[FairfieldLife] Guru Dev - Paramatma (God) is both Manifest and Unmanifest
"In the same way that agni (fire) is always present in wood and becomes produced by rubbing, in that way Paramatma attracts and by prayer becomes manifest." "If you accept Paramatma is All-Powerful then how can you say afterwards that he is not with form or that he is really shapeless? If you have been accepting that Paramatma is All-Powerful, it is improper to say that he is nirakara (formless), that he is not having form. When he is said to be free and independent then what can he not be and what can he not do? Bhagwan is nirguna (without qualities) and saguna (endowed with qualities). For example we give agni (fire), who is complete everywhere. Agni is also in water, agni is also in dry land, agni is also in wood, so there is no place where agni is not. This is valid and undeniable, that agni is pervasive. Like agni, Paramatma is pervasive everywhere. In that sliver of firewood agni is situated in that nirakara aspect. If you throw the sliver into the fireplace and pray agni to burn, but by prayer agni will not burn. Whilst nirakara (formless), agni cannot manifest, agni cannot do a little work until it is sakara (with form). Agni will stay nirguna (without qualities), but cannot do your work. In a similar way to agni being nirguna (without quality), so Paramatma is nirakara (formless). Parabrahma (Supreme Soul) is everywhere, in the animate and inanimate, completely pervading everywhere, also is not doing any of your work. When there will be some work then will be sakara (having form) with Brahma. If you get a guru then the agni can manifest, rub the sliver of wood inside and accept the mind's desire. Until the nirakara is sakara then Bhagwan cannot be manifest, of necessity He cannot do any work. This quotation is said in the Gita:- " yadaa yadaa hi dharmasya glaanirbhavati bhaarata .abhyutthaanamadharmasya tadaatmaanaM sR^ijaamya.aham .. " -[Bhagavad Gita 4:7] That is to say; `I become sakara (with form) from the nirakara (the formless).' When? At whatever time dharma declines and adharma grows. Then! For what does Bhagwan become sakara (with form) from being nirakara (without form)? We tell you; this has been told:- "paritraaNaaya saadhuunaaM , vinaashaaya cha dushhkR^itaam .dharma saMsthaapanaarthaaya saMbhavaami yuge yuge .. " -[Bhagavad Gita 4:8] `For the welfare of sadhus and for the destruction of the wicked I am manifest and for the estsablishment of dharma I am manifest.' By the word "sadhu" don't understand it to be the ones who have red-brown tilak marking, or mala of beads around the neck. The meaning of the word "sadhu" is `good', the person who has a good disposition, that man exists as a sadhu. That man accepts the code of conduct of the Veda Shastra, whose faith is in tending his own religion. Really, for the welfare of them, Bhagwan becomes the avataar (incarnation). If Bhagwan will not come in sakara form then he cannot regulate the world. The regulation of a thing can only be done in a similar form. In the way that we are sitting here, if you people bring a "loudspeaker" and place it in front of me then and I will sit maun (silent) then what will be the advantage to you? The nirakara (formless) is really a similar form as me sitting completely motionless in silence. From our remaining in maun what will be the advantage for you people? From nirakara Bhagwan there is not any advantage until he will come in the sakara form. That statement is such as it is. We are telling it like that. We are informing you people the standpoint of the Veda Shastra, not telling any speech from my own side. I am making a clear impression by investigation of the doctrine. This is not our concern whether those who listen enjoy, or who will be displeased. We are not doing anything to gladden and not saying anything to please. Those people of the nirakara - Such it is that we also accept the nirakara but not that nirakara alone and not accepting sakara. Really in this way those who are people of nirakara, really we would ask from those very people, `Can there be any profit from agni, shapeless in a sliver of firewood?' Show how to make any roti (flat bread) from shapeless agni. The nirakara form then is merely only existence. That person who meditates on the formless, in that connection we ask how did you meditate on nirakara? If you are to make contemplation then you will continue the vritti, but how can you make a meditation of the nirakara (formless)? You cannot make meditation of nirakara. If anyone says that they meditate on nirakara then it is like stating that there is a son of a childless woman is going in a marriage procession. There is not really a son of a barren woman, then of what kind is the marriage procession? When there is not any mark or form of the nirakara then how is meditation of it made? You should have some basis to consolidate the vritti (fluctuations of the mind). That which is the basis, that really will be sakara (hav
[FairfieldLife] Guru Dev: Paramatma [God] is both Manifest and Unmanifest
Manifest and Unmanifest Some people fight over the distinction between the manifest and the unmanifest. If you believe that Paramatman is almighty, then how can you say, "He isn't manifest," or "He remains unmanifest." To believe that Paramatman is almighty, but to insist that He is unmanifest only, is a complete contradiction. When you say Paramatman is completely free and independent, then how could you believe it is not possible for Him to take any form, or to think He is not able to do something? To explain how God exists both with qualities and without, I will give one example. Agni (fire and also the Divine aspect of God associated with fire) is everywhere. Agni is even in water. Agni is in every solid thing. There is no place where fire does not exist. We know without doubt that fire is all-pervasive. Like fire, Paramatman is all-pervasive. Fire exists unmanifest even in a splinter of wood. If you put the splinter into the fireplace and pray for it to burn, it will not. Until fire takes form from formlessness, it can be of no use. Fire may exist without qualities, but [in this state] it will be useless for you. Similarly, the unqualified, unmanifest Parabrahman is all-pervasive in creation, and like the unmanifest fire, it is useless to you. If anything is to be accomplished in this world, it will only be done by the manifest Brahman (God in the relative). With the help of the guru, the disciple can light the splinter from within and make use of this manifest form as he sees fit. As long as God does not manifest Himself from the formless, He can do absolutely nothing for us. In the same context, the Bhagavad Gita says:- yada yadah dharmasya glanir bhavati bharata | abhyutthanamadharmasya tadatmanam srijamyaham || 'Atmanam srijami' means, "When I take form from formlessness." When? "When dharma is on the decline and adharma is on the rise." Why does the Lord have to take on a form from within the formless? It explains this by saying:- paritranaya sadhunan vinashaya cha dushkritam | dharma sansthapanarthaya sanbhavami yuge yuge || "For the benefit of the good and to destroy the evil, I manifest myself and I establish dharma." Don't take the word sadhu here to mean those who wear ochre robes or sectarian marks on their foreheads or sacred rosaries.The meaning of the word sadhu is this - sadhus are good-natured people with good hearts, who respect the limits set by Vedas and Shastras and who have faith in their own enjoined duties and follow them. Bhagavan's avatars (Incarnations of God) are for the welfare of those people. If Bhagavan does not assume a manifest form, then the world cannot be orderly. The nature of a thing determines its use. For example, if you bring a mircrophone and place it in front of me, but I sit silently, then it will serve no purpose. The unmanifest is like me sitting silent. If I always sit silent, what benefit can there be for you all? No profit can be derived from the unmanifest Bhagavan until He assumes a form. I am telling you the way it is. I must explain these teachings strictly as they are told in the Vedas and Shastra, and not to expound my own thinking. My duty is to explain the teachings clearly. In this respect, I do not care whether the words are pleasing to one or irritating to another. I neither need to please nor to antagonize anybody. Still, I question those people who propound only the unmanifest. In fact, I also accept the unmanifest, but not the unmanifest alone. I ask those who propound only the formless: Can any profit be derived from the unmanifest fire which is hidden in a piece of wood? Please show me any bread cooked by an unmanifest fire. The formless is only Being. I would like to ask those people who meditate only on the formless, how do you meditated on the unmanifest? The mind can only concentrate on an object of meditation, so how can one make the unmanifest an object of meditation? Concentration on the unmanifest is not possible. If someone says that he concentrates on the formless, it is like saying that he is going to attend the wedding of the son of a barren woman. Well, the son of a barren woman does not exist, so how can he marry? When there is no form or outline to the unmanifest, how can one make it an object of meditation? To collect the mental formations, some foundation is necessary. Whatever is taken as the mind's foundation, that becomes the form. Formlessness is beyond all the trios, namely: meditation, meditator, and object of mediation; and knowledge, knower, and object that is known. Meditation on the formless is mere mockery. Only those who do not understand the principle of formlessness can talk about meditation [dhyana] on the formless. The principle of formlessness is merely for understanding; it is the principle of existence, but the world cannot derive any benefit from this principle. Can anybody derive any benefit from an unmanifest son? Can anybody go to an unmanifest school and study? Can any minister si
