Posted on: 14 Sep 2015
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Replies to Questions of Dr. Nikhil] ‘Tat Sat’ is the Vedic statement, which means that ‘that exists’. The word ‘that’ is a pronoun about which no detail is known except its existence (Astityeva... Veda). The pronoun does not give any knowledge of that. For the details to be known, a noun follows it. When we say ‘that horse’, the pronoun ‘that’ indicates only an item existing there and the noun ‘horse’ gives all the details of that. Mere pronoun does not give the knowledge of the item. Therefore, the word ‘that’ only gives the information about the existence of something, which is unknown. In the darkness, you suspect something existing by your side about which you are unaware of any detail of it. This something is unknown and it can be knowable when you put on torchlight. It is knowable unknown. God is unknowable unknown. A miracle exhibited is seen superficially by you. A jewel is created by the movement of hand of a divine person. The jewel, the hand and its movement are seen by you, which are knowable known (imaginable) items. But, the creation of jewel by the movement of hand in air is unknowable unknown (unimaginable). In this miracle, the imaginable and unimaginable domains exist together. Hence, both these domains do not contradict to each other like darkness and light. The human incarnation is another such example in which the imaginable human being is associated with unimaginable God. All these examples stand after this creation. Before this creation, the imaginable domain does not exist at all. When we say that God was bored before the creation, the state of boring is imaginable item, which should not exist before creation.
Shri Swami: Who told that this boring state is imaginable and when is it told?
Opponent: We told this statement standing after the creation since the boring state is imaginable to us (imaginable items).
Shri Swami: The boring state is before the creation when we did not exist. Then, who can tell this statement?
Opponent: Only God can say that He was bored.
Shri Swami: Since God is unimaginable, will the imaginable boring state (which is imaginable to imaginable human beings) become imaginable to God or unimaginable to God?
Opponent: Nothing is unimaginable to God. Even the unimaginable (to us) God is imaginable to Him. In such case, the imaginable boring state also becomes imaginable to God.
Shri Swami: Can you state that God is unimaginable before the creation, when you (imaginable) are absent?
Opponent: In our absence, God is imaginable to Himself and so the imaginable boring state becomes imaginable to the imaginable God (since we cannot use the word ‘unimaginable’ in this state before the creation).
Shri Swami: Now, what is the difference between you and God in this aspect? (The imaginable boring state is imaginable to the imaginable human beings after the creation. The imaginable boring state is imaginable to the imaginable God (imaginable to Himself) before the creation. In both the statements (before and after the creation), the ‘unimaginable’ word does not appear. Now, where is the problem? Therefore, before the creation, there is no imaginable domain at all (since we did not exist then).
Opponent: This is alright. But, the imaginable boring state existed in the unimaginable God. How can we digest this, now standing after the creation?
Shri Swami: You should not say this statement, which existed before the creation when the imaginable boring state existed in the imaginable God (to Himself). You should speak about that state in that time only. You should not bring that state to this state now, which creates the confusion by contradiction. Moreover, you said that how the imaginable boring state stands in unimaginable God. It is possible because for the unimaginable God, nothing is unimaginable whether it is unimaginable or imaginable. The fire burns both the stick and cotton. When it can burn (understand) even the stick (unimaginable), not to speak of cotton (imaginable). This is one direction. In the other direction, in that state before creation, God is not unimaginable since He is imaginable to Himself and therefore, the imaginable boring state is imaginable to the imaginable God. In both the directions, whether the God is unimaginable or imaginable, the imaginable boring state is understood by Him and cannot create any problem in the understanding of God. The imaginable boring state standing in the unimaginable domain means: the imaginable boring state is understood by the unimaginable God. Here the word ‘standing’ should be taken in the sense of understanding and not in the sense of one item standing on the other item. Due to the unimaginable nature of God, omnipotence results by which anything is not impossible in the case of God.
Opponent: The state of boring requires the process of thinking, which is the play of nervous energy. When the inert energy does not exist before the creation, how to understand this state of boring in the unimaginable God? We are familiar with the state of boring as a thought process involving the nervous system and nervous energy in human beings.
Shri Swami: This doubt is already answered by the omnipotence of God based on His unimaginable nature. Such unimaginable thought process is unimaginable to us only and not to God. The unimaginable content material of the thought and the unimaginable mechanism are known to God, which are unknown and unknowable to us. You can put this objection if I say that a stone got bored. The stone is an imaginable item existing in the imaginable creation (after creation) and the nervous energy and nervous system are absent in it whereas side by side both are present in a human being. Your question is valid in the case of stone but not in the case of God, who is unimaginable existing before the creation and got bored even in the absence of nervous system and nervous energy. In that state, no human being possessing nervous energy and nervous system existed side by side. All the worldly logic fails in God (Atarkyah..., Naisha tarkena..., Yo buddheh... Veda).
Opponent: The state of boring exists only after the creation as we see it in this creation (after creation). It cannot exist before creation even though unimaginable content material and unimaginable mechanism existed then. If you say that this boring state existed then, why not we say that all the world existed then also in God. In such case, this creation becomes a duplicate and this results that the creation also has no beginning like God.
Shri Swami: If you are correct, God should not have been bored since already the item of entertainment existed. Let Me take a simple example of an ordinary human being, who is bored due to the absence of any item of entertainment like T.V. in his house. Do you say that since the state of boring, which is a thought process, existed in him, every thought process should have existed in him? Since entertainment is a thought process, it should also have existed in him. Since entertainment existed in him, a T.V. should have already existed in his house, which is the source of entertainment. This is too much like the endless tail. It is a vicious circle of unnecessary imagination. The existence of boring state should be limited to that only and no extension of thoughts should be done. The state of boring alone is accepted because it is told by God Himself in the Veda. Lord Krishna is a human incarnation in which the unimaginable God exists, who told the Gita. He told that He told the Vedas (Vedantakrut) and that He should be known from the Vedas (Vedaishcha sarvaih...). The Veda says that God was bored before the creation (Ekaki na ramate...). Hence, the Veda is to be explained properly so that it should be proved always that God’s word is never wrong and illogical. If I say that the stone got bored, it is illogical. But, if I say that God got bored, it means that it is beyond logic. Stone is not beyond logic since it is imaginable as a part of the imaginable creation. But, God is unimaginable and is beyond creation.