This preaches subordinative attributes of the soul and majestic attributes of Ishwara, therefore, distinction between Jiva and Ishwara are at spiritual plane and shall be accepted as a well founded principle. Geeta says: Not that I am not existed, not also that you were not existed, and not these kings also were not existed and not even that the we all will not exist, but, we will be ! Shri Ramanujacharya has interpreted this Shloka as under : In first instance listen to the nature of the soul : Even I the God of the Gods - have not existed prior to the present or in the endless past - is not so, but I was existing. And you and other Kings - the Jivas - were not non-existent, but were existing and I and you and we all also will not be non-existent - but shall exist. As, without any-doubt, I am supreme God and everlasting, you all souls - the knowers of the field - are everlasting. Believe this. Thus the distinction between supreme God and Jivas is real, and as it appears, has been confirmed so by Bhagwan himself. Now the reason : God has used different forms like - I, you, this, we, all etc. while he preached spiritual entity to Arjuna to remove his ignorance and Moha. If you pose an argument to impress that the school of distinction in souls stands only on a condition or degree, then for that, we would say that as you are refuting philosophic distinctions of the soul, the reference again of such a distinction in them stands irrelevant in preaching about Tattva . Therefore, the distinction of the soul, as said by God, is natural as per the Shrutis : The God, who is the permanence of the permanants and supreme consciousness of the conscious, fulfills desires of many. Now if we consider that these distinctions (means the distinctions as seen among the souls), appear so due to spiritual ignorance, then the Parama Purusha, as he has the knowledge of ultimate reality, has the realization of soul prevailing in the state of everlasting, eternal and absolute consciousness, therefore, his ignorance has diminished, as such, the acts of such ignorance can not effect any objection or hurdle to them. Therefore, if 'the difference is found due to ignorance' and the realization is due to such difference' then the preaching etc. acts if arising from it, a can not establish any relevance. If said that the peerless knowledge acquired by Param Purusha is a discriminative knowledge arisen from a restricted state, like that of a burnt cloth that can not be used for holding anything. But this too is not a just openion. Because, the water visible in a mirage has similarity with such restricted state, but nobody tries to fatch water from the mirage-images. In Similar way, here in this case the knowledge of discrimination which is restricted by the peerless knowledge, follows it, but as it has realization of the falsehood of the senses and sense objects, stands detached from the acts like preaching. Moreover, there is one more objection. Even if, we believe that God earlier, was not knowledgeable, we can not say that God attained restricted state, as he had the knowledge of the scripture. Because, if we say so, it generates contradiction with other Shrutis and Smritis. For example : 'He, who is the knower of everybody and knows everybody', 'His divine powers are of unique and unknown,' 'Oh Arjuna ! I know all the beings of present, past and future, but they don't know me.' Thus, it may create opposition and contradiction among Shrutis and Smritis. Moreover it is said that 'Power, action and knowledge are natural for him.' It has been said : not only that, though they have absolute realization of the form of the peerless soul and the knowledge of discrimination, this Param Purusha and contenporany traditions of Gurus are preaching to which peerless soul befitting their faith ? The doubt like that exists. In explanation to it, if it is said, that a thing looks at it's own reflection appearing like a reflection, Arjuna and other are the reflections and those reflected forms have been preached. But this, as an explanation, stands as unacceptable, because, how a spiritually wise would preach his own reflection appearing on surfaces like a precious stone, a sword or a mirror, when he knows that such image is not separate from his soul ? Moreover, we can't say, he has restricted state because the restrictive agent - the peerless knowledge of self and the distinctive knowledge which is individual and distinct from it, and the ignorance which is the cause of it, all those are distracted. The knowledge of the two moons is caused by the spiritual ignorance on reflection of the moon, and such cause would not be destroyed by the knowledge of the one moon, as there is possibility of restricted state. Means, though it exists, the restricted state of stronger proof makes it ineffective. But in the case of soul, the distinct knowledge is subjective and with the cause pertaining to spiritual object. But as it is not true, it destroys true knowledge of soul, and therefore no restrictive state is possible . Therefore, if said that Sarveshwara Paramatma has the spiritual knowledge of this body and tradition of the Gurus, then distinction of soul and preaching to that effect are not possible. Now if take that Parmatma has no knowledge of distinction of soul and tradition due to lack of knowledge and the state of ignorance. In short, as the Guru has unparallal spiritual knowledge, and as the ignorance about Brahm has been destroyed along the acts, he has no intention to preach his disciple, if assumed that the Guru and his knowledge both are imaginary, then the disciple and the knowledge of disciple, both shall be imaginary. If say that there is no objection in calling it imaginary due to earlier opposition, then the knowledge of Guru will be proved like that, and all will be in vain. Therefore, as the spiritually wise have said, this should be the limit!