Shri Datta Swami

You are here: Jnana Saraswati | For-Intellectuals | Advanced Discourses

PARABRAHMA PANCHAKAM (The Unimaginable God)

Posted on: 11 Feb 2018
O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,

1) Jagatyatra chakshurdrushaam sannikarshaat,

Anuhyakriyaanaam anuhyam hi mulam,

Tadaakaashasimnah param dandadaayi,

Parabrahma vastvasti nunam tvanuhyam.

[In this world itself, unimaginable events called as miracles are seen by naked eyes and hence, there must be the source of these miracles, which is called as unimaginable God. Therefore, the unimaginable God has perception-authority, which is the basis for all authorities. Unimaginable means beyond imagination or logical analysis. Anything beyond space is unimaginable because any item beyond space does not have spatial dimensions and hence, volume. An item without volume can never be imagined by anybody even after concentrating for millions of years. Hence, we say that the unimaginable God is beyond the boundary of space or world. This concept must be kept in the mind of every human being so that one should know that nobody can escape the punishment to be given by the unimaginable God (in unimaginable ways using unimaginable power) for the sins done by the soul even though it is escaping the law here through its over-intelligence and trickish talent.

Unimaginable God and unimaginable power are not separate as in the case of imaginable items (like sun and sunlight) because two unimaginable items can never exist. Any number of unimaginable items makes only one unimaginable item. Nobody can say that one unimaginable item is fighting with another unimaginable item! Hence, when we say that the unimaginable God existing beyond the boundary of space or universe is showing miracles (unimaginable powers) in the space or universe, it does not mean that unimaginable God is different from the unimaginable power because God is beyond space and His power is in the space or world and hence, both are different. Both are not different since there can’t be unimaginable items more than one. This means that the unimaginable God exists beyond space and also can enter the space to show perceptional proof to the human beings existing in the space or world. Whether unimaginable God exists beyond the boundary of space or within the space, its physical existence is immaterial, which is not its inherent nature. ‘Beyond space’ means not the sense of physical area only. It also means beyond spatial dimensions or volume so that one can never imagine it. When it exists beyond the boundary of space, you can mean that: i) It is unimaginable having no spatial dimensions and also ii) It exists beyond the physical area of space. When it exists in the space, you can mean that: i) It is unimaginable having no spatial dimensions, and also, ii) It exists in the physical area of space or world. Having no spatial dimensions is its inherent nature (Swarupa Lakshanam). Existing beyond space or within the space is associated nature (Tatastha Lakshanam). Existence of an item having no spatial dimensions within the space is possible for its unimaginable power. We are using unimaginable God and unimaginable power as two entities only for clear understanding of souls habituated to the imaginable domain (in which possessor of the power and power are viewed separately) and such difference does not actually exist in the item.

‘Unimaginable’ itself means that any impossible work is possible to the unimaginable. This does not mean that the unimaginable God does everything whether it is proper or improper to show that He can do anything as a proof for His unimaginable nature or power. Even though He can do anything, He does only proper things. Otherwise, you will say that He has no capacity to discriminate proper things from improper things and hence, due to lack of this one capacity, He is not omnipotent, which means that He is not unimaginable. To give perceptional proof for His existence to human beings is a proper thing and hence, He does it by entering the world since entry into the world is not impossible for the omnipotent God.

You need not say that this world or space is infinite. If it is infinite, it must be infinite to unimaginable God also. If it is infinite to Him, He can’t be omnipotent since the entire world is not known to Him. Infinite means that its entire area must be not known. Hence, world or space is finite to Him since He knows it entirely. Anybody can’t create any item, which is not known to him completely! The space or world created by Him is infinite to the soul created by Him. When He told Arjuna that His creation is infinite (Naantosti mama divyaanaam - Gita), it means that the creation is infinite from the point of the soul only and not from the view-point of Himself. Moreover, world is a composite of three components:- matter, inert energy and awareness. Matter is composed of small particles. Inert energy and awareness (in fact, awareness is a work form of inert energy only) are also composites of small particles called as quanta. A composite must have boundary, which is the joined one side boundaries of the component particles. Hence, space or world is finite to God and is infinite to soul. Infinite means only that its boundary exists so far that it can’t be reached by the soul, which does not mean that the boundary is absent. Hence, there is no contradiction between the existence of God beyond the space and also within the space. The theory of constant expansion of space or universe also means that the impossibility of human being to reach the boundary of space or universe is not due to limitlessness of the boundary, but, is due to the impossibility of human being to touch the unimaginable domain beyond the boundary. This means as the human imagination runs to cross the boundary in order to touch the unimaginable domain, the boundary is extended constantly so that the human imagination can never touch the unimaginable God existing beyond the boundary.

Brahman means greatest worldly item in a worldly category like the Veda in scriptures (like this food, mind, intelligence, bliss etc., are Brahmans). Unimaginable God is absolutely greatest and hence, Brahman, being greater than every worldly greatest item. But, unimaginable God is not worldly item and is beyond world as denoted by the word ‘Para’. Hence, unimaginable God (Brahman) being beyond world (Para) is called as Parabrahman. This will help us to avoid confusion since Brahman is used to mean several greatest items in their categories. Shankara used this word (Maunavyakhyaa prakatita…) telling that Parabrahman can be expressed through silence only being unimaginable.

Hence, certainly the unimaginable entity called as Parabrahman exists.]

2) Anuhya kriyaah nohyajivasya drushtaah,

Sthitaah kasyachit tasya nohyena yogah,

Bahuhyadvitiyam tadekaadvitiyam,

Parabrahma vastvasti nunam tvanuhyam.

[These unimaginable miracles are not seen with every imaginable soul in this world except one selected soul. This means that all the souls are totally different from God except one selected soul with which God merges completely so that such selected soul acts as the source of these unimaginable miracles. Entry of unimaginable God into His created world is primarily to give perceptional proof for His existence to the souls, which can only grasp the items having perceptional authority as the basis. The Veda says about the creation of this world for His entertainment and also His entry into this world (Tat srushtvaa tadevaanu praavishat). If God entered this inert world as awareness, in such case: 1) In the chain of creation done by Him, it should not have been told that He created awareness from food (annaat purushah) and 2) Every soul or awareness must show the unimaginable miracles since God has become every soul. Therefore, the correct point is that after creating this inert world and souls also, He entered the world to identify with a specific selected soul only to exhibit these unimaginable miracles as a proof for His existence. The Gita also says that He or unimaginable God entered a specific human being (manushim tanumaashritam). The human being can’t be taken as general human being since only one selected human being like Krishna could show the miracles.

Hence, certainly the unimaginable entity called as Parabrahman exists.]

3) Pratichivido vyoma srushtyaapi chaasat,

Sadapyevamasmaat param neti saamyam,

Asat chaasato nohyate satyasya tuhyam,

Parabrahma vastvasti nunam tvanuhyam.

[Einstein, a great Western scientist, says that space is only conventional and relatively true with respect to matter and energy of the world. He says that space is geometrical only. It means that when two walls are destroyed, the space between two walls also disappeared. We don’t experience this dissolution because the space between some other two items existing beyond the two walls exists, which is grasped by us. In view of the simultaneous existence of space between these two items, the disappearance of space between two walls is not clearly experienced by us. This means that when all the matter and energy of the world disappear by dissolution, the space being relatively true with respect to matter and energy, disappears simultaneously just like the disappearance of chain along with disappearance of gold! As per his concept, matter and energy are absolutely true whereas space is relatively true with respect to matter and energy. As a scientist, matter and energy are taken as absolute reality since science does not recognize the existence of unimaginable God as absolute reality with respect to whom, matter, energy and space are relatively real only. The concept of absolute reality and relative reality is common for both the scientist and the philosopher. The difference is only that for a scientist, the absolute reality is matter with energy and the relative reality is space whereas for a philosopher, the absolute reality is unimaginable God and the relative reality is space along with matter, energy and awareness (awareness can be given a special status of entity even though it is just a specific work form of energy).

Our critical remarks on the scientific theory are: i) If matter and energy are absolute reality, they shall not disappear at all. Hence, to say that space disappears along with the disappearance of matter and energy does not arise at all. Of course, the scientist keeps the matter along with energy as absolute reality permanently and then, there is no possibility of disappearance of space along with disappearance of matter and energy. Therefore, this assumption becomes practically impossible and in such case, a theoretical assumption like this can’t be made. ii) Even while space exists, it is treated as unreal, which means that it does not exist. Then, how can you say that non-existent space exists while matter and energy exist? How can you also say that the space, which is already non-existent, disappears? Appearance (existence) and disappearance (non-existence) are meaningful in the case of an existent item only. We can say that an existent pot exists in the room, now. Later on, you can say that the same existent pot does not exist in the room, now. You can’t say that the horn of a rabbit exists now and doesn’t exist later on! Therefore, it is better to say that space is also relatively existent item like matter and energy. Space is made of very very subtle energy so that you are treating it as almost non-existent, but not as absolute non-existent. When matter and energy disappear, there is a possibility of sometime that vacant space without matter and energy can exist. Of course, there is every possibility of disappearance of space also just like that of matter and energy if God wishes so. Hence, space is not absolute reality, but is an independent relative reality like matter and energy, which can exist even if matter and energy disappear. You need not fear that if matter, energy and space disappear, there is no absolute reality at all since the absolute reality or unimaginable God exists always.

Non-existence is of four types: i) Prior non-existence (praagabhaava):- A pot doesn’t exist before its birth from mud. ii) Posterior non-existence (pradhvamsaabhaava):- A pot doesn’t exist after it is destroyed. iii) Mutual non-existence (anyonyaabhaava):- A pot doesn’t exist in cloth and cloth doesn’t exist in pot, and iv) Total non-existence (atyantaabhaava):- A horn of a rabbit, a son of barren lady, a lotus in the sky etc., can never exist. A relative reality is taken as an example of first three types of non-existence provided the absolute reality alone is not existing practically, but exists in theoretical assumption in view of the receiver of the relative plane. The absolute plane exists practically in the view of unimaginable God, but, doesn’t exist practically in view of the soul, which experiences practically the relative plane only. The human being in the dream experiences practically the reality of the dream only and does not experience the reality of the external world. In this same time of dream of a person, another person existing in the external world experiences its reality simultaneously. The dream person is the soul and the external person is God. You cannot take the dream person as external person simultaneously in the same time. The advaita philosopher is confused here by taking the dream person and the external person to be one in the same time simultaneously. A person caught in the dream can’t experience the external world simultaneously in the same time. Moreover, in the concept God is unimaginable and in comparison, both the souls (soul in the dream as well as the soul in the external world) are imaginable awareness only. The same relative reality becomes the example of fourth type of non-existence (total non-existence) provided the absolute reality alone exists practically. Forcible ignorance (ajnaana vikshepa) of the absolute reality can exist in theoretical assumptions (ajnaana aavarana), which totally disappears when the absolute reality alone exists practically. The practical existence of unimaginable God alone can be taken as the possibility of situation before this creation (in view of the receiver of the relative plane). Once this creation is made, the total ignorance of absolute reality is possible with all the common worldly souls. Even if you take a realized soul like Shankara Himself, the present situation is not before the creation of the world. Hence, the knowledge of absolute reality exists in theoretical assumption whereas the forcible existence of ignorance of absolute reality continues simultaneously. While Shankara performed a miracle, the practical existence of absolute reality simultaneously along with the practical existence of relative reality continues, which is possible for the unimaginable God merged with Shankara! When Shankara entered the bolted doors of the house of Mandana Mishra, the doors became totally non-existent with respect to Shankara, who became one with the unimaginable God. Both the side walls of the gate existed to Shankara as the human being. This is simultaneous display of unimaginable (absolute plane) and imaginable (relative plane) natures of human incarnation like the dual nature of electron.

Shankara gave a beautiful example for theory (aavarana) and practical (vikshepa). A person after awakening from a dream in which a tiger was jumping on him continues to shiver for a long time even after awakening from the dream and even after realizing that the tiger is unreal. Hence, unreal item, even after theoretical realization, can produce real experience! After awakening from the dream, the person realized that the tiger is unreal and such realization is theoretically true and hence, we can say that theoretical ignorance (ajnaana aavarana) is gone. He continues to shiver even after realizing the unreality of the dream tiger since the force of the ignorance (ajnaana vikshepa) is not still destroyed.

Anyway, in both the above cases, there is one common point in the end. Let space disappear along with matter and energy (as per Einstein) or let space disappear after sometime after the disappearance of matter and energy (as per Shankara), the ending common point is that after the disappearance of space, the situation existing is unimaginable (which is after the dissolution of this creation or before creation of this creation), which means that any item beyond space (beyond spatial dimensions having no volume) is always unimaginable for any soul. This common point that God is beyond the concept of space and is unimaginable must be acceptable to both science and philosophy.

Hence, certainly the unimaginable entity called as Parabrahman exists.]

4) Abhaave kruteh kaaranam drushyatetra,

Nahetuha ekaambarasya svabodham,

Akaaryasya hetaavamaanam mataikam,

Parabrahma vastvasti nunam tvanuhyam.

[In this world, we see the existence of cause when its product or effect is destroyed. The mud exists and is seen when its product, the pot, is destroyed. Food is the cause and awareness is its product. When awareness disappears in death, we see the dead body, which is a form of taken food. The plant (cause) exists even after its product, food (fruit), is destroyed. The soil (cause) exists even after its product, plant, is destroyed. Like this, we can travel from awareness, the last product, to its first cause, the unimaginable God, in sequence. We can conveniently ascend the chain of creation from bottom-awareness to food, then from food to plant, then from plant to earth or soil, then from soil to water, then from water to fire, then from fire to air and then from air to space. The final cause, unimaginable God, is the cause for space, which is noted as per the sequential chain of cause and effect while passing from the final product to the first cause as said in the Veda (Aatmana aakaashah… Annaat purushah). Starting from awareness to space, we can see the existence of cause and existence of its effect on production and disappearance of effect after destruction and appearance of its cause. But, we can’t even imagine (not to speak of seeing) the disappearance of space after its destruction and appearance of its cause, the unimaginable God. The destruction of effect itself means appearance of its cause. Destruction of pot itself means appearance of its cause, the mud. Hence, destruction or disappearance of space itself means appearance of unimaginable God. Hence, we can never imagine the disappearance of space or appearance of unimaginable God. When pot is destroyed, you can’t find it in the mud. The mud has the capacity to give rise to pot, but doesn’t have the pot in it. Capacity to give rise an item itself is not the item. Hence, the school of satkaarya vaada shall be understood as the presence of the capacity to generate an effect or product in the cause is not the effect or product itself! Therefore, you can’t find space in the unimaginable God. It means that God has no spatial dimensions or volume and hence, such item without volume must be unimaginable only.

The unimaginable God is imaginable to Himself and thus, there is a spectator of unimaginable God, who is unimaginable God Himself. If there is no spectator at all for any item, such an item is justified to be called as non-existent. The case of unimaginable God is not like this to be said as totally non-existent. The Veda says that the knower of unimaginable God is the unimaginable God alone (Brahmavit Brahmaiva bhavati). Unfortunately, the ambitious devotees reversed this statement to say that the knowable awareness is God and its knower is God! The cause of the unimaginable nature of God is the crudeness of the limited intelligence of human being. Hence, there is no absolute unimaginable nature in the unimaginable God. The reason for this unimaginable nature is not the real unimaginable nature of God, which is non-existent, but, the real cause is the limitation of the intelligence of the human being. If the simultaneous position and momentum of the electron are unable to be calculated by any human being, the reason is the limitation or crudeness of the equipment with the help of which only the human being is able to calculate. You should not say that the calculation is not done by any human being and hence, it must be non-existent in the item (electron) itself. It is not correct because both the values can be simultaneously calculated by God! The inability to calculate the simultaneous values of electron or to imagine the unimaginable nature of God belongs to the human being only and not to everyone, including God. If you are unable to understand something, you cannot negate its very existence since there is the ultimate reference (God) to understand it. The unimaginability belongs to the human being and not to the God!

Every religion projects an imaginable item as God. The difference and plurality is possible in the imaginable domain. If God is understood as unimaginable, there can’t be plurality in unimaginable items. Any number of unimaginable items must be one unimaginable item only and hence, the unimaginable God of all religions is forced to be one only. This brings the fundamental unity and correlation among all religions of the world.

Hence, certainly the unimaginable entity called as Parabrahman exists.]

5) Chitaa karma kartaapyanuhyam cha vetti,

Bahirbodhamatraat na chinnaagnirattaa,

Paraakaashalaabho na boddhum na shakyam,

Parabrahma vastvasti nunam tvanuhyam.

[Awareness (knowledge) is the process of knowing (kriyaa or jnaanam or druk) self or other object (karma or jneyam or drushyam) by the knower (kartaa or jnaataa or drashtaa). In a human being, the process of knowing is done by energetic pulses, called as neurons (like photons of light energy). These pulses are stored in brain, which is called as knower or subject. If you analyze the knower carefully, the knower is also the group of pulses stored in the brain and hence, there is no difference between knower and knowledge. Knower is not the brain, which is the container of the pulses. Knower is the group of these pulses only, which have the capacity of knowing. The brain is called as knower in approximate sense. The information is stored in the electromagnetic disk of the computer and when we say that the computer is presenting the information, the subject is the computer or electromagnetic disk or the pulses of the information itself. If the object is also the subject as in the case of self-awareness, the triputi or the triad of subject, process and the object become one only. If the object is other than the knower, two items only result, which are the knowledge (or knower) and the object to be known. Whether the number of items is two or one, the items are imaginable in the case of a human being like computer. If it is the case of unimaginable God, the same story of the number of items, two or one, exists. But, in the case of self-awareness of unimaginable God, all the three items becoming one are unimaginable only because in the unimaginable God, there is no existence of brain and nervous system (matter) and neurons (inert energy being converted into nervous energy or awareness). Only one item called as unimaginable God exists. In the case of three items becoming two items as in the case of awareness of external imaginable world of unimaginable God, two final items exist, which are unimaginable God and imaginable world. In the case of imaginable human soul also in the case of awareness of external world, two items exist, which are imaginable soul and imaginable world. Hence, whether it is unimaginable God or imaginable human being, both the cases are similar as far as the number of items is concerned, which means that in self-awareness, only one item exists whereas in the awareness of external world, two items exist. The difference is only that in the case of unimaginable God, both knower and process of knowing are unimaginable whereas in the case of imaginable human being, both knower and process of knowing are imaginable.

Advaita philosopher:- Whether it is self-awareness or the awareness of external world, in both the cases of unimaginable God and ordinary human being, the common item is ‘just to know’ (jnaanamaatram). By this, we can say that ordinary soul is God.

Datta Swami:- We agree to your point that a simple external similarity, ‘to know’, exists in both God and soul. The knower, actual process of knowing (mere knowing is an external similarity only and not the internal similarity of mechanism of the process of knowing) and the object (if self) are unimaginable in God and imaginable in soul. If the object is not self and happens to be the external world, there is oneness in the object, which is the external world. If you leave the object, the knowers (subjects) and the actual processes of knowing by the knower have no single similarity because God is unimaginable and the soul is imaginable. Hence, you can’t bring any similarity between unimaginable and imaginable knowers just by taking ‘mere knowing’ as the similarity. You can speak of comparison between two imaginable subjects by taking any trace of similarity. You don’t understand the unimaginable subject at all and how can you take it as comparison, which is always imaginable? Such false attempt made for comparison resulted in feeling that the imaginable awareness or a soul is the unimaginable awareness or God. The misleading factor, which is common in both God and soul, is this external similarity ‘just to know’.

Advaita Philosopher:- Anything that knows must be awareness. Anything that can’t know must be inert as we observe in the world. Hence, God is awareness since He knows everything (omniscient) and also that He thought to create the world.

Datta Swami:- God is beyond space and unimaginable. How can you equate Him to an imaginable item of this world and apply the logic drawn from the imaginable items to Him? He is beyond the worldly logic (atarkyah - Veda) and you can’t decide Him as awareness based on the worldly logic. He is unimaginable and omnipotent. He can know anything or can think anything due to His omnipotence derived from unimaginable nature. It is said that God eats (destroys) this entire world. By this, you can’t decide Him as the fire, which eats everything (sarva bhakshaka). Without being fire, He can destroy everything due to His omnipotence.

Advaita Philosopher:- The soul or imaginable awareness is creating dream space. In the dream, the dream space is felt as real. On awakening from the dream, the soul realizes the dream-space as unreal. Similarly, this soul feeling this worldly-space as real will experience this as unreal when it awakens and becomes God.

Datta Swami:- The fundamental defect in your argument is that the soul or imaginable awareness is experiencing both dream-space in dream and this worldly-space after awakening from the dream. Hence, the above statement is correct due to both the experiences gained by the soul. When you say that the soul will realize this worldly-space as unreal after awakening, both such experiences (experience of real space as real and experience of this real space as unreal) are not attained by any soul! The only experience of the soul is this worldly-space. The soul is entering the worldly-space from the dream-space. But, the soul is not entering into another ultimate real space to realize this worldly-space as unreal. The entry of the soul into another more real space from this unreal worldly-space is only your imagination and not a practical truth experienced! Moreover, you must know that the awareness is a specific work form of inert energy functioning in a specific functioning nervous system (just like grinding work is a specific work form of electrical energy while functioning in specific functioning grinding machine) and is thus a form of energy called as nervous energy, which needs space for its existence by propagation. When this worldly-space disappears, you can’t say that this nervous energy becomes unimaginable God, who is beyond space since such practical experience doesn’t exist. If you say that another more real space is existing beyond this worldly space, since awareness requires space for its existence, you have to allow an infinite number of spaces, which is a defect called as ad infinitum (anavasthaa dosha). Even to assume, the disappearance of this worldly-space is always unimaginable and hence, this proposal can’t be allowed even as an assumption by imagination!

Advaita Philosopher:- When God becomes human incarnation, You say that perfect monism exists between unimaginable awareness (God) and imaginable awareness (soul). This means that the imaginable awareness or soul becomes the unimaginable awareness or God. In such perfect monism, the imaginable awareness or soul exists in the absence of space also since it has become unimaginable awareness or God. Hence, space is not needed for the existence of imaginable awareness. Hence, the imaginable awareness or soul is beyond space and is God at least in the human incarnation. Since every soul has the possibility of becoming human incarnation, every soul can be assumed as God, who is beyond space.

Datta Swami:- In the human incarnation, the imaginable awareness is not becoming unimaginable awareness by crossing the unimaginable link between God and space. The human being has not ascended to become God. It is reverse concept. The unimaginable God crosses the unimaginable link between Him and space and is becoming the imaginable awareness by His omnipotence. Therefore, human incarnation is called as descended God or avataara and not called as ascended human being or uttaara.

Alternatively, another explanation is possible in which in the case of monism between God and soul in human incarnation, the imaginable awareness of soul can disappear just like in the time of deep sleep since the functioning machinery (nervous system) does not function. When perfect monism is achieved, the unimaginable awareness alone remains and the imaginable awareness disappears due to non-functioning nervous system. Alternatively, even the functioning nervous system can become ineffective to generate awareness by the will of omnipotent God (just like a defective grinding machine functions, but is unable to grind the material). Now, you can say that perfect monism exists because only the unimaginable awareness exists in the inert human body. The imaginable awareness remains as basic inert energy only (soul or atman is basic inert energy of the awareness and individual soul or jiva is the awareness generated as a bundle of ideas) and becomes a part of the inert body only. In such inert body, only unimaginable awareness or God exists by which you can conclude the perfect monism. Here, the unimaginable awareness is not converted into imaginable awareness (avyaktam vyaktimaapannam… Gita). The unimaginable awareness alone is leftover in the human body and it is misunderstood as imaginable awareness due to the human body surrounding it. Due to the medium, the unimaginable awareness is taken by everybody as imaginable awareness or soul. In such situation, ignorant people influenced by the visible medium can say that the unimaginable awareness has become the imaginable awareness. When Krishna told the Gita, this condition resulted so that only the unimaginable awareness is preaching the Gita (Bhagavat Gita or Gita preached by the unimaginable God) and hence, everywhere the ‘I’ indicated the ultimate unimaginable God only. When the war was over, Arjuna asked Krishna to repeat the Gita and in such time, the unimaginable awareness is detached and is silent (you can’t say that the unimaginable awareness turned into inert energy!) whereas the imaginable awareness of Krishna alone is active. Hence, Krishna told that He could preach the Gita in that divine state only and that now, in ordinary human state, He cannot repeat it! Hence, perfect monism can be also explained logically in this way even without referring to the unimaginable power of God to make any impossible thing as possible! You can find this point in the worldly experience also that a human being possessed by ghost speaks as if he is ghost forgetting himself.

Advaita philosopher:- You told “The word ‘avyakta’ means unimaginable God also. Avyakta means ‘not grasped’. If something is not grasped by eyes, it can be called as avyakta. If something is not grasped by intelligence or imagination, it can be also called as avyakta since the word is confined to the meaning ‘not grasped’ only. It does not refer by which it is grasped”. You have also told that this word is used in Gita for unimaginable God (avyaktaahi gatih duhkham) where it means that it is very difficult to worship unimaginable God. It is also told by Veda that the imaginable awareness (purusha) is greater than the unimaginable God (avyaktaat purushah parah - Veda). Hence, we say that the imaginable awareness is the ultimate God and conclude that God is imaginable awareness only. Veda also says that there is nothing greater than imaginable awareness or soul (purushaat na param kimchit).

Datta Swami:- When the unimaginable God merged with a selected soul or imaginable awareness like Krishna, such human being becomes God by perfect monism as explained above and such specific human being is only called as purusha in the Veda. The purusha referred in the Veda is not ordinary imaginable awareness or soul. Such human incarnation like Krishna is said to be the ultimate God. Here, the greatness goes to the unimaginable God merged with an imaginable medium, the human being or Krishna. The greatness is not meant for every ordinary imaginable awareness or soul. This means only that the mediated God is better than non-mediated unimaginable God since the former is worshipped easily by devotees and the latter can never be worshipped by any soul in the creation including angels. The word ‘purusha’ in this special context of the Veda is not referred to every soul or every imaginable awareness in this world. The word purusha refers to a specific soul only, who has become God by the process of incarnation through perfect monism as explained above in this special context of the Veda. In the process of creation of world by God, it is said that purusha is generated from food and in that context, this word means imaginable awareness or ordinary soul. In the context of the Purusha Sukta, the word purusha referred there means again mediated God or incarnation. You have to take the sense of the word as per the context.

Advaita Philosopher:- How Veda said that an ignorant soul like Svetaketu is God (Tat tvam asi)?

Datta Swami:- Who told that Svetaketu is an ignorant soul? He was a great philosopher and his wife was also a great scholar of scriptures. His father and father-in-law were great spiritual preachers. He participated in several spiritual discussions as per the Veda. Since God is mainly identified by the excellent spiritual knowledge, he is praised as God. We are not objecting for every human soul to become God. If God wishes to become human incarnation, any soul selected by Him can become God. We are only objecting you saying that every human soul is God already (who has forgotten that he is God)! We are only saying that a specific soul like Krishna is God. The pre-requisite of the soul to become God is that the soul shall never wish to become God. It is the wish of God only to do some specific work in this world for the welfare of spiritual souls. For such specific work, He selects a soul to become Himself for doing such specific work. The grace of God falls on such soul to become human incarnation (Eshwaraanhugrahadeva), which never wishes to become God and always wishes to remain as His servant only in doing His work. It is a reward given by God and not the reward aspired and achieved by the soul. Shankara told that God can’t be achieved by effort (Nahi saadhyam Brahma). However, if you still treat Svetaketu as an ignorant soul, the verb ‘asi’ means blessing given by his father to his son that his son shall become God (by the grace of God) in the very near future (present tense also denotes the immediate future tense).

Vishishtaadvaita Scholar:- The unimaginable God merged with the first energetic body called as Narayana (of course, Narayana is also called as Hiranyagarbha or Sadaashiva or Eshwara or Datta also), which is beyond nature (apraakruta shariram due to unimaginable nature of unimaginable God, but, they treat Narayana Himself as the ultimate God having unimaginable nature or power by Himself). Apart from this body (like subtle body of human being), Narayana has this world also as another external body (like gross body of the human being). In the cosmic vision, God showed the entire creation as His body as uttered by Him also (Mama dehe gudaakesha…). The Vishishtaadvaita means similarity between God having the world (containing inert and non-inert items) and human being having the gross body (containing inert and non-inert items). This philosophy means the similarity between two items possessing bodies having inert and non-inert components (sthula chidachit-sukshma chidachit vishishtayoh advaitam saadrushyam). This similarity between God in cosmic vision (Vishwarupa) and ordinary human being like Svetaketu represented as oneness by metaphor can be the explanation of the above Vedic statement (Tat tvam asi).

Dvaita philosopher:- The first energetic body can be treated as the body of God. If you take this world also as body of God, the body of God is disturbed or wounded whenever a demonic soul creates disturbance or hurts the souls of the world. Hence, this world is not the body of God, but, is only an external object created by Him like the pot created by the pot-maker using mud or the root source, space or subtle energy, as the material. Hence, God is only intellectual cause (pot-maker) and not the material cause (mud).

Datta Swami:- Both of you must be correlated. This world is not actually the body of God since the first energetic body is already existing for God. Hence, you need not worry about wounding of the body by a demon wounding the world. But, this world created by God is very dear to Him and He treats this world as His own body. If somebody disturbs or hurts this world by doing sins, God is affected so intensively that He feels as if His own body is hurt or wounded. This concept is represented by God through the cosmic vision and also by His statement. Hence, the contradiction is removed.

The Vishishtaadvaita scholar says that the similarity between God having world as His body and a soul having his gross body is the meaning of the word ‘Vishishtaadvaita’. If it is similarity only, Ramanuja could have termed this as Vishishta aupamya, which means similarity between the two. If you say that both the compared items can be indicated as one in the metaphor (just like the member of Lions club is called as lion), Ramanuja could have told this as Vishishta rupaka. The word ‘advaita’ means monism or oneness. Such oneness also exists in human incarnation like Krishna and hence, Ramanuja used this word (perfect monism). This word Vishishtaadvaita can also mean special monism in such case (vishishtam advaitam). By taking Svetaketu as an ordinary soul and denying perfect monism between God and soul everywhere, you shall become a criminal by denying the monism between God and soul in the case of Krishna. It is not much serious to praise an ordinary soul as God, but, it is very very serious to deny a genuine case like Krishna as God. A lower item can be told as higher item, but, the reverse shall not be told, which is said as sin in the Brahma Sutras (Brahma Drushtirutkarshaat). Ramanuja will never overlook to use the word monism in the case of such important concept.

When the Vishishtaadvaita scholar or Dvaita scholar takes the mediated God (Narayana) as the starting point, the space was already created, which is subtle energy, called as mula prakruti or the root source material for the creation. From this view, there is nothing wrong to say that God is intellectual cause (nimitta) only since the material cause (space) was already created and available for the creation. But, when we consider the creation of the subtle energy or space from the unimaginable God in the very beginning itself, we have to agree that the unimaginable God is both intellectual and material cause (upadaana) like a magician or a spiritual sage creating illusory city through unimaginable power (the link between God and space is also unimaginable) as told by Shankara. Hence, all the three philosophies are correlated.

Narayana, with His first created energetic body (world need not be taken as body) also can be called as gross (sthula chidachit vishishta since His body is made of inert energy as well as non-inert awareness) and a human being or soul with its body can be called as subtle (sukshma chidachit vishishta since the body of human being is made of inert matter and energy and non-inert awareness). If you take ordinary human being and Narayana, the word ‘Advaita’ can be taken as oneness through metaphor. But, if the same human being is Krishna, with whom Narayana perfectly merged, the word ‘advaita’ here means perfect monism. The word ‘advaita’ is more effective in the perfect monism as in the case of Krishna than the monism through metaphor as in the case of ordinary human being. Hence, the stress of the word ‘advaita’ in vishishtaadvaita in the heart of Ramanuja is more towards perfect monism between Narayana and Krishna than monism through metaphor between Narayana and ordinary human being. If you take Madhva, He is a great devotee of Hanuman, who worshipped Rama (human incarnation) only and Rama stands for perfect monism with Narayana. He was also a great devotee of Krishna, who stands similarly for the perfect monism with Narayana. The main point here is that the unimaginable God merged with the first energetic body, called as Narayana (or Hiranyagarbha or Sadaashiva or Eshwara or Datta or Father of Heaven) and in the further energetic or human incarnations unimaginable God does not enter the medium directly, but enters through the first energetic incarnation, called as Narayana. Ramanuja and Madhva selected the word Narayana because we are in the middle step of the creation ruled by God. Creation of world by Brahma is in past tense. Destruction of world by Shiva is in future tense. The present tense is the world being ruled by Narayana. Except this one point, both Ramanuja and Madhva never differentiated Narayana from Hiranyagarbha or Sadashiva or Eshwara or Datta. Only their followers are showing difference with ignorance. If you take the case of Shankara, He directly praised both Vishnu and Shiva through several prayers. The word ‘aum’ stands for the absolute God having the three capacities of creation or Brahma or A, ruling or Vishnu or U and destruction or Shiva or M. When this Aum is associated with three words (vyaahrutis) called as Bhuh (matter), Bhuvah (energy) and Suvah (awareness), it indicates the human incarnation in which God Datta with three capacities is mediated by human body made of matter, energy and awareness.

The Veda says that God is unimaginable through several statements (yasyaamatam…, yato vaacho…, manasaa saha…, naishaa tarkena… etc.) and the same is told in the Gita by the direct voice of unimaginable God that nobody knows Him (maam tu veda na kashchana). The Brahma Sutras also say that God is unimaginable by giving associated characteristic (tatastha lakshanam) of God by saying that God is He, who created, rules and will destroy this world (janmaadyasya yatah), which is not the inherent characteristic (swarupa lakshanam) for direct identification. All the three sacred scriptures (Prasthaana Trayam) mention that the absolute God is unimaginable without any medium (absolute plane). This does not mean that the mediated God is not the absolute God since the absolute God merged totally with the medium through perfect monism (relative plane).

Hence, certainly the unimaginable entity called as Parabrahman exists.]

6) Sarvam Shri Datta devena,

Proktamaksharamaksharam,

Yasho me daatumaacchannah, satyaavishkaaravaagaham.

[In all the spiritual knowledge so far delivered by Datta Swami, only God Shri Datta spoke every letter by letter. God Datta is very rigid to give fame of His work to Datta Swami by hiding Himself in Datta Swami. Datta Swami is also equally rigid in speaking out this hidden reality so that the fame shall go to the real author only.]

 
   

Browser Compatibility: Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome and IE10+ on all Desktops, Mobiles and Tablets

Visitor Statistics

free hit counters

Copyright: © 2003–2019 Shri Datta Swami