Swami answers a question of an Advaita follower on Brahman and Parabrahman (Part-2)

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Part-1   Part-2

SECOND PART

[Phani:- How can we correlate the concepts of God and Mithyaa nature of world etc., in the philosophies of the three preachers (Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva) in this context?]

Swami replied:- The basic unimaginable dualism (that unimaginable God can separate from Īśvara if wishes even though He never separates) made Shankara to stick to unimaginable God before creation only called as Nirguna Brahman and thus, stuck to unimaginable domain only. The second is not only absent before creation but also non-existent even after creation. This is the actual meaning of monism by which we shall know that always Nirguna Brahman alone is existed and the second (Creation) is always non-existent. If you say that creation is existent after its generation from unimaginable God, the mediated unimaginable God shall not be able to do any miracle in the creation because one absolute reality can’t interfere with another absolute reality. If the second (creation) is not absolute reality, it means that it is unreal only because there are only two items, one is real and the other is unreal. This is the actual intension of the monism in the mind of Shankara. The oneness of unimaginable God and soul is a perverted and twisted monism. In the above actual monism of Shankara, when the second is unreal, the soul is also unreal. Where is the chance to utter the word ‘soul’ when everything other than God is unreal? When God is real, you have to utter only one word ‘God’. Then, why Shankara told Jiiva (soul) is God?

In this statement of Shankara, the word Jiiva stands as an alternative name of the always existing only one real God and does not show any item other than God. Soul means awareness. Shankara means unimaginable awareness by the word awareness. This means unimaginable awareness (Jiiva) is unimaginable God (Brahman) because two unimaginable items can’t co-exist. God thought to create the world and such thinking or awareness is unimaginable because before creation neither energy nor matter (nervous system) existed to generate this relative awareness, which is seen in this world called Jiiva by us. Hence, awareness of Shankara, called unimaginable awareness is completely different from our soul, called awareness or which is relative imaginable awareness. We call this imaginable awareness as Jiiva and Shankara called that unimaginable awareness as Jiiva. The ambitious clever followers twisted this calling this relative awareness (Jiiva as per our terminology) as unimaginable awareness or God of Shankara. Of course, Shankara also supported this twist for the sake of conversion of atheists into theists. In the heart of Shankara, Jiiva is only the unimaginable awareness or God.

Coming to Ramanuja (including Madhva), the created world is not unreal since it gives entertainment to God. We are incompetent to create something real for entertainment (assuming that we alone exist in isolated place), but, God is omnipotent and can make this unreal world as real to have full clarity for meaningful entertainment. Ramanuja sticks to imaginable domain only. For any soul, unimaginable domain (God) and unimaginable basic dualism is unnecessary, which cannot be understood at all. He starts with imaginable Īśvara (Saguna Brahman) having unimaginable nature as starting point. He brought unimaginable God as the unimaginable nature of Īśvara. Ramanuja touched unimaginable domain in this way, Shankara touched imaginable domain by accepting Īśvara as different from unimaginable God, who can withdraw from Īśvara to withdraw unimaginable nature from Īśvara (of course, He will never do so).

The conclusion between these two theories is that if world is existent, God can’t do miracles. If world is non-existent, God can’t get real entertainment due to absence of full clarity. Hence, the world is called ‘Mithyaa’, which means that it can’t be told as absolutely isolated real or isolated unreal (Sadasat Vilakshanaa mithyaa—Shankara). This conclusion was drawn by Shankara, which means that His knowledge includes the knowledge of Ramanuja also. This can be stated in a better way by saying that Ramanuja and Madhva clarified fully the actual concept of Shankara because His followers misunderstood Mithyaa as unreal. Hence, Maayaa of Shankara also means Mithyaa, which means both (non-existent as per ‘Yaa maa saa maayaa’ and existent as per ‘Maya Vaichitrye’). Since both real and unreal contradict each other as per our imaginable understanding, it is told as different from both. But, actually for the unimaginable understanding of unimaginable God, it is both without contradiction due to unimaginable power of God. Vilakshanaa or different is for the sake of our imaginable understanding based on imaginable worldly logic.

The real and unreal nature of world in the view of God looses internal contradiction due to unimaginable power of God. This nature of world in the view of God can’t be understood by the soul in its view due to the internal contradiction, which is against the worldly logic and hence, Shankara told that world is different from real and unreal concepts resulting in inexplicability (Anirvachaniiyataakhyaati). This is understood by God, but, His understanding can’t be understood by soul. Actually, if you eliminate the view of God and take only the view of soul, world is clearly real because soul is a part of the world. World including souls becomes real and unreal in the view of God and the same world is real to the specific view of soul. Hence, there is no contradiction either in the view of God or in the view of soul. Mithyaa (neither real nor unreal) is the view of God as understood by the soul removing the problem of internal contradiction arising in saying that world is simultaneously real as well as unreal allowing both real entertainment and explanation of miracles respectively.

The relative awareness or soul (actually individual soul) can directly be called unimaginable God based on statement of Shankara that says “awareness is God”. Here, Shankara means unimaginable absolute awareness as the meaning of the word awareness. He purposefully used this simple word ‘awareness’ to be misunderstood as relative awareness or soul for the sake of atheists. This trick was played by Śaṅkara to convert atheists into theists. Declaring the soul itself to be God meant that the atheist himself is God. This was an inevitable step for Śaṅkara in order to convert the egotistic atheist, who would not accept any God other than himself. Once the soul is declared to be God, since soul exists, God must automatically exist. This logic forced the atheist to agree that God exists. If God were said to be different from the soul, the atheist would never have agreed in the very first step.

The above discussion, however, does not mean that the unimaginable God has no inherent awareness unless He is mediated by relative awareness. Unimaginable God, by virtue of His omnipotence, has inherent awareness, which can be called absolute unimaginable awareness. But, this absolute awareness lies in the unimaginable domain only. It is not at all different from the unimaginable God Himself. The absolute awareness exists by itself without a cause. Unlike the relative awareness found in living beings, the absolute awareness does not require inert energy or a nervous system to produce it. Hence, the absolute awareness must be unimaginable. You cannot say that both absolute God and the absolute awareness are two unimaginable items since no divisions can be imagined in the unimaginable domain. Any number of unimaginable items must be treated as only one unimaginable item. Śaṅkara, actually, called this absolute awareness as unimaginable God. But in order to trick atheists into following His philosophy, He did not specifically distinguish between the ‘unimaginable absolute awareness’ and the ‘imaginable relative awareness’. He simply used the word ‘awareness’. The atheists mistook the relative awareness or soul to be the unimaginable awareness intended by Śaṅkara. Thus, they thought that the soul is God. The reality is that the soul is only the relative awareness, which is part of the imaginable creation. God, on the other hand, is the absolute awareness, who is the Creator. This confusion was purposefully created by Śaṅkara so that the atheist would become a theist following the three step-formula, which is: the soul itself is God; the soul exists and hence, God exists.

While dealing with the Advaita philosophy, you must be extremely careful about this crucial point, otherwise, you will be utterly confused by the Advaita philosophers, who themselves are utterly confused. The soul of any human being is the relative awareness alone because it is the awareness generated as a result of the inert energy functioning in a working nervous system. There is only one exception to this rule and this is in the case of Human Incarnation of God. The unimaginable God merges with a selected human devotee to become a Human Incarnation. Similar to other human beings, relative awareness exists even in that selected human devotee. When the unimaginable God or unimaginable awareness merges with the relative awareness of this selected human devotee, the relative awareness becomes an unimaginable awareness due to the perfect merging with the unimaginable God. Instead of a selected human devotee, if an angel, which is a devoted soul in an energetic body, is selected by the unimaginable God for His entry, the result is an Energetic Incarnation of God. Human Incarnations look just like ordinary human beings, externally and Energetic Incarnations look just like ordinary energetic beings, externally. This is because, even though the Absolute Awareness or God exists in them, He cannot be seen externally as He is unimaginable. It is only in the cases of these Incarnations of God, that the soul can be said to be God. This point was clearly indicated by Śaṅkara. He said that He alone was God (Śiva) (Śivaḥ kevalo’ham). He meant that He alone was the Human Incarnation of God. The statement rejects the claim that ordinary human beings are God. Śaṅkara also proved that He was indeed the omnipotent God by swallowing molten lead, which could not be done by His followers. This miracle is useful in the first filtration of human incarnation from the normal human beings. If this miracle is performed by a demon, who got miraculous power from God through rigid penance, the second filtration (incarnation has true spiritual knowledge and demon is devoid of it) can be applied.

The first Energetic Incarnation is called Īśvara. The unimaginable God entered the first energetic body (having energetic soul) created by Him. The unimaginable God can be treated to be the ‘unimaginable awareness’. The first energetic body had the relative awareness produced in that body. But, after the entry of the ‘unimaginable awareness’, the awareness of the first energetic body became unimaginable. The awareness of Īśvara is, thus, an unimaginable awareness. The unimaginability of Īśvara’s awareness is inferred from His omniscience and omnipotence in doing miracles.

Relative awareness, which is the awareness produced in energetic and material bodies, is the greatest item in creation and hence, it is called Brahman. Any item that is the greatest in a category can be called Brahman because the word Brahman means the greatest item within a category of items. For example, the Veda is called Brahman because it is the greatest in the category of scriptures. Similarly, relative awareness being the greatest in the category of all created items within creation is called Brahman. Now, Brahman stands for the relative awareness (soul) as well as the Veda. But, this confusion is not very dangerous because both the Veda and relative awareness belong to the same category of created items. The two can also be easily distinguished. The Veda is the greatest in a small category, which is the category of scriptures, whereas relative awareness is the greatest in the largest category, which is the category of all created items. There are several other ‘greatest’ items in different small categories. They include food, life, mind, intelligence, bliss and so on, which are all called Brahman in the Veda.

Unimaginable awareness (unimaginable God) is greater than the relative awareness and hence, must be the ultimate greatest item and should really be called Brahman in the highest sense. But, unimaginable God does not belong to the category of all created items because unimaginable God is the Creator, who is beyond creation. In this way, unimaginable God is different from the relative awareness. To emphasize this difference, the unimaginable God is said to be Parabrahman and not mere Brahman. Para, in this case, means different. In other contexts, para can also mean ‘the greatest’. For instance, the relative awareness is also called parā prakṛti, which means that it is a created item (prakṛti) and among all created items, it is the greatest (parā). But, in the word, Parabrahman, the prefix para means different.

Parabrahman is the conjunction or combination of two words: ‘param’ and ‘Brahman’. The same two words are also used separately (without the conjunction) as “Param Brahma” in the Gita and they mean the same as Parabrahman. The word ‘Parabrahman’ is conjugated result (samasita samaasa) and the word ‘Param Brahma’ is the same result without conjugation (asamasita samaasa) as per grammar. The word Brahman means ‘greatest’ as derived from its root word bṛhi (Bṛhi vṛddhau). The word param has two meanings: great and different. Some of the other meanings of param stated by Michael Chandra such as ‘previous’, ‘succeeding’, etc., come under the primary meaning ‘different’. Other meanings of param like ultimate, ancient etc., come under the primary meaning: great. The same primary meaning gives rise to different secondary meanings in various contexts. In the word Parabrahman, if you take the same meaning ‘great’ for both words, param and brahman, it will be a repetition of the same meaning to call as great greatest. So, such an interpretation is considered to be wrong due to repetition of the same sense.

God is the greatest or the ultimate and is beyond all these items of creation. So, the word param should be taken in the sense of different since God is beyond this world. The Veda says that God is beyond every item of creation and hence, every item of creation is rejected as ‘not God’ (Neti neti). The Veda says that God, being unimaginable, is even beyond intelligence and logic (Namedhayā…, Naiśā tarkeṇa...). The Gita also says that nobody knows God (Māṁ tu veda na kaścana). The Veda further says that no word can express God, which means that God can only be expressed through silence (Yato vāco...). This same point told in the Veda is expressed by Śaṅkara in His one of the prayers composed by Him (Mauna vyākhyā...—Dakṣiṇāmūrti Stotram). Even if you deny Śaṅkara as the author of that prayer, you do not gain anything. The point is valid in any case, due to its existence in the Veda as said above! If you can show the video proof of Shankara writing the commentary, I can show the video proof of Shankara writing this prayer, Dakṣiṇāmūrti Stotram!

Michael Chandra seems to value the Veda greatly. Actually, he should not bother about the name of the scripture or the name of the author of a text like commentary or prayer. All of us should only bother about the logic in any concept, irrespective of language, religion or the personality of the author. If the concept is logical, it should be accepted. If the concept is not logical, it should be rejected, irrespective of the scripture in which it is present, the name of its author, the language in which it is written or the religion in which it occurs. This does not mean that I do not value the Holy Scripture spoken by God. I am only referring to the possibility of pollution of the scripture by later insertions and deletions. So, logical analysis of any concept is essential, even if the concept is given in the scripture. If the concept is the true word of God, it will certainly withstand the acid test of logical analysis. If it cannot stand the test of logical analysis, it is certainly not the true word of God.

[Phani:- Can You compare the state of human being to the state of unimaginable God to understand the existence of world?]

Swami replied:- Absolute unimaginable God is one only and there is nothing second different from Him. Supporting scriptures are:- only one God without second (Ekamevaadvitiiyam Brahma- Veda, Mattah parataram kimchit... -Gita).

Such absolute God created this world for entertainment. If the world is unreal, there is no entertainment to God and creation activity also has to become unreal. If it is so, the scripture saying that He wanted second for entertainment and that He created all this world become false (ekaakii na ramate, sa dvitiiyamaicchat, sa idam sarvamasrujata—Veda).

A human being also creates imaginary world for entertainment, but, such world is not clear if the human being is awaken. If it sleeps forgetting itself, it sees its imaginary world or dream clearly. In such case, we have to accept that God forgot Himself in ignorance to entertain Himself with clear world and this is not acceptable because He is always omniscient without any trace of ignorance at any time. Human being is less potent whereas God is omnipotent. Due to His unimaginable omnipotence, we can say that God is always awaken, yet, sees His imaginary world as clear as in the awaken state or in the dream state even without self-ignorance. Mutual contradictions of concepts can exist for imaginable human being, which is a tiny part of imaginable world bound by imaginable worldly logic. God is unimaginable, beyond all this imaginable world, in whom the imaginable worldly logic fails. In awaken state and in dream state of human being, the appearing world is clear. The clarity of the world in awaken state is 100%, the clarity in dream state is 50% and clarity of imaginary world in awaken state is 25%. In the case of God, the clarity of His imaginary world in awaken state is 100%, which is 25% only in the case of soul. This difference is due to omnipotence of God and little potency of soul. Studying souls bound by worldly logic will not help to study the case of God, who is beyond the worldly logic.

To be continued...

★ ★ ★ ★ ★