09 Aug 2015
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Part-1] (Answers to the questions of Dr. Nikhil sent through E-mail under head line “Background of first wish is unimaginable God” etc.)
(To be Studied Very Slowly with High Alertness and Lot of Patience)
Introduction Before Clarifications
1) First, we have to accept that any item of creation at any stage is only the divine will (wish) of the unimaginable God only. The quotation from the scripture for this is that all this creation is only the will of the God (Ichcha Maatram Prabhoh Srustih). Hence, the creation is only His will at any instance of time. Hence, the first creation must be the first wish. You should not take the reverse of this and say that every will of God is creation. Before this creation, God had the will or wish, which is a thought process. The proof for the existence of the wish before the creation is that God was bored before the creation as stated in the Veda (Na ramate). Boring also is a thought process. This means that God had the wishes even before this creation. Such wishes before creation cannot be the creation. The result of this is that every item of creation is His will and every will of Him is not creation. If you say that the wishes before the first creation (first wish) are also creation, this means that the creation existed even before the first creation, which is absurd. Hence, the wishes of God can be categorized into two types: i) wish, which is creation (starting with the first creation, which is the first wish). ii) Wish, which is not the creation (all the wishes existed in God before the creation of first wish or first creation). The first type of wishes can be divided into two sub types: a) the first imaginable wish having unimaginable background (because though the first wish is work form of inert energy and thereby imaginable, its background is unimaginable because this wish is created in the absence of nervous system). b) The imaginable wish with imaginable background (the subsequent creations are imaginable since they are wishes as work forms of inert energy and their background is imaginable because of the presence of materialized nervous system).
Now there are three types of wishes: i) Wish before first creation, which is unimaginable (since the wish is not work form of uncreated inert energy) with unimaginable background (since nervous system cannot exist before creation). ii) Wish at the junction of the creation of first wish, which is imaginable (because it is a work form of inert energy. Since the first creation should be also wish, we are forced to say that this first wish itself is first creation). iii) Wish after the first creation or first wish, which is imaginable (since subsequent creations are also wishes, we are forced to say that the subsequent creations are also work forms of inert energy) with imaginable background (since during creation the nervous system is materialized). The first type of wishes, which are unimaginable by content and background, can be termed as the zero wishes since we term the wish at the junction of creation as first wish. However, you have freedom to term all the zero wishes as first wish and the junction wish as the second wish. But, we must have a fixed terminology for future reference and let us follow the terminology of treating the first type of wishes as zero wishes and the second type of junction wish as the first wish, which is imaginable by content and unimaginable in the background.
You should not argue that the first wish can be treated as the above first type of wish because this junction of unimaginable God and first creation involves God on one side and the creation on the other side. You need not take this first wish to be first type and say that the wish to create the world cannot be the creation. This is true in the worldly logic because the wish of the pot maker to create the pot is neither mud nor the pot. In his case, apart from the wish, the external material exists. But, in the case of God, there is no external creation before the actual creation. Even if you take this first wish to be first type of wish, which is unimaginable by its content and background also, such first wish can be treated as the unimaginable God and the junction between the first type of wish (God) and first wish (first creation) should be again the joint between unimaginable God and imaginable creation only. In your such logic, the defect is that when the first type of wish and the first creation are different since first type wish is wish where as the first creation is different from wish, you cannot say that the first creation is also wish. The scripture saying that every creation is His wish only contradicts this conclusion. Hence, you need not separate the unimaginable God and unimaginable wish to make the unimaginable wish as an unnecessary intermediate between the unimaginable God and the imaginable first creation (first wish). Eliminating this unnecessary intermediate (first type wish before the first wish or first creation), I present a straight step involving the unimaginable God in the left side and the imaginable first creation on the right side, which itself is a wish. This proposal accepts that every item of creation (including the first creation) is wish of God only and at the same time does not mix with the category of unimaginable wishes present in God before the creation. Hence, you have to isolate this first imaginable wish from the previous unimaginable wishes. The common point between the first type unimaginable wish and this first imaginable wish is that both have the unimaginable background. The difference between these two is that the first type wish is unimaginable by content where as the first wish is imaginable by content (since the first wish is the work form of inert energy). This first wish (first creation) resembles with the subsequent wishes during further process of creation in the content (because this first wish and other subsequent wishes are work forms of inert energy only) and at the same time differs from the subsequent wishes in the background (because the first wish has unimaginable background due to absence of nervous system and subsequent wishes have the imaginable background due to materialization of nervous system).
Qualitative & Quantitative Unities
2)When a concept is introduced, the angle of reference should be also kept in mind. The same concept may be different in another angle of reference. For example, creation is absolutely true from the angle of individual soul. But, the same creation is relatively true from the angle of God. When there is contradiction between two versions of the same concept, we must understand that the two versions are with reference to the two different angles. In the day time, the snake and rope are different since they are identified different in quantitative (two items) and qualitative (snake is totally a different category). In the night time, the snake and rope may be misunderstood as two snakes or two ropes. In this night angle, the qualitative difference disappears and qualitative unity results. In the night time, the snake and rope are taken as two items (quantitative difference is identified), but the snake and rope are identified as either snake or rope (qualitative difference is not identified). The quantitative difference is same in both day and night angles. Similarly, when we say that two unimaginable items existed but both can be treated as one unimaginable item only, this means that both the unimaginable items should be treated as the same item due to qualitative unity but can be taken as two items due to the quantitative difference, which is same in both the angles. For example, the unimaginable God and His unimaginable power are two due to quantitative and qualitative differences in the angle of God. Both remain as one due to qualitative similarity (unimaginable nature) but still continue to be two items due to quantitative difference in the angle of the individual soul. In the angle of God, both these are imaginable items and hence maintain qualitative and quantitative difference. In the angle of individual soul due to the common unimaginable nature of both these items, the qualitative difference may be removed but the quantitative difference can still continue. Hence, in the angle of the individual soul, the two unimaginable items can get qualitative unity but still the quantitative difference can be maintained. The conclusion is that the quantitative difference can continue in the second angle also as a common point. Hence, the concept need not be totally reversed in both states in the second angle and a common point may be maintained in both the angles in quantitative state. This depends on the requirement of the context of the point. For example: i) the edge of this creation can be qualitatively imaginable. But, since God existing beyond this edge is unimaginable, the quantitative distance up to this edge is unachievable and due to this, we can say that the edge of the creation is unimaginable in the sense that the distance up to this edge is unimaginable. We can also say that the edge is unimaginable because we can never reach it to touch the unimaginable God beyond this edge. An unachievable item is treated as unimaginable though its nature is imaginable. ii) If we say that God is angry in one instance and that God is pleasant in another instance, both anger and pleasure of God are taking place within the boundary of God become unimaginable by content since nervous energy is absent (anger or pleasure indicate different modes of nervous energy in our case). But both contradict to each other and cannot exist in the same instance either in God or in us and hence this point is applicable to God also even though both the modes are unimaginable. Hence, the difference between the two unimaginable items is possible in the case of God. iii) Any zero wish in the unimaginable God is unimaginable, but, this does not mean that God and the zero wish are one and the same. The quantitative difference between the two unimaginable items (God and zero wish) still persists so that we can say that the unimaginable God has the unimaginable wish of anger or pleasure. Here, the unimaginable wish means the content (nervous energy) is absent and still we differentiate it as anger or pleasure by its nature.
Your doubt that the zero wish existing before the first wish (first creation) to create this world cannot be the work function of inert energy, which is space, because the space existing in the first wish is the first creation containing space. This brings the appearance of space in the preceding zero wish to create this world as well as the subsequent first wish. Hence, the space that is created in the first wish is already existing in the zero wish resulting in the existence of space before its creation. This argument projected is erroneous: a) The zero wish preceding the first wish is unimaginable and does not contain inert energy or space. b) The first wish only contains the inert energy or space and thus, the pre-existence of space before the first wish does not arise at all. c) There is no need of a zero wish related to the creation of this world because the first wish itself is the wish for creation as well as the creation of space. d) All the zero wishes before creation are not related to the creation at all. e) All the wishes before the creation called as zero wishes are not related to the creation of world but are confined to the state of boring in absence of creation.
First Created Inert Energy in the Form of Wish
3) The momentary association of kinetic energy with water to form the wave is an example of Vivarta of Shankara, which does not interfere with the state of the water (material) and this can be called as associated characteristic form of the material. Parinama of Ramanuja is interference in the structure of material, which may be reversible (water becoming ice due to nearness of molecules) or irreversible (milk becoming curd due to separation of fat and water) and can be called as productive form of material. In the Vivarta, a walking or running man is associated with different quantities of kinetic energy and material is not interfered in its structure. Space and radiation are two different quantitative states of frequency associated with the inert energy called as invisible and visible ranges and thus become examples of Vivarta. Wish and matter are the examples of Parinama. In the wish, the inert energy is transformed into work. In matter, the inert energy is condensed as in the state of ice formed from water. The first wish or first creation contains inert energy and treating this inert energy existing in the two states of Vivarta results in saying that these two states exist simultaneously in the first creation itself. A material can be mentioned existing in Vivarta state simultaneously since the material is not interfered in its structure. Since the inert energy as a material is not interfered, we can say that the first wish contains inert energy or space or radiation. Hence, the Veda says that the first creation is space (Aakasha) or radiation (Tejas). The wish is productive form of inert energy and should follow as second stage after the generation of inert energy according to the worldly logic. But, the inert energy first created is in the productive form of wish. As per the worldly logic, the raw gold must come first and then the golden ring. But, the first creation iteself is golden ring. Matter, another productive form of inert energy, is of course, subsequently created from the inert energy existing as space in the first wish (Akaashaat Vayuh – Veda). Air (Vaayu) is a state of matter containing freely moving molecules or atoms generated from inert energy as space and this denotes the productive formation of matter from space (inert energy). The wish is nervous energy and requires the existence of materialized nervous system as per the worldly logic. In the absence of the nervous system, the first wish is created and hence it has unimaginable background.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
1) God wished to create this world. This means that God created the wish in the beginning. Awareness and wish are not at all different. Even if one feels that they are different, it does not matter since both come under the headline of creation only and not the Creator.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
It is true that from God’s point of view, awareness and all His wishes are “creation”. But for humans, only one of God’s potentially many ‘wishes’ is their universe. Since we, characters from one wish-creation (of God), we are fundamentally isolated from other wishes and thoughts of God. The other wishes and thoughts of God are in the unimaginable domain from our point of view. So, they have to be ‘bundled’ with God.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
Creation means both the process of creation and the product of creation. By this, we must know that this world (creation) as well as the process by which it is created are only works of God. Both are not entities to stand by the side of God and bring the numbers like first entity, second entity, third entity etc. There is only one entity i.e., God and is called as absolute reality. Everything other than God is only relative reality and is the imaginary work of God. God wished to create this world because He was bored without the entertainment. This state of boring was before the wish to create this world as said in the Veda (Ekaki Na Ramate). This state of boring also indicates that the process of thinking took place in which He felt that He was bored. Does this not mean that the awareness existed even before the first wish to create this world?
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
This is exactly my point! God’s awareness precedes His wish to create this universe. If God made a second wish, we humans, who are part of only this wish-creation, would never be able to go beyond (or even imagine) His second wish-creation. We are fundamentally isolated from all His other wishes.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
This point also supports advaita philosophy, which says that God is awareness and hence the state of boring and subsequent state of thought to create this world appeared.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
The fact that God had awareness does not necessarily mean that God is awareness Himself. He can be a Possessor of awareness, just as a human being is also a possessor of awareness. There is no need to make the artificial assumption that God is awareness as it takes the discussion in an unnecessary direction. Such an assumption is not even valid in the case of a human being. Even in a human being, the locus of I is variable, as discussed later.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
Awareness is known to us and is proved to be a specific function of inert energy functioning in a specific nervous system. When you decided that God is awareness, this background of awareness must also be accepted. This leads to the conclusion that God was a human being like us having nervous system and other systems like respiration, digestion, etc., which generate this inert energy. This brings not only limitation to God but also establishes the fact that the awareness is eternal and also its supporting materials like matter and inert energy are also eternal. This problem comes because we have applied the logic to the creator of this world even before its creation. This clearly indicates that we are fundamentally wrong. All this objection vanishes if you accept that God is unimaginable (as established by the Vedas, the Gita and the Brahma Sutras) and therefore, His works are also unimaginable. Now, we can say that God is unimaginable and hence the process or work of thinking is also unimaginable and hence God need not be awareness to think or to be another material to do any other corresponding work of that material. God can burn anything in this world and due to that God need not be energy or fire. We should apply the failure of the worldly logic to God to understand His nature and not the logic of this world. This negative approach is recommended by the Veda to understand the inherent nature of the absolute God (neti neti). Now, you should not argue that the first wish to create this world also was the unimaginable work of the unimaginable God in which case the creation of anything other than God did not start. This first wish or awareness is the first imaginable product of this world, which is as good as the worldly awareness.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
This statement is not acceptable. God’s first wish, is a wish for Him. It was born out of God’s awareness. But for us, that same wish is inert space. There is no evidence from a human point of view (through scientific evidence or reasoning), that space is the awareness of any entity (God). No wonder, none of the theories of cosmology acknowledge any ‘first wish’ or ‘awareness’ as the cause of the universe. The one and only source that gives us any clue that this creation is the wish of God, is the scripture. If the scripture had not told us this, we would never have thought of space as a wish or awareness. Space or energy is never experienced as awareness by humans.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
The composition of this awareness can be understood with the help of the worldly awareness. Hence, this first wish is also the specific work function of the inert energy only. But the absence of matter (nervous system) does not allow this first wish to be the specific work. The nervous system was absent since the matter was not yet generated. Yet, this first wish was the specific work of the inert energy and this point stands as the unimaginable work of God at the background of this first wish.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
This seems absurd since the subtlest form of energy is said to be space. Before the creation of space (energy), how can energy exist? Nothing can exist before its creation.
1) In the unimaginable domain, which existed even before the first wish of God (which is supposed to be the first item of the creation), the Veda says that God was not entertained and got bored (Ekaaki na ramate). The process of boring is also a thought only just like the process of entertainment. Both the states of boring and entertainment can be treated as awareness or its effects as in the case of gold and its jewels. In any case, the awareness or boring or entertainment is a work function of the inert energy only. The process of awareness in the entertainment exists after the creation. Coming to the awareness in the state of boring, which existed before creation, it must be also work function of the inert energy only. Before the creation, the inert energy did not exist and hence the process of awareness in the state of boring should not be taken as the effect of inert energy since inert energy was not yet created. If this is true, the awareness in the boring state before the creation should not exist. But, the Veda says that God got bored before the creation. The only possible way to explain this is to treat the process of boring (awareness) before the creation as unimaginable. God is also unimaginable. You cannot differentiate the two unimaginable items and hence you have to treat both as one unimaginable item only. After the creation, the state of boring is disappeared. Does this mean that the unimaginable God also disappeared because unimaginable God and the unimaginable state of boring are treated as one unimaginable item only? The answer for this question is that though both the unimaginable items are certainly treated as one unimaginable item only, the word ‘treated’ maintains the difference between the two unimaginable items. When you say that you do not know a specific person called as Rama and his wife called as Sita, it does not mean Rama and Sita are one and the same person only. It only means that both happen to be meanings of the same word ‘unknown’. The unity of both these persons stands as far as the unknown nature of both these persons is concerned. The absence of the knowledge of both in your mind is one and the same. If I ask that whether Rama was furious or Sita was furious, you will say that someone between both was furious since the child is weeping due to the anger expressed by one person on it (assuming that the child says that one unidentified person only scolded it). It may be Rama or Sita. Any one between both stands as one unknown person only. Somebody between both stands for one person only, who is not known. In this sense of the unknown identification of the person resulting in unity of both, you can treat that both are one and the same as one unknown person. Even in the case of two imaginable items like electricity and wire, when the wire is electrified, you will treat both the electricity and wire as one and the same due to the shocking property of the electricity being experienced everywhere from any spot touched on the electrified wire. You know clearly the different forms of electricity as a stream of electrons and the wire as the chain of metallic crystals. This treatment of both the unimaginable items as one is from the angle of us only since the unimaginable domain is from our point. For God, both Himself and His awareness are imaginable items and the unity even between the two imaginable items can exist as in the above example. From the angle of God, the difference exists and simultaneously the unity also exists as in the above example. From our angle, the unity persists between the two unimaginable items. Examining both these angles, we can either insist on the unity or difference as per the context. When we say that the unimaginable God entered the imaginable human being, does it mean that along with God the state of boring also entered the human being since both are one and the same unimaginable item? We cannot distinguish the two unimaginable items and thus we can say that one unimaginable item entered. When we say that the unimaginable boundary of the infinite universe is the unimaginable God, the unity between the two unimaginable items can be strictly followed because such unity will not bring the complexity of confusion. Here, after the creation also, the state of entertainment is confined to unimaginable God only and hence entertainment in God is also unimaginable from our angle, which is imaginable and different simultaneously from the angle of God. The object of the entertainment (creation) alone is imaginable. Whether it is boring or entertainment, the general process of the nature of basic work in both can be taken as the awareness, which is totally unimaginable from our angle in absence of nervous system and inert energy. The unity of two unimaginable items stands from our angle only and the difference between the same two unimaginable items simultaneously exists from the angle of God since the same two are imaginable in the angle of God. The simultaneous unity or difference can be used as per the context of the concept. Both the angles are simultaneously correct according to both the angles simultaneously existing. Both are true as per both the angles, which are true with reference to God and us.
When the basic specific mode of work (awareness) is unimaginable, its special modes like boring and entrainment also become unimaginable (from our angle). Not only God is unimaginable, but also any activity taking place within the boundaries of God is also unimaginable from our point. The external effect seen in the creation due to the unimaginable activity of the unimaginable God can be imaginable to us (and also to God obviously). For example, if I say that God is angry and hence due to the anger, this hill is smashed, both God and anger are unimaginable items (for us) and the hill and its smashing are imaginable effects (to both God and us). The anger of the unimaginable God is within the boundary of the unimaginable God and hence the anger is unimaginable (for us). This does not mean that this anger is God (from our angle since both God and anger are the same unimaginable item) because God is pleased on other occasion where the anger does not exist. God was angry by killing the demon and He was pleasant in blessing His son. Both the anger and pleasure are within the boundary of God and hence are treated as unimaginable items (for us). If the two unimaginable items are really one and the same, God should be either always angry or always pleasant in the view of our angle only, which is a self-contradiction. According to context the unity and difference should be understood. There is no problem if I say that the unimaginable boundary of the universe is the unimaginable God. The unity can be granted in this context. But, in the above context unity is not granted because of the problem of that context. If you specify the angle of reference everywhere, the co-relation results. The concept differs with reference to the angle of reference. We must be clear about the angle of reference generally concept is presented. As long as the contradiction is not seen, the reference of the angle need not be touched. If the contradiction arises, it is solved by specifying the angle of reference.
2) All the wishes before the first wish (the first item of the creation) can be considered as zero wishes since these wishes are unimaginable to us due to their existence in the unimaginable God. The first wish of the creation itself is a work form of inert energy and thus the first wish itself is starting point of creation. In the case of God also, the wish and creation are one and the same (Ichchaa matram...). The first wish itself being the inert energy, we can say that the first item of creation is wish or awareness or inert energy or space (invisible frequency of inert energy) or radiation (visible frequency of inert energy). If you treat all the zero wishes as number one, the first wish, which is the first item of creation, can be called as the second wish. We are part and parcel of this second wish (or first wish or first creation) and certainly cannot go beyond this second wish to imagine the unimaginable God, who is above this second wish. But, we can certainly imagine this second wish since we are part and parcel of it. The word ‘all other wishes’ in your statement certainly refer to zero wishes only. You stated that God’s awareness preceded this wish of creation (called as second wish here). Such awareness mentioned by you must also refer to the zero wishes only, of which one is the state of boring. The important point here is that second wish does not precede the actual creation since the second wish (wish of creation) itself is the starting point of the creation. The zero wishes differ from the second wish in the sense that the zero wish is neither the wish to create this world nor the creation itself. But, the second wish is not only the wish to create this world but also the creation itself simultaneously. Hence, there is no possibility of the wish of creation to precede the creation. Other unimaginable wishes not related to the idea of creation could exist as zero issues in God preceding the creation. Even in our case, we can understand this concept. When you wished to create your imaginary world, your such wish is the creation itself because the material of your wish (specific work of inert energy) happens to be the material of your imaginary world. The forms of this basic material may differ from each other in course of time. This real world is also the imaginary world of God.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
3) In the beginning of the creation God wished. This is the Vedic statement. This means that wish is the first creation of God and the process of creation started by this wish. Even in the case of a human being, the wish to create an imaginary world itself is the starting point of creation of the imaginary world because the subsequent imaginary world is only an extension of this wish. The Veda also says that the first creation is space (Akasha). The Veda again says that the first creation is inert energy (Tejas). This means wish or inert energy or space are essentially one and the same and hence all the three can be first creation.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
There is no argument about the assertion that creation is God’s wish. There is clear-cut indication from the Shruti for that. But the essential identity between space, energy and awareness can be experienced only by God. Humans can only understand the essential equivalence of space, energy and matter. We cannot independently derive the conclusion that space/energy is God’s awareness or wish. Humans, only have to assume that space/energy is God’s awareness/wish based on the scripture.
While we can accept that space or energy are God’s wish, the real argument is whether God’s awareness is limited to space. Space can be a subset of God’s awareness; His awareness cannot be limited only to space. So the ‘material’ from which space or the creation is made is certainly God’s awareness. But God was aware (possessed awareness) even before the creation of space. So I argue that God’s awareness must precede space. In God’s awareness, a number of wishes are possible. We are part of one such wish (our universe).
Original Message of Shri Swami:
These three items may be different in the forms. Gold lump (or called as gold) is inert energy. Gold chain is wish. Gold ring is space. We have already understood through the science that gold lump (inert energy) and gold ring (space) are one and the same.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
Space and energy can be considered to by equivalent based on physics. Awareness in living beings can be understood to be the work of inert energy too. In that case, inert energy can be considered to be God’s awareness. It must then precede space.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
Space is subtle form of inert energy, which is invisible. Light (electricity, sound, magnetism etc.,) called as Tejas is visible form of inert energy. Hence, space and inert energy are one and the same. Science says that space bends along the boundary of an object. If space is nothing, its bending is meaningless.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
The bending of space indicates that space is ‘something’. But this argument is incomplete. By itself it does not indicate what space actually is; let alone explain its relation with matter and energy. The current scientific stand on the relation of space with matter and energy, based on my limited understanding, is approximately like this: Scientists generally agree that space cannot be treated as separate from time and that space-time is the basic fabric of the universe. Space-time cannot exist independently of matter and energy (which cause gravitation). This indicates some essential equivalence between matter, energy and space-time. So, for the sake of developing a philosophical theory, where exact phenomena and quantitative relations are not important, there should be no harm in considering space-time as the subtlest form of energy.
A more direct basis for considering space as energy is the concept of vacuum energy. Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire universe. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the universe on cosmological scales.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
4) In the case of human being, the awareness can be separated from wish based on the difference in the objects. Awareness can be called as soul and wish can be called as the activity of the soul. This is a superficial classification. Otherwise, in both, the subject, the process and the object exist as common nature. In the case of human being, we say that the awareness is aware of itself.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
From a scientific perspective, basic awareness is the limited ability to sense environmental information (not necessarily understand) and integrate the sensations with one's immediate goals and feelings. It also includes the ability to accordingly guide behavior. Neurologically, this basic activity happens in the brain stem. Human infants and other vertebrates possess only this basic awareness.
Higher levels of awareness are related to thinking, understanding, etc. and this activity happens in the cortex, as a result of well-organized interconnections between neurons. These abilities are restricted to higher vertebrates of older ages; most specifically human beings. Self-awareness is the identification of oneself as separate from the environment and from others. It is a higher cognitive activity and is not part of basic awareness.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
When you see the pot, the reflection of the pot is printed on the brain by the activity of neurons. The picture of the pot is known to the awareness. We define awareness of itself is self or general awareness. In the case of awareness of awareness also, an imaginary picture of awareness is presented on the brain as object. Now, if you say the word awareness, the picture of the pot should not be there since in the process of awareness, the object is itself and not the picture of the pot. You cannot maintain both awareness and picture of pot simultaneously because two objects cannot co-exist in single triad. In the deep sleep, the awareness as well as the wish disappears. When the picture is printed on the brain, the brain becomes aware of the pot. Here, you can use the brain as the subject, the process taking place in the nervous system as the process and the picture of pot as the object. Thus, you can have the triad as brain, nervous system and the picture of the pot. But, if you take the brain and nervous system as one equipment functioning in the process itself, the process of knowing and knower become one and the same. In this case, the subject and the process are identified as one entity.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
The brain refers to the physical organ inside our skull. Perception or cognition (getting knowledge) happens in the cognitive realm (world of thoughts). The ‘subject’ is a thought; i.e. “Self” is a concept in our mind. The process of knowing is of course, thoughts. The object is the sensory perception (impression generated by the signal coming from the senses). Sometimes the object can be some other thought taken from memory. In other words, sensory thoughts and other thoughts are analyzed and interpreted in relation to the self (subject) in the process of knowing. Thus, generally, the triputi (self-concept—process of knowing/interpreting—sensory impression/data of object) should be discussed in the cognitive realm.
Alternatively, if we take an external and physical perspective, then all the three entities should be physical. The triputi then becomes brain (the subject)—the neural activity (leading to the process of cognition)—external physical object.
If the triputi is defined partly in the cognitive realm and partly in the physical realm (such as brain—physical nervous system—impression of object) it leads to confusion.
The example of a computer and the related terminology is useful in this context. The cognitive realm is the software-realm (the world of information) and the physical world is the hardware-realm. The computer is similar to a human being. The processor is like the brain. All processing in the computer (similar to the brain) is in the form of electrical impulses. But it is more convenient to analyze the computer’s sensing or responding to external signal (keyboard commands) from the software-perspective (cognitive realm) rather than the physical perspective of electrical impulses flowing through different circuits and logic gates in the processor.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
In the deep sleep, the brain and nervous system do not function and hence the knower and the process of knowing disappear simultaneously.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
Research in neuroscience shows that the brain and the nervous system are very much working during all stages of sleep. In the stage of deep sleep (technically known as slow wave sleep or SWS) the activity of neocortical neurons is slower and they do take rest, but they are by no means “switched off”. The altered neuronal activity in the neo-cortex during deep sleep is merely not capable of maintaining cognition (knowing) during deep sleep. So, only the FUNCTION of cognition is switched off; even though the brain and nervous system are (electrically) quite active. Of course, there is no doubt that the subject (I-concept) and the process of knowing are absent.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
In such case, you cannot say that the knower (soul) is eternal.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
There is no single locus of ‘self’ or the I-concept. It can mean different things in different contexts. From the cognitive perspective, the ‘self’ is the self-concept, which acts as the subject in the process of cognition. In deep sleep, ‘self’ is the living body (functioning body i.e. healthy physical body + energy). In the post-death context, ‘self’ can refer to the bundle of qualities (jiva) that are transferred to another (energy) body or self can also refer to the self-thought that arises in the awareness produced by that energetic body.
As regards eternality, the knower (self-concept), being a bundle of thoughts, can never be eternal. Neither is the body eternal. The eternality of the self (soul) is only an illusion felt by the soul. The ability of the soul to get transferred from one body to another is similar to data getting copied from one computer to another. The persistence of the data (soul or learned tendencies) after the death of the body (computer) can be attributed to a divine data transfer system. Persistence or eternality of the soul is not actually an inherent characteristic of the soul.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
It may be more permanent than the immediately perishing body as said in the Gita (Na hanyate hanyamaane sharire). But, it is not as eternal as God. The relative eternity of the soul with respect to body is proved in death. But, the deep sleep taking place everyday reverses this concept by showing that the body is relatively more eternal than the soul, which dies everyday in deep sleep (Atha Chainam...). However, this daily born and daily dead soul becomes eternal with respect to the body after death and goes to the upper worlds by taking a new energetic body. The conclusion is that neither separation of knower from the process of knowing nor the relative eternity with respect to body can establish the soul to be God.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
There was never an argument about that. This might be an argument of Advaitins, but there was no attempt from my side to either support or justify it.
3&4) The third comment should not be isolated to mean that this point is our concept. The third point projected by us indicates the way of logic of Advaita philosophy and the fourth comment stands as our answer to the third comment projected by Advaita philosophers. The third comment is misunderstood as our concept since it is isolated from the fourth comment. The fourth comment is continuous follow up of the third comment. If we join both these points the conclusion is: the Advaita philosophy feels that God is awareness because the state of boring, entertainment and wish as mentioned in the scripture are the characteristics of awareness (refer the Brahma Sutra ‘Ekshateh...’). You must take the third point as the concept of the opponent and fourth point as the concept of us. The fourth point contradicts the third point and hence both these cannot be our concepts resulting in self-contradiction on our side itself! The essence of both these points means that the Advaita philosophy takes God as awareness due to His wish to create, but, God need not be awareness due to His wishing since the unimaginable God can wish by His unimaginable power even though God is not awareness. However, the scripture says that God is the excellent knowledge (Prajnanam), which means that God is awareness since the basic material of knowledge is awareness only. This objection is clarified by us by saying that God is always associated with awareness (actually the knowledge) indicating there by that God always incarnates in the human beings to preach the special spiritual knowledge. The associated item can be treated as the associating item as in the case of the fruit-seller called by the name of the fruits (refer the concept of Lakshana). In this sense, God can be called as the special knowledge or by its material (awareness).
You have to support the scripture only after its proof through logic of science. The existence of infinite space having unimaginable boundary is the standing proof for the existence of unimaginable God. The unimaginable miracles also support this point, which cannot be thrown away as the magic always. Therefore, science cannot enter the subject of unimaginable God since science deals only with the imaginable items of the creation. Once you have accepted the unimaginable God through the infinite space, you cannot throw away this concept since science is unable to explain this. In such case, the significance of the uncertainty principle explained by science itself should not be accepted. If you reject this practical proof, it is against the spirit of science. Of course, science is valid to reject that awareness is God since awareness is proved as an imaginable item of the creation by science. Hence, science is very much useful in negating the imaginable items to be called as God (neti neti). Based on this practical proof, the human incarnation of unimaginable God becomes the authority for this spiritual field and His preaching in co-relation with the old scripture like the Veda should be accepted. If the practical proof is absent, the scripture can be treated as some story of imagination. The cosmic vision (Vishwarupa) in the Gita mentions the endless infinite creation (Naantosti...) as the practical proof to be accepted by science. Arjuna got satisfied with this mention of practical proof.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
5) The differences in the philosophies have come because of the different components of the first item of creation (the wish or awareness). The background of this first wish is not another imaginable item like the mud in the case of pot, but the unimaginable God happening to be cause of the first awareness. This first awareness is said to be charged by the unimaginable God because there is no other imaginable cause standing in its background.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
What is the necessity to bring in this concept of “charging” by God? If it is already agreed that space or the creation is a wish, it is obvious that the wish must be somebody’s (God’s) wish. A wish can never be self-standing. There is no need to say that the wish is charged by God. If we specifically mention any charging by God, it will be assumed to be an entry.
Original Message of Shri Swami:
The components of this first wish are awareness and inert energy. Therefore, we can say that the unimaginable God is mediated by this first awareness. Shankara took this awareness as God. It means that He spoke about the unimaginable God only through the awareness as medium.
Dr. Nikhil’s Comments on above Message:
As discussed above, space or universe can never be said to awareness from a human point of view. It can only be theoretically assumed to be awareness, based on the word of the scripture. If this ‘awareness’ is to be considered as a medium of God, it requires God’s entry. But actually, there is no homogeneous entry of God into the entire space or creation. So, space or the universe is not mediated-God. This assumption of the entire space acting as a medium of God, is entirely fictitious. There is no reason to assume that this fictitious concept was implied by Lord Shankara in the Advaita theory since a simpler alternative explanation exists.
The only association God has with the universe (space) is that the universe is His wish. Any entity (like electricity) charging a medium (like wire) requires an entry. The use of the word ‘charging’ is not appropriate in the case of space and God. Neither can space be considered as God’s medium. It is needless to say that even without any entry, the universe’s behavior is entirely controlled by Him (because it is His thought).
Over and above this basic association between God and the universe, the concept of a deliberate entry is only valid in the case of energetic and human incarnations. In this context it is correct to say that the body is charged by God.
The Advaita concept of an all-pervading awareness, called Brahman, is nothing but the entire space. From our point of view, space (universe) is basically inert but upon deeper analysis, it shows some intelligent behavior. How can this apparent intelligence in the universe be explained? That intelligence actually belongs to God. It is His control that allows the universe to function in an orderly (intelligent) manner. Creation, which is His wish, can be considered as awareness from God’s point of view alone; not from ours. By not clarifying this issue of God’s and our point of view, the inert universe can simultaneously be justified to be an all-pervading consciousness. This is probably what Lord Shankara did.
5) The first wish of God to create this world (mentioned as the second wish by you in the above part) is a specific work function of the inert energy. The inert energy is like the raw gold and the wish is a specific form like the golden ring. This means that the first creation is the golden ring, which is a specific form (work function) of the inert energy. The first creation is not the raw gold, which is the crude original inert energy. Generally, we expect the raw gold to be created as the first item and then the golden ring to be created as second item. This is the worldly logic beyond which lies the activity of God. You may say that when the golden ring is created, naturally it means that the raw gold was also created since the golden ring cannot be generated without the raw gold. We agree to this point but please note that the first creation is golden ring and not the raw gold. Even in the case of the miracle in which the golden ring is created by moving hand, such creation does not show the procurement of raw gold in first stage and manufacture of the ring from the raw gold in the second stage. In this miracle, some jealous people may say that the raw gold already exists in the world and a small part of it was brought here and the ring was manufactured in a hidden way. Some more people of more jealousy may say that the golden ring already existing somewhere is brought here through some hidden way. Like this one may dispose the miracle. But, in the case of God, neither gold nor the golden ring existed somewhere else since this golden ring is the first creation. In this case, you can say that the raw gold is also simultaneously created, which exists in the golden ring. By this, you may say that the raw gold is also the first creation. Thus, both the ring (specific form) and the raw gold can be treated as the first creation. Wish and matter are the productive forms of inert energy. Space and radiation are the associated characteristic forms of inert energy. You can speak the steps of time in the case of productive forms. In the case of characteristic forms, the steps of time cannot be mentioned because the characteristic forms appear simultaneously without any modification. Space and Radiation are the same inert energy existing in different ranges of frequency like invisible and visible. Wish and matter do not appear simultaneously along with the inert energy unless there is a significant modification. Wave is the characteristic form of water (Vivarta) where as ice and water vapour are the modified forms of water (Parinama). I can call the water wave as water but I cannot call the ice and water vapour as water. Here, we can differentiate the wish and matter from inert energy under one category of indirect forms. Space and radiation can be treated as another category of direct forms. For example, the yellow colour and shinning of gold can be treated as direct forms of gold where as the ring, bangle, necklace etc., can be treated as indirect forms of gold. Thus, when we say that the raw gold is also the first creation (being the material of the first created ring), we can also say that the direct forms of gold are also the first creation. The gold present in the ring is yellow and shinning. The yellow colour is the space and the shinning is the radiation. Hence, the inert energy present in the specific form of wish as the first creation simultaneously shows the direct forms as space and radiation. I can say that the golden ring is also yellow and shinning. Therefore, the golden ring (wish), the raw gold present in the ring (inert energy present in the wish), yellow colour (space) and shinning (Radiation) are simultaneously appearing as the first creation. Therefore, the Veda says that the golden ring (wish, since wish is the first item of creation), yellow colour (space) and shinning (radiation) are the first items of creation. All these three contain raw gold (inert energy) as the material and hence the first wish means simultaneous appearance of yellow colour (space) and shinning (radiation). Therefore, the Veda mentions all these three as the first creation by saying ‘Ekshata’, ‘Akashah’ and ‘Tejah’ as the simultaneous first production. Hence, the existence of space before its production does not come in to picture since it is simultaneous appearance of space as the first creation. The wish existed before the creation does neither contain the inert energy as its material nor is based on the non-existing materialised nervous system and hence this zero wish should not be mixed with first wish.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★