seventeenth century revelations - nijanandnijanand.org/publication/kcvyas/scr2.pdf · span of our...

Seventeenth Century Revelations

© Copyright – Do not Copy of 63 Author: K C Vyas

Seventeenth Century

Revelations

A Research Thesis on Shri Pran-Nathji’s Divine Wisdom

(Tāratam Vāni)

Chapter 2 Our Unique Vārāha Kalpa

Author K. C. Vyas, Delhi, India



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 2 Our Unique Vārāha Kalpa .................................... …51

2.1 Durations of Yugas, Kalpas .............................................................. 52 2.2 Yogavāsishtha: Vaivasvat Manwantara ............................................. 55 2.2.1 Parama-pada, ‘Nishkalanka’ Parātmā ................................................ 58 2.2.2 Views of Other Texts/Tāratam ......................................................... 61 2.2.3Ambiguity on Ātmā ........................................................................... 69 2.3 Adhyātma Rāmāyana ....................................................................... 71 2.4 Bhāgawatam versus Tāratam ........................................................... 77 2.4.1 Descent of Higher Level Consciousness………………………………………..79 2.4.2 Hamsas ........................................................................................ 82 2.4.3 ‘Varna’ of Scriptures ........................................................................ 86 2.4.4 Rāsa-leelā in Yoga-Māyā’s Creation .................................................. 88 2.4.5 Anātmā, Ātmā and Parātmā ............................................................. 93 2.4.6 Parātma-nishthā .............................................................................. 97 2.4.7 Change-over to New Age ............................................................... 100 2.4.8 Efficacy ......................................................................................... 102 2.4.9 Biblical Perspective ........................................................................ 105 2.5 New Age: Evolving Clarity .............................................................. 107



Chapter 2

Our Unique Vārāha Kalpa Tāratam repeatedly and consistently talks of three (Samashty) Purushas and their respective Lokas, also identifying distinctly the embodied entities (Vyashties) that dwellin them: ‘Jeevas’ (mankind) of Kshara Loka; ‘Ātmās’ of Akshara Loka; and lastly, the ‘Parātmās’ of Aksharāteeta Loka. They are the Vyashties of different spiritual orders who dwell in, and experience their respective Lokas – the way we Jeevas experience our Kshara Loka. Their spirits can not transgress the limits of their own respective habitats to experience other Lokas – unless of course specially enabled by God to do so, as was discussed earlier. Tāratam does not state this explicitly. This was the inference drawn by this author based on various statements (and also after collating Tāratam with scriptures) asserting that only a specified number of Jeevas of the two higher categories would eventually experience the Akshara and Aksharāteeta Lokas. They are respectively the 24,000 Ishwar-srishties and 12,000 Brahm-srishties. Had those 12,000 Ātmās (the Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās) been aware of their own (Akshara) Loka when they were upward linked with that many Parātmās (when graced with Brahm-yoga), the latter would sure have have straight away identified themselves with those Ātmās and commenced experiencing the Akshara Loka. But it did not happen as per Tāratam. They instead started experiencing Kshara Loka. So it wasdeduced that those 12,000 Ātmās must themselves have been, at the time of their upward link-ups, under a delusion that they were such and such Jeevas existing in Kshara Loka. Only that could have led those Parātmās to become the recepients of experiences of their linked Ātmās, say to identify with respective Kshara Jeevas with whom those Ātmās were earlier linked! This way, the 12,000 Ātmās and that many Parātmās simultaneously started experiencing Kshara existence through the 12,000Jeevas, whose status now got raised to ‘Brahm-srishty’ from the earlier Ishwar-srishty (Parātmayoga for them)! Tāratam does not disclose all that, but that much was inferred when grasping its few verses that talk of an intermediate stage wherein Brahm-srishties would identify themselves with (their earlier linked) Ātmās – before they do that finally (one by one) with the respective Parātmās. It is in the second stage that the Brahm-srishties would succeed in experiencing the Akshara Loka, and also Purushottama located there in Vyashty form of Shri Rāj ji! That is really the ‘parama-gati’, ultimate spiritual destination of every Brahm-srishty, while still being bodily located in Kshara Loka. It would however happen only after the linked up Parātmā awakens. But only when all the 12,000 Parātmās awaken (one after the other), they would once again (collectively) resume their Aksharāteeta existence. Then the linked up Ātmās would get lodged in highest Upa-Loka at Akshara level and would remotely experience Aksharāteeta Loka for ever – through their



respectively awakened Parātmās! The Kshara Brahm-srishties’ spiritual links would get severed as they themselves would disappear from Kshara Loka without leaving any trace! That is the ultimate liberation for any Jeeva that Hindu scriptures talk of (‘Ātyantik’ Pralaya of Bhāgawatam). But they do so without disclosing the process of liberation, or that it can happen only after the most deserving ones out of them get linked with Brahm level of reality (the Parātmās located there). Purushottama had not explicitly disclosed that plan in earlier scriptures revealed to mankind, as per Tāratam. An effort was made to review as best as possible if and what was given in scriptures about His plan and when it would be executed, in the entire life-span of our Kshara Brahmānda (in which Kalpa or Manwatara).

2.1 Durations of Yugas, Kalpas To a rational mind it would appear that present age of our creation – and its further break-up into Kalpas, Manwantaras and Yugas – is best left for the scientists to pass judgement on, but Hindu scriptures have made it a point to talk of such issues. They give some fixed, yet different durations of four Yugas that cyclically occur in world, exhibiting different characteristic traits of human nature that predominantly surface in those yugas. Typically, these traits relate to: the accent on ethics and morality, or otherwise; leanings towards spirituality or otherwise; the extent of acceptance of scriptural guidelines, etc! The nature of time remains unchanged; but as inspired by God the mankind does seem treading such paths as would lead them either to peace and harmony enabling spiritual evolution; or to disregard the tenets of Dharma that leads to chaos. All this happens in conformity with the Law of Karma. God judges spiritual evolution of Jeevas by observing their performance when they are placed in chaotic times: Whether they adhere to guidelines of scriptures or not. In absence of a previous occasion or even an interest to peruse the calculations concerning durations of Yugas, etc the best policy for this author should have been to steer clear of this topic. But that would have left out of the gamut of discussion a topic of much contemporary relevance, often mentioned in Tāratam Vāni: Drastic reduction in life-span of present Kaliyuga from that indicated in scriptures; andimportantly, why? Tāratam traces causes of that curtailment to certain happenings that took place towards the very end of preceeding Dwāpar Yuga, as recorded in Bhāgawatam. Certain Jeevas would have been graced with Parātma-yoga, by creating upward spiritual linkages of their Ātmās (with Parātmās)! Chapter 3/11 of Bhāgawatam outlines how to calculate durations of Yugas, Kalpas and indeed, the entire life-span of Brahmā (of Kshara Brahmānda). Commonly accepted figures are given below, along with an opinion of perhaps a lone but learned individual that this auther had incidentally stumbled upon. Brahmā, who has the power of creating Kshara Brahmānda, is said to have a life-span of 100 years. His day, (day-and night cycle really), is called a ‘Kalpa’. It is said to last for 1000 ‘Chaturyugis’ at a stretch. Now, every Chaturyugi, composed of group of four cyclically appearing Yugas, is said to last for 12,000 ‘Divya Varshas’ as per /3/11/18 (including the periods of changeovers from one Yuga to another).



It is commonly understood that Gitā/8/17 too refers to a ‘Kalpa’ but without disclosing precise duration of every ‘Chaturyugi’ and also using a general term ‘Yuga’ in place of Chaturyugi. Duration of both, a day or night of Devas (the deities) is of six months duration of men. Gitā/8/24 too discloses this, but discreetly. Devas’ day-and-night cycle lasts for our year, reckoned as 360 day-night cycles of men. Bhāgawatam reckons a year of 12 months, and every month of 30 days for calculating life-times of ‘devas’ (divine, Samshty beings) as also of Brahmā (same as is found in other scriptures too). Most scholars opine that a ‘Divya’ Varsha (year) is same as one year of Devas (360 years of men) who assist the Tri-devas (Brahmā, Vishnu and Mahesh) of our Kshara Brahmānda in governing it. Based on this understanding they calculate durations of Yugas, Chaturyugis, the Kalpas, and also of Brahmā’s hundred years. The Kshara Brahmānda lasts for Brahmā’s 100 years. The sole differeing view is that of Shriram Sharma, a yogi, the founder of a welknown institution known as ‘Gāyatri Pariwār’. He does not agree with a ‘Divya’ Varsha (year) being held as one year of ‘devas’ (or 360 years of men), the opinion held by most others. Shriram Sharma says that a ‘Divya-abda’, a Divya Varsha is simply a year mankind experiences on our planet (located around the equater) as it revolves around the sun, the most glorious (‘Divya’) object; and it should not be mixed up with one year of Devas, of their 360 days. Perhaps Devas are conceptualized as being located at the poles experiencing a 6 months day and also a night. If his opinion is accepted, then the figures quoted below of durations of Yugas, etc right upto the whole lifetime of Brahmā, as are commonly accepted and worked out by most scholars, will need to be divided by 360! Without entering into that controversy, let us for the present move forward with commonly held views on durations of Yugas, etc. A ‘Chaturyugi’ composed of a cycle of four Yugas (cyclically repeated over and over during the entire existence of our Kshara Brahmānda) is said to last 12,000 ‘Divyābdas’ or 4.32 million years (that is, 12,000 multiplied by 360) years of men. The four Yugas are: Sat (or Satya), Treta, Dwapar and Kali. Their unequal life-spans are said to be in proportions of 4:3:2:1; and the smallest among them, Kaliyuga, like the one mankind is said to be presently living in, has a life-span of 432,000 years; that of Satya, Treta and Dwapara Yugas would respectively be of 4, 3 and 2 times that figure. Our present Kaliyuga is said to have commenced as soon as Shri Krishna left our perishable world for His imperishable abode (from where He had come). Now, the Kalpa, a day of Brahmā, is said to be made up of 1000 Chaturyugis; hence it is of 4.32 billion years duration. The life-span of Brahmā, as also of our Kshara creation (Brahmānda) is said to be of his 100 years duration, or of 36,000 Kalpas or 155.52 trillion years of men! As per /3/11/33, it is said to be divided in two equal halves, each called a ‘Parārdha’, 50 years of Brahmā’s life (77.76 trillion years of men). In /3/11/34-6, the first and last Kalpas of 1st Parardha of Brahmānda are respectively termed “Shabda Brahm” or “Brāhm Kalpa”, and “Pādma” Kalpa. Likewise, first Kalpa (at least one of the early



ones, referring to what is mentioned in Māheshwar Tantram, discussed later) of 2nd Parārdha that mankind is presently passing through is termed as “Vārāha” Kalpa. Every Kalpa, a day of Brahmā, is further sub-divided into fourteen smaller durations, the ‘Manwantaras’, each one corresponding to period of reign of a divine personality called a ‘Manu’, the ‘lawgiver’ in it. The humanity is presently located in 28th Kaliyuga of “Vaivasvat” Manwantara, as per Bhāgawatam. Other Puranas too say the same, but unlike them Tāratam asserts that unprecedented happenings as had never before taken place in our creation (and also shall not take place in its remaining lifetime) shall be taking place in present Kaliyuga. It says: due to the awakening of Parātmās in Aksharāteeta Loka, and consequent spread of most divine Aura in world through Brahm-srishties, the hearts of mankind will get cleansed of the malevolent influence of Kaliyuga! That would drastically reduce its life-span from 4,32,000 years to the time it indicates – only a few thousand years! Now, this is quite a prophecy not only regarding earlier the period of Jāgani, but also the remaining part of Kaliyuga! What is so special about our Kaliyuga, Manwatara or even Vārāha Kalpa? After all time is time: whether of one Kalpa or another. The happenings as predicted to take place (even vaguely) in scriptures needed to be searched for in order to decide if the same corresponded with the ‘astounding’ ones as are expected to happen as per Tāratam. Keeping that in mind, effort was made to peruse scriptural prophecies for our times. Tāratam spoke of only a very short time-span of 1200 years (wherein we are at present located, in the period of Jāgani) when only a limited number of Jeevas would get liberated due to Parātmās experiencing our world through them. Bhāgawatam talked 5,000 years ago of the future appearance of Kalki at an undisclosed time towards the end of Kaliyuga of 4,32,000 years duration! Other texts dicussed later only say factually that Brahmā of our Brahmānda was unable to create ourVārāha Kalpa after ‘his previous night’ was over (it would have arrived when ‘his previous day (Kalpa)’ was over. It is not clarified why he experienced such ‘inability’; or even what was so special about our Kalpa. It is only disclosed that a higher hierarchical power called“Mānasa” had to intervene, with no mention of its level! It is not explicitly said why that intervention became essential or whether it was due to necessity of bringing in our world the divine ‘Mānasa-putras’ linked up with ‘awakened’ Ātmās, as seems to be the case based on certain statements. Are these Mānasa-putras ‘sons of the ‘Manas’, one of the two higher two ‘srishties’of Tāratam? Most ancient mention (perhaps of trillions of years ago) to our Vaivsvat Manwantara (the seventh one of Vārāha Kalpa) was found in the text of Yogavāsishtha in context of times upto which the great sage Vasishtha would keep on visiting our world (off and on) to reveal those higher spiritual truths – like he once did to Shri Rāma. This text would be discussed at some length a little later. The Vaivasvata Manwantara was also seen mentioned in two almost ‘unkown’ texts(even in scholarly circles!)as the one in which the happenings, similar to those given by Tāratam would take place!



Tāratam has said emphatically that it would stand corroborated by ancient scriptures (welknown or otherwise). But as can be seen from discussion on these pages, only these two unknown texts do that, to a very good extent. These are the only two supposedly ancient texts cited in books authored by Pranāmi scholars in support of that assertion of Tāratam. But Tāratam itself refers for most of the time only to Bhāgawatam to make that point. But this welknown scripture does not say ditto of what Tāratam does. So, we can draw support of its testimonies only on some salient points made by Tāratam, not on all. At the same time Tāratam it was seen that it does not contradict the scriptures (or vice versa) either on spiritual concepts or the happenings expected to take place in present times. This was the context of searchingwelknown scriptures, to locate possible causes of astounding happenings that Tāratam speaks of.

2.2 Yogāvasishtha: Vaivasvat Manwantara The text of ‘Rāmāyana’ is known to be one of the two great epics that Hindus revere (‘Mahabhārata’ being the other). It was authored by sage Vālmiki who was a contemporary of Shri Rāma and His guru Vasishtha. All of them had lived during the end of Tretā Yuga that was succeeded in due time by Dwāpar Yuga, by end of which appeared Vedavyās followed by Shri Krishna appeared. Vālmiki is said by scholars to have vividly painted an account of ‘ideal’ life lived by Shri Rāma, the son of king Dasharatha. That is why Shri Rāma has been held in very high esteem for thousands of years by Hindus as an ‘ideal’ to be emulated by the mankind. Based on the text of Bhāgawatam (and also other texts) Shri Rāma was an earlier Avatāra of Vishnu, who returned in the end of Dwāpar Yuga as Shri Krishna. It needs to borne in mind that different scriptures have used the term ‘Vishnu’, at times to point at Kshara Purusha and at others at Akshara Purusha and even the Purushottama – as is typically seen in case of the ‘Vishnu Sahastra-nām’, regularly recited by many spiritual aspirants. Tāratam, and several other ancient scriptures (though a bit ambiguously) say that Vishnu is the Akshara Purusha’s ‘Sabalik’ Pada (Mahāvishnu) that really gets into a dream-like state (as Narāyana or Vishnu) in which He gets pointed at as ‘Chaturbhuj’ (four-limbed) Vishnu, the Kshara Purusha. When we talk of Vishnu’s Avatāra, particularly as Shri Rāma and Shri Krishna we have to be careful to associate them either with Kshara or higher level of reality (particularlyShri Krishna). The massive text of Yogavāsishtha is a great spiritual discourse given by Vasishtha to Shri Rāma when as a youth – after completing studies, but still for no obvious reason – started showing preference to lead ascetic life-style in search of eternal truths.Most people like this auther normally peruse an ‘abridged’ Hindi (or other language) translation of Yogāvasishtha like the one of Gitā Press, Gorakhapur, UP, India. But it too runs into slightly less than 700 pages! Hence, locating a suitable concluding remark from it (as required) proves to be a difficult task; and this discourse really is a part of still larger text of Ramāyana authored by Vālmiki,



commonly called ‘VālmikiRāmāyana’. But the text of Yogavāsishtha is often treated as if it were an independent text, though it really is a part of VālmikiRamāyana. In it, Shri Rāma is often projected as an ideal whose life and deeds need to be emulated by all while facing similar difficult situations when treading the path of Dharma (righteousness). It is only in later texts like Adhyātma Rāmāyana composed by Vedavyās (really, a part of a larger text called Brahmānda Purāna) that the life and teachings of Shri Rāma are outlined. In it (discussed later) He is depicted, perhaps ambiguously, as a ‘Parātma’ and also as ‘Purushottama’. It does not satisfactorily elucidate these two terms, yet it is useful to review its imports in relation to what Yogavāsishtha reveals about ‘Paratma’ in a rare verse that also ties them with Turyāteeta state of consciousness of a yogi and his ‘Parama-pada’, the highest spiritual goal. Then we have yet another, an immensely popular textcalled Rāma-Charita-mānas’ that was composed about 400 years ago in a dialect of Hindi, not in ancient Sanskrit, by a scholarly saint-poet Tulasidās. Hence it is easily understable by masses, at least of north India. It is also known simply as ‘Tulasi Rāmāyana’and is said to have been basedon ancient Sanskrit text, Adhyātma Rāmāyana (the relevance of both would become clear later). Tulasi Rāmāyana can be found in large number of Hindu homes, and is often cited in religious literature as an authoritative translation or commentary on ancient Rāmāyana. Some of its verses are so popular and have sunk so deep in mass psyche that they seep into day-to-day conversations to explain any point. That inspired this auther to tie up the time of composition of Tulasi Rāmāyana with manifestation of Tāratam Vāni (discussed later) in light of an inconspicuous remark of Brahmā made before Nārada, as found in ‘Mahātmya’ portion of Adhyātma Rāmāyana, about how profound are the truths revealed in the latter text. When giving out the spiritual truths,the Tulasi Rāmāyana depicts symbolically (and in similes) ShriRāma as God or Brahm personified, and as ‘Maryādā Purushottama’ (the term is discussed later). All this is mentioned here to point out how the ambiguities of scriptures (particularly about Atmā and Parātma) seem to have been planned by God to gradually diminish with passage of time – right from the most ancient times of Yogāvasishtha till the present period of Jāgani! It had puzzled this authour for long as to how the text of Yogāvasishtha covering a very comprehensive account of a discourse that great sage Vasishtha had given to Shri Rāma (over several days at a stretch) survived the onslaught of time for over millions of years! Shri Rāma was in a dilemna then on the right spiritual path to be followed. How could the sophisticated philosophical articulations of Vasishtha, often cited on these pages in support of Tāratam’s assertions of higher states of consciousness (Turiya and Turyāteeta, attainable by Jeevas only of Tāratam’s two higher categories) reach us without suffering any mutilation? And when was it transcribed on paper? This issue is also discussed later in context of a divine scheme of God that diligently preserves complete records, the ‘Ākāshic records’ of



any and every thing or event that had occurred in world even in the most ancient past, together with accounts of Karmas. These Kārmic accounts relate to both, of Karmas that have borne their fruits already, and those yet to do so. It is likely, the authentic accounts of that discourse were extracted from Ākāshic Records afterwards. It is commonly believed that discourse had taken place by end of Tretā Yuga of our present Chaturyugi located in Vaivasvata Manwantara of Vārāha Kalpa! By this belief: By the year 2012 AD, over 51 centuries of present Kaliyuga must have passed already. Stretching further back, full Dwāpar Yuga of twice the duration of Kaliyuga (meaning 864,000 years!) too must have earlier elapsed before the Treta-yuga would have ended! Towards end of that Tretā-yuga the sage Vasishtha is understood have given that discourse – in short, at least 869,000, years ago! How was it preserved without any mutilation for so long? Such a curiosity drove this author to peruse it again in search of clues, if any, that might have been missed out earlier. To his utter surprise, even disbelief, it turned out that it was delivered trillions of years ago for the first time, and that might have been repeated on a number of later occasions, in several subsequent Kalpas! The Sarga 3 of Mumuksha Prakarana says that Vasishtha delivered his discourse to Shri Rāma when both had been present in 72nd Tretā-yuga of ‘Brāhma’ Kalpa, an early Kalpa of ‘first’ Parārdha – and not in ‘Vārāha’ Kalpa, of ‘second’ Parārdha that the mankind is presently passing through! Vasishtha had also said to Shri Rama, using his divine powers that events unfolding then – and it included appearances of them both – had occurred not only in past, but would also occur in future Kalpas! Subsequently, in 14th Sarga of Poorvardha of Nirvana Prakarana, he disclosed that in some distant past he had happened to visit the sage Kākabhushundi, who was a ‘Chiranjeevi’ – one having the powers to survive for aeons of time and even retain the memories thereof (like sage Mārkandeya could, as would be seen later)! He had then introduced himself to Kākabhushundi as a son of Brahmā, as perhaps erroneously interpreted in the text. It seems based on other scriptures that the sage Vasishtha was a ‘Mānas-putra’, the son of ‘Mānasa-deva’, a higher power than the Brahmā of Kshara level. Anyway, Vasishtha had then said that he resided in a certain ‘Sapta-rishi Mandala’ and was ordained to keep on visiting our world, from time to time, upto the ‘Vaivaswat’ Manwantara – that is, our present one! The ‘Sapta-rishi (literally, seven great sages) Mandala is termed in English as ‘The Great Bear’ constellation of seven stars of our galaxy. As per Hindu belief, the great sages dwell in those stars. But what is so special about our Vaivasvata Manwantara? Why was Vasishtha required to reveal from time to time the most profound spiritual truths only till then? Were his words going to serve the purpose of ‘scriptural testimonies’ (to whatever extent possible) to more comprehensively expressed truths that were planned to be manifested much later in Vaivasvata Manwantara – like Tāratam Vāni? It is significant that just before Vasishtha briefed Shri Rāma on said meeting with sage Kākabhushundi, he had clarified (in 13th Sarga) about what the term ‘Yoga’ meant: It was the ‘means’ of realizing ultimate reality of Brahm or Paramātmā!



Vasishtha then disclosed: There were two means available to mankind to meet that goal; first one relied upon acquiring divine wisdom, ‘Jnāna’, of His reality (like Shri Rāma was at the time engaged in), the ‘Jnāna-mārga’; and the other one was ‘Prāna-nirodha’ – ‘Prānayama’, etc. The latter is commonly termed as ‘Yoga-mārga’, like the one outlined in sage Patanjali’s ‘Yoga-sutras’ (this is the text most referred to in present times). Bhāgawatam talks mostly of ‘Bhakti-mārga’, apart from the other two. Thus we see three major ‘mārga’, the ‘paths’ prescribed in scriptures for spiritual aspirants to choose from. It is often debated in Hindu religious literature: Which one of them is easiest to follow, or is most superior. What Vasishtha then said to Shri Rama is vry significant: The term ‘Yoga’, as understood by most aspirants (and it is the case till date!) is the one outlined by Kākabhushundi, ‘Prāna-Nirodha’. He then went on to narrate to Shri Rāma what he learnt about it from Kākabhushundi. It is recorded in Sargas 14-27 of Nirvāna Prakarana (Poorvardha). After that, Vasishtha proceeded to inform Shri Rama in Sargas 29-42 on efficacy of learning the spiritual truths from a Sat-guru who had himself realized them. He then narrated his own experience as he learnt such truths from Shiva (perhaps in some previous lifetime) when he used to reside near mount Kailash, Shiva’s abode in the Himalayan region – in Tibet now – when engrossed in grasping the intents of scriptures. Vasishtha told in no uncertain terms how he got into a Samādhi state while intently grasping the discourse of Shiva! This episode demonstrates not only the importance of grasping divine truths from a Sat-guru but also the efficacy of doing so in his vicinity (the so-called ‘Sat-sanga’)! Both these aspects are repeatedly emphasized in scriptures and in Tāratam too. It sure is an up-hill task to present in brief (that too in English) the articulations of revered sage Vasishtha, particularly his philosophical concepts. The text is also studded with many anecdotes of even further distant past and several amazing similes (‘Drishtāntas’) to drive home the points he made. Those simililes can be found to have been used by other, later day sages as can be seen from subsequent texts, though not that well elucidated as in Yogavāsishtha – particularly in respect of lower three out of a total of five states of human consciousness. Most importantly: Shri Rāma too attained Samādhi while intently grasping the discourse of Vasishtha by the time it was about to end! Vasishtha had to awaken him from Samādhiwith effort, as the text clearly records!! Vasishtha sure preached ‘Jnāna-marga’ and even proved its efficacy. Tāratam says the same: Brahm-srishties must grasp its inents thoroughly, as only then would they make any headway on the path leading eventually to the experience of Purushottama (Brahm). 2.2.1 Parama-pada, ‘Nishkalanka’ Parātmā There is also available a publication of Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratishthana, Delhi giving the full Sanskrit text and verse-by-verse Hindi translations. It has a spread of more than 1900 pages! Now, articulations of Vasishtha are highly sophisticated in terms of logic propounded, but are tedious and hard to grasp for commoners.



Hence, it was practical to consult this unabridged version only occasionally, in order to see if terms like Parātmā, Aksharāteeta Loka, etc had at all figured in that original Sanskrit text. This effort proved its real worth only when an invaluable verse, 34/22 was fortunately located in Nirvāna Prakarana (Poorvārdha) in the discourse given by Shiva to Vasishtha (recorded in Sargas 29-42). It did employ the term ‘Parātmā’! Its huge implication was found to have been completely missed by the commentaters, undoubtedly owing to lack of exposure to the wisdom of Tāratam. The verse says: in order to secure the ‘Parama-pada’ (highest spiritual attainemnt) a yogi has to first get firmly grounded in Turiya state and then rise still high – upto Turyāteeta state – to be one with a “Nish-kalanka Parātmā”! This highly significant phrase points at a Parātmā who is devoid of any ‘Kalanka’ (any bad name earned due to an unworthy wrongful deed performed in past. It also points at who has already washed off the ‘Kalanka’ with equally worthy deeds subsequently; or even has lived through the sentence meted out on that account! It is Yogavāsishtha’s way, however indirect it may be, to reveal what Tāratam says: It was injudicious for the Parātmās to have insisted (out of curiosity) on experiencing the miserable Kshara realm, when they had eternally existed in most blissful Aksharāteeta Loka! It had called for their getting deluded (to experience existenceas Kshara Jeevas), shedding which – on their own – was turning out to be so very difficult, even after connecting with the inputs of Tāratam Vāni. They had to attain an even higher state of consciousness than Turiya (Turyāteeta)in order to awaken from the delusion. Could that be the ‘Kalanka’ that Shiva alluded to? In backdrop of his discourse, later conveyed by Vasishtha to Shri Rama, further collated with Tāratam Vāni, an ‘awakened’ Parātmā can well be said to have become ‘Nish-kalanka’! Likewise the yogi, who is able to identify in his Turyāteeta state with an awakened Parātmā, can be termed as one within whose hconsciousness would descend the highest experiences of a ‘Nish-kalanka Parātmā’. Can such a yogi then be called a “Nish-kalanka Avatāra”, or “Nish-kalanka Budh Avatāra”? It seems, ‘Budh’ relates to one who has demonstrated the capability to attain highest ‘state of consciousness’, the ‘Buddhi-vritti’ (as it is alternately termed), called ‘Turyāteeta’! When in it, there would descend within such a yogi the experiences of (his linked up) ‘awakened’ Parātmā (a ‘Nishkalanka Parātmā’) – the one who has completed her ‘sentence’ of delusion! Such scriptural terms frequently remain unexplained, particularly if the same are related to prophecies in respect of high personages. The followers of Mahāmati Prānanāth for example claim that he was the one who was prophesied in ancient scriptures as the would be ‘Nishkalanka Budh Avatāra’! The term ‘Budh’, is also found in Gitā/4/19, /5/22 (immediately after the often cited verse /5/21 talking about Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās), and in 10/8, in connection with those awarded the Vibhooty-yoga and Buddhi-yoga. True import of this term ‘Nishkalanka Budha Avatāra’ was understood only after the verse, 34/22 (Nirvāna Prakarana, Poorvardha) was collated with Tāratam. It is quoted here en verbatim: “Sthairyenakālatah swasthā nishkalankā Parātmanā; turyāteetādi namatwādapi yāti parama-padam”. It can not be said with certainity whether any more such



references exist in Yogāvasishtha. It could well be the lone reference this auther fortunately stumbled across relating to role played by a Parātmā (unexplained in it) in securing for a Yogi his highest spiritual goal, ‘Parama-pada’! It unambiguously ties up the Parama-pada with ‘Nishkalanka Parātmā’ –‘awakened’ Parātmā – but only when a yogi is in Turyāteeta state of consciousness! This is perhaps the best possible corroboration one can have of Tāratam Vāni from a text said to be the repository of Vedāntic wisdom. It is not possible to provide the various nuances of Shiva’s discourse whose recipient was a great sage like Vasishtha, who even attained Samādhi pondering over Shiva’s words! But it may be said by way of a general backdrop of this discourse that Vasishtha once saw some divine light in great profusion appearing before him. That eventually got converted into two forms of Shiva and his divine consort “Umā” (also known as “Gauri” or “Pārvati”). He appropriately prostrated and worshipped them. Then began the divine discourse as Vasishtha enquired: what was the most appropriate way of worshipping the highest reality (‘Devārchana’)? In brief, Shiva disclosed that as that reality was an ‘A-kritrim’ principle – primeval (not made up of previously created stuff), it can not be worshipped by using any later created stuff (‘Kritrim’), say like garlands, incense sticks, etc! Shiva then informed, that highest principle is (inter alia) is known as ‘Paramātmā’ or ‘Shiva’; and it is the root cause of all that gets created later, including him and his consort, as they were present before Vasishtha then (and also perhaps their consciousness present within them?). Thus, being the ultimate source of awareness or consciousness: that principle is ‘Jnāna-swaroopa’. The ‘Jnāna’, or knowledge thereof is the only offering that is really acceptable to It; but for that to happen, the mind of a yogi has to be at peace, unperturbed and focused on It! Shiva further said that It is one with, and also separate from all Jeeva-ātmās (Jeevas or Jeeva-Ātmā combines?). So, every yogi – such a Jeeva-ātmā combine – has to first get firmly established in true conviction of his being one first with Ātmā (on knowing how to accomplish that task). That would have been the purpose behind Shiva’s appearing before Vasishtha and informing him how a Jeeva (a yogi) can get established first in Turiya state of consciousness – in order to be one with an Ātmā – and only then, in Turyāateeta state to identify with a ‘Nishkalanka’ Parātmā. Tāratam says the same: a Brahm-srishty established first in Ātma-swaroopa (Gita’s Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmā) in Turiya state alone can eventually get established in its linked up, but awakened Parātmā, an embodied Vyashty of Aksharāteeta Loka’, to then have an audience with the Vyashty ‘form’ of Purushottama (Shri Rāj ji)! That form is ever present there for giving ‘objective’ audience (experience)! It needs to be kept in mind that Tāratam refers to that Loka as a ‘formful’ reality (not formless). Within it dwell those ‘formful’ Parātmās and Purushottama too. On the other hand Vasishtha, throughout his discourse, seems to have given an impression of alluding to Brahm, as a ‘Samashty’ principle – the cause both, ‘subjective selves’ (Jeevas) and an ‘objective’ reality that is experienced – and even to ‘Ātmā’, ambiguously as a Samashty Akshara reality, as gathered from commentaries. He did not seem



to have talked of Vyashty Ātmās, yet he did that concerning a Parātmā at highest level, with whom a yogi of this world could possibly identify in his Turyateeta state. Sage Vasishtha did not elucidate the term Parātmā. Same was the case with other personages whose words are recorded in Bhāgawatam, Adhyātma Ramāyāna, Upanishadas etc. The commentaters have therefore must have had to either ignored such mysterious references to ‘Parātmā’ or even to presume that it alludes to Paramātmā (further equated by Gitā with Purushottama) – a Samashty principle! This was clearly observable in commentaries of all those texts (discussed later). These texts, on few occasions, employed the term Parātmā for Shri Rāma and Shri Krishna too – when they were bodily present in perishable world! In verses 7/25, 9/11 of Gitā, Shri Krishna clarifies: He was not really a Vyashty Jeeva of Kshara world (as many thought He was), whose consciousness was confined only to His human form seen by them; but really was some Samashty principle, pervading all the Lokas, and governed them from within (verses /10/3 and /15/17)! Lack of understanding of such verses of Gitā coupled with generally observed lack of interest on part of scriptures to explain the ‘Samashty-Vyashty’ relationship could have thwarted the urge (if any) on part of the commentaters to develop a much needed conceptual clarity on it. That is why it became necessary for this author to first conceptualize that relationship, based on understanding the auther developed of scriptures and Tāratam Vāni. That led to formulating the need of an ‘Inter-Loka spiritual link-up’ of aParātmā of Brahm (Aksharāteeta) level through an Ātmā of Akshara Loka (both Vyashties) with Brahm-srishty located in Kshara Loka. It was argued that only such a link-up could provide an ‘objective’ experience of Purushottama in a Vyashty form, after a Brahm-srishty succeeded in subjectively identifying with a Parātmā in Turyāteeta state. It was reported as this auther’s thesis in Hindi, Tāratam Sāgar Ke Moti (can be translated in English as ‘Pearls of the ocean of Tāratam) published by Prānanāth Mission, New Delhi in year 2005. 2.2.2 Views of Other Texts/Tāratam The rare reference of Yogavāsishtha cited above could be located few years after that Hindi book and it went a long way to assure that this auther had not erred in formulating the concept that Parātmās were indeed located at Brahm level. Then were located a few verses of Bhāgawatam that almost equated Parātma-nishthāwith Brahm-nishthā, re-confirming that point. Subsequently dawned the implication of Mundaka Upanishada (discussed in next chapter). It conveys that Ātmā (Brahm-yoga-yukta-Ātmā of Gita, one linked up with a Brahm-srishty), after experiencing Brahm, would attach itself to it – like an arrow released by a strong archer from his bow would remain pierced in the target aimed at! As per Tāratam, it would happen so with the 12,000 Ātmās as they get lodged in highest Upa-Loka of Akshara Loka – only ‘after’ the period of Jagani is over in our world; when all 12,000 Parātmās get ‘collectively’ awakened to their Aksharāteeta existence. In short the target aimed at by every such Ātmā would be its own (linked up) Parātmā!



In some scriptures God (Brahm) is termed as ‘Tat’ (‘that’, any ‘object’, anything different from ‘self’), while others say: “Aham-Brahm-asmi” – ‘I’ verily am the Brahm; and such assertions outwardly seem to contradict each other. Such reality can not surely be ‘experienced’ if its experiencer merges his or her ‘subjective self’ with it. In order to make such claims the ‘self’ needs to experience it ‘objectively’ – by retaining its subjective identity – and also remaining,in some way, attached toBrahm. In this backdrop, statements of Tāratam can be interpreted as follows. ‘Samashty’ as well as ‘Vyashty’ forms of Brahm can be experienced: as Samashty, by way of experience of Aksharāteeta Loka and as ‘Vyashty’, in form of an audience with ‘Shri Rāj ji’ by ‘subjectively’ identifying with a Vyashty Parātmā! Even when the subjectivity of such a yogi remains intact, his yogic experience would need to be of some unique, ‘formful’ object – different from that of any other object – and not of a ‘formless’ Samashty principle. In latter case that experience may not retain any ‘uniqueness’. An often cited scriptural statement employed by the guru to explain the principle of Brahm to a disciple – “Tat-twam-asi” had turned out very difficult to comprehend as ‘Tat’ means ‘that’; and ‘Twam’ as also ‘asi’ respectively mean ‘you’ and ‘are’. So this phrase literally means “you verily are that (Brahm)”. ‘That’ is obviously not any and every ‘thing’ normally coming within the range of human consciousness (Kshara Purusha); it has to be present atsome higher, eternal level called Brahm. In other words, for Brahm (Purushottama principle) to be experienced ‘uniquely’, it has to present itself as a ‘formful’ object during a yogi’s Turyateeta state of consciousness, in order to really produce some ‘unique’ experience worth a mention (capable of description) and corroboration by someone else. If the very subjectivity of a yogi vanishes, then nothing would remains of him (his Jeeva-bhava, Jeeva consciousness) to proclaim before the world that he indeed hasexperienced (or, it is possible for others also to do so) Paramātmā or Brahm. Tāratam seems qualifying this articulation by adding: All human beings are not endowed with such capabilities; still, even those who are would need such testimonies during period of Jāgani (from time to time) to get instilled with a much needed encouragement and confidence that such a ‘highest goal’ is achievable. They would then make requisite efforts. But Shiva had said in a few verses that ‘Parama-pada’ (obviously of an ‘experiencer’) can not really be described; it had to be attained in one-ness with the Parātmā. Vasishtha also significantly conveyed to Shri Rama that it would not be acquired by study of any and every scripture; but he did not either name the scripture that could help secure the ‘Parama-pada’, or reveal when/where it would be made available to mankind! Vasishtha only said that the discourse of Shiva resulted in his attaining the state of Samādhi for a ‘Muhurta’ (a measure of time)! It is anybody’s guess whether Shiva passed a little more information to Vasishtha, when he got into his Samādhi that he did not in turn pass on to Shri Rama verbally (and recorded in Yogavāsishtha) about existence of Parātmās, Brahm (Aksharāteeta Loka), etc. As such, it can not be said that further truths were or were not passed on by him to Shri Rāma too



when the latter eventually attained Samādhi when Vasishtha’s discourse was about to end (as recorded in Sargas 127-8 of Nirvana Prakarana, Poorvardha)! But it is certainly possible that divine truths are passed on to a disciple by an elevated guru, even when both are present in perishable world, after former first gets into a higher state of consciousness (several types of Samādhi are described in ‘Yoga-sutras’ composed by sage Patanjali) in the vicinity of a qualified Sat-guru. Coming to recent times, 20th century, from accounts of Swamy Yogeshwarananda we see that truths of operations of different components of what we term as a human ‘soul’ – and even the technique of attaining such a state – were learnt by him through his guru in a Samādhi state! As we will see later, when his guru touched his forehead he instantly went into a Samādhi state that lasted for several hours at a stretch! This much has been clearly stated by the Swamy in Preface of his extremely enlightening book, the ‘Ātma-vijnāna’ (‘Scince of Soul’). Ascan be expected, he would have been adequately qualified in terms of spiritualevolution in order to receive the grace of such a guru and even instantly attain a Samadhi state in which to learn/realizesuch truths as are not so well elucidated in scriptures (and learnt when in ‘waking’ state of consciousness). Referring to that rare mention cited from Yogavāsishtha, a few more instances also were found in other welknown texts (Bhāgawatam and Adhyātma Rāmāyana) wherein the term ‘Parātmā’ was indeed employed, yet not explained. This situation surely is puzzling in context of enormous expanse of Hindu scriptures. Only a solitary effort was found making (not so successful)an attempt to elucidate the term ‘Parātmā’ – while distinguishing it from terms ‘Anātmā’ and Ātmā! – in its very first chapter entitled “Shri Rāma-hridaya” of Adhyātma Ramāyāna. It very briefly outlines a discourse of Shri Rāma to his devotee, Hanumān. It seems that without an exposure to Tāratam Vāni, the commentaters of this text were bound to failto note that one of several queries of Pārvati raised before Shiva was: how can Shri Rāma (a Parātmā), bodily located in Kshara world be equated with ‘Purushottama’, as was the contention of Shiva? It was implicit in her query: how can a Parātmā, and also the Purushottama, exist in our Kshara Loka? Similar query arose before this author after finding in Gitā’s verse 10/37 that Shri Krishna was Himself a Vibhooty. But the commentaters did not express a surprise: how is it possible when He was ‘Purushottama’ (ref 15th chapter), whose divine Teja (influence or light) when manifested in any Jeeva makes it His Vibhooty! In other words how can He be both: the Purushottama and a Vibhooty too? We also see Shri Krishna addressed as “Parātmā” by few great ones in the text of Bhāgawatam! Such doubts can be resolved if recourse is taken to concept of ‘Inter-Loka spiritual linkages’ established with graces of God as envisaged here, among the Vyashties dwelling in different Lokas! Shri Krishna’s inability (Anugitā Parva) to repeat the discourse of Gitā (after the war was over) was due to the fact that He was not then ‘yogayukta’ with Brahm. Perhaps His linkage with highest reality was not operative, like it was on earlier occasion while delivering the discourse of Gitā! This episode suggests that Shri Krishna was perfectly right in saying that He was a Vibhooty too!



Tāratam Vāni clarifies: The higher levels of reality entered into Shri Krishna’s being at their will and even left Him in early part of His divine life. Same could well have happened again: before, and sometime after, the discourse of Gitā! It can be added that Mahāmati Prānanāth too used to often attain a highest state of consciousness that his disciples simpistically termed as ‘Avesha’. It must have been his Turyāteeta state (as articulated byYogavāsishtha) as only after getting in it could he connect with his linked ‘awakened’Parātma and reveal the truths of highest level. Once he was out of that state, (in waking state), he used to read with interest what he had uttered during ‘Avesha’ and transcribed by his disciples. This happened off and on, umptying number of times, till he left the worldin 1994 AD. While in that ‘Avesha’ or Turyāteeta state, Mahāmati Prānanāth manifested the divine truths concerning Purushottama and His beloved Parātmās, their individual delusions of existing in Kshara Loka, how and within what period they would shed it one by one, etc. When out of it, he regained his worldly personality to be aware of his gross surroundings, to interact with everyone as usual. Tāratam says: during his Turyateeta state, Mahāmati Prānanāth – rather his linked up Parātmā “Indrāwati” – was received those truths from Purushottama that he then simply uttered through his gross body. Such Revelations were meant only to supplement and complement the earlier ones recorded in scriptures, to make them more comprehensible, rather than to negate them. Only the highest reality can decide on how, when, where, through whom and in what sequence, its truths should get revealed in world – or even preserved/published in it (if at all) and in what manner! Reverting to the text of Adhyātma Ramāyāna, perhaps since Pārvati’s queries were not adequately replied by Shiva then, she would have raised them(not in earlier context of Shri Rama, but in some other), as is recorded in a text called ‘Māheshwara Tantram’. But it has so far remained almost unknown among Indian scholarly circles. It is verifiable that the clarifications of Shiva, as recorded in Māheshwara Tantram, are remarkably similar to those of Tāratam Vāni! Shiva also had disclosed similar facts to Vedavyās in a discourse that was later recorded by Vedavyās, in a text called ‘Purāna Samhitā’. Both these texts are not mentioned in any ancient or contemporary religious literature that this author has come across. Pranami Samaj however accepts them as genuine (ancient) scriptures, and even cites them in their recent books as ‘scriptural testimonies’ of the Tāratam Vāni; but their readership (also of those two unknown texts) is quite limited. Reverting again to Yogavāsishtha, it states in Sarga 127-8 of Poorvārdha of Nirvāna Prakarana that after Vasishtha was about to complete-d his discourse, Shri Rama attained Samādhi and ceased to interact with Vasishtha. He had to be awakened therefrom by Vasishtha with effort, as was narrated by sage Vālmiki (Sarga 128) to his disciple, Bharadwāj! Above discussion suggests, not only is it possible to gather higher spiritual truths in Samadhi, but the reverse too is true: By grasping such truths one can spiritually evove and even attain Samadhi! Comprehensive grasp of such truths can lead to their realization, either immediately or in due time as planned by



God. Is that why, even if those two unknown texts should happen to be genuine, same were not allowed to reach in His scheme of things to the scholarly aspirants till about right time had arrived to awaken the Parātmās? In Sarga 29 of Nirvāna Prakarana (Uttarardha), on being repeatedly asked by Shri Rāma, the revered sage Vasishtha was finally seen to have reluctantly disclosed that he was ‘Brahm-swaroopa’, ‘Jnana-swaroopa’ Paramātmā Himself! Possibly, he could have got established in Parama-pada earlier but, as dictated by God, it was perhaps beyond the power of his speech to reveal more truths (like Shri Krishna was unable to repeat the discourse of Gita later, ref discussion on Anugitā Parva). God had perhaps chosen to communicate only such truths through Vasishtha as were planned by Him to be revealed at that time! But Vasishtha, perhaps to evade a query of Shri Rāma on who he really was (his spiritual status in relation to Brahm), is seen to have replied that words giving out such truths in the (Kshara) world get contaminated, by “Kalanka”, disrepute of sorts! He was finally persuaded by Shri Rama to ignore such faults (Kalanka) of speech to satisfy his curiosity! Vasishtha then significantly said: One established in Parama-pada becomes like a corpse (relative to world around); one does not then interact with others! This is similar to what Tāratam exclaims in a couple of its verses that express the astonishment of Mahāmati Prānanāth himself. The verses say: “It really is a wonder of all wonders to see his own ‘headless’ corpse (in Kshara world) uttering the truths relating to far off placewhere his ‘head’ must have been hurled away to (the Aksharāteeta Loka) – seen by ‘eyes’ (located on that head)! It would have been termed a wonder, had it happened even once; but it keeps on happening time and again”! Vasishtha advised (Sargas 29-30) that it is essential to develop a capability to turn away from all the worldly objects to get free from their lure, and a subsequent bondage (‘Avidya’) of he need to repeatedly experience (mostly the pain inflicted by)the happenings of Kshara world. Vasishtha also said elsewhere in the text that only when a Jeeva-Ātmā acquires requisite amount of disenchantment, even abhorance for worldly existences that the path to liberation really opens up. He said, Avidya is removed only after one searches for great ones (Rishis, Munis, highly evolved Jeevas) and cultivates their company (the so-called Satsnga of Hindu scriptures). Half of Avidya, he remarked, would then disappear straight away; a quarter of it would vanish when one grasps the intents of scriptures in light of their teachings; and, as for the remaining quarter, one must make requisite efforts! All this is not easy, however, as even Satsanga comes one’s way only when fervently desired as also deserved. When those three conditions are met, said Vasishtha, Avidya wiould certainly vanish, as per Sargas 11-12 of Nirvana Prakarana (Uttarardha)! Vasishtha defined a Muni thus: one who has Jnana (knowledge) of Paramātmā and also that of the world (Kshara Loka), perhaps implying that he cares for, even worries for, rest of the suffering mankind. He supplies deserving ones the required information about God and His ways. It implies that Muni possesses the capability



to get established in higher level of reality to gather the spiritual truths of that level, and of how to reach there. He later disseminates intelligently that knowledge to others. Great ones like several Avatāras of Vishnu, Shiva, etc are often depicted in scriptures as bearing a certain responsibility in God’s scheme of things to shoulder a burden of saving the mankind, particularly His devotees, from those who are evil – those who become powerful in times of darkness and ignorance in the world. Hence, the Avatāras of Vishnu, Shiva along with sages like Vasishtha, Bhrigu, Vedavyās, Deva-rishi Nārada, etc keep on coming to world from time to time to spread spiritual truths in order to illuminate the hearts of mankind, as those get forgottan gradually, with passage of time. They use divine powers they possess, foresee the events of future times and even take certain anticipatory steps. A good example of such a step in respect of our times relates to a need, as was once felt by Vedavyās, the great-grandson of Vasishtha to compose yet another text known as Bhāgawatam. But this time around it was done, especially by keeping in mind the needs of ‘Hamsas’ and ‘Parama-hamsas’ who were expected to appear during worsening times of our Kaliyuga! He was also inspired by Deva-rishi Nārada to undertake that task and was advised to especially narrate the truths of divine birth and deeds of Shri Krishna! That is why Bhāgawatam has first narrated the deeds of several earlier Avatāras of Vishnu (including Vedavyas himself!) and then furnish, rather extensively, those relating to Shri Krishna. Interstingly, it was seen from first chapter of the earlier mentioned ‘Purāna Samhitā’ that Vedavyās was not himself satisfied with his understanding of highest level of reality (Brahm): whether there at all existed any level higher even than Akshara? That explains why all compositions of Vedavyās – a total of eighteen Purānas (including Bhāgawatam), Mahābhārata, Brahm-sutras, etc – have tended to be slightly vague on this particular point. Those words were often interpreted by commentaters to suggest that Akshara, a level of reality higher than the Kshara, is the highest. Purāna Samhitā is perhaps the lone text – unfortunately unknown in the scholarly circles – making it a point to dwell on dissatisfaction on part of none other than the great Vedavyās concerning that highest level, and how he then went about to enquire into this metaphysical issue. It discloses that verses of Vedas had bodily appeared before him (obviously in his higher, meditative state of consciosusness) to provide good bit of additional information! Yet all the queries of Vedavyās could not be replied by those verses of Vedas Yet they were kind enough to reveal to him that Shiva was the only one who could enlighten him further. After one year of meditation Shiva is said to have appeared and given to Vedavyās a discourse that is contained in Purāna Samhitā that he composed later. It is not disclosed when exactly he did that, but it is clear from its first chapter that it was done sometime after he had composed all the eighteen Puranas, including Bhāgawatam (and that happened after Kaliyuga had set in)!Shiva revealed that the ‘Aksharāteeta’ (‘Brahm’) was really that ‘highest level’ wherein eternally dwell the divine Parātmās and also Purushottama in Vyashty forms, etc. Both, this text and Māheshwara Tantram, furnish almost the same



information as was much later, more clearly, supplied by God to the world in form of Tāratam Vāni, in 17th century India. As for these two unknown texts: only scholars can, after thoroughly studying them, pass a judgement if these are genuinely ancient, divine in their roots, etc – like they consider other welknown scriptures to be. If these really are, then these could possibly have been transcribed some time before the 17th century AD, but after the sage Vedavyās composed such texts as are welknown today. The manuscripts of the two texts are understood to have somehow found their way to Mahāmati Prānanāth and his disciples. They perhaps remained in their custody for three centuries, till those were published in later part of 20th century in printed form. It is worth noting that these unknown texts are quite vocal in announcing that they contain highly confidential information which should not be disclosed to world at large. But some other texts, Tantric texts for example, do that too (to more or less extents), in order to avoid their falling in wrong hands, getting misinterpreted, or even misused. Anyway, that could have been the reason why the two might not have percolated even to the scholarly circles like other welknown texts did. The Purana Samhita even discloses a few broad regions of India where 11000 (out of a total of 12,000) evolved ones (not alluded as Parama-hamsas’ or ‘Brahm-srishties’) – would reincarnate in future! But it does not say that the said 11000, after evolving adequately in earlier stages of evolution, would reincarnate later in other parts of the world too. As for remaining 1000, it can only be guessed that they would be reincarnating in other parts of the world, to reveal either similar or certain other truths in the backdrops of cultural/religious beliefs prevailing there. After all, spiritual surge has to take place in whole world as revealed by Tāratam, particularly during the period of Jāgani (surely not restricted to India)! As was said here in the first chapter, and would be done in next chapter: Some spectacular happenings have occurred in several fields during last couple of centuries or so – particularly in Western countries, but leaving their imprints in whole world – at an unexpectedly fast pace. Take for example, the fields of science and technology, psychical research, as also changing attitudes of their populace towards taking cognizance thereof – rather than relying only on the prevailing interpretations only their own scriptures (including the accent on Comparative Religion). All of this hashappened, significantly, during the period of Jāgani; that too concurrent with a quite noticeable trend of people turning away from scriptures! Certain rationalistic temper seems to be prevailing in present times, perhaps brought about by their leanings towards science calling for either some visible proof or an attitude to reason out,after taking cognizance of all available data on any subject. Referring to earlier discussion on Avatāras, they carry the burden of generally guiding humanity, from time to time, on path of Dharma and spirituality. Some are known to perform deeds of valour, fighting the evil ones when their influence grows to such high levels as can not be countered by good and righteous ones. Others like Vedavyāssearch for and reveal the truths intended to enlighten the hearts of



mankind. That thwarts undesirable, even evil tendencies lying deep within human hearts due to ignorance about God and their relationship with Him. Bhāgawatamsays that Vedavyās had appeared in world after Shri Rāma but before Shri Krishna, both of whomare revered byHindus as personifications of God. It also reveals that an Avatāra called “Kalki”, would appear next to put an end to malevolence of our Kaliyuga (no precise time furnished) and herald the Satya-yuga. While the former two are discussed below, Kalki would come up for discussion little later. Summarizing above part of discussion on Yogavāsishtha, Vashishtha only casually told Kākabhushundi, and informed about it to Shri Rāma too that he would often keep coming to world, but only till ‘Vaivasvata Manvantara’ (passing presently). It must have been a very distant future then! He neither disclosed why he would do so only till then, nor alluded to concept of Avatāras, particularly that of Kalki. He only tersely introduced the term ‘Nishkalanka Parātmā’ and even connected it up with a yogi’s Turyāteeta state of consciousness and ‘Parama-pada’, the highest spiritual attainment of a yogi! It clearly matches with what Tāratam says: In each Brahm-srishty’s state of consciousness that is higher even than Turiya, it (he or she) would awaken a linked up Parātmā to her real, eternal Aksharāteeta existence. As she re-unites with, and experiences a reunion with her Lord, the Purushottama (Brahm) principle present there in a Vyashty form, her experiences would flow down to her linked up Brahm-srishty too! The descent of experiences of such an ‘awakened’ Parātmā, right within the heart (consciousness) of its linked up Brahm-srishty present in Kshara world, is contended here to be the Bhāgawatam’s ‘manifestation next Avatāra called of Kalki’. But this manifestation is not associated with that of Purushottama principle either in it or any other text, within the ‘Parama-hamsas’ for whom the teaxt had been specially composed by Vedvyās. On a rare occasion Bhāgawatam was found to have vaguely associated the term ‘Parātmā’ with ‘Brahm’ in a discourse, commonly called ‘Uddhava-gitā’, that Shri krishna gave to Uddhava only days before He departed for His eternal abode. It is a unique situation: Tāratam is neither supported by ancient scriptures in an ‘end-to-end’ mannernor is it even contradicted by them! The understanding ofTāratam, however, leads one to believe that concepts of scriptures were beyond the reach of commentaters, not due any shortcoming on their part; it simply happened that they had no exposure to former’s wisdom. God had planned to reveal it much later, to initiate the period of Jāgani! It would also be pertinent at this stage to review how the miserlyness or ambiguity of information supplied by text of Adhyātma Ramāyana had prevented it from removing doubts on the three terms: ‘Anātmā’, ‘Ātmā’ and ‘Parātmā’. Three attempts were made by Shri Rāma, as narrated by Shiva to explain those terms to Parvati, his divine consort. This text starts with quite pertinent queries of Pārvati raised with Shiva on spiritual status of Shri Rāma, whom Shiva had considered to be at par with Purushottama. He had asserted that by worshipping Shri Rāma, Jeevas could attain liberation. Pārvati had wondered: How can Shri Rāma, once ignorant



about spiritual truths like other innumerable Jeevas are, about Ātmā, Brahm, etc, (and one who had to be imparted those by Vasishtha) – be equated by Shiva with Purushottama (Brahm)? Only Purushottama (God) can be the cause of liberating other Jeevas, thought Pārvati, a spiritual seeker. In reply to Parvati, Shiva is seen to have narrated complete biography of Shri Rama, as narrated in the text of Adhyātma Ramāyana. It contains three important philosophical discourses given by Shri Rama. The first one given to Hanumān can be found right at the outset in first chapter called ‘Rama-hridaya’. Chronologically it occupies a mid-position between other two that Shri Rama gave to Lakshmana. The last one was that known as ‘Rama Gitā’, but only half of its imports could be grasped by Pārvati, as Brahmā disclosed to Nārada. In this auther’s opinion, genuine doubts of Pārvati were not addressed properly. Whether the clarifications of Shiva were adequate or not can best be judged by perusing the commentaries of the text published by Gitā Press, Gorakhpur. In it, the ‘Parātmā’ has sometimes been interpreted as Ātmā and at others as Paramātmā! As per Tāratam, Parātmā is neither of the two: It acts as an instrument for Ātmā to experience the Paramātmā! Unlike ‘Parātmā’, the term ‘Ātmā’ can be seen to have been employed by scriptures on umptying number of occasions. Still, in this author’s opinion, a reader needs to determine every time whether it is employed at any particular place in the sense of an eternal Samashty or Vyashty; or, in case of the latter, whether it is used for the ‘self’ of a perishable Vyashty or an imperishable one. Following discussion will hopefully bring out the point. 2.2.3 Ambiguity on Ātmā In general, sriptures are ambiguous about Ātmā; at times with quite perplexing variations. Taittiriya Upanishada in its Brahm-valli for example talks of five Koshas (bodies) that every human being possesses, all identical in size and shape but interspersed with one another, and having differeing orders of subtlety of the stuffs those are made up of. The grossest one is ‘Annamaya Kosha’ (made up of food, ‘Anna’) – one seen by our eyes. Other four remain ever invisible to gross eyesight. Our contemporary (almost), Swamy Yogeshwarananda (referred earlier), ‘saw’ them with his divine sight and described where the four subtler organs that every human being possesses, collectively termed as ‘Antahkarana’ by scriptures, are located in the said invisible Koshas, and also function in unison. That‘Antahkarana’ is comparable to what one terms as ‘soul’. But Taittiriya Upanishada terms every one of those four subtle Koshas as ‘Ātmā’ (‘self’) of the immediately grosser onethat the former pervades, and governs (the grosser one) from within! Thus, one sees a hierarchy of four Ātmās, the subtler Koshas or ‘selves’ – presided over by the subtlest one called ‘Ānandamaya’ Kosha – all acting in a well co-ordinated manner to create an impression of being a single ‘conscious self’ that experiences, and interacts with, the outside world via the gross human body! That hierarchical ‘self’ is variously called by a common man as ‘soul’, ‘Jeeva’ and even



‘Ātmā’ – seemingly the ‘experiencer’ of world around, performer of deeds, etc. Those four Koshas also find mention in Mundaka Upanishada/2/2/7 while conveying in a vague manner (in verses 1-11) that Brahm can be experienced through a ‘Parātmā’, in its ‘Anandamāya Kosha’, within a portion of subtle space near ‘heart’ region of a human body. Yogeshwarananda’s observations confirm part of that statement (without referring to any Parātmā though) as the ‘Chitta’, seat of human consciousness, is located in ‘Ānandamaya Kosha’ in the subtle space corresponding to that of heart in gross body! It is there that God is experienced, he too says. But Yogeshwarananda does not talk of three levels of Godhood. Tāratam informs, the highest extent of bliss (‘Ānanda’) of union with Aksharāteeta Purushottama located in His own Loka can be experienced right within heart of a Brahm-srishty, without any need to physically visit that Loka. Then in Mundaka Upanishada we find that Samashty Brahm principle is termed as ‘Ātmā’ of all Lokas, and naturally their Vyashties too, but without explicitly mentioning any order of superiority among those located therein, like Tāratam does! Obviously, such Brahm can only be the ‘Paramātmā’ (superior even to Ātmā, a term also employed for Akshara Purusha), the Aksharāteeta Purusha (Purushottama), the Ishwara of all three Lokas, as per Gitā. Yet another variation is seen in Adhyātma Ramāyana in three discourses of Shri Rāma, wherein we find the term, not used that often in other scriptures – ‘Anātmā’. It is elucidated in relation to both, ‘Ātmā’ and ‘Parātmā’, but quite inadequately! In Bhāgawatam too we find all of the three terms used, but in a rather casual way, in the praise sung by “Shrutadeva” of Shri Krishna! Above two instances draw a parallel with Tāratam when critically examined (it is done later). Shri Rāma seems to convey in Adhyātma Ramāyāna that Anātmā is an insentient (say an image in mirror or what we see in dream?) human form composed of gross and subtle bodies that attracts consciousness of the principle of ‘Ātmā’ to manifest within it! In other words, the ‘real’ conscious principle of Ātmā somehow gets entangled with an inherently insentient or ‘unreal’ Anātmā. But it is not explained well how these two terms stand in relation to another commonly used term, the ‘Jeeva’. In another discourse, the contents of human consciousness, the ‘chida-abhasa’ (it may perhaps be simply termed as ‘Jeeva-bhava’) is said to have been manifested by ‘Paramātmā’ (God). It is implied that it inherently has a potential to return back to its roots, the Paramātmā – but without specifying any reasonable metaphysical process that can enable its ‘return’ journey. Above references have been provided to highlight the extent of confusion concerning even ‘Ātmā’! These seem inevitable as scriptures by and large talk of ‘Ātmā’ in backdrop of only a ‘two-fold’ classification of reality: the ‘Kshara’ and that lying beyond it, the ‘Akshara’. When ‘Ātmā’ itself is not clearly stipulated as being eternal, or Akshara (either in a Samashty or Vyashty sense), how can one conceptualize anything lying beyond it, either ‘para-Ātmā (a Vyashty Parātmā) or eventhe Samashty ‘Paramātmā’? Māndukya Upanishada (perhaps shortest of all) is composed of only 12 verses! In it, Ātmā is termed as an ‘Ishwara’ (a Samashty therefore), an ultimate cause of all human beings, who can experience the former



only in their ‘fourth’ state of consciousness – one that transcends ‘waking’, ‘dream’ and ‘deep sleep’ states! Then one is led to believe that Ātmā is like a four legged reality (the Akshara Purusha?). Yet its last verse seems to suggest as if that ‘Ātmā’ (obviously a Vyashty Jeeva) on attaining its fourth state of consciousness gets entitled to experience its own (Vyashty) Ātmā (Parātmā?) that is eternal! So, what is Ātmā: Samashty or a Vyashty; Kshara or Akshara? In light of use of the term by Tāratam Vāni to point at an imperishable Vyashty, the last verses of Māndukya Upanishada seems to ambiguously suggest that a perishable Jeeva can experience in ‘fourth’ state of consciousness its being a Vyashty Ātmā and thereafter (in a still higher state) it becomes entitled to experience even the latter’s Ātmā (or Parātmā)! In that light, an Anātmā of Adhyātma Rāmāyana could well be a hierarchy of interspersed ‘Koshas’ (bodies every human being possesses) that are really insentient (not having attributes of life, perception, mind, etc). Such attributes of ‘sentience’ as if get implanted within that hierarchy (that we term as ‘soul’ or a Jeeva) through the said ‘Chid-ābhāsa’ that God induces in it! In other words, an illusion is created within that insentient hierarchy of the semblance of ‘sentiece’! That is the best that could be extracted fromAdhyātma Rāmāyana of how the perishable ‘Jeeva consciousness (Jeeva-bhava)’ is created by the said ‘Chid-ābhāsa’.

2.3 Adhyātma Rāmāyana

We find some ancient personages calling Shri Rāma as “Parātmā”. It is composed of 7 Kāndas, containing about 4200 verses in 64 Sargas. It is part of a larger ‘Brahmānda Purāna’, one of the eighteen Purānas composed by Vedavyās. The title itself suggests that it concerns more with issues related with ‘Adhyātma’ (issuespertaining to Ātmā), but aspresented in context of Rāmāyana, the biography of Shri Rāma. In its Māhātmya, a sort of introduction highlighting great importance of main text to follow, Brahmā (creator of our Kshara Brahmānda) is seen responding to a query of Nārada on dispensation for mankind in the malevolent Kaliyuga. He asked: As Kaliyuga advances, it would turn away hearts of men from the ‘punya karmas’ (good deeds); so how and when would they re-start performing such deeds as could lead them to higher Lokas (“Para-Loka-gati”)? Nārada did not quite specify higher Loka or Lokas he had in mind: whether the two Lokas superior to ‘Kshara’, or the six higher Upa-Lokas inncluding the Swarga (the heaven of common man). Brahmā replied: mankind would ignorantly miss the real import of scriptures and indulge in uncalled for debates and conflicts; further, this trend would finally reverse only after they come to learn about the truths relating to “swaroopa” of Shri Rama, say the level of consciousness that was present in Him (Aksharateeta?) as had once been revealed by Shiva to his consort Pārvati. He then narrated to Nārada the discourse of Shiva, in short the full text of Adhyātma Ramāyāna! It reveals that Pārvati had enquired: why did Shiva consider Bhakti (devotion) towards Shri Rama as being at at par with that towards Purushottama



that secures a sort of entry in aboat that can enable the devotee (Bhakta) to cross the vast ocean of Kshara existence? She meant: why Shri Rāma’s grace is essential for one in order to get ‘liberated’? Pārvati said, she was well aware of the fact that Shri Rāma was ignorant once and needed to learn from his guru (Vasishtha) about his Ātma-swaroopa – implying that if Shri Rāma was really the Purushottama, He should not have been ignorent about such an issue! Her brief queries are contained in verses 7-15 of first chapter called ‘Rāma Hridaya’. Shiva simply replied: such curiosities are only natural to arise in one who is a Parātmā! She is thus told that she too (like Shiva) was a Parātmā! Throughout the discourse Shiva is seen giving the biography of Shri Rāma, narrating a few instances when some great sages like Vishwāmitra, Nārada and Ahilyā (a devotee) addressing Him as either a ‘Parātmā’ or ‘Paramātmā’; without really (in this auther’s opinion) addressing all her queries, point-by-point. He also narrated three important discourses given by Shri Rāma. In fourth Sarga, Aranya-kānda, we find a discourse that Shri Rāma gave to his younger brother Lakshman, during their fourteen-year stay together in ‘Vanavāsa’ (compulsory stay in forests), away from Ayodhyā, the capital of His father Dasharatha’s kingdom. Dasharatha was obliged to order that ‘Vanavāsa’ in line with a promise he had given in past to Shri Rāma’s step-mother, Kaikeyi. The chapter of ‘Rāma-hridaya’ contains the queries of Pāarvati to Shiva and also a very brief discourse given by Shri Rāma to Hanumān (a devotee, mentioned earlier) that took place when both the brothers (Shri Rāma and Lakshman) as well as Sitā had safely returned to Ayodhyā. Next discourse, known as ‘Rāma-Gitā’ was given to Lakshman after Shri Rāma’s wife Sitā, pregnant at the time, was asked to leave Ayodhyā and she had taken refuge in the hermitage of sage Vālmiki, and in due time delivered the twin sons, Luv and Kush. By the way, the great yogi ‘Maru’ (one of the two alluded to in the prophecy of Bhāgawatam often discussed on these pages) was a descendant of Kush, the son of Shri Rāma, who himself belonged to great ‘Ikshwāku’ dynasty. Brahmā had confided to Nārada, as recorded in its Māhātmya, about discourse of ‘Rāma-Gitā’: Only half of its import could be grasped by even Pārvati and he himself (Brahmā) could grasp only a quarter of what Shiva had revealed to her! All the three discourses were studied to see if those answered all queries of Pārvati. It seemed they did not; that is perhaps, why in this auther’s humble opinion, she must have raised them again at some undisclosed time (and occasion), refer earlier mention ofan almost unknown text called ‘Māheshwara Tantram’. In it we find that Shiva did answer similar queries to the ones that Pārvati had raised (in Adhyātma Rāmāyana). His information on the later occasion was similar to what Tāratam revealedconcerning three levels of reality, Parātmās, their delusion etc! Adhyātma Rāmāyana, however ambiguous it may be, does attempt to inform the readers of existence of three – rather than only two distinct levels of reality (the practice of most texts other than Gitā). It also seems implying that both the terms Parātmā or Purushottama (Paramātmā), by which Shri Rāma was addressed even



by great sages, really pointed at one and the same level of reality that it is higher than where the two where ‘Ātmā’ and ‘Ānātmā’ are located! Only that much could be gathered from a very brief (only nine verses), ambiguously worded discourse called ‘Rāma-hridaya’ contained in first Sarga of Bāla-kānda/1/44-52) given to Hanumān. We see in it an attempt to differentiate imports of the three terms ‘Anātmā’, ‘Ātmā’ and ‘Parātmā’ by employing a simile of three seemingly different componants of, in fact one and only one, continuum called Ākāsha. Now, the Sanskrit term Ākāsha denotes not only a void, an empty space (sky) that holds within it all later created objects of the gross world; but it also is the first one, the primary Samashty principle (out of a total of five) that by transforming itself turns into the remaining four. These later four principles are called ‘Vayu’ (air), ‘Agni’ (fire), ‘Jala’ (water) and Prithwi (land or earth). Whole of the perishable creation is said to be composed of innumerable permutations and combinations of these five principles (‘Maha-bhootas’). This Ākāsha is termed by Shri Rama as the ‘Mahā-Ākāsha’ in a simile to point at three seemingly Samashty levels of reality (rather than ‘Vyashty’, but without quite making it explicit). He also points at two more discernible levels of this continuum ‘Mahā-Ākāsha’ (Parātmā?); the second one, a part of it pervading some body of water (lake) as ‘Jala-avachchhinna-Ākāsha’ (Ātmā?); and a third one (resulting from the two), ‘reflections or images’ (the ‘Chidābhāsa’) of what lies outside of (or above) it by the lake! It is perhaps meant to point out that it is the underlying continuum ofthe Mahā-Ākāsha that really makes it possible for the water (lake) to capture the images of clouds, etc – as both, what lies within it (water) and outside of it (couds, etc). Both really are the transformations of Mahā-Ākāsha; it does not in the process get divided into two or more totally different (altogether dissimilar) components on account of the transformations. Shri Rāma then straight away drew parallels between those ‘transformations’with three divisions of Samashty consciousness “Chiti” – seemingly of the Brahm or Purushottama principle, perhaps to correspond with Samashty Aksharāteeta, Akshara and Kshara levels. But it seems to have been done (in context of that discourse) in order to point at distinctions among Vyashtiescalled Parātmā, Ātmā and Anātma (that carries a false notion of being a Jeeva due to the said ‘Chida-ābhāsa’, created within it, as discussed earlier). It became possible to deduce that much only in light of understanding of Tāratam.Shri Rāma did not say anything of this sort clearly (as conveyed by Shiva to Pārvati). Perhaps it was just not possible (or even intended?) to convey it only in the nine verses! Commentaries do not give such interpretations. From the whole text no one (at least this auther) may get an impression that explicit replies to the queries raised by Parvati right at the outset were even intended to be furnished. In thetwo other discourses of more spread(than the one just discussed)we find some gaping blanks left in them too; both again given by ShriRāma (to Lakshman). The commentaters were (perhaps per force) called upon to fill in those gaps. One thing is significant: Shri Rāma never asserted that He was the “Purushottama”, as Shiva had contended. But, as we will see later, he did once say He was a Parātmā!



In light of Tāratam a doubt arises: how could Shri Rāma have either been a Parātmā or Purushottama when He was bodily present in perishable Loka? Was He only ‘spiritually connected’ with the highest Loka through aParātmā? Again, was ita scriptural norm to term anyone of Kshara world, who was thought to have been graced with ‘Parātma-yoga’ (as presented here)as a Parātmā or evenParamātmā (Purushottama)? Shri Krishna did declare in Gitā that He was the Purushottama.But in Anugitā Parva He said He was only ‘yoga-yukta’ with Brahm while delivering the discourse of Gitā. Gitā/5/21 seems to say, as seen earlier, that (only) an eternal Ātmā can be ‘yogayukta’ (spiritually linked) with Brahm!Vasishtha had to reveal, as seen earlier, on insistence of Shri Rāma that he was Brahm! Then, we also find some texts declaring, one who experiences Brahm, verily becomes the Brahm!! Who is the one worshipped by Hindus as the most perfect Avatāra (one in whom maximum extent of divinity had manifested): A Vibhooty; most perfect Avatāra of Samashty Kshara Purusha; the Akshara Purusha (the imperishable Samashty Atma); or Samashty Purushottama (Brahm) principle beamed in a human form? Anugitā Parva says He was ‘yogayukta’ with Brahm only while delivering the discourse of Gitā, but not thereafter, hence he could not repeat the discourse of Gita on later occasion. It seems Shri Krishna only ‘uttered’ such words as the higher level eternal reality that He was at the time connected with chose to ‘reveal’ through Him! But such words have got recorded in scriptures! Now, though both, Shri Rāma (who appeared earlier) and Shri Krishna, are held in highest esteem by Hindus, and worshipped as God personified; scriptures also say, they both were the Avatāras of same Vishnu, as manifested in the world at different points of time. Yet some of them reveal that Shri Krishna was the ‘most perfect’ Avatāra! Perhaps Shri Krishna was the most ‘perfected’ Avatāra, over a long period of time – like we human beings evolve with passage of time, over several reincarnations. This speculation seems to explain why Shri Rāma hesitated to declare being the Purushottama. Perhaps He may have been just on verge of being that – with the spiritual guidance of revered sage Vasishtha and the ideal life that He led. Is that why He is called the ‘Maryādā Purushottama’ (perhaps one on way to ‘becoming’ the Purushottama)! By the time same Avatāra appeared again as Shri Krishna, He might perhaps have been fully ‘perfected’! That is perhaps why Shri Krishna is also called “Shodash (16) Kalā (phase) Sampoorna” Avatāra of Vishnu: One who has peaked up to the 16th phase (commencing from its darkest one, finally to ‘full moon’ phase on the 16th day). This Upanishadic simile would be taken up for discussion in next chapter. Tāratam explicitly gives out how higher levels of reality had entered within Shri Krishna’s consciousness – and even left Him later – during a little over first eleven years and two months of His divine lifetime! Whatever is recorded in scriptures may be factual alright, but how can we say that their factual revelations, particularly concerning the greatest personages were comprehensive, or in a chronological order? But all scriptural statements were accepted by later day scholars by simply saying, the same can never be wrong.



Either that, or they did not venture to verify if all clarifications sought by its seekers (Pārvati for example) had really been answered by those whose replies (by Shiva for example) are respectfully recorded in scriptures. We can not presume that all of the ancient material was so comprehensive as not to leave any need of their having to be appropriately augmented later. Tāratam repeatedly states that the seekers of truths, of Brahm-srishty category, were rather frustrated with scriptures, as they did not satisfactorily answer all of of their queries. So, they were for long insearch of satisfactory clarifications. Even the occurrence of ‘sakshatkara’ of – ‘realization’ of (or coming face to face with) – the ‘Ātmā’ (‘Ātmā-sakshātkara’) and that of ‘Brahm’ (the ‘Brahm-sakshātkara’) are often treated in religious literature to bealmost at par! Yet some scriptural references do obliquely convey that the realization of Ātmā is a pre-requisite for that of Brahm-sakshātkara’, hence both spiritual milestones are not really at par (of same level); and Tāratam confirms this perception. But this much is not clearly, unequivocally conveyed in religious literature. Prevailing understanding could have survived for so long owing to scriptural practice of pointing at only one imperishable, causative ‘Akshara’ level of reality that sustainscountless perishable Kshara Brahmāndas. That reality has been termed in the scriptures as ‘Brahm’, ‘Para-Brahm’, ‘Parama-Brahm’, etc; without elucidating the distinctions among these terms. That seems to have led the seekers to believe that all those terms point at the same ‘Akshara’ reality. Based on what could be deduced from study of Tāratam, the term ‘Brahm’ points at ‘Aksharateeta’ level and the ‘Para-Brahm’ perhaps at ‘Akshara’. In Adhyātma Rāmāyana we do not find Shiva explaining ‘Purushottama’ swaroopathat Brahmā had claimed he had done (in Māhatmya portion) with enough clarity as would lead the seekers to ‘Parā-Loka-gati’ (spiritual journies to higher Lokas). In first discourse to Lakshman (verses 19-55 of 4th Sarga of Aranya-kanda) Shri Rāma announced that Paramātmā needs to be experienced by a Jeeva in order to get rid of its false identification with an Anātmā. The latter is an ‘unreal’ creation of the two components of Māyā, the ‘Vikshepa’ and ‘Āvarana’, said Shri Rāma. Māyā, the power of Paramātmā, is said to create both: the external world and also the said unreal feeling, owing to Chid-ābhāsa (Jeeva-bhaava) implanted in every Anātmāthat it exists in the (unreal) world (verses 20-30). Then in verse 31 it is said that the Jeeva and Paramātmā are really one, in a way of the same essence, but they only appear to be different on account of devious acts of Māyā! In verses 35-7 Shri Rama terms Himself as “Sarvātmā”, Ātmā of every Vyashty (of only the Jeevas of this unreal world, or also of Vyshties of other two Lokas?) and advises that everyone needs to remove ignorance with help of scriptures to know all about Ātmā and its one-ness with Him. He said it would lead to the mergerof Jeeva-Ātmā’s consciousness with Paramātmā (verses 43-5). Then Shri Rama calls Himself as “Parātmā” and even says in verses 45-7 that for those who get attached to Him with Bhakti – that they would sure see the Ātmā manifest before them! It is



interesting to note that Shiva does not intervene after this discourse to tell Pārvati that those were the words of Shri Rāma that had led him to believe that worship of Shri Rama was at par with that of Purushottama. In context of Tāratam Vāni and even other texts, who is Shri Rama then: Sarvātmā, Parātmā or Paramātmā? Let us now see what Shri Rāma additionally says in Rāma-Gitā, verses 6-62 of the 5th Sarga of Uttara-kānda. He advised that one must get to know about Ātmā from a Sat-guru as only that could provide liberation from the bondage of Kshara existence; the performance of good karmas, etc can not really provide liberation (those would only provide commensurate fruits, in this very Kshara Loka)! In verses 17-18 we find Him asserting that Ātmā should rid of identification with a human body – an Anātmā (bondage of karmas seemingly performed through it) – in order to have a direct experience that it is in fact one with a ‘Parātmā’! Only then the Ātmā shall get rid itself of ‘Moola (original) Avidyā’ (Ātma-vibhrama, the delusion, of Ātmā or of Parātmā?) of being one with Paramātmā (verse 43). Ambiguities of Adhyātma Rāmāyāna (and other scriptures too) presented here occurred only in the light provided by Tāratam. Only then it was possible to interpret verses cited here differently from that done by learned interpreters of Geeta Press, Gorakhpur. Then we also have verses 28-31 that assert: a Jeeva is really one with Paramātmā but this fact can not be realized unless the false identification with gross, subtle and causal bodies (Anātmā) is given up. This assertion really seems to suggest that every Jeeva can be one with a Parātmā. The verses 32-40 then say that the Ātmā is required to transcend beyond three lower ‘Buddhi-Vrittis’ (states of consciousness), to get re-established in its own swaroopa. Bhāgawatam says it can be done by only a Jeeva in its Turiya state. Tāratam Vāni says this can be done only by its two higher srishties. This discussion clearly points at scriptural ambiguity regarding the term Ātmā – which gets further compounded with Taittiriya Upanishada that uses the term Ātmā for even a subtle Kosha (body)! To summarize, the text of Adhyātmā Ramāyāna, at best, is a half-hearted effort to respond to pointed queries of Pārvati, an opportunity allowed to slip through. Then, Shiva also did not inform Pārvati thatdiscourse of Vasishtha had resulted in Shri Rāma getting into a Samādhi, in which higher spiritual potentials/knowledge could well have descended. Even when specific queries on spiritual issues were raised with Shiva, he simply resorted to narrating biography of Shri Rama including His own (three) discourses, or contentions of other sages on His spiritual status. He clearly is seen avoiding his own philosophical articulations in support of his own contentions. How then would later day readers be expected to get wise on subject of Purushottama swaroopa when even an aspirant of Pārvati’s spiritual caliber was not fully satisfied (as per Brahmā!)! That could well have prompted Pārvati to raise similar queries again with Shiva, but without referring to the earlier occasion; and she was then given a fuller response – as is recorded in the text of Māshwara Tantram (unfortunately unknown to scholarly circles)! It says, Shiva too had doubts like Vedavyās once had (refer discussion on Purāna Samhitā).



Shiva too resorted to Samādhi in order to obtain required clarifications from beings of still higher spiritual level than him. He finally gotthose from Sadāshiva, as Shiva told Pārvati, as per Māheshwara Tantram. That could perhaps have happened after he had given his earlier discourse (Adhyātma Rāmāyana) to Pārvati. But this time around Shiva’s clarifications revolved around the personality of Shri Krishna and His beloved Gopis (rather than Shri Rāma)! When Vedavyās enquired, Shiva gave similar information to him, but it can not be known whether it happened before or after Pārvati received his later discourse. Ways of God, the revealer of all spiritual truths (Gitā/15/15), are strange indeed. We sometimes do not have requisite queries raised, so no answers are provided; and on other occasions,highest information is provided (as in case of Tāratam) without revealing the precise queries! On yet other occasions, like Adhyātma Ramāyana, we have reasonably clear queries, but the clarifications are not quite articulated! Then, on occasions like the discourse of Gitā, we find Shri Krishna even volunteering, before the Mahābhārata war, some very confidential information without Arjuna even asking for it! Further, we also find in scriptures that a query is raised by a seeker in certain context at some stage of any discussion; and the same gets answered not immediately, but at times after many chapters of the text; and without tracing its context to the original query! The reader is fed with more information in the meanwhile, and it surely shifts the reader’s focus away from the original query.

2.4 Bhāgawatam versus Tāratam As is welknown, this text of 18000 verses was especially composed by Vedavyās, addressing itself to needs of great devotees of God of caliber of Parama-hamsas. Hence it is reckoned among scholars also as ‘Parama-hamsa Samhitā’. The title of that text is ‘Shrimad-Bhāgawata-Mahāpurana’, but is commonly called Bhāgawat Purāna, Bhāgawatam, simply Bhāgawat. It is one out of the 18 welknown Puranas that Vedvyās composed (not counting Purana Samhitā). Before he composed it, he was rather dissatisfied with his earlier efforts. Onintuitively knowing it, the Deva-rishi Nārada met him and advised him to compose yet another textkeeping in mind primarily the needs of highly evolvedParama-hamsas. He said, it would enable them to gather such truths as would lead to experience God and then provide them the liberation from clutches of Māyā during the fast detreriorating times of Kaliyuga. As it is, the sage Vedavyās too had arrived at same conclusion after reflecting on his own dissatisfaction (Bhāgawatam/1/4/25-33). Nārada suggested that Vedavyās should in his next composition include all accounts of divine birth and deeds of Shri Krishna by accessing them in his Samādhi state. We can also call collection of such information as ‘accessing required information from the ‘Ākāshic Records’ or ‘Book of God’s Remembrances’, as the welknown American, Edgar Cayce (1877-1945), termed it. On collating Cayce’s information (‘readings’) with an earlier referred book, ‘Ātmā Vijnāna’ (Science of Soul) written by Swami Yogeshwarananda, those ‘Records’ seemed to



be same as the ‘Samashty Chitta’ (of Kshara Purusha) where he said all the records of even most ancient karmas are stored in His scheme of things! “Samādhi anusmar” (‘recall those accounts in your Samādhi state’) is what Deva-rishi Nārada advised Vedavyās to do saying, that he was “Amogha-drik” (/1/5/13) – capable ofunerringly accessing any factual data (of the past) that he desired. Vedavyās must have known the method of accessingrecords of happenings of even most ancient past and employed it while composing his several texts, including the epic of Mahābhārata (Bhāgawatam informs its readers the method he employed to compose it). He promptly composed the text. Some say it is rather difficult to grasp it as it employed ‘Samādhi-bhāshā’ (esotericism often found while expressing information collected in Samādhi), though it is held in highest esteem among the spiritual aspirants, particularly those of Vaishnavite traditions. That is so because it had been composed by Vedavyās primarily to inform required spiritual truths to the highly evolved ‘Parama-hamsas’ who are expected to arrive later in the world in Kaliyuga. Bhāgawatam is composed of 12 Skandhas. Its 10thSkandha is quite massive, composed of a total of 90 chapters! Tāratam reveals the esoteric imports of a few events as were only partly narrated in Bhāgawatam or even omitted altogether, asproper time had not arrived then to make them public. Following discussion will hopefully bring out that Bhāgawatam (other scriptures too) need to to be reviewed in light of Tāratam in order to graspGod’s scheme to enable most evolved spiritual aspirants, the said ‘Parama-hamsas’ (Brahm-srishties) to claim their highest spiritual rewards during the period of Jāgani. The chapters 1-5 of 10th Skandha narrate the happenings of just before and after Shri Krishna’s birth in a prison cell of cruel king Kamsa in Mathura. The just-born divine infant Shri Krishna born to Devaki was placed in a basket and surreptiously carried over to his friend Nand’s house by Vasudeva, His father, on a dark, stormynight. Nand stayed in Gokul situated just across the river Yamuna in Brij area. Vasudeva then placed Him by the side of his friend’s wife Yashodā (asleep then), who had just delivered a daughter in her ripe age. Vasudeva carried her just delivered female child back to prison cell in Mathura. Nand, Yashoda, or anyone else of their household remained oblivious of all these mysterious happenings. On the next morning they thought that Yashoda had given birth to a male child, on previous night (namely, Shri Krishna)! Back in Mathura, news went to cruel king Kamsa that Devaki had given birth to a female child. He went to the prison to kill that child, like he had earlier killed all six elder brothers of Shri Krishna born in prison cell. Only the seventh child of Devaki – Balarām, just elder to Shri Krishna (the eighth one) – was saved with divine grace of God when he got miraculously transplanted (as a foetus) from her womb to that of Rohini, another wife of Vasudeva, who was earlier secretly arranged to be sent to the house of Nand! Carrying away the just born Shri Krishna to Gokul too was done by Vasudeva in a mysterious trance-like state that was induced in him, when Devaki, his wife present in prison cell along with him, was about to deliver Shri Krishna. In a divine experience that Vāsudeva had, he was asked to follow certain



instructions, which he did in his trance-like state. He carried Shri Krishna to Gokul, left Him by Yashoda’s side and carried away her just born daughter! Vasudeva did all that exactly as he was instructed to do. Even Devaki, did not (miraculously)happen to come to know of the switch-over of her child Shri Krishna with Yashoda’s daughter! The unsuspecting couple, Nand and Yashoda, thus raised Shri Krishna for over 11 years as their own son till He remained in Brij. Then He left those foster parents to leave for Mathura at the call of evil king Kamsa, never to return to them (all other scriptures too say the same), even after killing Kamsa. He then got His real parents Vāsudeva and Devaki freed from the prison cell. Both, Shri Krishna and Balarām were thus raised in household of Nand in Brij, before they left for Mathura. All divine deeds performed during this over 11-year period stay in Brij area by Shri Krishna are commonly termed as His “Brij-leela” (or ‘Baal-leela’) and narrated in chapters /10/6-28. Leaving out the miracles He performed, we may now see the divine truths as are only partly recorded in Bhāgawatam, and further augmented by Tāratam!

2.4.1 Descent of Higher Level Consciousness Now, ‘Hamsa’ literally means a white swan. Bhāgawatam/11/12/23 vaguely uses this term to point at a ‘purified’, an evolved Jeeva who aspires for higher spiritual gains while existing in world – rather than aiming for worldly objectives as done by those who are metaphorically pointed as ‘vultures’. In popular perception a Hamsa is associated also with a holy lake, the place of pilgrimage for Hindus till date, called ‘Manasarovar’, located by mount Kailash (now in Tibet, adjoining Indian border), considered to be the abode of Shiva. It is given in Bhāgawatam/11/17/10-11 that right in the beginning of our Vārāha Kalpa, the entire mankind belonged only to one ‘Varna’ (spiritual order of human beings) called ‘Hamsa’ (divine ones of ‘Manasa-srishty’ cadre, like the four legendary ‘Kumāras’ who are collectively known as ‘Sanaka-adi’ in scriptures). Shri Krishna once said: “At that time all men were “Kritakritya” (ones who had accomplished all that they had wanted to), hence it was also called “Krita-yuga” – a term often used by commentataers as a synonym, perhaps erroneously for (every) ‘Satya-yuga’. The mankind worshipped Shri Krishna as a ‘Hamsa’, as is recorded in Bhāgawatam. It appears that the classic Hindu categorization of ‘Varna-vyavastha’ of ascribing ‘Varna’ to anyone was in ancient times based on the spiritual evolution that one had attained by then. One’s Varna (the term ‘Varna’ is also used for ‘colour’) was supposed to point at spiritual potential that existed within him or her for climbing still higher on spiritual ladder (in that life), say enabling even higher levels of divine consciousness to flow in or manifest within one’s spirit. It was believed that the previously accomplished level of evolution gave a typical hue (colour) to every Jeeva’s subtlest body, the ‘causal’ body, and it became visible in its ‘aura’, the sutle vibrational environment surrounding every person. This is a very difficult concept to grasp. Some useful references (though these are not quite prominently cited in commonly read religious literature) from the text of Mahabhārata would be



provided later with a hope that those intersested in this topic would connect them with other such references to develop the theme further. With passage of long periods of time, the said system seems to have degenerated into the so-called ‘caste system’ of Hindus, as practised today, one based mainly on heredity. Tāratam seems to subtly carry forward that idea to its logical conclusion, though without directly referring to the ancient concept of Varna-vyavasthā. Hence the connection between the two systems does not come to the fore when it divides the mankind into three broad categories by stipulating the highest spiritual destinations that their spirits (‘srishties’) would ‘eventually climb upto’ (their ‘parama-gatis’) by the end of our very special Kaliyuga. It really amounts to stipulating that three different levels of God’s reality exist from where the ‘descent’ of consciousness (operating at those levels) could eventually flow down respectively into the spirits of each of the three categories even when located in Kshara bodies. Further, it is the descent of Aksharāteeta level consciousness into spirits of Brahm-srishties that would primarily the end the malificence of present Kaliyuga,much before its appointed time. It was not earlier intended to discuss the precise intents of development of original ‘Varna-vyavastha’ system. These are difficult to locate from the vast expanse of Hindu scriptures, and even more difficult to grasp and explain as the same are often vaguely worded. Moreover, good amount of controvercy surrounds this topic. But it became essential to do so in context of a significant prophecy of Bhāgawatam/12/2/37-38 disclosing that around the end of present Kaliyuga that ancient system would get ‘restored’ with efforts of two ancient yogis known as “Devapi” and “Maru” who are mentioned in it quite a few times. As prophesied, they would make an appearance towards the end of Kaliyuga tore-establish the ancient Varna-vyavastha and herald forthcoming Satya-yuga! It draws a parallel with what happened with the Sat-guru and his worthy disciple, Mahāmati Prānanāth as chronicled in Beetak (biographical material pertaining to them both) composed by a close disciple of Mahāmati Prānanāth named “Shri Laldas”. Shri Laldas hinted in his Beetak – and the entire Pranami Samaj firmly believes in his words – that Bhāgawatam’s prophecy made before the king Parikshit by sage Shukadeva thousands of years ago concerning the yogis Devapi and Maru really relates to their spiritual mantors (the Satguru Shri Devachandra ji and Mahāmati Prānanāth), who had provided them the wisdom of Tāratam! This belief is further supported by what Bhāgawatam says in same chapter about God’s manifestation in form of “Kalki” (verses 16 onwards upto 36; verses 37-38talk of Devapi and Maru) and the divine Aura that He would then spread in world. Going by words of Bhāgawatam (of manifestation of Kalki in a single individual) some of them feel Satguru was that Kalki, while others say it was Mahāmati Prānanāth. But Tāratam Vāni seems to say that divine Aura would be spread by each of the 12,000 Brahm-srishties, as and when it awakens its Parātmā; and that the Kaliyuga would be brought to an end by the Auras spread by all of them!



That led to the quest: Whether the manifestation of Kalki will take place only in one highly evolved individual, son of a Brahmin named Vishnuyasha, as is given in Bhāgawatam, or it had already taken place first time in the Satguru, and next in Mahāmati Prānanāth; and will thereafter take place in every Brahm-srishty till the end of period of Jāgani? After weighing in several statements of Tāratam this auther was led to conclude that manifestation of Kalki (Purushottama principle) would take place in all Brahm-srishties. The two prophecies concerning Devāpi and Maru as also manifestation of Kalki (and His divine deeds) are interlinked, although the scholarly commentaries of Bhāgawatam have not mentioned such a link-up (obviously in absence of exposure to Tāratam). To spot that ‘link-up’ it was essential to grasp the imports of following scriptural terms/concepts: ‘Varna’; the system of ‘Varna-vyavasthā’ and how it can support the unprecedented future happenings mentioned by Tāratam; the ‘Mānasa-deva’ who alone (intriguingly) could create our Vārāha Kalpa; ‘Mānasa-putras’ (only loosely translated in English as ‘sons of God’), etc. The narrations of Bhāgawatam/12/2 (and also of other scriptures) make it appear as if ‘change-over’ to next Satya-yuga will be of a ‘routine’ type – like the ones that would have taken place millions of times in our Kshara creation in the past, and would take place in future, till it perishes. In other words, scriptures do not suggest any ‘astounding’ changeover that mankind is presently undergoing. Certain understanding of scriptures emerged only when a few seemingly unrelated statements or notions thrown up by them were culled out and linked together in a particular manner. Attention got drawn to the fact mentioned in all scriptures that an intervention of a certain higher principle called “Mānas” was essential to begin the present Vārāha Kalpa, after the period of perevious night of Brahmā was over. Then it occurred that creating our world in Vārāha Kalpa can surely be considered as a ‘direct intervention’ of Aksharāteeta level, say by way of ‘preparatory steps’ to enable in its Vaivasvata Manwantara the Parātmās to experience it! Was it alluded in scriptures as the intervention of (the unelucidated) “Manas” principle? Those ‘preparatory steps’ would have catered to enabling some carefully selected evolved individuals – Jeevas linked with ‘awakened’ Ātmās to appear in world in the beginning of Vārāha Kalpa, so that their links could be extended even upto the Aksharāteeta Loka – at some appropriate time in its Vaivasvat Manwantara. In earlier Kalpas it was not the case and Brahmā of Kshara Loka backed by lower two Pādas of Akshara Purusha (Sabalik and Avyākrit) could create the beings of Jeeva-srishty category and perhaps even those upwards linked with deluded Ātmās of Akshara Loka. Possibility of establishing the further upward spiritual links of some of them (more evolved) Ātmās, located in two higher Padas of Akshara Purusha with Parātmās – at some later time in Vaivasvata Manwantara – would sure have needed those ‘preparatory steps’ right at the time of bringing into existence the world of Vārāha Kalpa. That surely would call for direct intervention of sorts from Aksharāteeta level and higher two Pādas of Akshara level wherein at least the highest Upa-Lokas of the larger Akshara Loka are located.



It was not hoped that an end-to-end corroboration of Tāratam would emerge when collated with scriptures; still some more corroboration was indeed expected than what actually emerged; and some of it did, but only after passage of some more time. It also then occurred that such a hope was based on an inapropriate premise that Tāratam had intended to summarize what all had been revealed by scriptures (at least some important ones). Its intention would simply have been to augment the latter, say to complement and supplement them! It was unjustified therefore to really expect an end-to-end corroboration from Hindu scriptures; or even from those of other faiths (effort was not made in that direction due to lack of sufficient knowledge to do so). This auther remained content after ascertaining that Tāratam did not really contradict the scriptureson higher two levels of reality and that both complement and supplement each other. That should be considered as adequate basis to conclude that they both had originated from the same God, who had revealed the various levels of His reality in different times and cultures to cater to demands of time and the evolution that had already taken place, or was planned by God to take place subsequently! In this backdrop some scriptural statements are presented below to show how Tāratam augments at least the Hindu scriptures. It also seems to explain few intriguing statements of Bible, at least draws parallels with them (as done in chapter 1), in context of concept of Inter-Loka spiritual links. Returning to Bhāgawatam, the discussion to follow would hopefully clarify some of its intrigues: Who are the Parama-hamsas or what extraordinary spiritual capabities are said to be present only in them? Why Bhāgawatam’s accounts of acts of Shri Krishna and Gopies, the uneducated cowherd women of Brij region of India, called Brij- and Rāsa-leelās, were given so much prominence when those, outwardly, do not at all appear to be the acts of ‘spiritual’ significance? Or why Rāsa-leelā was enacted only in a special creation of ‘Yoga-māyā’ – and not in that Brij area of our Kshara world? Bhāgawatam alludes to ‘Yoga-māyā’ only once in the five chapters describing enactment of Rāsa-leelā (‘Rāsa-panchādhyayi’) by Gopies! It does not at all elucidate, unlike Tāratam. Latter repeatedly says that Yoga-māyā was the superior power of God as compared to the scriptural Māyā (Kāla-māyā of Tāratam) that is the power behind countless perishable Brahmāndas (creations). In a little over 11 years by the end of previous Dwāpar Yuga, those Gopies were present with Shri Krishna enacted the so called ‘Brij-leela’ in Kshara creation.What was the purpose of God in making them frivolously enact the ‘Rāsa-leelā’ in the glorious creation of Yoga-Māyā? What was so special about those uncultured cowherd women, and how would their seemingly frivolous acts recorded the text of Bhāgawatam be relevant to the ‘spiritual’ needs of ‘Parama-hamsas’, especially for whom the text was composed by Vedavyās? Keeping those queries in mind, we may now review the perceptions of some enlighetened personages recorded in it concerning the Rāsa-leela, Yoga-Māyā, our Vārāha Kalpa and why it is often said that the grace of Shri Krishna’s lotus feet is essential for spiritual advancement, etc? What was His spiritual status after all?



2.4.2 Hamsas

The sage Shukadeva said in Bhāgawatam/10/77/32: those who secure a refuge in His lotus feet get rewarded with “Ātma-vidya” (concepts of eternal Ātmā, how to get connected to it, later realize it, etc), and eventually for their spirits the “Parama sat-gati”, highest destination in ‘Sat’ (Akshara realm of His realaity)! Then in /10/87/20-1 it is asserted: those of ‘Hamsa’ order or their progeny (“Hamsa-kula”) are fervently devoted to Him. They aspire for, and succeed in taking refuge in His lotus feet. It also means giving up an obsessive mind-set that a Jeeva is the real performer of all deeds and consequently has the right to receive their fruits. In verse /2/4/13 we also see Shukadeva spelling out the divinity and influence of Shri Krishna, by saying at the outset of his discourse of Bhāgawatam to Parikshit. The ‘Parama-hamsas’ (superior even to Hamsas) bow before Purushottama’s lotus feet (surrender their ‘selves’ to Him) to fulfill their aspirations (of experiencing Him)! That seems to vaguely distinguish their spiritual outreaches from those of Hamsas. Following discussion would hopefully highlight that the outreach of Hamsas is upto Akshara level. Uddhava enquired about what He had disclosed to ‘Sanaka-adi’ (four legendary ‘Mānasa-putras’) on the ultimate limit of Yoga (accomplishment). Shukadeva told the king Parikshit what Shri Krishna had disclosed earlier. He had said (Bhāgawatam/11/13): ‘Sanaka-adi’ once went to Brahmā, the creator of our world, with a query on how, if at all, is it possible for consciousness of Jeevas – who always operate through, and interact with the created objects of world through sense- and motor-organs – to turn away from them (their lures), and get liberated from that bondage? As Brahmā could not reply, he meditated and He (Shri Krishna) appeared before them in form of a “Hamsa” (literally, a ‘swan’, but here it could point at a higher order personage) to enlighten them! In nutshell, what He later disclosed, while narrating to Uddhava, was this: Natural flow of the consciousness of Jeevas can indeed be turned away from world; but only in fourth (the ‘Turiya’) state of consciousness after giving up desires of Kshara world that crop up in their lower three states of consciousness (/11/13/29). Since in Turiya state one can only reach Ātmic consciousness, say realize only the Ātma-swaroopa, Shri Krishna seems to have revealed only how to realize Akshara level reality. He also informed Uddhava that His clarifications had removed all the doubts of Sanaka-adi. In /11/14/3-5 it is said: that discourse (the “Veda-sanjnita”) He gave to Brahmā on that occasion had got destroyed in previous (Naimittik) Pralaya, so it was again given to Brahmā in beginning of present (Vārāha) Kalpa. The same was passed on by Brahmā to Manu, who in turn passed it on to seven “Brahm-rishies” (they are also perhaps alluded to in scriptures as ‘Prajāpaties’), the sage Bhrigu and six others – belonging to ‘Mānasa-srishty’ order. When expressed using the terminology of Tāratam, all the personages referred to here would surely have been of at least of ‘Ishwarsrishty’ category. Anyway, they are said to have further passed on that information to all ‘Siddhas’, ‘Gandharvas’, ‘Vidyādharas’, etc (personages of higher spiritual status than ordinary Jeevas)!



In certain places the scriptures seem to vaguely point out that Hamsas really are (or once were) those termed as ‘Mānasa-putras’, the sons (putras) of ‘Mānasa-deva’. But commentaters often project them as the ‘mental’ (‘Mānasa’) sons of‘Brahmā’, the power that creates our Kshara creation. Are not we human beings destroyed and re-created every moment by Brahmā – one of the trinity (Brahmā, Vishnu and Mahesha) of Kshara Purusha – also his mental creations, akin to those everyone created in a dream (refer that simile of cinematographic projections)? How are we different then from those of Mānasa-srishty order? The answer could well be that we all – including those of Mānasa-srishty order – live in Vārāha Kalpa that could be created (also sustained) only with a certain ‘behind the scene’ support of a higher order reality. Brahmā did not need that support when creating the previous Kalpas. There has to be something special with not only the ‘created’ Jeevas, at least some of them, but also with the ‘being’ of Brahmā in our Vārāha Kalpa! The text of Mahābhārata (as discussed in next chapter) seems to suggest that the term ‘Mānasa-putras’ either applies to ‘Hamsas’/‘divine Brahmanas’ or is in some way connected with ‘awakened’ Ātmās. It seems possible that some others like them could have appeared in this Kalpa and in due course of time acquired the status of ‘Parama-hamsas’ with His further grace of Parātma-yoga – that extended their links further upwards, upto the Parātmās. If true, then ‘Mānasa-putra’(one of ‘Mānasa-srishty’ order)is an evolved Ishwar-srishty, ripe enough to later get elevated to the Brahm-srishty status. That justifies the need on part of Brahmā to have higher order support of ‘Mānasa’, so as to be able to create and support a Kalpa that would have ‘upward spiritual links’ reaching upto Parātmās of Aksharāteeta Loka. In case of the Jeevas (excluding Brahm-srishties) of earlier Kalpas – keeping in mind the possibility of God awarding graces of Ātma-yoga on deserving Jeevas – their upward spiritual links might have been called upon to reach upto Akshara level only(and not beyond). As it is, every Kalpa of Kshara Brahmāndahas to remainrooted in Akshara level to be able to get sustained by it; hence no special preparations might have been required to accommodate spiritual links reaching upto it. But for Brahm-srishty category Jeevas, their extended links have to reach right upto Aksharateeta level. Hence it seems reasonable to envisage that the power ofcreating and sustaining them (Brahmā)would itself have required still higher order support, drawn from the so called Mānasa-deva of scriptures! Most scriptures, other perhaps than Gitā, neither talk of more than one higher levels of reality above Kshara, nor even the existence at those levels of formful higher order Vyashties. The term ‘Mānasa’ of scriptures, or Mānasa-deva’ (as commentators often call It) is perhaps a vague name given by scriptures like ‘Hari’ or ‘Shri hari’ that seems to point at both, the Akshara and Aksharāteeta Purushas put together. The ‘Mānasa-srishty’ order of beings or those called as ‘Mānasa-putras’ could well be the higher category Jeevas of Tāratam, “Vibhooties” or “Divya Vibhooties’ of Gitā and



Bhāgawatam – respectively the Ishwar-srishties and Brahm-srishties. They would be rewarded for their efforts of past erasduring the period of Jāgani in ‘Vaivasvat Manwantara’ of Vārāha Kalpa. If one takes into account the testimony of sage Markandeya recorded in text of Mahābhārata (discussed later) one may well wonder if Shri Krishna is the one who is referred to as Mānasa-deva! Shri Krishna is also alluded to as “Bhagawān Hari” by Shukadeva (in Bhāgawatam/11/17/8) while answering to the queries of Parikshit raised in /11/17/1-7. In the remaining verses of chapter, Bhāgawatam /11/17, and even in subsequent chapters, Shri Krishna disclosed to Uddhava: it was He who had formulated ancient ‘Varna-āshrama system’ and even went on to explain what the codes of conduct were for the four ‘Varnas’. It is in line with what Shri Krishna had disclosed to Arjuna in Gitā/10/2-3: He as the “Loka-Maheshwara” is the root cause of all devas and even of all the great sages. That is why even they do not know fully about Him! He disclosed further in Gitā/10/6-8 that He had created the seven Maharshis (perhaps same as those Bhāgawatam terms as ‘Brahm-rishies’), capable of even creating mankind (‘Prajā-paties’)! Those higher order capabilities are said to have been transmitted to them by His ‘Vibhooty-yoga’ (ref Gitā/10/6-7). He further said: those who solve such mysteries themselves become His Vibhooties! Those Vibhooties are often seen preaching in world the system of ‘Varna-āshrama’ through their discourses from time to time, so that others may, by following their guidance, live in peace and happiness, apart from making good extent of spiritual progress. Intersetingly, it is said in Bhāgawatam /11/17/11 that He (‘Pranava’) was present in that ancient Krita-yuga (perhaps in beginning of Vārāha Kalpa) like a mighty bull (a mataphore) standing firmly on all four feet (‘pādas’ of Akshara Purusha’?) in support of that creation. Hence all those who followed ascetic practices in those times had in effect verily worshipped Him as a “Hamsa” in line with their understanding of Vedas! In /11/13/18-9 is again cited the earlier referred discourse of Shri Krishna to Brahmā and Sanakādi whose intellect was obsessed with a need to perform Karmas (perhaps to fulfill spiritual objective). That is why they would have enquired: who really was He (20th verse)? He intriguingly told them that they were not any differant from Him; as such their query was really irrelevant! He said, He was experiencer, experience and also the experienced. He then disclosed: One can discard that obsession (present in three lower states of consciousness) only by attaining a next higher, the ‘Turiya’ state! Then in /11/24/2 He disclosed to Uddhava: In that Krit-yuga everyone (or most?) could discriminate between what was right and wrong (perhaps Dharma, the tenets of system of ‘Varna-vyavastha’). We thus see Bhāgawatam generally speaking highly of Hamsas and Parama-hamsas, but without revealing how they attained that high status or if they were metaphysically helped by God (via spiritual link-ups). In Bhāgawatam/11/12/22-24 Shri Krishna is seen clarifying to Uddhava the difference between an ordinary Jeeva and Hamsa. He implies: Hamsa is established (or desirous of being so?) in (eternal) Ātmā, while Jeevas are like vultures (content with eating dead animals: a simile for those content with experiencing objects of perishable world?). In next



chapter He told Uddhava what ‘Sanakādi’ normally advise the spiritual aspirants: the “Buddhi-vritty” (state of consciousness) needs to be withdrawn from Kshara world and turned on to Him in ‘Turiya’ state. It also seems to suggest that they too were in their Turiya state when they appeared along with Brahmā before Shri Krishna. Yogavāsishtha says, in Turiya state a yogi (of ‘Hamsa’ order) is able to experience eternal ‘Ātmā’; yet for experience of Paramātmā one (of ‘Parama-hamsa order’) has to attain Turyateeta state.

2.4.3 ‘Varna’ of scriptures Hamsa and Parama-hamsa seem to be the titles given to Jeevas who possess ‘potentials’ of experiencing respectively the Akshara and Aksharāteeta levels of reality (via their spiritual link-ups with Ātmās and Parātmās). It also seems that “Brāhmana” was at times a term used in scriptures to point vaguely at the likes of Brahm-rishies, who either knew all that is required to be known about Brahm already, or those who had received suitable graces of God so that they could eventually experience higher level/levels of the eternal Brahm (Akshara or Aksharāteeta). But this much could be inferred only after locating some rare scriptural references relating to few Jeevas who could in future attain “Hamsatva” or “Brāhmanatva”. Chapters 39 and 40 of Shalya Parva, Mahābhārata for example say for Devāpi (one of the two yogis prophesied in Bhāgawatam/12/2/37-38)that heattained ‘Brāhmanatva’ (spiritual milestone associated with a Brahmana?)in a holy place in Himalayan forests,the ‘Prithudak Teertha’ (verses /39/37-8). He went there after renouncing the throne of Hastināpur in search of spiritual persuits! Prince Devāpi was otherwise of ‘Kshatriya’Varna – a step lower in hierarchy than the ‘Brāhman’ Varna (those devoted to spiritual persuits). The term Kshatriya refers to warrior class, whose main duty is to enforce Dharma, performance of righteous deeds. Then verses /40/9-12 of Shalya Parva add that it was the same place where great kings of certain welknown dynasties too had attained Brāhmanatva in past! Likewise, it is said for Maru (the other yogi prophesied in Bhāgawatam), of Ikshvāku dynasty of rulers (in 22nd generation following Shri Rāma) that he became a “Yoga-siddha’’ (one firmly established in yogic practices) in another holy place called Kalapa (Bhagawatam/9/12/6)! This suggests that original ‘Varna’ system was based on ‘spiritual attainments’ and vocations that enabled them – rather than simply the heredity (so called ‘caste system’ of Hindus as practiced till date) that it degenerated into with passage of long periods of time. The other two ‘Varnas’ (in descending order) are ‘Vaishya’ and ‘Shoodra’. Such referencessuggest, ‘Hamsatva’/‘Brāhmanatva’ can be attained by undertaking certain efforts Christhood:“Jesus who became the Christ” is a parallal to Mahābhārata’sphraseology, cited here based on the ‘readings’ given by a psychically giftedAmerican called Edgar Cayce (1875-1945). His psychical ‘readings’ are often cited here. He has provided wonderful corroborations (in his enigmatic, hypnotic state) for many concepts that are common to faiths originatingin India, and also of those in Bible, like those relating to reincarnation,



the Law of Karma, life-after-life human existence in which one can spiritually evolve, etc. Cayce often used for Jesus Christ the phrase “Jesus who became the Christ”! In context of present discussion, did Jesus similarly ‘ascend’ to next higher step on spiritual ladder termed by Edgar Cayce as becoming the ‘Christ’, say attaining “Christhood’ (a spiritual milestone)? We need to remember that Jesus is also referred to in Bible as ‘son of God’! The phenomenon that worked itself out through Edgar Cayce, a devout Christian, is viewed by this author as representing the rather amazing things that have either happened, or will happen in future, during the period of Jāgani. Today even some Christians doubt if there could have existed in our world such a personage named Jesus Christ (as depicted in bible). He seemed to be too good to be true! For them, Edgar Cayce has not only provided adequate testimony of his having existed in world; but has even elucidated the hidden imports of several of his enigmatic statements as recorded in Bible (we need to remember that Jesus frequently talked in parables). Unfortunately, this contemporary corroboration by Edgar Cayce of ancient Indian concepts has not quite been appreciated by even Indian philosophical circles and communicated to wider Indian masses. The phenomenon that worked out through Cayce, and likewise through the Theosophists, seems to have given the Western world a first-hand exposure to such concepts via their own, contemporary personalities! There is nothing really Indian about them; these are univerasal in their application, whether people are aware of them or not! Anyway, people usually take it for granted that “Jesus” and “Christ” are the two different names of same person (like name and a middle name or a surname). But from Edgar Cayce’s readings it looks as if it was some spiritual accomplishment – say, acquiring “Christ-ness or Christ-hood”, say experiencing a higher, “Christ” consciousness! Had ‘Christ’ been a Sanskrit term employed in a reverential sense, the Indian scriptures could well have said that Jesus had attained “Christ-atva” (similar to “Hamsa-tva” and “Brāhmana-tva”)! It is noteworthy that one does come across in recent English literature a few terms like ‘Christ-consciousness’ or ‘Krishna-consciousness’ for certain higher (or highest) level of consciousness that one can attune to with proper efforts. There exists a worldwide Hindu organization of Vaishnavite tradition called International Society for ‘Krishna Consciousness’ (abrieviation: ‘ISKCON’)! Referring to earlier discussion on ‘Mānasa-srishty’, this author wonders whether (in view of an obviously high spiritual stature of Jesus) the ‘Mānasa-putra’ of Indian scriptures is really comparable to Bible’s “Son of God”. What has been quoted on these pages of Bible is taken from the English version, a pocket size book (“Good News, New Testament”) published by The Bible Society of India, Bangalore. It does not quite say how that ‘Son of God’ differs from ‘son of man’, but the latter does appear to correspond with ‘Maithuny-srishty’ of Hindu scriptures, those of human parentage. Yet the Gospel of John presents Jesus as the eternal Word of God who “became a human being and lived among us”! So,



Jesusseems somehow connected with the spiritual level related to ‘eternality’ – perhaps the Biblical way of narrating spiritual link-up with an eternal Akshara level of reality (Ātmā) of Hindu scriptures. Does the term ‘Word’ refer to Akshara Purusha (the level of His reality); and ‘God’ or ‘Kingdom of God’ respectively to Aksharāteeta Purusha or Aksharāteeta Loka of Tāratam (Puroshattama principle of Gitā)? We can see what John/1/1-5 says regarding the Word of Life: “Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God and he was the same as God. From the very beginning the Word was with God. Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him. The Word was the source of life, and this life brought light to mankind. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has never put it out”. The verses of John/1/10-13 are equally revealing: “The Word was in the world, and though God made the world through him, yet the world did not recognize him. He came to his own country, but his own people did not receive him. Some, however, did receive him and believe in him; so he gave them the right to become God’s children. They did not become God’s children by natural means, that is, by being born as the children of a human father; God himself was their father”. Bible thus indicates that ‘God’s children” became as such by the grace of God. Their spiritual attainments would naturally be higher. Tāratam Vāni said the same unambiguously in 17th century. Only Ishwar-srishties have capabilities to experience themselves as Ātmās of Akshara Loka in their Turiya states while the Brahm-srishties would not only do so but would also later identify themselves also with Parātmās of Aksharāteeta Loka (Bible’s ‘Kingdom of God’?). Collated this way, this bit of discussion surely raises a speculation: is securing the ‘Hamsatva’ (of Mahābhārata, discussed later) the same as being awarded with the Ātma-yoga; and likewise ‘Parama-hamsatva’, the same as being further rewarded with ‘Parātma-yoga’ (Brahm-yoga of Gitā)? Latter part of speculation was also suggested in Bhāgawatam/11/23/58-62 when Shri Krishna almost equated ‘Parātma-nishthā’ with ‘Brahm-nishthā’. Clarifications on Hamsas are found in Bhāgawatam and other scriptures only in bits and pieces, scattered all over; not concisely in one place.

2.4.4 Rāsa-leelā in Yoga-māyā’s creation Acts of Shri Krishna and Gopies in this glorious creation, known as Rāsa-leelā are narrated in five chapters/10/29-33 (called ‘Rāsa-pancha-adhyayi’). Tāratam fully corroboratesthe the accounts of Rāsa-leela and of previously enacted ‘Brij-leelā’ – both as narrated by Bhāgawatam (and other Hindu texts). But Tāratam also reveals what those scriptures have not disclosed: The spiritual significance of those ancient happenings; as also the relevance of Rāsa-leelā enacted in Yoga-māyā’s creation to Brahm-srishtiesduring period of Jāgani in our Kshara creation. It outlines its role in delivering to them thehighest ever spiritual rewards. Fortunately, with availability ofabundant, cheap religious texts made available by Geetā Press, Gorakhpur, Television, etc: The Hindu society at large is learning more about Bhāgawatam.



Other organizations like ISKCON have translated Bhāgawatam in English for worldwide consumption. But it makes accounts of those two ‘leelās’, if reckoned at their face value, amenable to criticism not only from those of other faiths, but even from rational minded Hindus. Tāratam Vāni and biographical accounts of Sat-guru Shri Devachandraji’s spiritual awakening found in Beetak literature make it clear that the effort of composing Bhāgawatam that Vedavyās undertook in ancient times fully served its intended purpose by initiating the process of Jāgani in year 1618 AD. Satguru was the first Parama-hamsa (Brahm-srishty) whose linked-up Parātmā got awakened then! It happened after a fourteen yearlong dedicated study of Bhāgawatam! Herein lies the relevance of Bhāgawatam to spiritual needs of ven later day Parama-hamsas who are prophesied to appear later in Kaliyuga. Yet, spiritual intent thereofcan not be fully grasped without taking recourse to Tāratam. Both complement each other to enable us visualize the scheme of Purushottama that had necessitated the spirits of Gopies to get elevated to Yogamāyā creation for enacting Rāsa-leelā. The Rāsa-leelamay be termed a ‘penultimate’ stage of elevation that occurred to the spirits of those Gopies, so that they may rise to Aksharāteeta Loka on their own during period of Jāgani! The same Gopies when reborn during subsequent lifetimes would feel as if they are ordinary Jeevas, like innumerable others, when they in fact are Parama-hamsas (Brahm-srishties). They were expected in His scheme as revealed by Tāratam to be the Jeevas who would connect with their own accounts of Rāsa-leela and then dwell deeply on spiritual imports of those esoteric accounts! That was what precisely happened with the Satguru as per Beetak literature. Bhāgawatam, however, hides that scheme of Purushottama, only revealing that it was meant to enlighten the Parama-hamsas who would make appearances in worsening period of Kaliyuga. As for the term ‘Yoga-māyā’: Bhāgawatam employs it only once in the five chapters (in /10/29/1), vaguely suggesting it was the place where Rāsa-leelā was enacted on a ‘full-moon night’. It creates an impression that it was enacted in the same Kshara creation (that of Kāla-māyā) wherein ‘Brij-leelā’ was enacted, uptill the onset of that night. It really was the night of ‘Brahmā’ – “Brahm-ratra” as given out in a lone verse, /10/33/39, towards very end of those five chapoters – without dropping a hint that the three Upa-Lokas (including the ‘Bhoo’ Upa-Loka, wherein Brij-leela was enacted) would surehave got annihilated in ‘Naimittik’ Pralaya (during night of Brahmā)! Itseems both the references (/10/29/1 and /10/33/39) have not been collated with each other by the commentaters. Otherwise they would surely have realized that Brij area of India located in world would have been destroyed when Rāsa-leelā was getting enacted. This author had indeed come across a rare statement in some scripture suggesting that ‘Naimittik’ Pralayas may take place even when the full duration of a day of Brahmā had not elapsed, in order to serve any divine purpose (‘Nimitta’) of God. But it was unfortunately misplaced, and could not be re-located later for citing here.



Anyway, Tāratam does seem to suggest that there indeed was a divine purpose that was going to be served much later. It says it was a rarest of rare occasions when Purushottama’s beloved Parātmās (their spirits) were required to be shown what was it like to exist in Kshara Loka during Brij-leela period of 11 years and 52 days; later in Yoga-māyā’s creation; and again,in next Kshara creation –before returning to Aksharāteeta Loka. He did it by making them identify with spirits of those Gopies of Brijarea that still is one of the most important places of pilgrimage for the Hindus. They believe it is the same land where Shri Krishna had enacted Brij-leelā, and later even the Rāsa-leelā on the bank of river Yamuna! Tāratam says clearly that Kshara world along with its Brij area, where Brij-leelā was enacted, was destroyed when the spirits of Gopies along with Shri Krishna were experiencing the glorious creation of Yoga-māyā, where Rāsa-leelā got enacted! Bhāgawatam does not at all explain what divine purpose was served by Shri Krishna and Gopies when they performed those seemingly frivolous acts (in light of Indian traditions of chastity, etc) on that night of Rāsa-leelā. This much can also be gathered when persusing Rāsa-leelā accounts in its five chapters (29-33). It depicts that king Parikshit did express a surprise before the sage Shukadeva (/10/33/27-29) regarding why Shri Krishna, his ideal, had performed those frivolous acts with grown up and married Gopies, who had their children back home; and what good would it serve when the populace hears of those! It is seen that rather than giving any well reasoned answer, the sage simply said in verse 40 that all those who either recite, or even listen with devotion to accounts of Rāsa-leelā performed by Him would certainly benefit spiritually! He said they would even secure ‘Parā-Bhakti’ of His lotus feet. He added: They would even shed their own desires for (or attitudes towards sex?), etc. But how would it happen is just not elucidated, even hinted at. Aspirants capable of reflecting rationally on what is recorded in Bhāgawatam are bound to be dissatisfied with such a casual approach. Just because Shri Krishna, the ideal of so many, one who is equated with God, had acted that way in ancient past: do those frivolities deserve to be reverently recited/heard (to be emulated by them, sung in the folklore)? How would the evolved Parama-hamsas – get benefited by such scriptural guidance? Then on reflecting over the whole issue in light of Tāratam, it seemed as if it had really intended that aspirants should remain perplexed, even dissatisfied, with narrations of Rāsa-leelā! It could well have been a part of His plan that they keep on reflecting from time time about why Vedavyās should have at all included that episode in Bhāgawatam, especially composed for Parama-hamsas. Yet they were required to have faith in that text so that they kept on returning to it – to check up if they had missed any important clue earlier. Bhāgawatam seems to have admirably succeeded in that endeavour. Well, for thousands of years the spiritual aspirants of India tried their best to arrive at their own versions of spiritual intents behind its esotericity (if at all). This much can be seen from their voluminous contributions to religious literature of subsequent times. But it can now be seen in light of Tāratam that unless their efforts are supplemented by its revelations, fuller imports of Rāsa-leelā can never really be grasped by the



beneficieries (Parama-hamsas) in period of Jāgani! That is why God manifested His further dose of Revelations in seventeenth century India when some of those Parama-hamsas having deep faith in Bhāgawatam (and still unable to decipher its intents), those of Vaishnavite traditions, had been reborn in India. But before turning to Tārtam, let us also see if Bhāgwatam had furnished any more information on the power of Yoga-māyā, apart from those five chapters describing Rāsa-leelā. Bhāgawatam indirectly speaks of mysterious Yoga-māyā after 50 chapters (in /10/85/34-55)! Bāli, a devotee of Shri Krishna since ancient times, said to Shri Krishna that even greatest yogis (“yogeshwaras”) were not aware of it; how would he then know? Saying that, he raised His lotus feet to his head and fervently requested that he be blessed with devotion and love for them. It happened when Shri Krishna went to ‘Sutal’ Upa-Loka at Kshara level, employing His power of ‘Yoga-Māyā’, on an almost impossible mission (verses 39-46), and while there He met Bali, who was overwhelmed with His gracious gesture. Bāli then addressed Him as “Brahm”, and “Paramātmā” (as if manifested in a human form)! But how wise Bali was can be seen only when his following request is collated with what Nārada had said to Shri Krishna in /10/69/37-8: Even the great sages were unaware of mystery of His Yoga-māyā; yet he was so fortunate to have known it with the grace of His ‘lotus feet’! We also need to dwell on verse /10/69/18, when Nārada had said to Shri Krishna: “Only the grace of your feet can liberate a devotee”! So, Bāli had very wisely sought such a grace from Him! Yoga-maya, His lotus feet and liberation: all somehow seem to be interconnected. We can find several hundreds of occasions in Bhāgawatam and other scriptures when devotees are depicted seeking the grace of His lotus feet. There are about 8-10 connotations in which terms ‘Moksha’ or ‘Mukti’ (liberation) are used, so there always could be present some extent of confusion: Refuge in lotus feet of which of Gitā’s three Purushas? In context of Tāratam’s clarification on Yoga-māyā: It is clear that Parama-hamsas of Bhāgawatam need to seek refuge in lotus feet of Shri Krishna, in whom Purushottama principle was present when Rāsa-leelā was enacted by Him. Tāratam says emphatically, and even repeatedly: Aksharāteeta Purusha in a Vyashty form of ‘Shri Rāj ji’ had asked all Parātmās in Aksharāteeta Loka – just before deluding them – to hold on to His feet (their memory). Brahm-srishties would be most fortunate Jeevas in world who have been enabled by God to find themselves before the feet present in Aksharāteeta Loka – but only when their respective linked up Parātmās shed their delusions and get awakened! Shukadeva too says something similar in /10/77/32: Those who take refuge in His lotus feet get rewarded with “Ātma-vidyā” (the concept of eternal Ātmā and how to get established in it, etc) that can eventually make available the “Parama Sat-gati”. In light of Tāratam he seemsalluding to a destination that Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās of Gitā, those linked up with Brahm-srishties,would reach in Sat (Akshara) level (‘Parama-pada’ of a yogi of Yogavāsishtha) – to finally get lodged in highest Upa-Loka at Akshara level. These Ātmās were linked with Aksharāteeta Parātmās on one side and Brahm-srishties on other. So, as for Parama-hamsas (the Brahm-



srishties), Bhāgawatam seemsto vaguely advise them to seek refuge at lotus feetpresent in Aksharāteeta Loka – without disclosing how it is possible! Wise devotees thus seek refuge at the feet of Shri Krishna or great Brahm-rishis in order to be at those located at Brahm (Aksharāteeta) level. Tāratam says, the feet of Purushattamawere entrenched in the memories of un-deluded Parātmās(still ‘awake’); thereafter, as implied, those would have got lodged not only in their subconsciousmemories,but potentially within those of Brahm-srishties they were linked with (‘Brahm-rishis’, etc) too. Shukadeva, right in beginning of his discourse t told Parikshit (/2/4/13) that Parama-hamsas bow before the feet of Shri Krishna to have their aspirations fulfilled! In /10/87/20-21 it is asserted, Hamsa order Jeevas(“Hamsa-kula”) remain fervently devoted to feet of Parama-hamsas to secure the refuge at His feet. While Tāratam presents Aksharāteeta perspective of Parātmās, Bhāgawatam and other Hindu scriptures present that of the Parama-hamsas (Brahm-srishties) present in Kshara world. Let us see what was the contention of Uddhava in /10/47/62: Even ‘yogeshwaras’ (yogis of highest order, those who become His instruments to confer graces on others) need to contemplate on the ‘Rāsa-leelā’ enacted by Shri Krishnaas during it He had placed His lotus feet on the bossoms(consciousness) of His beloved Gopies! This shows how inter-linked are the several statements cited on earlier pages: those relating to Yoga-māyā, its glorious creation (not that created by Kāla-māyā) where Rāsa-leelā got enacted; need on part of spiritual aspirants (Gopies) to seek refuge at His lotus feet, etc! Coming now to 11th Skandha, it has 31 chapters. It contains a divine discourse that Shri Krishna gave to His devotee, Uddhava (chapters 6-29), termed commonly as ‘Uddhava-Gitā’. It contains over 1000 verses – about one-and-half times those in Gitā. This discourse is equally respected in scholarly circles like Gitā is. It was delivered by Shri Krishna during the last few days that He passed in our perishable world prior to departing for His imperishable abode. While the first five chapters of 11th Skandha trace the Yādava dynasty in which Shri Krishna was born, etc and the curse that it had received from some great sages of ancient past, the last two (30-31) describe how that curse worked itself out in last few days Shri Krishna passed in our world. With this prelude we may now proceed to examine some divine truths contained in two Skandhas (10 and 11) as relevant to our discussion. Let us take up a question that Uddhava asked in Bhāgawatam/11/16/1-5 in the Uddhava-Gitā portion. Uddhava asked: “You actually are Param Brahm, the controller of creation from within, and are still present before me! Only the great ones, the ‘Brāhmanas’, knew that you can be worshipped in your Vibhooties too; so please tell me which were those ‘bhāvas (‘forms’, the Vibhooties by names?) in which great sages of ancient past, the “Parama-rishis”, had worshipped you and even succeeded in receiving your graces? O, ‘Mahā-vibhooty’ (great Vibhooty)! Please tell me about all those Vibhooties in whom you reside. I would like to pay respects at their feet. Why, even the ground they walk on (or they had walked on



in past) is sure the place of pilgrimage for the humanity”! Shri Krishna replied by saying that Arjuna had once raised similar query before commencement of the Mahābhārata war (during the discourse of Gitā). Shri Krishna then disclosed to Uddhava the dentities of a few of those Vibhooties. He by the way revealed that the sage Bhrigu, who has found often a mention on few occasions on these pages (in context of his divine ‘Bhrigu Samhitā readings’), was a Vibhooty among the ‘Brahm-rishies’ (Gitā says he was a Vibhooty among the ‘Maha-rishis’, great rishis)! Gitā does not give clues on understanding of Arjuna about the Vibhooties, or the purpose they serve, but Uddhava was perhaps better informed on those points. But before proceeding with Uddhava-gitā it would be relevant to first review a very significant dialogue between Him and Shrutadeva, on whom Shri Krishna once paid (as per the 10th Skandha of Bhāgawatam). The said two dialogues are being cited here to show how scantily Bhāgawatam informs its readers about the existence of Parātmās; or even their roles in His scheme of things. That perhaps points at why this text did not succeed earlier than the 17th century in awakening any Parātmā linked with some Parama-hamsa. The first one to succeed in that manner was the Satguru, Shri Devachandraji – although with some direct intervention by the Purushottama – still via his great devotion to Bhāgawatam! This much is made quite expliciit in both, Tāratam itself and the Beetak literature; but it need not belittle the efforts made by Sat-guru in search of truthsrelating to God, how to realize Him, etc. On not succeeding in his objective, he later turned to Vaishnavite traditions of devotion to Shri Krishna that gradually led to fascination for Shri Krishna’s deeds narrated in Bhāgawatam, particularly the ‘Rāsa-leelā’.

2.4.5 Anātmā, Ātmā and Parātmā The unexpected visit of Shri Krishna accompanied by several great sages really overwhelmed a learned Brahmana,a devotee named Shrutadeva. He humbly played the part of a host. It is clear he was aware that the feet of such great ones convert the ground they walk on to future places of pilgrimage for those appearing later – a perception that prevails among followers of various faiths too. Anyway, Shrutadeva touched Shri Krishna’s feet and expressed gratitude for His graceful visit. How Shri Krishna responded is recorded in verses 10/86/51-57. He said: The main purpose of “Brahm-rishis” and “Brāhmanas” accompanying Him then was to bless him! He added significantly that devotees (those who aspire to experience Brahm) are advised to ‘worship’ such great ones as He (having consciousness of Brahm level) remained always present within them! He in effect said, He (Samashty Brahm or Purushottama principle), as and when pleased, choses to blesse other aspirants through such Brahm-rishies! Here it is announced that He, the Brahm, chooses to remain connected mysteriously with great sages; implying that He uses them as His outposts, channels through which to bless other deserving ones like Shrutadeva! The Brahm-rishis are



His distribution centres to remotely shower graceson deserving ones in Kshara world, though He may not be present personally to do so. It is also relevant to see what Shrutadeva had earlier saidverses 44-47) when praising Him: “It is not that you are with me for the first time; you, in fact, are ‘Parama-purusha’ (Purushottama) who has entered the entire creation including selves of all the Jeevas with your power of Māyā – like a dreamer makes an entry in his own dream! Still you prefer to manifest only in ‘Amala’ (the purified) Ātmās, those who have got sanctified by worshipping and reflecting upon you. For others, in spite of your being ever present within them, you remain hidden from them”! These are highly significant words. The term ‘purified’ or ‘A-mala’ for a (Vyashty) Ātmā of 46th verse seems to point at the state of an imperishable Ātmā when it has shed the ‘mala’ (the deposited muck on account of previously held worldly desires and memories) of the Kshara experiences – say, left-over propensities to get hooked up to them again. That dirt as if gets attached, deposited on an imperishable Ātmā during the time it remains under a delusion (the so-called Ātmā-vibhrama) into believing that it is leading a Kshara existence (operating through its linked up Jeeva’s gross and subtle Kshara bodies). That delusion as if causes that ‘mala’ – like an ‘infection’ – of its linked up Jeeva to get attached to its (deluded) Ātmā! As such, when it gets cured of that infection, it becomes ‘A-mala’ (purified, sanctified). Tāratam says in respect of a Brahm-srishty: First its has to experience its imperishable Ātmā (after it has got cured of its infection, say become ‘A-mala’; and only then its linked up Parātmā can get awakened to have the experience of being seated at the lotus feet of Purushottama! Shrutadeva seems to have been vaguely aware of concept relating to Inter-Loka spiritual linkages; that is why he might have expressed it in the way he knew it. It is significant that He addressed Shri Krishna in 48th verse as “Parātmā” (one beyond Ātmā)! Did he do that in connotation of Paramātmā – in a Samashty sense, as was translated in commentary? Perhaps not, if the import of 47th verse is fully accounted for: Shrutadeva would well have used the term ‘Parātmā’ based on his understanding of spiritual truths, although in broadly the same sense as that provided by Tāratam Vāni (instead of Paramātmā). What he might have intended to communicate in 47th verse is this: after a Jeeva who has first realized its Ātmā (“Adhyātma-vid”), can it really hope to get qualified to realize its being a Parātmā (the one ever united with Paramātmā)! Shrutadeva was perhaps aware that only those devotees who had realized their imperishable Ātmās were entitled to be later ‘upward linked’ with some Parātmās in order to subsequently experience the Paramātmā, Purushottama or Brahm? He seems to have said as follows in 47th verse, although rather awkwardly. One who did not realize eternal Ātmā (A-mala one) and thought one’s ‘Ātmā’ (self) was the same as that of others (a Jeeva) experiencing world through an “Anātmā” (the conglomerate of gross and subtle bodies) inrepeated life-and-death cycles – will remain for ever ignorant of (its) true Ātma–swaroopa! He used the phrase “swa-Ātma-vibhakta-mrityave”! This verse is seen using three terms ‘Anātmā’, ‘Ātmā’



and ‘Parātmā’ – perhaps in the same connotations as were used in discourse of ‘Rāma-hridaya’ (discussed earlier) by Shri Rāma as ound in the text of Adhyātmā Ramāyāna – again without any attempt to explain them! These terms seem respectively associated with sentient Vyashties of three different Lokas, provided it is accepted that the term ‘Ātmā’ refers basically to an eternal Vyashty of Akshara Loka (the so called ‘Sat’ level of His reality). Differently put, ‘Ātmā’ should be associated strictly with the characteristic of ‘imperishability’ that is present only at Sat, the Akshara level (and not at Kshara level). In this light, the term ‘Anātmā’ could well have been spelt: ‘Un-Ātmā’,pointing at ‘perishbility’, a characteristic feature of our Kshara realm. It is also a characteristic of outwardly ‘sentient’ Jeevas. They really are the products of ‘Chidābhāsa’ that God manifests in ‘Anatmas’, the conglomerates of gross and subtle insentient, perishable bodies present in our Loka. In other words, a Kshara ‘Jeeva’ of Tāratam – though not quite the same as ‘Anātmā’ mentioned in Adhyātma Ramāyāna as also this reference of Bhāgawatam – is none other than an outwardly sentient entity experiencing, and interacting with, the Kshara Lokathrough it (an insentient Anātmā). This term ‘Anātmā’ is not found that often in scriptures, and even when found, it is not explicitly equated with a ‘Jeeva’ in most commentaries. On the contrary, the term ‘Ātmā’ is more often used (wrongly) as a synonym for a Kshara Jeeva, the experiencer of Kshara world. This practice has seeped so deep in society that we find a common man often saying, on topic of death and rebirth, that an eternal ‘Ātmā’ leaves its previous gross body on death and re-enters another body after certain time-interval that varies from person to person, in the meanwhile remaining in some subtle body! It is then claimed that this ‘Ātmā’ is really eternal; not really subject to death like the gross body is. This practice improperly substitutes the term ‘Ātmā’ for an ‘apparent self’ (‘Jeeva’ of Tāratam) that would certainly perish at the time of Prakrit Pralaya, the complete annihilation of whole Kshara Brahmānda, (after Brahmā’s life-time of 100 years has expired) along with all of its Jeevas would expire. Only till then the Jeeva (erroneously said to be the ‘Ātmā’) would seem to lead ‘embodied’ existence in perishable world. As per ‘Adhyātma Rāmāyana and reference of Bhāgawatam under discussion, the ‘Anātmā’ (accordingly, also a Jeeva of Taratam) needs to be considered as existing in Kshara Loka for an extremely long period (100 years of Brahmā!) as compared to human life-span; but not for ever (eternally).Tāratam seems to consistently employ the term Ātmā for an imperishable entity,either deluded or otherwise. It identifies (like its linked up Parātmā does too) itself with a perishable Jeeva only when deluded. The ‘Ātmā’ of said 47th verse seems to point at such an eternal Ātmā – the Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmā – that is linked up with Vyashties at its two extremities, an Anātmā (Jeeva) and a Parātmā! The fact that should not be lost sight of is this: everything located in Kshara Loka – both conglomerate of bodies (Anātmā) as well as consciousness that operates through it – are really perishable; and this includes Samashty Kshara Purusha, the trinity of ‘Tridevas’ governing the Kshara creation: Brahmā, Vishnu and Mahesh.



But in common parlance and also in Tāratam, only the Vishnu is termed as Kshara Purusha, since he is said to sustain the phenomenal Kshara world that is repeatedly destroyed and re-created by Mahesh and Brahmā respectively (refer the earlier discussion on ‘Nitya’ Pralaya). Was Shrutadeva possibly aware of the fact that only if Kshara consciousness of any Jeeva, experiencing the world through a particular Anātmā, had got linked up with that of some Akshara Vyashy, an Ātmā (say it had struck roots in that Vyashty), would the former stand any chance of subjectively identifying itself with Ātmā? Perhaps so, as he seems to imply vaguely: Only after that (link-up) happens, can the eternal Ātmā (later on) get awakened to its Akshara existence; and only thereafter that Jeeva may have a chance of learning about a still higher entity, the Parātmā. How else can we explain his understanding of getting connected to her? Shri Krishna’s assertion to Shrutadeva – that His ‘swaroopa’ is really the same as that of ‘Brahm-rishies’ then present with Him – seems to suggest that all of them, even when bodily present in Kshara world, were actually rooted in Brahm level like Him. Tāratam informs us that roughly at that stage in His divine life (when Shri Krishna must have met with Shrutadeva) He had possessed only Kshara Purusha’s consciousness continuously residing within Him. Even Bhāgawatam further on, in its 54th verse says that His swaroopa then was that of ‘Chaturbhuja, the four-limbed Vishnu, the Kshara Purusha! Was the consciousness of those Brahm-rishies too likewise rooted only in Kshara level then? No, firstly they were not ordinary rishis (sages), but were the ‘Brahm-rishies’, suggetsing that they were in some way connected right upto Brahm level of reality, hence the instruments of Brahm in blessing other devotees (as declared to Shrutadeva by Shri Krishna) – as and when required. Tāratam says Shri Krishna was connected to different higher levels of reality during different stages of His divine lifetime that He passed in our Kshara world. When born to Devaki in the prison cell of Mathura, He was an Avatāra of Kshara Purusha, but imediately thereafter entered within Him the consciousness of Akshara Purusha! Thus, the one who was placed in a basket by His father Vasudeva in the prison cell of Mathura and carried over to Gokul (in Brij, on opposite side of river Yamuna) was not merely an Avatāra of Vishnu, but the one who had residing within Him the consciousness of mighty Akshara Purusha. Tāratam emphasizes this point explicitly, leaving no doubt in readers’ mind. It further says: only after He was placed by the side of Yashoda, did enter in Him the Aksharāteeta level consciousness! For first 11 years and 52 days He lived in Brij: His being was beamed with full-blown consciousness of Aksharāteeta Purusha. Same was the case even when He enacted the Rāsa-leelā with His beloved gopies, the illiterate cowherd women of Brij, but in a glorious creation of Yoga-māyā. After the Rāsa-leelā was over, and he returned to the next Kshara creation (our present world), Tāratam says He was left with only Akshara level consciousness for next 11 days that He passed in Brij and Mathura. Thereafter, right upto the time He left our world for His divine abode, He



had continuously present within Him only the Kshara level consciousness of an Avatāra of Vishnu (Kshara Purusha) that He was born as! At least on one occasion, based on Anugitā Parva of Mahābhārata, Shri Krishna must have been re-connected with Brahm while delivering discourse of Gitā. It is how Mahābhārata, via both Gitā and Anugitā Parva, points out that Shri Krishna had remained linked with, and later (even) disconnected from, the Brahm level. Returning to what Shrutadeva expressed: Was he aware of existence of Parātmās at the Brahm level of God’s reality? Without clarifying it Bhāgawatam states that he was asked by Shri Krishna to worship the Brahm-rishies in order to be recipient of His blessings (He might have said the same in Gitā, but discreetly in the context of manifesting His divinity within the Vibhooties)! Vedavyās who composed the text of Bhāgawatam would surely have intended to advise its primary beneficiaries, the Parama-hamsas (Brahm-srishties of Tāratam) via the cited dialogue between Shri Krishna and Shrutadeva – alluding to all the three terms (Anātmā, Ātmā and the Parātmā) – that they should investigate the connection, if any, that may exist among them (particularly in Vyashty sense). Those Parama-hamsas were the very gopies, says Tāratam, who had participated in Rāsa-leela enacted in Yoga-māyā’s glorious creation (and in the Brij-leela, earlier, for 11 years and 52 days) – to be reincarnated as Brahm-srishties in future, during the last lap of their return (spiritual) journies. Their spirits (consciousness) were seeded with divinity of Purushottama’s feet (as per Bhāgawatam’s testimony seen earlier). Referring to the last instruction of their Lord Purushottama, to His beloved Parātmās – given in Aksharāteeta Loka, just prior to deluding them to experience the Kshara existence – they surely would have carried subconscious memories of His lotus feet. It seems those memories had created a certain ‘potential’,even in ‘deluded’ Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās, to later experience those very feet, as and when their linked Parātmās would shed their delusions. Not only that, even the Brahm-srishties are said to possess that ‘potential’. Only they – and not all other great ones – carry ‘Brahm-charanas’, the feet of ‘Brahm’ (the Purushottama) within their hearts, as is asserted in dozens of verses of Tāratam! Did Shrutadeva have an inkling of this fact when he vaguely talked of certain link-up among the three Vyashties – the Anātmā, Ātmā and Parātmā? Only Brahm-srishties would ‘realize’ that potential as and when when their linked up Ātmās and Parātmās shed their respective delusions; and identify themselves with respective, awakened Parātmās – to find themselves seated at those very feet! We intriguingly see Gitā not alluding to Parātmās where Purushottama is located. He simply talked of Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās. Bhāgawatam too does not explicitly speak of any level of reality higher than Akshara. The term Brahm or Shri Hari is surely used in scriptures but it is not made clear whether it alludes to either or both of the Akshara and Aksharāteeta Purushas. Yet they vaguely (although seldom) talk of Parātmās!

2.4.6 Parātma-nishthā



Let us now review another rare mention of Parātmā in Bhāgawatam that has quite frequently been cited on these pages. It was spotted quite fortunately towards very end of discourse of ‘Uddhava-Gitā’ (chapters 11/6-29) – inconspicuously deploying an un-elucidated term “Parātma-nishthā”. It was found in Shri Krishna’s narrations of certain ‘reflections’ of some well-to-do Brāhmana of the past – who had later got impoverished – on how to get liberated from bondage of miserable Kshara world. He philosophically reflected over that issue and his ‘reflections’ were cited by Shri Krishna to answer Uddhava’s much earlier query. This answer s given after successive later queries raised by Uddhava were answered by Him (some of them have been cited elsewhere on these pages). Those ‘reflections’ led the Brāhmana to conclude (though his logic, as given out by Shri Krishna, is not that easy to grasp): The “Parātma-nishthā” is what needs to be sought for by aspirants in order to get liberated!Shri Krishna can be said to have finally declared that ‘Parātma-nishthā’ is the means to eventually attain ‘Brahm-nishthā’ (verses /11/23/58-62), say to get established in Brahm (and thereafter get liberated)! With these verses He seemed to have replied to a very important query of Uddhava that had appeared 7 chapters back (in the text)! In verses /11/16/1-5 he addressed Shri Krishna as “Param-Brahm – most superior (level of) Brahm – devoid of any beginning or end, and still capable of being present within all those created, sustained and destroyed! Uddhava said: “He was beyond all bhāvas”. Use of this term ‘bhāva’ typifies the ‘vaguenss adopted by scriptures to reveal its truths,at least ‘partially’, while revealing higher order truths. Now ‘bhava’ can assume any connotation commencing from ‘any thought that enters human mind’, right upto ‘various kinds of philosophical contentions’, or even ‘experiences that could be had in higher states of consciousness’! Uddhava’s query perhaps was this: With what understanding of Param-Brahm (also how) should Jeevas worship you? He pressed ahead: “Still, Brahmānas, ‘Paramarshis’ (greatest sages of ancient past) are known to have succeeded in worshipping you with ‘Bhakti’ and receiving your graces that manifested your divinity within them (they became your Vibhooties”)! In which ‘bhavas’ then did they worship you?” Then bowing before His lotus feet he said that His feet were the greatest places of pilgrimage (in hearts of devotees). Addressing Him as a “Mahā-Vibhooty” (either the greatest among all Vibhooties, or Param-Brahm, who turns other Jeevas into Vibhooties), Uddhava wisely requested that he be informed of identities of all those who finally became His ‘Vibhooties’ (/11/16/5). The sequence of his queries is quite similar to that seen in 10th chapter of Gitā when Arjuna made a similar request, and almost the same names of Vibhooties are given in Bhāgawatam. The conceptual part of that query on the ‘bhavas’ seems to have been tersely replied by Shri Krishna in the just discussed verses /11/23/58-62, but without relating it to original query of 7 chapters back. The commentaters did not point at this connection. The reply finally seems to have been given, but much after listing the Vibhooties, discussing system and practices of ‘Varna-ashrama Dharma’, types of yogas, concepts of reincarnation, law of karma, etc from



chapters 16 to 22. Thereafter Shri Krishna narrated unhappy turn of events in past in the life of the said Brahmāna and his efforts at arriving at the answer after deeply contemplating on ways of getting liberated. He concluded that ancient Maharshis (“Poorvatamair-maharshibhihi” of /11/23/58) would sure have sought to have the ‘Parātma-nishthā’ (to get blessed with Parātmā-yoga as articulated here) in order to get established in Brahm and (eventually) get liberated! Was God then pleased with such ‘bhavas’ of those ancient aspirants (say graced them with Parātma-yoga) so that they may strike roots in His Brahm level of reality, and perhaps get entitled to be termed ‘Brahm-rishies’ of scriptures? Shri Krishna did not reveal that. He only hinted that ‘Parātma-nishthā is either the same as Brahm-nishthā; or that the former will eventually lead to the latter – before liberation can take place (/11/23/58-62)! This part of discussion seems to imply that the concept (‘bhava’ of /11/16/1-5) of becoming Parātma-nishth was known, at least to some extrent to great ones of ancient past, along possibly with the truth of existence of Parātmās at Brahm level of reality. This much was also deduced from the text of Yoga-vāsishtha and also the articulations on Shrutdeva’s understanding. Again, could the ancient ones also have likewise known, with whatever clarity (ref discussion on Adhyātma Rmāyana and this text) that Partāma-nishthā only meant getting connected spiritually with Parātmās located at Brahm level? Was this concept known to some other aspirants also in order for them (like Brāhmanas of /11/23) to have inwardly developed an urge to be similarly linked up with Brahm? One more thing is not made clear: Whether ‘Parātma-nishthā’ will instantaneously lead to one’s getting ‘Brahm-nishth’ (getting established in Brahm)? Tāratam implies from view-point of a Brahm-srishty that grace of Parātma-yoga, as defined here, would not lead to its spirit getting instantaneously established in Brahm via its Parātmā. That would certainly happen, but only ‘eventually’, needing an inevitable time-lag between the moment when a Parātmā was deluded and that when she would shed the delusion – oddly enough, as a consequence of grasps of highest spiritual truths she might have gathered during her delusion! From the view-point of a downward linked Parātmā, it can be argued out to be both: instantaneous as also eventual. It is almost instantaneous when reckoned in terms of Parātmā’s Aksharāteeta existence (awareness of that Loka); but ‘eventual’ if considered in terms of the time she would be experienced in delusion of existing in Kshara Loka! As per several unambiguous statements of Tāratam, every Parātmā would have experienced thousands of years of existence at Kshara level within a minutest fraction of the moment as it is experienced at Aksharāteeta level. Such a scenario exists on account of vast difference between what we term as ‘time’ – as it is experienced in different levels of His reality. Let us now consider view-point of a Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmā. Its spiritual potential receives a quantum jump after getting linked with a Parātmā. Before that link-up it had to be content with either being in a deluded state of identification with some Kshara Jeeva; or when the said delusion was shed, and its pre-delusion awareness



of Akshara level got restored. Yet it was in no way able to get rid of that propensity (altogether) of getting repeatedly hooked up to miserable delusions of Kshara existence. The link-up with a Parātmā located in Aksharāteeta realm as if instills in it a potential enabling it to get rid of that ‘propensity’ for ever. In scheme devised by Purushottama, every Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmā would shed that ‘propensity’ for ever, but only after all of 12,000 linked up Parātmās have collectively awakened (one by one duringthe period of ‘Jāgani’)! Thereafter it would experience for ever only the bliss of Aksharāteeta Loka (through its earlier linked Parātmā) – and never again the miseries of Kshara experiences! Gitā/5/21 too seems to point at this happening (after the period of Jāgani is over). Those blissful experiences of 12,000 Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās would naturally get made available to Samashty consciousness of Akshara Purusha, the Akshara Loka, in which they would continue to exist. But it would happen after moving over to its highest Upa-Loka, says Tāratam. That would also satisfy for ever the earlier curiosity of Akshara Purusha concerning what blissful happenings keep on taking place in Aksharāteeta realm! Tāratam categorically states that Akshara Purusha was unable to do so in past; but now, after the period of Jāgani is over in our Kshara Brahmānda, that curiosity, or call it a desire, of His shall then be fulfilled for ever! The wonderful scheme of Purushottama, of establishing the spiritual link-ups of selected 12,000 Ātmās with that many Parātmās is expected to remove the earlier handicap of Akshara Purusha! But it would happen only after the period of Jāgani is over in our Kshara Brahmānda. All Parātmās would have satisfied their curiosities in respect of what pain and misery of Kshara existence were like. Their Lord had warned them about those before consenting, much hesitatingly though, to let them have such experiences by deluding them. After experiencing pain to their hearts’ fill, says Tāratam, the Parātmās would be only too glad to resume their blissful existence in Aksharāteeta Loka. It in fact articulates not one but two great ‘causes’ – an ardent desire on part of the Akshara Purusha on one hand to know what goes on happening in the Aksharāteeta Loka; and of that of all Parātmās on the other, to experience Kshara existence. Both these causes had emanated in higher two levels of reality. His methodof addressing them both by way of ‘an unprecedented,’ almost a ‘direct intervention of both of those levels’ in the affairs of our Kshara Brahmāndain our presently passing cycle of four Yugas (‘Chaturyugi’) of Vaivasvat Manwantara of the Vārāha Kalpa. That intervention seems to have taken place towards the end of Dwāapar Yuga that is still continuing inour Kaliyuga. It would end only after our Kaliyuga ends and Satya-yuga of next Chaturyugi is heralded.

2.4.7 Change-over to New Age In response to queries of king Parikshit who ruled firmly with tenets of Dharma as stipulated in scriptures, the sage Shukadeva can be seen to have given in last (12th) Skandha of Bhāgawatam certain prophecies in respect of future happenings relating to those who would rule India following him (starting from his descendents)!



Shukadeva said that evil forces of Kaliyuga that had already set in during his lifetimewould keep on dominating after his death over the conscience of both, the rulers and subjects; emphasis on ethics and morality would be on downslide, etc. Now, Parikshit had battled with such forces all his life, so his concern over how accent on Dharma would deteriorate as the Kaliyuga advances – and also manner in which it would ultimately get re-established – is understandable. Shukadeva provided in chapter/12/1 even the names and accounts of several future kings, even durations of rules of their dynasties (also number of their generations!), etc for thousands of years of worsening Kaliyuga! After outlining the worsening Indian scenario of advancing Kaliyuga in verses /12/2/1-16, he even gave in verses 17-24 how, in distant future, the divine acts of Kalki would finally end the Kaliyuga! Such a changeover has per necessity got to be spectacular, as the earlier three Yugas were related to ‘gradual’ decrease in accent on Dharma (from its maximum enforcement in previous Satya-yuga) over very long periods of time. The coming changeover on the other hand requires re-establishing the Dharma, from lowest level, back to the highest – at a substatntially faster pace! In such a backdrop Shukadeva (esoterically) revealed even name of the ‘horse’ (verse 19) that Kalki would ride: “Devadutta”! This ‘horse’ is contended by this auther to be none other than Sat-guru, Shri ‘Devachandra ji’. It astonishes him that followers of Mahāmati Prānanāth did not make this speculation, in their published literature. The reason for it could well be that ‘Devadutta’ is said in the text to be a ‘horse’, not a man. This example suggestswhat pains scriptures take to hide their mysteries, particularly when it comes to prophecies. Then in verses 37-38 is narrated the role of ancient yogis “Devapi” and “Maru” who would arrive in future as directed by Vāsudeva (Shri Krishna) to re-establish the ancient ‘Varna-ashrama’ Dharma (‘codes of conducts’ to be followed by those belonging to four different ‘Varnas’ in various stages of their lives). Commentaters of Bhāgawatam have not connected up the two prophecies (only 20 verses apart, in the same chapter too!) relating to the manifestation of Kalki seated on a horse named ‘Devadutt’ and to ancient yogi ‘Devapi’. Followers of Mahāmati Prānanāth believe that their Sat-guru was none other than a later reincarnation of “Devapi”, based mainly on a hint provided by a Beetak contributed by Shri Laldas, one of the twelve very close disciples of Mahāmati Prānanāth. He hed composed the quite voluminous Beetak almost immediately after Mahāmati Prānanāth left his body. As per prevailing understanding of Bhāgawatam, the manifestation of Kalki would take place only towards the end of life-span of Kaliyuga of 4,32,000 years duration, commencing from the time of departure of Shri Krishna from world for His eternal abode. As is generally known, He departed only a little over over 5100 years ago, leading to common man’s belief that the said divine intervention of Kalki (and also perhaps of two yogis Devapi and Maru) would take place only after over 426,000 years! In this backdrop, the questions that need to be answered are as follows. How would those who connect up later with Tāratam (in coming centuries) – and also believing in Bhāgawatam – accept that changeover period (Kaliyuga to



Satya-yuga) and also process of Parama-hamsas realizing their spiritual potentialhad already begun in 17th century AD and would end only 1200 years thereafter? These are really tricky issues. Still an attempt would be found below to address them at least partly. We first need to grasp that it was Bhāgawatam that became instrumental in awakening a Parātmā spiritually linked with Sat-guru through whom manifested for first time with good clarity the truths about Aksharāteeta level. This text is projected by Tāratam as a sort of coded message from Purushottama for the Parama-hamsas (its Brahm-srishties), the likes of Sat-guru (those spiritually linked up with Parātmās). Tāratam says all ancient scriptures originated from the Purushottama and reveal truths regarding some level of His reality or the other. Then it also says that life-span of Kaliyuga has got drastically reduced from 432,000 years due to ferocious pace of evil tendancies it unleashed in hearts of mankind. Tāratam says only briefly that the drastic reduction was esoterically hinted at in Bhāgawatam while giving widely differeing life-spans of Jeevas in all four Yugas. For Satya-, Tretā-, Dwāpar- and Kali-yugas respectively, these limits are given as: 100,000, 10,000, 1000 and 120 years (last limit is given in some texts as 100 years)! Is there any relation between these life-spans and those of Yugas themselves? Tāratam only says it happens due to mankind not following tenets of Dharma to fullest extent (as was perhaps done inSatya-yuga?). It was followed in reducing extents in subsequent Yugas. That may account for such a dramatic reduction of life-spans (indicated esoterically) in different Yugas! Many attempts were made to see if any arithmetic corelation exists between the life-spans of different Yugas and those of mankind living in them; but with no success. On consulting Bible, God has purposely not disclosed precisebeginning of New Age as we will see later! It then occurred as discussed below that He could have planned that the clarity should emerge only as the time for it draws nearer.

2.4.8 Efficacy A mystery was observed in ‘Māhātmya’ portion of Bhāgawatam while disclosing when its own efficacy in fighting the spread of evil Kaliyuga (to bringabout the changeover to next Satyayuga) was demonstrated. The legendary Sanakādi had demonstrated it in order to convince Nārada and other sages gathered on bank of holy river Gangā (Ganges) at Haridwar. Nārada had visited India (verses 1/25-26 of Māhātmya) when 260 years of Kaliyuga had elapsed (verses 1/28-36 and 6/94-6), when Hindu temples and places of pilgrimage were being destroyed/defaced by ‘Yavanas’ (invaders from across western boundary of India who disagreed with Hindu faith). As per Māhātmya It happened about 4850 years ago (5100 minus 260 years), about 2840 BC. But Indian history suggests it happened only about 1000-1500 years ago (not earlier than 500-1000 AD) and that animosity continued till the days of Moghul rule in India. It ended around the middle of 20thcentury AD when India became independent.



It may not be possible perhaps to cite any reference from religious literature of last 3-4 centuries to suggest that Bhāgawatam’s efficacy was demonstrated in a convincing manner – other than what is recorded inthe well preserved Beetak literature contributed by disciples of Mahāmati Prānanāth by end of 17th century. Ithappened in lifetime of his Sat-guru in the year 1618 AD! Unfortunately, this fact did not get publicized outside the Pranami Samaj. So the wider Hindu society is not aware of that momentous happening when a Parātmā named “Sundari”, linked up with Satguru got awakened! That heralded the whole process of awakening other Parātmās linked with remaining Brahm-srishties being discussed on these pages – and it occurred after 14 long years of dedicated effortson the part of of Sat-guru in grasping the intents of Bhāgawatam with great devotion towards Shri Krishna! The Purushottama appeared before the Sat-guru (before his awakened Parātma really) – obviously in his highest (Turyāteeta) state of consciousness – and revealed to him the truths previously unknown to mankind: About delusion of other Parātmās and asking him to be instrumental in awakwning them, etc! It is amazing that such a happening that stirred up perhaps thousands in the Gujarat state of India (and of few others too) should have remained practically unknown among the masses. We can only say that God had willed it that way. The Beetak of Shri Laldas has been traditionally recited in all Pranami temples (there may be several dozens in India!) in a particular month, every year, for last over 300 years! A few million people of the Pranami Samaj recall that episode by heart. So, accepting that it did take place, is it likely that the said Māhātmya purposely misled its readers regarding timing of such a convincing demonstration of the efficacy of Bhāgawatam – by declaring that it had already taken place long ago? Was it done to keep alive the interest of all spiritual aspirants focused on efficacy of Bhāgwatam (like all Mahatmyas do in respect of their texts) for thousands of years? If so, it seems to have served that purpose with many groups of India, like those located in Jamnagar town of Gujarat with whom the Satguruwas associated – and of course millions of Hindus of the past centuries too who would have connected with Bhāgawatam after it was composed! As per Tāratam, precise time of such a stupendous happening was intentionally kept a closely guarded secret in His divine dispensation for the present times. About mismatch in times given by its Māhātmya and what actually happened in 17th century: It can be explained only by a categoric statement of Tāratam that scriptures often reveal ‘future’ events (prophecies) as if they had already taken place in the ‘past’! Some often lament that precise dates of future happenings are not clearly given out in them; may be there lies a hidden purpose of God behind it . Māhātmya names the ‘place’ where efficacy of Bhāgawatam was demonstrated by Sanakādi, some 4850 years ago, as ‘Haridwār. As per he Beetak literature, Mahāmati Prānanāth is said to have participated in a congregation of several religious heads, representing different schools of philosophical thought, in the year 1678 AD at Haridwār. Timewise, the event took place just after the Parātmā, “Indrawati”, linked with him had got awakened. Prior to that happening, thousands



of divine verses of Tāratam had already manifested within his consciousness, but with the efforts of his Sat-guru (and of course his linked up Paratma named Sundari) who had left the world around the year 1655 AD. After 1678 and till Mahāmati Prānanāth too passed away in the year 1694, about 1000 more verses (out of a total of 18758) had manifested in him, directly through his Parātmā, “Indrawati”. Anyway, those heads of Hindu sects had gathered at Haridwār on an auspicious occasion of ‘Kumbh Mela’ held inHaridwar in the year 1678. Mahāmati Prānanāth had then explained to them the tenets of Tāratam Vāni. No record of even this episode is found in any religious literature (other than in the Beetaks). The wisdom of Tāratam that manifested in Mahāmati Prānanāth can be said to have emanated from the two Parātmās, linked with him and his Sat-guru. We can not really segregate the contributions of either of these two personages, or even their Parātmās. Perhaps that is why all Beetaks have followed a practice of beginning their narrations with appearance of Sat-guru in world, and ending only with departure of Mahāmati Prānanāth! Their personalities can not be separated from one another. Even the two verses of Bhāgawatam/12/2/37-8 have referred together the ancient yogis, Devāpi and Maru, almost in same breath. Shri Laldas has hinted in his Beetak that those two yogis were the same as two personages whose biography he was writing. Tāratam often says that Bhāgawatam was a message that the same God had sent for them in ancient past. The former however states in a verse that manifestation of Kalki would take place in a person, named “Vishnuyasha”, who would ride a horse named ‘Devadutta’ to perform such divine deeds as would finally end the Kaliyuga. The followers of Mahāmati Prānanāth could be in a sort of fix: who out of their two personages is the Bhgāwatam’s Avatāra, the Kalki? Based on what Tāratam says, it is propounded here that all 12,000 Brahm-srishties would witness the manifestation of Kalki (Purushottama) right within their hearts, as their linked up Parātmās awaken one by one during the said period of Jāgani to re-unite with their Lord, the Purushottama, the Ishwara of all three Lokas, as per Gitā. Although He dwells in Aksharateeta Loka, He remotely governs the Vyashties of Akshara and Kshara Lokas too; and seems to have made arrangements to let at least some of them, to have ‘remote’ experience of union with Him (through their Parātmās). It is really the feat of remotely experiencing the Purushottama (manifestation of His experiences in the hearts of Brahm-srishties) that seems to have been termed in Bhāgawatam as ‘manifestation of Kalki’ in our world. It happened for the first time within Sat-guru in year 1618, and later in 1678 AD within Mahāmati Prānanāth. Quite a long, 1200 year period was provided in His scheme for those happenings to take place within all Brahm-srishties. But its progression seems to have got slowed down, almost ‘halted’, for over 300 years, for whatever reasons! The message of Tāratam has not spread to even a minute part of India by year 2013, leave alone to rest of the world. This leaves only 865 years from 2013 to demonstrate the effectiveness of His scheme in respect of all Brahm-srishties. Some of them are



bound to appear in other countries too. We can only rely upon the hope that He would make His prophecy concerning period of Jāgani come true. Again, the unprecedented nature of such happenings is not limited only to our ‘Bhoo’ Upa-Loka (our ‘world’). It has within its purview the entire Kshara Brahmānda consisting of all 14 Upa-Lokas, particularly the highest four where the most evolved Jeevas are said to reside. They too would appear in our world in due time. That is perhaps why Tāratam says, their divine Aura (its ‘Noor’) shall spread to all the 14 Upa-Lokas through every Brahm-srishty, as and when linked up Parātmā happens to awaken. But present world scenario may justifiably seem be quite depressing to the spiritual aspirants. A hope was indeed kindled in this auther by a divine Bhrigu Samhita reading he received in the end of 2000 AD. In present context its contents (also of several subsequent ones he received) can be summarized as ollows: The time is not far when three centuries-long slow-down in progression of awakening the remaining Parātmās would end; and it would gather pace thereafter! Those readings pointout that message of Tāratam is bound to spread in the world in coming times. Its intents would then be grasped by requisitely evolved persons and the said almost halted progression would be put back on its tracks. That can be said to have actually begun in a small way when decade of 1980’s saw gradual (printed) publications, one by one, of all 14 books of Tāratam Vāni along with translations and commentaries. That phase was over a few years back. Still collating with scriptures and publicizing the research finding has to gather pace. This auther connected with Tāratam Vāni in the year 1995 and was fascinated. With passage of time that fascination grew. It was then found that Tāratam had itself hinted clearly at a certain slow-down (but without specifying its duration)! But no one could have guessed it would be three centuries long! It was comforting to know from an independent, divine source like the Bhrigu Samhita readings that the said progression would gather pace in coming decades. It is implicit in those readings that some spiritually evolved Brahm-srishties could have reincarnated in 20th century and that remaining ones would keep on doing so at regular intervals during the remaining period of Jāgani. If it did not so happen, that period would gradually get depleted, leaving lesser and lesser time for more and more Parātmās to awaken! Who knows what newer means would then be adopted by God to awaken His beloved Parātmās? He might even reveal in other parts of the world some more spiritual truths, to augment more directly the scriptures prevalent there! Such kind acts on His part would certainly be welcome by all spiritual aspirants who are dismayed at present day strifes cropping up in the name of religion. Let us now peruse what perspective Bible offers on when our worsening times (Kaliyuga) would come to an end.

2.4.9 Biblical Perspective

Jesus was seen to have revealed in clear terms some 2000 years ago that the God does have plans to cut short period of horrors. That ‘period’ seems almost pointing



at our present and even coming times of weapons of mass destruction, even good people turning away from adherence to scriptures and also visibly increasing fury of Nature. What is the provocation for Nature to intervene directly? Mankind seems to have deserved all that on account of evil deeds. But Bible also says, He would cut short such times in order to save good people – particularly His children (Brahm-srishties, refer earlier two discussions on Bible) – from having to suffer those horrorsfor too long! This reflects Biblical reasoning for reducing the horrific times. Does it correlate with Tāratam’s emphatic assertion that the otherwise 432,000 year-long Kaliyuga (as per Bhāgawatam)would be drastically slashed down? What about the anamoly of its Māhātmya, discussed above? No clear answer can be provided on above queries but it becomes quite clear from Mark/13 that God does have a plan to cut short the duration of horrible times, essentially for sake of those who are dear to Him. In words of Jesus Christ (verses 19-20): “For the trouble of those days will be far worse than any the world has ever known from the very beginning when God created the world until the present time. Nor will there ever be anything like it again. But the Lord has reduced the number of those days; if he had not, nobody would survive. For the sake of his chosen people, however, he has reduced those days”. Perhaps, it was the part of such plan that in order to put an end to a steep downslide in world affairs, God would also send His son, Jesus Christ, in the world (it is learnt that Holy Quran too says this would happen). Tāratam refers to that statement and even ties it up with the happenings related with the Satguru! Jesus also draws a clear line of demarcation between false prophets, those who perform miracles to impress the masses, and those who who are the ‘chosen’ people of God. In verses 21-23 Jesus confides to his disciples: “Then, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messaiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ – do not believe him. For false Messiahs and false prophets will appear. They will perform miracles and wonders in order to deceive even God’s chosen people, if possible. Be on your guard! I have told you everything before the time comes”. In next two verses [24-25] Jesus made a very significant prophecy: “In the days after that time of trouble, the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers in space will be driven from their courses”. Such events have not occurred yet, but some psychics including Edgar Cayce predict so (like sudden tipping of axis of earth’s rotation). The three earlier verses [21-23] seem to warn us of dangers of making prophecies. The miscreants may use such information to deceive others! Is it why these are worded vaguely? Then Jesus spoke about his own return in verses 26-27: “Then the Son of Man will appear, coming in the clouds with great power and glory. He will send the angels out to the four corners of the earth to gather God’s chosen people from one end of the world to the other”. Does ‘coming in clouds’ possibly refer to his (baffling) re-appearance among the followers of faiths based on Testaments, even Quran – the scriptures of ‘Qateb’ stream, as Tāratam terms them? Tāratam seems implying as much! But when exactly would such unprecedented happenings take place?



Following words of Jesus [Mark/13/32-33] are so very relevant to topic of present discussion: “No one knows, however, when that day or hour will come – neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son; only the Father knows. Be on watch, be alert, for you do not know when the time will come”. To hint at who are dear to God, who belong to His Kingdom, what wonderful happenings will take place in future, etc, Jesus explained his parable of weeds in Matthews/13/37-43. Jesus said, ”The man who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world; the good seed is the people who belong to the Kingdom; the weeds are the people who belong to the Evil One; and the enemy who sowed the weeds is the Devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvest workers are angels [37-39]. Just as the weeds are gathered up and burnt in the fire, so the same thing will happen at the end of the age: the Son of Man will send out his angels to gather up out of his Kingdom all those who cause people to sin and all others who do evil things, and they will throw them into the fiery furnace, where they will cry and grind their teeth [40-42]. Then God’s people will shine like the sun in their Father’s Kingdom. Listen, then, if you have ears [43]!” All that is going to happen during ‘end of the age’ as Bible calls it; termed here as ‘change-over period to next Satya-yuga’! We need to correlate Bible’s statements with what was discussed earlier regarding ‘Ātyantik Pralaya’ of Parama-hamsas (Brahm-srishties of Tāratam) when Kalki would manifest within them by the end of Kaliyuga, during the period of Jāgani. Is Bible’s ‘end of the age’ same as that of ‘Kaliyuga or of period of Jāgani’? The 43rd verse clearly says that God’s people – Brahm-srishties – would ‘shine like the son in their Father’s Kingdom’. It seems to esoterically relate to their awakening from delusion, being instruments of spreading in world theAura of Aksharāteeta level. In humble opinion of this auther, the above statements of Bible sure corroborate those of Bhāgawatam and also Tāratam Vāni. What Jesus said to Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, on an occasion of religious festival about the future times,too seems to pertain broadly to ‘present times’! The Jewish authorities were critical of Jesus healing someone on a Sabbath, as per John/5/17-8. Jesus said “My Father is always working, and I too must work. This saying made the Jewish authorities all the more determined to kill him; not only had he broken the Sabbath law, but he had said that God was his own Father and in this way had made himself equal with God”. The subsequent verses [25-29] are particularly relevant to topic under discussion. “I am telling you the truth: the time is coming – the time has already come – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear it will come to life [25]. Just as the Father is himself the source of life, in the same way he has made his Son to be the source of life [26]. And he has given the Son the right to judge, because he is the Son of Man [27]. Do not be surprised at this; the time is coming when all the dead will hear his voice [28] and come out of their graves: those who have done good will rise and live, and those who have done evil will rise and be condemned [29]”.

2.5 New Age: Evolving Clarity



The scriptures discussed earlier seem to present an evolving perspective in terms of clarity they provide on two separate issues. First one relates to spiritual truths pertaining to highest level of reality and how those can be realized by mankind; the second pertains to their prophecies on the timing of their realization, at least by some evolved ones. As for the truths, we have already reviewed some welknown scriptures and others like Mahābhārata and Upanishadas would be discussed in next chapter. We may now attempt a brief summary of prophecies: How vaguely these were made in past, particularly on unprecedented nature of change-over period to a glorious New Age (characterized bycomprehensive understanding of His reality). It is natural for the present day aspirants to be curious about how God has gradually revealed His divine plan to reward them. We saw while discussing Yogāvasishtha how casually the sage Vasishtha said to Kakabhushundi that he would keep on returning to world, time and again, but only upto the ‘Vaivasvat’ Manwantara, we presently live in. The underlying purpose of his said visits would surely have been to impart spiritual truths to mankind, in keeping with demands of times. His very last visit might have taken place in Tretā-yuga of our Chaturyugi. The information he then furnished, as recorded in the text, was perhaps similar to that he did in beginning of the first Parārdha, but he did not quite disclose at that time that there shall not be left any need for him to appear thereafter to again give similar truths. Why? Because the augmenting truths would have been furnished (via Tārtam Vāni?) in our Manwantara – after the last time he gave discourse (in our present Chaturyugi) – to enable a more comprehensive understanding by mankind? That is the best this auther could make out of his really enigmatic mention of Vaivasvat manwantara trillions of years ago. Vasishtha also did not reveal (ref Sarga 199 of Nirvana Prakarana, Uttarardha of Yogāvasishtha) the purpose why many great personages, Jeevan-muktas (those who had realized their eternal Ātmās), reside in certain holy places, as if they had were staying in some colonies of souls who were evolved likewise (in their subtle bodies?). Were they awaiting their turn to reincarnate at some appropriate future time, to further evolve and later realize the highest reality (in Turyateeta states), either during or ahead of the period of Jāgani, and thereafter get liberated from the clutches of Māyā? This point is not clarified. He simply gave out names of holy places those personages chose to inhabit. One of them, the ‘Kalāpa-grām’, was mentioned much later (recorded in Bhāgawatam/12/2/37-8) by Shukadeva as the place where those two great yogis, Devāpi and Maru discussed earlier, were residing then – over 5,000 years ago (Kaliyuga had just commenced then)! Shukadeva had also prophesied that they would reappear in the world when the Kaliyuga would be about to end. He said, those two yogies would re-establish, as directed by Shri Krishna (in its true spirit), the original ‘Varna-ashram Dharma’ – that He had Himself devised (Gita confirmsthis)! Since Shri Laldas had hinted in his Beetak that those yogis were the two personages whose biographies he was furnishing, efforts were made by this auther to enquire into their social and spiritual



status as given by Puranas, etc – apart from the original spirit behind the ancient Varna-ashrama system. It also got prompted on learning that two centuries later, even the early Theosophists held a belief that same two yogis were the ‘Mahatmas’ (great personages) who had inspired them to found the Theosophical Society, in order to prepare for a spiritual New Age! Whatever could be gathered about them and the ancient system has been furnished here (more in next chapter). A highly significant thing that Vasishtha said to Shri Rāma (recorded in 97th chapter of the same Prakarana) was this: In different parts of world were prevalent many schools of thought and one of them related to those whom he called ‘Mlechchha’. It is perhaps a reference to beliefs based on Judio-Christian-Islamic stream of scriptures that Tāratam terms as ‘Qateb’. He went on to described that belief in following manner: After death the bodies of people are buried in the belief that in due time God would either raise them and liberate, alternatively send them to hell or heaven, depending upon their past deeds! He said there was nothing wrong in those beliefs; they were appropriate to their cultures. What more, Vasishtha even said that in countries where such beliefs prevail too appear great personages, who with their ‘sun-like’ radiance (divine Aura) enlighten the hearts of people; hence their teachings too need to be followed! The veracity of statement of Vasishtha is verifiable by the readers by referring to the words of Bible reproduced en verbatim in earlier paragraphs.Did Vasistha’s disclosure amount to a prophecy on what would be held as ‘beliefs’ after hundreds of thousands years among followers of scriptures like Testaments and Quran? Had such beliefs actually prevailed in those parts of world, since most ancient times of Vasishtha till date? Latter could also be true as we today find a most fundamental difference between what is propounded in the two streams of scriptures: those of Indian origin and those that originated in West Asia (Qateb). Indian scriptures talk of the ‘life-after-life’ existence of souls, while those of Qateb traditions by and large narrate only the ‘single life existence’. Indian beliefs call for stretching imagination too far; while those of Qateb stream give out what is well wthin range of everyone’s life-long experiences. These two streams of beliefs could well have originated in most ancient times and continued right upto the times of Vasishtha by the end of Treta-yuga (till date). We also can not rule out that those were very remarkable prophecies of Vasistha, akin to the one he made before Shr Rāma about future arrival of Shri Krishna who would declare that He was God (the Purushottama, as recorded in Gitā)! That prophecycame true over 5100 years ago. It could also likewise have been a very remarkable prophecy pointing at beliefs that would prevail later based on Qateb stream of scriptures. Readers may refer to words of Jesus quoted en verbatim from his discourses to disciples, when the Kaliyuga had further advanced by 3100 years. Jesus clearly talked of a New Age saying that changeover to it was not far off. He prophesied, he would return in those times. Turning to Tāratam Vāni, it says the changeover began in 17th century, and would end in a specific time-frame (apart from talking of certain slow-down in the process of that changeover)!



We have discussed Gitā, Bhāgawatam, Bible and Tāratam. It is interesting to see how their contents – in terms of both, spiritual concepts as also prophecies, have progressively become clearer as the time of New Age drew nearer! It has to be kept in mind that Jesus appeared when 3100 years of Kaliyuga had elapsed already. So the statements of Bible can reasonably be taken as an attemptto disclose a little more of the hitherto undisclosed plan of God (than available from Bhāgawatam). With same logic, Tāratam disclosed more of His plan of change-over – taking place presently during period of Jāgani – and when it would end. After all, the same God (Purushottama) has revealed spiritual truths in past along with His plan to evolve the 12,000 most deserving ones (12 tribes of Israel?) in future to their highest potential. With such a premise, we may expect Him to resort to revealing even more truths as and when required in remaining period of Jāgani in order to push forward His divine plan. Gitā/15/15 provides us with a basis for that hypothesis in words of Shri Krishna. He had hinted (in Gitā/15/19-20) that the aspirants needed to grasptruths relating to Purushottama principle. But He did not reveal that those who succeed in their efforts would be able to experience a part of bliss that the Brahm-yogayukta-Ātmās, with whom they were linked, would do! He did not reveal that much even in His words as are recorded in Bhāgawatam regarding Rāsa-leelā enacted earlier on in that glorious creation of Yoga-Māyā. Not a hint of spiritual boost that must have been provided to thespirits of Gopies – to let them experience,much later, the bliss of Brahm, Purushottama – was given by Him. He also did not reveal how the Parātma-nishthā can lead to later get established in Brahm (Brahm-nishthā). All that was left to be clarified after 47 centuries through Tāratam Vāni when time had almost arrived, as per His plan, to begin the end of Kaliyuga! During the time gap between Bhāgawatam and Gitā on one side and Tāratam Vāni on the other, He seems to have disclosed, via the words of Jesus Christ that period of horrors would be shortened by God so that His children would not be called upon to suffer too much. He also chose to briefly disclose via Jesus about certain Kingdom of God, how to reach there, etc. But He did that in a cultural backdrop that was far different from that in India, where people remained under an impression that end of Kaliyuga was still hundreds of thousand years away. Then He revealed via Tāratam that life-span of Kaliyuga had been slashed down drastically due to the very pace at which its influence wasunleashed! Above scenario has been presented to make some points. It is useful to collate Tāratam Vāni with relevant statements of scriptures of various faiths in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of Godand His divine plan for the present. It was variously revealed in distant past, though it is only now that it would get implemented, in troubled times of the present and those yet to follow. The aspirants would surely draw comfort from it, knowing that God is only testing themto determine if they really deserve the highest spiritual rewards in a time-span



that would end in not too distant a future. They need to gear up to claim those rewards. Chapter 1 Parātma-Yoga .......................................................... 7

1.1 Mankind: Three Categories .............................................................. 10

1.2 Successive Upward Link-ups ............................................................ 16

1.3 The Wake-up Call for Brahman-srishties ........................................... 20 1.4 Inter-Loka Spiritual Linkages ............................................................ 22

1.5 Samashty-Vyashty Relationship ........................................................ 25 1.6 Lokas and Upa-Lokas ..................................................................... 31

1.7 Four Pralayas .................................................................................. 34 1.8 Prophecies of Our Age ..................................................................... 37

1.8.1Bible: Hints of Spiritual Link-ups ............................................... 45 1.8.2 Period of Jāgani ...................................................................... 49

Chapter 3 Mysteries of Tāratam .............................................. 113 3.1 Kumaras and Kumarikas ............................................................... 117 3.2 Paratmas: The Eternal Brides ......................................................... 121 3.3 Allegoric Wedding of 12,000 Atmas ............................................... 129 3.4 Yogamaya: More references .......................................................... 136 3.5 Eight Bhists of Taratam ................................................................ 140 3.5.1 Vaikuntha or Malkoot .................................................................... 150 3.6 Testimonies of Upanishadas .......................................................... 155 3.6.1 Prashna Upanishada ..................................................................... 157 3.6.2 Mundak Upanishada ..................................................................... 158 3.6.3 Atmavan; An Ishwarsrishty ........................................................... 166 3.6.4 Atma in Mandookya Upanishada .................................................... 167 3.6.5 Atma in Taittiriya Upanishada ....................................................... 168 3.7 Varnas: Bhrigu's discourse To Bharadwaj ....................................... 173 3.8 In Retrospect ................................................................................ 176

seventeenth century revelations - nijanandnijanand.org/publication/kcvyas/scr2.pdf · span of our...

Documents