Posted on: 26 Jan 2016
Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
[Answer to Shri Anil’s Question No.6 (in Message on January 10, 2016) Continues Part-3]
Shri Swami replied: When we do the scientific analysis of infinite space, Myself and the scientist should have open mind. Open mind means that both of us should not have prefixed conclusions of the concept. The analysis means the research done by both of us together with mutual co-operation like friends to find out the truth without any prejudice and bias and with firm belief that the final truth investigated by both of us will benefit both at the end. I am sure that the scientist, unlike atheist, always has open mind to accept the resultant conclusion at the end, whatever it may be through his calm mind. Here, the atheist is problematic since he is filled with full emotion about a prefixed concept with bias and prejudice. Such emotional mind can never do the scientific analysis, which requires perfect peace in the mind there by preserving all the energy without wastage through emotions. In the emotional mind, the fear and anxiety for the probable defeat of the personal concept create lot of tension, which raises the internal energy (E) to such high value so that the quantity of energy (Q) available with the person for conversion into work becomes zero. In such case, the brain of emotional fellow does not work because all the Q is converted in to E making the work of brain W zero according to the first law of Thermodynamics (Q=E+W). Therefore, in this discussion, emotion should be totally avoided to make E=0 so that all the Q is converted in to W (Q=W). Such calm state of mind can be achieved only by destroying the prejudice and rigidity of a prefixed bias concept, which is the source of emotion.
Scientist: Einstein feels that space is absolutely nothing and relatively exists as geometrical item with respect to the existence of items of matter or items (particles or waves) of energy. When matter and energy disappear, the relative space also disappears. But, such a situation is hypothetical only and never happens since we feel that this cosmos itself is without any cause and is ultimate eternal. There is no need of God to bring Him as the cause of this cosmos. At the maximum, we can keep energy in the place of God.
Shri Swami: When space bends around the boundaries of an object, such bending is possible when space is something since nothing can bend. Bending of nothing is also nothing. This is only our opinion and we are not rigid about this non-spiritual concept, which is your concept only. Einstein feels that as soon as matter and energy disappear, the relative space also disappears. The same conclusion is also expressed by us with a minute difference because we say that when matter and energy disappear, space also disappears since space is also a very subtle form of energy. Disappearance of energy means the disappearance of both gross (light, heat, magnetism, electricity and all other electromagnetic radiations etc.,) and subtle (very minute undetectable energy existing as space) forms of energy. In our feeling, the theory of relativity is not expressed at all in this context. This does not mean that the theory of relativity does not exist. We are fans of theory of relativity and say that the entire cosmos including space (as subtle form of energy) is relatively true with respect to God. We say that the space is relatively true with respect to God like cosmos and we do not say that space is relatively true with respect to matter and energy since matter & energy are also relatively true with respect to God. In the absence of God, the relative cosmos does not exist at all. We explain this theory of relativity till the extreme point of cosmos: the wall exists relatively w.r.t. bricks. A brick exists relatively w.r.t. to crystals, a crystal exists relatively w.r.t. atoms, atom exists relatively w.r.t. sub-atomic particles, a sub-atomic particle exists relatively w.r.t. energy and energy exists relatively w.r.t. God. Scientist stops with energy and we go further to one more step, which is the unimaginable God. The geometrical space of Einstein means that the space between two walls gets destroyed as soon as the two walls are destroyed. But, we do not experience the destruction of this space since the space between some other two items existing beyond the two walls exists. The subtle energy is so minute that it can be treated as nothing and this makes a correlation between our concept of space and the concept of geometrical space of Einstein, who is a true believer in God. His attempt was to bring the theory of relativity (Mithyaa) of Shankara in to the field of science without crossing the limits of science.
The dissolution or disappearance of cosmos is avoided by you due to the fear that if such disappearance is accepted, the unavoidable question is that how do you imagine such situation. We say that such situation of disappearance of cosmos is possible and after that the situation is unimaginable. We frankly accept the unimaginable domain after such desolation of cosmos. You are careful to avoid the possibility of such dissolution of cosmos in order to escape from the acceptance of unimaginable domain. We say that the cosmos is born from God and before the creation of cosmos, again we accept the same unimaginable domain called as God. You do not accept the birth of cosmos because energy can neither be created nor destroyed as per your law of conservation of energy. By keeping the eternality of energy as the basis, you avoid the unimaginable situation before the creation of energy and after disappearance of energy.
Scientist: As you say that your God is neither created nor destroyed, we say that the energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You stop with God as the ultimate cause and we stop with energy as ultimate cause. To avoid the ad-infinite (endless chain of cause-effect...) you stopped with God and for the same reason we stopped with energy. This cosmos is the God for us. This cosmos has no beginning and exists as infinite. The creation of all other forms from energy is the process of creation in our concept. We also believe the theory of relativity of all the items mentioned by you in the sequence of a chain starting from wall and ending with God, which is in toto acceptable to us and the only minute change is dropping the God form the end of chain and keeping the energy as its end. We also do not mind much about the space whether it is nothing or very subtle form of energy treated as nothing.
Mud Material Cause — Pot Maker Instrumental Cause
Shri Swami: It is good that you have presented your concept perfectly based on scientific analysis and we congratulate you for such neat presentation, which may win or get defeated. Playing the game well is to be congratulated irrespective of victory or defeat. We are provoked to ask you regarding some points: 1) You said that energy is the ultimate cause of all forms of cosmos, which are administered in systematic way even in the absence of the instrumental cause (Nimitta) even though energy stands as the material cause (Upaadaana). Mud is the material cause and pot maker is the instrumental cause. Energy exists in all the forms of cosmos as material cause just like mud exists in all the forms like pot, jug, wall etc. In the world, you are seeing that the creation of forms requires both causes. In such case, why do you deny the instrumental cause and restrict the process of creation to the inert material cause only. 2) You say that energy is infinite. As per your theories only, the energy is either in the form of waves or particles following wave mechanics and particle nature respectively. If the energy exists in the form of finite particles or finite waves, the composite of finite parts should be also finite. The wall is finite since it is the composite of finite bricks. The brick is finite because it is the composite of finite crystals and so on..... The same fate happens even if it is the composite of finite waves. The reason in this argument is that the edges of the composite should have been constructed by the finite parts especially in absence of any other type (infinite since part can never be infinite) of parts. In this case, energy cannot be infinite.
Scientist: Your first doubt can be clarified by us by stating that various forms of mud can be formed from the mud directly in course of long time based on the theory of probability and the pot maker is not required. As per the theory of evolution, intellectual cause was evolved after the generation of inert items only. This concept of evolution exists in your Veda also, which states that life (plants) is evolved from soil coming from water, coming from fire, coming from air, coming from space (Aakaashaat vaayuh…). A hill is formed in course of time by the segregation of small sand particles in to rocks and the rocks resulted as the hill with caves. Of course, in course of time, the awareness is evolved in the process of evolution and the intellectual human being resulted to stand as instrumental cause for several houses, roads, dams etc. The caves formed in the hill without instrumental cause became houses for birds, animals etc. Recently, we find beautifully designed pictures drawn by wind on the crops, which are doubted as the drawings of supermen coming from other planets!
Regarding second doubt, we agree that matter as well as energy are composites of finite parts and hence the total composites must be also finite. Cosmos, the total composite of finite parts of matter and energy has to be agreed as finite only. Even though matter and energy are finite making the resultant cosmos as finite, such finite is so huge that any human being or our developed instruments cannot reach its end. In this view of such un-reachable boundary of the cosmos, you can treat this cosmos made of matter and energy as infinite even though it is finite by itself due to the composite nature formed by finite parts. In this context, we like to say that space is also a part of the cosmos. We say that space is nothing only and not subtle energy. Since space is not energy and not also matter, it can be infinite by itself. Space being nothing, cannot be a composite of finite parts. At the same time, space being the component of cosmos being present as finite parts (if subtle energy) or geometrical nothing, occupied by finite parts of matter and energy, the cosmos can be said as infinite from the angle of infinite number of cosmic parts. Since cosmos (matter and energy) is basically energy, infinite cosmos means infinite energy. Let me say straight that the energy is not infinite but the space is infinite treating space as geometrical nothing. If you say that the space is also very subtle form of energy, even the subtle form must be composite of finite particles or waves resulting in finite space. Even if you resolve that space is finite since it is form of very subtle energy, we do not mind about such proposal also. Let the cosmos including matter, energy (Gross) and space (be subtle energy as you feel) be finite since the three items of cosmos are finite. But, the cosmos is so huge that its boundary cannot be reached by the human being even by imagination due to the impossibility of reaching the boundary. In this concept, the total cosmos is very huge energy without the imaginable boundaries due to the inability in calculating the diameter even if it exists. Stating that the diameter of the cosmos is so many millions of light years indicate only the impossibility of reaching its end even by mind. Even though the mind cannot reach it, we are sure that the edge of the boundary of cosmos is made of these imaginable components (matter and energy) only and the boundary becomes imaginable even though the calculation of the diameter of cosmos is not possible. In this way, the whole cosmos becomes a system of study of science because a system can have clear visible or imaginable boundaries. If I say that the diameter of a city is 10 miles, I can imagine the edge of the end point of 10 miles even though I have not gone and seen the edge. Hence, the cosmos is a system of study for the law of conservation of energy because the diameter of cosmos may not be calculated, but, will have certain specific value since the cosmos is finite. By this, though the total energy of the cosmos cannot be calculated due to its huge nature, it is constant due to the finite composite nature of cosmos. This makes the law of conservation of energy successful.
Shri Swami: If you say that space is nothing, which is different from matter and energy, you cannot say that such space is finite or infinite. Nothing can have characteristics like finite and infinite since any characteristic of nothing is also nothing. Moreover, this nothing-space is geometrical as per the concept of Einstein, which requires the presence of items of matter or radiations on both sides between which alone it can be relative or geometrical. In such case, the space existing as gaps between two items of cosmos cannot be infinite by itself since nothing should be present after one side of the boundary to become infinite. If matter or energy exists on both sides, cosmos (matter and energy) itself becomes infinite. Matter and energy cannot be infinite due to the presence of finite parts in the edge of the boundary. You can only say that the nothing-space is not inherently finite or infinite, but, it is finite due to the two items making two finite boundaries on both sides of the geometrical space (nothing). Then, the finite nature becomes the characteristic of the boundaries made by the items of matter or energy. In such case, the space-bits existing in the finite cosmos become finite only and hence space cannot make cosmos as infinite.
If you agree that space is something (subtle energy), then, you cannot say that space is infinite since the space or subtle energy is made of particles or waves, which are finite. Space being the composite of finite particles cannot be infinite. In both ways the infinite nature of space or cosmos is ruled out. If cosmos or space is finite, the immediate question will be “what exists beyond the boundary of such finite cosmos having finite space-bits? We say that something, which is not imaginable to us exists. If you have no answer for this question, you have to agree that space or cosmos is infinite, which is not possible as per the above explanation. If you say that space or cosmos is certainly finite being finite composite composed of finite parts, but, the huge quantity of space or cosmos brings assumed infinite concept, then also, the basic problem (regarding the nature of domain existing beyond the boundary of cosmos) is not solved since the space or cosmos must be finite with some value that cannot be calculated due to inadequate instruments, but certainly has some value. Assume that we have travelled to the edge of cosmos or space, the inevitable question once again appears enquiring about the item present beyond the edge. You cannot escape this question once you are unable to establish the infinite nature of cosmos or space.
1) To avoid the above inevitable question, you have to say that space or cosmos is infinite. If you say so, the inevitable finite nature of a composite composed of finite parts attacks you from the other side. If you say that space or cosmos is infinite, no more the cosmos is a system, resulting in the failure of Law of conservation of energy. You define the system to have distinct boundaries or at least imaginable boundaries. I can take a mega city as system even though I have not seen its boundaries by My naked eye. I can imagine its boundary on hearing its diameter as 10 miles. If I put special effort, I can also see the boundaries with My eyes. The law of conservation of energy needs a system. If the cosmos has imaginary boundaries by stating that a few million light years make the diameter of cosmos, the cosmos has imaginable boundary. In such case, I can put some huge value of energy of total cosmos and say that it is constant since energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But, cosmos differs from the mega city in not having the experimental support in spite of our preparedness to experiment. If the cosmos is infinite, no more, it is a system and the total value of energy becomes infinite and you cannot say that the total energy is constant. In such case, we cannot assume any value for its diameter. Then the law fails. If you shift to finite nature, above question will attack you for which, I have the answer that unimaginable domain exists after the boundary of cosmos and you have no answer since you do not like to express your incapability to know everything.
2) When we say that unimaginable domain exists around the boundary of the cosmos (sarvamaavrutya tishthati... Gita), the boundary of cosmos cannot include the boundary of unimaginable domain since the boundary is in the imaginable cosmos only. It is no more a joint wall so that we can say that it is partially unimaginable since it is totally imaginable as the boundary totally belongs to imaginable cosmos. The boundary of unimaginable domain cannot be imagined by us and hence to say that this half thickness of joint line in the unimaginable domain is its boundary—it becomes meaningless. The unimaginable nature starts from the next immediate point of the edge of imaginable cosmos and hence regarding such next point itself, we keep silent perfectly expressing our inability to speak anything allowed by the unimaginable domain.
Scientist: You say that the unimaginable God enters cosmos to become human incarnation. On the other hand, you say that the unimaginable God is beyond cosmos or space. Is it not a mutual contradiction?
Logic of Imaginable Items Not Applicable To Unimaginable Domain or God
Shri Swami: Such mutual contradiction becomes true in the case of imaginable items of the world. This logic of imaginable items cannot be applicable to the unimaginable domain or God. If it becomes applicable, the unimaginable domain becomes imaginable domain only. Applying this logic to a worldly example: If 10 litres of 100 litres of gas present in a tank are pumped in to a cylinder, 90 litres of gas are left over in the tank. But, applying this logic to God, God totally enters in to this world as human incarnation and also totally remains beyond this world. This is to say that 100 litres of God from tank entered in to cylinder and yet, 100 litres of God still remain in the tank! This is possible in the case of unimaginable God, who is beyond spatial dimensions. We say that God entered the world to preach spiritual knowledge to the humanity. But, how He entered? –cannot be explained. In philosophy, we answer why? But, not how? Science is reverse to this. It answers how? But, not why? Science explains how the earth rotates?—but, not why the earth rotates? Science is applicable to the creation and we respect Science in the analysis of items of creation but not to analyze the creator. For example, many philosophers said that awareness is God. We have taken the help of science to analyze the awareness. The report of its analysis proved that awareness is only a specific work form of inert energy functioning in a specific nervous system. We refused the imaginable awareness to be unimaginable God. Science proves what is not God. It fails to prove what is God.
(to be continued)