Soul is only a limited form of cosmic energy

[dattaswami]

Soul is only a limited form of cosmic energy

The awareness in the limited human body is due to the presence of nervous system

 

The soul is a limited energetic form existing in a limited materialized body. In such body, the limited energy may be inert or awareness. The limited energy exists partly as inert energy and partly as awareness. Awareness is a special form of work energy functioning in the nervous system. It is actually kinetic energy functioning in a specific way in the nervous system, which is the work of transport of information from senses to brain. Essentially, you can treat the soul as a limited form of cosmic energy. The limited form is qualitatively same as the un-limited cosmic energy. This qualitative similarity gives the monism of Shankara. The quantitative difference is neglected. The space in pot (ghataakasha) is the same space present in a room (mathaakasha) and both are the same infinite space (mahaakasha) in qualitative aspect.

 

The awareness in the limited human body is due to the presence of nervous system. There is no similar macro nervous system in the infinite space and therefore you cannot speak of awareness in Hiranyagarbha or the un-limited energetic form. Unless nervous system exists, the specific function of kinetic energy does not arise and hence awareness is impossible in the infinite space form. There may be possibility of awareness in the body of father of heaven because a limited nervous system may exist to create the specific function. However, the infinite form of cosmic energy (Karyabrahman or Hiranyagarbha) also contains unlimited awareness due to the un-imaginable power of the existing un-imaginable God. In the human body, such provision of existence of un-imaginable God is absent and hence the specific nervous system is required to generate the awareness.

 

Even in the limited energetic form of God, the nervous system is not required due to the existence of un-imaginable God. In the human incarnation, the nervous system is already existing and hence is utilized for all practical purposes of the limited human behavior. In the human incarnation also, when the occasion of omniscient power arises, the limited nervous system becomes in-capable and the un-imaginable power of God develops the un-imaginable omniscient power.

 

Again, the awareness existing in omniscient capacity is qualitatively the same as the awareness existing in the ordinary limited human being. This qualitative similarity is taken by Shankara as monism. Therefore, you should not treat the un-limited inert cosmic energy as awareness itself by natural way since there is no macro nervous system pervading the infinite cosmic energy.

 

Whether the awareness is generated by the un-imaginable God through un-imaginable power or whether the awareness is generated by the limited nervous system, awareness is awareness only in qualitative sense. The awareness of the human being is limited knowledge whereas the awareness generated by un-imaginable God is omniscient. It is only a quantitative difference. This qualitative similarity is taken by Shankara as monism. The comparison between the limited awareness and un-limited awareness is not the comparison of soul with un-imaginable God. The comparison is only between the limited awareness, which is limited cosmic energy and the un-limited awareness, which is the un-limited cosmic energy only. It is like the comparison of ocean with water drop since both are in the same phase of creation. It is only a comparison of infinite creation with a small part of the creation. It is not the comparison between the creator and the creation.

 

The soul along with the human body is a part of the creation. The un-limited cosmic energy which is the body of un-imaginable God is the whole creation. In this comparison, the creator is not at all involved. A person is wearing a cloth. The thread in the cloth is compared with the whole cloth. The person wearing the cloth is not compared with the thread. Even if you compare Lord Krishna with an ordinary human being, both the media are qualitatively and quantitatively the same. But, the un-imaginable God present in Krishna cannot be compared with the human being. The body of Krishna including the soul is exactly equal in both qualitative and quantitative senses to the body of a human being including its soul. Both the bodies are two different trees. Both the souls are two owner-birds, each sitting on a tree. Up to this point, the qualitative and quantitative similarity exists. But, in the case of Krishna, the extra second bird, the un-imaginable God, also exists, who is the ultimate owner of the owner-birds (Atmeshwaram...Veda). This second bird is not at all in the picture of comparison because this second bird is un-imaginable, which cannot be compared with any part of the imaginable creation. Both the trees (human bodies) and both the owner-birds (souls) are exactly similar since all these four items are part and parcel of imaginable creation only.

 

Shankara has taken awareness as God, which means that the un-limited energetic medium of God is taken and not the actual God. The infinite imaginable medium of un-imaginable God is qualitatively compared with the finite imaginable medium called as human being. The equality is only in qualitative sense and He admitted the quantitative difference (Satyapi bhedaapagame...). Since the un-limited energy happens to be the medium of un-imaginable God, this un-limited energy is addressed as God by Him. The finite part of the creation, the human being, is called as soul. Therefore, when He says that God and soul are one and the same, it means that (1)the word God means the infinite imaginable medium and (2)the soul means the finite imaginable medium having the qualitative similarity with the infinite medium. While using the word monism, you should be very careful in this complicated analysis. Otherwise, you will slip easily at any stage and end in wrong conclusion.

 

 

Ramanuja took this same basis of Shankara and brought out the quantitative difference between the un-limited medium and the limited medium. The relationship between these two media is whole-part aspect (amshi-amsha or angi-anga). The part is inseparable from the whole (apruthakkarana). Apart from the quantitative difference between the un-limited and the limited media, He showed the difference between the two media due to the special effect of un-imaginable God on the un-limited medium. He brought out the neglected aspects into emphasis and showed the difference between un-limited medium containing un-imaginable God and the limited medium without un-imaginable God.

 

Madhva also took the same un-limited medium containing un-imaginable God and the limited medium as soul. The un-limited medium denotes the un-imaginable God and the limited medium denotes the imaginable part of imaginable creation. He took the impossibility of comparison between the un-imaginable God and the soul since soul is the imaginable part of imaginable creation. He denied any similarity because there can be no similarity between un-imaginable God and imaginable part (soul) of imaginable creation. The logic between any cause and its effect in the world like mud and pot, cotton and cloth etc. totally fails because all these items are imaginable only. You cannot take the logic between the imaginable items to study the generation of imaginable creation from the un-imaginable God. The link between the un-imaginable cause and imaginable effect is also un-imaginable. Therefore, the process of generation of the imaginable creation from the un-imaginable God also becomes un-imaginable. In such case, the comparison becomes meaningless and therefore the imaginable soul is totally different from the un-imaginable God.

 

According to Madhva, the word Krishna straightly indicates the un-imaginable God existing in a specific human body and therefore, Krishna cannot be compared with any human being. He always took the sense of content whenever the content is indicated by the container and in such context, the container is not at all considered. Since the content is un-imaginable, it can never have comparison to be soul, which is only an imaginable part of the imaginable creation. On the other hand, Shankara and Ramanuja considered the container also as per the required situation. Shankara brought out the similarity between the containers and attributed this similarity to the content of un-limited medium and the limited medium. This means that Shankara took the similarity between infinite medium of God and the finite medium (soul) and super-imposed this similarity between God and soul. Ramanuja brought out the difference between God and soul and at the same time, established the whole-part relationship between the two media. This relationship was again superimposed between God and soul to conclude that soul is a part of God. Again, the inseparable relationship is between two media only and this is again superimposed on God and soul. Thus, Ramanuja stressed on both similarity and difference through the same mechanism of expression of Shankara.

There is a gradual modification of the concept from Shankara to Ramanuja to Madhva. Shankara took the un-limited and limited media and based on their qualitative similarities, the soul was said as God. Such interpretation was necessary at that time since all were atheists and the difference between God and soul can never be tolerate by an atheist. In order to make the atheist accept the existence of God, He brought out the similarity between un-limited medium of God and limited medium, which is the soul, neglecting all the aspects of quantitative difference. His philosophy was the need of the hour at that time. Gradually, atheism became weaker and weaker and people were able to accept the difference between God and soul.

 

Ramanuja brought out the difference partially maintaining partial monism of awareness. The inseparable aspect of God and soul consoled the people on one side since the un-limited and limited media were only referred. On the other side, the difference between un-imaginable God and the imaginable soul was also stressed. In course of time, the atheism became very weak and Madhva introduced the perfect dualism between God and soul. However, He maintained the least consolation by taking the similarity of awareness between the un-limited and the limited media.

 

Ramanuja acts as bridge between Shankara and Madhva. All the three preachers know the total concept. Their expressions were different due to the need of the hour. When the student is not fit to understand the concept completely, the teacher will express suitable part of the concept only hiding the rest concept for the future. Shankara did not reveal the difference due to the psychological stage of the then existing atheists. As the stage of the student progressed in course of time, Ramanuja revealed the difference to such an extent maintaining the monism as consolation. While the psychology of the student still improved, Madhva revealed the difference completely maintaining the least similarity of awareness as least consolation. The actual essence is that the similarity is totally absent if you take the un-imaginable God and the imaginable soul for straight comparison. If you take the medium of the un-imaginable God to be compared to the soul, the similarities appears in different extents as per the different cases. If you take the un-limited energetic medium and the soul, the difference is much. If you take the limited energetic form and the soul, the difference is reduced. If you take the human incarnation and the soul, the difference is still reduced. In any case, remember that the similarities and the differences are only in the media. If you take the un-imaginable God alone rejecting His surrounding medium, there is a total difference between Him and the soul.

www.universal-spirituality.org

Universal Spirituality for World Peace