Saturday, April 14, 2007


On this day [11th April, 2007] we start with a sloka in the Gita where Sri Krishna states that Arjuna had many births and the Lord also had many incarnations [avatars]. In all the soul has remained everlasting. In the 12th sloka it was told that the entities are Iswara, Chit and Achit. Iswara is also referred to as Bramham in Upanishads. We saw the differences among all these. We have to imagine the soul without the perishable body. If we do that we can notice all souls or jeevatma are all the same. In that case, is the jeevatma one or are there many? Sri Krishna clarifies this by saying ‘ime jana..’ that is all these [Arjuna and others]are all eternal souls. There are some who believe that atman is only one and there are some others who believe that atman are many. Those who think that atman is only one argue that though there are many of us existing, the single soul is the only truth and all others are mere images, which the single soul has declared to be seen. If we can remove this seeming plurality of souls then it can be realized that atman is only one, they argue. Others who think that atmans are many say that though there are are many souls, there is no difference among them and so they can be grouped into a single category. In our daily life also, when, for example, we see jasmine flowers are heaped in the market or garden, we exclaim and say ‘only jasmine!’ [orey malligaipoo!]. Here, the observer does not mean a single jasmine flower. But, because they all look same and are white and spread the same fragrance, it was told ‘only jasmine’. Similarly, all souls are of same minute and same intelligence and are all slaves to the Paramatma and so they all come under the same category of jeevatma. Jeevatma is different from the Paramatma but among them, all jeevatmas are same with no difference whatsoever. Instead of saying ‘we’ to indicate Himself and Arjuna, He clearly makes a difference and says ‘I [Aham]’ and ‘you [tvam]’. Thus difference is there and we have to understand this. Because our philosophy is this difference. We should not believe if someone says ‘ I am God’. We are always His servants and He is the Proprietor, Commander and Leader. The One Who determines who should do what is God. We see a garden and we conclude there must be a gardener. We see ornaments and decide there must be a goldsmith. We see dress materials and infer there must have been a weaver. So for every creativity, we can definitely conclude that there must be a creator. This is logical, even if we do not see the architect of that creation by our sensual organs. This is similar to concluding there is fire by seeing only the smoke. This is inference or deduction. So by seeing all the various creations in the world, we can deduce that there must be a Creator and He is God. But our ancestors and learned men do not rely on inference or logic or deduction to conclude the existence of God. Philosophers classify the bedam or difference into three categories. We are in the garden of Thirukkannapuram temple and we will try to explain the bedam in Chit, Achit and Iswara, as conceived by our elders. There is a jasmine plant. There is another one at another place. The two are same but different. Same, as both are jasmine plants and different as they are physically apart. This is called sajatiya bedam or difference in the same class. There is a pillar. It is different from the jasmine plant in the group itself. This is called vijatiya bedam or difference in groupings. Within the jasmine plant, we find leaves and flowers. These constitute swagata bedam. Paramatma and jeevatma both have intelligence or gyana, but the jeevatma’s intelligence is limited by the body it resides. So, here we see sajatiya bedam. Bramham or Paramatma has wisdom and the objects and materials we see do not possess any intellect. This is vijatiya bedam. As God cannot be worshipped if there was no form or He did not possess qualities like mercy, Bramham has forms and qualities and so here the swagata bedam is exhibited. So Bramham has all the three types of bedam.

No comments: