Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

The simile to understand soul is not God


Recommended Posts

The simile to understand soul is not God


A golden jar with a small golden handle is present. It is filled with milk. The milk is identified with the jar. When we say "take that golden jar", it means that you should take the milk. Since milk cannot be directly taken without jar, the milk is identified with the jar. The jar is the identified form of the milk. By this, you can treat the jar as milk and milk as the jar. This does not mean that the milk is actually the jar or the jar is actually the milk. The milk is not transformed into the jar or vice-versa. The identity of the milk with the jar is only an assumption, valid for all the practical purposes. Here, the milk is the un-imaginable God and the golden jar is the infinite cosmic energy. The small handle of the jar is the soul. The philosophy of Shankara can be understood in terms of milk, jar and handle. The handle (soul) and the jar (cosmic energy) are one and the same qualitatively since both are made of gold.


Therefore, the handle (soul) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) neglecting the quantitative difference. Now, the milk (un-imaginable God) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) since the jar (cosmic energy) is the identified form of the milk (un-imaginable God). The conclusion is that since milk (un-imaginable God) is equal to jar (cosmic energy) and jar (cosmic energy) is equal to handle (soul), the handle (soul) is equal to milk (un-imaginable God). The final conclusion is that the soul becomes the un-imaginable God! This is a mathematical derivation and the final conclusion is a fun.


When the big jar itself is not actually the milk, can the small handle become the milk? But, this conclusion was essential to convert the atheists into theists. When the atheist is told as God, the atheist will not deny the existence of God because if God is non-existent, he himself becomes non-existent. At least, the atheist becomes theist and all this magic of logic is necessary for such conclusions. Shankara converted the atheists into theists through His intellectual logic. You should not feel that Shankara is believing that the soul is God. He brought out the quantitative difference between jar and handle to differentiate the jar containing milk and the handle without milk (satyapi bhedaapagame...). He accepted the quantitative difference between the soul and infinite cosmic energy, comparing the soul to a wave and the infinite cosmic energy to the mighty ocean. He differentiated the jar and handle by neglecting the qualitative similarity. He further stated that the handle is a part of the jar containing the milk. Here, the jar is taken for milk since jar is the identified form of the milk. Now He said that the handle is a part of the milk and the milk means the identified jar. The assumption of milk as jar is retained. But, the assumption of handle as the jar through qualitative similarity is denied.



This means out of the two assumptions, one assumption (jar standing for milk) is retained and the other assumption (the handle standing for jar) is removed. Since the ego of atheists is reduced to some extent, only one assumption is released. Madhva released the second assumption also stating that the milk indicated by jar is totally different from the handle. In fact, even the jar is not milk and is totally different form the milk. But however, the jar contains milk and hence stands for milk, whereas the handle does not contain milk and can never stand for milk. This means that the cosmic energy is also totally different form the un-imaginable God but at least it can stand for God since it is the container of God. The soul is not containing God and hence, the soul can be totally rejected to have any identification with God. In fact, even the identification of God with cosmic energy is only an assumption and therefore even the cosmic energy is totally different from God like the soul. This total difference is emphasized by Madhva. Ramanuja acted as a bridge of this transformation of concept from Shankara to Madhva. The total similarity of Shankara called as monism (Advaita) is transformed into the total difference or dualism (Dvaita) of Madhva in course of time, as the atheists are transformed into devotees. Shankara transformed the strong atheists into theists. Ramanuja transformed theists into devotees. Madhva transformed the devotees into strong devotees. Hence, the three preachers transformed a strong atheist into a strong devotee in course of time through sequential steps according to the stepwise transformation of psychology of the people. The difference in the three preachers is not the difference between the three preachers but is the difference between the psychologies of gradually progressing students.


Universal Spirituality for World Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...