01 Mar 2023
[Dr. Nikhil asked: Padanamaskarams Swamiji, I would like to submit the following questions at your Lotus feet, Your servant, Nikhil
1. Why can’t we say that creation is on Parabrahman?
Why can we not say that creation is on Parabrahman? You had said that we can only say so with reference to the mediated God and not with reference to the unmediated unimaginable God. Can we not use 'on' (aupaśleśikā saptami) in a non-contact sense, with reference to the unimaginable God? Here we are only treating Parabrahman to be the absolutely real Substratum and Cause of the relatively real creation. We are not implying that creation is directly in contact with the unimaginable God.]
Swami replied:- When a magician creates a magic, the magic is seen not in contact with his body. It is seen in the space far from the magician. The magician is also mediated awareness. Hence, the magician is having a specific boundary based on which we can use the words like outside and inside. In fact, unimaginable God created energy to prepare the body and soul of Datta. First, He created space in which He is not present. Neither the space is present in Him (in such case unimaginable God becomes imaginable due to spatial dimensions) nor is Datta present in the unimaginable God (in such case, a spatial quantity like Datta brings the same problem of spatial dimensions). Now, the conclusion is that nothing or none is present in the unimaginable God and since space is created by Him, everything and everybody are present outside the unimaginable God only. Since the proposition ‘on’ can mean outside also (whether it is in contact with unimaginable God or not), we can use the proposition ‘on’. We also cannot say that an imaginable item can touch the unimaginable God because the boundary of the unimaginable God is unimaginable. Hence, the only possible way is to say that the imaginable item is present outside the unimaginable God and is also not in contact with the unimaginable God. This brings the only possibility of the existence of imaginable items being present outside God without contact. The magic show of the magician can stand as the best example because magic is outside the magician and also not in touch with the body of the magician. Even when an incarnation creates an imaginable item, it is in the space and outside the body of the incarnation.
When a TV is standing on a table, the TV is in contact with the table and is supported by the table. When a magician performs magic, the magic is also supported by the magician, but the magic is not in contact with the magician. The support need not always have contact with the supportable item. Both these examples contain imaginable items only and, in these cases, the proposition ‘on’ (Aupashleshika) is to be used. World and mediated God (Datta) are also imaginable items that can be seen with eyes (even though God Datta has unimaginable power due to the merged unimaginable God). The example of magician and magic is very close to the mediated God and world. God Datta is not touched by His creation similar to the case of magician and magic. There is no trace of difference between God Datta and the unimaginable God. But, the only negligible difference is that God Datta is the mediated unimaginable God whereas unimaginable God is without any medium. Even though creation was done by God Datta only, the unmediated unimaginable God also did some direct creation of energy to prepare the medium (body and soul of Datta).
Hence, the unimaginable God is also to be explained in the context of creation. Since the unimaginable God created small space (Parama vyoma), this space and the additional energy present in the space must be outside the unimaginable God as explained in above paragraph and this point is told in the Gita (Yathākāśa sthito… and Yathā sarvagatam…). The word ‘Nopalipyate’ here means that the unimaginable God is not touched by the creation. The unimaginable God has no boundary at all whereas the boundary of the space is invisible for human beings (even though space has boundary that can only be seen by God). Hence, for space and for the unimaginable God, the human beings cannot use the proposition ‘on’. We can use the proposition ‘in’ in different sense, which is that the support is not touched by the supportable item. When we say that blood is in the body, the blood is touching the body. When we say that the air is in space, it means that the air is not touching the space. We cannot use the proposition ‘on’ in the cases of i) air and space and ii) creation and unimaginable God due to the problems regarding the boundaries of space and unimaginable God.
Hence, the proposition ‘in’ has two senses:- i) contact with the support and ii) without contact with the support. The proposition ‘on’ also has these two senses:- i) blood flowing in the body has contact with the support and ii) air flowing in the space has no contact with the support. Regarding the creation (Paramavyoma and additional energy in it) and the unmediated-unimaginable God, we have to take the proposition ‘on’ only without contact with the support because space or spatial items are not allowed in the unimaginable-unmediated God since such God is beyond space. Such created space (Paramavyoma) is outside God only and not inside God (Bhūta bhṛt…—Gita). If you take the example of air moving in space, here you have to take the proposition ‘in’, in the sense of no contact with support. This example of air in the space is mentioned here even though this example is quite different from unimaginable God-creation in the sense that this example uses ‘in’ (whereas the concept uses ‘on’). The similarity between the example and concept is that in both there is no contact between support and supportable item.
When we say that the creation goes into subtle state after final dissolution, it is absorbed by the mediated God since all the space outside God disappears. Such absorption is only surface phenomenon and not bulk phenomenon. Absorption is bulk phenomenon and adsorption is surface phenomenon. In this way, the creation in the state of dissolution existing as subtle item is also on God and not in the God. Even if you say that the adsorbed gas on a metal is on the surface of the metal and is not going below the surface of the metal, such little space can be neglected as if it does not exist. Compared to the vast disappearing space, the tiny space on the surface of the mediated God is very much negligible and we can say for all practical purposes that all the space created by the mediated God disappeared.
2. Does the analogy of the Gita convey a spatial sense of the pervasion of creation in God?
[The Gītā compares Parabrahman with the immovable space which is unaffected by the creation which is like the moving air that fills it (Yathākāśaḥ sthito nityam...). Does this analogy not convey a very spatial sense of pervasion of creation in God (abhivyāpti)?]
Swami replied:- In the above answer, this point is clearly explained. In both the concept (Parabrahman) and example (space), the commonality is that the supportable item is not in contact with the support. Here, Parabrahman is unimaginable whereas the creation is imaginable. But, in the example, both space and air are imaginable items. The air is in the space because the boundary of the space is unimaginable to our human brain and hence, the air must be placed inside the space only (‘in’ as Abhivyaapaka is used in the sense of without contact). In the case of Parabrahman, the same situation exists that unimaginable Parabrahman has no boundary. Due to this, we have to place the creation (Paramavyoma) in the Parabrahman only. But, this facility is objected because there is no space in Parabrahman since Parabrahman is beyond the space. The space that is forced by us into Parabrahman is necked out by the above objection and we are forced to say that the paramavyoma-space is existing outside Parabrahman only (‘on’ or Aupashleshika is used in the sense of without contact). Even though both concept (‘on’) and example (‘in’) are different, the commonality in both ‘without contact’ brings the possibility of comparison since even one similarity is sufficient to use simile (Ekabhāgopamā).
3. Does creation remain spatially (abhivyāpti) in God Datta, after the dissolution?
Swami replied:- As explained above, even after dissolution, the creation in subtle state exists ‘on’ (Aupashleshika) God Datta only following the process of adsorption for which very little space of the total dissolved space (created by God Datta) remains in which the subtle creation is accommodated. Shankara also used another example of subtle tree present in the seed (bījasyāntarivāṅkuro…) and here also, there is lot of difference between the concept and example. In the case of the subtle tree and seed, the subtle tree is a modification of the seed and here ‘in’ is to be taken with contact. The single similarity is that the cause (God or seed) is expressing its subtle product (subtle creation or subtle tree) into gross stage in the beginning of creation.
4. Does the miracle of Krishna showing creation in His mouth imply that creation exists in Him?
[Does the miracle of God Krishna showing creation in His mouth not imply that creation exists in the mediated God (abhivyāpti), even during the manifest phase of creation?]
Swami replied:- Even in the subtle state, the creation is on God following the mechanism of adsorption. There is no question of the creation to be inside God while it is in gross state. The word ‘Bhūtabhṛt’ gives the answer for the contradiction between ‘matsthāni’ and ‘na ca matsthāni’, which means that God is wearing or supporting the creation from outside like the body is supporting the shirt (with contact) or like the magician supporting magic from outside (without contact). Between these two examples, the second example is preferred since God is not touched or contaminated by the creation, which is possible only when the creation is supported by God without any contact.
5. Does the Viśvarūpa shown by Krishna indicate that the mediated God is the creation itself?
[Does the Viśvarūpa shown by God Krishna not indicate that the mediated God is the creation itself or that He is invisibly merged into creation?]
Swami replied:- The body of Krishna is like the external shirt for the inner unimaginable God. On this body, the external creation is like the coat over the shirt. Neither any modification in the shirt nor any modification in the coat can touch the inner God Datta or unimaginable God. The vision of shirt and coat on a person does not prove that the person is merged with shirt and coat. Certainly, both shirt and coat are supported by the body having contact with body, which does not mean that the body is merged with either shirt or coat. Even the shirt is not merged with coat! There is no place for the word ‘merging’ in this miracle. Here, the miracle is exhibited with the help of imaginable items and the concept indicated by this miracle is that both the body-shirt of God Datta (The Vishvaruupam indicates the body of God Datta due to the central three faces of the three divine forms, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva along with the faces of His incarnations on both sides.) and creation-coat are only the created imaginable items as media.
6. Do questions 3 to 5 not provide some opportunity to souls to claim some commonality with God?
Swami replied:- If you take unmediated-unimaginable God and created soul, there is no commonality that can be even dreamt between these two since the former is unimaginable and the latter is imaginable. If you take mediated God, there is similarity between the medium of God and the human being (both body and soul) in the sense that both are imaginable. Even there, the unimaginable power of both body and soul of the mediated God differentiates both since the soul has no unimaginable power. The initial three great sentences say that the mediated God looks like the ordinary human being (I, you and he/she), which is the external unreal similarity and the final fourth statement says about the real internal difference between the two by telling that the mediated God is having excellent spiritual knowledge whereas the soul has very little limited knowledge.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★