Monism and the Vedantic Unification

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

[Shri Phani asked:- With reference to Your answer to Smt. Ramasundari, if this is the case of monism, how are You interpreting the correlation among the philosophies of the three divine preachers?]

Swami replied:- Even though, you have attained negligible partial monism with your friend in eating the food only, you must not forget the dualism in other two aspects (purchasing the food materials and cooking the food). A producer-cum-director of a cinema is enjoying the show of his cinema on the screen along with his peon sitting by his side. In enjoying both comic and tragic scenes of cinema, the Producer-Director and peon are equal and the peon shall not misunderstand this negligible partial similarity as total monism or total equality. If the peon under illusion puts his hand on the shoulder of his boss (producer-cum-director), is it proper? The boss is always the master whereas the peon is his servant. A partial similarity does not bring even total equality and not to speak of oneness or monism in absolute sense. This partial similarity is said by Ramanuja as the relationship between realized soul and God (Soul enjoying the world with equality alone shall be considered here and not every ordinary soul, which is lacking such similar equal enjoyment.) following the relationship between part and its whole (Aṃśa-Aṃśi or Śeṣa-Śeṣi saṃbandha).

Madhva says that the relationship between soul and God is always same as servant and God even though a negligent similarity (that both are made of awareness) exists. Ramanuja looked at the qualitative similarity and simultaneously observed the quantitative difference to call both soul and God as limb and whole body while Madhva looked at the difference only as reality neglecting the one similarity. Such view was also expressed by the earlier Shankara in a prayer written on God Jagannaatha (Satyapi bhedāpagame...) in which He addressed God as His master (Nātha) comparing Himself as a wave and God as ocean. Shankara knows the predominant difference between both God and soul even though negligible similarity (that both master and servant are in human form, which is qualitative similarity and the difference in potencies of both being quantitative difference) exists. The similarity is just awareness or just to know whereas the difference is in quantities of knowledge. God is unimaginable awareness whereas the soul is imaginable awareness. An animal is also imaginable awareness having the basic property just to know whereas a realized sage has lot of deep knowledge and monism (basic property of awareness just to know) between the animal and sage is qualitative similarity whereas the difference in the extents of knowledge is the quantitative dissimilarity. There is quantitative difference between even the sage and omniscient God.

How can I control My laughing at you if you say that there is strict monism between animal and God? At least, if you speak of monism in loose sense between animal and sage, I can control Myself. If you say strict monism between animal and God, how can I control Myself from laughing? At least, between the sage and animal there is a basic qualitative similarity that in both the knower is relative awareness, which is a form of inert energy. In these both animal and sage, you can say that a qualitative similarity (basic awareness) exists even though quantitative difference exists due to difference in the extents of knowledge possessed by the awareness due to difference in the potencies of awareness. But, when you take the unimaginable God and imaginable awareness (ordinary soul), both are totally different because one awareness is unimaginable and the other awareness is imaginable. In fact, the imaginable awareness or soul is a form of inert energy as subject (seer or dṛk or draṣṭā), the process of knowing is also a work form of inert energy (seeing or dṛṣṭi or dṛk) and the object seen is also a form of inert energy (seen or dṛśyam) only. You shall observe that the seer and seeing are one and the same (dṛk).

The work process of seeing and the seer become one and the same dynamic energy. The seer appears to be static matter, but, matter is a form of energy only. The static matter is dynamic energy only. The dynamism is not perceived due to subtle nature and the gross static nature is only perceived and hence, you are seeing the dynamic energy as static matter. The static appearance of matter or atom is in fact, the hidden condensed dynamic nature (revolving and spinning) of energy in the form of subatomic particles. The ultimate nature of energy is only dynamism, the absolute truth within the imaginable domain and the static appearance is only illusion so that we can say that matter is hidden energy only. Hence, this entire world is energy only in the absolute phase within the imaginable domain. Such energy is also hidden unimaginable God only. We say that energy is creator of matter and God is the creator of energy. The difference between absolute and relative phases exists within the imaginable domain so that we can understand the absolute unimaginable domain and the relative imaginable domain with the help of imaginable domain itself. Unimaginable God is the absolute reality on which the inert energy is the superimposed illusion. Energy is again the absolute reality (within the imaginable domain and this is not the absolute unimaginable domain) on which matter is superimposed illusion. These two illusions (energy on God and matter on energy) are for the soul created by God. These two illusions are divine illusions (māyā) created by God for the soul and hence, can’t be crossed by the soul. When the soul sees a real rope as false snake in twilight, such illusion is for the soul created by the soul itself (avidyā).

The soul can cross avidyaa but never māyā. In avidyā, false snake does not appear as clear as the real serpent appearing in bright day light. In māyā, the false serpent appears as very clear serpent appearing in bright day light. God is the rope, which is the absolute unimaginable and real phase. The soul is neither rope (neither monism) nor a part of the rope (nor the special monism). The soul is a part of the false serpent only. Hence, the false serpent can’t be unreal for a part of it (soul). The soul is never the God and never becomes the God. Hence, the soul never becomes God by its wish or effort. God becomes the soul when God wishes so. This happens when God merges with the soul through perfect monism. Even in such perfect monism of merge, dualism between God and soul exists beyond the limits of our imaginabtion. Hence, within the limits of our imagination, God becomes the soul and we have to say the perfect monism in such case. Both these illusions (God appearing as energy and energy appearing as matter) exist for God also giving real entertainment as long as God wishes. But, both these illusions disappear for God whenever God wishes to do a miracle. Hence, non-existence of energy and matter along with simultaneous existence of energy and matter continue for God. For the soul, the non-existence of energy and matter can never exist.

When we call God as unimaginable awareness, the word awareness is very very dangerous word to mislead us within a fraction of second. It immediately brings the wrong meaning that awareness as subject (seer) and process (seeing) are one and the same and hence, God as well as His process of seeing (knowing) are awareness only and since awareness is a form of inert energy only, both God and His process of knowing are forms of inert energy only. Alas! God was thinking even before the creation of inert energy! Inert energy was absent before creation and hence, awareness must have been absent before creation. Then, how God (as subject of form of awareness) did the process of thinking (as the work form of awareness)? You have to say that God and His thinking are unimaginable in absence of inert energy (awareness) before creation. This means the unimaginable God need not be subjective awareness and working awareness to think. Unimaginable God can think without awareness due to His unimaginable omnipotence. When I say that God thought like this, you simply take the straight meaning that God thought like this and don’t remember about awareness here, which has no place at all before the creation of its cause (inert energy) itself. The word awareness is born only when the inert energy is created and matter (materialized nervous system) is created.

When the first pot was not created at all in the entire creation, how can you use the word ‘pot’? Hence, before creation, the word ‘awareness’ does not exist at all. Only one word having one meaning or item exists and that is ‘unimaginable God’. Hence, if you are talking before creation, you have to say that only one word ‘unimaginable God’. When we say that the unimaginable God thought before creation, that thought is also unimaginable God, which is that one item only. Any number of unimaginable items become only one unimaginable item. Since unimaginable God is thinking before creation, both the subjective God and the process of thinking commonly called as awareness (dṛk) can be also used as a word since such awareness is also unimaginable and hence, is also unimaginable God. Therefore, from the angle of subject as well as from the angle of the process or work, the unimaginable God is not this relative awareness found in the imaginable creation as an imaginable item being the imaginable work form of imaginable inert energy functioning in the imaginable materialized nervous system. This relative awareness or soul can’t be even dreamt to be that unimaginable God existing before creation without any second item like awareness.

Such omnipotent unimaginable God can see the non-existent world as very clear as if it is equally existing to get full and real entertainment due to His unimaginable omnipotence. Due to the same unimaginable omnipotence, He enters His own creation as mediated God or incarnation, which is beyond logic. A false serpent appearing on a rope in twilight can’t be as clear as the real serpent appearing in bright daytime. But, God is seeing the non-existent world as very clear absolutely existing and getting full and real entertainment. Hence, unimaginable omnipotence is required here for explanation. The real rope can’t enter the false snake, but, the real God is entering the non-existent world as incarnation. Here also the unimaginable potency of God is required for explanation.

Therefore, you can’t use the word ‘awareness’ in the absolute phase before creation and hence, you have to say only one word ‘unimaginable God’. If you use the word ‘unimaginable awareness’, such word also means unimaginable God only. You can’t say the awareness as a portion existing in unimaginable God because internal difference (Svagatabheda) is absent in any unimaginable item. Hence, awareness also becomes unimaginable God or unimaginable item and therefore, the unimaginable awareness can’t be this relative imaginable awareness, called soul. You are always practically standing in the relative phase only and you can speak about the absolute phase, which shall not mean that you are speaking about absolute phase standing in the same absolute phase. Here, the absolute phase means strictly the unimaginable God strictly before creation only. You can’t continue this absolute phase even after creation because God is always existent and world including souls is always non-existent.

The phase before creation is not the phase after creation because God made the non-existent world as very clear as if it is absolutely existent after creation to get real and full entertainment. Even though essentially there is no difference between the two phases (before and after creation), there is an external superficial difference between the two phases and hence, we are very strict to speak about absolute phase before creation only. The same absolute phase exists essentially after creation and does not exist externally and hence, the second phase is different from first phase. Let Me give an example. Light is inert form of inert energy and awareness is non-inert form of the same inert energy. Essentially both light and awareness are one and the same, but differ in the external form that light is inert and awareness is non-inert. How the inert energy became non-inert awareness? The dynamic energy became static matter and matter is not dynamic. The non-inert nature of awareness is illusion only just like the static nature of the matter. Really the non-inert nature means full control with full freedom. To give knowledge of difference between non-inert and inert items to the souls, God gave little control with little freedom to this inert relative imaginable awareness to differentiate it form fully inert items. The soul can move the hand, but, can’t move a paralysed hand and also can’t control the internal heart in anyway. The unimaginable God has full freedom and full control over any imaginable item, be it called inert or non-inert. Hence, the soul is called basically inert (Ajña) and superficially non-inert (Alpajña).

We can’t dare even to compare unimaginable awareness with imaginable awareness attracted by the common word ‘awareness’ because the awareness of unimaginable awareness is totally unimaginable (both subject wise and work wise) and we can’t even dream to say that both are one awareness only. God is unimaginable awareness as subject and as work (process of knowing) and the object may be imaginable while God is seeing the world. If the object to be seen (drushyam) is also self itself, all the three (seer, seeing and seen) are unimaginable only. In the case of this imaginable awareness, even the object may be self, all the three are imaginable inert energy only. When God sees the world, only seen (object) becomes imaginable. When the soul sees the world, all the three are imaginable only.

When the unimaginable God mediates with an imaginable item like the so called non-inert soul, God identifies with the soul. The sight of such mediated God (Incarnation) has both external imaginable nature and internal unimaginable nature of unimaginable God. The hidden unimaginable nature in the sight of the incarnation is expressed whenever there is necessity. When the necessity is not there, the sight of incarnation has the imaginable nature of the soul only since the merged unimaginable God is in hidden state. God does not use His unimaginable omnipotence in seeing the world because He can see the world through the imaginable nature of the site of the soul itself. Not using the original power in unnecessary situation is the talent of a good administrator. The finger of Krishna is as tender as any finger of any boy, but, when the occasion of lifting the hill arose, the unimaginable nature of God entered the finger to lift the hill and this unimaginable nature extended all over the body to withstand the weight of the hill.

If you want to compare a realized soul with God showing the similarity of equal enjoyment, let the soul be strictly a realised soul (not ordinary soul) and let the God be mediated God (not the original unimaginable God before creation) because between the soul and mediated God there is common relative imaginable awareness. If the soul is an animal, based on this basic awareness, (just to know), you can compare mediated God with it based on such common relative imaginable awareness. If you are basing on the basic nature of the basic awareness only, you can compare basically the omniscient mediated God, a saint having lot of knowledge, an ordinary soul having little knowledge and an animal having the basic awareness (just to know) only. In any case, you should not take the unimaginable God before creation (Parabrahman) for comparison with any type of soul.

The basic quality of awareness (just to know) is almost negligible and can be treated as absence of knowledge. Hence, the Veda says that the soul is inert (ajña) and not even little knowing (Alpjña) whereas God having entire knowledge is knowing or awareness (jña). Awareness must have full control and full freedom (Īśa) whereas the inert item has neither freedom nor control over the other (Anīśa). The soul or awareness of a human being has negligible knowledge, negligible freedom and negligible control over the body whereas God has full knowledge, full freedom and full control of the body of any living being and non-living being in the world (Jña Ajñau... Īśa Anīśau—Veda). The negligible similarity between soul and God in just one basic property of awareness can’t bring total strict monism between the awareness of both. Moreover, the awareness of God is unimaginable since it is not the work form of inert energy functioning in nervous system, which is the imaginable awareness. Unimaginable awareness means that it is not the work form of inert energy at all and it is called as awareness because such unimaginable item also knows (the basic property of awareness) since this unimaginable item can do any work like thinking without being imaginable awareness, burn without being imaginable fire etc. The difference is totally full because the imaginable awareness is work form of imaginable inert energy whereas the unimaginable awareness is totally unimaginable.

Shri Datta Swami says that even an attempt to compare both is meaningless because comparison can exist between two imaginable items only. You can’t have similar (Sajātīya) or dissimilar (Vijātīya) difference between two unimaginable items. In an unimaginable item, you can’t have internal (Svagata) difference also. This means that you can’t have two similar or dissimilar unimaginable items, which means that a second similar God can’t exist and anything other than God also can’t exist in the absolute phase. The world including souls is non-existent with respect to the only existing unimaginable God. The non-existent soul can never become existent God and vice-versa as per the worldly logic applied to absolute phase because the real rope neither becomes false serpent nor the false serpent becomes the real rope. This is the absolute phase of reality. But, the omnipotent unimaginable God being beyond the worldly logic becomes the specific imaginable soul through merge in incarnation and you can call this in reverse also as the imaginable soul becoming the unimaginable God in your language limited to relative phase. In the phase of relative reality in which the rest (other than yourself) non-existent world is existent to you (the non-existent soul). You can speak that the existent God identifies with a non-existent soul (with respect to God) and appears as existent mediated God (with respect to soul) within the realm of relative reality.

To speak that the non-existent soul in the absolute reality is the existent unimaginable God — is a twist of Shankara applied for the sake of atheist to convert him into theist. If you stand in absolute reality, anything other than God is non-existent and hence, you also become non-existent. If you are to be mentioned in the absolute reality, the meaning of the word ‘you’ (the soul) must be God. This does not mean that you are the God. It only means that the meaning of the word ‘you’ is God because the meaning of any word in this absolute reality is only God. No word in the phase of absolute reality can have a meaning different from God. In absolute reality, you (the soul different from God) are non-existent. You can be mentioned with your individuality only in the relative phase. You can never enter the absolute phase of reality whereas the omnipotent God can enter the relative reality by identifying Himself with a relative item of the world to become mediated God. If you take the absolute phase of reality of Shankara, the meaning of any word becomes only God and hence, the word ‘soul’ means God only (Jīvo Brahmaiva). Since Shankara is the incarnation of God, He spoke only in His view, which does not apply to the soul. Ramanuja and Madhva are incarnations of devoted souls (Ādiśeṣa and Vāyu). They spoke only about the relative reality pertaining to the souls and their God is not the absolute unimaginable God, but, is the mediated God only. They spoke in their view point of a soul.

If you are already the absolute unimaginable God through incarnation like Shankara, follow the path of monism. If you are a relative created soul as a part of creation, follow the path of Ramanuja and Madhva. You are in the path of Shankara if you are already the incarnation of absolute God, called mediated God. You are in the path of Ramanuja and Madhva if you realized that you are a created soul and not the creator-mediated God. The philosophy of Shankara is the absolute truth, which is applicable to a specific soul called incarnation. The philosophy of Ramanuja and Madhva applies to all ordinary souls wishing for the grace of God. The Advaita philosophers must distinguish the absolute phase of reality and the relative phase of reality to avoid confusing themselves and confusing others. Ramanuja never criticized Shankara, but, only criticized the followers of Shankara. Had Ramanuja criticized Shankara, it means that He criticized Himself.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★