10 Nov 2020
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Continuued from Part-2...
In the Gītā, Kṛṣṇa told Arjuna that the body is called the kṣetram and the awareness in the body, which is the knower of the body, is called the kṣetrajña. After telling this to Arjuna, Kṛṣṇa said that He too is a Kṣetrajña (Kṣetrajñaṃ cā'pi mām...). Here, the words ‘ca’ and ‘api’ are used for double stress because each means ‘too’ or ‘also’. If Kṛṣṇa only had ordinary awareness like a human being, He need not have said that He too has awareness. This word ‘too’ with double stress means that He too does the function of awareness—which is the process of knowing—even though He is not awareness. This statement was made with reference to the absolute unimaginable God represented by Kṛṣṇa. In other words, the unimaginable God who had merged in the soul of Kṛṣṇa was saying that He also is an (unimaginable) knower present in the body.
Kṛṣṇa represents mediated God or an Incarnation. The human medium of Kṛṣṇa had the relatively-true awareness as its soul. The unimaginable God had fully merged in Kṛṣṇa’s soul as well has His body, as said in the Veda (Antarbahiśca). His body too had become the unimaginable God since He could lift the Govardhana hill. Before the merging of the unimaginable God in the human medium, the mediated God (Incarnation) can be said to be just the relative awareness and the relative body. The human being-component of the Human Incarnation only has relative awareness (kṣtrajña) before God’s merging. After God’s merging, the relative awareness remains as it is, but it attains the unimaginable nature of God, due to the merging with God. Since the unimaginable God is not awareness, there is no question of two awarenesses of God and Kṛṣṇa respectively. Hence, when we say that God is not this relative awareness, we strictly mean only the original, absolutely real and unimaginable God called Parabrahman.
In the rope-snake example, you have taken the rope to be the substratum and the illusory snake as directly dependant on the rope. If the rope is removed, the snake disappears. Hence, you say that God and the soul are inseparable and exist as an inseparable couple. Our answer is that the will of God is maintaining this world directly, which means that God is only indirectly maintaining it. Even if the will of God is withdrawn, along with its dependant world, God remains. God and the world cannot be considered to be like the mud and the pot or the rope and the illusory snake, where there is a direct link between the two. The creation of the world by God can be compared to the magic show exhibited (created) by a magician (Indro mayābhiḥ pururūpa īyate...—Veda). Śaṅkara has also given this same example (Māyāvīva vijṛmbhayatyapi...).
The magic show is maintained by the will of the magician. It is not united with or supported by the body of the magician as a pot is supported by a table. The only defect in the example of the magic shown by the magician is that the magic is basically a trick; the magician is not actually creating anything. The magic show is based on pre-arranged tricks that make it appear as if some items are created by the will of the magician. A better example is that of a divine person doing a miracle. It is free of the above defect since there is no trick involved. The divine person actually materializes some item miraculously and that item exists independently outside the divine person. This example was finally chosen by Śaṅkara (Mahāyogīva yassvecchayā). This example is exactly the original concept itself. In the original concept, God created the world miraculously by His will. In this example too, it is God alone who creates the item miraculously because the divine person is none other than mediated God.
This is inevitable because there is no exact simile in the world for God. No unimaginable item exists in this imaginable world. The process of creation of the world from God has been explained by past scholars to be either a real modification (pariṇāma) or an apparent modification (vivarta). But these explanations are not complete and they only indicate the concept externally, that God is the cause and the world is the product. The only complete simile that explains the process of creation of this world by the unimaginable God is the creation of an item through a miracle by the same unimaginable God mediated by a selected human being.
Of course, the ultimate indirect substratum is God alone and the soul can feel that it is resting on God like a pot on a table. But it should be noted that God is not pervading the entire world, in a physical sense. He can only be said to be pervading the world in an effective sense. Thus, we can say that God is effectively pervading all over the world as its substratum. Since God knows every bit of creation and is omnipotent to control it, we say that, in an effective sense, God is everywhere and that God is everything. When the Veda says that God is this entire world (Sarvaṃ khalvidaṃ Brahma), it only means that this entire world is under the control of God, as His property (Tadadhīna prathamā). We can only assume that the world is directly based on God and is directly pervaded by God, in an effective sense. If God were actually pervading everything, Rāma, the God-in-human-form, would not have killed Rāvaṇa because Rāvaṇa would also be God and God killing God would have meant God committing suicide!
Māyā means the unimaginable and wonderful power of God. God Himself is unimaginable. You cannot have two unimaginable items because any number of unimaginable items only results in one unimaginable item. We say that the unimaginable God did this miracle through His unimaginable power. Here, we are allowing the assumption of two unimaginable items only because all of us are accustomed to the dualism of the possessor of the power and power itself such as the sun and its light. Such terminology is used only for the sake of convenience for our easy understanding. Hence, māyā is called the power and the Māyī or the possessor of māyā is called Īśvarā (Māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ viddhi, Māyinaṃ tu Maheśvaram—Gītā). In one sense, this creation is also wonderful and can be called māyā since the root meaning of the word māyā is wonder (maya-vaicitrye). In another sense, the unimaginable power of God, which is the unimaginable God Himself, is called māyā and it is the root cause for this world. The world or creation is called ‘prakṛti’, which also means ‘root cause’ (Prakṛtirmūlakāraṇe). So, “Māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ viddhi” can mean “Know God’s unimaginable power (which is non-different from Him) to be the root cause of creation”.
Avidyā is the individual ignorance and is the inherent characteristic of the soul. Since the soul is ignorant, it is called ajña (fully ignorant). But the soul is also sometimes called the partial knower (alpajña). Both these words contradict each other. This contradiction can be resolved as follows: The soul is fully ignorant about the unimaginable God and hence, is ajña. But the soul knows this infinite world partially; hence, it is called alpajña. In fact, avidyā means complete ignorance and it refers to the soul’s complete ignorance about the unimaginable God and not about the world.
Śaṅkara said that God is attained in deep sleep (Suṣuptyekasiddhaḥ...) and the same is also told by the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣat. This situation is possible only in the case of the Human Incarnation because only in the Incarnation, does God exist, fully merged with that human being. In deep sleep (suṣupti), the awareness of the human medium totally disappears and God alone remains. This God has the potency to know everything about creation. While speaking about that God who alone remains in deep sleep, Śaṅkara did not state that God is cit. He could have easily said “Cideko’vaśiṣṭaḥ...”, but He said “Tadeko’vaśiṣṭaḥ...”. The word ‘avaśiṣṭa’ means the item that is leftover, after negating every item of the imaginary world. This leftover item must naturally be unimaginable. Here, God, who exists as the indirect substratum of the world, is assumed to be the direct substratum of the soul (in an effective sense). Hence, God alone is said to be leftover when the individual soul or awareness disappears in the deep sleep of the Incarnation. In fact, the individual soul is a heap of thoughts (manomayaḥ) bound by awareness. Here, in deep sleep, the awareness alone disappears and the thoughts remain as pulses in the faculty of memory called ‘cittam.’ It is similar to the data remaining intact in an electronic device, stored in its memory chip, even when the device is switched off. Awareness is like the electric current and cittam is like the memory chip or the information disk of a computer.
If one Advaita philosopher gets his illusory awareness (soul) or cidābhāsa to disappear by finding the real substratum, Cidātmā, his illusory soul alone cannot disappear. The entire illusory world should disappear. If the tip of the tail of the illusory snake disappears on realizing the real rope, the entire illusory snake must disappear. You cannot see the illusory snake without its tail, in any case! Hence, it is impossible for the Advaitin to come out of the illusion in this manner. The world is an illusion only for God, which is ineffective in reality for Him. The world is not an illusion for the soul, since the soul is a part of the illusion or prakṛti and is called parā prakṛti. This creation, which is an illusion of God is very powerful and no soul can cross it (Mama Māyā duratyayā...—Gītā). God appears as inert energy in the first step of the illusion. In the second step, the energy appears as matter and in the third step, the energy appears as awareness. No soul can cross any of these three steps to reach the ultimate substratum, which is the unimaginable God. The substratum means the ultimate indirect base like the magician, in the example given above (Brahma pucchaṃ pratiṣṭhā...—Veda). The substratum does not mean a direct base or support like the table which supports a pot. The Veda explains this with the example of the tail (pucchaṃ) on which the body rests. The tail rests on the ground. The tail is like the will of God standing between the body of the animal (world) and the ground (God).
Mutual superimposition (anyonya adhyāsa) in the same example is not possible. If one realizes the real rope, the illusory snake disappears. This realization cannot be yet another superimposition. So, that which now appears to be a real rope cannot be illusory and its real base cannot be a real snake. In another place, a real snake may appear to be an illusory rope, as it happened in the case of poet Tulasīdās. He was unable to bear the temporary separation from his wife, who had gone to her father’s house. So, he reached his father-in-law’s house at night and climbed the wall with the help of a snake, mistaking it to be a rope, to reach the first floor where his wife was sleeping!
Two mutually opposite superimpositions are possible in two separate examples, but not in the same case or the same example. An ordinary human being may be mistaken to be incarnated God. But, in that case, the spectator-devotee will not mistake him again to be an ordinary human being, at the same time when he is viewing him as God. Similarly, the Human Incarnation of God may be mistaken to be an ordinary human being. But, at the same time, the human being is not viewed as God. You may argue that mutual superimposition is possible in the same example, at different times. So, God may be mistaken to be a human being for some time and later on, the human being is mistaken to be God. This is not possible because the first step is correct. But, in the second step, the human being is not mistaken to be God. He is really God and the human being is a mistaken illusion. An illusion existed only in the first step and there is no illusion in the second step because God is the reality and the human being is an illusion in both steps.
Science is the ultimate authority in the analysis of all the items of this imaginable world and it supersedes ancient logic. Ancient logic only had theoretical intellectual feats, whereas, science is backed by experimental proof. Science clearly proves that awareness is a specific work-form of inert energy. The inert energy gets converted to awareness in the specific system called the brain and nervous system. It is just like the inert electrical energy getting converted into the specific type of work called grinding work in a specific functioning machine called the grinding machine. The same electrical energy becomes cutting work in a functioning cutting machine. The digestive system converts eaten food into simpler compounds such as sugar obtained from the inversion of starch. The respiratory system provides oxygen to cells so that the sugar from food gets oxidised in the mitochondria of the cells to liberate inert energy. This inert energy is used by the body and its systems to carry out various biological functions. The specific work done by this inert energy in the functioning brain and nervous system is awareness, which is the sensing or observing information about objects. These signals are carried by neurons in the brain and the nervous system. The awareness, which is these signals, can be seen by our naked eyes on the screen of electronic instruments in the form of pulses of inert energy. The pulses are more prominent when the mind (awareness) is disturbed or tense. The pulses are mild when the mind is peaceful. When such direct proof that awareness is a work form of energy exists before our eyes, to say that awareness is God, is totally unscientific!
Since God is unimaginable and invisible and since He does not belong to the imaginable world, even science fails to analyze God. Ancient logic may be defeated by science in the analysis of the imaginable items of creation, but science is also defeated in the analysis of the unimaginable God. The demon Ghaṭotkaca might have defeated the demon Alambuṣa, but it does not mean that Ghaṭotkaca can defeat the divine arrow called Indraśakti. In fact, he was killed by this very arrow.
Śaṅkara, being a Human Incarnation of God, drank molten lead while His disciples could not do so. He then declared that He alone was God (Śivaḥ kevalo’ham), which means that all souls are not God. In one of His compositions, He also said that there is a difference between a soul and God (Satyapi bhedāpagame...). Here, He said that God is like the ocean and the soul is like a wave in the ocean. In this simile, there is a qualitative similarity and a quantitative difference. The wave and the ocean are both the same water, qualitatively, but they differ vastly quantitatively. The qualitative similarity between the soul and God was taken to be the common awareness. The quantitative difference was taken to be the difference between the little power and knowledge of the soul (alpaśaktimān, alpajña), which is like the wave, and the enormous power and knowledge of God (sarvaśaktimān, sarvajña), who is like the ocean.
This imaginable world only contains souls and every soul is associated with only a little knowledge (or power) of the world. We do not come across a soul having enormous knowledge or power. You may say that Kṛṣṇa was omniscient, so He had enormous knowledge. But Kṛṣṇa is not counted as a soul among human souls. He is considered to be God since the unimaginable God having enormous knowledge and power had merged with Him.
Rāmānuja said that the soul is a part of God like the wave is a part of the ocean. Between the part and the whole, there is a qualitative similarity and this example stands for the souls in whom ego has reduced to some extent. This makes Rāmānuja’s philosophy the middle step between the philosophies of Śaṅkara and Madhva. In the incident when Śaṅkara’s disciples were unable to drink molten lead, their egos were crushed and reduced down to a trace. At that point, they were in the state of the soul as described by Madhva. Madhva described the soul as a servant and God to be its Master. Before Śaṅkara performed the miracle of drinking molten lead, His disciples were full of ego. In that state of high ego, they were claiming that they too were God, just like Śaṅkara, because of the common awareness. Since their ego was 100%, they claimed 100% monism with God. They were brought from 100% ego to 1% ego by the miracle.
The same reduction in ego among all devotees in society was carried out over a longer period, in three stages, by the three divine preachers, Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva. The temporary reduction of the egos of the disciples by the miracle of drinking molten lead represents the gradual transformation that was to occur over time among devotees at large. Before the miracle, the disciples drank wine along with Śaṅkara and claimed to be God, along with Him. Next, Śaṅkara drank molten lead, asking them to also drink. When they failed, Śaṅkara told them that He alone was God. In the verse composed by Śaṅkara while taking a bath at Purī along with His devotees, He gave the ocean-wave example to explain the relation between God and the soul (Satyapi...). This example was meant for the devotees whose ego had reduced to some extent. This example, which was suitable for devotees with a partially reduced ego, indicates the transition of time from the time of Śaṅkara to the time of Rāmānuja. Hence, we find that Rāmānuja built on this example and explained that the soul is a part of God, just as the wave is a part of the ocean.
Śaṅkara established the Advaita theory which declares a 100% monism between God and the soul, for the sake of atheists with 100% ego. Rāmānuja established His theory called Viśiṣṭa Advaita (special monism), in which the soul is considered to be a small part of God. It is a theory with 10% monism for the sake of the atheists who had converted to theism and whose ego had partially reduced to between 50 and 10% of the original. Madhva established the Dvaita theory which retains only 1% monism. It was meant for the theists who had been converted to devotees by then and who only had 1% ego remaining. All the three divine preachers agreed that awareness is common between God and soul. Madhva brought out almost a complete difference between God and the soul except for the 1% similarity of awareness between God and the soul. Rāmānuja’s theory was also almost on similar lines as Madhva’s, as seen from the example given by Him, in which He said that the soul is a spark of the God-fire. He said that the soul is inseparable from God, whereas, Madhva said that the soul is totally separate from God.
Finally, Datta Swāmi has established the philosophy consisting of 0% monism between the unimaginable God and the imaginable soul. This philosophy rejects the very idea that the unimaginable God is awareness. He says that whenever one refers to the ‘awareness of God’ it does not mean that God is awareness itself like the soul. The awareness of the unimaginable God only means that God is capable of knowing anything due to His unimaginable omnipotence and not because God is awareness, as in the case of the soul. At the same time, Datta Swāmi accepts the full, partial and trace monisms of Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhva respectively, in the case of any specific soul selected by God, when God blesses the soul in that manner.
Please remember that Madhva’s philosophy, which declares a 1% similarity between God and the soul, is not applicable to every ordinary soul. The 1% monism cannot be claimed on the basis of the common awareness between God and the soul, since God is not awareness at all. He is unimaginable. The 1% similarity with God is a status that is specially-granted by God only to some blessed souls, whom God has selected for divine service. Madhva’s theory actually only applies to such devoted servants of God. Regarding any ordinary soul, Datta Swāmi strongly feels that there is not even a trace of similarity between the unimaginable God and the imaginable awareness or soul.
Rāmānuja compares the mediated God with an ordinary human being in explaining the mahāvākya “Tat tvam asi”. Madhva also takes the mediated God alone and keeps the devoted human being as His servant with just 1% similarity that both have the relatively-true awareness as souls. In the case of Śaṅkara, He also considered the mediated God alone, who is the unimaginable God mediated by the relative awareness or the soul. The soul in the mediated God is the medium of God. Śaṅkara confined the mediated God only to the soul of the medium, neglecting the external body. He did not consider the external energetic or human body, which holds the relative awareness or soul, to be God. The mediated God or the unimaginable God mediated by the soul of the medium (body) is really God. Actually, even the body of the mediated God is God, but we are keeping silent about it since Śaṅkara neglected it. However, it certainly does not mean that the soul of every energetic or human being is God. Unfortunately, the idea was extrapolated to say that every soul (of an energetic or human being) is God.
In this way, all the three divine preachers have only considered the mediated God in their philosophies and not the non-mediated unimaginable God. The reason is that the unimaginable God cannot be grasped by any soul. If they were to discuss about the unimaginable God, it would have led to the doubt of whether such a God even exists. Actually the mediated God; i.e. the first Energetic Incarnation (Īśvara), was considered as God by Śaṅkara. But only Īśvara’s awareness, which is the medium of the unimaginable God, was considered to be the ultimate God and Īśvara’s external gross body was not considered. Due to this, the unimaginable-God-mediated-by-awareness, which is Īśvara’s awareness, was mistaken to be the absolute unimaginable God. Actually, the entire medium of Īśvara—energetic body and soul—is eternal. On the other hand, the soul has a non-eternal body. But Śaṅkara wanted to equate the awareness of Īśvara with the awareness of a human being. If the body of Īśvara were to be included in His concept of God, then it would have led to the problem of a difference between Īśvara and jīva. In order to avoid this problem, Śaṅkara dropped the concept of bodies and confined only to souls.
In fact, even the souls of Īśvara and jīva are different because the unimaginable God has merged into the soul of Īśvara, whereas, the unimaginable God has not merged into the soul of jīva. But the unimaginable God is invisible and even beyond imagination. So, the common relative awareness or souls in both were treated as one, by Śaṅkara. Śaṅkara was forced to do this gymnastic feat because He had to convince atheists that God exists by saying that God is the soul itself. The unimaginable God was not considered by any of the three preachers because it is very difficult even to understand the existence of the unimaginable God with one’s intelligence.
In those times, people’s intellects were not as sharp as today, due to the absence of experimental science. So, there was a risk that if the unimaginable God was introduced to those people, they would reach the wrong conclusion that the unimaginable God does not exist at all. Datta Swāmi has taken the absolute non-mediated unimaginable God as the reference everywhere in His philosophy because the present modern people have very good scientific logic to understand the existence of the unimaginable God. They have sufficient logical capacity to accept the existence of the unimaginable God without the relative awareness acting as its medium.
Advaita philosophers avoid discussing about miracles saying that they are certain petty achievements obtained by long and intense efforts (sādhanā). Miracles are unimaginable events indicating the existence of the unimaginable God as their source, through inference. Creation, control and the destruction of the world are the biggest miracles done by God. They prove that God alone is the absolute reality and that the world is only a relative reality because one absolute reality (like God) cannot do such miracles in another absolute reality (like the world). Miracles should not be neglected or given less importance since they are very much divine (Satyakāmaḥ...—Veda; Yadyad vibhūtimatsattvam...—Gītā; Ātmani caivaṃ vicitrāśca hi...—Brahma Sūtram). The Advaita philosopher, after repeatedly muttering to himself that he is God, throughout his life, is unable to do even a small miracle that can be easily done, even by a demon! The reason is that the demon worshipped God as a devoted servant without admitting even a trace of monism between him and God. So, he was blessed by God with some divine power at least. The Advaita philosopher starts with the assumption of full monism. He feels that he is already God. He feels that he has the legal right to become God and that he will attain it after a long struggle, similar to a person gaining his legal right over his ancestral property after a long battle in the court! This basic attitude spoils the whole lifelong effort.
Śaṅkara gave the theory of complete monism only to rectify atheists. But it was also followed by theistic scholars due to their overambitious desire to become God. Knowing this background truth of Śaṅkara’s theory, one can use the concept of complete monism to come out of serious depression, which is not mistaken by God. In less serious depression, the partial monism of Rāmānuja can be used. Even the dualism of Madhva can be used to come out of depression, where one develops confidence on God, who is the Master. These three divine fruits of trace monism, partial monism and full monism should be granted by God to the devotee through His free will. They should not be claimed by the followers as if they are their already-existing rights. They should not think that such relationships with God that they have assumed, are true or that they can attain those statuses without God’s grace.
The relatively true awareness or soul cannot exhibit omniscience due to its lack of omnipotence (Tānyahaṃ veda sarvāṇi...—Gītā). Only the omnipotent God can exhibit such omniscience, disproving the idea that He is this relatively-true awareness, which is only capable of limited knowledge. Datta Swāmi gives just a small example of a miracle that happened in the present times and in present society to show the omniscience of God. Such omniscience is impossible for the imaginable awareness of the human component in a Human Incarnation.
One day Śrī Phaṇi was in Chennai to attend an interview for a good job. Phaṇi was sitting in the chair outside the interview room. Lord Veṅkaṭeśvara appeared before him telling him that He is offering that job to him. Shortly afterwards, the clerk came outside and told Phaṇi that he was selected and that he should wait for a discussion about the salary. Saying this, the clerk went back inside. Then, Phaṇi told God that he wants to do the service of God and does not want the job. God was pleased and disappeared from his vision. The clerk came outside again and told Phaṇi that he can leave since he was not selected. The time was about 12 noon. At the same time, Datta Swāmi was sitting with a group of devotees in a house at Vijayawada. The parents of Phaṇi came there and presented a new sweater to Datta Swāmi. Datta Swāmi told them “I have just offered a good job to your son and he refused it. When he did not accept My help, how can I accept this gift from you?” Here, the word ‘I’ stated by Datta Swāmi denotes the root unimaginable God speaking through God Datta and whose words were coming out from the mouth of Datta Swāmi. Next day, Phaṇi returned to Vijayawada and was surprised to hear this news from his parents.
Several such miracles revealing the omniscience of God Datta as exhibited to several other devotees through Datta Swāmi are recorded in the book, Mahima Yamunā. Now, the point is that such omniscience is not the power of the soul of Datta Swami, which has very little knowledge. It is the power of the omnipotent God Datta existing in Datta Swāmi. My disciples already know that the energetic form of God Datta merged with Datta Swāmi in the holy place called Śrīśailam. The omniscience is not the power of the human soul or the relative awareness of God Datta either. It is the power of the unimaginable God who has merged with the first Energetic Incarnation called Datta. No relative awareness of any energetic or human being can have such power of omniscience. It is only based on the unimaginable omnipotence of unimaginable God (Parabrahman). This proves that the soul or relative awareness of any human being or any energetic being is not the unimaginable God.
The final ultimate argument for the unimaginable nature of God is that God existed before creation. The first element of creation is space, which has volume (length × width × height). Length, breadth and height are the inherent characteristic dimensions or coordinates of space. God existed before space or in the absence of space. Space did not exist before its creation nor can it exist in its absence. So, God has no volume due to the absence of the three spatial coordinates. One cannot imagine a volume-less entity, even on doing severe penance for millions of births. If you were to say that God has volume that is defined by the three spatial co-ordinates, it would mean that space existed in God. This is absurd since an entity can never exist before its creation or in its absence. Hence, none can imagine the original absolutely real unimaginable God.
One possible confusion might arise with regard to the unimaginability of a volume-less entity. An ideal geometrical point does not have any length, breadth or height and is volume-less. A geometrical line has length, but no breadth or thickness and so, it is also volume-less. Similarly, a geometric plane has length and breadth, but no thickness and so, it is also volume-less. All these entities are very well imaginable, even though they are volume-less. They are imaginable because, they are basically defined only within a framework of three-dimensional space. Just because one or more of their dimensions has a value of zero, their volume is zero. As such, they are very much within the concept or framework of three-dimensional space. When we say that God is beyond space, we mean that He is completely beyond the concept of space. The three dimensions of space, simply do not apply to Him. They have no existence in Him. He is volume-less, in the fundamental sense that He is beyond the very concept of volume. Since our thinking and imagination is limited only to the three-dimensional space, God is naturally beyond our imagination; He is unimaginable.
Awareness is an item created in the course of creation and is a specific work-form of energy. It is produced in the functioning materialized brain and nervous system. Before the creation of space, there was neither inert energy nor inert materialised matter. So, there could not have been a brain and nervous system. Space itself is very subtle inert energy. It is not absolute-nothing since ‘nothing’ can never be created. The question is, how did God wish to create when both energy and matter were not present to generate awareness. From worldly logic, we know that only awareness is capable of wishing or thinking. But this situation was before the creation of the imaginable world and hence, no worldly logic applies to the action of an unimaginable entity. The unimaginable God can do any action beyond worldly logic. Therefore, the unimaginable God wished to create the world for His entertainment and such thinking of God does not require God to be the relative awareness that we see in the world. In this entire world, there is no proof of the existence of any awareness, which exists without inert energy and without a materialized functioning nervous system. Hence, we cannot say that God is such an awareness that exists without inert energy and without a brain and nervous system. We can simply say that God is unimaginable and He did the action of thinking.
Here, only two items exist, which are (1) the unimaginable God and (2) the action done by Him called thinking. In between these two, we need not unnecessarily bring a linking item called awareness as the instrument used to do the work of thinking. God did the work of thinking since He is unimaginable and omnipotent. No worldly imaginable awareness can do thinking without the existence of inert energy and the brain and nervous system.
End of Part-3. To be continuued...
★ ★ ★ ★ ★