“To conceive everything as self is self-realization” – Mother. This saying quite agrees with the Upanishadic dictum – ‘Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma’.
‘The self (Aatman) is said to be soundless, touchless, formless, imperishable and also without taste and smell. How can then this self be realized?” asked Mother.
We cannot hear self because it is soundless, we cannot touch it because it is devoid of the quality of touch. We cannot as well see it for it is formless. Without hearing, touching and seeing how can one destroy anything? So, the self is rightly said as “imperishable”. Then the term “Self-realization” becomes evidently absurd. But this is not so.
To explain this saying, we have to go to the cause of creation. Then who is the cause of this creation?
Many religions say God is the cause of the creation. The Naturalists say that Nature is the cause of the creation or creation takes place by Nature. All theories of theism and atheism can conveniently be included in these two principal doctrines. If God has created the universe. Why should there be differences at all? Some people are sinners while others are virtuous. Some are suffering for nothing while others are enjoying life without doing any good thing. Here some scholars may prevail upon us that the theory of causality operates upon the entire creation. According to this theory, good effect is the result of good cause and bad effect is the result of bad cause. Then which is the First cause of all these causes? The first cause is the creator who is none but God. Why should God create some people as bad and some others as good? Why should he make some people suffer and some others happy? There must be some motive force behind all His actions. Then what is the basis for that motive force? Our past actions form the basis of that motive force. Who impels us to do actions? Because God creates everything. He should naturally impell all beings to do each and every action. Then why should He not motivate us to do good actions and make us happy only? The God who makes some people happy and others unhappy must be either a big fool or a partial fellow. The theorists who believe in the existence of God, on no account, can attribute either foolery or partiality to him.
If Nature is the cause of Creation why should it mix the creation with pleasure and pain? The Naturalists may argue that it is but natural for Nature also to create difference in the creation. We find very little difference between theism and atheism. Both theories can be called ‘dogmas’.
Let us see what Mother says here :
1.The cause for creation is no cause
- The totality is ‘Creation’.
These two sayings are pregnant with profound reality. Mother does not say which is the cause of the creation. She simply explains the nature of the cause of the creation. According to the Mother, that cause is causeless. The creation is quite spontaneous and natural. It has no beginning and end also. It is a continuous process. It is a reality. This reality is named as God by some people and as Nature by some others. Some may call it ‘Time’ while others prefer to explain it as power or Brahman. You may call it by whatever name you like. But that is a reality which is the sole cause to the entire creation. When the very cause of the creation is causeless and beyond all explanation, the parts of the creation also cannot be explained. We can at best explain the intermediary stages of creation. Science also can explain only the ‘how’ of things but not the ‘why’ of them. The duels and the differences in creation are also parts of that sole reality which cannot be denied or escaped. Pleasures and pains do come and go according to the cosmic law of that reality. So none needs to be blamed or praised. Our trials and achievements, preachings and philosophies, causes and effects and so on are only intermediaries that can be explained and supported or denounced. It is immaterial whether God or Nature is the cause of the creation. Accordingly we need not blame either God or nature for the so-called differences in Nature because they are natural and inevitable. Human effort and God’s grace are relative truths, but not the real ones. They cannot also be denied. For example, space and time have no beginning and end. But they are also being limited and measured by matter and events. Some achievements are caused by human effort and some unusual things happen by God’s grace. But these achievements and happenings are controlled and directed by the Cosmic Law. They are in tune with the cosmic plan or law.
So God is neither a big fool nor a partial fellow. He is nothing but the Reality. This reality can be named cosmic law or plan or nature too.
We shall now see how the creation is caused. Mother says that the totality individualized is called ‘creation’. How and when did this totality exist and how is it later individualized? The totality and the individualisation also are the relative terms. For the sake of convenience, we can cite gold and its transformation into different ornaments, as an example for totality and individualisation. The seed is a totality which grows and transforms into a tree with its branches, flowers etc., Which is the first totality that forms the basis for the emergence of all the different ‘totalities’? That first totality was or is of course, nowhere. It is only in the concept. It is nothing but the absolute reality. To analyze this point, we have to go to the term ‘Self-Realization’. The self was never one. It always exists in the form of ‘many’. Because the self is said to be without beginning and without end. It is limitless. If it is felt or seen or touched or described it becomes limited. The concept of dualists that Iswara and Jeeva are quite different fails to convince us of the soundness and justifiability for the very origin of dualities in the creation. The dualistic approach seems to be really unscientific and illogical also. So the advaita philosophy alone can explain, on rationalistic and realistic basis, the nature of dualities in the creation. Again Advaita means Advaita in concept but not in action. Because the creation is bound to be ‘many’ the underlying reality in the ‘many’ is but one. If that is realized, the self is realized. That is the meaning of the word ‘Self-realization’, as I understood Mother. –
If we see everything as the self or the self in everything, it is self-realization or Atma Sakshatkara. The upanishadic teaching says that ‘all this is but Brahman’. Aatman, Brahman, Shakti, Prakriti etc., are only synonyms to the one reality!
(One of the rare articles of Dr. Pannala Radhakrishna Sarma in English. Reproduced from ‘Matrusri’ (English) Journal of 1975 – Vol. 10, No. 6)