What Is the Reason for the Twist Given by Shankara in His Philosophy?

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

[Shri Lakshman asked Swami to explain the reason for the twist given by Shankara in His philosophy because of which only the differences in the interpretations of the scriptures arose.]

Swami replied: If you understand the background of Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva and also the different atmospheres of devotees existed over a span of time, the differences in the philosophies can be realized and the unity in the entire program can be perfectly appreciated. Before the arrival of Shankara, the Purvamimamsakas were very ambitious for the heavenly pleasures and were doing the rituals to attain heaven. Ambition is the result of excess of Rajas (Rajasolobhaevacha…). The inherent effect of Rajas is also ego. The atmosphere was worst atheism full of ambition and ego. Whenever the soul is to be diverted to the right path, your initial philosophy should be in such a way that it suits to his nature. In course of time only, you can divert him slowly to the right path. If you want to control the habit of drinking of a person, first you must become his friend in the bar. Slowly, after the full development of friendship, you can advise him about the defects of the wine. He will hear you based on the friendship. When a bull is running with high speed, you have to catch it and run along with it for sometime. The bull feels that you are a friendly runner along with it. It will have a positive attitude towards you. Then, you can control the bull. The preaching should suit to the psychology of the student. A scholar will never bother about the psychology of the student and just will reveal the truth. He will ask you to go to hell if you are not accepting the truth. He is not bothered to uplift you. He is only interested in the correct interpretation of the scripture given by the divine Father. He is only a co-soul and acts like a brother-guide who will not alter the truth respecting the scripture of the divine Father because he has no guts to change the scripture of the Father. Such a guide is called as Guru. But sometimes, the Sadguru comes down who is totally different from a Guru.

A Sadguru is the divine Father or God Himself and has the guts to twist the scripture, if required, because He is the very author of the scripture. The divine Father will not bother about the scripture and its true interpretation and He is always bothered about the way to uplift the souls in such an existing atmosphere. Shankara was the human incarnation of God (Shiva) and twisted the scripture to suit to the ego and the ambition of the people existing at that time. Shankara is the full Sadguru and His attitude as a Father and capability to twist the scripture as God is totally justified to uplift the people in such atmosphere. The atheists were transformed into devotees later on after entering the spiritual line. The Advaita, which states that a soul is already God is a chocolate prepared by Shankara for attracting the atheists (in accordance to their ambition and ego), who were the LKG students. In course of time, the same LKG students entered college and university after getting the spiritual maturity. Now, the real interpretation of the scripture is required and liberated souls were sent by God to give such real interpretation. Ramanuja and Madhva were the incarnations of devoted liberated souls viz., Adishesha and Vayu respectively. The soul has no guts to twist the scripture because the scripture is the word of the divine Father. Hence, their attitude is always to project the real interpretation of the scripture. In their surrounding atmospheres, the chocolate was not needed due to the developed maturity in the spiritual aspirants. The real interpretation of the scripture was the need of that hour.

This does not mean that I have respected Shankara as God and insulted Ramanuja and Madhva as liberated souls. When God comes down as human incarnation, God charges the liberated soul in a human body and comes down. Even in the body of Shankara, the liberated soul exists called as Son of God. The liberated souls in Ramanuja and Madhva have come down with the program of God. The difference between Shankara and the other two is that God is directly speaking in Shankara, whereas in the other two, the cassette of the speech of God is being played on. Essentially all the three can be treated as God only. Narada says that the topmost devoted soul can be treated as God (Tanmayahite- Bhakti Sutra). The atmosphere existing in a particular period requires the entry of God or a liberated soul. When the atmosphere becomes worst and in such atmosphere, to uplift the souls, if the scripture has to be twisted, no soul can enter in such situations except God. When the atmosphere acquired betterment and the real interpretation of the scripture is the only requirement, God need not enter and it is sufficient if the liberated soul enters. Whenever you hear the correct interpretation of the scripture, the liberated soul is conveying it. Whenever you are seeing the reshuffling of the scripture and re-orientation of the philosophy required badly to the situation, the only conveyer is God. The liberated soul follows the scripture of the God and the scripture follows God. You find Lord Dattatreya being followed by the dogs (the four Vedas) and not the Lord following the dogs. The Veda itself says that the Vedas were just blown out of the mouth of God (Nishshvasitamevaitat…). Hence, God alone can re-orient the scripture.

In the commentary of Shankara, you will find the scriptures re-orienting themselves to support His line of philosophy. In the commentaries of Ramanuja and Madhva, you will find the real orientation of the philosophies following the scripture of God. But don’t think that God is twisting the scripture just for fun and entertainment. He is twisting the scripture just to uplift His issues who are trapped by the wrong track. As soon as the souls are diverted to the right path, He will reveal the real and the original interpretation of the scriptures and removes the self-contradiction. God in Shankara prepared the twist of scriptures in the commentary on the scripture. But the liberated soul present in Shankara composed a number of prayers to the Lord. The human incarnation is always the double-edged sword with God on one side and the liberated soul on the other side (Dvasuparna… Veda). For the sake of the atheists (purvamimamsakas), God in Shankara stood with the twist i.e., Advaita. For the sake of matured theists, the liberated soul in Shankara stood with prayers to the Lord. In the time of Ramanuja, the situation developed because in course of time, the LKG students entered college and the liberated soul alone with devotion and prayers to Lord is sufficient. Therefore, the inseparable and constantly associated liberated soul (Adishesha) without God came down to implement the advance part of the program, which is the devotion. The devoted souls were further matured and they became eligible to do the selfless service to God due to intensified devotion and this is the final university level, where a separately existing servant of God (Vayu) has come down as Madhva.

The background of each spiritual preacher is not a new interpretation from My mouth. This background is reflected in their own statements. Shankara always told that He is God (Aham Brahma Asmi) or God Shiva (Shivah Kevaloham). Shankara told about the path of the soul to become God and He introduced the requirement of spiritual effort (sadhana) to become God even though the soul is already God. The position of sadhana contains the whole secret because if the soul is already God, there is no need of sadhana to become God! He maintained the status of the chocolate stating that if ignorance is strong, sadhana is required to remove its practical effect (vikshepa) and for this, He recommended the worship to the Lord. While maintaining the initial twist, He brought down the atheists to the line of worship to God! His statement that He is God indicates that the soul in His body became God since God charged it. This chance of the soul becoming God is opened to every soul. Any soul by spiritual effort can become the Son of God. Thus, we are not denying the possibility of the soul to attain Advaita. We are only opposing the view that the soul is already in the state of Advaita, in which case Shankara would have not introduced the sadhana to attain what the soul was already. Of course, Shankara proposed this concept of the soul already being in the state of Advaita, but you must understand it as a twist of the scripture prepared as a chocolate for the sake of the atheists initially. Even there, the scriptural interpretation is maintained so that the atheists will not think that it is a twist. Here, in the twist, the soul is said to be already Brahman. But here Brahman means the greatest item in the creation but not the God, who is unimaginable and can be indicated by silence only. Of course, Brahman can also mean God because God is greatest being greater than the greatest soul. Atheists took the word Brahman in the sense of God and were attracted. If anyone quarrels with Shankara, He will say that the sense of Brahman in Advaita is only the greatest item. Shankara exploited the possibility of multiple meanings of the word Brahman. Therefore, on one side while the twist is maintained for atheists, the same twist legally stands justified for the scholars on the other side. Such unimaginable genius can be only God!

Ramanuja and Madhva never told that they are God and they always told that they are the servants of God. Ramanuja told that the soul is inseparable from God and this indicates that Adishesha is always associated with Lord Narayana. Madhva told that the soul is completely separated and is a constant servant of God. Madhva told directly that He is the son of Vayu, who is a divine servant helping the maintenance of the world. I am only reminding about their own statements, which reveal their backgrounds demanded by the requirements of the situations in course of time. Ramanuja stands as an intermediate station between Shankara and Madhva. The soul thinking itself as God captured by the twist cannot suddenly fall to the level of philosophy of Madhva where the soul is a servant existing separately doing the service to God without any salary or aspiration of fruit in return. Madhva reveals this final truth at the end of the maturity. But if you analyze, Hanuman was in the state of Madhva and got the original fruit of Advaita. Thus, the program of the three spiritual preachers is not an open chain but a closed circuit since the service proposed by Madhva is bringing the fruit proposed by Shankara. Therefore, there is perfect unity in the program of all the three preachers everywhere.

The soul, thinking it is God, is brought to the intermediate stage, where it is advised to be a part (Amsha or Shesha) of God. But Ramanuja revealed that the soul is a part of the external body or creation of God only (Chidachitvishishtah). Even in the level of Shankara, He told to worship God and get His grace to become God (Ishwaranugrahadeva…). He also told that the soul is only a part of God (Satyapibhedapagame…). On one side, Shankara says Aham Brahma Asmi (I am God) and on the other side, He says Nadha tavakinoham na mamakastvam (Oh Lord! I am a part existing in You and You are not in Me). On one side, He says Tattvam Asi (You are God) and on the other side, He says Bhaja Govindam Mudhamate (Oh fool! Worship God). This means that He is telling one version to one sect and another version to other sect. Otherwise, if He is stating both these to the same sect, it becomes self-contradiction. The first version is a chocolate to the atheists and the other version is the truth to the matured devotees. Therefore, Shankara and Ramanuja at their levels already revealed the philosophy established by Madhva as sugarcoated pill. Every Acharya knows the final and complete truth. They projected the truth partially required to the situation for the sake of psychological friendship of those souls to uplift them. Even if they spoke partially, internally they know the total truth. In Shankara, you have both God and liberated soul and hence, you have the total philosophy starting from LKG to PG, which is from atheist to the devotee. In Ramanuja and Madhva, since they are only liberated souls, their philosophies are for the devotees only and are the graduate and postgraduate levels.

Once, I came across a Vaishnava saint who was telling that Shankara was a soul only and hence, twisted the scripture due to confusion. He told that Shankara called Himself as Bhagavatpada, meaning that He is the foot of God. He told that Ramanuja is called as Bhagavad Ramanuja meaning that He is God and hence, gave the clear and true version of the scripture. I refuted his version because Ramanuja never called Himself as God. Only His followers gave this adjective (Bhagavad) to Him. Ramanuja always told that no soul can become God. Of course, Shankara called Himself as the foot of God. God calling Himself as the foot of God shows the submissiveness, which is the fruit of the real divine knowledge. For the sake of others only, to preach submissiveness, Shankara called Himself in that way. But Shankara announced clearly that He is God (Shivoham). But Ramanuja never announced that He is the Lord Narayana. Moreover, the followers of Ramanuja say that He is the incarnation of Adishesha. Thus, within the followers of Ramanuja, these two versions contradicted each other. In the case of Shankara, the Son of God or the liberated soul told that He is the foot of God, whereas God in Shankara told that He is God. Ramanuja never told that He is God and in all His prayers, He told that He is the servant of God only. This clearly proves that in Shankara, both God and liberated soul exist, whereas in Ramanuja and Madhva, only liberated souls exist as per their own words only. Here, the point is not finding out the difference in the greatness of each preacher. The point is finding out the requirement of the situation and accordingly the liberated soul charged by God (called as God) or the liberated soul alone came. You must give importance to the requirement of the situation and not foolishly quarreling about the greatness of any spiritual preacher to whom one is particularly connected.

The chocolate prepared by Shankara for the atheists in the initial stage shows the absence of qualitative difference between the soul and Ishwara because both are Brahman or awareness. Here, the word Brahman is taken as God by the atheists and Shankara maintained diplomacy accepting the sense of God as well as the sense of greatest item for the word Brahman. The quantitative difference between the soul and the Brahman is also negated because the finite human body in which the soul exists and the infinite universe in which Brahman exists are also unreal with respect to the reality of the awareness. Here, Shankara gave a comparison between the individual soul or space in a pot (ghatakasha) and the Ishwara or space in a room (mathakasha). Both the spaces are one and the same God or infinite space (mahakasha). Since the pot and the room are unreal with respect to the space, both are the same infinite space. Therefore, the individual soul and Ishwara are essentially one and the same Brahman in view of the unreal human body and the unreal world. This is the attracting chocolate prepared by Shankara to attract the atheists and the atheist thought that the individual soul is always Brahman and there is no need to do any effort to become Brahman. He is attracted to this ancestral property, which was lying idle in his name due to his ignorance and the only step is to take over the position of it! The only effort is that the individual soul should know that it is Brahman. The atheist started accepting Brahman or God because he is already that forgotten Brahman! The golden chain is already on your neck (kanthachamikaranyaya) and why should you deny it unnecessarily? But the analysis reveals that it is only a chocolate prepared for the kids to lead them to the school and in reality, the golden chain is to be presented by God only. If the pot and the room are unreal, the only one infinite space (Brahman) exists as said in the Veda (Ekameva advitiyam Brahma…). In such case, there is no point of talking about pot-space and room-space, since pot and room are unreal. Now, Brahman (infinite space) created pot and room for its entertainment and if you say that they are unreal, the entertainment for Brahman also becomes unreal. This means God wanted entertainment but could not get it and then God cannot be omnipotent. If the entertainment is real, the pot and room should be real even for Brahman.

How can the individual soul, then, say that the world is unreal when it is a part and parcel of the world? Assuming that the individual soul is Brahman, even then, the world must be real for the individual soul (Brahman) to have real entertainment. Before the creation and after the dissolution, the world may be unreal but during its existence it must be real even for Brahman for the sake of real entertainment. To give reality to the world, Brahman imposes ignorance on itself and gets the real entertainment because the world gains reality during the ignorance of Brahman. Brahman is really not ignorant since the ignorance is only self-imposed. It is like the daydreamer enjoying his daydream forgetting himself. During such ignorance, the self-realization is not lost and hence, the dreamer (Ishwara) controls the dream while enjoying it under ignorance. The ignorance brings reality to the dream and the realization brings unreality to the same dream. Hence, for Ishwara, the world is mithya, which is a mixture of reality and unreality (Satyanrutemithunikrutya… Shankara) and as a result the world is neither real nor unreal. Even if the daydreamer enters into complete ignorance and sleeps, finally and really the dreamer is not at all affected because when he wakes up, the original state is obtained. Rama became the Lord when Yama awakened Him and He enjoyed the dream to the full extent due to full ignorance. Rama means He who enjoys fully. This can happen to Rama since He is the original dreamer. But if a person who is created in the dream and who is a part and parcel of the dream is awakened, he cannot become the controller of dream because the dream continues with its usual power and he is always controlled by the dream. A king and a beggar have slept and both became beggars in the dream. When both are awakened, the king becomes king and he is relieved from the role of a beggar. But the beggar is a beggar in the role as well as the actor. Hence, the beggar remains as beggar and there is no difference between the dream and the awakened state in his case. Hence, the individual soul remains as individual soul only even after realization and will not become Brahman or Ishwara.

In the above simile, the room with four walls is compared to the world and Ishwara is Brahman associated with the world. Here, the world having infinite limits is associated with infinite space only and cannot be compared to the finite room. Hence, there is no difference between Brahman and Ishwara. Whether the infinite world exists or not, the infinite space remains as it is and thus, Brahman and Ishwara are one and the same. If the individual soul is not Ishwara, it must mean that it is not Brahman also. If the individual soul cannot control the universe, it means that it is not Brahman since it is not Ishwara. Patanjali in his Yoga Sutras made Ishwara as the highest goal since Ishwara is in no way different from Brahman. A king has the same efficiency of administration, whether he is sitting on the throne in the court or sitting with his queen in the bedroom. The king will show the same talent of administration at any place if required. He is called as king not only in the court but also in the bedroom.

In course of time, Shankara brought out the quantitative difference between Brahman (Ishwara) and the individual soul by stating that He is the wave in the God-ocean. He maintained the qualitative similarity because the truth must be revealed in steps. Ramanuja maintained the same wave-ocean relationship (Shesha-sheshi sambandha) between individual soul and God, but slowly removed the qualitative similarity also by saying that the individual soul is a part of the body of God (world) and not directly the part of God. The world is compared to a human body and God is compared to the awareness in that human body. This means that the individual soul is not a direct part of the God. There is no qualitative similarity between the awareness in the human body (God) and the human body (world) and hence, there is no qualitative similarity between God and individual soul since the individual soul is a part of the world. The world, consisting of individual souls and inert bodies, is compared to the external human body and God is compared to the awareness existing in the human body. The awareness in the human body is qualitatively different from the inert human body (in the comparison) and hence, the qualitative difference between the God and the individual soul is thus, brought out here. This becomes justified because God is unimaginable and the world including souls is imaginable. Hence, there is no qualitative or quantitative similarity between the unimaginable God and imaginable world in which the imaginable individual soul exists as a part of it. Therefore, there is no qualitative and quantitative similarity between the unimaginable God and the imaginable individual soul. In this simile, Ramanuja maintained the inevitable closeness of the awareness and the human body. This means that the God and the individual soul are inseparable. The God and individual soul are now differentiated qualitatively and quantitatively but the last consolation is that the individual soul is close to God and is inseparable.

Finally, Madhva removed even this last consolation stating that God is like the pot maker and the world including individual souls is like the separate pot. This means that the individual soul cannot claim its closeness to God as its inherent property. If the pot maker likes, he may keep the pot very close to him or even he may keep the pot on his head. If the pot maker does not like, he may throw away the pot. This means that if God is pleased, the individual soul may become close to God and even may be kept on the head of the God as in the case of Gopikas. If the individual soul is a demon, it can be thrown out. This is the final truth, which is bitter. The Advaita is like sweet prepared from sugar and ghee given to the child in the beginning. As the child grows, the sweet must be slowly withdrawn because as the person becomes older and older, the sweet will induce diabetes (ambition) and cholesterol (ego). The final bitter truth is like the bitter medicine given in the old age when the spiritual aspirant reaches the final stage of maturity.

God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists, who did not care for God. If you do not care for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister need not pay even one-millionth attention for you in view of his far superior status. In such case, God need not pay even a trace of attention towards the careless atheists. But God being the creator of all the souls, the parental attitude of God towards all the souls brings Him down as human incarnation caring for the atheists. The attention of God to reform the atheists is the only remaining aim in throwing the atheists into the hell permanently (permanently means for a long time). The hell is the operation theatre in which the long surgery is performed and thus, the constant effort of God to uplift every soul is to be always identified. If the final message of Shankara is Advaita only, the closest students like Padmapada, Totaka, etc., should have digested Advaita and should have behaved as friends with Shankara because they should have realized the oneness with Shankara. But we find that they were always falling on the feet of Shankara, who was their contemporary human incarnation, with full surrender praising Him “Karuna Varunalaya Palayamam…”. If Advaita were to be true, each one of them was Shankara (Brahman) Himself and the above prayer would be self-praise. The present advaitin must have digested Advaita better than those close disciples of Shankara and therefore, is not even recognizing his contemporary human incarnation!

★ ★ ★ ★ ★