Shankara and Ramana

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

Tomorrow Lakshman is leaving for Mumbai. Therefore, I shall serve a food item, which is to his taste on this farewell day. I will serve the food item of his liking, which is prepared in a better way or in a proper way so that he knows its original true taste and his liking will be reinforced for that food item. The food item that he likes is the philosophy of Shri Ramana Maharshi, who is considered to be the human incarnation of Lord Subrahmanya. Lord Subrahmanya is the son of Lord Shiva i.e., He is the incarnation of Shiva. Shri Ramana Maharshi is a follower of the philosophy of Shankara who is the also the incarnation of Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva is the incarnation of Lord Datta (Shiva Datta) who is the source of all the three divine forms (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva). When Lord Datta is in My human body, how the spiritual knowledge given by Him through My mouth can contradict the philosophy of Shankara and Shri Ramana Maharshi? If it contradicts, it becomes a self-contradiction. Lord Datta in Me is only clarifying the misunderstood Shankara and Ramana Maharshi. It means Lord Datta Himself is misunderstood. The misunderstanding comes only when the total concept of Shankara and Ramana Maharshi is not conceived. Suppose a professor is preaching the school students for a long time in the day and handles the research students for an hour only. Based on the work done by Him for a long time for the school students, can you conclude Him as a schoolteacher only neglecting the one-hour preaching to the research students? When the majority is ignorant beginners, the preacher has to spend lot of time in preaching to their level only and this does not mean that He is only a preacher of basic standard. If you take just one incident of the life of Shankara or Ramana Maharshi, you can understand the high standard of those preachers.

Shri Ramana Maharshi prayed Lord Shiva (Arunachaleshwara) to cure the disease of His mother and it was cured. Similarly, when the body of Shankara was partially burnt, He prayed Lord Narasimha and the burns disappeared. Now, the question is that why should they pray Eshwara to cure the diseases? Their souls were Brahman and Brahman is creator, ruler and destroyer of the world. They have preached Advaita (self is God) to a large extent through their commentaries and messages respectively. Based on the large effort they have put on advaita, you are concluding that advaita is their final concept. Even though the above incidents are very small, the concept in those incidents is very powerful. A single gem is far valuable than million gravel stones. They did not pray themselves or simply wished to cure the diseases. They prayed the Lord with different names. If you argue that those names of the Lord are also the alternative names of their self, then they should have taken the name of the self itself to cure the diseases. In such case only, their advaita philosophy could have got the direct practical proof also.

Shri Ramana Maharshi used advaita when a surgery of a boil on His hand was done and He did not require sedative medicine. He confined to His self (pure awareness) detaching Himself from the superimpositions on the subtle and gross bodies so that the pain of the gross body was not received by the soul. The subtle body links the gross body with the soul and conveys the feelings of the pain. When the soul is detached from the gross body and when the subtle body (mind or a bundle of feelings) is destroyed, the link is cut and the feeling of the pain itself gets destroyed. The soul or pure awareness becomes free from all the qualities (nirguna chit) and the ‘I’ is fixed in the pure awareness or soul itself. This is the achievement of self-analysis by advaita, which is called as Atma Yoga. The self could not cure the boil as Lord Arunachaleshwara cured the disease of His mother. He did not pray Lord Shiva for the cure of His boil. What is the message he conveyed by these powerful minor incidents, which are like rare diamonds? You are always pondering over the majority of the gravel stones given by Him to the ignorant people who are in majority. These minor incidents give message to spiritual aspirants of high standard who are always in minority. The essence of these incidents is that the cost of advaita or atma yoga is just the price of a sedative tablet! It cannot cure the disease, which means that it cannot interfere with the cycle of deeds and fruits. When the self cannot interfere even with the implementation of the constitution of cycle of deeds and fruits, can it create, rule and destroy this universe? These incidents also convey that God other than self can only interfere in this cycle and cure the diseases and therefore, such God only can be believed to be the creator, ruler and destroyer. Therefore, such God can be only Brahman and not the self. If you are giving importance to the large quantity of the messages and commentaries given by those preachers and if you are not worried about these minor incidents, it clearly means that you are in the majority of school students and you are not in the minority of the research students.

No Qualitative Comparison Between God & Soul

God, called as Brahman so far and to be called as Parabrahman hereafter (to differentiate God from the Brahman is essential because the word Brahman is not confined to God only and is used in other items like the Veda, due to its root meaning of greatness) is unimaginable. Therefore, the soul, which is knowable or imaginable, can never be compared with the unimaginable God either in qualitative sense or in quantitative sense. The water present in two cups of equal volume is equal in both qualitative and quantitative senses. The water present in a cup and the water present in a pot are equal in qualitative sense but differ in quantitative sense. The qualitative comparison comes when the quality of the two items is known. When the nature or quality of God is unknown, there is no possibility of qualitative comparison. In the absence of qualitative comparison, the quantitative comparison does not arise, which exists only between two different quantities of the same item qualitatively known.

The soul is a work form of inert energy and work is a form of energy. Therefore, the soul is energy, which is inert in its basic form and such basic form of the soul is realized in the deep sleep. The subtle body is nothing but the work form of nervous energy or pure awareness and is represented as a bundle of feelings or a bundle of various forms of kinetic energy. This means that the subtle body is also inert energy. The gross body is also inert energy because the matter of the gross body can also be converted into inert energy according to law of equivalence of mass and energy. Therefore, the gross body, subtle body and causal body (self) are nothing but a quantum of inert energy in the basic sense.

Similarly, the entire cosmos is also an ocean of inert energy in the basic sense. Now, yourself, as a composite of all the three bodies, is a drop of inert energy in the vast ocean of cosmic energy. Eshwara is the unimaginable God covered by this sheath of ocean of cosmic energy. You are a drop of that ocean of cosmic energy. Now, there is a qualitative similarity between yourself and the ocean of cosmic energy because both are inert energy. But there is a quantitative difference between yourself and the ocean of cosmic energy. There is no question of comparison between yourself and the unimaginable God either in qualitative or quantitative sense.

When Ramanuja told that the soul is a part of Eshwara, He means this only. Since God charges the ocean of cosmic energy, it can be treated as God under the name Eshwara. The soul is a part of Eshwara and this means that the soul is a part of the ocean of cosmic energy and not a part of God. Shankara also means the same when He was praying Lord Jagannatha while taking a bath in the ocean. He says “Oh Lord! Even though the difference between the Eshwara and soul is gone, I am in You like a wave in this ocean and You are not in Me because the ocean cannot be accommodated in the wave.” Here, He means that even though the qualitative difference between the wave and ocean is vanished by knowing the qualitative similarity between the wave and ocean as water, yet, the quantitative difference between the ocean and wave exists. He is only comparing the soul with the covering sheath (upadhi) of God, which is the cosmic energy. This comparison is not between the God and the soul. You are a small piece of cloth. A diamond is wrapped by a large cloth. The comparison between yourself and the large cloth exists qualitatively because both are qualitatively the same cloth. There is quantitative difference between the piece of cloth and the large cloth. This does not mean that the piece of cloth is a small particle of the diamond. There is no comparison in any point between the cloth and diamond.

The above concept of comparison takes a completely different angle when Eshwara is compared to Krishna. Infact, Adi Shankara is no way different from Krishna. But Adi Shankara told the above verse assuming Himself as an ordinary human being. When you compare Eshwara with Krishna, the concept is quite different. Suppose, two diamonds qualitatively as well as quantitatively similar are wrapped by a small cloth and big cloth separately. Krishna and Eshwara are those two similar diamonds wrapped by small cloth and big cloth respectively. The cloths are similar qualitatively but differ quantitatively. But the diamonds in both the cloths are similar qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Here, the two cloths are the human body and cosmos, which are small and big respectively, and both these have qualitative similarity even though the quantitative difference exists.

The nine items (Nava avaranam, which are the five elements and the four antahkaranams, which are the ego, mind, intelligence, and storage capacity) are common to both the human body (pindanda) and cosmos (brahmanda). The two diamonds are the same one unimaginable God. You should not think that there are two unimaginable Gods similar to the two diamonds. The same unimaginable God by His unimaginable power can exist in both the places and there cannot be exact simile to God in the world, which is composed of imaginable items only. Due to this practical limitation, one should co-operate with us to understand whenever a simile is given for God. The same above verse can be applied to this second case (Adi Shankara and Eshwara) also. Even though the qualitative difference is removed in the human body and cosmos, the quantitative difference exists between the human body and cosmos as in the case of a wave and ocean in this second case also. In this second case, there is no difference (qualitatively as well as quantitatively) between the God existing in the human body of Adi Shankara and Eshwara. Therefore, in this case, the only difference between the human body and the cosmos is in the quantitative sense only. In the first case of Eshwara and ordinary human being also, the same quantitative difference occurs between the human body and the cosmos.

The big iron box containing the diamond inside is Eshwara. A small iron box without diamond is human being. The big and the small iron boxes have qualitative similarity but differ quantitatively. As far as the diamond is concerned, there is no point of comparison because the small box is vacant. In the case of Eshwara and Adi Shankara, the small box is also containing the same diamond, which is equal qualitatively and quantitatively. In this case, the comparison is only between the two boxes because there is no need of comparison as far as diamonds are concerned since both the diamonds are one and the same. Therefore, in both cases, the comparison is only between the boxes and the comparison is also one and the same in both the cases (i.e., the small iron box and the big iron box differ quantitatively and are similar qualitatively).

By this similar comparison of the boxes and by the similar absence of comparison in diamonds (there is no need of comparison in diamonds in both the cases since in one case, the diamonds are one and the same and in the other case, there is no second diamond), the above verse is equally taken by Adi Shankara and an ordinary human being. This led to the misunderstanding that the ordinary human being is also exactly equal to Adi Shankara. Hence, when Adi Shankara stated that He is Brahman (Aham Brahma Asmi) and that He is Shiva (Shivoham), the ordinary human being also started saying the same statements. Then, Adi Shankara swallowed the molten lead and this unimaginable action indicated the existence of unimaginable God (diamond) in Adi Shankara. The ordinary human being was unable to do that, which clearly established the absence of the same unimaginable God (diamond) in him. Then, Shankara modified His statement that He alone is Shiva or God (Shivah Kevaloham). The word ‘Kevala’ means alone, which is absent in the first statement.

Paramatman is the Ultimate Atman

The word ‘Atman’ means the pervading item. The current pervades the wire and can be called as Atman. In Adi Shankara and Krishna, God pervaded all over their souls and their souls pervaded all over their bodies (as usual as in the case of any human being). Since the soul pervaded the body, the soul is called as Atman and since God pervaded all over the soul, the God is also called as Atman. Here, both God and soul can be called as Atman. To differentiate both these, God is called as Paramatman and the soul is called as Jiivatman. In a liberated soul, as per advaita, jiiva (subtle body) may be destroyed and in such case, the soul can be called as simply atman. However, in any case, Paramatman is different from Jiivatman or Atman. Therefore, God is different from an ordinary soul as well as a liberated soul (liberated soul here is according to advaita because the actual liberated soul is that which is not simply free from qualities but is full of divine qualities like devotion).

The king is wearing a silk cloth. A citizen is wearing cotton cloth. Another citizen is naked without any cloth. The king is different from both the citizens. Now, let us take the case of Krishna or Adi Shankara. The Paramatman is pervading all over the Jiivatman or Atman and the jiivatman or atman is pervading all over the human body. The ultimate pervading item here is only Paramatman, which directly pervades Jiivatman or Atman and indirectly pervades the human body also. Therefore, the Paramatman is the ultimate Atman. The jiivatman or atman is pervading only the human body but is not pervading the Paramatman and hence, the jiivatman or atman here, cannot be the ultimate atman. Therefore, when Krishna says that He is Atman (Ahamaatma… Gita), it means that Krishna is referring to Paramatman present in His human body. Since Paramatman is the basis of the entire world, He stated that His Atman is the basis of the entire world (Sarva bhutaashayasthitah…). If an ordinary human being repeats the same verse of the Gita, what is the meaning of the word atman in his case? In his case, the human body is pervaded by the jiivatman or atman only and there is no Paramatman in his jiivatman or atman. Therefore, in his case, the word atman means only jiivatman or atman, which cannot be the basis of the world because it is a tiny particle of the world.

A king told “I am the king, ruling this country”. A scientist with certain scientific equipments started to analyze the king. He found only three items in the king. The external gross body, the internal subtle body and the ultimate innermost causal body (self) are the three items. Now, he started analyzing the source of the word ‘I’ in his statement. With all his logical analysis, he found that the word ‘I’ means the causal body in the king. Therefore, he derived the conclusion that the causal body is always the king. With the same equipment and analysis, he found that the same three bodies exist in him also. Since the causal body is the king, the causal body in himself must also be the king. Therefore, he wanted to rule the country like the king and for which he was arrested and put in the jail by the king. What is the point that slipped here in the analysis? The only item that slipped here is the invisible kingship, which is different from the causal body. Therefore, the causal body as the source of the ‘I’ is only referred as king because that causal body alone is charged by the invisible kingship.

Similarly, the advaitin analyzed his preacher Adi Shankara. He found the same three bodies in himself also as in the case of his preacher. Adi Shankara told “I am Brahman”. The student thought that the causal body (the source of ‘I’) in himself is also Brahman. Here, the unimaginable Brahman exists in the causal body (self) of Shankara and the word ‘I’ indicates the unimaginable Brahman in the self but not the self alone. When you say the live wire as current, the word ‘current’ indicates the current existing in the live wire but not mere wire. If you understand that current indicates mere wire, you will call the mere wire without current also as current. The invisible kingship (and the unimaginable God) and the invisible current are misunderstood as visible causal body and the visible wire respectively. You must differentiate the live wire from the mere wire atleast by knowing the property of current like shock. You must call the live wire alone as current because it gives shock. You should not call the mere wire as current because it does not give shock. Similarly, Brahman is supposed to rule the Sun (Bishodeti Suryah… Veda). Krishna and Adi Shankara can control the sun who swallowed the forest-fire and the molten lead respectively. Thus, both are the live wires. The advaita philosopher is just dead by the summer stroke and should be treated as mere wire.

The Source of ‘I’

The whole tragedy is based on the investigation of the source of ‘I’. In the olden days, the science was not developed and the subject of physiology in medical science did not exist in which neurology is a chapter. ‘I’ is just a feeling as good as any other feeling. All the feelings including ‘I’ constitute the subtle body, which is a bundle of feelings or information. In deep sleep, all these feelings are stored in a chip called as chittam. The awareness-current is absent in the computer. The information is exhibited only when the computer is associated with current. In deep sleep, the current (awareness) is absent because the nervous system or battery is not functioning. The state of meditation is a functioning battery associated with current but the computer is not connected and therefore, the information is not exhibited. In death, the battery is not functioning permanently and the current is not produced. The information chip (jiiva) also left the computer after the death. Now, the computer is just the dead gross body without the chip and without the supply of current.

When the person awakes from the deep sleep, the battery supplies the current and the information is connected so that all the information is exhibited. It is not necessary that everybody feels that he slept well. This feeling is generalized to every human being and therefore, it is concluded that as soon as one awakes from the deep sleep, the ‘I’ is rising up in the first instance. This imagines the false inference of the existence of the ‘I’ during deep sleep. You must note that several people remember very important information other than “I slept well”, as soon as they awake from the deep sleep. If a human being goes into deep sleep after suffering a tragedy, as soon as the human being awakes from the deep sleep, it immediately remembers the tragedy only and not the feeling of happiness after the deep sleep. Even during the awakened state, the feeling of ‘I’ does not continuously exist while feeling or discussing several aspects. Even in the awakened state, there is no continuous existence of the feeling of ‘I’. What is the use of your unnecessary effort of establishing the continuous existence of ‘I’ in the deep sleep through the inference? In the awakened state, everything is established by direct experience and even in such a state, the feeling of ‘I’ does not exist continuously. You are trying to establish the continuous existence of ‘I’ in deep sleep through inference in which direct experience is absent! Infact, the feeling of ‘I’ and the strong feelings are recorded in the chip (chittam) during the deep sleep but during this state, the awareness is absent. During this state of deep sleep, the basis of ‘I’ and other strong feelings is only inert energy and not awareness. Hence, the source of the ‘I’ and other strong feelings is only the chip (chittam) in which the information is permanently recorded. The association of current with the chip is not permanent and therefore, the source of ‘I’ is the chip (inert energy) and not the awareness (self) or current. However, if you consider the inert energy as the basic form of awareness, you can hold on the policy of constancy of self or awareness. If you limit the self as awareness only, the self is born daily and dies daily (Athachainam nityajatam… Gita). But if you consider the self as the basic inert energy also, the constancy of self can be accepted because the basic primary inert energy (Mula Maya) is eternal (Ajo nityah… Gita). If you take the self as awareness only, the constancy of self is lost. If you take the self as permanent awareness, the permanency is lost. You cannot have self as permanent awareness because in deep sleep, the awareness is disappearing due to which only the state of deep sleep is full of ignorance. Either you have to sacrifice the single constant nature (awareness) of the self or permanency of the self. Since you fix the nature of the self as awareness, you cannot establish the existence of the same nature in deep sleep through inference. In the absence of this knowledge of neurology in the olden days, our ancestors should not be blamed as blind conservative believers. They tried their level best and made the hypothesis of the existence of the self in deep sleep also through inference. They were correct in their hypothesis because the self exists in the deep sleep also with a different nature, which is inertness and not awareness.

They could succeed partially in imagining the constancy of the self in deep sleep and they failed only in finding out the alternative nature of the self, which is inertness. In absence of science, they were unable to know the inter-conversion of inert energy and awareness, which was not their fault. If the same ancestors exist today, they will certainly appreciate the truth and modify their concept with open mind. Today, you must be blamed as blind because even though the science has analyzed the whole concept, you are not accepting it due to your closed conservative blind mind clinging rigidly to their hypothesis, which was made in the absence of the science. The inter-conversions of inert energy into awareness is well established by science because the oxygen supplied by the functioning respiratory system oxidizes the food, digested by the digestive system and the oxidation reaction of the food releases the inert energy. This inert energy associated with the functioning nervous system releases awareness, which is a special work form of inert energy itself. This awareness-current associated with the chip of information stored in the functioning brain exhibits the experience of the past important information and also gives the experience of the events grasped from the external world.

The advaita philosophy based on the investigations of the advaita philosophers is only a partial development of neurology, which is a part of medical science and this cannot be called as spiritual knowledge because the unimaginable God is not at all touched anywhere. Even the concepts of the self were not completely established by them (which are now completely established by the present neurology) and such self is misunderstood as God, which infact is not as clearly established by the present neurology. Therefore, they have not touched even the boundaries of spiritual knowledge, because spiritual knowledge means the subject related to God.

Shankara and Ramana Maharshi gave advaita philosophy as a chocolate to majority existing at a basic level of ignorance to attract people into the spiritual path. Shankara prepared this wonderful chocolate made of truth only with some intellectual flashes as tricks useful for the welfare in long run. After all, it is not impossible for a human being to become God and every human being has equal chance to become God (human incarnation) in this very life itself. Adi Shankara Himself is the human incarnation and God can enter various human beings and many human incarnations can exist simultaneously. The only twist given in this concept is that every human being is already the human incarnation and this cannot be ruled out fundamentally because God can enter all the human beings simultaneously and this earth can be filled up with only human incarnations. After all, the possibility of such situation cannot be ruled out from the angle of omnipotency of God. This twist had to be given because the atheist does not accept the introduction of God other than the self in the very first instance. Slowly, for practical achievement of becoming the forgotten God existing as self-only, Shankara has introduced a procedure to remove the practical influence of ignorance (ajnana vikshepa…) in which Eshwara, introduced as a practically realized soul, is to be meditated upon. Shankara left the atheist at this point by joining the soul to God (Eshwara) who will take care of the upliftment of the soul from that point. In this twist, there is no trace of any lie because it is only the twist of the truth. When a golden wire is twisted, is there any other impurity other than gold introduced due to the twist? Such twists are appreciable in view of the inevitable way for the welfare of the atheist in long run. The followers of Shankara also were unable to understand the twist in absence of the present advanced scientific developments of neurology. Therefore, they made certain inevitable assumption and their inevitable incapability of realization of the complete truth in the original state without twists is justified. But today, you are not realizing the truth even though the science has given you tremendous practical analysis of this concept and therefore, you are not justified. Even though the truth is clearly exhibited, you are unable to come out of this dream due to the climax of its sweetness that you are already God without any effort.

The utility of Datta, who is the Sadguru in live form, is that all your doubts are clarified and such possibility does not exist in knowing the total concept by reading Shankara and Ramana Maharshi. The same God exists in Shankara, Ramana Maharshi and the present alive Sadguru but the present Sadguru alone can clarify your doubts and give you the total concepts in the correct direction. This is the main advantage of Sadguru who is the contemporary human incarnation present in your generation before your eyes.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★