Posted on: 29 Oct 2017
[The Veda says that if one knows that God is unimaginable, he becomes the knower of God since he has at least known one point about God that God is unimaginable (Yasyaamatam tasyamatam). The Veda also says that if one says that God is known to him, he does not know any point about God since even one point that God is unknowable is also not known to him (matam yasya na Veda sah). The knowledge of existence of God is not the knowledge of the nature of God. Hence, the total knowledge known about the God so far through hectic and continuous debates of angels and deities is that God exists and His nature is unimaginable. Every imaginable item of the creation indicated by a word as its name is negated to be the creator or God. That which is beyond any imaginable entity is the absolute God or Parabrahma. You can’t indicate God by finger even if the finger is your imagination. The best possible explanation of the absolute God is negating every imaginable item to be God and the leftover unimaginable entity is the absolute God. Science can’t help you to show the God, but, can prove every imaginable item like even awareness to be not God, there by indicating the leftover unimaginable entity as God. Every word indicates only a specific imaginable item of imaginable creation only. Hence, all words fall down unable to touch the absolute God (Yatovaacho... Veda) and hence the leftover silence (absence of any word) alone can express the absolute God. Such scholar, who keeps silence about the absolute God is called as Muni (having maunam or silence), who can be treated as the best knower of absolute God.]
[The three divine preachers have taken the absolute God as awareness and refused that God is inert entity with the help of 5th Brahma Sutra. If God is awareness, the second Brahma Sutra could have easily defined the nature (Svarupa Lakshnam) of God as that which knows itself and things other than itself and this should have been the 2nd Brahma Sutra to be written as “Svaparajnnanalakshanam yat”. Instead of giving the natural characteristic straight in this way, why sage Vyasa gave definition of Brahma (God) through associated characteristic (Tatastha lakshnam) by saying that Brahma is creator, ruler and destroyer of this world? Later on, by several sutras, Vyasa denied Brahma to be the soul or awareness. Hence, it is a hasty step to take awareness as God just for negating that God is not inert. To deny that He is not Y (inert), you need not say that He is X (awareness) because, He is not Y by becoming Z (unimaginable) also, which is neither X nor Y!]
[The awareness available in the creation is the generated product of inert energy (liberated by the digestion of food) converted in to a specific work form (called as awareness) in the functioning specific nervous system. This means that God has birth and hence must have death also. In fact, awareness disappears totally in deep sleep (dying daily) and appearing in the end of deep sleep (born every day) as told in the Gita (Nityajaatam...). The awareness totally disappears in the deep sleep since resting nervous system is not functioning at all. If awareness exists in deep sleep, it should have been continuously enjoying the happiness of rest throughout the deep sleep, which is not true. Only after awakening from deep sleep, the happiness of total rest is enjoyed by the born awareness, which is inferring the happiness in the past deep sleep in which there was no perception at all. Hence, the soul in gross body doesn’t exist continuously, which can’t be God.
Even a trace of the associated characteristic said (that God is creator of entire world etc.) is not seen with this awareness (soul) since it can’t create an atom of matter or a ray of energy! Hence, we have to conclude that this awareness found in the imaginable creation as an item of relative plane can’t be the unimaginable creator of absolute plane. If you conclude that this relative awareness is God, several objections attack as said above.]
[Before creation, there was no matter and energy and hence there was no materialised nervous system in God. There was no energy also, which can be transformed in nervous system in to specific work called as awareness. The awareness in brain is knower and the same in nervous system is the process of knowing or transport of knowledge of external objects through senses to brain. In God, as said, both knower and knowledge (process of knowing) become unimaginable whereas the same knower and knowledge are imaginable in human being due to existence of brain, nervous system and energy. The only common point to both God and human being is the external object to be known. Hence, such awareness (both knower and knowledge) in God is unimaginable. Such unimaginable awareness of God is also unimaginable God only (since two unimaginable entities do not exist). Here, when God is said awareness, people immediately understand God as imaginable relative awareness only so that possibility of atheism resulting from unimaginable concept can be removed. When we say that both God and human being identify an object as a pot, the common point to both is that both are aware that the object is pot. Basing on this similarity of this single point (awareness), we understand God and human being are awareness only. But, on doing actual analysis, God as knower and human being as knower are different because the former is unimaginable and the latter is imaginable. Not only this, the process of knowing in the former is unimaginable and the process of knowing in the latter is imaginable. Hence, we can clearly distinguish the unimaginable awareness of God from the imaginable awareness of human being. If this distinction is not recognized, the human being feels that it is God due to similarity of awareness! After all, awareness is just a process of knowing an object and this single point not related to the nature of the knower and the nature of process of knowing can’t bring total monism between God and human being.]
[When a king and beggar know that the object is a pot, in this case, there is total similarity between the two imaginable knowers (brains), there is total similarity between the two processes of knowing (nervous systems) and the object to be known and resulting knowledge of the same object in both cases is one and the same. Even in this pair, you can’t bring total monism since the potentialities of brains are different! But, alas! You are bringing total monism between God and human being based on just one external and superficial similarity that both know the object as pot even though the knower and process of knowing of God are unimaginable and totally different from the imaginable knower and process of knowing of human being. The similarity in both is just the result of knowledge of pot, which is totally related to the external object (pot). Since the external object is one and the same in both cases, the result (knowledge of pot) is also same. This similarity between the results of knowledge of same pot is not at all related to the knower and process of knowing in both cases and can’t bring even a trace of similarity between God and human being. You can’t even imagine even a trace of comparison between unimaginable entity and imaginable entity. The oneness of pot giving same result as knowledge of pot has nothing to do with the subject (knower) and action of subject (knowledge or awareness). Knowers and processes of knowing need not be the same since known objects and their knowledges (results) are same! Object and its knowledge are in the external atmosphere, which has no connection with the internal atmosphere of knower and process of knowing. Similarity in the external atmosphere can’t bring similarity in the internal atmosphere. Pot as object and awareness (knowledge) of pot are the external phase of object. The knower of pot and process of knowing the pot are the internal phase of subject. Both unimaginable God and imaginable human being (subjects) got the same knowledge or awareness of the same object. Based on this oneness of the external object and its knowledge, it is climax of foolishness to bring oneness in both the subjects (unimaginable God and imaginable human being) knowing the one object.]
[Even regarding the external atmosphere containing pot resulting in the knowledge of pot, there is lot of difference between unimaginable God and imaginable human being. When unimaginable God sees the pot, it is only a part of the vision of entire creation whereas the vision of imaginable human being can see only that pot or at the maximum a few more objects surrounding the pot. In this way, even in the external object, the limits of seen objects are differing. Not only this, when God sees the pot, all the interior details of pot like atomic and subatomic particles present in the material of pot are simultaneously seen by God whereas the human being can see only the pot as an external object only. Hence, there is lot of difference between God and human being not only in the internal atmosphere of subject (knower and process of knowing) but also in the external atmosphere of object (object with internal or external details and the entire creation becoming the object or only a few items becoming the object). Due to difference in the external atmosphere also, God is called as omniscient (sarvajna) and human being is called as limited knower (alpajna). In this way, there is lot of difference in the triad (triputi), which is the knower (Jnaataa), the process of knowing (Jnaanam) and the object along with its knowledge (Jneyam). The analysis of unimaginable awareness of unimaginable God and imaginable awareness of imaginable soul along with the above said difference in the external objective atmosphere clearly shows total difference between God and soul in the three stages of Triputi also.]
[The idea of comparison between unimaginable God and imaginable soul can’t be entertained even for a fraction of second since comparison exists between two imaginable items only like face and moon having at least one similarity of pleasantness. In the case of God and soul even a single similarity can’t be entertained since one item is not even understood and the other item is understood. Even in the difference between God and soul, one similarity, which is awareness, is maintained by Madhva, which also on analysis shows lot of difference as explained above. In this case of soul and mediated God (of Madhva and Ramanuja), the two compared items are at least understood since God is mediated God, who is imaginable to be compared with imaginable soul. In the case of mediated God, unimaginable God identifies totally with the medium and hence God is represented as medium itself. Medium is a part of creation like the soul and hence both can be easily compared. The material of the medium is the same in both cases standing for similarity. There is lot of difference between the powers of both since one (mediated God) is having the unimaginable power of merged unimaginable God (apart from the imaginable power of the medium) whereas the imaginable soul has only imaginable power, which is very negligible. The unimaginable power of unimaginable God merged with the medium in the mediated God brings very clear difference between mediated God and soul except the similarity of negligible imaginable powers of both media. Here itself, almost pure dualism is resulting. In the case of comparison between the absolute unimaginable God without any medium with the imaginable soul, even the very idea of comparison is loudly laughable!]
[To speak anything about the absolute-unimaginable God is sheer waste since not even a trace of His nature is so far understood and can be never understood in the future also by anybody including the human being or energetic being-component with which God merged homogeneously in human incarnation or energetic incarnation respectively. If this is the case, can a human being or energetic being (angel or deity) existing far from God know anything about God? The only being that knows the absolute God is God Himself as said in the Veda (Brahmavit Brahmaiva bhavati). This Vedic statement is misinterpreted in wrong way, which is:- Brahmavit= the knower of absolute God, Bhavati= is, Brahmaiva=absolute God Himself. This means that an imaginable item (human being or energetic being) is converted in to unimaginable item (absolute God) through unimaginable knowledge of God, which is absolutely impossible. The correct interpretation of this is:- Brahmaiva=The absolute God alone, Bhavati= is, Brahmavit=the knower of absolute God. This means that God alone knows about Himself and any entity other than God can never understand God, the conclusion of which is that God is unimaginable to any soul and is imaginable to Himself only! Such interpretation is supported by the other Vedic statements, which say that God is unimaginable to anybody other than God (Avijnaatam... etc.), which is also endorsed by the Gita (Maamtuveda…) and the beginning Brahma Sutra keeping silent about actual nature (svarupa) of God.
[Even in the incarnation, the unimaginable God is not really converted in to soul (Avyaktam vyakti... Gita) so that we can think that such soul understands Himself (unimaginable God). Even though the soul has become God for all practical purposes, but, actually God and soul maintain their individual structures. Hence, the Veda says that God has become the soul (tyat) while simultaneously maintaining His original nature (Sat) differently, which means that both monism and dualism are simultaneously maintained like in the case of current and metallic wire. The metallic wire has become current for all practical purposes since it gives the shock, which is the property of the current. At the same time, current maintains its nature as stream of electrons and wire maintains simultaneously its own independent nature as a chain of metallic crystals. Even though Krishna told that nobody can know Him, the word ‘Him’ applies to unimaginable God only and not to the human being component (son of Vasudeva). The unimaginable God or Bhagavaan (Bhaga means unimaginable power and Bhagavaan means possessor of unimaginable power) spoke using the throat of Krishna and hence, this message is called as the Bhagavat Gita and not Krishna Gita. Similarly, God spoke the Vedas through the throats of sages and hence, the author of the Veda is God whereas the speaker of the Veda is sage. When sage Vamadeva told that he became Manu in the past (Manurabhavam), it means that the unimaginable God speaking through Vamadeva became Manu (possessed Manu) and gave the ethical scripture. When Buddha told that the Veda is told by human being (paurisheya), it means the speaker is a sage. When other Hindus told that the Veda is not told by human beings (sages), it means that God only told through them (apaurisheya). There is no contradiction between these two statements.]
[For souls, this universe is infinite since soul can never find out its boundary. For God, this universe is finite since there can be no unknown thing (boundary) to be called as infinite. When God said that this universe is infinite (Nantosti... Gita), it is said with reference to a soul like Arjuna and not with reference to Himself. Since God is unimaginable, you can’t apply the concept of infinite and finite in Him because finite and infinite apply only to imaginable items. The conclusion is that you can say that this universe is finite to God and infinite to soul. You can’t use both these words in the case of God since God is unimaginable. Without the reference to soul, you can’t take the reference of God alone and ask whether God is finite or infinite with reference to Himself. When you take the case of universe, it has the reference to God and soul simultaneously and hence we can say that the universe is finite to God and infinite to soul. If you ask whether God is finite or infinite to Himself (without reference to yourself), it becomes meaningless since the answer for this question can’t be understood by you due to absence of your reference. Your understanding of God is that He is unimaginable and hence, this concept alone appears as answer to all your questions put confining to reference to God alone.
In the first case (two items, God and Universe), apart from God, a different item exists in your reference and hence, both references can be answered by saying that universe is infinite for you, whereas universe is finite for God. In the second case, only one item exists i.e., God in your reference (for the question that whether God is finite or infinite to Himself) and this only one item existing is unimaginable God. Since God (such one item) is unimaginable in your reference, the answer dealing God alone also must be unimaginable to you. The understanding God (subject) and understood God (object) are unimaginable and knowledge related to both unimaginable subject and unimaginable object must be also unimaginable for you.]
[Questions coming from the over growth of intelligence also find this similar answer (that God is unimaginable) when the final understanding reference is the soul. For example a question is put like this:- “Can omnipotent God kill Himself? If you say that He can’t kill, He is not omnipotent because He lacks that one power. If you say that He killed Himself, it means He is not eternal”. The answer for this question is that subject (killer) and the object (to be killed) are God only, who is unimaginable to you. The process of killing related to two unimaginable items must be also unimaginable to you. You are the final reference and hence, the answer becomes unimaginable to you. If you argue that with reference to God only our answer is needed, in this angle also, God is primary reference and the secondary final reference is yourself. How God understands this must be understood by you only in the final stage. If you are the first reference (God), you can understand this being omniscient. What is understood by God can’t be understood by you because the understanding of unimaginable God by unimaginable God is imaginable to Him only and not to you since the understanding (knowledge) related to unimaginable subject (God) and unimaginable object (God) must be unimaginable to you!]
[The entire spiritual knowledge dealing with the nature of the soul as a traveller, nature of God as the goal and the path to please the God (these three points are called as Triputi) is preached to the soul only and hence, everywhere the soul is the reference. Every concept of spiritual knowledge is explained in the view of the soul only and not in the view of God. God is unimaginable to the soul, but, imaginable to Himself. There is nothing inside the God or outside the God that is not known to the God. He knows entirely about Himself and about world outside (even if you think that world is outside the God) and hence, He is omniscient. Anything unknown to Him is totally non-existent at any time. If we say that God is finite or infinite in His view, it means that we are telling some real characteristic (real because it is in His view) of God to you by which God becomes partially imaginable to you in reality. He is always totally unimaginable to souls. In such case, we can only say about God to you (soul) that He is always entirely unimaginable to you and He is always entirely imaginable to Himself. By this, if you say that God is finite to Himself since there is nothing unknown to Him about Himself, we can agree that God is finite to Himself due to absence of His boundary unknown to Himself. But, this concept is with reference to God only and you are not eligible to know this concept because when this concept changes its reference (God) and comes to you making you as reference of this concept, this concept disappears since God is always unimaginable to you. In unimaginable entity, finite and infinite concepts can’t exist. Hence, the final conclusion in the entire spiritual knowledge ends with the soul only as the final reference. Whenever we discuss any concept in spiritual knowledge through logic, we shall not forget this point that the concluded concept is always with reference to the soul only and not with reference to God. Soul needs correct direction to achieve the grace of God and God doesn’t need any direction from spiritual knowledge.]
[The word Brahma means greatest (Bruhi-vruddahau). Even if you call some items as greatest in their respective categories, God being greater than all these greatest items, the final essence is that God alone is the ultimate and absolute greatest of all items of creation. To distinguish God from these worldly greatest items (each being called as Brahma), we have added the prefix ‘para’ so that the full name of God is Parabrahma. Para means different indicating that God is different from any worldly greatest item in its category (Brahma). This word speaks about the greatest greatness of God only and doesn’t indicate even a trace of His inherent nature (svarupa), which specifically means His form and material with which He is made. The greatness of God is always in climax. The greatness of God (meaning of the word Brahma) doesn’t indicate His inherent form or the material with which His inherent form is made. It only indicates the greatest greatness of God confined to His behaviour in His actions. You can experience His greatest greatness through His actions indicating His omnipotence. This omnipotence is always controlled by His capacity to do a proper thing only and not to do any improper thing. Such capacity is called as ‘auchityashakti’. To prove omnipotence, if you say that God has done some improper thing also, you will immediately say that He is not omnipotent since He lacks the power of doing proper things only and avoid improper things. Hence, the omnipotence, which is capable of doing improper things also, is controlled by this auchityashakti. By this, not doing improper things supports the omnipotence fully contradicting the application of capacity (not contradicting the actual capacity) to do improper things. We are not saying that He can’t do an improper thing. We only say that He is not doing improper thing (even though He is capable of doing it) since He has the power of auchityashakti. By this, omnipotence is not affected at all. Ex: He can cut anything including himself. This has established omnipotence. He is not cutting Himself not because that He is incapable of cutting Himself, but, not cutting Himself since doing so is improper indicating His foolishness. If He cuts himself, He is really a fool and not omnipotent at all since He lacks the power of auchityashakti. Hence, you can’t put the question that whether God can kill Himself or not. If He kills Himself, just to prove His omnipotence, which shows that He is not having the knowledge of avoiding improper things, it results in concluding that God is not omniscient and hence, not omnipotent!]
[The climax of greatest greatness lies only when we say that God alone is the ultimate truth and everything other than Him is not real. This is told by the Veda and the Gita (ekamevaadvitiyam..., mattah parataram...). This concept is also proved in the experience. We are experiencing the unimaginable events (miracles) happening in this world in which God is creating matter and energy from nowhere and destroying the existing matter and energy, which disappear totally. If the second item is also existing as equal reality besides God, one reality can’t create another reality and can’t destroy another reality. Only one reality can create and destroy another unreal entity. The logic of the experience of these miracles proves that God alone is the ultimate truth whereas everything other than Him is totally unreal. Hence, in the absolute plane, the absolute unimaginable God alone exists and no second entity other than God exists at all. This concept is valid to God only and not to soul because the created soul didn’t exist in that plane before creation. You need not worry that the existence of God with reference to God will become unimaginable to your reference assuming that you have travelled back to the situation of before creation. The reason is that the existence of unimaginable God is not unimaginable to you also, but, is very clear by inference based on your perception of unimaginable events called as miracles. Knowledge of existence doesn’t give information about the real form and the real material of the form. The knowledge of existence of God is also not by direct perception and hence, God remains unimaginable even if the existence of God is known to you since the existence is only inferred and not perceived. In the previous case of finity and infinity of God in His view, that concept was related to the form and quantity of material making the form. Any information about this makes God perceivable and imaginable. But, regarding existence of an item, such problem doesn’t arise. The conclusion is that something unimaginable to you exists since its existence is experienced through its unimaginable actions called as miracles. Hence, we have to accept that God is unimaginable and exists as single reality in the ultimate absolute plane, which is devoid of errors and illusions. In this concept, the climax of greatness is maintained with perfect logic involving inference of God from the perception of unimaginable events without violating ‘auchityashakti’ in anyway.]
[If you see various options of the concept of creation, you can select such option, which brings the greatest greatness to the absolute God. The options are: 1) To expose the hidden pot claiming that you have created it as in magic. Here, both cause and effect exist already in hidden state (avyaktam) and there is no creation at all since it is only exposure (vyaktam) of already created item. This brings least greatness or even negative greatness since it is cheating. Hence, if you say that this world is equally real like God and He is only exposing it from the state of avyaktam, this can’t be accepted because God (Brahma) is greatest and His greatness is totally buried in this way. If you mean non-existence by the word avyaktam, this option becomes 3rd option. 2) To modify the raw gold into jewel and claim that you have created the golden jewel. This involves partial truth since only the jewel is created by you and this is partial lie because the gold is not created by you. In this theory, the greatness exists partially since God is the creator of the design or intellectual cause (nimittakaaranam) and not the material cause (upaadaanakaaranam). God is supposed to create this world using already existing and equally real material called as prakruti. This brings little greatness to God because mere design without gold is useless. 3) To create a golden jewel from the space really as seen in the miracle done by human incarnations (Ex: Shri Satya Sai Baba). In this, God is both causes. The unimaginable power is that the creator of this golden jewel is not gold by Himself since a part of His body (gold) is not modified. He has not taken lot of time also to plan the design. Hence, both gold and design are spontaneously created from nothing by His unimaginable power. This brings the greatness of God to climax. We can see this third option in the Veda: a) The only reality (God) alone existed in the beginning (sadeva somya...) b) This world was non-existent in the beginning from which (non-existence) only, this existing world is created by God (Asadvaa... tato vai sadajaayata). There is no violation of auchitya here in anyway and this option expresses the God’s omnipotence to the fullest extent.]
[When God created this creation including yourself (soul) along with other souls, the absolute plane is masked by the creation or relative plane in which unreal (relative plane) is felt as real and real (absolute plane) is felt as unreal by souls. This experience of real as unreal and vice-versa was created by God not only in the mere experience of the souls (ajnaana aavarana) but also in reality (with respect to soul) in the external object (creation) also (ajnaana vikshepa). Hence, this illusion is not for God, but only for the souls. This illusion in the souls is not mere theoretical, but also practical since conversion of unreal relative plane is made real to the soul externally also. This is the reason why the soul is not seeing the disappearance of the world as soon as it realizes the truth that world is unreal in absolute plane. This means that this world is simultaneously unreal to absolute God and real to the souls. The soul must understand that this world is unreal to God only and not to it. The logic here is that soul being a part of creation has equal reality of the creation and hence for soul, this world can never become unreal. One reality can’t become unreal to the other equal reality. Since soul is a tiny part of creation, the creation can neglect the soul as unreal (very little quantity can be assumed as not existing). The reverse can’t become true since the tiny soul can’t neglect the huge creation as almost unreal. The same world becoming unreal to absolute God and simultaneously becoming real to soul is due to the unimaginable power of God (maaya) and not due to mere theoretical ignorance of soul. If soul is the absolute God and if it is assumed that absolute God got ignorance, in such case only, the soul can see the world disappearing as soon as it realizes the truth. The absolute God never gets ignorance and for Him this world is always unreal. The absolute God wants to see this world as real for better entertainment. This is the reason that why the absolute God merges with a devoted soul and tries to see the world as real through its experience imposed on self (incarnation).
You need not argue that the souls are deceived by God due to such illusion created by God obstructing the souls to know the ultimate reality and this is improper. This is not improper because God created this creation for His entertainment and He wants to play with the souls created by Him. When the absolute plane is masked by the relative plane, every soul will naturally think that God doesn’t exist and world alone exists. In the field of such illusion, how many souls can resist atheism? God is also giving clues about the existence of absolute plane (Himself) through clues called miracles followed by serious preaching of reality. All this illusion and clues with preaching are proper for any play. If this entire plan of God is entirely unjust, all the souls should have gone to hell. It is not so. Some are believing God, controlling themselves to do sins and avoid hell reaching happy heaven and even blissful God. Hence, in this divine plan of game, full freedom with support to both sides is given to the souls to choose to become atheists or theists. Hence, the game is with full of justice. Game must involve justice and freedom, in which case, no criticism can appear! Due to existence of perfect justice in every angle, you can’t criticize blissful God that He is the playing cat and the suffering souls are dying rats! God is trying His level best to make every rat to become cat and get equal entertainment in the game like Him and winners also are seen in the souls. If the all the souls become runners, your blame can be correct. Moreover, entertainment through game is a desirable attitude for anyone in this world. For the sake of avoiding possible misery, if you don’t want the game and want to sleep continuously, then, there is no creation and there is no soul (yourself)! Do you appreciate this option? Such entertainment in continuously running game will throw away all the miseries since miseries are also enjoyed in the entertainment. The overall aim in this picture is only continuous happiness of the soul along with God in the eternal entertainment, which is the best of all items of creation so that the life should become a thrilling alive game and not a continuously sleeping stone! The master maintaining and playing with His servants to give equal happiness through entertainment shall be appreciated and shall not be blamed for the possible defeats.]
[The unimaginable God having unimaginable awareness acts as the unimaginable knower (without the brain and inert energy). The unimaginable process of knowing in the case of God is called as unimaginable knowledge (since the process here takes place without nervous system and inert energy). In the case of God, the result is unimaginable knowledge of the object, which is the entire creation (finite for God) internally and externally along with unimaginable self (Himself). The three objects of God are internal structure of creation, external structure of creation and unimaginable nature of God. Due to these three reasons, you call God as absolute unimaginable awareness. You shall not mistake it as the relative imaginable awareness, which is the soul having imaginable knower in brain, imaginable knowledge in nervous system and imaginable knowledge of limited objects externally. Since the case of God is entirely unimaginable and the case of soul is entirely imaginable, we prefer to say that there is no trace of comparison between God and soul instead of saying that there is ocean of difference between God and soul. If both God and soul are in the imaginable phase, we can say that soul is part and God is whole (Ramanuja) or God is ocean and soul is a drop (Madhva) or God and soul are the same awareness (Shankara). Even in human incarnation, unimaginable awareness (God) and imaginable awareness (soul) are totally different because one is unimaginable (which is not imaginable at all) and other is imaginable (which is not unimaginable at all). Unimaginable God creating imaginable world is compared to imaginable awareness (soul) creating imaginable imaginary world. There is no other way except taking the imaginable soul as comparison for unimaginable God since there is no second unimaginable item except God. In simile, X and Y are compared if comparison is less. If comparison is more, metaphor is used in which we say that X is Y even though X and Y are not one and the same. God and soul are having very good comparison to treat this world as exactly nil to God like treating the imaginary world as almost nil to the soul. Due to this best comparison, God can create, maintain and dissolve this world like the soul creating, maintaining and dissolving the imaginary world. God can change any item into any other item in the world since world is unreal to Him. Similarly, soul can change any item into another item since the negligible imaginary world is almost unreal to soul. Because of this excellent similarity, God is told as soul using metaphor. This led souls to mistake themselves as God! In the case of soul, the imaginary world is a modification of itself (nervous energy) and hence, due to this imaginary world, the soul is reduced in energy and becomes weak. But, in the case of God, the creation of real (to soul) world, which is unreal (to God) is unimaginable power since God is not at all modified into world. Such difference proves that God is said as soul using metaphor, which doesn’t mean that God is the soul or the soul is God. When we say that a great person is like lion, it is simile. In metaphor, the greater person is told as lion itself. This does not mean that the person and lion are one and the same. If it is so, all the persons registered as lions in the lions club must become actual lions!]
[Shankara aimed at good behaviour of the soul by saying that the soul is God. At least, to keep the dignity of God, soul is expected to behave in broad way leaving the narrow selfishness. If the soul is said as absolute God to whom this world is unreal, the soul was expected not to do sins for selfish benefits since everything other than the soul is unreal. Truth can be twisted to achieve good results. Ramanuja and Madhva gradually brought out the difference between God and soul in the order of increase since the souls (atheists) already doing sins due to no fear for non-existing God started doing more sins since world is unreal. The sin already increased due to atheism grew tremendously due to unreality of world like the fire already burning fast by air growing more by addition of ghee! Ramanuja and Madhva brought out the difference step by step to arrest the negative side reaction of the monism increasing sin. A teacher cares for the truth of the concept in knowledge whereas a preacher cares more for the welfare of the world!]
[The Brahma Sutra says that the absolute God is without form, which is very important aspect since such state is the original state of God (Arupavadeva hi tat pradhaanatvaat). The word ‘form’ is conveyed as meaning of the word ‘Rupa’. If you see the root meaning of the word Rupa, it means that which is grasped and experienced (rupyate iti). In the imaginable domain or creation, there are formless and formful items. A pot, a human being etc., are formful. Space, light etc., are formless. Does this mean that the absolute God (Parabrahma) is an imaginable-formless item like light? In fact, some people have taken light as God. Even awareness or nervous energy flowing in nerves is formless and people are easily misled to think awareness flowing in the nerves (soul) as the absolute God. If you take a pot as an example for formful item, the meaning of the word rupa is given as that, which is grasped by eyes (chakshurbhih rupyate iti). But, the word rupa means only that which is grasped and ‘by eyes’ is added part. We can add any part as the grasping means. We can add the grasping instrument as intelligence deciding the grasped item by logic. In this line, we can say that rupa means any item understood or imagined by the deciding intelligence (imaginable). Naturally, ‘Arupa’ means a formless item, which is not grasped by intelligence or not imagined (unimaginable God). Hence, the meaning of this sutra is that the absolute God is not grasped by intelligence and hence is unimaginable (Arupa). Since the original important state of God is that He can’t be grasped by intelligence or imagination, original absolute God is unimaginable. This is also proper to the human psychology, which neglects the value or importance of understood things and gives value to things beyond understanding. God maintains His value being always unimaginable so that people maintain the importance of God forever, which helps to control the sins by love or fear. We see people not appreciating a speech delivered by a speaker with full clarity. The same people appreciate a speech with high value, if it is not understood at all!]