Deivathin Kural # 15 (of Vol 2 ) of 25 June 2007.

Om Namah Sivaya.Deivathin Kural # 15 (of Vol 2 ) of 25 June 2007.(Continued from Deivathin Kural # 14 (of Vol 2) of 21 June 2007.)15. There are many things in Upanishad, which individually taken in isolation empirically, can be considered as talking about, Adwaitam or Visishtadwaitam or Dwaitam. In one place it is said, 'Jeevatma is different, Parmatma is different, and the Prapancham is yet something else'. Elsewhere it says, 'the life force or 'Uyir' in me is Jeevan, the 'Uyir of that Uyir' is Paramatma; Omni present Paramatma is thus the 'life force of all life forces' as 'sarvaantaryami'. Then again it says elsewhere, 'both are the same' !16. I know that, what is said here and there in Upanishads can be quoted, taken seperately or collectively, in various combinations, to make out, whatever case you want to make. There are also some statements which are conciliatory, between differing view points, known as 'Kataka Vakyas'. Using these 'Kataka Vakyas', they end up saying that there are no apparent contradictions in the Upanishads.17. The point to understand is that, the following sentences from the Upanishads, known as Maha Vakyas, occuring in four different Vedas are, like thunder bolts with lightning from Adwaitam :- i) This Atma is Brhmam only. ii) Is not all this Brhmam ? iii) I am Brhmam. iv) You are that (Brhmam). 18. Since these Mahavakyas are ringingly Adwaitam in intrinsic content, other siddhantis of Saivam, Dwaitam and Visishtadwaitam, have to twist and turn the words and meanings, make some contortions, somersaults and cartwheels, with the interpretations to fit their views, like some economists do with their statistics now-a-days. The basic problem is that, they can never accept the oneness of Jeevatma and Paramatma. If they accept it, there is no logic to substantiate their seperate philosophies any more. The Adwaitin does not have this problem. He accepts all variations and differenciations with any number of permutations and combinations. Since this world is made up of all types of variations, at the transactional level he accepts Dwaitam. Then he accepts the Visishtadwaitins point of view that, Prapancham (or the world / universe) has variations and Chitanyam (or Paramatma) is non-variable and is the life within life forms as the 'Antaryami'. The Adwaitin thus believes that, through an understanding of the philosophy of Dwaitins and Visishtadwaitins, one has to mature in to the Adwaita philosophy. So the statements of the Vedas which are supportive of Dwaitam / Visishtadwaitam are not disputed by the Adwaitin. He does not have to go out of the way to give them a meaning suitable to his view. It is a paradox that, it is the Adwaitin who accepts all variations !19. In Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (III.7) there is a description of the Omni Presence of Paramatma as Antaryami in all life forms, which is basically a Visishtadwaita Principle. "The one who being in the prithvi(world or earth), is also immanent in every iota of the prithvi; whom the prithvi does not understand; who indwelling rules it; He is your Atma, the Antaryami; the eternal. He who being in every life form, also indwells each one of them; but, whom none of them know; for whom every one of them is the body; who indwelling them all, is also activating them; He is your Atma, the Antaryami; of the Amirta Swaroopa," it says. Quoting this very sentence, the non-Adwaitins say, "This is the end. This is not Adwaitam !" If you carefully try to understand this, it is nothing but Adwaitam. The statement remaining the same, they have to interpret it to suit their point of view. As per Visishtadwaitam, Antaryami and Jeevatma are different. But here it says, "esha tha atma antaryami", meaning, 'that Atma itself is Antaryami'. There are not two things as Jeevatma and Paramatma, but one common Atma. The same in one state or stage or level, is as Jeeva, and in another the functional operative Antaryami.20. Similarly, the moment the Upanishad makes a statement suitable to the view point of 'Dwaitins', without seeing what comes subsequently, they say, "That is it. This is proof of Dwaitam. That is all !"21. In Mandookya Upanishad, while defining Pranava Swaroopam, it says, "Beyond the three stages, where Prapancham reduces into is Sivam, Adwaitam. This Onkaram is Atma only. One who knows this knows". Thus it clearly defines that the end stage of Atma Satchatkaram is Adwaitam. Has Dwaitam been identified as the end stage ? No. The word 'Dwaitam' has been used in Brhadaranyakam. "What is Dwaitam like, in that stage only, one smells another, sees another, knows another. In the stage (Dwaitam goes), when everything is Atma, at that stage, how will he smell or see or know ? How to know that by which everything is known ?", says Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, (II.4.14; IV.5.15).22. From this it is very clear that the Upanishad holds the view, 'Atma which knows everything, (or is aware of everything), cannot itself be known, from the point of Dwaitam, but Adwaitam.' The Upanishad has not confirmed Dwaitam. Though in day-today life, everything seems different, varied and not-one, the Upanishad uses the phrase, 'yatra hi dwaitam iva bhavathi' to mean, 'wherever it happens to be seemingly like Dwaitam'. This should be taken to mean that the Upanishad is saying that it is Adwaitam and not Dwaitam, but seemingly like Dwaitam. Close to this, it says, "yatha va sarvam atma eva abooth", i.e., "when everything has become Atma itself", thus undoubtedly talking of Adwaitam.23. In the two quotations given in the previous para, you should note the difference in the meaning between, 'dwaitam iva' and 'atma eva', meaning, '...dwaitam like...' and '...atma itself...'. First one is Dwaitam like, an appearance; second one is Adwaitam itself, the reality.24. You may ask, 'why is it Atma here, should it not be Paramaatma ?'. When we talk of oneness, why are we trying to qualify Atma ? If we say Paramaatma, then there can be an Alpaatma. There is nothing like that. It is all the same Atma. Only in Dwaitam, you need Paramaatma, Jeevaatma differenciation. In Adwaitam, it is all one.25. Moksham is a state of fearlessness. Otherwise, why should we make so much effort to reach it ? Except for Adwaitins, even in Moksham or Heaven, the difference between Paramatma and Jeevatma remains, for Visishtadwaitins and Dwaitins. They do not want the unity. The logic of their philosophy, hinges on the seperateness, permanently forever.26. What do the Upanishads say ? It says that, 'where there is Dwaitam, there is fear'. (Thaithreeyam II.7, Brhadaranyakam, I.4.2.) Even in God or Paramporul, if some one imagines even some variation; immediately there is scope for fear. In many places in the Upanishads, it is said, '........ fear, sorrow and conflict, are created by dwaitam..... ' When you have more than one, comparison and contrast leads to love, desire, hate, dislike, anger, disappointment, sadness and fear.27. We feel sad when, when someone whom we love, dies. We think that, dying ourselves will not be so bad. If we are everybody, there can be no sorrow ! Sadness means seperation, dwaitam ! When is desire created ? We desire something not owned or possessed. We desire some thing not ours. So there is a second ! Even God, if different from us, this desire and love or hate or fear, could come into being. If we become united in devotion to the extent that seperateness goes, there can be no scope for sadness or fear or hate or desire ! That is Moksham, Release, Nirvana !28. That is why, the second is not required. Adwaitam is the truth, only truth and nothing but the truth, say the Vedantam. Our Acharyal Sri Sankara has shown it like a torch held above the head, telling us not to forget. His Bhashyam is known as, "Bhashya Deepam". But the trouble is that, in their keenness to propogate their philosophy, the moment 'dwaitam' is mentined somewhere in passing, they start rattling that 'it is the end of the Vedas, without any reference to the context as to what is being said, by whom to whom.29. What is the need for aspiring for Moksham, if there too, Swami is different and the Jeevan is different ? In Brhadaranyakam, (I.4.10.), it says that, "one who is devoted to a divinity, different to his self, is animal like". This would mean that, he remains animal like even after his Release or Moksha ! (There is a sect known as 'Saiva Siddhanthis, who are exactly like the Vaishnava Visishtadwaitins, in all their beliefs with one amendment, "for Vishnu read Siva".) The Saiva Siddhanthis and Visishtadwaitins will interpret this above statement to mean differently, to suit their view point. Here the Sanskrit text reads, "...anyam devatam upaste..". Here instead of taking it to mean, '..being devoted to a devata other than oneself..', they will inerpret it to mean, '...being devoted to a devata other than Siva / Vishnu...' respectively, (by Saiva Siddhanthis / Visishtadwaitins) .30. You may ask, 'as to how do I find fault with their interpretation ?'. Immediately following, the sentence in the Upanishad continues, "...anyam devatam upaste anyosow anyoham asmeeti...". The underlined portion, after seperating the words individually would read, "...anya : asow, anya : aham asmi iti..." This means, '...this devata to whom I am praying is something other than myself...'. If you have such an attitude, you are as good as an animal, says the Upanishad ! Whether you pray to God in this form, or God in that form, as long as you think of God, as something other than your self; and you as something other than that God, you are no better than an animal. The dispute is not about whether you pray to Siva or Vishnu. So here too, the Upanishad is underlining, the devotees oneness with divinity and not differentiating between the devotees of different names of God !31. Our religion is mainly made up of devotees of Siva and Vishnu, known as Saivam and Vaishnavam. For long these two sects have been at logger-heads with each other claiming their own God to be greater than the other. But our Acharyal, who does not diferentiate between God and Devotee, would never compare and contrast Siva and Vishnu. For him all gods are different forms of one and the same God only ! But all other Siddhantis are differentiators. Some will say, that Siva is Paramatma. Some will claim the supremacy of Vishnu. If we look at what the Upanishad says about this, we will see that, Acharyal's and Veda's views concur.32. In the important ten Upanishads, the word 'Vishnu' and 'Siva' occurs only once, in seperate places. In Madookya Upanishad, towards the end, it says that, beyond the three states of Jagrat, Swapna and Sushupti, the Thureeya state is Sivam. So, here too the talk is about totally salubrious state of 'Sivam' and not about the form of Siva as a Murthy ! In 'Kata' Upanishad (III.9.), there is a mention that, the Jeeva matured in wisdom, using 'Buddhi' as a Sarathy, controlling the five senses, reaches the destination 'Vishnu'. Again it is not talking about a place, but an inanimate state, beyond which, there is no beyond. In Rig Veda Samhita (I.22.20) too, there is a mention, "...tad vishno : paramam padam...". saying that great Gnanis, who are called 'Soories', are all the time percieving the zenith or shang-ri-la Vishnu.33. In giving the meaning of this phrase, it is said, 'that it is the Vishnu's abode, named Vaikuntam; a place where the Vishnu sporting Sank and Chakra, dressed in yellow silk, wearing the Koustuba beads and Vyjayanthi Mala, resides !' Thus they claim, that to reach Vaikuntam is attaining Moksham, where again, you will continue to be a devotee and the Lord will be Lord, so that Dwaitam will continue. If you do not get the meaning of the Adwaitins, you miss the meaning of the Vedas and Upanishads. It is all right, for the common man to be impressed. But to say that, Soories or Gnanis, are looking at yet another place, instead of experiencing the Vishnutvam, well, well, it is below par, to say the least ! It is not seeing or looking or percieving any more. It is experiencing, it is being the reality, beyond compare.34. 'One who sees everything as being in his own self ('anupasyathi' ), and sees his own self in everything', only he can be beyond the confines of likes and dislikes; for him there is no 'moham' and for him there is no 'sokam', says Easavasya Upanishad, while talking of 'Adwaita Drishti'. So 'pasythi and pasyanthi', does not mean, seeing but experiencing. In that vein, 'vishno : padam sada pasyanthi', should mean, experiencing the zenith of experience forever.35. After all seeing the second as other than oneself, means exposing oneself to fear, as stated in the Upanishad itself ! To experience 'Vishnu' is the same as experiencing 'Sivam', in Mandookya Upanishad; i.e., experiencing oneness. That is why, 'Vishnu' is said to be, 'paramam padam', which as per Acharyal, is 'the uttama sthanam', the highest position. It is not a place. If it is a place, it means that it cannot be elsewhere. But the word, 'Vishnu' means 'vyapana seelam', says Acharyal, meaning, omnipresent. What is everywhere, cannot be a thing or a place or person with hands and legs ! It can only be an inanimate principle of being.36. Thus, in Upanishads, Siva and Vishnu, are indicative of the truth of existance. All the Upanishads thus, talk of whatever Acharyal has spoken about; i.e., Jeevan and Brhmam are one; Jagat is Maya, hiding the reality and showing or appearing as what is not; seeing the oneness between Siva and Vishnu and Paramatma.Sambhomahadeva.