STEPWISE UPLIFTMENT BY DIFFERENT FORMS OF SATGURU
[Evening Message] When the unimaginable God enters a medium, He remains in His inherent unimaginable form and at the same time attains the form of the medium also. But, the attainment of the form of the medium is by identifying Himself with that medium. The attainment is not real because God is not really transformed into that form of medium. When the current enters a metallic wire, the current is identified with the metallic wire because you can experience the property of the current at any part of the wire. This does not mean that the current is really modified or transformed into the metallic wire. The current is a stream of electrons and it remains in its inherent form, which is the stream of electrons. The metallic wire is a chain of crystals. The electrons are not transformed into crystals. But, the crystals are treated as electrons since the electrons are identified with the crystals. Hence, the current has two forms:
its inherent form of stream of electrons and
its identified form of chain of metallic crystals.
The current always remains in its inherent form. Since we can treat the metallic wire as current for all practical purposes, the current has apparently attained the form of metallic crystals. The identified form is only assumed reality and the inherent form is the actual reality. The Veda says that the unimaginable God remaining in His inherent form attains the identified form of the medium also (Satcha tyatcha abhavat). The inherent form of the Absolute God is the unimaginable nature. The identified form of the medium is the inherent form of the medium only and not the inherent form of God. The Gita says that the unimaginable God is not transformed into imaginable God at any cost (Avyaktam vyaktimaapannam...). The unimaginable God apparently attains the assumed form of the medium, which is the inherent form of the medium only. Since the medium is imaginable, the unimaginable God becomes imaginable through the attained identified form of the imaginable medium.
All the words give the meanings of the processes taking place in the imaginable items of the imaginable creation. When we say that God entered a medium, the entry denotes the process of entry of an imaginable item into another imaginable item. Thus, when we say that the current entered the wire, it means the imaginable stream of electrons entered the visible chain of metallic crystals. The stream of electrons may be invisible to the naked eye but is visible through powerful microscope. The imaginable item may be visible or invisible. The invisible may become visible through powerful instruments or at least to the powerful analytical logic. But, the unimaginable is always invisible even to the most powerful analytical faculty. When we give this example as simile to the entry of God into a medium, the process of entry is not exactly valid because it is the entry of unimaginable item into imaginable entity. Since there is no second unimaginable item, we cannot give the exact simile to the entry of unimaginable God. Since the existence of the unimaginable God is inferred through the unimaginable events, we infer the entry of God into that medium. By the experience of the unimaginable event, unimaginable has not become imaginable. Only the existence of unimaginable nature is experienced. If the existence is also not experienced, we have no authority to say that unimaginable God exists. Therefore, the Veda says that the existence of unimaginable God is experienced, which is very essential and required as a proof for the existence of unimaginable God (Asteetyeva…). Similarly, since we experience the unimaginable nature throughout the medium, we assume the probable pervasion of unimaginable God all over the medium.
For example, when Krishna lifted the huge mountain, the entire body of Krishna is withstanding the huge load of the hill and hence, we infer that the entire body of Krishna is pervaded by the unimaginable God (Antarbahishcha... Veda). Here again, the all over pervasion has no direct proof as in the case of air entering the room and pervading all over the room. Both the air and the room are imaginable items and we cannot apply this process to the all over pervasion of unimaginable God in the imaginable body of Krishna. Hence, we only infer the actions of unimaginable God and these actions are also unimaginable and cannot be compared to the imaginable processes taking place in the case of imaginable items. We only say that God entered or God pervaded etc. and these processes cannot be compared to the imaginable processes taking place in the imaginable items. The only information that we can give about the Absolute God is that He is unimaginable. The only experience of the Absolute God is the inferred experience of existence of the unimaginable nature. Such experience stands as the proof for the unimaginable nature of God.
A golden jar with a small golden handle is present. It is filled with milk. The milk is identified with the jar. When we say "take that golden jar", it means that you should take the milk. Since milk cannot be directly taken without jar, the milk is identified with the jar. The jar is the identified form of the milk. By this, you can treat the jar as milk and milk as the jar. This does not mean that the milk is actually the jar or the jar is actually the milk. The milk is not transformed into the jar or vice-versa. The identity of the milk with the jar is only an assumption, valid for all the practical purposes. Here, the milk is the unimaginable God and the golden jar is the infinite cosmic energy. The small handle of the jar is the soul. The philosophy of Shankara can be understood in terms of milk, jar and handle. The handle (soul) and the jar (cosmic energy) are one and the same qualitatively since both are made of gold. Therefore, the handle (soul) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) neglecting the quantitative difference. Now, the milk (unimaginable God) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) since the jar (cosmic energy) is the identified form of the milk (unimaginable God). The conclusion is that since milk (unimaginable God) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) and jar (cosmic energy) is equal to handle (soul), the handle (soul) is equal to milk (unimaginable God). The final conclusion is that the soul becomes the unimaginable God! This is a mathematical derivation and the final conclusion is fun. When the big jar itself is not actually the milk, can the small handle become the milk? But, this conclusion was essential to convert the atheists into theists. When the atheist is told as God, the atheist will not deny the existence of God because if God is non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. At least, the atheist becomes theist and all this magic of logic is necessary for such conclusions. Shankara converted the atheists into theists through His intellectual logic.
You should not feel that Shankara believes that the soul is God. He brought out the quantitative difference between jar and handle to differentiate the jar containing milk and the handle without milk (Satyapi bhedaapagame...). He accepted the quantitative difference between the soul and infinite cosmic energy, comparing the soul to a wave and the infinite cosmic energy to the mighty ocean. He differentiated the jar and handle by neglecting the qualitative similarity. He further stated that the handle is a part of the jar containing the milk. Here, the jar is taken for milk since jar is the identified form of the milk. Now, He said that the handle is a part of the milk and the milk means the identified jar. The assumption of milk as jar is retained. But, the assumption of handle as the jar through qualitative similarity is denied. This means out of the two assumptions, one assumption (jar standing for milk) is retained and the other assumption (the handle standing for jar) is removed. Since the ego of atheists is reduced to some extent, only one assumption is released. Madhva released the second assumption also stating that the milk indicated by jar is totally different from the handle. In fact, even the jar is not milk and is totally different from the milk. But however, the jar contains milk and hence, stands for milk, whereas the handle does not contain milk and can never stand for milk. This means that the cosmic energy is also totally different from the unimaginable God but at least it can stand for God since it is the container of God. The soul is not containing God and hence, the soul can be totally rejected to have any identification with God. In fact, even the identification of God with cosmic energy is only an assumption and therefore, even the cosmic energy is totally different from God like the soul. This total difference is emphasized by Madhva. Ramanuja acted as a bridge of this transformation of concept from Shankara to Madhva. The total similarity of Shankara called as monism (Advaita) is transformed into the total difference or dualism (Dvaita) of Madhva in course of time, as the atheists are transformed into devotees. Shankara transformed the strong atheists into theists. Ramanuja transformed theists into devotees. Madhva transformed the devotees into strong devotees. Hence, the three preachers transformed a strong atheist into a strong devotee in course of time through sequential steps according to the stepwise transformation of psychology of the people. The difference in the three preachers is not the difference between the three preachers but is the difference between the psychologies of gradually progressing students.
COMMENT