Two Confusions in Hinduism

Two Confusions in Hinduism

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

1. Please explain the following two confusions of Hinduism.

[Shri Kishore Ram, Shri Hrushikesh and Kum. Purnima asked:- In Hinduism, there are two confusions:- (i) Theoretical by Shankara saying that every soul is God and (ii) Practical by Krishna, who stole butter and danced with Gopikas. How do you understand these two?]

Swami replied:- Both these confusions combined together causes the highest confusion. As per Shankara, the soul is God, which means that every human being is Human Incarnation only or Lord Krishna Himself. If every human being feels that he is Krishna and starts behaving like Krishna to steal others’ wealth and to dance with other illegitimate partners, the climax of confusion results. We have to understand both these confusions independently and also in combined state.

Let us examine the theoretical confusion of Shankara due to lack of perfect understanding of His philosophy. When Shankara came, the country was fully filled with atheists, who do not believe in the existence of God other than themselves. There is no other way than to tell the atheist that he is God. Then only, the atheist will believe in the existence of God because he knows surely that he exists. Hence, Shankara had to tell that every soul is God. Since soul exists, since soul is God and hence, God exists. But, Shankara has taken all careful steps to say that ordinary soul is not God. The truth is that every ordinary soul is not God, but the then forced condition was to say that every ordinary soul is God. Even though initially Shankara told that every soul is God, in course of time, He slowly introduced the concept that every soul is not God. He has taken sufficient care to avoid the self-contradiction, which is to say that every soul is God and that every soul is not God. If every soul is already God, the soul must become God as soon as it recognizes itself as God. What is the identifying characteristic of God? The Veda says that God is He/She/It that creates, controls and destroys this world. This means that as soon as the soul comes to know that it is God, it must create the world, control and destroy it.

But, the soul after knowing that it is God, is unable to create even an atom of matter or even a ray of energy. This clearly proves that every soul is not God. By this, every soul will again become atheist disbelieving the concept of Shankara. At this stage, Shankara dragged the atheist towards front resisting him from going back by saying that the soul will become God only after getting confirmation that it is God. Merely by knowing that the soul is God, the practical effect of the ignorance (ajnaanavikshepa) is not ended. Due to long standing ignorance, the soul is unable to come out of the practical influence of the ignorance. Simply to know that the soul is God is removal of theoretical ignorance (ajnaanaavarana) only. Shankara gave an example to this. A person saw tiger in dream and was shivering with fear. The person was awakened by another person. As soon as the dreaming person awoke, who knows that the dream-tiger is non-existent, the shivering due to fear did not stop suddenly. The knowledge of non-existent tiger is only removal of theoretical ignorance. But, even though the theoretical ignorance ended, the influence of practical ignorance (long shivering due to fear in the dream) did not end. After sometime only, the dreaming person will come to a stable mind to be convinced that the tiger seen was unreal. Then only, the practical effect (shivering due to fear) ends. Similarly, Shankara advised the soul that the practical effect of ignorance will not be removed as soon as the theoretical ignorance ends. It means that as soon as the soul knows that it is God (end of theoretical ignorance), the practical ignorance will not end and hence, the soul is not becoming God as soon as the theoretical ignorance ended.

To get rid of the practical ignorance, purity and concentration of mind is to be attained and for this, Shankara suggested that the soul must worship God! He told that without the grace of God, practical ignorance can’t be removed. At this point, He tried to convert the theist (who was atheist previously) into a devotee of God. In the first step, He converted atheist into theist and in the second step, He converted the theist into a devotee. This is the twist of Shankara plotted in two steps to convert the atheist slowly into a devotee. If this twist is carefully understood, which is based on the forced condition to convert atheist into theist in the first step and then theist into devotee in the second step, the theoretical confusion caused by the philosophy of Shankara disappears. The main effort of Shankara was only the first step and the second step was just introduced by Him. He never left the concept that soul is already God. Worshipping God is only an intermediate step to become God! The third step introduced by Shankara was that the atheist converted to theist (first step) and then the theist converted into a devotee (second step) will become God in the third step. The third step is a total lie (in general sense of majority) used to drag the atheist converted into theist from the middle step to make him/her as the devotee of God. An atheist converted to become theist, then becomes a devotee and then may be selected by God to become the human incarnation. Hence, Shankara aimed the highest goal even for an atheist.

Since there is every possibility for an atheist also to become God, you cannot say that what Shankara told is a total lie but this an exceptional case and can’t be generalised. Ramanuja followed the second step and stressed on the devotion of the soul to God. Shankara told that knowledge of soul to be God is the main clue. Ramanuja told that the devotion of the soul to God is the main clue. Ramanuja told that the soul is not God, but a tiny part of God. By this, the soul will have some consolation that even though it does not become God, it will at least become a tiny part of God. The third step is followed by Madhva, who said that the soul is neither God nor a tiny part of God and as per Madhva, service to God is the main clue. He said that the soul is totally different from God and will remain different from God forever in the state of the servant to God. Does this mean that what Shankara and Ramanuja told is a blunt lie? The answer is that it is possible for the soul to become God or at least to become a tiny part of God. The only truth is that the soul is not already God and not already a tiny part of God, but totally different from God. This different soul can become either God or tiny part of God in due course of time. It is the will of the God by which the soul can become God (monistic Human Incarnation) or to become a part of God (dualistic Human Incarnation).

Both these should not be the desire of the soul, but should be the desire of God. As long as the desire to become God or to become a tiny part of God persists with the soul, the soul will neither become God nor become even a tiny part of God. The Human Incarnation happens only when God desires to become human incarnation for the sake of welfare of the devoted world. Krishna is monistic incarnation whereas Balarama is a dualistic incarnation counted in the ten incarnations of God. As per Madhva, the soul is always a servant of God and shall not wish to become God or to become a tiny part of God. Becoming Human Incarnation is totally based on the will of God and hence, the soul shall never put even an eye on that concept. The soul can become God based on the requirement and subsequent will of God and hence, Shankara and Ramanuja are not at all wrong based on the possibility of both types of human incarnations. If this is understood deeply and patiently, the philosophy of Shankara as supported by Ramanuja and Madhva has no trace of confusion at all. The soul can think that it is God as long as the application of monism is for a better result and not for a sinful result. A soul can think that it is God to gain confidence in doing some good works. The soul can think that it is God and can help the world in worldly as well as spiritual life. The soul, assuming itself as God can be broad minded without narrow concentration to its tiny family. Shankara propagated this monism with a view of good purpose and good spiritual development of the soul. But, when the soul misuses this monism towards sinful side, the total picture of the philosophy of Shankara must be understood so that monism is not real, but a twist required to convert an atheist into theist.

Let us come to the second confusion created by the practice of Krishna in Brundavanam. Krishna told in the Gita that greediness, anger and illegal sex (kaamah krodhah tathaa lobhah) shall be avoided, which are the main gates of the hell. But, what He practiced? Even though He has plenty of butter in His house, He stole butter from other houses, which is climax of greediness. He killed even a lady (Puutanaa), who gave milk from her breast like the mother. This shows climax of His cruelty and anger. He danced with the married Gopikas in the night and this shows the climax of illegal sex. What He preached in the Gita is quite opposite to His practice! Assuming that He is God, He should not have done these three sinful deeds in the interest of the humanity, which will imitate a wrong side rapidly. This confusion in the practice of Krishna can be removed by understanding the background of Gopikas. These Gopikas were sages for several millions of births, searching for God. Finally, they discovered God in Human form itself, arranged for the convenience of the humanity. They discovered Rama as the God in Human form. They were very much attracted towards the divine personality of Rama. God can be worshipped as father (Lava, Kusha etc.) or as brother (Lakshmana, Balrama etc.) or as husband (Sita, Rukmini etc.) or as a son (Dashratha, Kousalya, Nandana, Yashoda etc.) or as a darling (Gopikas, Meera etc.).

Out of all these bonds, sage Narada says in his Bhakti Sutras that the illegal bond as darling is the strongest (jaaravatcha, yathaa vrajagopikanaam). This means that the strongest bond with God is as strong as the illegal bond. This does not mean that any illegal bond in the world is a divine bond. This only means that the bond with God must be strongest like the illegal bond. The bond to be compared (upameya) is the bond between God and devotee. The bond that is brought for comparison (upamaana) is the illegal bond. Hence, the strength of the illegal worldly bond alone is to be considered here and not the actual illegal worldly bond. Such a comparison is called ‘simile with a bad example’ (niichopamaa). For example:- The sin is spreading very fast in this Kali age. A poet, while saying a poem in the praise of a king, said that the fame of the king is spreading very fast in this world just like the sin. Here, even though the comparison is bad, the desired quality of the comparison (fast speed) is perfectly suitable. Hence, such simile is allowed as a correct simile giving a warning that you must confine to the desired quality for comparison with the simile only and not with the exact comparison. To understand the background of this, following points are to be studied:-

(i) The sages attracted by the personality of Rama selected the strongest bond with God, which is the illegal darling bond. Such a bond is not selected by God, but is selected by the sages only. The sages know that Rama is married. Yet, the sages told Rama that they will become females by their power and embrace Rama. This is the illegal bond selected by sages and not by God. Rama told that His incarnation is to preach ideal behavior to humanity (aadarshamaanushaavatara) and hence, their desire shall be fulfilled in the next birth.

(ii) In the next birth, Rama was born as Krishna and the sages were born as Gopikas. Krishna danced with the married Gopikas because the sages wanted such strongest illegal bond with God as per their desire expressed in the previous birth. After this scene in Brundavanam, Krishna never repeated this scene with anybody else because such specific example does not exist anywhere else. If Krishna had this taste for loose character, He should have returned to Brundavanam for the sake of Gopikas. Krishna never returned. If He had a taste for such illegal bond, He should have repeated the same with others else where also in the latter part of His life. Even though sixteen thousand daughters of kings loved Him, He married all of them and did not choose to have the illegal bond with them.

(iii) The three strongest worldly bonds are (a) bond with money, (b) bond with issues and (c) bond with life partner. If these three worldly bonds are not voted in the competition with bond with God, such bond with God will be certainly strongest and there is no need of testing the other weak bonds like bonds with relatives, friends etc. When Krishna stole butter from their houses, their bond with wealth (butter is their hard-earned wealth) is tested because they know that Krishna is God, who did several miracles from the childhood. The failed Gopikas, considered the bond with wealth (butter) greater than the bond with God, went to Yashoda and complained against Krishna. The successful few Gopikas were happy about His stealing and went out opening the doors of their houses. In this test of bond with wealth (butter), the bond with their children is also tested simultaneously because the butter hidden in their houses was for the sake of feeding their children. Hence, stealing of butter is a test for the bond with wealth and also the bond with issues. The remaining bond is with their life partners, which was tested by Krishna by dancing with few of them in Brundavanam secretly in the night. All the three bonds were tested and the salvation (which means total liberation from all the worldly bonds) was given by God to them.

2. Shri Kishore Ram, Shri Hrushikesh and Kum. Purnima asked: Some religions (Jainism etc.) ctiticise Krishna that He used extreme violence (killing) for establishing justice. What do You think about this?

Swami replied:- The case of killing Pūtanā was different. Pūtanā was a demoness, who had been sent to kill the baby Krishna. Pretending to be a nurse, she had applied poison on her breasts and had tried to feed milk to Krishna. Of course, Krishna, being an Incarnation of God, could not be killed by her and instead, she got killed. Krishna never favored violence. He used violence only as a last resort and that too, only against wicked and unjust people. Even to such people, He gave many opportunities to change and return to the path of justice. Only when they rejected all those opportunities and continued their unjust behavior, did He finally control them with violence. Such violence is not only justified but it is necessary for maintaining justice and balance in the world. Thus, we see that the ignorance of the truth is the reason for our misunderstanding of Krishna’s behavior. He never supported illegitimate desire, violence or greed. Instead, He always supported justice. He was the highest embodiment of justice and He established justice in the world. When the truth is known through deep analysis, all confusions disappear and the extraordinary divine personality of Krishna is revealed.

You may doubt that why Krishna did not advise Puutana as He advised Duryodhana. Puutana is 100% demon and her external human form is just like the external mask covering her gross body. A demon will never hear others due to 100% ego. Duryodhana was also a demon, called Kaalanemi, but, he was born as a human being and after birth also, he was under the training of good Bhishma and good Drona. He was 75% demon and 25% human being. There is a chance of assimilation of good advice, if given. Krishna personally knows that his inner consciousness (puurva janma samskaara) was very strong, which will not allow him to hear the good advise. But, if He proceeds to war without giving advise, the world will blame Krishna since Duryodhana was also a human being. After death, Duryodhana did not turn to demon like Puutana. Hence, Krishna, not only advised personally, but also made several sages to come and advise Duryodhana. Some Jains criticise Krishna for the war, which is not correct. Even some Christians criticise Krishna for adopting violence to reform a soul. Krishna tried His level best to reform Duryodhana through several divine advises. When the soul is not reformed inspite of hectic divine efforts, even in Christianity, the condemned soul is thrown in to liquid fire forever, which is the climax violence! Hence, God is only one, whether the religion is Hinduism or Jainism or Christianity and the actions of God are always justified because He is the best judge of any soul in deciding a specific punishment.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★