— { DIVINE ASPIRATION } —

CHAPTER FOUR:
GRADATIONS OF THEISM

Student: Srila Guru Maharaj, could you explain in essence the differences between the teachings of the four Vishnava sampradayas?

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: This has been given in detail in the Gaudiya-patrika, the weekly paper published during our Guru Maharaj’s time; here I am giving only the summary to you.

Nimbarka’s teaching is known as ‘dvaitadvaita’, Madhvachaya’s as ‘sudha-dvaita’, Visnuswami’s as ‘suddha-dvaita’, and Ramanuja’s as ‘visistadvaita’.

Ramanuja’s sampradaya is known as Sri Sampradaya; it is coming from Sri Laksmi Devi; Madhvacharya’s sampradaya is coming from Lord Brahma; Rudra or Siva, is the source of the Visnuswam’s sampradaya, and Nimbarka’s sampradaya stems from Chatuhsana, the four Kumaras.

Sridhar Swami, the renowned commentator of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, belongs to the teachings of sudhadvaita. And the Vallabha sampradaya also branches from there.

In the teachings of the Nimbarka sampradaya, known as dvaitadvaitavad, both difference (dvaita) and oneness (advaita) between The Lord and His energies are accepted, but that is not qualified as achintya, inconceivable. Mahaprabhu’s philosophy is also of ‘bhedabheda’, oneness and difference, but the necessary qualification is given: ‘achintya’. The demarcation between the two—the oneness and the difference—is not in the hand of anybody; it is reserved with the Lord. Whatever exists, exists as both common with and different from the Absolute. But that is not a rigid thing; it depends on Him—He can change the line of demarcation anytime, anywhere. The line of demarcation is achintya where that may be or may not be the same every time. It depends on the sweet will of the Ultimate Reality. So, Nimbarka’s ‘dvaitadvaita’ is very akin to Mahaprabhu’s ‘achintya-bhedabheda’ though with this difference.

Another distinction is that though the object of worship in Nimbarka’s line is Radha-Krishna, and up to madhura-rasa, they do not accept the play of parakiya-bhava, paramour love. The difference between the Nimbarka and Gaudiya sampradayas is here: the acceptance of parakiya, such as is shown in the madhyahna-lila, the noontime pastimes of Radha and Krishna.

ARCHAN AND SEVA

The Nimbarkas also are more concerned with archan, or puja, worship, performed strictly according to the scriptures. The viddhi—the law, rules and regulations—is principal to them. But in Gaudiya sampradaya, the strictness of the viddhi is a little slackened, with affection and love having the better part.

Such a mood of affectionate worship is also in the Vallabha sampradaya, the line of suddhadvaita. They do not even like to use the word ‘archan’, but they say ‘seva’ as we do. We speak of seva, that is, raga-marga: with affection we shall serve, not according to the strict, scriptural rules. The Vallabha sampradaya, the followers of Vishnu Swami, have this in common with us.

And there is also the ‘Ramanandi’ sampradaya, which, though springing from the Ramanuja sampradaya, is another deviation because we find in Ramananda himself, and later in Tulasi Das, a greater rigidity in asceticism. Asceticism has a bigger part for them, including the tendency towards salvation, liberation, moksa.

INTERPRETATION OF VEDANTA

The four sampradayas also have their respective bhasyas, commentaries, on Vedanta. Nimbarka has his Parijata-bhasya; Madhvacharya has his bhasya; Ramanuja has his own commentary, Sri-bhasya; and Vishnu Swami also has his bhasya, followed by Sridhar Swami. The Gaudiya sampradaya has its own commentary, Govinda-bhasya. These are different types of interpretations of Vedanta, Brahma-sutra. These four, and their branches, are all theistic.

There is also Sankaracharya’s commentary; that we call atheistic because it does not accept the jiva soul in its highest position of eternal service to Krishna. This is similar to the conclusion of Buddha, who says that with the dissolution of the mental body, everything ends. This is what Sankaracharya also says, ultimately: the individual conception of soul is imaginary; it only remains so long as one is in misunderstanding. When misunderstanding is cleared, one gets liberation and no individual soul remains, but a mass of light, and that is brahma, some non-differentiated, non-specified substance. But unlike Buddha, Sankar says that such substance is made of consciousness.

According to Sankar, maya, or misconception, has no beginning, but it does not go on forever; it may be ended. We can get out of maya; it may be fully quenched, stopped. So, it is anadi-santa, without beginning but temporary; only brahma is anadi-ananta, without beginning or end.

SANKAR AND BUDDHA

The Vaishnavs say that Sankar is ‘Buddhist in disguise’. The Buddhist does not have any recognition of the eternity of the individual jiva soul, and Sankar’s conception is also like that—no eternal jiva soul. Their difference is that Buddha had no recognition of the revealed scriptures, whereas Sankar accepted them, but while explaining them, he gave his concocted, imaginary interpretation, and the Buddhist opinion has been hidden inside that. The atheistic doctrine of the Buddhists is still kept in Sankar’s teaching, though under the guise of acceptance of the Veda. In this way Sankar’s doctrine is more dangerous than that of the Buddhist.

While instructing Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, Mahaprabhu told him:

veda na maniya bauddha haya ta’ nastika
vedasraya nastikya-vada bauddhake adhika

(Chaitanya-charitamrita, Madhya 6.168)

“The Buddhists do not recognise the authority of the Vedas; therefore, they are considered agnostics. However, those who have taken shelter of the Vedic scriptures yet preach agnosticism in accordance with the mayavada philosophy are certainly more dangerous than the Buddhists.”

The Buddhists are clear: “We don’t have any recognition of the revealed scriptures, we are of another opinion—our attempt is based on reasoning.” But Sankar, though accepting the revealed scriptures, puts his own interpretation into them.

ETERNAL SOUL

Still, neither Buddha nor Sankar recognise the eternity of the individual jiva soul, as it is expressed in Bhagavad-gita: ajo nityah sasvato ’yam purano—“The soul is eternal, ever-existing, ever-youthful, yet ancient” (Bhagavad-gita, 2.20). And jiva-bhutah sanatanah—“The conditioned souls are eternal” (Bhagavad-gita, 15.7). Also, it is stated in the Upanisads: nityo-nityanam chetanas chetananam, eko bahunam (Katha Upanisad, 2.2.13).

Here it is said, “nityo-nityanam”: there is one Supreme Eternal amongst many of eternal substance. There are many eternal entities (bahunam), and He is the principal among them.

In the Upanisads, in Bhagavad-gita, everywhere in the revealed scriptures it is admitted that the jiva is nitya: the soul is immortal. According to Sankar, however, the soul is ultimately mortal. Through transmigration one will have to accept different bodies according to karma, but ultimately, after liberation, any jiva, individual soul, does not exist, and neither does God. Only brahma exists, a non-differentiated mass of spiritual substance made of consciousness.

Buddha had no recognition of that substance as light; Buddhists say some force of nature, prakrti, exists, and different manifestations of this force are acting together, producing everything. When that combination is dissolved, what remains is something indescribable—it may or may not be a kind of force, it is undifferentiated, indescribable. That is viraja, prakrti-nirvana, attained when the individual spirit of exploitation disappears into the non-differentiated plane.

Student: Why is it that Sankar’s philosophy has so much appeal to people in general?

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: It is a compromise; it apparently gives harmony to all the sections of worshipers of different types of gods. There are so many worshipers of so many gods; and Sankar harmonises them: “What you are doing, is all right—you are worshiping Kali, or Ganesh, or Surya, or Agni, or Vishnu—all is good, I accept all. That is only for the time being and to a certain extent. But finally, your attempt will end in the attainment of brahma. If you can accept this as the final end, I accept you all.” Because of this compromise, Sankar’s thought is widely accepted by the atheistic section; you can understand it in this way.

As I have mentioned, Sankar showed the colour of accepting the Veda and Upanisad, but he gave this sort of meaning, that everything ends in brahma. Through that, he apparently harmonised and embraced them all.

Another thing which contributed to his popularity was that he was brilliant, an intellectual giant, and he fought against the Buddhist thinkers who were out-and-out atheists; with the colour of theism he fought against the number one atheist, the Buddhist. And his success in that gave him much popularity.

Student: There appear to be so many different religions, all under the banner of theism. This is often confusing for the general public. Sometimes the Vaishnav is asked: “Why are there so many different theistic religions? Someone is worshipping Allah, someone is worshipping Christ—there seem to be so many differences.” How should he reply?

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: According to the capacity of the people, there are different groupings. The truth is distributed in instalments accordingly.

Those who are materialistically inclined generally worship the demigods to attain so many benefits:

kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah,
prapadyante ‘nya-devatah
tam tam niyamam asthaya,
prakrtya niyatah svaya

(Bhagavad-gita, 7.20)

“Persons whose good intelligence has been spoiled by illicit desires for exploitation and renunciation or other duplicitous pursuits worship other godly personalities such as the Sun-god and the many demigods. Being enslaved by their instincts, they adopt the corresponding rules and regulations of such worship.”

This is called upasana worship. But the Vaishnavs are nirupasana; they do not follow that line. Those who follow the upasana are worshiping the demigods, who are in possession of some power of nature, in order to get a desired end. Those who seek good health go to Surya; for general satisfaction of any lusty desire, they go to Kali; for property and resources, to the fire-god, Agni; and those who want knowledge go to Siva. Lord Siva has got versatile knowledge: in medicine, yoga, music, and penance. All these many qualifications are combined in him. Those that want mukti, liberation, go to Vishnu, Narayan. But the ‘Narayan’ of the followers of Sankar is also partly under maya. According to them Siva is trying to get out of maya, to become the master of maya. In this way they represent him.

CAPACITY AND SELECTION

According to their choice, their inner necessity, while wandering in different stages of misunderstanding, people will select their leader: “Oh, he will be best able to help me. My aim is in this direction, so I should go to him.” Just as one who wants to be a good football player will naturally go to the most qualified leader in that field; one who wants to be a good merchant, he must go to the expert, and one who wants to be a research scholar, must similarly go to the most qualified in that area. Those whose minds are influenced by various material desires will approach those respective leaders and surrender to them (kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah, prapadyante ‘nya-devatah)

For those who want real theistic life, there are also instalments. In Mohammedanism and Christianity there is theism. They accept one eternal God and Master, but that acceptance is according to their nature as a group. Just as there is brahman nature, ksatriya nature, vaisya nature and so on. According to their general natures, different nations have been given such instalments of theism.

In Srimad Bhagavatam we find that instalments are distributed according to the receiver’s collective capacity as a group. Otherwise, if the whole is given at once, it will be too difficult, too complex for them to understand or to follow. So for the beginners, some theistic conception has been given only approximately, and not in detail. After attaining further birth and rebirth, when they come to a higher position, then higher education about theism will be imparted to them. With such a policy, arrangement has been made for everyone by the Lord through the various scriptures and saints.

CAREFUL GUIDANCE

This is why we find Vedic knowledge—truth existing beyond our present senses—presented throughout the scriptures in an indirect, veiled manner in order to instruct those who are undisciplined or foolish. People are to be dealt with according to their stage. A boy should be given an examination for a boy, not for an adult. The questions on a boy’s examination will be of a different standard than those on the adult’s. Gradually, one will be taken to the higher standard. Just as a child is guided with some modified policy, that sort of process has been similarly adopted in the scriptures:

paroksa-vado vedo ‘yam, balanam anusasanam
karma-moksaya karmani, vidhatte hy agadam yatha

(Srimad Bhagavatam, 11.3.44)

“Childish and foolish people are attached to materialistic, fruitive activities, although the actual goal of life is to become free from such activities and attain Krishna consciousness, the service of Krishna. Therefore, the Vedic injunctions indirectly lead one to the path of ultimate liberation by first prescribing fruitive religious activities, just as a father promises his child some sweets so that the child will take his medicine.”

Everywhere in the revealed scriptures this has been accepted. The degree of education should be imparted according to the audience’s capacity. Otherwise, they won’t be able to understand anything. There is a gradual process in the training—this is so everywhere. It is also true in our common experience. Progress does not come abruptly but is a process of continuous development.

Student: From where does theism begin? From its lower stages up to the higher, what is the gradation? What are the different conceptions?

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: The whole gradation has been described in the following way by Bhaktivinod Thakur in Chaitanya-Siksamrtam.

First there is achchhadita-chetan, fully covered consciousness, like in trees and stones; they are achchhadita, thickly covered, although consciousness is there. Next, there is sankuchita-chetan, as we find in the animal kingdom—a very narrowed consciousness. Then, mukulita-chetan, just awakening consciousness, as amongst the aborigine class. It is mukulita, not developed to a proper stage—half animal, half man. Here we find animism, worship of the various nature gods. Above this there is vikasita-chetan, in which there is some conception of God. This is where varnasrama-dharma begins.

Student: Are Christianity and Islam at this stage, vikasita-chetan?

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Yes. Then lastly there is purna-vikasita-chetan, fully opened consciousness and its corresponding conception of God; that is Vaisnavism.

This is the general gradation; but again, there is subdivision in the human section. In vikasita-chetan, in the human stage, even before we find proper theism, there is morality. No theism has yet emerged, but there is morality. That constitutes the utilitarian class, altruistic class: they have recognition of morality, but they don’t find the necessity of the existence of God.

There may be also theism without much moral conception. So-called ‘theism’, is there, but no moral conception. Those of this persuasion do himsa, violence, towards so many jivas by indiscriminately murdering living creatures; they engage in this and other such immoral practices, and go on with a conception of God.

GRADATION OF THEISM

After this, we find there is morality-plus-theism; the lower part of this is morality plus imaginary theism—kalpitasesvavada. The kalpitasesvavadi propounds an imaginary theism combined with morality. For example, the French thinker Comte said that to have a conception of God is useful to us because it can be of help to us in society; it can do the work of the police by keeping the people in good order. It is seen to be the case with the general population—that if you encourage them to be God-fearing, if you spread this consciousness, then all shall enjoy the benefit of moral order in society. This was Comte’s theory. And we may consider that the teachings of Sankaracharya, as we have mentioned previously, are also of such category: imaginary theism with morality.

After this, there is real theism with morality. Real varnasrama, as given by Sri Ramanuja, and other conceptions of a similar nature, are of both morality and true theism.

After attaining the stage of true theism on a moral basis, the next stage of attainment for the jiva soul is purna-vikasita-chetan, Vaisnavism. Vaisnavism represents purna-vikasita-chetan, fully opened, fully awakened consciousness. It is full-fledged theism. It may be described as ‘theism without morality,’ in that morality exists according to the complete theistic conception; morality, in and of itself, has less importance.

The guiding principle employed at this stage is to do whatever is necessary for the service and satisfaction of the Lord. For example, a devotee might steal a flower to offer the Lord, so that the man who has cultivated that flowering tree may be benefited. It is theism in the fullest way, such that everything can be utilised for the satisfaction of the Lord; if this can be done, then everybody will be helped.

In this way, the theistic conception expands to the point that everything is for Him: Reality is for Itself. Everything is for Him, not for any other individual ownership. The Owner is One. The conditioned souls are not conscious that they belong to Him; they are like children who do not know of their guardian. But the devotees know; they are conscious of that: “This boy may not know that his guardian is there, but I know it is so. The boy may be reluctant, but I must take the boy to Him; I must carry him to his guardian in spite of his reluctance.” The devotees are conscious that everything is for Him, and they utilise everything in that way, thereby doing good to all. Their life, their campaign in every way is such, whether or not it may be tasteful to the ordinary so-called religious or moral people. The devotees are right, independent of other opinions.

BY HIMSELF AND FOR HIMSELF

Everything is for Him, for the Lord. Sri Krishna says:

aham hi sarva-yajnanam
bhokta cha prabhur eva cha
na tu mam abhijananti
tattvenatas chyavanti te

(Bhagavad-gita, 9.24)

“I alone am the Enjoyer, the Lord and object of all sacrifice. Those who do not recognise My true transcendental nature fall down.”

From this viewpoint, all conditioned souls in this world—everyone, including those who are masters of moral and scientific knowledge—are considered ‘minors’. The soul in bondage, any baddha-jiva, is minor. The ‘majors’ are those Vaishnavs who know that ‘everything is for Him’, and the consequence of this understanding is that the soul must ‘die to live’. They know that there is only one Enjoyer, that everything is meant for His pleasure, His satisfaction, and that it is by dying to any separate interest or false ego that the soul can truly live in the world of divine service. Those Vaishnavs are the guardians of the whole creation, and they utilise everything for Him to the real benefit of everyone in the world. Can you conceive of this? Can you follow?

Student: Yes.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: If you are able to understand this, then you will find some harmonious existence in this world. You will understand things in their proper perspective. Otherwise there is only ignorance.

According to the degree of ignorance, there is gradation: from tamah to maha-tamah, to maha-maha-tamah. Nature is divided into sattva, rajas and tamas, and within this there are many subdivisions. There are those of the very lowest section where the ignorance is very thick; then those a little above that whose ignorance is a little less; and those above that still. Similarly, there is gradation among those under the mode of passion, under rajo-guna; and above that, among those under the higher, sattvik nature. The nirguna plane is above all the various material qualities. It is a unified plane where one Guardian is guiding every limb and every idea of a person—who is in touch with full-fledged theism.

Student: Christians say the one Master is Christ.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: They say three: God the Father, God the Ghost, and God the Deliverer as Christ. There are three phases of conception in theism, according to Christianity. In Islam, there are so many messengers from God—Mohammed was such a messenger. The Mohammedans mostly accept the messengers of the Judaeo-Christian tradition: Moses, Abraham and others. But according to them the last messenger of God was Mohammed, and he is considered to be foremost. Some conception of God is there, but it is not so much developed as we find in Hindu ontology, or in the Vedas or Upanisads—in the revealed scriptures.

The renowned German scholar Max Muller once said, “The Upanisad in India will feed the whole world. The whole world will be fully nourished by them; not a drop of knowledge will be lost or missed if the world can get the knowledge that is stored there.” This was his conclusion.

CENTRAL OFFICE

We can understand it in this way: within every phenomenon that exists, there is some intrinsic, central position, whether in gold, diamonds, industry, education, or religion. Within all of these there is an original, or most concentrated, position. We may not find the most full-fledged manifestation everywhere that phenomenon may appear. So, in the case of religion, or theism, India was selected by God to be in the central or highest position. It is not unreasonable: a university college cannot be established in every village, but some particular place must be selected for it. It is the same for the hospital, the police station, and so on. So in this world, some place was selected to be the highest seat of religion, of theism. That came in the lot of India.

If we have the proper eye to see this, we won’t be envious: “Why should it be India?” That thinking is ludicrous, just as someone from the village thinking “Why in our village is there only a primary school, and in that city there is the university?” The highest school for theistic education should be located somewhere on the globe, and the place selected was India. If we are to approach the comparison in theistic education, we should do so with this kind of background understanding. And from that viewpoint Max Muller wrote: “If we look in the Upanisads, we will find that which will satisfy people of any religious inclination—and still the store will not be diminished, even slightly.” That kind of knowledge is an eternal fountain: its water is always flowing; the fountain will never become dry.

NO PREJUDICE

Wherever the universal truths of religion are found, they should be accepted. If it were not so, then those who are Christians from various nations, for example the Americans or the British, should say: “Christ was born in the Middle East; why should we take his instructions? He was not born on our soil; his teaching has not sprung from our country—why should we accept it?” But the geographical difference is all illusion, maya. Wherever the real religious truth is found, we must be open to accept it for its own intrinsic value. We should not be guided by the physical, mundane affinity—to our bodies or countries. We must rise above all this material consciousness and be students; with complete openness. We shall be an enquirer after the truth, from wherever it comes.

The atom bomb was created in some particular location, but does that mean in other places people are not trying to develop it? Will others say, “Oh, it was invented somewhere else—we won’t take it!” The battle tank was first invented in France, during the first Great War—now it is everywhere. The rocket was first created in the form of the ‘V2’ of Hitler, but is now, in its developed form, existing everywhere. And if even here in this world, everything has universal character and application in this way, should we think that the spiritual world will be of a narrow, national kind of conception? Will the highest truth, which can give relief to all troubles, be relatively located? Rather, that will be the most universal. It will be unique.

Student: But the problem I have found on many occasions, is that when I speak with, for example a Christian, he will appreciate the high position of bhakti (devotion) and surrender as being above that of liberation, yet he will insist that Christ is the ‘only way’.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: He may accept ‘surrender’, but surrender to whom? Surrender may be of many kinds—it may be to the family, the nation, and so on. But the value of surrender will be according to its criterion: surrender for what?

Student: Surrender to God.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: ‘God’ means what? What is the conception of God? There is the hazy conception and the clear conception. We are to come to the clear conception of what God is. We are to come to a very minute comparative study, just as in the laboratory the germs and viruses will come under our closer inspection. The closest inspection will give us the deepest conception. So, what is God? Is it a hazy thing—unknown and unknowable God? Does God mean something unknown and unknowable and not anything concrete?

Student: The Christians say, “God is revealed in Christ.”

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: Christ gave us some conception, but still, that conception is hazy. Just as there exists a hazy conception about the sun and the moon, still they have their own, real existence. On closer inspection many more astonishing things about them will be seen, and ultimately those heavenly bodies will be found. They will be discovered in their real identity.

Student: But the Christians are afraid to go beyond what Christ has said.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: That tendency is everywhere. At every step it is to be found. A person is attached to whatever plane of knowledge or ignorance, he is in. Such is the case not only with religion, but everywhere—it is a tendency common to all.

Student: These Christians take excuse from the Bible; Christ says that no one can come to the Father except through him.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: This too is a common thing: all peoples of the world have some sort of religious authority. Some people accept the Bible, some the Koran. The Hindu class will accept something else; the tribal Africans also have their authority, and the Sankarites have theirs. But when a comparison is to be drawn, the people must come out of their local bigotry and approach the matter with an open mind. They will have to come out into the broad daylight, under the open sky, and consult, compare, reject, and accept. Otherwise, where is the chance of progress? Because whatever the conception in which one is presently situated, he is attached to that. Such is the situation everywhere, not only in religion.

For example, every nation may boast, “We are the first-class military power.” But when there is war, it is decided who is who! Russia boasted, “We have the power to control the whole world”. Others have also done the same. In the beginning of the second Great War, Emperor Tojo of Japan said, “We are prepared for a hundred years of war! The Europeans will fight together and be finished, and we will be Emperor of the whole world.” This was his boast—but as it was shown, to think something is one thing, and reality is another.

INCOMPARABLE THEOLOGY

There was one Arabian gentleman who became a devotee. He said “From the beginning I had the tendency to go through the religious books of all the nations. In the course of that I found that the Indian religious writers have covered, in space and in time, a huge field—the most vast and ancient. In the Bible it is told that the world was created a few thousand years ago; but Indian theology says that so many evolutions and dissolutions have taken place. So many creations and dissolutions have occurred throughout history—the entire solar system has been dissolved, and again created, and again dissolved. The history of such vast spans of time is to be found in those writings. Time has been dealt with in such a spacious way compared to other theologians of the world. Space is also treated like this: the creation, formation and annihilation of the universe; and the history of the great planets, such as the polestar (Dhruvaloka) and the sun.” Both geographically and historically, that gentleman found that nothing compares to what has been given in the Indian theological books.

He was also astonished to discover, that from beyond this body, and beyond this universe, those rishis could gather knowledge of such a graphic and spacious nature, collected from the planes beyond the known world, distributed by the propounders of the Indian religious scriptures. So that man concluded, “This must be the broadest amongst all religious conceptions.” And he was attracted to search for the Truth in that way.

Student: If Krishna consciousness is the highest, it would seem that it would also be the most difficult for the conditioned soul to attain. And perhaps for Western devotees, or those who have taken birth in the non- Vedic cultures, it might be especially difficult. Sometimes one may think it would be easier for the spiritual seeker to approach God through the religion they were born into—for example, Christianity.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj: It is not a question of creed or culture, but of awakening of consciousness. There are so many conceptions of Godhead. In the human section there are so many different stages, beginning with the atheist. In the beginning the soul is covered by dense ignorance, with no conception of even one’s own self. Then, when his consciousness awakens further, he is able to discriminate, and through that he can give recognition to morality, but not yet theism. In that stage he can see the interest of others to be like his own.

PLANE OF AFFINITY

When a person gets even higher awakenment he comes to find that between the environment, himself and others, there is a connecting link, a common substratum of consciousness. All are standing on a common platform. And he will search: what is that? Why does it exist? What is it for? When he comes to investigate, gradually he feels more the importance of that plane which is connecting himself, his neighbour and the environment, and which creates some affinity between them.

Searching further, he finds that such a unifying plane, in which he exists, is both within him and without him. It permeates everything, and is very captivating. He becomes captured by its charm, its beauty. And now, the question arises about his own relationship with that plane. What is that relationship? How does it exist? That thing for which he feels such affinity: is it only some subtle element like air, or ether, or is it something of a higher order? Because he feels it within himself, in his heart, his mind, and he feels more curiosity to know about it.

DYNAMIC SEARCH

In this way, the God-conception comes within the soul. Through the process of elimination his knowledge improves, his conception of God improves, and that is progress. ‘Progress’ means to grow in knowledge. Through this process, in every field, man is progressing.

Life itself is dynamic—everything is progressing; it cannot remain in a static position. So, life means to search, it cannot but be so. In science, for example, Newton gave some conception, and then so many others came and gave a higher conception which was more graphic and extensive. In this way the knowledge progresses.

Just as in this world the primary schools are filled with students, as well as colleges, universities and post-graduate colleges. There are those in the primary stage, the middle stage and the highest stage. So it is with the progress of the soul in his conception of God. There are so many souls occupying different levels of awakenment.

•   •   •

CONTENTS

Download (epub)
Download (pdf)