08 Mar 2021
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Śrī Phani asked: Can we say that a cause-and-effect relationship (kārya-kāraṇa sambandha) exists between the following two cases (1) unimaginable God and an ordinary soul, (2) unimaginable God and a Human Incarnation of God?]
Swāmi replied: In the first case, we take the unimaginable God to be the cause and the imaginable soul to be the effect. Here we must notice that this is not a case where worldly logic is applicable since worldly logic only studies cases where imaginable causes produce imaginable effects. Hence, applying a cause-effect relationship to this case fails. The second case has the unimaginable God as the cause and the unimaginable God existing in an imaginable medium as the effect. This second case is also not the case of an imaginable cause producing an imaginable effect. Hence, applying the cause-effect relationship to this case also fails. The cause-effect relationship fully applies only in cases where imaginable causes produce imaginable effects. This includes cases like gold producing a golden chain and mud producing a mud-pot. If you want to apply the cause-effect relationship to cases involving the unimaginable God, it is okay to apply it only in a superficial sense, without entering into the deep analysis of the meaning of this relationship.
King Hariścandra was an embodiment of honesty. You can call any other person by the name Hariścandra, irrespective of the qualities of that person. We have no objection to it because such naming the person Hariścandra is only by rūḍhi (nominal or conventional). It is only a superficial name, which has no connection with the meaning of that name. So, even if such a person named Hariścandra tells lies, you would not be surprized. After all, the person was only named Hariścandra by rūḍhi and not because he was actually truthful and honest. When a word is used in a way that the root meaning of the word applies in that context, such usage is called yoga.
It is true that everything and everybody is a part of this imaginable world. It is also true that God is the ultimate cause of this world. Simply based on these two facts, you can say God is the cause and anything or anybody other than God is the effect. In this superficial sense, the cause-effect relationship applies to God (cause) and anything or anybody (effect) other than God. As long as you stop at this point, we have no objection to your applying the cause-effect relationship to the case of God. However, the cause-effect relationship is not applicable in trying to explain the process of how God created the world or items within it.
God’s Creation of the World
[A deeper analysis of the topic for interested readers is given below.]
Failure of the worldly cause-effect relationship
Swāmi replied: As per worldly logic, the cause-effect relationship (kāraṇa-kārya sambandha) means the process of the production of the effect from the cause. Gold is the cause and the golden chain is the effect. Mud is the cause and the pot is the effect. Gold and mud are material causes (upādāna kāraṇa). The goldsmith and pot-maker are the respective intellectual causes (nimitta kāraṇa). The material cause enters the effect and forms the entire bulk material of the effect. The golden chain has the same shining yellow color of the gold, which is its material cause. The pot also has the same black color of the mud, which is its material cause. The properties of the material cause exist throughout the effect as told in logic (Kāryaṃ nidānādhi guṇān adhīte—Naiṣadham). If God is taken to be the material cause and the world is taken to be the effect, the properties of God must exist everywhere, throughout the bulk of the world. The property of God is His unimaginable power and hence, God’s nature is unimaginable. The unimaginable God is called Parabrahman. If the unimaginable God is said to be the material cause of the world, the entire world should also be unimaginable everywhere. God has no volume since the three spatial coordinates do not exist in God. It is due to this reason that God is unimaginable. But if you take the world, it is imaginable everywhere. Every item of the world has volume, which means that the three spatial coordinates exist everywhere in the world. The nature of the world is thus, quite opposite to the nature of God. In fact, there is not even a single property that is common between God and the world!
If you take gold and the golden chain, apart from the yellow colour of the lump of gold (material cause), the design of the golden chain introduced by the goldsmith (intellectual cause) also exists as an additional property. The design of the chain existed in the brain of goldsmith before making the chain. The property of the material cause (yellow colour) and the property of the intellectual cause (design) coexist in the effect (golden chain). Since world came out from the unimaginable God, when no second entity existed, we have to say that God is both the material and intellectual cause of the world (Abhinna nimittopādāna kāraṇaṃ Brahma). Since the unimaginable God is both the material and the intellectual cause of the world, we might expect the property of God to enter the world. In that case, the world must also be unimaginable. But unfortunately, the world is imaginable! Hence, even though we agree that the world is created by God, we cannot say that God is either the material cause or the intellectual cause. No doubt, God is the cause of the world. But He is neither the material cause nor the intellectual cause.
Another defect also arises in applying the cause-effect relationship to the case of God. When the golden chain (effect) is produced from gold (cause), the lump of gold must get exhausted. But in the case of God and the world, the world was created and yet God remains unchanged and unexhausted. It is as if the gold chain gets produced while the lump of gold remains as it is, without any reduction. If you say that the chain (in the sense of its design) is the intellectual cause, let us agree to your point since the world is created as per the design existing in the will of God. But, the intellectual cause cannot exist alone in the effect without the support of the material cause. But there is no basis to say that the material cause entered into the effect because (1) The unimaginable nature of the unimaginable God (cause) is not found anywhere in the effect (effect) and (2) The unimaginable God, as the material cause, did not get exhausted in His original position. This invalidates the very idea of the entry of God as the material cause, into the effect, which is the world.
Dr. Nikhil said: The intellectual cause (abstract design) can exist without the material cause, but only in a relative sense. For instance, the goldsmith can imagine a design of a chain made out of any metal like, silver, gold or platinum. One could even make the same chain out of plastic too! So, the design is relatively independent of material. But it is not absolutely independent of material, in the sense that the chain must be made of some material. Unless the designer has some concept of what matter or material is, he cannot conceive of a design (shape) of some material. Thus, the intellectual cause can exist (relatively) independent of the material cause. The two causes together lead to the effect of a golden chain. So, the design (intellectual cause) can exist independently of the material cause but the expression of the design requires the material cause to be simultaneously be present.
Swami replied: The intellectual cause, which is the design of the chain or the chain itself, cannot exist alone without the material cause (gold) that has entered the chain. As per worldly logic, we have to say that the material cause of the world must be absent in the world. This is because the unimaginable God, who is the material cause of the world, remained unexhausted and unconverted into the effect. So, the intellectual cause of the world cannot be expressed, just as the chain (design) cannot be expressed without the gold. But the unexpressed chain (design) indeed existed in the brain of the goldsmith. From this we can say that the intellectual cause, even before entering the effect (gold chain) needs some material like the brain to exist. Here, the ‘material’ that holds the design (like the brain) could either be matter or energy and both are treated to be ‘material’ in this context. Hence, the intellectual cause without the basic material (brain or gold) does not exist at all! All this discussion is related to the worldly imaginable example in which there is no place for any unimaginable item at any stage. But when you take case of the production of this world (effect) from the unimaginable God (cause), all the above discussion becomes inapplicable.
The unimaginable God is said to be beyond worldly logic (Atarkyaḥ…; Naiṣā tarkeṇa…—Veda). The design of the world was held by the unimaginable will (unimaginable awareness) of the unimaginable God. This design, on entering into the effect (world) is expressed and maintained by the unimaginable God Himself. The unimaginable God, who is the Cause that entered the effect, is not expressed to us since He is unimaginable. The design of creation alone is expressed, while the unimaginable God, who is the Cause remains unexpressed. This is like saying that the golden chain is expressed without expressing the gold that has entered the chain! Hence, this entire logic becomes unimaginable to us. It means that the process of creation of the world from God cannot be understood by us based on worldly examples like golden chain-gold or mud pot-mud etc.
The world existed in the will of God in an unexpressed state and it is expressed in the form of the world. Both these unexpressed and expressed states are completely imaginable to God. Just because God who is the material and intellectual cause of the world, is unimaginable to souls, it is not necessary that the world in its expressed and unexpressed states should also be unimaginable to souls. Actually, the world in its expressed and unexpressed states, is imaginable to souls. Thus, the Creator (Cause) and Maintainer of the world may be unimaginable, but the world need not be unimaginable. Accordingly, we find the expressed (materialized) world to be existing separate from God and giving Him entertainment. Therefore, we cannot establish a cause-effect relationship between the unimaginable God and the imaginable world following worldly examples of the cause-effect relationship like the lump of gold and the golden chain, or the mud and the mud pot.
The Veda specifically says that the unimaginable God is not exhausted and yet the world is created (Sat ca tyat ca abhavat). This is unlike the case of the lump of gold which gets exhausted and converted into the golden chain. The case of God and the world is like the lump of gold continuing to exist as a lump of gold (Sat ca) and still simultaneously becoming a separate golden chain (Tyat ca abhavat). Hence, the concept of the creation of the world from God cannot be explained by the examples of worldly logic such as the gold lump becoming a golden chain or the mud becoming a pot. This means that the relationship between cause and effect, as per worldly logic, completely fails to explain the original concept of unimaginable God creating this imaginable world.
The only case that can somewhat serve as a model to understand the God-world relationship is the case of a magician performing magic to create some objects. But even this case is not completely suitable for understanding our concept because the magician uses some pre-arranged tricks, which he sets up before the magic show starts. In the case of God, such pre-arranged tricks using some materials are not possible due to the absence of any second item or material other than God before creating the world. Hence, even the example of a magician performing magic is suitable only if you neglect the pre-arranged tricks using different materials. As a result, it is only a partial model to understand the God-world relationship and not a complete model to project the basic concept.
In any model or simile, the comparison between the two cases need not be complete. If you leave the deep analysis and confine only to the superficial similarity, this case of the magician performing magic is a suitable model. This superficial magic of the magician can be called māyā. Māyā means that a process that is impossible, but which has actually happened (Aghaṭana ghaṭanā paṭīyasī māyā). The magician’s magic can be called māyā provided one does not do deep analysis to identify the pre-arranged tricks. The Veda and Śaṅkara, both used this example of the magician performing magic to explain God’s creation of the world. Here, the magic of the magician was called māyā only superficially (Māyāvīva vijṛmbhayatyapi...—Śaṅkara, Indro māyābhiḥ...—Veda).
The word māyā means the process of making an impossible thing actually happen. So, māyā is like magic, except that it is not a superficial trick, which will be detected upon deep analysis. The product of māyā is found to be real in spite of deep analysis. When we say that God’s creation of the world is māyā, what example can we use that will satisfy the actual and complete meaning of the word māyā? The only example we can use to explain God’s creation of the world through māyā is God’s creation of the world itself! This means that we can compare the ocean only to the ocean itself or that we can compare the sky only to the sky itself (Gaganaṃ gaganākāraṃ, sāgaraḥ sāgaropamaḥ)! Sage Vyāsa also told in the Brahma Sūtras that there is no complete example that will help us understand the actions of the unimaginable God in the imaginable world.
God is unimaginable. But He enters into an imaginable medium and merges perfectly with it. So, the mediated unimaginable God is identical with the unimaginable God. This mediated unimaginable God means either an Energetic Incarnation or a Human Incarnation. This mediated unimaginable God creates certain items miraculously, just by His will. Such miraculous creation alone can be the perfect example to understand the unimaginable God’s creation of the world. Hence, this example is mentioned by the Brahma Sūtra as well as Śaṅkara (Ātmani caivaṃ vicitrāśca hi—Brahma Sūtra, Mahāyogīva yassvecchayā—Śaṅkara).
Based on this entire analysis, Śaṅkara said that this process of the creation of the world by God is unimaginable (anirvacanīyatā khyāti). If the effect exists in the cause in subtle form, it is called sat-khyāti, which means that the effect exists in the cause. Buddhists, on the other hand, have adopted the model of asat-khyāti in the context of the creation of the world. Asat-khyāti means that the effect does not exist in the cause. If the effect did not exist in the cause, but is produced from the cause, it must be essentially non-existent. So, they say that the world is non-existent (śūnyam). By adopting an infinite regress (anavasthā), the Nāgārjuna school of Buddhism even concludes that the cause is also non-existent. Certain Advaita scholars have adopted the model of anyathā khyāti, which means that the effect exists in the cause in a different form. That different form of the effect itself is the cause. Thus, ultimately, anyathā-khyāti becomes a new form of sat-khyāti itself. But Śaṅkara introduced the model of anirvacanīyatā khyāti, which means that the work of God is unimaginable. In fact, Śaṅkara said that everything related to God is unimaginable (Viditaṃ kiṃ nāma Śambho tava?).
Worldly logic can only explain the creation of the imaginable golden chain by the imaginable goldsmith using imaginable gold. But the creation of the world is the case of the unimaginable God creating the imaginable world without using any imaginable second material. Hence, the relationship between the creator-God and the creation-world is also unimaginable. It is unlike the imaginable relationship between the imaginable goldsmith, the imaginable gold and the imaginable golden chain, which is analyzed with the help of worldly logic. Hence, we conclude that the relationship between God and the world is not the cause-effect relationship of worldly logic and that worldly logic is only applicable to relationships between imaginable items such as the goldsmith, the gold lump and the golden chain existing in the world. This is the case of the entire world linked as an effect to the unimaginable God, who is external to the world. We can understand any relationship among imaginable items. But we cannot understand any relationship among unimaginable items. Neither can we understand any relationship between unimaginable and imaginable items. Here, the relationship between the unimaginable cause (unimaginable God) and the imaginable effect (imaginable world) is unimaginable to worldly logic.
Now, let us turn to the second case, which is the relationship between the unimaginable God and the specific imaginable human being, who becomes the Human Incarnation. We must first realize that the imaginable human being, who is going to become the unimaginable Human Incarnation is only a part of the imaginable creation. Hence, before the formation of the Human Incarnation, the same relationship between God and creation exists, between God and that human being who is going to become the Human Incarnation. This means that the worldly cause-effect relationship does not exist between God and that specific-selected human being after the human being becomes a Human Incarnation too. In any case, let us examine whether the Human Incarnation was created by the unimaginable God through a cause-effect relationship or not. We need to patiently analyze the process of a human being becoming a Human Incarnation. God enters a selected devoted human being and merges with it to become the Human Incarnation. This is not a cause-effect relationship at all! This process is described in the Veda as “Tat sṛṣṭvā tadevānuprāviśat, tadanupraviśya, sat ca tyat ca abhavat”. Here, it is not stated that the unimaginable God created the Human Incarnation. It is different from saying that God created this world. It is only stated that God became the Human Incarnation using an ordinary human being as a medium. The human being, which acts as a medium for God’s entry is a tiny part of the created world. The unimaginable God entered the already-created human being. After the entry, God became that human being which is called the Human Incarnation due to a perfect merging between God and the human medium. This means that God and that particular human being are in a state of monism. However, in spite of God’s entry into the medium to become the Human Incarnation, the original God remains unchanged and does not get exhausted. The same is true in the case of the creation of the world from the unimaginable God. It is unlike the case of the gold lump which gets exhausted when it is converted into a golden chain. At this point, a questioner raises a question.
A questioner said: Let us assume that the selected devoted human being chosen for God’s entry is the material cause and the unimaginable God is the intellectual cause that enters the material cause. It is like the design of the goldsmith entering into the gold to produce the golden chain. The resulting golden chain contains the property of the intellectual cause, which is the design itself. The unimaginable power of the Incarnation is the unimaginable power of the unimaginable God Himself, just as the chain’s design is the design in the mind of the goldsmith. In this way, the unimaginable God becomes the intellectual cause of the Human Incarnation. In this sense, can we not say that a cause-effect relationship exists between God and the Human Incarnation?
Swami replied: The goldsmith-golden chain example is the simile or analogy (upamānam) used to understand the actual concept of God entering the human medium to become a Human Incarnation (upameyam). But there is a significant difference between the analogy and the actual concept. In the analogy, the goldsmith, who is the intellectual cause, exists separately from the gold lump, which is the material cause. In the actual concept both the material cause and the intellectual cause are one and the same. When the intellectual cause is different from the material cause as the goldsmith is different from gold, there is meaning in saying that the intellectual cause entered the material cause. But when both are one and the same, how can you even speak of any entry? One cannot enter oneself!
Dr. Nikhil said: The concept being discussed here is that of the unimaginable God and the Human Incarnation. In this case, God is not entering God. The unimaginable God is entering the imaginable human medium. So, the two are different. After the creation of the world and after God has granted the status of ‘reality’ to the world, God is different from the world. No part of the world is God (Neti, neti…). So, the human medium is not God. Hence God’s entry into it is not a case of God entering God.
Swami replied: The intellectual cause-effect relationship also fails to apply to the concept of the God becoming the Human Incarnation. Here, we have to only take the entry of the unimaginable God into the already-created human being. After His entry, the unimaginable power of God (māyā) is also seen in the Human Incarnation in the form of the miraculous powers exhibited by the Incarnation. The example to be taken here is that the fire having the property of burning (heat) enters into an iron rod placed in it so that the hot iron rod also exhibits the same burning power. The iron rod is not the produced effect of the fire-cause. If you analyze more deeply, here, the fire having the burning power itself entered into the iron rod due to which the hot iron rod exhibits the same burning power. The fire did not merely give its burning power to the iron rod without entering the rod itself. Hence, the unimaginable God Himself entered into the human being as said in the Veda and the Gītā (Tadevānuprāviśat—Veda, Mānuṣīṃ tanumāśritam—Gītā). In the analogies of the golden chain and the mud pot, the goldsmith or pot-maker did not directly enter into the golden chain or the mud pot. Only the design, which is said to be the intellectual cause entered the effects. Hence, you cannot apply the type of intellectual cause found in golden chain and mud pot examples to the concept of God becoming a Human Incarnation.
One can say that God created the Human Incarnation only in a superficial sense, without deeply entering into the logic of the process of creating the effect from its cause, based on worldly logic. If you agree that the process of creating the effect is unimaginable to you, you can say that God is the cause for the world-effect and that God is the cause for the Human Incarnation-effect. We do not object to your usage of the cause-effect relationship once you agree that you have failed in applying the logic of this relationship to the action of God. It is just like using a word to arbitrarily indicate a certain object by convention (rūḍhi), even though that object is unrelated to the meaning of the word (yoga). We will not object if you say that God is the cause and the world is the effect of God or that God is the cause and the Human Incarnation is the effect. This is because God is the root cause of everything. But we will object to you at every step, if you attempt to explain the action of God with the help of worldly logic that applies only to worldly examples.
God is said to be beyond logic and no authority of knowledge (pramāṇam) is applicable to Him. Hence, He is said to be the entity beyond the authority of logic (Aprameya). The reason for this is that the authority of logic only applies to items having volume (parimāṇam) and possessing the three spatial coordinates. The smallest particle called an atom has a tiny volume. Sub-atomic particles or even the sub-sub-atomic particles like quarks have the smallest volume since they are not beyond the three spatial coordinates. The Veda states this point clearly. It says that God is beyond space, and hence He is beyond spatial coordinates. He is beyond volume and hence, He is also beyond the authorities of knowledge (Atarkyo’naṇupramāṇāt).
Dr. Nikhil said: Is the quoted statement “Atarkyo’naṇu-pramāṇāt” or “Atarkyo’ṇu-pramāṇāt?
Swami replied: The first version is correct. It means that God is beyond logic since He does not even have the tiniest possible volume of the tiniest possible particle called an ‘aṇu’. The second version gives the opposite meaning. It means that God is beyond logic since He has the tiniest possible volume of the tiniest possible particle.
The Gītā also says that God can never be known (Māṃ tu veda na kaścana). Even the Brahma Sūtras, which begin by saying that the enquiry about God will be made, do not give any direct information about God (svarūpa lakṣaṇam). They only state that God is that entity, which created this world. This is only indirect information (Taṭastha lakṣaṇam) about God.
Then the question may come as to why scholars should study logic before studying spiritual knowledge (Vedanta). Logic helps us in deciding whether or not an item is part of the imaginable world. After deciding whether an item belongs to the imaginable domain (world) or not, with the help of logic, we will be able to reject all imaginable items as not being God (Neti netītyācakṣate tadvidaḥ—Veda). If one misunderstands an imaginable item like awareness to be God, logic proves that awareness is only an imaginable item, which is part of the imaginable world. Hence, such an imaginable item (awareness) is not God. Logic helps in rejecting all imaginable items that might be mistaken to be God. Finally, we conclude that God is beyond all these imaginable items and hence, He is unimaginable. Logic enables us to discriminate between the truth and falsehood and hence, is the essential torch-light in the spiritual path.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★