Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:33 am**

UNIMAGINABLE GOD ENTERS IMAGINABLE CREATION FOR DEVOTEES
For intellectuals

[Mr. Anil asked, “You said that God is beyond creation and at the same time. You also say that God is in a human body, which is in this creation. Is it not a contradiction?” Shri Swami’s explanation is given below.]

Unless the contradiction arises and you are unable to solve it through your analysis, you cannot call it as unimaginable action. Unless you recognize the unimaginable action, you cannot accept that God is unimaginable, who is the source of the unimaginable actions. For the establishment of unimaginable actions, there should be pre-established imaginable background so that the violation of such imaginable background can be identified as the unimaginable action. Therefore, God created the imaginable background, which can be understood by all the humanity through imaginable logic. Then, on some required occasions, God violates the imaginable logic so that people fail to analyze such violations through their imaginable logic and finally conclude that God is unimaginable. Now, you can understand the necessity of both the imaginable background and the unimaginable violation of it.

As per the imaginable background, the unimaginable God is beyond this imaginable creation. God is unimaginable because God has no spatial dimensions. This creation is imaginable since it has the imaginable spatial dimensions. Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments. Our senses can grasp the visible items. The scientific instruments can grasp the invisible but imaginable items and pass on the information to us regarding such invisible items.

You can see a pot through your eyes but, you cannot perceive the invisible cosmic energy that pervades all over the cosmos through your senses. But, the cosmic rays can be detected through sophisticated instruments and you can understand the nature of the cosmic rays through such instruments. A pot is visible and imaginable. A cosmic ray is invisible but imaginable with the help of scientific instruments. Both these examples are parts of the imaginable creation. You can analyze the visible and imaginable items. Science can analyze the invisible and imaginable items. Science is sharper than human beings but, it does not mean that science can analyze the unimaginable items.

The violation of the logic of both science and human beings comes under the unimaginable action of God. The actions of God may be visible or invisible, but are unimaginable. Krishna lifting up the mountain is visible but is unimaginable. Krishna hid the sun with the help of His weapon (Sudarshana Chakra) and created a false sunset in the war. This action of hiding the Sun is invisible and also unimaginable. This does not mean that God is the source of unimaginable actions only. Both imaginable and unimaginable actions are from one God only. Krishna ate the food given by His mother. This is visible and imaginable action. Krishna stole the butter and this is invisible and imaginable action. Therefore, God is the source of all the actions. God performs the unimaginable action when there is a real requirement. Through such occasions, not only the requirements are met, but also the knowledge about His unimaginable nature is given to human beings.

Coming to the context of the present question, God has created this imaginable creation and remains unimaginable since He is beyond space. The generator of the space cannot have spatial dimensions. Therefore, God remains unimaginable always and cannot be included in the visible or invisible items of the creation, which are always imaginable. The Veda says that those who knew God rejected every item of the creation not to be God. It means God is unimaginable since every item of the creation is imaginable. But, the requirement is that the devotees of God want to see, talk, touch and live with God in this world. To fulfill this requirement, God enters a human being and gets identified with It like the invisible current enters a metallic wire and gets identified with it.

In this example, current is invisible but imaginable. We can only bring some invisible item of creation to compare with unimaginable God since there is no second unimaginable item in the creation other than God. Therefore, you should not think that the invisible item is unimaginable. Even in the ancient logic, all the invisible items were detected as imaginable parts of the creation. But, somehow, the ancient logic could not detect the invisible awareness as imaginable item. Of course, some schools have recognized the awareness also as an imaginable item. Even the Gita mentions the awareness indicated by the word ‘Chetana’, which is included in the imaginable items of the creation. Even the word ‘Jeeva’ is mentioned as the precious part of the creation (Prakruti) only.

Necessity of Coining the New Word ‘Parabrahman’

Shankara also differentiated the awareness of all things (Sarvajna) from the awareness of few things (Alpajna) as ‘Ishwara’ and ‘Jeeva’ respectively. Here, the word ‘Jeeva’ stands for the ordinary soul and the word ‘Ishwara’ stands for the unimaginable God associated with created general awareness, which is specially qualified by the unimaginable quality of knowing everything. Here, ‘Ishwara’ should not be taken as the pure unimaginable God (Nirguna Brahman). Therefore, awareness should be understood as a quality or property or the created item existing in the creation. After all, awareness is an item that is understood by us and cannot be the unimaginable God. The general awareness existing as common essence in both ‘Ishwara’ and ‘Jeeva’ is only created item and not the creator.

Shankara called this general awareness as ‘Brahman’ not in the sense of unimaginable God. The word ‘Brahman’ can be used for any greatest item in a category. Awareness is the greatest item due to its preciousness (Para Prakruti) among all the categories of the creation and hence, can be emphatically called as ‘Brahman’. But, it is only the imaginable item and the unimaginable God is always greater than it. Therefore, the unimaginable God or the creator is the absolute greatest item and should be called as ‘Brahman’ in the absolute sense in the first place. The awareness comes in the second place, which is not the creator but, the greatest item of the creation. Now, if you call both these items i.e., unimaginable God and awareness by the same word ‘Brahman’, definitely the confusion starts and as a result, you will certainly mistake the general awareness as the unimaginable God.

Therefore, Shankara created a new word ‘Parabrahman’, which means that, which is other than Brahman. The word ‘Para’ also means ‘other than’. He clearly mentioned the meaning of ‘Parabrahman’ as that, which is beyond words (Maunavyaakhyaa Prakatita Parabrahma…). Only the unimaginable item can never be expressed by words. In spite of His clarification, the advaita philosophers continued in the illusion that awareness is God because the attraction to become God is always a very strong ambition. Awareness is the process of knowing, which is just a specific work form of inert energy only and we must thank the modern science for giving such clarification so that now we know the mechanism of the process of knowing.

Posted: **Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:38 pm**

Dear Dattaswami:

When Napolean Hill was young he was befriended by Andrew Carnegie, who opened the door for him to meet hundreds of famous achievers in many fields of endeavour. Hill interviewed many impressive people and found the commonality they shared.

He distilled it down to: What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve.

Do you agree with Hill’s simple distillation?

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am**

Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:38 pm Dear Dattaswami:

When Napolean Hill was young he was befriended by Andrew Carnegie, who opened the door for him to meet hundreds of famous achievers in many fields of endeavour. Hill interviewed many impressive people and found the commonality they shared.

He distilled it down to: What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve.

Do you agree with Hill’s simple distillation?

I agree. But that is regarding any item of the creation which has volume. But God do not possess any volume and hence do not have any spatial coordinates hence we cannot even imagine the unimaginable God. This creation came from Him. If we want to see Him in His original state before the creation, the creation has to vanish that time we ourselves will vanish along with the creation(universe).

Posted: **Mon Dec 19, 2022 3:04 am**

Napoleon Hill may have thought he could achieve, but Napoleon Dynamite actually achieved dancing stardom...

-Imp

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:12 am**

The inconceivable God is beyond this unimaginable creation, according to the imaginable background. God has no spatial dimensions, making him impossible to comprehend. Because it has possible spatial dimensions, this creation is imaginable. Our senses and the cutting-edge scientific apparatus serve as the foundation for our thinking. The observable things are within our senses' reach. The invisible yet imaginable objects can be grasped by scientific tools, which can then enlighten us about these invisible objects.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 4:38 pm Dear Dattaswami:

When Napolean Hill was young he was befriended by Andrew Carnegie, who opened the door for him to meet hundreds of famous achievers in many fields of endeavour. Hill interviewed many impressive people and found the commonality they shared.

He distilled it down to: What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve.

Do you agree with Hill’s simple distillation?
I agree. But that is regarding any item of the creation which has volume. But God do not possess any volume and hence do not have any spatial coordinates hence we cannot even imagine the unimaginable God.

When you SAY, 'God DO NOT POSSESS [such and such] and HENCE God DO NOT HAVE ANY [such and such], for example, then 'that' is ONE 'thing', BUT, THEN HOW could it logically follow that; 'We HENCE CANNOT EVEN IMAGINE some so-called 'unimaginable God'?

'you' can NOT 'logically' TELL some one that some 'thing', like God, for example, IS 'this' and IS 'that' and/or IS NOT 'this" and IS NOT 'that', AND THEN GO ON TO CLAIM that God IS ALSO UNIMAGINABLE.

What you are DONG HERE "dattaswami" could NOT BE MORE CONTRADICTORY even if you WANTED 'it' TO BE.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am This creation came from Him.

EVEN SAYING and CLAIMING, "God is a Him", completely and utterly CONTRADICTS your other CLAIM about God IS UNIMAGINABLE.

1. You are NOT just IMAGINING God is a "Him" here, you are ACTUALLY CLAIMING that God IS a "Him".

2. You can NOT LOGICALLY CLAIM some 'thing' is some 'thing' but ALSO CLAIM that 'that thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE.

3. Absolutely ANY 'thing' IS IMAGINABLE. So, CLAIMING that some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE just COMES FROM your IMAGINATION, ONLY.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am If we want to see Him in His original state before the creation, the creation has to vanish that time we ourselves will vanish along with the creation(universe).

1. ALL of this IS IMAGINED. INCLUDING the parts ABOUT:

God being a so-called "Him".

God having a so-called "original state".

God having a so-called "original state" BEFORE the so-called "creation". As well as;

The "creation" having a beginning.

The "creation" being able to vanish.

So, just on the first three it IS A PROVEN Fact that it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to IMAGINE God.

Therefore, God is NOT UNIMAGINABLE, AT ALL. As PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, by "dattaswami" here, and for ONCE and for ALL.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:13 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am

1. ALL of this IS IMAGINED. INCLUDING the parts ABOUT:

God being a so-called "Him".

God having a so-called "original state".

God having a so-called "original state" BEFORE the so-called "creation". As well as;

The "creation" having a beginning.

The "creation" being able to vanish.

So, just on the first three it IS A PROVEN Fact that it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to IMAGINE God.

Therefore, God is NOT UNIMAGINABLE, AT ALL. As PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, by "dattaswami" here, and for ONCE and for ALL.

Regarding Parabrahman or the unimaginable God, the Gita says two points:- 1. It has no birth and hence, no cause and 2. It is told as neither existent nor non-existent (Anādimat paraṃ Brahma, na sat tat nāsaducyate). Since Parabrahman is unimaginable, it is logical that it does not have birth and when there is no birth, there cannot be another cause from which Parabrahman is born. It cannot be told as existent because its nature is unimaginable since all known existent things are imaginable only. It also can’t be told as non-existent, because the unimaginable events called miracles existing in this world prove the existence of their source called unimaginable God or Parabrahman.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:18 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am
EVEN SAYING and CLAIMING, "God is a Him", completely and utterly CONTRADICTS your other CLAIM about God IS UNIMAGINABLE.

1. You are NOT just IMAGINING God is a "Him" here, you are ACTUALLY CLAIMING that God IS a "Him".

2. You can NOT LOGICALLY CLAIM some 'thing' is some 'thing' but ALSO CLAIM that 'that thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE.

3. Absolutely ANY 'thing' IS IMAGINABLE. So, CLAIMING that some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE just COMES FROM your IMAGINATION, ONLY.
dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am If we want to see Him in His original state before the creation, the creation has to vanish that time we ourselves will vanish along with the creation(universe).
The reason is that before creation unimaginable God existed alone without even idea of the creation and for such unimaginable God, unimaginable nature is the characteristic, which is His inherent nature. His inherent unimaginable nature is known to Himself only. Of course, after the creation, the creation is expected to continue with Him in subtle state (Avyaktam). But, such continuation is not a must. It may continue or totally disappear depending upon the wish of God. Hence, the unimaginable nature (unimaginable to created souls) is the only permanent inherent characteristic of the absolute unimaginable God.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:39 pm**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am

God being a so-called "Him".

God having a so-called "original state".

God having a so-called "original state" BEFORE the so-called "creation". As well as;

The "creation" having a beginning.

The "creation" being able to vanish.

So, just on the first three it IS A PROVEN Fact that it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to IMAGINE God.

Therefore, God is NOT UNIMAGINABLE, AT ALL. As PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, by "dattaswami" here, and for ONCE and for ALL.

God is beyond this creation and this doesn’t mean that His happiness is also beyond creation. Happiness is a quality of awareness. When we say that God is with full bliss even before creation, it shows that awareness was already created by God, which got associated with Him. Hence, the quality of awareness, which is bliss (excess of happiness only is bliss) also got associated with God. When the Veda said that He got bored (Ekaaki na ramate) with continuous and excess happiness, it means that the first stage of creation was already over. However, if you go beyond this stage of creation of awareness and its qualities also, you are unaware of God and God’s inherent characteristics.

In that stage, God is totally unimaginable since no inherent characteristic of God is imaginable. You can’t speak anything about God in such unimaginable state. If you speak something about God, you can do so only through His associated characteristics (created by Him only) like awareness, bliss etc. Even though such associated characteristics were already created, we can still say such stage also as the state before creation only in the sense that this world was not created then. You can say that a person without any cash to build house and the same person with cash to build house also in the same state called ‘prior to the construction of house’. Since awareness and bliss existed already as associated characteristics, we can say that God got bored with continuous bliss and hence thought to create a second item called world for entertainment (sa dvitiyamaichchat— Veda).

Bliss, boredom and thought to create world existed even before the creation (of this world). Bliss, boredom and any thought like thought to create etc., are characteristics of awareness only, which was already created by God. Such created characteristics of awareness are in no way different from the same qualities of awareness as we see in this world since these are created items only either in the beginning or afterwards. Hence, you need not be astonished that even God got bored! Boredom doesn’t indicate any deficiency. It indicates only the natural characteristic result of continuous happiness. The Brahma Sutras of sage Vyasa also explain this point (Lokavattu leelaakaivalyam) with the example of a king having no deficiency of any requirement, goes to forest for hunting, just to get rid of such boredom.

Boredom, entertainment etc., are not the inherent characteristics of the unimaginable-absolute God, which can lower His status. You can’t blame God through the associated characteristics, which are just like the feelings of your role expressed in a drama. Such feelings of the role (awareness) can never be linked to the actor (unimaginable God). If the actor of that role happens to be the author of the drama also, you can understand this point easily that the author cum actor in that role can’t be blamed for the feelings of that role expressed.

Moreover, the feelings (boredom) expressed by the role (awareness) are suitable to the level of the actor (God) only and not denigrating his (actor’s or God’s) status in anyway. If poor man says that he is bored with continuous severe poverty, such words are suitable to his poor or low status. If a rich man like king says that he is continuously bored with his palace and immense wealth and likes to visit forest for a change, such a statement is not lowering the status of the king. Hence, you need not hesitate to say that God is bored with His continuous state of absolute reality and likes to visit relative reality (creation). Such statement doesn’t lower the dignity of the absolute reality of God. In the absence of any such negative effect, we need not worry about boredom taking the example of the same of a poor man. All the souls are poor men thinking that God is also suffering with their boredom of continuous poverty by linking boredom to poverty only!

God created awareness in the absence of created matter (nervous system) and energy (inert energy supplied from digestive system) by His inherent unimaginable power (we can also say straight that the unimaginable God created awareness straight, without mentioning unimaginable power since unimaginable God and His unimaginable power are one and the same as any number of unimaginable items become one). Thus, the process or background of creation of awareness is also in the unimaginable domain only, but the product (awareness) is in the imaginable domain having all its usual inherent characteristics like boredom etc.

Actually, awareness is only a work of knowing like talking, walking etc. It finally means that the unimaginable God did some work. “Let Me create world for entertainment” is an idea of God existing in theoretical phase like our ideas only. Simultaneous materialisation of God’s idea is controlled in this stage and hence a theoretical phase without materialisation also exists in the case of God by which we can say that God is bored and such boredom is only theoretical phase. Then, He created energy or space and here simultaneous materialisation of theoretical phase (will or idea) starts and we can say that His will to create energy materializes simultaneously. Hence, theoretical phase existing as itself and the simultaneously materialisation of His theoretical phase are in His perfect control. Simultaneous materialisation of will is not uncontrollable process to God and we should not say that God is trapped by such process. Even in the human incarnation, you don’t find simultaneous materialisation of every will. It happens only when God wishes that simultaneous materialisation should take place.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:49 pm**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:18 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am
EVEN SAYING and CLAIMING, "God is a Him", completely and utterly CONTRADICTS your other CLAIM about God IS UNIMAGINABLE.

1. You are NOT just IMAGINING God is a "Him" here, you are ACTUALLY CLAIMING that God IS a "Him".

2. You can NOT LOGICALLY CLAIM some 'thing' is some 'thing' but ALSO CLAIM that 'that thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE.

3. Absolutely ANY 'thing' IS IMAGINABLE. So, CLAIMING that some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE just COMES FROM your IMAGINATION, ONLY.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Mon Dec 19, 2022 2:40 am If we want to see Him in His original state before the creation, the creation has to vanish that time we ourselves will vanish along with the creation(universe).
The reason is that before creation unimaginable God existed alone without even idea of the creation and for such unimaginable God, unimaginable nature is the characteristic, which is His inherent nature. His inherent unimaginable nature is known to Himself only. Of course, after the creation, the creation is expected to continue with Him in subtle state (Avyaktam). But, such continuation is not a must. It may continue or totally disappear depending upon the wish of God. Hence, the unimaginable nature (unimaginable to created souls) is the only permanent inherent characteristic of the absolute unimaginable God.

I am NOT YET SURE HOW I could have made this ANY SIMPLER for this one here, but 'it' STILL completely and utterly MISSED the WHOLE POINT I was MAKING and SHOWING here. But, then again this one might just be ACTING STUPID for some particular reason.

ANYWAY, it IS, and WAS, EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that IF one was to BELIEVE that some male gendered THING existed on 'its' OWNSOME and LONESOME, BEFORE the WHOLE of the Universe came into Existence, and that IF that one ALSO BELIEVED that that male gendered THING was UNIMAGINABLE, or was even a PIECE OF SHIT, then that one WOULD SAY and TELL us 'this', as though it was ACTUALLY True AND REAL.

So, in other words, what you what to TELL us IS TRUE is ALL WELL AND GOOD. But, if you can NOT SEE the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION is SAYING and CLAIMING some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE but that you have MANAGED to IMAGINE NOT just 'it', but are IMAGINING WHAT 'it' IS AS WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, THEN I do NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE to SHOW you just how SELF-CONTRADICTORY YOUR CLAIM IS here.

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:58 pm**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:13 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am

1. ALL of this IS IMAGINED. INCLUDING the parts ABOUT:

God being a so-called "Him".

God having a so-called "original state".

God having a so-called "original state" BEFORE the so-called "creation". As well as;

The "creation" having a beginning.

The "creation" being able to vanish.

So, just on the first three it IS A PROVEN Fact that it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to IMAGINE God.

Therefore, God is NOT UNIMAGINABLE, AT ALL. As PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, by "dattaswami" here, and for ONCE and for ALL.
Regarding Parabrahman or the unimaginable God, the Gita says two points:- 1. It has no birth and hence, no cause and 2. It is told as neither existent nor non-existent (Anādimat paraṃ Brahma, na sat tat nāsaducyate).

Is 'this' KNOWN, IMAGINED, or some thing ELSE?

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:13 am Since Parabrahman is unimaginable, it is logical that it does not have birth and when there is no birth, there cannot be another cause from which Parabrahman is born. It cannot be told as existent because its nature is unimaginable since all known existent things are imaginable only. It also can’t be told as non-existent, because the unimaginable events called miracles existing in this world prove the existence of their source called unimaginable God or Parabrahman.

LOOK, and LISTEN, what you CLAIM is UNIMAGINABLE is ALREADY KNOWN, EXACTLY and IRREFUTABLY.

So, each time you TELL us that you can NOT EVEN IMAGINE who NOR what God IS EXACTLY, just REMEMBER we ALREADY KNOW who AND what God IS EXACTLY, and ABSOLUTELY, and there is NOT a 'one of you' who could REFUTE this.

So, PLEASE KEEP TELLING absolutely EVERY one or absolutely ANY one that God is UNIMAGINABLE, but just REMEMBER that the ONLY ones you are FOOLING here is "your" 'self' and maybe just a few "others".

Also, PLEASE do NOT QUOTE me, and then NOT even TALK ABOUT what was QUOTED. If and when you do all you are REALLY DOING is just SHOWING and PROVING HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE.

you have ALREADY PROVED IRREFUTABLY True that God is ABLE to be IMAGINED. Would you REALLY like to PROVE IRREFUTABLY other things that ALSO completely OPPOSE what you are 'trying to' CLAIM here?

Posted: **Tue Dec 20, 2022 1:07 pm**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:39 pm
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 9:02 am

God being a so-called "Him".

God having a so-called "original state".

God having a so-called "original state" BEFORE the so-called "creation". As well as;

The "creation" having a beginning.

The "creation" being able to vanish.

So, just on the first three it IS A PROVEN Fact that it IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to IMAGINE God.

Therefore, God is NOT UNIMAGINABLE, AT ALL. As PROVED ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True, by "dattaswami" here, and for ONCE and for ALL.
God is beyond this creation and this doesn’t mean that His happiness is also beyond creation. Happiness is a quality of awareness. When we say that God is with full bliss even before creation, it shows that awareness was already created by God, which got associated with Him.

If this was an ATTEMPT at an ARGUMENT, and NOT just your OWN BELIEFS, then this here could NOT BE MORE UNSOUND and INVALID even if you WANTED it to be.

NOT one part of what you SAID and WROTE here FOLLOWS ON from what you QUOTED me as SAYING.
NOT one part of what you SAID and WROTE here FOLLOWS ON LOGICALLY from a PREVIOUS PART.
NOT one part of what you SAID and WROTE here has EVER been PROVED True, let alone makes ANY SENSE AT ALL.

And this is just the first TWO sentences of YOURS, and LOOK AT how much MORE we have to GO THROUGH below.

I COULD question AND challenge you in so MANY ways just on the first five words here, but you have, so far, PROVEN NOT to be ABLE TO COMPREHEND what IS SAID and WRITTEN, TO you. So, I WILL NOT.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:39 pm Hence, the quality of awareness, which is bliss (excess of happiness only is bliss) also got associated with God. When the Veda said that He got bored (Ekaaki na ramate) with continuous and excess happiness, it means that the first stage of creation was already over. However, if you go beyond this stage of creation of awareness and its qualities also, you are unaware of God and God’s inherent characteristics.

In that stage, God is totally unimaginable since no inherent characteristic of God is imaginable. You can’t speak anything about God in such unimaginable state. If you speak something about God, you can do so only through His associated characteristics (created by Him only) like awareness, bliss etc. Even though such associated characteristics were already created, we can still say such stage also as the state before creation only in the sense that this world was not created then. You can say that a person without any cash to build house and the same person with cash to build house also in the same state called ‘prior to the construction of house’. Since awareness and bliss existed already as associated characteristics, we can say that God got bored with continuous bliss and hence thought to create a second item called world for entertainment (sa dvitiyamaichchat— Veda).

Bliss, boredom and thought to create world existed even before the creation (of this world). Bliss, boredom and any thought like thought to create etc., are characteristics of awareness only, which was already created by God. Such created characteristics of awareness are in no way different from the same qualities of awareness as we see in this world since these are created items only either in the beginning or afterwards. Hence, you need not be astonished that even God got bored! Boredom doesn’t indicate any deficiency. It indicates only the natural characteristic result of continuous happiness. The Brahma Sutras of sage Vyasa also explain this point (Lokavattu leelaakaivalyam) with the example of a king having no deficiency of any requirement, goes to forest for hunting, just to get rid of such boredom.

Boredom, entertainment etc., are not the inherent characteristics of the unimaginable-absolute God, which can lower His status. You can’t blame God through the associated characteristics, which are just like the feelings of your role expressed in a drama. Such feelings of the role (awareness) can never be linked to the actor (unimaginable God). If the actor of that role happens to be the author of the drama also, you can understand this point easily that the author cum actor in that role can’t be blamed for the feelings of that role expressed.

Moreover, the feelings (boredom) expressed by the role (awareness) are suitable to the level of the actor (God) only and not denigrating his (actor’s or God’s) status in anyway. If poor man says that he is bored with continuous severe poverty, such words are suitable to his poor or low status. If a rich man like king says that he is continuously bored with his palace and immense wealth and likes to visit forest for a change, such a statement is not lowering the status of the king. Hence, you need not hesitate to say that God is bored with His continuous state of absolute reality and likes to visit relative reality (creation). Such statement doesn’t lower the dignity of the absolute reality of God. In the absence of any such negative effect, we need not worry about boredom taking the example of the same of a poor man. All the souls are poor men thinking that God is also suffering with their boredom of continuous poverty by linking boredom to poverty only!

God created awareness in the absence of created matter (nervous system) and energy (inert energy supplied from digestive system) by His inherent unimaginable power (we can also say straight that the unimaginable God created awareness straight, without mentioning unimaginable power since unimaginable God and His unimaginable power are one and the same as any number of unimaginable items become one). Thus, the process or background of creation of awareness is also in the unimaginable domain only, but the product (awareness) is in the imaginable domain having all its usual inherent characteristics like boredom etc.

Actually, awareness is only a work of knowing like talking, walking etc. It finally means that the unimaginable God did some work. “Let Me create world for entertainment” is an idea of God existing in theoretical phase like our ideas only. Simultaneous materialisation of God’s idea is controlled in this stage and hence a theoretical phase without materialisation also exists in the case of God by which we can say that God is bored and such boredom is only theoretical phase. Then, He created energy or space and here simultaneous materialisation of theoretical phase (will or idea) starts and we can say that His will to create energy materializes simultaneously. Hence, theoretical phase existing as itself and the simultaneously materialisation of His theoretical phase are in His perfect control. Simultaneous materialisation of will is not uncontrollable process to God and we should not say that God is trapped by such process. Even in the human incarnation, you don’t find simultaneous materialisation of every will. It happens only when God wishes that simultaneous materialisation should take place.

you have ALREADY PROVEN NOT TO BE ABLE to ACCEPT and HANDLE CHALLENGERS to YOUR CLAIMS, and ONLY BEING ABLE to EXPRESS and SPREAD YOUR BELIEFS ONLY. So, just so you ARE AWARE I did NOT read the above here. Okay?

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:17 am**

Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:49 pm
I am NOT YET SURE HOW I could have made this ANY SIMPLER for this one here, but 'it' STILL completely and utterly MISSED the WHOLE POINT I was MAKING and SHOWING here. But, then again this one might just be ACTING STUPID for some particular reason.

ANYWAY, it IS, and WAS, EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that IF one was to BELIEVE that some male gendered THING existed on 'its' OWNSOME and LONESOME, BEFORE the WHOLE of the Universe came into Existence, and that IF that one ALSO BELIEVED that that male gendered THING was UNIMAGINABLE, or was even a PIECE OF SHIT, then that one WOULD SAY and TELL us 'this', as though it was ACTUALLY True AND REAL.

So, in other words, what you what to TELL us IS TRUE is ALL WELL AND GOOD. But, if you can NOT SEE the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION is SAYING and CLAIMING some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE but that you have MANAGED to IMAGINE NOT just 'it', but are IMAGINING WHAT 'it' IS AS WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, THEN I do NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE to SHOW you just how SELF-CONTRADICTORY YOUR CLAIM IS here.

God has no gender. He is unimaginable. NO characteristics of God is known. Such GOd can enter a medium and identify with it. The best medium is a human beings. Thus God comes to this world in human form known as Human incarnation of God. You can see such medium in which HE exists. You can imagine such a medium. You can also see the unimaginable events done by which medium or human incarnation of God. GOd is in the Flesh just like current in a live wire.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2022 12:25 pm**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:17 am
Age wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:49 pm
I am NOT YET SURE HOW I could have made this ANY SIMPLER for this one here, but 'it' STILL completely and utterly MISSED the WHOLE POINT I was MAKING and SHOWING here. But, then again this one might just be ACTING STUPID for some particular reason.

ANYWAY, it IS, and WAS, EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that IF one was to BELIEVE that some male gendered THING existed on 'its' OWNSOME and LONESOME, BEFORE the WHOLE of the Universe came into Existence, and that IF that one ALSO BELIEVED that that male gendered THING was UNIMAGINABLE, or was even a PIECE OF SHIT, then that one WOULD SAY and TELL us 'this', as though it was ACTUALLY True AND REAL.

So, in other words, what you what to TELL us IS TRUE is ALL WELL AND GOOD. But, if you can NOT SEE the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION is SAYING and CLAIMING some 'thing' IS UNIMAGINABLE but that you have MANAGED to IMAGINE NOT just 'it', but are IMAGINING WHAT 'it' IS AS WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, THEN I do NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE to SHOW you just how SELF-CONTRADICTORY YOUR CLAIM IS here.
God has no gender. He is unimaginable.

Do you PURPOSELY be this SELF-CONTRADICTORY?

God has NO gender, HE is unimaginable, but I KNOW what God IS.

dattaswami wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:17 am NO characteristics of God is known.

EXCEPT by you who KNOWS that God is a 'He' who is NOT gendered, right?

dattaswami wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:17 am Such GOd can enter a medium and identify with it. The best medium is a human beings. Thus God comes to this world in human form known as Human incarnation of God. You can see such medium in which HE exists. You can imagine such a medium. You can also see the unimaginable events done by which medium or human incarnation of God. GOd is in the Flesh just like current in a live wire.

Okay, if you say and BELIEVE so.

Posted: **Wed Dec 21, 2022 1:21 pm**

dattaswami wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 12:39 pm In that stage, God is totally unimaginable since no inherent characteristic of God is imaginable. You can’t speak anything about God in such unimaginable state.

But you've claimed to know the motives of the this unimabinable God. You say you know why he created the universe. For his entertainment.

Philosophy Now Forum

Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments

Re: Our logic is based on our senses and the sophisticated scientific instruments