Posted on: 29 Sep 2006
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
Observer (O): I cannot understand these discussions. You can give me the final conclusions like this: God is unimaginable and comes down through a human form called human incarnation. The ordinary human soul is not God by itself. What is the use of all these hectic discussions? We shall search for the human incarnation whose sign is the divine knowledge and serve Him to our best to get His grace. This is the essence in nutshell which is sufficient for us.
Respondent (R): If these conclusions are accepted by all without any variation, there is no need of any debate. But several people are deriving conclusions in different ways. Some body says that God is formless like space. Some body says that He is the energetic form. Some body says that He is the ordinary individual soul. We say that the God is unimaginable and charges a medium for the sake of giving experience to us regarding His existence. We say that the human incarnation is such best medium charged by God to preach and guide us in the spiritual path. We say that the main purpose of God charging the human body is to preach and guide us in correct spiritual path and therefore the special divine knowledge is the main sign of God in human form as said in the Veda. If you take our conclusions as final, tomorrow some body will come and will give his final conclusions. Day after tomorrow some body will come and will give his final conclusions. Each one of us contradicts others. If you are to take only the conclusions, which conclusion will be taken by you as correct? The Veda has given the conclusions of spiritual knowledge. But they are interpreted in several ways. How can you choose the correct way of interpretation without taking part in the debate? Sages have gone to forests and spent their lives in such spiritual debates. If you take simply our conclusions, you cannot stand firm on such conclusions. If you have drawn these conclusions by taking the trouble of participation, then these conclusions will be your own firm conclusions. Tomorrow if somebody tries to deviate you, you will stand with all firmness. Therefore, take trouble to participate in the debate and wherever you are not clear, you have a right to ask for clarification. Let the petitioner start his argument.
Petitioner (P): You have accepted that the word Atman is fixed in the soul only. Its root meaning is also justified in the soul (Yoga Rudha). The Veda says that the space is generated from Atman. You have clearly established that only God can be the generator of the space. In such case there is no other alternative than to accept that Atman is God. In the Gita also, God says that He is Atman (Ahamatma…).
Mediator (M): The generator of space can be the soul, because the soul is generating the dream space. In a daydream, the soul is generating the imaginary world, controls it and dissolves it finally. The entire dream is an apparent modification of the awareness and therefore the entire dream is basically awareness only. The awareness is a single entity. Thus all the Vedic statements are correlated in the soul.
Respondent (R): Even though the word Atman is fixed in the soul as Yoga Rudha according to the grammar (Vyakarana Shastra), the word Atman can stand for another item also according to the figure of speech (Alankara Shastra). In the figure of speech called as metaphor (Rupaka), a brave man is called as lion. Only in the sense of the braveness, the person is lion and not in the sense of the physical nature like nails, jaws etc., (Swaroopam). In such case the root meaning of the word is not necessary. The soul is very important in the body. The body is like a chariot and the soul is said to be the owner of the chariot (Atmanam Rathinam…). This means that the soul is very very important item. Similarly, God is very very important item and is the owner of this world. Ramanuja also treats the world as the body of the God based on the Vedic authority. Hence, Atman can stand for God as a metaphor. The usage of figure of speech in poetry is appreciable. God is the poet and the Veda is His epic. The Veda says that God is the poet of poets (Kavim Kavinam...). Hence, the figure of speech in the Veda is quite natural. In the Rigveda, you can find several similes while describing the sunrise. When you hear the word lion, you are getting the physical structure of the animal along with other qualities like braveness, cruelty etc. Therefore, the world is giving the complete picture of the object. The object is the meaning of the word. But when we use any word to know God, except the existence no other picture is available. Hence, all the words fail to give the meaning and so God cannot be the object of any word. All the words return back unable to touch the God (Yatovachah…Veda). A blind man feels the existence of some being in the house by the sound heard produced by the fall of a vessel. It may be the air or animal or bird or human being, which has entered the house and pushed down the vessel. Only the existence of something can be imagined from the sound. Similarly, from the miraculous knowledge, you can imagine something beyond this creation. The blind man infers something different from the existing items that entered the house. Even in the human incarnation, you are experiencing the existence of God in the human body, by which you do not know the actual characteristics of God. When a word fails to give its meaning and gives only the existence of some unimaginable thing, we will use the word “Something”. This word indicates the existence of the object that is not known. In such case the grammar is not completely sufficient in God because grammar deals with words which give complete meanings. In such case we can take only the figure of speech (Alankara Sastra). In figure of speech the word used in metaphor stands to express a specific quality that is common to both something and the object of the word. The word lion can be used to a brave person by which you are confining to one quality of braveness only. Similarly, when you say God as the awareness (Chit), it means that God is wishing like chit. The word chit gives the complete meaning of the awareness which is the nervous energy in any living being. But when it is used for God, it is used in metaphoric sense only as it is not giving the complete meaning. God is not the nervous energy in the living being. Only the quality of wishing is indicated by the word and not its object. In such case, can we use all the words to God so that we can understand that God as the possessor of all the properties of all the items? This is the sense of the Sahasranama Stotram (praising God by thousand names) of God. Here the word thousand means several or all. All the words used for God indicate that God is the generator and possessor of all the properties of the world. In fact, even the objects are also properties in view of God because God is generator and possessor of all the objects also. Therefore, the entire world is only a group of properties (Gunas) since the entire world is the imagination of God. Any property or item in the imaginary world is only a feeling or thought or quality (Guna) only. The association between specific properties is also by the will of the God. Hence, we find certain properties (Objects) only associated with certain other specific properties. The object (Property) can be dissociated from its specific property at any time if God wishes so. The fire could not burn a blade of dry grass, when God wished so, as we hear from the Veda. The word Sagunam (possessor of propertries) means God associated with the world and the world is a big property of God in collective sense. Thus, the need of Alankara Sastra to indicate a word for God in confining to comparison of a specific quality is essential in understanding the Veda. The need of grammar (Vyakarana Shastra) is to reject God being the item indicated by the word for which we must know the meaning of the word. This analysis (Tarka Shastra) is useful to come to conclusions. Thus, the knowledge of all the Shastras (Branches of knowledge) is required to arrive at conclusions in spiritual knowledge (Vedanta Shastra). Simple knowledge of the Veda by translation leads to misunderstandings.
The generation of dream-space and generation of imaginary world as dream from the soul, is again a simile created by God to show the concept of generation of space and world from Him. The simile cannot be completely the item that is compared. The differentiating aspects of the simile clearly establish the difference between the two items of comparison. The soul after withdrawing the dream along with the space exists in the more real worldly space. But, for the existence of God, other more real space is not required. Thus, God and soul are differentiated by this aspect. As Brahma Sutra says, there is no perfect simile in the world to God having all the comparable aspects without any differentiating aspect. In such case, such simile gives the full meaning of God directly! A simile or metaphor must have differentiating aspects also. In this comparison, we have to take only the comparable aspect. You can say that the soul is beyond the dream space, because the soul generated it and exists even after its dissolution. You should limit yourself to this aspect only when you compare the soul with God. You should not touch the aspect of the existence of the soul in the worldly space, because if you touch that, the comparison of God to the soul is lost. Similarly, the generation, maintenance and dissolution of the dream- world is a comparable aspect. But if you analyze, the soul is nervous energy which is an invisible special work form of inert energy. Since the dream is modification of this energy, you can say that the dream and the soul are homogeneous. But God is unimaginable whereas the world is imaginable and you cannot have such homogeneity between God and the world. Since the soul is known item and the dream also being the known item, the relationship between these two is also known (Vivarta or Parinama). But God is unknown and the world is known. The relationship between these two is naturally unknown (Avyaktam). The followers of Shankara and Ramanuja fight about Vivarta and Parinama without knowing that such conversion relationship is between the primary energy (the first creation) and its other modifications like matter, awareness, light, heat etc.(world). They think that this conversion relationship is between God and World which is unimaginable like God. They are quarrelling for the vacant basket without seeing the fruits which have already fallen into drainage! Shankara and Ramanuja have stopped at the energy only since beyond that no one can proceed to understand God who is beyond space (energy). Both the awareness and the energetic form (Narayana) of Shankara and Ramanuja are basically energy only which stand for God when charged by God. Thus, a particular energetic form (Narayana) and a particular soul (Krishna) can be taken as God. Without understanding their hearts, the followers are fighting with each other!
The energetic form of Ramanuja is basically energy and limited to a specific form charged by God. If the charging of God is absent, such specific energetic form cannot be God. Similarly, a specific awareness or soul like Krishna can be God since such specific soul is charged by God. If the charging is absent, such specific soul or any other soul is only a specific work form of energy. Since energy being the item of creation, it cannot be creator in the absence of charging by God. Thus, every soul or every energetic form is not God.
Awareness is invisible work form of energy like the special grinding work. The grinding work is invisible unlike its cause (Various components like grinding machine, grains, electricity, movement of grinding rods etc.,). But the grinding work can be experienced through the product, which is the flour of grains. The awareness, which is exactly similar to the grinding work, can be compared to God, who is unimaginable but His existence can be experienced through His creation or an item of creation (Medium). It is a good simile. But God is unimaginable, whereas the awareness or grinding work is invisible and becomes imaginable on doing intensive analysis. Here there is no really unimaginable item in this world, because every item has spatial dimensions. Awareness or grinding work may be unimaginable to ordinary people. But it is imaginable to scientists as the invisible work form of inert energy. Therefore, for the comparison of the unimaginable nature of God, we can take only an invisible nature of an item like work since there is no really unimaginable item in the world. We can use the word of unimaginable nature for the work also with respect to the common people for whom the invisible is unimaginable due to their low intellectual capacity. Thus, work is relatively unimaginable with respect to common people. But God is unimaginable to all the people including scientists and thus is absolutely unimaginable. There is no other alternative except to take the invisible item which is relatively unimaginable in view of ordinary people as comparison to the absolutely unimaginable God.
While comparing any item of the world to God, we have to take the relative reality of the item as absolute reality with respect to its modifications. But with respect to its cause, it becomes relatively real. We should see the item in its causal state only as absolutely real with respect to its modifications and then only you can compare it to God. If you touch the other side (its cause), the item itself being the modification of its cause becomes relatively real. For example, you compare the relatively real world and the absolutely real God with the rope and the illusory serpent. Here if you strictly limit yourself to the boundaries of the simile, the rope is absolutely real and serpent is relatively real. Similarly, the mud and pot or any cause and its effect stand in the same way. You have to limit the concept within these limits of simile only and say that the rope or mud or any worldly cause is absolute reality and its effect like illusory serpent or pot or any worldly modification is the relative reality. Suppose you say that rope or mud (matter) is also relatively real in view of the energy, because the rope or mud is a relative modification of energy (according to the concept of inter-conversion of matter and energy), then the rope or mud can no more stand for the absolutely real God. Due to such limitations, we have to confine to the comparable specific aspects only without crossing the limits of the comparisons, while we preach about God through worldly examples. Such limitation is also the rule of figure of speech (Alankara Shastra). The Gita says that Shastra should be taken as authority (Tasmat Shastram…).
P: Since you have established the worldly space and the dream space separately, there is no harm if we say that a third space, which is called as eternal space, exists in which, the soul can remain in it. When the worldly space is dissolved the eternal space being more real remains, just like the more really worldly space remains after the dissolution of less real dream space. There is Vedic Authority for the eternal space (Parame Vyoman...). Ramanuja agrees to the eternal space in which Lord Narayana remains. In our view Lord Narayana is not different from the individual soul of the world. Therefore, even after dissolution of the worldly space, the soul remains in the eternal space. The same soul or God exists in eternal space, worldly space and the dream space continuously. Therefore, there is no need of simile between God and soul since both are one and the same.
M: The degree of reality of space is acceptable to science also. Einstein proposed both the theory of bending of space as well as the theory of geometrical space. In the first theory space is the original form of energy and means something. In the second theory the space is relatively true with respect to the existence of material bodies. Energy or space being the absolute reality with respect to all of its modifications like matter, awareness, light, heat etc., (entire world) can have the aspect of the highest reality with respect to the world. At the same time, energy with respect to God or soul is relatively real. In the chain of relatively real items, if space is also one item, it can have sub-divisions within itself as an internal micro chain of relatively real spaces. Thus, the existence of eternal space is valid according to science also. Even in the philosophy of Jainism, the seven-fold truth is proposed, which indicates the chain of relatively real items.
R: Let there be a separate sitting of scientist and the philosopher to draw the conclusions about the concept of relativity of space.
A Separate Session for the Scientist and the Philosopher
Scientist (S): When you compare the geometrical space of Einstein and the relative space you proposed in the philosophy, the geometrical space exists as long as its modifications or material objects exist (since space is energy and matter is modification of energy, you can treat the matter as modification of space). But in your philosophy, the same geometrical space becomes relative with respect to God and not with respect to materials. The space is absolutely real with respect to materials and relatively real with respect to God as per your philosophy. The concept of Einstein is reversed in your philosophy.
Philosopher (P): In science God is not accepted and no place for God. Therefore, space can never become relative or geometrical with respect to their non-existing God. The dissolution of all the materials cannot be experimentally verified. Therefore, the geometrical aspect of space has no practical proof and it can be considered as theoretical physics. However, the relative reality of space is imagined though the reference for such relativity is wrong. When space is energy, it can exist even after the dissolution of all materials (matter). You can easily imagine the existence of space without matter containing only the radiations traveling in it. Space is required for the waves of radiations to propagate. When space is energy and matter is also energy, the space or energy can remain even after the dissolution of matter. The dissolution of matter means only conversion of matter into energy.
Scientist (S): Bending of space around the object proves that space is some thing. Space is not matter since it is not seen by eye like solid or liquid. It is also not seen by powerful microscope like the molecules of air. Therefore, it is not matter in three states. It is also not vacuum because the vacuum cannot bend. It must be energy only. The space is relative or geometrical with respect to the bodies of matter. If all the matter disappears, space also disappears. Thus, space is a relative reality with respect to existence of matter. This is the essence of the theory of Einstein.
Philosopher (P): You also say that matter is modification of energy. Therefore, we can say that matter is modification of space because space is also energy. If you say that space is relative with respect to matter, then it contradicts that space is energy. The reason is that if space is energy and if matter is modification of energy, then matter must be modification of space. Any thing is relative with respect to its cause only but not with respect to its effect (modification). Therefore, the space (energy) is absolutely real with respect to matter since matter is its modification.
S: We do not want to accept the existence of anything beyond the space (energy). We treat the space as the ultimate absolute reality and its modifications like matter, awareness, light, heat etc., (energetic forms) as relatively real items. These relative items have cause-effect relationship between them and form the items of the chain of relativity. The top most item is space (energy) from which all the other items of the world appear by modification. Such space can be relative with respect to matter. This means that the space and matter disappear simultaneously.
P: You can say that space is the absolute reality since you are not accepting anything above space. But you cannot make this absolute reality (space) to become a relative reality with respect to matter, since matter is relatively real with respect to the space (energy) only. When you say that space is the absolute reality, it can never become relatively real. Especially, with respect to its modification (matter), it must be absolute reality. Otherwise the very theory of relativity is burnt. Since you are not accepting anything beyond the space, space can never become relative or geometrical. If the space has to be relative, you have to accept the existence of some thing beyond the space as its cause. Energy (space) is beyond matter and is the cause of matter. Matter is the modification (effect) of energy. The cause always requires it’s pre-existence even before the generation of its effect. Similarly, something must be beyond space and space must be the modification of that something. Before the generation of space that something must exist. Now with respect to that something, space can be relatively real or geometrical.
You say that space disappears, when all the matter disappears. This is only your hypothesis, which cannot have practical proof under any circumstances. When matter is relative with respect to space (energy), how can the space (energy) be again relative with respect to matter, which is its own effect? Even if we imagine that all the matter is converted in to energy, space is required for the propagation of energy, which may be in the form of corpuscles or waves. Then, how could you imagine that space disappears simultaneously, when all the matter disappears?
S: Does this mean that space is never relative or geometrical as proposed by Einstein? He stated that space is geometrical or relative with respect to matter only. There is no absolute space according him. The space exists as distance between two bodies as long as the two bodies of matter exist. If the bodies disappear, the distance also disappears. Therefore, the space is conventional only.
P: If you say that space is relatively real with respect to matter, it is not possible according to the fundamentals of theory of relativity. As long as the space is treated as vacuum, space can be relative with respect to the matter. But when you say that space bends, it means that space is energy. In science, energy is the ultimate absolute reality. This means space (energy) is the ultimate absolute reality and space cannot be vacuum. You have either to accept the space as the absolute reality or to make the space relatively real. You have to accept the existence of something beyond space. You cannot have two contradicting concepts to go together.
S: How to make space absolutely and relatively real to honor both the science and Einstein?
P: If you accept the space as the relatively real item, your desire is fulfilled. A relatively real item is absolute with respect to its latter modifications. At the same time it is relatively real with respect to pre-existing cause. Now the space as a relatively real item can be absolute with respect to matter and other modifications and at the same time relatively real with respect to its cause beyond the space. Therefore, you have to accept some thing beyond space with respect to which the space is relatively real. You have to sacrifice partially the honor of science and partially the honor of Einstein. Since some thing beyond space is accepted, the honor of science is affected. Since space is relatively real with respect to that some thing and not with respect to matter, the honor of Einstein is also partially affected. However, science is honored to great extent because space (energy) is the absolute reality with respect to all other items of the world. Since that some thing is beyond space and is unimaginable, for all practical purposes space (energy) can be treated as the absolute reality. The honor of Einstein is also protected to a great extent because the relativity of space is proposed by him. It is really very powerful imagination of Einstein to recognize the relativity of space, which is the absolute reality for all practical purposes. Therefore, with all our humble respects to Einstein, these minor modifications become inevitable.
S: Suppose we say that space is also a modification of basic primary energy. Space can be relatively real with respect to such primary energy. Ofcourse, all the items of the world like matter, awareness work, light, heat etc., are modifications of primary energy only in a sequential chain. Therefore, the primary energy is the top most absolute reality. The next immediate item is space. Like this we can compose the chain of relative items.
P: Since primary energy is the cause of the space, it must be pre-existent to space. Then primary energy is beyond space. It means we cannot understand the word primary energy because the limits of our imagination cannot cross space. When you cannot understand the item, how can you use a word like primary energy? We can use only one word i.e., “something unimaginable”. For other modifications like matter etc., the same logic applies and thus no word can be used to indicate that unimaginable some thing because once you understand an item, it must have been defined by spatial dimensions. Ofcourse, these modifications are proved to be effects of space (energy) by your self and so there is possibility for them to stand in the causal state of space.
S: We say that primary energy is separate item indicated by the word “category”. In ancient logic the existence of category (Jati) is accepted. Therefore, primary energy is the category which is existing in all its modifications like space, matter, awareness, work, light, heat, etc. Therefore, primary energy is not a separate item beyond space but exists as a collective unit in all its modifications.
P: If you take the category of cows, suppose you remove each cow existing from the earth, where is the “cow category”? The category does not exist separately leaving the individuals. You cannot also say that category is the first cow from which, all the cows are generated. Since the first cow does not exist now, the category also does not exist now. In any case you cannot have the category as the separate entity which is an imaginary concept to distinguish a group of individuals from another group of individuals. It is a system of cows with imaginary boundaries.
S: If you say that there is no separate existence for the word energy, how can you say that all the items of the world including space are modifications of energy? Energy must exist separately from space because space is also a modification of energy.
P: There is no provision for energy separately beyond the space according to your science. For this reason, we must say that space is the original form of energy. All the other items are only modifications of the space which can be called as energy. Therefore, space is not modification of energy. Space is the very energy it self. In the Veda it is told that the first item of creation is space (Atmana Akasah). In the same Veda it is stated that the first item of creation is energy (Tat Tejo Asrujata). Thus, space and energy are said to be the first items of the creation. Therefore, space is energy since there cannot be two first items.
S: Can we say to save the honor of Einstein completely that when matter disappeared, since energy in the form of matter disappeared and since it means that space (energy) in the form of matter disappeared, this means that matter and space (matter being space) disappear simultaneously? What we mean is that when matter disappears, that much energy also disappears since matter is modification of energy. Since space is energy, we can say that when matter disappears, that much space disappears. This means that the volume of space is decreased. This point can be supported by the theory of constant expansion of space.
P: It is a funny conclusion. You are givng two alternative names for the same object. You are calling the body as matter as well as space (because space is energy and energy is matter). The constant expansion of space is again hypothetical. Any thing which is different from space can expand in space. How space can expand in space? Moreover, when the modifications are separate within the limits of this world, you cannot treat the matter as space or space as matter. You must know that Einstein is a very strong believer of existence of God. By proposing the relativity of space, he has clearly indicated the existence of God. He has taken matter in the place of God just to honor the science which does not accept the existence of some thing (God) beyond the space.
O: Therefore, now it is clearly proved that space is a relative item. It is absolute with respect to other items of the world. It is relative with respect to something (God) beyond itself. Space is energy which is the original form of energy and so space is not vacuum. This is the conclusion of this separate sitting of scientist and philosopher.
**************
R: Let us accept the above conclusions of the separate seminar between the scientist and philosopher. The space is a relative item and is not the ultimate absolute reality. The sub-divisions within the space, like dream space, worldly space and eternal space cannot disturb the overall relative reality of the space. The sub-divisions can be the internal sub-gradations. Therefore, there must be “unimaginable something” (God) beyond the entire space irrespective of its internal sub-divisions.
P: The mutual invisibility of dream space and worldly space does not disturb their basic reality. In the dream space, the worldly space is invisible and in the worldly space, the dream space is invisible. The dream space is made of nervous energy, where as the worldly space is made of cosmic energy. Though the former is weaker than latter, the intensity is not related to the basic reality. The visible light rays are having lesser intensity than the invisible ultra violet rays and all the rays are basically real. Even if you say that intensity is proportional to reality, the degree of reality is established, but the general reality is not disturbed. We may say that the dream space is less intensive energy and thus less real. Similarly the worldly space is more intensive cosmic energy and thus more real. Therefore, the intensity develops the degree of reality and the possibility of the chain of various relatively real spaces. Thus, we can say that the eternal space is most intensive energy and so happens to be the most real. The soul (Lord Narayana) has equal intensity with the eternal space. The same energy of worldly space generated dream space by reducing its intensity. Similarly the eternal space produced this worldly space by reducing its intensity. This means that the eternal soul existing in the eternal space (having equal frequency of energy) has generated this worldly space. The eternal soul can be awareness since you have already established that the soul is basically energy only. In this way the eternal soul generated this worldly space and such eternal soul is God.
M: Intensity is only the quantitative aspect of the energy. The eternal soul can be treated as the individual soul in this world in qualitative aspect. Thus, we can say that this individual soul is the generator of the space in general because the eternal soul and this individual soul are basically energy only, though their intensities (Frequencies) differ, since intensity is only a quantitative aspect. Thus, we can conclude that the individual soul which is qualitatively equal to the eternal soul due to common awareness can be treated as the generator of this worldly space. In Advaita we filter this quantitative aspect and say that the eternal soul (Ishwara) and the individual soul (Jeeva) are basically one and the same due to common awareness form of the energy, which is called as Brahman. From this angle, the inability of the individual soul to generate the worldly space and world is filtered off.
R: The Veda says that God generated space in the beginning. The same Veda says again that God generated energy in the beginning. The respondent (Myself) correlated both these and concluded that space is energy and therefore there is no contradiction. Thus, this aspect disturbs the basic reality of space, because the space in general is this general energy only. The creator of space in general cannot be the general energy. All the relative spaces must stop with some most real space which is named as the eternal space. But, the eternal space including the relative spaces becomes only the space in general. Since the eternal space is also space, the creator of that eternal space cannot be another more real space due to ad-infinitum (Anavastha). The generator of your eternal space cannot be another more relatively real space due to this Anavastha. Due to this, the aspect of higher intensity of energy as the cause of the eternal space is ruled out. You cannot say that the general energy is the cause for the eternal space because the eternal space is also general energy in the absence of degree of intensity. In such case, space being energy, space shall be the cause of the space or energy shall be the cause of energy. This is meaningless and impossible. There must be some different item which is beyond the spatial dimensions to be the generator of the eternal space. The eternal soul is also eternal energy and thus, cannot be the cause of the eternal space. The individual soul, being qualitatively similar to the eternal soul, can never become the generator of this worldly space for the same reason (when the eternal soul cannot generate the eternal space, the individual soul cannot generate the worldly space). Therefore, the word Atman referred in the Veda in this context can be neither the divine soul nor the individual soul. Moreover, when the cause of the space is beyond the spatial dimensions, how can such cause be the divine soul or individual soul or space or energy, which is general energy only that is definable by spatial dimensions?
The space or energy or awareness or matter or other energetic forms like fire, light etc or any other worldly item cannot be such “unimaginable some thing” which is God. All these words give the meanings which are understood by the intelligence. The intelligence cannot cross-space and cannot understand anything which is beyond space. The very fact that you are understanding these words means that all items meant by words (understood by intelligence) cannot be God. If you say that you are God, our question is: have you understood your self? If you have understood yourself, you are not God because God cannot be understood as per the statement of Yama in the Veda. If you say that you have not understood yourself, then also how can you say that you are God when you have not understood the God? Neither the awareness (the soul or yourself) nor any energetic form is God. Indra is also energetic form but not God. All the angles are energetic forms but not God. The only energetic form, that is Lord Narayana, is God because it is charged by God. Similarly, Brahma and Shiva are also God. Simultaneously, more than one energetic form can exist charged by God. Similarly, in human incarnations also more than one human incarnation can exist. All the energetic forms and all the human beings are not God. Even in the specific energetic form or in the specific human body God is hidden even though God pervades all over the energetic forms or human body. Only the existence of God is experienced through medium. The current pervades all over the wire. You can experience only the existence of current in the wire but not the original form of current. You can treat the electric wire as current for all practical purposes, since there is no other way directly to experience the current. Similarly you can treat the specific energetic form or specific human body as God for all practical purposes of worship and service since there is no other way to serve or worship God directly.