Sri Radhika Prasad MaharajRasa NidhiKishori KunjConversations with NannaAudio & VideoPublications & Media
Brindavaneswari Sri Radha Ras eBooks   
Volume 1Volume 2Volume 3Volume 4Volume 5Volume 6Volume 7Volume 8
Volume 9Volume 10Volume 11Volume 12Volume 13Volume 14Volume 15Volume 16

An Endless Divine Continuity - Part 6

Our Association With Nanna - Part 6
*Nanna's words
*Mothers words of benediction
*Foreword by Author
1Divine Beauty
2Weep in your Heart
3Conscious Form (Bhava Swaroopa)
4Follow the path of Saints (Mahatmas)
5Message of the Master of Rasa (Rasikacharya)
10 Sri Radhasakhi Rasavani (Message of Divine Delight)
Follow the path of Saints (Mahatmas)

Radhasakhi, the repository of love came down as Nanna to make man move on the path of rasa. He taught us that selfless love is very great and sowed the seed of such love in us and nurtured it. He is Radhaji's attribute. He tried and tested all spiritual paths and understood their depth. Finally he declared that the path of rasa is the highest. He studied Dwaitha, Adwaitha, Vishishtadwaitha, bhedabheda and treated them as initial steps towards rasa. Saying that entry into Rasaleela is man's final destination, he emphasised that the sadhaka must go beyond Dwaitha, Adwaitha, Vishishtadwaitha and practice only Divine love and rasa. He not only preached but practised this form of worship.

G.S.Murthy garu, a nuclear scientist wrote a book on Paratattwa mathematics which is a philosophical commentary based on mathematics. He wanted to discuss with Nanna and take his blessings.

January 2001

Nanna was sitting in his dhyana room. The following conversation took place between Nanna and Murthy garu as he read out excerpts from his book:

‘The question is which are the philosophical truths…?’

" What are! "

‘What are the philosophical truths which want to be established at the end of this book…..’

" Which want to be proved or established through the medium of this book. This is the first question which you must answer. "

‘Nanna, shall I answer now?’

" Yes. From your answer, I will extract some points. "

‘The first philosophical truth is ‘God is One and Universal. He is all pervading. Jeeva is an aspect of God. Because of trigunas, he is unable to see the Unity pervading the whole Universe. Mathematics helps to establish the truth……’

" You must clearly tell me whether your philosophy belongs to dwaitha or adwaitha. You must tell me in those terms only. "

‘It cannot be pure adwaitha or pure dwaitha.’

" Then what is it called? "

‘It is called dwaitadwaitha,vishishtadwaitha or bhedabheda.’

" Okay. I know that. "

‘The truth is ….’

" …which we want to reveal or establish. "

‘Yes, the truth which is established is that of bhedabheda…’

" Is it that God and Jeeva are bheda and abheda? "


" Then write that God and Jeeva are bheda and abheda. "

‘Yes, this is the truth.’

" Now, the second question. According to the truth revealed by you, is jeeva inferior to God at any stage? Does he become identical with God anytime? "

‘In the state of ignorance, jeeva is inferior to God. He will be a servant. But this difference disappears at one stage.’

" Does the jeeva become identical with God? "

‘Yes, at one stage, not always.’

" Third question. According to your theory, he must have been identical with God before embracing the stage of ignorance. "

‘Yes, that is true.’

" Okay. Make the statement using my question. "

‘Before the state of ignorance, he must have been identical with God.’

" From your answer it is clear that God himself got into the embrace of ignorance.” "

‘Yes, God embraces ignorance.’

" Without his knowledge and becomes inferior without his knowledge… "

‘No, that is not true..’

" Then what is the truth? "

‘The truth is that the play of maya increases the joy of creation. Jeeva has no independent existence at all. Jeevathma is only incidental, not absolute.’

" You must write that jeevathma is only temporary and empirical. It is a joyful play of God. Then what does this verse mean? "

Paritranaya sadhunam vinasayacha dushkrutham dharma sanstapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge

‘It is also a play! Jeeva has been given little freedom, empirically small freedom. He is not kept in complete knowledge. Therefore he makes mistakes. This error is due to trigunas which lead him to commit mistakes. It is due to ignorance which is maya. This has to be corrected by God himself.’

" So according to what you say, this wonderful game, I will call it a game, begins with perfect God and imperfect jeeva. Is it right? "

‘It is perfect God and perfect jeeva.’

" No, it is imperfect jeeva. If jeeva is perfect, why should he be killed by God? The game begins with perfect God and imperfect, ignorant jeeva. "

‘Yes, but the statement of imperfect jeeva is not correct.’

" It is imperfect for you. I will tell you in my way. You can answer. "

‘My answer is that the term imperfect jeeva is not appropriate.’

" Then what is it? You must tell me. "

‘It is incomplete knowledge of jeeva. He makes mistakes because of incomplete knowledge. It is not imperfect but incomplete knowledge. It is avidya. That causes errors.’

" Then another question arises. When God id all perfect, from where does this avidya come? "

‘It is the trigunas.’

" So God is not One. There is God and avidya also. Is it like that? "

‘No. Avidya is not independent of God.’

" Then what is the position? Who created avidya? Who created a part of himself embracing avidya? "

‘It is Supreme by itself. Like a screen, it creates a barrier between the two for play. If there is no screen, there is no play. So avidya is a part of creation, created by God himself.’

" That is true. So Avidya is also created by God. It is also a part of himself Isn’t it? "

‘It is true. But it is a play.’

" It is a part of God’s consciousness. "

‘Yes, it is a part of God but if there is no avidya, there is no creation.’

" So it means that God created a scoundrel and also mothered the scoundrel. God became a scoundrel and also mother of a scoundrel. "


" What is his joy in becoming a scoundrel? Next question. Give me some examples. "

‘It is exactly like a drama which is heightened by extreme good and extreme evil. This is drama.’

" There is one man and no drama here. "

Oh no. There are infinite jeevas. When Eshwara becomes many, this many have incomplete knowledge. This is also God’s creation which gives freedom and hence error.

" So that scoundrel also must have been God. Is it so? "

‘True. It is only one drama in which all characters exist.’

" Now the question is what is his joy in becoming a scoundrel? He became a scoundrel as a part of the play. He says ‘he is a scoundrel, so I am killing him.’ ‘Paritranaya….’ He created himself and caused destruction (vinasa) of himself. "

‘No no no.’

" Then explain this verse. It is not my question. God created a scoundrel and caused destruction of that scoundrel. The term used in Gita is ‘vinasa’. You cannot substitute any other word. He caused vinasa of that scoundrel. Underline vinasa. "

‘The scoundrel is not self. Vinasa is the state of deviation.’

" What dies vinasa mean? "

‘Vinasa means removal.’

" Destroy,destruction. "

‘No, there is no destruction at all metaphysically.’

What follows is a logical discussion. In course of conversation, Nanna was establishing the importance of the scriptures logically. Saying ‘there is only one God, there is no second thing’, Murthy garu was supporting adwaitha philosophy. Nanna made him agree in his own words that there is indeed a second object!

" What does vinasa mean? "

‘Removal. Removal of a shield; removal of impediment. Vinasa means that which caused evil, that shield was removed and not the self. Self is eternal.’

" But there is no shield because there is only one who is all knowing. "

‘No, it is not all knowing because jeeva has incomplete knowledge.’

" Don’t talk about jeeva, only God. There is no jeeva, only God. "

‘There is creation.’

" That is play. Isn’t it? "

’When there is only one God, there is no play.’

" If there is only one God, there is no jeeva, no creation. "

" That is what I say. Please note does that there is only one God and no creation. "

‘True. If there is no creation, there is no Universe.’

" Then there is no creation, no jeeva. "

‘Yes, True in the absolute sense.’

" Then there is no incarnation of God. You must include that also. "

‘No, empirical. There is empirical world. You see, it is distinguished into two…’

" If there is no creation in existence, why should God come? "

‘In empirical world, the two terms ‘vyavahara…’

" Empirical or anything else! There is no vyavahara, there is only God. "

‘No no. Then there is no creation. We started to accept first that bhedabheda…’

" And God created a drama for his own enjoyment according to you. "


" He himself used the term vinasa. It means that fellow is not to be seen again. Ravana died. There is no second Ravana. That is the meaning of vinasa. "

‘Ravanathwa. Ravana’s state is removed.’

" No. The original jeeva is not there. Actually the state of Ravana does not exist. It is removed, once for all. "

‘It didn’t exist earlier also. It is created and removed. It is a transient state….’

" So God creates a Ravana, removes and again creates him. "

‘No. Ravana has not been seen again. Ravanathwa…’

" What do you mean by Ravanathwa? All right, Rama creates Ravanathwa and kills that ravanathwa.. "

’Yes. It is true that Rama creates Ravanathwa and removes it.’

Murthy garu says that God created a drama for his pleasure. In that drama, he becomes Ravana and Rama and removes Ravanathwa. He says this all God’s play. But man experiences the fruit of his karmas. Mahatmas experience karma and yearn to reach God’s holy feet by his grace, after many number of births. So does Nanna! This appears contrary to what Nanna says. Jaya and Vijaya, the door keepers of Vishnu did some karma and as a result lived three births away from him. They yearned for him and reached God by his grace.

" Once Ravanathwa is removed, it cannot exist again. "

‘It does not exist. It is transcient.’

" You say removal, not creation.Removal is transcient. But removal did not take place. "

‘Creation took place. The dress is taken.’

" So he created Ravanathwa. "

‘And removed it’

" And the man who enjoys and embraces Ravanathwa himself…. Are you sure about this? He creates Ravanathwa, rather he becomes Ravana and then he becomes Rama so that he kills himself. "


" Please note this down. "

‘I agree with you but it is transient.’

" He creates Ravanathwa, he also creates….embraces…He himself embraces Ravanathwa and becomes Ravana.. "


" And becomes Rama. "


" And kills himself. "

‘Apparently. See, these words are conditional. The statement is not complete because if you say these words, it contradicts the truth. We should not contradict. When Bheda abheda exists, all the statements are empirical.’

" There is no empirical? There is only one man. "

‘No. That’s not true.’

" Then one man became many… "

‘No. The problem is one becomes many, it is first issue; many is empirical. So all are empirical…’

" If he is making himself into many, it is empirical. Is it so? "


" Empirical is not right. There is either true or false, no controversy. "

‘No no.’

" There is only truth or lie. "

‘It is not truth. We accept bheda abheda. Both are true. Mere logic is not true. So there is a third alternative that both are true. We cannot have biased logic.’

" I don’t think that you clearly followed what I said. When one puts and again contradicts, it means that it is not contradiction. It is normal state. God became a scoundrel. God is a killer of a scoundrel and God. All the three exist. This means thee things which actually took place because there is no empirical. Empirical also must be truth. It is part of that. When there is a drama when there is a picture; nose, hands, fingers, head, everything is real. Otherwise it is not a picture. "

‘Here the realities are different because man without dress is one and man with dress is another one!’

" There must be only two… "

‘Which two?’

" That which is and that which is not! "

‘Actually there is nothing which is not. Everything is true. The point is that everything is true, the drama is true but the sentence – logical contradictions are not true.’

" There is only one man, no second person. That one man creates some nuisance. He himself becomes a scoundrel and then becomes rama. Ahe kills himself or Ravanathwa. When Ravanathwa goes, Ravana also goes. That is the drama. "

‘Very true.’

" He is killing scoundrels. Creating it, embracing it and becoming a scoundrel…. "


" Then write that he created scoundrels and He himself became a scoundrel. "


" And kills himself as Ravana. "


" Is this true? "


" When everything is true, where is the question of being empirical? "

‘You see, here you create a contradiction.’

" There is a picture. Every part of the picture is true. Nothing is false… "

‘Before the picture, what was present?’

" Only one God. "

‘One homogenous truth….’

" I say that there is God and nothing else. "


" That God is avidya and a scoundrel.. "

‘No no.’

" Then from where did scoundrels come? "

’Jeeva has incomplete knowledge…’

" No jeeva, there is only God. You cannot talk about jeeva. "

‘When there is no jeeva, there is no scoundralism.’

" So there is only God. "

‘Yes. There is only God.’

" Then where is your book? It is meaningless. "

‘But our duty is to understand the drama.’

" If there is nothing but God, there is no drama. When there is no drama, there is no need of your book. "

‘True. But the book has its value.’

" I am saying that the book is for persons to read, understand and follow. Nobody will follow like this. When only God is present, he wants himself. ‘I am a scoundrel. I am creator. I am Rama. I killed myself because I am a scoundrel.’ You write the book in that way and read it yourself… "

‘Okay. Now the point is we see multiplicities…’

" There is no other person really. "

‘We see multiplicities in the world.’

" Don’t talk of world. There is no world. There is only God. You cannot create anything except God. See, everything is God and God only exists. You should not talk of anything else. "

‘But God said ‘bahusyam prajayaiyethi.’ Do we agree with that?’

" No. Don’t follow that. There is no Gita. "

‘What about Sruthi?’

" Sruthi also does not exist, only God exists. There is only one God. If you create scriptures in addition to God, then your adwaitha is gone. "

‘How do you know that is one God?’

" You said that is only one God. "

‘We say so to understand and explain these concepts…’

" I say that there is only one God. You cannot talk of anything else because that has been accepted. Otherwise you must say it is not one God, there is God plus something else. "

‘This is implied when we say that bheda abheda exists.’

" No. There is God. Then why do you want another thing? Is it no God, nil God or zero? "

‘There is one God and his will. It is his will, his drama…’

" Drama is effect only. We are seeing only the effect. His will is his own, within him, in the effect. There is God….. "

‘And his will.’

" Will is not separate from God. Your will is not separate from you. "


" Don’t talk of will. There is no separate will. You are separating God and his will. They are not two things, only one. If you talk about will, there is no adwaitha. You are creating a new factor, namely will. "

‘I am not creating it. Sruthis say bahusyam prajayaiyethi’.

" Don’t quote scriptures. When there is only one God, there is no Vedas or Gita. Is there anything other than God? "

‘Yes. Sruthi is present. We can’t deny what Sruthis say.’

" What is that something? Is it a part of God? Then do God as well as opposite of God exist? "

’Not opposite. His will is not opposite.’

" Then follow that. There is only one God and nothing else. That means no scriptures, no Gita, no Ravana, no Rama- these never existed. "


" Then note down that Rama, Krishna, Vedas, Gita never existed. Only God. "


" For whom is this book being published? There is no one other than God. "

‘This book is for those….’

" Not those. Don’t create others.. "

(Murthy garu smiled in reply.)

" There is no ‘those’. There is only one God. In philosophy, you must maintain absolute consistency. Consistency should not be broken. Now the consistency is only God, nobody else. If you talk of anything else, God is gone. "


" God alone exists. "

‘Until the realization comes, that statement…’

" Realisation to whom? "

‘The person who in now incomplete knowledge?'

" Is there another person? "


" God and incomplete man? "


" So God is gone! "

‘Oh not gone, not gone.’

" You say God and incomplete man "

‘True. This incomplete is not absolute. It is empirical.’

" Absurd. Don’t use the word empirical. What I mean is there is no God and no scoundrels. "

‘The point is the world of multiplicity being experienced…’

" That means one man (God) imagines so many things. Every thought of God is real. Do you agree with this truth? "


" God is real. Every little thought or movement is real. Nothing is false. Then is avidya real? "


" When avidya is real, one who embraced avidya also must be a scoundrel. That is also real. "


" You must write that Rama is real, ravana is real and God ia also real. All the three are real. "


" The killing is also real "


" So you admit everything now. What is remaining? We are not interested in the origin. This is the story. Once upon a time there was a God. He created scoundrelism. He also created a jeeva who embraced scoundrelism and became a scoundrel. Very good! God came as Rama. That Rama killed this scoundrel. From that time, there is no scoundrelism. In that case, there must not be a second scoundrel. It is a one time act. There can’t be a second time because he is already killed. Once he is killed, there is no question of his coming back. He killed Ravana, so Ravana is gone. Repetition will not take place. But it happened here! We are thinking of so many. Ravan and Kamsa are among the many others. But all that is false. "

‘The drama is never ending. It is eternal. We know that.’

" Which is eternal drama? He killed once, killed what… "

‘Removal of certain states.’

" Is it removal or reestablishment? "

‘Yes, drama can repeat in some other form.’

" So the drama is created but has some irregularities. It has no consistency. That is the drama! "

‘Variety, infinite…’

" You call it infinite, we call it inconsistency. "

‘That is a different point.’

" Why not? What is inconsistency? "

‘Two opposites cannot exist!’

" No, that is not what I mean. What does inconsistency mean? "

‘It is true, not false.’

" Not true or false; inconsistency means inconsistency. You cannot create a new language. We must follow the existing dictionary. "

‘I know. Inconsistency means , it cannot change the statement to opposite.’

" Not only statement, it is everything. Your thoughts; your life; the world should be consistent;…. "


" Ideal or not. He is God and everything must be consistent. "

‘I am always telling that incomplete knowledge was given….Avidya; so the people….’

" There is no avidya. "

‘Why, avidya is also in the creation?’

" If you admit there is avidya, there are two – God and avidya. Otherwise, don’t talk of avidya. What do you say? "

‘Incomplete knowledge, which is shield….maya….’

" Maya becomes incomplete! By whom? "

‘By trigunas.’

" You are picking out trigunas. There are no trigunas; only God. "


" Then write that there is God plus…There is not only God but also trigunas. The trigunas came out of him. So he himself became trigunas. He himself became a scoundrel; he himself became a Ravana, a Rama… "

‘Whatever you say, trigunas are not independent of Iswara.’

" They do not exist. "

‘Absolutely yes.’

" Only One is absolute. There is only God. No talk of anything else. No empirical, no absolute…. "

‘In absolute, there is no logic of dichotomy. In empirical world, logic is different.’

" No talk of empirical. There is no empirical. God is one! "

‘In absolute, logic has….’

" You are bringing in new term. You mention One and bring new terms. God is only One. Quite right. I agree. "


" Absolute or not, there is only one point. He is absolute; he is everything. He is only one! Then why talk of empirical and absolute? They are not two things. Are two Gods present, empirical God and absolute God? "

‘Only one God, but world is empirical.’

" Not world. That also came from God. Isn’t it? So empirical God and also real God… "

‘Empirical world and absolute God!’

" Did the world come from him or does the world exist along with him? "

‘It is a part of his creation.’

" There is no creation. There is only one God. That is consistency. Argument should be based on absolute consistency. Don’t be inconsistent. Then the whole thing becomes….Now tell me. Is there only one God or anything or anyone other than God? Don’t talk of empirical or absolute. There is only one God. When there is only one, these other things will not come. "


" So only one thing is existing! Now tell me. "

‘That’s all. There is no problem. It is solved. It is clear.’

" So there is one God and existing too. He is happy. Is God happy or unhappy? "

‘I don’t know.’

" Then you are telling there is one God about whom you know nothing. Why should you feel…. "

‘What is the world?’

" There is no world. There is only God. "

‘Right. But he started the world.’

" Again….I don’t want anybody’s statement. There is God and God alone. "

‘But the world also exists.’

" Don’t mention world, empirical, good or bad. No other thing exists except God. Atleast write that there is only God and nothing else. That is the position. "

‘Yes that is the position. Nothing else.’

" Nothing else. You cannot talk about anything else. Then where is the need of the book? "

‘Silence. No book.’

" That’s what I say. "

‘Yes, no book.’

" No book, no talk and no argument. "

‘True, absolute silence.’

" I tell you that it becomes only silence. There is no question that you have not seen silence… "

‘Absolute means there is no book, no argument, no dichotomy…’

" That means everything in over. We are where we began. There is no book. What is creation? Nothing. "

‘No book.’

" No book, no talk, no enjoyment, nobody to enjoy. "

‘Of course enjoyment.’

" How do you know that there is enjoyment? "


" How do you know? "


" But there is only God, no Sruthi. "

‘Sruthi is eternally present.’

" I don’t agree. You are again bringing in a second factor. "

‘Nannagaru, we cannot argue without Sruthi.’

" Don’t talk of a second factor except God. "

‘Yes, But God is Sruthi . If Sruthi is rejected…’

" You brought in God plus Sruthi. Two cannot exist. Consistency is lost. "

‘I don’t admit…’

(Anjani amma brought a glass of water for Nanna.)

" I am not thirsty "

‘Nannagaru, you are speaking from a long time’, Mrs Murthy said.

" He is also speaking "

‘Its okay nanna. When we say no Sruthi, there is no argument.’

" There is nothing else. Why do you talk of Sruthi. There is only one God. You have no right to say how and what he is because there is no witness. Is there any witness that God exists? "

‘No witness.’

" When there is only one god, there is no one to witness. "

‘True. All your statements are true.’

" Not statements, facts. There is one God about whose existence there is no witness. If there is a witness, the second comes into the picture. So there is one God and no witness. So the statements in Sruthis cannot be relied upon. "

‘Any statement making….’

" Who makes the statement? "


" So there is a second one. "


" If there is one and only one God, we cannot….existing or not. There is no witness to say God exists. "

‘True, as long as we exist, we…’

" No question of we; there is only one God. There is no witness because he will become a second person. Who do you know that there is only one God? "

’Sruthi’ (laughing)

" Again Sruthi, again two…I don’t agree "

‘I can’t speak without quoting Sruthis.’

" But you brought in two. One God means one god only. That is consistency. "

‘If Sruthi is rejected…’

" If you say Sruthi, consistency is gone. "

‘If Sruthi is rejected, we have no stand.’

" There is no Sruthi; only God. You are bringing a second factor. You say God and bring in Sruthi. I don’t agree. If there is only one god, where did Sruthi come from? "

‘If we ignore Sruthi….’

" We are not giving up Sruthi. There is no Sruthi at all, only God. "

‘In that case, who is speaking? Is God speaking?’ (Mrs Murthy asked)

" That is my point. Who tells you that God exists? Where is the authority? If there is an authority, it means that there is somebody other than God. "

‘You say not to mention Sruthis…’

" Yes. "

‘Then only silence.’

" Silence is only correct. "

‘He came down to tell about himself.’

" Who? "


" To tell whom? "


" Let him tell. Why are we bothered? If he tells himself, how are you involved? "


" Like a madman, he will sit in aroom and sing that he is God. We are not related. "

‘Nannagaru, its not like that. If you tell not to mention Sruthis , I will remain silent.’

" You must not mention Sruthis because there is only one God. "

‘Then I shall maintain silence.’

" Accepting Sruthi means accepting God and a witness. That is the defect. There is no witness to endorse that God exists. Except God himself. When there is nobody to vouch, is it right to say that God exists? Is he really there or not? "

‘Kaladu kalandanedi vadu kalado ledo’ (Mrs Murthy intervened, quoting a old telugu song meaning "We don't know if he exists or not..")

" Accepting Sruthi means accepting God and a witness. That is the defect. There is no witness to endorse that God exists. Except God himself. When there is nobody to vouch, is it right to say that God exists? Is he really there or not? "

‘He is present.’

(Nanna laughed)

‘You see, the witness never exist….’

" There is no witness, only God. My question is how do you know that God is present. Give me a straight answer.” "

‘If you don’t permit Sruthi, I am silent.’

" Sruthi means witness. My fear is that we agree to witness, we agree to existence of two. Adwaitha is lost. That must not happen. We must think alike. Let him be alone. Why do we worry? "

" I have 600 books on dwaitha and adwaitha. I read all of them. I made notes at the bottom of the page. When I read all those books, the thought struck me whether he who exists is one or two. If he is one, then where is the proof because a second one cannot tell about him? There must be some witness to tell that he exists. There is no witness but he is present. That is why some Sruthis mention that God is silence. Do you want to see them? "

’Nannagaru. I know about this.’

" God is silence. Mounam vyakhya’. Dakshinamoorthy garu, the guru of Brahmavetthas told me that during initiation of Brahma vidya. Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanat kumaras came there. He asked them to sit down and close their eyes. Then he left. Later they also left. He taught them and they felt that they understood! All of them left. What does this mean? They explained how absolute is. There is no listener or speaker in absolute. Then who is present? If we say somebody is there, it is a danger. There is no witness. What is the proof to say that God is there? That is the danger faced by adwaitha. If there is a witness, there is a second person. Without witness, it is difficult to prove God’s existence … "


" If you want to agree, you can agree. "

(Nanna laughed strangely. It was not his voice; it was a woman’s voice.)

‘I am silent because you told me not to utter about Sruthis.’

" No second person, only God. "

‘Not second person; Sruthi.’

" Sruthi means second. It is witness. In a court, witness is as important as judge. Here, there is no case if there is no witness. That is my problem. My head is half baked with this concept. "


" I don’t mean because of you. I can show you so many books. This point must be sorted out. If he is only one, he will take care; we need not bother. The problem arises if he is not one. Who is the second one? Since when does he exist? What is the relation between them? We must tell everything. If there are two, there are so many questions to answer. I have 25 questions to be answered. Who are you? From where did you come? What is your status? Are you half spirit, one quarter spirit…. "

'Nannagaru. Sankaracharya dealt with this problem.’

" Sankaracharya did not do anything. "

'One request. The problem of existence and non existence is indescribable.’

" Arobindo said ’whoever says that jagath (world) is midhya (illusion) either does not exist; or if he exists, he may be the biggest fool. Because how can the world exist till eternity? Jagath, the so called midhya is exists till eternity. I can prove this. What happens when the tree dies? In what form is the tree? A seed! The seed again takes the form of a tree; again seed; again tree. Since how long is this happening? Since eternity! When it is present since its origin, how can you call it illusion? Can anything which continues to exist eternally be an illusion? Eternity cannot be illusion‘. That is what Arobindo explained. He stressed that the statement Jagath midhya is false. The man may not be exists at all! "

" Jagath is not midhya., it is existing. Vriksha-beeja, Vriksha-beeja, Vriksha-beeja (tree and seed). The world is till eternity in one of these two forms. So you cannot say that God exists. This is seed and this is tree. The seed exists in the tree. The seed becomes a tree. In this way, the world exists till eternity. There is no question of midhya. He said that sankaracharya was wrong. No person could say what he did to sankaracharya! He is no more to defend him. He either did not say that or is a fool if he said that. Either we admit that Sankaracharya is a fool or he does not exist at all. The argument is over. I don’t think that sankara is a fool; he is a great man. "

" What is midhya when everything is before us? Is the tree an illusion? Is the person who made the statement an illusion? If tree is not an illusion, then how can the seed be illusion? If both tree and seed are not illusion, then the third generation (tree) is also not illusion. Since eternity, tree and seed are present. There is no illusion. That is Arobindo’s argument. It is very well presented. You might have read his book. "

‘Yes, I saw his arguments.’

" That book is supposed to be his master piece. Jagath is not midhya. It exists since eternity. That is the sentence he used. Again absolute, empirical… "

‘I have one submission. I agree with your arguments. After silence, I am speaking now. I became silent because Sruthi must be forgotten.’

" I admit Sruthi. I admit God. I admit me. I admit this book. That is my position. Because there are different shades, I will argue on anybody’s side. In the meanwhile this commentary…. "

‘There is one problem. Mathematics analyses this maya, madhyastha (centre). Take a circle. Does the diameter exist or not? Difficult question because diameter is not unique. Hence answering whether diameter exists or not is as difficult as whether maya exits with Ishwara.’

" Nobody can answer that. "

‘That’s why I said that there is a problem in mathematics…’

" The most important question in Mahabharata is considered to the fifth Veda. This is the conversation between a Yaksha and Yudhishtir. ‘If you answer my questions correctly, I will revive all your brothers. If you don’t reply, I will kill you. God gave me that power. Think carefully before you reply.’ He asked Yudhishtor about God’s tattwa. ‘How to realize God? We don’t know whether he exists or not. How to know that he is really present?’ That is the same question which we are discussing now. ‘Tarko apratishta. Nobody succeeded with arguments. It can neither say that he exists or not. So don’t refer to arguments. Sruthiayorbhinnaha (Scriptures are many). Though you speak from Sruthis, they are not authority.’ The same applies to you also. "

‘Agreed. There is a difference.’

" Sruthiayorbhinnaha(Scriptures are many)! We don’t know whether God is there or not, whether he has a form or not, whether his nature is good or bad. Sruthi tells in this way and that way also. So a great salute to Sruthis. It differs (binna) with itself. So it is not the authority. When it is differing, it cannot be the authority. "

‘Ah!’ (astonishment )

" If it does not differ (abhinna), then we can agree. That is why I asked you whether it is same or different. The Yaksha posed this question to Yudhishtir. ‘Dharmasya tattwam nihitham guhaya.’ Fine, let us ignore Vedas and arguments. What about scriptures on dharma? Can we follow them? Till date nobody knows clearly what the scriptures on dharma say. Then how can you believe them? Dharma tells you to respect your elder brother’s wife. Another dharma tells you to marry her when your brother dies. It says he is like her son if her husband is alive. On one hand, it preaches that he should respect her like a mother; on the other hand it says to marry her. What is this? So it is difficult to understand their meaning. So no arguments; it is a fact that Vedas have discrepancies….. "


" Yes. A very significant sentence. Follow the path of Mahatmas. That is the highest dharma. There is nothing beyond this. Follow that path blindly, without any fear. "

" This book is of no use to you. Some books emphasize that God is not present. Ramachandra Rao, a lawyer wrote a book that God is not there and distributed them freely. He wonderfully developed the concept that God is not present with scientific reasoning. I gave an answer to his questions. I said I would give him rupees 10000 if he can tell me why he made the statement that there is no God. I kept the money ready and asked him to prove his statement. The cheque is ready but he did not reply so far. "

" This also is like that. How can we say he is not present? We need a witness. But we cannot mention about a witness. When we are saying there is no God at all, then what will the witness do? Nobody can prove it. "

That’s why in this work…’

" In the same way it is difficult to prove that God alone is present. "

‘Nannagaru, in this book, the fundamental problem addressed the same issue; namely the question of proving certain things exist or not. It is not easy…..’

" Nobody could do it so far. "

‘It is a real problem in mathematics. A circle….’

" No mathematics, no science, no physics. They are minor things. Mataphysics or anything else! Finally it is Sruthi to say whether he exists or not. "


" I agree. I am telling you that I agree.” "

‘You asked me to forget Sruthi, that’s why I remained silent.’

" Unless I tell like that, you cannot argue. How will my argument stand? If there is no Sruthi, there is nothing. There is no proof. Sruthi proves that there is God and you must believe Sruthi. Both are true. Based on this, the Gita says ‘Yat sastravidhimutsrajya varthathe kama karatha na cha siddhi mavapnothi na sukham na parangathihi.’ That is scripture! It is Krishna’s idea. Effectively, there is only one scripture, Vedas. All others emphasise on rituals. They are not acceptable. It has sense and nonsense. It is better to stay away from them. We cannot enter a dense forest and come out. You argument and mine is the same. God is existing since eternity. There is nothing new. But that cannot be proved substantially unless there is a witness. That Super witness which is equal to God is only the Vedas. Vedas is apourusheyam, not written by man. That is the most important point. If the book has an author, it is an author created object. A created object cannot be witness to the uncreated object. That’s why Vedas are an uncreated object. Vedas are uncreated and impersonal; that’s why we must accept them. That is how everybody id forced to accept them. There is no escape. "

‘This book insists on that.’

" Then mention this point on the first page……Not a question. This is what I think. Who are you to deny? This question is so deep and so eternal that it is difficult to answer without witness. But with witness, it becomes two and adwaitha is lost. God cannot be absolute. Something else is present. But we will not accept a second thing. If another is not there, who will tell whether the first is there or not? Nobody! God only is present. He will not say anything because he is silent. So it ends with a zero. It begins with zero and ends with zero. "

Nanna logically said that Vedas are uncreated and impersonal. Hence they can be a witness to the created object.

‘Mathematics helped me. However the difficulty is that we cannot prove that diameter exists or not. Both are equally difficult to prove. Hence duality exists if there is diameter. If there is no diameter, there is no duality.’

" Again, it is relative. "

‘Relative only. The question is conditional.’

" It is relative. There is no doubt about that. It is not absolute. "

‘Where there is diameter, there is duality. Without diameter, there is no duality. Conditional. We cannot go beyond maximum.’

" For that matter, define a straight line. It is that which has only length and no breadth. No breadth means it does not exist. When we say no breadth, it means the line does not exist. This is also like that. It has no beginning or end. "

" Once Mother gave me darshan and spoke only one sentence. ‘Our link is eternal’ and disappeared. That one sentence is guiding me. Eternal link! The eternal object embraced the empirical. If you leave empirical, eternity remains as it is once again. That is what finally happens. "

Nanna told us to read a book on Mahamouna sthithi (state of absolute silence).

‘If we are not in the state of absolute silence, we cannot accept the rays of divine knowledge. ‘

" We are maintaining a silent mind. The thoughts strike and disturb the state of silence. These thoughts are maya. When the thoughts stop, the mind attains silence. When the mind is in silence, rays of divine knowledge will reach you. The real picture will be clearly visible to you. That is the higher picture, the reality. These thoughts must go. But they don’t leave so easily. The thoughts of so many ages form layer upon layer of impressions. "

‘As long as your mind is not in silence, you cannot receive the rays of divine knowledge. As long as you are an extrovert, you will not realize the highest truth.’

" When you have outward vision, these external impressions will keep on forming on your mind. Silence is impossible. "

‘In outward life, man is attracted towards worldly sensual pleasures and falls.’

" The main reason for his downfall is worldly life. There are many objects that attract the senses and challenge them. We receive those vibrations. There is another truth. A kind of current emanates from every human being; law of psychometry. Every jeeva gives and takes. When a good man and bad man meet, mutual currents are transferred. The bad man must become good and the good man must become bad, at least a little. That can’t be helped. This is known as aura circulation. "

" Brahma and Shiva also saw beautiful women and descended to the level outward vision. Vishwamitra did the same. You must remain in inwardness most of the time and never leave Mother’s bhava. We must live such a life. That is your aim. If you surrender to Mother, external vision will not harm you. Each one should be in a state of absolute silence with devotion and concentration and have a vision of Sovereign Sri Radha, the highest truth. Attaining Radha bhava means attaining Her darshan. Aparokshanubhavam!! "

‘Virat purusha is he in the form of the world. If this is accepted, Virat purusha is accepted. This book must go to Virat purusha with your blessings…’

" God + Prakruthi= Virat purusha "


" It is scary to see Virat purusha – thundering, beating….He follows nature. So jagathbhav + God = Virat purusha. "

‘Yes, that is Virat purusha. Actually without maya sakthi, Virat purusha cannot be comprehended.’

" Sure. Absolutely true. "

‘So if we accept Virat purusha, we have to accept this book….’

" I have to accept; I will accept.” "

‘So that you….bless this book.’

" I always accept what is there. "

‘So that this book goes to the world.’

" I think it goes to the world. "

‘With your blessings.’

" It will go to the world one day. "

‘….which is to make mathematics….substantial truth…..We believe that mathematics is not only for worldly science but also for metaphysics and higher truths. That is the objective of this book.’

" Poornamadhaha poornamidham….where is greater mathematics than this? "

Poornamadhaha poornamidham

Pornath poornamudhyacchathe

Poornasya poornamadaya

Om Santhi Santhi Santhi

" There is no higher mathematics than this. That is infinity. "

‘Yes, it is infinity!’

" The glory of infinity must be developed. "

‘The Sruthi is a part of this book….made clear through mathematics. It is a humble attempt to bridge the gap, to comprehend the truth.’

" Tadaikyathi bahusyam prajayaiyethi. This infinite has come out of the world. "

Murthy garu placed the book in Nanna’s hands.

'This is the first book. With your blessings….’

" Oh yes. "

‘Please give me your blessings.’

" I am hungry. You too must be hungry. "

‘I am not at all hungry. I am so satisfied. I requested for 10 minutes and discussed for 90 minutes. Please forgive me.’

During this detailed and lengthy discussion between Nanna and Murthy garu, many spiritual aspects saw light. Nanna is thorough with the spiritual; paths of dwaitha, adwaitha, Vishishtadwaitha and others. The Rasikacharya never agrees that amsi and amsa are one. Quoting Radhaji’s statement that ‘Our link is eternal’ he clarified the truth that Mother and jeeva are different. He always said ‘All other colours are present in white colour. But none of them is white. The qualities of Amsi will be in Amsa. But Amsa can never be Amsi.’ Murthy garu made a philosophical discussion based on mathematics. Nanna quoted the Upanishad Poornamadhaha…and said there is no higher mathematics than this. Paramathma is Poornam (0). Though athma, soul is removed, Paramathma is still poornam. Even if you remove poornam from poornam, poornam only remains! The Upanishads attempted to explain the vast and indescribable divine tattwa through this sentence!

Murthy garu also dealt with his subject based on Sruthis. Nanna, who is aware of the existence of Sruthis gave his blessings to him saying ‘Tarko aprathishtha’. Murthy garu has high respect for Nanna. No wonder our loving Nanna blessed him ‘This book will go to the world one day’ and signed in the book.

Mahajanah yena gathah sa pantha. The path on which the Mahatmas moved, their way of living is the path which we must follow. This is what Nanna preached through his words. Nanna, the Rasikacharya is the Mahatma of Mahatmas. The path of rasa on which our divine Nanna moved and showed us is the path we must follow.


Needu mahimalu pogada Vedamule sramiyinchi
Mouna mudranu booni venukanja vesega.

The Vedas were unable to describe Your magnificence and stepped back in silence.






Contact & Comments| Vocabulary Reference| Scriptural Reference| Share with friends
2004 © Copyright Sri Radha Mahalkshmi Ashram, Vrindaban, India. All rights reserved.