201 [2] The Properties of Pudgal Parmanu

Questioner: So just as there are living entities (jeev) in this world, there are also non-living entities (ajeev), aren’t there?

Dadashri: Yes, there are also non-living entities. That which has form is visible; the form which is visible through the eyes, which can be heard through the ears, which can be tasted through the tongue, which can be smelled through the nose, which can be touched, all of that is a non-living entity. As long as it has a form, it is a non-living entity, and that which is formless is the living entity. The living entity is formless; It cannot be seen, It cannot be heard through the ears. ‘It’ cannot be perceived through these sense organs. ‘It’ is beyond the senses, It cannot be recognized through the sense organs. Everything that can be experienced through the sense organs is non-living.

In this, as the Pudgal [Parmanu] is endowed with the property of having form, it has a visible representation, whereas the others are invisible (amurt). The Self is also invisible and the other four eternal elements are also invisible.

And what is the inherent nature of these Parmanu? Their color keeps on changing constantly. The Self does not have the property of color or any such thing. This person has a fair complexion, and this other person has a dark complexion; so the colors are constantly changing depending on the kind of parmanu a person has. Furthermore, the texture (sparshna) keeps on changing.

Questioner: Dada, with reference to both, the prakruti (the non-Self complex) and the Purush (the Self), ‘Not a single property of the prakruti is in Me, and not a single property of Mine is in the prakruti.’ But there must be some common properties that the prakruti and the Purush share? Aren’t there any?

Dadashri: No.

Questioner: This [the Self] is formless, It is subtle. Can the mind be considered subtle?

Dadashri: No, all of that has form.

Questioner: What about thoughts? What about those we refer to as subtle circumstances?

Dadashri: All of that has form. The entire prakruti has nothing but form. The mind-speech-body, all of that has form.

Questioner: Is there not a single common property between the two?

Dadashri: No, they have nothing in common.

Questioner: The way I understood it with reference to phases (paryay) is that the impure phases are common to both. Isn’t there any such perspective?

Dadashri: There is no such thing. This prakruti that has form is entirely destructible (vinashi), whereas that which is formless is indestructible (avinashi). That which has form keeps on changing, the formless does not keep on changing. That which has form undergoes input and output (puran-galan), and the Self is formless. So, all of their properties are different. There is no commonality in the intrinsic functional properties (gunadharma) of the two. Where did you note down all these points from?

Questioner: Dada, there are all these terms that are used, aren’t there? Terms such as subtle circumstances, gross circumstances...

Dadashri: Gross circumstances have form, but so do the subtle circumstances.

Questioner: Don’t we say, “I am subtle.” Similarly, the circumstances are also subtle...

The Properties of Pudgal Parmanu

Dadashri: That subtle is different. What ‘we’ actually mean by ‘I am subtle’ is that the prakruti is gross and the Self is subtle; that is what ‘we’ mean to say. Otherwise, the Parmanu are the subtlest. The subtlest means that they cannot be seen [with these physical eyes]. Even the Pudgal [Parmanu] are like that. The original Pudgal Parmanu are such that they cannot be seen, however by their inherent nature, they have form [they can be Seen through absolute Knowledge]. The entire prakruti has form. Everything keeps on changing. It keeps on changing thereafter.

No matter how beautiful the praakrut (that which pertains to the non-Self) is, there is no telling when it will change its guise. No matter how appealing this fruit is, it is going to rot later on. Even a blossoming flower will eventually wilt. There’s no telling when that which pertains to the non-Self will go bad, is there?

The Beauty Always Wears Away!

It is on account of this eternal element with form, the eternal element of the Pudgal [Parmanu], that this world has arisen. It is indeed the eternal element with form that perplexes one. However, it is because one sees the [beauty of the] form (roop), that he becomes perplexed. As one sees the [beautiful] form, everything within him takes a turn for the worse.

Questioner: Does it take a turn for the worse because he believes it to be beautiful?

Dadashri: It is because he sees the [beauty of the] form (roop). He does not believe it to be beautiful. It has a [beautiful] form.

Questioner: It has a [beautiful] form?

Dadashri: It definitely has a [beautiful] form! Form [beauty] is an inherent nature of the Pudgal [Parmanu]. It is its inherent nature to have form (roop), taste (ras), smell (gandh), tactility (sparsh). There might be a woman who appears perfect, like a rose flower, but the awareness does not remain that this [beautiful] form is a property of the [vibhaavik] pudgal; it is ever changing. When the [beautiful] form is at its peak, he selects her [for marriage], and then two years later, when she becomes ill, the [beautiful] form has faded.

Questioner: Then does the [beautiful] form keep fading as each year passes by?

Dadashri: Yes, one should at least envision what she would look like when she turns fifty. At that time, he will get fed up of looking at her. Is there not a difference between the way she was when he selected her and when she turns fifty?

Questioner: Yes, that [beautiful] form has changed now.

Dadashri: So then he gets fed up of looking at her. But what can he do? What can be done now that he has already married her!

A man may have married a woman with a fair complexion, but when she suffers some illness, her complexion becomes dark. Then what can be done? A brass pot can be buffed, but can she be buffed? Is it possible to buff her? So then why should you keep seeking a faircomplexioned wife? The one you get is the right one. If she were fair-complexioned and her complexion becomes dark, then what would become of you? People don’t understand all this, do they?

Questioner: They do understand it, but when the situation comes into effect, they forget.

Dadashri: Yes, they are clever people, aren’t they?

So this property of form, what must it belong to? Everything that has form is a property of this [vibhaavik] pudgal. How appealing do all the varieties of fruit appear! That is all [vibhaavik] pudgal. And have you ever seen those dried fruits? Have you ever seen a fair-complexioned woman? What do those dried fruits look like? All of those are indeed considered ‘fruits’ also. However, it is only when one ‘tastes’ them that he realizes [what they are]. The ‘taste’ he gets when he marries [is different], but when she says something quite absurd, that is when he gets fed up. Whereas, with regards to a fruit, it appears to be very appealing on the outside, because it is pudgal, isn’t it! And our people become pleased; [they’ll say,] “She is fair-complexioned.” Hey mortal one, just try and marry a fair-complexioned woman; you’ll end up a fool! He gets married, and then he gets fed up.

Questioner: [A beautiful] Form is nothing but an object of pleasure for the eyes. It is only the eyes that take in the [beauty of the] form.

Dadashri: The fact is, fundamentally, the natural form (swabhaavik roop) is not discernible to the eyes. This unnatural form (visheshbhaavi roop) is discernible to the eyes. And everything in this world that has deviated from its inherent nature (visheshbhaav) is due to form. The natural form is not destructible, whereas this unnatural form is a temporary adjustment.

Questioner: What is the connection between the form (roop) and the name (naam)?

Dadashri: Everything indeed has form. How else would anything be recognized? People have named them, such as, this is called a cow, this is called a buffalo, this is called a bull, this is called this. Moreover, in the language used by Muslims, the names and words may be different, yet the meaning is the same for everyone. The words are different, likewise the language is different, so in one [language] they may use the word ‘God’, in another they may say ‘Bhagwan’, in yet another, they may say ‘Allah’. The names are all different, nevertheless they are an association used to distinguish something. A name is a suggestive association.

Questioner: In many scriptures of the Vedanta (one of the six schools of Hindu philosophy), the name and the form have been referred to as an illusion.

Dadashri: The name and the form are temporary adjustments.

Questioner: Now, what connection does it [that which has name and form] have with existence (asti), illusion (bhranti), and material pleasures (preya)?

Dadashri: It [that which has a name and form] definitely has an existence. And [because of illusion], it has connections only with material pleasures (preya). It does not have a connection with that which is spiritually beneficial (shreya). They [the name and the form] take one towards material pleasures and in order to go towards that which is spiritually beneficial, Real spiritual effort to progress as the Self (Purusharth) must be done. These naturally take one towards material pleasures; the name and the form. The form is a kind of thing that attracts a person. The form is such that it can even cause a true brahmachari (a person practicing celibacy through the mind, speech and body; One who is prevailing as the Self) to become attracted.

Who Is Beautiful, the ‘I’ or the Parmanu?

Questioner: Once there was a discussion that in worldly interaction, that which takes on a form inevitably acquires a name.