[At the end of the energetic or human incarnation, will the Mahā Māyā merge in the unimaginable God called Parabrahman in the same way as the soul after getting salvation merges in the energetic incarnation of God in the upper world?]

Śrī Kṛṣṇa Bhagavān uvāca:-
[God Shri Krishna spoke:-]

[The liberated soul merges in the energetic incarnation of God like the sugar dissolving in water to form sugar-solution. For the naked eye, the sugar-solution looks homogeneously as one item externally. But, when this solution is seen through the powerful lens of a microscope, the existence of very minute molecules of sugar and water can be seen separately in subtle state.]

[When yourself, the Mahā Māyā, merges in Me, the Parabrahman, we can bring the same simile of sugar solution to this case also. But, the distinction between yourself and Myself can neither be seen separately by any powerful equipment nor be imagined even by the divine intellect of angels.]

[I am unimaginable and you are unimaginable in that merged state. The result of such state is that we both are one unimaginable item. The results are always to be spoken from the viewpoint of souls and not from the viewpoint of both of us in that state called as Parabrahman.]

[I am also preaching this spiritual knowledge in the view of souls only and not in My view, which is the absolute state of reality. Even the absolute state of reality has to be spoken from the viewpoint of souls only since it is the soul, which has to understand even that absolute state. Hence, in the stage of absolute reality also, from the viewpoint of the souls, it has to be told that yourself and Myself are one only, which is the unimaginable God or Parabrahman.]

[When the result is the only unimaginable God or Parabrahman, there are no separate identifications of Myself and yourself in that merged state. I am the unimaginable Parabrahman and you are also the same unimaginable Parabrahman completely without any division in Parabrahman.]

[Before the creation of this world, yourself, the Mahā Māyā and Myself, the Parabrahman, existed as one item called as Parabrahman. For the sake of creation of this world, the one became two in the state of roles (God Datta and Goddess Anaghā as energetic incarnations) even though the actor or Parabrahman is basically one only. This is possible for the unimaginable power of Parabrahman called Mahā Māyā, yourself. Such type of trickish phenomenon can be experienced with the help of the cinema developed in future in which one actor plays two different roles simultaneously on screen. The trick of making such scene is knowable to souls, but, this case of simultaneous existence of Parabrahman in two roles is not a trick since it is an unimaginable event called miracle.]

[The monism between two unimaginable items is always based on the unimaginable nature of both the items. We can’t achieve monism simply by inseparable relationship between the two items when those items are unimaginable. When we know that the two items exist separately, the individual knowledge of each item establishes each item independently in the mind so that the established dualism exists clearly. In the unimaginable state, both these items are not independently known and hence, even the dualism is forcibly received as monism by the mind. For example, fruit and its taste are inseparable, but, since both are in imaginable state, such dualism stands as dualism only and can’t be forced to become monism.]

[Since both Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman are unimaginable items, we are forced to take both of them as one unimaginable item only, which is monism. But, if you take the case of Anaghā and Datta, both are not unimaginable items. At least in the external imaginable forms, both can’t be treated as one item.]

[In the case of Anaghā and Datta, there is monism in the internal unimaginable state. But externally, both clearly exist separately as incarnations of Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman. Both these are externally called as ‘Prakruti’ and ‘Purusha.’ The word ‘Prakruti’ has two meanings:- i) The product born from a cause (praśastā kṛtiḥ) called as ‘Kārya Māyā Śakti,’ ii) The root cause of the product (prakṛṣṭaṃ kriyate anayā iti prakṛtiḥ, prakṛtiḥ mūlakāraṇe) called as ‘Kāraṇa Māyā Śakti.’ The energetic or human incarnation of either Mahā Māyā or Parabrahman is called as mixture of both Prakruti and Parabrahman by representing both the above meanings of Prakruti and Parabrahman by logical analysis based on reality. The unimaginable power called Mahā Māyā (Kāraṇa Māyā Śakti) created the product of imaginable inert energy (Kārya Māyā Śakti) through an unimaginable process and that inert energy got modified into all items (both inert and non-inert items) of the creation. Some misunderstand that Prakruti is inert and Purusha is non-inert awareness. This is not correct.]

[Following the first meaning as product, Prakruti is having both inert and non-inert items. Both Anaghā and Datta bear Prakruti (product) externally as their media. Internally, both have Purusha (cause). Hence, both Anaghā and Datta have Prakruti (Mahā Māyā) externally as their media and Purusha (Parabrahman) internally. Both show external dualism and internal monism.]

[Here, Mahā Māyā is taken as representative of Prakruti or product or creation and Parabrahman is taken as representative of Purusha or cause or creator. This representation is done based on the convenience of understanding without any logical analysis. In reality, both Anaghā and Datta have both Mahā Māyā (Prakruti) as external medium and Parabrahman (Purusha) as the internal possessor of the medium. Due to this equality, both are told to be equal to each other and both are one. Both represent both. This means that Anaghā having both Prakruti (Mahā Māyā) and Purusha (Parabrahman) represents only Mahā Māyā or Prakruti in separate sense when we take the first meaning of Prakruti as product. Similarly, Datta having both Purusha (Parabrahman) and Prakruti (Mahā Māyā) represents only Parabrahman or Purusha in separate sense when we take the second meaning of Prakruti as root cause. In reality, both Anaghā and Datta have unimaginable powers because both Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman are unimaginable. In this way, both Anaghā and Datta represent dualism externally and monism internally.]

[In the unimaginable state, whether one item exists or two items exist, we can understand it as one item only. Even if Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman are assumed as two separate items in unimaginable state also, we can’t distinguish these two items. We must always select the viewpoint of the soul in understanding a particular state of God. We can’t go beyond such understanding. This is the spiritual angle of Shankara and hence, monism is eternal truth in the unimaginable state of God from the viewpoint of the souls. This is the Advaita Philosophy of Shankara.]

[Each one of both Anaghā and Datta is in the state of Viśiṣṭa (Parabrahman is Viśeṣya and the external medium other than Parabrahman is Viśeṣaṇam. Viśeṣya is the possessor of Viśeṣaṇam. Viśeṣaṇam means the adjective of an item. Hence, Anaghā or Datta is the Viśiṣṭa). The monism between the two Viśiṣṭas is the Viśiṣṭa Advaitam of Ramanuja. The Qualified Monism here means that the composition of Anaghā or Datta is one and the same. Due to this, both can’t be separated as two different items, which is called Qualified Monism, which means monism due to the analysis of composition of qualities.]

[Both Anaghā and Datta are possessing the same Parabrahman separately. Every soul in the creation is not possessing Parabrahman. Hence, every soul is different from either Anaghā or Datta. The souls among themselves are also different from each other due to their different levels in spiritual knowledge, theoretical devotion and practical devotion to God. This is the spiritual angle of Madhva called ‘Dualism,’ which is not only confined to God, but also related to creation containing souls at different levels.]

[The monism of Shankara is correct in the case of human incarnation since the human being-component of the human incarnation is God due to the perfect merge of God with the selected human devotee and this monism between God and soul can’t be applied to every ordinary human being. The philosophy of Ramanuja saying that soul is inseparable part of God also applies to a special devotee like Adishesha, who is mentally inseparable from God. Here, the devotee is not the actual inseparable limb of God. Therefore, the three philosophies of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva are correct as per the context of the subjects and the stage of time. These three divine preachers are the incarnations of God Shiva, God Vishnu and God Brahma respectively, who are one God Datta only.]

[Parabrahman stands as representative of Father (Purusha) for all souls and Mahā Māyā stands as representative of Mother (Prakruti) for all souls. Representation doesn’t mean the actual reality established by logical analysis. Since both the inert and non-inert parts of creation are the modifications of inert energy, which is created by Parabrahman or Mahā Māyā in unimaginable state, we assume that the Mahā Māyā is modified into inert energy by neglecting the unimaginable process by which the unimaginable power or Mahā Māyā (Kāraṇa Māyā Śakti) created the inert energy (Kārya Māyā Śakti). The generation of a product by the modification of a root cause (inert energy) brings the thinking about a mother giving birth to a child. Hence, the inert energy (Kārya Māyā Śakti) is the mother of the creation. This feeling of motherhood touches Prakruti represented by Mahā Māyā. Hence, Mahā Māyā must be treated as adopted mother, who is treated as mother only. You must always remember that Mahā Māyā represents Prakruti or Mother, which represents the creation through modification of inert energy (Kārya Māyā Śakti). Kāraṇa Māyaa Śakti and Kārya Māyā Śakti are unimaginable cause and imaginable product respectively with unimaginable link of production procedure. Hence, Kāraṇa Māyā Śakti alone represents the Kārya Māyā Śakti and this representation is only for convenient understanding but not based on any logical analysis. Hence, Mahā Māyā becomes the mother of all souls. Modification of the flesh of mother into a child is confined to mother only.]

[The Veda says that inert energy is created by that (tat tejo 'sṛjata). The word ‘that’ or ‘tat’ means Parabrahman or Mahā Māyā. The word ‘that’ or ‘tat’ created inert energy and that inert energy is modified into the rest of the creation. Prakruti represents the Mother, who modifies into the product or child. Hence, Prakruti itself means the inert energy. Mahā Māyā represents Prakruti or inert energy and hence, we can say that inert energy or Mahā Māyā is modified into creation. Now, we have represented Prakruti or creation by Mahā Māyā and we have represented Purusha or creator by Parabrahman. Mahā Māyā represents the Mother. Creation represents the child. Parabrahman represents the Father. The sperm of Father is represented by the will of Parabrahman. Representation avoids the biological relationship of the parenthood. But, adopted father is treated as father and adopted mother is treated as mother. The modification of Prakruti into creation brings more effective motherliness to Mahā Māyā and such more effective fatherliness does not exist with the father or Parabrahman. This is the reason why Mahā Māyā rejected the arrangement of satisfying the beginner lustful male devotees through her illusory forms.]

[Being unimaginable, both Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman are originally untouched by souls, avoiding the biological sense of parenthood. Real relationship cannot be established between Parabrahman or Mahā Māyā and imaginable souls. Even then, both Mahā Māyā and Parabrahman are connected to the souls through the representative-relationship. Mahā Māyā is more connected to the souls due to the extra modification of its product (inert energy) being modified into the creation. The relationship with the product (inert energy) is specially linked to Mahā Māyā through the relationship of representative model. Even though both adopted father and adopted mother are equal in not having any direct relationship with the adopted child, the adopted mother shows more concern towards the child due to the assumed modification of her flesh into the child. These different superimposed concepts on parents through representative relationships make the adopted parents also to behave in different ways as father and mother.]