04 Sep 2015
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
1. What is the problem for You if I say that the first wish of God to create the world is a ‘zero’ wish (the background and content material are unimaginable)? Then, subsequently, the first creation appeared, which is the inert energy. By this, the first creation need not be first wish.
Shri Swami replied: There is no problem at all in your proposal provided this creation is not the wish of God. If you take the real world, every item in the real world and its production is not the wish of anybody. But, if you take your own imaginary world, every item of the imaginary world is a wish. When this real world happens to be the imaginary world of God, every item of this real world (imaginary world of God) must be a wish of God in the perspective of God. This is not true in the perspective of human being because every item of the real world is not a wish of human being. Even though, the human being cannot imagine the perspective of God through direct experience by standing in the unimaginable domain, it can infer the perspective of God by standing in the imaginable domain itself through its direct experience of its imaginary world, which is similar (Upamana Pramana). Therefore, when the entire world made of the inert energy (building material) is treated as the imaginary world for God, every step of the creation is only a wish of God. Hence, the first creation of inert energy must be the first wish related to the creation of this world. When the first creation has to be accepted as first wish, the inert energy of the first creation must be taken as its specific work form called as awareness or wish. Thus, the first creation itself can be treated as the first wish in the context of creation of this world. The zero wish before such first wish becomes unnecessary and only a repetition. Let the first wish itself be the wish of God to create this world, which has to be the first creation of the building material. This point is directly experienced by you when you create your own imaginary world. When you thought “Let me enjoy in my imaginary world”, then itself the building material of your imaginary world (awareness) appeared as your thought. All the subsequent steps of the creation of your imaginary world happen to be your subsequent wishes only so that we say that your entire imaginary world is only your wish. The process of creating the imaginary world by human being is sanctioned by God only to understand the process of creation of imaginary world by God in a similar way (Upamana). Hence, all the works in this world help you to understand God.
2. Since the direct experience, which is the fundamental basis to get the knowledge is absent in the case of unimaginable domain, you cannot have its knowledge in any other way. Then, how can You say that God is bored or pleased or furious etc. If You say such statements, they should be superimpositions of Your imaginary domain on the unimaginable domain.
Shri Swami replied: I agree perfectly with you that the human being can never imagine any item of the unimaginable domain through direct experience as it can imagine any item of this real world or its imaginary world through direct experience. But, God created this world with such items so that from the direct experience of such items, you can infer the items of unimaginable domain. For example, you can imagine the direct experience of God regarding this real world through your direct experience regarding your imaginary world through similarity (Upamana). You need not worry that by this inference, the unimaginable domain is known and becomes imaginable. This cannot happen because the unimaginable domain is never experienced by you directly. The impossibility of the direct experience of the unimaginable domain keeps the unimaginable nature of the unimaginable domain safe. Though direct experience becomes impossible, the superficial knowledge (just in the form of superficial information) of the unimaginable domain is possible. Let us take an example from the imaginable domain itself for this point. You have not directly experienced the existence of fire on the hill since you have not directly perceived or experienced it (Pratyaksham). But, from the smoke coming from the hill, you have inferred the existence of fire on the hill. The direct experience is different from the superficial knowledge or information. If the knowledge is to be always certified by direct experience, only perception (Pratyaksham) remains as the single authority (Pramanam) in logic. We cannot have the direct experience of unimaginable domain, but we can have the superficial knowledge or information of the unimaginable domain. You need not worry that the superficial knowledge of unimaginable domain makes the unimaginable domain to become imaginable since unimaginable domain means unknowable and unknown. This worry can be removed since the knowledge of any item regarding its content material and the background mechanism is always impossible to be known for the human being. Example: God is pleased. This statement gives us the superficial knowledge of the unimaginable domain to the extent that the God is pleased, which means that the knowledge of the pleasure of God is attained and this does not mean that God is imaginable and that the thought of pleasure of God is understood as work form of inert energy in specifically functioning nervous system. God remains unimaginable and the thought of pleasure is also unimaginable regarding its content material and background mechanism. The same statement given regarding a human being in the imaginable domain gives the complete knowledge of the statement in all angles. When we say “Gopal is pleased”, Gopal is imaginable item as a living body having awareness and the thought of pleasure of Gopal is also perfectly imaginable in its material and mechanism. Even when we inferred the fire on the hill, the fire is perfectly known to us as an imaginable item since its perception was attained by us previously in several places. Here, the inference is perfectly backed by the perception. But, in the case of God, you have known simply that God is pleased and except this, you had no perception of unimaginable God elsewhere as in the case of the fire.
Though direct experience or perception of the unimaginable God is not possible, the unimaginable God through human incarnation is possible. Hence, this inference not backed by the direct perception makes the unimaginable domain tight in any angle. Such knowledge through inference not backed by the perception is only superficial and just the information, which cannot be called as perfect knowledge. If you consider this superficial information itself as knowledge, you cannot say even that God exists or God is unimaginable or God is unknowable. Let us take the statement that God is unimaginable. By this statement, you have only the superficial information but not the perfect knowledge of God. If you consider the information itself as knowledge about God, according to your theory God is known through this statement. Let us take directly the statement that God cannot be known (unknowable). The information given by this statement is giving knowledge of God according to you and thus, God is known through such knowledge. Such knowledge of God contradicts the very statement that the knowledge of God is impossible since God is unknowable. The meaning of the statement should not contradict the very statement. Hence, the meaning of this statement is not the knowledge about God, but, is only information about God that the knowledge of God is impossible. Even in the imaginable domain such a statements are possible. A common man sees the sunlight and says that sunlight is present. This does not mean that the common man knows all the concepts of the light energy like scientist. If you utter the word “light”, it means only the information about light and not the knowledge of light energy as possessed by a scientist. Since the common man is not a scientist to know all the concepts of light, can you order him not to utter the word ‘light’? You must distinguish between information and knowledge. An illiterate person also speaks that God is pleased with him. This does not mean that he knows that God is unimaginable due to the solid proof of unimaginable boundary of the cosmos. Information is just superficial. Knowledge is deep resulting on discussion through several angles. The information of unimaginable domain can be allowed and you need not fear that mere information makes the unimaginable domain to become imaginable.
You are using the word ‘superimposition’, which means that something is really absent in the unimaginable domain and that you are superimposing that something from your imaginable domain. This means that when God through human incarnation says that He is pleased with you, it is false because in this statement the word ‘He’ means the unimaginable God existing in the unimaginable domain. This means further that the human being (imaginable domain) possessed by God is only pleased and its pleasure is superimposed on unimaginable God. This cannot be correct because the thought of pleasure of the inner unimaginable God is only expressed here. It is only the statement of God (Bhagavan meaning the unimaginable God) and not the statement of Krishna and this is the reason that the Gita is called as the Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna Gita. Here, God Himself tells about His feeling and not somebody tells about God. When you say directly that you are pleased, can I say that you are not actually pleased and it is only a superimposition done by somebody else? If somebody says that you are pleased, there is a chance for the superimposition. Once you have agreed that the unimaginable God is present in Krishna and that everything spoken in the Gita is the speech of inner God and not the speech of external medium (Krishna), the superimposition cannot be used. If you say that the unimaginable God is not in Krishna, we may say that Krishna has superimposed His happiness on God. When the existence of the unimaginable God is proved through the solid proof, which is unimaginable boundary of the cosmos, you have to accept that whatever is said by Krishna must be the statement of that unimaginable God only. You may say that you agree in the existence of unimaginable God but the entry of unimaginable God in to Krishna is doubtful. The entry is also said by Krishna in the Gita (Manusheem tanum...). If you say that this is the statement of Krishna only, how Krishna showed the unimaginable miracles, which indicate the unimaginable God? If you say that Krishna is a created character, do you not experience the miracles of human incarnations (like Bhagavan Shri Satya Sai Baba) in your generation itself? If you say that the miracles seen by you are only magic, then, do you mean that a genuine miracle does not exist? You cannot say this because the infinity of the space is a miracle, which is unimaginable. Once you accept the existence of the unimaginable item in one place, there is no meaning in not accepting it in other places.
You are speaking about the unimaginable domain. On what reason, you have introduced this word? Obviously, the word unimaginable domain indicates the unimaginable items present in it like unimaginable God, unimaginable power, unimaginable mechanisms and unimaginable materials of the items recognized by you etc. The words like power, mechanism, material etc., are known to you and hence, will you throw them out of the unimaginable domain? No unimaginable item of the unimaginable domain is known in its material and mechanism. When you say that God is pleased, no unimaginable item is known. Neither God nor the mechanism and material of pleasure is known. Only the word pleasure is known, which belongs to the imaginable domain. God also stands unimaginable, but the existence of God belongs to the imaginable domain. You have known the existence only from the existence of items of this imaginable domain only. Can’t you transfer the items of imaginable domain to the unimaginable domain? Do you restrict God only to His kingdom of unimaginable domain? Is not the imaginable domain also a part and parcel of His kingdom? Anything of any domain can be related to God since both the domains happen to be His property. God can connect Himself to any item of any domain keeping Himself in His unimaginable domain.
I agree that no item of imaginable domain should enter the unimaginable domain. Pleasure, anger, boring etc., are the items of imaginable domain only. These items did not enter the unimaginable domain. God only crossed the boundaries of His unimaginable domain (like a king crossing the compound wall of his palace) and entered the imaginable domain (the capital city) and can connect Himself to any item of the imaginable domain since both the domains (palace and capital city) are His properties only. The king can rest in a hut in the capital city and by this neither the hut became palace nor the palace became the hut. Similarly, if God is associated with the word ‘pleasure’ existing in imaginable domain, the items of unimaginable domain are neither changed nor the items of imaginable domain changed. You cannot object His association with any domain at any time even before the creation when time was absent. God is unimaginable since He is beyond the four dimensional space-time concept. This does not mean that the omnipotent God cannot enter the space-time concept or this relative world. The reason is that He is not only unimaginable but also omnipotent. After the entry, when He gives some information about Himself, that is to be valid. He remains in His unimaginable nature (Sat) and also simultaneously becomes the imaginable item (Tyat) into which He entered by identifying Himself with that. In such case, the items related to such imaginable item can be associated with Him also. The omnipotence of the God, who is beyond time makes the possibility of the existence of such imaginable items in the unimaginable domain also even before the creation. The king can arrange the preparation of hut in his palace also even before entering into the capital city. Such hut in the palace is only hut and not the part of the palace. Similarly, the imaginable item can have a place in the unimaginable domain even before the creation of this world due to the omnipotence of God. You cannot insist that the hut should not be in the palace and should be outside the palace only. Since the hut is not a part of the palace, you need not fear that the hut became palace since it became the part of the palace. The existence of the hut in the site of palace is not a problem because the site of palace existing below the hut does not make the hut to become palace. Similarly, the background of boring is unimaginable and hence the boring can have a place in the unimaginable domain. Nobody might have entered the hut like the no entry into the palace. Similarly, nobody can have the direct experience of the boring of God present in the unimaginable domain. By this, you should not say that nobody can imagine the presence of a hut in the palace. The site of hut is the site of palace and not the site of capital city. Similarly, the background of boring is unimaginable domain only. Similarly, the power of God is unimaginable. It means that the background of power is unimaginable. It should not mean that the very word ‘power’ should not be understood. Similarly, when we say that God exists, it does not mean that you should not imagine God as some item. That item may be unimaginable, but, unless I imagine God as some item, I cannot understand even its existence. Imagining God as some item is only information and not the knowledge. The information does not make God to become imaginable. Unless you follow the chain of unimaginable God, Human incarnation, the message given by God through human medium regarding Himself etc., this subject cannot be clear.
[Questions of Dr. Nikhil are given below.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★