[An aspirant should study this article with a pure and concentrated mind in seclusion. Instead of having an eye on the literal meaning of words, he should try to grasp the deep meaning of the article with ultimate goal in view and then become silent from within and from without. By doing so, he will get established in the self-evident innate Divinity and he will attain the supreme goal of human life*]
The real entity is singular and is indescribable. That entity is beyond the ken of mind, intellect and speech – “yato vaacho nivartante apraapya manasaa saha” (Tittiriya 2/9). Saint Tulasidasa also declares in the Manasa – “The Divinity is unknown to speech and mind and can only be conjectured as It is beyond argument” (1/341/4). Tongue can’t describe the “Tattva” (Divinity or Entity) and in “Tattva” there is no tongue. We don’t aim at God (Divinity) and so in order to enable us to have Him as our aim, He is described. If we without aiming at Him merely learn the description, we can’t attain Him. But if we describe Him by aiming at Him, only He, rather than the description remains. It means that while describing Him the tongue exhorts itself and while reflecting on Him the mind exhorts itself, then only He remains and He is realized. Actually He was already realized, only the misapprehension of non-realization vanishes.
Any action, object, mental activity or thought born of Nature has no access to Him because He transcends Nature. Therefore he is not described. He is attained. Actually He is ever attained to everyone but we hold that He is unattained to us. So He is said to be attained.
Actually He is ever attained to everyone but we hold that He is unattained to us. So He is said to be attained. Now the question is why He who is ever attained seems to be unattained. The answer is that he seems to be unattained because we regard the unreal as real and want to gain it. If we regard it as real and attach importance to it, it appears to be existent and He to be unattained. He may appear to be unattained yet He is ever attained. He ever remains the same without the least modification. This is a principle that only He Who is ever present (attained) is attained and which is naught (unattained) is renounced. There can’t be any deviation in this principle.
There are so many diversities in the domain of Nature (the unreal) while there is no diversity in Divinity. While assuming the material objects as real and attaching them higher value, we describe the divinity, then the Divinity becomes a subject of intellect and it becomes distinct.[1]
When we take the aid of any instrument such as intellect, we feel ourselves distinct from the Divinity. The moment we renounce such aid, there remains no distinction, only the Absolute remains. For example “day” is the light period when it is contrasted with “night”, the dark period. So is the night, the dark period as contrasted with the light period. but in the sun there is neither day nor night, he is ever illuminating. So is the case with the sea and its waves. When they are compared, they seem to be different from each other. But in the water-element, there is neither sea, nor waves.[2] Similarly That Divinity (tattva) is said to be endowed with attributes and also attributeless, to be endowed with form and also formless while in fact That Divinity (tattva) is none of them.
_____________________________________________________
[1]Here the question arises – How is He Who is indescribable to be described? And how is He Who is described, indescribable? The answer is that the Divinity is indescribable, yet he is described so that aspirants may have an aim to attain Him. In the Gita also Lord krishna declares to meditate on His inconceivable F0rm (Gita 8/9_. Again the same question arises – How to conceive of Him Who is inconceivable? And how is He, Who is conceived, inconceivable? It means that though God is inconceivable, yet He can be an aim for thinkers. Similarly in the Gita there is mention of the marks of him, who has transcended the three modes (Gita 14/21-25). Again the same question arises – How are there marks of him who has transcended modes? And if there are marks, how has he transcended modes? The reason is that there can be marks because of modes. It means that people judge such souls by the marks of their bodies and inner senses etc. Actually these are mere hints to know a person who has transcended modes. In the same way it has been declared about an equanimous person that he whose mind is established in equanimity is established in Brahma (God) (Gita 5/19).
___________________________________________________
[2]The description given in the scriptures is from our point of view. We accept existence of the unreal. So the scriptures describe the real from our viewpoint in our language in order to enable us to renounce attachment to the unreal. So there are different schools of philosophy. In spite of different schools of philosophy, the Divinity is one. so long as there are – the spectator, the knower, the philosopher and philosophy, there is difference in the description of the Divinity, otherwise the Divinity is ever the same. In other words it can be said that as long as “egoism” (the know of spirit and matter) persists, there are differences. but when egoism ends, only Divinity remains.
The Divinity is called the illuminator, the support and the base when It is compared with the objects to be illumined, to be supported and to be based respectively. The objects to be illumined, to be supported and to be based are limited, perishable, and innumerable, while He Who is the illuminator, the support and the base is unlimited, imperishable and one. So the former will perish, while the latter will remain. These nomenclatures such as the illuminator, the support and the base will disappear, only the Divinity will remain.
Having assumed identity with the body that very “Tattva” (Divinity) is called “Shariri” (embodied soul). Similarly having relationship with “Kshetra”, it is called “Kshetri”. As the Divinity knows “Kshetra,”, It is called “Kshetrajna”. It is called the seer and the witness by having connection with the scene and the objects of witness respectively. But in fact that Divinity in itself is none of them. It is called so only in relation with them.
The Divinity is singular when compared with the plural, spirit when compared with matter, real when compared with the unreal, existent when compared with the non-existent, eternal when compared with the transient, unborn when compared with the boryn, imperishable when compared with the perishable, an embodiment of truth-consciousness-bliss, when compared with the world in the form of untruth-unconsciousness-suffering. It is said to be attained when we consider material objects as unattained while It is said to be un-attained when material objects appear to be attain. Its realization is said to be easy in contrast with the version that Its realization is difficult otherwise while It is ever attained, there is no question of easiness or difficulty in Its realization. But actually that Divinity is neither plural, nor singular, neither matter, nor spirit, neither unreal, nor real, neither non-existent, nor existent, neither transient, nor eternal, neither born, nor unborn, neither perishable, nor imperishable, neither in the form of untruth, unconsciousness-suffering, nor in the form of truth-consciousness-bliss, neither attained, nor unattained, neither difficult, nor easy. It means that the Divinity is indescribable in words.
That Divinity is of independent existence in contrast with the dependent existence and is natural in contrast with the unnatural. When we regard the unnatural as natural, it leads us to bondage. When we regard the natural as unnatural, the worlds appears to exist. But if we realize the natural as natural without accepting the unnatural, we realize the ever-existent Divinity. That Divinity has neither dependent nor independent existence, is neither natural nor unnatural. These terms – dependent-independent and natural-unnatural are relative while the Divinity is transcendental (nirpeksh).
That Divinity is called “Is”. In fact it is not “Is” in contrast with “not” but is transcendental. If we accept the existence of “not”, it can’t be called “not” because “not” and “existent” (Is) are contrary terms. How can “not” (unreal) exist and how can “Is” (existent) be “not” (not-existent)? In fact “not” has no existence of its own. But when by ignorance we accept the existence of “not”, then to wipe out this error we declare, “The unreal has no existence, it is the Divinity that exists”. When “not” has no existence, it is also not possible to call that Divinity “Is”. It means that the Divinity is called “Is” when It is contrasted with “not”. In fact it is neither “not” nor “Is”.
In the Gita, Lord Krishna declares –
ज्ञेयं यत्तत्प्रवक्ष्यामि यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते ।
अनादिमत्परं ब्रह्म न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते ॥ (१३ । १२)
“I shall describe that which is to be known and by knowing which one attains immortality. It is the supreme Brahma (the Absolute, Who is beginningless and Who is said to be neither existent nor non-existent” (Gita 13/21)[1].
The Divinity has no beginning. As That Divinity is eternal, how can It have beginning? Divinity is superior, while others are inferior. He is neither real, nor unreal. In fact, the terms beginning and beginningless, superior and inferior, real and unreal are in connection with Prakriti (Nature). Actually the Divinity has a unique character beyond all these terms. Lord Krishna has described this Divinity as that which has to be known. That is merely a hint towards the Divinity.
_____________________________________________________
[1] In the Gita, God has been described in three ways –
- He is being (real) and non-being (unreal) (Gita 9/19);
- He is beyond being and non-being (unreal) (Gita 11/37);
- He is neither being (existent) nor non-being (non-existent) (Gita 13/12). It means that He can’t be described because He is beyond the ken of mind, intellect and words.
It is also mentioned in saints’ utterances that the Divinity is neither wakefulness, nor dream, nor sleep. Neither beyond states, nor bondage, nor liberation etc. The reason is that all these are relative terms while He is transcendental. He can’t be called by any name because He is beyond the ken of words. Only a hint is given about Him by means of words.[2]
[2] If the speaker is a self realized man and the listener is the true seeker, the divine knowledge which transcends words and senses is gained through words as words have an uncommon and unthinkable power. But it is possible only when the listener aims at Divinity rather than merely listening to the words. If he does not aim at Divinity, he will lean facts only, he will not attain Divini ty.
That Divinity is neither manifest, nor unmanifest, neither evident, nor non-evident, neither small, nor big, neither within, nor without, neither above, nor below, neither near, nor far, neither distinct, nor indistinct, nor distinct cum indistinct. The reason is that these are relative terms while the Divinity is transcendental. As in the Sun there is neither light, nor darkness because the Sun is ever bright. Similarly in That Divinity there is no light cum darkness because where there is light, there is no darkness; and where there is darkness, there is no light. Then how can light and darkness stay together? In the same way in Divinity there is neither knowledge, nor ignorance, nor knowledge cum ignorance. There is neither the knower, nor knowledge, nor the knowable, neither the illuminator, nor illumination, nor the illuminated, neither the seer, nor the scene, neither the meditator, nor meditation, nor the meditated. In Divinity, there is total lack of trio because trio is relative, while Divinity is transcendental. In fact the question of the relative on the transcendental arises only when we by identifying the self with the body speak, hear and think. The Divinity is neither relative, nor transcendental.
In fact the Divinity is awareness which in the Gita has been declared as “Smriti” (memory). Memory is the term used in contrast with forgetfulness. But it is not in contrast with forgetfulness, it stands for self-awareness. The memory can be lost but there can’t be any delusion in such awareness or realization. Unlike knowledge Divinity can’t be forgotten, but we can turn face away from it. Something known can be forgotten but once realized Divinity can’t be forgotten that way. If we assume this forgetfulness, after remembrance, again there will be forgetfulness. Therefore Lord Krishna in the Gita declares – “Having gained the knowledge-divine (of self realization), a person does not get deluded again” (Gita 4/35). Assuming the unreal as real and attaching higher value to it, we forget Divinity. Memory and forgetfulness are the terms from the viewpoint of the aspirant rather than from that of Divinity. Even in the case of forgetfulness Divinity ever remains the same. If we accept the non-existent as non-existent (unreal), the existent (Divinity) will remain as It is.
* By regaining memory an aspirant does not feel that he has known something new which he did not know before. With this regained memory he feels that it was always in his awareness ut he did not cast a glance at it. If we assume that it has been gained now, it means that this memory has a beginning while actually it is beginningless. That which has a beginning has an end and that which is beginningless is endless.
From Book in English – “Sahaj Sadhana” by Swami Ramsukhdasji
Comments are closed.