Mind, intelligence and ego are the three separate modes of Chit
Shri Anil: General awareness or Chit is the basic material for all the four internal instruments. In such case, why the general awareness is very close to Chittam, the fourth internal instrument? You have mentioned Chittam as Chit while taking the meaning of Para Prakriti.]
Shri Swami: The general awareness (Chit) is also a thought only in which it is both subject (grasping awareness) and object (grasped item), which is taken as self-realization or self-awareness. Such general awareness is called as Chit. The same general awareness performs two functions:
Being thought or the process of awareness, it recognizes and becomes aware of the object and the object may be itself or some other item. In this function, this awareness is called as Chit (Samjnane).
The second function is to store all the significant thoughts and to recollect on requirement as memory. In this function, this same awareness is called as Chittam (Smaranecha).
Mind, intelligence and ego are the three separate modes of Chit. Chit already exists in its own original mode, which is not further modified to become Chittam. Both Chit and Chittam exist in the same primary original mode. Hence, Chit and Chittam are very close and can be represented by the same mode of general awareness. The difference is only in the functions. While doing the function of identification of self or some other object, it is called as Chit. While doing the function of preserving thoughts and recollecting, it is called as Chittam. Hence, either of these two can represent the other in the sense of the same mode. The other three internal instruments result when this chit takes up the other secondary modes to do different functions. Mind is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to have a dilemma of the thought. Intelligence is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to conclude the final fact to end the dilemma. Ego is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to maintain the identity of the self as the body. Of course, in the case of a realized soul the identity of itself i.e., general awareness (instead of the body) is maintained and thus, there is no difference between ego and general awareness in this special case. By this, the general awareness present in every living being becomes identical to the general awareness of such realized soul, who finds every living being as himself or herself. Therefore, Chit and Chittam are the same general awareness existing in the primary mode without the necessity of a secondary mode. Hence, both are very close to each other and each can represent the other in the sense of the same primary mode and can also differ from each other in the sense of the different functions.
The conclusion of all My strain to project this analysis is only to show that ‘Chit’ and ‘Chittam’ are one and the same and is only the work form of energy existing in the same primary mode so that Chit is taken as the fourth internal instrument. The word ‘Jeeva’ can stand for ‘Chit’ or ‘Chittam’ in the sense of the same primary mode. If you take Jeeva as Chit, the function of storage aspect is neglected. If you take Jeeva as ‘Chittam’, it is a store or bundle of certain strong thoughts, called as individual soul and here, general function of identification is neglected. All this effort is only to show that the general awareness represented as Chit or Chittam is not God and not even the basic inert cosmic energy that preserves this physical world. Hence, the word Para Prakiti represented by Chit or Chittam or basic inert cosmic energy is not God at all. Preservation of this physical world is done by the basic inert cosmic energy but further analysis shows that this basic inert cosmic energy is preserved by God and hence, this physical world is actually preserved by God. The general awareness (Jeeva) is neither God nor even the basic inert cosmic energy, which is the first creation of God (Tat Tejosrujata… Veda). Hence, this individual soul (Jeeva) can neither directly maintain the physical world like the basic inert cosmic energy nor indirectly maintain it as God.
This classification, in which Para Prakriti is taken as the basic inert cosmic energy, can be viewed as the classification of the imaginable effects without touching the actual root cause, the unimaginable God. The cosmic energy is also the effect of the root cause, God, since it was created by God. This cosmic energy can also be taken as the root cause for this entire world without reference to God while discussing the process of Creation with the help of imaginable entities only.
The word Prakriti stands for two types of meanings:
It means the root cause (Prakritih Mulakarane). The word Prakriti can have the interpretation as that root cause, which generates all the effects (Prakrushtam Kriyate Anayaa iti).
It means the effect generated from the cause (Prakrushtaa Kritih iti).
The first type of interpretation is taken by misconstrued Advaita Philosophy to drag God into this classification of two types of Prakriti and interpret the general awareness or Para Prakriti as the root cause i.e., God. In the word Para Prakriti, with the strength of support of the first type of meaning for the word Prakriti, you have dragged God into this classification. In such case, why don’t you extend the same interpretation to Apara Prakriti also, because the word Prakriti is common in both ‘Para’ and ‘Apara’? You can say that Apara Prakriti is also God because God is dragged here only by the word Prakriti and in such case Para and Apara are not significant.
Shri Anil: Para means higher type. Apara means lower type. Therefore, Para Prakriti is taken as God and Apara Prakriti is taken as the effect or creation. The cause is always given higher status than the effect. Hence, in the word Apara Prakriti, the Prakriti should be taken as the effect as per the second type of meaning.]
Shri Swami: There is no need of compulsion to use both types of meanings for the word Prakriti here and we can use only one type of meaning throughout this topic. I prefer to use only the second type of meaning throughout this present context. If we take the second type of interpretation only and treat the best effect as Para Prakriti and all other inferior effects as Apara Prakriti, there is no problem. The word Para can be the best of all the effects and need not always mean the root cause only. Similarly, the word Apara can be the other inferior set of effects and need not mean every effect only. The words Para and Apara refer to higher and lower natures only and have nothing to do with cause and effect. In such case, Para Prakriti need not be taken as root cause, God. The classification here can be taken as the division between the effects only and the root cause (first type of interpretation) need not be touched here.
Of course, if you are particular of bringing both types of interpretations here, it is also possible in the following mentioned way. The effects may also be causes for some other effects. However, no effect is the root cause (God), which is not the effect of any other cause. But, still, an effect can also be treated as the root cause within a fixed span of the chain of causes and effects. For example, Earth is the effect of the inert cosmic energy and the same earth is the cause for the pot. The pot is the cause of the broken pieces of the pot. I can fix a certain region only in this chain and start with the Earth treating it as the root cause. Therefore, the word ‘root cause’ need not be referred always to God only. The other effects like pot, pieces, etc., can be taken as the effects only as per the second type of meaning. The word Prakriti may have the possibility of other meaning (root cause) by way of first type of interpretation and thus, a particular effect can be treated as the root cause in a specific region of the sequential chain.
Moreover, if you analyze these two verses in the Gita about Para and Apara explaining both types of Prakriti, each type is said to be the Prakriti of God (Me Bhinnaa Prakritih…, Prakritim viddhi Me…). When both types of Prakriti belong to Him (Me), He cannot be any type of Prakriti. If one says that his property is of two types, he cannot be one type of his own property. This means, between both types of Prakriti or His creations, any type cannot be the Creator. Moreover, the word Prakriti is always used in the sense of Creation only and the Creator is indicated by the word ‘Purusha’ (Prakritim Purushamchaiva).
Shri Anil: The word Purusha also indicates the soul of living being, which is general awareness that pervades all over the body (Puri shete iti). God is said to be Purushottama, Who is Purusha Himself (Uttamah Purshastvanyah Paramaatmeti). Therefore, Para Prakriti, the general awareness, stands for Purusha, who is Purushottama Himself. Both the words Purusha and Uttama joined together result in the word Purushottama.]
Shri Swami: If you join both Purusha and Uttama to treat these two words as Purushottama Himself, the word Uttara in the comparative degree must have been used to mean that Purusha is greater than Prakriti. The word Uttama indicates the greatness of an item among the items, which are more than two (Superlative degree). Here, there are 3 items, which are more than two i.e., Prakriti, Purusha and Purushottama. You are trying to include the third category (Purushottama) in the second category (Purusha) itself. In such case, there are only two items i.e., Prakriti and Purusha or Purushottama and the use of superlative degree is objectionable. The word Purushottama means the greatest among the human beings. If all the human beings are one and the same and if Purusha stands only for one generalized individual soul, the word Purushottara (comparative degree) must have been used and not the word Purushottama (Superlative degree). This shows that Purushottama is not only different from all the human beings (Purushas) but also the human beings are different from each other. Madhva believes that the souls are also different from each other. The word Purusha in Purushottama indicates the incarnation of God as a human being. The Gita clearly says that the Purushottama is not only other than the Prakriti (Ksharamateetoham) but also other than Purusha (Aksharaadapi).
Here, the word ‘Anyah’ is misinterpreted by you as the one other than the first between the two. But, the correct interpretation is that the word Anyah means the one other than the two i.e., the third category. This correct interpretation is further supported by the next statement that God is beyond Prakriti and Purusha. If you take the Para Prakriti as the individual soul (Jeeva or Jeevaatmaa), the classification can be done as two types i.e., Prakriti, the Creation and Purusha, the God represented by a specific human being in the human incarnation. Alternatively, the classification can be done as 1) Prakriti, the lower type of Creation 2) Purusha, the higher type of Creation and 3) Purushottama, the God. In the classification of three categories, the Para Prakriti can be taken as ‘Chittam’ and Purusha can be taken as ‘Chit’ so that the repetition of the same in two places can be avoided. The difference between Chit and Chittam by way of the difference in the functions is already established.
Therefore, these two classifications belong to 1) the misconstrued Advaita Philosophy, which tries to make the general awareness as God by taking the support of several possibilities of theoretical interpretations finally failing in the practical general experience and 2) the correct philosophy, which differentiates the general awareness from God as a part of the Creation. Since these two classifications do not belong to a single philosophy, there is no contradiction.
Shri Swami: The general awareness (Chit) is also a thought only in which it is both subject (grasping awareness) and object (grasped item), which is taken as self-realization or self-awareness. Such general awareness is called as Chit. The same general awareness performs two functions:
Being thought or the process of awareness, it recognizes and becomes aware of the object and the object may be itself or some other item. In this function, this awareness is called as Chit (Samjnane).
The second function is to store all the significant thoughts and to recollect on requirement as memory. In this function, this same awareness is called as Chittam (Smaranecha).
Mind, intelligence and ego are the three separate modes of Chit. Chit already exists in its own original mode, which is not further modified to become Chittam. Both Chit and Chittam exist in the same primary original mode. Hence, Chit and Chittam are very close and can be represented by the same mode of general awareness. The difference is only in the functions. While doing the function of identification of self or some other object, it is called as Chit. While doing the function of preserving thoughts and recollecting, it is called as Chittam. Hence, either of these two can represent the other in the sense of the same mode. The other three internal instruments result when this chit takes up the other secondary modes to do different functions. Mind is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to have a dilemma of the thought. Intelligence is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to conclude the final fact to end the dilemma. Ego is the secondary mode in which Chit functions to maintain the identity of the self as the body. Of course, in the case of a realized soul the identity of itself i.e., general awareness (instead of the body) is maintained and thus, there is no difference between ego and general awareness in this special case. By this, the general awareness present in every living being becomes identical to the general awareness of such realized soul, who finds every living being as himself or herself. Therefore, Chit and Chittam are the same general awareness existing in the primary mode without the necessity of a secondary mode. Hence, both are very close to each other and each can represent the other in the sense of the same primary mode and can also differ from each other in the sense of the different functions.
The conclusion of all My strain to project this analysis is only to show that ‘Chit’ and ‘Chittam’ are one and the same and is only the work form of energy existing in the same primary mode so that Chit is taken as the fourth internal instrument. The word ‘Jeeva’ can stand for ‘Chit’ or ‘Chittam’ in the sense of the same primary mode. If you take Jeeva as Chit, the function of storage aspect is neglected. If you take Jeeva as ‘Chittam’, it is a store or bundle of certain strong thoughts, called as individual soul and here, general function of identification is neglected. All this effort is only to show that the general awareness represented as Chit or Chittam is not God and not even the basic inert cosmic energy that preserves this physical world. Hence, the word Para Prakiti represented by Chit or Chittam or basic inert cosmic energy is not God at all. Preservation of this physical world is done by the basic inert cosmic energy but further analysis shows that this basic inert cosmic energy is preserved by God and hence, this physical world is actually preserved by God. The general awareness (Jeeva) is neither God nor even the basic inert cosmic energy, which is the first creation of God (Tat Tejosrujata… Veda). Hence, this individual soul (Jeeva) can neither directly maintain the physical world like the basic inert cosmic energy nor indirectly maintain it as God.
This classification, in which Para Prakriti is taken as the basic inert cosmic energy, can be viewed as the classification of the imaginable effects without touching the actual root cause, the unimaginable God. The cosmic energy is also the effect of the root cause, God, since it was created by God. This cosmic energy can also be taken as the root cause for this entire world without reference to God while discussing the process of Creation with the help of imaginable entities only.
The word Prakriti stands for two types of meanings:
It means the root cause (Prakritih Mulakarane). The word Prakriti can have the interpretation as that root cause, which generates all the effects (Prakrushtam Kriyate Anayaa iti).
It means the effect generated from the cause (Prakrushtaa Kritih iti).
The first type of interpretation is taken by misconstrued Advaita Philosophy to drag God into this classification of two types of Prakriti and interpret the general awareness or Para Prakriti as the root cause i.e., God. In the word Para Prakriti, with the strength of support of the first type of meaning for the word Prakriti, you have dragged God into this classification. In such case, why don’t you extend the same interpretation to Apara Prakriti also, because the word Prakriti is common in both ‘Para’ and ‘Apara’? You can say that Apara Prakriti is also God because God is dragged here only by the word Prakriti and in such case Para and Apara are not significant.
Shri Anil: Para means higher type. Apara means lower type. Therefore, Para Prakriti is taken as God and Apara Prakriti is taken as the effect or creation. The cause is always given higher status than the effect. Hence, in the word Apara Prakriti, the Prakriti should be taken as the effect as per the second type of meaning.]
Shri Swami: There is no need of compulsion to use both types of meanings for the word Prakriti here and we can use only one type of meaning throughout this topic. I prefer to use only the second type of meaning throughout this present context. If we take the second type of interpretation only and treat the best effect as Para Prakriti and all other inferior effects as Apara Prakriti, there is no problem. The word Para can be the best of all the effects and need not always mean the root cause only. Similarly, the word Apara can be the other inferior set of effects and need not mean every effect only. The words Para and Apara refer to higher and lower natures only and have nothing to do with cause and effect. In such case, Para Prakriti need not be taken as root cause, God. The classification here can be taken as the division between the effects only and the root cause (first type of interpretation) need not be touched here.
Of course, if you are particular of bringing both types of interpretations here, it is also possible in the following mentioned way. The effects may also be causes for some other effects. However, no effect is the root cause (God), which is not the effect of any other cause. But, still, an effect can also be treated as the root cause within a fixed span of the chain of causes and effects. For example, Earth is the effect of the inert cosmic energy and the same earth is the cause for the pot. The pot is the cause of the broken pieces of the pot. I can fix a certain region only in this chain and start with the Earth treating it as the root cause. Therefore, the word ‘root cause’ need not be referred always to God only. The other effects like pot, pieces, etc., can be taken as the effects only as per the second type of meaning. The word Prakriti may have the possibility of other meaning (root cause) by way of first type of interpretation and thus, a particular effect can be treated as the root cause in a specific region of the sequential chain.
Moreover, if you analyze these two verses in the Gita about Para and Apara explaining both types of Prakriti, each type is said to be the Prakriti of God (Me Bhinnaa Prakritih…, Prakritim viddhi Me…). When both types of Prakriti belong to Him (Me), He cannot be any type of Prakriti. If one says that his property is of two types, he cannot be one type of his own property. This means, between both types of Prakriti or His creations, any type cannot be the Creator. Moreover, the word Prakriti is always used in the sense of Creation only and the Creator is indicated by the word ‘Purusha’ (Prakritim Purushamchaiva).
Shri Anil: The word Purusha also indicates the soul of living being, which is general awareness that pervades all over the body (Puri shete iti). God is said to be Purushottama, Who is Purusha Himself (Uttamah Purshastvanyah Paramaatmeti). Therefore, Para Prakriti, the general awareness, stands for Purusha, who is Purushottama Himself. Both the words Purusha and Uttama joined together result in the word Purushottama.]
Shri Swami: If you join both Purusha and Uttama to treat these two words as Purushottama Himself, the word Uttara in the comparative degree must have been used to mean that Purusha is greater than Prakriti. The word Uttama indicates the greatness of an item among the items, which are more than two (Superlative degree). Here, there are 3 items, which are more than two i.e., Prakriti, Purusha and Purushottama. You are trying to include the third category (Purushottama) in the second category (Purusha) itself. In such case, there are only two items i.e., Prakriti and Purusha or Purushottama and the use of superlative degree is objectionable. The word Purushottama means the greatest among the human beings. If all the human beings are one and the same and if Purusha stands only for one generalized individual soul, the word Purushottara (comparative degree) must have been used and not the word Purushottama (Superlative degree). This shows that Purushottama is not only different from all the human beings (Purushas) but also the human beings are different from each other. Madhva believes that the souls are also different from each other. The word Purusha in Purushottama indicates the incarnation of God as a human being. The Gita clearly says that the Purushottama is not only other than the Prakriti (Ksharamateetoham) but also other than Purusha (Aksharaadapi).
Here, the word ‘Anyah’ is misinterpreted by you as the one other than the first between the two. But, the correct interpretation is that the word Anyah means the one other than the two i.e., the third category. This correct interpretation is further supported by the next statement that God is beyond Prakriti and Purusha. If you take the Para Prakriti as the individual soul (Jeeva or Jeevaatmaa), the classification can be done as two types i.e., Prakriti, the Creation and Purusha, the God represented by a specific human being in the human incarnation. Alternatively, the classification can be done as 1) Prakriti, the lower type of Creation 2) Purusha, the higher type of Creation and 3) Purushottama, the God. In the classification of three categories, the Para Prakriti can be taken as ‘Chittam’ and Purusha can be taken as ‘Chit’ so that the repetition of the same in two places can be avoided. The difference between Chit and Chittam by way of the difference in the functions is already established.
Therefore, these two classifications belong to 1) the misconstrued Advaita Philosophy, which tries to make the general awareness as God by taking the support of several possibilities of theoretical interpretations finally failing in the practical general experience and 2) the correct philosophy, which differentiates the general awareness from God as a part of the Creation. Since these two classifications do not belong to a single philosophy, there is no contradiction.
51-55, M