Posted on: 31 Jul 2021
Chapter-1 Chapter-2 Chapter-3 Chapter-4
Anūhya Parabrahma Jñānam (Spiritual knowledge of Unimaginable God Datta)
1) The word Brahman means the greatest, as per Sanskrit grammar (Bṛhi-vṛddhau). The greatest means the greatest among all items within creation, which is awareness or the soul. But the Creator, God, is greater than the created soul. Hence, God is the absolute greatest, whereas the soul is the greatest within creation. The soul is called parā prakṛti in the Gītā, which means that it is the greatest (parā) created item (prakṛti).
2) The soul can be called Brahman since it is the greatest among all the categories of items in creation. The greatest item within a small category in creation can also be called Brahman. For example, the Veda being the greatest among the Hindu scriptures is called Brahman. Food, life, mind, intelligence, bliss etc., are also called Brahman in their respective limited categories. Hence, we cannot specify only one particular item to be Brahman.
3) God is mainly called Brahman everywhere in scriptures. But God is not a created item. Hence, we cannot say that He is the greatest among all created items. He is indeed greater than the entire creation created by Him, even though He is not part of the whole category of created items. God is beyond creation and hence, God can be distinguished from the other ‘Brahmans’ by calling Him Parabrahman. Para means beyond creation and Brahman means the greatest item.
4) The word Parabrahman and the word Paraṃ Brahma used in the Gītā (Anādimat Paraṃ Brahma), are both one and the same. Śaṅkara also defined Parabrahman as the absolute unimaginable God, who cannot be expressed by any word, as a result of which, silence is the only expression (Mauna vyākhyā...) used to indicate Him. Any word can only express an imaginable item. No word can express the unimaginable God (Yato vāco…—Veda). The Gītā also says that nobody can know God (Māṃ tu veda na…). The Veda also says that God is unimaginable (Avijñātaṃ...).
5) In the Brahma Sūtras, it is said in the first sūtra that the enquiry about the Brahman is to be done. In the second sūtra, Brahman is defined as that Entity which creates, maintains and destroys the world. This definition does not reveal anything about the actual nature (svarūpa lakṣaṇam) of Brahman. It only describes the associated characteristic (taṭastha lakṣaṇam) of Brahman. If I ask you the identifying characteristic of Rāma and if you say that Rāma is the builder of this house, does it reveal any identity mark of Rāma? No! This means that the Brahma Sūtras also indirectly defined God as being the unimaginable One.
6) While answering questions here, the nature and standard of learning of the present generation is kept in view. When Śaṅkara and other preachers preached in the past, they too kept in view, the standard of learning of the receivers of their knowledge in those times. The context of the current generation is very important in giving good explanations.
7) The ancient standard used in acquiring and communicating knowledge was tarka or the ancient system of logic. The present standard is science. There is no difference between the ancient logic and science. In both, the common subject is the systematic analysis of creation. Of course, science is superior to ancient logic because the theoretical concepts in science have experimental proof.
8) For example, sound and volume were said to be the characteristics of space by ancient logic, but science tells us sound cannot travel in empty space and that collisions between the molecules of the medium such as air are necessary for the transmission of sound. Science even proves this concept experimentally. Science has also proved that awareness is only the work-form of the inert energy functioning in a specific device called the nervous system. It is like the case of electricity functioning in a specific machine called a grinding machine and getting converted into a specific work-form of the electricity, called grinding-work. But some ancient scholars had misunderstood awareness to be the eternal God.
9) Even in science, concepts and theories get replaced by more advanced concepts and theories over time. This is a natural tendency of both science and logic. Science may supersede logic in certain concepts because it is backed by experimental proof, but both science and logic fail to describe the unimaginable God. Hence, science is greater than mere theoretical logic, but it equally fails before the unimaginable God.
10) The reason why God’s nature is unimaginable is that space was generated from God (Ātmana ākāśaḥ...—Veda). It means that space did not exist in God before its generation. If space had existed in God before its generation, we could not have said that space was generated from God because it would have already existed in its cause (God). This does not mean that the effect (space) was generated from nothing (Asatkārya Vāda) because the cause (God) did exist before the generation of the effect (Satkārya Vāda). So, we are not saying that space was generated from nothing, but that space was generated from the God who existed before it.
11) Since space is absent in God, it means that God has no spatial dimensions and has no volume at all. You may try for millions of years to imagine an item without volume, but you cannot imagine it. Hence, God is unimaginable. This point makes space or the universe infinite, without an end. It means that even though space actually has limited boundaries, it constantly expands as we try to reach the boundary. This constant expansion of the universe is also spoken of by science. The reason space expands is that if we were to reach the boundary of space, we would touch the boundary of the unimaginable God. Reaching the boundary of the sea means touching the boundary of land. We cannot reach the boundary of space since we cannot touch the boundary of the unimaginable God. The wall worshipped in Islam indicates this concept that the boundary of the universe stands as God Himself.
12) If we follow a trail of smoke backwards, we will reach the cause of the smoke, which is fire. Similarly, if we travel along the diameter of the universe, which is estimated to be a huge number of light years by science, we will surely touch the boundary of the unimaginable God. We are not able to touch the boundary of space, not because the boundary is really infinite, but because touching the boundary of space means touching the boundary of the unimaginable God, which is impossible. Since the latter is impossible, the former becomes impossible. The created universe is not really infinite because its boundaries are known to the omniscient God.
13) This unimaginable God, Parabrahman, who is usually called Brahman in the scriptures, is the Absolute Truth. Anything other than Parabrahman does not exist, in an absolute sense. Everything else can only exist as the relative truth. The mud is the cause, which is the absolute truth, while the pot is the effect, which is the relative truth. This example does not give full information about the concept of Parabrahman and creation because the pot is more than just the mud. The mud particles in a baked mud pot are bonded together by bond energy. So, you need to take mud and the bond energy together as the cause of the pot, in order for it to stand as an analogy for the relativity of creation before Parabrahman. But there is a further limitation of the analogy. The mud is said to have entered the pot since the cause enters the effect. This rule of cause and effect is only observed in the world and again, is not applicable to the original concept. God did not enter the world like the mud entering the pot. Hence, no worldly example can be a perfect analogy for the original concept of God creating the world.
14) Another example given for understanding the original concept is the magic performed by a magician. This analogy is also not perfect since the magic shown by a magician is not real. It only appears to be real. Magic is actually false. It is a trick, which is known to the magician. But the ignorant spectators feel that the magic is real. Similarly, no soul can understand the actual principle behind this creation. Such inevitable and incurable ignorance of the soul is called māyā. This māyā does not affect God since God knows the principle behind creation. If the soul sees a rope as a snake in twilight, it is individual ignorance (avidyā), which is curable. But the principle of māyā can never be known by the ignorant human being, under any circumstances. On the other hand, the truth of a magic trick can be known by an ignorant spectator, if the spectator tries hard enough.
15) We can give a better example, which is of a person who is entertained by his own imaginary world. Even this is not a complete example because the imaginary world never appears as clear as the real-world to the person who created the imaginary world. But due to the omnipotence of God, this world, inspite of being unreal to Him, appears to be as clear and real to Him, as it appears to us. This unimaginable power of making the imaginary world appear as clear and real as the real-world, is called māyā. One might think that even for the person who has fallen asleep and is dreaming, the dream appears to be the real-world, at that time. But it cannot be considered to be a perfect example for God’s imaginary world appearing clear and real to Him. This is because, the dreaming person is ignorant about the false nature of the dream. But God has no such ignorance at all. God sees His imaginary world as clear and real, which is unlike the person who has created an imaginary world in his mind. God also has no ignorance, unlike the person who is asleep and dreaming. Hence, even these two examples are not perfect.
16) It is true that God is the only truth and that any second item other than Him, is non-existent, in an absolute sense. But due to His unimaginable power, the world created by Him appears fully clear and real to Him. The dreaming person enjoys the dream-world due to his ignorance. We cannot compare the human being of insignificant power to the omnipotent God and say that God too must be enjoying this world only due to His ignorance. God is enjoying His imaginary world without any ignorance and at the same time, the world appears clear and real to Him as a dream appears to an ignorant dreamer. But of course, God has no ignorance. Hence, the case of the omnipotent and unimaginable God cannot be compared to any human being existing in any state.
17) Before the creation of this world, God alone existed. He wanted entertainment as told in the Veda (Ekākī na ramate). So, He created a non-existent world, which appears to Him as if it were really existing. Being as good as real, creation provides full entertainment to God. If we say that the non-existent world was born, it is true, provided we accept that the world was born to give full entertainment to God. But unfortunately, some say, “That which was never born, took birth (Ajātaṃ jāyate...)”. It should have been stated as, “The non-existent world took birth (Asatyaṃ jāyate...)”. If you say that the world was not born (ajātam) at all, it means that the world is not giving entertainment to God. But the world was actually born and it appears as good as real to God, in order to give full entertainment to Him, even though it is non-existent from an absolute standpoint. This concept seems impossible, but it is true. The unimaginable power or the unimaginable nature of God makes the impossible possible. If you say that the world was not born since it is non-existent, from an absolute standpoint, you are considering God to be powerless like a human being who is governed by worldly logic.
18) Hence, God is ever-existent, while the world always remains non-existent from God’s point of view. But due to His omnipotence, the non-existent world appears to Him as clear as the real-world appears to us. Thus, He is capable of getting full entertainment, even from this non-existent creation. At the same time, He is fully aware that the world is non-existent and that is why He can perform miracles in this world. Only an Entity that is absolutely true can perform miracles in a creation that is relatively true. One absolute truth cannot perform miracles like creating a new item from nothing or making an existent item disappear and so on, in another, equally absolute truth. The fact that the world is non-existent to God is known from His ability to perform miracles. At the same time, the world is treated to be very clearly real since it is giving full entertainment to God.
19) Since the nature of the world is real and yet unreal with respect to God, it is said to be different from both real and unreal. We cannot say that the world is both real and unreal because it would be a self-contradiction. Hence, Śaṅkara said that the world is neither real nor unreal and termed it as mithyā. For God, we can say that the world is essentially unreal, and yet, apparently fully real, so that God, feeling that the world is real, entertains Himself. God feels that the world is real, because it appears to be intensely real, due to His unimaginable power (māyā) and not because God has ignorance. God has no ignorance. He enjoys the world, treating it to be fully real, and whenever He wishes to perform a miracle, the same world becomes unreal to Him.
20) The soul is a part of this world that is non-existent from an absolute standpoint. Hence, the world is as real to the soul, as the soul is to itself. The world always remains real to the soul and the soul cannot perform any miracle in this world. The soul enjoys this real world because it is actually real to the soul. The soul is a tiny part of this world and so, the soul’s power is negligibly small, as compared to the world. The soul is neither God nor a part of God. The soul is an item created by God. It is a tiny part of the entire created creation.
21) Māyā is the unimaginable power of God and God is unimaginable. Since any number of unimaginable items ultimately become only one unimaginable item, māyā is God and God is māyā, in the strictest sense. The unimaginable nature existing beyond space is God, whereas the same unimaginable nature expressed within creation, is māyā. Māyā means wonderful (maya-vaicitrye), which is the same as unimaginable. Due to this illusory māyā, the soul sees God as energy and the soul further sees some part of the energy as matter.
22) A rope may be seen as a snake by a soul in dim light, which is individual ignorance or avidyā. The soul can always turn on a torchlight and come out of the illusion of the non-existent snake. But by no amount of effort can the soul come out of the cosmic illusion (māyā) that causes the appearance of the non-existent energy and the non-existent matter. The soul can never see matter as energy and energy as God. While being entertained by the world, God feels that He is different from the world of energy and matter, but He also has full knowledge that He alone has become that energy and that the energy has further become matter. At all times, He maintains this realization. God is said to be the possessor of māyā, based on the worldly concept of power (sunlight) and the possessor of the power (sun). Hence, the Gītā says that God is possessor of māyā (Māyinaṃ tu...) and that the soul cannot control māyā (Mama māyā...). The Gītā also calls creation itself as māyā (Māyāṃ tu...) because the super illusions like God appearing to be energy and the energy appearing to be matter, is the very creation itself.
23) Since the soul is a part of such a creation, it can never get the status of God, no matter how much effort it puts in or how long it tries. It can become God only when God wishes to enter creation and become an Incarnation. Even after becoming an Incarnation, it should be noted that the soul has not ascended to become God. Instead, God has descended to become an Incarnation, by His will. God becomes the soul in the Incarnation, but the soul does not become God in it, even though the Incarnation is finally called God. God is the absolute existence, whereas the soul is a tiny part of the non-existence. Due to the ultimate non-existence of any second item other than God, God always remains the one and only existence (Ekamevādvitīyaṃ...—Veda). If you say that ‘Soul’ or ‘Ātman’ is another name of God, there is no objection to calling God as Soul, in that sense. But if you identify the soul separately and say that it is God, it is not correct.
Iti Datta Vedānte Brahma Parvaṇi Anūhya Parabrahma Jñānaṃ nāma dvitīyādhyāyaḥ.
The second chapter of the Brahma Parva in Datta Vedanta, which is the Knowledge of the Unimaginable God, is thus completed.