God is unimaginable

[anil]

God is unimaginable

If a student comes and asks the preacher “What is God?” and the preacher says, “God is Unimaginable”; then the student asks again “How God created this world?” and the preacher says, “The process of creation is unimaginable”; the student will think that the preacher does not know the answers for his questions and will leave the preacher.  This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth.  The preacher should say the answers in positive way and the answers should satisfy the logical faculty of the student.  Now you should analyze the basis of such logical faculty of the student.  The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items only.  Hence all his logic is based on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items only.  This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of generation of the imaginable world from imaginable God is in imaginable way only.  Every sentence of the preacher should be imaginable to the student and then only the student gets satisfied.

The introduction of the word “Unimaginable” by the preacher leads the student to think that the preacher is ignorant.  Hence to satisfy the student and to solve this practical problem, the preacher has to make certain assumptions and should preach about God through hypothesis only and not through real theory.  

The reality is that the unimaginable God created the world through unimaginable way.

 But to satisfy the student the hypothesis introduced here is that God is pure awareness.  Here the infinite ocean of pure awareness is an assumption created because there is no proof of such ocean of awareness anywhere because you can find only the infinite ocean of inert energy.  The infinite ocean of awareness is created by the preacher and such ocean charged by God can be treated as God Himself like the live wire treated as current.  Now the student is satisfied.

Similarly, the creation of world from God should be also done through the imaginable way answering all the objections through imaginable ways only.  This makes again the creation of another assumption for the process of creating the world by God. The assumption here is that a second unimaginable item called as the power of God is created which is modified into the world.  Since the power is negligible, the world is negligible and maintains the existence of single God or Brahman.  It is like the dream of a person created by the modification of the mind and the mind is negligible compared to the materialistic person.  In course of time to satisfy the logic of students, changes in the hypothesis are made by Ramanuja and Madhva who introduced the assumption of a separate material, which is modified as the world without any connection to God.

The hypothetical assumptions can be varied for the sake of preaching the truth to the students in order to satisfy their logic developed from the observation of the world containing only imaginable items.  This does not mean that the theories are different.

 There is only one real theory that both God and the link between God and world are unimaginable.

  But the preaching requires complete elimination of the word unimaginable and the whole preaching should continue with the assumptions of imaginable items and imaginable relationships between those imaginable items only.  In such case all the assumptions are not true at all in the absolute sense.  In such case you need not misunderstand that the three Acharyas are differing from each other with different theories of truth.  The same truth is explained in different ways with different created assumptions of hypothesis for the sake of understanding of various types of mentalities of the students which are always based on the constant observation of imaginable items only (Ekam Sat Viprah bahudha vadanti…..Veda).  

The final truth is known to Anjaneya who did not like to preach the truth through assumptions and hence kept silent in preaching.  He showed the essence of all the divine knowledge through action (Karma) only because Karma can only be real and fruitful.  His recognition of contemporary human incarnation and practical service to Him is the essence of the message of Anjaneya.  For those who cannot accept the human incarnation, Shankara preached the divine knowledge with several assumptions and the most powerful assumption is that the soul itself is God.  Shankara preached atheists and this powerful assumption attracted them to come and at least here the subject.  All the Acharayas followed this method of preaching by assumptions to various levels of students who are based on the logic of imaginable items only.

[Squid]

How very convenient to be in the realm of the unimaginable and unknowable.

[SteveS]

God is unimaginable

Ahh, come on now, plenty of people imagine god all the time  :wink:

and hence kept silent in preaching.

Really?  I can honestly say I like his preaching style!  I wish more preachers would keep silent.

[Whitney]

Isn't if funny how unimaginable things seem awfully similar to that which is imaginary?

[anil]

How very convenient to be in the realm of the unimaginable and unknowable.

The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum.

God being the generator of space is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined. If you have to imagine God, the pre-requisite is the imagination of disappearance of space or vacuum. Of course space is a form of very fine energy and in this context the word energy used by Me can be taken as crude form of energy. The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).

[anil]

God is unimaginable

Ahh, come on now, plenty of people imagine god all the time  :wink:

and hence kept silent in preaching.

Really?  I can honestly say I like his preaching style!  I wish more preachers would keep silent.

            Whenever you think about God, the thinking itself is a form made of awareness or mind, even though you claim that you are thinking about formless God. You can never think any thing, which is formless because your thinking itself is a form. The form may have some specific boundaries like a statue. The form may not have specific boundaries like air or water. But the air or water also has some regular or irregular boundaries since the air or water has certain limits. You call the space as formless object. But the space has some limitations somewhere and you do not perceive those limits. Such limits may not be perceived but certainly exist. Therefore, the concept of your formless object has some boundaries, which are either irregular or not perceived. When you think God as awareness (Chit), the awareness is mind, which is nervous energy. Energy is in the form of waves and thus cannot be formless. According to the special theory of relativity of Einstein, the space is also a form of energy because space exhibits the property of bending.  In that case, the space also cannot be formless. Even if you consider the space as infinite vacuum, you are aware of the space. Such awareness itself means that space has become a form of awareness or mental energy. Therefore, strictly speaking there is no formless object in the creation. You are calling the object, which has either irregular or infinite boundaries, which are imagined, as formless. Since, such formless object also is a form in strict sense.  Formless concept is impossible.    
 
            Therefore, whether you say that God created the space or God created the energy in the beginning, both statements mean the same because space is also a form of energy only. Veda said that Para Brahman created the space in the beginning (Atmana Akasah..). The Veda says again that Para Brahman created energy in the beginning (Tat Tejo..). Both the Vedic statements mean the same in terms of the latest concept of Science.  However, let such space or energy be called as formless God in your language. Even to think such formless God, it becomes very very difficult for any ordinary human being. Even a scholar cannot maintain such concept in his mind for a long time. Even if you maintain such concept, such God is not the absolute God because absolute God is completely unimaginable as per Veda and Gita (Yasyaa matam…., Mamtu Veda Na…). God imagined as space or awareness (mental energy) is not the absolute the God, who is beyond space and awareness. Veda says that God created space. Veda says that God is beyond awareness.  The creator is always beyond the creation. Even in the absence of the creation, the creator must exist.  According to Brahma Sutras, God is the cause of this Universe as creator and is the material cause also.  The pot maker is the creator of the pot. The mud is the material cause of the pot.  Even in the absence of pot, the pot maker and the mud exist.  Therefore, God existed even before the creation of the Universe.  

The pot maker and mud exists even after the destruction of the pot.  Similarly, after the destruction of the world also God must exist. Similarly God must exist before the creation of the space and after the dissolution of the space. You can never imagine the situation, which is before the creation or after dissolution of space. Your intelligence cannot cross the special dimensions and therefore cannot cross the concept of space. That means you can never imagine the God. Veda says that God alone knows God (Brahma vit Brahmaiva…).
 
            Therefore, when you imagine God as the all-pervading space, such imagination itself is an item of creation only. Such imagination is only the incarnation of the God. When you imagine Him as space, God has entered the space and God is in the space. Similarly, if you imagine God as all pervading energy, you have imagined the energy only in which God is present. Therefore, you perceive God as space or inert energy or mental energy (awareness) and such form of God is only the incarnation of God in the form of space or inert energy or awareness. This means you can perceive only the incarnation of God and never the absolute God.
 
            When you have perceived God as space, you are calling God as formless. If this space is taken as vacuum or nothing, God does not exist as per Buddhism or the old Science. But now Science accepts space as a form of energy. Therefore, according to Science nothing does not exist at all.  For Science the example of nothing is space and now the space has become something.  Therefore, now a scientist cannot say that God does not exist because non-existence or nothing is vacuum or space, which is a form of energy only. Buddhism adopted ancient logic i.e. old Science, which believed in the space as non-existence of everything.  Since, Science, which is the modern logic overrules the ancient logic, Buddhism is naturally rejected by the modern Science. If a scientist says that God does not exist, he is a no more a scientist because he is not aware of the latest special theory of relativity. Thus, an atheist is an out dated scientist. All the modern scientists, who are aware of the latest concept of space, have to believe in the existence of God.
 
            Therefore, when you cannot perceive God in His original form and you can perceive God only through some medium of creation like space or energy or awareness only, why not perceive God through the medium of matter also?  If God exists in space, this means God is existing in this Universe. If God is present in the Universe, the Universe cannot be a separate object of entertainment to God. Veda says that this Universe is created for His entertainment (Ekaki Na …..).  If you are present in the cinema and become the cinema by pervading all over the cinema, the cinema is not a separate object for you and therefore cannot give entertainment to you. If you are the spectator of the cinema, you should be separate from the cinema. You are the separate subject and the cinema is separate object. If the subject and object are one and the same, there is no existence of object at all.  It means God did not create this universe. If the creation is absent, there is no entertainment to God.  This leads to the inability of God to create a separate object for His entertainment. Such inability makes God impotent and then God cannot be omnipotent. Therefore, the separate existence of the Universe in which God is not present, must be accepted to avoid all these contradictions.

[anil]

Isn't if funny how unimaginable things seem awfully similar to that which is imaginary?

The space or energy or awareness, which is treated as formless by you, has form because the creation always has limits compared to the creator. Thus, your formless God is only the modification of the power of God and does not contain God. Therefore, the entire Universe is not God, which means that every item in the Universe is not God. Veda (Neti neti….) and Gita (Mamebhyah Param….) say the same. Therefore, the formless form of God or any form of the creation like the Sun or a statue also does not contain God. All these are modifications of the power of God, which is called as Mula Maya.

 You can worship these forms as representative models of God. A chart represents a machine.  A chart is not the machine.  The chart does not contain machine. The chart represents the machine as a model.  You can learn the concept of machine from the chart.  But if you catch the chart you have not touched even an atom of the machine. Thus, if you catch the space or energy or awareness or a statue or any living being in the Universe, you have caught the creation only but not the creator, because the creator is not in the creation.

When you catch a particular human form like Rama or Krishna or Jesus or Sai Baba only, you have caught the God because God exists in that particular human form only.  Gita says that if you catch any item of the creation, you have caught only item of that creation but not the creator (Bhutejya yanti…..).  Gita says in the same verse that if you catch Krishna, you can catch God because God exists in Krishna. Krishna means the then Human incarnation, which stands for a present Human incarnation present in your human generation.

[Whitney]

anil...are you dattaswami?

Either you are and don't respect the forum because you were already banned from here once or you aren't and are plagiarizing Datta's stuff (http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/ ... 1142412236).  Either way...you're banned.  I doubt anyone will contest this decision, if so PM me....Anil, I don't want any emails complaining about the ban (like last time) if you have no respect for this forum how can you expect respect in return? <-- Rhetorical question

[donkeyhoty]

crazy people brighten up my day

[Squid]

How very convenient to be in the realm of the unimaginable and unknowable.

The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum.

God being the generator of space is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined. If you have to imagine God, the pre-requisite is the imagination of disappearance of space or vacuum. Of course space is a form of very fine energy and in this context the word energy used by Me can be taken as crude form of energy. The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).

1. Operationalize the term "energy".

2. If all this is so unimaginable, how do you know so much about it?

3.  What's the difference between and unimaginable, unknowable deity and no deity at all?

[SteveS]

Honestly, these posts are fascinating.  I can read, re-read, read again, then go over a part of it, and it's just like this endlessly recursive loop.  I can actually feel myself chasing my tail --- I get going really fast but end up exactly where I started.

anil, I don't mean any personal disrespect, it's just that this writing doesn't even seem to alight on sanity for even the briefest of moments.

In like style, please forbid my allowance to conclude my inconclusive thought and finish my unfinishable post (which itself is unpostable) before I am always never late (or never always early) in the blindness of the allseeing.  Peace and War, Love and Hate to you all.  Goodbye/Hello.