PLURALISM AND UNITY RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

Pluralism and Unity

SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

his is a very interesting topic that number of books being published on this evokes in mind the analogy of the subject, especially the revolutionary Tocean and its waves. The ocean discoveries in physics at the turn of the 19th remains in the background while the waves century, namely the theory of Relativity and constantly rise and fall without disturbing the Quantum theory. The third is the the ocean. The waves find their unity in the psychological dimension which is also ocean. If you are asked what an ocean is you extremely important because man does not have to say—oceans are the waves. Without live on philosophy or science alone, he has a waves there is no ocean—it could be a lake mind which is constantly seeking meaning at the most. So the oceanness of the ocean is of life. Unless you find the meaning of life, given by the waves. life has no meaning at all. So we ask Rabindranath Tagore as you know, the fundamental questions about life like why remarkable poet of this age, had made a we are here? What we are? What is the goal wonderful statement in one of his poems and purpose of life? Where we come from, which has been translated into English. and finally where do we go? So, to seek There is the following dialogue between the meaning is a fundamental characteristic of ocean and the waves: human being. The fourth is the social dimension or the sociological dimension. ‘What language is thine, O Sea?’ We should remember that unless philosophy ‘The language of eternal question.’ has a bearing on society, unless it transforms ‘What language is thy answer, O sky?’ ‘The language of eternal silence.’ the thinking of the society and turns it into new channels to improve the quality of That is to say, the ocean is constantly human life, it is no good. In other words, the throwing up the waves which roar highest truths of spirituality and philosophy questioning eternally and they are being have to become most practical in everyday answered at every point by silence which is life. very alive and active, and that is the sky. was once asked at Now, this question of pluralism and the Harvard Philosophical Club to explain unity has several dimensions. It can be the Vedantic idea of civilization. And approached variously. So I will discuss the Swamiji replied: ‘That society is the issue from four perspectives or aspects. The greatest, where the highest truths become first is the philosophical dimension which is practical. . . . and if society is not fit for the well described in the Hindu scriptures. The highest truths, make it so; and the sooner, second is the scientific dimension which has the better.’1 So you may have the highest become very popular—thanks to a large thoughts possible, but they have to be

Bulletin of the Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 7 SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

practicalized—made living and poetic and The philosophical dimension run through the lives of hundreds and thousands of people who constitute the So, you see, these ideas have to come society. No doubt, this is a very difficult through society. That is the social task. All the same, Vivekananda said: The dimension. Anyway, the philosophical which has been confined to the dimension of the concept of pluralism and forests and the hills and in the caves of the unity has been hammered out in the Indian Rishis and the munis, I want to bring it and scriptures called Vedanta or the . broadcast it in the market place. ‘If the The burden of the song and the bedrock of fisherman thinks that he is the Spirit the entire Upanishadic philosophy is ekatva [âtman], he will be a better fisherman; if the vijnàna, the science of oneness. That is, by student thinks he is the Spirit, he will be a knowing the one you can know the many. better student. If the lawyer thinks he is the The famous dialogue between the great Spirit, he will be a better lawyer, and so householder Mahàshàla Shaunaka and Rishi on. . . .’2 In other words, what Vivekananda Angirasa as mentioned in the Mundaka said was that the highest spiritual truths of Upanishad (I.i.3) highlights this truth. The Vedanta have to be made living, poetic, and Upanishad says, practical in everyday life. à à Swamiji himself defined his life’s work Shaunaka ha vai mah sh lo’ngirasam vidhivat upasannah paprachha / in a very remarkable letter written to his Kasminnu bhagavo vijnàte sarvamidam disciple Alasinga Perumal on 17 February, vijnàtam bhavatiti // 1896. There he said: The great householder Shaunaka goes to . . . to put the Hindu ideas into English and the great sage Angirasa and asks the very then make out of dry philosophy and interesting question: ‘Sir, what is that by intricate mythology and queer startling knowing which everything can be known?’ psychology, a religion which shall be easy, simple, popular, and at the same time meet Angirasa smiles and says that two types of the requirements of the highest minds—is a knowledge are to be known. One is called task only those can understand who have paràvidyà (higher knowledge) and the other attempted it. The dry, abstract Advaita must is aparàvidyà (lower knowledge). The become living—poetic—in everyday life; terms—parà and aparà—do not exactly out of hopelessly intricate mythology must mean superior and inferior. The first denotes come concrete moral forms; and out of jnàna; one that gives you direct bewildering Yogi-ism must come the most knowledge, and the second refers to scientific and practical psychology—and all paroksha jnàna or indirect knowledge of the this must be put in a form so that a child may grasp it. That is my life’s work.3 supreme Reality. Angirasa says, ‘Dve vidye veditavye iti ha sma yadbrahmavido vadanti In a letter written to E. T. Sturdy on parà caivàparà ca’ (I.i.4). Interestingly, 13 February, 1896, Swamiji said, ‘I want to aparà vidyà consists of all the and the give them dry, hard reason, softened in the Upanishads and all the spiritual texts. sweetest syrup of love and made spicy with And what about parà vidyà? It is that by intense work, and cooked in the kitchen of which the undecaying, the immutable , so that even a baby can easily digest it.’4 Supreme Being, the eternal substance,

8 Bulletin of the Institute of Culture  September 2017 PLURALISM AND UNITY

âtman or is known. Everything Ramakrishna Order which underline this else which indirectly indicates the nature of truth. He remarked that there is a joy in âtman or Brahman belongs to the category being chosen, used and broken, there is an of aparà vidyà. equal joy in being set aside. Now, the crux of the whole thing is: Now suppose the Durgà image as well How is it that you can get the knowledge of as the other images are immersed into the everything by just knowing one thing? Ganges and somebody says, ‘Oh! you have Science is now almost coming to it. It is thrown them into the Ganges! Bring me struggling, knocking at the door which is some mud from the Durgà image.’ What known as the TOE or the Theory of happens then? Because there is no Durgà Everything. Many of you have possibly read image there, no Ganesha image there; the famous book, The History of Time, by everything has become mud. You can at best Hawkins. There he says that the Theory of bring some mud but you can’t bring the mud Everything is a single theory by which you of Durgà, the mud of Ganesha, the mud of will be able to explain all theories. So this is Kàrtika. Why? Because everything has the eternal question—What is that by dissolved into its cause, which is called knowing which everything can be known? kàrana. Hence, in this illustration, the cause is the clay and the names and forms which it Vedantic solution assumed have vanished. Therefore the Vedanta solved the problem by Chàndogya Upanishad very famously says, exhorting us to go to the root of everything. ‘Yathà somyaikena mritpindena sarvam When you have a pot made of clay, when mrinmayam vijnàtam syàvàcàrambhanam you have a clay image of Durgà, when you vikàro nàmadheyam mrttiketyeva satyam’. have thousands of objects made of clay—all (6.1.4)—‘O Somya, it is like this: By of them are made of clay essentially, knowing a single lump of earth you know all although they have different forms and objects made of earth. All changes are mere names. They call it nàma and rupa. Nàma words, in name only. But earth is the is name and rupa is form. Eliminate the reality.’ names and forms. Then what you have is The only satya which we handle is the clay. mrttikà or earth; nàmadheyam, the names I’ll give you a simple example. All of and forms are only vikàra, only you know that on the Dashami day, the transformations of this kàrana. The entire image of Durgà and her entourage— world, therefore, the Vedanta says, is only Lakshmi, Saraswati, Ganesha, Kàrtika etc different manifestations of nàma and rupa. are all mercilessly thrown into the Ganga. A One essential substance is called drunkard once said jocularly: Mother, be Consciousness, the Brahman, or the âtman. aware! They will worship you today, treat Brahman plus nàma and rupa give you the you to all kinds of delicacies. But tomorrow variety. they are going to throw you into the water. In the famous non-dualistic scripture, The boozer was right. That is the Pancadashi by Vidyàranya, there is a dynamics of life. Mahapurush Swami famous shloka which declares that there are Shivananda beautifully said a few poignant only five things you need to learn in the lines at the 1926 Convention of the world—asti, bhàti, priyam and nàma-rupa.

Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 9 SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

The first three—asti, bhàti and priya or sat, know how It transforms Itself. There is a chit and ànanda—relate to the âtman and peculiar power of Brahman by which It can the last two, nàma and rupa constitute the transform Itself into the many without losing jagat. So Consciousness mixed with nàma Its oneness. As to the question, ‘How is it and rupa, as it were, conjures up this visible possible?’ Ràmànuja says: Do not bring here world which is full of variety. your silly logic that pertains to the material There is another theory in world. I am talking about the Consciousness which is called the lilà theory. How did the which can perform this trick. One become many is the question which has Is there any practical example to prove been asked in philosophy, science, and this point? Yes, the simplest example is what psychology and answered in diverse ways. we experience is everyday life. That is Hundreds of theories have been offered to dream. In dream you do not have anything explain why the One becomes many. except consciousness per se. The Màndukya However, staunch Vedantins such as Upanishad says, it is antah-prajnam. The Gaudapàdàchàrya, the grand guru of whole of Consciousness is inward-focused Shankaràchàrya, exclaims—one becoming and Consciousness from Itself through the many! Where is the many? I do not see manas spandana throws up so many manifoldness at all. The One never becomes hundreds of objects—elephants, chariots, many. carts, televisions, mobile phones and so on. This is called Ajàtavàda which holds How does Consciousness do it? that One has remained the One always. Consciousness does it because it has a Shankara was slightly more compromising. peculiar power of throwing up variety According to him, the One became the many without losing Its immutability and only apparently, not actually. It is called undecaying nature. So Ràmànuja professes Vivartavàda. So many vàdas are there, so parinàmavàda and asserts God has that many kinds of theories. All the same, there power. is one Reality called Brahman or âtman. So many different theories are being Then, how come we see the many? The thrown up. The Advaita was attacked by the actual answer is, there is no many at all. But Dvaitins and a huge debate has been going being ignorant or ajnàni we ask constantly on in India for hundreds of years triggered why and how do we see the many? The by the best of minds. Unfortunately some of answer is, it is due to a peculiar power of them degenerated into some kind of Brahman called avidyà or ignorance. A tremendous vituperation, as Swami number of questions arise immediately: Vivekananda points out. A huge vituperative What is avidyà? What is the nature of literature had thus grown in India. You say avidyà? What is the locus of avidyà? So something and that is being opposed by avidyà becomes a great headache. someone. It is called khandana. Again, Ràmànuja was more practical. He said, somebody supports you, and is called the One transforms Itself into many. What is mandana. So it is khandana-mandana. And the One? It is the Brahman, the âtman, the then somebody wrote a book. Sri Harsha immutable, the undecaying, the One says, khandana, opposing, cutting the Absolute. How can the undecaying, opponents apiece is so delicious that it is immutable change? Ràmànuja says, I don’t called khandakhàdya. But think of the

10 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 PLURALISM AND UNITY richness of the human mind! How the best unreality, it is rather a category which is in minds in India have been focusing on this between reality and unreality—sat and asat. fundamental question of how this In this sense, the jagat is not absolutely Consciousness could manifest as many. For unreal because I perceive it and it is not hundreds of years thousands of books had absolutely real because it vanishes when we been written on this. attain brahmajnàna. The Dvaitavàdins attacked the Advaitins The world also disappears in deep sleep. mainly on the question of the existence of You experience it everyday. Everyday you avidyà or ignorance. You say the One experience a state of consciousness in which became many because of avidyà? The the world vanishes. You may say that it Advaitin says, yes, of course and gives the comes back again. But in the state of famous example of the snake and the rope. sushupti or deep sleep you do not see it. So At times you see a snake in the rope. You the world is neither absolutely real nor see that it is a real snake, but actually it is absolutely unreal and therefore the jagat is not. So they found out two categories—one mithyà. is real and the other unreal which they call Madhusudana Saraswati, the last among sat and asat. The opposite of sat is asat. the greatest Advaitic scholars, in his Absolutely real is sat, absolutely unreal is Advaitasiddhi says, the jagat is mithyà. But asat. What is the absolute unreality? They what are the characteristics of this give the examples of ‘horns of the hare’, or mithyàtva? He says, the first characteristic is ‘the son of a barren woman’. These are that the world is jada. It is insentient. The concepts which do not even exist. So they second, it is paricchinna or limited. And the are absolutely unreal. It is called most important argument is that it is alikapadàrtha. So between the absolutely drishya—it is seen or perceived. Drishyatva real and the absolutely unreal there is is mithyàtva. Why? Because something another category which is neither absolutely which is to be seen has to be an object. I see real, nor absolutely unreal. this table. I am the seer and the table is seen. Think of the snake-and-rope analogy. Is Anything which is seen is seen in space and the snake on the rope absolutely unreal? No, time. Anything which is in space and time because I see it. But the truth is that it is not has to change. So jagat is full of changes. a real snake. Nevertheless I saw it and got a Anything which changes cannot be real. real heart attack. The snake is unreal but the That is the Advaitic argument. Unreality heart trouble is real. means change. Therefore drishyatva is The analogy shows that the snake mithyàtva. The world is changing, therefore therefore cannot be absolutely unreal it is mithyà. because you see it and react with fear. But is The Advaitins now say, let me repeat it absolutely real? No, it is not absolutely again, I see, therefore the jagat is mithyà. real. When you bring a torch it goes away. You see it, therefore mithyàtva is also seen So this is a category which is in between as a drishya; therefore mithyàtva is also absolute reality and absolute unreality. The mithyà. Is it then that mithyàtva of mithyàtva term asat has been described by a peculiar becomes satya or true? They say, no. These word mithyà—which is most misunderstood. two categories of satya and mithyà are Advaita says, mithyà is not absolute contraries, but not contradictions. They have

Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 11 SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

to be separate. They are of viruddha everything is a fundamental quality of svabhàva, but they can exist and inhere in pluralism. Pluralism says, everything is the same object—like the rope manifesting right, but everything is not absolutely and as the snake. Madhusudana Saraswati has a only right. wonderful idea. He says, you cannot say In this connection, we may recall Sri anything about this; Reality and unreality Ramakrishna’s beautiful idea of blind men both of them become mithyà. Mithyà seeing the elephant. One blind man touched becomes mithyà and satya also becomes the tusk and said it is like a pipe. Somebody mithyà in that sense, and therefore you touched the ear and said it is like a fan. The cannot say anything about this universe at third man touched the tail and said it is like a all. Can you say anything about Brahman? brush. A big quarrel ensued. Then a person No. So, both the Brahman and the jagat are with normal eyes came and asked, ‘Why are anirvacaniya—inexpressible. This was later you quarrelling?’ ‘Sir, I said it is like a on pursued by Sri Harsha and brush. Am I not right?’ He said, ‘You are Chitsukhàchàrya and others who say that right’. ‘Sir, I say it is like a pipe. Am I not nothing can be said about anything. You right?’ ‘You are also right.’ ‘No Sir, I say, it cannot make any positive, definitive, clear is like a fan.’ ‘You are also right. All of you statement about anything in the universe. are right, but none of you is totally right.’ So This stand comes very close to post- this is the idea of pluralism. You cannot modernism. Post-modernism says, you really say each one of the perceptions about cannot posit anything which is tangible, real, the universe, about reality, about God, about clear, and say—‘This is it’. You can only anything in this world is absolutely right say tentatively this could be it. That is an because it is only your point of view. extreme position. From there Madhusudana Saraswati Scientific dimension raises a very important idea. What is that? Now I come to the scientific position All the theories of the universe can be which says ‘this’ and ‘that’ can exist accepted. You say, the world is real—you simultaneously because they are contrary are right. You say, the world is unreal—you and not contradictory. The world is satya are also right. You say, the world is both real and mithyà at the same time because satya and unreal—you are also right. So nothing and mithyà are combined in a package and in particular can be said. Anything which something appears there and is called can be said is acceptable. avidyà. Swami Swahananda used to tell us this At the turn of the 19th century, Max beautiful joke. There was a professor who Planck came up with the quantum theory. used to agree with everybody. One student The question, ‘What is the nature of light?’ came and said, ‘Sir, I think this is right’. He has been discussed and debated since the said, ‘Yes, you are right’. Next day another time of Newton. Newton came up with the student came and said, ‘Sir, I think this corpuscular theory that is studied in the way’. ‘You are also right,’ he said. His wife school physics—light travels in a straight was looking on and said, ‘You have no line as it consists of corpuscles. Later on consistency’. Then he said, ‘You are also came the wave theory of Huygens who said, right’. That means, the rightness of no, light consists of waves. Max Planck

12 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 PLURALISM AND UNITY came and said light consists of corpuscles’ it was observed that beam of electrons particles which are not simple particles but exactly exhibited wave characteristics into wave packets. This is a wave packet, energy refraction, polarization and so on. So there packet, and the quantum of energy contained was a revolution. in a packet which is called photon or a Then somebody asked—‘What is quantum is proportional to the frequency of matter? Is it a particle?’ Of course, it is a radiation. So frequency is a fundamentally particle. You are right. Is it a wave? You are wave concept and a packet; photon is right. How can wave and particle be right at fundamentally a particle concept. These two the same time? Exactly, pluralism comes in have been brought together, blended here. They are contrary qualities but they are together in the idea of the quantum. not contradictory. Then came another scientist called de Satya and mithyà are contrary qualities Broglie who is a French physicist and who but they are not contradictory because both says that Nature has to be symmetric. This is can inhere in the substance, as you see snake a fundamental idea in philosophy as well as in a rope. So the jagat in a sense is satya in science. Why should Nature be because it has as its substratum, Brahman, symmetric? Because symmetry is beauty. which is holding it. Again, it is mithyà in the We say, ‘Oh, you have a beautiful figure!’ sense that change is constantly happening Why? My two hands have the same length. there. Remember the wave and the ocean Suppose, my one hand is not the same like analogy. There is an ocean which is constant the other, then you say it is very ugly. Why over which the waves are playing. ugly? Because it is asymmetric. An axis of So in science, apart from change, we symmetry is what gives beauty. At the time talk about invariance. This also is a very of Saraswati puja or Kàli puja, what the important principle in fundamental science children do? They take a piece of paper and where the idea of symmetry is joined with fold it and then cut it randomly. And when the idea of invariance. There is a famous they open it, it is a beautiful pattern. Pattern theorem called the Noether theorem. is not beautiful. They create an axis of Noether is a female scientist, very rare to symmetry. Symmetry is beauty and Nature find in physics, who came up with a fantastic has to be beautiful—Satyam, Shivam, theorem in which it is said that every Sundaram. That is the fundamental principle of invariance, conservation characteristic of Nature. Nature has to be principle, is related to a particular symmetry symmetric—radiation and matter are two of Nature. Symmetry and invariance always fundamental offsprings of mother Nature. If exist together. They lead to one another. radiation has particle characteristics— Therefore the principle of invariance gives particles should have wave characteristics; changelessness to objects and the change is otherwise it is not symmetric. Broglie came because of the perception which you have. out with the fantastic idea of wave-particle The particle and the wave, both are contrary dualism which was revolutionary in thought entities, but they are not contradictory and people called him almost mad. When it entities in the sense they can inhere in the is a particle, how can it be a wave? same substratum, called—‘you do not know Later on came the electron experiments. what’. Don’t call it matter, don’t call it Much later, when Electromicroscope came, wave. There is a substratum which cannot be

Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 13 SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

defined, which cannot be explained. It is bow down to You. Whatever Your nature, I anirvacaniya (inexpressible) which bow down to That.’ manifests sometimes as a particle, So in science, in physics, we say sometimes as a wave. A. S. Eddington wrote scientifically that these are two a beautiful book called ‘The Nature of the manifestations which could exist in the same Physical World’ where it is humorously reality which really cannot be perceived. stated what an electron actually does. On What is an electron? Schrodinger, the father Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays it of wave mechanics, came and said: We behaves like a particle and on Thursdays, don’t know what it is. It is a complex wave Fridays and Saturdays, it behaves like a function. So this is from the scientific point wave. And on Sundays, it sits on the fence! of view. They simply pray. That means you can call it either a particle or a wave. You call it a Psychological point of view wavicle. A wavicle means the nature of the Now look at the issue from the object itself is indefinable. It could be either psychological point of view. The most a particle or a wave. important thing from this viewpoint is to live You come to religion and spirituality a life of peace, harmony and blessedness. which deal with the nature of God. Is God Whatever physics or mathematics you may with form or without form? Sri Ramakrishna talk about, according to this view, it is better asked ‘M.’ this fundamental question. ‘M.’ to be a fool and intensely happy than immediately got flabbergasted. How can that becoming a great physicist who is extremely object which has a form be formless at the unhappy. So psychologically you need a same time? he wondered. How can both be changeless entity to give meaning to life. real at the same time? How can a white This is a very important point to recognize. liquid like milk be black at the same time? Many people laugh and say ‘I don’t believe He was completely confused. in God’. What do you believe in? ‘I don’t This is the idea of pluralism in which believe anything.’ If this be your state, you the contraries exist without contradiction. will become mad. So you have to believe in That is to say, two things can exist at the something. That means you have to same time. As electron cannot be detected, emphasize something which is unchanging its nature cannot be found out. And when so that change can have meaning. Change you try to find it out, detect it, it immediately does not have meaning unless there is an manifests either as a particle or a wave. It is unchanging entity, which is the substratum only your measuring apparatus which of all changes. If everything is changing reveals it in the way you would like to see it. what is the meaning of life? I will tell you a So what is the nature of God is not known simple joke. There was a Prof. Wiener in and the human mind can’t grasp It. Speech MIT. He was a great mathematician who can’t reach It. When you try to reach It, you always used to forget very common things. reach It either as form or formless. One day his wife told him: See, Professor, Therefore, in the ‘Shivamahimnastotra’ the we are moving to a new place. This is the poet Pushpadanta says, ‘tava tattvam na new address and this is the new telephone jànàmi kidrisho’si maheshvara / yàdrisho’si number. Please don’t drive back to the old mahàdeva tàdrishàya namo namah // ’ ‘O, home. Got it? Lord! I do not know Your real nature. So I The Professor said, Ok, I’ll remember,

14 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 PLURALISM AND UNITY and he put the small piece of paper in his meaning to these changing entities is that pocket. But the moment he went to the unchanging entity called the One. The One university, some bright idea struck him. He enhances the value of this world. The zeroes took out the piece of paper from his pocket without the One are meaningless and the to write down the idea and scribbled One without zeroes is only One. All the something. But in no time he found that the zeroes, as it were, got subsumed and fused idea wouldn’t work and in frustration threw into the One. The glory of the One is that It away the paper. manifests Itself in the many if It likes or In the evening, as he drove back to the simply remain as the One if It doesn’t like old home, he realized ‘Oh! this is not my to become the many. People commonly new house! But where is the paper that ask—Why the God manifests as many? contained the new address my wife gave?’ Why does He make us suffer? The lilà It’s gone! Then, suddenly a bright idea came theory of Vedanta says, God does all this to him. He reasoned: Everybody knows me out of fun. It is His lilà. Swami and there is a small girl sitting there. I will Vivekananda said this to : take her help. So he moved forward and You Westerners! You have all sorts of asked the girl: ‘My dear, can you tell me plans, plans and plans. In India, as you see, where Prof. Weiner has moved?’ The child we don’t have plans about anything and we smiled and said, ‘Dad! Mum knew you are very happy about it. would invariably forget the new address. Not that everybody is unhappy. People That is why she put me here.’ sometimes grumble, yet we are still going Of course, that was a joke. The daughter because, we say, all is His will, because we was interviewed later by a television channel have a theory of fun. Why did the One and she blushfully said, ‘No, dad was not become many? The One thought, as it were, that forgetful’. that I am very lonely. Let Me for a change, If everything is changing, life will have for fun, become many—‘eko’ham no meaning. So, you need to have something bahusyàm’. which is unchanging, undecaying, immutable, absolute so that the relative will Sociological aspect have meaning. It’s all philosophy and Lastly, let us look into the sociological complicated. So I will give a simple example aspect of this problem of pluralism. It says, from Sri Ramakrishna—the example of one every theory in its own right is true, but and zero. Suppose somebody says, ‘Swami, I partially true. None is absolutely true. There want to give a huge donation for the can’t be any absolute theory about anything Vivekananda University. Please come.’ With in this universe which can be articulated by great hope I go there and the gentleman the human mind and known by the human starts signing a cheque. I get curious to see mind. Now, if you have this idea in mind, the amount he is writing. I find he goes on you will immediately find all quarrels have putting zero, zero, zero, zero. After four ceased to exist. Maybe you have one zeroes I become impatient and ask ‘Are you perception; that is good. You may have kidding with me?’ He smiles and then puts some other perception; that is also good. one before the zeroes! I’ll end by referring to an illustration So the changing entities of the entire given by Sri Ramakrishna. According to this world are like zeroes. But what gives parable, someone was passing by a tree and

Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017 15 SWAMI ATMAPRIYANANDA

saw a small creature there. He said, ‘I saw a world put forward by scientists, creature, it’s so red’. Another person said, philosophers, are just an effort by the best of ‘Oh! I saw the same creature. But it’s human minds to grasp the Infinite Reality. yellow’. ‘No, I saw it’s green’, said another. Some people challenge us and say: O, you A big quarrel thus ensued. Then a person have so many theories about God; everybody sitting under the tree said: ‘I am sitting under is quarrelling. But what about science? The the tree and I have seen it. Sometimes it is scientists also hold so many theories and, as yellow, sometimes red, and yet at some other they say, the corridor of science is littered times green—sometimes even colourless.’ with the skeletons of discarded theories— Thus we cannot, however we may try, Newton’s theory, Einstein’s theory and so catch the Infinite, the Absolute, by our on. All these theories are only attempts to stupid little mind. Mathematical and all other grasp the reality of God. Each person has his logic simply fail. There is a theorem called own perception, his own frame of reference, the Godel’s theorem that says, consistency and each frame of reference is equally right and completeness cannot inhere in the same as the other frame of reference. Einstein in theory. A theory which is complete cannot his Theory of Relativity said, there is no be consistent and vice versa. That is, there preferential frame of reference. So every are certain fundamental true statements mind perceives the reality of the world, of which are neither provable nor disprovable God, of universe, of mind in its own unique within the framework of fundamental logic. way and appreciates it. It is like a This is the limitation of logic itself. This is supermarket. Earlier, there used to be the limitation of the human mind. Once you separate shops for varieties of things. Now understand that, you will not claim that you we have supermarkets. Suppose, you want to know everything. The Kena Upanishad purchase cloth from a supermarket which is (II.3) therefore declares: available on the third floor. What do you do? Do you set fire to the floors down below? Yasyàmatam tasya matam matam yasya na You don’t, because others will like to buy veda sah; something else. So, the conclusion is— Avijnàtam vijànatàm vijnàtamavijànatàm rejoice and be exceedingly glad and —‘He who says he does not know celebrate this variety and realize that the [Brahman], knows It; he who says he knows, Absolute or the Infinite can throw up does not know It. It is known to those who varieties of manifestations in this relative say they do not know It; It is not known to world and each one of them is equally real those who say they know It.’ from the point of view which you perceive it Therefore, all the theories about the but none of them is absolutely real. „

REFERENCES

1 Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works, 2 Ibid., Vol. III, p. 245. Vol. II. p. 85, Mayavati Memorial Edition, 3 Ibid., Vol. V, pp. 104-5. Advaita Ashrama. 4 Ibid., p. 104. * This article is based on the transcribed text of the Surrendra Paul Lecture delivered by Swami Atmapriyananda at the Institute on 28 December 2016. The swami is the Vice Chancellor of the Vivekananda University, Belur.

16 Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  September 2017