predominance means that something different (unimaginable) from imaginable energy also exists. The grammar also gave an example for this meaning, which is that a village is full of dirt (Mala mayo graamah). Apart from the dirt, the village exists as a different item. Similarly, apart from the predominant inert energy, which is the content of the body as well as the soul of Datta, the different item, which is unimaginable God, exists. If you take human incarnation like Krishna, in Krishna also, the first energetic form called Datta exists in merged state and we can take the same above meaning of energetic incarnation here also.
Thus, the object of the seeing can be the first energetic form or Datta existing in energetic incarnation like Vishnu or Human incarnation like Krishna. If you take the sense of the verb 'seeing' as knowing, the object known becomes unimaginable God. One may object that how unimaginable God is known since He is unknowable. This can be cleared that the nature of unimaginable God is not known, but the existence of unimaginable God is only known. The Veda says that the existence of unimaginable God can be known (Asteetyeva Upalabdhavyah) through inference. You can infer the unimaginable God existing as the source of unimaginable events or miracles. The nature of unimaginable God is always unknowable, but His existence is knowable through inference. In the Gita, in one place, it is said that nobody knows God (Maam tu veda na…). In another place, it is said that one knows God in essence (Kaschit maam vetti tattvatah…). Both these statements appear to contradict each other. It is solved like this: essential knowledge of God means existence of God because existence is the essential (basic) characteristic of any item. Hence, one can know basically that unimaginable God exists through unimaginable miracles by inference. The other statement is that nobody knows God. This means that nobody knows the nature of God. In this way, the contradiction is removed.
2) What is the place of Sama drishti in our life?
Is it correct to say that we can use 'Sama Drishti' at the level of the mind to avoid himsa and ego? Then while doing charity or in our worldly interactions we give importance to the person in accordance to his good qualities and devotion.
Swami Replied: 'Sama Drishti' means seeing all items of creation with the same feeling. While explaining the meaning of a Vedic statement that this entire world is God (Sarvam khalvidam Brahma), people say that you must see every item of creation with equal feeling of love without differentiation. This is not correct. Here, the meaning of above Vedic statement shall be taken as that the world is under the control of God. This is enlightened by Shri Ramanujaachaarya in His commentary (Tadadhina Prathamaa). As far as the control of God is concerned, every item of creation is equal because every item is under the control of God. The equality of items is only from the point of control of every item in the hands of God. The equality is only with reference to the control by God only and this does not mean that there is no difference between any two items of the world. Items not only are different but also are exactly opposite in nature. Sun is hot and moon is cool. Heat and cold are not one and the same. Light and darkness are not one and the same. Knowledge and ignorance are not one and the same. Therefore, seeing any two items with equal feeling is impossible in this creation. When the authority of 'Sama Drishti' is explained in different sense of control as mentioned above, where is equality between any two items? Specifically, two items may be equal. Example, Rama and Krishna are equal human incarnations. Both have same human bodies. In both, God Datta merged and thus unimaginable God exists in both human incarnations. Therefore, two items in creation may be equal or may not be equal. According to the specific context you have to use 'seeing equally' or 'seeing with difference'. In the Gita 'Sthita Prajna' or a realised soul is said to be equal between a friend and enemy (Samah shatraucha mitrecha). The friendship or enmity is in your mind and not in the objects. The enmity and friendship in your mind may be also wrong due to your misunderstanding. Hence, the equality of a realised soul in this context is justified. But, God Himself is helping Kuchela or Sudama and at the same time is killing Kamsa. God did not treat both friendship and enmity to be equal in this example. Why? Here, the goodness in Kuchela is responsible for the friendship and the badness of Kamsa is responsible to enmity of God. The items are already different by goodness and badness. Hence, equal feeling is not present in this context.
While doing charity, the Veda clearly says that you must differentiate deserving and undeserving receivers (samvidaa deyam). Samvit means the analytical knowledge. You must use it to differentiate deserving from undeserving. It clearly means that you should not donate with equal feeling to both deserving and undeserving receivers. Donation to deserving gives you heaven and donating to undeserving gives you hell. Therefore, equality or difference applies according to the context and none of these two should be uniformly applied in all the contexts. The Gita says that a scholar sees a pious sage, cow, elephant, dog and a sinner equally. Here, the item of equality in all these examples is the same soul or awareness. This means that all these are living beings having common awareness or soul. This does not mean that there is no difference between these examples. If you approach a cow, it is silent since it is soft natured. If you approach a mad dog, it will bite you. This is seeing equality in the common soul existing in all the living beings and not the equality to be seen in their different natures. This is equality in difference, which is an example of both 'seeing equally (souls)' and 'seeing differently (Natures)'.
3) I am going to participate in 'Science and Spiritual knowledge' conducted by ISKCON. Can you give Me some idea?
Swami Replied: Science deals with imaginable events of imaginable creation. Spiritual knowledge deals with explanation of unimaginable events (miracles) indicating unimaginable God. You can use Science also in spiritual knowledge indirectly. If one says that one item is unimaginable God, you can use science in explaining that such item is imaginable only and not unimaginable God. For example, awareness was thought to be God. But, Science proves that awareness is only a specific work form of inert energy functioning in a specific nervous system and hence it is imaginable item only (just like electricity in functioning grinding machine-system is converted into a specific form of work called grinding). We can say that awareness or soul is not God based on this scientific explanation. The process of negating every item of imaginable creation to be unimaginable God only and thus negating the entire imaginable creation to be God is followed in the Veda (Neti neti…). This is indirect indication towards unimaginable God by negating all the imaginable items. Creator can't be the creation. If Creator and creation is one and the same, there is no place for process of creation itself. Hence, unimaginable Creator is totally different from the imaginable creation. In this way, Science helps to indicate the unimaginable God. The boundary of the Universe is unimaginable in the sense that we can't imagine the place where the boundary of the universe exists. The boundary and the core of the universe are made of five elements only and hence core and boundary are imaginable only. The unimaginable boundary of the universe does not mean that the content materials of the boundary are unimaginable. The contents of the boundary are imaginable only because there is no difference between core and boundary as far as the content materials are concerned. The difference is only that even though, the content materials of the boundary are known (since boundary and core are one and the same as far as content materials are concerned), the place of the boundary is not known and is unimaginable. As far as the core is concerned, both the content materials of core and place of the core are known. The place of the boundary or called as unimaginable boundary of the universe can be treated as God. If smoke is coming from fire and we follow the path of smoke, we will reach the boundary of smoke (point of origin of smoke), which is nothing but fire, the generator of smoke. Similarly, if we can reach the boundary of the universe, you will touch its generator called as God. Since you can never reach the unimaginable boundary of the universe, you can never touch unimaginable God even in imagination since the place of the boundary of universe can't be even imagined. The Veda says that God is generator of space in the beginning of creation (Aatmana aakashah). God existed even before the generation of space. In God, space cannot exist before its generation. If space existed in God before its generation, generation of space is false because space existed even before its generation. This means that space is not present in God, just like Pot is not present in mud or jewel is not present in the lump of gold. When space is absent, the spatial dimension (length, breadth and height) are absent. This means God has no volume. This means that you can never imagine anything without volume. Therefore, God is unimaginable. Like this, Science is the backbone of spiritual knowledge. We can also reject items like awareness to be God using the scientific analysis only. By negating every object of the creation to be God, we can clearly end in saying that God is beyond imaginable creation and hence is unimaginable.
4) Why you have chosen the method of answering questions in the path of Spiritual Knowledge?
Swami Replied: The Gita itself is a bundle of answers given to the questions of Arjuna. The Gita became famous because the spiritual knowledge is projected in the form of questions and answers only. If the subject is preached continuously like the speech of a politician asking for votes, it bores the receivers. When a question is heard, the curiosity raises the receivers to hear the answer for the question. Curiosity is the hunger of knowledge and hence the answer is perfectly assimilated due to such hunger-fire. Even while teaching a subject, a teacher is appreciated by students while teaching is done through questions (put by the teacher himself) and answers. The questions will raise curiosity in students for knowledge to be received in the form of answers. The assimilation of knowledge becomes perfect in such case. Krishna told that He is Arjuna among Pandavas (Pandavaanaam dhanamjayah). This means that Krishna Himself is putting questions through Arjuna. The Gita became the excellent way of preaching the subject as mentioned above regarding a teacher teaching the subject through questions putting by himself directly. The meaning of the statement of Krishna that He is Arjuna should be understood in this way. Teacher was putting questions directly by his own mouth and Krishna was putting questions indirectly through the mouth of Arjuna, which indicates that Krishna is Arjuna even in putting questions.