Last Sunday we discussed how Párthasárathi appears from the viewpoint of Vishuddha Advaetaváda. The propounders of Vishuddha Advaetaváda, especially Máyáváda, stress one thing in particular – that the difference between any two objects is upádhigata, or qualitative (this is accepted by all). But the very next moment they hasten to add that this upádhi [special quality] is not real, that it only exists in people’s imaginations. If we accept this contention, then we presuppose the existence of the one who does the imagining. Logically, we cannot accept that nothing is imagining – there must be something doing the imagining – and thus the existence of the imaginer has to be accepted. Now, what does this person imagine? He or she imagines upádhi. And what is that upádhi? “Nothing, for it does not exist!” they say. But then they hasten to add, “Well, it’s something which exists in the imagination.”

What is upádhi? In Sanskrit, upádhi refers to a special quality, whereas an ordinary quality or title is termed padavii. For example, there is a certain gentleman, Mr. Shriikánta Cat́t́opádhyáya. Shriikánta is his first name; Cat́t́opádhyáya is his surname. “Cat́t́opádhyáya” does not indicate any special quality but means an Upádhyáya Brahman scholar of Cátuti village (situated in the Rarh area of Bengal, west of the Bhagirathi River). If the same gentleman utilizes his scholarly qualities for the benefit of humanity, he will use the word “Bhat́t́ácárya” as his upádhi. Bhat́t́a means a Sanskrit scholar; ácárya means a person who utilizes his or her intellect for the benefit of others. So Shriikánta Cat́t́opádhyáya will write his name as Shriikánta Bhat́t́ácárya; that is, he will use his upádhi, not his padavii. If asked by someone, he will reply, “My padavii is Cat́t́opádhyáya, but my upádhi is Bhat́t́ácárya.”

Tayorvirodho’yam upádhikalpito na vástavah kashcidupádhireśah;
Iishádyamáyá mahadádikárańaḿ jiivasya káryyaḿ shrńu paiṋcakośam.

[The difference between the two (unit consciousness and Supreme Consciousness) really lies in their respective upádhis, differentiating faculties; there is no other substantial difference between the two. Prakrti acts upon Puruśa in order to bring about the creation, from the “I exist” feeling down to the state of crudest matter. O human beings composed of the five fundamental factors, remember this.]

What is the difference between the jiivas and Parama Puruśa? The difference lies in upádhi. If we say that the difference is only upádhi saḿkránta [qualitative], then I must accept that they both have the same padavii, or common quality, and that the difference lies only in upádhi. Indirectly, it is accepted that the qualities which exist to a limited extent in the jiivas exist in Parama Puruśa to the fullest possible extent. On this point, there is no difference of opinion. It is accepted that the jiivas and Parama Puruśa possess the same qualities in different degrees, but that Parama Puruśa possesses a special quality. If I believe in this proposition, then I must also admit the existence of the jiivas. If we then say that the jiivas do not have this special quality, and only Parama Puruśa has it, then there remain four factors: (1) jiiva, (2) Shiva [Consciousness], (3) common quality and (4) special upádhi [quality] of Shiva. Then where does advaetaváda stand? It is not advaetaváda or non-dualism, it is caturauṋgaváda or quadrupleism! If one accepts the existence of these four factors and still dances to the tune of advaetaváda, it will be as if one is doing one thing, saying something else, and thinking something completely different. This is surely hypocrisy.

The contradictions do not end here. The propounders of advaetaváda go one step further and say that this upádhi belongs not only to Shiva, or Parama Puruśa, but also to the jiivas to a lesser degree. And how does the upádhi of the jiivas work? They claim that due to the upádhi of Parama Puruśa, the quinquelemental factors – the perceptible world of solid, liquid, luminous, aerial and ethereal – have emerged, and that due to the upádhi of the jiivas, jiivasya káryyaḿ shrńu paiṋcakośam [“O human beings composed of the five fundamental factors, remember this”] – this physical body of five fundamental factors, having eyes, ears, nose, intelligence, personality, joy, sorrow, etc., has been created. But they also say, Na vastavah kashcid upadhiresah [“In reality upádhi of any sort does not exist”], and thereby make everything even more confusing. After saying so much about upádhi, they finally say that there is no upádhi! So you can fully understand what a great hypocrisy it is!

The people of those days did not think deeply about anything. They used to take things very easily so it was not difficult to get away with all these self-contradictory ideas. The enlightened people of today, however, will never accept such things.

Etávupádhi Parah jiivayostayoh samyaunnirásena Parah na jiivah;
Rájyaḿ narendrasya bhat́asya khet́akastayorapohena bhat́o na rájá.

[These upádhis, differentiating marks, are characteristics of both the Supreme Subject and of the unit. Once these marks are obliterated, the microcosm will become the Macrocosm – just as a single individual will be considered a king if he has a kingdom, a warrior if he is holding a club. Take away these differentiating marks, and it will be difficult to distinguish between the two.]

Here they outline people’s duties. I cannot understand how they can prescribe the dos and don’ts of those whose very existence they have already denied. However, it is mentioned that there is a qualitative difference between the jiivas and Parama Puruśa: Samyaunnirásena Parah na jiivah. They argue that if the jiivas and Parama Puruśa are divested of their respective special qualities, then they will become one. The one who cuts grass with a scythe is a grass-cutter and the one who plays a drum is a drummer. If you remove the drum from the drummer and the scythe from the grass-cutter, then according to the advaetavádiis, the two will become one. I must contradict this by saying that they will not become one, but will still keep their separate identities. At best we can say that the drummer is no longer a drummer, but an ordinary person, and the grass-cutter is no longer a grass-cutter, but an ordinary person as well. But their separate identities are not lost. The only difference is that each has lost his upádhi, the drum or the scythe. So how can we accept the argument that when the upádhis are removed from Parama Puruśa and the jiivas, they become one? Furthermore, the most important thing is that they have already said that there is no upádhi. When upádhi itself is non-existent, then there is no question of removing it.

For many centuries people have been exploiting the gullibility of the masses through this sort of intellectual extravaganza. This has harmed the Indian people enormously. The followers of advaetaváda learned how to deceive themselves. The worst crime is self-deception. One should never encourage any dogma or self-deception. Cheating others is a heinous crime, and if you do that society will certainly criticize you. If you deceive yourself, however, no one will criticize you, no one will know of it, but ultimately you will certainly suffer irreparable damage.

Rájyaḿ narendrasya bhattasya khetakastayorapohena bhat́o na rájá. In this shloka it is mentioned that if we give a kingdom (an upádhi) to one person we will call him a king; and if we give a club (another upádhi) to another person, we will call him a fighter. If we remove the kingdom from the king, and the club from the fighter, they are no longer a king and a fighter, but they are not one.

If we analyse Parthasárathi in the light of this upádhiváda, what do we find? Párthasárathi exhorts people: “Take up arms against injustice, against adharma, with courage and determination.” Whom does He exhort? He exhorts those people in the world who have both padavii and upádhi. Here upádhi means being human. This is how the individual identity of a human being has been accepted.

So, this upádhiváda cannot stand before Párthasárathi. He gave recognition to the uneducated and persecuted masses – those who had been neglected and humiliated for many centuries. And for their emancipation, He united the various kings of India and waged war against crime and injustice. Moreover, He also inspired others to participate in the struggle against adharma. His entire life was dedicated to this cause, and this cause alone. He entrusted the charge of His kingdom to His brother, Balarama, and His wife, Satyabháma, and travelled the length and breadth of the then India to awaken socio-spiritual consciousness and arouse an anti-persecution sentiment. Thus Párthasárathi was poles apart from the eternal conflict between upádhiváda and anupádhitva. Upádhiváda is alien to Párthasárathi. He exhorts people not only to wage war against injustice and adharma, but also teaches them how to live in peace and prosperity, and how to make progress in spiritual life.

Human existence is tri-stratumic. Only when there is a happy adjustment amongst the three strata can human beings tread the path of spirituality. In the absence of a proper adjustment, everything disintegrates and falls into ruin. It may be that many good people who became sannyásiis [renunciants] did so initially for the good of humanity, but that later their minds changed when they had to confront the stark reality of hunger. At first perhaps they had thought that they would knock at only five houses for alms, and follow mádhukarii vrtti,⁽¹⁾ but they found that they could not subsist in that way. As a result they may have decided to try ten houses, then fifteen, and so on. Their greed instinct increased, and little by little they became caught in the python noose of all sorts of sin.

The rule is that if an honest person leading an honest life solves the mundane problems of procuring the basic necessities of life while moving towards the divine goal, he or she will never become downfallen. But all too often people remain enslaved to their stomachs and creature comforts. And if the social order is defective, even good people go astray and meet their demise. But Párthasárathi wanted to create a society based on dharma, or in His language, dharmarájya, a moralistic social order. He wanted to bring about progress in the physical, psychic and spiritual spheres. Upádhiváda completely denied the material side of life. Had they attempted to bring about the psychic well-being of people, it would have been better than nothing, for if people could have found some mental happiness, even on an empty stomach, then physical deprivation would not have been so hard to bear.

Sarpáh pivanti pavanaḿ na ca durbaláste,
Shuśkae strńaervanagajáh balinah bhavanti.
Kandaerphalaeh munibaráh kśapayanti kálam,
Santośa eva puruśasya paramaḿ nidhánam.

“Snakes live on air, but it does not make them weak. Forest elephants live on dry grass, yet they do not lose their strength. The sages live on roots and fruits, yet they remain hale and hearty. Thus it is contentment which is the root of all happiness.” I will agree that contentment is the prime factor for mental happiness. In upádhiváda, however, psychic satisfaction has not been given any place, because the psychic world of ideas, feelings and thoughts has been denied. Even the forces of Máyá which operate in the individual are denied. Thus ultimately only a theoretical Brahma remains who has no relationship whatsoever with the jiivas. This sort of dangerous doctrine has acted upon the minds of the Indian people for the past 1300 years, bringing them to the brink of disaster.

Our Párthasárathi is just the antithesis of upádhiváda. He wanted to establish dharmarájya for the physical and psychic well-being of humanity. Here psychic well-being means absolute freedom from dogma. The weaknesses and imperfections which have been infecting people’s minds for so long, now lie like a dead weight upon the mind, crippling its capacity for free and independent thought. As a result, a sort of psychic vacuum has been created. This state of affairs has lasted for centuries.

The influence of dogma on the human mind is peculiar. A patient may know that a certain medicine will cure his or her disease, yet will pray and make offerings to a certain deity. This is only due to a fear complex created by dogma. Or suppose an epidemic has broken out. As a rule, people should be very cautious in this situation. It is common sense that the food from the house of one affected by the epidemic should not be sent to anyone else’s house. However, a pújá [act of worship] is often performed in the patient’s house, and the prasáda [offerings] is distributed to all the other houses in the neighbourhood. This is how the epidemic spreads!

Or, why are there so many god and goddesses? People know that they are all nonsense, yet they cannot think of going beyond the pale of dogma which lies like a dead weight on their minds.

In order to free human beings from this senseless attachment to the past born out of dogma, Párthasárathi said, Klaevyaḿ másmagam Pártha – “O Pártha [Arjuna], never encourage this sort of dogma, this weakness, this psychic inertness. Go ahead and do your duty.”

This duty is to take all humanity to the path of well-being, to free them from bondage, and to place the leadership in the hands of those who follow the path of dharma – those who put the welfare of others above their own. Therefore Párthasárathi’s existence was diametrically opposed to Vishuddha Advaetaváda, a clear antithesis to upádhiváda. No relationship between them ever existed in the past, nor does exist in the present. Suffering humanity should accept Párthasárathi as their ideal. They should not be expected to accept the visionary idealism of Máyáváda, or the fantasies of upádhiváda, or any philosophical rigmarole. These things have no practical value in human life.

Footnotes

(1) Traditionally sannyásiis were only permitted to beg for alms at five houses. Mádhukarii vrtti: the “propensity of a honey-bee” is that it moves around collecting food, but does not try to save anything for the next day. –Eds.