Q. 1. What is dependently complete? If there are two things like dependently complete and independently complete – what is incomplete?
Answer by Romapada Swami: Here we are talking about completeness with respect to an object’s purpose. For example, an earthen pot is said to be `complete’ if it looks and works the way its designer intended it to be. If it has a dent or a hole that makes it unfit to store water, it is incomplete or imperfect. I would not call it imperfect because it is unable to contain the Atlantic ocean, because it is not intended to do so!
The same goes with the example of the finger in relation to the body. This is just a crude analogy, and the earthen pot is just an inert material object.
But by the same principle, the living entity, by his constitution, is a minute fragment of the Absolute Whole and his purpose is to enjoy in loving relation with the Supreme Whole by serving Him. God expanded Himself so that He could enjoy loving relationships with His parts and parcels (eko bahu syam). And for this purpose, the living entity is completely endowed with all that he needs.
An individual soul may not be omniscient, omnipotent or the supreme controller of everything and everyone else, but that does not interfere with the soul’s completeness.
Q. 2. Isn’t perfectionism / completeness of God an assumption we make so that our picture of Him as “above the rest”, leaves no room for debate?
Answer by Romapada Swami: I would like to make a clarification on this point: Yes, we can say God is “by definition” perfect, but it does not stop with just being an `assumption’. Such an assumption is a good place to start with, but as one progresses on the spiritual path, one can personally realize this to be a fact, and history recounts many such persons who have had that realization. In other words, God is not a ‘concept’ made by man to fill some gaps. God is a reality, and the Vedic scriptures describe that God is ultimately realized as a Person. It is knowledge that is *meant* to be directly perceived!
See BG 9.2
pratyaksAvagamaM dharmyaM
su-sukhaM kartum avyayam.
TRANSLATION
This knowledge is the king of education, the most secret of all
secrets. It is the purest knowledge, and because it gives direct
perception of the self by realization, it is the perfection of
religion.
Q. 3. In that case God is perfect /complete by definition and we as beings moulded by the perfect entity should again be perfect by definition – then why aren’t we?
Answer by Romapada Swami: In addition to above, I would like to add this: the Isopanishad mantra we are discussing (Invocation Mantra, Isopanishad) essentially says this: from the complete Whole, many complete units have emanated, and yet the complete Whole remains unchanged. Thus, there are two distinct categories here: the whole and the units. We refer to these two identities as Paramatma (Supersoul) and atma (soul). While affirming both of their `completeness’, “purna”, the Upanishad is NOT indicating that they are equal in all respects.
Rather, the purport of the mantra is this: the Absolute is complete, and from the Absolute many entities have emanated – marginal entities like us, and the material energy. Now that so many entities have emanated, the Absolute has not become reduced in any way. This is what we shortly refered to by saying 1-1=1.
The minute units are perfect, but minutely perfect. This goes to say that although we perceive imperfections, one should not conclude that living entities are all imperfect; all such imperfections and short-comings can be overcome as soon as one realizes one’s real identity in relation with the Absolute.
I hope this clarifies your questions!
Q. 4. One other question, from an Asst Professor in Dept. of Philosophy
In Western philosophy, the most radical treatment of the question is Spinoza’s theory of “substance” (ultimate reality, which he calls, interchangeably, God or Nature) in Book One of his Ethics. I cannot speak to how the question is resolved philosophically in the Gita, though I am aware that, in the vision of the 11th teaching, and probably before, all the powers of the cosmos are presented as fragments or facets of the divine brilliance–expressing it in different and partial ways, rather than as it is in itself. I would be interested to hear more on this issue.
Answer by Romapada Swami: Vaishnava theology does not accept that the Absolute has become fragmented into multitudes of little sparks, as Spinoza’s theory seems to suggest. The Upanishad Mantra under discussion (Invocation mantra, Isopanishad), in fact, directly contradicts such a hypothesis. According to Isopanishad, although so many fragments have come into being from the Absolute, still the Absolute remains unchanged, the Complete Whole in Itself. It is NOT like cutting a paper into pieces and then the original paper ceases to exist any longer. How is this possible for God, the Source of all, to cease existing? Rather, by the inconceivable powers of the Absolute, the Absolute is inexhaustible!
When we consider “the fragments of the divine brilliance” within Spinoza’s theory, we see that each of those individual fragments are not in themselves manifesting the entirety of the perfection of the Absolute, is it not? Would this indicate that they are all individually imperfect? Even accepting that taken all together, they comprise the Absolute, then how do we explain the discrepancies and limitations we find in ourselves and the world around, without any unifying entity in the picture?
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, the greatest teacher of Vaishnavism and bhakti science who appeared about 500 years ago, resolved this question by establishing the `acintya-bheda-abheda tattva’ vada or doctrine (literally, ‘The Inconceivable Truth of Simultaneous Oneness and Difference’). This is not a new theory, but is found in the Bhagavad- gita itself. See Gb. 9.4-6. Thus, in one sense, the Absolute Whole comprises of God, the living entities, and all material manifestations (Cf. Bhagavad-gita As It Is, Introduction, pg. 13 last para) — yet simultaneously, the Absolute has its independent existence in the Complete Personality of Godhead. This Absolute Personality is known as Krishna (the all-attractive), and He is that unifying principle.
Bhagavad-gita explains that all that is beautiful, opulent and glorious is but a spark of the opulence of that Absolute (Bg, Ch.10, specifically Text 40-42). Further Krishna says, “All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence!” (Bg. 9.4-5)
The concept of “substance” or divine brilliance in Spinoza’s theory seems comparable to the “Brahman” or Brahmajyoti of Vedic literature, but the Gita concludes that the Brahman rests on the Personality of Godhead, or in other words, It is nothing but His bodily effulgence (Bg. 14.27).
In this sense, I agree with you that Absolute perfection (as found in the Personality of Godhead) is unique indeed, i.e. the individual souls are not omnipotent or omnipresent etc. The individual completeness and the very existence of the fragmental sparks is dependent on this ultimate reality of the Absolute Whole, Personality of Godhead. When disconnected from Him, the living entities lose their original brilliance, just as a spark that is separated from the flame gradually dies out.
