Teaching for the Varanasi Saint (Part-1)

Part-1   Part-2

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

 [The following is the discourse given by Swami in reply to the criticism of a saint, from Varanasi. He was told about Shri Datta Swami and His teachings by Swami’s devotees.

1. He raised objections on several points of Swami’s knowledge. Swami gave the following brilliant discourse in which He has refuted all the criticisms of the saint and has given a teaching for the upliftment of the saint.]

Swami Replied:- There are two items. One is the memorization of knowledge, called as Vyutpatti. The second is Pratibha, which means the assimilation of the real interpretation by sharp analysis. The debate will be meaningful if the opponent has Pratibha. There is no meaning in arguing with a person who has only Vyutpatti. He will repeat the same text again and again for any of your arguments. He memorized the commentary of Shankara very well. The insight is needed for any development. Vyutpatti leads to rigid recitation of text only again and again. A school boy is the best example. Infact Shankara was an excellent professor. Unfortunately, He was posted in a small school as an Acharya. He will think of uplifting the school students by preaching the school syllabus only. If He is a mere scholar, He will expose His depth and the children will weep and run away. He was placed when India was full of Buddhists and Purvamimasakas who were atheists. Brining them to the spiritual line is the total task. An atheist is always in the climax of jealousy and egoism. He abuses God for His greatness and abuses the exploitations of society in the name of God. He never takes the positive aspect of the concept of God. His view is social and political but not spiritual. Such an atheist is brought to the spiritual line and the degree awarded to him is Advaita scholar. Well, if you are in that state, we have no objection to your entire course of Advaita. We have got the commentary of Shankara in condensed form only due to absence of recording and printing technology. We have not heard Shankara directly. We are hearing His commentary with others’ interpretations. Moreover, there is always the fear of additions and deletions of original text. Therefore, we have to analyze it with logic and commonsense. The Veda is not having such pollutions, which was preserved by recitation only. But still even the Veda should be discussed to draw out the correct conclusion as said by Shankara (Shrutimatah Tarkonu Sandhiyatam). If you simply quote the commentary of Shankara, it is not sufficient. You must also analyze the situation at the time of Shankara. You have to understand His concepts with reference to His situation. If you are in similar situation, ofcourse, you can apply His theory directly to your case.

2. If the tradition should not be criticized, why the human incarnations like Jesus, Shankara, Swami Dayananda etc., criticized the tradition? Why Prahlada rejected the tradition of his family? It is said that one drinks even the salt water from the well telling that his father dug that well (Tatasya kupoyamiti…). It is also said “a scholar neither accepts the entire past nor rejects the entire present. He examines both and arrives at the truth by analysis. A fool blindly follows either past or present” (Puranamityeva…). If the tradition is to be blindly followed, there should not have been the necessity of the appearance of human incarnations for preaching again and again. The original text is always misinterpreted by the followers to suit to their limitations and therefore, there is necessity of human incarnation to come again and again to remove the wrong interpretations and establish the correct interpretation. The correct interpretation causes inconvenience to some selfish and egoistic people, who go to the extent of rejecting the human incarnation. Krishna had several enemies and only a very few devotees in His lifetime. Shankara had several opponents. Buddha faced a similar situation. Kapila was criticized as an atheist. Jesus and Dayananda were even killed directly. When the human incarnation passes away, again His original preaching will be misinterpreted or even polluted by selfish people. Then, they praise the past human incarnation because they use Him as their support. Why Prahlada did not follow his tradition? Sometimes the pseudo-human incarnations misinterpret and due to this reason Mohammad and Dayananda rejected even the concept of human incarnation. But again the context of their situation at that time should be understood and it should not be extended to every time. When the children are suffering with cold, the mother denies the ice cream in that situation. The mother will give the ice cream again when the children get rid off the cold.

Declaration of Incarnation

[3. The saint raised severe objection to Swami’s declaring Himself as a human incarnation of God.]

Swami Replied:- From My side, I never declared that I am the human incarnation. I gave the spiritual knowledge. The devotees started telling that it is very special and never heard or present in any book. They started calling Me as Datta. Some of the devotees were pressing Me to show the miracles which were spontaneously expressed. Therefore, I stated that Datta possessed Me and gave this knowledge and also showed miracles. What is wrong in My statement? Because this is the concept of any human incarnation. The Gita says that God possess a human body for His divine mission. I did not believe or declare simply based on the words of devotees unless I had My own proof since I am basically a scientist. Science never denies the practical proof and it gives a logical explanation of any truth. Such logical explanation coincides with scriptures and therefore, the truth is constitutionally valid. When the devotees raised some points believing Me as human incarnation, I answered those points assuming that I am a human incarnation, because such points relate to any human incarnation in general. The answers are valid whether I am the human incarnation or not. Devotees have repeatedly stated that My knowledge is special and wonderful.

This statement of devotees is the basis on which I developed the subsequent analysis. The special and wonderful knowledge can be given only by God as per the Veda and the Gita. This means that God entered Myself and is speaking. When God enters the human body that is the human incarnation as stated by the Gita and the Bible (Manushiim Tanum, God-in-flesh). This does not mean that God has become the human body. God is in the human body. The concept of human incarnation is only this much. Such God given through human body to the devotees is called as Datta. This concept of double personality pacifies the jealousy of even higher devotees. They accept this and their jealousy is pacified. Even such higher devotees cannot tolerate if I say that I am the God. Even though Krishna told Arjuna that He is God, He also told in the Gita that the God entered human body (Manushiim Tanumaashritam) and also clearly stated that God has not become the human body (Avyaktam Vyakti…). This means that the God present in the body of Krishna spoke “I am God” and this statement is not uttered by Krishna. Arjuna was higher but not highest devotee. Gopikas were highest devotees, who believed that Krishna is God, who came down directly to the earth. Krishna made their belief become true because for them God pervaded all over the three bodies including the external gross body. God superimposed (Adhyasa of Shankara) Himself on the gross body as a human being superimposes his self on the gross body. In the case of God, the superimposition is with knowledge due to necessity and in the case of human being, the superimposition is due to ignorance. For them there is no need of any clarification and hence, no need of the Gita. But if that concept is revealed to Arjuna, Arjuna will totally reject it because he was a higher devotee and not the highest devotee. The highest devotee is only one in millions. Higher devotees are many like Arjuna. Therefore, the Gita is Universal and is not necessary for Gopikas.

When Uddhava tried to preach the concept of this dual personality (God as possessor and the human being as possessed), Gopikas rejected him totally. Even this clarification does not pacify the jealousy of some people because they cannot tolerate even the presence of God in a particular human body only. They want the presence of God in their bodies also. This is the highest degree of jealousy. Since such highest jealousy is a common point to every human being, the Advaitins revolt against the human incarnation by generalizing that God is in every human body and gets the support of majority. This is the revolution and the formation of the union of people, who feel that they were suppressed. This is communism revolting against capitalism. This is politics in philosophy. This is a special situation because philosophy enters every subject. The degree of philosophy (PhD) can be taken in any subject. Therefore, you have philosophy in politics which is general and normal.

Even though I also felt that this knowledge is wonderful, I never said it because it will be misunderstood by the ignorant people as self-praise. Therefore, if the devotees stated this and if their statement is correct, there is no doubt that I am the human incarnation based on the concept of atleast this dual personality as per the analysis related to higher level of devotees. Such analysis can be extended even to the highest devotees, which prevents them from falling down to the higher level from their highest level. This concept of dual personality will atleast fix the devotee to the higher level preventing from further fall. The people who fall down from this higher level also, believe God but not the human incarnation. They say that either no human being is God or every human being is God. Either the concept is totally rejected or is extended to everybody. Let nobody be rich or let everybody be rich. There should not be one richest person. They hate the richest person and gradually they hate even any richer person. They want equality of every human being. This is good in economics or sociology (Pravrutti). But the subject of spirituality (Nivrutti) is completely opposite to the subjects of the world (Duurameti Vipariite Vishuicii- Veda). Shankara had to act like a communist even in the spirituality because in that time, the country was filled with atheists of communist-psychology in Pravrutti and for them Nivrutti was totally absent. Hanuman is also an incarnation of Shiva like Shankara, but He followed the extreme capitalism in spirituality, which is quite opposite as said in the Veda. The spiritual knowledge was given by Krishna to Arjuna, when Arjuna fell down on the feet of Krishna with complete surrender as a servant.

Krishna said that one should become servant of Guru before receiving the spiritual knowledge (Tat Viddhi Pranipatena…). Hanuman represents the path of spirituality for every devotee. The task of Shankara was different which was to make the atheist atleast become a believer of the existence of God. In that time, the devotion was very far off. Such people will be very much excited if I say that the Prime Minister visited My house (body) and is staying with Me. This does not mean that Myself or My house is Prime Minister. But still, they want that the Prime Minister should be atleast in their houses only if the possibility of their becoming Prime Minister is ruled out. If you, devotees, withdraw the statement that My knowledge is wonderful, I will certainly withdraw this analysis and I will say that I am an ordinary human being only or atleast I am a scholar-Guru, if permitted by you. If you give value to this knowledge, it is immaterial whether I am a Guru or the human incarnation. If I am not the human incarnation, you must search for the human incarnation present in our generation, since the concept of present human incarnation is the main essence of this knowledge and allow Me also to join you. My analysis is never wrong. Only your statement is either right or wrong. This point is totally left to your statement. Before uttering the statement, you should analyze completely. If you come to the conclusion about the level of this knowledge, further analysis will depend on it. If this knowledge is ordinary, I am an ordinary human being. If this knowledge is good and special, I am a scholar and can be called as Guru. If this knowledge is exceptionally and extremely special and best, I am the goal. If your faith is that I am God, yes, I am God. If your faith is little weaker, the God is in Me and God spoke this knowledge and I did not speak (Ye Yathamam – Gita).

Arjuna was in highest state of devotion when the Gita was preached. Therefore, Krishna told “I am God”. But Krishna knows that Arjuna will slip from that state. In highest state, there is every chance to slip easily. Therefore, the Lord always kept the safety side preserved by two shlokas in the Gita, which mean that God entered the human body (Manushiim tanu ashritam) and God did not become the human body (Avyaktam Vyaktimapannam). This is like keeping petrol in reserve. Tomorrow Arjuna may come down and announce to public that Krishna declared Himself as God. The ignorant public will not tolerate that. When that situation comes Krishna will say that God entered Him and spoke the Gita and therefore, it was statement of God and not Krishna. Krishna will quote the above two verses tomorrow as proof already given. This is a safety measure. Moreover, it also serves as an advanced prevention of jealousy coming in future when Arjuna goes down. People say to the human incarnation that He is real God. But the human incarnation knows the strength of the faith and its tenure. Therefore, the human incarnation may respond accepting the statement of devotee on that day. But the Lord in human form will immediately speak about the concept of dual personality in human incarnation and does not cross that safety limit, because the devotees may censor their statement and present the statement of Krishna only saying that Krishna Himself declared as Lord. Devotees like Gopikas are very rare who were sages for several births and for them, the Lord need not preach anything because they have started with decision and not arrived at decision.

The devotee expects the position of the Lord atleast in the future. If such chance exists, he will stick to the Lord. Alternatively, he also sticks to the Lord if some chance of benefit or solution to his problem is expected. For that he will enquire about the miracles. If the superpower exists, he will try to tap it for his benefit and for this purpose, he will act as an excellent devotee. If all these possibilities do not exist, he will leave the human incarnation and will join the Advaita Union, where he will have the chance of becoming the Prime Minister atleast along with others in general quota. The Advaita union gives the highest fruit at once by saying that you are already the Prime Minister and you have to just remove ignorance! When Jesus told that He and His father are one and the same, He was dragged to the court on that statement and was crucified. Just imagine the irritation created by jealousy and egoism!

The human incarnation comes in every generation but you are not coming in every generation. The rebirth as human being is almost impossible and completely impossible as per Christianity. In such case, you are having only one chance to contact the human incarnation present in your generation. If you miss this, never again this luck comes. The next meeting with God is direct where He acts as judge. Therefore, there is no second coming of Jesus for you and you will meet God finally only. In this way the second coming of Jesus at the end can be understood. But if you say that you cannot meet the human incarnation in your present generation, you are not having the opportunity even for once. In such case, why a particular generation in which God came in human form as Jesus was only blessed? They had the extra fortune and this means God is partial to that generation. Therefore, every person in every generation will have the equal chance of coming in contact with the human incarnation once in his or her life and the final contact with God in the energetic form as judge. Therefore, the impartial God comes again and again for every generation (Yada Yada hi… Gita) but you are not having the chance to meet the human incarnation again since you have no human rebirth. One may get the human rebirth in extreme exceptional situation and you should not depend on that because it involves high risk. The human birth, the urge for salvation and coming in contact with the human incarnation are the three real fortunes and the importance increases from left to right in the order. Therefore, simply having the human birth and having the urge by taking orange robe are not sufficient. Unless you contact the Lord in human form and get the right knowledge for correct implementation, everything is waste (Manushyatvam Mumukshatvam, Mahapurusha Samshrayah, Durlabham— Shankara).

There is no quarrel if you say that the second coming of Jesus is only at the end because everyone is having the equal chance. But if you say that I have to worship the past human incarnation only even in the present generation, then the equal opportunity is not given to Me when I am compared to the human being present in that generation in which Jesus came directly and clarified all the doubts face to face. I must have such equal privilege and here the quarrel comes with you since you deny the equal opportunity. The second coming is final with respect to every human being but not with respect to God because in such case, several human generations miss the chance of direct contact with God in human form except that one particular human generation. Even if you say that Jesus told that His second coming is only final, it is true with respect to every human being and not with respect to Him. You have misinterpreted this statement by extending it with reference to Jesus also because you want to exploit the people in the name of past Jesus and get personal fame and other facilities from the devotees. You are in no way different from the priests present in that time of Jesus. Both of you do not admit the human form of Lord. Both of you keep the past which is invisible (invisible Jehova or invisible Jesus) before the devotees and earn money and fame. The only difference between you both is that that priest got Jesus killed through the court and you cannot do that in the present time. The repulsion towards the human form before eyes is common to both the priests and devotees. But in the case of priests there is an extra factor that they may lose fame and offerings from the devotees because they get benefited standing at the background of the invisible form of God or inert form of God. In the case of devotees, this extra factor does not exist because they are prepared to sacrifice for God and they are not losing since they do not receive. Any Guru or Priest immediately resists human form of God based on these two factors since he fears that the human form may get the fame and their offerings. Thus, there is political, economical and social issue of psychology in this spiritual line. Attraction to fame and money associated with jealously and egoism is the main background and Lord Datta brings out the truth that is buried up to any depth. All the details of truth are known to the omniscient God. The Veda says that the knowledge of God is always based on truth (Satyam Jnamam).

4. The Lord should be greater than any soul of the society. Jesus says that one should leave even the closest souls like family members for the sake of the Lord. Leaving the close worldly bonds is salvation but it should be for the sake of the God. Jesus told that you should hate the family bonds for the sake of Jesus. Krishna went one step above and asked Arjuna to kill the family members for the sake of His work (establishment of Justice on the earth). The family is greater than the society and the Lord is greater than the family. How can you give more important to society than the Lord? When a lady was washing His feet with scent, a disciple with jealousy told that the beggars should have been served with the cost of the scent. Jesus told that beggars are always there but serving Him is very rare. Beggars are under the punishment of God for their sins. If you simply help them it is interference with the judicial administration of God. Of course, serve them by converting them in to devotees of God. In such case, God will excuse and bless them. Then only they can get the permanent solution. Shankara discarded the social service in comparison to the service of Lord (Loka sevaka mata nirasah). Hanuman never did such things except serving the human incarnation. The service was also personal. It is real test for you to see how much value you give to the Lord. Hanuman never did Japa, dhyana, bhajan, Tapas, Yoga, social service, service to beggars etc., as per the Valmaki Ramayanam. Gopikas also never did these things as per the Bhagavatam. Their full concentration was only on the human incarnation. Without the instruction from Rama, Hanuman did not protect even the Sugriva from Vali. Shri Rama Krishna Paramahamsa told that one should take the responsibility of uplifting the humanity only on the command and under the direction of the Lord. Hanuman did everything whatever He can do only under the guidance of Rama.

[5. The saint said that Swami couldn’t be a human incarnation of God because He has not performed fantastic miracles like lifting a mountain, as Lord Kriahna had done.]

Swami Replied:- Miracles are done even by demons and black magicians and therefore, cannot be the identifying marks of God. Miracles alone are not sufficient to detect the Lord. Krishna is identified by not miracles but by excellent knowledge of the Gita. Krishna lifted the mountain but Ravana also lifted the Kailasha Mountain.

[6. The saint then said that the power of creation, maintenance and destruction of creation is present only with God. So if Swami is an incarnation, He should kill him (the saint himself) and bring him back to life as Lord Krishna had done for His Guru’s son.]

Swami Replied:- You should not test God by demanding miracles and this was told by Jesus to Satan, when Satan asked Him to convert the stone into bread. The saint asks Me to kill him and give him life again as proof. In the history of human incarnations, nobody asked like this and no human incarnation did like this. If such challenge is thrown, a demon will certainly come forward with a miracle. Lord Krishna killed several evil people but never gave life to them. Due to His plan only, Abhimanyu was killed. When Subhadra asked to give life to him, He refused. But He gave life to Parikshit and brought back the dead son of His Guru. He did miracles in the case of exceptionally deserving devotees only, but not on any challenge. Whenever the devotee deserves and the Lord by Himself wishes, any miracle can take place spontaneously. Shukracharya knows to give life to a killed person but he is not God. Vatapi and Ilala were demons. Ilala kills Vatapi and serves him as food to the guest. Then Ilala calls Vatapi. Vatapi becomes alive and comes out by tearing the stomach of guest. Does this mean that they are God?

[7. The saint told that Krishna only created, maintained and dissolved the Universe, which is an exceptional miracle.]

Swami Replied:- But Krishna did not dissolve this entire Universe and created it again keeping you separately as a spectator. He only showed the cosmic form as a vision to Arjuna. In the vision, He created the Universe, maintained it and finally dissolved it. During this vision the universe is not affected. Even Duroyadhana saw it and discarded it as hypnotic illusion. Arjuna believed the vision for sometime. Udanka appreciated the vision forever. Ofcourse, this vision proves that Krishna is God. Since the Veda and the Brahma Sutra also give this as the super most miracle of identification, which is not possible for anybody except God.

On one Guru Purnima day, I was giving a divine discourse and suddenly I stood for five minutes silently in highly excited state. Then I sat again in the chair. I asked two devotees in the crowd to tell what they saw simultaneously. Both of them told that they had the vision of cosmic form (Vishwaroopam). Ofcourse, God in Me gave that vision and I have nothing to do with it. If God is not in Me, how was that vision given? How I identified only those two devotees? How I said that both of them had the same vision and they should explain it to other devotees? If one person gets the vision it may be illusion. How the same illusion is created to both the devotees simultaneously. The analysis made Me also believe that God (Parabrahman) is present in Me. When God is given to the devotees through human body, He is called as Datta. The Veda also says that the special divine knowledge comes form God only (Satyam Jananam, Prajnanam…). The Gita also says the same (Jnanitvatmaiva…). I gave importance to these aspects in analyzing that God is in Me to give this special knowledge and that special vision. Ofcourse, Duroyodhana discarded even that as hypnotism. The Brahma Sutras also tell these two aspects as the identifying marks (Janmadyasya…, Shastrayonitvat).

[8. The saint criticized My devotee for not doing the rituals and also for eating the garlic.]

Swami Replied:- Neither in the Veda nor in the Gita garlic is mentioned. The Gita says that the food that is kept for long time and is contaminated with impurities should not be eaten, which is tamas (Yata yamam…). Garlic is not mentioned in this verse. The food which is stored for a long time is affected by bacteria according to science and is not good. But today the fridge removes this defect. According to medical science, garlic is good for controlling the cholesterol. The food should be taken in view of the individual problem of health of a person, which cannot be generalized. I never opposed the rituals. I have revised and re-oriented them to bring out the real sense. For example, Gayatri does not mean the hymn, which is recited without singing. Gayatri means singing Bhajans. Bhajan gives a temporary solution for forgetting the tensions. It does not give permanent solution. I have given the detailed way of performing the Yajna and also performing the Shraddha. Let all the rituals be done but with right spirit and in the right direction, which can be obtained only from jnana yoga (jnatva Kurvita… Gita). Then the right results will come. The sage Yaska, who wrote the grammar of the Vedas, says that the Veda means knowledge and the Vedic rituals mean the actions based on knowledge. He says that if one does these rituals blindly without the jnana yoga, they go waste and no fruit can be obtained. For this he gives the simile that the blind fellow doing the Vedic rituals is like a fool cooking the food without fire (Anagnauviva…). He also says that such blind fellow is like a porter carrying the bag of gold for a small wage without knowing what is present in the bag. Shankara was also criticized by traditional people to be atheist for rejecting the rituals.

Only a Saint can be a Human Incarnation of God?

[9. The saint criticized Swami when he came to know that Swami is married. He was under the impression that only a saint (monk) can be a human incarnation of God. He also said that even God prostrates before a saint.]

Swami Replied:- Is not Phani greater than Mandana Mishra? He is a young charming person, well qualified and he is employed well. He was having long debates with Swami. He became the disciple of Swami by rejecting the marriage and job, to work for the propagation of divine knowledge. Mandana Mishra rejected the family after leading some family life. Certainly, I consider him greater than Mandana Mishra. In discussions, he uses very sharp logic and he is perfectly scientific. He is a scholar of science in English. Mandana Mishra was a scholar of science (Shastra) in Sanskrit. Mandana Mishra was in the dress suitable to that time and Phani is in the dress suitable to this time. People appreciate a lesser personality of past but discard even a greater personality of the present. This disease is present even in angels as said in the Veda (Paroksha priyah…). You must appreciate the point of any person irrespective of the external orange robe or a dress of householder. If the gravel stone is wrapped by an orange cloth and is kept in traditional Math, will it become diamond? Shankara fell on the feet of even a cobbler for the excellent knowledge. A real scholar can only appreciate the real knowledge. In the place of Shankara if some other traditional saint is present, he will say that the cobbler should be kicked out!

[10. The saint criticized other saints and holy people who go abroad and have a large following of devotees. He was upset that many such holy people are regarded as incarnations of God.]

Swami Replied:- Why is he criticizing the saints who go to the foreign countries for spreading the divine knowledge? If he also gets the same chance, he will not criticize them. I guess this because he says that Swami is an Avatar provided, he is also accepted as Avatar! Those saints are doing good service because by correlating the religions, they are helping for the concept of the Universal Spirituality to grow. Are they compelling the foreigners to pay the money? The foreigners give money with appreciation as Guru Dakshina. Indians should learn this detachment from wealth (karmaphala tyaga) from foreigners. Indian saints should also appreciate those saints who are trying for some sort of universality in the path of spiritual knowledge. They are not earning money by doing the businesses which is a type of cheating others only. The Manu Smruti says that businesses is a mixture of truth and light (Sayanrutamtuvanijyam…). They are also not collecting money like terrorists.

[11. The saint refused to accept Prajnanam as an identifying mark of God saying that there is nothing such as a special knowledge of a human incarnation of God. He said that Jnanam or knowledge is the inherent property of Brahman or Awareness, which is common to all humans and even animals.]

Swami Replied:- The saint says that Prajnanam is not the mark of God and this is against the Veda (Prajnanam Brahma). The word Prajnanam means the special knowledge and not mere awareness. The word Jnanam stands for knowledge (Yoga Rudha). The word chit stands for mere awareness. He says that Krishna is not Brahman but He is only a Guru because the Gita is not Prajnanam. Is he not full mad for saying that Krishna is not Brahman? You have taken the word jnanam to stand for awareness just by Yoga. Yoga Rudha is powerful than Yoga as per the rules of the Vyakarana Shastra. The saint says that the word Prajnanam is only awareness and every living being is Brahman. How funny is this contradiction! When everybody is Brahman, Krishna also becomes Brahman through the general rule itself. Even the basic commonsense is absent. This shows that vyutpatti is not necessarily associated with pratibha. A student on memorizing for long time does not use the commonsense to think about even a simple point.

[12. The saint says that every living being is Brahman due to the presence of awareness. He says that everybody cannot be Bhagavan without having the special six qualities. He says that Bhagavan or Eshwara can control any human being but not Brahman.]

Swami Replied:- Again how much childish is this statement! When you say everybody is Brahman and one only becomes Bhagavan or Eshwara, it means Eshwara is greater than Brahman. Again, you say that Eshwara cannot do anything to Brahman! You have taken the following concept given by Me in My discourses. Water is Brahman. Ocean is Eshwara and water drop is Jiiva. The ocean can control the water drop but cannot control the water. There is no ocean without water and there is no drop without water. Ocean is water and drop is also water. When you say ocean can control drop, it means water control yes water! If you say that ocean and drop are different from water, they do not exist at all without water and therefore, the concept of control itself is lost. When you are defeated by another stronger man, will you accept your defeat or not? Or will you say that since both of you were men and since the stronger man cannot hurt the man, as a man you are not defeated! How childish is this logic! By qualitative similarity you are not equal to the stronger man. A peon and the king are men. Does this mean that the peon is the king by qualitative similarity because both are men! Is this acceptable logic even to an ordinary man with even little commonsense? There are only two people. One is king and another is peon. You should say that both are equal or both are not equal. You should either conclude equality or difference. You say that they are different as king and peon but are same as human beings. When difference comes, equality disappears. Equality means absence of any difference. You can say that even Eshwara and Jiiva are equal in the sense of control. A king controls the people of entire kingdom. You control your family members. Both are controllers in their relative spears. Does this bring equality? One single point brings the difference and that is the king also controls you. The word Atman means that which pervades. Brahman pervades all over the creation as basic substratum. The soul also pervades all over the human body. This single quality cannot bring the equality. Equality should be in all the points, which should be totality. The word Nareshwara means the king, who is the Lord of a kingdom. The word Jagadishwra means the Lord of Universe. The word Eshwara is common in both. Does this mean that the king and God are one and the same?

[13. The saint says that Avatara never declares that He is God.]

Swami Replied:- It shows the absolute ignorance of the saint about the Gita. The Lord Krishna, an Avatar, clearly stated again and again thoughout the Gita that He is God. Ofcourse, the mad saint says that Krishna is not Brahman and also not Avatar and He is only Guru. Is this not exactly demonism and devilism? Only demons and devils utter such statement. Let him say who is Avatar, if Krishna is not Avatar? Perhaps he is only Avatar.

[14. The saint says that a sage who did penance can only recognize the human incarnation.]

Swami Replied:- This is again wrong. Why the sage Udanka, who was in constant penance, did not recognize Krishna as human incarnation and the sage was prepared to give a curse to Krishna? If you require a sage doing penance only to recognize the human incarnation, Swami Shivananda Maharaj recognized Datta Swami (Swami) and announced in presence of huge crowds that Datta Swami is the Lord Datta only. Swami Shivananda did lot of penance in forests and roamed as an Avadhuta. People say that he was seen by the people of about four past generations! He has all the superpowers. However, I do not consider such identifications as genuine. The human incarnation does not require any certificate from anybody. Several demons also performed penance for long time and recognized Ravana or Hiranya Kashipu as God. Therefore, according to your prescribed qualifications and norms such demons are also God. According to the Veda, only Prajnanam (the special divine knowledge) is the identity card of human incarnation.

[15. The saint says that the word ‘I’ in the Gita used by Krishna indicates the soul in every human being. He says that the verse “Manmana Bhava…”.]

Swami Replied:- It means that you should serve and bow to yourself only according to the version of the saint. In this verse “Mamnamaskuru” means that you should prostrate Me. According to the saint everybody should prostrate to himself only. It is impossible to do this also. Krishna clearly stated that He is born as incarnation to destroy the evil people and to uplift the good people. If everybody is God, God is coming as incarnation to destroy God and to uplift God. Krishna clearly defined that Vaasudeva, the son of Vasudeva is the God (Vasudevah sarvamiti…). In such case, every human being who is God should be the son of Vasudeva only. If God is the soul, then since God is the son of Vasudeva, the soul should be the son of Vasudeva. Devaki did not deliver the soul. God pervaded this soul, subtle body and also the gross body of Krishna. Now, you can say that God is the son of Vasudeva with respect to the gross body. You can also say that God is in that gross body, which is the son of Vasudeva. It gives the address of God. God is residing in the gross body of Krishna delivered by Devaki and Vasudeva. It means God is not present in any other gross body delivered by other parents.

16. You cannot fix the program of the human of incarnation. God enters the world in human form mainly for self-entertainment. The original aim of creation was only that. Sometimes the preaching is associated with it. Krishna preached the Gita accidentally and His main purpose was destroying the evil people and the primary aim was to entertain Gopikas who were sages in several births. Sometimes the main program itself may be preaching as in the case of Shankara. Sometimes only entertainment may be the program as in the case of Rama. The word Rama indicates the entertainment. The word Krishna indicates the attraction of devotees. The word Shankara indicates giving welfare to devotees. God is absolutely the sole authority of His program and nobody can suggest the modification in His program by asking questions like “Why He did not do like this, Why such person did not follow Him? etc.” The Lord corrects somebody and uses someone else for the propagation according to the situation. In those days, India was full of scholars and Sanskrit was mother tongue. Therefore, the Sanskrit scholar was required for propagation. But today people do not speak in Sanskrit and say that this language is Mruta Bhasha, which means a dead language. Today, people respect English, which is the international language. Today, science is respected and not the Shastra. At that time, for Shankara India was the field of work but today the entire world is the field. Today Mandana Mishra cannot be used for propagation. 99% of people cannot understand Sanskrit or the shastra, which has the terminology of Sanskrit words. How propagation takes place? Today Nikhil is the correct person for propagation in the present circumstances. The Sanskrit scholar who gave certificate to Swami was more than 80 years, when he came in contact with Swami who was 16 years. The scholar was not capable of roaming like Mandana Mishra. Surprisingly Manada Mishra was his ancestor.

Moreover, when each soul is totally different from any other soul, like a fingerprint (according to Madhva), how can you compare the behavior of any soul to that of another soul? Mandana Mishra fell on the feet of Shankara and followed Him as a disciple because his total concept was changed. Mandana Mishra was an atheist and became theist which means the change of total concept. Shankara also fell on the feet of cobbler and this case was different. Shankara was simply corrected in a concept. Shankara did not follow the cobbler as a disciple like Manadana Mishra. The Pithadhipati and the Sanskrit scholar who gave the certificates were not atheists. They were simply corrected in some concepts. Shankara appreciated the cobbler but followed His routine path. Shankara declared Himself as a disciple of Govinda Bhagavatpada only and not as disciple of the cobbler. Correction means diverting to the correct path and not change from the opposite direction. When Mandana Mishra was changed, the direction was totally diverted to the opposite side. Shankara changed the directions in the case of atheists and corrected the paths in the case of theists. To become disciple and carry on the propagation, it requires the ripening of internal samskara and not the external factors like Sanskrit scholar, Pithadhipati etc. God selects only such deserving person based on the internal samskara that suits to the circumstances of that time. Pithadhipati or the Sanskrit scholar were around 80 years and were physically unfit also. They were unfit also from the point the rare knowledge of shastra and their language is not suitable to the present time of propagation. It was also not suitable in view of international field. The internal samskara of broad mindedness of the old generation also changed much if you compare the present generation especially with reference to saints and scholars. The ancient saints were not so much affected by egoism and jealousy as the present saints. The effect of surroundings is responsible for this. Therefore, there are several parameters to be considered before comparing the situations as the time changes. Swami corrected several saints and scholars but did not wish them to be used for propagation, who were not fit to the present time. The correction was only for their self-upliftment. That is sufficient for Swami even if they do not express their appreciation due to egoism and jealousy or due to the fear of reduction of their fame in the society. Swami choses modern persons who are suitable to the modern time and who also have the ripened internal samskaras by which they do not have the fear of the reduction of their greatness or fame in the world. Infact, they will become more famous and they will be blessed by the God here as well as in the upper world.

To be continued...

★ ★ ★ ★ ★