Single Characteristic of God is That He is Unimaginable and Exists

Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

[Answer to Shri Anil’s Question No.6 (in Message on January 10, 2016) Continues Part-4]

Scientist: 1) The cosmos has certain parameters of its definition like boundaries, composite of finite particles etc. What are the characteristics that you can attribute to your unimaginable domain? Even for an infinite item, we can say that it should be homogeneous without internal gaps having no boundaries around which space can exist. If you apply this definition to God, you can say that your God is infinite. In such definition, you have to imagine the absence of space within God (gaps) and around God. In such case, God must become imaginable to prove that God is infinite.

2) How do you differentiate unimaginable from nothing-space? Both must be one and the same.

Shri Swami: 1) Our single characteristic of God is only that God is unimaginable and exists. We are not bothered about finite or infinite concepts, which require spatial dimensions. We are involved in this discussion to prove that the cosmos or space is finite in the absolute sense, even though it appears to be infinite due to very large quantity. Lord Krishna said in the Gita while giving cosmic vision to Arjuna that the creation is endless and hence infinite (Naantosti...). This infinite nature of the universe must be also with respect to a human being like Arjuna, who can never reach the boundary of cosmos. We have taken such long discussion not simply from the point of cosmos acting as a scientist. Our aim is only to say that beyond the boundary of cosmos, the unimaginable domain exists. In the absence of unimaginable domain, you have to extend the cosmos to be infinite, which cannot be done since it is a composite of fine parts. Any item that has birth cannot be infinite in absolute sense. The cosmos is generated by God. The process of generation is also unimaginable since there is no second example to study regarding the generation of imaginable from unimaginable. Generation of cosmos from God is unique example and hence, not only God, but also, His action of process of creation is unimaginable. In the case of unimaginable single God, your definition of infinite is not applicable in your physical sense. Everywhere God is unimaginable and hence homogeneous in the sense that the unimaginable nature is uniform everywhere in God. God has no space in Him, being beyond space from whom it is generated and therefore, God has no internal difference of parts in composite having spatial dimensions, which is called as internal difference (svagatabheda). For the same reason, God has no external difference from another similar God (Sajaatiyabheda). For the same reason, God also has no external difference from other dissimilar items like world (Vijaatiyabheda). All these aspects are explained based on single point i.e., the unimaginable nature due to absence of space in unimaginable God. Based on this unimaginable aspect only, God becomes the material and instrumental cause (Abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaranam) of cosmos like a magician creating objects in space through unknowable (temporarily) talent comparable to unknowable (permanently) talent of God. We have no other way since there is no second unknowable permanent talent in the cosmos. You have to accept the finite cosmos or space and you have to accept the existence of some unknowable item beyond the boundaries of cosmos. If you do not accept such existence, the danger of infinite cosmos (being composite of finite parts) attacks you. For this reason, we say that the unimaginable item exists beyond cosmos, which makes the cosmos finite. The unimaginable nature of God is also proved often by the exhibition of unimaginable miracles by God through incarnations and devotees, provided you have open mind to study them without bias and prejudice unlike an atheist. Since the way of entry of unimaginable God in to cosmos exhibiting unimaginable miracles is also unimaginable, you cannot object that how the unimaginable domain, which is beyond the boundary of cosmos, can enter the imaginable cosmos. The huge water of the ocean makes a separate boundary from the soil and the same water also exists on the soil (earth) as lakes and rivers. Hence, we do not insist on the infinite nature of God, which means that God must have infinite spatial dimensions. Since God is beyond space, the finite and infinite natures fail in His case. Two similar golden blocks indicate Sajaatiyabheda. Two dissimilar blocks of gold and iron indicate Vijaatiyabheda. The difference between the limbs (quantitatively like two hands or qualitatively and quantitatively like hand and eye) indicates Svagatabheda.

2) The nature of space between two pillars is seen and experienced by us whether such space is nothing or subtle energy. The unimaginable God cannot be seen and experienced like the space. We can only experience the unimaginable nature of God through unimaginable miracles and in this concept, the existence of God is proved unlike nothing-space, which has no existence as per the concept Einstein. On the other hand, if space is subtle energy, though its existence is experienced, its nature is viewed by us. In the case of unimaginable God, only existence is experienced but not the view of His nature. Even in the case of nothing-space, the nature of nothing is viewed and experienced by us by which we say that nothing exists there. In the case of unimaginable God, the nature is never imaginable like that of space.

Scientist: We say that beyond the boundary of imaginable cosmos, some unknown but imaginable form exists so that the boundary line of cosmos is a joint line having the composite nature of presently known parts on one side and the presently unknown form of imaginable cosmos on the other side. When we reach the edge of the soil, the edge of water of the ocean starts. Both water and soil are imaginable forms (liquid and solid states of matter) of the same imaginable cosmos only. We will know that unknown and imaginable form of cosmos on reaching the edge of cosmos only. In such case, the system for the conservation of energy is retained as the cosmos of known-imaginable form and also we need not accept the unimaginable domain beyond the cosmic boundary.

Shri Swami: The law of conservation of energy fails because the infinite extension of unknown-imaginable forms of cosmos makes the cosmos infinite. Cosmos is defined as the composite of imaginable items, which are finite only. When a new imaginable form, which is unknown to us today, starts from the cosmic boundary, you will be adding new unknown but imaginable regions continuously to maintain the boundary of the previous system resulting in ad-infinitum. The new imaginable part must be also finite. In such case, we must stop at one place ending all the imaginable-unknown regions and after the final end, the same inevitable question attacks, which is the finite limit of endless cosmos (assumed). You must maintain this chain of imaginable regions in different unknown forms continuously, in which case, the cosmos including all these imaginable regions has to become infinite. This is not possible because any imaginable region must be a finite composite only. Keeping the imaginable nature as common character, if you go on changing the forms, you have to end at some point since any imaginable region is a finite composite only and in such case, infinity is impossible. Hence, the difference must be in the imaginable nature only and beyond the imaginable cosmic boundary, a different region of unimaginable nature must exist to stop the endless extension of cosmos at its boundary. When the soil ends and water starts, the joint line has soil on one side and different water on the other side. The difference should not be limited to the difference in forms keeping the common imaginable nature. In the example, soil and water are imaginable, but, different in forms of matter called solid (soil) and liquid (water). This is acceptable because we are talking about the boundary line existing within the imaginable region only. Such a boundary line is the end of one imaginable solid state of matter from where another imaginable liquid state of matter starts. This is an example within the imaginable cosmos. When we say that cosmos is a composite of all imaginable forms, the boundary of cosmos means the end of all imaginable forms only, beyond which the totally different unimaginable region must start. The concept here involves both imaginable and unimaginable domains. In the simile given, the water and soil are two regions of imaginable nature only. Imaginable-imaginable cannot be totally compared with the imaginable-unimaginable concept. There is no such second example (imaginable-unimaginable) in the imaginable cosmos. Limitations of simile must be understood and over extension beyond the limits of the simile should not be done. Therefore, if you conclude that imaginable cosmos is finite (may be huge), you have to bring the existence of a totally different unimaginable domain by which only the continuous extension of the imaginable domain is arrested.

Geometrical Space Needs Existence of Matter or Energy on Both Sides

Scientist: We say that the cosmos is constantly expanding from finite to infinite. Since it is finite, law of conservation of energy is maintained. The value of total energy of cosmos is constant during continuous expansion.

Shri Swami: The constant expansion of universe (cosmos) involves the following possibilities: i) Does cosmos mean matter, energy and space (absolute nothing)? In this case, cosmos consists of items of matter, items of energy and items of space (nothing) occupied by items of matter and energy along with items of space (nothing) existing between these items of matter and energy as geometrical bits. If all these three items of matter, energy and space (nothing) expand, there is a need of the existence of residual free space (nothing) apart from the above mentioned three items, in to which only these three items can expand. In such case, the residual free space should be nothing or geometrical in to which only something can expand. A geometrical space needs the existence of items of matter or energy on both sides. On one side, the expanding cosmos exists, but, on the other side of the geometrical space neither cosmos nor any one of the three items of the cosmos can exist. If the cosmos (total or partial) exists on the other side of geometrical space (as a requirement of geometrical space), this residual free space becomes part of the cosmos only and such residual free space becomes a bit of cosmos. By this, it is clearly established that residual free space (nothing) without anything on the other side cannot exist in to which the cosmos can expand. If you say that the residual free space is not geometrical (absolute nothing) and is subtle energy, in such case, the cosmos cannot expand due to the absence of residual free space (nothing) since residual free space being subtle energy has already become part of cosmos. In any case, the expansion of cosmos in to free space is not possible.

ii) If the cosmos is expanding without further addition of matter and energy as proposed above by you, the expansion of cosmos must result in dilution of cosmos, in which case all the items of the cosmos must get diluted by expansion and such dilution is not experienced by us. A hill is standing as the same hill with constant density only from very long time disproving the expansion of cosmos without any further addition of matter and energy. On the other hand, if you take the second option that matter and energy are constantly added, which itself is expansion, the law of conservation of energy fails because matter and energy are created without corresponding destruction. This makes the cosmos to become infinite, which opposes that the cosmos is made of finite parts and hence as composite the cosmos must be finite and cannot be infinite.

iii) The inevitable third option is that the cosmos is finite as composite of fine parts since the edge or boundary constructed by these fine parts brings the concept of finite boundary of cosmos. However, such cosmos can be treated as infinite in view that no human being or human invented instruments can find the boundary since cosmos is very very huge.

iv) The result of the above resulting third option is again “What is present beyond the boundary of cosmos?” The crucial point here is that beyond the boundary of soil, water of the ocean exists as a different item. This different item (water) should not exist in the adjacent soil so that we can say that the boundary of the soil is finite from where the boundary of water starts. Similarly, when the boundary of finite cosmos ends, something different from cosmos should start and this starting different item should not be in the cosmos. If the starting item is an item of the cosmos, it is no more the boundary of the cosmos and we have to say that the cosmos is still extending itself, which is not desirable. Therefore, the starting item is unimaginable, which does not exist in the imaginable cosmos. Hence, the inevitable resulting answer is that the starting item is unimaginable, which is called as unimaginable God by us.

In the simile of ocean and soil, both water and soil are the components of cosmos. The boundary of soil is said to be the boundary of the soil only and not the boundary of cosmos. In the simile, the other part of the soil contains water here and there and we need not say that water present in the soil is again appearing after the edge of the soil and hence in the unimaginable existing beyond the boundary should exist in the cosmos also. We must understand the limitation of simile and confine ourselves just to the boundary of soil and water only where water and soil are different from each other. The water in the other region of soil need not interfere here because there is no water in the soil existing as boundary adjacent to the ocean. In the concept, the soil indicates the total imaginable cosmos and the ocean indicates the unimaginable God and we must confine to this point only in the simile. This complication comes because we do not have the second unimaginable item in the cosmos that can be compared to the unimaginable God.

Concluding Remarks

1. To maintain the law of conservation of energy, the cosmos must have finite boundary, which can be assumed as infinite boundary due to very huge quantity that cannot be estimated by a petty human being.
2. The concluded finite cosmos cannot be infinite because it is clear that this cosmos is made of matter and energy, which are composed of finite particles or waves. The edge or boundary of the cosmos must be made of finite particles only and hence the composite must be finite. The wall must be finite since the bricks are finite.
3. The cosmos is made of two components: i) Energy and ii) Matter. We feel that space is subtle energy. Energy is composed of finite particles or finite waves. Matter consists of finite particles only. In this way, cosmos made of matter and energy must be finite only. Space is included in the energy and need not be dealt separately.
4. As per the concept of Einstein, space is different from matter and energy, being nothing or geometrical, requiring two parts of matter or energy on both sides so that space is relatively true as a gap between the two items. This means space disappears as soon as matter and energy disappear.
5. Concluding that space is nothing, you cannot project a hypothesis in which cosmos (matter+energy) is finite existing in infinite space. This is untenable because in this concept, you have treated space as nothing and not as subtle energy (if space is subtle energy, space also becomes a finite composite and you cannot have the nothing-space as the third component of cosmos apart from matter and energy). This hypothesis fails because: a) Any characteristic line in infinite-nothing-space must be also nothing b) The nothing-space can be nothing provided it is geometrical as gap between two items of matter or energy. If such nothing-space has to exist beyond the boundary of cosmos, some item of matter or energy must exist on other side, in which case only, the nothing-space can exist as gap between the boundary of cosmos and some item of matter or energy on the other side. This means that nothing-space existing as gap between two items can never be infinite. Therefore, the hypothesis is to be rejected.
6. Since the cosmos is defined as the composite of all finite parts, you cannot bring an unknown-imaginable form after the boundary of cosmos. The word cosmos extends to such new imaginable form also. The boundary of cosmos means the end of all imaginable parts of the composite cosmos. The simile of sea and soil cannot be totally applied because the point in the concept is between unimaginable and imaginable items whereas the point in the simile is between two different forms (solid and liquid) of the same imaginable cosmos.
7. The inevitable question (the item beyond the boundary of cosmos) stands since the conclusion that cosmos including space (as subtle energy or geometrically nothing) is finite and this is also inevitable due to composite nature of finite parts.
8. Since imaginable cosmos is inevitably finite, the existence of unimaginable item beyond the cosmic boundary is inevitable. It is unimaginable because it must be totally different from totally imaginable cosmos. It must exist because without it the cosmos being finite composite is forced to become infinite. If Sea is absent, the solid is forced to become infinite. The existence of such totally different item is essential to maintain the distinction of the boundary of imaginable cosmos since without sea the soil cannot end with a distinct boundary.
9.           The constant expansion of universe is impossible in the case of the impossible existence of either residual free nothing-space (due to absence of any item of matter or energy on the other side to make it infinite) or dilution of cosmos not experienced or addition of matter and energy continuously (which makes the cosmos infinite).
10.           Therefore, the cosmos must be finite beyond which, only the unimaginable domain called God alone can exist.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★