Posted on: 03 Sep 2015
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Replies to Dr. Nikhil’s Questions] We are standing in the imaginable domain and we are part and parcel of the imaginable domain only. We can never enter the unimaginable domain. What all we speak is spoken by us standing in the imaginable domain only. We can speak about the unimaginable domain based on the scripture, which is also an authority (Shabda Pramana) of knowledge. Of course, this authority is based on the inference authority (Anumana Pramana), which is again based on the perception authority (Pratyaksha Pramana). This point can be illustrated like this: we have approached the doctor regarding the treatment of some illness. We believe him and follow the treatment. We believe the doctor because the doctor is well versed in the treatment since he studied the medical education for several years. We do not ask him to explain all the points regarding the diagnosis, treatment and all other related points. To understand all these points, we have to study all the medical education like the doctor for several years so that we can believe his diagnosis and treatment in a scientific way. Meanwhile, the disease becomes very serious! Moreover, all the patients do not have the caliber and patience to do all this. Even we, the educated scientists, do not do this due to lack of time and patience. We believe the doctor as the authority even though we do not analyse the background of his authority. The Holy Scripture, the Veda (Shabda) is like the doctor in whom we have to put our belief and follow its meaning. This cannot be treated as the blind belief because we know that the conclusions of the Veda were already derived from very deep analysis and discussions of sages only just like we know that the doctor is correct in his treatment since he studied the medical education for a long time and obtained the degree. Hence, the boring state, pleasure, happiness, etc., are not mere superimpositions on God done by us. A superimposition results due to confusion and ignorance, which is like mistaking the rope as snake. The state of boring of God before creation is mentioned in the Veda (Ekaaki na ramate...) and the Brahma Sutra (Lokavattu) and we have taken the scripture as an authority of knowledge in our analysis based on the faith. Logic also allows the scripture as the authority.
1. One school of logic allows only perception and inference as the authority, even though another school of logic agrees to simile (Upamana) and scripture (Shabda) as additional authority. We like to confine ourselves to the first school only and this is also agreed by you already because You said that the scripture is based on inference, which is again based on perception. Hence, let us confine to perception and inference only to explain the opposition of superimposition. This means that You must explain the opposition of superimposition based on the perception and inference only without touching the scripture. We are like the well educated scientists, who are interested to analyse the background of the doctor by studying all the medical education so that we are thorough that the doctor is correct.
Reply of Shri Swami: We have no objection to do this because the imaginable domain is always based on perception and inference only from which the scripture is built-up by the sages. The scripture is given a special status of authority along with the inference because of the existence of majority of people believing the doctor without the intensive analysis of all the background education. Only minority is interested in doing the analysis of background. In view of the existence of these two separate groups, both inference and scripture exist as separate authorities. Every concept of the spiritual knowledge resulted only from the deep analysis of the sages, who are standing in the imaginable domain and are part and parcel of it. Hence, the concluding concepts of such analysis formed as scripture is also totally related to the people in the imaginable domain only. If the unimaginable domain cannot be touched due to its unimaginable nature, we cannot speak even a word of the unimaginable domain. In such case, we cannot say that God is unimaginable because this statement itself is a group of words and no word can touch the unimaginable domain. Based on the same logic, we cannot say even that the unimaginable God exists. Remember that the scripture is also in the imaginable domain only, which is constructed from the analysis of the concepts of imaginable domain and hence, the scripture does not belong to unimaginable domain. Therefore, rejection of the scripture means rejection of the science, which is the analysis of the imaginable domain.
2. Based on this problem, you cannot force us to accept the existence of God. If that is the conclusion of analysis based on perception and inference, we do not mind even to say that God does not exist. Let us follow the path of analysis irrespective of the result.
Reply of Shri Swami: We have just mentioned the problem and this does not mean that we are concluding like this due to the appearance of this problem. The problem is only just incidental appearance of it and we have not ended there only. You are impatient to here our analysis completely. The existence of God is based on the inference in which the world stands as the product (effect) and its cause (materialistic or Upadana and intellectual or Nimitta) is inferred. This is the concept of the second Brahma Sutra (Janmadyasya...) supported by the Veda (Yatovaa...).
3. We say that the inference here is not based on the perception. We have not seen the cause of the world directly. We have seen that the smoke is emitted from the fire in the kitchen. This is a direct perception and based on this we can say that the smoke coming from the hill indicates the existence of fire on the hill as the inference. But, here, we have not seen such direct link of the world and its cause elsewhere. Hence, let us say that the world exists by itself without any cause.
Reply of Shri Swami: Even some scholars of the logic have agreed God based on the inference. If you depend on the inference only neglecting all such scholars of logic, the failure of inference alone is seen in the example of snow-smoke (Baashpa), which does not show the fire through inference tested by perception (Avyapti). Moreover, the example of the fire and smoke is an item in the world, whereas you cannot have another world as another item since this world is infinite and one only.
4. Based on your last point, we say that the logic of inference tested by perception fails in the case of the world and hence let us safely conclude that the cause of the world cannot be inferred and hence world exists by itself as causeless item. You also admit God as the causeless item and therefore, you cannot contradict our side based on the existence of world, which is a causeless item.
Reply of Shri Swami: This leads to ad infinitum (Anavastha). Therefore, we stopg at the stage of God and not at the stage of the world because the world appears to be a systematic effect like a well-built house. The plan of the house requires the existence of the builder.
5. We say that the systematic plan of the world is based on the evolution, which is the development of an irregular system towards a systematic approach.
Reply of Shri Swami: Science says that the spontaneous tendency of the universe is towards irregularity of the system only, which is called as entropy. In such case, how can you say that the evolution is the spontaneous tendency of the universe, which is from irregularity towards regularity? We leave this contradiction to your wisdom. However, we can present the existence of God through inference based on perception in the imaginable domain directly. Let us take the example of Lord Krishna, Who is an item of the imaginable domain like us pervaded by the unimaginable God. The entry of unimaginable domain into the imaginable domain stands as the direct authority in recognizing the existence of the unimaginable God. The existence of unimaginable God in the imaginable Krishna is perceived by the unimaginable event performed by Him in lifting the huge hill by His tender finger. This miracle or unimaginable event proves the existence of unimaginable God directly. You should not throw away this miracle by saying that it is a story created by some person. The existence of so many miracles seen in this worldly life proves the existence of unimaginable event indicating the unimaginable God's power or unimaginable God Himself as its source. You can find the genuine miracles, which can be easily filtered from the magic performance. You should not say that lifting a hill is a huge miracle and small miracles cannot be compared to it. The explanation of the unimaginable (quality) miracle is one and the same whether it is big or small (quantity). Hence, this perception supports the inference of God as the creator of this systematic world.
6. We say that the concept of entropy is in the case of inert items, where as the concept of evolution is confined to living beings.
Reply of Shri Swami: The concept of the world should be uniform because the difference between the inert item and the living being is not accepted by you at the basic level because you say that the living being is also made of inert materials and processes of inert energy. At the basic level, the policy should be uniform. You say that the man is evolved from the monkey in course of time based on the theory of evolution. But, we say the reverse of this because a perfect sage existed in the beginning of the creation and in course of time, the sage is degraded to the present man, who is behaving like a monkey. The scripture says that perfect sages (like Manu and Sanaka) were created in the beginning of this universe. Therefore, we have to agree to the theory of entropy only, which is a tendency of proceeding from regularity (Dharma) to irregularity (Adharma) as the time proceeds from Krutayuga to Kaliyuga. You cannot say that the tail of monkey disappeared in the man in course of time due to evolution. Even in the time of the existence of monkeys, men without tails existed. Even now the monkeys exist with tails. If your concept is correct all the monkeys should have lost the tails based on the uniform reason of evolution. Why some monkeys only have lost the tails and became men? The concept of evolution should be uniform in all the monkeys. Hanuman is the best evolved human being in health of body and mind, but retained the tail. Hence, it is better to accept the concept of entropy as universal phenomenon. We respect the Science, which is a systematic analysis of creation, but not as analysis of the Creator and His activities. Any way, we are not touching this field because our main line is about the existence of unimaginable God proved through the unimaginable events of human incarnation. Let us not deviate from the main line. Still, this discussion is relevant in view of your projection of science over the scripture.
7. We like the conclusions coming from the Science and not from the Scripture. Today, the satisfaction comes from the scientific explanation and not from the scriptural logic.
Reply of Shri Swami: Science is the inference and Scripture is its conclusion. When Shankara argued with Mandana Mishra, one judge was sage Jaimini, who is the basic author of Purvamimaamsa. The followers of Purvamimaamsa do not agree in the existence of God. Hence, Jaimini was misunderstood as the atheist by his followers. The second judge was sage Vyasa, who was a perfect theist. Jaimini is one of the disciples of sage Vyasa. In such case, how this much difference existed between the theist Vyasa and supposed atheist Jaimini? This was the last clarification asked by Mandana Mishra. Shankara replied that Jaimini opposed the proof of existence of God merely by inference (logic) without touching the scripture, though the conclusion of both scripture and inference is one and the same, which is the existence of God. Jaimini criticized the scholars of logic, who established the existence of God by inference only and this appeared as if Jaimini opposed the existence of God. Jaimini liked the importance of scripture over the importance of logic. Otherwise, how Jaimini, the student of the theist, Vyasa, becomes an atheist? Similarly, Buddha kept silent about God to indicate God through silence, who is beyond words. This was misunderstood by His followers, who thought Buddha as an atheist. If you realize that the final conclusion of the logic or science is the philosophy or scripture, such misunderstandings vanish. Science and Scripture are exactly one and the same. The perception and inference constitute the Science like the medical education. The doctor is like the scripture, which reveals the conclusions of the logical analysis. If you follow the scripture, you will be like the patient following the doctor's advice. The faith in the scripture (doctor) avoids the unnecessary study of the medical education (logical analysis) and such a patient is wise and not blind. The scientific explanation of the scripture is possible everywhere. The tendency in the increase of entropy is the spontaneity of the nature as per the science. The same dry concept applied to death and life is beautifully explained in the verse “Maranam Prakrutih Sharirinaam, Vikrutih Jeevitamuchyate Budhaih”. This verse means that death is natural due to spontaneous tendency of increased irregularity and life is unnatural due to forced regularity. Science says that the spontaneous tendency of a natural process is towards the increase in the entropy, which is a measure of irregularity or randomness. The same concept is beautifully explained with the best example in the scripture. The five elements exist freely in the nature with full freedom indicating the highest irregularity or highest entropy. These five elements are forced to form the body that leads the life. The five elements in the body are not free with least entropy. The spontaneous tendency is to proceed back into the free state. This means that the tendency of the living body is always to disintegrate through death. Hence, death becomes the highest entropy and natural. The life of a living body has least entropy and therefore, indicates the unnatural state. Disease of the body, attacking it, is the frequent trial of the five elements to go into free state. The way of explanation in the scripture is through normal words, which are familiar to every human being. The same concept in science is through technical terms confusing the common man and educating the learned scholar only. Science misunderstood is atheism. Science well understood is the scripture of theism. Great scientists are always excellent philosophers. A true scientist has open mind towards the basic concept. He filters the genuine miracle from the magic show and agrees the miracle to be the unimaginable event indicating the unimaginable source called as God. He is not conservative and fanatic to the so called scientific concepts only. He disproves the magic to be the miracle and accepts the genuine miracle since the explanation is not possible in it. A false scientist is fanatic rejecting even the genuine miracle as magic. This conservative scientist, if made convinced about the genuine miracle, is so blind to say that the explanation for this miracle will come from science on some day in future. At least, he does not have even little open mind to accept the miracle till that day in future! If you have open mind, the science and scripture are one and the same. Science is the analysis and scripture is the conclusion of such analysis. Science is the best analysis of creation and is very useful in denying the false philosophies, which attempt to prove that some items (like awareness) of the imaginable creation are the unimaginable God. Thus, science is helpful in negating the false philosophies in the spiritual knowledge. Based on this success, science should not be egoistic to negate God or to interfere in explaining the activities of God like miracles.
8. Somehow, we are not convinced with the miracles about which we have a doubt that they are performed in very high talented way, which are magic only. Can you leave these miracles and show a solid scientific proof for the existence of the unimaginable God?
Reply of Shri Swami: Yes. We can give the solid scientific proof for the existence of unimaginable God. Science accepts that this cosmos or space is infinite. The infinity of the cosmos means that its boundary is unimaginable. Of course, you may say that the boundary of this cosmos is also made of the same material, inert energy or inert matter. When we say that the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable, it means that the material existing beyond the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable. If you touch the boundary of the infinite cosmos, you are touching the unimaginable material that exists beyond the cosmic boundary. If you have reached the boundary of the earth, it means that you have touched the water of the ocean. We do not say that the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable. When we say that the boundary of the cosmos is unimaginable, it means that the material present beyond the boundary is unimaginable, which cannot be touched. This is the reason for the infinity of the cosmos. You are unable to reach the cosmic boundary because you can never touch the unimaginable region, which is just beyond the cosmic boundary. This is called as Arundhati Vashishtha Nyaya, which means that by showing the visible Vashishtha star (imaginable boundary of the universe), you indicate thereby the adjacent invisible Arundhati star (unimaginable God). The cosmic vision shown by Krishna to Arjuna is mainly due to this only, which is the exhibition of the infinite cosmos or its unimaginable boundary. There is a beautiful verse in the scripture in the context of the praise rendered by angels to Lord Vishnu: Pratyaksho pyapari Chchedyo, Mahyaadirmahimaa tava, Aptavaaganumaanaabhyaam, Saadhyam tvaam prati kaa kathaa? The meaning is: Oh! Lord! Even though this cosmos is visible, its boundary is not achieved by us due to its infinity. This is the best example of your visible miracle establishing your unimaginable nature. You are achievable only by scripture and inference and therefore, we can never understand your unimaginable nature. This verse throws light on all the aspects explained above.
9. Ok. We agree in the existence of the unimaginable God through this solid proof given by you. But, how to accept the pleasure, anger, boring state etc., of God in the unimaginable domain? Can't you call them, at least, as the superimpositions?
Reply of Shri Swami: Once you have agreed in the existence of unimaginable God present in human incarnations like Lord Krishna, you have to accept the scripture or saying of the unimaginable God, in which the above mentioned feelings like happiness, anger, boring etc., are mentioned. Happiness (Priyohi...) and anger (taanaham...) are mentioned in the Gita, which is the word of God. In the same Gita, the Lord says that He can be understood from the Veda (Vedaishcha...) and the Veda says that God was bored (Na ramate...). Hence, all these feelings have to be accepted as real due to the words of God and already you have believed in the existence of God through the logical solid proof of infinite cosmos.