30 Sep 2015
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Dr. Nikhil asked: God is completely fulfilled and contented completely as said by the Veda (Purnamadah...). How can there be boredom in His case? It is a superimposition of the concept of this imaginary domain on Him, which cannot fit in the unimaginable domain.
Shri Swami replied: God is fully contented as said by the Veda elsewhere also (Aptakamasya kaa spruhaa?). The Gita also says the same (Na me parthaasti..., Naanavaaptam...) that there is nothing to be obtained or not obtained. Yet, God keeps Himself engaged in work (Varta evacha karmani— Gita). Now, the point is that if somebody is bored due to lack of association with anybody and any work and keeps himself engaged in some good and meaningful work, is it good or bad? If it is bad, the good will be that he should not be bored in such a state of loneliness and should continue without boredom either by sitting calm or keep himself engaged with sleeping and eating. This option is not considered to be good. You should allow good and should not allow bad in the case of God. Not allowing good and bad and to keep Him in unimaginable state without any sort of information about God stating that nothing is known about God since He is unimaginable—is not correct. Unimaginable state means that the nature and content material of God is unknown and unknowable. It does not mean that any information regarding His activities is also absent. Suppose I say that God is bored due to loneliness and engaged Himself in some good work, this information need not be impossible because this belongs to the imaginable domain. You are bringing contradiction between unimaginable and imaginable items as in the case of light and darkness. There can be contradiction or opposition between two imaginable items like light and darkness. There cannot be contradiction between unimaginable item and imaginable item. Unimaginable item is beyond opposition and supporting concepts. You can link any imaginable item with the unimaginable domain and hence this doubt that how imaginable item fits in unimaginable domain should be dropped. The boredom is before the creation and hence the boredom cannot be imaginable concept since it is a thought requiring nervous energy, which is a specific work form of inert energy. The boredom in this world is imaginable in its content material, which is nervous energy and is imaginable in its mechanism, which is the work of nervous system. If the mechanism and content material are absent in the imaginable domain, no thought can exist. But, in the unimaginable domain, the thought can exist without such material and mechanism. You need not do away with the thought itself in absence of the mechanism and material as in the case of imaginable domain since it is unimaginable domain. If I say that a stone is not bored because of the absence of nervous system and nervous energy, it is correct in the imaginable domain. You are taking this statement as it is to the unimaginable domain also and say that God is not bored due to the absence of nervous system and nervous energy. If this becomes correct, the unimaginable domain becomes imaginable domain in which only this statement fits. You can call it as unimaginable domain only when you say that God is bored even in the absence of nervous system and nervous energy. If you keep the thought of boring in God even in the absence of the required mechanism and material, then only you can say that God is unimaginable domain.
There is a scholar of vast spiritual knowledge patronized by king and has everything with him that keeps him fully contented. He is bored without any work and started a school of learning in which he started preaching the students and kept himself engaged with such good work. What is there wrong in this example? Should he keep alone always without any work proving that he is not bored even on remaining alone? Is it good or bad? Nobody says that such thing is good. Everybody will say that it is bad. The scripture says that if a scholar dies without preaching his knowledge to others, he will become the greatest demon (Brahma Rakshasa). Therefore, engagement with some good work does not contradict the contentment. Boredom is not a bad quality that harms others. The Brahma Sutra “Lokavattu leelaa kaivalyam” answers this point exactly by giving the example of a king. The king has the mutton of the deer in his kitchen for eating. Still, the contented king goes for hunting just for entertainment and not in need of the mutton of deer like the poor hunter. The boredom of king in absence of entertainment is not criticized by anybody in the public. Of course, the entertainment by killing a soft natured animal is bad. Instead of this, the king like Bhoja can entertain himself in the company of scholars and poets and such entertainment is good. Entertainment in general is a work, which is never criticized. If this work of entertainment is bad, criticism is natural. Therefore, if creating this world is a bad work, God can be criticized. If the creation is good, God should not be criticized and should be appreciated like the scholar, who started a school. In this world, injustice is always destroyed and justice is always supported by God and hence, this is a good work only. God comes down and preaches the spiritual knowledge impartially to all the people like the scholar preaching all the students equally in the school started by him. Boredom leading to good work is to be treated as a good quality only. It is just like hunger to eat good food and like thirst to drink good water. Hunger and thirst are not bad and only the food and water may be bad. It is a pre-requisite of doing some work, which may be good or bad. If good work is done, this pre-requisite should be also treated as good. It is a natural causal state. The desire for sex (Kama) is good if it is used in the case of wife to get children (Dharmaaviruddhah Kaamosmi— Gita). The same desire provoking you to go to a prostitute to get diseases is bad. The desire is decided to be good or bad based on the subsequent action. Based on the effect only, the cause is appreciated or blamed. An appreciable effect indicates appreciable good cause.
God can be always linked with good as per the concept of Ramanuja. You need not worry that how an imaginable item, which may be good, but, being relatively true can fit in absolutely true God? Here, you should not forget that unimaginable domain will never contradict any imaginable item since contradiction is a concept between the two items existing in the imaginable domain only. I may tell you just for fun: Already, one 0 (non- existent 0 wish) is present in the word God. Another 0 (non-existent good worldly wish) can enter in to God to make God, Good, since both the wishes are non-existent or relatively true with respect to the absolutely true God! The imaginable item is only linked with the unimaginable God and is not homogeneously amalgamated with God so that the unimaginable domain will become imaginable. A link does not mean that the linked item entered the linking item or vice-versa. Boredom, an imaginable wish, though its material and mechanism is unimaginable, is only associated with God. Even in the case of an individual soul, the thought is a signal or mode of the nervous energy like the design of an ornament associated with gold. The design did not enter the atoms of gold. The atoms of gold are associated with the pattern of the design. When the design is destroyed the atoms of gold are separated from the design and come to the original block. The thought is associated with the mind and the mind becomes free when the thought is dissociated.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★