August 14, 2021 at 8:43 am #13196Sivabalan MuthuParticipant
Hare Krishna Prabhu,
I could not express my doubt very clearly but I tried a little bit below:
I have read the analogy of a cow is a part of mammal. I can understand that an idea of higher hierarchy (mammal) is more real and superior than an idea of lower hierarchy (cow), because lower hierarchy can exist only if the higher hierarchy exists. The same way I can logically understand that I am a part of the whole idea (God) since I can observe only a part (lower hierarchy) of the creation at a time.
But still I could not fully comprehend it. Imagining many Knowers existing within a Knower (or super knower) perplexes me. Those many knowers within a Knower appears to be independant because they can know themselves. Can you please show some light on this.August 14, 2021 at 11:18 am #13198Ashish DalelaKeymaster
You are thinking in a physical way because a physical analogy is often used. The physical analogy says that the drop is part of the ocean. That means, if you remove the drop, the ocean is reduced. Similarly, it is said the soul is part of God’s body. But that means if the soul leaves God’s association, then God is reduced. Or, if the soul is suffering then God must be suffering, as the soul is a part.
These physical analogies are not correct. A soul can leave God’s association, but God is not reduced. Similarly, a soul can be suffering, but God is not suffering. And yet, God produced the soul. This production of the soul is the production of a partial purpose, with the whole purpose being God.
A knower is not part of another knower; however, the smaller knower knows part of the meaning in the bigger knower. Each knower is independent. However, since the smaller knows part of the whole meaning, hence, the smaller knower is also dependent on the bigger knower. Because a partial meaning is known by the smaller knower, therefore, it is said that the smaller is part of the bigger.
The correct terms are abheda which means “non-different” and avyatireka which means “non-separated”. We cannot understand these words in the physical thinking of drop and ocean, or hand and body. Since these terms were not clear, hence, other terms like bheda and vyatireka were added to say that two things are different and non-different. Thus, the philosophy of Bhedābheda was created. But even this wasn’t clear, so the term Achintya was added, to say that simultaneous difference and non-difference are “inconceivable”. But that is because physical analogies of whole and part were used. We can use any number of such terms, and it will still remain inconceivable.
That’s why I have changed the analogies to semantic. When you speak a sentence, the meaning of the sentence is non-different from the meaning in the mind. But the meaning in the mind is not the sentence. The mind produces the sentence, and the sentence depends on the mind, but the mind doesn’t depend on the sentence. So, you can think of God as the mind and the soul as the sentence. The mind produces infinite sentences, and those sentences describe the mind. But the mind is not any of the sentences. God as the complete knower knows the meaning in every sentence, but those meanings don’t exist as separate sentences in God. Their separated existence is the soul.
You can also think in terms of a verse and its commentary. The commentary’s meaning is present in the verse, but since most people cannot understand that dense meaning, therefore, a commentary is authored. When the commentary expands on the verse, then the meaning is understood by everyone. Similarly, there is a 4-verse Bhagavatam, which is the summary of Bhagavatam. Then, it has been expanded into 18,000 verses. The meaning of the summary is not different from the meaning of the expansion, but the summary is not the expansion. There are many possible expansions of the same summary, and what we have presently is one of the many possible expansions. Likewise, there is a “compressed” meaning in God, and there are partial “expanded” meanings in many souls.August 21, 2021 at 5:23 pm #13199Sivabalan MuthuParticipant
Yes I can understand what you are saying logically but not experientially because I only have an experience of creating an art or writing sentences but I don’t have the experience of creating a conscious entity having choice. Is there any way I can understand this empirically?