dattaswami2

The awareness in the beginning of creation is the work of God only 128) Kaarakajadashakterabhaavah praak. (In the beginning of creation, there is no space or inert primordial energy, which can be treated as entity to do the special work or awareness). The awareness is only a work and not an entity. In the human body the awareness is the work of inert energy in the functioning nervous system. Similarly, the awareness in the beginning of creation must be the work of some entity only. Such entity must be God and cannot be the inert energy, since neither inert energy nor nervous system existed before the beginning of creation of space. But as soon as a man is born he will have awareness continuously if he is healthy, then it can be called as an entity? God is totally unimaginable 129) Akaashaabhaavaat khyaatarupaabhaavaat nohyam. (In the beginning, the space did not exist and God cannot be any known form of inert energy existing in the beginning. God is totally unimaginable). If you say that God is also the primordial energy, which is the entity to do the special work or awareness, it is ruled out, because before the creation of space the inert energy did not exist. Hence, the only possibility of the entity to do the special work or awareness must be the unimaginable God and not the imaginable inert energy. However, if you argue that such God is also unimaginable form of inert energy, your argument has no validity because all forms of inert energy are known in the world. All the known forms of inert energy like matter etc., are available in the world as introduced in the chain of creation in sequence. Then you have to say that God must be some unknown form of inert energy. Such assumption is meaningless because in such case God becomes totally unimaginable. [8-01-08] Note: Suppose you think that God has pervaded all over space, then the space is existing in the creation, all over the creation space is present, then God is existing in all over the creation. If God is existing every in the creation, how the creation can become the object of entertainment to God? Suppose you are pervading all over the cinema, can the cinema become an object of entertainment for you? In bible in the Old Testament, it is mentioned that God does not live in the creation. If God is in the space then God has to live in the creation. But Old Testament says God does not live in the creation. And in Gita also it is mentioned ‘Neti Neti. If one says God is in the space then God must be in the creation. But God is not in the creation but only enters the creation, through human form. God has entered the world temporarily, not permanently for ever. If God is pervading every where and everything then all the living being must be God? In that case there is no sinner. So pervading of space by God is ruled out. The unimaginable God can function without nervous system 130) Naadyabhaave tasyaa api nohyamubhayatah . (In the absence of nervous system, the inert energy can also be done away, since the unimaginable God can function without both). Assuming that God is some unknown form of inert energy, even then, you cannot achieve success in establishing awareness because of the absence of solid state nervous system. Once the unimaginable component is introduced to do away the nervous system, the inert energy also can be done away. The unimaginable God can do the process of awareness without the requirement of inert energy as well as the nervous system.

The unimaginable nature is not the characteristic of God since it disappears in the case of God 131) Anuhyataa na swarupam tasyaabhaavaat . (The unimaginable nature is not the characteristic of God since it disappears in the case of God.) The characteristic of any item exists for all the observers as well as for itself. Your form, the characteristic of yourself, does not change whether it is observed by others or yourself. God is unimaginable to all of us. If you say that the unimaginable nature is the characteristic of God, it should remain constant for all of us and God also. It means, God must become unimaginable not only to all of us but also to God Himself. But, it is not so. Veda says that God is understood by Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). This means that God is imaginable to Himself. If the unimaginable nature is a characteristic of God, God must be unimaginable to Himself as He is unimaginable to others. But, that is not so. Therefore the unimaginable nature of God is not a characteristic of God.

The unimaginable nature is only for the identification of unimaginable God 132) Na svarupamudhaasutravadabhijnaanam . (The unimaginable nature is only treated as characteristic for identification of unimaginable God like the yellow thread in the neck of a married lady standing for identification of her marriage). Since no characteristic of God is known, God is treated as unimaginable. This very aspect of God helps us to detect His existence in a specific medium. Since this aspect of unimaginable nature helps us to detect His existence, it can be treated as an aspect equivalent to the characteristic though it need not be the real characteristic. The yellow thread of a married lady is never removed and hence can act as the identifying mark to be treated as a characteristic. But, this does not mean that the yellow thread itself is a part and parcel of her body like her leg or hand, which is the real characteristic. Hence, the inseparable mark of identification need not be a real characteristic. Note: Unimaginable nature is not a characteristic of God, but an associated characteristic which can be treated as a real characteristic. It is like the yellow thread of a married lady. It is not like her leg and hand which is her real characteristic. But just like leg or hand cannot be separated from the body, the yellow thread of the married lady is also not separated. It can be treated as real characteristic. But not actually real characteristic. It can be removed. If husband dies then it is removed. It is separable but as long as the husband is alive, it is never separated. So as long as the husband is alive the yellow thread can be treated as leg or hand. Thus inseparable associated characteristics can be treated as the real characteristic. Similarly the unimaginable nature is not a real characteristic but can be treated as a real characteristic for identification. The unimaginable God must be imaginable to Himself at least 132) Karturapi jnanabhagavat taduhyam svasya sattaayai . (At least the author should know the unknown subject. Similarly, the unimaginable God must be imaginable to Himself at least so that the existence of any unknown item becomes valid). At least one should know the unknown entity, if it has to exist. If it is unknown to every one, such entity does not exist at all. When you say that an unknown subject exists, it means that all most all do not know it except one or two persons. If no body knows the subject including the author, it means such subject does not exist at all. Therefore, the unimaginable God must be imaginable to Himself at least so that the existence of unimaginable God becomes valid. Note: Unimaginable characteristic is not a real characteristic. Because a real characteristic should remain unchanged even for self. Suppose you have got your form. Such and such form. That form is observed by others. The same form is also observed by you. But here if the unimaginable nature is the real characteristics of God, then He should be unimaginable to Himself also. The real characteristic will not change even if the observer is self. But God is imaginable to Himself. Your face is your characteristic the face is not changing when you observe it in the mirror. Your hand, it is observed by others and observed you also. It remains the same. If unimaginable nature is the real characteristic, God must be unimaginable to Himself also. But God is imaginable to Himself and there fore it is not the real characteristic. It is only an associated characteristic for the sake of others.

God is not the all pervading inert space 133) Na vyaapakajadaakaashah sopaadhirathavaa . (God is not the all pervading inert space. If God is pervading the space, He is only mediated God and not original God). Some say that God is all-pervading like the all-pervading space. There is only one space which is all pervading as is witnessed by us. The all pervading God is not separately witnessed. In such case there are two possibilities. One is to call the space itself as God. This possibility is ruled out because the inert space cannot plan the systematic design of creation. The second possibility is that God must be hidden in the space so that God is also all-pervading. If you take the second possibility, the all pervading space pervaded by God is a mediated God only and not the original God. The space is the medium in to which the God entered. In such case one cannot claim that all pervading God is the original God. There is no difference between all pervading God & human incarnation 134) Tadabhedaat dehatrayasya naraavataaramatam . (The three sub-divisions of human body are also primordial energy. There is no difference between such all pervading God and human incarnation). The all pervading God is established as God pervading all over the space or primordial energy. The human body, which is a composite of causal, subtle and gross bodies, is also primordial energy in essence. Matter is condensed inert energy and awareness is special work of inert energy. In such case what is the difference between the all pervading God and the human incarnation, which is the human body pervaded by God? Both are mediated God only and not direct unimaginable God.

By ignorance one may think that blank space is beyond creation 135) Ajnaanaat atitam mulaakaashaatitamasaadhyam . (By ignorance one may think that blank space is beyond creation, but it is impossible to cross the space for anybody). On analysis, it is found that the all pervading God is also mediated and not original God. In the absence of analysis, you will assume that all pervading God is original and non-mediated God. Such assumption is due to ignorance only. It is impossible to imagine the unimaginable God. Even if you leave every thing and make your mind blank and empty, still your mind is thinking the empty space only, which is the basic primordial energy. By ignorance, you are thinking that you have surpassed all the creation and that you are thinking about the original God, who is beyond the creation. If you analyze, your mind cannot cross the ultimate space or primordial energy. You have not crossed the creation, but you have reached the ultimate plane of the creation, which is space or Mula Maya.

One may cross everything but cannot cross the ultimate space in the process of thinking 136) Aakaashatyaagaasambhavaat sarvasyaapi chiti dhyaatuh. (One may cross everything but cannot cross the ultimate space in the process of thinking as long as the awareness exists even in the ultimate state of meditation). By ignorance one thinks that he has left everything by not imagining anything in the world. In such state also, the person is thinking about the empty space, which is the first item of the creation. Hence, it is not possible to think crossing the entire creation as long as the awareness exists. In the meditation, one claims that he is concentrated on the self, by leaving every aspect of the world. But on analysis, you will find that in such state of meditation also, your awareness did not cross the creation, since your blank mind means that it is thinking about the vacuum, which is the space or primordial energy that is the first item of creation. You are thinking that your mind has gone beyond the creation but actually it is not so. The reason is that your mind can never go beyond the spatial dimensions and touch the unimaginable God, who is beyond space.

Deep sleep is not the awareness of God 137) Jaagratsvapnadhaayanachit na sarvaabhaavasushuptih . (The awareness exists in the states of awakening, dream and meditation. In deep sleep the awareness is totally lost and this is not awareness of God). In the state of meditation the awareness of space exists. In the state of awakening the awareness of the other worldly objects exists. In the state of dream, the awareness of the objects created by mind exists. Only in the state of deep sleep the awareness totally disappears and the awareness of everything is absent. But this does not mean the awareness of God, since here awareness does not exist at all, awareness of God is impossible. When God is aware of Himself, the awareness of God exists and such state cannot be equated to deep sleep where awareness of every thing including God is lost. The totally unknown state of deep sleep indicates the totally unknown state of God and this does not mean the knowledge of God. If some teacher says to a student that he should forget everything and remember the lesson only, this does not mean that the student should go into deep sleep to forget everything including the lesson!

God does not live in this world but enters the world for the requirement of a few devotees 138) Na vastyapi pravishati katipayaavasaraat sarvabodhaaya cha. (God does not live in this world but enters the world for the requirement of a few devotees, being omnipotent, but preaching benefits all). God is beyond creation and hence God does not exist in the world as supported by Veda (Neti Neti..), Gita (Natvaham teshu…) and Christian scripture which says that God does not live in this world. This only means that everything and every body in the world is not God. But this does not mean that God will not enter the world. Veda says that God enters the world (Tadevaanupraavishat). If you say that somebody is not residing in the city of Bombay, it does not mean that he will never visit Bombay. However, the above scriptural statements deny your all pervading God! The visit of God into this world is justified by the requirement and desire of certain top devotees. If you object the entry of God by rule, you are opposing the omni potency of God. Suppose you object the entry of God by establishing the lack of requirement for any devotee, it is also absurd. You may not require the entry of God but how can you deny the requirement of others, who need entry of the God for the sake of personal service? The entry of God is not for the sake of all human beings but it is for the requirement of a few devotees. You cannot generalize the policy of requirement to all the human beings. However, even though God comes to satisfy a few devotees only, He preaches the spiritual knowledge that benefits all. You can be also benefited by taking Him in the level of preacher only through personal discussions.

Dear Prashanti; Absolute God is unimaginable and incoprehensible and beyond human beings logic. But if He is not giving His presence to us, then all will deny GOd's existence. Such Unimaginable GOd comes down in human form known as 'Human Incarnation' to give HIS presence to us. He comes in every human generation to preach and uplift the human souls. By this we can touch Him, talk to Him, see Him and Co-live with Him. It is for our benifit only He is coming in human form, so that we can approach Him without any tension or fear and clear all our doubts. God need a medium to express to us. He selects the most suitable soul known as 'Son of God' to enter. The human incarnation is a two in one system, in which 'Son of God' and 'God', exists simultanously. When you approach a human incaration present in your time now, you have seen the unimaginable God. You can expereince Him thorugh that human body. Still you are not understood the God, you have only expereinced the unimaginablity of God through that medium. Human incanriaton gives infinite true divine knoweldge which an ordinary soul cannot give you. Human incarnaiton is like a live wire. Wire is the medium or body of human incariaotn and current is the invisible God. If you touch the human incarnation you have touched the unimaginable God. When you have seen the human incaraiton you have seen the invisible GOd who pervaded that human incarnation. This is the only way you can experience the unimagianble God no other way. God will never enter inert statue, He enters only to a living being especailly human being to preach and uplift the human souls. God is coming to the earth in human form from the beginning itself. He is preaching the atheists, He also shows miracles, then why this unimaginable state of God? If you know everything about God, after some time the value on God will decrease. Suppose a subject is not understood, you will have some difficulty regarding that subject, but if it is understood then you will have light view on that subject. Therefore God maintains His unimaginable state, so as to save human beings from Ego. For such divine purpose only He is keeping the unimaginable state. God knows about Himself this statement is not with respect to human beings. Who is the knower of God? God alone. No body can know Him. The meaning of these scriptures is; nobody other than God can know Him. When He comes in human form and perform Miracles, nobody can understand those miracles. But the miracle is under His control only. So God exists, but we do not know His existence, that is all. God is unimaginable but God enters a medium also become imaginable. There are two aspects. The medium is imaginable, you can see, touch, talk, embrace, and can kiss the feet of Jesus. All this is imaginable. Now the unimaginable component is homogenously mixed with the imaginable component, like electricity in the wire, so that the medium itself is God. Now God is not unimaginable, He is now imaginable through the medium. Why then this unimaginable component? Suppose that God is only imaginable, and then everything become known and imaginable, it will develop some negligence towards God. You are experiencing God through the imaginable medium but you are not experiencing the God directly. Then you take the unimaginable concept of God. Still God is unimaginable and by this your devotion and attraction to God is made alive and it continues. Some thing is known to you it will develop negligence. If God is completely unknown then also you will neglect God. So God should have both the concepts of known as well as unknown. Because God is known you will have devotion. Since God is known after some time the devotion will fall. Then you take the unimaginable concept. The actual God present in this medium is still unknown. Here you take the unimaginable concept, then attraction become alive and negligence will disappear. To create devotion, God become imaginable and to continue the devotion, by avoiding the negligence He is also unimaginable; He is both imaginable and unimaginable. In an electric wire you treat wire (imaginable) as current (unimaginable) which has pervaded also over the wire. Here current become imaginable. But at the same time electricity is electricity only. You have seen only the wire; the chain of metallic crystals; not the stream of electrons. To create devotion and continue devotion both these concepts are there. If you take Jesus, He has done unimaginable miracle, that any body cannot do, don’t you think that unimaginable components in Him? You are touching Him, talking to Him, all these are imaginable components. The unimaginable component attracts and imaginable component maintains the devotion. Live wire is an analogy used for Human incarnation.

God is not awareness Samkalpakrudupaadhi nachit tadattaa naagnih. (When God is said to have will, the medium is awareness. This does not mean that God is awareness. If that is so, God is said to be burner of all the creation in the end. This does not mean that God is fire). In Veda it is said that God wished to create this world (Sa ekshata..). People thought that God must be awareness due to the will, because awareness alone can wish. It is also said that God burns all the creation in the end as per Brahma Sutra (Attaa charaachara….). This does not mean that God is the inert fire. God can do every thing without being that God is beyond the worldly logic). Sarvakrut sarvayonitvaat gunashaasi na lokatarkyam. (God being the source of all items and their properties of the creation, God can do every thing without being that. Items have specific properties by His order only. God is beyond the worldly logic). The creation contains various items. Each item is having certain prescribed qualities. All the items and their qualities are generated from God only. By the will of God only, a quality exists in a particular item. No item has any inherent quality by itself. It is by the order of God only that an item has a particular quality. If God wishes the qualities may change. By the will of God fire may become cold and water may become hot. In the world you are recognizing the item by its quality thinking as if that quality is inherent of that item only. The worldly logic is not standard because it is based on the will of God only. This worldly logic cannot be applied to the case of God, who is omnipotent to change the quality of any item. God being the source of all the qualities, God can posses any quality and due to that God need not be that item possessing the quality as seen in this world. Without being awareness, God can wish. Without being fire, God can burn anything. Hence, you should not apply the logic of identifying items by their qualities to God as in the case of this world. A quality indicates the potential work of the item. Burning is the quality and also is the potential work of the item. Therefore, God can have any quality and is potent to do any work.

God is also said to be a bird in Veda Para Brahma taadaatmyaat suparnavat. (God is also said to be a bird in Veda. Here the unimaginable God charged the Jivaatman, the bird. Hence, God is also treated as bird). Here God is also said to be a bird. This does not mean that God is also another composite of subtle and causal bodies. God is unimaginable and cannot be said as any known item. The subtle and causal bodies are known items and hence God cannot be said as the composite of other subtle and causal bodies. Hence, God cannot be said as the bird. But here God is said to be another bird, because, when God entered the human being, God charged Jivaatman and hence God is also treated as another Jivaatman. When current enters a wire, the current is treated as the wire itself. In this way, the unimaginable God is treated as the imaginable Jivaatman or bird. The unimaginable God cannot be mentioned directly Anirdeshaat suparno dvitiyah paramaatmaa. (Since the unimaginable God cannot be mentioned directly and hence is mentioned as the bird or Jivaatman, since God charged the same Jivaatman. Since God is different from the Jivaatman or bird, the second bird stands for denoting the different God). The unimaginable God cannot be mentioned directly. Since, the unimaginable God charged the Jivaatman or bird, God has to be mentioned as Jivaatman or bird only. Whenever God enters a medium, God has to be mentioned in the name of that medium only. The live wire stands for current. Hence, here God is mentioned as Jivaatman or bird. But the doubt comes about mentioning God as second bird. When God charged the bird, the bird itself stands as God and there is no need of second bird. But here the second bird is mentioned. This means that God is not the bird actually and is quite different from the bird or Jivaatman. Hence, the second bird means that God is not actually bird and mentioned as the bird since God charged the bird. The word ‘second’ denotes the separate existence of the original God.

Atman or soul is only the most subtle part of the human body Maanushatanoh sukshmatamaamsha atmaa. (Atman or soul is only the most subtle part of the human body) In Gita it is said that God enters the human body. This does not mean that God enters the inert human Gross body only. The human body is the human being and is a composite of three bodies (Gross, subtle and causal). The causal part is called as soul or Atman. Hence, when Gita says that God enters the human body, it means that God enters a human being, which is a composite of Gross, subtle and causal bodies. Veda says that two birds exist on the tree Sthulavrukshe jivaatmaa suparnah. (In Vedic statement, the gross body is the tree and Jivaatman, the composite of subtle and causal bodies is said to be the bird). Veda says that two birds exist on the tree. Here the inert gross body is the tree. The two birds are God and the Jivaatman of the tree. Here the Jivaatman is the composite of subtle and causal bodies, being the owner of the gross body. Here the tree and bird are mentioned as two items. The tree stands for gross body. The bird stands for both subtle and causal bodies, because these two bodies cannot be isolated like water and its wave. Jiva cannot exist without Atman Apruthak karanam tayorna kaamya atmaa. (Jiva and Atman cannot be isolated from each other. Though Atman can exist without Jiva, it is not desirable). Jiva cannot exist without Atman as the wave cannot exist without water. Hence, when Jiva is mentioned, Atman is simultaneously mentioned. According to Advaita, in a realized soul, the Atman can exist without Jiva. But here also, the qualities of the world are subsided and the water (soul) is without worldly qualities (waves). However, the divine qualities (waves) must exist in the realized soul also. A soul without any quality is not the real salvation and such salvation of monism (Advaita) is only useless inert state of a stone that is obtained in deep sleep every day. Hence, though the soul without any quality can be achieved by effort, such a state is meaningless and hence the soul also should not exist without any quality in salvation. Salvation is only liberation from the worldly qualities and simultaneous achievement of divine qualities.

Veda says that God is not in the statue Amnaayaat na pratimaa bhutejyaagaanat cha. (Veda says that God is not in the statue. Gita also says that those who worship the inert five elements will be born as inert elements). Veda says that God does not exist in the statue (Natasya Pratimaa). The statue is only the representative model of God and God does not exist in the inert statue. Similarly, the inert energy like light etc. Gita also says that those who worship the inert matter and energy (inert five elements) are born as inert objects in the world (Bhutejya yaanti…). Hence, the medium into which God enters is not inert but is a living being which is mainly characterized by awareness. The body of the living being is inert but a living being is mainly characterized by life, mind etc., which is awareness. The purpose of the mediated God is preaching the spiritual knowledge Jnanopadeshaat maanushopaadhi giyate. (The purpose of the mediated God is preaching the spiritual knowledge to the human beings. Hence, the medium is human being and this is said in Gita). The main purpose of the entry of God into a medium is to preach the spiritual knowledge to human beings and hence the medium must be a living being and especially must be a human being. This is clearly said in Gita that God enters the human being (Maanusheem tanumaashritam). All the Vedic statements are trying to give the detection of the medium in which God enters Upaadhisamjnaa panchakoshadehaanaamapi . (All the Vedic statements are trying to give the detection of the medium in which God enters and do not speak about God. Even the Vedic statements about five sheaths of three bodies also speak about medium of God only). The medium of God is human being, which consists of the five sheaths (Panchakosha). Veda says that the five sheaths like food, oxygen, mind, intelligence and bliss are recognized as God (Annam Brahmeti…etc.,). This means that the statements mean the medium of God and not God directly. These five sheaths constitute the three bodies of the human being, which are Gross, subtle and causal states. The food (Annam) and oxygen (Pranah) constitute the gross body. The mind (manah), intelligence (Buddhih) and bliss (Anandah) constitute the subtle body. The material of the subtle body (Jiva) is awareness which is the causal body (Atman). The causal body is always mentioned if the subtle body is mentioned. The water is mentioned if the water-wave is mentioned. The gold is mentioned if the golden chain is mentioned. A bundle of golden jewels is called as gold directly. Hence, when Jiva is mentioned, naturally Atman is mentioned through Jiva and a separate mention of Atman is not necessary. Ananda is intensive and continuous happiness (Sukham) only and thus it is a quality. Jiva is a bundle of various qualities. Mind is a bundle of wishes. Wish is a quality. Intelligence is a bundle of confirmed wishes and thus it is also a bundle of qualities. Hence, Jiva is a group of qualities, which are like waves of water. Awareness is the water in these waves or qualities.

The will of God does not mean that God is awareness Ekshaternaashabdopadhi. (The will of God does not mean that God is awareness. It means only that the medium of God is not inert). Veda says that God wished to create this world (Sa Ekshata..). People thought that this Vedic statement means that God is awareness and not inert energy or matter because awareness alone can wish. This means that the medium of God is not inert. This means that the medium of God is awareness. The final conclusion is that God enters a living being as the medium and neither the inert statues nor the inert light etc.,(energy). Veda never speaks about the nature of original God because Veda has already spoken elaborately that the nature of God is unimaginable. The Vedic statements regarding the nature of the medium are misunderstood to be the statements regarding the nature of original God.

God enters a living body Suparnadvayashruteh Jivopaadhi Tat . (Veda says that two birds are on a single tree. This means that God enters a living body and is in association with the soul.) Veda says that God and soul exist together in a living body (Dvaasuparnaa…). Therefore, the medium of God is always a living body and not any inert item in the world. The bird represents a living item. God is beyond living and inert items. God can exhibit any property of any item because the items and properties of the world are generated from God only. Hence, God exhibits the properties of life also, though He is beyond life. Hence, God and soul are treated as two living items or two living birds.

Veda says that God is known and seen Vedaahamaikshadityavirodha Oupadhikam hi . (Veda says that God is known and seen. This does not contradict the above said unimaginable nature of God. These statements only refer to the medium in to which God entered.) Veda says that God is not seen by eyes. But the same Veda says else where that a fortunate devotee sees God (Kaschit Dhirah..). Similarly, Veda says that God alone knows God. But the same Veda says that a devotee knows God (Vedaahametam….). This seems to be a contradiction in Veda. But there is no contradiction, because God enters a medium for the sake of devotees. Then the medium is charged by God and the verbs like known, seen etc., apply to the charged medium and not to the original God. A simile to the mediated God Vidyullateva . (An electric wire is seen but not the electricity. This is a simile to the mediated God. ) When the electricity charges the metallic wire, the wire is treated as the electricity. The electric wire is seen but you can say that the electricity is seen. The electricity is seen through the wire indirectly though not directly. The electricity pervades all over the wire and when the wire is touched anywhere, the electricity is experienced through the touch of the wire. Therefore, the verbs like seen, touched etc., apply to the wire and not to the electricity. But, indirectly the electricity is experienced through the shock. Similarly God is experienced through the medium, since the medium can be treated as God like the live wire.

Unimaginable God differs from all other imaginable worldly objects Shreshthamapyajneyam Bhidyate Paramata Eva. (God and other worldly items are greatest. But the unimaginable God differs from all other imaginable worldly objects. Hence, the word Param meaning different is used before the word Brahman). A worldly item, greatest in its category is called as Brahman. God also being greater than all these greatest items is really greatest and hence can be called as Brahman. Thus, the ‘greatest’ sense of the word Brahman is common to God and all other greatest worldly items. But, God being unimaginable differs from all the worldly items which are imaginable. Hence, there is the common point and also point of difference between God and other worldly items. The word Brahman is used to God and other worldly items based on this common point. While accepting the common point, the point of difference is added by the prefix word Param, which means different. Thus, a new word is not created. The word Brahman is maintained. But, for the sake of differentiation, an extra word, Param, is prefixed. The word Param brings focus on the point of difference only and does not contradict the common point of greatest nature or Brahman. All the greatest worldly items remain greatest as long as the context of their categories is maintained Ekameva Samdarbhamaatranaam . (All the greatest worldly items remain greatest as long as the context of their categories is maintained. Otherwise, if the contexts do not exist, God becomes greatest and all the worldly items are no more greatest.) Any worldly item, which is greatest in a particular category remains greatest as long as the context of the category is maintained. If this context disappears and God is also referred, the worldly item is no more greatest, because God is greater than any greatest item. When the context of the category is in reference, you cannot bring God into the picture to remove greatness of the worldly item. It becomes out of the context. Due to the significance of the context, you cannot say that no worldly item is greatest since God is greater than any greatest worldly item. In view of the scope of the context, you cannot resist the usage of the word Brahman to any worldly item and thus you cannot fix the word Brahman to God only and avoid the context of the category. Hence, an isolated word like Para Brahman is required.

Brahman is created by God Brahma Yogat Vedaadishu Gitam Shrutam cha. (The word Brahman is used in imaginable items like Veda through its root meaning i.e., greatest. Such usage is found in Gita and its usage in other items is seen in Veda also.). In Gita it is said that Brahman is created by God (Brahmaakshara Samudbhavam). Here Brahman cannot mean God. It means the Veda, which is greatest among all the scriptures due to absence of additions and deletions, since Veda is protected by oral recitations from generations together. The word Brahman is used in Veda to mean other greatest items like food (Annam Brahmeti…). Therefore, the word Brahman is not restricted to the unimaginable God and hence God is confused to be any greatest worldly item in its corresponding category. For this reason only, the author would like to restrict the word Para Brahman to the unimaginable God only and avoid the confusion. Inability of sages to understand the context in using the word Brahman Aarshaprakaranasaamarthyaabhavat Kalahah. (The present confusion and split are due to the absence of ability of the sages to take the meaning of the word Brahman according to the context). The ancient sages were having the divine ability to take the correct meaning of the word Brahman as per the context. Therefore, there was no confusion in the case of sages and hence the word Brahman was used to mean both the God and other greatest worldly items. According to the context, either God or the worldly item was perfectly selected by the sages in the Veda. Hence, there was no necessity of using a separate word like Para Brahman for God. But, today, the human beings are not having such divine ability due to fall in their standards. Hence, there is a real need for restricting God by an isolated word i.e., Para Brahman.

God is known as unknown Amatam Matamiti Shruyate Giyate cha. (God is known as unknown. This is said in Veda and in Gita also) Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures. The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements Aamnaaya Vistarat cha. (The unimaginable nature of God is elaborated in Veda by various statements). Veda clearly elaborates the unimaginable nature of God through the following statements: Words cannot give knowledge of God (Yatovaachah, Na tatra vaak…). Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha). Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..). Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….). All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means.

In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat Ubhayatra Sadasat Samanvayah. (In Veda and Gita the words Sat and Asat are used in contradicting sense, but they can be correlated to mean the same by logical discussion.) In Veda God is said to be both Sat and Asat (Sadeva Somya.., Asadvaa…). But in Gita God represented by Para Brahman is said to be neither Sat nor Asat (Nasat Naasaduchyate). This appears to be a contradiction between Veda and Gita. Sat means existence. Asat means non-existence. Let us take Veda. When God is Sat, it means God is not Asat. Similarly, when God is Asat, it means God is not sat. Hence, the resulting concept in each statement of Veda combined gives the concept of Gita. Thus, Veda and Gita are correlated because Gita is said to be the essence of all Vedas. God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items Jneyapurvaastitvaabhaavashcha Vidyate cha Shruteh. (The existence of Para Brahman is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda). All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known. Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat). God is known to God Aatmajneyam Mahimevaasti. (God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle). Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings. Jneyatvaashritamajneyam. (The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature). To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

Use of word Brahman & Para Brahman Athaatah Parabrahma Vyakhyaasyaamah. -–Sutra. (Then and therefore, we will discuss about Parabrahman)--Translation of Sutra. The word Brahman is used for God and for non-God items also, which are greatest among their categories. Hence, confusion about the meaning of the word Brahman arose, which led to a number of splits in the arguments. After this confusion (then) and since the confusion is to be solved (therefore), the word Para Brahman is introduced by the author of these sutras, Shri Datta Swami, to mean God only and not the other non-God items.--- Explanation of Sutra. Praamanikaabhyaam Prayujyate . (The word Parabrahman is used by two authorities i.e., Krishna and Shankara) Krishna used this word in Gita (Anaadimat Param Brahma….) and Shankara also used in His prayer (Maunavyaakhyaa Prakatita Para Brahma…) and hence this word is quite ancient. You need not reject this word because it is used by a modern person like Datta Swami. Generally, people give value to the ancient sages and not to the modern preachers. However, this is not correct. We should analyze the concept and decide its value. A modern preacher like Sri RamaKrishna Paramahamsa is a good authority. The ancient sage, Charvaka, is not an authority, who propagated atheism. The author tries to satisfy the blind psychology of people regarding their taste for ancient sages through this Sutra, though analysis of the concept is the real ultimatum. Brahman means greatest according to its root word Param Bhede Shreshthapunarukteh. (The word Param in Gita means different and not great, since the latter results in the mistake of repetition) The word Param in Gita is generally interpreted to mean great. But this interpretation is not correct, because the word Brahman already means greatest among the category. If you say that the word param again means great, it results in the mistake of repetition of same sense of the word Brahman. Brahman means greatest according to its root word. Hence, here, the word param means different. Param has both the meanings. Here the word Brahman is restricted to imaginable greatest items in their respective categories. The word Para Brahman means the unimaginable greatest God, who is different from the imaginable greatest items, which are represented by the word Brahman. The word Para Brahman is also a combination of two words- Param and Brahman. Both these words combined become the single word Para Brahman. Hence, in Gita the two words are separately represented which can be combined to give the word Para Brahman.

Guest_Guest_Jennifer_*_*; The Lord is the father of all the souls. Your love on another human being is only brotherly love. The love of the father is far greater than the brotherly love. You are criticizing your father for punishing your brother! The father tries His best to transform His son. On the first day of the war Ravana was defeated by Rama. Rama could have killed him on the very first day. But Rama, asked Ravana to go back and think that night. The Lord punishes any one as last resort. Even then, the Lord doesnot have anger or hatred. The punishment is only the last method attempted for transformation. There also the aim is only transformation. But when you punish your enemy such aim does not exist. Therefore the punishment by Lord is also reflecting His divine love and kindness on the soul. Due to such sacred aim the Lord is authorized to punish the soul. He is just like a teacher who punishes the student for his misbehavior. The teacher does not get any sin in such punishment. The reason again is that the intention decides the action. Therefore when you live in the world, according to instructions given by the Lord, the Lord is pleased with you. The Lord will make you happy in this world. Your happiness in this world is an indication of His grace. Therefore you will be happy in the upper world also. He is the only one lord for both the worlds. Therefore if you are unhappy in the worldly affairs, you will be unhappy in the spiritual matters in the upper world also. If you are blessed in this world you are also blessed in the upper world. Therefore you follow His commandments and be happy in this world. When you are serving the Lord you should be happy in the sacrifice. You should not sacrifice to the Lord with unhappiness. The sacrifice with unhappiness will make the Lord unhappy. The result of such service is unhappiness in the upper world. Therefore it is better not to sacrifice if you are not happy. Why should you purchase the unhappiness with such sacrifice? Are you unhappy when you are sacrificing to your family members? Therefore the sacrifice without any force or unhappiness is not only waste but also brings negative results in the case of Lord. In the case of family members if you sacrifice with unhappiness it is waste. Therefore the intention is very important for the Lord. You should not do any sacrifice aspiring something in return. Such sacrifice is only a business. The business done in the case of your family members may bring benefit or loss. But in the case of Lord the business always brings loss. Therefore live in this world according to the instructions of the Lord given to you with regard to other human beings. With regard to the Lord do sacrifice and service to the Lord to that extent only up to which there is no force or pain or business. The Lord is the writer of the constitution and He knows whom to punish. Some times you see punishment of innocent person. You think that the injustice is ruling. In the kingdom of God only the justice is the ruler by the grace of God. When the innocent is punished, the punishment was of some bad deed done by him previously and the date of the punishment coincided with the present incident accidentally. God created all the souls and has the attitude of father towards His children. The father sometimes may have partiality in showing the love equally to his children. But God is always having infinite love for all the souls in equal manner. Even the punishments in the hell are meant for transformation of the souls from lower level to the higher level. God always tries to help the soul even if a trace of possibility exists in the cycle of the deeds. One soul need not recommend about the other soul to God to show the grace. If somebody recommends to his father regarding the welfare of his brother, how foolish it looks! No soul should recommend to the God about other soul for protection or for showing the grace. If any soul recommends like that it is only insulting the infinite love of God. It is only the climax of the ignorance and the emotional love on the other soul, which lacks even the basic analysis of spiritual knowledge.