Posted on: 24 Dec 2008
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[In the below given discussion, Swami is Defendant, Misconceived Advaitin is the Petitioner and a keen follower of discussion is the Mediator. Shankara used to present the knowledge in this dialogue format.]
Petitioner: God is awareness because the Brahma Sutra (Eekkshateh…) says that God is not any inert item since the Veda says that God wished to create this Universe (Tadaikshataa…). If God is inert, He cannot wish at all.
Defendant: The Brahma Sutra certainly establishes that God is not inert. But, at the same time, the Sutra does not say that God is awareness.
P: The Veda says that God is awareness (Satyam, Jnanam…, Prajnanam Brahma…). If something is not inert (non living), it must be awareness (living) only. There are only two items: living and non living.
D: The word Jnana does not mean awareness. If that is so, an animal or insect possessing mere awareness should have been addressed as the possessor of knowledge (Jnani). It is said to be the possessor of awareness (Sachetanam). A separate word Chit exists to mean awareness. An animal or insect or even an ordinary human being possessing mere awareness is also called as Ajnani (non possessor of knowledge). Apart from the two items (living and non living), there can be the third item, which is neither living nor non living i.e. unimaginable.
P: Knowledge (Jnanam) is the product of awareness just like a golden ring is the product of a lump of gold. The basic material of the knowledge is awareness. Therefore, the word Jnanam (knowledge) includes awareness. A golden ornament like ring is called as gold. Therefore, there is no difference between gold and golden ornament. Similarly, there is no difference between awareness and knowledge.
D: If that is so, suppose you go to the shop and ask for golden ring and if the shop keeper gives you a lump of gold, are you satisfied? Lump of gold is one item and golden ring is another item even though gold is the common material of these two. Golden ornament can be called as gold but gold cannot be called as golden ornament. A golden ring and a golden chain can be called as gold. But, a golden lump does not stand for the ring or the chain. If the gold stands for all the golden ornaments, you cannot distinguish the ring and the chain by asking the shopkeeper to give gold. Gold is the single item that exists in all the ornaments and hence, all the ornaments can be called as gold. But, gold does not include any ornament in it. The form of the golden lump is not the form of any golden ornament. Therefore, you can call all types of knowledge as awareness but you cannot call the awareness as any type of knowledge. The possessor of any knowledge must contain awareness but mere awareness does not contain any type of knowledge.
P: According to your argument, the word knowledge can represent awareness but the awareness cannot represent knowledge. Hence, the word Jnanam in the Veda represents awareness and hence, we call God represented by the word Jnanam as awareness.
D: We have told the word Jnanam (knowledge) can represent awareness since knowledge contains awareness. This does not mean that knowledge means awareness. Representation is different from meaning. Knowledge can stand for awareness and this does not mean that you should take the word knowledge as mere awareness. In such a case, a man having knowledge must be a possessor of awareness only and should be equal to an animal or a fool who also is a possessor of awareness without knowledge. The word representation means that the knowledge can be approximately treated as awareness in loose sense. The ornament is called as gold in loose sense but not in actual sense. If the ornament is only a gold lump in actual sense, you can keep gold lumps only in the places of ornaments and sell as different ornaments. Therefore, you cannot take the word Jnanam for awareness in actual sense. In that case, the word knowledge is not mere awareness that exists in every living being and you cannot say that God (awareness according to Advaita) exists in every living being. If you say that the living beings which possess knowledge in real sense are only God because knowledge is God, then there will be plurality of God even though it is minority. Atleast, a few living beings possess knowledge. This contradicts the Vedic statement that God is only one (Eka meva…).
Differentiate Between Human Incarnation and Realized Soul
P: The Veda says that the possessor of infinite true knowledge is God and another Vedic statement says that the possessor of special knowledge is God (Prajnanam…). In that case, only person having the highest divine knowledge becomes God and this does not contradict the Vedic statement that God is one. Though the plurality of God is removed, atleast one human being, who is a realized soul becomes God. Advaita says that any human being on realization only becomes God.
D: We agree with your conclusion to say that one human being having the highest special divine knowledge is God and we call such a human being as the contemporary Human Incarnation. However, this contradicts your basic theory that every living being or every human being is God. Advaita says that every human being becomes God on realizing the truth that it is God. There is no difficulty in realizing this simple truth. Once, a human being thinks that it is God, it should become God. If, even two human beings in a generation realize that both are God, then also the plurality results contradicting that there is only one God. In other words, your theory restricts the possibility of becoming God only to one human being in a generation.
P: Even in your theory of human incarnation, you say that there can be more than one human incarnation in one generation and this also leads to contradiction of theory of one God.
Mediator: The difference between both of you is that God becoming several human incarnations in the same time is the concept of Defendant and several human beings becoming God in the same time by realization is the concept of the Petitoner. In both the concepts i.e., whether God enters several media simultaneously or several media become God simultaneously, does not affect the oneness of God because God being the generator of space, is beyond the spatial dimensions. Therefore, the defendant and petitioner are safeguarded in this point and need not argue further on this point.
There is also no difference in the points between petitioner and defendant. It is that whether several media become God or God is expressed in several media, these media can be called as human incarnations in the terminology of the defendant or they can be called as realized souls (siddhas) in the terminology of the petitioner. If you treat the realized soul as the human incarnation, even this difference can be avoided because both the words mean the same.
D: There is a difference between the realized soul and human incarnation. We call the human incarnation as the realized soul. But, we will not call the realized soul as human incarnation. A realized soul means the person, who came to know the truth. By knowing the truth that the human being is God, no human being is actually becoming God. But, the human incarnation is already God and hence, knows that He is God. Therefore, the realized soul does not become human incarnation but the human incarnation becomes realized soul. Therefore, you cannot equate the human incarnation with the realized soul.
P: The Veda says that the realized soul or knower of Brahman is God (Brahma vit Brahmaiva…). Therefore, the human being realizing that he is Brahman becomes Brahman or God. Hence, the realized soul is human incarnation as soon as it realizes that it is God.
D: This statement is reversed by you and hence, is misinterpreted. This means that God alone knows God and does not mean that the human being other than God can know God. Therefore, the realization means the knowledge of God and not the knowledge that the human being is God. In the above Vedic statement, the word Brahmavit means the realization of God and does not mean the realization of knowledge that one is God. The petitioner is confused between these two states of knowledge: one is the knowledge of the nature of God and the other is knowledge of the soul being God. Both these concepts or states of knowledge are quite different.
P: We withdraw the above Vedic statement in this context and let us confine to our original debate that there is no conflict between God becoming several human beings and several beings becoming God. Both these concepts do not contradict each other because God is beyond space and this is already proposed by the Mediator. These several people, who become God, called as realized souls by us and let the same be called as human incarnation by the defendant. The difference is only in terminology.
D: But, the word realized soul is objected by us based on the above Vedic statement and so, either you have to withdraw the word realized soul or defend the meaning of the word realized soul. Since the meaning is contradicted, the word realized soul cannot be used by you. Even if you use the word Siddha, it also means that one has become God. If He has already become God, He becomes our human incarnation and subsequently becomes the realized soul. In such case, you have merged with our school of thought completely.
Gita says ‘Only One in Many Knows the Human Incarnation’
P: The Gita says that one in many knows God (Kaschit Mam vetti…). This means, one knows God. Therefore, the human being knows God and then becomes God.
D: The Gita does not say that such one person knows God and then becomes God. You added that the person knowing God becomes God. In the Gita, it is said that one in many knows the human incarnation i.e. Krishna as God in essence. The word ‘Tattvatah’ means that the human incarnation misunderstood as human being, is realized as God in essence. The human being is only a cover or medium and the essence is God. The word ‘Mam’ here denotes Krishna, who is the human incarnation. This again establishes that the human incarnation is God essentially. There are several Vedic statements, which say that God is beyond imagination. How can any human being imagine God who is beyond space? The human intelligence can never cross the spatial dimensions. Therefore, the human being can never know God and how can it know that it is God? You may think yourself as a beggar by illusion and now you realize that you are the king. Here, you know the beggar as well as king. Both the beggar and the king are known items. The soul is a known item and therefore, the soul thinking that it is soul is possible. How can the soul think that it is the unknown or the unknowable God? The object of illusion and the object of the realization of object after illusion must be known items. Both beggar (object of illusion) and king (object of realization) are known items. Since your theory fails completely in the fundamental stage itself, you cannot project it into the area of the mediator, which safeguards the multiplicity of God. When none in several can become God by realization, what is the use of safeguarding the possibility of several becoming God? The case of petitioner has no foundation and subsequently there are no walls above the foundation. The concept of the mediator is like painting the walls. The concept of the mediator is possible in our case only. The point of the petitioner proposing that a human being becoming God depends on the will and effort of the human being. The capacity of a human being can never cross the spatial dimensions and hence, there is no chance of application of the concept of the mediator to this case, which involves the point beyond the space. Our side proposes that God becomes several human beings by the will and unimaginable power of the unimaginable God, who is beyond space. Therefore, the concept of the mediator applies to our side only in toto.
P: The Veda says that God is known to sharp intelligence (Drushyate tvagrayaa…). The Veda also says that God is known (Vedaha metam…). Hence, God is unimaginable to ignorant people but imaginable to scholars. The Vedic statements referring God as unimaginable can refer to ignorant people.
D: The sharp intelligence recognizes the soul only, which is thought to be the body by the ignorant people. This is the context of your first statement. The illusion and realization are possible in this context because both the soul and body are known items. All the theory of Shankara is in this context only. Your second statement refers to the human form of God. The unimaginable God becomes imaginable and also is seen through the human form in the case of human incarnation. Therefore, the ignorant people cannot imagine the soul and hence, the soul is unimaginable to ignorant people. The soul becomes imaginable to scholars. God is unimaginable even to scholars and is imaginable to God only. The case of ignorant people and scholars in the case of soul, stands as a simile to the case of scholars and God in the case of God. Both the cases should not be confused as one. The case of God becomes unimaginable to all and this is clearly stated by the Gita (Mamtu veda na kaschana…). The Gita says that nobody knows God. It does not say that ignorant people do not know God. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God should not be taken as the imaginable soul under any circumstances. Hence, the illusion and the realization are not possible with the unimaginable God.
P: If you say that God is not inert, then naturally it should mean that God must be awareness as mentioned in the Brahma Sutra, which is our beginning topic. There are only two items in the Universe. One is the non-living inert and the other is living awareness. There is no third item, which is neither inert nor awareness. If one item is denied it must be the other item as per this rule. Generally, in the world, the unimaginable item is not taken as a third item in the case of famous twins like heat and cold, day and night, sorrow and happiness etc. All these are called as twins and they are not referred as triads by bringing the unimaginable possibility as the third item in each case. If one says that something did not happen in the day time, it always means that it happened in the night time. Nobody will say that it might have happened in some unimaginable time, which is neither day nor night. Based on this, we say that God is awareness since the Brahma Sutra clearly denied that God is not inert.
D: In the case of discussions related to the worldly matters, your argument is sustained because the world contains only imaginable items and there is no provision for unimaginable item in the world. The subject discussed here is not confined to the worldly items or world only. The subject involves God, who is the creator of the world. Since space is also an item of the world and all the worldly items have spatial dimensions invariably, every item is imaginable since every item has invariably spatial dimensions. We are now talking about God, who is the generator of space and hence, God is beyond the spatial dimensions. Due to this special aspect, God becomes unimaginable and hence, referring to the possibility of the third unimaginable item becomes essential in this context referring to God.
If you say that something is unknown or unimaginable, you cannot say that it is awareness or inert. When the nature of the unimaginable item is not at all known, how can you comment that it is inert or awareness? Both inert and awareness are imaginable items of the world.
The Central Concept in Philosophy
P: We are discussing about imaginable items only. We need not even speak about the unknown or unimaginable items. If God is unimaginable item, there is no need of speaking about God. The only statement that can be given about God is that we need not speak about God because He is unknown. If that is the case, what is the necessity of this elaborate philosophy as a subject, which can be disposed with a single statement that God need not be discussed at all since He is unimaginable?
D: The philosophy deals with the discussion of the existence of unimaginable item. When you say that God is unknown, there is a danger of establishment of the non-existence of God. Philosophy says that God is unimaginable and exists. Philosophy further says that the unimaginable God enters and pervades a specific known medium so that you can experience the mediated God. It is just like the unseen electricity entering a seen metallic wire giving you the experience of its existence through the shock. Philosophy deals with the investigation of the real path to please God etc., Therefore, Philosophy cannot be limited to one single statement, which states that we need not speak about God since God is unimaginable. Some say that the awareness is God and several others say that other imaginable items are God. We have to negate all these proposals by establishing that all these are imaginable items and hence, cannot be the unimaginable God. All these aspects are to be dealt in detail and in depth and this makes philosophy a vast subject.
P: How can you establish the existence of the unimaginable item? You can say that something exists only if you come to know about it. When you do not know about it, how can you say that it exists?
D: In this world, several miracles happen. The miracle is unimaginable but still it exists. The boundary of this Universe is also unimaginable but it must exist. Therefore, the proof of the existence of unimaginable item exists in this world. In fact to give the proof of the existence of unimaginable nature, God created this unlimited Universe with unimaginable boundary. The same God shows various miracles in this world so that the existence of unimaginable nature is established; thereby the existence of unimaginable God is also established by the extension of the concept.
P: All this is an indirect procedure of showing the possibility of God to be unimaginable and therefore, need not be awareness. The unimaginable miracles establish the unimaginable God indirectly. But, there is no direct proof for you to establish that God is not awareness even though God is not inert. Thus, you do not have direct proof for this in your logic. You also do not have the support of scripture to show that God is not awareness. We have the scriptural proof to show that God is not inert as per the above referred Brahma Sutra.
D: Whatever is said by Me so far is a proof of logic only. Due to the availability of the existence of examples of unimaginable nature in the world, the existence of unimaginable nature is proved by experience. When the authority of experience exists, you cannot deny it even by logic. Experience is the basic support of logic. Therefore, the support of the unimaginable nature is experienced in the world and not mere dry logic without experience. You can do away with dry logic, but you can never deny the experience existing in the world supporting the logic. Our side is the logic supported by the experience.
P: Even experience can be denied. A person with defect in the eye experiences the existence of two moons in the sky. Therefore, the miracles also may be the results of such false experience of ignorant people without analysis of science.
D: Even if you condemn the miracles like that, you cannot condemn the existence of unimaginable boundary of the Universe, which is accepted even by the scientists. Moreover, the experience of two moons exists in the case of a few persons only having defect in the eyes. The false experience is limited to minority, but the majority sees one moon only. Similarly, the experience of miracles exists in the case of majority and therefore, should be valid even according to the line of your argument. Only atheists, who are in minority, deny the miracles. Therefore, your line of argument is reversed here. We can also give the direct proof as desired by you. The awareness existing in the human being does not create even an atom in this world. It does not control even the systems existing in its own body like heart, kidneys etc., when those systems get problems. The awareness is unable to destroy even an atom existing in the world. But, God is creating this external physical Universe, controlling and is destroying it. This single point clearly establishes that God is not awareness. This is stated by the second Brahma Sutra itself, which states that God is the creator, controller and destroyer of this physical Universe. Hence, the second Brahma Sutra denies that God is awareness. The fifth Brahma Sutra denies that God is inert. Therefore, the conclusion of both these Sutras is that God is neither awareness nor inert. It means that God is beyond the Universe, which consists of both inert and living items. Creator exists before the creation. The Veda also says that God is unimaginable by saying “No word can explain God, mind cannot reach Him, He is beyond intelligence, you cannot attain God by intelligence, you cannot touch Him by logic, the only knowledge of God is that God is unknown” etc., Therefore, we have the scriptural evidence also for denying that God is awareness.
P: The majority denies miracles because today majority of the people knows science. Therefore, you cannot deny our side by showing the majority as the minority.
Science Does Not Negate Miracles
D: Only atheists deny miracles. Science keeps silent about the miracles because it cannot explain the miracles. Silence does not mean negation. In the books of science, you do not find any topic with the name “denying miracles”. It only mentions the topics like light, heat, electricity etc., which are the topics of analysis of known and knowable items of the world. It never touches the unknown and unknowable aspects. In fact, the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg establishes that there are certain concepts, which are beyond the accuracy of our senses and even sophisticated instruments like electron microscope etc. Therefore, science is neutral and cannot be added to atheists or theists. The atheists are definitely in negligible minority compared to theists. Therefore, people denying miracles fall under minority only. The theists also accept the concepts proved by science, which are related to the world. These theists accept miracles also as unimaginable events about which science does not speak at all. Therefore, there is no contradiction between theists and science. The theist never says that the revolution of fan is unimaginable miracle and hence, the theists never oppose science. In fact, atheists oppose science by denying miracles about which science keeps silent.
P: The nature of the cause must enter the product. The Gold from the lump enters the golden ring. By this, the unimaginable nature of God must enter the creation also and the creation must be unimaginable. But, creation is imaginable as you yourself say.
D: The shape of the lump of the gold did not enter the ring. The gold only entered the effect from cause. Therefore, the shape component of the cause does not enter the effect and the gold component of the cause only enters the effect. This means that a part of the nature of the cause enters and another part of the nature of the cause does not enter the effect. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God entered the world through unimaginable miracles and unimaginable boundary of Universe. The deepest nature of the creation is also unimaginable according to scientists. All this is like the gold component entering the effect from cause. The shape of the ring, which is the new component that is different from the shape of the lump, can be also seen as the new component appearing in the ring here. The point is that the imaginable nature of the universe, which is quite different from the unimaginable nature of the God appeared in the Universe as a new component of the effect. All this proves that the creation need not be completely unimaginable since its cause (God) is completely unimaginable. In fact, God created this imaginable nature in the Universe so that the existence of unimaginable nature can be relatively established. In the absence of unimaginable nature, the imaginable nature cannot have existence because both the unimaginable and imaginable natures are relative terms. Moreover, when the cause is unimaginable, the process of generation of an imaginable product from the unimaginable cause must be also unimaginable. In the world, we see the generation of imaginable effect from another imaginable cause. Therefore, the process of generation here is also imaginable. There is no example in the world for the generation of imaginable product from unimaginable cause. This world consists of all imaginable examples and the study of their relationships is logic. Such logic fails because the generation of the Universe from its cause (God) is unimaginable. Hence, you cannot demand the entry of the nature of God into the Universe by logic of worldly examples. The Brahma Sutras say that there is no example in the world for God. This is the reason for the Vedic statement saying that God is beyond logic. When we compare God e.g. with electricity, electricity is also not a complete example to God. Since electricity is unseen, the unseen nature is temporarily assumed as unimaginable nature. In fact, electricity is also imaginable because it is a stream of imaginable electrons. There is no other way than to bring unseen item, which can be assumed as unimaginable item. The Veda also says that no item in this world is equivalent to God. Whenever you utter the word ‘awareness’, it means only awareness existing in living beings. Apart from this awareness, no other special awareness can be seen. The Advaita philosophers specifically say that the awareness in the living beings is God. In such case, the awareness in living beings requires the existence of food, oxygen and nervous system. These are the products of matter. The inert energy generated by the oxidation of food, enters the nervous system and the specific work form of inert energy in the specific nervous system is called as awareness. This awareness is generated and hence, it has birth. This awareness disappears in deep sleep, when the nervous system takes rest. If this awareness is God, God must have birth, death, and dependence on existence of food, oxygen and nervous system. The incapability of creation of this physical world by the awareness is reinforced by such defects. You cannot say that the dream or imaginary world of the awareness can be compared to God and physical world. It is certainly a comparison, which also is limited to few aspects only. For example, the dream or imaginary world is a modification of the awareness and the quantity of awareness is decreased by such modification. After serious imagination or dream, the amount of awareness is decreased and the human being gets the indication by becoming weak. After taking food, again the awareness is generated and weakness disappears. If you apply this aspect to God, God also must decrease in His quantity by creating the world through modification. Therefore, you can take the simile in certain limited aspects only and cannot extend to all aspects. You can say that God creates this world, controls it and finally dissolves it just like the soul creates, controls and destroys the imaginary world or dream. You should not project this concept of modification into the case of God creating world from the simile, which is the case of creation of imaginary world or dream by soul or awareness. After all, awareness is nervous energy, which is an imaginable item. If you insist on the existence of special awareness, which does not need food etc., it means that you have taken the help of the unimaginable component in the case of special awareness. Instead of stating that awareness creates this world or wishes by its unimaginable power, you can straightly say that the unimaginable power or God wishes or creates this world. When the physical world and imaginary world are quite different, how can you say that the source for both is the same awareness seen in the living beings? If this awareness existing in human beings is the cause for both the physical world and the imaginary world, why is the same awareness in any living being unable to create even an atom of the physical world? Hence, you should distinguish the awareness in the living beings from the awareness of God.
P: We can say that the awareness in the living beings and the awareness of God are one and the same in quality but since both differ in the intensity of the power, their products are physical world and imaginary world respectively. If you analyze the physical world, it is the inert energy and if you analyze the imaginary world, it is also the same inert energy. Since the potencies of both the inert energies differ to a greater extent, the physical world is clearly materialized and the imaginary world is a very weakly materialized one. Therefore, we say that the physical world and the imaginary world are qualitatively the same inert energy differing in potencies. Hence, their causes i.e. God and soul are also the same awareness with different potencies. Therefore, the soul is qualitatively God since the material in both is awareness only. Therefore, God and soul are qualitatively one though differ in quantitative potencies.
Awareness in God Differs Qualitatively Too
D: When you say the awareness of God, is it the same awareness existing in the living beings or some special awareness? It is not the question of difference in potencies of the same qualitative awareness but it is the question of the generation of the special awareness of God before the creation of the physical world, when space did not exist. In the absence of space, there cannot be existence of matter and inert energy. In the absence of matter, there cannot be nervous system, digestive system and respiratory system. In the absence of inert energy, there cannot be generation of awareness because the awareness in the living beings is a specific work form of inert energy only. Therefore, the awareness of God must be also qualitatively different from this awareness existing in living beings. If both are qualitatively the same, the equipment of generation must be common though the magnitude of capacity of generation differs. In a small power station, electricity with lesser potency is generated. In a big power station, electricity with higher potency is generated. In both these cases, your concept of small potency and large potency is meaningful. But, in the case of the special awareness of God, the equipment is completely absent and there is no power station of even atomic size due to the absence of space before the creation of the physical world. It is said that the first item of the creation of the world is space. Before the creation of the space, there is no trace of possibility of the equipment that generates the awareness. The space itself is the subtle inert energy that was produced for the first time. Before the creation of this space, there was no chance of existence of even a trace of inert energy that can be transformed into awareness. Therefore, the production of awareness and the awareness itself in the case of God are unimaginable. How can you talk of qualitative similarity between the unimaginable awareness and imaginable awareness? You can talk about the qualitative similarity and quantitative difference in the case of two imaginable items of awareness only. Hence, your argument is disposed in toto without costs.
The confusion in your argument lies in selecting the imaginary world and physical world as two different items to be compared. In fact, the imaginary world and its cause (soul) are a part of the physical world only. When you mention the physical world, it includes the soul and its imaginary world also in it. The cause of the physical world (God) is never touched in your topic because all the dance of your logic is limited to the physical world only. You have not gone out of the physical world and touched its cause (God). This is the basic defect of your misconceived Advaita philosophy. Shankara has not cleared this point and used this misconceived philosophy as a carrot to attract the then existing atheists (Buddhists and Purva Mimamsakas) to make them climb the steps leading to the goal of Dvaita. The eyes of the atheists were on the carrot only and they climbed the steps, which finally led them to the goal of Dvaita. In order to achieve the carrot, Shankara suggested several steps of worship of the Lord through devotion and practical service, which are really the steps based on Dvaita. The goal was never shown to them till they reached the goal and everytime the carrot was only shown at every step at a reachable height! After reaching the goal, Shankara disappeared! Ramanuja and Madhva came to show the fruit of the goal because the carrot also disappeared along with Shankara! Therefore, there is no trace of difference in the three spiritual preachers. Since, these atheists have traveled a long distance and reached the goal of Dvaita, they did not like to go back down [spiritually fall] to the ground. Instead, they followed Dvaita and worshipped the Lord to become liberated souls so that each one of them could have the fortune of becoming God really in future by becoming human incarnation.
Therefore, the final fruit of Advaita is not at all denied by us. We are clearly stating that you have attained the final Advaita through Dvaita, which is the devotion and service to God. You have attained the fruit of Advaita by climbing the steps really and not by catching the carrot on the ground. Had the carrot been given on the ground, the attainment of the fruit of Advaita would have been impossible. But, the atheists will not climb the steps without being shown the carrot. The Advaita philosophers say that they have attained the fruit of Advaita by catching the carrot only and propose the theory that once you catch the carrot, you will attain the fruit of Advaita. This point is condemned by us, which is called as misconceived Advaita. Hats of to Shankara, who by 32 years of age, made all the age old scholars of this sacred country as small kids to run after the carrot shown by Him and follow the steps of Dvaita philosophy to get the real fruit of Advaita! Unless He is the incarnation of Lord, He cannot do such an unimaginable miracle!