Swami answers a question of an Advaita follower on Brahman and Parabrahman (Part-6)

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Part-1   Part-2   Part-3   Part-4   Part-5   Part-6

SIXTH PART

CONCLUSION:

Swami:- Drashtaa or jnaataa is seer or knower or subject, who sees or knows the object, called drushyam or jneyam. Druk or jnaanam is the process of seeing or knowing. Druk (sight) or jnaanam (knowledge) is referred to the process of seeing or knowing. There is no difference between druk (sight) or jnaanam (knowledge) and drashtaa (seer) or jnaataa (knower) respectively. The seer or knower is nothing but a container containing the sight or knowledge. Therefore, seer is sight and knower is knowledge. The sight or knowledge becomes the subject as well as the work or process of seeing or knowing. The subject is also a form of energy and the work is also a form of energy. Hence, there is no difference between subject and work since the inert container of the sight or knowledge can be neglected. Seer (drashtaa) is seeing or sight (druk) associated with a medium like milk associated with container-cup. In the case of ordinary human being, the relative imaginable awareness is like the incompetent milk unable to exist without container. Seeing or knowing (druk or jnaanam) without medium can exist if such seeing or knowing is unimaginable awareness. Unimaginable milk without cup is unimaginable awareness and imaginable milk with cup is ordinary human being.

The former is invisible and unknowable and hence, we can’t call it by the simple word ‘milk’. Since the unimaginable milk tastes like imaginable milk (since unimaginable God is thinking like imaginable human being) we have used the word ‘milk’ in the case of unimaginable milk also but, our intension is that such milk is only unimaginable milk and not the imaginable milk. If you have very strict sense, you must not use the word milk in the case of unimaginable milk because how can you use the word ‘milk’ in unimaginable item? Therefore, we shall say that the unimaginable milk (unimaginable God called Parabrahman) is tasting like imaginable milk (unimaginable God is also thinking like imaginable soul).

Since it is unimaginable item, it can taste like milk or sugar or salt or mirch etc. and hence, we can call the unimaginable milk as unimaginable sugar, unimaginable salt, unimaginable mirch etc. Unimaginable God can think and hence, need not be called awareness. He can burn and need not be called fire. He can throw away anything and need not be called air etc. Imaginable awareness or soul can only think, but, can’t burn or throw away anything. If an imaginable item thinks, we can call it imaginable awareness. Similarly, if an imaginable item burns we can call it as imaginable fire. But, when a single unimaginable item itself thinks and burns, we can’t call such unimaginable item as imaginable awareness and imaginable fire simultaneously because both imaginable awareness and imaginable fire can’t be a single imaginable item. Hence, if an item thinks and also burns simultaneously it must be unimaginable item only. God thinks as well as burns anything simultaneously and hence, is unimaginable and can’t be imaginable awareness and imaginable fire simultaneously!

 Shankara, correlating Kapila and Krishna told that Druk (unimaginable God) alone is the ultimate reality before which anything other than Druk is totally non-existent (if Druk is this imaginable awareness, Shankara should have told that anything other than Druk is inert) establishing perfect monism that only one item exists and the phase of this concept is called absolute truth (Paramaartha Sattaa). In this phase, there is no appearance of any second item including soul or imaginable awareness. In this phase, how can you say that monism means oneness between Druk (unimaginable God) and Drushyam (soul or any other part of the world)? In this phase, monism means that only unimaginable God exists and anything other than unimaginable God is non-existent. There are only two possibilities: existence and non-existence only. There is no third possibility, which is different from existence or non-existence. The school of seven fold truth (sapta bhangi sattaa) comes into picture only when you are not sure of the existence or non-existence of an item, in which seven possibilities of existence and non-existence were projected as doubts only and not as conclusions of authoritative knowledge:- like it may be true (Syaat asti), may not be true (Syaat naasti), may be true or may not be true (syaat asti naasti) etc. Hence, the absolute phase contains only concluding knowledge and not any doubtful knowledge.

The next phase is called Vyavahaara sattaa, which means the relative existence and this comes when the above said unimaginable God thought of creating a second item for His entertainment. You should not criticize that why God is bored to have entertainment when He is already with infinite bliss. How can you say that He was associated with bliss when second item did not exist in absolute phase? If you say that the unimaginable God is bliss by Himself, bliss is imaginable, which is unlimited happiness only (whether ‘unlimited’ means unlimited quantity or unlimited time because quantity and time have no place in unimaginable God). Bliss or happiness is a functional mode of imaginable awareness only and unimaginable God can be happy even though He is not bliss (just like He can think even though He is not this relative imaginable awareness). He can be unhappy towards a sinner even though He is neither awareness nor is associated with awareness. He is bored because of continuous bliss and such boredom is not a defect. A king, who is also blissful and fully contented likes to go for hunting (Lokavattu liilaakaivalyam— Brahma Sutra). If you are criticizing this, you have to criticize yourself for aspiring for entertainment when you are in such state! Hence, for entertainment, a second item is required (Ekaakii na ramate sa dvitiiyamaicchat— Veda). Then, the unimaginable God created this world including souls.

Opponent (O):- The unimaginable God Himself is soul.

Swami (S):- What is meant by the word ‘soul’?

O:- Soul means awareness.

S:- Is it this imaginable awareness, which is generated from inert energy functioning in active nervous system, which (awareness) is a specific work form of inert energy being transfer-work of information from senses to brain through neurons or nerves energy functioning in active nerves? If such relative imaginable awareness is unimaginable God, it is impossible because God existed before creation of energy and matter (means inert energy and materialized nervous system were absent, which alone can generate awareness). Such relative imaginable awareness is generated in the process of creation by God (Annat purushah—Veda). The digested food releases inert energy, which is transformed into awareness in active nervous system (awareness is present in zoological examples only and not in plants).

O:- It is said that the individual soul is also born as tree, stone etc.

S:- There is no problem because the individual soul or awareness is basically inert energy only. The awareness in inactive coma state is inert energy only, which is present in inert plants, stones etc. The soul is given punishment, which is such coma state.

O:- We say that God or awareness is existing even before creation of energy and matter.

S:- Then, such awareness must be unimaginable since its composing material is not inert energy and the specific nature (awareness) of such work form of inert energy exists even though materialized nervous system is absent in God. Hence, such awareness called unimaginable by yourself is unimaginable and God is also unimaginable. You must say that unimaginable God Himself is unimaginable awareness (since two unimaginable items can’t co-exist and you have to say that both are one unimaginable item only). In this way, Shankara is correct when He called awareness as God. His intension is that unimaginable awareness is unimaginable God and in the case of unimaginable item only such unity of two items is posible.

O:- Why Shankarka called awareness as God without the important adjective ‘unimaginable’?

S:- When Shankara came, He was fully surrounded by atheists and atheist is very rigid in not accepting God beyond him. He opposes the existence of God. Hence, there is no other way for Shankara except to say that he (atheist) is God and since he exists God exists. First, Shankara brought the atheist to the stage of theism by this and this is not the final stage. When the atheist asked (after he came to know that he is God) Shankara “Why miraculous powers are not appearing in me?”, Shankara replied “don’t bother about miracles, which happen in this non-existent world (actually world is non-existent in the view of unimaginable God and not in the view of the soul) only and hence, miracles are also non-existent for unimaginable God. You have already become unimaginable God existing in absolute phase without any second item. This unimaginable God (Brahman) or simple awareness is common in both yourself and Ishwara. Ishwara and yourself don’t exist at all because there is only one unimaginable awareness or unimaginable God (Brahman) projected as simple awareness, which is told in the Veda as real monism (Ekameava...).

Yourself and Ishwara are non-existent and Brahman (we call Parabrahman) or unimaginable God (projected as simple awareness) alone exists, which means you alone exist. Miraculous powers exist with Ishwara even though for Ishwara world is unreal. But, His medium is a part of the world, which is absolute reality in the view of the soul. Still, the world is very clear to the view of Ishwara and hence, His medium is also very clear to His view. Since you as soul alone exist (as per the view of atheist, the soul is God due to the trick played by Shankara), Ishwara as mediated God, world and miracles are non-existent. You, as the soul, are the unimaginable God present in Ishwara and there is no difference between yourself, the unimaginable God and Ishwara since the medium of Ishwara is non-existent along with world.” Then, atheist told “I want miraculous powers to become Ishwara”. Shankara replied, “Then, you have to worship Ishwara (leaving absolute phase and entering relative phase), who is different from you and you become Ishwara only when He merges with you to become incarnation. Either you have to keep silent by knowing that you are already Brahman (simple awareness limited to simple property of knowing only irrespective of quantity of information) or become Ishwara through incarnation for which you have to worship Ishwara, who is different from you to get miraculous powers”. Atheist told “You told that Brahman is unimaginable, the source of unimaginable powers. Then, when I recollected myself as Brahman, these miraculous powers should have appeared in me spontaneously. But, they have not appeared. Moreover, even if I am thinking that I am Brahman for a very long time, I am unable to do miracles”.

Shankara told “You are not unimaginable awareness since you entered relative phase. You are only imaginable awareness that was generated during the process of creation of world. You will become unimaginable awareness, when the unimaginable awareness (Unimaginable God) merged with Ishwara merges with you”. Atheist told “If I am imaginable awareness only, why did you tell me that I am unimaginable awareness or God”? Shankara told “I never told that you are unimaginable awareness. I told that you are imaginable awareness, which is God existing in absolute phase only without second item. Atheist told “Unimaginable awareness and imaginable awareness are totally different and unimaginable awareness alone is God. Fire and water are totally opposite, one is hot and the other is cold. How could you call water (soul) as fire (God)?” Shankara told “There is one common property between God (unimaginable awareness) and soul (imaginable awareness) and that is simple awareness or to know. Such awareness (simply to know) is common in both qualitatively. Due to quantitative difference God may be omniscient and soul may be little knower. I have taken this common similarity as awareness and called it as Brahman, being greatest in the entire creation. I called this common awareness as God or Brahman and this common awareness exists in soul and Ishwara. Hence, God is defined as this common awareness (which is simple awareness irrespective of quantitative information or knowledge) only. Since everything other than God is non-existent, only this common awareness is leftover in the absolute phase. Since this common awareness or God exists in you also, God exists in you. If you detach your ‘I’ from all the items other than this common awareness and attach the ‘I’ to this common awareness, you are God. You have not achieved this common awareness freshly since it existed in you already. Your effort is only to attach this ‘I’ to your common awareness and feel that you were God (common awareness), you are God and you will be God forever.

Since all other items are non-existent and this common awareness alone is existent, you (common awareness to which I is attached) alone exist in this finally leftover absolute phase and this is the perfect absolute monism. Monism means only one item leftover without the second item. Monism doesn’t mean that one item is the second item. In perfect monism (absolute phase), there is no second item at all. Both the words ‘God’ and ‘soul’ are the names of one item only. Whether you say that soul is God or God is soul, only one item exists, which can be called as God or soul. ‘Soul is God and soul is not second item (Jiivo Brahmaiva naaparah)’ means that there is only one item (Ekameva) without any second item and hence, any word applies to that one item only. If you fix one word ‘God’ to that one item as His name, any word becomes an alternative name of the same single item called God. Hence, the word ‘soul’ is applied to mean God only”.

O:- You have taken modern science to analyze the relative imaginable awareness. You must take the ancient branch of analysis called ‘Tarkashaastra’ only in the analysis of Vedaantashaastra or Spiritual knowledge.

S:- Science deals with perfect experimentally supporting analysis of the imaginable items of the imaginable creation. Tarka is the same analysis of worldly items based on theoretical observations without the support of experimental verification in the laboratory. The definition of Tarka is that all the worldly items are analyzed (Tarkyante padaarthaah asmin iti). In fact, some concepts arrived in Tarkashaastra are proved to be incorrect in science. Sound was said to be the property of space in Tarkashaastra. But, science says that collisions between particles alone cause sound, which can’t propagate in vacuum or space without a medium. Similarly, awareness is only a specific work form of inert energy generated in specifically functioning nervous system like inert energy transformed into grinding work in specifically functioning grinding machine.

All the above analysis pertains to one side of the theory of Shankara as applied to an atheist. His grand Guru called Gaudapaada told this theory to the extent in which he told that the second item other than God is not generated at all. According to him, if anybody says that the second item is generated, only a non-generated item is generated (Ajaatam jaayate kimchit... Gaudapaada). This concept is perfectly applied to the atheist to convert him into theist as the first step. Such an attractive chocolate is given to the child to draw him towards the school. This chocolate is marvellous since it is associated with such flavour and sweetness that any human being gets attracted, which satisfies the climax of ambition without an iota of effort! Just remember that you are God, you become God! But, what is the definition of God here? Here, God is defined as mere relative imaginable awareness having only one single property, which is just to know. If this one property is not present, such awareness is not awareness at all, which becomes inert item! Such normal awareness alone exists, which is yourself only. You alone exist and this means God alone exists. This conclusion has to be accepted by the atheist and the fundamental aim (to make atheist to say that God exists) of Shankara is achieved.

But, such normal awareness is only a soul forcibly limiting itself to one property only, which is to know itself only (since other item is non-existent) and this state of soul is the meditation phase, in which the awareness limits itself to self-knowledge (self-awareness) only. If the normal awareness limited to such single property of self-awareness is called Brahman, there is no objection since the word ‘Brahman’ (greatest) is applicable to even an imaginable item of creation, which can be such awareness. But, you can’t call such imaginable awareness, which is created during the process of creation by God as God Himself! God is taken as awareness because He thought to create world. Since awareness alone can think, you have taken God as awareness. Apart from thinking, God has other properties also like creating, maintaining, destroying this world and doing unimaginable miracles in this world. All these four properties are not seen in this normal awareness called soul. The soul is generated by God during the process of creation. How such soul is the original creator or God? If soul is God, we can say that the grandson himself is the grandfather! God is unimaginable and need not be this imaginable awareness to think. He can think due to His unimaginable nature even without being this imaginable awareness. This logic (that if any item thinks, it must be this imaginable awareness only) exists in this imaginable domain (world) only and not in the unimaginable domain (God). God is creator and world is created creation. Unimaginable God is beyond imaginable creation. Every imaginable item of the imaginable domain including this soul (imaginable soul may be the greatest in this imaginable world) is rejected to be God by the scholars knowing God (that God is unimaginable) as said in the Veda (Neti neti...). The Veda also says that God is beyond words, beyond mind, beyond intelligence and logic and that scholars have known that God is unknowable (Avijnaatam vijaanataam…Veda).

Shankara did not confine to the absolute phase only, which says that the second item other than God is non-existent. While accepting the absolute phase (that God alone exists and any second item is non-existent), He introduced the second phase, which is non-existent essentially, but, exists as if such non-existent is absolutely existing. This complicated phase of relativity (Vyavahaara sattaa) is not introduced for the sake of the soul because for soul it is very very clear that the world is absolutely existing in the same level of its own existence. This second phase is introduced in view of God only. God created second item (world including souls) for the sake of His own entertainment. If you say that this second item is absolutely non-existent in the view of God, it means that God could not create this second item even though He wanted to create it for entertainment. This means that God is incompetent like soul, which is unable to create a real external setup for its entertainment. The soul can only create imaginary world, which is not as clear as the external world. But, God is fully competent to create a real world with real full clarity for His real and full entertainment. Does it mean that God created a second absolute reality? One absolute reality can never create another absolute reality and can never do any miracle in another absolute reality. Does this mean that the created world is absolutely non-existent because there is no intermediate stage between real and unreal? You have to say that something is real or unreal. You can’t say that it is partially real and partially unreal. But, this logic is imaginable worldly logic and need not be applied to unimaginable God, who does both imaginable and unimaginable works. Hence, the world created by God is certainly not another absolute reality, but, absolutely unreal looking absolutely real (with full clarity) simultaneously. Creating world is absolutely real in giving full clarity and absolutely unreal due to its creation etc., including miracles by the absolute reality, called God.

Views of references are very important in understanding contradicting concepts.

1)  View of unimaginable God: Before creation, He had the experience of oneness, which is awareness of Himself alone. After creation, He has the experience of second item (creation), which is essentially non-existent, but, appearing with full clarity as if it is absolute reality. At anytime, there is no reduction in clarity and we can’t compare with rope appearing as snake in twilight. The clarity of snake in twilight is not much, which is not like the full clarity of the snake appearing in bright light of the day. Because of basic non-existence of creation, miraculous activities are possible for God.

2)  View of Ishwara or first mediated God or other incarnations: There is no difference in the view of unimaginable God and view of incarnation. The creation appears with full clarity and with basic non-existence so that the incarnations can do miracles like unimaginable God, who merged with energetic or human medium to become the incarnation. The only difference is that the incarnation (including Ishwara) had no personal experience of the situation without creation as existed in the beginning before creation except such experience existing with the unimaginable God present in Him that was transferred to Him. Unimaginable God has such direct experience whereas Ishwara has the same experience indirectly transferred to Him from unimaginable God. The unimaginable God existed before the creation and has such unique experience of absence of creation.

3)  View of the soul: The soul existed after creation like the incarnation including Ishwara. Hence, the absence of creation before creation is never experienced by the soul like the case of incarnation. The soul is a part of the creation and the creation is absolutely real for the soul. The reality of the soul and the reality of the rest of the world is one and the same. Since unimaginable God is unimaginable to the soul, the reality of the unimaginable God can’t be directly experienced except through inference by observing unimaginable miracles. Due to the absence of direct experience of the absolute reality of unimaginable God, the soul can’t compare the absolute reality of God with the relative reality of the world. Hence, the reality of self and the rest world itself is absolute reality for the soul. The soul has the experience of comparison of absolute reality of cause like mud with the relative reality of the product like pot. But, this comparison of realities of mud and pot with the comparison of realities of absolute God and relative world is not effective since out of four items (God, world, mud and pot) only three items (world, mud and pot) are experienced directly. Moreover, these three directly experienced items have the same common relative reality only and the absolute reality of God is not directly (perception) experienced. Hence, the soul can’t experience the essential non-existence of world including itself and hence, is unable to do any miracle. The tiny soul is bound by the huge world since both exist in the same phase of relative reality with reference to God. When a soul is performing a miracle (as in the case of incarnation or a climax devotee) only the unimaginable God is performing that miracle giving credit to the soul. Hence, the soul by itself can’t perform the miracle since it can’t experience the basic non-existence of the creation. When the soul says that this world is non-existent, it means only that the soul is expressing the view of God, which is not its original view of direct experience of the basic non-existence of the world.

O:- When the world appears with full clarity as if it is absolute reality, why not we say that the non-existent world is converted into absolute reality because the omnipotent unimaginable God can do anything. If God can’t convert the non-existent world into another absolute reality, the omnipotence of God also becomes doubtful. If the world is converted into absolute reality, it will be much logical to say that the world appears with full clarity since it is absolutely real.

S:- If the world becomes absolutely real like God, the second absolute reality (world) must be also called God. If the first God can create, maintain and destroy the second God (world), why not the second God do the same in the case of first God? The very supremacy of the first God is lost and hence, the first God can’t be omnipotent. You need not worry about the worldly logic, which says that a real thing alone appears with full clarity and a non-existent unreal item can’t appear with full clarity like the rope appearing as snake in twilight since the rope appears as rope only and not as snake in bright light. This worldly logic is based on the imaginable examples present in the imaginable world and this logic fails in the case of unimaginable God doing anything as the ultimate controller. The controlled world can never become another ultimate controller (absolute reality) to control the primary controller (God).

Shankara introduced a new word ‘Mithyaa’, which is neither real nor unreal (Sadasatvilakshanaa mithyaa) and this is not possible in the worldly logic since anything should be either real or unreal as per the authoritative knowledge (Pramaanajnaanam) concluded by perfect analysis. The false snake appearing on real rope in twilight is illusory knowledge and not authoritative knowledge. Experience alone without verification through authoritative analysis can’t be considered. God is seeing this world as real snake appearing in bright light with full clarity to get full and real entertainment through His unimaginable omnipotence. God is not enjoying like a soul entertained with its unclear imaginary world. Just like the soul enjoys a real drama enacted on the stage giving full clarity, God enjoys this unreal and fully clear world. Just like the spectator soul enters the real drama like a real actor in a role, God enters this world in a real role called mediated God or incarnation (Tadevaanupraavishat— Veda).

If the drama and roles are unreal, how can God get real entertainment and how can God enter the unreal drama as a real actor in unreal role? Hence, you have to accept that the world is clear like absolutely real for God to give real entertainment and to facilitate His real entrance in a real role called incarnation. If this (world is clear since it is absolutely real) is accepted, God can’t be the creator and controller of the equally real world and hence, this world must be unreal. We can’t accept partial reality of the world so that the real controller (God) can control world like a strong person controlling the weak person. It is not the question of strength and weakness. It is the question of reality and unreality. Anything can be either real or unreal and not partially real. Even the weakest person is real. The full clarity of the unreal world in the view of the God is the main problem here. The full clarity of the world to the soul is not a problem since world is as real as the soul and soul is only tiny part of the world. The answer of this is only to say that the world created by unimaginable God is unimaginable, which is being very clear even to God and simultaneously unreal. Such illogical state is unimaginable to the soul based on worldly logic, which is told by Shankara as Anirvachaniiyataakhyaati. Shankara says “O Lord! What I have understood regarding anything related to You?” (Shivaananda Laharii).

God (cause or creator) is unimaginable. The process of creation is unimaginable because we see in the worldly logic an imaginable process only through which one imaginable cause produces another imaginable product and we can’t understand the unimaginable cause producing imaginable product (due to absence of such case in the world). Even though produced product (world) is essentially unreal in the view of God, it is fully clear to God like a real item and such nature of the world is unimaginable to the soul. Of course, if the soul does not touch the view of God, the world is as absolutely real as itself even though the world is only relatively real with reference to absolute reality of God. For the soul, the world is absolutely real and hence, Shankara created a separate status (vyavahaara sattaa) for the relative reality of the world, which can’t be negated at all by the soul.

Collective awareness (Samashti chit) means the collection of imaginable souls existing in various bodies in the world. These souls are not united to form a single huge block of awareness. It is only an association of scattered souls of similar nature of awareness. The inert bodies containing these souls along with other inert items form an association of collective inert items (Samashti achit). A collection of both these associations is this external world, which is the external body of Vishwaruupa shown by Krishna. This includes various heads representing various incarnations of God. This total Vishwaruupa is thus a collection of inert and non-inert items of world including incarnations having unimaginable awareness merged with their souls. These heads representing incarnations have their own individual souls and bodies. This Vishwaruupa contains three components:- i) Inert Aparaaprakruti ii) Non-inert paraaprakruti and iii) Unimaginable awareness (Unimaginable God) merged with souls (imaginable awareness) of various incarnations of God. This Vishwaruupa is the collective (Yoga) form of the first energetic incarnation of God (Ishwara) and is totally called Yogeshwara (Yogeshwara tato me tvam..., Pashya me Yogamaishwaram—Gita). This Yogeshwara is compared with an ordinary human being (represented by Shvetaketu) by Ramanuja and based on this, the name of His philosophy came as ‘Vishishta Advaita’, which means similarity between Vishwaruupa and ordinary human being.

Vishishta means the soul associated with body and both become the meaning of this word. In any Vishishta, the internal soul (central point of awareness) and the external body made of inert matter with inert energy and non-inert awareness spread all over the body exist together. In Vishwaruupa, apart from the external body containing inert matter with inert energy (along with ordinary living beings), the internal soul is present, which is the soul merged with unimaginable awareness along with the souls (merged with unimaginable awareness) of various incarnations represented by different heads. The comparison between this form of Ishwara (with ordinary human being) has many similarities except one difference, which is that this divine form of Ishwara contains unimaginable awareness whereas the ordinary human being is lacking the unimaginable awareness. If you take this gross form of Ishwara and the limited small human being, there is no union of God and soul in the human being whereas there is union of God and soul in this divine form of Ishwara. But, if you take Krishna in the place of the small human being, both Krishna and Vishwaruupa are one and the same having all the three common components (unimaginable awareness merged with imaginable awareness, imaginable inert energy and imaginable inert matter) except quantitative difference, which also can be neglected from the view point of unimaginable awareness being beyond spatial dimensions. The word Advaita becomes perfectly meaningful if the comparison is between Vishwaruupa and Krishna instead of Vishwaruupa and Shvetaketu. Since unimaginable awareness is beyond even imagination, we can treat Krishna and Shvetaketu as a finite human being only as far as the limits of our imagination so that we can misunderstand that every ordinary human being is Krishna or God. This is a point of using this misunderstanding to convert atheist into theist by Shankara.

Shankara danced as per the psychology of the atheist, who does not believe God beyond this imaginable world. The imaginable awareness or soul of an atheist is also an imaginable item of this imaginable world only. By saying that soul is God, Shankara confined God to be an imaginable item of this imaginable world only. What the atheist accepts is defined as God by Shankara to make the atheist to say that God exists. The actual nature of God is unimaginable and hence, this imaginable awareness or soul can’t be the unimaginable God. This truth is hidden by Shankara for the sake of uplift of atheist. When the atheist accepted the existence of God, Shankara opened the actual point, which is the unimaginable nature of God. Slowly, in due course of time, Shankara opened the concept of Ishwara and incarnation in which the unimaginable God merges with imaginable awareness or soul of energetic being and human being respectively. By this, Shankara came to the starting point to say that a soul can become God if God wishes so and the point that every soul is already God is dropped. ‘Soul is God’ is correct in the case of a specifically selected energetic or human being is the final result after filtering the impurity that every soul is God.

The atmosphere around Shankara was very complicated due to presence of majority of atheists (Purvamiimaamsakaas and Buddhists) and minority of theists and both these are opposite to each other regarding the existence of God. Shankara has to speak to both these opposing types simultaneously through commentaries so that the atheist becomes theist and theist becomes strong devotee of God. Such diplomacy is not possible for a soul and hence, God (Shiva) directly descended as Shankara. Hence, it is very very difficult to understand the theory of Shankara like understanding the dual nature of electron. It depends on your present status that whether you are an atheist or theist so that you can take your relevant side of His commentary. After Shankara, in due course of time, almost all the souls became theists and only one side is leftover, which is the second side of Shankara’s commentary to convert theist into devotee. The task was very simple and easy so that the servants of God like Adishesha and Vaayu incarnated as Ramanuja and Madhva to stress on the second side of Shankara’s philosophy. Ramanuja and Madhva had to preach one type of disciples only, who are theists. The first side is the absolute phase (Paramaarthadashaa) in which the atheist is converted into theist by taking the soul into perfect monism of God and bringing down God as an imaginable item (imaginable awareness or soul) of this imaginable world. The second step is relative phase (Vyavahaaradashaa) in which the theist is converted into devotee by taking the soul into real world (as real as the soul and not with reference to non-mediated unimaginable God and soul is a part of the world only) controlled by Ishwara, the mediated God (the medium containing imaginable inert body and imaginable awareness- is as real as world). If you are already theist, you shall take only the second side (Vyavahaaradashaa or relative reality to be taken as absolute reality in view of the soul) of Shankara, which is the philosophy of Ramanuja and Madhva. Shankara projected both parts (paramaartha sattaa and vyavahaara sattaa) of His philosophy, the first part being stressed in His time (to convert atheist into theist) and the second part being stressed for the sake of few original theists (along with the atheists converted into theists) present in His time. Later on, Ramaanuja and Madhva took the second part only since almost all were theists in their times.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★