Total Posts:1|Showing Posts:1-1
Jump to topic:

Unimaginable God Identifies With Imaginable..

dattaswami
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2014 10:47:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unimaginable God Identifies With Imaginable Human Being

Unimaginable God Not Visible Even by Microscope

Devotee: How can the contradicting philosophies i.e., monism (advaita) of Shankara and the dualism (dvaita) of Ramanuja and Madhva help the same human being in the same time?

Swami replied: The same human being should identify the human incarnation as God and simultaneously should identify himself as not the God, being the servant of God. The first view is possible by the concept of Shankara and the second view is possible by the concept of Ramanuja and Madhva. Identifying the human incarnation as God, has always a risk of development of the misinterpretation that every human being is God and hence, [is extended to] himself also. This misinterpretation should be negated by the second concept. Therefore, both these contradicting concepts are useful to the same human being in the same time. The possibility for the misinterpretation is based on the common human being existing in the human incarnation and the human being. Human being is a single component system appearing as a single phase.

This human being is mixed with the other component called as God and the resulting product is the human incarnation appearing as the same human being. Even in a two component system like an alloy, both the metals can be identified differently through microscope. Since, both the metals are not differentiated by the naked eye, single phase is attributed. In the human incarnation, such possibility is not there. The second component, God, is unimaginable and therefore, is naturally invisible even to the microscope. The imaginable may be visible or invisible. But, the unimaginable is always invisible. Therefore, the human incarnation also appears as a single phase with single component only since the second component being unimaginable is not visible even to the microscope.

The presence of the second component can be only inferred through the unimaginable effects experienced from the human incarnation. Therefore, the ordinary human being and the human incarnation are completely one and the same as far as the body and the soul are concerned. Both the body and soul, called human being, should be treated as one component. Hence, there is every possibility to feel that the human incarnation is exactly the same human being in and out. When such human incarnation, which is the human being only for all the practical purposes, is the God, why not every human being is God? For the convenient development of this concept, the single component, the human being, is sub-divided into two sub-components, called body and soul. The soul is said to be God (Purusha) and the body is said to be creation (Prakruti). The Gita says that both body and soul are creation only. The body is said to be lower part of creation (apara prakruti) and the soul is said to be the higher part of creation (para prakruti).

Therefore, both body and soul are creation only and none of these two is creator. All the creation is imaginable, which consists of visible body and invisible soul. Of course, the body also consists of invisible binding energy apart from the major visible matter. The soul is made of invisible nervous energy. Therefore, in loose general sense, we can say the body as visible. The creator is unimaginable and is totally different from body and soul. This careful analysis is clearly showed in the Gita. The Gita mentions both these classifications. In one classification consisting of two categories, the imaginable creation consisting of body and soul said to be Prakruti and the unimaginable God said to be Purusha (prakrutim purusham chaiva). In another classification consisting of three categories, the imaginable-visible body (kshara), the imaginable-invisible soul (akshara) and the unimaginable-invisible God (Purushottama) are mentioned (yasmaatksharamatitoham...). Both these classifications are one and the same, the first preferred by Shankara and the second preferred by Ramanuja and Madhva.