01 Jan 2017
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Shri Anil asked: Padanamaskaram Swami
1) Swami! In Your recent message You mentioned that this universe is infinite and its boundary is invisible but imaginable as the core is. Due to presence of unimaginable God around the boundary one will never reach the boundary of universe to see its edge. If core and edge of universe is imaginable then if a radius is drawn from center of universe to its edge, such radius shall be definable and measurable since it passes through imaginable domain. In such case the end point is also definable. Atheist may argue that the distance from center to edge may be very large but the end point is imaginable. He negates the existence of God and do not agree presence of God at the boundary of universe as the end point of radius is imaginable. Kindly give Your clarifications on this point.
At Your Holy feet, anil
Swami Replied:
1)You cannot bring finite and infinite to the unimaginable domain (God). The reason is that you cannot make distinction between two unimaginable items since any number of unimaginable items become only one unimaginable item. Since you can distinguish infinite (universe) from finite (a tree), both these infinite and finite items remain only in the imaginable domain (creation).
1)In the imaginable domain (creation), there can’t be absolutely infinite because absolutely infinite means infinite to all references (both to God Krishna and to any human being like Arjuna). This universe is infinite to any human being (like Arjuna), but, finite to God (Krishna) since God Krishna said that God is around the universe (Sarvamaavrutya tishthati…). Hence, this universe is finite to God Krishna and simultaneously infinite to Arjuna thereby standing as relatively infinite. This means that the infinite in imaginable domain always means relatively infinite only and never absolutely infinite. When God Krishna said that this universe is infinite, it (Nantostimama…) means infinite from the angle of Arjuna in the words of God. If you take the angle of God here also, both the verses contradict each other since in one place it is said that God is around universe and in another place it is said that universe is infinite for the angle of God also. Hence, the first verse is from the angle of God and the second verse is from the angle of Arjuna.
On this point if you make further deep analysis, you can easily understand that relatively infinite means not only finite to God but also finite to the theoretical assumption of human being and simultaneously infinite to the experimental calculation of human being. It means that you can assume the diameter of universe as having certain fixed real value, which is represented as X, but experimentally indeterminable for you. This is what exactly the uncertainty principle says in science. Simultaneous determination of velocity and position of electron is experimentally impossible and this does not mean both the values do not really exist. Since both values really exist, you can represent them by X and Y. X and Y mean only that both are experimentally indeterminable values, but really existing values, which can be calculated by God or representable as X and Y in the theoretical assumption of human beings. Similarly, the diameter of the universe is really existing (representable in theoretical assumption by some letter like X or Y or Z) and really calculatable by God though is experimentally uncalculatable by human beings. In such case, following two steps are true and really existing though not calculatable by us experimentally. The two steps are:- i) uncalculatable diameter of relatively infinite universe + some calculatable length is always greater than uncalculatable diameter of relatively infinite universe. ii) Uncalculatable diameter of relatively infinite universe – some calculatable length is always lesser than uncalculatable diameter of relatively infinite universe. Except the value of ‘some calculatable length’ (known to us), no human being can calculate values for the other items in the above two steps. This does not mean that the values of other items do not really exist and mean only that they really exist but experimentally uncalculatable to the human beings. Science is in two phases: theoretical (Physics) and experimental (Physics). The above uncalculatable values exist as uncalculatable in experimental part only. In theoretical assumption part these values exist (already calculated by God) as unknown to us.
3) The experimentally uncalculatable (and really existing in the theoretical assumption) values of items mentioned in the above para 2, can’t even exist really in theoretical assumption also, if you replace the word ‘infinite’ by the word ‘unimaginable’ (in fact, the word infinite can’t exist in the unimaginable domain as said in para 1). The above two steps in the unimaginable domain will be in the following way. i) Unimaginable X+ unimaginable Y = unimaginable X or Y. ii) Unimaginable X – unimaginable Y = unimaginable X or Y. The values of all the unimaginable items are uncalculatable both by experiment and theoretical assumption of their existence is also not possible since any number of unimaginable added, subtracted, divided and multiply result in one unimaginable only.
4) Therefore, the Vedic verse says that something (X) – same something (X) = same something (X). This something (X) stands for the word ‘Purnam’. This is possible only if X is unimaginable. In the imaginable domain, where only infinite exists (as relative infinite only), even if you take the infinite (in reality finite to God as well as to theoretical assumption of human beings) represented by X gives the following step only:- X-X = 0. Addition is also similar. In the case of relative infinite (please note that absolute infinite never exists) of imaginable domain X+X = 2X. Same addition in unimaginable domain is X+X = X. similarly division and multiplication. Therefore, one should not mistake that infinite is unimaginable (because distinguishable infinite from finite can never exist in unimaginable domain) and apply the unimaginable addition, subtraction etc., (X+X = X or X-X=X) to infinite (which is always relative existing in the imaginable domain only).
5) You should not apply these steps of unimaginable domain (X+X=X and X-X=X) to the infinite of imaginable domain (not absolute infinite, but, only relatively infinite) confusing with law of conservation of energy, which means that the part of energy (other part is matter) of universe remains constant if some energy is converted in to some matter and same amount of matter is converted back in to equivalent amount of energy disappeared. Here also, energy, a part of relatively infinite universe may be experimentally indeterminable infinite, but, exists with a real value in theoretical assumption. The energy, being a part of infinite universe, also becomes infinite in this imaginable domain, but, its value is real represented in assumption by a letter as in the case of the whole universe.
The step in the law of conservation of energy is:- X (total energy)-Y(some energy converted to matter) = X-Y (remaining energy). (X-Y)+Y (same amount of energy resulting by conversion of matter in to energy) = X and hence X is always constant. In the unimaginable domain also, the result is constant (unimaginable+ unimaginable=unimaginable, which is constant since any number of unimaginables result as one unimaginable only). Due to this similarity in result, you may confuse that law of conservation of energy is also like unimaginable domain and the reason you may think may be that the energy-part is infinite just like the whole-universe. This leads to generalization that infinite and unimaginable are one and the same. Such confusion makes you to think that something added to infinite is constant as in the case of unimaginable. In the case of law of conservation of energy, the value of energy is maintained constant due to the internal mechanism of balance between a quantum of energy lost (by becoming some matter) and the same quantum of energy gained (same ‘some matter’ becomes equivalent energy). In the case of infinite universe, something added to it increases the quantity of universe (which is uncalculatable by experiment but exists really that can be represented in assumption as X).
6) When you do a problem, there is a norm to represent the unknown quantity by X. Here X means that the quantity has definite value, which is unknown to you in this time. The X represented above is also unknown to you, but it is unknown in all the times. In the problem, you say that 1/10 portion of X is 10. This step determined by you helps you to calculate X as 100. Unless you know the value of X as 100 in the beginning itself, you cannot say that 1/10 of X is 10. Hence, the problem deals with the quantities, which are calculatable only. In the above concept the X is always unknown to us, which is the diameter of the universe. When the diameter is unknown, the centre of the universe is also undeterminable and then the radius is uncalculatable. Even though some scientists say that the diameter of the universe is 200 billion light years, it is not acceptable because the edge of the universe is never reached practically by anybody or even by instruments. The journey of human being or even its imagination up to the boundary of the universe is impossible (in spite the imaginable boundary of the universe is ending at some point since the universe is not absolutely infinite but relatively infinite, which means that it is finite to God and infinite to human being thereby resulting that the diameter is calculated by God already). The value of the diameter (of the finite universe in reality) is certainly finite having certain value that is uncalculatable to us and hence you can say that the value of the diameter is X billion light years. X has certainly a value known to God and our theoretical assumption also says that some unknown number exists for X. X is not real absolute infinite (only relative infinite meaning that the value of diameter exists, which is unknown to us due to inability in calculation).
7) Most important is that the diameter of the universe is having certain solid value, but, it is so long that we can’t reach it. This doesn’t mean that the length is real infinite. It is really finite but appears as infinite to us because of our inability to reach the boundary even by imagination. You are imagining the material of the boundary but, unable to imagine the point where the boundary ends. When infinity is not inherent characteristic of the diameter of the universe, what is the problem for us to reach it just by imagination at least? The actual reason is not due to infinity of the diameter, but, due to unimaginable nature of the God existing adjacent to the boundary of the universe. You can never touch the unimaginable God even by imagination. When you are reaching the boundary of the earth, you are naturally touching the sea water that starts from the boundary of the earth. Since Sea water is also imaginable like the earth, you can reach the boundary of the earth touching the sea water. In the place of earth let this universe stand. In the place of sea water let the unimaginable domain stand surrounding the universe. Since God is unimaginable, He is untouchable even by the imagination of human being. If you reach the boundary of universe, naturally you will touch (imagine) the unimaginable God. Since this (imagining the unimaginable) is impossible, you should never reach the boundary of this universe. Hence, infinity of the diameter of the universe is relative with respect to adjacent unimaginable God and not absolute infinity of the diameter. Since scientists do not believe the unimaginable God surrounding the universe, they naturally concluded that the universe is really absolute infinite because if the diameter is really finite, will there be a compound wall at the boundary saying that the space (universe) ends here? Then, in such case, what is present after the boundary wall? Unable to find out that after the compound wall, they simply extended the diameter infinitely. The core and boundary of the universe are imaginable. Naturally, after the imaginable boundary, the boundary of the next item having different nature must start. Otherwise, you can’t say that the boundary ends. When the solid earth ends at its boundary, the boundary of different material, which is liquid (water of sea) starts. Then only you can say that the solid earth ended at this junction point. In absence of such junction point, you have to naturally extend the solid earth infinitely. This view of scientists saying that universe is infinite looks like a theory having no end as answer. Instead of such inability to express the end, it is better to accept the existence of a domain of different nature, which is unimaginable (unimaginable is different from imaginable in nature) after the finite boundary of the universe and thus answer of end is given. You need not get a doubt that where the unimaginable ends. Unimaginable is beyond space without spatial dimensions and hence no concept of diameter in it. The beginning point of unimaginable domain is not reached by us even by imagination, which itself is the adjacent point of the end of boundary of universe. Hence, both beginning and end of unimaginable domain are beyond imagination including its core, the unimaginable nature itself is the unimaginable substance (since two unimaginable become one unimaginable only). This unimaginable domain is called as the unimaginable God.
Shri Subhash Pawale asked:
2) This is what I understood from j. Krishnamurti's philosophy. Please put some light on this and correct me if I am wrong.
["Through pure observation without any prejudice or without labelling good or bad to everything, brings peace and mind will immediately free from everything (tension ,stress, anger etc). But this is not permanent state of mind so this observation has to be practice throughout the day.
J. Krishnamurti stressed on paying attention on everything we do. Generally we live our like in kind of coma state where we do something and our mind is in something somewhere. But when we start living life in as Krishnamurti prescribed doing anything is immediate without thinking and we will be living life in present. This observation can be done externally and internally. So by looking content of the mind without any manipulation makes it quite. So when we develop this way if living, every experience will be clearly observed and so no footprints of it will place on our subconscious mind. This way "I" will dissolve" I feel this state is inert state and practicing this for some time looses ability of mind to think small necessary things as well]
3) Padnamskaram Swami, I was reading teachings of J. Krishnamurti from long time and somehow it helped me to get peace even in some crucial situations in my life. I wanted to know your view on it.
Can you please elaborate real essence from core teaching of J.Krishnamurti?
["Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security - religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.
Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence."
Will this teaching helpful in spiritual journey, if yes how it will be?
At The Lotus Feet of JagadGuru Dattaswami!!! Subhash Pawale.]
Swami replied (for both 2&3): The philosophy of Shri J. Krishna Murthy is very good and he is very sincere in dealing with the analysis of good requisites for the procedure to analyze anything. As far as the area of his subject is concerned, he is excellent. But, this area is only a part since it is limited to very narrow area called as present time. If the past is neglected, you must ban the department of History in the education system about which we should not bother. If you ban future, the scope and plans of a system get neglected even in present, which are very important being concerned with the benefits and damages of the future fruit.
The point of freedom in the analysis suggested by him is very important aspect of the limited area of analysis. Analysis is the very back bone of any subject. Careful aspects of (even though the limited) area of analysis are presented without caring for the blind past forced impressions on mind (due to lack of logical analysis on those) to be smashed by the flashes of fire of freedom. Such direction is really commendable in the philosophy of Shri J. Krishna Murthy. But, the very limited area of present gives no guidance regarding the precautions of practical past and regarding the possible repercussions of the future fruit. This reminds Me Einstein, who worked on the conversion of matter in to energy concentrating on the present topic only, but, repented very much when the future fruit of it was discovery of atom bomb and subsequent suffering of people. A mechanic sharpening the sword and a small knife should not concentrate on mere scientific process of sharpening alone, but also should know that the sword was used in the war to kill enemies and the knife was also used to stab somebody apart from cutting the vegetables. Based on the past observation and the possible use in future, he should analyze about the probable intension in sharpening the sword at least, which is never used in cutting vegetables. Hence, the analysis of present must be linked to the past observation and future repercussions of the coming fruit. Giving perfect training in shooting to solders is useful. If it is given to citizens also, it may lead to chaos in the society. It should have been far far better if Shri J. Krishna Murthy selected the spiritual knowledge as the subject, which is very important for the society at least to control the sin and all these suggestions of analysis are implemented in such important subject. Even in the training, a target is fixed to shoot. The suggestions of analysis without applying to a selected subject looks like dance in air. However, the suggestions are marvelous if applied to the important subject and the suggestions will have better impression on mind if applied to important subject like philosophy. Applied concepts to a subject are better than abstract concepts left to the receiver for application in which mistakes are sure due to lack of intellectual talent in the case of at least an ordinary human being.
Since from a number of generations, the system coming shows the requirement of a guide like doctor for health, advocate for a legal case, teacher for learning etc. Even a research scholar expected to investigate is also having a guide. You can’t leave the students in a school without teachers and expect them to learn the knowledge just through their self-analysis. If you leave a boy in the forest, he will become like an animal only and will not develop knowledge through self-analysis. A sage in the forest in association with other sages becomes very learned through learning from a preacher and participating in debates with friends. The forest is the best atmosphere for providing peaceful environment that helps the process of learning provided the system of learning like a school is established there.
A person might have spent long time to learn an excellent point through self-analysis. If you hear that point from that person, you are getting the benefit without spending so much time. It is also not sure that you will investigate the same point after spending the same time. In course of time, you may investigate a better advanced concept based on that point heard, which if communicated to others benefits them without wasting time. I don’t mean that whatever you listen from somebody, be a preacher, must be followed blindly. Every point heard by you should be analyzed in a free atmosphere without the force of any impression as advised by Shri J. Krishna Murthy. If you are convinced about that point through your analysis, there is nothing wrong to accept it even if that point is not found by you by your self-analysis. The ideas of others (may be even preachers quoting scriptures) may be right or wrong. You must analyze, decide which is right and then only accept it. In such case, you can take all the advices of Shri J. Krishna Murthy as far as the process of analysis in free mind (without any bias and blind influence of impressions already formed) is concerned. His advice confined to the process of analysis should not be isolated without any link to the past or future plan. Lord Krishna told Arjuna that whatever was preached by Him should be perfectly analyzed before acceptance and practice. There is a prior stage of hearing the knowledge from Krishna and analysis is the subsequent stage linked to that prior stage. Without preaching the Gita, Krishna didn’t say to Arjuna that he should find out the truth by himself through analysis! Analysis is not a single isolated stage without any link to other stages. Analysis is a stage linked to the prior stage of hearing from the guide. In such linked stage of analysis the advice of Shri Krishna Murthy is excellent to make the analysis more effective. I am not criticizing Shri Krishna Murthy regarding any advice given by him for the stage of analysis. I completely accept all his marvelous advices given for the stage of analysis. I am only objecting his view about isolating the stage of analysis removing its link to the former stage of hearing the preaching from experienced guide. The stage of analysis isolated without links having full independence becomes like the lotus flower removed from the pond. Analysis is certainly the most important stage in knowledge, but, should start only after hearing the knowledge from a preacher. You must take antibiotic after taking some food. If you take the same while the stomach is empty, you will get ulcer in the digestive system!
★ ★ ★ ★ ★