Bhagavatam-daily 290 – 11.13.23 – Both spiritual and material monism are fallacious

Krishna bhagvatam 11.13.23 panchaatma keshubhuteshu samaneshu chavastutha ko bhavantiva prashno vacharambho yanarthakaha so here the lord in his form as hamsa is answering the question that the sages have raised the kumaras have raised and he is answering to a rhetorical counter question so he says that you asked who am I but you but what is the meaning of this question vacharambho yanarthakaha the word that you are speaking yanarthakaha they are meaningless how because if we are all essentially spiritual and everything spiritual is essentially one then you and I are one and we are one then what is the point in declaring the need in enquiring we are one not just know each other we are one so if there is doctrinally we accept the doctrine of oneness absolute ontological oneness of being then the question becomes meaningless so normally we use the word monism in spiritual terms where we talk about monism is one substance in existence so we normally use monism in spiritual terms there is only one spiritual substance in existence now there can be another kind of monism that is material monism where people think that there is only matter that exists and all matter is at a fundamental level constituted of one kind of matter so that is materialistic monism and that same thing if we say that all matter is not irreducibly divisible to one fundamental component so then there are different ways of analyzing it so if we say there are five fundamental elements then the question asked over here is so if there is only one element then also the question comes up then also if the lord is material and we are material and there is only one material that makes up everyone then again the question comes up what is the question of asking anyone of anyone’s identity because this says spiritual monism or spiritual oneness reduces the question enquiry about identity to incoherence similarly material oneness also reduces that identity enquiry about identity to incoherence now moving further if we look at the point of the further analysis of material elements into their components then it can be analyzed into 5 elements or 24 elements or different ways there are different modes of analysis here Krishna refers to one of those modes that is the analysis into 5 elements and in that connection Krishna states that all of us we make up 5 elements and the same 5 elements will animate all of us and rather than focusing on the individuality of everyone of us the question can focus on the identity of the 5 who make all of us so who are the 5 who make everything up that could be the fundamental question and here the lord in this way is telling them that he is using the word vipra and the word vipra means one who is learned so the lord is prompting them to rise towards the real learning by by pointing out the problem with the presumption of impersonalism with the presumption of not having any ultimate foundation for inquiry even everything becomes one now the kumaras may say that but you are also asking us you are talking with us as if we are different from you so then isn’t it that you are also accepting the concept of two-ness and isn’t it that for a practical level when we are functioning in this world we function with the assumption of two-ness but we understand that once we become enlightened we will go beyond these assumptions and then there is oneness so so the mayavadis talk about the gavaharic and the paramarthic levels of reality and they argue that in the gavaharic level there is in the gavaharic level there is the concept of difference but at a paramarthic level at a transcendental level then there is the notion of difference has to be transcended so now this raises the issue that why would an enlightened person see two-ness at all if everyone is enlightened or if one is enlightened then one will not see the two-ness one will see only the one-ness so it’s not that impersonalism does not allow for two levels of reality to exist just like in the Vaishnava understanding matter and spirit both are real and material is one level of reality spiritual is another level of reality and our purpose is to rise from the material to the spiritual level of reality but while we have a body we have to function at the material level also and then we try to connect the material with the spiritual for that purpose but in the case of impersonalism the idea is that the material simply doesn’t exist only the whole conception of the material is an illusion so enlightenment means breaking from the illusion so it’s not like one can be here and one can go there but that if one is here at enlightenment according to their conception then there is no there left where one can go and that’s the concept of enquiry between two people becomes reduced to incoherence and Sri Madhavacharya writes that their prestigious question about the lord, identity of the lord is improper because they should have simply expected the point that the lord is worshipped, that their own father and spiritual master is worshipping this manifestation of the lord so they too should have worshipped him instead of raising questions about who he is and what he is doing so in this way this question about identity, the lord points out its fallacy if one lives under a preconception or presumption of impersonalism of Advaita Vada