- inspired by the teachings of pUjya guru shrI Dr. bannaMje gOviMdAchArya (padma shrI)
It is needless to say that whenever we do anything pertaining with someone or something, either consciously or subconsciously, we fi...
ಇರವು ಸಂಪತ್ತಲ್ಲ, ಇರವಿನ ಅರಿವು ಸಂಪತ್ತು Lets look at it this through an example: Many a times it so happens that we go out to buy something...
अविज्ञ्नातम् विजानताम् विज्ञ्नातम् अविजानताम् ಅವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ ವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ಅವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ avignAtam vijAnatam vijnAtam avijAnatAm <...
The Webster's NewWorld Thesaurus defines the words " Myth " as 'fable, folk tale, lore, etc', " Mythical &quo...
Well, this is one of those important and most fundamental questions which every single human being must and should encounter in his spir...
Why did shrI puraMdara dAsa introduce rAga mAyAmALavagowLa for the lessons and learning methodologies that he designed in karnATic classical music.This post is my humble attempt in trying to find out as to why dAsashrEShTa shrI puraMdara dAsa chose the rAga mAyAmALavagowLa for the...
Friday, October 11, 2013
GOD: How is he ? Who is he anyway ?..: Part 1
Well, this is one of those important and most fundamental questions which every single human being must and should encounter in his spiritual journey (or even in a non-spiritual one, so as to speak). Does it have an answer ?.. To what extent is this answerable anyway.. Who is this GOD person anyway ?.. The answers to this profound question has indeed been debated over the centuries and eons and, it has been debated because, there are so many answers to this question, each having its originality in the way of the philosopher's thinking, but the answers themselves may wither be right or wrong, in the holistic view. Philosophers base their answers on both quantitative and non-quantitative measures such as, love, compassion, devotion, the primal cause, etc, and logic, deductions, scientific proofs, etc.. But it is, nevertheless, easy to recognize that all right answers never ever succeed in fully answering this question, but even a single wrong answer can fully successfully answer this question.. What an irony !! Surely, no single answer can fully explain the all-existent, the all-pervasive, the all-knowing, the all-capable, the all-pervasive and the fully-potent. When not even a whole bunch of answers of one category can't explain these characteristics, how is it that even one single answer of the collection of all answers in the other category answer this fully.. It is simple. They can answer fully because, they know what they have to answer (in the other case however, one does not know what to answer!). If they know what have to answer then their minds come up with a logic to prove their stands and such answers are entirely based on a so to speak, pre-conditioned, pre-determined, assumed belief and stand. If their beliefs are flawed, then so is their logic. When their logic is flawed, so is their answers. When even a single flawed answer explain the question fully and wrongly, the same can be said about the rest of the answers belonging to the other category which say that they can fully explain the question. Since, one can fully explain something, only if they they understand what they are dealing with and what the question at hand deals with, in a complete self-contained manner. But, lets for a moment, enter the logician's shoes and examine the issue. Well, the word GOD is usually asserted to someone who created the universe (or universes). So, in this context, the universe(s) must be in all ways be inferior to GOD since it was created by him. Now, we all live in this universe. Our minds form a subset of this universe. The machine on which the mind functions is the brain and it requires electrons, ions, oxygen, etc in order to function. This brain is like the computer. It stores whatever information it can. But we can ask an intriguing question like, can its 'memory' part at least store the information of the hardware on which it relies upon, to its entirety. Well, the answer is obviously a no, because, to store entire information about the hardware it relies upon, would require storing information of each and every atomic particle and each every sub-atomic particle and so on and moreover the time history of it. From here we branch out to two roads: ROAD 1: Each particle is fully aware of its entire past and the present, and has complete information about itself, and ROAD 2: Each particle is not aware of itself, but a bunch of other particles take the job of maintaining this particle's entire information, information about its past. Now, lets traverse in road 1 and see how is ride goes. Well, if each particle is fully and completely aware of its past (i don't speak of 'present' at all, because it can't be measured since its a mere dimensionless point on the time scale and i don't speak of future either because it is to the front of the point representing the 'present' and when we can't even perceive the 'present', we cant pretty much perceive future either unless otherwise crossing the 'present', which however is not in our control at all, and is the job of the 'time' in bringing itself past the point representing the 'present' and rendering itself as 'past'), then it would mean that it has a mechanism of storing its time-history. But, this act of that particle in storing its own time history must first start in order to store any information at all about at least its immediate past. So, every step forward in time is like a whole lot of information about the particle being stored in itself by some mechanism. But it should not be forgotten that the particle must also be fully capable of retrieving its entire past, if it desired to do so since it has stored all its space-time history. Now, to do this there should be another mechanism inside the particle itself by which the particle will be able to retrieve its information (and by mechanism, i mean, a process and also the means of carrying out the process, it could be anything). But those hierarchically higher processes which carry out the hierarchically lower process, in the materialistic (here (i.e., in materialistic) one deal with quantifiable changes in energy, if not the energy at least (energy also, in the case of matter)) point of view, needs a cause which initiates its functioning and sustains its functioning. Extending this argument, we now end up with an infinite array of processes, each initiating its lower neighbor. Now, we end up with a serious problem. Either all these processes are self-aware or all the process happen so fast in succession to one another that the time gap in their relative initiations and relative observations is zero. The first one, which says that all these processes are self aware is self-analogous and is the same as the road that we are in (which is ROAD 1 ) and hence this part of the argument leads no where except to itself and hence we can disregard this in the premise and basis of logic. Now the second one says that there is zero time gaps between the successive 'parent-child' processes and their 'parent-child' observations and hence, all of them occur simultaneously. If they do, do such a thing, then it would mean that they are all experiencing their 'present' instantaneously, but the 'present' is nothing but a dimensionless point in the number line in the scale of time and hence they are all experiencing the past of each process instantaneously, and all these 'processes' experience the past of the particle in their present. Hence, you need something in the 'present' to perceive and know about something in the 'past'. Infinite is the past. But finite is the particle. This brings up the point that a finite particle is able to store all information about its infinite past with all the infinite processes wherein each one must be triggered by its primal causal process, that is the 'parent process' and also, that all these 'parent-child' causes occur simultaneously. Hence, to measure and record even as finite as a single particle in the entire universe, an infinite is required, which brings us to a very very very interesting, mind-mindbogglingly elegant standpoint that for the self-awareness of even a single particle in this vast finite material universe, an infinite's self-awareness is required, which again takes us a little deeper and speaks out loud and clear that the self-awareness of the finite is totally dependent on the self-awareness of the infinite. Hence, though the material universe is a filthy-huge collection of particles, it is still finite, because first law of thermodynamics says - 'energy can neither be created nor be destroyed' that is 'energy of the universe is constant' and when there is a constant energy of the universe, there is a certain number, a certain value, a certain quantifiable measure to to the total energy of the universe, which in turn tells, how seemingly finite the universe is and even though the total number of particles might change from time to time due to certain physical processes such as nuclear fusion, fission, etc, the total energy is very much finite and the finite manifestations of this finite energy in terms of finite number of particles, now is in need of an "infinite-times-the-total-number-of-particles", number of processes in order to keep the universe in a self aware condition, but since infinite times something which is finite and non-zero is also infinite, we thus need an INFINITY to even just record the information of the FINITE universe. So, how can such INFINITE rest inside the FINITE and measure and record both itself and the FINITE collection of particles in the universe. But, what if the number of particles were infinite. Then it would mean that the finite energy of the universe is divided upon an infinite of particles and when this is done, each particle will get its 'zero' share in the energy and since a particle with zero energy cannot exist, we arrive a a contradiction and hence it is not possible to have an infinite number of particles in a finite universe. Hence, the FINITE universe cannot in anyway measure itself by something INFINITE. Hence this INFINITE does not lies inside the FINITE universe.
Hence, THE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ENTIRE TIME-SPACE EXISTENCE AND ACTIVITY HISTORY OF THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE CAN ONLY BE MEASURED BY SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE ITSELF, BUT NOT BY THE UNIVERSE ITSELF. This puts the universe in a state of dependence. We call something totally independent if that thing under concern, is not in any way and in any aspect, at any point of time, dependent on anything exterior to itself. Even if this thing depends in just a single way on something exterior to itself, it is nothing but DEPENDENT and not in any way INDEPENDENT. Hence, the material universe is not IN-DEPENDENT and in fact needs something infinite which is outside to itself for its existence (existence is a collection of time-space history and not the present, because 'present' is smaller than the smallest time required to measure the instant during which new past gets created). The universe may be self-dependent, at least in its past up to the point it got its form, but it is not independent because, the universe energy can neither be created not destroyed and hence the universe cannot be created out of nothing. So the material universe is DEPENDENT AND NOT "NOT-DEPENDENT". See what happened,...... in the ROAD 1, we actually set out sail to discuss the 'other' answer which tells that GOD can be explained fully in one single answer and ended up coming to a conclusion through the course of logical deduction itself, that the material universe is actually a "DEPENDENT" entity and since it is not "NOT-DEPENDENT", it must be inferior to that thing on which it it depends upon, and even this thing, on which it depends upon is inferior to something it turn depends upon, then at some point there should be prime source to all of this, which we call GOD. Now, if we go back and observe what ROAD 2 is, we will see it is nothing but a subset of ROAD 1 and hence needs no separate treatise.
Alright. All this is fine. Does this expose some of the qualities of this GOD figure anyway ?.. It does.. For something to be measured, it has to be first observed, not in the same or a lower physical dimension, but in a higher physical dimension. But nevertheless, to make an observation, the one which observes, must be in observable range of that which it is observing. Hence, it has to be present in the entire universe and moreover it itself stands outside the universe. This characteristic has a name and is called "ALL-PERVADING" (present everywhere) (vishNu, as the name means). Hence, it is only possible to give names to GOD which are ADJECTIVES at their best and in no way NOUNS (Well, not completely at least). Hence, GOD is to be understood by knowing his characteristics. But, we are in this finite universe, and being a part of this finite universe, we ourselves are being measured all the time by something which is infinite and stands outside of this universe. When we, the finite ones, are being measured by infinite, then how is it possible that we are able to perceive (forget measure) at least even a finite aspect of the infinite which is in fact measuring us completely all the time. This is only possible if the entity which measures the universe also lends itself to be perceived by a certain part of the universe and in doing so lends itself to be accessible to various degrees (again to the extent as wished by that which is measuring, which is VISHNU) and this is solely due to the compassionate nature of VISHNU alone since, he would not lose anything at all if he were not to lend himself to be accessible to the finite, as he is infinite. This characteristic gives him the name "ALL-COMPASSIONATE" (karuNAmayi). Now, since the measured quantity is finite, anything finite should have a beginning, a birth and hence needs a creator. After its creation, it needs a sustainer. Once the universe has run its course of its finite life time, its existence is taken back and it represents destruction. Hence, the trinity BRAHMA, VISHNU, MAHESHWARA (Destroyer). Now, since both the process of creation and destruction also needs the primal cause in ways suitable to it, both are dependent on the Observer/sustainer/primal cause. Hence, Brahma and Maheshwara are dependent on Vishnu. Hence, VISHNU alone is infinite. What about other universes ?.. They also need creation, sustenance and destruction, but one should not forget that something can either be created or destroyed only if the act of creation and destruction is also sustained. Hence, VISHNU also sustains creation and destruction of all the universes. All the other infinite universes are totally dependent on this self-dependent entity and we call such an entity as "GOD" and this characteristic which brings him the name "paramAtma" and that characteristic by which he is infinite even to the infinite number of universes earns VISHNU another name called as "anantha" (meaning infinite). Since, he is the primal cause for all the infinite universes, he should also be the primal cause for all the physical processes which happen in any universe and these physical processes include activities such as me writing this article and you reading it, the ions undergoing reactions in the muscles in my fingers without which you would not be reading this article, each and every single atomic fusion among the trillions upon zillions of such processes taking place in the heart of a star, in all the billion billion or so number of starts in our observable universe which again is a small insignificant speck in the infinite universes and these characteristic earn VISHNU a couple of more names such as "sarva shakta" (all powerful) and "karta" (the doer). Since infinite cannot be understood by the finite, he is also called as 'a' (as the a in india) (this 'a' in samskrita means negation), and it negates all that the finite knows of, that is the infinite is nothing like anything that the finite knows of (its sort of like the micromax mobile caption -- nothing like anything). Since he is huge (as in infinite), he is 'bruhat' and since, inside the universe, he is the pulse of the universe and hence he is the nAda (vibration) of the universe and the alphabet 'ma' represents nAda, he is also called as 'brahma'/"brahman". Since there is only one greatest, he is also called 'para-brahman'. Since nAda is due to him, the sound waves, electromagnetic waves, and vibration represents VISHNU and VISHNU alone and hence, every sound is an epithet of GOD (and this is the fundamental core principle of realizing the truth (that VISHNU is the only superior one), through nAda yOga). dEvi saraswati has such great position of actually learning about VISHNU, in every single minutest aspect of nAda (this is the significance of her holding vINa in her hands). Since VISHNU is also the owner of everything, is also called by the name of "gana-pathi". Since VISHNU is also the supreme destroyer, he has also earned an other name called "kALa" (as in krishNa asking arjuna to think of krishna as kALa (the all destroyer)). SInce, rudra dEva is the destroyer at the end, the word rudra also denoted VISHNU. Since, he has no gender, all feminine names (i write 'feminine' here, since we can associate better with our limited capability of intellectual and spiritual perception) such as dEvi kALi, dEvi saraswati all in their deeper meanings, indicate characteristics of VISHNU himself, but is not VISHNU himself. Since all nAda represents him, all alphabets of any language represents VISHNU and VISHNU alone. For the universe to be finite, it should be constrained, it is dEvi Lakshmi who constrains it. It is this characteristic of dEvi lakshmi that gives her the name "akshare" (meaning that which is imperishable). She gets this name because, she stands outside the material universe and constrains each and every universe, and moreover it is the property of the materialistic entity to be perishable and not the non-materialistic entity. But since, it is VISHNU himself who sustains dEvi Lakshmi and gives her the power to carry out her actions, the word akshare also denotes VISHNU (akshara also). If the material universe itself is so beautiful, then what about its creator.. what an infinitely beautiful and charming fellow should VISHNU be ?.. This unanswerable question gives him another name called "atyaMtavilakshANa" and "sarvAtyaMtavilakshaNa" and "atyMtasuMdara". The name rudra can be derived from "rujam drAvayatIti ridraH" (meaning one who cures is rudra). This property applies to shiva that is rudra dEva and since it also applies to VISHNU, he can also be called as 'rudra'. Proceeding in the same analogy, all the vEdAs, all the upanishads, all the mAMtrAs, all the words of the entire mahAbhArata, all the purANAs, represent VISHNU and VISHNU alone.
HENCE I AM NOT THAT ! ! NOBODY OTHER THAN THAT IS !!
Hence, GOD is how well we see him. He is infinite, the primal cause to every effect. He fully represents the father, the mother, the friend, the brother, the flower, the knowledge, the wind, the atoms, the heat, the energy, the entire universe(s), and yet nothing fully can represents him. Nothing equals him except himself. There is no existence without him. He creates, he sustains, he destroys. He is the supreme source. He is the light.
may such a GOD take me from bad to good, from ignorance to light of knowledge, from death to life. AUM shAMtiH shAMtiH shAMtiH
- inspired by the teachings of pUjya guru shrI Dr. bannaMje gOviMdAchArya (padma shrI)
- sunil anandatheertha
shrI krishNArpaNa mastu